Was wondering about that the other day. I get that message on a lot of sites when I have third-party cookies turned off (usually always), your mention of GA seems related. Guess it's simply a misnomer.
He was talking about creating that account on your mailserver. Sneakemail or Spamgourmet serves the same purpose. As long as you don't mind your email going through a third party server, it works for most purposes. Just be sensible and don't use it for banking-type accounts.
I considered the same thing a few months ago then backed off to rethink what I was trying to accomplish. Mainly because of the fear of screwing up, if you do mess up somehow there's no way back. That's obviously bad for a teenager in high school, it's in another league for a professional trying to advance his career.
What I realized was that creating a presence isn't necessarily an all-or-nothing affair. It's simply ranking by what could get out of hand. Meaning that on a scale of 1-10, Linkedin is targeted toward professionals so probably an 8, the Google circle thing is maybe a 5, Twitter is a 2 and Facebook is a zero.
My checklist ended up focusing on these four things: - Controlling the blend of professional and personal information that gets out. The information you expose shouldn't allow one to divine your political views. - How much of what you expose is tied to other people's social stuff. For example, could a retweet be misinterpreted or someone posting something offensive on your Facebook wall. - Working it backwards, what would you like Google and Twitter to show then try to craft that. It's worth looking at what other people's profiles look like and use it as a template. - How much time is going to be required to maintain my "social garden". Obviously the fewer services the better but only if they're worth the hassle.
(Btw, in the end I said screw it and decided to think about it some more)
Excellent point, King George was infamous for forced toolbar installations. When the users didn't get the tea they were promised in exchange for the installing it, well, the rest is history.
I think you may have missed the point. From my reading, her/his point was that these "hipsters" really aren't geeks per se. Especially in the world of hardware and computing.
By definition a geek is someone who has a strong curiosity in most things that would be considered technical to the layman, primarily what's going on under the hood and creating stuff around it. When you encounter a new black box you spend the time and actually enjoy learning it inside out. It's that drive to know as much as possible that leads to friendly arguments with other people like yourself, and that feedback ultimately serves as a way to figure out and explore what you didn't know (which is a positive!). That's the way it worked in the old days anyway.
To your (rather loud) point, installing Ubuntu then giving up after you realize that the command line is necessary is actually a pretty good test of the "hipster" mentality. Having a Macbook, github account and endless copypasta from stackexchange does not qualify one as a rails guru, or IOS programmer or anything else either. Just someone who is interested in image over substance. Jmho.
Bush Jr. also doubled the national debt which offsets that pocket money in the long run. There were consequences to all those tax cuts, wars and Medicare Part D giveaways by the Republicans.
The real problem is that Wall Street has had free reign going back to the mid-90's with Greenspan and Gramm's Randian experiments which were responsible for the dotcom and housing bubbles. Both the Bush and Obama administrations are guilty of simply sitting back and doing nothing to curb the problem, Obama arguably moreso.
Agreed, and nissan.com is the perfect example of that. But not guaranteed to be safe given that hijack attempts have been successful in the past. Verizxon.com is an example of a domain that was transferred to the complainant because of likelihood of confusion plus commercial gain. Putting cellphone ads on a domain like that clearly demonstrates the term "cybersquatting" because it would be hard for a panelist to say it isn't.
Bottom line is that the original poster was trying to lump anyone who picks up a dropped domain and parks it, along with the term "cybersquatter". That's just not true. Our discussion was about the nuances of the UDRP process wrt trademarks, which is what is important in defining what cybersquatting is.
I did mean "Verizen" or something similar. For example, if you register "verizxon.com" or "cerizonwireless.com" and put cellphone ppc on them, odds are you will lose the UDRP based on the trademark for "Verizon". Those are two examples among thousands.
Xboxone.com is at risk now because the Godaddy parking page is showing an ad for "custom xbox controllers". Even if the owner didn't opt-in for ad rev sharing.
The only good defense is if the domain was registered well before a trademark registration date because the panels are so hit-and-miss wrt competency. Then a reasonable panel can decide if the ads should be factored in based on part (iv).
Ok but I assumed it was obvious that Verizon was indeed trademarked, hence that example.
Here's the text for bad faith and usually quoted in UDRP decisions for obvious squatting. Part (iv) coupled with the Verizon trademark is what I was trying to get across. The gp's broad contention was that picking up a dropped domain automatically constitutes "cybersquatting". It's clearly not.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Under the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii), registration and use of a domain name in bad faith may be demonstrated by showing:
“(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.”
