Personally, I don't think it's an ICANN issue to get rid of domain spammers. Like any good capitalist, I think the market should take care of itself. Major advertisers should shun the money from Domain Parking - much like Google did in the past. Smaller companies should press to get the option to NOT display their ads on parked domains. Consumers should do like I do and immediately close a parked adspam page as soon as I accidentally hit it.
And like any good realist, I don't blindly trust the free-market, it having failed so often in the past. Right now, given the incredibly low (non-existant) cost of combining domain tasting and parking an ad site, it's almost impossible to lose money on. Since ICANN monopolistically sets the prices, it is ideally solved by a ICANN acting as a unary actor.
There are whole industries out in the real world that absolutely count on people being too lazy or too stupid to to keep up. People that can't handle the [SEE BELOW] should stay the hell away from it. Of course it's always easier to blame someone else than to take responsibility for your own (in)action.
Yes, and typically we use government intervention to deal with those industries.
Not believing in something that has never been shown to exist requires zero faith. Laughing at someone who believes in something that has zero evidence to support its existence is not the same as claiming to have proof of non-existence. Gödel can't help you hear.
There is documentation, that is some evidence. I won't claim it is necessarily impressive or should convince you or that you are irrational if you claim it was made by men and is historically inaccurate.
What I will say is that agnosticism is not irrational. It's the only rationally certain view (as atheism asserts the negative). However, many people believe things to be true without sufficent evidence. It doesn't make them irrational. Now, if they believed things to be true in the presence of contradictary evidence (the capital of England is England City), that would be irrational.
Godel helps because he removes the divine from the mundane. Which, if people just recognized, would shut up 99% of the crazies on both sides. Religious figures should talk about ethics. They study them. Scientists should talk about science. Evolution is a scientific issue. When it is moral to kill another person is an ethical one. Popes seem as valid a source as any other.
I don't feel that it is my place to tell them what to believe, but that doesn't make me think they're anything but a bunch of whacked-out loonies, driven by insecurity, fear and an inability to deal with the idea that some questions may not have answers, and others we may never know the answers to.
That's like saying that Flash is a useless language that makes animated ads. Don't let the fact that the majority of adherents/examples are retarded blind you to the concept that there is any validity to the theory. Having listened to both left and right wing talk radio, I found myself appalled whenever a point that I would agree with was uttered. It made me feel stupid for having some view in common with the loudmouth talking.
Many religious people are blindly accepting, but then again most atheists accept that world-view without a lot of reflection as well. The fact of the matter is that 90%+ of the people who believe anything are idiots. Religion, like politics and other soft subjects, tend to give the loudest voices to those with the best self-promotion skills as opposed to those with the best ideas. Hard subjects avoid this to some degree by having demonstrable standards, but not entirely.
Oh, and all questions have answers. It may be impossible to prove one is more correct, but discussing them can be interesting. Besides, with religion and philosophy, an answer just has to ring true enough to affect you.
Religion is the crack-pipe of the masses. Makes some of them hyper, drives others to euphoria, costs them much time, treasure and effort, all the while debilitating their faculties of reason.
The same can be said about:
Real drugs
Sports
Media outlets
Pop stars/celebrities
Movies
Video games
[Fill in the blank]
Note, there are good examples of all the above. But there are also reasonable religious people and ideas that serve many of the same benefits of atheistic philosophy.
We should just convert all our OSes to run using a magical unicorn kernel. I've seen about the same number of microkernel OSes and magical unicorns, so switching to the unicorn system should be just as easy as switching to a microkernel, and it gives many additional advantages, such as immortality and a horn that can cure all wounds instantly.
Keep in mind that while many people on Slashdot would be fine switching to a Unicorn Kernel, the virginity requirement will keep it from becoming mainstream.
And I have used QNX a little. I always wanted to have the time and motivation to look at it again.
A system for handling page request errors, comprising: an error processing server; and a client component that runs on a user computing device in association with or as part of a browser program and communicates with the error processing server over a computer network; wherein the client component is responsive to detection of the unavailability of a target web page requested by the browser program by sending a request to the error processing server, and the error processing server is responsive to the request by using an address of the target web page to select an alternate object to be displayed by the browser program in place of the requested target web page, wherein the error processing server is capable of selecting the alternate object according to a hierarchy of alternate object types such that selection priority is given to a first type of alternate object over at least a second type of alternate object, said hierarchy specified by a user of the user computing device, and specifying selection priorities for at least the following types of alternate objects:
There is the need to have Features, style then nice to have features. The more features you have the more features that you really don't use, you may think you will use them but in actually you normally use only 20% of the features that are available 80% of the time.
You are assuming that, instead of a $600 iPhone, I am getting a different $600 phone with more features than an iPhone. My point was that I don't pay that high a premium for asthetics, so I will stick to one that is cheap and just as functional.
A person from the finance department walked by my location and saw my new MacBook Pro, Commented on it and then had a nice conversation on what I do etc... Don't discount the human element to technology, a lot of people like technology and espectialy for geeks it makes an easy conversation starter.
I have never had this happen. Mostly when I talk about technology it is with geeks. Most of them don't care what it looks like. I understand the concept of conspicuous consumption, but I keep my MP3 player in my pocket and my cellphone either in my pocket or I'm actively using it.
#4 sounds like it would be incredibly difficult to prove. I think the only chance the plaintiff would have would be to assert that RIAA was prosecuting the case for the purpose of inspiring fear in other potential targets of litigation, even in the face of evidence suggesting the plaintiff's innocence in the original suit.
A suit for malicious prosecution would be a civil matter. Hence, the standard would be a proponderence of the evidence. So you would only have to convince 12 jurors that the purpose was more likely improper than proper.
