"N-word".com Owned by NAACP 253
A friend of mine who works for the NAACP (and doesn't want his name used here) sent me this Wired News story about a sad but necessary move his employers have made. It seems that the NAACP, the Anti-Defamation League, and other groups that fight against racial hatred have been quietly registering as many offensive domain names they can get their hands on so that hate groups can't use them. It's sad that civil rights groups have to do this, but (sigh) I suppose it's better than having the government censor domain names.
Re:BS...should be illegal (Score:1)
On behalf of the LETL (Lawyers for the Ethical Treatment of Lawyers), I must inform you that we find offense in the statement you made to kill all the laywers. We are currently in talks with the Justice Department regarding the filing civil rights charges. Recent decisions made by the federal judiciary have made thoughts such as yours a federal offense in cercumstances and we may be involved in a precedet setting case against you to expand those bounds.
In the meantime, we respectfully request that you refrane from making such remarks. Our current policy requires us to list your name on our register of know anti-esquires, which all member lawyers have access. Should your name appear on our register you may find it difficult to obtain anything other than court-appointed representation should the need arise.
Chalmer P. Skewyew, Esq.
Lawyer at Law
Diddwe, Skewyem, and Howe LLP.
damn spooks (Score:1)
Blacks have had 30+ years of benefits bestowed on them and granted a few of them have gotten smart and taken advantage of them. But the rest - BAH!
Stupidest thing the U.S. ever did was to import slaves from Africa. You know the most ironic part? It was their fellow africans who sold them into slavery. Yeah go read the textbooks, not the revisionist history ones they have been passing around for the past 5 years. Did you know that shortly before LIncolns assination he was pushing to re-settle all the slaves back to Africa?
Ever wonder what would have happened if the US had not imported slaves. I'll bet anything you want that Africa would still be in the same state it is today. Plus the US would be bereft of many of the race and social problems it has today.
You wanna know why Latinos are beginning to prosper so fast and outpacing blacks in the economy despite even more disadvantages? They work, work hard, and make sacrifices for their familys. Same thing with Asians (who get none of the benefits that either Hispanics or blacks do when it comes to financial aid, trust me I know this first hand). Then you have their main role models: drugged out and violent sports stars; obnoxious, self-serving, ethically lacking rap musicians; and thats about it.
80% of the black race is going down the tubes guarenteed in the next 20 years and it will be all their own doing.
Why is internic allowing registration at all? (Score:1)
Why is it ok for the NAACP to use the nigger? (Score:1)
"affirmative action" programs are broken. (Score:1)
Re:damn spooks (Score:1)
1. This is really a discussion about domain name squatting race only plays a part if you are somehow racially biased.
2. The NAACP is just an entity like the KKK, just like the KKK doesn't reflect the opinions of the entire whithe race, the NAACP doesn't reflect the opinions of the entire black race.
3. Black people have only asked for equality, the U.S. government has chosen to give back people econonic incentives in lieu of giving black people what it cannot grant.
4. Even though black people only get a few token gestures to make up for racist attitudes, the moment it inconveniences one white person everyone bitches. Yeah, I can walk down the street and no one will call me a nigger (in most locations) and I go to the same bathroom or eat at the same restaurant but that doesn't mean racism has ended. True, things are a lot better, but racism is around and just more subtle. How many of the people who bitch about what black people get would honestly trade places to get that stuff? Also if you don't think there is racism now, how many times have you seen a posting on
5. Where did you go to school, community college? I was frequently the only black guy in my classes, when I did meet other blacks most of them were paying their own way too. I've heard about all these magical freebies for blacks but I haven't seen them. Yeah, I tried for a free ride but I didn't qualify and neither did anyone I grew up with. All the only blacks I met with free rides were either on a sports team, they were on the GI bill or a regular academic scholarship, no just because you're black thing. Everyone assumed we all had some type of financial aid or played sports but no one ever asked. I paid my own way and scored well enough to make it into school regardless of any quotas.
6. 30+ years of (token) benefits vs. 400+ years of slavery. Nuff said.
7. Black people are doing better and will continue to do so, there are other races which have outpaced the black race but, I don't think their situations are comparable.
8. All american role models consist of drugged out and violent sports stars and ethically lacking rock musicians. Sure there are other people whites have as role models but the same goes for blacks. Although if you are black you have to look harder because if you are black and successful and not a rap star or not a sports figure you are not publicized:
Dr. Charles Drew discoverer of blood plasma.
Lewis Latimer inventor of the carbon filament, part of Thomas Edison's team of engineers.
Garret A. Morgan inventor of the gas mask.
Dr. Daniel Williams performed the first successful open heart surgery.
Dr. Percy Julian developed a treatment for glaucoma.
Louis Alexander inventor of the photo electric cell.
Re:Score = 4?? (Score:1)
If you agree with the post, you moderate up.
If you don't agree with the post, you moderate it down.
Since this guy is just complaining, hu must be just a wannabe moderator who agrees with the philosophy of moderation I have stated hede. Therefore he is unworthy of moderator status. Get it?
Re:damn spooks (Score:2)
inflamatory. But here is my 0.02 worth.
My boss is African-American, he busted
butt to get into a good school, and paid
for most of it himself. Worked the entire
time. Today he makes (I am guessing) at
least in the upper 80k's and supports his
family well.
Today he is somewhat bitter. He has said
that his kids have little respect for him
because he is not like their "role models"
that their friends hold up as examples.
