So, let's get this straight. The biggest/heaviest/oldest/whatever massively successful life-form. ..needs our help.
Yeah, right.
Maybe, just maybe, like everything else, it too has cycles of growth and destruction.
Trees are weird. The tree in your backyard can take ten years to die, and another ten to fall over. There are species of trees that benefit from forest fires -- yup, fire-retardant wood. Trees are probably the largest life-forms on the planet. The smallest seeds of any plant come from trees -- I think they are even smaller than many mammal seeds.
The jump to "we can help!" is a wonderful one, but it really requires that something is wrong in the first place. Not every obstacle is a bad thing -- see "lawnmower parenting".
Maybe there are fewer wolves, more deers, they'll eat down the trees, then the more deer population will roam farther to find more food, then they'll encounter wolves, who'll follow the deer population all the way back, and the trees will thrive again.
Most trees benefit from significant pruning on an infrequent-yet-cyclical basis. Most of nature works on cycles. I'd wager that absolutely nothing in nature benefits from being static in any way. Alan Watts agrees. Beauty/Life, when magnified, reveals conflict. A lack of conflict, when demagnified, reveals death.
I should think that historical stats would win-out. It's a successful life-form, don't screw with it!
I must say, I grew up in the '80s. I got tours of airplane cockpits. I saw lots of buttons. Never did I think that in the future there'd be MORE controls. Technology promised to remove clutter, to make things simpler.
It hasn't.
Being able to see every vessel and marker and shoreline around you doesn't make things easier. It makes things harder. Automating with more information just shifts the hard to setup, installation, configuration, planning, maintenance, troubleshooting, and repair.
Explain to me how ten-thousand ants can stream through a tiny crack in my kitchen wall. Explain to me how hen-thousand bees can work together in a single hive. Explain to me how fifty-thousand humans can fill and empty a baseball stadium. thousands of small birds. mosquitoes. schooling fish. flocks, schools, pods, herds, murders.
In every existing system, many millions of years old, there is no augmented reality. There is wide-angle overview. They all work brilliantly.
If your system requires more information to be present, then it's not the better solution. Here's hoping it gives you a better perspective on the better solution....and if you're anything like me, you're picturing bumper boats, bumper ferries, and bumper cruise ships!
So, Earth is finite. Good to know. Alas, the bottleneck isn't the finite land, it's the finite materials -- water, food, air.
Mars has exactly zero water, food, and air.
It'll be, oh, about two hundred years before we can support a million humans outside of earth. and when I say "can", what I actually mean is "choose to".
A trillion people huh? How many of those are christian children fund starving children in africa? If we're shipping them to neptune, will we also ship some horseflies to land on their faces for the commercials?
My point is simply that we don't care about things that happen far away. This proposes multiplying that distance by about a million. Exactly how much of my unisef dollar is going to make it to neptune's starving children?
So, let's talk about desire.
Six hundred years ago. It was a time of plagues and pestilence and very bland english food. So bland, in fact, that they roamed far and wide to explore and to find flavourful food. They eventually found india and indian spices, and traveled months in each direction. It was worth it.
It was so worthwhile that people thought they'd find a shorter route by literally sailing off the edge of the world.
Now tell me, how many people actually tried to find the americas? How many people didn't give a shit. How long did it take before enough people tried that any succeeded at all? How long until there were enough to populate a small town?
Now how many would be required to populate a small town given no air, no water, and no food to start.
That sounds really bleak. So let me shine a little light. I'm happy. I don't see all of this doom and gloom. I'm safe, I'm well fed, I'm well housed, I'm well paid. I can agree with your statement that it's global anarchy, but I can also say that it seems to have worked out pretty perfectly for me, for my friends, and for my neighbours.
my country has a population density of 3.3 (units are relative here). Our neighbour has 31.6. Both western countries.
china has 138.6. india has 349.2
perhaps, instead of worrying about the number of cows we have that feed 35 million people, maybe instead we should worry about the 2.6 billion people in just two eastern countries, let alone the many more.
I'm sure the cows would agree. I'm sure every species would agree. Culling 90% of the eastern humans would be much better for the environment than worrying about the beef consumption of the westerners, who represent what, 5% of the global population?
Nice FUD headline. Here's my re-write: 5% of the global population can offset the other 95% by starving.
