Slashdot Mirror
Government Finishes Internet Study -- 7 years late
djp928 writes "A study commisioned by Congress in 1998 to report on internet traffic has finally been published -- 7 years, two presidents, and one internet boom/bust later.
Some of their findings include "DNS is good" and "We should probably have some more TLDs""
You've got to be kidding me.. How much did this cost us?
This internet thing is just a fad.
"We should probably have some more TLDs"
.museum and .aero are created which are either too long, or aren't restricted in use to just museums and aerospace companies. I feel that online commerce has bent themselves on destroying the usefulness of DNS. Nearly one quarter if not more of ccTLDs can be purchased by the public and used for any purpose. What will happen when countries like Tuvalu (.tv) reach technological savyness and find that their entire TLD has been used up by TV networks, domain brokers and companies that felt they needed to register theirname.com, .net, .org, .cc, .mx, .name, .info, and .tv just in case someone actually thought of typing one of those instead.
.ro extensions for over $500/year. What?!? Why? D
I don't think we need any more TLDs. Especially since silly TLDs like
On top of that, some ccTLDs are being sold for crazy prices. I found one regist
rar that was trying to sell
oes 'ro' mean something in the same way that 'tv' does?
People need to learn to properly use what they have before we can move on. Unfortunately, this has rarely happened in our society and in the end sadly, money rules the day.
- Big
- Complicated
- Busy
- Using Electrons
- Full of pornography
We won't be able to really relax our collective guard until they add unregulatable to this list."I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
FTA
"Lawmakers had demanded the $1 million federal study, ultimately called "Signposts in Cyberspace," under a 1998 federal law, the Next Generation Internet Research Act."
I hear that they also just finished their study on electricity.
Findings include: "AC good for long distance" and that "devices that use this new technology may sometime exist throughout a common home"
just asked Al Gore. He could have filled them in a lot quicker.
Without DNS, domain spoofing would've been kinda impossible...
Assembling etherkillers for fun an profit
Ahhh. Good to see another tie-in story...
I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
.....anything about terror orgs using the 'net?
.....anything about how something called "broadband" would be "all the rage" in a few years?
.....anything about what this new-fangled thing called "SPAM" is?
Seriously, you would think that even the GOVERNMENT would be able to react more quickly than that in a tech market that changes by the month. If they planned this thing back in 1998 to take this long the planning committee and folks who approved the money should be brought up on criminal neglegance charges!
Was this study done by domain resellers?
I have a hard enough time getting people to use .net instead of .com on my email address. Too bad someone already took the .com version of my domain else I'd just have that too so people who didn't "get" it could still send me email.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
So they can investigate reasons to goto war in a couple of weeks yet to find out porn and slashdot waste alot of geeks time takes 7 years.
Ever get the feeling the people doing the study got addicted to slashdot?
I like muppets.
maybe if they had a .blog for blogs, .xxx for the porn and and so on it would be much easyer than making .tk and .tv and .ro (what is that?). The .xxx would cut google time in half.
Coincidence? I think not!
Underholdning.info
Sorry everyone, it's my fault. You know how you get some directive from management and you just throw it on your desk and forget about it? Well, eventually it gets buried under everything else I was working and quickly forgotten about. (Didn't we just have a previous post about how 95% of software projects are late?) Anyway, I was doing some spring cleaning last week and found it.
Again, my apologies. It won't happen again.
That's the sound of millions of dollars going down the drain!
Quote from the article: "To be honest, most people forgot it was ever going to happen" [end quote]. I'm still counting on that every time a deadline arrives...
"Never trust a computer you can not throw out of a window..."
So basically, we had one dude getting paid $250k per year to surf pr0n and read /. all day long for 7 years, doing "research", until one day, a week ago, his supervisors remembered what he was there for and told him to report on his findings by today. So he pulled an all-nighter, cooked up "DNS is good" and "we need more TLDs", made liberal use of copy and paste, and published it.
A perfect example of your tax dollars at work. I sure am glad we aren't spending it on education or space exploration or something useful.
When they STARTED the report:
1998: The iMac is introduced. I go ho-hum, my wife goes "I WANT ONE!" Steve Jobs is proclaimed to be next to God in design and everyone starts knocking off iMac colors.
Today: iPod is what is hip. It is expected to exceed Mac in the next year or so. Steve Jobs is proclaimed to be reviving the music industry (which thinks it is God).
