i'm going to decide who gets meta-moderated in slashdot... then I'm going to buy some books on amazon... then i'm going to vote online for the President of the leader of the free world... then i'm going to order lunch online...
yea, all could be done without leaving our comfortable hermann miller chair through the web with a simple web form. but should they be? i tend to be of the mind that voting for the Prez is an action that should have a little more importance and should demand a little more attention than any of the above mentioned activities. we SHOULD go down to a local gathering center to stand in line with others to vote. atleast there we get a little bit of the feeling that we're doing something important and recognize the gravity of our choice.
this might be a bit out there, but if anyone's read Signal to Noice by Nylund... there's an interesting idea that we should be allowed to vote unless we've passed tests that are administred that demonstrate that we're responsible enough to vote, have studied the issues, have formulated true opinions and not just those that the media has spoon-fed us, and that we EARNED the right to vote, that it wasn't just given to us.
of course, this sets up a class of those that are able to vote and those that aren't... but considering the way the media is being said to control us (and especially the less intelligent), then maybe it's a worthwhile idea. not like it would ever happen here... but something to think about.
Centura Software makes an open source mobile database software called db.star and db.linux
db.star is the first open source, embeddable data management solution for Information Appliances (IAs). "It is a high performance, small footprint, developer friendly database engine which facilitates the development of rich and powerful applications for popular IA platforms, such as the Palm® Computing Platform and Windows®-powered Pocket PC. "
Open source but not free.
db.linux is OSS Data Management for Information Appliances
enough already Katz. your analogy with the biblical phrase "New Jerusalem" is EXTREMELY flawed. Have we undergone an apocalypse? Has the Day of Judgement come and gone and I just slept through it? If not, then stop saying we're approaching the "New Jerusalem".
for the record, the phrase "new Jerusalem" was stated twice, both in Revelations. chapters 3 and 21.
from chapter 3: 12: He who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God; never shall he go out of it, and I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem which comes down from my God out of heaven, and my own new name.
from 21: 1: Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more.
2: And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband;
3: and I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Behold, the dwelling of God is with men. He will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself will be with them;
4: he will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain any more, for the former things have passed away."
5: And he who sat upon the throne said, "Behold, I make all things new." Also he said, "Write this, for these words are trustworthy and true."
so Katz, please tell me how this is a halfway respectable analogy? are you just trying to throw in a smattering of apocrophia to get us all a bit more neurotic and worked up?
the only possible way this analogy works is if you firmly believe not that the genome project is a bad thing, but that god is now among us, leading us along in giving us the power of perfect creation and bringing back that which is dead (extinct species). if that is your logic in using this analogy, then your above argument is complete astinine since you're arguing AGAINST your analogy. By implying that the Net might be the "New Jerusalem", you are sanctifying the Net since in the New Jerusalem, God is among us.
Re:This has happened before?
on
eLection '04
·
· Score: 1
I think we definitely need to keep the voting booths around, if only for the sake of re-affirming the gravity of the situation (you're voting for the president of the US, not filling in a form to order stuff online).
so getting people into the booths is a great way of bringing the excitement level one step higher. of course, instead of those stupid booths or cards (depending on where you are), there could be a web-kiosk based system where there is one interface used for the entire country, thus unifying the user experience.
This kiosk could have a standard log in which would connect your name with your social security # through a secure connection, and put a swipe strip on your driver's license. hell, maybe even do biometrics to verify the user (if you're into that big brother stuff).
from that point, you have a nice simple web form with a radio button. xml it so that each category is it's own form so that you can only vote for candidate per form (based on your registered location pulled from the election database mentioned above, it would determine which forms to show you). hitting submit would bring you to a confirmation page, hitting submit again would place your vote, thank you for voting, then clear the screen 10 seconds later.
you want to find more obscure bands? here's a Napster tip...
instead of just searching for a band that you can't find, search for a more popular band in the same genre. find a user that has a lot of songs by that artist on a fast connection. add them to your hotlist. then go and check out their library. chances are, they'll have some pretty obscure artists that are the same type of music that you might never have heard of or never thought to purchase the cd.
this is the way I got into Paul Van Dyk, Gatecrasher, Christopher Lawrence, and one of my new favorites, Thievery Corporation.
