Sure, Uzi Nissan probably has the right to nissan.com.
Nothing about him having the name gives him special rights to nissan.com. The only entity which should have any claim on it is a commercial enterprise selling to more than one country.
But lets be realistic about things. 99.9999% of people who type in nissan.com are looking for the car company.
The Nissan Motor Company actually is a transnational commercial entity.
The only people expecting to see a 2-person computing shop probable saw nissan.com on a business card, and just as easily could have typed in "nissan-computing.com"
Or even nissan.com.il or nissan-computing.com.il
I doubt anyone has ever thought "I need a computer company, lets try nissan.com"
Even if they did a 2 person company probably just isn't geared up to deal with customers outside their geographical area in the first place.
I still think its cruddy thing to do to both the company and potential consumers. It would also be nice for him to provide a hyptertext link to nissandriven.com, which he currently is not doing.
Which points to another bit of.com abuse, nissandriven not being the most obvious reference to Nissan Motor Company/Corporation presumably it's an advertising slogan...
Both the Screen Actors Guild (North America) [sag.org] and Equity (UK) [equity.org.uk] require that names of performers are unique. That's one reason why many younger actors are known by 3 names, eg Sarah Jessica Parker, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Robert Duncan McNeill etc.
Or made up initials, e.g. Michael J Fox. But you also have oddities like Jeri Ryan originally using Jeri Lee Ryan.
I see your point, but this is not what the.com-hierarchi is intented for. It should be for companies and for commercial use only!
Part of the problem is that too many people don't understand that a DNS name is like a telephone number or postal address. Both of which are hirarchical. Typically if you want a special non geographic telephone number you have to pay extra for it. Maybe similar conditions should apply to getting a.com domain as apply to getting a +800 telephone number.
If I want a personal domain with a homepage on, why should I then use.com?
Even if you were doing something commercial you probably arn't selling it to the whole planet.
And why do americans tend to think that.com is for them, only?
Because ARPAnet was originally invented by the DoD, even though it soon had connections outside the US, e.g. to the University of London (England, not Canada).
Use the friggin.us.
In many cases.com.state.us or.com.city.state.us would make more sense.
A shame about the restaurant. Its tragedy ironically illustrates the value of trademarks. Without its identity, it died.
The thing is that trademarks were originally intended to apply to a specific type of business in a specific area. Which isn't the way certain entities want them to be used now.
Where is the problem? Send a sealed box, and disallow the movie theater to open it before the day of the premiere. Then hire one guy that travels across the country and randomly checks that the seals are not broken. I doubt that anyone would break a seal if you add a $BIGNUM fine into the contracts.
35mm film is typically supplied in 20 minute lengths. This needs to be spliced together, to make a complete movie, typically with trailers and ads spliced onto the beginning. With a modern projection system the spliced film sits on a platter, not a spool. It is also possible to thread multiple projectors with the same print. If the entire print were to be supplied all spliced together it would be difficult to handle.
Actually, not true, most movie theatres get the movie the night before the day it premiers, and the movie is usually put together that night, late, after the theatre closes.
Which still leaves plenty of time for someone to digitise it. Especially if they have the co-operation of the owner and projectionist.
Additionally, the concession prices are way to expensive,
IIRC most of the ticket price goes to the studio/distributor. The money to keep the place running needs to come from somewhere.
And finally, just like pro sports people, Actors do not deserve 10M for a single movie. How about paying the actors less, making the ticket less, and actually end up with more profit?:O There is no reason an actor can't live with making 1M for a movie, and a theatre only charging $4 a ticket, other than WE put up with it.
Movie studios like the idea of "star" actors. Even though in many cases, especially those adapted from popular books the only real criteria to the audience is that they can act decently.
Same applies to TV. I want to talk about the latest episode of 24 - which I can do so if I wait until MARCH for it to air in the UK.
The reason for this is that US broadcasters want to have first showing of a series (especially after Babylon 5 slipped through the net). But US broadcasters want to be able to show 22-26 episodes in the same slot over all 52 weeks of the year. With things being fiddled to fit in with a ratings system unique to the US.
However I dont want to find out what happens in the last episode. I got "Lone Gunmanned" on 24 series 1 -
As far as the "Lone Gunmen" go you'd have a hard time finding episode 1 broadcast anywhere on the planet...
