You laugh, but as a female geek I would be Seriously Impressed by a marriage proposal which featured a ring made from something exotic like that. Assuming that I was sufficiently insane to consent to marriage, I would forever after wear that ring and smirk at the Normals with their plain old diamonds.
Consider: you are carrying a concealed weapon and you hear gunfire coming from the room down the hall (or maybe from the floor below). You draw your weapon, and the next thing you know someone carrying a gun walks into the room. Is it another student from elsewhere in the building responding to the gunfire, or the nutcase? Do you shoot them before they can shoot you? Now add plenty of screaming and panic, and multiply this scenario by the number of different panicked scared students all carrying firearms.
One factor you left out is the reduction in all nutcasery. A moderately crazy person may enter a school today in order to shoot the place up, but you'd have to be totally crazy to attempt such when you know that one out of ten students will be shooting back. The knowledge that the target is hardened, will surely dissuade some large chunk of would-be berzerkers.
Also, you can just charge a nominal fee for some of these things. Let's face it-- a 1 year fee for most hosting isn't that much to begin with, and if you messed up and registered the wrong domain, you'd do that approximately once, and for that a $1 fee probably wouldn't cause anyone to flip out. But if you're registering tons of domains all the time, it will add up.
There already *is* a nominal fee for these tastings: five days' interest on the $6 deposit, which is worth about $0.006. Considering that the whole register/drop/reregister process is fully automated, that's probably a reasonable charge for the actual resources consumed. Versign certainly thinks so, seeing as how they aren't interested in changing the policy.
The real problem here is psychological: to us, kiting feels like free-riding, and so it offends our proper Victorian work ethic. And there are real objections to be made against it on those grounds. But that doesn't mean that there is a financial justification for imposing greater fees on it. Forcing a $1/turn fee is a form of fiscal policy: using artificial fees to change behaviors we deem antisocial. That sort of activity is equally perilous, but in a different way.
Typosquatting, meanwhile, is also plenty offensive, but it is a separate issue from whether kiting should be allowed or penalized.
If someone's down because you punched them, you're the winner? Not in Texas, where this would give every citizen who had a clear view of events the right to shoot you dead under their new self-defence laws. Being dead makes for a lousy winner. (I don't like those laws, but that's not the point. The point is, one battle does not a war make.)
(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31;
(2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and
(3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
Punching someone -- or even a fullblown fist fight -- does not constitute "unlawful deadly force" unless the assailant is especially skilled in deadly fighting (e.g. a black-belt in martial arts) and is clearly showing intent to beat the other person to death. And in that situation, only a coward would want a passing Good Samaritan to refrain from using deadly force to stop the attack.
P.S. "Aggravated robbery" means robbery using a deadly weapon.
P.P.S. I live in Texas, and to get my handgun license I had to memorize all these relevant laws.
Why, the freedom of the Aryan Master Race to reign supreme over the lesser cattle, of course.
When people say "freedom", they can mean a lot of different things.
Indeed. A simple way to distill the doublespeke is:
freedom to == evil
freedom from == not evil
In other words... If you are fighting to be left alone, more power to you; but if you are aiming to modify the lives of others, then count me among your opponents.
That argument still suggests that you have the "natural right" to take someone else's content without their permission, which I don't believe you do.
How does it? As I read it, it simply says "Your effective rights are whatever subset of your natural rights you can defend." It doesn't actually say anything about what your natural rights are.
In any event, your natural rights couldn't include a right to seize the property of others, because everyone's natural rights must mesh without overlap. In other words, I can't have a right to free speech plus a right to silence you, because then you couldn't have either.
Cool, so if I have the strength to clobber you in a dark alley, and the cunning to get away without being seen, I am clearly just exercising my right to take your wallet! I eagerly await my -1 Troll mods from all those who would rather suppress cognitive dissonance than resolve it.
The original poster said that rights are yours only insofar as you can fight for them. He did not say that you had the right to do whatever you had the power to fight for. In other words, your exercisable rights are a subset (defined by your fighting ability) of your natural rights. Your natural rights will otherwise get subverted by the nearest thug or politician.