So I wonder how current the info is in the report?
IANAL, but I've seen actors play them on TV
*sigh* A TLD is a Top Level Domain. Examples of Top Level Domains are .com .net and .org.
I don't keep a lid on my coffee so when I walk around I look busy -me
I smell $436 hammers and $640 toilet seats...You can't be bothered with wasting your money, that is the Government's job.
Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful. It's the transition that's troublesome. - Isaac Asimov
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4396457. stm
Yes, I know it's slightly offtopic, but interesting, no?
"You know you don't act like a scientist, you're more like a game show host." Dana Barret
*sigh* A TLD is a Top Level Domain.
.tv may be a nation-specific domain (as Tuvalu sinks beneath the waves), but it's really a TLD in practice.
.net?
...]
If you had read my post, you'd see it was using the
Is it something like www.ihate.tv
coding structure. In other words,
Got
[hint, that was irony too, with a triple-entendre thrown in
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
This reminds me of a Dilbert cartoon. Dilbert writes a memo, made up of three points:
1 Oxygen is good.
2 Competition is bad.
3 I like jelly.
And then the pointy-haired boss would tell him to take out the part about competition...
Is Dilbert working for the US gov't?
I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it.
What I want to know, does it say that Al Gore invented it?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
The TLD we all need most of all: .sux
A place where no coropration is ever allowed to register their own trademark!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
The study was not late- it was STARTED in 1998. If anyone took the time to read it, the published research plan offers the study as an ongoing project, and research will continue even after these findings have been published. This type of academic work will likely go on for decades, progressing as does the internet (although I believe the US gov. is the wrong people to be conducting such a study.)
If it was a /. story, they'd do the study again and reach the exact same results.
The "need for more TLDs" reminds me of an old SNL fake commercial:
...clownpenis.fart.
...clownpenis.fart.
...clownpenis.fart.
...at www.clownpenis.fart.
[Scene of father helping son ride a bicycle for the first time, then, cut to the living room of their house]
Father: Trust, an important part of building a family, and an important part of building his future. That's why I rely on Dillon/Edwards and Company. For nearly a century, investors on Wall Street have trusted Dillon and Edwards with their financial future. And now all of the resources from America's oldest investment firm are available on-line. [Father is at the computer as the website appears, along with web address] Dillon and Edwards on the Internet, at www.clownpenis.fart. A lot of investment companies rushed onto the Internet, but Dillon and Edwards took their time. Sure, when they were ready, there was one web address left, but it's one you can count on.
Announcer #1: For mutual funds, count on...
Announcer #2:
Announcer #1: Online brokerage...
Announcer #2:
Announcer #1: Retirement and tuition planning...
Announcer #2:
[Caption: Dillon/Edwards Investments-www.clownpenis.fart]
Announcer #1: Dillon and Edwards Investments...
Announcer #2:
After 7 years the learned that 90% of internet traffic was caused by dancing baby and hampster websites.
Don't blame me, I voted for Cthulhu.
It also recommended those traffic-directing computers continue to be operated by volunteers, organizations and corporations around the world rather than governments.
This seems to be an important conclusion of the study, which the summary failed to mention...
TCP/IP was designed to be reduant incase of a nuclear war. It was never meant to be secure or high performance.
I think a new secure (non drm) and multimedia and fiber optic friendly replacement is needed. Also application level protocals could use some new standards as well.
For example Email is a problem that both phishers and spammers are taking advantage of. I heard about Dmail as a replacement for SMTP and Pop3.
I am thinking perhaps several levels of security servers similiar to dns servers producing encryption keys and authenticating phisher scams (maybe a legit business could get a unique key) and email addresses would be nice. Its also too easy to spoof an IP address. Maybe security in a new DNS model that hands out keys would be nice too.
However Internet2 which is being experimented with has its own set of problems. Internet2 mainly deals with IPV6. IPv6 supposed to be a little bit better but spammers and phishers could change their IP addresses by the hour to prevent being caught and being filtered out. We need a better replacement that is more secure and allows better application level embedding for external protocals.
If I were a politician I would do this just and have Darpa and a few companies and academics invest in a newer architecture.
More router friendly support would be nice too to deal with bandwith allocation for different kinds of services like VOIP and UDP media streaming.
http://saveie6.com/
Not before it's even older news, that's for sure. ;)
... ah nevermind, too easy.
