3) There is nothing wrong with hinting you are willing to sell. I'm willing to sell my home for enough money and I still live here. If someone wants to pay me 130% or market (not even an insane amount) I'm out tomorrow. The fact that I would sell for over market doesn't indicate bad faith which is the other thing that needs to be proven.

Hold your horses. Hinting that you're willing to sell is probably the worst possible thing you can do if a trademark owner is trying to take your domain away from you. From ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, the first example of a bad faith registration is: " circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name."

Never signal that you're willing to sell, even as a joke. The domain is your baby, and you want it forever. If they offer an amount you're willing to sell for, then take it. But never admit before then that a certain amount would get you to change your mind. When Nissan (the car company) tried to take nissan.com from Uzi Nissan (the computer store owner) who had registered the domain long before Datsun ever began using their Nissan trademark in the U.S., they asked him how much it would take for him to sell. He replied, "A million dollars. Why can't you understand I'm not going to sell." Basically he pulled a Dr. Evil. Back when the phrase "a million dollars" was first coined and the average person made a few dollars a week, it meant a ridiculously huge sum of money. But today it's not that much money.

Nissan's lawyers immediately took the first half of his statement, snipped out the context in the second half, and presented it to ICANN as evidence he was squatting the domain to extort money from the trademark owner. ICANN then decided to take the domain away from him and put it in escrow until the dispute was resolved (eventually in Uzi Nissan's favor years later, though he lost millions because he wasn't awarded legal fees). If he hadn't used that particular phrase, he might have been able to continue using the domain throughout the legal proceedings.

Read up on the UNDRP if this is something you're really worried about.

I am hearing that several subreddits that went private were forcibly reopened by the admins, and the mods were unable to do anything about it after. I don't have sources, but if it's discovered that it true, that would be the final nail in the coffin for me.

I hear you. It sucks when someone decides to take their ball and go home only to be reminded that it's not their ball. It sucks even more when you support that someone only to be reminded that it's not your ball or your home, and that both of you are very replaceable.

The users don't care about this. You're a tiny minority that wants to see a catfight because you've decided someone is irreplaceable without any actual knowledge as to why they were let go.

I can't even start to wonder why a critical, money-bound company would even think of facial recognition for secure payments...

Pass a law making banks and credit card companies financially responsible for fraud in the use of their products, rather than being able to pass the cost off entirely onto merchants like they currently do. Then you'll see money-bound companies take security seriously. (Those absurdly high credit card interest rates pay for people who default on their credit card bills, not for fraud.)

Well, it may interest you to know that courts judging "emotional distress" is not some new Internet fad. In the year 1348 an innkeeper brought suit against a man who had been banging on his tavern door demanding wine. When the innkeeper stuck his head out the doorway to tell the man to stop, the man buried the hatchet he was carrying into the door by the innkeeper's head. The defendant argued that since there was no physical harm inflicted no assault had taken place, but the judged ruled against him [ de S et Ux. v. W de S (1348)]. Ever since then non-physical, non-financial harm has been considered both an essential element of a number of of crimes, a potential aggravating factor in others, and an element weighed in establishing civil damages.

This does *not*, however, mean that hurt feelings in themselves constitute a crime. It's a difficult and sometimes ambiguous area of the law, but the law doesn't have the luxury of addressing easy and clear-cut cases only.

As to why a new law is need now, when the infliction of emotional distress has been something the law has been working on for 667 years, I'd say that the power of technology to uncouple interactions from space and time has to be addressed. Hundreds of years ago if someone was obnoxious to you at your favorite coffeehouse, you could go at a different time or choose a different coffeehouse. Now someone intent on spoiling your interactions with other people doesn't have to coordinate physical location and schedule with you to be a persistent, practically inescapable nuisance.

Does this mean every interaction that hurts your feelings on the Internet is a crime? No, no more than everything that happens in your physical presence you take offense at is a crime.

