Domain name black market
-
Upvote (if it were enabled). Couldn't be put more simply or more concisely, so I won't try. Ya chooses yer politics then ya win some then ya lose some, yer just lose different things and win sum uvers...
Mike-MadBadger wrote:
Ya chooses yer politics then ya win some then ya lose some, yer just lose different things and win sum uvers...
Yelling about homosexuality outside of a slain soldier's funeral: Free speech: Yes. Arse-hats: Yes. Domain name camping: Capitalism: Yes. Arse-hats: Yes. Telling bad jokes in The Lounge because the voting system is down: Opportunism: Yes. Arse-hats: Jury still out.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
It's an evolutionary advantage; maximize your gain, minimize the effort.
No it's not. Putting burden on others to have a simpler life is not evolutionary, it's actually opposite of that. Part of the limbic system of our brain is responsible for caring about our kind/species. Some worms don't have it and don't care if by moving over their new born children, they even kill some. We aren't like that. If someone is, he has brain issues.
Planning to move to Germany, looking for a job there!
Looking for a Windows desktop programmer? I look forward to hearing from you! :-)Hamed Mosavi wrote:
No it's not. Putting burden on others to have a simpler life is not evolutionary, it's actually opposite of that.
Incorrect.
Hamed Mosavi wrote:
Part of the limbic system of our brain is responsible for caring about our kind/species
How is caring for the species not in fact a gain? And that ignores the fact that it just isn't true. Armies have been killing civilians, including women and children for a long time specifically for gain. Altruism in its modern form it based on plenty. If I have plenty of food (and other life necessities) then I can rationalize giving it away in any way that I want but it doesn't alter the fact that there is only because there is extra that it happens. Other than that theories for genetic altruism are based on the idea that one is protecting the genetic pool by caring for ones children, near relatives and social community. That however is still based on protecting genetics which is a gain.
-
Some people earn money without adding any value to economy. Just wanted to buy a domain name and noticed someone (who already bought over 100 other names) bought it already and now asks for "4 figures" money to give it to others. :-/
Planning to move to Germany, looking for a job there!
Looking for a Windows desktop programmer? I look forward to hearing from you! :-)Hamed Mosavi wrote:
Just wanted to buy a domain name and noticed someone (who already bought over 100 other names) bought it already and now asks for "4 figures" money to give it to others. :-/
Register your business using that name, conduct some commerce using it for a while, and then require them to give it up. See the ICANN rule b-i. http://www.icann.org/en/help/dndr/udrp/policy[^]
-
Mladen Janković wrote:
So?
So, the money they earn is not added to the system, so they are stealing money from others. And so if you are interested, let's discuss it!
Planning to move to Germany, looking for a job there!
Looking for a Windows desktop programmer? I look forward to hearing from you! :-) -
Hamed Mosavi wrote:
Just wanted to buy a domain name and noticed someone (who already bought over 100 other names) bought it already and now asks for "4 figures" money to give it to others. :-/
Register your business using that name, conduct some commerce using it for a while, and then require them to give it up. See the ICANN rule b-i. http://www.icann.org/en/help/dndr/udrp/policy[^]
Not sure that'd apply to a business registered after the domain was originally registered.
-
AspDotNetDev wrote:
I'm one of those a**holes.
No you're not. Based on what you wrote, I'd say you are worried. Although part of this state in my opinion is rooted the real problem of possibility of lack of the right name when you need it, but since you aren't faced with the problem right now, this mindset I believe is nervousness. I too suffer from it. Nervousness, if not fought with, might extend to other areas of life too. ;-)
Planning to move to Germany, looking for a job there!
Looking for a Windows desktop programmer? I look forward to hearing from you! :-)Hamed Mosavi wrote:
No you're not
Oh yes he is, he is happily sitting on a bunch of names hoping someone will offer a reasonably price for them. While I believe in capitalism I would find it irritating if I wanted a domain with a squatter on it!
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
-
Hamed Mosavi wrote:
So, the money they earn is not added to the system
Naturally that statement isn't true. If you pay them for it I am rather certain that it will in some way be used in the economy.
jschell wrote:
Naturally
You mean economically?
jschell wrote:
I am rather certain that it will in some way be used in the economy.