Second, this type of legislation would put a burden on the sellers of advertisement space. Would they have to verify the legal owner of each possible trademark that a keyword could refer to?
No, they wouldn't. Nobody has a new burden due to such legislation. The purpose of the legislation is simply to clarify how a lawsuit should be decided in the event of such googlejackings.
You can tell that this is the case, because the legislation does not specify a criminal penalty for infraction, nor any penalty at all towards the search-engine itself.
The link uses the example 'pontiac', and how it should point to General Motors website. What about 'pontac', 'pontiac dealership' or 'pontiac repairs'? It quickly becomes very difficult to draw the line on where the rights of a trademark owner end, and free competition for eyeballs begins.
Such lines don't need to be drawn terribly often. And when they do, they'll be drawn by the court or other arbitration entity, which presumably will use this law ("Ford shall not bogart searches for Pontiac") as one of no-doubt several guiding principles.
Its not the first time Google have taken a fairly liberal interpretation of someone elses copyright either.
Perhaps so. But then, Google has billions of dollars in the bank. They have no need to steal anything from anyone, and every reason not to.
Can you really suppose that anyone in Google management decided to snag Sohu's database? Google is in the database business, so they know all about the salting of databases. They had to know that any commercial database will be filled with giveaway records (e.g., in this case, the developers' names).
Probably, Google legitimately acquired the database by subcontracting with some of the locals -- locals who stole it on their own prerogative. And now that it's hit the fan, Google can't say anything in its own defense without making the situation worse.
Once everyone calms down, I'll bet we learn that a certain acquisition manager at Google got reprimaned for failing proper "due diligence" before approving the purchase from someone who turned out to be shady.
The second is that it would avoid a problem which helecopters face when trying to hover out of ground effect. When more than about a rotor's diameter above the ground, the downward moving air starts to circulate down, out, up, and back into the rotor.
You are thinking of "vortex ring state"... the thing that played so much hell with the Osprey.
Conservatism is a failed ideology which has joined communism in the trash heap of history.
Odd. While I agree with the sentiment, I've always thought of conservatism as a state of mind (or rather a deferment to past minds) rather than as an ideology. I say this because I can see conservatism at work within many ideologies.
Something caused the universe to come into existence.
Why does existence need a cause? Why can't it simply be eternal?
It may have been God. Seems logical enough for me.
Ah, so reality is finite and bounded, but a personality is unlimited? Doesn't that strike you as backwards?
There's also the fact that humans seem to have a natural need to believe in something. Even those who aggressively deny God may believe in something completely irrational.
True enough. Now tell us how you got from that fact of human psychology to a cosmological puppeteer.
The only difference is that many of those irrational things can be disproven (and they still believe in them), whereas God cannot.
God doesn't need disproving, He needs proving.
An inability to prove a thing's existence, is prima facie evidence that the thing has no effects on anyone.
You know, in Star Trek this lead to everything becoming "free," ushering in a utopia where the only "work" people did was stuff they enjoyed doing. Too bad that, instead, we'll just enact a bunch of draconian laws to artificially induce scarcity again...
No, what will happen is exactly what is already happening in the West today. The far East has become the West's 'replicator', capable of churning out infinite quantities of material goods for very low cost. And how has the West responded? By switching to a service and information economy.
The feeblemind that conceived Star Trek's "moneyless" society did not realize that infinite material wealth is not enough to satisfy anyone, and that there will therefore always be a market for other values, including personal services, arts and entertainments, real estate, virtual real estate, and of course a much-coveted auxiliary position onboard a spacegoing starship (preferably onboard a starship that paid 25bpv for a Legendary Captain).
I don't have the numbers on hand, but aircraft are hugely polluting and trains are a lot better. Worse still, planes dump their output at high altitudes where the blanketing effect is far greater.
