Slashdot Mirror

It would block unsolicited inbound worms, but it wouldn't do anything to protect the stupid people who click the link when their email says, "Dude, your face is all over the web! www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBUImjOCg5g

The biggest problem is, and always will be, humans doing stupid human stuff.

What's up my brothers?

what is that url encoding? how does that work -it would be good to bypass the censorship @ skl ive seen other sorts whats that sort called?

"DNS is free right now."

No it isn't! *slap*

DNS is a paid-for service; it's just not paid for by people doing the lookups. It's being paid for by the people who want DNS entries!

You don't _need_ a DNS entry to have a host on the internet, or even a website. Try going to http://66.35.250.150/. Buying a DNS entry is like buying a large ad in the business section of the telephone directory, or in the local free paper.

Sure, you could charge people for papers/phone directories/DNS queries/etc..., but the people buying the ads don't like it as it means less people will want to see the ad they've payed money to place, and the people using the paper/DNS don't tend to bother as they'll get the free one instead.

"I've said from the beginning that DNS is a government mechanism for censorship -- it was, it is and it will continue to be. The typical authoritarian response (from slashdotters no less) is that other countries can run their own DNS TLD's, but this will just lead to multiple censors, not real freedom."

There are probably a half a dozen ways in which DNS isn't anywhere near the weak point you suggest. For one thing, DNS only gives an authoritarian thug marginal censorship abilities beyond what you'd otherwise have. Either a site is hosted in an AT's jurisdiction or it's not. If it is, well, the AT can take it down by leaning on the ISP, DNS or no. If it's not... the AT *could* always exercise their authority to remove the DNS entry, but you know, that's only if the site in question happens to have a tld under the AT's authority. With dozens of others to choose from, it's really not a big issue. Now, a smart AT could force their ISPs to block specific IPs, but that's not really a problem with DNS, now, is it?

And to some extent, the search engines already have introduced a solution to DNS: search itself. You don't have to remember a URL, just a sequence of appropriate keywords. It doesn't work for every situation, but if you've got something important enough, having it up at http://66.35.250.150/ with a couple of people linking to you will make it accesible.

I suppose a really oppresive AT would probably do something like block whole TLDs, and cooperate with Google or Yahoo to filter out undesirables, and filter out blocks of IP addresses, but again, by this point, we're well beyond problems with DNS having much to do with the issue. IP addresses and willingness of private entities to collude with state entities (regulation statutes or not) are the bigger fish to fry.

"Regulation does not help the needy or the poor. It does not help those who can not do something for themselves. Regulation does not make a safer or better product, and it does not create a cheaper marketplace."

Why is it that market fundamentalists are so quick to see the (true) positive effects of profit incentives, and so impossibly blind to the negative effects? What exactly is going to increase, say, the makers of Vioxx, to be more forthcoming about information about their product if the FDA goes away?

If you really want liberty, you have power checking power. That *includes* checks on private power, as well as checks within a public system.

we don't need dns now

try : http://66.35.250.150/

> networks are becoming more and more transparent to domain names

what does this mean ?

Well... not quite. Blocking *.xxx names from a DNS server would not prevent one from accessing questionable sites directly by IP address. Of course, with many wesites sharing IP addresses via virtual servers, that access doesn't work so well these days... and requiring such sharing (with the default IP address site being clean) might not be too onerous a regulatory measure. And there's the additional problem that ISPs would have pressure to block DNS queries to XXX, which in the future would relegate a complete DNS feed to the same bin as a complete NNTP feed is these days: rare, premium pay, and mostly the province of perverts. But these are fairly minor socio-technical issues.

The real problem with the Orem loon's suggestion is that of those 65000 "channels" she refers to, a lot already have dedicated traffic, and we need some for on-the fly outgoing connections. (Although removing all outgoing port connections would clean up the internet completely....) Still, the Port 30 suggestion above is about as good as this could hope for.

It was short sighted of the Bush administration to block the XXX domain. I suspect the main problem is that they don't want ANY sexually explict material out there, and the XXX domain would "legitimize" it. On the other hand, considering how whitehouse.com looked for a couple years, I can only imaging what whitehouse.xxx would turn out to be like. Maybe that worry was really behind their objection....

In /var/www/.htaccess:

Redirect http://66.35.250.150/

Back to square one. :'(

For future Europeans who might be reading these comments on a mirror or cache, you can get to Slashdot at one of the following addresses:

http://66.35.250.150/
http://66.35.250.151/

http://66.35.250.150/ It's all you need.

So, what exactly is at stake here? I've followed this for a while. However, I don't really understand the issue.

As I understand it, all the root DNS servers provide are the addresses of lower DNS servers. So, if I needed the address of slashdot.org, and the request ended up at a root server, the server would respond: I don't have a clue, but here is the address of a DNS server that might know the addresses of all the .org domains.

I can see why the international community might want control of these servers. They want a say in which top level domains exist. It seems to be a purely political issue. With UN control, China might be able to (with a vote) remove the .tw domain. They might also vote against a .xxx domain. However, it's a vote. It's not even a new power. If China wanted to remove .xxx from within China, they could simply require that their ISPs block all .xxx domains. This isn't any different then the ability each user has to make entries in their host files to block advertising.

