Isn't the problem in California that they can afford things, but because some libertarian had the great idea of making paying the bills optional, most choose not to pay?
According to the article, the FSP people passed a law that prevented local communities from overriding another law that the FSP people passed at the state level. Apparently some people need to have "freedom" forced on them no matter what they say they want.
Well, in a libertarian society, there would be people who collect the bodies of their own iniiative and sell the organs to the highest bidder whether that be the medical community and/or the daily-deal butcher. So the people who can afford to purchase the organs, would obviously not be a burden to the system. The system inherently considers everyone to be worthy of everything they can afford to purchase.
How do you imagine it would it be worse under libertarian rule?
Well, instead of bribing politicians for favours, the rich simply do what they please. That's worse unless you're already rich enough to be your own unchecked god.
So, how are the rich going to get away with favouritism from gov't if they can't buy it?
A consequence of libertarian policies is that the rich no longer need goverment favouritism.
I don't think the anarchists like being grouped with libertarians very much. To the anarchists, libertarians are want-to-be slave-holders who want everyone else to pay for the chains.
Actually, you should understand that A) coinreturn made the claim and that B) it wasn't about the data but about the leading question at the end and C) that I was explaining it. I happen to agree that LoyalOpposition did try to turn it into a right-left argument, but I don't particularly care that he did.
The fact that you ignored what AuMatar was "unclearly saying" was part of the game, too.
If you insist on playing, I look at what AuMatar wrote, and I see no explicit conversion into a right-left argument other than the fact that he used the work lockstep which would implicitly criticise two conservative judges for voting together too often. However, it is a rather mild criticism, and not terribly political. If it had been Kagan who had voted with the majority, and AuMatar had noted that it was one of the few times Kagan hadn't voted in lockstep with Sotomeyer, would you be this angry? I certainly wouldn't be.
It takes more than a criticism of someone "on your team" to create a right-left argument. If that's all it took, then you could never criticise anyone without starting a political fight. That hardly seems like an ideal situation.
I was explaining to BWS what the other poster was unclearly saying. Frankly, I do not have enough interest or patience to play childish "who politicised it first" games.
He was refering to the final line "So, if voting in lockstep like Thomas and Scalia is bad at 86%, what is it when Sotomayor and Kagan vote together 94% of the time? Is that also lockstep?".
The point was that the choice of Sotomayor and Kagan over Roberts and Alito who voted together 96% of the time was a blantant attempt to make to turn this into a right-left issue.
Prove it. Prove I did not really forget my password. Note, later remembering said password does not prove anything.
I'm not sure what your outburst has to do with anything. To convict someone of purgery, obstruction, or as an accessory to the crime, the prosecutor would, of course, have to prove that they willfully lied under oath, obstructed an investigation, or assisted the criminal. It has been done before. However, to lay the charges against you, the prosecutor only needs reasonable grounds. I don't think the judge has to prove anything to hold you in contempt of court because it's an offense against the court. Although, in theory he might need to prove that the action was reasonable if there was a follow up inquiry into his actions.
Haven't you ever, for example, gone into the kitchen, forgotten why you went in there, left, and some time later, remembered why you'd gone in there?
Have you ever forgotten what your name is, where you work, or what your friend's names are? For weeks or months at a time? Without suffering from an indentifiable medical condition, injury or trauma? The statement "I forgot the password I use every day on my computer" simply isn't convincing unless there are special circumstances because it's something you regularly use. My point isn't that you can't get away with lieing, my point is that the situation could get worse because if you lied about it. That's why you're allowed to plead the fifth instead of making up lies in the first place.
That's not an ad hominem argument, for example I am not claiming that you are wrong because you are an idiot. You are wrong because your argument is based on your personal view of how trademarks and DNS should work, rather than how they actually do work. You have repeatedly dismissed the fact that your views do not match reality as irrelevent to the discussion. If you reject reality, no further discussion is possible.
