When you do ask for a price, ask him for the price of several of his domains at once. Act like you are not specifically interested in just of those domains and any would work for you. Maybe pretend to be another reseller interested in building your portfolio.
I don't think this sort of posturing will work. Domain squatting is a pretty technical field and a squatter (to my mind) needs to be at least a little intelligent to work it all. They'll realise that you're after a single domain unless you purchase a huge swathe (and pay too much for lots of domains that you don't want). I don't think you'll win unless you really want to manage those domains going forward.
I think that $500 is on the high end of what an undeveloped domain name is worth, but when I see $5,000, that just floors me. The key being that the domain is undeveloped. Marketing is the key to whether a domain is successful or not and speculative registration does nothing for that.
Registered domains have domain age which is good for SEO, if the domain name suggests a particular field (eg a tech domain) then it may have been optimised for that and might even have a few useful links possibly even a little PR.
The worth of anything in a capitalist regime is the value someone will pay. If there's scarcity (check!) then that value is boosted.
If the domain were developed, with some automated blog posts or somesuch, would it be worth more then. How about if the blog posts were put up manually. What about if it's being used but sporadically and with hight ratio of ads to content. At what point do you consider the owner is warranted to sell at a higher value? If $5000 is peanuts to the purchaser but will stop the seller from losing their family home, does that matter...
If your business plan depends on owning one specific domain then your business plan sucks.
Twitter would be as good if it was called YouveOnly140Characters; and Flickr could equally be ShareYourPhotosHere and wouldn't Microsoft have got just as much buzz out of YetAnotherSearchEngine... his product can be awesome but without the right name he'll struggle. Domain names are very important.
No, what you say is nonsense. If you buy up a domain name to which you have no legitimate right, just for the purpose of extorting money from or preventing use by someone who does, then you are just being an asswipe.
Your logic is sound [-ish] but the legitimate owner is the one who pays the cost of "owning" that domain. For a virgin domain that's not a lot.
By your reasoning, the Mafia's protection rackets in the 1920s and '30s would have been perfectly legitimate, since there was no legal system to prevent it.
I think they used intimidation and threat of violence in order to extort money out of businesses? You're tripping if you think these things are morally equivalent.
Domain squatting within a capitalist society is a perfectly moral. Capitalism knows no morality except profit.
While I despise these people who park pages, their price is usually worth it if you are a company and the name is good.
I own several parked domains. Personally I despise domain squatters.
When a client fails to pay their renewal fees (and sometimes when they do pay, late) then occassionally - due to fixed term rental of domain names from the registrar - one gets lumbered with some domains. I think it's perfectly OK to add a parking page and try and recoup a little of the loss whilst waiting for the domain to expire.
Perhaps I should be more strict with my clients (charity groups and local small businesses) and just let "their" domains expire at potentially huge cost and embarrassment to them?
Gamers have to dislike the Wii, it makes the market open and accessible to non-gamers. It's Gamer Law (or should that be lore?) you have to hate the n00bs and anything they touch gets the stigma of n00b.
Have you used the Wiimote to play Wii games? In the form it's in, it is a gimmick. It's basically a tacked on feature to most games outside of those made by Nintendo themselves and has poor sensitivity and tracking.
1. The RIAA PR person, the CBS PR person, and the Last.fm PR person. -- or -- 2. A completely unverifiable source who may have an axe to grind or other nefarious motive for completely fabricating the story.
Frankly, it's a tough call.
Well at least now CBS have started libel proceedings against TC the truth will come out in court. Oh wait.
Now what possible reason might the CBS have for believing they could fail in court, after all TC is all just scurrilous lies....
I agree with you here. I stopped following his worthless site because of this. Didn't have problems with it before, but oh well.
Its also funny he kept deleting every comment that he didnt agree with.
Along with your other comments here this makes you appear to be astroturfing for Last.fm.
You say his site had worth previously but due to this one story now does not. How has the information presented on unrelated issues been altered by your opinion WRT this story. What I think you meant to say is that you disprove of the actions of the lead on TechCrunch and so won't visit it anymore - quite different.
Personally the statement by CBS where they said "we've not sent anything to the RIAA" and then called back and said "when we [CBS] said 'we' we meant of course 'last.fm'" means any chances of me returning to Last.fm have diminished greatly. My personal view following this is that either TC were professionally done over or CBS did the dirty with the RIAA (behind Last.fm's back) - I'm tending towards the later position.
In any event this natural biological function will account for some statistical variation, and likely that variation will tend to favor males.