Well said. A decade ago I remember being shocked that end-to-end encryption was being attempted in the PC all the way to the monitor. Lest you think that was naive, the mindset back then was that it really was ludicrous given how many technical obstacles existed (which included resistance from the user btw).
But now it's readily apparent that source-to-consumption control was being taken very seriously by content producers and tech companies. It was the end-game for them because there was no other option to preserve the business models. So they methodically broke down each hurdle through technical tricks, law making and user conditioning.
It's not completely there yet but when you look at today's video game consoles and smart tvs, it's pretty much a given that a majority of our media and computing devices will be taken out of our control within the next 5-10 years. They'll be nothing more than vending machines. Coupled with the law making process and help from the ISPs, the signs are all there to make it happen, secure boot, broadcast flags, dependence on internet as a utility, et al.
Sure it's depressing but it's a rare case where we all know in great detail what the future holds.
No, it is a cyber squatter. They often use scripts to by domains that fall into disuse, presumably on the assumption that if someone wanted it once then someone else might want it in the future.
That is not the definition of a cybersquatter. What you're describing says anyone who registers a dropped domain is a squatter which is obviously ridiculous. Registering 'verizen.com' *and* parking it with cellphone ads is squatting. Using it for your blog or mailserver is perfectly fine, though it doesn't mean that corporate law won't try to take it from you anyway (i.e. Nissan).
But that's what UDRP panels are for, though it's hit or miss depending on the members on the panel. It's also why respondents should always request a 3 member panel instead of one. That way it lessens the odds of having the decision determined by a cowboy attorney who doesn't understand the true intent of the process. It's astonishing how many bad UDRPs there are because of one member panels.
Having said all that, federal/arbitration suits are another can of worms.
What's interesting is that she won't take responsibility for what she did (based on a video interview with her lawyer present) and goes so far as to blame her victim which is creating even more notoriety. It's the Streisand effect which makes things worse down the road. If she simply admitted that she was wrong, future employers might consider a little sympathy. Instead all that resides in the websphere is an increasingly bad portrait of this woman. Which appears deserved in this case.
Interestingly, it turns out that the AC's comment is not a troll. As a matter of fact, some googling turned up pop.org (Population Research Institute). It has non-profit status and clearly a front for some Christian organization given their strong pro-life emphasis in the mission statement. To the point, they published an article called "The Pill's Deadly Affair with HIV/AIDS". http://www.pop.org/content/the-pills-deadly-affair-with-hivaids-1199
One paragraph that stood out:
"Likewise, Thailand, praised for a contraceptive prevalence of 79.2% in 2000 and upwards of 70% today, is a land where, “More than one-in-100 adults in this country of 65 million people is infected with HIV.”7 Among Thai women, “Oral contraception is the most popular method.”8, 9
On the other hand, Japan's HIV rate is, at 0.01%, one of the lowest in the world.10 In this context, it is important to note that the birth control pill was illegal in Japan until 1999, and even today only 1% of Japanese women use oral contraception. Similarly, the predominantly Catholic Philippines, with a longstanding popular resistance to contraception, boasts an HIV “prevalence rate of only 0.02%."
The paper is obviously extremely flawed as they don't separate their independent variables at all, thereby picking only the data points that bolsters their "research". For example, for Thai women oral contraceptives are the most common, without saying what the overall usage rate is. If the rate of contraceptive usage is very low overall, the rate of HIV infections will most likely be high whether oral contraceptives are preferred or not. And stating that the Phillipinos are resistant to contraception without stating what the rate of condom usage is. Same with the statement about Japan.
In any case, the point is that there are indeed "religious nuts convincing people that birth control causes AIDS" as the AC stated.
For many of these systems the problem is untangling the business logic and reproducing it without error. It's like starting from scratch except worse, the spec wasn't fully documented and rarely ever treated as a living document. Not to mention that the folks that defined and implemented the systems are probably long gone.
Unwinding is not a trivial task and can take an extremely long time. Whether IE6 is 10 or 30 years old doesn't matter, working systems matter. Old technology usually isn't the thing holding you back.
Slashdot Mirror
Was wondering about that the other day. I get that message on a lot of sites when I have third-party cookies turned off (usually always), your mention of GA seems related. Guess it's simply a misnomer.
He was talking about creating that account on your mailserver. Sneakemail or Spamgourmet serves the same purpose. As long as you don't mind your email going through a third party server, it works for most purposes. Just be sensible and don't use it for banking-type accounts.
Based on the last couple quarters, Zynga's already on life support. Their fate isn't sealed yet but the magic eightball says "outlook not so good".