He also said that he was relatively an
outcast when he was growing up because he
did not fit in with any other African-American
groups or attitudes (i.e. player, pimp, etc..).
He is extradordinarily hard on those African-
Americans he hires (he has been through 8
admins) because he will not tolerate them not
standing up to his standard.
He realises that this economy is slowly
becoming a service economy where there are
little opportunities for those not willing
to take the hard path and fears that other
members of his people will be left behind.
Its a fact, he says, and he will do anything
in his power to make sure those that will
earn it get it.
Getting away from the point... (Score:2)
DNS isn't supposed to be a substitute for a search engine - so registering "every permutation of every offensive word" isn't going to solve anything (even if it was possible.)
If someone were to go looking for hate groups, are they going to type "www.n-word.com" into their browser location bar? No. They're going to go to Altavista or Yahoo (or some other search engine) and type in a search phrase.
If some white-supremacist is going to register a domain name, would they pick "n-word.com"? Probably not. Can you imagine them exchanging URL's with other idiots, and getting the reaction "Whudya pick that for? You a n*****-lover?" - As a matter of fact, white-supremacists (the ones I've ever met, or seen) are against using that word in public (watch some interviews and documentaries about it if you're interested in the mindset - it's fascinating to see such a deluded mind at work.)
By taking this action, the NAACP is doing exactly what they're trying to prevent, which is to give racists publicity and credibility.
NAACP = ?? (Score:2)
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Last time I checked, "colored" was considered offensive, and the last few times I heard it used it was sure hard to take it any other way.
Perhaps the NAACP should change their name before they waste money squatting on domains. Granted, a name change would be a lot more expensive than sitting on a few domains, but anyone who really wants to read racist trash is going to find it no matter what. The name, OTOH, is kind of hard to ignore.
Re:Switcheroo (Score:1)
Re:Privacy? (Score:1)
At first, I didn't even want to guess what was at bigger.com, but as it turns out it's yet another free mail service!
Silly people... (Score:1)
Negroid. Yeah, just about as fun as calling me a 'Caucasian'. No one likes the 'scientific' term for their people.
Nigger. Contraction of the former, originally *not* offensive. If you don't believe me, read Huckleberry Finn, his best friend was a 'nigger'. (Provided it isn't banned yet, for schools that can't teach history.
Black. Some people find this offensive now. Too bad, since I'm 'White'...
African American. Pretty stupid, unless you're from there, and applied for citizenship here. They're as much from Africa as I'm from Europe, which is to say not at all. We're all Native Americans, since we were born on American soil. (Not Indians. Wait... they aren't from India! Aaaahhhhhh!)
Therefore, there are *no* good terms for our races. If you believe the word of one slashdot-reading honkey, that is. Otherwise, ignore me, and use your free software. (or is it Open Source? Shareware? Freeware? Aaaaahhhhh!)
Personally, with the domain names, use it or lose it. Don't refer a bunch of domain names to your page, either. You'll just confuse people, and restrict free speech and easy searching of the internet, which is what America is all about. If you don't like going to 'yahhoo.com' and getting a porn site, you shouldn't like this either, it's more domain abuse, pure and simple.
Well it pisses me off... (Score:1)
It just pisses me off.
It's like last year I had a class and the teacher was asking what everyone was(e.g. German, Irish, Italian, etc.). I guess I have some French, German, etc. I haven't ever really cared.
I doubt in France they ask you if you're English or German if your ancestors have lived in the country for 200 years.
Do Americans have a problem just being Americans? I can understand people who grew up in another country, or whose parents did saying they're Swedish American or whatever. But if you have ancestors that have fought in the civil war, I think you've been here long enough. You are American, like it or not.
And I agree with the other poster that not all blacks come from Africa, and if you come from Jamaica you probably wouldn't like being called African American. And if you are a white from South Africa, you wouldn't be called African American.
So basically it's just YA way of describing someone who's skin is a dark brown to black color. So why not just say black? And I really wish whoever the hell chooses these things(probably our friends at the NAACP) would settle on one.
I mean, what was so bad with "Negro"? Now it sounds like some dirty word, but AFAIK it just means black in some other language(I know it does in Spanish). MLK called blacks Negros in his speeches. But no, now it's demeaning.
But now no one will ever be able to use that word again. So why don't they just find one they like and say this is the pc term now, and keep it.
Thank you NAACP (Score:1)
So what do we do? Threaten to sue. Threaten a boycott. Good work guys, TV companies really don't have the right to put out the shows they want.
You know there was this article a few days back about the show "The West Wing" and the producer or whatever was so happy that they got blacks and other minorities in some parts(at the last minute because of NAACP pressure).
It was hysterical, the guy was like "You don't see any blacks yet, but guess what? You haven't met the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and you haven't met the National Security Adviser, and you haven't met etc. etc. Guess what? They're almost all minorities!"
I was like, too bad for those white men who had the jobs for those roles before the NAACP came in. It's too bad that they had to be fired, but I guess they deserved it since they're white and male.
EXACTLY! (Score:1)
But when blacks do it it's about pride. What bullshit.
Re:They can't think of them all.... (Score:1)
Be an equal opportunity bigot!
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
Re:the power of words (Score:1)
For corporations, organizations, there needs to be a separate directory service of some kind which can be trademarkable, censorable, and enforceable, the namespace will need to allow for space-characters, and other necessities of corporate identity. Treat it the same as you treat the Yellow Pages today.