No. It is free speech. It is a misnomer. It is a Right to Free Speech and the verbiage is important here. Free speech is not a freedom. It is a right. Rights have limits.Freedoms only have limits if you are physically prevented from doing so. Again, I am free to kill you, I am not at liberty to do so. The Constitutional Liars (the two that I know) call it The Right To Free Speech. Other countries may be different but I suspect they follow the same guidelines if they even have such a right in the first place. A surprising number do not have a codified law enumerating the right to speak freely. There is a reason we call it the Bill of Rights and not the Bill of Freedoms.

I can not believe this has not been said thus far in the thread. I must remedy this...

Hitler!

So you want to deflate your dollar's value and then have no money in, maybe, a month (like a 2 dollar whore in a crack house) later be broke and then trying to figure out who the new 1% is (which is surely somebody though they have no wealth now, the dollar has no value) and steal it from them again and then... Well, what then? You are driving the bus. You tell me what comes next.

You know they do not leave it just sitting around the house, stuffed into walls, and in their mattresses, right? It *is* invested. It is in banks, stocks, bonds, CODs, mutual funds, and (my favorite) municipal bonds. Also it is in a lot of other places doing good things. I am not a skilled investor but I actually do okay just poking around and following the online news sites carefully. I also like to take the news and mash up the words and see what trickles out but I am insane and this is not the best strategy though I suspect it can work.

Chances are pretty good that you do indeed owe me. You probably owe me quite a bit. This is, of course, assuming you pay the average amount of taxes compared to the services you use. If you pay more than average you probably still owe me when it is compared to the services you take advantage of. I pay more in taxes than I get out of the system. I got this way from the taxes other people put into the system (literally) and am grateful for it. I do not pay enough in taxes, really. Instead I donate to causes I believe in and give the government exactly what they are due.

And all those little taxes, from city, state, and country, all add up to between 40% and 60% of most US citizens' income. How much is enough?

Actually it's about 33% (dipped below 30% during the recession, but has moved back up). But I agree with you. People need to understand that only the sum total of all taxes matter. Even corporate taxes are eventually paid for by individuals - via higher prices for goods and services, or lower wages for employees. In that respect, taxes could be vastly simplified if they were collected from a single point in our economy. If you want a graduated tax (richer people pay more), then the logical choice is the income tax. Nearly all other taxes could be eliminated and rolled into just income taxes. (Exceptions would be excise and regulatory taxes which fund directly-related government services, and property taxes which discourage "sitting" on property waiting for it to appreciate instead of developing it immediately to maximize public utilization.)

In this particular case, the Constitutional prohibition on interstate taxation would've applied. Except the states have been busy whittling away at that and Congress seems unwilling to challenge this usurpation of a power clearly reserved to them. I don't mind if you think the Commerce Clause is wrong, but express your disagreement the way the architects of our country intended - modify the Constitution. Don't try to justify it with painfully convoluted arguments for why the clause doesn't mean what it clearly says it means, just because you can't muster enough votes to amend the Constitution.

Adding new taxes like this also increases the regulatory burden for its citizens and the city itself, which indirectly reduces the taxes effectiveness by increasing the overhead of compliance

I've done business in Chicago. The purpose isn't compliance. The purpose is graft - money paid to government officials and politicians under the table if you "need more time" to come into compliance. I expect certain ISPs and data centers will come to "arrangements" with Chicago where their customers won't have to pay this tax.

It was also before your country was saved by the Polish pilots. Of course, you could have just fulfilled your obligations, your very promises - your word - your honor, and attacked Germany right when they were attacking Poland and been done with the whole thing. However, your cowardice enabled him to grow stronger (and more courageous) while you sat around during sitzkrieg and then got your asses handed to you so had to turn tail, run, and leave the equipment behind rotting on the coast. Then you had the temerity to beg for assistance from the United States who opted to support you financially and with equipment which you did try to use effectively but failed at - meaning you had to rely on the Russians to weaken the Germans so that you could claim some sort of victory. All-in-all? Good job. You managed to beat the country who has won, like, no real wars in forever and then only with the help of the Russians and Americans.

And, the best part, you got to maintain your sense of dignity.

I do not necessarily agree with you but you do use the word liberty properly and do not mistake it for 'freedom.' That, to me, implies you are not a complete idiot and so I will ponder your proposal a bit more. It is not far from what I feel would be most beneficial personally.