Oh yeah, we got the money allright! But we also got the brains not to waste that money if there's a cheap solution!
And to make your money go further. Considerably further when you consider the possible licence costs of even trying to do something like this with Windows.
Answer: Depends on his intent. If he is using it for finding extra terrestrial life, by all means he can go ahead, but if he is using it to test one of his biological weapons then he is obviously bad.
What if he finds some ETs who can help him out with some guy, known as GW Bush, who wants to invade his country.
* The services are fundamentally dissimilar. One is "on demand". The other is "when the post brings you a DVD"
Unless you have a very fast internet connection and/or a slow postal service (an unusual combination) it's perfectly possible for a posted DVD to get to you before your download is complete.
* You do get "DRM crap" with your by-mail service. it's called the physical DVD. Not foolproof / ripproof, of course, but as every pinhead will point out as soon as there's any news article that features some new DRM technology, nothing is.
A physical DVD you can put into any DVD playing machine you have available. This download system attempts to tie the download to a specific machine, which needs special software installed on it and must be running an OS of the supplier's choice.
If a book is no longer in print, and I can't find it anywhere, and I'm very interested in reading it, would you consider it a crime to download it? Yes, technically it's a crime, but is there something wrong with it? If yes, then why are libraries ok? I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to read. Ditto for movies.
With books you have "copyright libraries", such as the Library of Congress and the British Library. However these simply can't keep up with current publication, long copyright and the "cock" starting when an author (who may have published under psudonyms or in collabaration) dies. This effectivly means that many modern books may never make it into the public domain. When it comes to movies, sound recordings, computer programs, etc ths situation is even worst since there have never been copyright libraries for these. Copyright libraries for books only happened because libraries had been in existance for a few thousand years before copyright.
I wonder if the UN will soon become the new world copyright enforcement body. I'd love to see a dozen UN tanks parked outside my house when I get home tonight.
The UN isn't really in a position to enforce anything. Since it does not have any tanks, of its own. It's relient on the goodwill of nation states to supply (or not as the case may be) military force. Even if the UN did have its own military they wouldn't be going anywhere any of the 5 permenant members of the security council didn't want them going.
Dont they want money from outside the US?
I am interested in this, but they are not letting me in, so does anyone know of any open proxy servers based in the US so I can have a look see?
"They", as in the movie studios, have locked themselves into a business model which assumes regionalisation. Then paid lots of money buying laws (around the world) to support that business model. Attempting to go for retail globalisation would put a lot of egg on a lot of peoples' faces.
If someone alters their life and their behavior patterns because other people own guns and they fear for their safety, that person's freedom has been abridged.
There is a difference between law abiding people altering their behaviour because criminals have guns no amount of "gun control" will disarm criminals. These are by definition people who break the law. And criminals altering their behaviour because law abiding people might have guns.
If the government is in charge of it, then your freedoms are reduced, becuase for them to increase security, they have to trample on your freedom of privacy, fair trail etc. How you believe that they WON'T be watching you is beyond me. The only way for the gov't to increase your security is by watching everyone. If they don't, they'll miss someone that could harm you.
They'll always tend to exclude themselves from being watched too. When plenty of people in government are exactly the kind of people who should be being watched.
If one reads the article, one finds that Australia has decided to pull the plug on websites that are used to organize violent protests.
Who decides if the intended protest will be a violent protest? Even if a protest does turn out to be violent are the protestors the source of the violence, some group of counter protestors or some third party (including the police).
I suspect that a lot of non-violent protest will be suppressed too, especially if they belong to groups that are a real nuisance to the authorities ("anti-globalization" and anticapitalist sites for example).
Most likely any protest can be a "violent" protest, should the authorities want it that way. Just make sure that there are enough rent-a-thugs there or make sure the press are well briefed to call protestors attempting to defend themselves against violent police "violent protestors".
All states do this. Even the 'Land of the Free.' What the Australian government is trying to do here is stop crimes from being planned and that's illegal in most countries.
This is the justification often claimed. All too often such powers are instead used to curb political disent and to protect those in authority. The latter from both political opposition and investigation into their own behaviour.
You can get convicted in the US for plotting to kill someone or planning a terrorist act, even when it's just talk.