All these and more from enjoying Paul Oakenfold and Moby...
you're not supposed to envy them. they are supposed to have a hard job. balancing millions of people's interests and the interests of the country is a hard job. giving politicians the ability to push through legislation that 49% of the country does not support irregardless of the representatives that happen to be elected is the job of our government.
by having a government that is pretty evenly split (also called "checks and balances") makes for some exciting government proceedings.
actually, I disagree. The presidency becomes more important.
since both the house and the senate are republican controlled, partisan issues brought forth by a united republican party could be pushed through easily without fear of a veto.
while many of these issues have been in the last 8 yrs, having a president that was of the opposing party has stalemated many of these issues from being pushed through. example: vouchers.
a closely split house and senate means that the president is now in a better position to control forward progression instead of stalemating opposition progression. If it takes a bi-partisanship to get a piece of legislation together, than chances are the president will be more inclined to pass that piece of legislation. a closer split will actually lead to more communication between the congress and the white house.
("... unless Slashdot's audience is <made up of> drooling sub-human mouthbreakers (I don't know what this is) who click on anything on the screen that's underlined.")
what if you set up a server that allows users to come in through an x-term and only run a browser window WHILE the censor software is running behind it?
seems to me that politicians are going to have to learn to become web interface developers in a sense...
instead of having to worry about whether a site can work on the two major browsers (at the least) on the top platforms with different monitor settings...
they'll have to worry about whether their content can make it through the majority of libraries and school systems with the different censor programs set at different levels of "accessibility" while still retaining their "message"
how many public places that you know are able to hold large crowds? the only real places that are located in every town and city, non-commercial, that I can think of are churches, schools, post offices. oh, guess what? those are the places that are used for voting every year.
if you can think of a better idea, why don't you say something.
hell, I've voted in a synogague... however, the jewish population isn't always the largest and might not command a large public space.
if you're going to make an analogy, atleast make one that works. There can be no "New Jerusalem" without an end of the old and the birth of the new.
Revelation, Chapter 12.
"1": And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
"2": And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
"3": And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
So there must be a new Convenent with God... and the Net is not it. It has the possibility to be a new populist means of ending the old "authoritarian" ways, but that has yet to become substantial.
for the record, right from the USPTO.
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/tmlaw2.html
(d)(1)(A) A person shall be liable in a civil action by the owner of a mark, including a personal name which is protected as a mark under this section, if, without regard to the goods or services of the parties, that person--
(i) has a bad faith intent to profit from that mark, including a personal name which is protected as a mark under this section; and
(ii) registers, traffics in, or uses a domain name that--
(I) in the case of a mark that is distinctive at the time of registration of the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to that mark;
(II) in the case of a famous mark that is famous at the time of registration of the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to or dilutive of that mark; or
(III) is a trademark, word, or name protected by reason of section 706 of title 18, United States Code, or section 220506 of title 36, United States Code.
(B)(i) In determining whether a person has a bad faith intent described under subparagraph (A), a court may consider factors such as, but not limited to--
(I) the trademark or other intellectual property rights of the person, if any, in the domain name;
(II) the extent to which the domain name consists of the legal name of the person or a name that is otherwise commonly used to identify that person;
(III) the person's prior use, if any, of the domain name in connection with the bona fide offering of any goods or services;
(IV) the person's bona fide noncommercial or fair use of the mark in a site accessible under the domain name;
(V) the person's intent to divert consumers from the mark owner's online location to a site accessible under the domain name that could harm the goodwill represented by the mark, either for commercial gain or with the intent to tarnish or disparage the mark, by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the site;
(VI) the person's offer to transfer, sell, or otherwise assign the domain name to the mark owner or any third party for financial gain without having used, or having an intent to use, the domain name in the bona fide offering of any goods or services, or the person's prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct;
(VII) the person's provision of material and misleading false contact information when applying for the registration of the domain name, the person's intentional failure to maintain accurate contact information, or the person's prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct;
(VIII) the person's registration or acquisition of multiple domain names which the person knows are identical or confusingly similar to marks of others that are distinctive at the time of registration of such domain names, or dilutive of famous marks of others that are famous at the time of registration of such domain names, without regard to the goods or services of the parties; and
(IX) the extent to which the mark incorporated in the person's domain name registration is or is not distinctive and famous within the meaning of subsection (c)(1) of section 43.
