That's great and all, but you completely miss the point. I never once said one administrator doesn't make more money than one teacher, of course they do. What I'm saying is that administrator salaries don't make up the large percentage of a school budget that people like to pretend they do. That's the point.
My grandfather was a teacher before becoming principal then a superintendent. My grandmother was a teacher. My father is a teacher. His wife is a teacher. My mother was a teacher before principal and now superintendent. I'm a teacher, my sister will soon be a teacher. I fully understand what it is that teachers do and how much time they put into it.
With that being said, I'm also in the fairly unique position of understanding what principals and superintendent's do, and seeing what I've seen, and talking with my family about it, I can tell you I have absolutely ZERO desire to do that job, they don't get paid nearly enough money for what they deal with and how much time and energy they put into it. Anecdotal evidence, sure, but it is still a fact. Furthermore, I NEVER said they deserve more money SOLELY because they are on call all the time. You did read my entire post, didn't you? If you did, then you would know I talked about other things, but how they are always hit up for money, about how they never get a true vacation, how they miss so much time with their family, how they are responsible for large amounts of money, responsible for knowing school laws, the amount of money it costs to get to the position, etc.
So thank you for for the third grade math lesson, with multiplication and greater than/less than concepts, but I'm afraid you completely missed the point.
You do realize that most of the school's money is not spent on administration, right? You do realize that, and this changes from state to state, schools spend so much more money on teachers and their various benefits than they do on administrator salaries, right?
My mother is a superintendent of a town with 5,000 people. While she's not quite to six figures yet, she's not too far off. But what people don't realize is the amount of responsibility which falls on a superintendent's shoulders. They don't see the nonsense they have to deal with, so many of them are not around to realize that when something happens at the school at 2 o'clock on a Sunday morning, the superintendent is responsible for getting up and driving to the school to take care of it. People don't realize how school funding works, how many conferences they have to go to, how many laws they are responsible for knowing in order to not break, etc. People don't know how much it costs to get to the position, how much time and energy has to be put into it, how administration works year round and is on call 24/7, even on their vacation. People don't realize how much money so many of these administrators donate from their own pocketbooks, to help various projects around the school. I know my mom, for example, has donated over a thousand dollars in one year, just for various clubs and programs around the school. She's donated user of her personal belongings for the betterment of the school. People don't realize these things, which is understandable because most people are not around administrators in a personal setting, but that doesn't make their comments any less silly when I read them.
School administrators don't show up at 7:30 and leave at 3:30. They don't work just five days a week. They never get a chance to "be away from it all". I'm not denying there are many many public schools and public school administrators who are not good at what they do. Just like in any profession, you're going to have incompetents. It's just a fact of life. But what also is a fact of life is there are many more administrators who are hard working individuals, who do the job they do because they love kids and are willing to go through the stress, the hassle, the "never seeing family", etc. that it takes to be a school administrator.
Most schools are accountable for their spending. Most schools have to work very hard to make sure their spending is responsible, and meets the numerous guidelines which are tied to nearly every cent that comes into the school. I would suggest you spend some more time with a responsible and hard working superintendent, and see just how much they really do. Then tell me they don't deserve what they make, and that they are not accountable for what they do.
But they ARE taking something from me, they are taking resale value away from the item I purchased so I DO have an issue with them selling me a lesser product for full price.
They are not taking resale value away from you. You are still free to negotiate whatever price you can get for your games. If you can convince someone to buy the game from you for $55, Sony is not stopping that.
I Disagree. If they are determined to take away my "right of first sale" and charge the same price for it then my issue is with Sony. It's their right to offer a lesser product for the same price, but it's guaranteed to lose sales.
The way I'm understanding it, Sony isn't taking anything away from YOU. You can still sell your game to anyone who wishes to purchase it, for whatever amount they wish to give you. They just have to understand that not only will they pay for the physical media, they will also have to pay to unlock game content as well.
So if used game stores offer you less money to sell your games, your problem is with the game stores, not Sony.
As long as the games don't feature the "always be connected to the Internet" feature
Yeah, only that's WHY you can't play used games. To boot up any game you need to be signed in to PSN. While this doesn't necessarily imply that you need to stay connected during play, you almost certainly will do. It will, I'm sure, be spun as a feature, since you save "TO THE NANOBUZZWORD CLOUD". So, next time hackers take down PSN, everybody will find their PS4 completely non-functional, except possible as a BluRay+1 player. And they'll probably try to tie THOSE to PSN accounts so you can't trade sell or lend them. (The MPAA wants to outlaw used and borrowed movies just as bad as game developers want to outlaw used and borrowed games, and publishers want to outlaw used and borrowed books).
