I didn't claim to invalidate Limbaugh's position. I pointed out that if you accept his position as proof of anyone having liberal bias, you are being rather non-critical in your thinking.
Incidentally, that's an awful assumption. People do not always want the other side of the argument, propaganda often relies on reinforcing existing prejudices, and it's unlikely that someone as intelligent as Limbaugh is unaware of this.
When you're happily biased and (like anyone) selective in one's facts, you can show anything you want. Rush is simply too biased to be reliable - he only shows that journalism is typically left of center to those already biased to think so. Anyone else would need a dissenting point of view, a bit of independent research, and the ability to form their own conclusions.
"So was that hate speech, or was it an attempt to inject more honesty in a charged political debate?"
Limbaugh said what Fox was doing was "purely an act", that it was "really shameless of Michael J. Fox". Clearly that is not an attempt to inject honesty into a debate, because the first point is simply wrong, and the second is a biased opinion. Given the options you provide, I can only conclude that you think it was hate speech.
"Limbaugh said that he would be the first apologize to Fox if that wasn't the case."
Which is pathetic, really - who else could be first to apologise for his words? And if you check your facts, you'll find he only offered to do so after he was forced to admit he was wrong, that Fox was displaying symptoms many people had seen before. Simple Christian morality would tell you to apologise after needlessly insulting a diseased man on air, and American principles would tell you that a man is innocent until proven guilty. But Limbaugh does not actually apologise even when he knows he is wrong; he requires that Fox proves his innocence first. His only "principle" seemed to be the cold hearted application of logic to find a way to fit the facts to support the conclusion he had already drawn, a conclusion that looks down on those suffering from disease. *That* is evil.
Re:Talking of reading other people's emails...
on
Ethics In IT
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
As Heinlein said, "stupidity is the only universal capital crime; the sentence is death, there is no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without pity."
You were actually being very condescending in the post I first responded to. You were being "I'm smarter than them" to an entire group of people. Apparently it has entirely passed you by that I was simply being reciprocal in my attitude.
As an atheist, I don't like hypocrites, the self-righteous, or ideologues. When someone makes ridiculously arrogant comments as you did, I simply can't be bothered to give them much time to demonstrate their posts are based on rational thinking rather than emotion. But first I made the effort to look things up on Wikipedia, to invest in an intellectual argument. You choose to look down upon others for their lack of intelligence. Why should I not look down upon you for the very same reason?
Frankly, it's pretty clear that you've got no response to my original challenge. Rather than re-consider and maybe learn something you'd prefer to react to my style and not my substance. Enjoy the ride on your moral high horse, but it was your opinion that bothered me, not the manner in which you expressed it.
Write a report? I was only pointing out that your post was in fact a pile of ignorant, egotistical bullshit. No need to prove you're also too stupid to figure that out.
Speaking as a Scot I'm no doubt both biased and ignorant. But as a regular visitor to the US and an admirer of what used to be US principles (love that Constitution of yours; I"m ever so pleased Scots were involved in writing) here's some thoughts you'll probably find echoed around the world:
Vote. Don't stoop to bullshit about how it makes no difference. There are thousands dead who wouldn't have been with only a few more votes for Gore.
Whatever you do, get out and vote Democrat for the sake of the world. There simply cannot be any excuse for sending more of your own people to a needless death than died in the original terrorist attack. The Republicans can only be punished for this by losing the election. If they win, there will be an incredible disbelieving groan of despair heard around the world as America. The death of your own requires accountability. No-one should consider voting Republican in November - leave that until 2012.
Everyone wishing Ron Paul will miraculously win the Republican nomination - see above even if he does. But also, your belief system doesn't make sense to many of us. A society that has little obligation to its children, and religious groups should fill in the gaps rather than the state - this doesn't make sense to any Western country except the US. Please stop putting religion at the heart of economic politics.
Don't get hung up on minor policy differences. Whether is Hillary or Barack, there will be no significant difference in policy over the next 4 - 8 years whichever one you pick.