If this was commissioned in 1998, during Bill Clinton's perj^H^H^H^Hpresidency, and then concluded during GWB's perj^H^H^H^Hpresidency...
Was someone the Perj^H^H^H^HPresident in between them?
Now if only someone would invent a way to quickly disseminate the information to those who need it...
The government spent 7 years on a project and _only_ used 1 million dollars. That's very frugal by government standards.
now define "porn" in such a way that everyone is happy and both satisfies those who want to block things and wont interfere with mixed-content sites.
.xxx-oral, .xxx-anal, .xxx-asian, .xxx-scat, .xxx-bdsm, etc, etc, and all combinations of them? And is Anal a subcatagory of Interratial or is Interratial a subcatagory of Anal?
:)
and how would that really help google without a seperate
Have you ever actually looked for porn on the internet? I suspect not. Who the fuck wants porn, any porn, it doesnt matter what is thrown at me, to the extent that making a seperate "porn" tld would help google in any way at all?
See, this is why I work with databases. These are complex information sets
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
If it wasn't for porn, they'd have an answer in 1 year.
The article says it was started in 1998 and supposed to be finished in 9 months. How is that not late?
I know that John Romero uses .ro for his rome.ro site. I like the idea of better domain name orginization, but exceptions should be made for puns.
What more needs to be said?
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
~ - TLD
Hah Hah.... Multiple Entendre!
Cepstral: Quality TTS for OS X, Linux, Windows
We should probably have some more TLDs
.com, .net, .se) - but you can't use it directly. So whenever a top level domain is created, you have to register a second level domain (like sundae.se) under it to make use of it. Also, it's free for everyone to make use of the newly created top level domain. This system would allow people and companies to share the same second level domain to a much larger degree than now. Just like people have the same surnames, but have different street addresses, which makes them distinguishable. One example would be: apple.rec, apple.comp, apple.fruit.
I take this opportunity to do a shameless repost from my blog (sundae.se).. It's mostly just a random thought, and would probably not work in real life. But still an intersting idea, I think. (By the way, there seem to be other people having some similar ideas.) Ok, here goes:
I'm having an idea about how to get an almost endless resource of domain names available on the internet. I'm pretty sure I read something similar on Slashdot, but I lost the reference a long time ago.
Anyway, the idea is to allow anyone to register a top level domain (like
However, this system also opens up a door for scammers and other not-so-nice people, because it's easy to get confused about if the domain really belongs to the company it claims to do. And we don't want people to get tricked into fake online banking sites, do we? Some kind of certificate (which you would get when registering your domain) integrated with the DNS would maybe solve this problem. The browser could then compare the certificate with the one on the web server and display the results quite visible, for every address the user visits. Also, some kind of machine learning technology could be used to monitor the certificates and warn the user if something is wrong. To discourage the use of disposable, throw away domains (that would make spammers really happy), there would still have be some kind of fee to register a domain.
Maybe this study's long gestation is what has kept the US Federal government off our backs so much for so long. Now the floodgates can open - call for Orrin (the Moron) Hatch on Line 1.
--
make install -not war
Let me be the first person to congratulate them!
[insert random sarcasm here]
"why don't you just slip into something more comfortable...like a coma!"
The government has no right to waste taxpayers' money on a needless study. People have the right to communicate freely, and the internet is just a voluntary network (consisting of individuals and network carriers) to provide a communication medium.
There is no reason at all for the goverment to study anything about internet traffic. If that's considered interesting, then some research lab should do that, or a student for their whatever thesis.
Once again I'm happy not to be a US citizen (the other reason would be that stupid war). But I think Europe is just as bad.
I encourage everyone to write to their 1998 congressmen and ask them why they voted for this stupid thing.
According to the National Academies press release announcing the report, they won't be making it available on the Web. Printed copies will be available for sale for $40. So not only will it be out of date at the time it is released, it will also be inaccessible to most of the peopele who might be interested!
(Back in 1998)
expert 1: DNS is ok.
expert 2: DNS sucks, it's not gonna last 7 years.
expert 1: Wanna bet?
If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
This goes well with "IT: 95% of IT Projects Not Delivered On Time" reported earlier today.
A conclusion one might draw from the article is that one can only study things that don't change:)...Seriously, though.