Don't come here with your well thought out scientific arguments dammit, the numbers of women in any particular [nice] role must be at least as many as the number of men or equality is not being served.
Strangely no one is arguing for more women in sewer maintenance.
Anyone who can't acknowledge this is a bigot and a twit.
If you're argument were strong enough to stand on it's own then you wouldn't need such name-calling.
Try again, this time, try to be logical, scientific or at least adult about your argument whatever it may be. Then at least it may warrant a thoughtful response. I know this is teh intarwebs, but come on, you appear to be of reasonable intelligence, can't you let your arguments stand on their own without flaming ad-hominems.
The only response you deserve currently is: "Anyone who thinks women are as intelligent as men is a mindless idiot."
Anyhow, the abstract:
the size of the [supposed gender] gap varies over differing cultures and correlates with the general degree of gender inequality in the culture
So which is more equal, being expected to die for your country or being expected to look after the kids. Men take bigger risks which pays off in certain fields - they're both the most intelligent and high paid and the least intelligent and low paid. Men are disposable by virtue of biology (few men are needed versus the number of women). They get the limellight as the victors but are as often the vanquished. The men taking the [metaphorical and actual] spoils of war and are noticed and envied by the women with no thought spared for the piled bloody agony of bodies left on the battle field.
It's really amazing how any of us, and humanity in general, ever lived past their 10th birthday without all the 'safety' gear that is available now. What a truly wonderful time to be alive, we now finally have the tools to live on past childhood.
Life expectancy has dramatically increased in the last few decades.
Oh and watch Finding Nemo. It's got some lesson in there about being an overprotective parent.
WT-Flip is the lesson from Finding Nemo. That if you allow your kids any freedom then they'll get lost and probably end up incarcerated with other people before being sold (given for free in the film) on to a short life of neglect before death (in the film at the hands of the dentist's niece). If that happens then most likely your kids cell-buddies will help to bust them out through the toilet; or they may escape by playing dead and being dumped (down the sink). At this stage if you [Dad] survive the gangs (seagulls in the harbour) then you may eventually be reunited.
Thanks for the tip - I'm going home now and shackling my sons to the wall in their bedroom.
1. Hack an iPhone or other smart phone to act as a torrent server over 3G 2. Fill the drive with Metallica tracks 3. Duct tape the phone to your daughter 4. If you need to know where she is, just ask the RIIA
The $10 Millions USD per month costs might be a bit of a struggle...
She'll be safer even if you are unable to access your handheld, or the internet is down, or the power goes out...
Fixed.
You know that mall clerks and parents and security guards, and yes cops too, are all potential abductors. No, you're right, not everyone is bad or evil; yes I encourage my kid to speak to strangers. My message is "find a Mum, a lady with kids, and tell her you're lost" - I think that statistically is likely to be the best option (though some Mums I know makes this a scary proposition too!).
Do you know what would be even safer. If, assuming her parents are benevolent, her parents know where she is when she's lost.
perhaps its my paranoia light flashing because of my client, i can understand your concern, but 10s of thousands, nay 10s of millions of kids make it thought the school system every year without their parents needing to freak out like that.
So to parents bereaved of their children do you say "it's OK, look all the other parents still have their kids!" ?
If your child gets abducted then the chances of it happening are unlikely to provide any solace.
I think you're being harsh on the McCanns - it's simply a sad indictment on society that you can't leave a sleeping child alone and not expect them to be abducted.
This system may not be perfect, as people here often say - no system of security can be 100% sercure. You appear to be saying in one breath that we shouldn't try and keep track of kids and in another that not keeping track of them is abhorrent.
Amazing we learned in school and survived at all, truly.
Is this the ultimate example post for selection bias?
If you hadn't survived or didn't learn anything in school you couldn't have posted.
Do you also eschew other modern safety systems - insist on cars with no anti-lock brakes or traction control, refuse modern medications, only drink untreated water,...
Conservation is a red herring: population growth will outstrip any resulting savings.
Then shouldn't we concentrate on negating population growth. IMO the population has outstripped the resources available and needs to be reduced from the current level.
Slashdot Mirror
When you do ask for a price, ask him for the price of several of his domains at once. Act like you are not specifically interested in just of those domains and any would work for you. Maybe pretend to be another reseller interested in building your portfolio.
I don't think this sort of posturing will work. Domain squatting is a pretty technical field and a squatter (to my mind) needs to be at least a little intelligent to work it all. They'll realise that you're after a single domain unless you purchase a huge swathe (and pay too much for lots of domains that you don't want). I don't think you'll win unless you really want to manage those domains going forward.