This is a great story of stupidity. You've "given out that information before" so you can give it out again?! "Before", you gave it to someone you trusted/called/engaged. This time, they engaged you.
Isn't that already enough to tell you to walk away?
How about the ol' if-it-aint-broke-don't-fix-it? Your card didn't stop working for you. Stop trying to solve a problem that you haven't experienced. Either go to the gas station and try your card for yourself, or use your other card (that's why you should have one) in California.
So some chickiepoo called you with a sweet voice, out of the blue, used normal words (not death threats), and you gave her how many pieces of confidential information? Six?
Forget the "clues". There's never any time to speak any PIN aloud -- just like you never sign your signature just for fun.
And why don't people know that caller-id isn't secure at all? It's actually designed to be spoofable, as a form of free-speech, and protected as such.
Six levels of stupid. Hopefully he got to pay the three grand as a lesson.
I should focus on the "push-button" part of my request then. I'm really thinking one button that dumps a few dozen megs of text, and another one button that just wipes it all from existence.
In any event, that's pretty close to how I've built my systems.
Having not read the Bloomberg article, because I've been busy this week, is Bloomberg just reporting on what sources have said?
That isn't investigative journalism. That's just reporting gossip.
Can't Bloomberg just grab a device, open it up, and pay someone reputable to actually have a look and then confirm this whole thing? Why am I left needing to trust anonymous-source reporting? Go make it nonymous! Any nonymous will do.
(I'm a small web developer, self employed for 25 years and counting, and obviously a general web consumer. )
I think there's a much simpler way to start this mayhem.
I'd be happy with two buttons:
1. show me everything you have on me, one big single-web-page human-readable/printable/migratable dump of information.
2. delete it all. please and thank you.
I think everything else can either be added much later, or will work itself out with market forces. Today, the trouble is that people don't know what's known about them, and can't do anything about it anyway. These two buttons solve the problem.
And with #2 being so readily available, you'd see just how quickly big companies apologize and make-things-right in the hopes of not losing huge swaths of their user data.
Compared to the GDPR (which is phenominal, but also a phenominally big step to take all at once), the above two are relatively easy for almost any company to implement.
(N.B. if you've read the GDPR thoroughly, and I mean the actual document, my #2 is the short-circuit way out of about 95% of the technical requirements that the GDPR puts on businesses.)
I can certainly understand that our political leaders shouldn't take bribes. Obviously that's bad.
But even more obviously, I can understand a human being having a great deal of trouble turning down millions of bribery dollars for favours that don't kill anybody.
You'll never get, even honest people to stop taking casual bribes. it's millions of dollars vs a rubber stamp. Everyone has their price.
I'm happy with a small jail term (I think 15 years is 14 years too many) and forfeiting the money with interest.
But what of Samsung? Shouldn't we be making it detrimental to offer bribes in the first place? I'd be happy with samsung being straight-up denied for any government application/request of any kind for one year per million dollars of bribery, plus a payment of double the bribe amount to local taxes.
In this case, with 5 million dollars in bribery, that would mean taxing samsung 10 million dollars and denying every government request (building application, tax exemption, valuation assessment) for the next 5 years.
I call it my sit-down-and-shut-up-for-a-while punishment.
Big Marketplace creates huge opportunities for Suppliers. Suppliers suddenly put 80% of their eggs into Big Marketplace baskets. Big Marketplace changes rules, squeeze Suppliers. Suppliers can't afford to leave. Suppliers cut corners to cut costs. Big Marketplace takes more dollars. Suppliers innovate to create crappier crap. Consumers lose options, forced to buy crap. Winner: Big Marketplace. Losers: everyone else Enjoy.
don't have everyone vote on the same day. simply have each county, or each alphabetically-prefixed last name vote on a different day over a period of a month.
We already have advanced voting. Simply make that the norm.
A long long time ago, known as the '80s, we still had people called "general business consultants". These people were hired by businesses, for lots of money, purely to look around and make decisions. They didn't justify those decisions (with any sort of data) at all. They simply said thing like "I believe this is the best course of action.". You believed them because they had a good track record and experience in the field, or you didn't.
Nowadays, general business consultants have been replaced by data engineers -- people who like to collect huge amounts of data points, and have dumb-ass machines make decisions based on those data points. Alas, like every study that's ever been done with data points, it all comes down to whether or not you have enough of the right data points, and not too many of the wrong data points. And that's a skill that absolutely none of these data engineers has ever had.