The main problem that this incident shows to me is how difficult it is to kill a government program of any kind once it has been started. Since the study was driven by an act of Congress, it would have taken another bill passed through the entire legislative process to kill the study. Since the people contracted to do the study and the congressmen of whatever state the study was done in had every incentive to keep the thing going, some other group would have had to notice and start a push to get rid of this.
Since it was a small budget item buried in the massive federal budget, nobody noticed it. If it had been noticed and some representative had brought the issue up in the House, the reps from the state involved would have thrown a fit. So it sticks around.
It's important to know that once something is authorized by Congress, it is budgeted for every year unless it is specifically killed in a budget bill.
In Bush's last budget request, the administration included a list of small programs like this one that they wanted to kill. Of course, every single item on the list had reps saying how critical it was to keep the funding.
Maybe we should be spending a little more time looking at what the government is actually doing rather than talking about tinfoil hats and berating George Lucas.
Cheers...
"Lack of technical competence coupled with the arrogance of power, as usual, leads to no good end."
Instead of emigrating Tuvalu should use the $50 mill or so that they got for their .tv domain to buy rocks and dirt from other countries.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
They sound about as bright as Homer:
"Hmm, they have the internet on computers now."
1. Start a business with an "e" in front of the name.
2. Get lots of people to invest,
3. ?????
4. Profit!
The stock market did what??...Nevermind
Tech News, Reviews and Tutorials
Maybe it would make sense to start promoting SLD's (Second Level Domains) So, boeing could get boeing.aero.com Embraer (a brazilian company who manufactures planes) may get embraer.aero.com as well as embraer.com.br. A person who hacks may get 3v1l7w1n.hacker.net And TV broadcasters can get HBO.tv.com and get a refund for the 50 m paid to Tuvalu. And everyone can be happy appending a ".com" to everything.
but then we would have gotten into the whole orc vs troll thing in warcraft, and we all know nightelfs rule.
An independant commission started under president Reagan, whose purpose was to supply recommendations for the amount of memory governments computers should have, just wrapped up their investigation saying: "64k ought to be enough for everyone".
A million monkeys and this is the best sig they could come up with...
lmfao
that was dumb but the ???? -> profit make me almost spit out my coffee laughing.
You know, if you just remove "Using Electrons", you'd have the typical government - Big, Complicated, Busy, and full of pornography.
Read the only version at Signposts in Cyberspace. There's an interesting section on Verisign's Site Finder service.
No, you are. This is one of the worse Snopes articles, as it tries to gloss over these important facts:
Gore did claim to be the one to bring the Internet into being while in Congress. He used the word "Create". "Invent" means the same thing in this context.
Gore's claim was incorrect: the Internet had already existed, and was called the Internet for a few years before he was in Congress.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Then NBC would have to sue the guys that squat on clownpenis.fart once the domain is available. And yes, I did say "squat on clownpenis." Better post this anonymousl...whoops.
[UID-HeinzIntel]
At the bottom of the article:
"U.S. government didn't open its wallet as promised to pay for the study until 2001"
That's how it works here in Washington. First, Congress passes a law authorizing a program. But until it passes a spending bill to appropriate money for the program, nothing happens.
Somone in the Commerce committee writes a bill authorizing the study and gets it passed. But getting the members of the Appropriations subcommittee and full committee to include funding for the study in the annual Commerce appropriations bill is a different thing entirely.
There are thousands of discretionary programs that either never get funded or are underfunded, so they basically just never happen.
The unit of computer logic, the alogorithm, is named after former U.S. Vice President, Al Gore, who is the inventor of the Internet.
This is a great point, and I'd hate to see .xxx legally required, but that doesn't make it useless. It simply becomes an easy flag that says "I would prefer that whoever you consider to be minors not have access to this material." The vast majority of porn sites aren't interested in underage users anyway, I bet -- they don't have credit cards and they cause trouble if the parents find out. Are there any problems with xxx as a voluntary tool?
.res[tricted]? .adult? .old? I kind of like that one ...
