LordLucless, you haven't answered the question "what is the libertarian take on cybersquatting". All you've said is that, supposing that a monopoly already exists which issues contracts against cybersquatting, then contracts will naturally rule against cybersquatting. Well, that's obvious.
In my OP I anticipated your answer. I specifically asked that, if you're going to follow your route then -- given one ICANN which makes anti-cybersquatting contracts, and another ICANN2 which doesn't, what free market mechanism do you think will make one of them dominant? Or isn't there one?
In the real world case we're talking about, ICAN was given its rules and gathered sufficient worldwide trust through government fiat and mandate. That's why I want to discover the libertarian alternative, one which didn't have that as its foundation.
If cybersquatters are engaged in fraud ("Welcome to the Ford Motor Company's website. We've filed bankruptcy and have discontinued the site"), that's prior aggression, so it's wrong.
However, it's the visitors to the site who would be the ones being defrauded. Not Ron Paul himself.
I'd love to read a libertarian take on "cybersquatting". I can't even define the notion of cybersquatting without involving government or human rights.
Here's my attempt at a libertarian definition of cybersquatting. Cybersquatting is when you enter into a private contract with a party to be listed in their directory under the name "X", and someone else claims that they "ought" themselves to be the ones who are listed under that name. Okay, that's fine, but a libertarian wouldn't recognize this "ought" and so no claim of cybersquatting would have any basis for a libertarian.
Here's my attempt at a statist definition of cybersquatting. The state or superstate recognizes that individuals have an interest in their own identities, and companies in their own brands, and it creates a framework of regulations to protect those interests, and it delegates the authority to do this, and it coerces people through threat of force to abide by that authority. Cybersquatting is when someone breaks the state's regulations in this regard."
So please, to any libertarians -- can you give me a purely libertarian explanation of why cybersquatting is wrong?
(or will you merely give an explanation of why this particular RP.com situation has contravened the arbitrary rules set by ICANN, while admitting that an alternative ICANN2 without such rules would be entirely fine from a libertarian perspective? How would free market forces chose between ICANN as it currently is, vs ICANN2 without those rules?)
There is a misguided perception, here, that immigration is about fairness. It is, in fact, about the benefit a society accrues from accepting the immigrant.
Why? "Because I says so".
The reality is that ideas of fairness have a huge impact on many aspects of the world, including immigration. You might try to get all reductionist and say "the bill of rights only happened because we did psychohistory calculations and determined that its net advantages to society outweighed its net disadvantages and societies with a bill of rights tend to prosper more". But that's ridiculous because no such calculations are accurate, and they all are swayed more the author's biases than by fact, and you can paint a much straighter line from authors' moral consciences to end result than you can from pragmatic calculations.
Missile Command didn't use lasers or energy-weapons. In Missile Command, your interceptors exploded and you hoped that the blast radius was big enough to catch the incoming warheads. Here's a video of it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xr7TXeNSlxg
Did you read the New Zealand case? They already did away with "innocent until proven guilty". In particular
[14] There is insufficient evidence before the Tribunal for it to make detailed findings on these factual issues,. That is the nature of the decision being made on the papers. On the basis of the information available to it, however, together with the statutory presumption that each incidence of file sharing identified in an infringement notice constitutes an infringement of the right owner's copyright in the work,, the Tribunal is satisfied that file sharing took place via the Respondent's internet account as alleged. http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/document/pdf/20135/RAINZ%20v%20Teleom.pdf
The Washington State DMV rules say that you can use any combination of letters, digits or hyphen, up to a maximum of 7 characters. Single-character license plates are acceptable, but they've all been taken apart from one:
-
I think a single hyphen would be great. When police officers write a citation for speeding, in the box for the motorist's license plate, they'd have to just write a dash. It'd be as if you didn't have one. Like this: http://xkcd.com/1105/
Now, what stops a company from taking your code and making massive changes to it and shipping that code for mad moneys? What forces them to give back their changes that might make that code better?
Nothing stops them, and I'm happy with that.
I've had friends in entirely different companies tell me that they saw a "(c) Lucian Wischik" header in some of their company's codebase, which had used some of my public domain work from 10 years ago. I've seen popular iphone email software with certain email-rendering bugs that I recognize from another one of my old public-domain code snippets.
