Slashdot Mirror

Bah! Everything2 has more than 449,000 articles and all in all, 921,175 nodes. It's not really a wiki but anyone with a (free) account can write anything. It has a voting system implemented to weed out the crappy/too short/too old/superseded/getting-to-know-you articles.

I donated $5.00 to Wikipedia but I donated $25.00 to E2.

Yeah, 200,000 entries, and it's almost as useless as E2's million 'nodes.'

YAY FOR WASTES OF TIME

Well, there is the page on How to enlist in the U.S. Navy at e2. There seems to be a whole process, not just signing a paper(though there's that, too). I'm sure if you google the various service's webpages, you'll find some info, although they're probobly more oriendted towards advertising than actually informing you what they make you do.

This is what is both magical and terrifying about it. In theory, it will allow us to build anything we can conceive of. Are you aware that Titanium is one of the more common elements? It is a source of whiteness in the earth, and I seem to recall reading that it is more common than Aluminum. Aluminum was formerly one of the most expensive metals until 1886, when Charles Martin Hall started using an electrolytic process;A carbon rod in the cell is charged and the reaction results in carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and aluminum. Nasty. That last text explains what they do with the gases. You hope. Incidentally Bauxite contains Titanium. I remember reading someplace on slashdot about someone having come up with a small-scale electrolytic process for refining titanium from titanium dioxide, which is what's everywhere.

And then there's construction diamond, since carbon is (obviously) quite common and should be easy to handle. In fact we've accomplished a great deal with carbon already, both in and out of nanoscale. And the possibility for an interstitial "double diamond" has been discussed, though I don't have a link on that, which would be like diamond, only moreso. Of course it would have twice as much mass. But, if you can place atoms, you can make structures with both that and regular diamond.

So, obviously, no one is doing this yet. But if someone figures it out, the question is, who gets their hands on it first? And what do they have to say about it? It might not turn out to be a very difficult thing to build a nanoassembler. Even just taking nanotech for the advantage you get where everything is made out of the best possible materials, with no flaws in manufacturing (but once you get to assembly, all bets are off) and, once you've done it once, it scales as far as you're willing to feed it resources and dedicate space to it. It creeps me out just thinking about it, even as I'm imagining how science and technology would be advanced. You could build impossibly well-equipped armies in days. You can construct power generation and storage devices far improved from what we have available to us now. It's either going to send us directly into our next phase of evolution, or destroy us completely. But then, this isn't the first time that's been true.

This is what is both magical and terrifying about it. In theory, it will allow us to build anything we can conceive of. Are you aware that Titanium is one of the more common elements? It is a source of whiteness in the earth, and I seem to recall reading that it is more common than Aluminum. Aluminum was formerly one of the most expensive metals until 1886, when Charles Martin Hall started using an electrolytic process;A carbon rod in the cell is charged and the reaction results in carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and aluminum. Nasty. That last text explains what they do with the gases. You hope. Incidentally Bauxite contains Titanium. I remember reading someplace on slashdot about someone having come up with a small-scale electrolytic process for refining titanium from titanium dioxide, which is what's everywhere.

And then there's construction diamond, since carbon is (obviously) quite common and should be easy to handle. In fact we've accomplished a great deal with carbon already, both in and out of nanoscale. And the possibility for an interstitial "double diamond" has been discussed, though I don't have a link on that, which would be like diamond, only moreso. Of course it would have twice as much mass. But, if you can place atoms, you can make structures with both that and regular diamond.

So, obviously, no one is doing this yet. But if someone figures it out, the question is, who gets their hands on it first? And what do they have to say about it? It might not turn out to be a very difficult thing to build a nanoassembler. Even just taking nanotech for the advantage you get where everything is made out of the best possible materials, with no flaws in manufacturing (but once you get to assembly, all bets are off) and, once you've done it once, it scales as far as you're willing to feed it resources and dedicate space to it. It creeps me out just thinking about it, even as I'm imagining how science and technology would be advanced. You could build impossibly well-equipped armies in days. You can construct power generation and storage devices far improved from what we have available to us now. It's either going to send us directly into our next phase of evolution, or destroy us completely. But then, this isn't the first time that's been true.

Not a good idea.

In almost all cases, if the link text in a page was not link text (i.e.: if all the href attributes were removed) it would have the same meaning.

I've seen your "almost all" shrink. Some blog authors write in a style reminiscent of Wikipedia, Everything 2, and the like, whose pages gain some of their meaning from what their words link to. For example, "dumb MF" means one thing, but "dumb MF" means another thing, namely "dumb MF, one example of which is President Bush".

"Treasure Planet" (biggest flop of the last 10 years)

Just curious, how are you measuring this? I checked the IMDB and apparently it cost $180 million with advertising and brought in $101 million worldwide. That's a lot of scratch but it wasn't the only high-profile flop over the last 10 years...what about Waterworld? I also remember reading a node on Everything about how if you measure by percentage of first-weekend revenues versus afterwards, Blair Witch 2 was the biggest flop of recent years.

I'm not quite sure why but there's something oddly entertaining in talking about movies that ran up ridiculous budgets and then bombed. I guess I'm not terribly fond of Hollywood.

The fun thing about bosons is that any collection of things which acts sortta like a particle, and who's spins sum to some integer value, will act like a boson. If, for example, you get two electrons traveling together and reduce their temperature sufficiently under the right conditions they will begin to act like a single particle. If one has a spin of +1/2 and the other has a spin of -1/2 then the composite "particle" will have a total spin of 0, effectively making it a boson (this special type of boson is called a "Cooper pair"). Fermions bump into each other, bosons do not. Resistance in a wire (as in Ohm's Law) is caused by electrons bumping into each other. If all the electrons form Cooper pairs then this no longer happens, and electricity can flow through a material much better. This is the principle behind superconductivity.

There can be tax benefits, though the IR-35 rules are designed to put a stop to lots of them.

If you do want to incorporate it's pretty easy and cheap to do yoiurself, and certainly better than paying someone to do it for you. I did a writeup on everything2 explaining how to go about it: I've done it a couple of times now. Shouldn't take more than an hour or so and 20.

What can the average person do to promote constructive change in the US patent system?
First you get a truck full of explosives...

Other tips

P.S. Terrorism is free speech.

May I suggest

- month/day/year and day/month/year

both be converted to

- year/month/day

because then we can tag on your time of day and keep the "descending-order-of-units" thang going:

- year/month/day hh:mm:ss

And while I'm at it, ditch Celsius, go for Kelvins. No more negative temperatures.

I was sure that to place a sound spatially your brain relies on the delay between hearing the sound in one ear and then the other.

Knowing nothing about human hearing we can almost rule out this conjecture. Noise travels at about 761.207051 mph and your ears are about a foot apart.

That means there is a difference of 895.706603 microseconds between when the first ear would hear the sound and when the second one would.

This is 1/1116th of a second, meaning that if your brain 'ticks' subconsciously at anything less than 1100 hertz its timing would be too coarse to catch this minute difference.
The brain, in fact, ticks a couple of orders of magnitude slower than this, and moreover the theoretical maximum a single neuron can tick is 2000 hertz, so there would have to be ~0 ms delay in signal propagation between neurons, and the signals would have to make a straight line from each ear toward the area in which the signal is to be processed in order for comparison to occur together with pertinent timing information. (The brain, of course, is not so precisely wired that it could take into account some kind of fixed minute differences in timing among various input sources.)

So we can rule that out. The next idea continues with your implicit assumption that each ear is, logically, a fixed point of input, with the brain reconstructing all spatial information. (Ears, in fact, have a complex set of ridges precisely because they do convey spatial information)

But if we thought of ears as mere fixed points of frequency/amplitude sampling, we might be tempted to think that all spatial information is reconstructed from minute differences in amplitude -- the ear nearer the sound source would hear it more loudly. We can also eliminate this conjecture because the two spheres of possible sound location a given distance from each ear intersect not in one point but a whole arc of possible places. What I mean is, if all your brain knew is : "Ear 1 hears source at A loudness and ear 2 hears source at B loudness, and ear1 is at (x1, y1) and ear2 is at (x2, y2)", then, together with information about how sound loses amplitude with the square of the distance it travels and inversely with the frequency (assume the pertinent natural laws are hard-wired), it could produce the fact: A-ha! The source must be 10 feet from ear1 but 10.23 feet from ear2.

The problem is, there is not ONE point that fits those descriptions, but an infinitely many.

If your ears were just input points, then, if you start playing a sound file on the computer in front if you, it should sound the same with your eyes closed now as it would if you turned around and heard it from behind: Each ear hears an equally loud sound, only now from behind instead of in front. The problem is, you can tell that it's from behind and not from in front of you! (Try a double-blind test if you're not sure -- place one speaker dead in front of you and one speaker an equal distance dead behind you, write a script to randomly play either full left or full right balance, close your eyes and listen to the random tests; you'll always be able to tell where the sound source is coming from.).