I guess the only one that comes to mind for me is that not every "adult only" site would want to be associated with hard core pornography, which is what xxx more typically means. What are the alternatives, given that long TLDs suck?
n/t
After much careful thought and consideration, the government has decided to instate a new domain system represented by numbers instead of characters. The reason for this is that characters are much more difficult to organize into a hierarchy. The new DNS system implements a series of four 3-digit numbers seperated by '.'s. One official was quoted as saying, "We're trying to make the system more like the telephone numbering scheme, which has been around for decades, and which everyone is quite familiar with." Each DNS capable machine will include a "contacts" list similar to a cell phone that links the associated DNS number with a name specified by the user.
I was discussing this report with former Secratary of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge. He told me that he had been pussing for a .terrorist TLD for two years. He wants all terrorist web sites to have this domain extension. Al Queda is strongly opposed.
"He was very intstumental in getting government funding for the internet."
Yes, but at the time he did this, the Internet was in place. He helped it along. He did not create it.
"He was not on the stump and repeatedly making the claim as the conservative media would have the public believe"
I have seen reference to it in many sites. Not once have I seen conservative media say that he said it many times. Or even more than once. Usually, the reader is pointed to the one instance of the CNN interview.
"Like it or not the Internet could not have become what it is today with out government funding. Al Gore was a big part of getting that funding."
You can say the same thing about Henry Ford, sort of. However this does not mean that Ford brought the automobile into existence.
Summary
Gore did a lot for the Internet
Yet, he did not create it.
When he said he did, it was not a true statement.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
I was discussing this report with former Secratary of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge. He told me that he had been pussing for a .terrorist TLD for two years. He wants all terrorist web sites to have this domain extension. Al Queda is strongly opposed.
I was hoping for George, and all I got was freakin' John.
Kennedy did launch the Apollo program, actually. But the reason yout analogy is BAD is because the Internet existed before Gore claimed he created it. We did not put a man on the moon before Kennedy started Apollo. A matter of order of events that you are forgetting.
"And it turns out that these are all the same things that Gore did for the internet. Parts existed prior to Gore"
It existed, and it was called the Internet. Others created it before he was involved. Yes, we know he helped improve it greatly....after it was created by others.
"he's the one who put together the political support and money to take it to the next level and bring it public."
So? We all know that. However, this information of him helping it grow after the fact of its creation does not make his claim of "took the initiative in creating the Internet" any more true. There is an actual historic timeline here, and you seem to be ignoring that some events took place before others.
"Without him it might have remained a research project for another 5-10 years. Until someone else "invented" it, maybe someone more politically favorable to you."
Look at the history of the Internet and get back with us. It was "invented" before Gore, so "without him" it STILL would have been invented. The actual order of events, again. If event A occurs before event B, event A still occurs even if event B never did.
"Until someone else "invented" it, maybe someone more politically favorable to you."
So it is a matter of bias to you? It isn't to me. I'm just seeing whether his statement was true or not.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Please see this posting in Slashdot for an example of someone claiming that Gore really did create the Internet. These kind of claims are rather common.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
hawk
I wanted eyry.com, but it had been snatched up as a four letter dictionary word by speculators. The same for eyry.net, so I ended up with eyry.org.
.
:)
The same thing, but worse, happened with dochawk. Within days of my my first query for dochawk.com, it was parked. So I checked for dochawk.net, and it went. I took dochawk.org immedeiately on checking.
Given the timing, I can't believe that anything happened other than someone monitoring the lookups and snatching domains . .
But at least we're posting this on slashdot.com
hawk
I happen to work for a company that has .com (where most people who have heard of us would go looking for us) but my email address is @.net
I always make a point of stressing that last part because otherwise my email would never get to me. On the gripping hand, maybe that would be a good thing....
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
However, Cerf does not agree that Gore created the Internet. In fact, Cerf's wording "Gore's initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet" speaks to it existing before Gore got involved with it. Cerf's wording also implies that Gore's statement was not true (Gore just did not really mean to say it that way).
Elsewhere, Cerf says "Our work on the Internet started in 1973". This is about 4 years before Gore got into Congress. He helped expand it. He helped get others involved. Yeah, Gore helped fund it. He helped open it. He helped sell it. But the creation part? Someone else took that initiative....
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
You are changing the sentence to fit your argument. Gore really said he created it. He did not say he promoted it.
"though that's how the quotation has been manipulated"
That is exactly what you did when you wiped the "create" word out and replaced it with "promote".
"Hence the disingenuous substitution of "inventing" for the actual language.""
