Yeah right. So what does this guy do, call over to Pakistan to connect to an ISP? I don't believe it. Between destroyed telecom infrastructure and insanely high international LD rates even if you COULD make a call, it just doesn't sound credible. Downloading and watching movies on a Commodore? Balooooooney. The rest of the details sound way too contrived and "convenient" to be the real deal. Show us the email headers, Katz. I want to know how you determined that it went from Kabul to Islamabad to London to you. This sounds like a crock.
I've read several interviews with Peter Theil, one of PayPal's founders, including this one where he points out that fraud was the primary reason behind the failure of many online payment services. A quote from the interview:
What are your barriers to entry? Technology? Network economics?
The nutshell answer: Security & Fraud.
The network effect will get bigger and bigger over time. Until recently, we did have all these copycat competitors and they did have difficulty gaining network traction, but their ultimate downfall was fraud. There were a number of these companies - from Payme, Payplace, Paypro, ExchangePath - that went out of business because of the fraud issue. They didn't run out of money, or not get investors to invest. They got killed on fraud.
The UDRP doesn't require a registered trademark. There is what's known as a "common law trademark" and it is just as valid as a registered one. If you have been using the name in commerce (broadly defined), you probably have a common law right to it. Celebrities, for example, have a common law right to their own name, even though they may not have registered it as a trademark.
You hit the nail on the head. In UDRP proceedings, if the respondent has a track record of buying domain names that have nothing to do with their (il)legitimate enterprise, then trying to sell them for a profit, especially back to the rightful owner, it's considered prima facie evidence of bad faith.
It's called the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). Read it, understand it, then file a claim if you still think you have grounds. You might just get lucky.
And don't mind the naysayers -- the UDRP doesn't say jack about whether or not you *used* to own the name, but it spells out in fairly clear terms the grounds upon which a challenge can be brought. In relevant part ("you" and "your" refer to the party you want to file against):
(i) your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(ii) you have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) your domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In the administrative proceeding, the complainant must prove that each of these three elements are present.
You don't necessarily need a lawyer, though it helps. Maybe you can get a local IP specialist to do it for your group pro bono. It will also be helpful for you to read some of the decisions already made, particularly any that seem to fit the facts of your situation.
Actually, I think they misspelled it in the translation, so it's really gonorreah they're talking about. And this is purely conjecture, of course, but I suspect there have been times when the former has begat the latter. Biblical prophesy? You tell me!;-)
Obviously you're not a photographer. There is a vast difference between digital and film, and not just in the fact that with the former you end up with pixels, where the latter gives you a physical product that exceeds the quality of a digital image in every respect. Digital imaging will catch up to film someday, but it ain't there yet!
As to your consumer grade camera storing 1000+ "medium-res" images, those may be suitable for publication on the web, but certainly not in a newspaper or magazine, where 300 dpi is the minimum needed to print a typical 150 line screen. Unless your camera stores, oh, about 1GB or better, which, sorry to say, ain't consumer grade, you're just talking out your uninformed arse.
As for traditional photographic skills being "antiquated" in light of new technology, you couldn't be more wrong. All the skills involved in photography are completely transferable to digital. If you don't have any chops as a film-based photographer, you're not going to be even slightly better using the latest and greatest digital whiz-bang camera. Photography's not about technology, it's about vision, about understanding the interplay of light and shadow, about having an intuitive feel for composition and an instinct for capturing the right moment. You remind me of people who learn how to use Front Page and then call themselves a web developer. Get a clue, dude, cuz there's certainly none evident in your post.
Your claim of a "badly glutted" market in web development -- in 1994?? -- is absurd on its face. But your decision to avoid it as a career looks like it was a pretty good call. Aesthetics indeed.
Can you shed some light on how much moola it really takes to make a splash in DC? What would be a typical budget for an intensive lobbying campaign on an issue like modifying the DMCA or killing the hacker=terrorist clause? Please include your estimate of the retainer and monthly expenses for an A-list lobbying firm, the expected campaign contributions to key committee members, and any other tangential costs. Thanks for your insights.
And plenty of it is! So what's the point in quibbling over age verification systems when you can find anything you want[author's link warning: contains nudity], and lots that you probably don't want[author's link warning: highly revolting], and all for free?
I agree in principle that the same rules should apply to minors accessing inappropriate material online and off, but I don't see how you can effectively accomplish that, except maybe by carving out a separate space on the Net for pr0n. I've always thought.sex and/or.xxx should be where all the nekked stuff is kept, then parents can just restrict young kids to browsers that can't get to those TLDs and not have to worry about it.
...it's the ridiculously long Flash preload on the front end that will kill traffic to their site. It took 75 seconds this morning to load the Flash for the topmost banner ad over my miserly dialup. That's 75 seconds before the front page even begins to load. Loyal readers (like me) may be willing to tolerate that sort of delay, but most new visitors won't. When a site doesn't give you anything in 10 or 15 seconds, most people move on. That's Web 101, folks. Salon may manage to retain their existing readership, but it's gonna kill the growth of their reader base, and that, in the end, could well kill Salon.
Nothin' new here folks. Virtouch has been doing this technology for quite some time, and their product is in use in any number of places. It's meant to help blind folk visualize objects on the computer screen, and by all accounts it works quite well. Whomever suggested that this technology is useless because blind people don't do braille anymore doesn't know what they're talking about. Not a surprising phenomenon at/. of course.