Okay, so now we've long-windedly debunked the naive assumptions about how the brain might reconstruct spatial information. How does it?

Beats me.

many arabs partake of the Hookah instead of alcohol.

mmmmm hookahs. not expensive, not illegal, looks damn cool, tastes damn good :)

actually, there are several forms of haiku. Aside from the slightly more wild 7-9-7 and 7-21-7 we studied in my long forgotten college writing seminars .... haiku is more about style than structure. Small miscalculations in syllable counts were overlooked by the ancient masters. Indeed, dialect changed so rapidly over distances that pronunciations often changed. (imagine aluminum vs aluminium) And indeed, if you need to judge poetry using algorithmic rules, you're truly missing the point. For more information, check out this sweet right up at: Haiku@E2

Some people have tried sleeping 20-minutes naps every four hours, and nothing else. Basically, by doing this, you trick the brain into getting all its REM sleep done right away instead of spending two hours sinking into it and two hours rising out in the morning. It's called Uberman's sleep schedule and people who've tried it seem to love it.

I'm hoping to try it myself over Easter.

It was stated in the article that there was about 1.1 million tons of He3 on the moon, to a depth of several meters, half of it in about 20 percent of the moon's surface. Now lets get out our calculators kiddies:

Surface Area of Moon = 4*pi*r**2 where r is about equal to 1,100 miles is about 14,000,000 square miles, give or take.

Mineable surface of moon = 20 percent of 14,000,000 square miles, or about 2.8 million square miles. This is only slightly less than the area of the Continental United States.

Mine Depth: for sake of arguement, lets just say 10 feet, or about 1/500 of a mile, which is slightly more than 3 meters.

Total volume of moon to be mined = .002 * 2.8 million = 5,600 cubic miles of moondust, to recover about 500,000 tons of He3. This much liquified He3 could be contained in only a few supertankers, but the amout of material to be moved would be enormous, and would fill a quarry the size of Connecticut nearly a mile deep. I worked out a similar problem trying to estimate the cost of building A Bridge to Hawaii. Assuming a specific gravity of about 3, this would require processing a staggering 84 Trillion Tons of material. Of course, 1/6 of the gravity would make it easier to lift, but the costs of getting the heavy equipment to move all of this moondust would be truly enormous.

Careful, logic like this eventually leads to massive Joe Job's.

This kind of logic has also been known to cause my size 12 combat boot to become lodged up the offending party's <painful location deleted>.

Well, here's a real-life account if that's of any interest to you.

Now we just need a way to block these annoying Right Click Traps.

This may be offtopic, but anyway. The original words are by Pastor Niemoller (1938)

First they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out ?
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the communists
And I did not speak out ?
Because I was not a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out ?
Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me ?
And there was no-one left
To speak out for me.

P.S. It is an important reminder to stand for the rights of others, to stand for the rights of terrorists, murderers, child pornografers, P2P programmers, christian fundamentalists, and for the rights of everyone else. We may disagree with people, but only in a free and tolerant society can we expect to be safe ourselves.

On January 14, the Christmas Island Internet Administration abruptly disabled everyone's favorite domain, goatse.cx. All joking aside, this action brings up serious questions regarding registrars exercising control over the content of websites they don't host. Goatse's geek appeal as a cult phenomenon is arguably stronger than AYBABTU, and has been an omnipresent icon here at Slashdot for years. There's a petition, as well as a thread at the .cx registrar's forum, supporting the reinstatement of the domain.

Regardless of peoples' feelings about what was hosted at goatse.cx, arbitrary domain suspension due to content has potentially chilling effects. CIIA used a vaguely-worded clause in their registration agreement which allows them to disable any domain for any (or no) reason, even if the domain's operators aren't doing anything wrong and aren't otherwise in violation of the agreement. The suspension was apparently done with neither warning nor notice to the domain's owner.

Nearly all registrars maintain the right to take such action. However, to my knowledge this has never been done before, except in cases where the domain's owner was seriously violating the registration agreement in other ways - spamming, illegal activities, etc. - and even then only on rare occasions. The goatse situation essentially amounts to a web-based joe job, wherein the site's owner had no control over links to the domain or how they were used.

Until this week, I'd always been under the impression that it's a hosting provider's job to stop service to a domain. If a website contained content so controversial as to generate complaints, the hosting provider would make the decision as to whether or not to continue serving the domain. If the host declined, the domain's owner could simply move the site to a more tolerant host. And that's the way it should be.

With CIIA's action, the tables have turned, and a registrar - even if only a small player - has set a precedent for registrars playing the role of content moderator. While this could come in handy (imagine dotster.com, who are running Apache on some sort of Unix, suspending sco.com's registration just for the heck of it), it also makes the process of shutting down potentially controversial sites far too easy. What if the Public Internet Registry decides on a whim to disable landoverbaptist.org because "Landover takes parody too far for our liking," or freenetproject.org because "Freenet can be used for bad purposes," or slashdot.org because "there are too many radical thinkers on that site?"

Domain names are finite resources. If it's widely known that you can be found at example.com, and your webhost shuts you down because they don't approve of the content of your website, you can find another webhost and be back online within a day or so. But if your registrar suspends your domain because they don't approve of your site's content, you can't just go somewhere else and "buy a new copy" of your prime internet real estate. (Oddly enough, it appears that Google has decided to ignore links to goatse.cx; I'd been hoping to use the search results to demonstrate the domain's popularity, but no go.)

The finite nature of domains becomes even more of a problem with many ccTLD operators, who are frequently the sole registrars of their root domain. I should emphasize that goatse.cx was suspended, not deleted; the Christmas Island Internet Administration didn't remove goatse.cx and make it available for someone else to re-register. It's still there, and even paid up through 2005. It's just useless now, and its o

On January 14, the Christmas Island Internet Administration abruptly disabled everyone's favorite domain, goatse.cx. All joking aside, this action brings up serious questions regarding registrars exercising control over the content of websites they don't host. Goatse's geek appeal as a cult phenomenon is arguably stronger than AYBABTU, and has been an omnipresent icon here at Slashdot for years. There's a petition, as well as a thread at the .cx registrar's forum, supporting the reinstatement of the domain.

Regardless of peoples' feelings about what was hosted at goatse.cx, arbitrary domain suspension due to content has potentially chilling effects. CIIA used a vaguely-worded clause in their registration agreement which allows them to disable any domain for any (or no) reason, even if the domain's operators aren't doing anything wrong and aren't otherwise in violation of the agreement. The suspension was apparently done with neither warning nor notice to the domain's owner.

Nearly all registrars maintain the right to take such action. However, to my knowledge this has never been done before, except in cases where the domain's owner was seriously violating the registration agreement in other ways - spamming, illegal activities, etc. - and even then only on rare occasions. The goatse situation essentially amounts to a web-based joe job, wherein the site's owner had no control over links to the domain or how they were used.

Until this week, I'd always been under the impression that it's a hosting provider's job to stop service to a domain. If a website contained content so controversial as to generate complaints, the hosting provider would make the decision as to whether or not to continue serving the domain. If the host declined, the domain's owner could simply move the site to a more tolerant host. And that's the way it should be.

With CIIA's action, the tables have turned, and a registrar - even if only a small player - has set a precedent for registrars playing the role of content moderator. While this could come in handy (imagine dotster.com, who are running Apache on some sort of Unix, suspending sco.com's registration just for the heck of it), it also makes the process of shutting down potentially controversial sites far too easy. What if the Public Internet Registry decides on a whim to disable landoverbaptist.org because "Landover takes parody too far for our liking," or freenetproject.org because "Freenet can be used for bad purposes," or slashdot.org because "there are too many radical thinkers on that site?"

Domain names are finite resources. If it's widely known that you can be found at example.com, and your webhost shuts you down because they don't approve of the content of your website, you can find another webhost and be back online within a day or so. But if your registrar suspends your domain because they don't approve of your site's content, you can't just go somewhere else and "buy a new copy" of your prime internet real estate. (Oddly enough, it appears that Google has decided to ignore links to goatse.cx; I'd been hoping to use the search results to demonstrate the domain's popularity, but no go.)

The finite nature of domains becomes even more of a problem with many ccTLD operators, who are frequently the sole registrars of their root domain. I should emphasize that goatse.cx was suspended, not deleted; the Christmas Island Internet Administration didn't remove goatse.cx and make it available for someone else to re-register. It's still there, and even paid up through 2005. It's just useless now, and its o

[Mods: Please DO NOT MOD THIS DOWN. This information affects all of us in one way or another and it needs to be seen by the masses. All goatse closing posts are getting modbombed down and nobody is getting a chance to see what's happening. THIS POST IS NOT COPYRIGHTED, REDISTRIBUTE AT WILL.]