(ii) Bad faith intent described under subparagraph (A) shall not be found in any case in which the court determines that the person believed and had reasonable grounds to believe that the use of the domain name was a fair use or otherwise lawful.
(C) In any civil action involving the registration, trafficking, or use of a domain name under this paragraph, a court may order the forfeiture or cancellation of the domain name or the transfer of the domain name to the owner of the mark.
(D) A person shall be liable for using a domain name under subparagraph (A) only if that person is the domain name registrant or that registrant's authorized licensee.
(E) As used in this paragraph, the term "traffics in" refers to transactions that include, but are not limited to, sales, purchases, loans, pledges, licenses, exchanges of currency, and any other transfer for consideration or receipt in exchange for consideration.
(2)(A) The owner of a mark may file an in rem civil action against a domain name in the judicial district in which the domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name authority that registered or assigned the domain name is located if--
(i) the domain name violates any right of the owner of a mark registered in the Patent and Trademark Office, or protected under subsection (a) or (c); and
(ii) the court finds that the owner--
(I) is not able to obtain in personam jurisdiction over a person who would have been a defendant in a civil action under paragraph (1); or
(II) through due diligence was not able to find a person who would have been a defendant in a civil action under paragraph (1) by--
(aa) sending a notice of the alleged violation and intent to proceed under this paragraph to the registrant of the domain name at the postal and e-mail address provided by the registrant to the registrar; and
(bb) publishing notice of the action as the court may direct promptly after filing the action.
(B) The actions under subparagraph (A)(ii) shall constitute service of process.
(C) In an in rem action under this paragraph, a domain name shall be deemed to have its situs in the judicial district in which--
(i) the domain name registrar, registry, or other domain name authority that registered or assigned the domain name is located; or
(ii) documents sufficient to establish control and authority regarding the disposition of the registration and use of the domain name are deposited with the court.
(D)(i) The remedies in an in rem action under this paragraph shall be limited to a court order for the forfeiture or cancellation of the domain name or the transfer of the domain name to the owner of the mark. Upon receipt of written notification of a filed, stamped copy of a complaint filed by the owner of a mark in a United States district court under this paragraph, the domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name authority shall--
(I) expeditiously deposit with the court documents sufficient to establish the court's control and authority regarding the disposition of the registration and use of the domain name to the court; and
(II) not transfer, suspend, or otherwise modify the domain name during the pendency of the action, except upon order of the court.
(ii) The domain name registrar or registry or other domain name authority shall not be liable for injunctive or monetary relief under this paragraph except in the case of bad faith or reckless disregard, which includes a willful failure to comply with any such court order.
(3) The civil action established under paragraph (1) and the in rem action established under paragraph (2), and any remedy available under either such action, shall be in addition to any other civil action or remedy otherwise applicable.
(4) The in rem jurisdiction established under paragraph (2) shall be in addition to any other jurisdiction that otherwise exists, whether in rem or in personam.
Guiness used WIPO to protect their trademarked name, Guiness, which is within their right. Clearly, they have owned that name for centuries. Is anyone here going to dispute the fact that when you hear the word Guiness, you don't think of a dark lager?
By using the word Guiness in those URLs, they were in essence using the trademark name without the permission of Guiness. That is illegal.
I agree, I don't like the situation. But at the same time, while the logic of the lawsuit was convoluted, it was unsanctioned use of a trademark which is within the rights of the owner to protect. And protect it they did by what they thought would be the easiest way and they were rewarded. Not like any of us will boycott the frosty beverage any time soon. Atleast "Sting" wasn't given the ability to claim his nickname is a true trademark. But Guiness? Come on people. You can't use a trademark without their permission. Just like you can't use someone's logo without their permission.