I can make the cost of transportation absolutely $0. It's really easy. I'll just cancel all of the buses. Oh, wait, you actually want buses? I hadn't thought about that. Okay, I'll take your children at midnight. Oh? You don't like that either? Here's a thought, I'll get more buses, not stagger anything, and you'll be happy. Oh wait, we don't have that much money?
Look at that. Balancing costs and services can't make everyone happy. Maybe happiness costs money, or customers. Shock of a lifetime.
Maybe one day, data engineers will be able to put in the very important data point that says we're never trying to solve a problem. Solving any problem is ridiculously easy. We're always trying to solve a problem within another problem -- within a context. Like, in this case, within a parent's business day. That's hard, if not impossible, every time.
So, after complaining for decades that the polar ice caps are melting, due to climate change, now we're just going to physically take the ice away? Good job.
Maybe we ought not be living in deserts. Seems hostile to me.
Oh, absolutely and without a doubt, I'd turn it off myself. But really, I don't have the problem being described.
You know what, I take that back. I wouldn't turn it off. If it only came up once for a given domain as-typed, I'd feel incredibly stupid turning it off. I'd consider it a safety-feature, like a seatbelt -- very annoying to use, a little bit uncomfortable, rarely if ever necessary, and absolutely vital if needed.
Yeah "OK" buttons have been stupid since the start. How many times have I clicked an OK button on a dialog button that popped up less than 100ms ago. I tried to click on something, but the dialog box popped up in my way somewhere after I saw what I wanted, and before my mouse button clicked.
Dialog boxes should always have stalled long enough to ensure that human reaction times could have possibly seen them.
Back to the conversation at-hand, I don't suggest an OK button. That's like asking if the chicken is white meat at a chinese restaurant. The answer is always "yes". You don't ask yes/no questions when language barriers are an issue. You ask "what kind of meat is it". That way, when the answer is "yes", you understand what happened.
Instead of an OK button, how about: "which site do you want to visit? the one registered in 1990 by jeff bezos in seattle, or the one registered by halib mohammed in 2018 from nigeria?"
Tell me how many consumer would get that wrong today? And, by all means, make them select each of the three (date, registrant, city) independently, and if they aren't a matching tuple, make them try again.
First, it doesn't matter. We've already taken down appple.com for its criminal acts. Second, it doesn't matter. We've already disabled the stolen credit card. Third, it's not difficult to argue/prove that it wasn't me, someone stole my card.
Fourth, and this is important, when it comes to arresting people, we're never talking about the first time, and we're never talking about the maybe-by-accident time. We're talking about the repeated, intentional, and malicious times.
Fifth, I'll say it again, your made-up intelligent criminal (who's now committed three crimes, by the way, instead of just one, and the two new ones are actually high crimes, whereas the original one was actually a low crime) can be a part of the 10% that we don't catch. Let's catch the stupid criminals. There are plenty of them.
You find me a police force that lets me report a fake web-site, and have them go arrest someone in a realistic time-frame, and you can be right.
Until then, that's just how police ought to work. In reality, there is way more crime than any policing force can investigate.
The annoying thing this time is that police can investigate a web-site faster than they can investigate a building. So one would think that a new police department would need very little relative funding in order to start investigating and blocking criminal activity on-line.
I'm suggesting that after a crime has been committed, reported, and identified, that police then arrest those responsible.
It's not about making crime difficult, and it's not even about deterring future criminals. It's simply about making the price of crime much much higher than it is today.
I'm sorry, but do you think it difficult to penalize criminals? Someone registers a domain name, and pays for it with a credit card. So if someone registers appple.com, and sells fake iphones, would it be difficult to cancel their credit card? Or to bill their credit card for punitive damages? The same credit card with their home address on it?
We already have a registry, at the domain level. Isn't that already enough?
Or are you saying that it's difficult to figure out that appple.com is doing something illegal? As usual, we don't need to catch everybody. Let's start with the 90% of the low-hanging-fruit criminals.
Slashdot Mirror
So, let's get this straight. The biggest/heaviest/oldest/whatever massively successful life-form. . .needs our help.
Yeah, right.
Maybe, just maybe, like everything else, it too has cycles of growth and destruction.
Trees are weird.
The tree in your backyard can take ten years to die, and another ten to fall over.
There are species of trees that benefit from forest fires -- yup, fire-retardant wood.