I like you. I am going to let you come over to my house and fuck my sister.

Each of my DSL connections has a static IP address. I left one turned off for weeks (it is generally unused unless someone visits for an extended period) and when it was turned back on again it was still the same IP address even. I did not ask for them, I do not pay extra for them, and as near as I can tell this is not the norm with Fairpoint. I do not pay for business class DSL or anything though I did pay to have the CO and lines run so that I can have DSL. Additionally, I have three connections total (one in the old house that was here when I had my house built - I call it the guest house, one in the garage/shop, and one in the house) so maybe they shunted me off to business class without asking me? My online portal is very clearly residential and the bill said residential back when I paid it with dead trees.

I was actually thinking a government run program for the distribution and thinking that the scale of producing these things would be such that they would be cheaper (eventually) than the average home/small business capable generator would be. So, in this line of thought, FEMA has a bunch of them and loads them up and lets people borrow them during times of crisis. Obviously they would need to keep track of them and charge people who damage them or steal them with the appropriate fees and legal repercussions. That was my line of thinking at any rate.

$3,000 is a lot to add to a trailer price. I own three and the most expensive was one that is custom made and a 5th wheel car hauler. It was just about $3k total. The smallest was one that fits the tractor and your standard 2" ball. That one was a mere $500 or so. That one would be adequate to handle the weight of a generator but would have to be changed to adapt, obviously.

My experience is that few people use a rented trailer but that is likely influenced by the people I know. In my experience we either own one (or several) and then loan them out to friends if they need them. In fact my medium sized trailer is another car trailer and is being used by my neighbor. He has had it for a week or so now. He has a couple of cars he is taking down to the metal recycling facility. This is normal for me and has been wherever I have lived pretty much. Then again, I have always lived outside of urban areas even when I worked in the city. I will take the commute, I enjoy driving.

I am certainly an edge case but there are more of us out here than one might think. It was only recently that the percentage changed in the United States. Until just a couple of years ago more people lived in rural settings than in an urban environment. Most do not have to travel as far as we do here, at least not on a regular basis, but they still have long drives. I think the goal should be to get it to the point where a second car is not needed for longer trips and two car families are well served with EVs.

I would like a decent hybrid but hybrid tech seems to be taking a back seat. It would be nice to have something that was all-electric drive with a small diesel generating the electricity when it is needed. I do like the looks of the i8 but it is not practical nor does it have much in the way of EV range. I can buy one but I can not justify owning one at this time. It would be great fun for maybe 4 to 6 months out of the year. I bought a 640Li instead which, considering what it is, is actually rather efficient.

My thinking was that generators could be attached to the receiver in much the same way you attach a tow-behind boat. When you remove it from the hitch you put the legs down first. When you attach it to the hitch you just back up to it. Maybe putting some sort of wheels on the retractable legs would make that process easier. Assuming that most are rented they would also be likely to be able to assist in connecting them to the vehicles in the first place. It could also, fairly easily, be disconnected for parking at a hotel overnight so the vehicle can be driven around more easily/efficiently. Someone will figure out a way to secure it. I can think of a few ways to do this already though nothing will stop a determined thief but such is true even if it is towed behind instead of attached.

One drawback I did consider is that it would make accessing the trunk a little awkward but not impossible. We would not want the center of mass to be too far from the body of the vehicle. An attached generator would also be lighter than one that is towed which would help with efficiency though a trailer does not decrease efficiency _much_ when it is in motion though it is horrific in stop-and-go traffic.

Other than establishing a standard connection that allows connections from anything properly configured to attach then this may be something for the market to determine. I am sure that other people will have better ideas than mine or ways to improve on your ideas. My degrees are in Advanced Mathematics and Electrical Engineering. I am not a materials or design guy. Hell, I have issues with a decent user interface or a web site that does not baffle most. I should probably not be allowed near the design phase.

