It's not always about remembering. See my previous post. Just because it's spelled out in the rules, doesn't make it right. It's still extortion. Even if it's legal extortion.
So buying something, not using it, and then trying to resell it is wrong in your opinion? If we were to follow your logic it would lead to thoughts like "That man bought some property and won't develop it hoping to resell it later at a profit! What a jerk, we should TAKE IT AWAY from him since he isn't using it!"
Is there anything you don't use that you'd be happy if I came and took it away from you because you weren't using it?
I don't think that you can equate real-estate and domain name squatting. For one thing, you can't steal real-estate out from under its owner and then demand a ransom to get it back. You might be able to equate it to ticket scalping. In that sense, I'd say the scalpers are jerks as well. I don't see any benefit to society in either of these practices and I have a hard time seeing how society would suffer if both of the practices were outlawed.
You keep saying buying a domain you know someone else is likely to want is wrong, but you don't say why.
Why is it wrong? Do we, as a society, really have to mollycoddle those who are too slow to get their damn domain renewed properly?
It's not always that someone is too slow. I had a registrar (don't remember which one) that had a non-secure page for renewing your domain ( I even verified that the action in the form wasn't an https request). I wouldn't submit my credit card information using their page. I decided that if they were too stupid to have a secure page for their renewal process, they didn't need my business. So I tried to transfer the site to another registrar. The transfer wouldn't work because it was "too close to the renewal date". Why should that matter? So I figured I'd just let it expire and request it from the other registrar. I was sure that no one else would want the name because it was for a church and the name was a combination of the town and denomination of the church. Further, mine was part of.org and none of the other TLDs had that combination. On the day it expired, I went to the other registrar and asked for it, but it was already taken.
Why is it wrong? The process isn't obvious. I never would have thought that someone would take the name just because *I* wanted it. If the name was of general interest, I probably would have called the original registrar and figured out a way to renew it before I transferred it. But I figured the squatters wouldn't be interested in something that had no general interest. Even having said that, I see no reason to allow people to obtain anything and resell it to others at a higher price just because they could get there first. That behavior does not benefit society. They aren't providing any value. It's essentially extortion.
In the end, I didn't pay their ransom. I let the name sit, but I watched it. They kept it for two years.
I run a software firewall on Linux. I seriously doubt I could be tricked into running a script that disables my firewall for the simple reason that running the firewall is the only thing the box is used for. I have a second Linux box that functions as server. I also have windows and apple machines on my network. Though the risks that you state are valid, it's not the fact that the firewall is software rather than hardware that makes it vulnerable, but that you are using it to do more than one task.
As much as I dislike authority figures harassing me the truth is that the object is to protect people and if they are tied up in court with traffic offenses they can't stop violent offenders so it usually isn't worth fighting over 5MPH.
And do you have some statistics to back up your preferences - i.e. how many people hurt / killed by violent offenders, versus traffic offenses?
Either way, if you are in court fighting over a small amount over, you aren't on the street. You aren't on the street stopping people from shooting each other and you aren't on the street stopping the maniac from driving 25 over. I don't think that any statistics are needed here.
Technically, yes. I have a lot better things to do with my time than wait for slow ads to load.
Well, you'd better look for a different solution that CSS tricks then...the ads still load, they just don't display. I think you are stretching things to equate *using* pre-installed software to blocking ads. I believe that there is some software out there that will remove those craplets for you. You could probably equate having someone else run that software against your computer before you use it for the first time.
Having said that, the ads don't bother me. In fact, I had the URLs blocked by squidGuard for awhile and found that I was more annoyed by squidGuard's "blocked" messages than I was the ads and turned it off. The only ones that really bother me are the ones that expand when you roll over them or float across the screen on their own.
Pick up a coffee roaster, and some unroasted beams. You can even use a air popcorn popper if you would like. Coffee ground and brewed within 4 hours of its roast has the best flavor.