I'm not sure, even if it does, its' harm is far more than its' "use" in my opinion.
Planning to move to Germany, looking for a job there!
Looking for a Windows desktop programmer? I look forward to hearing from you! :-) -
Hamed Mosavi wrote:
I think winners aren't the most happy or successful among us
Philosophy; what is it that makes us happy, besides the arguments mentioned in Maslovs' pyramid? Aren't we "just animals", deep within? Driven by the four f...'s?
Hamed Mosavi wrote:
I value happiness and success in life, more than winning a lot of money but this is just a personal idea. :)
The theory of evolution says you have to attempt to multiply your DNA as good as posssible. ..but happiness, is simply a cop o' coffee in the morning. Guess it'll depend on your definition of "happiness".
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] They hate us for our freedom![^]
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Philosophy; what is it that makes us happy,
I use my common sense for that and look at it this way: If I sacrifice something in my life, like health (could be mental health) to gain one thing, then I'm a winner but not happy so I no longer call that success. A good example is all the famous and rich actors or singers who commit suicide.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Aren't we "just animals", deep within? Driven by the four f...'s?
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
but happiness, is simply a cop o' coffee in the morning.
Have no idea but people who look for pleasure whole their lives did not become very happy in the end either. (Drug addicts for instance. ;-) )
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Guess it'll depend on your definition of "happiness".
Maybe, but the cost of trying a wrong theory in this case is a lot, I'd rather think about it through.
Planning to move to Germany, looking for a job there!
Looking for a Windows desktop programmer? I look forward to hearing from you! :-) -
Hamed Mosavi wrote:
No it's not. Putting burden on others to have a simpler life is not evolutionary, it's actually opposite of that.
Incorrect.
Hamed Mosavi wrote:
Part of the limbic system of our brain is responsible for caring about our kind/species
How is caring for the species not in fact a gain? And that ignores the fact that it just isn't true. Armies have been killing civilians, including women and children for a long time specifically for gain. Altruism in its modern form it based on plenty. If I have plenty of food (and other life necessities) then I can rationalize giving it away in any way that I want but it doesn't alter the fact that there is only because there is extra that it happens. Other than that theories for genetic altruism are based on the idea that one is protecting the genetic pool by caring for ones children, near relatives and social community. That however is still based on protecting genetics which is a gain.
jschell wrote:
Hamed Mosavi wrote:
No it's not. Putting burden on others to have a simpler life is not evolutionary, it's actually opposite of that.
Incorrect.
You're wrong. It's correct.
jschell wrote:
Altruism in its modern form it based on plenty.
Wrong again. A good example to prove it wrong is when a disaster happens. Some people put their own lives in danger to save others. One such an example is enough to prove this idea is wrong, although there are a lot of such examples and I am sure you've heard, read or probably seen it.
jschell wrote:
That however is still based on protecting genetics which is a gain.
Regardless of the theory that proves people care about each other and reasons for that care, the fact is that they do and if they don't, they are probably not healthy. So again, I believe, if someone is thinking only about his/her gain while that gain puts extra burden and misery on shoulders of others, that is not in line with human nature or evolution and is a problem in economy.
Planning to move to Germany, looking for a job there!
Looking for a Windows desktop programmer? I look forward to hearing from you! :-) -
Maybe. :) Where are '5' buttons of this forum? I used to use them instead of typing 'Agree' or 'Thank you'!
Planning to move to Germany, looking for a job there!
Looking for a Windows desktop programmer? I look forward to hearing from you! :-) -
Not sure that'd apply to a business registered after the domain was originally registered.
Seems like if you are just sitting on a domain with no use of it except advertising yourself and attempting to sell it to someone who might need it, you're in bad faith, even if you camped it first. It's certainly worth writing to the registrar and asking about it.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
It's an evolutionary advantage; maximize your gain, minimize the effort.
No it's not. Putting burden on others to have a simpler life is not evolutionary, it's actually opposite of that. Part of the limbic system of our brain is responsible for caring about our kind/species. Some worms don't have it and don't care if by moving over their new born children, they even kill some. We aren't like that. If someone is, he has brain issues.
Planning to move to Germany, looking for a job there!
