Church "law" is not real law. So some guys in fancy outfits somewhere in Europe don't like the fact that you told the police of an impending murder. So what? The police like it even less when they find out that you did nothing to inform the authorities of it and will prosecute you. That excuse doesn't hold water any more than Mattel's excuse that it hasn't been reporting recalls to the CPSC in a timely fashion because it doesn't agree with the law and thinks it should be able to handle those recalls the way it wants to.
You live in the US, you obey our laws. You don't obey our laws, you will be punished as appropriate. Don't like it? Move. Seems like a bunch of people in Rome would be happy to take you.
Of course, then if you rule that forum admins can't clean discussion of illegal activity from their forums so that they don't get sued for what their users do, that means you're automatically screwed if you run a forum because you'll get sued if you don't clean it off, and sued if you do.
I won't be surprised if I start seeing forums close left and right due to this.
Moral: run a discussion forum, you'll get sued no matter what you do. Don't bother running a discussion forum.
I'm saying, there's no legal wrong here. Someone paid to reserve a name that the previous registrant had allowed to time out. Was it stupid of this person to let it time out? Sure. Was it a good idea? No. But, she let it time out and someone else took it.
Had they stolen it using fraudulent means (like the sex.com story) it'd be a different story.
This idiot decided that the rules that allow names to be reissued if they aren't renewed didn't apply to her.
Hence, yes, she is an entitlement "gimme gimme" bitch.
So in other words you're saying that once one person registers a domain, no one can ever use it again?
Gee, in that case, then the system must never allow domains to expire, must not have any mechanism for transferring them to another registrant, must not have any way for domains to be bought and sold.
Oh, wait. It has all those things.
So that argument makes no sense whatsoever.
Right answer: register your domain as a trademark. Right answer: set up an autorenew on your domain so that you don't have to remember. Right answer: file a WIPO domain dispute if you really feel you have a valid case.
Wrong answer: be an entitlement bitch and use lawyers to extort property away from its owners.
Maybe. But the rules are rules; you lost it, and you didn't renew it. You knew when you registered a domain that it wasn't permanently yours. You have to keep paying. You aren't exempt. If someone else wants to use that domain name for whatever you want -- and there was no mention of it being a protected mark -- then they can. That's the rules. The rules apply to everybody.
If she wanted to be able to whine that her stupidity lost her her domain, she should have registered it as a trademark. If it had been registered, that would have been mentioned in the post (although if I'm wrong I want to know; but in that case, a trademark law firm would have been sending the letter).
Don't want to lose your hard work?
Don't do something stupid like forget to pay your bills.
Don't like it?
Don't be stupid.
(Yes. I have done very stupid things before, but I knew the rules applied to me too. I dealt with it. I didn't become an entitlement whore who expected other people to give up things that were rightfully theirs).
How do you know it's not being used for email and other services, and just doesn't have a web presence? My own personal domain is for web and email both, but what if I wanted to always just have my own email address that follows me no matter where I live/work?
What did they do that was illegal? Your friend didn't pay her renew fees, and so the domain expired. Meaning, it was free for anyone else to register.
The new owner should have thrown the letter into the recycle bin, as your friend knew that not paying would cause her domain to be released for re-registration.
I don't like domain squatters any more than you do, but I like "look at me, ME ME ME ME FIRST!" I'm-entitled-to-everything jerks even less.
You're assuming anyone would find out about it. There's been all kinds of amazing stuff that has gone on under the assumption that no one would find out. Yes, it tends to cause all kinds of trouble when the word gets out -- but big business is so shortsightedly focused on getting profits NOW NOW NOW that they'll do almost anything for a quick buck, even if it means that the future generations get screwed, even if "the future" is just a year from now.
What's really scary, if you think about it, is that the purpose of the poisoning wasn't for profit -- it was to starve your enemy before a war. If the enemy can't feed itself, it can't put forth that much of a war effort and/or its soldiers will die before they get to the battlefield. If you manage to kill off your enemy's resistance without firing a shot, you not only get to conquer their territory more easily but you also capture all of the infrastructure and war materiel intact, thereby relieving you from having to build more factories, tanks, aircraft, and ships (or in this case, factories, and spacecraft) and offloading the opportunity costs onto your enemy.
The implication: what if this really happens and Monsanto gets contracted by the government to taint the food supply in, say, China, to soften them up before a US invasion?