Actually, the stratosphere is the very best place to dump water vapor, because it reflects sunlight, absorbs UV, and occasionally even becomes large cloud formations.
The planet got measurably hotter during the days immediately following 09/11, when all of America's airliners were grounded.
Also, you seem to be forgetting that electric trains still create air pollution; they just eject their pollution out of the nearest powerplant.
It turns out there are other senses, other than the five Aristotelean ones. Proprioception, for one: the awareness of body positioning. People who have proprioceptive disorders because of things like brain damage don't really have convenient and commonly understood language to describe their impairment to other people, other than to say they have brain damage that makes them clumsy.
Not to mention our sense of down. The accelerometers in our inner ears give us that sense.
My brother is a professor, and he often uses this "There are five senses" notion to demonstrate to his students how a commonplace, universally accepted idea can be completely and obviously wrong. And in one instant, his students are well on their way to becoming subversives.
Slashdot Mirror
You laugh, but as a female geek I would be Seriously Impressed by a marriage proposal which featured a ring made from something exotic like that. Assuming that I was sufficiently insane to consent to marriage, I would forever after wear that ring and smirk at the Normals with their plain old diamonds.
Actually, "white gold" is gold mixed with silver. In D&D it is called electrum.
Why not a steel sword with a segmented, diamond-coated edge? I mean hey, it works great for modern-day sawblades...
One factor you left out is the reduction in all nutcasery. A moderately crazy person may enter a school today in order to shoot the place up, but you'd have to be totally crazy to attempt such when you know that one out of ten students will be shooting back. The knowledge that the target is hardened, will surely dissuade some large chunk of would-be berzerkers.
Or the frequency of reciprocations of his right hand... which are, likely, sinusoidal.
There already *is* a nominal fee for these tastings: five days' interest on the $6 deposit, which is worth about $0.006. Considering that the whole register/drop/reregister process is fully automated, that's probably a reasonable charge for the actual resources consumed. Versign certainly thinks so, seeing as how they aren't interested in changing the policy.
The real problem here is psychological: to us, kiting feels like free-riding, and so it offends our proper Victorian work ethic. And there are real objections to be made against it on those grounds. But that doesn't mean that there is a financial justification for imposing greater fees on it. Forcing a $1/turn fee is a form of fiscal policy: using artificial fees to change behaviors we deem antisocial. That sort of activity is equally perilous, but in a different way.
Typosquatting, meanwhile, is also plenty offensive, but it is a separate issue from whether kiting should be allowed or penalized.
Wrong.
From the Texas Statutes online, Penal Code, chapter 9:
Punching someone -- or even a fullblown fist fight -- does not constitute "unlawful deadly force" unless the assailant is especially skilled in deadly fighting (e.g. a black-belt in martial arts) and is clearly showing intent to beat the other person to death. And in that situation, only a coward would want a passing Good Samaritan to refrain from using deadly force to stop the attack.
P.S. "Aggravated robbery" means robbery using a deadly weapon.
P.P.S. I live in Texas, and to get my handgun license I had to memorize all these relevant laws.
Drat, where's my mod points when I need them to un-Troll a great post like yours.
Would any bright egg here care to explain what the hell a 'fuzzer' is?
Yes I could google it, but so will 100,000 other slashdotters, so let's just post the answer here and be done with it.
What about an internet search-engine application? ;)
Indeed. A simple way to distill the doublespeke is:
freedom to == evil
freedom from == not evil
In other words... If you are fighting to be left alone, more power to you; but if you are aiming to modify the lives of others, then count me among your opponents.
All lifeforms have that look in their eye. That is, after all, the way of things.
Indeed, quite a few of those lifeforms are just biding their time, scurrying hungrily around our feet as we drunkenly enjoy our dominion.
We once scurried hungrily around the feet of the dinosaurs, you know. And the smart money is on the rodents to be the next rulers of the Earth.
Well, Blackboard Software had better hurry and file another patent then: "Method of sharing educational media... on the internet... in space!"
[Marge] "Whatever you've got planned tonight, count me out!"