When folks want to find Apple Computer's site, they look it up in their directory, and the browser zips them to the proper place. A URL is NOT a good solution for this problem. You get this top-level duplication crap, (.net,
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
Re:Squating? (Score:1)
www.linux.com
www.freebsd.com
www.eef.com
www.gnu.com
and best of all, can I now go buy and sit on
www.naacp.com?
No, I shouldn't.. Neither should they.
One's persons idea of offensive ISN'T anothers, and they have no legal or ethical reason for sitting on slang terms names.
Re:Squating? (Score:1)
Re:Squating? (Score:1)
Re:Squating? [sic] (Score:1)
Re:How is it squatting? (Score:1)
Re:Squating? (Score:1)
Re:Squating? (Score:1)
Squating? (Score:5)
Re:A couple of observations. (Score:1)
You should run the firewall like me. Then you can say whatever you want, eg "Fuck the skull of Jesus"--hey wait a minute, what are you doing in the server room--aaarrgh
+++ATH0
NO CARRIER
Re:Squating? (Score:1)
The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly. (Score:1)
The Good:
Anti-hate groups buy up all the defamitory web real estate on the web and all the minorities in this world (minority being a term as politically incorrect as Nigger in my books) are free of having Mr. KKK posting ignorent hate literature on nigger.com, not to mention I don't have to look at it.
The Bad:
These groups are domain camping. The only thing that would make this into a good thing is if they where to educate people about their race via these webpages... right now I get a "this page ain't here". I'm not talking about some redirect to the main site, I'm talking about a legitimate page telling people this is what this word means and this is why its wrong. With maybe a link to the main site.
The Ugly:
These neo-nazi-dweebie-morons can easily make a big stink out of this if something legitimate isn't done with the domains and unfortunately they have as much right to do so as the rest of us.
I firmly believe in free speech, but I also despise hatred or lack of tolerence in any form, and while I believe these dildo's have a right to say what they want to say, I don't think they should be allowed to be in your face at every turn. When it comes to african americans and the KKK/Skinheads yadda yadda bitching about how the "N******" are ruining this country, all I have to say is "Then why did yer great grandpappies take them away from their people and homeland and plop them in the states in the first place" or in the case of my ancestors "Then why the hell did you think you had the right to come into their land and create a government meant to demoralize their way of life". Ain't life just lovely? I'm just happy that I am lucky enough that aside from the odd Jerry Springer episode I'm not exposed to this madness often.
- Xabbu
Re:The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly. (Score:1)
- Xabbu
Re:This kinda bothers me... (Score:3)
now I know that the word "nigger" is still a very hatefilled word, and still used to damage people, but it appears that in refering to each other in such a way, it's like your own private "fuck-you" to "the-man" who-ever (s)he may be.
of course, I could be totally wrong, and it may be that in using this term, african-american's are only reinforcing deeply rooted stereotypes, I don't know, and I'm not in anything related to a position of knowledge on this subject.
but like I said, I'm a computer geek, not a psychologist or sociologist.
btw, these opions are mine and are not those of
the people who sign my paychecks..blah blah blah
-Peter
Re:I hope... (Score:1)
Beer recipe: free! #Source
Cold pints: $2 #Product
Re:They wouldn't like me... (Score:2)
It's pretty much already happened. Almost all "black" people living in America have substantial white ancestry (unfortunately mostly due to lecherous slave-owners of the last century). If you grew up in America, you don't fully realize this until you meet black people from Africa, who really are almost literally black. It just goes to show that race is a social concept, not a biological one, and that color has no causal relationship to personality or behavior.
Beer recipe: free! #Source
Cold pints: $2 #Product
They wouldn't like me... (Score:1)
AMEN!!! (Score:1)
Consider the following:
Paul said it best. "Love never fails." So stop campaigning and strategizing and all this nonsense and get out there and love each other!Re:Hold it... (Score:1)
Classically, it would be something like a direct and dire insult to your mother's character phrased in the rudest possible way which was ultimately untrue and known to be untrue.
A couple of observations. (Score:2)
But that's beside the point. What occurs to me is that domain names are becoming meaningless. Nowadays, when I need to locate something on the web, I don't go to "www.company.com" because it is not very semantically rich. There are too many companies on the web now for each one to try to be www.whatever.com.
I remember, when I was growing up, there was a clothing store in town called "Sears Betty & Bob". It was entirely unrelated to Sears. Apparently the owners name was "Sears", and so they had a right to use it even though it was a trademark.
But back to the hate groups. This is an unbelievable waste of money. People, when faced with the loss of semantic content in domain names, no longer just type in "www.whatever.com" -- they go to google, type a couple of keywords, hit "I'm feeling lucky" and get to the site. It's not as though you are going to keep people from finding the stuff if they really want to anyway.
If I were a contributor to one of these organizations, I'd be angry at the waste of money. Wouldn't it be better to counter these groups with facts than simply trying to suppress them?
Hold it... (Score:4)
Censorship on this basis (racial opinions) would be so outrageously unconsitutional it wouldn't even be funny. Even THIS supreme court wouldn't allow it. And the "fighting words" doctrine would probably not be applicable -- that is reserved only for those words that are EXCLUSIVELY provocative and devoid of meaning beyond their provocative nature.
Which brings up another question: I, as a Christian Libertarian, will allow you to read any kind of trash you see fit. My only request is that you don't try to slip it in under my radar by disguising it as legitimate material (see www.whitehouse.com or try searching for a lost windows serial number sometime). However, when you deliberately try to decesive me into using material that is not of any redeaming value, it seems to me very injust.