The operative word is "can". If it was "you will get convicted in the US for..." then at minimum the US would need a new president. AFAIK even killing "nasty" people still qualifies as homicide.
Anti-globalisation and anti-war principles are more threatening than ever to our corrupt industry-government coalition, and so-called violence is transparently a convenient excuse to lie about the protestors' agenda in order to suppress it.
Even the term "globalisation" often has a fluid meaning. Since in a literal sense lawsuits against grey/parallel imports, region coding of DVDs, etc are just as much "anti-globalisation". What is being protested is more a case of globalisation for a few large businesses with strict regionalisation for everyone else.
Australians have no reason to be smug about their "freedom" relative to the rest of the world; with the lunatics in power, combined with an ignorant and apathetic populace, we're rapidly losing even the pretence.
Much the same applies to many other parts of the world, including the USA.
Yes, but belief in Occam's Razor is what separates "normal" people from conspiracy
theorists.
Except when you have a conspiracy theory which has the approval of government and mainstream media. Then you can end up with the strange situation of people who question a conspiracy theory being dubbed "conspiracy theorists".
Data security. Hmmph. The ones clamoring for 'data security' are Hollywood not normal
every day end users.
The facilities being offered to the big corporate publishers will apparently not be available to end users. e.g. being able to send emails which cannot be saved or forwarded. Even if these end users are themselves large corporates.
Palladium does
not provide a benefit to the end user. It provides Hollywood the opportunity to eliminate
the Fair Use rights of the public.
Which protects an existing cartel, shutting out competition. Yet dosn't appear to do much along the lines of someone wanting to be sure that information they send to partners, customers or suppliers is only available to whoever it has been sent to.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, Uzi Nissan probably has the right to nissan.com.
.com abuse, nissandriven not being the most obvious reference to Nissan Motor Company/Corporation presumably it's an advertising slogan...
Nothing about him having the name gives him special rights to nissan.com. The only entity which should have any claim on it is a commercial enterprise selling to more than one country.
But lets be realistic about things. 99.9999% of people who type in nissan.com are looking for the car company.
The Nissan Motor Company actually is a transnational commercial entity.
The only people expecting to see a 2-person computing shop probable saw nissan.com on a business card, and just as easily could have typed in "nissan-computing.com"
Or even nissan.com.il or nissan-computing.com.il
I doubt anyone has ever thought "I need a computer company, lets try nissan.com"
Even if they did a 2 person company probably just isn't geared up to deal with customers outside their geographical area in the first place.
I still think its cruddy thing to do to both the company and potential consumers. It would also be nice for him to provide a hyptertext link to nissandriven.com, which he currently is not doing.
Which points to another bit of
Both the Screen Actors Guild (North America) [sag.org] and Equity (UK) [equity.org.uk] require that names of performers are unique. That's one reason why many younger actors are known by 3 names, eg Sarah Jessica Parker, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Robert Duncan McNeill etc.
Or made up initials, e.g. Michael J Fox. But you also have oddities like Jeri Ryan originally using Jeri Lee Ryan.
I see your point, but this is not what the .com-hierarchi is intented for. It should be for companies and for commercial use only!
.com domain as apply to getting a +800 telephone number.
.com?
.com is for them, only?
.us.
.com.state.us or .com.city.state.us would make more sense.
Part of the problem is that too many people don't understand that a DNS name is like a telephone number or postal address. Both of which are hirarchical. Typically if you want a special non geographic telephone number you have to pay extra for it. Maybe similar conditions should apply to getting a
If I want a personal domain with a homepage on, why should I then use
Even if you were doing something commercial you probably arn't selling it to the whole planet.
And why do americans tend to think that
Because ARPAnet was originally invented by the DoD, even though it soon had connections outside the US, e.g. to the University of London (England, not Canada).
Use the friggin
In many cases
In theory yes, in reality no. The .com extension became the standard and is used for a lot of non-commercial sites.
.org and .net have effectivly been treated as .misc.
.com if it was avail.
.com would have been to be a commercial entity trading in more than one country.
.com,
The extensions that are more appropriate for some things are relatively new.
Most of them are actually fairly old.
Keep in mind that we started with only 3 extensions. com, net, and org.
Actually there have been around 200 top level domains for a long time.