On January 14, the Christmas Island Internet Administration abruptly disabled everyone's favorite domain, goatse.cx. All joking aside, this action brings up serious questions regarding registrars exercising control over the content of websites they don't host. Goatse's geek appeal as a cult phenomenon is arguably stronger than AYBABTU, and has been an omnipresent icon here at Slashdot for years. There's a petition, as well as a thread at the .cx registrar's forum, supporting the reinstatement of the domain.

Regardless of peoples' feelings about what was hosted at goatse.cx, arbitrary domain suspension due to content has potentially chilling effects. CIIA used a vaguely-worded clause in their registration agreement which allows them to disable any domain for any (or no) reason, even if the domain's operators aren't doing anything wrong and aren't otherwise in violation of the agreement. The suspension was apparently done with neither warning nor notice to the domain's owner.

Nearly all registrars maintain the right to take such action. However, to my knowledge this has never been done before, except in cases where the domain's owner was seriously violating the registration agreement in other ways - spamming, illegal activities, etc. - and even then only on rare occasions. The goatse situation essentially amounts to a web-based joe job, wherein the site's owner had no control over links to the domain or how they were used.

Until this week, I'd always been under the impression that it's a hosting provider's job to stop service to a domain. If a website contained content so controversial as to generate complaints, the hosting provider would make the decision as to whether or not to continue serving the domain. If the host declined, the domain's owner could simply move the site to a more tolerant host. And that's the way it should be.

With CIIA's action, the tables have turned, and a registrar - even if only a small player - has set a precedent for registrars playing the role of content moderator. While this could come in handy (imagine dotster.com, who are running Apache on some sort of Unix, suspending sco.com's registration just for the heck of it), it also makes the process of shutting down potentially controversial sites far too easy. What if the Public Internet Registry decides on a whim to disable landoverbaptist.org because "Landover takes parody too far for our liking," or freenetproject.org because "Freenet can be used for bad purposes," or slashdot.org because "there are too many radical thinkers on that site?"

Domain names are finite resources. If it's widely known that you can be found at example.com, and your webhost shuts you down because they don't approve of the content of your website, you can find another webhost and be back online within a day or so. But if your registrar suspends your domain because they don't approve of your site's content, you can't just go somewhere else and "buy a new copy" of your prime internet real estate. (Oddly enough, it appears that Google has decided to ignore links to goatse.cx; I'd been hoping to use the search results to demonstrate the domain's popularity, but no go.)

The finite nature of domains becomes even more of a problem with many ccTLD operators, who are frequently the sole

[Mods: Please DO NOT MOD THIS DOWN. This information affects all of us in one way or another and it needs to be seen by the masses. All goatse closing posts are getting modbombed down and nobody is getting a chance to see what's happening. THIS POST IS NOT COPYRIGHTED, REDISTRIBUTE AT WILL.]

On January 14, the Christmas Island Internet Administration abruptly disabled everyone's favorite domain, goatse.cx. All joking aside, this action brings up serious questions regarding registrars exercising control over the content of websites they don't host. Goatse's geek appeal as a cult phenomenon is arguably stronger than AYBABTU, and has been an omnipresent icon here at Slashdot for years. There's a petition, as well as a thread at the .cx registrar's forum, supporting the reinstatement of the domain.

Regardless of peoples' feelings about what was hosted at goatse.cx, arbitrary domain suspension due to content has potentially chilling effects. CIIA used a vaguely-worded clause in their registration agreement which allows them to disable any domain for any (or no) reason, even if the domain's operators aren't doing anything wrong and aren't otherwise in violation of the agreement. The suspension was apparently done with neither warning nor notice to the domain's owner.

Nearly all registrars maintain the right to take such action. However, to my knowledge this has never been done before, except in cases where the domain's owner was seriously violating the registration agreement in other ways - spamming, illegal activities, etc. - and even then only on rare occasions. The goatse situation essentially amounts to a web-based joe job, wherein the site's owner had no control over links to the domain or how they were used.

Until this week, I'd always been under the impression that it's a hosting provider's job to stop service to a domain. If a website contained content so controversial as to generate complaints, the hosting provider would make the decision as to whether or not to continue serving the domain. If the host declined, the domain's owner could simply move the site to a more tolerant host. And that's the way it should be.

With CIIA's action, the tables have turned, and a registrar - even if only a small player - has set a precedent for registrars playing the role of content moderator. While this could come in handy (imagine dotster.com, who are running Apache on some sort of Unix, suspending sco.com's registration just for the heck of it), it also makes the process of shutting down potentially controversial sites far too easy. What if the Public Internet Registry decides on a whim to disable landoverbaptist.org because "Landover takes parody too far for our liking," or freenetproject.org because "Freenet can be used for bad purposes," or slashdot.org because "there are too many radical thinkers on that site?"

Domain names are finite resources. If it's widely known that you can be found at example.com, and your webhost shuts you down because they don't approve of the content of your website, you can find another webhost and be back online within a day or so. But if your registrar suspends your domain because they don't approve of your site's content, you can't just go somewhere else and "buy a new copy" of your prime internet real estate. (Oddly enough, it appears that Google has decided to ignore links to goatse.cx; I'd been hoping to use the search results to demonstrate the domain's popularity, but no go.)

The finite nature of domains becomes even more of a problem with many ccTLD operators, who are frequently the sole

The small tip of the Pyramid shows fats, oils, and sweets. These are foods such as salad dressings and oils, cream, butter, margarine, sugars, soft drinks, candies, and sweet desserts. These foods provide calories and little else nutritionally. Most people should use them sparingly.

(...)

At the base of the Food Guide Pyramid are breads, cereals, rice, and pasta - all foods from grains. You need the servings of these foods each day.

What they neglect to mention is that sugar and white flour might as well be the same thing. It doesn't matter if you consume 50g of carbs from sugar, or from flour, they rapidly become the exact same thing in your body.

The biggest problem with food in america is that we have a tendency to eat preprocessed food, and preprocessed food tends to have huge amounts of sugar added to it for flavor. Personally, I have always hated overly sweet food, such as the pizza sauce at Domino's... But the fact is, all this extra sugar is making us fat. Any carbohydrates you take in become fat if you don't burn (use) them.

What you need to read on this topic is a fine article in the NYT by one Gary Taubes entitled "What if it's all been a big fat lie?" Unfortunately, NYT moved that to an archive article and you have to pay $2.95 to read it now, because they are bastards. I mean seriously, I can see a dollar or something, but three bucks? In any case I condensed the article (sharply, I'm afraid) in an article I wrote for Everything2 entitled "How the Government Fattened America". Please be gentle to E2, though it has moved to a new host it is still pretty fragile in terms of overuse.

One of the important paragraphs from my article runs like so:

The run up on fat began in earnest in 1977, as a Senate committee led by George McGovern declared that Americans should reduce their fat intake to curb disease, in the report "Dietary Goals for the United States". The National Institutes for Health summarily spent several hundred million dollars trying to prove a link between being fat and contracting heart disease -- which failed. On their sixth try, though, they found something they could use to prove that the previous money had not gone to waste; a study showing reducing cholesterol via drug therapy reduced the risk of some kinds of heart disease.

The bottom line is that the government tells us to choke down the carbs. A bag of sugar (from C&H) says that "Sugar Contains No Fat" but eating fat doesn't even raise your cholesterol, eating fat mixed with a bunch of carbohydrates does. The emphasis on low-fat diets (which do not work for most people) causes many people to consume more carbohydrates. Problem is, the more carbs you eat, the more glucose ends up in your body at once. Glucose regulates hunger. Your brain will eventually build up a tolerance to it, meaning you have to eat more carbs to feel full. So, then you eat more carbs, which means you become more resistant to glucose - a classic vicious cycle.

On top of all this, when you consume carbohydrates your pancreas produces insulin as part of the conversion process. The more carbs you take in, the more insulin is produced. The more insulin you produce, the harder your pancreas has to work, and eventually it will give up and you will become a diabetic. How's that for your carb-heavy payoff?

So, in summation; The government says sugar is bad and other carbs are good, when in fact all carbohydrates (except fiber, which is indigestible, and cleans out your colon) have the same effect on your system. (The less processed they are, however, the slower they are

[Mods: Please DO NOT MOD THIS DOWN. This information affects all of us in one way or another and it needs to be seen by the masses.]

On January 14, the Christmas Island Internet Administration abruptly disabled everyone's favorite domain, goatse.cx. All joking aside, this action brings up serious questions regarding registrars exercising control over the content of websites they don't host. Goatse's geek appeal as a cult phenomenon is arguably stronger than AYBABTU, and has been an omnipresent icon here at Slashdot for years. There's a petition, as well as a thread at the .cx registrar's forum, supporting the reinstatement of the domain.

Regardless of peoples' feelings about what was hosted at goatse.cx, arbitrary domain suspension due to content has potentially chilling effects. CIIA used a vaguely-worded clause in their registration agreement which allows them to disable any domain for any (or no) reason, even if the domain's operators aren't doing anything wrong and aren't otherwise in violation of the agreement. The suspension was apparently done with neither warning nor notice to the domain's owner.

