Well, let's see. Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, and Wrong.
Like all libertarians, he advocates rights for the rich, and slavery for the poor.
No, libertarians advocate liberty. Even people who have nothing can choose to use their mind and their hands to create wealth for themselves. Libertarians just don't think it should be somebody else's responsibility to make wealth for the people who choose not to make it themselves.
libertarianism provides only simple answers to complex questions
Libertarians do provide mostly simple answers, but the questions aren't as complex as you think they are. They only seem complex because they've been answered by corrupt bureaucrats who are beholden to conflicting corporate and minority interests.
and libertarians will never directly answer any challenges to their beliefs, they will simply accuse you of hating freedom
I am a libertarian. I will directly answer any challenges to my beliefs. I will also not accuse of you hating freedom (most people I encounter, including you, truly do love freedom). However, when a libertarian answers a question, liberty will almost certainly come up; it is at the core of the libertarian ideal. Moreover, you must expect that a Libertarian will often claim that liberty trumps utility. If you don't believe that liberty could ever be the paramount consideration, then become a utilitarian and form your own party.
I've said it before Yeah, you should probably stop saying it, huh?
Libertarians forget that freedom and responsibility go hand in hand.
ABSOLUTELY WRONG. Libertarians believe that every action has a consequence, and everybody is responsible for his or her own actions through the consequences of those actions. Libertarians also believe that society is responsible for somebody, that person is no longer completely responsible for themselves. So, libertarians advocate that these people be solely responsible for themselves.
Libertarianism: the philosophical equivalent of shouting, "you're not the boss of me!" in response to any question.
Funny, I would say it's the philosophical equivalent to pleading "give me liberty or give me death."
What's the dirty trick? Read my sibling comments; the dirty trick is that they took his Myspace URL from him (which presumably includes the majority of the traffic)! The parent comment is neither interesting nor insightful as it completely ignores this, the most important fact of the case.
It is very possible that Obama is not at fault here: I would guess that this is all the unilateral action of an evil campaign aid. However, I must agree with the grandparent: politicians (or at least the dirty little henchman that skulk around them) are complete scum.
My eyes and especially my ears are quite sensitive when it comes to those kinds of things, yet I have had absolutely no complaints about my Compact Fluorescent bulbs. Are you using CFLs, or old-school large-tube bright-white fluorescents that were installed back when Reagan was president?
Right, I suspected that multi-editor approval might already be implemented, but I wasn't sure. Even if it wasn't implemented yet, it would be trivial to do so given an existing personnel infrastructure.
Obviously, the key is getting enough diligent editors involved with the project. You have posted about the scalability of Citizendium in this thread, and I do believe that the model is sufficiently scalable. However, it will require a great deal of work to generate that much support among qualified editors. Good luck.
I really hope you are modded up for that comment. You are so absolutely right, but there is a fairly simple solution (that you yourself suggested).
There are enough experts in the world on any topic for there to be a large plurality of editors for any given article. I say that there doesn't even need to be a dichotomy between "controversial" and "non-controversial"; just attach a plurality of editors to *every* article. If they are all given approval rights, the consensus element of Wikipedia still remains intact in The Citizendium, but now at two levels (the user and editor level). The set of editors for a topic will have to find a way to agree, or a higher power (perhaps Sanger himself in some cases) will have to step in to resolve the disagreement. I suspect that a large group of experts will eventually be able to stabilize almost any article's content with sufficiently neutral language. Heck, it happens on Wikipedia all the time; the only difference is that once this stabilization takes place on the Citizendium, it will have the tacit approval of [hopefully] well-regarded experts in the relevant field.
Don't dismiss the Citizendium just because Wikipedia is trying out an "editor system". Citizendium is really quite interesting and unique for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to Responsibility and Respect of Expertise.
1) The Citizendium introduces the concept of personal responsibility. People are asked to use their real identities so that reputations are on the line (as they should be, because reputations are also on the line when siting sources).