Looking for a Windows desktop programmer? I look forward to hearing from you! :-)The worm analogy is extremely suitable.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
jschell wrote:
Hamed Mosavi wrote:
No it's not. Putting burden on others to have a simpler life is not evolutionary, it's actually opposite of that.
Incorrect.
You're wrong. It's correct.
jschell wrote:
Altruism in its modern form it based on plenty.
Wrong again. A good example to prove it wrong is when a disaster happens. Some people put their own lives in danger to save others. One such an example is enough to prove this idea is wrong, although there are a lot of such examples and I am sure you've heard, read or probably seen it.
jschell wrote:
That however is still based on protecting genetics which is a gain.
Regardless of the theory that proves people care about each other and reasons for that care, the fact is that they do and if they don't, they are probably not healthy. So again, I believe, if someone is thinking only about his/her gain while that gain puts extra burden and misery on shoulders of others, that is not in line with human nature or evolution and is a problem in economy.
Planning to move to Germany, looking for a job there!
Looking for a Windows desktop programmer? I look forward to hearing from you! :-)Hamed Mosavi wrote:
Wrong again. A good example to prove it wrong is when a disaster happens. Some people put their own lives in danger to save others. One such an example is enough to prove this idea is wrong, although there are a lot of such examples and I am sure you've heard, read or probably seen it.
People commit suicide every day. People engage in activities that are recognized by almost everyone, including themselves, as being very dangerous and even die from doing it. So based on your reasoning genetically we are predispositioned to kill ourselves before we can propagate. And that obviously contradicts absolutely everything about genetics.
Hamed Mosavi wrote:
and if they don't, they are probably not healthy
Utter nonsense.
Hamed Mosavi wrote:
if someone is thinking only about his/her gain while that gain
No one thinks only about it. Just as no one completely ignores it. For the latter case one only need look to people who feed themselves. Feeding oneself is by its very nature selfish.
-
Not sure that'd apply to a business registered after the domain was originally registered.
-
AspDotNetDev wrote:
Not sure that'd apply to a business registered after the domain was originally registered.
I suspect it most certainly would if the domain is not being used and never has been.
Not sure why that'd be the case. One could say that the business was just created in order to snag the domain, which is just as egregious as snagging a domain just to have it bought by a business. Seems analogous to attempting to patent something that existed before you invented it (prior art).
-
Hamed Mosavi wrote:
Wrong again. A good example to prove it wrong is when a disaster happens. Some people put their own lives in danger to save others. One such an example is enough to prove this idea is wrong, although there are a lot of such examples and I am sure you've heard, read or probably seen it.
People commit suicide every day. People engage in activities that are recognized by almost everyone, including themselves, as being very dangerous and even die from doing it. So based on your reasoning genetically we are predispositioned to kill ourselves before we can propagate. And that obviously contradicts absolutely everything about genetics.
Hamed Mosavi wrote:
and if they don't, they are probably not healthy
Utter nonsense.
Hamed Mosavi wrote:
if someone is thinking only about his/her gain while that gain
No one thinks only about it. Just as no one completely ignores it. For the latter case one only need look to people who feed themselves. Feeding oneself is by its very nature selfish.
jschell wrote:
So based on your reasoning genetically we are predispositioned to kill ourselves before we can propagate.
Where did I say that? By that example I am only trying to say that your theory that having too much has caused giving is incorrect. People sacrifice their live which from it they only have one, which means one decreases his/her gain to increase someone elses. Now I'm not an expert in biology to say why it happens or what happens to genes when it happens. Just for a clue, I can say that I think at some point, pain of others become more painful to us and thus more critical to survival to just sit and look. Just an idea though.
jschell wrote:
Utter nonsense.
Just because you call it that, it doesn't become that.
jschell wrote:
Feeding oneself is by its very nature selfish.
How is this related to our discussion?
Planning to move to Germany, looking for a job there!
Looking for a Windows desktop programmer? I look forward to hearing from you! :-) -
jschell wrote:
So based on your reasoning genetically we are predispositioned to kill ourselves before we can propagate.
Where did I say that? By that example I am only trying to say that your theory that having too much has caused giving is incorrect. People sacrifice their live which from it they only have one, which means one decreases his/her gain to increase someone elses. Now I'm not an expert in biology to say why it happens or what happens to genes when it happens. Just for a clue, I can say that I think at some point, pain of others become more painful to us and thus more critical to survival to just sit and look. Just an idea though.
jschell wrote:
Utter nonsense.