If you were just a person wanting to do a site about yourself, which one was appropriate?
How about one of the free services or ISP provided webspace?
Most people chose
If things had been done properly the only way to get a
A shame about the restaurant. Its tragedy ironically illustrates the value of trademarks. Without its identity, it died.
The thing is that trademarks were originally intended to apply to a specific type of business in a specific area. Which isn't the way certain entities want them to be used now.
Where is the problem? Send a sealed box, and disallow the movie theater to open it before the day of the premiere. Then hire one guy that travels across the country and randomly checks that the seals are not broken. I doubt that anyone would break a seal if you add a $BIGNUM fine into the contracts.
35mm film is typically supplied in 20 minute lengths. This needs to be spliced together, to make a complete movie, typically with trailers and ads spliced onto the beginning. With a modern projection system the spliced film sits on a platter, not a spool. It is also possible to thread multiple projectors with the same print.
If the entire print were to be supplied all spliced together it would be difficult to handle.
Actually, not true, most movie theatres get the movie the night before the day it premiers, and the movie is usually put together that night, late, after the theatre closes.
Which still leaves plenty of time for someone to digitise it. Especially if they have the co-operation of the owner and projectionist.
Additionally, the concession prices are way to expensive,
:O There is no reason an actor can't live with making 1M for a movie, and a theatre only charging $4 a ticket, other than WE put up with it.
IIRC most of the ticket price goes to the studio/distributor. The money to keep the place running needs to come from somewhere.
And finally, just like pro sports people, Actors do not deserve 10M for a single movie. How about paying the actors less, making the ticket less, and actually end up with more profit?
Movie studios like the idea of "star" actors. Even though in many cases, especially those adapted from popular books the only real criteria to the audience is that they can act decently.
Same applies to TV. I want to talk about the latest episode of 24 - which I can do so if I wait until MARCH for it to air in the UK.
The reason for this is that US broadcasters want to have first showing of a series (especially after Babylon 5 slipped through the net). But US broadcasters want to be able to show 22-26 episodes in the same slot over all 52 weeks of the year. With things being fiddled to fit in with a ratings system unique to the US.
However I dont want to find out what happens in the last episode. I got "Lone Gunmanned" on 24 series 1 -
As far as the "Lone Gunmen" go you'd have a hard time finding episode 1 broadcast anywhere on the planet...
The MAC address is always stored in either some sort of serial eeprom or battery backed nvram.
Most commonly used is a 93LC46 which is a 1K bit (128 bytes) CMOS serial EPROM.
Oh yeah, we got the money allright! But we also got the brains not to waste that money if there's a cheap solution!
And to make your money go further. Considerably further when you consider the possible licence costs of even trying to do something like this with Windows.
Answer: Depends on his intent. If he is using it for finding extra terrestrial life, by all means he can go ahead, but if he is using it to test one of his biological weapons then he is obviously bad.
What if he finds some ETs who can help him out with some guy, known as GW Bush, who wants to invade his country.
* The services are fundamentally dissimilar. One is "on demand". The other is "when the post brings you a DVD"
Unless you have a very fast internet connection and/or a slow postal service (an unusual combination) it's perfectly possible for a posted DVD to get to you before your download is complete.
* You do get "DRM crap" with your by-mail service. it's called the physical DVD. Not foolproof / ripproof, of course, but as every pinhead will point out as soon as there's any news article that features some new DRM technology, nothing is.
A physical DVD you can put into any DVD playing machine you have available. This download system attempts to tie the download to a specific machine, which needs special software installed on it and must be running an OS of the supplier's choice.
If a book is no longer in print, and I can't find it anywhere, and I'm very interested in reading it, would you consider it a crime to download it? Yes, technically it's a crime, but is there something wrong with it? If yes, then why are libraries ok? I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to read. Ditto for movies.
With books you have "copyright libraries", such as the Library of Congress and the British Library. However these simply can't keep up with current publication, long copyright and the "cock" starting when an author (who may have published under psudonyms or in collabaration) dies. This effectivly means that many modern books may never make it into the public domain.
When it comes to movies, sound recordings, computer programs, etc ths situation is even worst since there have never been copyright libraries for these.
Copyright libraries for books only happened because libraries had been in existance for a few thousand years before copyright.
