Just because taxpayers somehow pay for something doesn't mean that every taxpayer should be able to get full real-time insight into or control of it.
Really? Why shouldn't the public get "full real time insight" into just about everything government does? What is there to be gained by having government be secretive?
As you point out, a lot of volumes are already metric. For the purpose of cooking, people just use 1 quart = 1l, 1 gallon = 4l, 1 cup = 250ml.
I suspect cooks are more used to metric than most other people and understand its benefits, but they also realize that it's not such a big deal. I don't mind using both systems.
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.
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.
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.
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.
But, then, your defense of civil society is only skin deep; at heart, you people keep defending and supporting big corporations and their close links to government.
I mean, should the WIPO just award named domain ownership to whoever's picture comes up higher in at least 2 of the 3 leading search engines?
Since domain names are there to meet user needs, that's a good guideline. WIPO does that that for businesses: if you have a well-known trademark, you get the domain name, no matter what. But if you're a politician or a mere mortal, they screw you. And if you're a libertarian politician who dislikes the UN, they screw you with glee and insults.
The Solomonic thing to do when there is no clear resolution, would be to just unassign the domain name and force everybody to pick unambiguous names.
Non-discrimination laws are there to protect specific, historically disadvantaged groups in specific circumstances, not to let rich people download huge amounts of crap at other people's expense.
We have a free market economy; people are generally free to choose who to do business with, and that works both ways.
You don't know what you're talking about; read his complaint, it's reasonable. It's just that WIPO doesn't protect anybody other than big business based on trademark law.
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.
3D printing in ceramics, concrete, and wood composites have been around longer than consumer 3D printers. If this wasn't Berkeley, it wouldn't be getting any press coverage.
Verizon is promising unlimited data usage in their contract. They only have to deliver that as long as the contract exists, and both sides are free to cancel the contract each month.
Businesses generally do not have an obligation to accept or keep you as a customer. If you talk too loud in a restaurant or make a mess of the buffet, of if they owner just doesn't like you, the restaurant can tell you not to come back. If a casino thinks you card count or they just don't like you, they can keep you out. If a plumber doesn't like the way you treated them, they can refuse to work at your home. It's no different here.
Other than the fact that the folk behind RonPaul.com didn't break any contract or lie.
They are "lying" implicitly, because people expect "ronpaul.com" to be an official web site for Ron Paul. That's the purpose of trademarks (and by extensions domain names): to ensure that people aren't misled about what they are looking at.
As it is they spent many, many hours of their own time building up a fan club that Ron Paul felt he deserved to get for nothing. That desire does not a contract make.
He didn't want the fan club, he wanted the domain name. The "fan club" could have simply moved to a domain "support-ronpaul.com", and they could have agreed to link mutually.
As it is, I seriously doubt that "ronpaul.com" represents any kind of Ron Paul supporters; supporters would have actually supported their candidate.
You can wave your hands as much as you like, nobody other than Ron Paul ought to have the right to use the domain name "ronpaul.com" to make political statements about Ron Paul. Same for any other politician: barackobama.com, you name it.
The WIPO decision hinges on a technicality, namely that "Ron Paul" isn't actually a trademark and that engaging in politics isn't actually a business. If this decision had been about a business, it would have been clear even according to WIPO rules.
In effect, the ruling means that political figures have no protection at all from domain squatters or people who use their domains to mislead their supporters. That's not a good thing.
That's not a "free market alternative", it's a UN-sanctioned blackmail alternative based on a domain name system that is pretty much the opposite of a free market system.
You can barter with gold, but that's legally quite different. As for currency being held hostage by the countries owning the mines, mining gold is hard and annual production is a small fraction of total gold in circulation; countries already have an incentive to extract as much as they can. In addition, the amount of available gold per capita has remained fairly constant over time, actually making it a pretty good standard of value.
The DNS system and trademarks both are intended to help users and buyers. So, the primary consideration in any such dispute should be: does the user get what he expects. Coca Cola should get cocacola.com not because they are big and powerful, but because that's what I expect to get when I type in "cocacola.com". Ron Paul (the politician) should get ronpaul.com because that's what I expect when I type in ronpaul.com. In cases where there are genuine ambiguities, there are a variety of remedies possible (such as mandating cross-references between domains, or directory pages, etc.).
Spin it any way you like, the good doctor wants to use an arm of the UN to confiscate other peoples' property by threat of force.
I think you're confused by the term "intellectual property". This dispute is ultimately about trademarks. Trademarks aren't intended to be money-making by themselves, they are intended to identify a product or service unambiguously; information like that is important for the functioning of a free market. Unlike other "property", you can't trade in trademarks; you own a trademark by virtue of selling the product it identifies, not by virtue of having registered a name first. So, Ron Paul was not trying to confiscate someone else's property, he was arguing that the other people simply didn't own the name in the first place and had acquired it illegally.