The *success* of those policies will depend on the next President being a leader that can inspire the parties and the people to work together. All evidence suggests that the Republicans will not let Hillary be that leader. They certainly have had any problems destroying their own country over the past few years. No matter your views on Hillary - she's a dangerous choice for reasons she can't control.
I believe on that logic that Barack Obama is your no-brainer choice.
I may just be rationalising a personal instinct. I've watched a lot of his speeches and even some of his wife's since he won in Iowa. He's a great speaker. He seems an honest, intelligent, principled person. He makes you think the US might once again become the leader of the free world because it stands for something, rather than just courtesy of being a superpower. He connects with the idea of how Lincoln and JFK were young, principled leaders that helped define America. He gets past the cynicism and is intelligent, hard working and not afraid of being called "naive". He has no track record of failure or cronyism. All that is powerful stuff. Any experienced person knows that getting things done is difficult, takes compromise, picking your battles and having to let some goals drop off the priority list. But when things are basically really shitty, the competence to do at that isn't enough. You need a leader that appeals on an emotional level too. Barack has got that appeal far in excess of any other candidate.
I work for an American company, I've studied at Columbia, I'm a regular visitor and was in Texas for New Year visiting friends. I'm not anti-American. But seriously, people, your country is just such a failure right now on so many levels. I wouldn't want to live there, because the cynicism is depressing. The US is a failure not in comparison to other countries, but compared to what you can be. It's going to take more than policy to change that. I think a lot of people around the world see Barack as the best hope for you to become a champion once again.
All the time I have little flashes of realization or inspiration.
So does everyone else. The ability we admire is the ability to make something of an idea, not just to have it. You've made things based upon your flashes of inspiration, which is great, but it is the fact that you made it is impressive, not just the idea.
I wish slashdot wouldn't post these stories because it gives the impression this opinion is widely held or fact.
The most important rebuttal to make is that it would be a sad world where articles were not written or posted just because someone disagrees with them. I have no problem with someone stating an opinion without the false modesty of saying "of course this could all be wrong". We're not talking about some political decision being forced upon us.
But also, it is an ignorant developer who doesn't know the old "1% inspiration, 99% perspiration" adage. Innovation is defined as the introduction of a new idea, not its initial inspiration. If you've managed to create things without much effort beyond the initial idea, tell us what they are so that they can be judged. I doubt you have done anything remarkable that was based neither on the learnings of past efforts and study nor the effort of development, testing and refinement.
It is as ever a sad comment on Slashdot that a post is marked insightful because it in line with the groupthink, panders to the ego, and yet falls apart upon inspection because it is simply contrary to reality.
finding out that the world was round lead to the near-genocide of an entire people
This a a new theory to me. How did the discovery the world was round lead to any attempted genocides? And how does it relate to genocides that took place in the Old Testament e.g. the Amalekites, and take into account the rough calculation of the Earth's circumference by Eratosthenes, well before Christ?
Genocide and massacre in general is an unfortunate reflection on human nature, and it requires neither a round earth nor religion to make it happen. Nor a lack of intelligence; what evidence do you have that the greater intelligence, the more likely power will be wielded "righteously"?
Unsurprisingly, it means they try to be neutral. I know it's a shock to you that they're not perfect, but somehow I manage to deal with this harsh fact without it frying my brain. Can you name a single mechanism that TPB applies to e.g. removing adverts from pages that may refer to copyright material?
Google is a search engine that makes money from many sources INCLUDING leading searchers to copyright material.
Really? Give me a search string that shows they making money from people searching for torrents.
Lets look at this another way
OK, let's try that analogy. The first guy robs grocery stores constantly, enough to make a living out of it, never gives to charity. I reckon he's likely to end up in court.
This other guy Google on the other hand only robs a grocery store one day in a million. When he robs the store, he makes an effort not to actually get anything out of it - not an extra penny in his pocket. This guy Google also does some really useful things, and is generally admired by all for making a huge contribution of value. An officer catches him robbing the store but not attempting to take anything out of it, and decides to turn a blind eye. Yeah, overall I reckon that's OK too.