It seems to me that the NAACP and friends are stepping over the line here -- they are trying to slip in their own political philosophy by underhanded means. While I cannot endorse the political philosophies that they are trying to defeat, neither can I entirely tolerate their deliberate abuse of the domain system by registering false and/or misleading domains.
Of course, it's not really relevant -- who uses domains to find stuff anymore? But it seems to me that the ends may well NOT justify the means. At what point is it legitimate to lie to make a point, even if it is worthwhile?
This is sad... (Score:2)
You can't destroy a hate group with laws. The reason: laws don't destroy hate. It would be dangerous to even try, because the minute you stifle someone else's voice you jeopardize your own. No, laws aren't the way to combat hate groups. There is only one real way to fight them: with knowledge. Start young, demonstrating the principles of equality. The rule is simple: respect all people, no matter what.
And for crying out loud, why is it that no state has passed a law stating that indoctrinating a child with racism is child abuse? I live not even a hundred yards away from just such a family, and it's truly revolting to watch. Three little girls, the oldest one not yet ten, and already they're spewing hate speech (as far as I know they have yet to graduate to actual slurs, but I also try to avoid this family whenever possible). It's absolutely sickening. There are states which treat failure to teach a child English as child abuse, and if that is than surely planting racism into a young mind is too.
Re:Switcheroo (Score:1)
How is it squatting? (Score:1)
Launguage is a not a fixed or neutral thing; meanning is disputed and constantly changing. Look how Gay has moved from being an insult to a source of pride. Consider how the examples cited in the article (http://www.faggot.org" and http://www.dyke.com [dyke.com]) are carrying over the struggles over langauge fought by the gay community into the on-line world.
As the original article stated, the NAACP and the Anti-Defamation league readily admit that this won't stop hate speach on the net, they are refusing, however, to take it lying down.
Paul M
"There are no innocent bystanders
What where they doing there in the first place"
Maybe it's working (Score:1)
They can't think of them all.... (Score:2)
So now they say that all variations including those with hyphens are taken. Here's what register.com says:
www-nigger.com is available www-nigger.net is available www-nigger.org is available
nig-ger.com is available
nig-ger.net is available
nig-ger.org is available
Those just came from the top of my head, I'm sure others can think of more. Anyone check the international (non-USA) domains?
Brian
Re:What's the use? (Score:1)
Witness the stunning number of domains porn sites have come up with - and that without even any use of certain words.
Reminds me of the old joke about the difference between a circus and a whorehouse: a cunning array of stunts versus a stunning...oh, never mind.
Just a quick note (Score:1)
"n-word".com may be taken, but "n-word.com",
"n-word.org" and "n-word.net" are all up for
grabs -- as are "f-word.net" and "f-word.org".
Sorry for the repeat post! (Score:1)
It's not sad, it's very funny (Score:2)
Sadly, they don't apparently own the kkk.com domain name any more -- it's now run by some yahoo who wants to create a KKK museum.
Personally, I don't think you can consider the buying of these domain names cybersquatting so long as the URL is redirected to something relevant. I think it's very, very smart for the NAACP and other groups to be doing this.
Of course, at some point someone I don't like will do it to someone I do -- I suppose it's entirely possible that the Republican Right will buy the domain name anarchy.com...
Re: (Score:2)
Moderation Suggestion (Score:1)
Re:"N-Word" ????? (Score:2)
Re:damn spooks (Score:1)
For one thing, it is hypocritical. We are supposed to be an enlightened society that does not believe in racial discrimination. Hence the laws to that effect. And I totally agree that we should not discriminate on the basis of race (or gender/creed/all the other conditions those laws cover). How then do we justify affirmative action, which is a policy of racial discrimination by its very nature? Changing who becomes the victim of the discrimination does not make it any less of an evil. We're preaching one thing, but practicing the opposite.
For another, affirmative action doesn't help with the problem of racial/sexual inequalities in the workplace. Studies have shown that by far the primary beneficiaries of such programs are middle class blacks. Who aren't the ones who need the help! The ones who need help are the people in the lower economic class. Middle class people can afford college. Poor people can't.
Just because whites don't openly harass blacks on the street everyday, and just because we've got some legislation, doesn't mean the problems gone away.
No, it doesn't mean the problems have gone away (though I think there is certainly far less racism today than in the past). There are plenty of ignorant racist jerks out there, of all races. And, not to be overly cynical, there quite likely will always be some. You get any large group of people, and you're bound to find a few assholes in the group. None of this changes the fact that affirmative action does not decrease the racism in this country! If anything, it promotes an attitude that minorities are inherently incapable of succeeding without special help. We should be trying to tear down such stereotypes, not create them.
Furthermore, affirmative action does not address the underlying problems of why many minority groups are under-represented in many areas. Affirmative action is trying to treat the symptoms, rather than find the cure.
Blacks (just one of many possible examples) are not under-represented among Fortune 500 CEOs because they're black; it is because of the economic and social situation that the majority of blacks find themselves in:
Socially:
To get a good-paying job, one usually needs a college education. To get a good college education, you usually need to have good grades in high school. To get good grades in high school, you generally need a desire to get good grades. This is hindered by an attitude that doing well in school is "acting white". Equating whiteness with scholarship is ridiculous, of course, but try telling this to a lot of black teenagers whose friends keep ragging on them about being "white". Add to this the lack of blacks in certain areas (ie Fortune 500 CEOs), which means few black role models in these positions. There is a strong social affect on young black people away from doing well in academic pursuits; this needs to be addressed before we'll see any *real* progress.
