Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 8 Aug 2011 @ 2:44pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
(which is one of the risks of using "off brand" TLDs)
Hold on. You're talking about the risk of having your domain seized when you use an "off-brand" .ly domain in a thread about how that happened for a company who was using a "name-brand" .com domain.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 8 Aug 2011 @ 2:38pm
Re: Re: Re: The real risk
Never said it was without risks.
But there are also risks in not devaluing your currency.
And I'm not sure about what you're basing your ideas off of. Consumer spending (consumption) is waaay down from what it was, so we're obviously not at peak.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 8 Aug 2011 @ 2:21pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't know, or particularly care, about Mike's views outside of the ones he regularly expresses here. Are you claiming to have inside knowledge of his views on social policies that would distinguish him between the typical TP member and someone who perhaps doesn't fit into your set of labeled boxes?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 8 Aug 2011 @ 1:43pm
Re: Re: Re:
Agree.
Me, I'm liberal or libertarian depending on the issues. Social issues - liberal (gay marriage, abortion, etc). Economic - lean liberal (higher taxes, sensible regulation and consumer protection, sensible spending - but get government out of things it doesn't do well that the private sector genuinely does better at). Civil rights - very libertarian (guns, speech, religion, marijuana).
The two party system doesn't work for me, they agree on too much stuff I disagree with.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 8 Aug 2011 @ 1:16pm
Splitting hairs
"Markets are made based on the interaction of buyers and sellers. Not the (sometimes questionable) opinions of just a few firms."
Mike, I really agree with your overall point, but I've got a problem with this statement. Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but here's the statement I would make:
Market prices are based on the interaction of opinions of all buyers and sellers (rational or not).
Anything which changes the opinions of buyers and sellers does have an impact on the market. Yes, its stupid and insane that 3 companies with questionable motives, having conflicts of interest, and a poor track record, can have this much power, and even worse that its legislated that they do.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 8 Aug 2011 @ 12:55pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lack of first amendment mention...
I think the reasoning for seizing the domain name, though, is that people use the domain name to get to the website where the infringement is facilitated, so that makes it a piece of the puzzle that can be seized.
Earlier you argued against seizing a bunch of rental cars if someone intended to use them in a crime because the rental agency's purpose in renting them was not for people to commit crimes. Likewise, Verisign's purpose of selling .com domain names and providing an authoritative root server is not to facilitate crimes.
The DNS record's only purpose is to provide a lookup to translate a site someone already knows about (or has been directed to via another means) into something a computer knows how to find on the internet. I think that's a decent enough argument to show they are not sufficiently tied. Everything related to copyright infringement happened on Roja's or someone else's servers, not the DNS servers.
My phone (or phone number listing in the yellow pages) isn't going to be seized because I made a call to a bookie to commit illegal gambling on it.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 8 Aug 2011 @ 11:36am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lack of first amendment mention...
Since it's property that exists in the U.S., it matters if it's legal in the U.S.
So you're saying that the specific DNS record was used to commit direct copyright infringement?
Do you have any idea what a DNS record looks like? It is a line or two of text like this:
rojadirecta.com 127.0.0.1
I will buy into the idea that under certain circumstances a linking site can be found under the law to be committing or inducing copyright infringement (not saying that I agree with the law, or with any current copyright law for that matter). You will never be able to convince me that a DNS record can be considered to be doing so - because it is obviously untrue.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 8 Aug 2011 @ 11:17am
Re: Re: Re: AC Disagrees
But Rojadirecta collected links to help others commit infringement. That means their website facilitates the crime.
Then so does Google. If I want to find something, all I need to do is go to Google and type "copyrighted.content torrent" and I'm there - top links will usually by TPB and IsoHunt, and I don't even need to use the searches on their websites, cause Google indexes it all. Same for Yahoo. And Bing. I don't see DOJ seizing those - or the millions of other sites that contain links to infringing content. It seems that the law is being applied to some sites and not others.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 8 Aug 2011 @ 9:22am
Re: Another facet of the Opinion Problem
Choice 2: Ignore the S&P and maybe suffer the consequences of buying into 'bad debt' (or whatever), which I don't think all economists agree with S&P on anyway.