That's an awful lot of stuff you came up with there...unfortunately, none of that has been confirmed. And I'm not concerned about the used game market, as I said in the first post of mine. I understand a lot of people are, but as I also mentioned, if you wait for a few years, you can find those titles for more than 50% off.
I don't really have a problem with this. It's not like it's going to affect game prices that much, I can go to a local store and find $20 games that are "brand new". Of course, I may have to wait a year or two, but that doesn't mean I have to buy $60 games. Most of the stores where I live who sell recently released "used" games only take off $5 or MAYBE $10.
So, as someone who doesn't sell games, this doesn't bother me in the least. If you do sell games, then your issue would be with the business who buys them from you, not Sony.
What exactly is the problem here? As long as the games don't feature the "always be connected to the Internet" feature (and I use the word feature loosely), I'm not really concerned with this. While I understand everybody likes the idea of DRM-free media, I also understand the other side of the situation, where businesses are making money on products they didn't put in the time or effort to create, and really have very little in the way of risk. I don't have a big problem with shutting out businesses who take little risk and make good money off the hard work of other people.
Yes, I'm well aware of FERPA. But c'mon, this is our children's education we're talking about. We should use every possible measure to improve their education, right?
The point I'm making is that people only pay lip service to wanting to improve education. They want to improve education, as long as it's "someone else" who has to make the improvements. Obviously, this is not an uncommon mentality, and it's understandable, but the constant throwing of teachers under buses, without improving a variety of other factors which are just as important to student achievement, will only result in a lack of quality individuals wanting to be teachers. I'm a teacher because I love teaching, but if I weren't already a teacher, why would I ever want to become one, when all society seems to want to do is scapegoat teachers for all of the worlds ills?
If you're serious about wanting to improve student achievement on test scores (because that is clearly the only way to determine the quality of a child's education), then you need to improve a variety of other factors in addition to, if not before, addressing how the teachers perform.
I find it amusing so many people think that the only way to improve student performance is to critique the teachers. How come we don't make the actual student's data public? How come we don't create a list of parents whose children failed these tests? If we're going to determine teacher salaries by student achievement, why not asses fines to parents whose child doesn't do well?
Of course, those are mostly rhetorical questions. The answer to all of them is because, "then people won't vote for me". If you want to improve student achievement in school, start with the parents. A teacher sees a high school student an average of 1 hour a day, or 5 hours a week. A parent (theoretically) sees their child 16 hours a day, or 80 hours Monday-Friday.
Want to improve student achievement on tests? Critique the parents instead.
They do it already, and automatically bump the version numbers (sure, it could be done better).
I've never had issues with incompatible extensions and the rapid releases, with 30+ extensions. I guess the complaints are coming from people who don't actually use Firefox.
I use Firefox and YSlow doesn't work past version 4. Perhaps the extensions you use are working, and that's great for you, but I have to stay on version 4 until the add-on gets updated. I guess the point I'm making is your comments about people who don't like the rapid release must not be using Firefox is incredibly narrow, since you're basically using a survey of one.
Not voting is essentially wasting your vote - you're increasing the vote "value" of those who vote by not voting. Contrary to probably your opinion and others who say not voting is making a statement - no, it's not. It's not voting. It's letting other people make a stand and have their voices heard. If you complain and moan and bitch about it later, it's much like the movie critics who bitch moan and complain about the quality of movies but have produced exactly diddly squat themselves. (and yes, if you don't vote your complaints are about as valid)
Sorry, but think about it this way - if there are 100 people in a room and 99 don't vote, guess who's voice is heard? Not the 99.
You're saying I should arbitrarily cast a vote simply so I can preserve the right to complain later, even if I feel none of the candidates have done anything to earn my vote? That's silly. Those other people who are voting are presumably doing so because they support the candidate they're voting for. This idea that we should vote, even if we don't support any candidate, or we lose the right to criticize is simply asinine, and seems merely offered to divert attention away from the arguments being made by the person who chose not to vote.
By the way, I think your example was great. If 100 people are in the room, and the only person whose voice is heard is the 1 who didn't vote, would that not in itself be making a point? Of course it would. Let's take it a step further, let's say we're voting on whether we want liver and onions for a main course or spinach. Should I vote for spinach, even though I hate both, just so I can complain later when we're eating the spinach? That's just silly.
I'm sorry, but your post does not hold up to reason and logic.
Sorry, the 1% of the non-voters who are making a principled stand are dwarfed by the 99% of the non-voters who: 1. forgot, 2. were too busy watching Desperate Housewives of Bumfuck Wherever or 3. can't read or write. You may think your lack of participation is registering as a vote of "no confidence" but to the politicians you're just another non-entity.