Nearly all registrars maintain the right to take such action. However, to my knowledge this has never been done before, except in cases where the domain's owner was seriously violating the registration agreement in other ways - spamming, illegal activities, etc. - and even then only on rare occasions. The goatse situation essentially amounts to a web-based joe job, wherein the site's owner had no control over links to the domain or how they were used.

Until this week, I'd always been under the impression that it's a hosting provider's job to stop service to a domain. If a website contained content so controversial as to generate complaints, the hosting provider would make the decision as to whether or not to continue serving the domain. If the host declined, the domain's owner could simply move the site to a more tolerant host. And that's the way it should be.

With CIIA's action, the tables have turned, and a registrar - even if only a small player - has set a precedent for registrars playing the role of content moderator. While this could come in handy (imagine dotster.com, who are running Apache on some sort of Unix, suspending sco.com's registration just for the heck of it), it also makes the process of shutting down potentially controversial sites far too easy. What if the Public Internet Registry decides on a whim to disable landoverbaptist.org because "Landover takes parody too far for our liking," or freenetproject.org because "Freenet can be used for bad purposes," or slashdot.org because "there are too many radical thinkers on that site?"

Domain names are finite resources. If it's widely known that you can be found at example.com, and your webhost shuts you down because they don't approve of the content of your website, you can find another webhost and be back online within a day or so. But if your registrar suspends your domain because they don't approve of your site's content, you can't just go somewhere else and "buy a new copy" of your prime internet real estate. (Oddly enough, it appears that Google has decided to ignore links to goatse.cx; I'd been hoping to use the search results to demonstrate the domain's popularity, but no go.)

The finite nature of domains becomes even more of a problem with many ccTLD operators, who are frequently the sole registrars of their root domain. I should emphasize that goatse.cx was suspended, not deleted; the Christmas Island Internet Administration didn't remove goats

[Mods: Please DO NOT MOD THIS DOWN. This information affects all of us in one way or another and it needs to be seen by the masses.]

On January 14, the Christmas Island Internet Administration abruptly disabled everyone's favorite domain, goatse.cx. All joking aside, this action brings up serious questions regarding registrars exercising control over the content of websites they don't host. Goatse's geek appeal as a cult phenomenon is arguably stronger than AYBABTU, and has been an omnipresent icon here at Slashdot for years. There's a petition, as well as a thread at the .cx registrar's forum, supporting the reinstatement of the domain.

Regardless of peoples' feelings about what was hosted at goatse.cx, arbitrary domain suspension due to content has potentially chilling effects. CIIA used a vaguely-worded clause in their registration agreement which allows them to disable any domain for any (or no) reason, even if the domain's operators aren't doing anything wrong and aren't otherwise in violation of the agreement. The suspension was apparently done with neither warning nor notice to the domain's owner.

Nearly all registrars maintain the right to take such action. However, to my knowledge this has never been done before, except in cases where the domain's owner was seriously violating the registration agreement in other ways - spamming, illegal activities, etc. - and even then only on rare occasions. The goatse situation essentially amounts to a web-based joe job, wherein the site's owner had no control over links to the domain or how they were used.

Until this week, I'd always been under the impression that it's a hosting provider's job to stop service to a domain. If a website contained content so controversial as to generate complaints, the hosting provider would make the decision as to whether or not to continue serving the domain. If the host declined, the domain's owner could simply move the site to a more tolerant host. And that's the way it should be.

With CIIA's action, the tables have turned, and a registrar - even if only a small player - has set a precedent for registrars playing the role of content moderator. While this could come in handy (imagine dotster.com, who are running Apache on some sort of Unix, suspending sco.com's registration just for the heck of it), it also makes the process of shutting down potentially controversial sites far too easy. What if the Public Internet Registry decides on a whim to disable landoverbaptist.org because "Landover takes parody too far for our liking," or freenetproject.org because "Freenet can be used for bad purposes," or slashdot.org because "there are too many radical thinkers on that site?"

Domain names are finite resources. If it's widely known that you can be found at example.com, and your webhost shuts you down because they don't approve of the content of your website, you can find another webhost and be back online within a day or so. But if your registrar suspends your domain because they don't approve of your site's content, you can't just go somewhere else and "buy a new copy" of your prime internet real estate. (Oddly enough, it appears that Google has decided to ignore links to goatse.cx; I'd been hoping to use the search results to demonstrate the domain's popularity, but no go.)

The finite nature of domains becomes even more of a problem with many ccTLD operators, who are frequently the sole registrars of their root domain. I should emphasize that goatse.cx was suspended, not deleted; the Christmas Island Internet Administration didn't remove goats

On January 14, the Christmas Island Internet Administration abruptly disabled everyone's favorite domain, goatse.cx. All joking aside, this action brings up serious questions regarding registrars exercising control over the content of websites they don't host. Goatse's geek appeal as a cult phenomenon is arguably stronger than AYBABTU, and has been an omnipresent icon here at Slashdot for years. There's a petition, as well as a thread at the .cx registrar's forum, supporting the reinstatement of the domain.

Regardless of peoples' feelings about what was hosted at goatse.cx, arbitrary domain suspension due to content has potentially chilling effects. CIIA used a vaguely-worded clause in their registration agreement which allows them to disable any domain for any (or no) reason, even if the domain's operators aren't doing anything wrong and aren't otherwise in violation of the agreement. The suspension was apparently done with neither warning nor notice to the domain's owner.

Nearly all registrars maintain the right to take such action. However, to my knowledge this has never been done before, except in cases where the domain's owner was seriously violating the registration agreement in other ways - spamming, illegal activities, etc. - and even then only on rare occasions. The goatse situation essentially amounts to a web-based joe job, wherein the site's owner had no control over links to the domain or how they were used.

Until this week, I'd always been under the impression that it's a hosting provider's job to stop service to a domain. If a website contained content so controversial as to generate complaints, the hosting provider would make the decision as to whether or not to continue serving the domain. If the host declined, the domain's owner could simply move the site to a more tolerant host. And that's the way it should be.

With CIIA's action, the tables have turned, and a registrar - even if only a small player - has set a precedent for registrars playing the role of content moderator. While this could come in handy (imagine dotster.com, who are running Apache on some sort of Unix, suspending sco.com's registration just for the heck of it), it also makes the process of shutting down potentially controversial sites far too easy. What if the Public Internet Registry decides on a whim to disable landoverbaptist.org because "Landover takes parody too far for our liking," or freenetproject.org because "Freenet can be used for bad purposes," or slashdot.org because "there are too many radical thinkers on that site?"

Domain names are finite resources. If it's widely known that you can be found at example.com, and your webhost shuts you down because they don't approve of the content of your website, you can find another webhost and be back online within a day or so. But if your registrar suspends your domain because they don't approve of your site's content, you can't just go somewhere else and "buy a new copy" of your prime internet real estate. (Oddly enough, it appears that Google has decided to ignore links to goatse.cx; I'd been hoping to use the search results to demonstrate the domain's popularity, but no go.)

The finite nature of domains becomes even more of a problem with many ccTLD operators, who are frequently the sole registrars of their root domain. I should emphasize that goatse.cx was suspended, not deleted; the Christmas Island Internet Administration didn't remove goatse.cx and make it available for someone else to re-register. It's still there, and even paid up through 2005. It's just useless now, and its o

On January 14, the Christmas Island Internet Administration abruptly disabled everyone's favorite domain, goatse.cx. All joking aside, this action brings up serious questions regarding registrars exercising control over the content of websites they don't host. Goatse's geek appeal as a cult phenomenon is arguably stronger than AYBABTU, and has been an omnipresent icon here at Slashdot for years. There's a petition, as well as a thread at the .cx registrar's forum, supporting the reinstatement of the domain.

Regardless of peoples' feelings about what was hosted at goatse.cx, arbitrary domain suspension due to content has potentially chilling effects. CIIA used a vaguely-worded clause in their registration agreement which allows them to disable any domain for any (or no) reason, even if the domain's operators aren't doing anything wrong and aren't otherwise in violation of the agreement. The suspension was apparently done with neither warning nor notice to the domain's owner.

Nearly all registrars maintain the right to take such action. However, to my knowledge this has never been done before, except in cases where the domain's owner was seriously violating the registration agreement in other ways - spamming, illegal activities, etc. - and even then only on rare occasions. The goatse situation essentially amounts to a web-based joe job, wherein the site's owner had no control over links to the domain or how they were used.

Until this week, I'd always been under the impression that it's a hosting provider's job to stop service to a domain. If a website contained content so controversial as to generate complaints, the hosting provider would make the decision as to whether or not to continue serving the domain. If the host declined, the domain's owner could simply move the site to a more tolerant host. And that's the way it should be.