2) The Citizendium will demand in its editors the same qualifications that would qualify that person as an expert outside the encyclopedia. This is a crucial variation of the Wikipedia "editor system" that you linked to. It will require a great deal of work on behalf of its administrators, but will make the Citizendium respected by professionals.
You completely misunderstood my post. The point is not that HD-DVD is "gonna win": the point is simply that Sony could beat HD-DVD and still fail to make a profitable product. As long as the media is pricey and not backwards compatible with pervasive existing equipment, it's going to be a tough sell. Let's remember that 5,000,000 PS3 units sold in the US (reasonable for year or so of sales) translates into about 4.5% market saturation (assuming about 110 million households in the US). That's pretty puny compared to 82% market saturation for DVD, a product that by and large, consumers are very happy with. Heck, with 15 million PSPs out in the wild, Sony couldn't make UMD stick.
That comment is insane for so many reasons. Not the least of which being that Blu-Ray could "beat" HD-DVD and still lose. If they 5 times as many Blu-Ray media as HD-DVD, but only sell 10,000 units per year, then they fail. From TFA:
you won't find any hard sales figures here
In other words, we have no idea how either format is doing on an absolute scale.
I understand what you're saying, and your facts are correct; however, I don't think you understand the conceptual implications to the end-user. The fact is that it does downplay the user/admin dichotomy - primary because there are no longer two accounts involved in the security schema. In fact, there really isn't a dichotomy at all in Ubuntu's default configuration; there is merely a mechanism for confirmation that you are the currently logged in [super]user. I am not saying this to insult or complement Ubuntu (I don't know if this is good), but only to claim that Ubuntu makes an effort to minimize the conceptual barrier to administration.
Ahh, thank you for clarifying; that does make more sense.
I think it's User Account Control, and it is supposed to enforce a user model more similar to the admin/user model that Unix/Linux has been using for years.
Even assuming this, I still maintain that UAC is not good for Grandma. There is a reason why distros like Ubuntu and Linspire downplayed that model, and it is because most people are not capable of understanding that abstraction. To them, the extra work required to do admin operations is just wasted time.
You need to back that up with evidence. I checked, and they seem to me to be basically the same. A sibling post to yours suggested that your grandparent poster was talking about User Access Control. This makes more sense, and UAC is indeed different from DRM. But, the best I can tell is that URM is simply used to mean DRM in 90% of cases (Solaris 10 being the only interesting exception).
You don't need URM [DRM] to prevent deletion of "core windows files". Plus, XP already does it..
And URM [DRM] isn't responsible for "annoying extra layers" during the deletion of recipes. That is the purview of MessageBox calls in Explorer. URM [DRM] prevents you from doing things at all, and let's face it; the prospect of losing control is never a welcomed thing, especially for an old person.
3.5s and CDs, you have a point. However, the rest of the formats that you mentioned are barely successful, and only popular in niche markets. For each of those formats, there was a competitor in the consumer market that was more popular (often far more popular). Their professional formats are not relevant here because those cases are not symmetrical with Blu-Ray (a decidedly consumer-oriented product).
but they are pipsqueaks like Disney, Apple and Sun.
You meant this sarcastically, but I find it funny that the best three companies you can come up with have a combined market cap lower than that of Microsoft (who is pushing HD-DVD as I'm sure you know). Truly, they are pipsqueaks! Of course, if I wanted to, I could name another two backing HD-DVD that are larger than any of the three you mentioned. Just to be clear, I don't think HD-DVD will succeed either; I don't care how many companies are behind a format, it won't survive if people don't want it, and obviously, people don't want Blu-Ray.