Ignoring for a moment your grossly inaccurate and unsubstantiated percentages, what you said does not come close to changing what I said.
This crap is precisely the reason me and my peers don't vote.
Not voting in a poll does not mean you're not casting your vote. It just means there isn't a candidate worthy of your vote. The idea people who choose not to vote don't have a right to a negative opinion is such a short-sighted concept.
So, Facebook screws up, and now it's up to the original URL holder to "play nice" and let someone else squat with them? Keep it up Facebook - you're just giving us yet another reason to show that you don't "get it" on so many levels.
What next - people with their names as facebook urls having to "play nice" with others with the same name who come later?
Here's an idea. Don't use Facebook at all. If you don't like the way Facebook decides who gets what name, create your own website, build your own user base, and then you can name the folders within your website however you wish. Problem solved.
They haven't been convicted of anything. Not sure what you're getting at.
The NFL doesn't have any right to stop someone from using the term "NFL" to refer to the NFL.
Well sure they do. You can't misrepresent yourself as someone else in order to sell a product. Hell, this is straight from the EFF, generally considered a white knight in online freedom protection:
"That kind of use, known as "nominative fair use," is permitted if using the trademark is necessary to identify the products, services, or company you're talking about, and you don't use the mark to suggest the company endorses you. In general, this means you can use the company name in your review so people know which company or product you're complaining about. You can even use the trademark in a domain name (like walmartsucks.com), so long as it's clear that you're not claiming to be or speak for the company. "
Considering this site was likely taken down for counterfeit product, I daresay I was right.
A domain name is worth more than $10. If you don't think so, go ask Apple how much they want for mac.com or Microsoft what they want for hotmail.com.
That's such a ridiculous argument, I'm disappointed you even tried it. I can register for 171nflshop.com right now for $10. We're not talking about an existing domain which has been built by a worldwide company, we're talking about a random domain name created for the intent of trading upon someone else's hard work to make a quick buck.
We have a variety of legal processes that don't mirror one another. You're highlighting the ones that that mirror this practice and ignoring the ones that don't.
So what? The fact there are legal processes that DO mirror this practice serves my point. Why would I care about the ones that don't? I'm comparing apples to apples, I don't care about the oranges.
People who are allowed to change their minds.
Which they've shown no interest in doing. *shrugs*
Again, the problem is that small time foreign nationals don't have access to US courts. You can't reasonably expect someone living hand to mouth to buy a $2000 plane ticket, hire a $500/hour attorney and live in a $100/night hotel during a period of time where you've taken away their primary source of income.
So instead you expect the legitimate business who have worked their butts off for years to develop a good reputation to spend all of that money to get rid of something which clearly is in violation of the law? That's more fair?
No, your argument fails the logic test. Spare me the "poor" Russian trying to make money off of someone else's name. Especially since the sale of one counterfeit NFL jersey can purchase 5 domain names from GoDaddy.com.
You seem to be purposefully ignoring the possibility that the NFL is trying to claim more rights than they actually have and that the site isn't doing anything wrong. The name implies what they're selling, it doesn't tell you whether it's legitimate. If they're selling used legitimate goods, or licensed goods below the MSRP having never agreed to do otherwise, the NFL has no right to stop them. That doesn't mean the NFL doesn't still want to or wouldn't still put them on the list knowing that the site has no recourse.I'm not saying they aren't just selling knock offs. What I'm saying is that you can't tell that just from the name; you need to give them a real chance to respond that doesn't cost them more than the value of the property being seized, otherwise you'll get unchecked abuses.
Let me see if I have your argument straight. In an attempt to protect the poor Russian who is likely selling counterfeit goods (but we're unsure because we can't check at present time), using the NFL trademark they are likely not to have been given permission to used (and was likely reported by the NFL themselves), we should allow citizens to buy counterfeit goods to the detriment of both the citizen and the NFL, thus lining this "poor" Russian's pocket with illegitimate money, just so he doesn't have a domain name taken away from him, a domain name I can purchase today from GoDaddy for $10. The reason for this is because the process mirrors the same legal process we take for many other accusations of legal wrongdoing or legal protection which, according to your own subjective personal beliefs, is an injustice.
This is your argument, correct?
The problem with your argument is that there is no single, objective definition of justice. You have to pick someone's subjective definition and apply it, which is how we came to the status quo. It was the subjective definition of a bunch of politicians and judges.
People who were elected by citizens, in accordance with the Constitution of the United States.
Sites like Rojadirecta that are legal in their home countries have their domain names destroyed by foreign governments without notice.
Which is the part I said from the beginning I was uncomfortable with. However, as I also said, their websites are not destroyed and they can challenge the domain name seizure, which means they have proper avenues for retrieving their domain name if they don't wish to register another.