There are similar situations with other minority groups in this country. For example, many of the minorities in this country have immigrated from non-English speaking countries, and as such are at a disadvantage economically if they can't communicate in English. Sadly, even many native born Americans whose parents are American, etc, can't speak decent English.
Economically:
Getting a good job these days usually requires a college degree. However, the economic situation of many minorities makes them unable to afford higher education. And the lack of higher education prevents the funds...in a nasty cycle.
If we really want to promote equality, we should do away with racially-based preferences, and instead do the following:
1. Increase forms of financial aid to the financially diadvantaged so that those who wish to attend college can afford it. There are a lot of people out there this could benefit, of all races; though it would help minorities more (due to the economic situation of most minorities being worse than the average white situation)
2. Increase programs that tackle the social aspect of things. Make sure that minorities feel that they can go into any field of work, that it's not "being white". Increase English literacy programs. Having a mastery of English is a huge help in acquiring and keeping a good job.
3. Improve elementary through high school education. I can't stress the need for this enough. A good grade school education is the foundation upon which all future learning is going to be built. Hold all students to high standards. We're graduating students who can barely read. If they can't do that there's no way in hell they're gonna get a good job and bring themselves to a higher standard of living.
Oh, and in regards to your comment:
1/4 of all black males in the US are felons and no longer have the right to vote
I really don't see how that has anything to do with affirmative action. The solution to this is for black males to stop committing felonies. This is a case of a significant subset of the black population shooting themselves in the foot, so to speak. It's their choice, not something forced upon them.
Re: your link (Score:1)
However, there are lots of pork barrel projects that could be eliminated in favor of increased spending for the poor. For example, Congress allocated a bunch of extra C-130 cargo planes for the Pentagon, despite the fact that the Pentagon *said it didn't want*. Why? Because the planes are made in the home states of a couple of influential senators. Don't trim the military budget, but don't add on unneeded things either! You can take a lot of the "pet projects" of congressmen and axe them, and have more than enough money for useful social programs.
Re:huh? (Score:1)
"'Cause they'll smack ya, down to the street top Black police showin' off for the white cop!" - NWA, Fuck Tha Police
Especially considering the overwhelming mindset of "us" and "the Man."
Re:Hold it... (Score:1)
And what words would those be?
I'm not trying to be a smartass here, I'm really wondering if there is any such thing as an exclusively provocative word.
What is provocative anyway? I can be very provocative by being utterly polite, without saying any 'bad words'. So the reverse should be possible as well.
I have the feeling that 'exclusively provocative' means something like provocative by general (politically correct, if you will...) opinion. And I don't always agree with that general opinion.
Um, could it be your DNS has been censored (Score:1)
So how come? If we both look up kkk.com and you get one page and I get another, one or both DNS has to be wrong, right?
'ping www.kkk.com' pought 207.155.252.7 when I tried it. What about you?
governnment censorship, too (?) (Score:1)
By enforcing the NAACP's claim to those names which they have no intent of using, the government (or whoever decides this ultimately) is basically saying that no one can use the names at all!
The lines between censorship and not-censorship are blurry to nonexistent.
Re:Squating? (Score:2)
Is that all there is to legally incorporate? And near I've been procrastinating because I thought it required a business with records and tons of paperwork.
my, my...
-Brent--
So where's the line? (Score:2)
It can't be a matter of the number of people holding that opinion, because here the corporates would be entitled to squat.
It can't be a matter of 'majority rules' either, because I don't remember an official poll about what 'derogatory' terms I find offensive...
Just who has the right to decide what is right and wrong in the Domain Name Game?? Eh?
And what about foreign language words? Accidental mis-spellings of possibly derogatory terms? Slang?
Last I checked, there was a country called Niger. www.niger.org can be just as valid for a nationalist web-site as www.israel.org (Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs website BTW), www.israel.com and www.israel.net - and these exist...
What about hobbies? Let's pick something semi-offensive first. Should taxidermy.com be 'reserved' by the same folks as vegan.org, just because it's offensive to them? How about model-planes.com?? Maybe we should make that unavailable because some kid somewhere died from sniffing Testors glue?
Yes, it gets ridiculous, but that's exactly the point. There is not definitive bound on 'offensive'. When we start limiting freedom in an authoritarian manner (read absolutist) then we have to do it absolutely, and reduce everything to bland oatmeal that is sure to not offent anyone - I find this alternative offensive. Nyah!
Long Live Harrison Bergeron!
Neither can anyone else. That's the point. (Score:1)
For someone who's looking for crap like that, how many people are going to sit down at their browser and think of "bushblowsmonkeys.com," as opposed to "bushsucks.com"? Likewise, your average Aryan Nation type will try "niggers.com" right off the bat, but how many are going to try the permutations that you came up with? The answer is zero. It's the reason squatters would love to own a name like "movies.com" but wouldn't give a rat's ass about "aint-it-cool-news.com."
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Slow-moving Denial of Service (Score:1)
It's actually a pretty diabolical plot. And it's a DoS against the NAACP, since they're giving the racist bigot moolah instead of spending it on whatever the NAACP does these days.