(Personally, I think the US should have .com, .net, etc (due to ARPA's legacy), and every country should be responsible for their own country TLD. So Russia would be responsible for .ru, US would be responsible for .us, and Columbia would be responsible for .co, etc.)

I've made a few posts on this topic agreeing with this idea. I just fail to understand why the US must have control of which top level domains get created or are maintained.

Keep in mind, this isn't about control of the Internet. DNS has nothing to do with assigning IP addresses or creating/maintaning internet protocols. It just translates an IP address into a name and vice versa. Even if every DNS server were to go down, I should still be able to type http://66.35.250.150/ and read Slashdot.

Hmm, interesting. HTML Formatted translates http://66.35.250.150/ into a hyperlink, without using a URL or A tag. I'll have to remember that.

So, what exactly is at stake here? I've followed this for a while. However, I don't really understand the issue.

As I understand it, all the root DNS servers provide are the addresses of lower DNS servers. So, if I needed the address of slashdot.org, and the request ended up at a root server, the server would respond: I don't have a clue, but here is the address of a DNS server that might know the addresses of all the .org domains.

I can see why the international community might want control of these servers. They want a say in which top level domains exist. It seems to be a purely political issue. With UN control, China might be able to (with a vote) remove the .tw domain. They might also vote against a .xxx domain. However, it's a vote. It's not even a new power. If China wanted to remove .xxx from within China, they could simply require that their ISPs block all .xxx domains. This isn't any different then the ability each user has to make entries in their host files to block advertising.

(Personally, I think the US should have .com, .net, etc (due to ARPA's legacy), and every country should be responsible for their own country TLD. So Russia would be responsible for .ru, US would be responsible for .us, and Columbia would be responsible for .co, etc.)

I've made a few posts on this topic agreeing with this idea. I just fail to understand why the US must have control of which top level domains get created or are maintained.

Keep in mind, this isn't about control of the Internet. DNS has nothing to do with assigning IP addresses or creating/maintaning internet protocols. It just translates an IP address into a name and vice versa. Even if every DNS server were to go down, I should still be able to type http://66.35.250.150/ and read Slashdot.

Hmm, interesting. HTML Formatted translates http://66.35.250.150/ into a hyperlink, without using a URL or A tag. I'll have to remember that.

How do you think I stumbled upon this?

If you want to use a "phone number type" system, you're more than welcome to use 66.35.250.150 to come to Slashdot from now on. And 216.239.37.99 for Google. Can you remember those numbers without writing them down?

The whole point of having domain names is so you don't have to remember the IP address of the computers you want to connect to. DNS is the "yellow pages" of the Internet. If someone wanted to, they could register their phone sex business as "Teh White House" in the phone book.

Scrapping DNS is certainly not the solution.

I have been unable to get in using http://slashdot.org/ for at least three days now. However, if I use the IP address http://66.35.250.150/ I have no problems at all.

That is should change my bookmark to http://66.35.250.150 now?

giving news to mini nerds kids go to slashdot.kids.us ;-) (it actually goes to slashdot.org)

So, does google collect links like these?

66.35.250.150, now that's a website that could use a taste of it's own medicine.

Dude, you ever see links with the IP address? Like http://66.35.250.150/? That's what the grandparent meant. Ad servers can bypass the Hosts file in that way.

In fact, leaders of the open-source community have acted responsibly and swiftly to end the DDoS attacks -- just as we continue to act swiftly to address IP-contamination issues when they are aired in a clear and responsible manner

See, there's another reason to support open-source. They're working to correct IP contamination! Next time I see an IP address like 66.35.506.150, I'll know where to turn (especially if this helpful page goes away).

umm

How many of you use google to lookup resources these days? I find it much more convenient to look through a website using google to search on specific terms. Your answer shows lack of insight into the situation.

Then why use DNS at all? It's a service which has only one aim: to substitute IP addresses hard to remember by humans with something more memorizable (Well, you can say "Round-robin DNS records for providing clusters", but there are better ways for providing redundance).

DJB's proposed solution is worse than getting rid of DNS and using v4 or even v6 IP's in yperlinks and bookmarks.

Surely http://66.35.250.150 is better than, say, http://weoir123623tt23u4tgd2uwmnfskmhrlwhrjkqshfwh riwwyhwpurhuihrkjwehwhfh237wuhr4r272.slashdot.org?

The fact is, when I want to go to slashdot.org, openoffice.org or mozilla.org I type them into location bar (and the browser usually autocompletes them from history if I were working on that machine before).

According to the list, Hungary is on the list of fraud involving Australia, led by Czech Republic, Germany, and the Netherlands.

But as for that 55% statistic, I'm pretty sure he got it from here. Needless to say, if you see it on that site, and it is related at all to anything tech, you can be pretty sure it's correct.

Gee, let's see here:

http://66.35.250.150

Your employees will undoubtedly spend way too much time there, and its full of a bunch of opinionated, undereducated tech geeks anyway!

So, my son, you frequent this evil site named X which shall remain nameless for I cannot speak such an evil name.
How can you look at a site that features:
a nasty goat man
the defimation of poor inocent Natalie Portman
Thousands of references to the heart of all evil: SOVIET RUSSIA??
For this, I shall cast ye into a lake of fire, made up of poor, /.ed servers!!

sorry but i beat you