Well, some remove comments when the comments are idiotic, take up too much space, or they want to hide the fact that it was copied. Those take the comments out lock, stock, and barrel though.
I too have a sense of humor, but I also know what is funny and what is rude.
There are plenty of people out there who cannot wear corrective lenses, either because they are ineffective, or because the lenses further damage the eyes.
This is a serious problem and making light of it only serves to offend.
I'm rather surprised a post was allowed that complains about people simply because they actually care about others.
So what we have here is an individual claiming his rights to a.com(mercial) address which he himself claims not to be using commercially ?
Shouldn't a commercial company like Unicom have the rights to the Unicom.com address, rather that an individual exploiting the weak control of.com addresses? As far as I'm concerned, he is a squatter in some sense. Or should we change the meaning of.com to.common ?
A squatter, as has been pointed out, is one who takes the name of a company in hopes to sell it. Obviously, in this case, the term does not, in any streach of the imagination, apply.
The problem with.com is not the fault of Chip Rosenthal, but rather the management of domain names. An interesting example is Microsoft. Go to either http://www.microsoft.com or http://www.microsoft.net. Both result in the same site, both are commercial sites, but one is.net.
Unicom.com also can justify being a.com in that it is a service to the commercial community. I came across it while seeking information on mailing lists (granted, by the time I ran across it, it was slashdotted, and I can't see the article).
As to Unicom having a right to the domain, there is no justification for that. They waited all this time to set up a website, they made no attempt to take care of this facet of their interests, and in no way affected Rosenthal's decision to register the address.
I'm also rather disgusted by the reasoning behind the Squatter rulings. The issue is not that they tried to profit from the URL, but copyright/trademark infringment. Take for instance AltaVista.com. It was registered before the search engine, the owner had legal claim to it, yet he sold it. This is no different from companies buying a valuable piece of real estate they have no intention of developing. They take the risk and expense on themselves, and profit if it pays off.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, some remove comments when the comments are idiotic, take up too much space, or they want to hide the fact that it was copied. Those take the comments out lock, stock, and barrel though.
I too have a sense of humor, but I also know what is funny and what is rude.
There are plenty of people out there who cannot wear corrective lenses, either because they are ineffective, or because the lenses further damage the eyes.
This is a serious problem and making light of it only serves to offend.
I'm rather surprised a post was allowed that complains about people simply because they actually care about others.
A squatter, as has been pointed out, is one who takes the name of a company in hopes to sell it. Obviously, in this case, the term does not, in any streach of the imagination, apply.
The problem with .com is not the fault of Chip Rosenthal, but rather the management of domain names. An interesting example is Microsoft. Go to either http://www.microsoft.com or http://www.microsoft.net. Both result in the same site, both are commercial sites, but one is .net.
Unicom.com also can justify being a .com in that it is a service to the commercial community. I came across it while seeking information on mailing lists (granted, by the time I ran across it, it was slashdotted, and I can't see the article).
As to Unicom having a right to the domain, there is no justification for that. They waited all this time to set up a website, they made no attempt to take care of this facet of their interests, and in no way affected Rosenthal's decision to register the address.
I'm also rather disgusted by the reasoning behind the Squatter rulings. The issue is not that they tried to profit from the URL, but copyright/trademark infringment. Take for instance AltaVista.com. It was registered before the search engine, the owner had legal claim to it, yet he sold it. This is no different from companies buying a valuable piece of real estate they have no intention of developing. They take the risk and expense on themselves, and profit if it pays off.