You've forgotten one of the rules.
The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent. - Keynes
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 8 Aug 2011 @ 9:14am
Re: The real risk
Just in case you've missed the last 2 years, that's what the US and many other countries are trying to do.
Interest rates at 0%. The quantitative easing actions. Those are overt moves to devalue a currency.
Doing so has various positive effects. If the US devalues their currency, then US products become cheaper both at home, and abroad. That encourages people both inside and outside of the US to choose a US made product as opposed to a foreign product, either keeping that money in the US or bringing money from elsewhere into the US. Also, if money is easier to get (devalued), then entrepreneurs can more easily start up a company that produces jobs.
The trick is devaluing your currency at the right rate, first so you don't end up with too much inflation, and so other countries don't throw up tariffs or do the same thing back at you. Since this is a global recession, there obviously ends up being negotiations and agreements on how best to do these things.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 4 Aug 2011 @ 8:25am
Re: Re: Destroying the idiotic concept of a software "patent"...
Online petitions are about as useful as a drunk fan yelling insults to the pitcher at a baseball game. And they effect the laws about as much as that fan effects who wins the game.
On the post: Rojadirecta Argues That The Justice Department Is Making Up Laws; Has No Legal Basis To Forfeit Its Domain
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hold on. You're talking about the risk of having your domain seized when you use an "off-brand" .ly domain in a thread about how that happened for a company who was using a "name-brand" .com domain.
Was that supposed to be ironic?
On the post: Insanity: Getting Worked Up Over One Company's Slight Change Of Opinion In The Creditworthiness Of The US
Re: Re: Re: The real risk
But there are also risks in not devaluing your currency.
And I'm not sure about what you're basing your ideas off of. Consumer spending (consumption) is waaay down from what it was, so we're obviously not at peak.
On the post: Why President Obama Has The 'Jobs' Equation Backwards; Supporting Patent Reform That Limits Jobs
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Why President Obama Has The 'Jobs' Equation Backwards; Supporting Patent Reform That Limits Jobs
Re: Re: Re:
Me, I'm liberal or libertarian depending on the issues. Social issues - liberal (gay marriage, abortion, etc). Economic - lean liberal (higher taxes, sensible regulation and consumer protection, sensible spending - but get government out of things it doesn't do well that the private sector genuinely does better at). Civil rights - very libertarian (guns, speech, religion, marijuana).
The two party system doesn't work for me, they agree on too much stuff I disagree with.
On the post: Dear Everyone: Stock Market Problems Are Not Directly Due To S&P Downgrade
Splitting hairs
Mike, I really agree with your overall point, but I've got a problem with this statement. Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but here's the statement I would make:
Market prices are based on the interaction of opinions of all buyers and sellers (rational or not).
Anything which changes the opinions of buyers and sellers does have an impact on the market. Yes, its stupid and insane that 3 companies with questionable motives, having conflicts of interest, and a poor track record, can have this much power, and even worse that its legislated that they do.
On the post: Rojadirecta Argues That The Justice Department Is Making Up Laws; Has No Legal Basis To Forfeit Its Domain
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lack of first amendment mention...
Earlier you argued against seizing a bunch of rental cars if someone intended to use them in a crime because the rental agency's purpose in renting them was not for people to commit crimes. Likewise, Verisign's purpose of selling .com domain names and providing an authoritative root server is not to facilitate crimes.
The DNS record's only purpose is to provide a lookup to translate a site someone already knows about (or has been directed to via another means) into something a computer knows how to find on the internet. I think that's a decent enough argument to show they are not sufficiently tied. Everything related to copyright infringement happened on Roja's or someone else's servers, not the DNS servers.
My phone (or phone number listing in the yellow pages) isn't going to be seized because I made a call to a bookie to commit illegal gambling on it.
On the post: Rojadirecta Argues That The Justice Department Is Making Up Laws; Has No Legal Basis To Forfeit Its Domain
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So which law? They're arguing that the DOJ is making up laws which don't actually exist.