Re:Why is internic allowing registration at all? (Score:1)
fsck -p [-f] [-m mode] [filesystem]
Re:damn spooks (Score:1)
What's the use? (Score:2)
--
grappler
Re:If KKK has trademark, they can sue and win kkk. (Score:1)
Well, then the Killer Klowns Konsortium, the Keep Kids Klueless foundation, the Katie Komes Kwietly pornshop, and the Krunchy Karrots Korner are all going to be pissed when they find out a bunch of racist cowards in hoods and robes have been trademark-squatting.
---
Have a Sloppy day!
offensive.com (Score:1)
-earl
Re:What's the use? (Score:1)
good argument -- excusing them on the grounds of
poor implementation and worse public notification.
As far as spam name collection goes, their flimsy
"agreement" gives them legal grounds to sue
spammers, if that is really the intent of the
legislation. Just seed the database with some
"land mine" email addresses -- if you mail to
them you must have pulled the name out of the
database and therefore broken the agreement.
If they are not going to stand behind the
agreement then take it down (as it has already
enraged a good % of the net literate).
The real problem is that this database is public.
They hold an arguable monopoly on access to this
public information and are arbitrarily restricting
access to the resource -- and without even
announcing the fact.
One might argue that "there's no reason to script
access to the database". Well, conversely, if
they had allowed me to peruse the database fully
I would have likely found an untaken domain name
that I would have paid $$$ for, thereby
contributing monetary resources to the maintainers
of the database, ideally making it more usable
to the rest of the public.
But instead I found myself angered, posting to
and jaded with their implementation of this system. I am now researching other means of
acquiring a useful domain name which does not
contribute to their coffers or power.
Re:What's the use? (Score:2)
me off. I started looking through the whois
database for n****** and other slurs to see who
had them, and then began thinking "oh yeah I
need a domain for that other thing. hm.", so
I started poking around to see what paltry
selection was left in the namespace and found
it very depressing (again). So I decided to
see what really was left:
% cat
(I figured going through backwards might be more
entertaining for some reason). I got:
No match for "YOUTHFULNESS.COM".
No match for "WITHSTOOD.COM".
No match for "WITHSTANDING.COM".
No match for "WISTFULLY.COM".
No match for "WHISPERINGS.COM".
No match for "WHISKING.COM".
No match for "WHINED.COM".
No match for "WHIMSICALLY.COM".
No match for "WHEREUPON.COM".
No match for "WHEELINGS.COM".
No match for "WHEELED.COM".
No match for "WASHES.COM".
No match for "VICTORIOUSLY.COM".
and then no more matches. My snoop showed that
I was still querying, but I was getting no hits.
I tried a "whois unimplemented.com" to see just
who had that name locked up and got:
[rs.internic.net]
*
* Welcome to the InterNIC Registration Services Whois Server.
*
* Your query limit has been exceeded.
*
My question is, what gives them the right to
cut me off from the public database due to
query patterns -- regardless of how fast or
how automated the search is?
If I "misuse" their data against the terms of
their (legally flimsy) agreement notice, then
that's my contractual violation. Time for them
to get a piece of my mind (not that I can spare
one...)!
Re:damn spooks (Score:1)
If there was racial equality or sexual equality in America then roughly 13% of Fortune 500 CEO's would be black, over 50% would be women, and over 12% would be Hispanic. This assumes that you believe race and sex do not equal natural ability. The Fortune 500 got it's first black CEO last year. You could probably count the number of women on your fingers.
Poverty rates among blacks and hispanics are still disproportionate to whites, 1/4 of all black males in the US are felons and no longer have the right to vote.
Unless you are a racist or blinded by your insulated lifestyle, you cannot ignore that affermative action, government programs to help the poor, and special education programs for minorities and women are not needed today.
I personally think that we geeks are not racist or sexist at heart and are often idealistic and tend to not believe something non-scientific until we see or experience it firsthand. Just because whites don't openly harass blacks on the street everyday, and just because we've got some legislation, doesn't mean the problems gone away.
It's sad that we're still fighting this inequality in America almost 40 years after the Civil Rights Movement won it's major victories. I personally think America has gone from hating minorities to hating the poor. If you think these problems are to complex or to expensive to fix, there are more people willing to sacrifice their lives to promote peace and unity than there are geeks to write open source. If you want to know where the resources are to help these people, read this [newsday.com]
Re:_THAT_ should really be illegal (Score:1)
On the authority of the Nation of Internet, I am issuing you a citation for CWHUA, or Computing With Head Up Ass. As you are no doubt aware, this particular crime involves one engaging in the active use of a computer with absolutely no clue as to what's going on.
Please forward your fine payment of US$15,000 to:
Nation of Internet Enforcement
116 E. 18th St
Holland MI 49423
Thank you for your time.
Re:Squating? (Score:1)
Yes, yes, yes, but then you have to keep the corporation up to date with Delaware, and have someone qualified to represent you there on retainer, and yadda yadda yadda.... it rather increases the complexity by an order of magnitude. It's not perfect, but then what is? It's a deterrent to the kiddies who think they can make easy money and not have to have a lawyer or CPA.
What? I'm denying access to the "little guy"? Hey, chump, you've got your one domain. Use it wisely.
--
Nothing truly worth having in life is ever easy.
Re:Squating? (Score:5)
The NAACP has nigger.com. Some professional domain-squatting outfit in Oklahoma has honky.com. Some other outfit has clintonsucks.com. Yet another has republicanssuck.com. This is WAY out of hand.