You wildly underestimate consumers. In the mid nineties, people didn't largely upgrade from the Super Nintendo (arguably the most popular console of all time by developer commitment) to the N64. They instead went to the PS1 which was, at the time, poised for much better development. And they definitely made the right choice; beyond the N64s superior processing merits, the games were expensive, the cartridge was not large enough to hold FMVs to speak of, and development was difficult.
besides, it's not even in the same market
Well, at least you're right about that. The Wii is in the "making money" market, whereas the PS3 is... well, not. You probably meant that they are in different markets because the Wii has inferior graphics; this is just stupid. Games are about fun, not graphics, and the Wii is just more fun.
More importantly, the PS3 could even win, and blu-ray could still lose. Since when has Sony ever been able to push a format? Heck, even with as popular as the PSP is, they still can't sell UMD media. Why would people pay twice as much for a medium when the existing one meets and exceeds most people's quality standards? (disclaimer: I like HD, but most people are not like me)
You need to seriously recalibrate your expectations when it comes to new, expensive media (especially media from Sony, which has categorically been able to screw up every format they've ever touched).
If the manufacturing costs of these disks is comparable to HD-DVD/Blu-ray disks, it might just click.
I doubt it. Both formats' relative failure up until this point has nothing to do with the "format war". I use quotes because there really isn't any war to speak of; nobody cares. Look throughout recent history, and you'll see that nobody cares about incremental quality improvements in media format. If the media's physical shape or size changes, that's something else, but there aren't any physical changes here. Even broadcast quality upgrades have been ill-received, and have only come about because the FCC has mandated it. In this case, I don't believe a regulatory agency even exists to mandate media format upgrades.
So, dual mode discs or dual mode players or even a total end to any disagreement between content producers will change nothing; HD-DVD/Blu-Ray will each go the way of DVD-Audio (do most of you even know what that is?).
Maybe, but animal analogies are neither here nor there. I was making a very simple claim that the scientists interviewed by the writers of the article are making no ideological claim one way or the other concerning Global Warming. For that matter, I am making no ideological claim one way or the other regarding Global Warming. Nobody is. The only claim being made is that climate change might have caused the collapse.
Maybe it was a climate change? The climate changes all the time for various reasons, some of which we know, and most of which we don't.
I get the feeling that when you see "climate change", you assume that somebody is trying to push an ideology(specifically, Global Warming). I don't think this is the case. It's a fact that there is climate change, and it's a fact that the current climate change includes a increase in temperature, but not everybody claims that this is a result of human civilization. Temperature can only change in two directions, so there's a 50/50 shot that temperatures rise instead of fall.
Moreover, these scientists never specifically target global warming as a factor in the climate change which they merely suspect as a cause for this collapse. Read the following:
The researchers suspect climate change may have played a role in the collapse but said they cannot definitively say it is a result of global warming.
Maybe the people who wrote the article are trying to push the ideology, but the scientists aren't. They're only claiming that the increase in temperature which we have observed might be responsible for the demise of ice. Seems reasonable, no?
Of which variety? The good kind of the bad kind? I can't imagine that a litigious movie studio makes for a good marketing campaign ("And now, the corporate bully of decent hardworking 'netizens brings you War Games 2!"). No, there is only one reason why MGM is going about it this way. Big corporations bully the rightful owners of domains until they break under the weight of thousands in legal bills - all with the hope that the next time they want something, their target will simply relinquish what they have out of fear.
It's a low, morally bankrupt way of doing business, and I hope that one day they pay a horrible price.
Fedora has never been considered a system that was appropriate for deployment. I always viewed it as kind of a Debian Unstable or Testing (if you will) to Red Hat's RHEL (which is similar in function to Debian Stable). If I had authority in the Fedora Community, I wouldn't vote for legacy support either. Fedora's claim to fame has always been its ability to quickly adopt bleeding-edge software. It was terribly concerned with stability (or even security).
This applies to the majority of my Linux-using friends as well. Perhaps this is because people already know the name of Red Hat
I think this was definitely the norm about 3 years ago when it was created. Certainly, before that, Red Hat had incredible name recognition, and as it result, most new Linux users tended to get Red Hat (sometimes even get retail copies at the time).