I agree, it's not much of a problem, simply a preference. I don't see the downside to a system whereby a domain name must have a genuine use, which no more or less arbitrary has first come, first served. I prefer the option that supports someone with an idea to create something, rather than to merely profit without any creation of something at all. But I doubt there is a strong economic argument.
Why liquidation value? The site owner is not under duress, or acting as loan collateral. Why not market value or book value?
Putting that aside, the no-brainer value of a business is normally calculated through discounted cash flows. The discount rate already takes the risk-free rate into account. To then attempt to re-apply the risk-free rate is simply sloppy thinking. It's almost as if you think we should treat an intangible asset as physical equipment that might be sold for its intrinsic value, or some other misunderstanding of finance.
Further, the value of the site would remain significantly greater than the cost to acquire it. This would hold true using other standard valuation methods such as a quick-but-effective multiple of revenues. Your proposal would have absolutely no effect on domain parking. If your mechanism does not address the issue at hand, what is its purpose? Is it simply another tax?
Could you perhaps construct an argument rather than string together parrot-like repetition of definitions you've read somewhere?
Wow. I didn't think anyone could be so shallow as to equate the principles of free speech to "$100 - $10 = $90". But hey, at least you can do basic arithmetic.
That's not a counterpoint to my post, it's a supporting argument!
I'm not saying things were much better back in the day before some great Fall where domain parking ruined the world, or whatever metaphor you had in mind when you made your pretentious prelapsarian comment. I was pointing out that if we have freedom of speech now with a $10 fee (as the GP implies) and we had freedom of speech back then with much higher fees (as I can attest), there is no reason to fear the impact of a minor rise in fees.
Pointing out that there were "a lot of other restrictions" back then simply supports my case that we don't have to worry about censorship just from a $100 fee.
Is it legal to just mass buy buildings and use them for profiteering?
Yes. Property speculation is an old business. But the prices are rather more than a few bucks for a property, and property rights do not suddenly expire. It's a very different situation, so your point isn't clear.
I agree that something like zoning laws would be great if the correct formulation is possible, but I don't see how raising the price above the easy profits threshold stops the normal guy. There were plenty of vanity registrations before the fees came down to the level they're at now. The advantage of a reasonable fee is that you don't have to worry about loopholes and freedom. What if someone wants a domain, it's been illegally parked, and it ends up costing them more than $100 to free up the domain, for instance? It's difficult to say that either approach (fees vs. zoning) is superior.
Yes, some of us really do. ICANN currently holds that power. At the time when fees were higher, the Internet was held up as a vision of free speech - is there some difference in in free speech principles between a $10 fee and $100 fee that I'm missing?
Good question. I would say the latter, on the assumption going a year without knowing whether an "investment" is going to pay off is a sufficient deterrent to abuse.
That wouldn't address existing parked domains, though. Maybe in addition to the pricing change there could be a mechanism whereby you can apply to have a parked domain treated as "available" for the purposes of someone wanting to register a new site i.e. you get to transfer it against their will for $100. For the "parker" to reclaim the site would take $100 which would defeat the purpose of trying to make an easy profit from a few clicks. If you're a company that genuinely wants to reserve the name, then fine - use it properly, re-direct it to your main site, or simply have a blank page.
I don't dislike domain parking as such. It's the scenario where you have an idea, and find every variation you can think of has been taken by an automated thesaurus that I hate. I reckon it's worth finding a way to prevent it, though I'm not sure exactly how.
It's an interesting study, although it seems you safely ignore drop catching. Things have to become available at some point, so it's what happens after the "drop catch" that's important. As the paper itself concludes:
"Drop-catching alone is not what has led to this problematic environment, but rather it is the abuse of the Add Grace Period in connection with drop-catching that appears to be the cause."
Gotta say domain tasting and parking spoil the internet for me. I've been thinking about setting up a website, and most of the names I checked were domain parked. I could easily live with the registration fee going up significantly if it meant that only people with a real use for domain bought it. The paper suggests that $100 (which isn't too much) is about the cutoff point where it starts to become financially stupid.