Of course, you are allowed to forget things, however, if you claim to have forgotten something that you haven't really forgotten, you can be charged with purgery, obstruction, contempt of court, or even as an acessory to the crime, depening on the circumstances. In this case, the judge isn't going to beleive that he just forgot the passwords that unlock all of his encrypted drives. It would simply be an unbelievable claim, the defendant is better of refusing to give the password than trying to tell transparently false lies.
No one would be complaining about PETA shelters if they just euthanized some animals that arrived to the shleters "sick" and "neglected". The problem seems to be that almost all of the animals (95%), many of whom were delivered in good health, seem to end up "sick" , "neglected" and dead shortly after arriving.
PETA doesn't think that animals should be pets, so they don't ever leave the shelter, and eventually (after living a long pleasant life) they need to be euthanized.
Most people don't consider a few days locked in a cage to be "a long pleasant life" for the average puppy or kitten.
According to US trademark law, you cannot engage in business using a confusingly similar mark; it doesn't mater what criteria WIPO uses for domain names. WIPO does not get to define US trademark law.
You appear to be significantly confused. WIPO is the World Intellectual Property Organization, and WIPO is explicitly empowered as the arbiter for international disputes over domain names.
We aren't talking about transfer of ownership here, we are talking about who is the legitimate owner in the first place.
According to the rules, the first person to register the domain is the legitimate owner unless they're engaging in domain squatting.
If the people holding the registration don't actually have legitimate ownership of the trademark, there is no government taking involved.
There's a simple problem with that statement: ownership of a trade mark is not a pre-requisite for ownership of a domain. It's merely one of three factors that are looked at to determine if a domain grievance is legitimate. Specifically, that criteria is part of the process to determine whether the complainant even has a legitimate claim to the domain.
You seem to assume that first-to-register is the right way of determining trademark ownership, but that's clearly wrong.
That's the way the system works. If you think it should work differently, that's an entirely different conversation which has no impact on whether the WIPO panel was correctly enforcing the already established dispute resolution system. As an aside, it's interesting that you would think first-to-register is a not valid method of determine domain name ownership, yet in general libertarians are perfectly ok with first-to-register as a method of determining ownership of real property.
WIPO doesn't apply that principle to other trademarks, and the only reason it applies it here is because WIPO likes to piss all over non-commercial interests, and they probably hate Ron Paul's guts too.
Alternatively, it could be because Ron Paul doesn't have a trade mark on the name Ron Paul, and his request was denied because he failed to show that the people using the domain name were acting in bad faith and had no legitimate interest in the name. This was clearly stated in the ruling. Did you read it?
It's also interesting that you equate Ron Paul's interest in the domain with a non-commercial interest, because it seems he wants the domain so that he can sell his books online, that strikes me as a commercial interest.
Yes, he failed to prove his allegations because WIPO only recognizes business interests. If "Ron Paul" had been the name of a big military contractor or computer company, WIPO would clearly have ruled in his favor.
According to the rules, even if "Ron Paul" was the name of a corporation, the request would have failed because it would only have met one of the three criteria. Assuming of course that the corporation has a registered trade mark on their name. So, in that regard the system does, in fact, favour corporations.
It is rather amusing to see liberals and progressives defend a system that is heavily tilted towards big corporations and treads on the rights of civil society.
What makes you think I am either a liberal, a progressive, or defending the system? I am merely amused by the spectacle of libertarians jumping through hoops to justify how this one time, it's ok for government to transfer ownership of private property (because it benefits someone they like).
You don't know what you're talking about; read his complaint, it's reasonable.
I've read it, it's biased and self-serving. It might be reasonable for a kleptocrat.
It's just that WIPO doesn't protect anybody other than big business based on trademark law.
Ron Paul failed to meet the burden of proof. He couldn't prove he has a trade mark on his name (because he hasn't registered one), couldn't show that the site owners had no legitimate interest in the site (because they clearly have a legitimate interest), and couldn't show that they were using the site in bad faith (because he asked them to sell it). You may not understand this, but he had to prove all three allegations. He's 0 for 3.
When a group of people not associated with Ron Paul use his name as a domain name, that actually is misleading, because it creates the impression that they have some official connection.