However, I would claim that Ubuntu has now usurped Red Hat's (and Fedora's) position as the most recognized distribution among Linux newbies. Certainly Distro Watch agrees with me. Not that DW is conclusive evidence, but it tends to be a good indicator.
I do agree with you though; Fedora is important, even if it is not quite as popular as Ubuntu among newbies.
People have the right (or ought to anyway) to keep domains that they purchase, develop, and maintain in good faith. MGM is going to try to bully him into giving it up. They will probably succeed, and if they do, it will be because they have more clout and more money (a more expensive lawyer). Ergo, his online rights are now in jeopardy of being violated.
I bet you're glad you posted anonymously now. And to the lazy moderator who gave this guy an "insightful", shame on you. Check more carefully next time. I realize it's too much of a hassle to read TFA, but please take the time to at least read the short description on Slashdot.
So please take it from me, crushing race hate is worth losing some smaller liberties.
No! It isn't!
Everybody has a cause for which they believe it is worth the loss of 'smaller' liberties. But for whatever liberties we have (that do not infringe on the liberties of others), they are NEVER worth giving up.
The most important goal in any modern country should be to insure civil liberties. This is so that we can protect ourselves from the government, the entity who has the largest ability to harm us. World War II certainly was catastrophic (over 60 million casualities by some estimations), but it will be nothing compared to the suffering in the future if our population of over 6 billion becomes subject to police states. For each civil liberty that we give up, we get a step closer to that future.
Don't get me wrong, I haven't made up my mind on this particular case; I realize that some speech is considered a direct violation of people's natural rights. However, if a speech fails to rise to that threshold (and it is a very high threshold), than it ought to be free, and no number of casualities past or present should change that.
Be careful what you say; true liberties are NEVER worth giving up.
Slashdot Mirror
Like all libertarians, he advocates rights for the rich, and slavery for the poor.
No, libertarians advocate liberty. Even people who have nothing can choose to use their mind and their hands to create wealth for themselves. Libertarians just don't think it should be somebody else's responsibility to make wealth for the people who choose not to make it themselves.
libertarianism provides only simple answers to complex questions
Libertarians do provide mostly simple answers, but the questions aren't as complex as you think they are. They only seem complex because they've been answered by corrupt bureaucrats who are beholden to conflicting corporate and minority interests.
and libertarians will never directly answer any challenges to their beliefs, they will simply accuse you of hating freedom
I am a libertarian. I will directly answer any challenges to my beliefs. I will also not accuse of you hating freedom (most people I encounter, including you, truly do love freedom). However, when a libertarian answers a question, liberty will almost certainly come up; it is at the core of the libertarian ideal. Moreover, you must expect that a Libertarian will often claim that liberty trumps utility. If you don't believe that liberty could ever be the paramount consideration, then become a utilitarian and form your own party. I've said it before
Yeah, you should probably stop saying it, huh?
Libertarians forget that freedom and responsibility go hand in hand.
ABSOLUTELY WRONG. Libertarians believe that every action has a consequence, and everybody is responsible for his or her own actions through the consequences of those actions. Libertarians also believe that society is responsible for somebody, that person is no longer completely responsible for themselves. So, libertarians advocate that these people be solely responsible for themselves.
Libertarianism: the philosophical equivalent of shouting, "you're not the boss of me!" in response to any question.
Funny, I would say it's the philosophical equivalent to pleading "give me liberty or give me death."
It is very possible that Obama is not at fault here: I would guess that this is all the unilateral action of an evil campaign aid. However, I must agree with the grandparent: politicians (or at least the dirty little henchman that skulk around them) are complete scum.
My eyes and especially my ears are quite sensitive when it comes to those kinds of things, yet I have had absolutely no complaints about my Compact Fluorescent bulbs. Are you using CFLs, or old-school large-tube bright-white fluorescents that were installed back when Reagan was president?