Similarly when you express views on what the majority think of TPB. I doubt the majority has even heard of them. Certainly users of TPB are a small minority. Why should I think anything except that you are forming your opinions on the basis of a minority largely disposed in favour of your own opinion?
Repeating that I have a "totalitarian bias" by the way really doesn't make much of an impact on me.
Why assume that I'm trying to make an impact, when it was you who pointed out that my meaning was not clear? You implicitly asked for an explanation, and there's no point in avoiding the word in question. The word is simply the best one to use, and equivalents such as "ideological" or "fundamentalist" are no less pejorative. The original irony was that what you were saying contradicted your intended meaning. I'm confident you missed my point otherwise you wouldn't be saying I'm accusing you of something "sort of opposite" to your stance - something "sort of opposite" is rather necessary for irony to occur.
Rather than making a case for freedom, you were making a wildly subjective statement of why legal process should have an outcome that you morally approve of. That shows a bias that is readily described by words that have strong negative connotations. Freedom for the prosecutor would be to accept fees from anyone he wishes, to try whatever cases he feels appropriate, to make money out of someone else whether or not anyone approved, to be bound neither by the wishes of the plaintiff nor the defendent. You were not arguing for such freedom, but expressing condemnation (with a dash of hysteria). There would be nothing morally wrong with prosecuting a case in line with a corporation's interests if the case itself is valid. Your opinion on whether it is valid is clearly biased; certainly it is not grounded in facts.
Making no attempt to oppose your will or opinions on others does not make you free from such a bias; most people will have a subject or two that gives rise to opinions that contradict their general outlook. Your reliance upon on specious morality, slogans and unjustified certainty suggests that you are currently talking about such a subject.
If you didn't read it or didn't understand it, please try to do so before commenting further.
Actually I did both. Since I therefore appear to have your blessing, allow me to point out what a pathetic attempt you made to respond to my post.
Are you assuming I'm an engineer (or a terrorist)? I never said I was.
I never said you were, either. Are all your corrections going to be as pointless as this?
What part of "I'm sure most of the Muslim people studying engineering are studying it for professional reasons, too" sounds like I would disagree with that?
None of it. But then, I never said you did. You're getting kind of tedious here.
In short, you're making claims absolutely demonstrably false about what I wrote and didn't write
You're kind of hysterical, too. You probably object to my "claim" that you ignored the references to US extremists. Well, the research made reference to specific people. You make no mention of these people or the surrounding arguments, therefore you ignored the references. I doubt you even read the paper. Further, your use of serial killers in the medical profession is not relevant, if only because their ready access to killing opportunities is a very different kettle of fish to a terrorist planning an attack.
I'm sorry I didn't take longer in writing my first post to make everything clear enough for you to understand, but until your second post I had no reason to believe it was necessary. I guess that assuming you were intelligent was as much a mistake as assuming you were pragmatic.
In short, you failed to demonstrate any understanding of my post. Even if you did, to make pathetic little attempts at pedantry while ignoring the substance is indicative of a weak mind. If you do have to post again, try to sound like you've got multiple brain cells working.
In short - denigrate the new functionality no matter how much it has clearly made a difference to people's enjoyment, say the technology is a failure if the first generation doesn't get it perfect, look down smugly upon the casual gamers because it's all just marketing anyway, and don't Nintendo get any credit for their hardware when it's the people that write the games that matter.
Well, I won't bother arguing. The Wii is for having fun, with people that understand the concept.
You're not arguing with it, but you do use mumbo-jumbo to effectively call it redundant, equate the innocuous phrase "trick of the mind" with the distinctly more negative "trickery", and generally fail to show respect or humility for another's work. I felt it deserved ridicule.
After all, I could use mumbo-jumbo to support the opposite result e.g. "while at the level of neurons the act of closing and opening tools may be different, our higher consciousness realises that there is nothing that we do which does not affect the outside world. Thus the higher brain functions penetrate the illusion that is our initial perception of separateness."