That explains why APK owns a yacht. With extra storage below deck to store his host files.
$699 of course. If at first you don't succeed...
It would have taken less time to understand the ac's point than to type all that drivel. Mavis Beacon would be proud though.
Interesting post, definitely food for thought.
I considered the same thing a few months ago then backed off to rethink what I was trying to accomplish. Mainly because of the fear of screwing up, if you do mess up somehow there's no way back. That's obviously bad for a teenager in high school, it's in another league for a professional trying to advance his career.
What I realized was that creating a presence isn't necessarily an all-or-nothing affair. It's simply ranking by what could get out of hand. Meaning that on a scale of 1-10, Linkedin is targeted toward professionals so probably an 8, the Google circle thing is maybe a 5, Twitter is a 2 and Facebook is a zero.
My checklist ended up focusing on these four things:
- Controlling the blend of professional and personal information that gets out. The information you expose shouldn't allow one to divine your political views.
- How much of what you expose is tied to other people's social stuff. For example, could a retweet be misinterpreted or someone posting something offensive on your Facebook wall.
- Working it backwards, what would you like Google and Twitter to show then try to craft that. It's worth looking at what other people's profiles look like and use it as a template.
- How much time is going to be required to maintain my "social garden". Obviously the fewer services the better but only if they're worth the hassle.
(Btw, in the end I said screw it and decided to think about it some more)
Well, your plan made sense. There probably aren't many Indians in Sioux City.
Excellent point, King George was infamous for forced toolbar installations. When the users didn't get the tea they were promised in exchange for the installing it, well, the rest is history.
I think you may have missed the point. From my reading, her/his point was that these "hipsters" really aren't geeks per se. Especially in the world of hardware and computing.
By definition a geek is someone who has a strong curiosity in most things that would be considered technical to the layman, primarily what's going on under the hood and creating stuff around it. When you encounter a new black box you spend the time and actually enjoy learning it inside out. It's that drive to know as much as possible that leads to friendly arguments with other people like yourself, and that feedback ultimately serves as a way to figure out and explore what you didn't know (which is a positive!). That's the way it worked in the old days anyway.
To your (rather loud) point, installing Ubuntu then giving up after you realize that the command line is necessary is actually a pretty good test of the "hipster" mentality. Having a Macbook, github account and endless copypasta from stackexchange does not qualify one as a rails guru, or IOS programmer or anything else either. Just someone who is interested in image over substance. Jmho.
Bush Jr. also doubled the national debt which offsets that pocket money in the long run. There were consequences to all those tax cuts, wars and Medicare Part D giveaways by the Republicans.
The real problem is that Wall Street has had free reign going back to the mid-90's with Greenspan and Gramm's Randian experiments which were responsible for the dotcom and housing bubbles. Both the Bush and Obama administrations are guilty of simply sitting back and doing nothing to curb the problem, Obama arguably moreso.
That's a well-worn troll you're responding to. It still gets modded +1 Funny because it was well crafted. But I suspect its days are numbered.
Racist but pretty clever. +1 Funny
Agreed, and nissan.com is the perfect example of that. But not guaranteed to be safe given that hijack attempts have been successful in the past. Verizxon.com is an example of a domain that was transferred to the complainant because of likelihood of confusion plus commercial gain. Putting cellphone ads on a domain like that clearly demonstrates the term "cybersquatting" because it would be hard for a panelist to say it isn't.
Bottom line is that the original poster was trying to lump anyone who picks up a dropped domain and parks it, along with the term "cybersquatter". That's just not true. Our discussion was about the nuances of the UDRP process wrt trademarks, which is what is important in defining what cybersquatting is.
I did mean "Verizen" or something similar. For example, if you register "verizxon.com" or "cerizonwireless.com" and put cellphone ppc on them, odds are you will lose the UDRP based on the trademark for "Verizon". Those are two examples among thousands.
Xboxone.com is at risk now because the Godaddy parking page is showing an ad for "custom xbox controllers". Even if the owner didn't opt-in for ad rev sharing.
The only good defense is if the domain was registered well before a trademark registration date because the panels are so hit-and-miss wrt competency. Then a reasonable panel can decide if the ads should be factored in based on part (iv).
Ok but I assumed it was obvious that Verizon was indeed trademarked, hence that example.
Here's the text for bad faith and usually quoted in UDRP decisions for obvious squatting. Part (iv) coupled with the Verizon trademark is what I was trying to get across. The gp's broad contention was that picking up a dropped domain automatically constitutes "cybersquatting". It's clearly not.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Under the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii), registration and use of a domain name in bad faith may be demonstrated by showing:
“(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.”