You know what? It doesn't MATTER whether it's just one utility, and whether it's over the internet. This is an example of a piece of hardware deciding it knows better than you do what needs to be done.
If you don't say "how high?" when your job is to jump, you're FIRED.
Because they are once again falling into the hard calendar deadline trap, which has led to lots of deaths already. They claim they will no longer be schedule driven, but as you can see, that is a lie. They have their heads in the sand, keep quoting a date, and refuse to acknowledge that you just can't do that and you have to take things as they come.
Tell the anti-gun wackos that, like the ones in DC. Apparently, the government you're so blindly supporting does the very thing you think they're too perfect to never, ever do. And that hypocrisy is a major problem I have with the yes-man crowd you're a part of.
How about "lifeform"? Still neutral but really funny.
I'm actually a "she" and what's really nuts is that on another forum, my sig includes my first name. I STILL get assumed to be a guy. If I get things like "thanks man!" I say "I am no man!" with a wink smiley (;))... only once or twice has anyone stepped in for me and actually said it for me. People just plain don't read, it seems.
Then maybe people should just stop assuming and write in a gender-neutral way. It really doesn't take much effort. "He or she" takes half a second more to type.
A true SLR lens will beat even the best small lens any day just because of the physics of lenses. While the N95 Zeiss lens is pretty good and does take good pictures, you'll still get a far-better image with an SLR with a 5-megapixel sensor (or, like me, if you have a 10-megapixel SLR set on "medium size" because you don't need the full 10 mp for what you do with your images).
I'm sure that in 10 years, the N95-type camera will be far more common on cell phones than it is today. But small lenses just can't beat large ones, and those small sensors will always have more noise than a large sensor will. It's not a fault of the designers but a "fault" of physics.
Slashdot Mirror
Church "law" is not real law. So some guys in fancy outfits somewhere in Europe don't like the fact that you told the police of an impending murder. So what? The police like it even less when they find out that you did nothing to inform the authorities of it and will prosecute you. That excuse doesn't hold water any more than Mattel's excuse that it hasn't been reporting recalls to the CPSC in a timely fashion because it doesn't agree with the law and thinks it should be able to handle those recalls the way it wants to.
You live in the US, you obey our laws. You don't obey our laws, you will be punished as appropriate. Don't like it? Move. Seems like a bunch of people in Rome would be happy to take you.
Daikatana, anyone?
Of course, then if you rule that forum admins can't clean discussion of illegal activity from their forums so that they don't get sued for what their users do, that means you're automatically screwed if you run a forum because you'll get sued if you don't clean it off, and sued if you do.
I won't be surprised if I start seeing forums close left and right due to this.
Moral: run a discussion forum, you'll get sued no matter what you do. Don't bother running a discussion forum.
Maybe. But the fact that it's the rules means that you have to either play by them or not play at all. No one is that special.
I'm saying, there's no legal wrong here. Someone paid to reserve a name that the previous registrant had allowed to time out. Was it stupid of this person to let it time out? Sure. Was it a good idea? No. But, she let it time out and someone else took it.
Had they stolen it using fraudulent means (like the sex.com story) it'd be a different story.
This idiot decided that the rules that allow names to be reissued if they aren't renewed didn't apply to her.
Hence, yes, she is an entitlement "gimme gimme" bitch.
So in other words you're saying that once one person registers a domain, no one can ever use it again?
Gee, in that case, then the system must never allow domains to expire, must not have any mechanism for transferring them to another registrant, must not have any way for domains to be bought and sold.
Oh, wait. It has all those things.
So that argument makes no sense whatsoever.
Right answer: register your domain as a trademark.
Right answer: set up an autorenew on your domain so that you don't have to remember.
Right answer: file a WIPO domain dispute if you really feel you have a valid case.
Wrong answer: be an entitlement bitch and use lawyers to extort property away from its owners.
Uh, I guess you missed the part where I said "if it wasn't trademarked, too bad".
Maybe. But the rules are rules; you lost it, and you didn't renew it. You knew when you registered a domain that it wasn't permanently yours. You have to keep paying. You aren't exempt. If someone else wants to use that domain name for whatever you want -- and there was no mention of it being a protected mark -- then they can. That's the rules. The rules apply to everybody.