Just because you call it that, it doesn't become that.
jschell wrote:
Feeding oneself is by its very nature selfish.
How is this related to our discussion?
Planning to move to Germany, looking for a job there!
Looking for a Windows desktop programmer? I look forward to hearing from you! :-)Hamed Mosavi wrote:
Where did I say that?
You claimed that because some people help others that it must mean that people are genetically programmed to do that. Thus it follows that any activity that people engage in must be solely based on genetic conditioning.
Hamed Mosavi wrote:
...point, pain of others become more painful to us and thus more critical to survival to just sit and look.
That however says nothing about a genetic predespostion.
Hamed Mosavi wrote:
Just because you call it that, it doesn't become that.
Yes actually it does.
-
Not sure why that'd be the case. One could say that the business was just created in order to snag the domain, which is just as egregious as snagging a domain just to have it bought by a business. Seems analogous to attempting to patent something that existed before you invented it (prior art).
AspDotNetDev wrote:
One could say that the business was just created in order to snag the domain, which is just as egregious as snagging a domain just to have it bought by a business.
Re-read what I said...the business must be run as a business for some time before challenging for the domain.
AspDotNetDev wrote:
Seems analogous to attempting to patent something that existed before you invented it (prior art).
Not apt at all. Actually rather the reverse. Some one has registered a right without doing any actual work in the first place. Additionally it is more appropriate to trademark law where one can register new names but not existing ones. And where one can loose the right to the name if they do not actively protect it.
-
Hamed Mosavi wrote:
Where did I say that?
You claimed that because some people help others that it must mean that people are genetically programmed to do that. Thus it follows that any activity that people engage in must be solely based on genetic conditioning.
Hamed Mosavi wrote:
...point, pain of others become more painful to us and thus more critical to survival to just sit and look.
That however says nothing about a genetic predespostion.
Hamed Mosavi wrote:
Just because you call it that, it doesn't become that.
Yes actually it does.
jschell wrote:
You claimed that because some people help others that it must mean that people are genetically programmed to do that.
I never made such a claim. What I said about limbic system is not made up by me mister, I've read it in a book. It's not based on my investigation of brain! But about your claim that people only give what there's plenty of it, I gave you an example that proves you wrong.
jschell wrote:
That however says nothing about a genetic predespostion.
Just because you don't know that, it doesn't mean it's not true. Again, I'm not a biologist but what I wrote was based on scientific studies. Now before denying what you have no idea about, at least do a little bit research!
jschell wrote:
Yes actually it does.
Now you're just a kid. Grow up first, then I'll be interested to continue this conversation.
Planning to move to Germany, looking for a job there!
Looking for a Windows desktop programmer? I look forward to hearing from you! :-) -
jschell wrote:
You claimed that because some people help others that it must mean that people are genetically programmed to do that.
I never made such a claim. What I said about limbic system is not made up by me mister, I've read it in a book. It's not based on my investigation of brain! But about your claim that people only give what there's plenty of it, I gave you an example that proves you wrong.
jschell wrote:
That however says nothing about a genetic predespostion.
Just because you don't know that, it doesn't mean it's not true. Again, I'm not a biologist but what I wrote was based on scientific studies. Now before denying what you have no idea about, at least do a little bit research!
jschell wrote:
Yes actually it does.
Now you're just a kid. Grow up first, then I'll be interested to continue this conversation.
Planning to move to Germany, looking for a job there!
Looking for a Windows desktop programmer? I look forward to hearing from you! :-)Hamed Mosavi wrote:
I never made such a claim. What I said about limbic system is not made up by me mister, I've read it in a book. It's not based on my investigation of brain!
However your conclusion of from that that people do not in fact gain from is entirely your opinion. And it is that to which I responded.
Hamed Mosavi wrote:
Now before denying what you have no idea about, at least do a little bit research!
I am familar with current theories that attempt to explain various behaviors by genetics. And they are all based on gain.
Hamed Mosavi wrote:
Now you're just a kid.
Your statement is an opinion. That my opinion of that opinion is all that matters.