It is a little bad if you are an actual Libertarian and have to fend off the Republicans who are ashamed of their party so they have co-opted the party and made it seem as if we are lunatics. Most of us Libertarians are (were?) quite far left of the representatives of the Democrat party. I, for example, support single-payer health care - not because I am a lovey-dubey caring individual (I really am, sort of) but because it costs less for the society as a whole and makes a better business environment.

I shall rant but I will keep it short.

I support taxing the wealthy, I could pay more in taxes (I am not going to - I avoid them where possible) easily so I donate to causes I believe in instead. I support business regulations. I support roads, libraries, education, and social welfare programs. I could even be convinced to support a universal standard of living payment out of tax dollars. I want a small government that spends its money wisely.

We have plenty of money, even to service our debts, so long as we stop spending it on stupid things like being the World's Police.® If we strip out the pork and start working to taking the money out of politics then, perhaps, we will be on the right road. Note the perhaps part - the world is not black and white and no one political system can be incorporated in a pure form as it simply will not work.

I also support State and Individual rights, note that I did not use the word freedoms because unless you are physically restricted then you are free to do something though there are potential consequences for it. One of my favorite statements is that, "I am free to kill you, I am not at liberty to do so." I think I may be the author of that quote, or I picked it up subconsciously, so it is open for claiming, using, or debating. Consider it an open source adage and do with it what you will.

I support legalization of all drugs - all of them - even if they kill you. I support identification of products and product purity and think it is the government's job to work to ensure such. I do not support either heterosexual or gay marriage - I support civil unions with contracts being decided amongst the parties involved and do not limit it to a couple. I think marriage, as a word, is quite happily the property of the religious zealots who can happily have their ceremonies all they want but that those ceremonies should not be anything backed by or recognized by the state. We have contracts and contract law for a reason and it is high time we make use of them. Everyone should be equal under the law and the most correct way to do this, to my mind, is to allow it have contracts between people. The government should not be in the business of deciding who has access to what hole by which gender. If you want to self-identify as a transsexual bisexual turtle then go right the fuck ahead. It should not matter that you do not fit into a check-box on the government's form - that check-mark box should not be there in the first place.

I am mixed race. I am Caucasian, African-American, and Amerindian. I do not support affirmative action. I support merit based society. I think that, to me, affirmative action is "the man" telling me that I can not do it on my own and that because I am inferior that I must be given special treatment. Screw that. I got to where I am because I have had a lot of help and good fortune. None of that help was based on my gender, my color, or any other physical trait. I got that help because I worked hard, was in the right place at the right time, and had good information that I was able to use to further myself. If I had been told that I was inferior and needed help because of some innate physical trait then I probably would have accepted mediocrity.

Most importantly I believe in rights. In pretty much all cases the laws (which should be simple and few but carry penalties that are enforced though probably not as draconian as they are) should "err" on the side of personal rights. Freedom is a right and an important right but it needs to be respected. Rights are to be given to the individual, freely. They should have responsibilities and be accountable. The government should not be deciding what you do to you so long as what you are doing does not impact the safety of other people.

I am nothing special or anything. Most Libertarians think/thought like I do. We all have a variety of things that are important to us and we all have slightly different views as to how we should solve these problems. Unfortunately, there is a vocal minority who has insisted they speak for the whole when, really, they represent nobody or anything close to the party platform. They are just neo-conservatives who have co-opted the Libertarian name because they are too ashamed to be associated with the Republican party name. Their beliefs have not changed, nor have our's, but the message that goes out appears to have changed. We are not organized well enough or centralized well enough to kick these people out of the party and there is no way we can restrict them from using the moniker.

Finally, in my observations, the total number of folks here that are vocal tend to be skewed left. The demographics would suggest that this is normal but we all have confirmation biases that will have us see what we want to see and this is compounded by the tendency to rant, troll, be vocal, be aggressive, and attention seeking. The vocal minority, even here, is what gets noticed and we are not nearly as objective as we think we are. Given the nature of /. it also stands to reason that we attract the eclectic and this means we get the extremes on either end of the spectrum and they all want to be heard.

So, I end my rant. It is not that short but I have tried to keep it to a dull roar. We are not all insane but quite a few of us are. ;)