I understand completely your concern, but at the same time, I cannot (and do not) believe the government is picking domain names out of a hat to decide which should be seized. When the moment comes a site which is operating legally is seized AND cannot appeal the loss of their domain name, that is when I'll be concerned. Otherwise, it is getting upset and paranoid over nothing.
It sounds like a place you might find NFL merchandise. How does that tell you anything about its legitimacy? If they're strictly selling legitimate second hand merchandise, you can still imagine the NFL preferring not to have the competition. This is why we have hearings.
The website wouldn't be on the hit list, unless NFL complained about it. And if the NFL complains about it, you can be assured they are not licensed to sell NFL merchandise. With that particular URL, it's very clear the website is trying to make money off a product they have no right to make money from.
I think you're confusing what happens in court with justice. Courts take shortcuts and make mistakes. The seizures in question were signed off by a court. The question is whether it was right, not whether it was officially sanctioned. I mean read your own post above: You've given a perfectly good example of why granting a TRO without hearing from the defense is an injustice. Two wrongs don't make a right; neither do a thousand.
No, I think you're confusing your idea of what YOU think should be the process as opposed to the process which has been decided over many years of legal....discussion, for lack of a better word. You're wanting to impart your own vision of "justice", not the one which has been in existence for a long time. The problem with that is if we all have our own standard of justice, how could anything get done?
You simply cannot apply your own individual idea of justice, and then criticize the governmental entity for not following your particular individual idea of justice. It is incredibly unfair.
So they say. We don't actually know unless we hear from the operators of the website, which we haven't. Which is the whole problem.
Well, I think "17nflshop.com" is pretty clear, wouldn't you?
It seems like your argument boils down to: Sometimes justice is not done, and so therefore it doesn't matter that other times justice is not done. I don't think that's how it works.
That's not my argument. My argument is we don't see the idea of arrest before conviction as an injustice, nor do we see TROs without defense as an injustice. As such, seeing how neither of those previous scenarios are an injustice, is there a reason to see this as an injustice, aside from the fact we don't like any governmental control over the Internet at all?
Let's consider this for a minute. Assume you can go to court in the US and demand they give you back your domain name.
You're some guy in Russia who makes barely enough to buy food and shelter by selling legitimate products which you buy as damaged goods for a steep discount and then repair them yourself before reselling.
I'm sorry, you already lost me. That's not what happened in this case, or from what the summary says happened in this case. What happened in THIS case is someone is making money off a reputation they didn't earn, and have no right to. The people who buy these goods, are paying money for something they think is authentic, but is not.
Of course, you would argue all of this is "alleged", but so is any other case where you're temporarily prohibited from doing something. If you don't like my car analogy, let's try this one:
My wife's friend was in a tumultuous relationship with a woman which eventually ended with the woman becoming pregnant and having his child. This woman, without cause, filed for a restraining order, which is automatically granted by the court, until the date comes where my wife's friend can appeal it. This means my wife's friend cannot be in contact with her, until the first court date, which was approximately a month after the restraining order was filed. I think the restraining order was eventually dropped because the woman didn't even show up to the court date, but before that happened, my wife's friend was at the University library studying for a class, and he was arrested, because while he was there, the woman showed up and said he gave her a dirty look.
My wife's friend was arrested for studying at the University library, because he violated a court order restraining order which he had no chance to fight. So, again, how is what is happening here different?
Like I said, I'm not saying I'm comfortable with it, but I don't think it's exactly outside the realm of what goes on routinely in America. And as far as the poor Russian goes, like others have said, his website probably isn't offline, just the domain is gone. I don't like it, but I don't see it being much different than many other things which happen in this, and I'm sure other, countries.
There is no bitching about not allowing the sale of counterfeit clothing or pirated software. The point is that the US government is, without any form of due process, taking down web sites.
In fairness, and I admit I don't know the whole process, but can those domains not challenge the takedown, and if they win, have the domain restored? At which point, is it any different than when an officer sees you breaking into a car and arrests you for it?
Don't get me wrong, the idea bothers me as well, and I waffle back and forth about how I feel about their ability to unilaterally take down websites, especially for domains not located in the United States. But the summary makes it sound as if these sites were selling counterfeit goods (many times to American citizens), which affects the regular citizen every bit as much as it does businesses. Which is to say there is a difference between this and the taking down of torrenting sites.
Slashdot Mirror
That's great and all, but you completely miss the point. I never once said one administrator doesn't make more money than one teacher, of course they do. What I'm saying is that administrator salaries don't make up the large percentage of a school budget that people like to pretend they do. That's the point.