Trees are probably the largest life-forms on the planet.
The smallest seeds of any plant come from trees -- I think they are even smaller than many mammal seeds.
The jump to "we can help!" is a wonderful one, but it really requires that something is wrong in the first place. Not every obstacle is a bad thing -- see "lawnmower parenting".
Maybe there are fewer wolves, more deers, they'll eat down the trees, then the more deer population will roam farther to find more food, then they'll encounter wolves, who'll follow the deer population all the way back, and the trees will thrive again.
Most trees benefit from significant pruning on an infrequent-yet-cyclical basis.
Most of nature works on cycles. I'd wager that absolutely nothing in nature benefits from being static in any way.
Alan Watts agrees. Beauty/Life, when magnified, reveals conflict. A lack of conflict, when demagnified, reveals death.
I should think that historical stats would win-out. It's a successful life-form, don't screw with it!
I must say, I grew up in the '80s. I got tours of airplane cockpits. I saw lots of buttons. Never did I think that in the future there'd be MORE controls. Technology promised to remove clutter, to make things simpler.
It hasn't.
Being able to see every vessel and marker and shoreline around you doesn't make things easier. It makes things harder. Automating with more information just shifts the hard to setup, installation, configuration, planning, maintenance, troubleshooting, and repair.
Explain to me how ten-thousand ants can stream through a tiny crack in my kitchen wall. Explain to me how hen-thousand bees can work together in a single hive. Explain to me how fifty-thousand humans can fill and empty a baseball stadium. thousands of small birds. mosquitoes. schooling fish. flocks, schools, pods, herds, murders.
In every existing system, many millions of years old, there is no augmented reality. There is wide-angle overview. They all work brilliantly.
If your system requires more information to be present, then it's not the better solution. Here's hoping it gives you a better perspective on the better solution. ...and if you're anything like me, you're picturing bumper boats, bumper ferries, and bumper cruise ships!
It's not hard to find women. It's not hard to find lawyers. It's not hard to find women lawyers. I have one of you at home.
How about you try to follow the spirit of the argument. Let me help you out:
Going to Mars won't yield more resources per capita. Expanding across the solar system won't solve the problem of "we're running out of resources".
Only one thing ever has. And it's worked for every species since the dawn of time.
So, Earth is finite. Good to know. Alas, the bottleneck isn't the finite land, it's the finite materials -- water, food, air.
Mars has exactly zero water, food, and air.
It'll be, oh, about two hundred years before we can support a million humans outside of earth. and when I say "can", what I actually mean is "choose to".
A trillion people huh? How many of those are christian children fund starving children in africa? If we're shipping them to neptune, will we also ship some horseflies to land on their faces for the commercials?
My point is simply that we don't care about things that happen far away. This proposes multiplying that distance by about a million. Exactly how much of my unisef dollar is going to make it to neptune's starving children?
So, let's talk about desire.
Six hundred years ago. It was a time of plagues and pestilence and very bland english food. So bland, in fact, that they roamed far and wide to explore and to find flavourful food. They eventually found india and indian spices, and traveled months in each direction. It was worth it.
It was so worthwhile that people thought they'd find a shorter route by literally sailing off the edge of the world.
Now tell me, how many people actually tried to find the americas? How many people didn't give a shit. How long did it take before enough people tried that any succeeded at all? How long until there were enough to populate a small town?
Now how many would be required to populate a small town given no air, no water, and no food to start.
Enjoy.
That sounds really bleak. So let me shine a little light. I'm happy. I don't see all of this doom and gloom. I'm safe, I'm well fed, I'm well housed, I'm well paid. I can agree with your statement that it's global anarchy, but I can also say that it seems to have worked out pretty perfectly for me, for my friends, and for my neighbours.
I'm sure they're doing something else to ruin the planet.
my country has a population density of 3.3 (units are relative here). Our neighbour has 31.6. Both western countries.
china has 138.6.
india has 349.2
perhaps, instead of worrying about the number of cows we have that feed 35 million people, maybe instead we should worry about the 2.6 billion people in just two eastern countries, let alone the many more.
I'm sure the cows would agree. I'm sure every species would agree. Culling 90% of the eastern humans would be much better for the environment than worrying about the beef consumption of the westerners, who represent what, 5% of the global population?
Nice FUD headline. Here's my re-write:
5% of the global population can offset the other 95% by starving.