A much better way to resolve the problem would be by using the free market:
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.
You see a conflict between his actions and his ideology because you have an incorrect notion of what "libertarianism" actually means. It doesn't mean "you should be able to do anything you can get away with to make a buck", it stands for the protection of individual liberties and free markets. Identifying products correctly (in this case, his political brand) is essential to free markets, so it is reasonable for him to try to get this resolved.
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.
Libertarians have no problem with courts, using courts, or trademarks. Quite the opposite: clear and reliable information is important for markets to function, and the purpose of courts is to impose remedies when people break contracts or lie. So there is nothing inconsistent with his ideology to bring in WIPO over this.
Let's put it this way: try to use gold to buy a car, or even to buy something as simple as a single meal.
You certainly used to be able to do that for centuries. That only stopped when governments needed to finance expanding military debts and started moving to fiat currencies; that entailed making the use of other forms of currency illegal.
We cynical folks in/. know that those laws won't stop all the 3D guns from being printed. However, that is the way things are done in our modern society. The government legislates, the police (attempt to) enforce.
You left out the part where the new laws and powers are abused by police for harassment and corruption without actually achieving any of the stated effect.
If and when the problem starts to get out of control, the police are granted heavier powers and they go on a 'blitz'.
Yes, like the escalating "war on drugs", which has caused our prison population to mushroom and is responsible for a large part of violent crime, illegal migration, judicial racism, and lack of treatment for addicts.
If you pass legislation that's unenforceable and broad, the consequences are disastrous for society. Observing that isn't cynicism, it's reality, and the sooner people like you return to reality, the better.
Does any of that mean that the Adam Lanza case is not part of this, of course not. An example gun control measure that is not a total ban, but would have meant that Lanza's mother would have had hers: Only allow people who are cops, security guards or otherwise have a job with a specific set of justifications for firearms to have one. There. Done. QED.
I.e. you do want to ban private gun ownership by law abiding citizens, you're just misleading people by calling your ban "gun control".
(Why any European would want to hand exclusive power to a combination of corporations and governments is beyond me; have you learned nothing from your history? How stupid can you be to repeat the same mistakes over and over again?)
There is no rational reading of what I wrote to mean that.
It's the only rational reading: the guns Adam Lanza obtained were legally owned by a citizen with no criminal convictions, firearms experience, and no mental illness. The only way Lanza could not have obtained those guns would have been if such citizens were prohibited by law from owning guns at all.
Therefore, if you support laws intended to prevent tragendies like Adam Lanza's, you necessarily support laws that keep law abiding, sane citizens from owning guns.
My comment simply proved yours incorrect.
No. You are simply parroting the same false and inconsistent promises that progressives like to make; you resolve inevitable and uncomfortable tradeoffs by putting fingers in your ears and pretending they don't exist.
Slashdot Mirror
Easy solution: just substitute all the iron with lithium: the submarine will float... and it will solve itself (really!).
Really? Why shouldn't the public get "full real time insight" into just about everything government does? What is there to be gained by having government be secretive?
As you point out, a lot of volumes are already metric. For the purpose of cooking, people just use 1 quart = 1l, 1 gallon = 4l, 1 cup = 250ml.
I suspect cooks are more used to metric than most other people and understand its benefits, but they also realize that it's not such a big deal. I don't mind using both systems.
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.
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.
But, then, your defense of civil society is only skin deep; at heart, you people keep defending and supporting big corporations and their close links to government.
Since domain names are there to meet user needs, that's a good guideline. WIPO does that that for businesses: if you have a well-known trademark, you get the domain name, no matter what. But if you're a politician or a mere mortal, they screw you. And if you're a libertarian politician who dislikes the UN, they screw you with glee and insults.
The Solomonic thing to do when there is no clear resolution, would be to just unassign the domain name and force everybody to pick unambiguous names.
Non-discrimination laws are there to protect specific, historically disadvantaged groups in specific circumstances, not to let rich people download huge amounts of crap at other people's expense.
We have a free market economy; people are generally free to choose who to do business with, and that works both ways.
You don't know what you're talking about; read his complaint, it's reasonable. It's just that WIPO doesn't protect anybody other than big business based on trademark law.
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.
3D printing in ceramics, concrete, and wood composites have been around longer than consumer 3D printers. If this wasn't Berkeley, it wouldn't be getting any press coverage.
Verizon is promising unlimited data usage in their contract. They only have to deliver that as long as the contract exists, and both sides are free to cancel the contract each month.
Businesses generally do not have an obligation to accept or keep you as a customer. If you talk too loud in a restaurant or make a mess of the buffet, of if they owner just doesn't like you, the restaurant can tell you not to come back. If a casino thinks you card count or they just don't like you, they can keep you out. If a plumber doesn't like the way you treated them, they can refuse to work at your home. It's no different here.