I wonder if the UN will soon become the new world copyright enforcement body. I'd love to see a dozen UN tanks parked outside my house when I get home tonight.
The UN isn't really in a position to enforce anything. Since it does not have any tanks, of its own. It's relient on the goodwill of nation states to supply (or not as the case may be) military force. Even if the UN did have its own military they wouldn't be going anywhere any of the 5 permenant members of the security council didn't want them going.
Dont they want money from outside the US?
I am interested in this, but they are not letting me in, so does anyone know of any open proxy servers based in the US so I can have a look see?
"They", as in the movie studios, have locked themselves into a business model which assumes regionalisation. Then paid lots of money buying laws (around the world) to support that business model. Attempting to go for retail globalisation would put a lot of egg on a lot of peoples' faces.
If someone alters their life and their behavior patterns because other people own guns and they fear for their safety, that person's freedom has been abridged.
There is a difference between law abiding people altering their behaviour because criminals have guns no amount of "gun control" will disarm criminals. These are by definition people who break the law. And criminals altering their behaviour because law abiding people might have guns.
If the government is in charge of it, then your freedoms are reduced, becuase for them to increase security, they have to trample on your freedom of privacy, fair trail etc. How you believe that they WON'T be watching you is beyond me. The only way for the gov't to increase your security is by watching everyone. If they don't, they'll miss someone that could harm you.
They'll always tend to exclude themselves from being watched too. When plenty of people in government are exactly the kind of people who should be being watched.
If one reads the article, one finds that Australia has decided to pull the plug on websites that are used to organize violent protests.
Who decides if the intended protest will be a violent protest? Even if a protest does turn out to be violent are the protestors the source of the violence, some group of counter protestors or some third party (including the police).
I suspect that a lot of non-violent protest will be suppressed too, especially if they belong to groups that are a real nuisance to the authorities ("anti-globalization" and anticapitalist sites for example).
Most likely any protest can be a "violent" protest, should the authorities want it that way. Just make sure that there are enough rent-a-thugs there or make sure the press are well briefed to call protestors attempting to defend themselves against violent police "violent protestors".
All states do this. Even the 'Land of the Free.' What the Australian government is trying to do here is stop crimes from being planned and that's illegal in most countries.
..." then at minimum the US would need a new president. AFAIK even killing "nasty" people still qualifies as homicide.
This is the justification often claimed. All too often such powers are instead used to curb political disent and to protect those in authority. The latter from both political opposition and investigation into their own behaviour.
You can get convicted in the US for plotting to kill someone or planning a terrorist act, even when it's just talk.
The operative word is "can". If it was "you will get convicted in the US for
Anti-globalisation and anti-war principles are more threatening than ever to our corrupt industry-government coalition, and so-called violence is transparently a convenient excuse to lie about the protestors' agenda in order to suppress it.
Even the term "globalisation" often has a fluid meaning. Since in a literal sense lawsuits against grey/parallel imports, region coding of DVDs, etc are just as much "anti-globalisation". What is being protested is more a case of globalisation for a few large businesses with strict regionalisation for everyone else.
Australians have no reason to be smug about their "freedom" relative to the rest of the world; with the lunatics in power, combined with an ignorant and apathetic populace, we're rapidly losing even the pretence.
Much the same applies to many other parts of the world, including the USA.
Daniel Jackson appears wearing a white robe, surrounded by a glowing light: "I come to you now in your hour need."
Followed by "who are you, for that matter who am I?"
Yes, but belief in Occam's Razor is what separates "normal" people from conspiracy theorists.
Except when you have a conspiracy theory which has the approval of government and mainstream media.
Then you can end up with the strange situation of people who question a conspiracy theory being dubbed "conspiracy theorists".
Data security. Hmmph. The ones clamoring for 'data security' are Hollywood not normal every day end users.
The facilities being offered to the big corporate publishers will apparently not be available to end users. e.g. being able to send emails which cannot be saved or forwarded. Even if these end users are themselves large corporates.
Palladium does not provide a benefit to the end user. It provides Hollywood the opportunity to eliminate the Fair Use rights of the public.
Which protects an existing cartel, shutting out competition. Yet dosn't appear to do much along the lines of someone wanting to be sure that information they send to partners, customers or suppliers is only available to whoever it has been sent to.