Well said. A decade ago I remember being shocked that end-to-end encryption was being attempted in the PC all the way to the monitor. Lest you think that was naive, the mindset back then was that it really was ludicrous given how many technical obstacles existed (which included resistance from the user btw).
But now it's readily apparent that source-to-consumption control was being taken very seriously by content producers and tech companies. It was the end-game for them because there was no other option to preserve the business models. So they methodically broke down each hurdle through technical tricks, law making and user conditioning.
It's not completely there yet but when you look at today's video game consoles and smart tvs, it's pretty much a given that a majority of our media and computing devices will be taken out of our control within the next 5-10 years. They'll be nothing more than vending machines. Coupled with the law making process and help from the ISPs, the signs are all there to make it happen, secure boot, broadcast flags, dependence on internet as a utility, et al.
Sure it's depressing but it's a rare case where we all know in great detail what the future holds.
No, it is a cyber squatter. They often use scripts to by domains that fall into disuse, presumably on the assumption that if someone wanted it once then someone else might want it in the future.
That is not the definition of a cybersquatter. What you're describing says anyone who registers a dropped domain is a squatter which is obviously ridiculous. Registering 'verizen.com' *and* parking it with cellphone ads is squatting. Using it for your blog or mailserver is perfectly fine, though it doesn't mean that corporate law won't try to take it from you anyway (i.e. Nissan).
But that's what UDRP panels are for, though it's hit or miss depending on the members on the panel. It's also why respondents should always request a 3 member panel instead of one. That way it lessens the odds of having the decision determined by a cowboy attorney who doesn't understand the true intent of the process. It's astonishing how many bad UDRPs there are because of one member panels.
Having said all that, federal/arbitration suits are another can of worms.
Case in point, Emma Way and her infamous cyclist tweet:
http://ipayroadtax.com/no-such-thing-as-road-tax/i-knocked-a-cyclist-off-his-bike-i-have-right-of-way-he-doesnt-even-pay-road-tax/
What's interesting is that she won't take responsibility for what she did (based on a video interview with her lawyer present) and goes so far as to blame her victim which is creating even more notoriety. It's the Streisand effect which makes things worse down the road. If she simply admitted that she was wrong, future employers might consider a little sympathy. Instead all that resides in the websphere is an increasingly bad portrait of this woman. Which appears deserved in this case.
Interestingly, it turns out that the AC's comment is not a troll. As a matter of fact, some googling turned up pop.org (Population Research Institute). It has non-profit status and clearly a front for some Christian organization given their strong pro-life emphasis in the mission statement. To the point, they published an article called "The Pill's Deadly Affair with HIV/AIDS". http://www.pop.org/content/the-pills-deadly-affair-with-hivaids-1199
One paragraph that stood out:
"Likewise, Thailand, praised for a contraceptive prevalence of 79.2% in 2000 and upwards of 70% today, is a land where, “More than one-in-100 adults in this country of 65 million people is infected with HIV.”7 Among Thai women, “Oral contraception is the most popular method.”8, 9
On the other hand, Japan's HIV rate is, at 0.01%, one of the lowest in the world.10 In this context, it is important to note that the birth control pill was illegal in Japan until 1999, and even today only 1% of Japanese women use oral contraception. Similarly, the predominantly Catholic Philippines, with a longstanding popular resistance to contraception, boasts an HIV “prevalence rate of only 0.02%."
The paper is obviously extremely flawed as they don't separate their independent variables at all, thereby picking only the data points that bolsters their "research". For example, for Thai women oral contraceptives are the most common, without saying what the overall usage rate is. If the rate of contraceptive usage is very low overall, the rate of HIV infections will most likely be high whether oral contraceptives are preferred or not. And stating that the Phillipinos are resistant to contraception without stating what the rate of condom usage is. Same with the statement about Japan.
In any case, the point is that there are indeed "religious nuts convincing people that birth control causes AIDS" as the AC stated.
Well said.
Me?
For many of these systems the problem is untangling the business logic and reproducing it without error. It's like starting from scratch except worse, the spec wasn't fully documented and rarely ever treated as a living document. Not to mention that the folks that defined and implemented the systems are probably long gone.
Unwinding is not a trivial task and can take an extremely long time. Whether IE6 is 10 or 30 years old doesn't matter, working systems matter. Old technology usually isn't the thing holding you back.
Half Life too.