Actually it doesn't. It says "fan site" on the site's header, it's pretty hard to miss. The domain name is nothing but an easy way to remember the site's address.
It's rather amusing to watch libertarians complain that the government isn't confiscating the property of one libertarian and transferring it to another. I love seeing exactly how deep your principles run.
Except they're not domain squatters or misusing the domain to mislead supporters. They're actual Ron Paul supporters who spent years voluntarily building a site dedicated to him, and his response was to try and take their property by force because he thought he could get away with making false accusations.
The could be right, except he fired his chief of staff two days ago for repeatedly telling him he needs to check in to rehab. You'd think Rob Ford's closest ally (not including his brother) would know what he's talking about.
Also, Rob Ford fired his chief of staff two days ago for repeatedly telling him (in private) that he needs to go to rehab. If Rob Ford's closest allies think he has a drug problem, and there's a video of him doing drugs, and he was spotted at a public event intoxicated, and that same event he grabbed the ass of a rival mayoral candidate and propositioned her (Ford is married and has children), then the chances are that he has an actual drug problem.
The most obvious reason would be there's no conceivable way that they could profit from the video at that price. You have to sell a lot of newpapers to cover one $200,000 video.
That might work if the domain name system actually operated like a free market, but it doesn't. The domain name system is a complex, centrally administered monopoly, and disputes involving it necessarily have to be resolved within that system, even by people who disapprove of that system.
There was a free market alternative: Pay the $250,000 Ron Paul's supporters were asking for a site they had spent years working on.
More importantly, the DNS system itself isn't a free market system, it is a monopoly governed by artificial and imposed legal rules and oversight. Given that the domain name system operates outside the free market, it is reasonable for people to seek remedies through the channels that actually administer it.
Which Ron Paul abused in bad faith (see the ruling) to attempt to take someone else's private property by force. Now, who doesn't understand libertarianism very well?
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't the problem in California that they can afford things, but because some libertarian had the great idea of making paying the bills optional, most choose not to pay?
According to the article, the FSP people passed a law that prevented local communities from overriding another law that the FSP people passed at the state level. Apparently some people need to have "freedom" forced on them no matter what they say they want.
Well, in a libertarian society, there would be people who collect the bodies of their own iniiative and sell the organs to the highest bidder whether that be the medical community and/or the daily-deal butcher. So the people who can afford to purchase the organs, would obviously not be a burden to the system. The system inherently considers everyone to be worthy of everything they can afford to purchase.
How do you imagine it would it be worse under libertarian rule?
Well, instead of bribing politicians for favours, the rich simply do what they please. That's worse unless you're already rich enough to be your own unchecked god.
So, how are the rich going to get away with favouritism from gov't if they can't buy it?
A consequence of libertarian policies is that the rich no longer need goverment favouritism.
I don't think the anarchists like being grouped with libertarians very much. To the anarchists, libertarians are want-to-be slave-holders who want everyone else to pay for the chains.
I think you're being naive. What, exactly, would prevent the same people who buy power in the federal government from buying power in each state?
AuMatar is completely innocent of trying to make this a left/right issue. Yep. You win.
I'm glad we agree.
Actually, you should understand that A) coinreturn made the claim and that B) it wasn't about the data but about the leading question at the end and C) that I was explaining it. I happen to agree that LoyalOpposition did try to turn it into a right-left argument, but I don't particularly care that he did.
The fact that you ignored what AuMatar was "unclearly saying" was part of the game, too.
If you insist on playing, I look at what AuMatar wrote, and I see no explicit conversion into a right-left argument other than the fact that he used the work lockstep which would implicitly criticise two conservative judges for voting together too often. However, it is a rather mild criticism, and not terribly political. If it had been Kagan who had voted with the majority, and AuMatar had noted that it was one of the few times Kagan hadn't voted in lockstep with Sotomeyer, would you be this angry? I certainly wouldn't be.
It takes more than a criticism of someone "on your team" to create a right-left argument. If that's all it took, then you could never criticise anyone without starting a political fight. That hardly seems like an ideal situation.