With CIIA's action, the tables have turned, and a registrar - even if only a small player - has set a precedent for registrars playing the role of content moderator. While this could come in handy (imagine dotster.com, who are running Apache on some sort of Unix, suspending sco.com's registration just for the heck of it), it also makes the process of shutting down potentially controversial sites far too easy. What if the Public Internet Registry decides on a whim to disable landoverbaptist.org because "Landover takes parody too far for our liking," or freenetproject.org because "Freenet can be used for bad purposes," or slashdot.org because "there are too many radical thinkers on that site?"

Domain names are finite resources. If it's widely known that you can be found at example.com, and your webhost shuts you down because they don't approve of the content of your website, you can find another webhost and be back online within a day or so. But if your registrar suspends your domain because they don't approve of your site's content, you can't just go somewhere else and "buy a new copy" of your prime internet real estate. (Oddly enough, it appears that Google has decided to ignore links to goatse.cx; I'd been hoping to use the search results to demonstrate the domain's popularity, but no go.)

The finite nature of domains becomes even more of a problem with many ccTLD operators, who are frequently the sole registrars of their root domain. I should emphasize that goatse.cx was suspended, not deleted; the Christmas Island Internet Administration didn't remove goatse.cx and make it available for someone else to re-register. It's still there, and even paid up through 2005. It's just useless now, and its o

[TROLLS: This post is not copyrighted. POST IT EVERYWHERE!]

On January 14, the Christmas Island Internet Administration abruptly disabled everyone's favorite domain, goatse.cx. All joking aside, this action brings up serious questions regarding registrars exercising control over the content of websites they don't host. Goatse's geek appeal as a cult phenomenon is arguably stronger than AYBABTU, and has been an omnipresent icon here at Slashdot for years. There's a petition, as well as a thread at the .cx registrar's forum, supporting the reinstatement of the domain.

Regardless of peoples' feelings about what was hosted at goatse.cx, arbitrary domain suspension due to content has potentially chilling effects. CIIA used a vaguely-worded clause in their registration agreement which allows them to disable any domain for any (or no) reason, even if the domain's operators aren't doing anything wrong and aren't otherwise in violation of the agreement. The suspension was apparently done with neither warning nor notice to the domain's owner.

Nearly all registrars maintain the right to take such action. However, to my knowledge this has never been done before, except in cases where the domain's owner was seriously violating the registration agreement in other ways - spamming, illegal activities, etc. - and even then only on rare occasions. The goatse situation essentially amounts to a web-based joe job, wherein the site's owner had no control over links to the domain or how they were used.

Until this week, I'd always been under the impression that it's a hosting provider's job to stop service to a domain. If a website contained content so controversial as to generate complaints, the hosting provider would make the decision as to whether or not to continue serving the domain. If the host declined, the domain's owner could simply move the site to a more tolerant host. And that's the way it should be.

With CIIA's action, the tables have turned, and a registrar - even if only a small player - has set a precedent for registrars playing the role of content moderator. While this could come in handy (imagine dotster.com, who are running Apache on some sort of Unix, suspending sco.com's registration just for the heck of it), it also makes the process of shutting down potentially controversial sites far too easy. What if the Public Internet Registry decides on a whim to disable landoverbaptist.org because "Landover takes parody too far for our liking," or freenetproject.org because "Freenet can be used for bad purposes," or slashdot.org because "there are too many radical thinkers on that site?"

Domain names are finite resources. If it's widely known that you can be found at example.com, and your webhost shuts you down because they don't approve of the content of your website, you can find another webhost and be back online within a day or so. But if your registrar suspends your domain because they don't approve of your site's content, you can't just go somewhere else and "buy a new copy" of your prime internet real estate. (Oddly enough, it appears that Google has decided to ignore links to goatse.cx; I'd been hoping to use the search results to demonstrate the domain's popularity, but no go.)

The finite nature of domains becomes even more of a problem with many ccTLD operators, who are frequently the sole registrars of their root domain. I should emphasize that goatse.cx was suspended, not deleted; the Christmas Island Internet Administration didn't remove goatse.cx and make it available for someone else to re-register. It's still th

[TROLLS: This post is not copyrighted. POST IT EVERYWHERE!]

On January 14, the Christmas Island Internet Administration abruptly disabled everyone's favorite domain, goatse.cx. All joking aside, this action brings up serious questions regarding registrars exercising control over the content of websites they don't host. Goatse's geek appeal as a cult phenomenon is arguably stronger than AYBABTU, and has been an omnipresent icon here at Slashdot for years. There's a petition, as well as a thread at the .cx registrar's forum, supporting the reinstatement of the domain.

Regardless of peoples' feelings about what was hosted at goatse.cx, arbitrary domain suspension due to content has potentially chilling effects. CIIA used a vaguely-worded clause in their registration agreement which allows them to disable any domain for any (or no) reason, even if the domain's operators aren't doing anything wrong and aren't otherwise in violation of the agreement. The suspension was apparently done with neither warning nor notice to the domain's owner.

Nearly all registrars maintain the right to take such action. However, to my knowledge this has never been done before, except in cases where the domain's owner was seriously violating the registration agreement in other ways - spamming, illegal activities, etc. - and even then only on rare occasions. The goatse situation essentially amounts to a web-based joe job, wherein the site's owner had no control over links to the domain or how they were used.

Until this week, I'd always been under the impression that it's a hosting provider's job to stop service to a domain. If a website contained content so controversial as to generate complaints, the hosting provider would make the decision as to whether or not to continue serving the domain. If the host declined, the domain's owner could simply move the site to a more tolerant host. And that's the way it should be.

With CIIA's action, the tables have turned, and a registrar - even if only a small player - has set a precedent for registrars playing the role of content moderator. While this could come in handy (imagine dotster.com, who are running Apache on some sort of Unix, suspending sco.com's registration just for the heck of it), it also makes the process of shutting down potentially controversial sites far too easy. What if the Public Internet Registry decides on a whim to disable landoverbaptist.org because "Landover takes parody too far for our liking," or freenetproject.org because "Freenet can be used for bad purposes," or slashdot.org because "there are too many radical thinkers on that site?"

Domain names are finite resources. If it's widely known that you can be found at example.com, and your webhost shuts you down because they don't approve of the content of your website, you can find another webhost and be back online within a day or so. But if your registrar suspends your domain because they don't approve of your site's content, you can't just go somewhere else and "buy a new copy" of your prime internet real estate. (Oddly enough, it appears that Google has decided to ignore links to goatse.cx; I'd been hoping to use the search results to demonstrate the domain's popularity, but no go.)

The finite nature of domains becomes even more of a problem with many ccTLD operators, who are frequently the sole registrars of their root domain. I should emphasize that goatse.cx was suspended, not deleted; the Christmas Island Internet Administration didn't remove goatse.cx and make it available for someone else to re-register. It's still th

[This is not a troll. it's a serious message about the sudden demise of goatse. Trolls, however, should feel free to repost this copiously! This post has no copyright!]

On January 14, the Christmas Island Internet Administration abruptly disabled everyone's favorite domain, goatse.cx. All joking aside, this action brings up serious questions regarding registrars exercising control over the content of websites they don't host. Goatse's geek appeal as a cult phenomenon is arguably stronger than AYBABTU, and has been an omnipresent icon here at Slashdot for years. There's a petition, as well as a thread at the .cx registrar's forum, supporting the reinstatement of the domain.

Regardless of peoples' feelings about what was hosted at goatse.cx, arbitrary domain suspension due to content has potentially chilling effects. CIIA used a vaguely-worded clause in their registration agreement which allows them to disable any domain for any (or no) reason, even if the domain's operators aren't doing anything wrong and aren't otherwise in violation of the agreement. The suspension was apparently done with neither warning nor notice to the domain's owner.

Nearly all registrars maintain the right to take such action. However, to my knowledge this has never been done before, except in cases where the domain's owner was seriously violating the registration agreement in other ways - spamming, illegal activities, etc. - and even then only on rare occasions. The goatse situation essentially amounts to a web-based joe job, wherein the site's owner had no control over links to the domain or how they were used.

Until this week, I'd always been under the impression that it's a hosting provider's job to stop service to a domain. If a website contained content so controversial as to generate complaints, the hosting provider would make the decision as to whether or not to continue serving the domain. If the host declined, the domain's owner could simply move the site to a more tolerant host. And that's the way it should be.

With CIIA's action, the tables have turned, and a registrar - even if only a small player - has set a precedent for registrars playing the role of content moderator. While this could come in handy (imagine dotster.com, who are running Apache on some sort of Unix, suspending sco.com's registration just for the heck of it), it also makes the process of shutting down potentially controversial sites far too easy. What if the Public Internet Registry decides on a whim to disable landoverbaptist.org because "Landover takes parody too far for our liking," or freenetproject.org because "Freenet can be used for bad purposes," or slashdot.org because "there are too many radical thinkers on that site?"

Domain names are finite resources. If it's widely known that you can be found at example.com, and your webhost shuts you down because they don't approve of the content of your website, you can find another webhost and be back online within a day or so. But if your registrar suspends your domain because they don't approve of your site's content, you can't just go somewhere else and "buy a new copy" of your prime internet real estate. (Oddly enough, it appears that Google has decided to ignore links to goatse.cx; I'd been hoping to use the search results to demonstrate the domain's popularity, but no go.)

