-Warning, I am replying to a troll-
Aside from the huge argumentative faux pas of invoking SATANISM to describe something that you don't care for, you're displaying a fairly unabashed disregard for the way economics, and in specific capitalism, work. If Open Source software has a characteristic that the public finds desirable over other options (openness in this case) then it is the public's duty as a body of informed consumers to let business leaders know this by supporting open source over the other choices.
It's about more choice, not less.
Though there are definate drawbacks to this setup, there are also a couple really good points too. Having high priced "legitimized" TLDs will make the commodity status of.com even more apparent. Domain squatting on big corporate names will be nigh impossible because of the restrictive costs, so a good case can be made in court for recreational and non-infringing internet addresses like the whole veronica.org debate
This could be considered a Good Thing(TM) if you look at it from the angle of a petition stress test. Obviously there are glaring flaws with the petition process if it is so easily abused, and this is a legitimate way to show that it buckles under the weight of a populace with high speed communications, so something about it needs to change.
I would suggest a sort of time investment requirement to deter casual or mocking use of the clause, such as a brief written statement requirement. If the statements were spot-checked, and a certain percentage were duplicates or unrelated to the issue, the issue could be put on petition hiatus to deter spamming names.
"Members of the hacker community then stepped up efforts to distribute DeCSS to the widest possible audience in an apparent attempt to preclude effective judicial relief,"
as if the community were all bound by US law. This is too big an issue for one (very fallable) country to regulate.
Slashdot Mirror
-Warning, I am replying to a troll-
Aside from the huge argumentative faux pas of invoking SATANISM to describe something that you don't care for, you're displaying a fairly unabashed disregard for the way economics, and in specific capitalism, work. If Open Source software has a characteristic that the public finds desirable over other options (openness in this case) then it is the public's duty as a body of informed consumers to let business leaders know this by supporting open source over the other choices.
It's about more choice, not less.
Honda engineers vs. Sony engineers to build the first REAL "Iron Chef" and set it loose on Tokyo. POW!
I'm amazed that the Athlon 1.2gHz so consistently outperforms the P4 1.5gHz... is this the sound of a monopoloy crumbling?
Though there are definate drawbacks to this setup, there are also a couple really good points too. Having high priced "legitimized" TLDs will make the commodity status of .com even more apparent. Domain squatting on big corporate names will be nigh impossible because of the restrictive costs, so a good case can be made in court for recreational and non-infringing internet addresses like the whole veronica.org debate
I would suggest a sort of time investment requirement to deter casual or mocking use of the clause, such as a brief written statement requirement. If the statements were spot-checked, and a certain percentage were duplicates or unrelated to the issue, the issue could be put on petition hiatus to deter spamming names.
"Members of the hacker community then stepped up efforts to distribute DeCSS to the widest possible audience in an apparent attempt to preclude effective judicial relief,"
as if the community were all bound by US law. This is too big an issue for one (very fallable) country to regulate.