A modest proposal.
ONE DOMAIN PER ORGANIZATION. Period. If you happen to be a holding company, then each of your held incorporations can have one. ONE. GM gets eight. One for the six divisions, one for Saturn, one for GMAC. Ford gets four. Ford, Lincoln, Merc, and Ford Motor Credit. Little old me can have exactly ONE as an induhvidual unless I bother to incorporate.
Sure, Sony can go form gazillions of dummy corporations for thismovie.com and thatmovie.com, but at least it slows it down, and it puts a stop to these idiots making a zillion bucks off the namespace with a random word generator and a bunch of $70 checks to No Solutions Inc.
One to a customer. Is it so hard?
(I know I'm going to get flamed to hell, and probably shoot my karma in the foot to boot, but it needs to be said. Besides, who else has the 'nads to actually say "nigger" in here where the PC types get scared off by the Real Truth?)
--
"The enemy is fear. The enemy is ignorance. The enemy is the one who tells you that we must hate that which is different.... and that hate will destroy you." -- Rev. Dexter, preaching on Babylon 5
Re:damn spooks (Score:1)
Re:Squating?? (Score:2)
of course it is all things done in the name of Political Correctness, are acceptable in these benighted times now aren't they
Re:Squating? (Score:2)
Re:Squating? (Score:2)
PS: Humor though I think I'll use that no score +1 button today..
Re:This kinda bothers me... (Score:2)
which in this case is competly FALSE. but that is what your implying.
Re:This kinda bothers me... (Score:2)
I agree. I also think that Seseme Street needs to stop squatting on all the letter of the alphabet and use that money to accually teach us something. But its not gonna happen. (btw Childrens Telivisions Workshop owns everysingle theletterX.com thats 26 domains $1950.00 dollars that could have been spent else where)
Re:Squating? (Score:1)
It would be hard to enforce, but if all domain names had to have unique content, or be eligible for an auction perhaps, if someone else wanted the domain, then it would give people some recourse.
And this thread is correct. It's no better for the NAACP to squat on a domain name than for George Bush, or some lame name-reseller...
There's got to be a use it, or lose it, policy.
Consoring topics (Score:1)
And censorship on the net, or even attempts to censor, are geek news.
I doubt they censored the word to be more PC, but rather to sarcastically take a jab at the NAACP for their uber-PC tactics.
Re:Echelon keywords - triggering the NSA watchdog (Score:1)
This is what is done with webpages that are keywording. It used to be that comments, black on black text, etc, would be recorded by the search engines. Now they ignore any text that (as best they can determine) won't get printed and simply catalog the rest.
Admittedly, a terrorist could use echelon keywords as code words, 'nuclear = carbomb' etc, and write a coded message in the Echelon block, but then they could just as easily use 'chocolate = carbomb' and not even be noticed.
I don't think they'd miss anything by screening out obvious keyword blocks.
But, I doubt they actually keyword scan this way. I think they'd narrow their target a bit first instead of examining everything on the net.
Re:Squating - Oops, my bad. (Score:1)
But, I'd doubt that many of the companies out there know it. So if they were squatting I doubt they'd throw up any services.
And that was really my point. If you don't use a domain name, except to point it at another, or display a few messages about how it's for sale, or is being held to deny the use to other, then you shouldn't be able to keep it.
Decent (short) domain names are in fairly short supply. The FCC wouldn't let a company reserve part of the spectrum and then not use it, so why should we let people reserve part of our finite resources and then not make use of them? Especially when it's not like they're in process of gearing up to use those resources, but are holding them just to keep someone else from making use of them. How anti-competetive can you get?
Echelon keywords - triggering the NSA watchdog (Score:2)
And this string of keywords... it's like people used to do to get noticed by search engines. And now all search engines filter out blatant keywording like that.
To really fool them, post a paragraph or so talking about one of those 'forbidden' topics. Write a text generator that makes correct-sounding paragraphs out of sentence snippets, but randomized their order to prevent them filtering out known junk-text. Then rotate your sig all the time.
Only that way will you actually bug some snoop. Assuming they actually bother to keyword scan internet traffic.
Re:This is bad... (Score:2)
Rather than having a million different DNS servers with slightly different databases, trying to do that a search engine should be doing, leave it to seach engines.
To fix the domain camping problem, simply remove domain names. Or make a much easier way to find a site.
After all, if you could type "Ford motors" into a browser and get to the ford site, or at worst, have a list of matches, then what does it matter if the URL is ford.com or fordmotorswebsite.com?
By implementing something like a cross between white and yellow pages, but globally, we could remove the primary importance from DNs.
It's unfair that there can only be one books.com, like anyone getting a new account now, if they want bob@isp.com, they'll end up with bob231@isp.com. And this will only get worse. Are our children going to thank us when they get bob2.129e17@isp.com?
Mirabilis handles this properly with ICQ.
You can use any name you like, no matter how many other people use it. What distinguishes you is the unique number you get. You can give your friends this number, or they can look you up by providing your nickname and other details to narrow the list if it's too long.
The same thing should work for domain names. There should be a central repository of listings associated with each company registering on the net. They'd get to specify a few keywords, and their name, and maybe an alternate form or two. Then when you look for IBM you don't type ibm.com, or internat(...).com, you simply type "ibm computers". Or you type "computers" and then narrow the yellow-pages listing down to until you find it, etc.
Then, like phone numbers, the actual string that identifies your location becomes mostly unimportant.