I also roast my own coffee, but I have found that grinding the freshly roasted coffee within the first 24 hours yields a grassy flavor. I started out using an I-Roast. Although the device didn't last very long, I figured it paid for itself in about 38 weeks (based on brewing 1 pot of coffee per day) because the green beans were significantly cheaper than roasted. The only problem I had was that toward the end of its life, the I-Roast started acting weird and would ruin batches of coffee if I didn't watch it closely and monitor the temperatures. The I-Roast is essentially an air popcorn popper redesigned specifically to roast coffee. That is, it works uses the same principal to roast the coffee as the popper.
Now I use a small drum roaster that cost about 3 times more than the I-Roast, but gives a more consistent roast. It's one drawback (as compared to the I-Roast) is that the roast profile is essentially preset. You can control the length of the roast, but not the temperatures. That bothered me at first, but I'm so much happier with the roast that I guess they did a good job with their profile and I've been quite happy with it.
I have a burr grinder and a technivorm brewer. The grinder gives a consistent grind over the whirly bird method and the brewer is supposed to be the only consumer brewer sold that brews coffee at the correct temperature. All of this I bought from http://www.sweetmarias.com/. They have good reviews and information.
A newbie is an old grandma who barely knows how to use her mouse, and who when asked to show her computer will point her finger at the monitor. And Linux stil has a looooooong way to go before being usable (not to mention installable) by people like this.
Why stop at Linux? Installing anything on top of the OS, much less installing an OS, is a challenge for people like this. And being usable is mostly about what you are used to. My brother-in-law gave us a Mac mini. After hearing about how easy it was supposed to be, I found that I had trouble figuring out how to do some pretty rudimentary things. That's because I wasn't familiar with the Mac way. The "standard" location of things (think menu) is sometimes different between a Mac and Windows. Heck, I couldn't even cut & paste because ctrl-c/ctrl-v didn't work. Does that make a Mac harder to use? No, just different. Open Apple-C isn't harder, just different. The difficulty for Linux/Mac is that people's perception of "different" is "harder".
Please tell me that at what point the person who created the sire acted like an ass?
was it when he devoted years of his time for free? Was it when he said he would maintain it for free? or when he volunteered to be part of the staff for free?
or was it when he wanted a paltry some for years of work? I'd say it was when he wanted to be paid for something he was supposedly doing for free. Your sentences don't make sense to me...first you want to hold the guy up for doing all of this stuff for free, when in fact, he wanted paid for it.
Unfortunately, this geek can't wire his house in a weekend. I have a two story house with no attic and no way to run wires up to the second floor without tearing out the walls and/or floor. I wired most of my house when it was under construction. Unfortunately, that was before CAT5E was prevalent and so I only have CAT5.
His analogy is not broken. He just picked a different crime than you did. His point was that the copyright violation was by the user not the owner. His example was the parking garage owner being charged because someone parked a stolen car there...think receiving stolen property! I think that the one response concerning that youtube was built on people posting copyright infringing works would be equivalent to that garage owner knowing that people took stole cars there, and then got a reputation for allowing stolen cars to be parked there with no questions asked. Someone else can take the analogy from there.
Damn, I hate it when that on board computer lies to me. When I'm sitting in traffic, it shows that I'm getting 0 mpg, but wait...when I roll down the hill I'm getting 50 mpg...It's a freakin' economy vehicle! I don't know what to think....luckily, when I get home I can check the average mpg and it shows 14 mpg (on my Suburban anyway...I guess that Navigators get similar mileage). So I guess the moron is anyone who disagrees with your position.
(Now I guess I'll lose Karma for admitting I have a Suburban)
Generally, spam seems to come from @yahoo and @hotmail or other free email addresses, and anything from a registered domain is solicited email.
Actually, spammers put anything they want in the from address. I have an autoresponder set up on some of my addresses and I get my own autoresponse because my address was listed in the From line.
And that's perfectly fine, so long as your mail server serves you. If you are willing to miss my message because it was sent from a machine with a dynamically assigned IP, that's your choice. What bothers me is when my provider wants to decide which emails I get or don't get.
Is there any way to mod an entire tree as off topic? Half way through the page and I still haven't found anyone talking about the original question...apparently it's not like religion because no one wants to talk about it.