The finite nature of domains becomes even more of a problem with many ccTLD operators, who are frequently the sole registrars of their root domain. I should emphasize that goatse.cx was suspended, not deleted; the Christmas Island Interne

[This is not a troll. it's a serious message about the sudden demise of goatse. Trolls, however, should feel free to repost this copiously! This post has no copyright!]

On January 14, the Christmas Island Internet Administration abruptly disabled everyone's favorite domain, goatse.cx. All joking aside, this action brings up serious questions regarding registrars exercising control over the content of websites they don't host. Goatse's geek appeal as a cult phenomenon is arguably stronger than AYBABTU, and has been an omnipresent icon here at Slashdot for years. There's a petition, as well as a thread at the .cx registrar's forum, supporting the reinstatement of the domain.

Regardless of peoples' feelings about what was hosted at goatse.cx, arbitrary domain suspension due to content has potentially chilling effects. CIIA used a vaguely-worded clause in their registration agreement which allows them to disable any domain for any (or no) reason, even if the domain's operators aren't doing anything wrong and aren't otherwise in violation of the agreement. The suspension was apparently done with neither warning nor notice to the domain's owner.

Nearly all registrars maintain the right to take such action. However, to my knowledge this has never been done before, except in cases where the domain's owner was seriously violating the registration agreement in other ways - spamming, illegal activities, etc. - and even then only on rare occasions. The goatse situation essentially amounts to a web-based joe job, wherein the site's owner had no control over links to the domain or how they were used.

Until this week, I'd always been under the impression that it's a hosting provider's job to stop service to a domain. If a website contained content so controversial as to generate complaints, the hosting provider would make the decision as to whether or not to continue serving the domain. If the host declined, the domain's owner could simply move the site to a more tolerant host. And that's the way it should be.

With CIIA's action, the tables have turned, and a registrar - even if only a small player - has set a precedent for registrars playing the role of content moderator. While this could come in handy (imagine dotster.com, who are running Apache on some sort of Unix, suspending sco.com's registration just for the heck of it), it also makes the process of shutting down potentially controversial sites far too easy. What if the Public Internet Registry decides on a whim to disable landoverbaptist.org because "Landover takes parody too far for our liking," or freenetproject.org because "Freenet can be used for bad purposes," or slashdot.org because "there are too many radical thinkers on that site?"

Domain names are finite resources. If it's widely known that you can be found at example.com, and your webhost shuts you down because they don't approve of the content of your website, you can find another webhost and be back online within a day or so. But if your registrar suspends your domain because they don't approve of your site's content, you can't just go somewhere else and "buy a new copy" of your prime internet real estate. (Oddly enough, it appears that Google has decided to ignore links to goatse.cx; I'd been hoping to use the search results to demonstrate the domain's popularity, but no go.)

The finite nature of domains becomes even more of a problem with many ccTLD operators, who are frequently the sole registrars of their root domain. I should emphasize that goatse.cx was suspended, not deleted; the Christmas Island Interne

On January 14, the Christmas Island Internet Administration abruptly disabled everyone's favorite domain, goatse.cx. All joking aside, this action brings up serious questions regarding registrars exercising control over the content of websites they don't host. Goatse's geek appeal as a cult phenomenon is arguably stronger than AYBABTU, and has been an omnipresent icon here at Slashdot for years. There's a petition, as well as a thread at the .cx registrar's forum, supporting the reinstatement of the domain.

Regardless of peoples' feelings about what was hosted at goatse.cx, arbitrary domain suspension due to content has potentially chilling effects. CIIA used a vaguely-worded clause in their registration agreement which allows them to disable any domain for any (or no) reason, even if the domain's operators aren't doing anything wrong and aren't otherwise in violation of the agreement. The suspension was apparently done with neither warning nor notice to the domain's owner.

Nearly all registrars maintain the right to take such action. However, to my knowledge this has never been done before, except in cases where the domain's owner was seriously violating the registration agreement in other ways - spamming, illegal activities, etc. - and even then only on rare occasions. The goatse situation essentially amounts to a web-based joe job, wherein the site's owner had no control over links to the domain or how they were used.

Until this week, I'd always been under the impression that it's a hosting provider's job to stop service to a domain. If a website contained content so controversial as to generate complaints, the hosting provider would make the decision as to whether or not to continue serving the domain. If the host declined, the domain's owner could simply move the site to a more tolerant host. And that's the way it should be.

With CIIA's action, the tables have turned, and a registrar - even if only a small player - has set a precedent for registrars playing the role of content moderator. While this could come in handy (imagine dotster.com, who are running Apache on some sort of Unix, suspending sco.com's registration just for the heck of it), it also makes the process of shutting down potentially controversial sites far too easy. What if the Public Internet Registry decides on a whim to disable landoverbaptist.org because "Landover takes parody too far for our liking," or freenetproject.org because "Freenet can be used for bad purposes," or slashdot.org because "there are too many radical thinkers on that site?"

Domain names are finite resources. If it's widely known that you can be found at example.com, and your webhost shuts you down because they don't approve of the content of your website, you can find another webhost and be back online within a day or so. But if your registrar suspends your domain because they don't approve of your site's content, you can't just go somewhere else and "buy a new copy" of your prime internet real estate. (Oddly enough, it appears that Google has decided to ignore links to goatse.cx; I'd been hoping to use the search results to demonstrate the domain's popularity, but no go.)

The finite nature of domains becomes even more of a problem with many ccTLD operators, who are frequently the sole registrars of their root domain. I should emphasize that goatse.cx was suspended, not deleted; the Christmas Island Internet Administration didn't remove goatse.cx and make it available for someone else to re-register. It's still there, and even paid up through 2005. It's just useless now, and its o

On January 14, the Christmas Island Internet Administration abruptly disabled everyone's favorite domain, goatse.cx. All joking aside, this action brings up serious questions regarding registrars exercising control over the content of websites they don't host. Goatse's geek appeal as a cult phenomenon is arguably stronger than AYBABTU, and has been an omnipresent icon here at Slashdot for years. There's a petition, as well as a thread at the .cx registrar's forum, supporting the reinstatement of the domain.

Regardless of peoples' feelings about what was hosted at goatse.cx, arbitrary domain suspension due to content has potentially chilling effects. CIIA used a vaguely-worded clause in their registration agreement which allows them to disable any domain for any (or no) reason, even if the domain's operators aren't doing anything wrong and aren't otherwise in violation of the agreement. The suspension was apparently done with neither warning nor notice to the domain's owner.

Nearly all registrars maintain the right to take such action. However, to my knowledge this has never been done before, except in cases where the domain's owner was seriously violating the registration agreement in other ways - spamming, illegal activities, etc. - and even then only on rare occasions. The goatse situation essentially amounts to a web-based joe job, wherein the site's owner had no control over links to the domain or how they were used.

Until this week, I'd always been under the impression that it's a hosting provider's job to stop service to a domain. If a website contained content so controversial as to generate complaints, the hosting provider would make the decision as to whether or not to continue serving the domain. If the host declined, the domain's owner could simply move the site to a more tolerant host. And that's the way it should be.

With CIIA's action, the tables have turned, and a registrar - even if only a small player - has set a precedent for registrars playing the role of content moderator. While this could come in handy (imagine dotster.com, who are running Apache on some sort of Unix, suspending sco.com's registration just for the heck of it), it also makes the process of shutting down potentially controversial sites far too easy. What if the Public Internet Registry decides on a whim to disable landoverbaptist.org because "Landover takes parody too far for our liking," or freenetproject.org because "Freenet can be used for bad purposes," or slashdot.org because "there are too many radical thinkers on that site?"

Domain names are finite resources. If it's widely known that you can be found at example.com, and your webhost shuts you down because they don't approve of the content of your website, you can find another webhost and be back online within a day or so. But if your registrar suspends your domain because they don't approve of your site's content, you can't just go somewhere else and "buy a new copy" of your prime internet real estate. (Oddly enough, it appears that Google has decided to ignore links to goatse.cx; I'd been hoping to use the search results to demonstrate the domain's popularity, but no go.)

The finite nature of domains becomes even more of a problem with many ccTLD operators, who are frequently the sole registrars of their root domain. I should emphasize that goatse.cx was suspended, not deleted; the Christmas Island Internet Administration didn't remove goatse.cx and make it available for someone else to re-register. It's still there, and even paid up through 2005. It's just useless now, and its o

On January 14, the Christmas Island Internet Administration abruptly disabled everyone's favorite domain, goatse.cx. All joking aside, this action brings up serious questions regarding registrars exercising control over the content of websites they don't host. Goatse's geek appeal as a cult phenomenon is arguably stronger than AYBABTU, and has been an omnipresent icon here at Slashdot for years. There's a petition, as well as a thread at the .cx registrar's forum, supporting the reinstatement of the domain.