Right, I suspected that multi-editor approval might already be implemented, but I wasn't sure. Even if it wasn't implemented yet, it would be trivial to do so given an existing personnel infrastructure.
Obviously, the key is getting enough diligent editors involved with the project. You have posted about the scalability of Citizendium in this thread, and I do believe that the model is sufficiently scalable. However, it will require a great deal of work to generate that much support among qualified editors. Good luck.
I really hope you are modded up for that comment. You are so absolutely right, but there is a fairly simple solution (that you yourself suggested).
There are enough experts in the world on any topic for there to be a large plurality of editors for any given article. I say that there doesn't even need to be a dichotomy between "controversial" and "non-controversial"; just attach a plurality of editors to *every* article. If they are all given approval rights, the consensus element of Wikipedia still remains intact in The Citizendium, but now at two levels (the user and editor level). The set of editors for a topic will have to find a way to agree, or a higher power (perhaps Sanger himself in some cases) will have to step in to resolve the disagreement. I suspect that a large group of experts will eventually be able to stabilize almost any article's content with sufficiently neutral language. Heck, it happens on Wikipedia all the time; the only difference is that once this stabilization takes place on the Citizendium, it will have the tacit approval of [hopefully] well-regarded experts in the relevant field.
Don't dismiss the Citizendium just because Wikipedia is trying out an "editor system". Citizendium is really quite interesting and unique for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to Responsibility and Respect of Expertise.
1) The Citizendium introduces the concept of personal responsibility. People are asked to use their real identities so that reputations are on the line (as they should be, because reputations are also on the line when siting sources).
2) The Citizendium will demand in its editors the same qualifications that would qualify that person as an expert outside the encyclopedia. This is a crucial variation of the Wikipedia "editor system" that you linked to. It will require a great deal of work on behalf of its administrators, but will make the Citizendium respected by professionals.
You completely misunderstood my post. The point is not that HD-DVD is "gonna win": the point is simply that Sony could beat HD-DVD and still fail to make a profitable product. As long as the media is pricey and not backwards compatible with pervasive existing equipment, it's going to be a tough sell. Let's remember that 5,000,000 PS3 units sold in the US (reasonable for year or so of sales) translates into about 4.5% market saturation (assuming about 110 million households in the US). That's pretty puny compared to 82% market saturation for DVD, a product that by and large, consumers are very happy with. Heck, with 15 million PSPs out in the wild, Sony couldn't make UMD stick.
That comment is insane for so many reasons. Not the least of which being that Blu-Ray could "beat" HD-DVD and still lose. If they 5 times as many Blu-Ray media as HD-DVD, but only sell 10,000 units per year, then they fail. From TFA:
you won't find any hard sales figures here
In other words, we have no idea how either format is doing on an absolute scale.
I understand what you're saying, and your facts are correct; however, I don't think you understand the conceptual implications to the end-user. The fact is that it does downplay the user/admin dichotomy - primary because there are no longer two accounts involved in the security schema. In fact, there really isn't a dichotomy at all in Ubuntu's default configuration; there is merely a mechanism for confirmation that you are the currently logged in [super]user. I am not saying this to insult or complement Ubuntu (I don't know if this is good), but only to claim that Ubuntu makes an effort to minimize the conceptual barrier to administration.
Ahh, thank you for clarifying; that does make more sense.
I think it's User Account Control, and it is supposed to enforce a user model more similar to the admin/user model that Unix/Linux has been using for years.
Even assuming this, I still maintain that UAC is not good for Grandma. There is a reason why distros like Ubuntu and Linspire downplayed that model, and it is because most people are not capable of understanding that abstraction. To them, the extra work required to do admin operations is just wasted time.