Funny, I just looked up fule mileage estimates for a full sized GMC Savana. 6 cylinder engine gets 15MPG. The same site lists the Cadillac Escalade as an 8 cylinder engine which gets 14MPG. I don't consider that "a heck of a lot better". People rail against SUVs because 'no one really takes them off road' as if that's the only reason to have one. Then make suggestions about which vehicle you should have chosen because it performs this or that task just as well as an SUV. I tow a trailer. Anything I get that can tow the weight is going to have the same sized engine as the SUV I have and get roughly the same mileage. I could have gotten a Pickup or a Van. I need more seating capacity that the pickup has and I like the way the SUV drives a whole lot better than the Van that I had before it.
BTW, my SUV also sits in the garage most of the time because I don't want to spend the money on gas when I have a vehicle that's more efficient. I bought a minivan to handle the people when I don't need to tow. Bought it 4 months later than the SUV and it has 3 times as many miles on it. But I'd be willing to bet that it's not good enough for some of the eco-facists out there and I'll be called "immoral" shortly.
If you think that it should be marked as spam, then you don't have a good understanding of what makes an email spam. It isn't mass mailing, or even whether or not it is an advertisement. What matters is that it has the characteristic of being unsolicited. Since no spam filter that I'm aware of can figure that out, we're reduced to someone else's idea of what tends to get sent to people without them requesting it. I don't trust anyone else's idea of what spam is and I'm of the opinion that one false postive is too many. Therefore, I have my own spam filter, under my control, and I check the marked messages just to make sure that I don't miss anything.
Anything that is big enough to pull my trailer will get the same gas mileage that my SUV gets. I wanted a full sized van, but it had to be a 3500 (Chevy) to have the appropriate tow rating and then it wouldn't fit in my garage. Even if it would, the mpg was the same, so do you still think that I should have opted for that? If so, I'd be curious as to why? I know I haven't heard anyone railing against the big pickup trucks or the full sized vans that get the same mileage. Why is that?
Ok, so now everyone has to clear their hobbies with you? And, no, it's not a boat. You have no idea what I have, but you're damn sure you're able to pass judgement. I see why you posted as AC.
Too bad my mini-van won't pull my trailer. That's why I have a Suburban. Of course, most people who spew forth their SUV hatred won't acknowledge that there are legit reasons to have one.
It's sad that the only technical solution we can come up with for the spam problem is one which limits valid uses of the internet. I don't recall seeing anything in the RFC that restricts who can use the SMTP protocol.
My provider does not restrict my ability to have a server and it isn't a small ISP. I do have a static IP, though.
Ah, but you miss an important point - USPTO grants patents because its also a source of income (and a pretty good one at that). Its not their duty to make sure that its upheld - if its not, its _your_ problem - as an applicant.
Ah, well, there's a simple solution to that then. Change the rules so that they receive the income whether or not they approve the patent. The fees paid to them (and government budget allotted to them) should be based on how many patents they review, not how many they grant.
That's a nice idea, but I don't think it's economically sound. Maybe at first, they would get the same amount of money, but after awhile, people would stop submitting (and paying for) patent requests that would likely be turned down. Thus, they wouldn't get as much money as they would if they approved everything.
This is the way that I handle getting email from a company with whom I placed an order. First off, I create a special email address just for them (bestbuy@mydomain.com). Then if I get ads from them to that address, I don't consider it spam. I also don't have a problem with clicking the "unsubscribe me" link for ads directed at a specially created address. If I get ads from places other than the company named in the email, then they sold my address. If that happens (and it hasn't!) I stop accepting mail to that account and I won't buy from that company again.
The majority of the spam that I get is addressed to mozilla@mydomain.com, because I posted something with that address on a newsgroup. Luckily, the only valid messages that I get to that account are from bugzilla and I just filter anything not from them and to that account directly into my spam folder.
Of course, all of this is a bit too complex for the AOL users we're talking about.