On the post: Rojadirecta Argues That The Justice Department Is Making Up Laws; Has No Legal Basis To Forfeit Its Domain
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lack of first amendment mention...
So you're saying that the specific DNS record was used to commit direct copyright infringement?
Do you have any idea what a DNS record looks like? It is a line or two of text like this:
rojadirecta.com 127.0.0.1
I will buy into the idea that under certain circumstances a linking site can be found under the law to be committing or inducing copyright infringement (not saying that I agree with the law, or with any current copyright law for that matter). You will never be able to convince me that a DNS record can be considered to be doing so - because it is obviously untrue.
On the post: Rojadirecta Argues That The Justice Department Is Making Up Laws; Has No Legal Basis To Forfeit Its Domain
Re: Re: Re: AC Disagrees
Then so does Google. If I want to find something, all I need to do is go to Google and type "copyrighted.content torrent" and I'm there - top links will usually by TPB and IsoHunt, and I don't even need to use the searches on their websites, cause Google indexes it all. Same for Yahoo. And Bing. I don't see DOJ seizing those - or the millions of other sites that contain links to infringing content. It seems that the law is being applied to some sites and not others.
On the post: Rojadirecta Argues That The Justice Department Is Making Up Laws; Has No Legal Basis To Forfeit Its Domain
Re: Re: Re: Re: Lack of first amendment mention...
And yet the US government has seized their property, despite their actions being ruled legal twice in the country they're in.
Sounds to me like the DOJ wants to have its cake and eat it too.
On the post: Insanity: Getting Worked Up Over One Company's Slight Change Of Opinion In The Creditworthiness Of The US
Re: Another facet of the Opinion Problem
You've forgotten one of the rules.
The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent. - Keynes
On the post: Insanity: Getting Worked Up Over One Company's Slight Change Of Opinion In The Creditworthiness Of The US
Re: The real risk
Interest rates at 0%. The quantitative easing actions. Those are overt moves to devalue a currency.
Doing so has various positive effects. If the US devalues their currency, then US products become cheaper both at home, and abroad. That encourages people both inside and outside of the US to choose a US made product as opposed to a foreign product, either keeping that money in the US or bringing money from elsewhere into the US. Also, if money is easier to get (devalued), then entrepreneurs can more easily start up a company that produces jobs.
The trick is devaluing your currency at the right rate, first so you don't end up with too much inflation, and so other countries don't throw up tariffs or do the same thing back at you. Since this is a global recession, there obviously ends up being negotiations and agreements on how best to do these things.
On the post: Rojadirecta Argues That The Justice Department Is Making Up Laws; Has No Legal Basis To Forfeit Its Domain
Re: Re: Lack of first amendment mention...
This seems wrong to me. If someone (anyone) is being prosecuted under US law, shouldn't *all* of US law apply, including rights?
Can a constitutional lawyer clear this up?
On the post: Rojadirecta Argues That The Justice Department Is Making Up Laws; Has No Legal Basis To Forfeit Its Domain
Re:
That's the aiding and abetting argument. Which, as noted, does not allow forfeiture.
On the post: Dear World: Self-Driving Cars Will Get Into Accidents Too (Though, This One Wasn't The Computer's Fault)
Re:
The same can be said of human drivers. Throw same rain, or :gasp: snow at people here and they loose all semblance of sanity.
On the post: Let Them Tweet Cake
Re: Re: Re: Re: Stupid and short-sighted
The phone may be trying to change society's concept of "deviants" for the better.
It may also be offering "deviants" who wish to disguise themselves from society an acceptable excuse for momentary slips.
Auto-correct for social change!
On the post: Judge Says Making It Harder To Exercise Free Speech Does Not Create Substantial Hardship
Re: Re: If this isn't a substantial hardship...
On the post: Let Them Tweet Cake
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Google Being More Aggressive About Bad Patents; But Should It Go Even Further?
Re: Re: Destroying the idiotic concept of a software "patent"...
On the post: How Data Retention Makes Us Less Secure
Re: Rep. Zoe Lofgren...
not /s
Next >>