Well, no shit.
This is a great story of stupidity. You've "given out that information before" so you can give it out again?! "Before", you gave it to someone you trusted/called/engaged. This time, they engaged you.
Isn't that already enough to tell you to walk away?
How about the ol' if-it-aint-broke-don't-fix-it? Your card didn't stop working for you. Stop trying to solve a problem that you haven't experienced. Either go to the gas station and try your card for yourself, or use your other card (that's why you should have one) in California.
So some chickiepoo called you with a sweet voice, out of the blue, used normal words (not death threats), and you gave her how many pieces of confidential information? Six?
Forget the "clues". There's never any time to speak any PIN aloud -- just like you never sign your signature just for fun.
And why don't people know that caller-id isn't secure at all? It's actually designed to be spoofable, as a form of free-speech, and protected as such.
Six levels of stupid. Hopefully he got to pay the three grand as a lesson.
I should focus on the "push-button" part of my request then. I'm really thinking one button that dumps a few dozen megs of text, and another one button that just wipes it all from existence.
In any event, that's pretty close to how I've built my systems.
Having not read the Bloomberg article, because I've been busy this week, is Bloomberg just reporting on what sources have said?
That isn't investigative journalism. That's just reporting gossip.
Can't Bloomberg just grab a device, open it up, and pay someone reputable to actually have a look and then confirm this whole thing? Why am I left needing to trust anonymous-source reporting? Go make it nonymous! Any nonymous will do.
(I'm a small web developer, self employed for 25 years and counting, and obviously a general web consumer. )
I think there's a much simpler way to start this mayhem.
I'd be happy with two buttons:
1. show me everything you have on me, one big single-web-page human-readable/printable/migratable dump of information.
2. delete it all. please and thank you.
I think everything else can either be added much later, or will work itself out with market forces. Today, the trouble is that people don't know what's known about them, and can't do anything about it anyway. These two buttons solve the problem.
And with #2 being so readily available, you'd see just how quickly big companies apologize and make-things-right in the hopes of not losing huge swaths of their user data.
Compared to the GDPR (which is phenominal, but also a phenominally big step to take all at once), the above two are relatively easy for almost any company to implement.
(N.B. if you've read the GDPR thoroughly, and I mean the actual document, my #2 is the short-circuit way out of about 95% of the technical requirements that the GDPR puts on businesses.)
I can certainly understand that our political leaders shouldn't take bribes. Obviously that's bad.
But even more obviously, I can understand a human being having a great deal of trouble turning down millions of bribery dollars for favours that don't kill anybody.
You'll never get, even honest people to stop taking casual bribes. it's millions of dollars vs a rubber stamp. Everyone has their price.
I'm happy with a small jail term (I think 15 years is 14 years too many) and forfeiting the money with interest.
But what of Samsung? Shouldn't we be making it detrimental to offer bribes in the first place? I'd be happy with samsung being straight-up denied for any government application/request of any kind for one year per million dollars of bribery, plus a payment of double the bribe amount to local taxes.
In this case, with 5 million dollars in bribery, that would mean taxing samsung 10 million dollars and denying every government request (building application, tax exemption, valuation assessment) for the next 5 years.
I call it my sit-down-and-shut-up-for-a-while punishment.
COD -> ( () )
no thanks.
Big Marketplace creates huge opportunities for Suppliers.
Suppliers suddenly put 80% of their eggs into Big Marketplace baskets.
Big Marketplace changes rules, squeeze Suppliers.
Suppliers can't afford to leave.
Suppliers cut corners to cut costs.
Big Marketplace takes more dollars.
Suppliers innovate to create crappier crap.
Consumers lose options, forced to buy crap.
Winner: Big Marketplace.
Losers: everyone else
Enjoy.
Umm, I don't think that mailboxes are particularly difficult to defeat. A cup of coffee can do it.
don't have everyone vote on the same day. simply have each county, or each alphabetically-prefixed last name vote on a different day over a period of a month.
We already have advanced voting. Simply make that the norm.
Done.
I'm running win 10. I don't see any such thing.
A long long time ago, known as the '80s, we still had people called "general business consultants". These people were hired by businesses, for lots of money, purely to look around and make decisions. They didn't justify those decisions (with any sort of data) at all. They simply said thing like "I believe this is the best course of action.". You believed them because they had a good track record and experience in the field, or you didn't.