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't claim to invalidate Limbaugh's position. I pointed out that if you accept his position as proof of anyone having liberal bias, you are being rather non-critical in your thinking.
Incidentally, that's an awful assumption. People do not always want the other side of the argument, propaganda often relies on reinforcing existing prejudices, and it's unlikely that someone as intelligent as Limbaugh is unaware of this.
When you're happily biased and (like anyone) selective in one's facts, you can show anything you want. Rush is simply too biased to be reliable - he only shows that journalism is typically left of center to those already biased to think so. Anyone else would need a dissenting point of view, a bit of independent research, and the ability to form their own conclusions.
"So was that hate speech, or was it an attempt to inject more honesty in a charged political debate?"
Limbaugh said what Fox was doing was "purely an act", that it was "really shameless of Michael J. Fox". Clearly that is not an attempt to inject honesty into a debate, because the first point is simply wrong, and the second is a biased opinion. Given the options you provide, I can only conclude that you think it was hate speech.
"Limbaugh said that he would be the first apologize to Fox if that wasn't the case."
Which is pathetic, really - who else could be first to apologise for his words? And if you check your facts, you'll find he only offered to do so after he was forced to admit he was wrong, that Fox was displaying symptoms many people had seen before. Simple Christian morality would tell you to apologise after needlessly insulting a diseased man on air, and American principles would tell you that a man is innocent until proven guilty. But Limbaugh does not actually apologise even when he knows he is wrong; he requires that Fox proves his innocence first. His only "principle" seemed to be the cold hearted application of logic to find a way to fit the facts to support the conclusion he had already drawn, a conclusion that looks down on those suffering from disease. *That* is evil.
As Heinlein said, "stupidity is the only universal capital crime; the sentence is death, there is no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without pity."
You were actually being very condescending in the post I first responded to. You were being "I'm smarter than them" to an entire group of people. Apparently it has entirely passed you by that I was simply being reciprocal in my attitude.
As an atheist, I don't like hypocrites, the self-righteous, or ideologues. When someone makes ridiculously arrogant comments as you did, I simply can't be bothered to give them much time to demonstrate their posts are based on rational thinking rather than emotion. But first I made the effort to look things up on Wikipedia, to invest in an intellectual argument. You choose to look down upon others for their lack of intelligence. Why should I not look down upon you for the very same reason?
Frankly, it's pretty clear that you've got no response to my original challenge. Rather than re-consider and maybe learn something you'd prefer to react to my style and not my substance. Enjoy the ride on your moral high horse, but it was your opinion that bothered me, not the manner in which you expressed it.
No, it's just that once you conclusively demonstrated that you're intellectually limited, there was no point engaging in an actual discussion.
Write a report? I was only pointing out that your post was in fact a pile of ignorant, egotistical bullshit. No need to prove you're also too stupid to figure that out.
Speaking as a Scot I'm no doubt both biased and ignorant. But as a regular visitor to the US and an admirer of what used to be US principles (love that Constitution of yours; I"m ever so pleased Scots were involved in writing) here's some thoughts you'll probably find echoed around the world:
Vote. Don't stoop to bullshit about how it makes no difference. There are thousands dead who wouldn't have been with only a few more votes for Gore.
Whatever you do, get out and vote Democrat for the sake of the world. There simply cannot be any excuse for sending more of your own people to a needless death than died in the original terrorist attack. The Republicans can only be punished for this by losing the election. If they win, there will be an incredible disbelieving groan of despair heard around the world as America. The death of your own requires accountability. No-one should consider voting Republican in November - leave that until 2012.
Everyone wishing Ron Paul will miraculously win the Republican nomination - see above even if he does. But also, your belief system doesn't make sense to many of us. A society that has little obligation to its children, and religious groups should fill in the gaps rather than the state - this doesn't make sense to any Western country except the US. Please stop putting religion at the heart of economic politics.
Don't get hung up on minor policy differences. Whether is Hillary or Barack, there will be no significant difference in policy over the next 4 - 8 years whichever one you pick.