I think the fact that he wasn't able to reply or chose not to reply illustrates Nader's biggest shortcoming:
the fact that he's a very one-faceted politician that stands for very little and is not knowledgeable enough in the majority of issues that this group want to discuss, let alone all of the issues that the country wants to discuss and have answers from.
is there going to be a crisis on the middle east and Nader goes "well, it's not what I'm all about so I won't deal with it" or "well, it doesn't have to do with giving people a tax cut, so it must not be worth my time"?
4 years ago, a Pennsylvania Representative, Senator Jon Fox, lost re-election by under 100 votes.
those 100 votes were all of the absentee ballots from college students that were talied after the polling station results were in.
It's not an irrational fear. A poll that was published in Newsweek today states that approx. 80% of those that are considering voting for Nader would otherwise have voted for Gore. Nader is put at 5% in the national polls... and it just so happens that Gore is put at 5% less than Bush. So if Nader wasn't in the race, chances are, we'd have a dead heat.
So yes, voting for Nader could turn the tide of the election. There is statistical proof.
Slashdot Mirror
i'm going to decide who gets meta-moderated in slashdot... then I'm going to buy some books on amazon... then i'm going to vote online for the President of the leader of the free world... then i'm going to order lunch online...
yea, all could be done without leaving our comfortable hermann miller chair through the web with a simple web form. but should they be? i tend to be of the mind that voting for the Prez is an action that should have a little more importance and should demand a little more attention than any of the above mentioned activities. we SHOULD go down to a local gathering center to stand in line with others to vote. atleast there we get a little bit of the feeling that we're doing something important and recognize the gravity of our choice.
this might be a bit out there, but if anyone's read Signal to Noice by Nylund... there's an interesting idea that we should be allowed to vote unless we've passed tests that are administred that demonstrate that we're responsible enough to vote, have studied the issues, have formulated true opinions and not just those that the media has spoon-fed us, and that we EARNED the right to vote, that it wasn't just given to us.
of course, this sets up a class of those that are able to vote and those that aren't... but considering the way the media is being said to control us (and especially the less intelligent), then maybe it's a worthwhile idea. not like it would ever happen here... but something to think about.
Centura Software makes an open source mobile database software called db.star and db.linux
db.star is the first open source, embeddable data management solution for Information Appliances (IAs). "It is a high performance, small footprint, developer friendly database engine which facilitates the development of rich and powerful applications for popular IA platforms, such as the Palm® Computing Platform and Windows®-powered Pocket PC. "
Open source but not free.
db.linux is OSS Data Management for Information Appliances
Open source and royalty free.
read the last paragraph. i am not.
enough already Katz. your analogy with the biblical phrase "New Jerusalem" is EXTREMELY flawed. Have we undergone an apocalypse? Has the Day of Judgement come and gone and I just slept through it? If not, then stop saying we're approaching the "New Jerusalem".
for the record, the phrase "new Jerusalem" was stated twice, both in Revelations. chapters 3 and 21.
from chapter 3: 12: He who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God; never shall he go out of it, and I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem which comes down from my God out of heaven, and my own new name.
from 21: 1: Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more.
2: And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband;
3: and I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Behold, the dwelling of God is with men. He will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself will be with them;
4: he will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain any more, for the former things have passed away."
5: And he who sat upon the throne said, "Behold, I make all things new." Also he said, "Write this, for these words are trustworthy and true."
so Katz, please tell me how this is a halfway respectable analogy? are you just trying to throw in a smattering of apocrophia to get us all a bit more neurotic and worked up?
the only possible way this analogy works is if you firmly believe not that the genome project is a bad thing, but that god is now among us, leading us along in giving us the power of perfect creation and bringing back that which is dead (extinct species). if that is your logic in using this analogy, then your above argument is complete astinine since you're arguing AGAINST your analogy. By implying that the Net might be the "New Jerusalem", you are sanctifying the Net since in the New Jerusalem, God is among us.