My grandfather was a teacher before becoming principal then a superintendent. My grandmother was a teacher. My father is a teacher. His wife is a teacher. My mother was a teacher before principal and now superintendent. I'm a teacher, my sister will soon be a teacher. I fully understand what it is that teachers do and how much time they put into it.
With that being said, I'm also in the fairly unique position of understanding what principals and superintendent's do, and seeing what I've seen, and talking with my family about it, I can tell you I have absolutely ZERO desire to do that job, they don't get paid nearly enough money for what they deal with and how much time and energy they put into it. Anecdotal evidence, sure, but it is still a fact. Furthermore, I NEVER said they deserve more money SOLELY because they are on call all the time. You did read my entire post, didn't you? If you did, then you would know I talked about other things, but how they are always hit up for money, about how they never get a true vacation, how they miss so much time with their family, how they are responsible for large amounts of money, responsible for knowing school laws, the amount of money it costs to get to the position, etc.
So thank you for for the third grade math lesson, with multiplication and greater than/less than concepts, but I'm afraid you completely missed the point.
You do realize that most of the school's money is not spent on administration, right? You do realize that, and this changes from state to state, schools spend so much more money on teachers and their various benefits than they do on administrator salaries, right?
My mother is a superintendent of a town with 5,000 people. While she's not quite to six figures yet, she's not too far off. But what people don't realize is the amount of responsibility which falls on a superintendent's shoulders. They don't see the nonsense they have to deal with, so many of them are not around to realize that when something happens at the school at 2 o'clock on a Sunday morning, the superintendent is responsible for getting up and driving to the school to take care of it. People don't realize how school funding works, how many conferences they have to go to, how many laws they are responsible for knowing in order to not break, etc. People don't know how much it costs to get to the position, how much time and energy has to be put into it, how administration works year round and is on call 24/7, even on their vacation. People don't realize how much money so many of these administrators donate from their own pocketbooks, to help various projects around the school. I know my mom, for example, has donated over a thousand dollars in one year, just for various clubs and programs around the school. She's donated user of her personal belongings for the betterment of the school. People don't realize these things, which is understandable because most people are not around administrators in a personal setting, but that doesn't make their comments any less silly when I read them.
School administrators don't show up at 7:30 and leave at 3:30. They don't work just five days a week. They never get a chance to "be away from it all". I'm not denying there are many many public schools and public school administrators who are not good at what they do. Just like in any profession, you're going to have incompetents. It's just a fact of life. But what also is a fact of life is there are many more administrators who are hard working individuals, who do the job they do because they love kids and are willing to go through the stress, the hassle, the "never seeing family", etc. that it takes to be a school administrator.
Most schools are accountable for their spending. Most schools have to work very hard to make sure their spending is responsible, and meets the numerous guidelines which are tied to nearly every cent that comes into the school. I would suggest you spend some more time with a responsible and hard working superintendent, and see just how much they really do. Then tell me they don't deserve what they make, and that they are not accountable for what they do.
But they ARE taking something from me, they are taking resale value away from the item I purchased so I DO have an issue with them selling me a lesser product for full price.
They are not taking resale value away from you. You are still free to negotiate whatever price you can get for your games. If you can convince someone to buy the game from you for $55, Sony is not stopping that.
I somehow doubt Amazon is going out of business anytime soon... http://www.amazon.com/UNCHARTED-Among-Thieves-Edition-Playstation-3/dp/B002I0F5I2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1333237439&sr=8-1
I Disagree. If they are determined to take away my "right of first sale" and charge the same price for it then my issue is with Sony. It's their right to offer a lesser product for the same price, but it's guaranteed to lose sales.
The way I'm understanding it, Sony isn't taking anything away from YOU. You can still sell your game to anyone who wishes to purchase it, for whatever amount they wish to give you. They just have to understand that not only will they pay for the physical media, they will also have to pay to unlock game content as well. So if used game stores offer you less money to sell your games, your problem is with the game stores, not Sony.
Yeah, only that's WHY you can't play used games. To boot up any game you need to be signed in to PSN. While this doesn't necessarily imply that you need to stay connected during play, you almost certainly will do. It will, I'm sure, be spun as a feature, since you save "TO THE NANOBUZZWORD CLOUD". So, next time hackers take down PSN, everybody will find their PS4 completely non-functional, except possible as a BluRay+1 player. And they'll probably try to tie THOSE to PSN accounts so you can't trade sell or lend them. (The MPAA wants to outlaw used and borrowed movies just as bad as game developers want to outlaw used and borrowed games, and publishers want to outlaw used and borrowed books).
That's an awful lot of stuff you came up with there...unfortunately, none of that has been confirmed. And I'm not concerned about the used game market, as I said in the first post of mine. I understand a lot of people are, but as I also mentioned, if you wait for a few years, you can find those titles for more than 50% off.