NAACP hacked (Score:2)
Maybe they should be spending that money on someone who knows how to make their NT server secure first before someone starts broadcasting "hate speech" through their own domain.
"N-Word" ????? (Score:4)
It makes me sad to see my beloved Slashdot censoring itself so childishly and pointlessly. Certainly, I would not advocate the use of the word nigger in a derogatory context, but the notion that replacing the word nigger with "n-word" will either save you from being offensive or confuse me as to what "n-word" means is simply ridiculous.
F*ck: I wonder what that says. Fpck? Ftck? Golly, it's sure a good thing it doesn't say Fuck because *that* would be a"bad word". Sh*t.
I was under the impression that we were a bright bunch here at
Nigger is not a "bad word." Hate to burst your bubble, there's no such thing as a "bad word." If you were to call someone a nigger, then you would be a racist and ignorant piece of sh*t, but the word by itself is just the letters n-i-g-g-e-r in order. The sound of someone saying it is just a vibration in the air. Which waveforms are "wrong" again?
In Context (like, say, a headline) even "bad" words can be fine, or maybe even useful. This is why National Geographic can publish pictures of topless tribal women (and oh how the sight of nipples will scar the children anyway).
"\"N-Word\"" != "nigger"
The NAACP does not own "n-word".com, hell, " isn't even a valid character for a domain name. The NAACP does, however, own nigger.com, and if you can't just come out and say that, then may almighty g*sh will d*rn you all to h*ck.
Anthony
Re:Squating? (Score:4)
I don't have anything against the NAACP, but grabbing this domain isn't going to make the net any more racially tolerant. People who spew hate aren't going to give up just because the most obvious domain name isn't available.
The "n-word".com? (Score:3)
Re:It's too late (Score:2)
However, I was surprised to see the record Law Offices of D. Amkraut (NIGGERJOKES-DOM) in the list. The domain apparently isn't being used (yet) but I can only wonder what kind of marketing savvy can be used with it. ("Heard a racially offensive joke? Don't be subjected to that sort of language -- visit our law firm at niggerjokes.com!")
Re:Squating? (Score:3)
Pick up a copy of any entrepreneur-oriented magazine, or wade through the spam you get before deleting it. Incorporating is almost trivially easy in the U.S. -- establishing a corporation in the state of Delaware is about as complicated as getting married in Las Vegas. Let's say it costs $45 to incorporate your own "company," and $70 to register a domain name. (If you use shady offshore tactics, you can probably get a "corporate" setup for nothing.) Big whoop -- $115 for the whole package. People were squatting on domain names back when they cost $100 a pop.
Bulworth (Score:2)
Have you seen Warren Beatty's movie Bulworth?
His suggestion: "We all gotta keep fuckin' each other until we're the same color."
Old News, But Still Clever (Score:2)
No doubt in my mind. Whether it's right, wrong, sad or whatever, it was a good idea. They could have just stood on the sidelines, like many other people were doing three years ago, and then hooped and hollared that somebody out there had an offensive site. Instead, they were proactive and grabbed it themselves. I'm no fan of the NAACP, but that was a good idea.
RP
Privacy? (Score:2)
So what? (Score:2)
This kinda bothers me... (Score:5)
Unfortunately, this doesn't seem quite all right. I am not saying that we should all run around killing those who don't adhere to the God or gods we worship, who don't listen to the music we listen, or don't have the skin that we have, but the problem of hate cannot be stopped by buying domain names. I'm sure the NAACP knows that. So why waste their time on DNs, when the most important thing that can be used to stifle the proliferation of hate is unity, knowledge, and that overabused four letter word called LOVE. Not only love, but Brotherly Love. I hope one day, each individual will be able to completely say that they have no prejudice, no disdain, no hate for their fellow man. I'm not saying that we must agree with all things. I don't agree with racism or homosexuality religion, but I still love those who espouse ethnic racism (hopefully, they'll see that hate consumes) and my friends that are gay or bisexual.
That's all I have to say. IT might not have been the most insightful piece I've written, but out of my jumbled, hodge-podge heart, these are the feelings that are coming through
-"If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him" - Luke 17:3
Re:This kinda bothers me... (Score:2)
First, I'm making some assumptions with this post that could be wrong:
1. You have a lot of friends of similar race.
2. You will be able to make some kind of generalization on their behaviour.
Now, I remember from high school not too many years ago that about 90% of the black people at my high school would refer to each other as 'Nigger' on a regular basis in a friendly manner. BUT if a white person even jokingly refered to someone as a 'Nigger' they were in danger of being beaten shitless. If so many people are so seriously offended by this term then why is it in widepsread use among the black youth of many communities? How can someone claim they are offended by being refered to with a word they commonly use to refer to their friends? I understand that there can be a difference between uses of the word based on the circumstances just as me called my friend 'Ass munch' isn't the same as some stranger called him 'Ass munch' after spilling his beer. This is just something I was wondering about, if it baffles you as much as it baffles me then feel free to point at me and giggle. >:)
Kintanon
Re:This kinda bothers me... (Score:2)
Re:"affirmative action" programs are broken. (Score:2)
If you're going to complain about someone sucking up space at a University, you shouldn't use bad grammer while doing so. The space you are/were taking up could also have gone to someone more academically talented.
You aren't an english major, are you?
Re:damn spooks (Score:3)
This is bad... (Score:3)
Re:Why is internic allowing registration at all? (Score:2)