If she wanted to be able to whine that her stupidity lost her her domain, she should have registered it as a trademark. If it had been registered, that would have been mentioned in the post (although if I'm wrong I want to know; but in that case, a trademark law firm would have been sending the letter).
Don't want to lose your hard work?
Don't do something stupid like forget to pay your bills.
Don't like it?
Don't be stupid.
(Yes. I have done very stupid things before, but I knew the rules applied to me too. I dealt with it. I didn't become an entitlement whore who expected other people to give up things that were rightfully theirs).
How do you know it's not being used for email and other services, and just doesn't have a web presence? My own personal domain is for web and email both, but what if I wanted to always just have my own email address that follows me no matter where I live/work?
What did they do that was illegal? Your friend didn't pay her renew fees, and so the domain expired. Meaning, it was free for anyone else to register.
The new owner should have thrown the letter into the recycle bin, as your friend knew that not paying would cause her domain to be released for re-registration.
I don't like domain squatters any more than you do, but I like "look at me, ME ME ME ME FIRST!" I'm-entitled-to-everything jerks even less.
You're assuming anyone would find out about it. There's been all kinds of amazing stuff that has gone on under the assumption that no one would find out. Yes, it tends to cause all kinds of trouble when the word gets out -- but big business is so shortsightedly focused on getting profits NOW NOW NOW that they'll do almost anything for a quick buck, even if it means that the future generations get screwed, even if "the future" is just a year from now.
What's really scary, if you think about it, is that the purpose of the poisoning wasn't for profit -- it was to starve your enemy before a war. If the enemy can't feed itself, it can't put forth that much of a war effort and/or its soldiers will die before they get to the battlefield. If you manage to kill off your enemy's resistance without firing a shot, you not only get to conquer their territory more easily but you also capture all of the infrastructure and war materiel intact, thereby relieving you from having to build more factories, tanks, aircraft, and ships (or in this case, factories, and spacecraft) and offloading the opportunity costs onto your enemy.
The implication: what if this really happens and Monsanto gets contracted by the government to taint the food supply in, say, China, to soften them up before a US invasion?
And if you made those files yourself and you need those backups?
Good job assuming everyone's a cheat. Which record company or movie studio do you work for?
You know what? It doesn't MATTER whether it's just one utility, and whether it's over the internet. This is an example of a piece of hardware deciding it knows better than you do what needs to be done.
If you don't say "how high?" when your job is to jump, you're FIRED.
I'm confused. What does a site-logo micro-image have to do with anything?
Because they are once again falling into the hard calendar deadline trap, which has led to lots of deaths already. They claim they will no longer be schedule driven, but as you can see, that is a lie. They have their heads in the sand, keep quoting a date, and refuse to acknowledge that you just can't do that and you have to take things as they come.
"In this manor"?
It was Col. Mustard, with the cell phone, in the parlor.
Tell the anti-gun wackos that, like the ones in DC. Apparently, the government you're so blindly supporting does the very thing you think they're too perfect to never, ever do. And that hypocrisy is a major problem I have with the yes-man crowd you're a part of.
What's that from?
Wow, complaining about five extra letters, which do a lot to show that the writer is mindful of a diverse audience ...
I guess the "politeness never hurts" subtext went right over your head. How is "he or she" incorrect English, by the way?
How about "lifeform"? Still neutral but really funny.
... only once or twice has anyone stepped in for me and actually said it for me. People just plain don't read, it seems.
I'm actually a "she" and what's really nuts is that on another forum, my sig includes my first name. I STILL get assumed to be a guy. If I get things like "thanks man!" I say "I am no man!" with a wink smiley (;))
Then maybe people should just stop assuming and write in a gender-neutral way. It really doesn't take much effort. "He or she" takes half a second more to type.
A true SLR lens will beat even the best small lens any day just because of the physics of lenses. While the N95 Zeiss lens is pretty good and does take good pictures, you'll still get a far-better image with an SLR with a 5-megapixel sensor (or, like me, if you have a 10-megapixel SLR set on "medium size" because you don't need the full 10 mp for what you do with your images).
I'm sure that in 10 years, the N95-type camera will be far more common on cell phones than it is today. But small lenses just can't beat large ones, and those small sensors will always have more noise than a large sensor will. It's not a fault of the designers but a "fault" of physics.
I did. I guess I'll have to either edit the file to boost the volume or try amplified speakers (laptop speakers aren't great).