The *success* of those policies will depend on the next President being a leader that can inspire the parties and the people to work together. All evidence suggests that the Republicans will not let Hillary be that leader. They certainly have had any problems destroying their own country over the past few years. No matter your views on Hillary - she's a dangerous choice for reasons she can't control.
I believe on that logic that Barack Obama is your no-brainer choice.
I may just be rationalising a personal instinct. I've watched a lot of his speeches and even some of his wife's since he won in Iowa. He's a great speaker. He seems an honest, intelligent, principled person. He makes you think the US might once again become the leader of the free world because it stands for something, rather than just courtesy of being a superpower. He connects with the idea of how Lincoln and JFK were young, principled leaders that helped define America. He gets past the cynicism and is intelligent, hard working and not afraid of being called "naive". He has no track record of failure or cronyism. All that is powerful stuff. Any experienced person knows that getting things done is difficult, takes compromise, picking your battles and having to let some goals drop off the priority list. But when things are basically really shitty, the competence to do at that isn't enough. You need a leader that appeals on an emotional level too. Barack has got that appeal far in excess of any other candidate.
I work for an American company, I've studied at Columbia, I'm a regular visitor and was in Texas for New Year visiting friends. I'm not anti-American. But seriously, people, your country is just such a failure right now on so many levels. I wouldn't want to live there, because the cynicism is depressing. The US is a failure not in comparison to other countries, but compared to what you can be. It's going to take more than policy to change that. I think a lot of people around the world see Barack as the best hope for you to become a champion once again.
So does everyone else. The ability we admire is the ability to make something of an idea, not just to have it. You've made things based upon your flashes of inspiration, which is great, but it is the fact that you made it is impressive, not just the idea.
The most important rebuttal to make is that it would be a sad world where articles were not written or posted just because someone disagrees with them. I have no problem with someone stating an opinion without the false modesty of saying "of course this could all be wrong". We're not talking about some political decision being forced upon us.
But also, it is an ignorant developer who doesn't know the old "1% inspiration, 99% perspiration" adage. Innovation is defined as the introduction of a new idea, not its initial inspiration. If you've managed to create things without much effort beyond the initial idea, tell us what they are so that they can be judged. I doubt you have done anything remarkable that was based neither on the learnings of past efforts and study nor the effort of development, testing and refinement.
It is as ever a sad comment on Slashdot that a post is marked insightful because it in line with the groupthink, panders to the ego, and yet falls apart upon inspection because it is simply contrary to reality.
This a a new theory to me. How did the discovery the world was round lead to any attempted genocides? And how does it relate to genocides that took place in the Old Testament e.g. the Amalekites, and take into account the rough calculation of the Earth's circumference by Eratosthenes, well before Christ?
Genocide and massacre in general is an unfortunate reflection on human nature, and it requires neither a round earth nor religion to make it happen. Nor a lack of intelligence; what evidence do you have that the greater intelligence, the more likely power will be wielded "righteously"?
Unsurprisingly, it means they try to be neutral. I know it's a shock to you that they're not perfect, but somehow I manage to deal with this harsh fact without it frying my brain. Can you name a single mechanism that TPB applies to e.g. removing adverts from pages that may refer to copyright material?
Really? Give me a search string that shows they making money from people searching for torrents.
OK, let's try that analogy. The first guy robs grocery stores constantly, enough to make a living out of it, never gives to charity. I reckon he's likely to end up in court.
This other guy Google on the other hand only robs a grocery store one day in a million. When he robs the store, he makes an effort not to actually get anything out of it - not an extra penny in his pocket. This guy Google also does some really useful things, and is generally admired by all for making a huge contribution of value. An officer catches him robbing the store but not attempting to take anything out of it, and decides to turn a blind eye. Yeah, overall I reckon that's OK too.
I agree, it's not much of a problem, simply a preference. I don't see the downside to a system whereby a domain name must have a genuine use, which no more or less arbitrary has first come, first served. I prefer the option that supports someone with an idea to create something, rather than to merely profit without any creation of something at all. But I doubt there is a strong economic argument.
