Congrats to the WTO on having a sense of humor. Is there anyone that doesn't love this stuff?

P.S. "bunny burgers"

They don't really have a sense of humor. They complained bitterly about it not so long ago. Here is an earlier statement by the WTO... to which gatt.org responds on their website.

Actually, the URL given (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/07/weekinreview/07 WORD.html) is already a no-login URL, if your /etc/hosts or DNS nameserver is set up "correctly". Just be sure you have the following line somewhere in your /etc/hosts:
208.48.26.217 www.nytimes.com

--

(i) 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; or

(ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.

He had a barrage of CVs/happy birthdays to lucas@ilm.com before eventually ilm bought the domain back off of him.

I read this as

I wonder if anyone has ever "crashed" a computer (while) pretending to be Microsoft.

That's simple. The point of the WTO is a mechanism for "bargaining" down trade barriers--and enforcing the bargains, once struck. The US says that it will drop tarrifs on wine, if the EU drops tarrifs on beef, let's say. The US could unilterally drop tarrifs on wine and be done with it--but the WTO exists to allow the US to trade that drop for another one.

That's the main reason why countries want to be in--particularly developing countries, which are desperate for lower tarrifs on agricultural products and textiles. They know that the EU would never let their hugely pampered farmers suffer without good cause--the WTO is therefore their best best: If they're lucky, they can trade something unimportant to them (removal of restrictions on foreign ownership of telecoms, let's say) for something vastly beneficial--lowered tarrifs on those goods they export. It's not easy, even with the WTO--witness the current breakdowns (which have little to do with protests--rather, the developing countries are sore that the 1st world hasn't done what it promised last round yet). That's the choice a lot of countries are having to make--stay out in the cold, with no chance of ever having enough clout to get any important barriers lowered...or enter, and have a much better chance.

Finally, the WTO is there to enforce agreements, once struck (but don't forget it was YOUR politicians that first have to agree). Once the US has agreed not to ban tuna imports, it can't then turn around and ban them, however popular or worthy the cause now is. The fault is that of shortsighted politicians, not the WTO.

As an example, China has been working very hard to get into the WTO--despite the fact that it entails a massive shake up of their entire economy, and a real chance of political instability. Why are they so keen? Easy--it's the best, maybe even the only way, they can manage to remove the massive barriers that have been set in front of them--and China needs them removed very badly. China has a massivly growing population--either the economy at least matches it, or a nuclear power with the worlds largest standing army, several territorial disputes with other nuclear powers, and several rebellious provinces (one of which is ALSO nuclear armed, probably)...goes BOOM! No, I think we need to keep those peasents in poverty myself--fatter subsidies for the steel workers! What's that you say? Let them eat cake? I couldn't agree more!

Yeah right... You'll notice that the protestors wearn't Chinese. For that matter, the current head of the WTO is from NZ, population 3.5 million, heavily dependent on agricultural products, mostly wool, cheese, butter, and so forth. Not a particularly important country--which is why NZ is such a strong proponent of free trade. We don't ask for an advantage, we just want a fair go...which is why all my friends are as puzzled as I am about the protesters in Seattle. Fair trade? That's what the WTO is DOING.

Finally, the WTO is there to enforce agreements, once struck (but don't forget it was YOUR politicians that first have to agree).

Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/

Let me be the first to post it then:the WTO is not sueing these people because they could not possibly face any more bad publicity

The WTO is simply a cartel beyond the biggest of cartels that you can think of; they unite the biggest corporations (countries) to come to terms about resources and prices. Simple as that. Nothing free market about it. (As is most of capitalism is most western countries; they all start resembling communism in an eerie way by now).

People would send him mail all of the time saying stuff like "I have to get my domain registered or I will lose my job!!!"

The best part of it all was that internic.net employees started referring trouble cases to matt at internic.com (obviously knowing that was not the correct site).

If you can scrounge up some old usenet archives, alt.pud had a lot of misplaced mail forwarded there.

hymie

Those would be the same organizations who employ millions of people, fund the machinery of state through corporate/employment/windfall taxes, and that your pension fund is invested in?

Things are not as black and white as the "anti capitalist" movement would have you believe. What do you suppose the world was like prior to globalization? The garden of Eden?!

In depth information about the WTO

As for your generalization concerning the looting. Can you imagine 50,000 pissed off linux users protesting copy protection on Har drives on the streets of Seattle? Can you imagine an army of cops in battle gear who think that you are the epitomy of evil? Can you imagine 20 to 30 people out of the 50,000 misbehaving? That's what happened in Seattle. The media mischaracerized practically everything about the protests in Seattle in order to make the WTO look good. The thoughts and opinions protesting in the streeets where effectively marginalized by the focus on the few incidents of property damage. What if the seeds your family has grown for centuriesm were being patented by Monsanto and Backed by the WTO?

NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION

NYT's online group just laid off 17 people. I wonder if it's because they aren't getting the revenues generated by selling the marketing info from those annoying registrations?

I doubt they'll change anytime soon, though now they're the only "registration required" login that c|net, Wired and Slashdot regularly link.

"Globalization" in this context usually means the removal of barriers to trade, such as tarriffs. These barriers are artificial anyway, and were not usually erected for economic reasons. For example, a politician might impose a tax in imported steel in order to safeguard steelworkers in his/her own country. Sometimes this might be because the country wants to have steel production capability because it needs to be able to manufacture its own weapons, sometimes it's because the politician wants to votes of the steelworkers and their communities.

Doing so, however, screws the consumer by making them pay higher prices, since without competition the monopolies and unions can dictate their own terms, it screws the taxpayer, who need to pay for the subsidies, it screws trading partners (other countries) who can't sell their products (which may be cheaper or better) and ultimately it screws the beneficiaries, who find that as soon as the barriers are no longer effective, they've become too inefficient to survive.

I must add that this group and the other protestors are not anti trade per say but against trade deciions being made by a small group of men that aren't elected, behind closed doors.

I've seen the posters and the demonstrators. They're against capitalism, industry, trade, the monetary system, the whole works. They seem to think that if they just do away with the economy altogether, they'll be free to party their whole lives. Where on earth do they suppose their dole comes from?

Now, personally, I'm happy for anyone to live any lifestyle they want to. I'm just not happy about paying for it.

From the description of one of the holdings (VRWR):

"Develop a 'virtual worker' system that allows populations normally engaged in migrant labor to work over the web instead. For example, develop a telepresent robot that picks oranges or strawberries while being controlled through the internet. Then, unionize both the robots and the telepresent workers."

Because the WTO is not under any obligation to let dissenters speak to their members.

Should they not be able to present their views in the open?

The WTO is not "the open." The WTO has no obligation to give the floor to every non-elected, non-appointed citizen who wishes to air their views. Can you imagine the chaos that would ensue if organizations like the WTO, U.N., and NATO let each and every person/group that opposes them speak?

Seems to me that there might more progress if the WTO listened to speakers who opposed their viewpoint and the anti-trade groups tried talking instead of providing a venue for looters.

I am certain that the WTO is aware of the views of its opponents. They are well-publicized and unlikely to be overlooked.

I agree wholeheartedly with your statements against the looting and rioting by anti-WTO groups. If they think that their behavior is going to get them invited to address the WTO, they are sadly mistaken.

"Globalization" in this context usually means the removal of barriers to trade, such as tarriffs. These barriers are artificial anyway, and were not usually erected for economic reasons. For example, a politician might impose a tax in imported steel in order to safeguard steelworkers in his/her own country. Sometimes this might be because the country wants to have steel production capability because it needs to be able to manufacture its own weapons, sometimes it's because the politician wants to votes of the steelworkers and their communities.

I've seen the posters and the demonstrators. They're against capitalism, industry, trade, the monetary system, the whole works. They seem to think that if they just do away with the economy altogether, they'll be free to party their whole lives. Where on earth do they suppose their dole comes from?

Whether you agreed with it or not, the eToys lawsuit had many similarities to this. The etoy site had pictures of toys on the front page, and kids were going there by accident, getting tricked by the toy pictures, and clicking around on the etoy site which contained various S & M pictures, etc. They refused to say something on their site about not being eToys (unless they were paid a hefty sum), so eToys took them to court to stop the complaints they were getting from parents.

Now these anti-GATT people are deliberately trying to dupe visitors into thinking they are officially represent an organization they have no affiliation with. I don't think they should be allowed to do that. They can parody or insult GATT, but this was no parody.

Why do people get their panties in such a knot about not wanting to do a simple site registration. Fer pete's sake, I've been registered at nytimes.com for as long as it's existed (1994 maybe?). It's not like they're getting any more personal information out of me than if I actually subscribed to their PAPER newspaper. Actually, they're getting far less info than a non-web subscription.

So, do all these anti-registration cookie people also feel that I shouldn't ever subscribe to a magazine (paper, not electron), since that involves giving my name and address out? (Far more information than I gave away to register for nytimes.com)

Headlines updated 1/8/101 7:48 P.M.

Those would be the same organizations who employ millions of people, fund the machinery of state through corporate/employment/windfall taxes, and that your pension fund is invested in?

Large corporations pay little, if any tax. For example, Cisco and Microsoft pay no federal income taxes. Cities and states fall all over themselves to give tax breaks to megacorps in the name of attracting jobs - instead of more sensibly and justly helping smaller locally-owned businesses to grow.

(And I try to make my own investing socially responsible, as best I can.)

And your point does not justify the way megacorps buy legislators like baseball cards.

It's not just about globalization - the removal of environmental, health, and justice considerations from international trade policy is a symptom of too much corporate power, not a cause.

Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/