I think that $500 is on the high end of what an undeveloped domain name is worth, but when I see $5,000, that just floors me. The key being that the domain is undeveloped. Marketing is the key to whether a domain is successful or not and speculative registration does nothing for that.
Registered domains have domain age which is good for SEO, if the domain name suggests a particular field (eg a tech domain) then it may have been optimised for that and might even have a few useful links possibly even a little PR.
The worth of anything in a capitalist regime is the value someone will pay. If there's scarcity (check!) then that value is boosted.
If the domain were developed, with some automated blog posts or somesuch, would it be worth more then. How about if the blog posts were put up manually. What about if it's being used but sporadically and with hight ratio of ads to content. At what point do you consider the owner is warranted to sell at a higher value? If $5000 is peanuts to the purchaser but will stop the seller from losing their family home, does that matter ...
If your business plan depends on owning one specific domain then your business plan sucks.
Twitter would be as good if it was called YouveOnly140Characters; and Flickr could equally be ShareYourPhotosHere and wouldn't Microsoft have got just as much buzz out of YetAnotherSearchEngine ... his product can be awesome but without the right name he'll struggle. Domain names are very important.
I wonder how much MS paid for bing.com?
No, what you say is nonsense. If you buy up a domain name to which you have no legitimate right, just for the purpose of extorting money from or preventing use by someone who does, then you are just being an asswipe.
Your logic is sound [-ish] but the legitimate owner is the one who pays the cost of "owning" that domain. For a virgin domain that's not a lot.
By your reasoning, the Mafia's protection rackets in the 1920s and '30s would have been perfectly legitimate, since there was no legal system to prevent it.
I think they used intimidation and threat of violence in order to extort money out of businesses? You're tripping if you think these things are morally equivalent.
Domain squatting within a capitalist society is a perfectly moral. Capitalism knows no morality except profit.
While I despise these people who park pages, their price is usually worth it if you are a company and the name is good.
I own several parked domains. Personally I despise domain squatters.
When a client fails to pay their renewal fees (and sometimes when they do pay, late) then occassionally - due to fixed term rental of domain names from the registrar - one gets lumbered with some domains. I think it's perfectly OK to add a parking page and try and recoup a little of the loss whilst waiting for the domain to expire.
Perhaps I should be more strict with my clients (charity groups and local small businesses) and just let "their" domains expire at potentially huge cost and embarrassment to them?
Apologies for being so despicable.
I'm not a user but my word-use would probably be cannabis to refer to resin/extracts and marijuana to refer to the leaf. Hemp for the plant or fibres.
Gamers have to dislike the Wii, it makes the market open and accessible to non-gamers. It's Gamer Law (or should that be lore?) you have to hate the n00bs and anything they touch gets the stigma of n00b.
Have you used the Wiimote to play Wii games? In the form it's in, it is a gimmick. It's basically a tacked on feature to most games outside of those made by Nintendo themselves and has poor sensitivity and tracking.
So you're not very good with a wiimote either.
Which is why the RIAA would ask the CBS for the info. If such a situation were true.
So, who do I trust more:
1. The RIAA PR person, the CBS PR person, and the Last.fm PR person.
-- or --
2. A completely unverifiable source who may have an axe to grind or other nefarious motive for completely fabricating the story.
Frankly, it's a tough call.
Well at least now CBS have started libel proceedings against TC the truth will come out in court. Oh wait.
Now what possible reason might the CBS have for believing they could fail in court, after all TC is all just scurrilous lies ....
I agree with you here. I stopped following his worthless site because of this. Didn't have problems with it before, but oh well.
Its also funny he kept deleting every comment that he didnt agree with.
Along with your other comments here this makes you appear to be astroturfing for Last.fm.
You say his site had worth previously but due to this one story now does not. How has the information presented on unrelated issues been altered by your opinion WRT this story. What I think you meant to say is that you disprove of the actions of the lead on TechCrunch and so won't visit it anymore - quite different.
Personally the statement by CBS where they said "we've not sent anything to the RIAA" and then called back and said "when we [CBS] said 'we' we meant of course 'last.fm'" means any chances of me returning to Last.fm have diminished greatly. My personal view following this is that either TC were professionally done over or CBS did the dirty with the RIAA (behind Last.fm's back) - I'm tending towards the later position.
exactly
In any event this natural biological function will account for some statistical variation, and likely that variation will tend to favor males.