Nowadays, general business consultants have been replaced by data engineers -- people who like to collect huge amounts of data points, and have dumb-ass machines make decisions based on those data points. Alas, like every study that's ever been done with data points, it all comes down to whether or not you have enough of the right data points, and not too many of the wrong data points. And that's a skill that absolutely none of these data engineers has ever had.
I can make the cost of transportation absolutely $0. It's really easy. I'll just cancel all of the buses. Oh, wait, you actually want buses? I hadn't thought about that. Okay, I'll take your children at midnight. Oh? You don't like that either? Here's a thought, I'll get more buses, not stagger anything, and you'll be happy. Oh wait, we don't have that much money?
Look at that. Balancing costs and services can't make everyone happy. Maybe happiness costs money, or customers. Shock of a lifetime.
Maybe one day, data engineers will be able to put in the very important data point that says we're never trying to solve a problem. Solving any problem is ridiculously easy. We're always trying to solve a problem within another problem -- within a context. Like, in this case, within a parent's business day. That's hard, if not impossible, every time.
So, after complaining for decades that the polar ice caps are melting, due to climate change, now we're just going to physically take the ice away? Good job.
Maybe we ought not be living in deserts. Seems hostile to me.
Oh, absolutely and without a doubt, I'd turn it off myself. But really, I don't have the problem being described.
You know what, I take that back. I wouldn't turn it off. If it only came up once for a given domain as-typed, I'd feel incredibly stupid turning it off. I'd consider it a safety-feature, like a seatbelt -- very annoying to use, a little bit uncomfortable, rarely if ever necessary, and absolutely vital if needed.
Yeah "OK" buttons have been stupid since the start. How many times have I clicked an OK button on a dialog button that popped up less than 100ms ago. I tried to click on something, but the dialog box popped up in my way somewhere after I saw what I wanted, and before my mouse button clicked.
Dialog boxes should always have stalled long enough to ensure that human reaction times could have possibly seen them.
Back to the conversation at-hand, I don't suggest an OK button. That's like asking if the chicken is white meat at a chinese restaurant. The answer is always "yes". You don't ask yes/no questions when language barriers are an issue. You ask "what kind of meat is it". That way, when the answer is "yes", you understand what happened.
Instead of an OK button, how about: "which site do you want to visit? the one registered in 1990 by jeff bezos in seattle, or the one registered by halib mohammed in 2018 from nigeria?"
Tell me how many consumer would get that wrong today? And, by all means, make them select each of the three (date, registrant, city) independently, and if they aren't a matching tuple, make them try again.
First, it doesn't matter. We've already taken down appple.com for its criminal acts.
Second, it doesn't matter. We've already disabled the stolen credit card.
Third, it's not difficult to argue/prove that it wasn't me, someone stole my card.
Fourth, and this is important, when it comes to arresting people, we're never talking about the first time, and we're never talking about the maybe-by-accident time. We're talking about the repeated, intentional, and malicious times.
Fifth, I'll say it again, your made-up intelligent criminal (who's now committed three crimes, by the way, instead of just one, and the two new ones are actually high crimes, whereas the original one was actually a low crime) can be a part of the 10% that we don't catch. Let's catch the stupid criminals. There are plenty of them.
You find me a police force that lets me report a fake web-site, and have them go arrest someone in a realistic time-frame, and you can be right.
Until then, that's just how police ought to work. In reality, there is way more crime than any policing force can investigate.
The annoying thing this time is that police can investigate a web-site faster than they can investigate a building. So one would think that a new police department would need very little relative funding in order to start investigating and blocking criminal activity on-line.
I'm not suggesting either one.
I'm suggesting that after a crime has been committed, reported, and identified, that police then arrest those responsible.
It's not about making crime difficult, and it's not even about deterring future criminals. It's simply about making the price of crime much much higher than it is today.
I'm sorry, but do you think it difficult to penalize criminals? Someone registers a domain name, and pays for it with a credit card. So if someone registers appple.com, and sells fake iphones, would it be difficult to cancel their credit card? Or to bill their credit card for punitive damages? The same credit card with their home address on it?
We already have a registry, at the domain level. Isn't that already enough?
Or are you saying that it's difficult to figure out that appple.com is doing something illegal? As usual, we don't need to catch everybody. Let's start with the 90% of the low-hanging-fruit criminals.