How is this disingenous? When used this way, the word means the same thing. It is much less disingenous than your use of "promote" to mean "create".
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
No, you could not be more wrong. I did not choose the Atari ST. I chose the Atari 400 over the Amiga!
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
It's not late if you consider it a software project; It's merely suffering from feature creap.
Stupid arguments 4 years old or older should also be below my threshold, regardless of moderator point assignments.
Now that would be be a feature I could really use. This would be an excellent test case.
-- Scott
Added Steven Crocker, a respected Internet pioneer: "It shouldn't have taken that long."
Who the hell is Steven Crocker, and who did he blow to get this ridiculously out-of-place one line yawner crammed into the middle of this article? "It shouldn't have taken that long." Well now that is some poignant and inspiring commentary there, respected Internet pioneer Crocker. How about something on the price of oil? "It's pretty high." Thanks.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
.movie .radio .stock
.movie TLD, studios could register the title of the movie under that TLD. Sure, there'd be a few conflicts, but it wouldn't be that bad.
.radio TLD, but registering their call letters seems like a pretty good idea to me (many already have with .com anyway, but there's really not much consistency here).
.stock is the best choice here, but it'd be nice to be able to enter a company's ticker symbol and get their web site. For example, mot.com and hpq.com are owned by those companies, but again this isn't standardized. I'd expect this TLD to be used mostly for redirects to a more attractive domain name (notice how www.mot.com redirects to www.motorola.com).
Every movie has a web site, but there's no way you could possibly guess the URL to most of them. If there were a restricted
Every radio and television station is assigned call letters by the FCC (well, the station chooses, but the FCC actually assigns it). Stations usually also choose a name that they use for marketing, usually related to their call letters somehow. There would be quite a bit of overlap if radio stations could register their chosen marketing name under the
I'm not sure if
Again, these TLDs would be useless if they weren't carefully restricted, but if usage became common enough that you could expect the domains to be registered, it would probably be pretty useful.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Don't complain. The more time the government spends studying the Internet the less time they spend doing stuff to the Internet.
That's a good thing.
Those weren't the old days.
.)
We used to have to specify a complete path from our machine to the recipient. SOmething like:
To: someschool|devax|ibmsite|john@destination
(or did john go at the beginning? It *has* been a while . .
If memory serves, tehre were two usenet groups dedicated to finding paths to people (If they could see your post, it gave them the return path).
hawk
(as is almost always the case when the government releases a study on anything)
Where can I go to get a refund?
For example, it's not unusual for companies to give every product they ever produce not only their own domain name, but a domain name in each of the top-level domains (for trademark reasons). Firstly, that defeats the whole point of having a top-level domain system. You might as well scrap it completely and cut the clutter. Secondly, it makes it hard to name anything sensibly unless you're either rich enough or fast enough to grab control first.
With most people using search engines, bookmarks and other alternate naming/identifying schemes that have nothing to do with DNS at all, it might be better to just eliminate the system altogether. It is not unusual for people to steal domains by faxing the registrar a request to move the name to someone else's control. Many domains have inaccurate or blatantly bogus registration information. As a method of providing control and accountability, it is useless in its current form.
Besides, it might force Internet companies to actually sell something meaningful.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Where did he get the quotes "DNS is good" and "We should probably have some more TLDs?" I did not see those in the article he posted. If he read the report, why does he not provide a link to the report? The report has 283 pages of conclusions. If it just came out, how did he read all of that and then post the quotes?
-Kruton
No, it is by looking at what the word means. The two mean the same thing in this context of Mr. Gore's quotes.
"It is easy to choose to hear what you want, especially if it casts someone you don't like in a bad way."
"Invent" is correct in paraphrasing. Either way, Mr. Gore's statement is just not correct.
"Every time you type a comment like that you "create" stupidity, but you certainly did not invent it."
That is a bad analogy. He said he created THE internet: which is one single entity (GWB's "Internets" claim to the contrary)
"Perhaps it is also hard to admit that you buy into the right wing spin (and yes it is just that)"
Why admit something that is not true at all? Why even mention some political wing's editorializing at all? It detracts from the facts. You are injecting wing politics into it. It is but a red herring. My sources for the facts are places like "History of the Internet and Web", and CNN's web site. I have no idea what Fox News and Rush Limbaugh exactly say about it, as I do not care. Let Gore speak for Gore: and his exact quote is found on CNN's site. The "right wing" is not relevant in this whatsoever, and can be factored out. It goes without saying that when GWB lies, the left wing will make more hay out of it than the right wing. Just as the right wing made more hay of Gore's false statement than the left wing did. Ignore the spin: go to Gore's real quote.