You're post is not quite accurate. First off, Cingular does offer a Cingular Nation plan that has the features you want. I just got a new Nokia phone that works over multiple technologies and doesn't cost extra regardless of whose network you're on.
Second, you paint an interesting picture about the breakup of AT&T. The breakup didn't have anything to do with wireless. AT&T was broken up into 7 baby bells. Illinois Bell was not one of them, it was a subsidiary of Ameritech. New England Telephone was not one of the baby bells. I believe that through mergers, that there are four baby bells left: SBC (formerly Southwestern Bell Corp.), Verison, Quest and Bell South. In addition to that, the long distance carriers have entered the local markets as well as cable companies. VOIP will cut into local phone markets soon. I don't think that we are ever going to get back to "The Phone Company"(TM) as you put it.
Slashdot Mirror
Dr. Seuss presented this theory in 1954. The sub universe was, of course, discovered by Horton the elephant.
It's not always about remembering. See my previous post. Just because it's spelled out in the rules, doesn't make it right. It's still extortion. Even if it's legal extortion.
So buying something, not using it, and then trying to resell it is wrong in your opinion? If we were to follow your logic it would lead to thoughts like "That man bought some property and won't develop it hoping to resell it later at a profit! What a jerk, we should TAKE IT AWAY from him since he isn't using it!"
Is there anything you don't use that you'd be happy if I came and took it away from you because you weren't using it?
I don't think that you can equate real-estate and domain name squatting. For one thing, you can't steal real-estate out from under its owner and then demand a ransom to get it back. You might be able to equate it to ticket scalping. In that sense, I'd say the scalpers are jerks as well. I don't see any benefit to society in either of these practices and I have a hard time seeing how society would suffer if both of the practices were outlawed.Why is it wrong? Do we, as a society, really have to mollycoddle those who are too slow to get their damn domain renewed properly?
It's not always that someone is too slow. I had a registrar (don't remember which one) that had a non-secure page for renewing your domain ( I even verified that the action in the form wasn't an https request). I wouldn't submit my credit card information using their page. I decided that if they were too stupid to have a secure page for their renewal process, they didn't need my business. So I tried to transfer the site to another registrar. The transfer wouldn't work because it was "too close to the renewal date". Why should that matter? So I figured I'd just let it expire and request it from the other registrar. I was sure that no one else would want the name because it was for a church and the name was a combination of the town and denomination of the church. Further, mine was part of .org and none of the other TLDs had that combination. On the day it expired, I went to the other registrar and asked for it, but it was already taken.
Why is it wrong? The process isn't obvious. I never would have thought that someone would take the name just because *I* wanted it. If the name was of general interest, I probably would have called the original registrar and figured out a way to renew it before I transferred it. But I figured the squatters wouldn't be interested in something that had no general interest. Even having said that, I see no reason to allow people to obtain anything and resell it to others at a higher price just because they could get there first. That behavior does not benefit society. They aren't providing any value. It's essentially extortion.
In the end, I didn't pay their ransom. I let the name sit, but I watched it. They kept it for two years.
I run a software firewall on Linux. I seriously doubt I could be tricked into running a script that disables my firewall for the simple reason that running the firewall is the only thing the box is used for. I have a second Linux box that functions as server. I also have windows and apple machines on my network. Though the risks that you state are valid, it's not the fact that the firewall is software rather than hardware that makes it vulnerable, but that you are using it to do more than one task.
Either way, if you are in court fighting over a small amount over, you aren't on the street. You aren't on the street stopping people from shooting each other and you aren't on the street stopping the maniac from driving 25 over. I don't think that any statistics are needed here.
Well, you'd better look for a different solution that CSS tricks then...the ads still load, they just don't display. I think you are stretching things to equate *using* pre-installed software to blocking ads. I believe that there is some software out there that will remove those craplets for you. You could probably equate having someone else run that software against your computer before you use it for the first time.
Having said that, the ads don't bother me. In fact, I had the URLs blocked by squidGuard for awhile and found that I was more annoyed by squidGuard's "blocked" messages than I was the ads and turned it off. The only ones that really bother me are the ones that expand when you roll over them or float across the screen on their own.
