Absolutely, this is a step in the right direction. A contractual agreement is a contractual agreement, and there is no "right to a domain name", last time I checked.
Forcing content providers (i.e. spammers) to remain personally identifiable can only help.
The man is absolutely insane. I can hardly believe what I read in the news anymore, especially if it's SCO-related.
This has escalated to the point of sheer ridiculousness.
Next thing they'll do, mark my words, is claim patent to having a modularized kernel.
Any technology, if it has a legitimate use, should be allowed./BLOCKQUOTE
I agree. Let's hand out powerful guns to children. Hypothetically speaking, at least half of them will use the guns in self defense against the other half who turn on them.
It makes me want to cry. Sheer greed. Why can't they leave well enough alone? We aren't harming -anyone- or stealing -anything-.
Why can't they allow us the freedom to do free things for ourselves?
Slashdot Mirror
Absolutely, this is a step in the right direction. A contractual agreement is a contractual agreement, and there is no "right to a domain name", last time I checked. Forcing content providers (i.e. spammers) to remain personally identifiable can only help.
The man is absolutely insane. I can hardly believe what I read in the news anymore, especially if it's SCO-related. This has escalated to the point of sheer ridiculousness. Next thing they'll do, mark my words, is claim patent to having a modularized kernel.
UNIX is for eunuchs.
It makes me want to cry. Sheer greed. Why can't they leave well enough alone? We aren't harming -anyone- or stealing -anything-. Why can't they allow us the freedom to do free things for ourselves?