Excuse me, oh bril(l)iant evilpaul13! You may be a master of the English language *cough* and a widely-hailed security guru *wheeze*, but you also seem to be operating under the dangerously mistaken notion that all a person has to do to eradicate a CR2 infection is patch and reboot. WRONG. Who said anything about AV programs??? Not I. Now how about sending me the IP of the box you worked that particular bit of magic on? I need to own a few dozen more to pull off my scheme for global domination.
...to leave a box wide open to exploits? Just one, and his name is listed above. Maybe he and the moron that modded his FUD "insightful" should get together and breed. The world needs a few more microencephalics. Frkn idiots...
You're partly wrong about CR2 infected machines DoSing themselves. CR2 spawns 300 threads that do in fact overload smaller boxes. On more robust servers, though, the box is capable of running those threads and accepting root.exe? requests. Whether or not a machine can handle both has nothing whatever to do with "reinfections" (huh?). Also, if the box doesn't crash altogether or get fixed, the worm goes to sleep in 24 or 48 hrs, at which point it is wide open. Try going back through your list of IPs that were "busy" and you should find plenty of interesting stuff.....er.... theoretically at least.
Slashdot Mirror
...until he comes clean on the fraud he perpetrated in his last missive.
>>>>>>>>>Hey Jon, did
>>>>>>>>>>>the email have
>>>>>>>>>>a closing line
>>>>>>>>>kinda like my
>>>>>>>>>>subject line?
Yeah right. So what does this guy do, call over to Pakistan to connect to an ISP? I don't believe it. Between destroyed telecom infrastructure and insanely high international LD rates even if you COULD make a call, it just doesn't sound credible. Downloading and watching movies on a Commodore? Balooooooney. The rest of the details sound way too contrived and "convenient" to be the real deal. Show us the email headers, Katz. I want to know how you determined that it went from Kabul to Islamabad to London to you. This sounds like a crock.
I've read several interviews with Peter Theil, one of PayPal's founders, including this one where he points out that fraud was the primary reason behind the failure of many online payment services. A quote from the interview:
What are your barriers to entry? Technology? Network economics?
The nutshell answer: Security & Fraud.
The network effect will get bigger and bigger over time. Until recently, we did have all these copycat competitors and they did have difficulty gaining network traction, but their ultimate downfall was fraud. There were a number of these companies - from Payme, Payplace, Paypro, ExchangePath - that went out of business because of the fraud issue. They didn't run out of money, or not get investors to invest. They got killed on fraud.
Care to cite a UDRP decision that supports this statement? Don't go to too much trouble, tho, cuz you won't find any.
You hit the nail on the head. In UDRP proceedings, if the respondent has a track record of buying domain names that have nothing to do with their (il)legitimate enterprise, then trying to sell them for a profit, especially back to the rightful owner, it's considered prima facie evidence of bad faith.
And don't mind the naysayers -- the UDRP doesn't say jack about whether or not you *used* to own the name, but it spells out in fairly clear terms the grounds upon which a challenge can be brought. In relevant part ("you" and "your" refer to the party you want to file against):
You don't necessarily need a lawyer, though it helps. Maybe you can get a local IP specialist to do it for your group pro bono. It will also be helpful for you to read some of the decisions already made, particularly any that seem to fit the facts of your situation.
As to your consumer grade camera storing 1000+ "medium-res" images, those may be suitable for publication on the web, but certainly not in a newspaper or magazine, where 300 dpi is the minimum needed to print a typical 150 line screen. Unless your camera stores, oh, about 1GB or better, which, sorry to say, ain't consumer grade, you're just talking out your uninformed arse.
As for traditional photographic skills being "antiquated" in light of new technology, you couldn't be more wrong. All the skills involved in photography are completely transferable to digital. If you don't have any chops as a film-based photographer, you're not going to be even slightly better using the latest and greatest digital whiz-bang camera. Photography's not about technology, it's about vision, about understanding the interplay of light and shadow, about having an intuitive feel for composition and an instinct for capturing the right moment. You remind me of people who learn how to use Front Page and then call themselves a web developer. Get a clue, dude, cuz there's certainly none evident in your post.
I agree in principle that the same rules should apply to minors accessing inappropriate material online and off, but I don't see how you can effectively accomplish that, except maybe by carving out a separate space on the Net for pr0n. I've always thought .sex and/or .xxx should be where all the nekked stuff is kept, then parents can just restrict young kids to browsers that can't get to those TLDs and not have to worry about it.
...it's the ridiculously long Flash preload on the front end that will kill traffic to their site. It took 75 seconds this morning to load the Flash for the topmost banner ad over my miserly dialup. That's 75 seconds before the front page even begins to load. Loyal readers (like me) may be willing to tolerate that sort of delay, but most new visitors won't. When a site doesn't give you anything in 10 or 15 seconds, most people move on. That's Web 101, folks. Salon may manage to retain their existing readership, but it's gonna kill the growth of their reader base, and that, in the end, could well kill Salon.
hubbabubba
I yam a proud and happy
hubbabubba
Eighth Wonder Of The World, But Nonetheless A
hubbabubba
And don't call me no Sig-less Wonder!
hubbabubba
And don't call me no sigless wonder dangit!