I don't really have a problem with this. It's not like it's going to affect game prices that much, I can go to a local store and find $20 games that are "brand new". Of course, I may have to wait a year or two, but that doesn't mean I have to buy $60 games. Most of the stores where I live who sell recently released "used" games only take off $5 or MAYBE $10.
So, as someone who doesn't sell games, this doesn't bother me in the least. If you do sell games, then your issue would be with the business who buys them from you, not Sony.
What exactly is the problem here? As long as the games don't feature the "always be connected to the Internet" feature (and I use the word feature loosely), I'm not really concerned with this. While I understand everybody likes the idea of DRM-free media, I also understand the other side of the situation, where businesses are making money on products they didn't put in the time or effort to create, and really have very little in the way of risk. I don't have a big problem with shutting out businesses who take little risk and make good money off the hard work of other people.
Yes, I'm well aware of FERPA. But c'mon, this is our children's education we're talking about. We should use every possible measure to improve their education, right?
The point I'm making is that people only pay lip service to wanting to improve education. They want to improve education, as long as it's "someone else" who has to make the improvements. Obviously, this is not an uncommon mentality, and it's understandable, but the constant throwing of teachers under buses, without improving a variety of other factors which are just as important to student achievement, will only result in a lack of quality individuals wanting to be teachers. I'm a teacher because I love teaching, but if I weren't already a teacher, why would I ever want to become one, when all society seems to want to do is scapegoat teachers for all of the worlds ills?
If you're serious about wanting to improve student achievement on test scores (because that is clearly the only way to determine the quality of a child's education), then you need to improve a variety of other factors in addition to, if not before, addressing how the teachers perform.
I find it amusing so many people think that the only way to improve student performance is to critique the teachers. How come we don't make the actual student's data public? How come we don't create a list of parents whose children failed these tests? If we're going to determine teacher salaries by student achievement, why not asses fines to parents whose child doesn't do well?
Of course, those are mostly rhetorical questions. The answer to all of them is because, "then people won't vote for me". If you want to improve student achievement in school, start with the parents. A teacher sees a high school student an average of 1 hour a day, or 5 hours a week. A parent (theoretically) sees their child 16 hours a day, or 80 hours Monday-Friday.
Want to improve student achievement on tests? Critique the parents instead.
Didn't work for me, on three different machines.
I have not tried that, but I will.
They do it already, and automatically bump the version numbers (sure, it could be done better).
I've never had issues with incompatible extensions and the rapid releases, with 30+ extensions. I guess the complaints are coming from people who don't actually use Firefox.
I use Firefox and YSlow doesn't work past version 4. Perhaps the extensions you use are working, and that's great for you, but I have to stay on version 4 until the add-on gets updated. I guess the point I'm making is your comments about people who don't like the rapid release must not be using Firefox is incredibly narrow, since you're basically using a survey of one.
I went back to Firefox 4 because YSlow in Firebug doesn't work after 4.
Not voting is essentially wasting your vote - you're increasing the vote "value" of those who vote by not voting. Contrary to probably your opinion and others who say not voting is making a statement - no, it's not. It's not voting. It's letting other people make a stand and have their voices heard. If you complain and moan and bitch about it later, it's much like the movie critics who bitch moan and complain about the quality of movies but have produced exactly diddly squat themselves. (and yes, if you don't vote your complaints are about as valid)
Sorry, but think about it this way - if there are 100 people in a room and 99 don't vote, guess who's voice is heard? Not the 99.
You're saying I should arbitrarily cast a vote simply so I can preserve the right to complain later, even if I feel none of the candidates have done anything to earn my vote? That's silly. Those other people who are voting are presumably doing so because they support the candidate they're voting for. This idea that we should vote, even if we don't support any candidate, or we lose the right to criticize is simply asinine, and seems merely offered to divert attention away from the arguments being made by the person who chose not to vote.
By the way, I think your example was great. If 100 people are in the room, and the only person whose voice is heard is the 1 who didn't vote, would that not in itself be making a point? Of course it would. Let's take it a step further, let's say we're voting on whether we want liver and onions for a main course or spinach. Should I vote for spinach, even though I hate both, just so I can complain later when we're eating the spinach? That's just silly.
I'm sorry, but your post does not hold up to reason and logic.
Sorry, the 1% of the non-voters who are making a principled stand are dwarfed by the 99% of the non-voters who: 1. forgot, 2. were too busy watching Desperate Housewives of Bumfuck Wherever or 3. can't read or write. You may think your lack of participation is registering as a vote of "no confidence" but to the politicians you're just another non-entity.
