Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:The reason is more simple (Score 1) 516 516

It must be nice to have the spare money to keep multiple cars on the road just for different purposes. Sort of the vehicular equivalent of day-of-the-week panties, I guess; and just as silly. Sure, my commute to work M-F is eminently EV-able (let's call it 20 miles of driving per day). However, two-ish times a month I need to drive either 98 or 206 miles roundtrip to an airport depending on my flight schedule; often at short notice. Three-ish times a month I drive ~190 miles roundtrip to a theme park, and that is way too goddamn close to the range limit for a "200 mile" EV. Once every couple of months I need to transport a large item (furniture, building materials, etc). A few times a year I take a drive that's much longer; several hundred miles. You people talk about how "I have an EV for my daily commute, and a gas vehicle for real work" like it's free to have multiple vehicles registered and insured. IT ISN'T. It would cost me about $600/yr to have an extra vehicle in my household. Renting a vehicle? You'll see I for one would need a real car several times a month, and that is a ginormous pain in the balls. Costly, and logistically really goddamn annoying to return it, get transport back from the rental place to my home, etc. The sensible path for anyone who doesn't have money literally dripping out of their asshole to simply pick one vehicle that covers all their common use cases. And that vehicle is going to be a normal gasoline-powered car for the foreseeable future for the majority of people. Pretty much everyone who buys an EV is doing so to make a point. Most real people don't care about this political activism and simply need reliable transportation supported by nationwide infrastructure on every street corner when we need it.

Comment: Re:The reason is more simple (Score 1) 516 516

Yeah. I wasn't exactly talking about that, but this is classic Barbara Ehrenreich stuff. If you're rich, you spend less on stuff that poor people get raped on. For instance, rich people can pay $500 every six months for their car insurance. Poor people who can't find $500 have to go on the installment plan which - for the exact same nominal premium - winds up being $1000 every six months because service charges. Etc etc. However, this wasn't really what I was talking about - though it's related. I wasn't talking about "poor" people per se, but just average people in the middle of the income range. The median income American isn't looking to buy off the new lot, he or she is looking to buy off the used lot, and to maximize factors such as "hold a couple of kids comfortably", "drive to Grandma in Wisconsin a couple times a year in reasonable comfort", etc. EVs don't hit any of the high notes. They're frankly ridiculous.

Comment: Re:The reason is more simple (Score 1) 516 516

And for the people who are constrained to buy used cars, for under $10K, or more usually well under $5K? Used vehicles are more accessible, and they're also more profitable for dealers. Electric vehicles are playthings for people who can afford to self-indulge in ecological fantasies and/or toys they don't need.

Comment: Re:The short answer is nothing (Score 1) 105 105

"With domain this makes sense because there is no real issues like with real estate." Are you freebasing? If you are claiming that there is no real, monetary, physical cost and qualitative disruption associated with somebody effectively claiming eminent domain and uprooting you off a domain name - then you haven't thought this through.

Comment: Re:The short answer is nothing (Score 1) 105 105

There was a mess 20 years ago? I registered my domain with Network Solutions. I was living in Australia at the time. The only "mess" I encountered was the annoyance of currency conversion fees on my credit card, both for the registration and for the hosting - I had my site hosted in the USA because at the time any hosting in Australia was (a) at the end of a very very thin pipe, and (b) cruelly expensive.

Comment: Re:The short answer is nothing (Score 1) 105 105

... yeah. Castle doctrine doesn't apply to domain names, y'know. Besides, the entire transaction happens at some physically remote location. BigCo says to registrant "MINE" (just like the seagulls in Finding Nemo). Registrant hands the keys to BigCo. There's nobody for you to aim at.

Comment: Re:The short answer is nothing (Score 2) 105 105

The outcome isn't really uncertain; the richer party is guaranteed to win. Basically the way it tends to break down is: The original registrant is deemed to have "abandoned" the _trademark_ because they are not "doing business" with the trademark. And the challenger can show that they have been doing business with the same trademark; they can show invoices for advertising, copies of magazine advertisements, TV advertisements, press coverage of their product showing the name, etc. In some cases, a settlement amount is set by the court to reflect that the original owner did "invest" in the name, sort of a cash reimbursement of imputed goodwill. But you're better off talking direct to the company that's challenging you and negotiating a cash price up front. ESPECIALLY once you take the bullshit factor into account - lawyers, paperwork, etc. In summary: If you're an individual fighting a corporation, you're generally screwed. This advice applies to many facets of life, really; Erin Brockovitch notwithstanding.

Comment: Re:The short answer is nothing (Score 1) 105 105

This is an irrelevancy. We are not discussing cybersquatters. We are discussing the - not uncommon - case where a small entitity or individual legitimately owns a domain, and a large entity later comes and demands it because the scope of their trademark expands to include it.

Comment: The short answer is nothing (Score 4, Insightful) 105 105

The unfortunate fact is that it really doesn't matter if you establish prior use of the domain, because arguments of this sort only arise when there's an external trademark that already has multiple millions of dollars of "goodwill" competing for the use of the domain. The typical timeline for this sort of thing is: Joe Public registers because his daughter's nickname is Boo and he wants a cool place for showing off her baby pictures. 10 years later, someone builds the persona of their dog Boo into a huge franchise, and decides that they want an internet persona. They file to push Joe Public off the domain. Because they NOW have a huge investment in "boo", they beat Joe Public's use of the term even though, had they had a trademark battle initially, he would have won through prior ownership. And it's expensive to fight these battles. I own a three-letter domain name, which I've had since the mid 1990s. Yes, I've owned this domain for 20+ years. I have had to fight off - fortunately at no great cost - a couple of people who wanted to use business names that had the same acronym as my domain. I'm getting sort of tired of it to be honest - three letter .com domains can fetch as much as $100K in the right markets, and I'd seriously consider an offer like that at this point, despite a huge load of my life being linked to that site.

Comment: Re: that's funny... (Score 4, Insightful) 368 368

You're so missing the point. There are *ALREADY* about seventeen billion ways those artists can get their free, no-royalties-paid exposure to the public; Spotify's free tier, Youtube, various other Internet streaming/radio sites, etc. Apple is trying to muscle its way into the internet streaming music business and build credibility for its brand. They are trying to get their marketing budget for free by riding the artists. It is APPLE that is trying to break into a new market, not the artists - it is Apple that should pay the royalties for those trial periods.

Comment: Re:Every child should NOT learn how to code... (Score 1) 306 306

Some would argue that Common Core and related nonsense is precisely doing that - training kids only to be "testing bees". And some would argue that the social attitudes forced on kids by school district policies (zero tolerance, for example) are training kids to be drooling government slaves. #justsayin.

Gosh that takes me back... or is it forward? That's the trouble with time travel, you never can tell." -- Doctor Who, "Androids of Tara"