Don't come here with your well thought out scientific arguments dammit, the numbers of women in any particular [nice] role must be at least as many as the number of men or equality is not being served.
Strangely no one is arguing for more women in sewer maintenance.
Anyone who can't acknowledge this is a bigot and a twit.
If you're argument were strong enough to stand on it's own then you wouldn't need such name-calling.
Try again, this time, try to be logical, scientific or at least adult about your argument whatever it may be. Then at least it may warrant a thoughtful response. I know this is teh intarwebs, but come on, you appear to be of reasonable intelligence, can't you let your arguments stand on their own without flaming ad-hominems.
The only response you deserve currently is: "Anyone who thinks women are as intelligent as men is a mindless idiot."
Anyhow, the abstract:
the size of the [supposed gender] gap varies over differing cultures and correlates with the general degree of gender inequality in the culture
So which is more equal, being expected to die for your country or being expected to look after the kids. Men take bigger risks which pays off in certain fields - they're both the most intelligent and high paid and the least intelligent and low paid. Men are disposable by virtue of biology (few men are needed versus the number of women). They get the limellight as the victors but are as often the vanquished. The men taking the [metaphorical and actual] spoils of war and are noticed and envied by the women with no thought spared for the piled bloody agony of bodies left on the battle field.
It's really amazing how any of us, and humanity in general, ever lived past their 10th birthday without all the 'safety' gear that is available now. What a truly wonderful time to be alive, we now finally have the tools to live on past childhood.
Life expectancy has dramatically increased in the last few decades.
http://www38.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=life+expectancy+U.S.#scannerresult_0500_1
Oh and watch Finding Nemo. It's got some lesson in there about being an overprotective parent.
WT-Flip is the lesson from Finding Nemo. That if you allow your kids any freedom then they'll get lost and probably end up incarcerated with other people before being sold (given for free in the film) on to a short life of neglect before death (in the film at the hands of the dentist's niece). If that happens then most likely your kids cell-buddies will help to bust them out through the toilet; or they may escape by playing dead and being dumped (down the sink). At this stage if you [Dad] survive the gangs (seagulls in the harbour) then you may eventually be reunited.
Thanks for the tip - I'm going home now and shackling my sons to the wall in their bedroom.
1. Hack an iPhone or other smart phone to act as a torrent server over 3G
2. Fill the drive with Metallica tracks
3. Duct tape the phone to your daughter
4. If you need to know where she is, just ask the RIIA
The $10 Millions USD per month costs might be a bit of a struggle ...
She'll be safer even if you are unable to access your handheld, or the internet is down, or the power goes out...
Fixed.
You know that mall clerks and parents and security guards, and yes cops too, are all potential abductors. No, you're right, not everyone is bad or evil; yes I encourage my kid to speak to strangers. My message is "find a Mum, a lady with kids, and tell her you're lost" - I think that statistically is likely to be the best option (though some Mums I know makes this a scary proposition too!).
Do you know what would be even safer. If, assuming her parents are benevolent, her parents know where she is when she's lost.
perhaps its my paranoia light flashing because of my client, i can understand your concern, but 10s of thousands, nay 10s of millions of kids make it thought the school system every year without their parents needing to freak out like that.
So to parents bereaved of their children do you say "it's OK, look all the other parents still have their kids!" ?
You've missed the main requirement - it's not to ensure she gets on a particular bus, it's for her parents to be able to locate her.
If your child gets abducted then the chances of it happening are unlikely to provide any solace.
I think you're being harsh on the McCanns - it's simply a sad indictment on society that you can't leave a sleeping child alone and not expect them to be abducted.
This system may not be perfect, as people here often say - no system of security can be 100% sercure. You appear to be saying in one breath that we shouldn't try and keep track of kids and in another that not keeping track of them is abhorrent.
Amazing we learned in school and survived at all, truly.
Is this the ultimate example post for selection bias?
If you hadn't survived or didn't learn anything in school you couldn't have posted.
Do you also eschew other modern safety systems - insist on cars with no anti-lock brakes or traction control, refuse modern medications, only drink untreated water, ...
Serves you right for using IE6.
Do you complain you can't get fidelity out of your wax discs music recordings too?
Conservation is a red herring: population growth will outstrip any resulting savings.
Then shouldn't we concentrate on negating population growth. IMO the population has outstripped the resources available and needs to be reduced from the current level.
Answers on a postcard ...
It's a barrier to entry .. if you know what LTSP is then the post might be relevant, if not then it certainly won't.
How had you not heard of LTSP?