I think we definitely need to keep the voting booths around, if only for the sake of re-affirming the gravity of the situation (you're voting for the president of the US, not filling in a form to order stuff online).
so getting people into the booths is a great way of bringing the excitement level one step higher. of course, instead of those stupid booths or cards (depending on where you are), there could be a web-kiosk based system where there is one interface used for the entire country, thus unifying the user experience.
This kiosk could have a standard log in which would connect your name with your social security # through a secure connection, and put a swipe strip on your driver's license. hell, maybe even do biometrics to verify the user (if you're into that big brother stuff).
from that point, you have a nice simple web form with a radio button. xml it so that each category is it's own form so that you can only vote for candidate per form (based on your registered location pulled from the election database mentioned above, it would determine which forms to show you). hitting submit would bring you to a confirmation page, hitting submit again would place your vote, thank you for voting, then clear the screen 10 seconds later.
not that difficult, eh?
you want to find more obscure bands? here's a Napster tip...
instead of just searching for a band that you can't find, search for a more popular band in the same genre. find a user that has a lot of songs by that artist on a fast connection. add them to your hotlist. then go and check out their library. chances are, they'll have some pretty obscure artists that are the same type of music that you might never have heard of or never thought to purchase the cd.
this is the way I got into Paul Van Dyk, Gatecrasher, Christopher Lawrence, and one of my new favorites, Thievery Corporation.
All these and more from enjoying Paul Oakenfold and Moby...
it's like a drug. can't get it one place, look around, do some research, get it somewhere else.
lets not forget that IRC, Hotline, Aimster, FTP's, and tons of other means of getting a "fix" exist.
you really think the kiddies will decide "okay, I can't get it for free... but what the hell, i'll put the $5 a month on my parents credit card"?
doubtful. one of their more informed friends will teach them how to use IRC just the same as that friend taught them how to use Napster.
1. did you do the work for a course or expecting course credit or course recognition for this?
2. did you do the work using the school's resources such as network and computing power?
3. are you a college employee where your IP is considered part of your work?
there's probably more...
you're not supposed to envy them. they are supposed to have a hard job. balancing millions of people's interests and the interests of the country is a hard job. giving politicians the ability to push through legislation that 49% of the country does not support irregardless of the representatives that happen to be elected is the job of our government.
by having a government that is pretty evenly split (also called "checks and balances") makes for some exciting government proceedings.
actually, I disagree. The presidency becomes more important.
since both the house and the senate are republican controlled, partisan issues brought forth by a united republican party could be pushed through easily without fear of a veto.
while many of these issues have been in the last 8 yrs, having a president that was of the opposing party has stalemated many of these issues from being pushed through. example: vouchers.
a closely split house and senate means that the president is now in a better position to control forward progression instead of stalemating opposition progression. If it takes a bi-partisanship to get a piece of legislation together, than chances are the president will be more inclined to pass that piece of legislation. a closer split will actually lead to more communication between the congress and the white house.
I think you just contradicted yourself...
("... unless Slashdot's audience is <made up of> drooling sub-human mouthbreakers (I don't know what this is) who click on anything on the screen that's underlined.")
DoS attacks aren't cool unless it's Microsoft, Hotmail, or MSNBC getting f&cked.
/.)
(not my feelings, but seems to be the general feelings in
what if you set up a server that allows users to come in through an x-term and only run a browser window WHILE the censor software is running behind it?
seems to me that politicians are going to have to learn to become web interface developers in a sense...
instead of having to worry about whether a site can work on the two major browsers (at the least) on the top platforms with different monitor settings...
they'll have to worry about whether their content can make it through the majority of libraries and school systems with the different censor programs set at different levels of "accessibility" while still retaining their "message"
how many public places that you know are able to hold large crowds? the only real places that are located in every town and city, non-commercial, that I can think of are churches, schools, post offices. oh, guess what? those are the places that are used for voting every year.
if you can think of a better idea, why don't you say something.
hell, I've voted in a synogague... however, the jewish population isn't always the largest and might not command a large public space.
amen!
if you're going to make an analogy, atleast make one that works. There can be no "New Jerusalem" without an end of the old and the birth of the new.