I also roast my own coffee, but I have found that grinding the freshly roasted coffee within the first 24 hours yields a grassy flavor. I started out using an I-Roast. Although the device didn't last very long, I figured it paid for itself in about 38 weeks (based on brewing 1 pot of coffee per day) because the green beans were significantly cheaper than roasted. The only problem I had was that toward the end of its life, the I-Roast started acting weird and would ruin batches of coffee if I didn't watch it closely and monitor the temperatures. The I-Roast is essentially an air popcorn popper redesigned specifically to roast coffee. That is, it works uses the same principal to roast the coffee as the popper.
Now I use a small drum roaster that cost about 3 times more than the I-Roast, but gives a more consistent roast. It's one drawback (as compared to the I-Roast) is that the roast profile is essentially preset. You can control the length of the roast, but not the temperatures. That bothered me at first, but I'm so much happier with the roast that I guess they did a good job with their profile and I've been quite happy with it.
I have a burr grinder and a technivorm brewer. The grinder gives a consistent grind over the whirly bird method and the brewer is supposed to be the only consumer brewer sold that brews coffee at the correct temperature. All of this I bought from http://www.sweetmarias.com/. They have good reviews and information.
And my favorite coffee is Costa Rica La Minita.
Why stop at Linux? Installing anything on top of the OS, much less installing an OS, is a challenge for people like this. And being usable is mostly about what you are used to. My brother-in-law gave us a Mac mini. After hearing about how easy it was supposed to be, I found that I had trouble figuring out how to do some pretty rudimentary things. That's because I wasn't familiar with the Mac way. The "standard" location of things (think menu) is sometimes different between a Mac and Windows. Heck, I couldn't even cut & paste because ctrl-c/ctrl-v didn't work. Does that make a Mac harder to use? No, just different. Open Apple-C isn't harder, just different. The difficulty for Linux/Mac is that people's perception of "different" is "harder".
was it when he devoted years of his time for free? Was it when he said he would maintain it for free? or when he volunteered to be part of the staff for free?
or was it when he wanted a paltry some for years of work?
I'd say it was when he wanted to be paid for something he was supposedly doing for free. Your sentences don't make sense to me...first you want to hold the guy up for doing all of this stuff for free, when in fact, he wanted paid for it.
Unfortunately, this geek can't wire his house in a weekend. I have a two story house with no attic and no way to run wires up to the second floor without tearing out the walls and/or floor. I wired most of my house when it was under construction. Unfortunately, that was before CAT5E was prevalent and so I only have CAT5.
His analogy is not broken. He just picked a different crime than you did. His point was that the copyright violation was by the user not the owner. His example was the parking garage owner being charged because someone parked a stolen car there...think receiving stolen property! I think that the one response concerning that youtube was built on people posting copyright infringing works would be equivalent to that garage owner knowing that people took stole cars there, and then got a reputation for allowing stolen cars to be parked there with no questions asked. Someone else can take the analogy from there.
Damn, I hate it when that on board computer lies to me. When I'm sitting in traffic, it shows that I'm getting 0 mpg, but wait...when I roll down the hill I'm getting 50 mpg...It's a freakin' economy vehicle! I don't know what to think....luckily, when I get home I can check the average mpg and it shows 14 mpg (on my Suburban anyway...I guess that Navigators get similar mileage). So I guess the moron is anyone who disagrees with your position. (Now I guess I'll lose Karma for admitting I have a Suburban)
And that's perfectly fine, so long as your mail server serves you. If you are willing to miss my message because it was sent from a machine with a dynamically assigned IP, that's your choice. What bothers me is when my provider wants to decide which emails I get or don't get.
Is there any way to mod an entire tree as off topic? Half way through the page and I still haven't found anyone talking about the original question...apparently it's not like religion because no one wants to talk about it.