You're scoring high on the bullshit meter here.
Why liquidation value? The site owner is not under duress, or acting as loan collateral. Why not market value or book value?
Putting that aside, the no-brainer value of a business is normally calculated through discounted cash flows. The discount rate already takes the risk-free rate into account. To then attempt to re-apply the risk-free rate is simply sloppy thinking. It's almost as if you think we should treat an intangible asset as physical equipment that might be sold for its intrinsic value, or some other misunderstanding of finance.
Further, the value of the site would remain significantly greater than the cost to acquire it. This would hold true using other standard valuation methods such as a quick-but-effective multiple of revenues. Your proposal would have absolutely no effect on domain parking. If your mechanism does not address the issue at hand, what is its purpose? Is it simply another tax?
Could you perhaps construct an argument rather than string together parrot-like repetition of definitions you've read somewhere?
Wow. I didn't think anyone could be so shallow as to equate the principles of free speech to "$100 - $10 = $90". But hey, at least you can do basic arithmetic.
That's not a counterpoint to my post, it's a supporting argument!
I'm not saying things were much better back in the day before some great Fall where domain parking ruined the world, or whatever metaphor you had in mind when you made your pretentious prelapsarian comment. I was pointing out that if we have freedom of speech now with a $10 fee (as the GP implies) and we had freedom of speech back then with much higher fees (as I can attest), there is no reason to fear the impact of a minor rise in fees.
Pointing out that there were "a lot of other restrictions" back then simply supports my case that we don't have to worry about censorship just from a $100 fee.
Yes. Property speculation is an old business. But the prices are rather more than a few bucks for a property, and property rights do not suddenly expire. It's a very different situation, so your point isn't clear.
I agree that something like zoning laws would be great if the correct formulation is possible, but I don't see how raising the price above the easy profits threshold stops the normal guy. There were plenty of vanity registrations before the fees came down to the level they're at now. The advantage of a reasonable fee is that you don't have to worry about loopholes and freedom. What if someone wants a domain, it's been illegally parked, and it ends up costing them more than $100 to free up the domain, for instance? It's difficult to say that either approach (fees vs. zoning) is superior.
Yes, some of us really do. ICANN currently holds that power. At the time when fees were higher, the Internet was held up as a vision of free speech - is there some difference in in free speech principles between a $10 fee and $100 fee that I'm missing?
Good question. I would say the latter, on the assumption going a year without knowing whether an "investment" is going to pay off is a sufficient deterrent to abuse.
That wouldn't address existing parked domains, though. Maybe in addition to the pricing change there could be a mechanism whereby you can apply to have a parked domain treated as "available" for the purposes of someone wanting to register a new site i.e. you get to transfer it against their will for $100. For the "parker" to reclaim the site would take $100 which would defeat the purpose of trying to make an easy profit from a few clicks. If you're a company that genuinely wants to reserve the name, then fine - use it properly, re-direct it to your main site, or simply have a blank page.
I don't dislike domain parking as such. It's the scenario where you have an idea, and find every variation you can think of has been taken by an automated thesaurus that I hate. I reckon it's worth finding a way to prevent it, though I'm not sure exactly how.
It's difficult to see what you're proposing here. What would your "use fee" be a percentage of? And what are the market distortions you refer to?
Agreed. Still need to do something about parking though.
It's an interesting study, although it seems you safely ignore drop catching. Things have to become available at some point, so it's what happens after the "drop catch" that's important. As the paper itself concludes:
"Drop-catching alone is not what has led to this problematic environment, but rather it is the abuse of the Add Grace Period in connection with drop-catching that appears to be the cause."
Gotta say domain tasting and parking spoil the internet for me. I've been thinking about setting up a website, and most of the names I checked were domain parked. I could easily live with the registration fee going up significantly if it meant that only people with a real use for domain bought it. The paper suggests that $100 (which isn't too much) is about the cutoff point where it starts to become financially stupid.
"What you do with your web site and file sharing is clearly irrelevant."