Revelation, Chapter 12.
"1": And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
"2": And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
"3": And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
So there must be a new Convenent with God... and the Net is not it. It has the possibility to be a new populist means of ending the old "authoritarian" ways, but that has yet to become substantial.
for the record, right from the USPTO.l
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/tmlaw2.htm
(d)(1)(A) A person shall be liable in a civil action by the owner of a mark, including a personal name which is protected as a mark under this section, if, without regard to the goods or services of the parties, that person--
(i) has a bad faith intent to profit from that mark, including a personal name which is protected as a mark under this section; and
(ii) registers, traffics in, or uses a domain name that--
(I) in the case of a mark that is distinctive at the time of registration of the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to that mark;
(II) in the case of a famous mark that is famous at the time of registration of the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to or dilutive of that mark; or
(III) is a trademark, word, or name protected by reason of section 706 of title 18, United States Code, or section 220506 of title 36, United States Code.
(B)(i) In determining whether a person has a bad faith intent described under subparagraph (A), a court may consider factors such as, but not limited to--
(I) the trademark or other intellectual property rights of the person, if any, in the domain name;
(II) the extent to which the domain name consists of the legal name of the person or a name that is otherwise commonly used to identify that person;
(III) the person's prior use, if any, of the domain name in connection with the bona fide offering of any goods or services;
(IV) the person's bona fide noncommercial or fair use of the mark in a site accessible under the domain name;
(V) the person's intent to divert consumers from the mark owner's online location to a site accessible under the domain name that could harm the goodwill represented by the mark, either for commercial gain or with the intent to tarnish or disparage the mark, by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the site;
(VI) the person's offer to transfer, sell, or otherwise assign the domain name to the mark owner or any third party for financial gain without having used, or having an intent to use, the domain name in the bona fide offering of any goods or services, or the person's prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct;
(VII) the person's provision of material and misleading false contact information when applying for the registration of the domain name, the person's intentional failure to maintain accurate contact information, or the person's prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct;
(VIII) the person's registration or acquisition of multiple domain names which the person knows are identical or confusingly similar to marks of others that are distinctive at the time of registration of such domain names, or dilutive of famous marks of others that are famous at the time of registration of such domain names, without regard to the goods or services of the parties; and
(IX) the extent to which the mark incorporated in the person's domain name registration is or is not distinctive and famous within the meaning of subsection (c)(1) of section 43.
(ii) Bad faith intent described under subparagraph (A) shall not be found in any case in which the court determines that the person believed and had reasonable grounds to believe that the use of the domain name was a fair use or otherwise lawful.
(C) In any civil action involving the registration, trafficking, or use of a domain name under this paragraph, a court may order the forfeiture or cancellation of the domain name or the transfer of the domain name to the owner of the mark.
(D) A person shall be liable for using a domain name under subparagraph (A) only if that person is the domain name registrant or that registrant's authorized licensee.
(E) As used in this paragraph, the term "traffics in" refers to transactions that include, but are not limited to, sales, purchases, loans, pledges, licenses, exchanges of currency, and any other transfer for consideration or receipt in exchange for consideration.
(2)(A) The owner of a mark may file an in rem civil action against a domain name in the judicial district in which the domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name authority that registered or assigned the domain name is located if--
(i) the domain name violates any right of the owner of a mark registered in the Patent and Trademark Office, or protected under subsection (a) or (c); and
(ii) the court finds that the owner--
(I) is not able to obtain in personam jurisdiction over a person who would have been a defendant in a civil action under paragraph (1); or
(II) through due diligence was not able to find a person who would have been a defendant in a civil action under paragraph (1) by--
(aa) sending a notice of the alleged violation and intent to proceed under this paragraph to the registrant of the domain name at the postal and e-mail address provided by the registrant to the registrar; and
(bb) publishing notice of the action as the court may direct promptly after filing the action.