My past work has helped people, and I'm delighted about that. I also do random acts of kindness. Despite being well paid, I vote democrat for the higher taxes (to help others), and I protested with Occupy (again to help others). Sure, you can try to argue a perverted sort of "by hurting the people who want to use your code now, you're indirectly helping future people who want to use it." But that's indirect, hard to measure, uncertain, and from my experience unlikely.
Improving the code in a proprietary product without releasing the patches to the public. That's stealing. And that's what Microsoft had already done at least once: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ms+gpl+violation
??? those google results show that Microsoft *DID* release their derived work to the public under GPLv2.
I heard kind of the opposite: the large-scale structures now (e.g. superclusters, membranes,...) are remnants of tiny quantum fluctuations early on in the big bang. If these fluctuations were early enough, then inflation will make them huge.
The thing with steam DRM though is that you don't really even notice it is there.
I notice that Steam DRM is there. Each Steam game I have takes a good fifteen-twenty seconds before it even shows its first splash screen. My non-Steam games show their first splash screen almost instantly.
(Even with Steam in offline mode, they still took longer to start. I got fed up with offline mode though because I'd always be turning it offline to play a game, then back online to look at the steam store, then offline again, then online again,...)
Virgin Galactic has signed a lease to become the spaceport's anchor tenant, but may pull out if New Mexico is unable to provide liability subsidies for manufacturers and part suppliers, similar to subsidies already passed by Texas, Colorado, Florida, and Virginia.
Virgin is asking to be protected from paying insurance on the full cost of the risk it is creating. I'm not saying I'm against it, just that we should call this "protection" what it is: socializing the risks and privatizing the profits.
Your phrase "risk it is creating" is incorrect. The cost here is an artificial cost invented by regulatory framework. It arises from the inability in this area to form contracts of the form "if we follow the following procedures them you agree not to sue us." The risk is real, but legislation has artificially inflated it, and they're asking legislation to ease off so the risk has its true free-market cost.
I've never seen an enlarged roadway that reduced congestion.
The reason? I think most of us have a given level of congestion that we're willing to tolerate. Bigger road just means more people flock to it, or travel at peak times, and it reaches exactly the same level of congestion. (I drive to work at 6.30am to avoid traffic. If the road were enlarged to three lanes either way, I bet I could travel at 7.30am with the same level of traffic as now. The enlargement wouldn't have reduced pollution at all.)
and as long as they stay within the bounds of the rule/laws, disparaging them is pointing in ENTIRELY the wrong direction. Look instead at the incompetent government that WROTE THE RULES, morons.
Why? My consumer "dollar" pressure on corporations is every bit as powerful as my vote pressure on politicians -- probably more so, since my congress person is in a safe seat.
I'm happy to use my dollar pressure to influence companies. I chose to shop with companies that I think are more ethical, and pay more for renewable energy. I'm putting my dollar where my mouth is, and using it for influence.
What energy is taken to "keep them charged"? Where does it all go? The only possible outlet for it is heat from the batteries. So if you're doing it over times of year when the house needs heating anyway, then there'd be zero wasted energy. (But I find it hard to believe that even a small amount would be lost as heat).
Already there are circumstances under which a military officer is not only justified but also OBLIGED to disobey a legal order. (one that he personally feels is immoral and unjustified).
But this doesn't seem to undermine the necessary order and discipline. Why not?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, that six-character alphanumeric code is the postcode and narroed it down to one of about 5 to 20 houses.
I wonder what they give in the UK?
The UK equivalent of zipcode is "postal code", and it's enough to uniquely identify which block, street, and which and side of the street you live on.
From the article:
Google has not responded to news.com.au's request for comment.
UPDATE: This story has been amended at the request of Google.
So has Google responded or not?
LordLucless, you haven't answered the question "what is the libertarian take on cybersquatting". All you've said is that, supposing that a monopoly already exists which issues contracts against cybersquatting, then contracts will naturally rule against cybersquatting. Well, that's obvious.