You need to back that up with evidence. I checked, and they seem to me to be basically the same. A sibling post to yours suggested that your grandparent poster was talking about User Access Control. This makes more sense, and UAC is indeed different from DRM. But, the best I can tell is that URM is simply used to mean DRM in 90% of cases (Solaris 10 being the only interesting exception).
You don't need URM [DRM] to prevent deletion of "core windows files". Plus, XP already does it..
And URM [DRM] isn't responsible for "annoying extra layers" during the deletion of recipes. That is the purview of MessageBox calls in Explorer. URM [DRM] prevents you from doing things at all, and let's face it; the prospect of losing control is never a welcomed thing, especially for an old person.
Really? Why?
DRM isn't great for anybody, including the unethical institutions that espouse it (though most of them would disagree if asked).
3.5s and CDs, you have a point. However, the rest of the formats that you mentioned are barely successful, and only popular in niche markets. For each of those formats, there was a competitor in the consumer market that was more popular (often far more popular). Their professional formats are not relevant here because those cases are not symmetrical with Blu-Ray (a decidedly consumer-oriented product).
but they are pipsqueaks like Disney, Apple and Sun.
You meant this sarcastically, but I find it funny that the best three companies you can come up with have a combined market cap lower than that of Microsoft (who is pushing HD-DVD as I'm sure you know). Truly, they are pipsqueaks! Of course, if I wanted to, I could name another two backing HD-DVD that are larger than any of the three you mentioned. Just to be clear, I don't think HD-DVD will succeed either; I don't care how many companies are behind a format, it won't survive if people don't want it, and obviously, people don't want Blu-Ray.
Actually, there were two competing formats for DVDs as there are now for its successor. Sony and Philips lost, and ended up agreeing to the other format with one modification.
You wildly underestimate consumers. In the mid nineties, people didn't largely upgrade from the Super Nintendo (arguably the most popular console of all time by developer commitment) to the N64. They instead went to the PS1 which was, at the time, poised for much better development. And they definitely made the right choice; beyond the N64s superior processing merits, the games were expensive, the cartridge was not large enough to hold FMVs to speak of, and development was difficult.
besides, it's not even in the same market
Well, at least you're right about that. The Wii is in the "making money" market, whereas the PS3 is... well, not. You probably meant that they are in different markets because the Wii has inferior graphics; this is just stupid. Games are about fun, not graphics, and the Wii is just more fun.
Yes, as the AC said, the PS3 could easily lose.
More importantly, the PS3 could even win, and blu-ray could still lose. Since when has Sony ever been able to push a format? Heck, even with as popular as the PSP is, they still can't sell UMD media. Why would people pay twice as much for a medium when the existing one meets and exceeds most people's quality standards? (disclaimer: I like HD, but most people are not like me)
You need to seriously recalibrate your expectations when it comes to new, expensive media (especially media from Sony, which has categorically been able to screw up every format they've ever touched).
If the manufacturing costs of these disks is comparable to HD-DVD/Blu-ray disks, it might just click.
I doubt it. Both formats' relative failure up until this point has nothing to do with the "format war". I use quotes because there really isn't any war to speak of; nobody cares. Look throughout recent history, and you'll see that nobody cares about incremental quality improvements in media format. If the media's physical shape or size changes, that's something else, but there aren't any physical changes here. Even broadcast quality upgrades have been ill-received, and have only come about because the FCC has mandated it. In this case, I don't believe a regulatory agency even exists to mandate media format upgrades.
So, dual mode discs or dual mode players or even a total end to any disagreement between content producers will change nothing; HD-DVD/Blu-Ray will each go the way of DVD-Audio (do most of you even know what that is?).
Maybe, but animal analogies are neither here nor there. I was making a very simple claim that the scientists interviewed by the writers of the article are making no ideological claim one way or the other concerning Global Warming. For that matter, I am making no ideological claim one way or the other regarding Global Warming. Nobody is. The only claim being made is that climate change might have caused the collapse.
So what was the cause 30 years ago?