Regardless of peoples' feelings about what was hosted at goatse.cx, arbitrary domain suspension due to content has potentially chilling effects. CIIA used a vaguely-worded clause in their registration agreement which allows them to disable any domain for any (or no) reason, even if the domain's operators aren't doing anything wrong and aren't otherwise in violation of the agreement. The suspension was apparently done with neither warning nor notice to the domain's owner.

Nearly all registrars maintain the right to take such action. However, to my knowledge this has never been done before, except in cases where the domain's owner was seriously violating the registration agreement in other ways - spamming, illegal activities, etc. - and even then only on rare occasions. The goatse situation essentially amounts to a web-based joe job, wherein the site's owner had no control over links to the domain or how they were used.

Until this week, I'd always been under the impression that it's a hosting provider's job to stop service to a domain. If a website contained content so controversial as to generate complaints, the hosting provider would make the decision as to whether or not to continue serving the domain. If the host declined, the domain's owner could simply move the site to a more tolerant host. And that's the way it should be.

With CIIA's action, the tables have turned, and a registrar - even if only a small player - has set a precedent for registrars playing the role of content moderator. While this could come in handy (imagine dotster.com, who are running Apache on some sort of Unix, suspending sco.com's registration just for the heck of it), it also makes the process of shutting down potentially controversial sites far too easy. What if the Public Internet Registry decides on a whim to disable landoverbaptist.org because "Landover takes parody too far for our liking," or freenetproject.org because "Freenet can be used for bad purposes," or slashdot.org because "there are too many radical thinkers on that site?"

Domain names are finite resources. If it's widely known that you can be found at example.com, and your webhost shuts you down because they don't approve of the content of your website, you can find another webhost and be back online within a day or so. But if your registrar suspends your domain because they don't approve of your site's content, you can't just go somewhere else and "buy a new copy" of your prime internet real estate. (Oddly enough, it appears that Google has decided to ignore links to goatse.cx; I'd been hoping to use the search results to demonstrate the domain's popularity, but no go.)

The finite nature of domains becomes even more of a problem with many ccTLD operators, who are frequently the sole registrars of their root domain. I should emphasize that goatse.cx was suspended, not deleted; the Christmas Island Internet Administration didn't remove goatse.cx and make it available for someone else to re-register. It's still there, and even paid up through 2005. It's just useless now, and its o

On January 14, the Christmas Island Internet Administration abruptly disabled everyone's favorite domain, goatse.cx. All joking aside, this action brings up serious questions regarding registrars exercising control over the content of websites they don't host. Goatse's geek appeal as a cult phenomenon is arguably stronger than AYBABTU, and has been an omnipresent icon here at Slashdot for years. There's a petition, as well as a thread at the .cx registrar's forum, supporting the reinstatement of the domain.

Regardless of peoples' feelings about what was hosted at goatse.cx, arbitrary domain suspension due to content has potentially chilling effects. CIIA used a vaguely-worded clause in their registration agreement which allows them to disable any domain for any (or no) reason, even if the domain's operators aren't doing anything wrong and aren't otherwise in violation of the agreement. The suspension was apparently done with neither warning nor notice to the domain's owner.

Nearly all registrars maintain the right to take such action. However, to my knowledge this has never been done before, except in cases where the domain's owner was seriously violating the registration agreement in other ways - spamming, illegal activities, etc. - and even then only on rare occasions. The goatse situation essentially amounts to a web-based joe job, wherein the site's owner had no control over links to the domain or how they were used.

Until this week, I'd always been under the impression that it's a hosting provider's job to stop service to a domain. If a website contained content so controversial as to generate complaints, the hosting provider would make the decision as to whether or not to continue serving the domain. If the host declined, the domain's owner could simply move the site to a more tolerant host. And that's the way it should be.

With CIIA's action, the tables have turned, and a registrar - even if only a small player - has set a precedent for registrars playing the role of content moderator. While this could come in handy (imagine dotster.com, who are running Apache on some sort of Unix, suspending sco.com's registration just for the heck of it), it also makes the process of shutting down potentially controversial sites far too easy. What if the Public Internet Registry decides on a whim to disable landoverbaptist.org because "Landover takes parody too far for our liking," or freenetproject.org because "Freenet can be used for bad purposes," or slashdot.org because "there are too many radical thinkers on that site?"

Domain names are finite resources. If it's widely known that you can be found at example.com, and your webhost shuts you down because they don't approve of the content of your website, you can find another webhost and be back online within a day or so. But if your registrar suspends your domain because they don't approve of your site's content, you can't just go somewhere else and "buy a new copy" of your prime internet real estate. (Oddly enough, it appears that Google has decided to ignore links to goatse.cx; I'd been hoping to use the search results to demonstrate the domain's popularity, but no go.)

The finite nature of domains becomes even more of a problem with many ccTLD operators, who are frequently the sole registrars of their root domain. I should emphasize that goatse.cx was suspended, not deleted; the Christmas Island Internet Administration didn't remove goatse.cx and make it available for someone else to re-register. It's still there, and even paid up through 2005. It's just useless now, and its o

On January 14, the Christmas Island Internet Administration abruptly disabled everyone's favorite domain, goatse.cx. All joking aside, this action brings up serious questions regarding registrars exercising control over the content of websites they don't host. Goatse's geek appeal as a cult phenomenon is arguably stronger than AYBABTU, and has been an omnipresent icon here at Slashdot for years. There's a petition, as well as a thread at the .cx registrar's forum, supporting the reinstatement of the domain.

Regardless of peoples' feelings about what was hosted at goatse.cx, arbitrary domain suspension due to content has potentially chilling effects. CIIA used a vaguely-worded clause in their registration agreement which allows them to disable any domain for any (or no) reason, even if the domain's operators aren't doing anything wrong and aren't otherwise in violation of the agreement. The suspension was apparently done with neither warning nor notice to the domain's owner.

Nearly all registrars maintain the right to take such action. However, to my knowledge this has never been done before, except in cases where the domain's owner was seriously violating the registration agreement in other ways - spamming, illegal activities, etc. - and even then only on rare occasions. The goatse situation essentially amounts to a web-based joe job, wherein the site's owner had no control over links to the domain or how they were used.

Until this week, I'd always been under the impression that it's a hosting provider's job to stop service to a domain. If a website contained content so controversial as to generate complaints, the hosting provider would make the decision as to whether or not to continue serving the domain. If the host declined, the domain's owner could simply move the site to a more tolerant host. And that's the way it should be.

With CIIA's action, the tables have turned, and a registrar - even if only a small player - has set a precedent for registrars playing the role of content moderator. While this could come in handy (imagine dotster.com, who are running Apache on some sort of Unix, suspending sco.com's registration just for the heck of it), it also makes the process of shutting down potentially controversial sites far too easy. What if the Public Internet Registry decides on a whim to disable landoverbaptist.org because "Landover takes parody too far for our liking," or freenetproject.org because "Freenet can be used for bad purposes," or slashdot.org because "there are too many radical thinkers on that site?"

Domain names are finite resources. If it's widely known that you can be found at example.com, and your webhost shuts you down because they don't approve of the content of your website, you can find another webhost and be back online within a day or so. But if your registrar suspends your domain because they don't approve of your site's content, you can't just go somewhere else and "buy a new copy" of your prime internet real estate. (Oddly enough, it appears that Google has decided to ignore links to goatse.cx; I'd been hoping to use the search results to demonstrate the domain's popularity, but no go.)

The finite nature of domains becomes even more of a problem with many ccTLD operators, who are frequently the sole registrars of their root domain. I should emphasize that goatse.cx was suspended, not deleted; the Christmas Island Internet Administration didn't remove goatse.cx and make it available for someone else to re-register. It's still there, and even paid up through 2005. It's just useless now, and its o

On January 14, the Christmas Island Internet Administration abruptly disabled everyone's favorite domain, goatse.cx. All joking aside, this action brings up serious questions regarding registrars exercising control over the content of websites they don't host. Goatse's geek appeal as a cult phenomenon is arguably stronger than AYBABTU, and has been an omnipresent icon here at Slashdot for years. There's a petition, as well as a thread at the .cx registrar's forum, supporting the reinstatement of the domain.

Regardless of peoples' feelings about what was hosted at goatse.cx, arbitrary domain suspension due to content has potentially chilling effects. CIIA used a vaguely-worded clause in their registration agreement which allows them to disable any domain for any (or no) reason, even if the domain's operators aren't doing anything wrong and aren't otherwise in violation of the agreement. The suspension was apparently done with neither warning nor notice to the domain's owner.

Nearly all registrars maintain the right to take such action. However, to my knowledge this has never been done before, except in cases where the domain's owner was seriously violating the registration agreement in other ways - spamming, illegal activities, etc. - and even then only on rare occasions. The goatse situation essentially amounts to a web-based joe job, wherein the site's owner had no control over links to the domain or how they were used.