In my OP I anticipated your answer. I specifically asked that, if you're going to follow your route then -- given one ICANN which makes anti-cybersquatting contracts, and another ICANN2 which doesn't, what free market mechanism do you think will make one of them dominant? Or isn't there one?
In the real world case we're talking about, ICAN was given its rules and gathered sufficient worldwide trust through government fiat and mandate. That's why I want to discover the libertarian alternative, one which didn't have that as its foundation.
All GPS-tracking watches that I've seen today have a battery life of about one day. So daily charging won't be new for a watch.
If cybersquatters are engaged in fraud ("Welcome to the Ford Motor Company's website. We've filed bankruptcy and have discontinued the site"), that's prior aggression, so it's wrong.
However, it's the visitors to the site who would be the ones being defrauded. Not Ron Paul himself.
I'd love to read a libertarian take on "cybersquatting". I can't even define the notion of cybersquatting without involving government or human rights.
Here's my attempt at a libertarian definition of cybersquatting. Cybersquatting is when you enter into a private contract with a party to be listed in their directory under the name "X", and someone else claims that they "ought" themselves to be the ones who are listed under that name. Okay, that's fine, but a libertarian wouldn't recognize this "ought" and so no claim of cybersquatting would have any basis for a libertarian.
Here's my attempt at a statist definition of cybersquatting. The state or superstate recognizes that individuals have an interest in their own identities, and companies in their own brands, and it creates a framework of regulations to protect those interests, and it delegates the authority to do this, and it coerces people through threat of force to abide by that authority. Cybersquatting is when someone breaks the state's regulations in this regard."
So please, to any libertarians -- can you give me a purely libertarian explanation of why cybersquatting is wrong?
(or will you merely give an explanation of why this particular RP.com situation has contravened the arbitrary rules set by ICANN, while admitting that an alternative ICANN2 without such rules would be entirely fine from a libertarian perspective? How would free market forces chose between ICANN as it currently is, vs ICANN2 without those rules?)
You want to air-gap this system??!
so that when an emergency makes it impossible to travel by road, then someone has to travel by road to key in an alert about it?
There is a misguided perception, here, that immigration is about fairness. It is, in fact, about the benefit a society accrues from accepting the immigrant.
Why? "Because I says so".
The reality is that ideas of fairness have a huge impact on many aspects of the world, including immigration. You might try to get all reductionist and say "the bill of rights only happened because we did psychohistory calculations and determined that its net advantages to society outweighed its net disadvantages and societies with a bill of rights tend to prosper more". But that's ridiculous because no such calculations are accurate, and they all are swayed more the author's biases than by fact, and you can paint a much straighter line from authors' moral consciences to end result than you can from pragmatic calculations.
Missile Command didn't use lasers or energy-weapons. In Missile Command, your interceptors exploded and you hoped that the blast radius was big enough to catch the incoming warheads. Here's a video of it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xr7TXeNSlxg
Did you read the New Zealand case? They already did away with "innocent until proven guilty". In particular
[14] There is insufficient evidence before the Tribunal for it to make detailed findings on these factual issues,. That is the nature of the decision being made on the papers. On the basis of the information available to it, however, together with the statutory presumption that each incidence of file sharing identified in an infringement notice constitutes an infringement of the right owner's copyright in the work,, the Tribunal is satisfied that file sharing took place via the Respondent's internet account as alleged.
http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/document/pdf/20135/RAINZ%20v%20Teleom.pdf
The Washington State DMV rules say that you can use any combination of letters, digits or hyphen, up to a maximum of 7 characters. Single-character license plates are acceptable, but they've all been taken apart from one:
-
I think a single hyphen would be great. When police officers write a citation for speeding, in the box for the motorist's license plate, they'd have to just write a dash. It'd be as if you didn't have one. Like this: http://xkcd.com/1105/
Now, what stops a company from taking your code and making massive changes to it and shipping that code for mad moneys? What forces them to give back their changes that might make that code better?
Nothing stops them, and I'm happy with that.
I've had friends in entirely different companies tell me that they saw a "(c) Lucian Wischik" header in some of their company's codebase, which had used some of my public domain work from 10 years ago. I've seen popular iphone email software with certain email-rendering bugs that I recognize from another one of my old public-domain code snippets.