The plan is unlimited: he could use as much data as he wanted and they aren't charging him for the 77T he used.
However, they are choosing to terminate their contract with him, which they have a right to.
They are "lying" implicitly, because people expect "ronpaul.com" to be an official web site for Ron Paul. That's the purpose of trademarks (and by extensions domain names): to ensure that people aren't misled about what they are looking at.
He didn't want the fan club, he wanted the domain name. The "fan club" could have simply moved to a domain "support-ronpaul.com", and they could have agreed to link mutually.
As it is, I seriously doubt that "ronpaul.com" represents any kind of Ron Paul supporters; supporters would have actually supported their candidate.
You can wave your hands as much as you like, nobody other than Ron Paul ought to have the right to use the domain name "ronpaul.com" to make political statements about Ron Paul. Same for any other politician: barackobama.com, you name it.
The WIPO decision hinges on a technicality, namely that "Ron Paul" isn't actually a trademark and that engaging in politics isn't actually a business. If this decision had been about a business, it would have been clear even according to WIPO rules.
In effect, the ruling means that political figures have no protection at all from domain squatters or people who use their domains to mislead their supporters. That's not a good thing.
That's not a "free market alternative", it's a UN-sanctioned blackmail alternative based on a domain name system that is pretty much the opposite of a free market system.
You can barter with gold, but that's legally quite different. As for currency being held hostage by the countries owning the mines, mining gold is hard and annual production is a small fraction of total gold in circulation; countries already have an incentive to extract as much as they can. In addition, the amount of available gold per capita has remained fairly constant over time, actually making it a pretty good standard of value.
The DNS system and trademarks both are intended to help users and buyers. So, the primary consideration in any such dispute should be: does the user get what he expects. Coca Cola should get cocacola.com not because they are big and powerful, but because that's what I expect to get when I type in "cocacola.com". Ron Paul (the politician) should get ronpaul.com because that's what I expect when I type in ronpaul.com. In cases where there are genuine ambiguities, there are a variety of remedies possible (such as mandating cross-references between domains, or directory pages, etc.).
I think you're confused by the term "intellectual property". This dispute is ultimately about trademarks. Trademarks aren't intended to be money-making by themselves, they are intended to identify a product or service unambiguously; information like that is important for the functioning of a free market. Unlike other "property", you can't trade in trademarks; you own a trademark by virtue of selling the product it identifies, not by virtue of having registered a name first. So, Ron Paul was not trying to confiscate someone else's property, he was arguing that the other people simply didn't own the name in the first place and had acquired it illegally.
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.
You see a conflict between his actions and his ideology because you have an incorrect notion of what "libertarianism" actually means. It doesn't mean "you should be able to do anything you can get away with to make a buck", it stands for the protection of individual liberties and free markets. Identifying products correctly (in this case, his political brand) is essential to free markets, so it is reasonable for him to try to get this resolved.
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.
Libertarians have no problem with courts, using courts, or trademarks. Quite the opposite: clear and reliable information is important for markets to function, and the purpose of courts is to impose remedies when people break contracts or lie. So there is nothing inconsistent with his ideology to bring in WIPO over this.
You certainly used to be able to do that for centuries. That only stopped when governments needed to finance expanding military debts and started moving to fiat currencies; that entailed making the use of other forms of currency illegal.
You left out the part where the new laws and powers are abused by police for harassment and corruption without actually achieving any of the stated effect.
Yes, like the escalating "war on drugs", which has caused our prison population to mushroom and is responsible for a large part of violent crime, illegal migration, judicial racism, and lack of treatment for addicts.
If you pass legislation that's unenforceable and broad, the consequences are disastrous for society. Observing that isn't cynicism, it's reality, and the sooner people like you return to reality, the better.
I.e. you do want to ban private gun ownership by law abiding citizens, you're just misleading people by calling your ban "gun control".
(Why any European would want to hand exclusive power to a combination of corporations and governments is beyond me; have you learned nothing from your history? How stupid can you be to repeat the same mistakes over and over again?)
EOM
That's not a useful key because it's not constant over time.
Here is a history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_unclonable_function
You gave Adam Lanza as an example. What form of gun control would allow legal gun ownership that would have kept Adam Lanza from obtaining a gun?
As far as I can tell, you have no logically consistent preferences at all. I'm just saying that your justifications for gun control are wrong.
It's the only rational reading: the guns Adam Lanza obtained were legally owned by a citizen with no criminal convictions, firearms experience, and no mental illness. The only way Lanza could not have obtained those guns would have been if such citizens were prohibited by law from owning guns at all.
Therefore, if you support laws intended to prevent tragendies like Adam Lanza's, you necessarily support laws that keep law abiding, sane citizens from owning guns.
No. You are simply parroting the same false and inconsistent promises that progressives like to make; you resolve inevitable and uncomfortable tradeoffs by putting fingers in your ears and pretending they don't exist.