How does it? As I read it, it simply says "Your effective rights are whatever subset of your natural rights you can defend." It doesn't actually say anything about what your natural rights are.
In any event, your natural rights couldn't include a right to seize the property of others, because everyone's natural rights must mesh without overlap. In other words, I can't have a right to free speech plus a right to silence you, because then you couldn't have either.
Give it to us raw -- and wriggling! You keep nasty chips!
The original poster said that rights are yours only insofar as you can fight for them. He did not say that you had the right to do whatever you had the power to fight for. In other words, your exercisable rights are a subset (defined by your fighting ability) of your natural rights. Your natural rights will otherwise get subverted by the nearest thug or politician.
Vorlons? More like Vogons. You know, the fat, bureaucratic bullies who write horrible emo poetry and eventually demolished the Earth in order to build a useless bypass.
No, they wouldn't. Nobody has a new burden due to such legislation. The purpose of the legislation is simply to clarify how a lawsuit should be decided in the event of such googlejackings.
You can tell that this is the case, because the legislation does not specify a criminal penalty for infraction, nor any penalty at all towards the search-engine itself.
Such lines don't need to be drawn terribly often. And when they do, they'll be drawn by the court or other arbitration entity, which presumably will use this law ("Ford shall not bogart searches for Pontiac") as one of no-doubt several guiding principles.
Perhaps so. But then, Google has billions of dollars in the bank. They have no need to steal anything from anyone, and every reason not to.
Can you really suppose that anyone in Google management decided to snag Sohu's database? Google is in the database business, so they know all about the salting of databases. They had to know that any commercial database will be filled with giveaway records (e.g., in this case, the developers' names).
Probably, Google legitimately acquired the database by subcontracting with some of the locals -- locals who stole it on their own prerogative. And now that it's hit the fan, Google can't say anything in its own defense without making the situation worse.
Once everyone calms down, I'll bet we learn that a certain acquisition manager at Google got reprimaned for failing proper "due diligence" before approving the purchase from someone who turned out to be shady.
You are thinking of "vortex ring state"... the thing that played so much hell with the Osprey.
Odd. While I agree with the sentiment, I've always thought of conservatism as a state of mind (or rather a deferment to past minds) rather than as an ideology. I say this because I can see conservatism at work within many ideologies.
Why does existence need a cause? Why can't it simply be eternal?
Ah, so reality is finite and bounded, but a personality is unlimited? Doesn't that strike you as backwards?
True enough. Now tell us how you got from that fact of human psychology to a cosmological puppeteer.
God doesn't need disproving, He needs proving.
An inability to prove a thing's existence, is prima facie evidence that the thing has no effects on anyone.
No, what will happen is exactly what is already happening in the West today. The far East has become the West's 'replicator', capable of churning out infinite quantities of material goods for very low cost. And how has the West responded? By switching to a service and information economy.
The feeblemind that conceived Star Trek's "moneyless" society did not realize that infinite material wealth is not enough to satisfy anyone, and that there will therefore always be a market for other values, including personal services, arts and entertainments, real estate, virtual real estate, and of course a much-coveted auxiliary position onboard a spacegoing starship (preferably onboard a starship that paid 25bpv for a Legendary Captain).
Actually, the stratosphere is the very best place to dump water vapor, because it reflects sunlight, absorbs UV, and occasionally even becomes large cloud formations.
The planet got measurably hotter during the days immediately following 09/11, when all of America's airliners were grounded.
Also, you seem to be forgetting that electric trains still create air pollution; they just eject their pollution out of the nearest powerplant.
Not to mention our sense of down. The accelerometers in our inner ears give us that sense.
My brother is a professor, and he often uses this "There are five senses" notion to demonstrate to his students how a commonplace, universally accepted idea can be completely and obviously wrong. And in one instant, his students are well on their way to becoming subversives.
How does anyone know this to be true? IIRC the only vacuum that is larger than a mile is MegaMaid, and AFAIK we don't have access to her.