Until this week, I'd always been under the impression that it's a hosting provider's job to stop service to a domain. If a website contained content so controversial as to generate complaints, the hosting provider would make the decision as to whether or not to continue serving the domain. If the host declined, the domain's owner could simply move the site to a more tolerant host. And that's the way it should be.

With CIIA's action, the tables have turned, and a registrar - even if only a small player - has set a precedent for registrars playing the role of content moderator. While this could come in handy (imagine dotster.com, who are running Apache on some sort of Unix, suspending sco.com's registration just for the heck of it), it also makes the process of shutting down potentially controversial sites far too easy. What if the Public Internet Registry decides on a whim to disable landoverbaptist.org because "Landover takes parody too far for our liking," or freenetproject.org because "Freenet can be used for bad purposes," or slashdot.org because "there are too many radical thinkers on that site?"

Domain names are finite resources. If it's widely known that you can be found at example.com, and your webhost shuts you down because they don't approve of the content of your website, you can find another webhost and be back online within a day or so. But if your registrar suspends your domain because they don't approve of your site's content, you can't just go somewhere else and "buy a new copy" of your prime internet real estate. (Oddly enough, it appears that Google has decided to ignore links to goatse.cx; I'd been hoping to use the search results to demonstrate the domain's popularity, but no go.)

The finite nature of domains becomes even more of a problem with many ccTLD operators, who are frequently the sole registrars of their root domain. I should emphasize that goatse.cx was suspended, not deleted; the Christmas Island Internet Administration didn't remove goatse.cx and make it available for someone else to re-register. It's still there, and even paid up through 2005. It's just useless now, and its o

There's also Paranoia, the much-loved and sadly out-of-print Logan's Run meets McCarthyism meets Douglas Adams meets Kafka role-playing game.

As for the faster-than-light communications, we could do that with tangled photons. Einstein was troubled by the fact that quantum entanglment causes an instantaneous change across a large distance. It's been used in a large number of sci-fi novels, including Orson Scott Cards Ender's Game series of books.

No, we couldn't. I'm so tired of people who consider themselves to be educated hearing something in a movie or in passing conversation or in a sci-fi book and taking it to be true. It's the physics equivalent of learning how to use computers from the movie Hackers. Quantum physics is pretty damn counter-intuitive, but it's amazing the number of supposedly educated people around here that just make wild guesses at things they think sound nice.

Anyway, the parent post doesn't deserve this lecture as much as the other children. Point being, never assume you know this stuff unless you actually take the time to educate yourself on it (read, "many years of intense study").

And no, i don't claim to know this stuff, i just know enough to know that i know that most of these cliches are no more than that.

b.c

My first task as Master Builder would be to reinstate the Hard Core lego set. Makes a great gift!

Here are the mirror links for the program and the data update in case telestra.org goes down again. There is nothing posted there besides this list anyway.

Maestro for Windows XP/2000/Me/98

Download from NASA Download from Freecache Download from USF FTP (Florida) (Internet II - university students start here) Download from LibertyOutreach Download from KNCL FTP (Texas) Download from Lakewebs (Oklahoma) Download from NJIT (New Jersey) Download from UALR (Arkansas) (Internet II - university students start here) Download from Emporia State Univ. (Kansas) (Internet II - university students start here) Download from TU-Budapest (Hungary) Download from TU-Berlin (Germany) Download via BitTorrent (what's this?) Download via ed2k (what's this?)

Maestro for Mac (requires Java3D)

Download from NASA Download from FreeCache Download from USF FTP (Florida) (Internet II - university students start here) Download from KNCL FTP (Texas) Download from Lakewebs (Oklahoma) Download from NJIT (New Jersey) Download from UALR (Arkansas) (Internet II - university students start here) Download from Emporia State Univ. (Kansas) (Internet II - university students start here) Download from TU-Budapest (Hungary) Download from TU-Berlin (Germany) Download via ed2k (what's this?)

Maestro for Linux

Download from NASA Download from Freecache Download from USF FTP (Florida) (Internet II - university students start here) Download from KNCL FTP (Texas) Download from Lakewebs (Oklahoma) Download from NJIT (New Jersey)

Here are the mirror links for the program and the data update in case telestra.org goes down again. There is nothing posted there besides this list anyway.

Maestro for Windows XP/2000/Me/98

Download from NASA Download from Freecache Download from USF FTP (Florida) (Internet II - university students start here) Download from LibertyOutreach Download from KNCL FTP (Texas) Download from Lakewebs (Oklahoma) Download from NJIT (New Jersey) Download from UALR (Arkansas) (Internet II - university students start here) Download from Emporia State Univ. (Kansas) (Internet II - university students start here) Download from TU-Budapest (Hungary) Download from TU-Berlin (Germany) Download via BitTorrent (what's this?) Download via ed2k (what's this?)

Maestro for Mac (requires Java3D)

Download from NASA Download from FreeCache Download from USF FTP (Florida) (Internet II - university students start here) Download from KNCL FTP (Texas) Download from Lakewebs (Oklahoma) Download from NJIT (New Jersey) Download from UALR (Arkansas) (Internet II - university students start here) Download from Emporia State Univ. (Kansas) (Internet II - university students start here) Download from TU-Budapest (Hungary) Download from TU-Berlin (Germany) Download via ed2k (what's this?)

Maestro for Linux

Download from NASA Download from Freecache Download from USF FTP (Florida) (Internet II - university students start here) Download from KNCL FTP (Texas) Download from Lakewebs (Oklahoma) Download from NJIT (New Jersey)

Here are the mirror links for the program and the data update in case telestra.org goes down again. There is nothing posted there besides this list anyway.

Maestro for Windows XP/2000/Me/98

Download from NASA Download from Freecache Download from USF FTP (Florida) (Internet II - university students start here) Download from LibertyOutreach Download from KNCL FTP (Texas) Download from Lakewebs (Oklahoma) Download from NJIT (New Jersey) Download from UALR (Arkansas) (Internet II - university students start here) Download from Emporia State Univ. (Kansas) (Internet II - university students start here) Download from TU-Budapest (Hungary) Download from TU-Berlin (Germany) Download via BitTorrent (what's this?) Download via ed2k (what's this?)

Maestro for Mac (requires Java3D)

Download from NASA Download from FreeCache Download from USF FTP (Florida) (Internet II - university students start here) Download from KNCL FTP (Texas) Download from Lakewebs (Oklahoma) Download from NJIT (New Jersey) Download from UALR (Arkansas) (Internet II - university students start here) Download from Emporia State Univ. (Kansas) (Internet II - university students start here) Download from TU-Budapest (Hungary) Download from TU-Berlin (Germany) Download via ed2k (what's this?)

Maestro for Linux

Download from NASA Download from Freecache Download from USF FTP (Florida) (Internet II - university students start here) Download from KNCL FTP (Texas) Download from Lakewebs (Oklahoma) Download from NJIT (New Jersey)

I think you've mixed up what people appreciate with what period they appreciate from.

Really, there are two views of games. Firstly, that they are a form of art that is created and can be appreciated, and secondly, that they are form of entertainment to be enjoyed. These are not mutually exlcusive.

I don't agree that someone focuses on graphics or story. And I also don't agree that only the 'Brain Class' appreciated older games. You would be hard-pressed to find literary merit in Super Mario Brothers, and it probably is more of a 'fun' game, it is still appreciated on GBA's everywhere today.

I believe your "brain" and "eye" class are really just people who want to be amazed at the art, style, animation, music, plot and character development of a game. They all see games as a form of art, and can appreciate older games that had a signifigant level of art in them, like Final Fantasy (whether they be voice-acting, cut-scenes, or design).

Other people appreciate the gameplay, and the entertainment value. These are your "endorphin" class, and are mainly focused on how a game plays, the controls, etc. But they to can appreciate the simplicity of Pac-Man or Super Mario Bros., and how fun the controls are.

Of course, most people probably fall somewhere in the middle. I imagine the majority of the market lies fairly close to center.

And you're right, Nintendo often doesn't see games as art. Miyamoto often thinks about gameplay first, and then constructs a world around the idea. Silicon Knights though, especially Dennis Dyack, sees the game as art, and have dedicated themselves to raising that bar. The trouble is no-one exists on these ends of the spectrum. Super-Mario Sunshine didn't have revolutionary graphics or story-line, and Eternal Darkness was often over the heads of most gamers.

If you look at the popular games, it's clear they fall in the middle: Sports games, GTA, etc....
They are all stunning in terms of graphics, sound, but they are all also very fun to play.

actually karmaloop seems to have done a lot better. maybe because their site is navigable and they don't piss all their money away on remodeling apartments.

ps are you andy r from the music-bar list?

They used MovieOS, of course.

Contrary to some people's assumptions, there is a science of combatting stenography... but it understandable demands more resources, particularly when stenography is combined with traditional cryptographic techniques that mask the organization of the message.