Ignoring for a moment your grossly inaccurate and unsubstantiated percentages, what you said does not come close to changing what I said.
This crap is precisely the reason me and my peers don't vote.
Not voting in a poll does not mean you're not casting your vote. It just means there isn't a candidate worthy of your vote. The idea people who choose not to vote don't have a right to a negative opinion is such a short-sighted concept.
So, Facebook screws up, and now it's up to the original URL holder to "play nice" and let someone else squat with them? Keep it up Facebook - you're just giving us yet another reason to show that you don't "get it" on so many levels.
What next - people with their names as facebook urls having to "play nice" with others with the same name who come later?
Here's an idea. Don't use Facebook at all. If you don't like the way Facebook decides who gets what name, create your own website, build your own user base, and then you can name the folders within your website however you wish. Problem solved.
Yes, innocent until proven guilty is important.
They haven't been convicted of anything. Not sure what you're getting at.
The NFL doesn't have any right to stop someone from using the term "NFL" to refer to the NFL.
Well sure they do. You can't misrepresent yourself as someone else in order to sell a product. Hell, this is straight from the EFF, generally considered a white knight in online freedom protection:
"That kind of use, known as "nominative fair use," is permitted if using the trademark is necessary to identify the products, services, or company you're talking about, and you don't use the mark to suggest the company endorses you. In general, this means you can use the company name in your review so people know which company or product you're complaining about. You can even use the trademark in a domain name (like walmartsucks.com), so long as it's clear that you're not claiming to be or speak for the company. "
Considering this site was likely taken down for counterfeit product, I daresay I was right.
A domain name is worth more than $10. If you don't think so, go ask Apple how much they want for mac.com or Microsoft what they want for hotmail.com.
That's such a ridiculous argument, I'm disappointed you even tried it. I can register for 171nflshop.com right now for $10. We're not talking about an existing domain which has been built by a worldwide company, we're talking about a random domain name created for the intent of trading upon someone else's hard work to make a quick buck.
We have a variety of legal processes that don't mirror one another. You're highlighting the ones that that mirror this practice and ignoring the ones that don't.
So what? The fact there are legal processes that DO mirror this practice serves my point. Why would I care about the ones that don't? I'm comparing apples to apples, I don't care about the oranges.
People who are allowed to change their minds.
Which they've shown no interest in doing. *shrugs*
Again, the problem is that small time foreign nationals don't have access to US courts. You can't reasonably expect someone living hand to mouth to buy a $2000 plane ticket, hire a $500/hour attorney and live in a $100/night hotel during a period of time where you've taken away their primary source of income.
So instead you expect the legitimate business who have worked their butts off for years to develop a good reputation to spend all of that money to get rid of something which clearly is in violation of the law? That's more fair?
No, your argument fails the logic test. Spare me the "poor" Russian trying to make money off of someone else's name. Especially since the sale of one counterfeit NFL jersey can purchase 5 domain names from GoDaddy.com.
You seem to be purposefully ignoring the possibility that the NFL is trying to claim more rights than they actually have and that the site isn't doing anything wrong. The name implies what they're selling, it doesn't tell you whether it's legitimate. If they're selling used legitimate goods, or licensed goods below the MSRP having never agreed to do otherwise, the NFL has no right to stop them. That doesn't mean the NFL doesn't still want to or wouldn't still put them on the list knowing that the site has no recourse.I'm not saying they aren't just selling knock offs. What I'm saying is that you can't tell that just from the name; you need to give them a real chance to respond that doesn't cost them more than the value of the property being seized, otherwise you'll get unchecked abuses.
Let me see if I have your argument straight. In an attempt to protect the poor Russian who is likely selling counterfeit goods (but we're unsure because we can't check at present time), using the NFL trademark they are likely not to have been given permission to used (and was likely reported by the NFL themselves), we should allow citizens to buy counterfeit goods to the detriment of both the citizen and the NFL, thus lining this "poor" Russian's pocket with illegitimate money, just so he doesn't have a domain name taken away from him, a domain name I can purchase today from GoDaddy for $10. The reason for this is because the process mirrors the same legal process we take for many other accusations of legal wrongdoing or legal protection which, according to your own subjective personal beliefs, is an injustice.
This is your argument, correct?
The problem with your argument is that there is no single, objective definition of justice. You have to pick someone's subjective definition and apply it, which is how we came to the status quo. It was the subjective definition of a bunch of politicians and judges.
People who were elected by citizens, in accordance with the Constitution of the United States.
Sites like Rojadirecta that are legal in their home countries have their domain names destroyed by foreign governments without notice.
Which is the part I said from the beginning I was uncomfortable with. However, as I also said, their websites are not destroyed and they can challenge the domain name seizure, which means they have proper avenues for retrieving their domain name if they don't wish to register another.