My past work has helped people, and I'm delighted about that. I also do random acts of kindness. Despite being well paid, I vote democrat for the higher taxes (to help others), and I protested with Occupy (again to help others). Sure, you can try to argue a perverted sort of "by hurting the people who want to use your code now, you're indirectly helping future people who want to use it." But that's indirect, hard to measure, uncertain, and from my experience unlikely.
Improving the code in a proprietary product without releasing the patches to the public. That's stealing. And that's what Microsoft had already done at least once: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ms+gpl+violation
??? those google results show that Microsoft *DID* release their derived work to the public under GPLv2.
I heard kind of the opposite: the large-scale structures now (e.g. superclusters, membranes, ...) are remnants of tiny quantum fluctuations early on in the big bang. If these fluctuations were early enough, then inflation will make them huge.
The thing with steam DRM though is that you don't really even notice it is there.
I notice that Steam DRM is there. Each Steam game I have takes a good fifteen-twenty seconds before it even shows its first splash screen. My non-Steam games show their first splash screen almost instantly.
(Even with Steam in offline mode, they still took longer to start. I got fed up with offline mode though because I'd always be turning it offline to play a game, then back online to look at the steam store, then offline again, then online again, ...)
Virgin Galactic has signed a lease to become the spaceport's anchor tenant, but may pull out if New Mexico is unable to provide liability subsidies for manufacturers and part suppliers, similar to subsidies already passed by Texas, Colorado, Florida, and Virginia.
Virgin is asking to be protected from paying insurance on the full cost of the risk it is creating.
I'm not saying I'm against it, just that we should call this "protection" what it is: socializing the risks and privatizing the profits.
Your phrase "risk it is creating" is incorrect. The cost here is an artificial cost invented by regulatory framework. It arises from the inability in this area to form contracts of the form "if we follow the following procedures them you agree not to sue us." The risk is real, but legislation has artificially inflated it, and they're asking legislation to ease off so the risk has its true free-market cost.
All software is, by definition, math. And all math, by definition, is not patentable.
Which definition? I've not seen one. Can you show me a precisely worded definition of software that justifies your claim?
9 kids died in this country from malnutrition (taken from the US yearly average of 1 in 100,000 deaths per year) that day.
74mil children in america aged 0-17 http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/tables/pop1.asp
Assume 1/100k die per year as you say, and that malnutrition deaths are in line with overall averages.
That works out to 740/year, or closer to 2/day.
I've never seen an enlarged roadway that reduced congestion.
The reason? I think most of us have a given level of congestion that we're willing to tolerate. Bigger road just means more people flock to it, or travel at peak times, and it reaches exactly the same level of congestion. (I drive to work at 6.30am to avoid traffic. If the road were enlarged to three lanes either way, I bet I could travel at 7.30am with the same level of traffic as now. The enlargement wouldn't have reduced pollution at all.)
and as long as they stay within the bounds of the rule/laws, disparaging them is pointing in ENTIRELY the wrong direction. Look instead at the incompetent government that WROTE THE RULES, morons.
Why? My consumer "dollar" pressure on corporations is every bit as powerful as my vote pressure on politicians -- probably more so, since my congress person is in a safe seat.
I'm happy to use my dollar pressure to influence companies. I chose to shop with companies that I think are more ethical, and pay more for renewable energy. I'm putting my dollar where my mouth is, and using it for influence.
Both Outlook and Outlook Web Access have group-by-conversation.
There's never any need to avoid a "wreckless" driver (since he doesn't get involved in wrecks).
Avoiding a "reckless" driver, however... that makes sense.
What energy is taken to "keep them charged"? Where does it all go? The only possible outlet for it is heat from the batteries. So if you're doing it over times of year when the house needs heating anyway, then there'd be zero wasted energy. (But I find it hard to believe that even a small amount would be lost as heat).
Already there are circumstances under which a military officer is not only justified but also OBLIGED to disobey a legal order. (one that he personally feels is immoral and unjustified).
But this doesn't seem to undermine the necessary order and discipline. Why not?