I think that we're seeing a good-intentioned article by Katz giving affirmation to what he's rallying against. He's criticizing the power of corporations and their hold on the tech industry via bad tech support. Then again, he's not giving tech support people any agency. It's as if they're humans who are easily manipulated by "the system", so it's implied that if they're manipulated so easily by power, then they really have no business having complex thinking skills, or even empathy, which are both necessary for good tech support.
In fact, tech support personnel are simutaneously manipulated by corporate power (i.e. lack of budget, tons of cases put on their lap), and are autonomous individuals whose bad service results from having to deal with customers whose utter lack of common sense are legendary. So they become jerks in the process, making it work both ways.
Hey kids! Now's your chance to create your very own Anti-Microsoft Slashdot Post [tm]! With this handy schematic paragraph, you too can post just like the Big Boys! It's easy, just fill in the blanks with one of our many choices...
I can't believe that ______________ (Bill, Borgmeister, The Jerk from Redmond) is still pulling this ______________ (favorite variation of excrement). Soon the Net will be _____________ (corporatized, overrun, mutilated, assimilated) into a bastardized version dumbed down to where only _____________(script kiddies, grandmas, MBA's, droolers, h4X0rz, cluebies) will be enthralled. As soon as ______________ (Red Hat, Debian, Caldera, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Be) can gain more market share, we'll be able to push back _______________ (closed source, proprietary software, mediocre OS's) to extinction in favor of a model that encourages _______________ (innovation, competition, self-determination, mass empowerment, utopia).
No disagreement here, but things do get to be a tad predictable on/. at times, with me sharing some of the guilt.
If Anglo-American real estate laws can be applied to TLD's, that proposal might actually hold up in court. The "fair use" laws that apply to real estate contracts in many states hold that if someone is not using the estate they own, yet someone who does not have title is using it, then they gain the title (usually after 10 years).
Since it's impossible for someone to use someone else's TLD (website cracking notwithstanding), then perhaps this logic should be applied to your proposal.
The current first-come first-served system helps to put a check on the balance of power. Large corporations and government bodies are the ones who want these type of protections from someone using their trademark, so their only option is to buy up the TLD's that might be used in an "abusive" manner. George W. Bush's campaign's purchase of names like "bushsucks.com" and "bushblows.com" come to mind.
Either way, W's campaign had to sacrifice at least some resources on their part to do this. Those that ordinarily might have bought up these names, other than Gore's campaign staffers at least had the opportunity to do so. Under this proposal, no such equalizing system exists. It's preordained that the powerful will not be "tampered" with.
What the government did to IndyMedia WAS NOT censorship. The FBI did not request that ANYTHING be removed from IndyMedia's website.
Not de jure censorship, but an FBI request for the IP address of users at large sets a precedent for de facto censorship. Sites that attract that "dangerous element" (read: independent journalists and their readers) may fairly or unfairly attract those who would do real damage, but the consequences of such a court order chill the atmosphere in which independent journalism must thrive.
The Supreme Court does not consider the Declaration of Independence when it is rendering verdicts. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the Declaration is not a legal document. It is the Constitution that the Supremes consider, and in this case, the 14th Amendment ("due process" clause) would be the one that many of us would use to fight an import ban. It says "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law", and this is what a clone would be.
The university issue is the dividing wedge between academic publication and the latest Limp Bizkit MP3. Universities ostensibily operate for the public good (reality is another matter), and thereby operate in a much different political sphere.
My case is similar, though, to the struggling who signs with a small label. I've recently submitted an article for publication to a lesser-known journal that does charge a small fee for subscription, but since I'm a first-year doctoral student, just being published would be a milestone. However, the difference lies in the fact that I'm not beholden to that journal for a long-term contract, but the struggling musician is. Therein lies one of many characteristic realities that divide the up-and-coming academic from the up-and-coming artist (not to mention different avenues of reputability, economic motivations, use of "free speech", etc.).
What is ironic is that during the whole 1996 CDA debacle, EFF was in support of filtering software as an appeasement for the right-wing types that argued for wholesale legal prosecution of "indecent" websites and Usenet postings that appeared anywhere. EFF's opponents who sponsored the 1996 CDA said that filtering software didn't stop pornography and was useless on the whole.
180 turns. Great for Battlebots stunts and politics.
Slashdot Mirror
In fact, tech support personnel are simutaneously manipulated by corporate power (i.e. lack of budget, tons of cases put on their lap), and are autonomous individuals whose bad service results from having to deal with customers whose utter lack of common sense are legendary. So they become jerks in the process, making it work both ways.
No disagreement here, but things do get to be a tad predictable on /. at times, with me sharing some of the guilt.
Since it's impossible for someone to use someone else's TLD (website cracking notwithstanding), then perhaps this logic should be applied to your proposal.
Either way, W's campaign had to sacrifice at least some resources on their part to do this. Those that ordinarily might have bought up these names, other than Gore's campaign staffers at least had the opportunity to do so. Under this proposal, no such equalizing system exists. It's preordained that the powerful will not be "tampered" with.
And it's the gas that's probably the most expensive part of the aircraft.
If tablatures are outlawed, only outlaw garage bands will be able to cover Stairway To Heaven.
Not de jure censorship, but an FBI request for the IP address of users at large sets a precedent for de facto censorship. Sites that attract that "dangerous element" (read: independent journalists and their readers) may fairly or unfairly attract those who would do real damage, but the consequences of such a court order chill the atmosphere in which independent journalism must thrive.
Nahh, that one's too easy.
Now we can see the gears and pulleys of an NT box.
The Supreme Court does not consider the Declaration of Independence when it is rendering verdicts. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the Declaration is not a legal document. It is the Constitution that the Supremes consider, and in this case, the 14th Amendment ("due process" clause) would be the one that many of us would use to fight an import ban. It says "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law", and this is what a clone would be.
so he can finally look at his TV and watch some subbed anime instead of torturing himself with crappy dubs.
My case is similar, though, to the struggling who signs with a small label. I've recently submitted an article for publication to a lesser-known journal that does charge a small fee for subscription, but since I'm a first-year doctoral student, just being published would be a milestone. However, the difference lies in the fact that I'm not beholden to that journal for a long-term contract, but the struggling musician is. Therein lies one of many characteristic realities that divide the up-and-coming academic from the up-and-coming artist (not to mention different avenues of reputability, economic motivations, use of "free speech", etc.).
What is ironic is that during the whole 1996 CDA debacle, EFF was in support of filtering software as an appeasement for the right-wing types that argued for wholesale legal prosecution of "indecent" websites and Usenet postings that appeared anywhere. EFF's opponents who sponsored the 1996 CDA said that filtering software didn't stop pornography and was useless on the whole. 180 turns. Great for Battlebots stunts and politics.