(B) The actions under subparagraph (A)(ii) shall constitute service of process.
(C) In an in rem action under this paragraph, a domain name shall be deemed to have its situs in the judicial district in which--
(i) the domain name registrar, registry, or other domain name authority that registered or assigned the domain name is located; or
(ii) documents sufficient to establish control and authority regarding the disposition of the registration and use of the domain name are deposited with the court.
(D)(i) The remedies in an in rem action under this paragraph shall be limited to a court order for the forfeiture or cancellation of the domain name or the transfer of the domain name to the owner of the mark. Upon receipt of written notification of a filed, stamped copy of a complaint filed by the owner of a mark in a United States district court under this paragraph, the domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name authority shall--
(I) expeditiously deposit with the court documents sufficient to establish the court's control and authority regarding the disposition of the registration and use of the domain name to the court; and
(II) not transfer, suspend, or otherwise modify the domain name during the pendency of the action, except upon order of the court.
(ii) The domain name registrar or registry or other domain name authority shall not be liable for injunctive or monetary relief under this paragraph except in the case of bad faith or reckless disregard, which includes a willful failure to comply with any such court order.
(3) The civil action established under paragraph (1) and the in rem action established under paragraph (2), and any remedy available under either such action, shall be in addition to any other civil action or remedy otherwise applicable.
(4) The in rem jurisdiction established under paragraph (2) shall be in addition to any other jurisdiction that otherwise exists, whether in rem or in personam.
Guiness used WIPO to protect their trademarked name, Guiness, which is within their right. Clearly, they have owned that name for centuries. Is anyone here going to dispute the fact that when you hear the word Guiness, you don't think of a dark lager?
By using the word Guiness in those URLs, they were in essence using the trademark name without the permission of Guiness. That is illegal.
I agree, I don't like the situation. But at the same time, while the logic of the lawsuit was convoluted, it was unsanctioned use of a trademark which is within the rights of the owner to protect. And protect it they did by what they thought would be the easiest way and they were rewarded. Not like any of us will boycott the frosty beverage any time soon. Atleast "Sting" wasn't given the ability to claim his nickname is a true trademark. But Guiness? Come on people. You can't use a trademark without their permission. Just like you can't use someone's logo without their permission.
I think the fact that he wasn't able to reply or chose not to reply illustrates Nader's biggest shortcoming:
the fact that he's a very one-faceted politician that stands for very little and is not knowledgeable enough in the majority of issues that this group want to discuss, let alone all of the issues that the country wants to discuss and have answers from.
is there going to be a crisis on the middle east and Nader goes "well, it's not what I'm all about so I won't deal with it" or "well, it doesn't have to do with giving people a tax cut, so it must not be worth my time"?
if the price is beyond what you can buy (such as berkshire hathaway), buy the minimum # of shares you can buy. buy 5 shares. buy 10 shares.
and 40% of the gains that someone walks away with from the stock market goes to the capital gains tax.
point me to a poll that states that if Gore wasn't in the race Nader could beat Bush.
actually, I lived down the street from the Swedenborgan church in Bryn Athyn, PA. So I know quite a few thank you very much.
Pepsico did fork. Now there is the food corporation and the beverage corporation.
3COM split off Palm.
Bell split off Lucent.
4 years ago, a Pennsylvania Representative, Senator Jon Fox, lost re-election by under 100 votes.
those 100 votes were all of the absentee ballots from college students that were talied after the polling station results were in.
It's not an irrational fear. A poll that was published in Newsweek today states that approx. 80% of those that are considering voting for Nader would otherwise have voted for Gore. Nader is put at 5% in the national polls... and it just so happens that Gore is put at 5% less than Bush. So if Nader wasn't in the race, chances are, we'd have a dead heat.
So yes, voting for Nader could turn the tide of the election. There is statistical proof.
why must they be using them "aginst other people" instead of "for themselves"?
I always thought the main motivator was in the interest of the self, not the detriment of others.