When I search on "file sharing Sweden" I get references that state downloading copyrighted material has been illegal since 2005 (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/03/file_sharer_acquitted/, http://uk.reuters.com/article/internetNews/idUKL0988308720070709) and Swedish politicians arguing for the de-criminalisation of non-commercial filesharing http://sigfrid.wordpress.com/2008/01/07/decriminalize-file-sharing/. I'm happy to be proved wrong, but everything I can find suggests that when you say it is "clearly irrelevant", you are full of shit.
Similarly when you express views on what the majority think of TPB. I doubt the majority has even heard of them. Certainly users of TPB are a small minority. Why should I think anything except that you are forming your opinions on the basis of a minority largely disposed in favour of your own opinion?
Repeating that I have a "totalitarian bias" by the way really doesn't make much of an impact on me.
Why assume that I'm trying to make an impact, when it was you who pointed out that my meaning was not clear? You implicitly asked for an explanation, and there's no point in avoiding the word in question. The word is simply the best one to use, and equivalents such as "ideological" or "fundamentalist" are no less pejorative. The original irony was that what you were saying contradicted your intended meaning. I'm confident you missed my point otherwise you wouldn't be saying I'm accusing you of something "sort of opposite" to your stance - something "sort of opposite" is rather necessary for irony to occur.
Rather than making a case for freedom, you were making a wildly subjective statement of why legal process should have an outcome that you morally approve of. That shows a bias that is readily described by words that have strong negative connotations. Freedom for the prosecutor would be to accept fees from anyone he wishes, to try whatever cases he feels appropriate, to make money out of someone else whether or not anyone approved, to be bound neither by the wishes of the plaintiff nor the defendent. You were not arguing for such freedom, but expressing condemnation (with a dash of hysteria). There would be nothing morally wrong with prosecuting a case in line with a corporation's interests if the case itself is valid. Your opinion on whether it is valid is clearly biased; certainly it is not grounded in facts.
Making no attempt to oppose your will or opinions on others does not make you free from such a bias; most people will have a subject or two that gives rise to opinions that contradict their general outlook. Your reliance upon on specious morality, slogans and unjustified certainty suggests that you are currently talking about such a subject.
Actually I did both. Since I therefore appear to have your blessing, allow me to point out what a pathetic attempt you made to respond to my post.
I never said you were, either. Are all your corrections going to be as pointless as this?
None of it. But then, I never said you did. You're getting kind of tedious here.
You're kind of hysterical, too. You probably object to my "claim" that you ignored the references to US extremists. Well, the research made reference to specific people. You make no mention of these people or the surrounding arguments, therefore you ignored the references. I doubt you even read the paper. Further, your use of serial killers in the medical profession is not relevant, if only because their ready access to killing opportunities is a very different kettle of fish to a terrorist planning an attack.
I'm sorry I didn't take longer in writing my first post to make everything clear enough for you to understand, but until your second post I had no reason to believe it was necessary. I guess that assuming you were intelligent was as much a mistake as assuming you were pragmatic.
In short, you failed to demonstrate any understanding of my post. Even if you did, to make pathetic little attempts at pedantry while ignoring the substance is indicative of a weak mind. If you do have to post again, try to sound like you've got multiple brain cells working.
In short - denigrate the new functionality no matter how much it has clearly made a difference to people's enjoyment, say the technology is a failure if the first generation doesn't get it perfect, look down smugly upon the casual gamers because it's all just marketing anyway, and don't Nintendo get any credit for their hardware when it's the people that write the games that matter.
Well, I won't bother arguing. The Wii is for having fun, with people that understand the concept.
You're not arguing with it, but you do use mumbo-jumbo to effectively call it redundant, equate the innocuous phrase "trick of the mind" with the distinctly more negative "trickery", and generally fail to show respect or humility for another's work. I felt it deserved ridicule.
After all, I could use mumbo-jumbo to support the opposite result e.g. "while at the level of neurons the act of closing and opening tools may be different, our higher consciousness realises that there is nothing that we do which does not affect the outside world. Thus the higher brain functions penetrate the illusion that is our initial perception of separateness."