I was explaining to BWS what the other poster was unclearly saying. Frankly, I do not have enough interest or patience to play childish "who politicised it first" games.
He was refering to the final line "So, if voting in lockstep like Thomas and Scalia is bad at 86%, what is it when Sotomayor and Kagan vote together 94% of the time? Is that also lockstep?".
The point was that the choice of Sotomayor and Kagan over Roberts and Alito who voted together 96% of the time was a blantant attempt to make to turn this into a right-left issue.
Prove it. Prove I did not really forget my password. Note, later remembering said password does not prove anything.
I'm not sure what your outburst has to do with anything. To convict someone of purgery, obstruction, or as an accessory to the crime, the prosecutor would, of course, have to prove that they willfully lied under oath, obstructed an investigation, or assisted the criminal. It has been done before. However, to lay the charges against you, the prosecutor only needs reasonable grounds. I don't think the judge has to prove anything to hold you in contempt of court because it's an offense against the court. Although, in theory he might need to prove that the action was reasonable if there was a follow up inquiry into his actions.
Haven't you ever, for example, gone into the kitchen, forgotten why you went in there, left, and some time later, remembered why you'd gone in there?
Have you ever forgotten what your name is, where you work, or what your friend's names are? For weeks or months at a time? Without suffering from an indentifiable medical condition, injury or trauma? The statement "I forgot the password I use every day on my computer" simply isn't convincing unless there are special circumstances because it's something you regularly use. My point isn't that you can't get away with lieing, my point is that the situation could get worse because if you lied about it. That's why you're allowed to plead the fifth instead of making up lies in the first place.
That's not an ad hominem argument, for example I am not claiming that you are wrong because you are an idiot. You are wrong because your argument is based on your personal view of how trademarks and DNS should work, rather than how they actually do work. You have repeatedly dismissed the fact that your views do not match reality as irrelevent to the discussion. If you reject reality, no further discussion is possible.
Of course, you are allowed to forget things, however, if you claim to have forgotten something that you haven't really forgotten, you can be charged with purgery, obstruction, contempt of court, or even as an acessory to the crime, depening on the circumstances. In this case, the judge isn't going to beleive that he just forgot the passwords that unlock all of his encrypted drives. It would simply be an unbelievable claim, the defendant is better of refusing to give the password than trying to tell transparently false lies.
No one would be complaining about PETA shelters if they just euthanized some animals that arrived to the shleters "sick" and "neglected". The problem seems to be that almost all of the animals (95%), many of whom were delivered in good health, seem to end up "sick" , "neglected" and dead shortly after arriving.
PETA doesn't think that animals should be pets, so they don't ever leave the shelter, and eventually (after living a long pleasant life) they need to be euthanized.
Most people don't consider a few days locked in a cage to be "a long pleasant life" for the average puppy or kitten.
So your justification is that you don't understand how the Domain Name System works and thus you must be correct. Dunning Kruger FTW.
According to US trademark law, you cannot engage in business using a confusingly similar mark; it doesn't mater what criteria WIPO uses for domain names. WIPO does not get to define US trademark law.
You appear to be significantly confused. WIPO is the World Intellectual Property Organization, and WIPO is explicitly empowered as the arbiter for international disputes over domain names.
We aren't talking about transfer of ownership here, we are talking about who is the legitimate owner in the first place.
According to the rules, the first person to register the domain is the legitimate owner unless they're engaging in domain squatting.
If the people holding the registration don't actually have legitimate ownership of the trademark, there is no government taking involved.
There's a simple problem with that statement: ownership of a trade mark is not a pre-requisite for ownership of a domain. It's merely one of three factors that are looked at to determine if a domain grievance is legitimate. Specifically, that criteria is part of the process to determine whether the complainant even has a legitimate claim to the domain.
You seem to assume that first-to-register is the right way of determining trademark ownership, but that's clearly wrong.
That's the way the system works. If you think it should work differently, that's an entirely different conversation which has no impact on whether the WIPO panel was correctly enforcing the already established dispute resolution system. As an aside, it's interesting that you would think first-to-register is a not valid method of determine domain name ownership, yet in general libertarians are perfectly ok with first-to-register as a method of determining ownership of real property.