"This is for you from me : "Even Bill O'Reily is right sometimes""
Now that is a falaful thing to say!
"or that you are unable to admit your mistakes?"
Sure I've made mistakes. However, that is also a red herring. It does not make Mr. Gore's statement any less untrue that others have made mistakes and said untrue statements.
GWB's "internets" quotes is just as bad as Gore's. However, you are not defending an untrue statement here,so no controversy.
"I am sure there are very real issues with politicians truly lying that you could take up"
This is one of those. However, I prefer to believe that Al Gore misspoke, and that his statement was not an intent to lie. Regardless of intent, the statement is not historically correct and not worth defending.
"Thank god Gore championed the internet when no one else saw it for what it was"
I certainly agree, and have acknowledged his great role time and again in different ways. However, that does not make his false statement that he "created it" while in Congress any more true. Gore's not perfect. Let us live with the fact that he slipped up making this statement. It looks pretty bad to twist the facts to try and make misstatement appear true.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
I bet the horrible wet ripping sound of this happening was pretty bad with just sound. I'm glad I don't have to see this on TV. It would probably look too much like goatse.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
I beat the internet.
The last guy was hard.
People should wear more hats...
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
And listened to the presentations. Although this study took a very long time, they had some good findings. The person who posted this review to Taco had obviously not read the report, focusing instead on the more obvious aspects. One of the most important parts of this report was their recommendation that the DNS be policed /not/ by the government but by a private industry, especially considering that the Department of Commerce is in a special role in governing ICANN. Additionally, they recommend against ICANN becoming bogged down by politics, focusing exclusively on the running of the DNS.
-- K
My domain is .org, the .net is an ISP, the .com is some comercial thing: as IT SHOULD BE.
It can work, it's just some domain grabber who spoil everybody's fun...
It only hurts when you survive
Well, they still beat Duke Nukem Forever.
1. When presented with a large set of expert testemony and facts, completely ignore those aspects of the facts that do not support you. Don't acknowledge them. Pretend they don't exist.
2. Search the testemony for the occasional awkward phrase or incomplete coverage. Intentionally interpret these as explicit admissions that the information behind them is false or incomplete. (when they most likely are just the authors incomplete coverage of solid inforamtion). It's a semantic search. You are looking for words, not meaning.
3. Change the definition of words to use a definition different than what the author meant, partucularly if such redefinition makes the original sentence false. Then accuse the author of lying.
There are two approaches to debate:
1. Try to establish the truth.
2. Try to win the arguement.
One does not necessarlily lead to the other. They are not equal.
The tactics describred above are typically used to win an arguement, but rarely have any benefit in identifying the truth. These are also the main tactics you are using in this thread. They only show that you are not interested in the truth, but rather in either protecting your disapproval or Gore or protecting your own arrogance.
Here goes:
1. Create != Invent. I can create a computer by buying parts and assembling them. I do not invent a computer. It is a distinct difference in definition that can only be missed if you intentionally want to misinterpret it. Gore can create the internet by bringing together the time, money and mandate to assemble the people, projects together that make up the internet. That is creation. It is not invention and Gore never said it was. That was done by some dumbass who was intentionally trying to take him down.
2. Internet != internetworking. Internet is a proper noun, the name of the large network of computers based around TCP/IP and the root name servers. "internetworkig" as used in your quote is a verb describing a method of connecting and communicating between computers. They share some letters and some spelling but they are not the same. The proper noun "Internet" did not appear until the late 80's/early 90's.
3. Cerf's essay is a strong endorsement of Gores participation. Don't ignore it, Understand it. It's all there. (unless you are just not interested in learning.)
So if you wish to continue to misinterpret an redefine all the words and meaning in this thread, go right ahead, but you've already lost all credibility.
There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
In fact, government should have a motto... Let's see, I think I know the perfect one:
Yeah... That's about right.So does this prove we should replace ICANN with the UN in order to halt progress in the Internet's development?
Or does it prove that if we replace ICANN with the UN that I need to go polish up on writing UN grant proposals?