Funny, I just looked up fule mileage estimates for a full sized GMC Savana. 6 cylinder engine gets 15MPG. The same site lists the Cadillac Escalade as an 8 cylinder engine which gets 14MPG. I don't consider that "a heck of a lot better". People rail against SUVs because 'no one really takes them off road' as if that's the only reason to have one. Then make suggestions about which vehicle you should have chosen because it performs this or that task just as well as an SUV. I tow a trailer. Anything I get that can tow the weight is going to have the same sized engine as the SUV I have and get roughly the same mileage. I could have gotten a Pickup or a Van. I need more seating capacity that the pickup has and I like the way the SUV drives a whole lot better than the Van that I had before it. BTW, my SUV also sits in the garage most of the time because I don't want to spend the money on gas when I have a vehicle that's more efficient. I bought a minivan to handle the people when I don't need to tow. Bought it 4 months later than the SUV and it has 3 times as many miles on it. But I'd be willing to bet that it's not good enough for some of the eco-facists out there and I'll be called "immoral" shortly.
If you think that it should be marked as spam, then you don't have a good understanding of what makes an email spam. It isn't mass mailing, or even whether or not it is an advertisement. What matters is that it has the characteristic of being unsolicited. Since no spam filter that I'm aware of can figure that out, we're reduced to someone else's idea of what tends to get sent to people without them requesting it. I don't trust anyone else's idea of what spam is and I'm of the opinion that one false postive is too many. Therefore, I have my own spam filter, under my control, and I check the marked messages just to make sure that I don't miss anything.
Anything that is big enough to pull my trailer will get the same gas mileage that my SUV gets. I wanted a full sized van, but it had to be a 3500 (Chevy) to have the appropriate tow rating and then it wouldn't fit in my garage. Even if it would, the mpg was the same, so do you still think that I should have opted for that? If so, I'd be curious as to why? I know I haven't heard anyone railing against the big pickup trucks or the full sized vans that get the same mileage. Why is that?
Ok, so now everyone has to clear their hobbies with you? And, no, it's not a boat. You have no idea what I have, but you're damn sure you're able to pass judgement. I see why you posted as AC.
Too bad my mini-van won't pull my trailer. That's why I have a Suburban. Of course, most people who spew forth their SUV hatred won't acknowledge that there are legit reasons to have one.
It's sad that the only technical solution we can come up with for the spam problem is one which limits valid uses of the internet. I don't recall seeing anything in the RFC that restricts who can use the SMTP protocol. My provider does not restrict my ability to have a server and it isn't a small ISP. I do have a static IP, though.
That's a nice idea, but I don't think it's economically sound. Maybe at first, they would get the same amount of money, but after awhile, people would stop submitting (and paying for) patent requests that would likely be turned down. Thus, they wouldn't get as much money as they would if they approved everything.
This is the way that I handle getting email from a company with whom I placed an order. First off, I create a special email address just for them (bestbuy@mydomain.com). Then if I get ads from them to that address, I don't consider it spam. I also don't have a problem with clicking the "unsubscribe me" link for ads directed at a specially created address. If I get ads from places other than the company named in the email, then they sold my address. If that happens (and it hasn't!) I stop accepting mail to that account and I won't buy from that company again. The majority of the spam that I get is addressed to mozilla@mydomain.com, because I posted something with that address on a newsgroup. Luckily, the only valid messages that I get to that account are from bugzilla and I just filter anything not from them and to that account directly into my spam folder. Of course, all of this is a bit too complex for the AOL users we're talking about.
You're post is not quite accurate. First off, Cingular does offer a Cingular Nation plan that has the features you want. I just got a new Nokia phone that works over multiple technologies and doesn't cost extra regardless of whose network you're on. Second, you paint an interesting picture about the breakup of AT&T. The breakup didn't have anything to do with wireless. AT&T was broken up into 7 baby bells. Illinois Bell was not one of them, it was a subsidiary of Ameritech. New England Telephone was not one of the baby bells. I believe that through mergers, that there are four baby bells left: SBC (formerly Southwestern Bell Corp.), Verison, Quest and Bell South. In addition to that, the long distance carriers have entered the local markets as well as cable companies. VOIP will cut into local phone markets soon. I don't think that we are ever going to get back to "The Phone Company"(TM) as you put it.