I understand completely your concern, but at the same time, I cannot (and do not) believe the government is picking domain names out of a hat to decide which should be seized. When the moment comes a site which is operating legally is seized AND cannot appeal the loss of their domain name, that is when I'll be concerned. Otherwise, it is getting upset and paranoid over nothing.
Unless they deny you bail, or you can't afford it, at which part you're SOL, right?
They are not taking away your website, merely the domain name associated with it. You register a new domain name, and you continue along your way.
It sounds like a place you might find NFL merchandise. How does that tell you anything about its legitimacy? If they're strictly selling legitimate second hand merchandise, you can still imagine the NFL preferring not to have the competition. This is why we have hearings.
The website wouldn't be on the hit list, unless NFL complained about it. And if the NFL complains about it, you can be assured they are not licensed to sell NFL merchandise. With that particular URL, it's very clear the website is trying to make money off a product they have no right to make money from.
I think you're confusing what happens in court with justice. Courts take shortcuts and make mistakes. The seizures in question were signed off by a court. The question is whether it was right, not whether it was officially sanctioned. I mean read your own post above: You've given a perfectly good example of why granting a TRO without hearing from the defense is an injustice. Two wrongs don't make a right; neither do a thousand.
No, I think you're confusing your idea of what YOU think should be the process as opposed to the process which has been decided over many years of legal....discussion, for lack of a better word. You're wanting to impart your own vision of "justice", not the one which has been in existence for a long time. The problem with that is if we all have our own standard of justice, how could anything get done?
You simply cannot apply your own individual idea of justice, and then criticize the governmental entity for not following your particular individual idea of justice. It is incredibly unfair.
So they say. We don't actually know unless we hear from the operators of the website, which we haven't. Which is the whole problem.
Well, I think "17nflshop.com" is pretty clear, wouldn't you?
It seems like your argument boils down to: Sometimes justice is not done, and so therefore it doesn't matter that other times justice is not done. I don't think that's how it works.
That's not my argument. My argument is we don't see the idea of arrest before conviction as an injustice, nor do we see TROs without defense as an injustice. As such, seeing how neither of those previous scenarios are an injustice, is there a reason to see this as an injustice, aside from the fact we don't like any governmental control over the Internet at all?
With an arrest you can post bail.
And with this, you can post an objection to the domain seizure. Correct?
Let's consider this for a minute. Assume you can go to court in the US and demand they give you back your domain name.
You're some guy in Russia who makes barely enough to buy food and shelter by selling legitimate products which you buy as damaged goods for a steep discount and then repair them yourself before reselling.
I'm sorry, you already lost me. That's not what happened in this case, or from what the summary says happened in this case. What happened in THIS case is someone is making money off a reputation they didn't earn, and have no right to. The people who buy these goods, are paying money for something they think is authentic, but is not.
Of course, you would argue all of this is "alleged", but so is any other case where you're temporarily prohibited from doing something. If you don't like my car analogy, let's try this one:
My wife's friend was in a tumultuous relationship with a woman which eventually ended with the woman becoming pregnant and having his child. This woman, without cause, filed for a restraining order, which is automatically granted by the court, until the date comes where my wife's friend can appeal it. This means my wife's friend cannot be in contact with her, until the first court date, which was approximately a month after the restraining order was filed. I think the restraining order was eventually dropped because the woman didn't even show up to the court date, but before that happened, my wife's friend was at the University library studying for a class, and he was arrested, because while he was there, the woman showed up and said he gave her a dirty look.
My wife's friend was arrested for studying at the University library, because he violated a court order restraining order which he had no chance to fight. So, again, how is what is happening here different?
Like I said, I'm not saying I'm comfortable with it, but I don't think it's exactly outside the realm of what goes on routinely in America. And as far as the poor Russian goes, like others have said, his website probably isn't offline, just the domain is gone. I don't like it, but I don't see it being much different than many other things which happen in this, and I'm sure other, countries.
There is no bitching about not allowing the sale of counterfeit clothing or pirated software. The point is that the US government is, without any form of due process, taking down web sites.
In fairness, and I admit I don't know the whole process, but can those domains not challenge the takedown, and if they win, have the domain restored? At which point, is it any different than when an officer sees you breaking into a car and arrests you for it?
Don't get me wrong, the idea bothers me as well, and I waffle back and forth about how I feel about their ability to unilaterally take down websites, especially for domains not located in the United States. But the summary makes it sound as if these sites were selling counterfeit goods (many times to American citizens), which affects the regular citizen every bit as much as it does businesses. Which is to say there is a difference between this and the taking down of torrenting sites.