WIPO doesn't apply that principle to other trademarks, and the only reason it applies it here is because WIPO likes to piss all over non-commercial interests, and they probably hate Ron Paul's guts too.
Alternatively, it could be because Ron Paul doesn't have a trade mark on the name Ron Paul, and his request was denied because he failed to show that the people using the domain name were acting in bad faith and had no legitimate interest in the name. This was clearly stated in the ruling. Did you read it?
It's also interesting that you equate Ron Paul's interest in the domain with a non-commercial interest, because it seems he wants the domain so that he can sell his books online, that strikes me as a commercial interest.
Yes, he failed to prove his allegations because WIPO only recognizes business interests. If "Ron Paul" had been the name of a big military contractor or computer company, WIPO would clearly have ruled in his favor.
According to the rules, even if "Ron Paul" was the name of a corporation, the request would have failed because it would only have met one of the three criteria. Assuming of course that the corporation has a registered trade mark on their name. So, in that regard the system does, in fact, favour corporations.
It is rather amusing to see liberals and progressives defend a system that is heavily tilted towards big corporations and treads on the rights of civil society.
What makes you think I am either a liberal, a progressive, or defending the system? I am merely amused by the spectacle of libertarians jumping through hoops to justify how this one time, it's ok for government to transfer ownership of private property (because it benefits someone they like).
You don't know what you're talking about; read his complaint, it's reasonable.
I've read it, it's biased and self-serving. It might be reasonable for a kleptocrat.
It's just that WIPO doesn't protect anybody other than big business based on trademark law.
Ron Paul failed to meet the burden of proof. He couldn't prove he has a trade mark on his name (because he hasn't registered one), couldn't show that the site owners had no legitimate interest in the site (because they clearly have a legitimate interest), and couldn't show that they were using the site in bad faith (because he asked them to sell it). You may not understand this, but he had to prove all three allegations. He's 0 for 3.
When a group of people not associated with Ron Paul use his name as a domain name, that actually is misleading, because it creates the impression that they have some official connection.
Actually it doesn't. It says "fan site" on the site's header, it's pretty hard to miss. The domain name is nothing but an easy way to remember the site's address.
It's rather amusing to watch libertarians complain that the government isn't confiscating the property of one libertarian and transferring it to another. I love seeing exactly how deep your principles run.
Except they're not domain squatters or misusing the domain to mislead supporters. They're actual Ron Paul supporters who spent years voluntarily building a site dedicated to him, and his response was to try and take their property by force because he thought he could get away with making false accusations.
The could be right, except he fired his chief of staff two days ago for repeatedly telling him he needs to check in to rehab. You'd think Rob Ford's closest ally (not including his brother) would know what he's talking about.
Also, Rob Ford fired his chief of staff two days ago for repeatedly telling him (in private) that he needs to go to rehab. If Rob Ford's closest allies think he has a drug problem, and there's a video of him doing drugs, and he was spotted at a public event intoxicated, and that same event he grabbed the ass of a rival mayoral candidate and propositioned her (Ford is married and has children), then the chances are that he has an actual drug problem.
The most obvious reason would be there's no conceivable way that they could profit from the video at that price. You have to sell a lot of newpapers to cover one $200,000 video.
That might work if the domain name system actually operated like a free market, but it doesn't. The domain name system is a complex, centrally administered monopoly, and disputes involving it necessarily have to be resolved within that system, even by people who disapprove of that system.
There was a free market alternative: Pay the $250,000 Ron Paul's supporters were asking for a site they had spent years working on.
More importantly, the DNS system itself isn't a free market system, it is a monopoly governed by artificial and imposed legal rules and oversight. Given that the domain name system operates outside the free market, it is reasonable for people to seek remedies through the channels that actually administer it.
Which Ron Paul abused in bad faith (see the ruling) to attempt to take someone else's private property by force. Now, who doesn't understand libertarianism very well?