Maybe it was a climate change? The climate changes all the time for various reasons, some of which we know, and most of which we don't.
I get the feeling that when you see "climate change", you assume that somebody is trying to push an ideology(specifically, Global Warming). I don't think this is the case. It's a fact that there is climate change, and it's a fact that the current climate change includes a increase in temperature, but not everybody claims that this is a result of human civilization. Temperature can only change in two directions, so there's a 50/50 shot that temperatures rise instead of fall.
Moreover, these scientists never specifically target global warming as a factor in the climate change which they merely suspect as a cause for this collapse. Read the following:
The researchers suspect climate change may have played a role in the collapse but said they cannot definitively say it is a result of global warming.
Maybe the people who wrote the article are trying to push the ideology, but the scientists aren't. They're only claiming that the increase in temperature which we have observed might be responsible for the demise of ice. Seems reasonable, no?
solely for publicity
Of which variety? The good kind of the bad kind? I can't imagine that a litigious movie studio makes for a good marketing campaign ("And now, the corporate bully of decent hardworking 'netizens brings you War Games 2!"). No, there is only one reason why MGM is going about it this way. Big corporations bully the rightful owners of domains until they break under the weight of thousands in legal bills - all with the hope that the next time they want something, their target will simply relinquish what they have out of fear.
It's a low, morally bankrupt way of doing business, and I hope that one day they pay a horrible price.
Fedora has never been considered a system that was appropriate for deployment. I always viewed it as kind of a Debian Unstable or Testing (if you will) to Red Hat's RHEL (which is similar in function to Debian Stable). If I had authority in the Fedora Community, I wouldn't vote for legacy support either. Fedora's claim to fame has always been its ability to quickly adopt bleeding-edge software. It was terribly concerned with stability (or even security).
This applies to the majority of my Linux-using friends as well. Perhaps this is because people already know the name of Red Hat
I think this was definitely the norm about 3 years ago when it was created. Certainly, before that, Red Hat had incredible name recognition, and as it result, most new Linux users tended to get Red Hat (sometimes even get retail copies at the time).
However, I would claim that Ubuntu has now usurped Red Hat's (and Fedora's) position as the most recognized distribution among Linux newbies. Certainly Distro Watch agrees with me. Not that DW is conclusive evidence, but it tends to be a good indicator.
I do agree with you though; Fedora is important, even if it is not quite as popular as Ubuntu among newbies.
The title is not exhaustive, but the description clearly says: "MGM is suing the rightful owner of WarGames.com".
People have the right (or ought to anyway) to keep domains that they purchase, develop, and maintain in good faith. MGM is going to try to bully him into giving it up. They will probably succeed, and if they do, it will be because they have more clout and more money (a more expensive lawyer). Ergo, his online rights are now in jeopardy of being violated.
I bet you're glad you posted anonymously now. And to the lazy moderator who gave this guy an "insightful", shame on you. Check more carefully next time. I realize it's too much of a hassle to read TFA, but please take the time to at least read the short description on Slashdot.
So please take it from me, crushing race hate is worth losing some smaller liberties.
No! It isn't!
Everybody has a cause for which they believe it is worth the loss of 'smaller' liberties. But for whatever liberties we have (that do not infringe on the liberties of others), they are NEVER worth giving up.
The most important goal in any modern country should be to insure civil liberties. This is so that we can protect ourselves from the government, the entity who has the largest ability to harm us. World War II certainly was catastrophic (over 60 million casualities by some estimations), but it will be nothing compared to the suffering in the future if our population of over 6 billion becomes subject to police states. For each civil liberty that we give up, we get a step closer to that future.
Don't get me wrong, I haven't made up my mind on this particular case; I realize that some speech is considered a direct violation of people's natural rights. However, if a speech fails to rise to that threshold (and it is a very high threshold), than it ought to be free, and no number of casualities past or present should change that.
Be careful what you say; true liberties are NEVER worth giving up.