I wonder if we have any more Al Gore "I invented the Internet" brand pork still waiting to be served up?
Thanks. That is exactly what you did in your use of the Cerf quotation. You ignored the parts that showed your case to be wrong. I read and used it all. Most of it, however, lauds Gore for what he did to help the Internet long after others created it. It is kind off-topic. "2. Search the testemony for the occasional awkward phrase or incomplete coverage." You probably did this too. Not sure where!
"3. Change the definition of words to use a definition different than what the author meant"
That is exactly what you do when you change the definition of "Create" to something other than create.
There are two approaches to debate: 1. Try to establish the truth. 2. Try to win the arguement.
In this, I am using the first. My sources are Gore's actual quote on CNN and rock-solid histories of the Internet that show when things actually occured. Please see the summary at the end. Whether or not I win, who cares. Hopefully, someday you will look at the sequence of events.
"These are also the main tactics you are using in this thread."
The first set of tactics sure fits what you did, especially in the Cerf quotations.
"They only show that you are not interested in the truth"
If I wasn't interested in the truth, why do I insist on referring to actual words and actual chronologies? The Internet was created before Gore was in Congress. We all know this is true. Yet. you insist it is not. It appears you are not interested in the truth. Do your homework. Find out when Gore first got to Congress.
but rather in either protecting your disapproval or Gore or protecting your own arrogance.
It is not arrogance to have the knowledge of certain historical facts which you insist on ignorance of. I do not have "disapproval" of Gore for this incorrect statement. Gore admitted he misspoke. He's a sensibie guy Many misspeak during interviews. The ones I have disapproval of are the ones who for no good reason are insisting that Gore's admitted error is true. In effect, you are calling Gore a liar for insisting that his interview stumble is factual when Gore admitted it was a simple mistake.
"1. Create != Invent. I can create a computer by buying parts and assembling them."
Depends on the context. If you say "you create The Computer", this means that you created the first one, Invent means the same in such a context. Is your analogy intentionally false? Gore did not say that he "created an internet".
It is a distinct difference in definition that can only be missed if you intentionally want to misinterpret it."
I wonder what explains your getting the analogy so wrong.
Gore can create the internet by bringing together the time....
Yet, he didn't. He got there too late: others had already done this before. It is a matter of historical record that the Internet was created and named as such before Gore was in Congress.
"It is not invention and Gore never said it was."
Yet, in his mistatement, it is. Regardless of who did it when, creating the Internet is invention. "Invention" is always an appropriate word for creating an entire new technology.
"That was done by some dumbass who was intentionally trying to take him down. "
Gore was the only one talking during the CNN interview. The statement was his alone. Looks like you are calling him a dumbass. I don't think he is. Or do you think that Wolf Blitzer is a diabolical fiend who sandbagged him?
"2. Internet != internetworking."
It is not chopped liver, either. This is a bogus argument. Who equated them? Not Gore, not me.
Next.... "Internet is a proper noun, the name of the large network of computers based around TCP/IP and the root name ser
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
So, while he did not create it, he altered its business model? That would be relevant, if his actual CNN quote referred to this.
Yes, he did great things to help the Net grow!!! Who is arguing that he didn't? But this all happened after others created it.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
It begins:
The most important conclusion in the report is that it lays to rest, once and for all, any lingering technical controversies about the addition of new top-level domains. The only technical arguments put forward against new TLDs suggested that it was necessary to limit the rate of addition. The committee agreed that the acceptable rate is tens of TLDs - which means anywhere from 20 to 90 per period. The committee thus arrived at the following conclusion: Old hands in the DNS wars will immediately be reminded of two pieces of ancient history: First, that Jon Postel himself proposed adding 50 new TLDs per year to the root. Second, that in all the years of its operation, ICANN - - which claims to be a technical coordination body (when that suits it) - - and which is single-handedly responsible for the current artificial cap on new TLDs never once dared commission a study of what would be technologically safe...perhaps because it feared the answer.
I have a blog.
I will be the final arbitrator of what is pr0n.
I will only charge the world $50k US per year for this job.
The standard will be "Do I find some of the content erotic enough to save to my hard disk?"
Oh well...
I can dream, can't I?
7 years thats on time right? I mean its USA.
One day.
Nation-specific domains are TLDs. By definition. So there.
My sig can beat up your sig.