(2d Cir.1996) (declaring that ''[b]ecause general jurisdiction is not related to the events giving rise to the suit, courts impose a more stringent minimum contacts test” than for specific jurisdiction); 4 Wright & Miller § 1067.5, at 499-507 (noting that, although "[s]pecific jurisdiction ... may be asserted when the defendant’s forum contacts are isolated or sporadic, but the plaintiff's cause of action arises out of those contacts with the state,” when "the cause of action sued on does not arise from the defendant’s contacts with the forum state, an assertion of general jurisdiction must be predicated on contacts that are sufficiently continuous and systematic to justify haling the defendant into a court in that state”). 3 . Cf. Burger King Corp., 471 U.S. at 476, 105 S.Ct. at 2184 (<HOLDING>); World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444
holding that in modern commercial life it matters little that  solicitation is accomplished by a deluge of catalogs rather than a phalanx of drummers that the requirements of due process are met irrespective of a corporations lack of physical presence in the taxing state and that due process therefore permits the imposition of a collection duty on a mailorder house that is engaged in continuous and widespread solicitation of business within a state holding that the defendant did not need to know he was crossing state lines in order to violate 18 usc  1201 which applies to the transportation of kidnaped persons across state lines holding that the actual amount of capital employed in the state by a foreign corporation was to be based on the property of the corporation that was within the state and that was used in business transacted within the state holding that specific jurisdiction may not be avoided merely because the defendant did not physically enter the forum state since it is an inescapable fact of  modern commercial life that a substantial amount of business is transacted solely by mail and wire communications across state lines thus obviating the need for physical presence within a state in which business is conducted holding that the basis of in rem jurisdiction is the presence of the subject property within the territorial jurisdiction of the forum state