Whatever this thing turns out to be, you can bet your monkey it won't be as pretty as the iPhone... Much the same way anything-that-plays-music is not an iPod competitor
I personally buy electronic gadgets first for the functionality. The form is a nice add-on but hardly the killer feature.
So... mod_speling for apache would be an accurate representation of prior art of some of that patent, then...
Nope. Or rather, only if the user got to choose whether the server would use mod_speling -or- an alternate method. The patent is about letting the client choose one of N (N >= 2) methods of error handing, like mod_speling. It doesn't appear to cover any specific method of error handling.
Actually, that would probably obliviate the need to use similar colors for the grids/backgrounds/letters/etcetera, and thus would be more accessable to color-blind people. But CAPTCHAs always have that as an issue.
For example...say I wanted to upgrade the video card in my old laptop (provided it wasn't one built into the motherboard)...why isn't there a universal way of doing this, similar to how it is done on a desktop? Cost?
Because then you couldn't get a really, really thin laptop?
Couldn't you just do a DNS request to see if a domain is taken?
Yes. IIRC, Network Solutions would not snipe the results of whois lookups/DNS failed lookups of domains, only the domains that you searched for as the first step of registering it.
I actually see nothing wrong with letting a company reserve a domain for a short period of time to allow the transaction process to complete or allow the choice of several domains to be elevated. But 1 hour would work for that.
And by the way, what constitutes "customized" when its open source software?
Their patent doesn't have anything to do with 404 pages. Their patent covers the specific case of having multiple error pages corresponding to cashed version, or closest name for a page, etcetera -and- a client side component that says failures load alternate version X. The client-side component may be prt of the browser. But the important thing is that the error type is user-settable./p
an you imagine if your name really was "John Doe"?
Or if your license plate was NO PLATE? It would be hell dealing with all the John Doe warrants that will pop up in automated systems whenever you try to do anything.
Sorry to those of you who follow the above link and get Zango adware.
How is someone's "civil liberties" encroached by using a paper ballot?
They aren't. It's an incorrect heading (surprise). The ACLU is objecting to voters not knowing that the paper ballot they filled out will not scan correctly. They want the scantrons (or similar devices) at the polls, so you can verify that the ballot can be read. As is, no record will by made of the ballots until they are at a central location.
there is a solution - have the government force comcast to give 3rd parties access to their lines, for a rental fee
In the US, this is how AT&T got broken, and POTS is now better and cheaper than before. (Yes, VOIP may be even better and cheaper, but the telephone benefits predated that.)
In typical slashdot fashion, I have not taken the time to read the whole bill. I have not even read a summary of it. However, having read the title, I can say that I, living in America, support this whole concept of "protecting America." Go on Congress, allocate the funds for some more tanks or something, I'm behind you!
Again, missing the point. If you give any organization the money we give the military, they can have goals, be price insensitive, and demand some widget be specially made.
NASA doesn't demand widgets be custom made because new parts often have manufacturing defects for the first X-many (XBox 360, PSP, etc.) This lead to disaster in 1986.
. My point is: just because good things do come from the military, does not mean they have to come from the military and saying "good things come from the military" does not justify the outrageous military spending in the US.
I would argue, because the military has less accountability than NASA for the state of its programs, it has a secrecy required so big ideas are not half-assedly done. No PHB or elected offical insisting on unreasonable deadlines.
And the second part of your statement makes no sense. Good things coming from anything is a reason to put money into it.
Massive undertakings like the interstate system, GPS, and the Internet need government backing, but that backing does not need to come from the military. As I was saying, anything big coming out of the military is usually of such value that its invention is inevitable; the only variable is who has the money to pay for it.
So where's the harm in the money coming from the military. It's easier to say "the military needs X, which is also useful for civilians" than to convince people to pony up that money any other way. Hell, the DOD budget even feeds poor children.
Look at the budget difference, and even with their horrible budget NASA still manages to order custom parts when they actually need them.
Sorry, I must have miscommunicated. NASA (after the 1986 disaster) made their SOP to buy COTS parts, because there was so little tolerance for error and COTS parts had already had the bugs worked out. The military, on the other hand, can have pilots eject into safety, and are dealing with (on the whole) far more solved problems than cold vaccums filled with radiation.
NASA's policy is to not order special parts because of the shakedown periond.
Seriously, blowing up the infrastructure of poor countries so their populations starve is basically a solved problem.
The military and it's arms race is one of shifting goals. It is one of the few human endevors that cannot be "solved" because it involves evolving competition.
The claim that having high-budget goal-oriented public organizations is technologically beneficial is an interesting one. The claim that that organization producing bombs and fighter planes is innately better than if they were producing space probes and moon bases isn't interesting - it's absurd.
The military is much more fault tolerant than NASA. In part that is because of their larger budget, but that is also due to the higher tolerence to risk the military self-selects for. Also, because the military is not expected to produce technology with a civilian application, they have fewer time constraints. There is no election year speedup to get GPS, or the Internet, or something else, out in a specific period of time. Contrast this to "land on the moon by the next big round number in our calander" or "do something impressive because my poll numbers are sagging.
Slashdot Mirror
You're making me feel old...
And like any good realist, I don't blindly trust the free-market, it having failed so often in the past. Right now, given the incredibly low (non-existant) cost of combining domain tasting and parking an ad site, it's almost impossible to lose money on. Since ICANN monopolistically sets the prices, it is ideally solved by a ICANN acting as a unary actor.
Yes, and typically we use government intervention to deal with those industries.
The exception of course is if you use the military to engage in aggressive wars. Then the ROI is incredible.
There is documentation, that is some evidence. I won't claim it is necessarily impressive or should convince you or that you are irrational if you claim it was made by men and is historically inaccurate.
What I will say is that agnosticism is not irrational. It's the only rationally certain view (as atheism asserts the negative). However, many people believe things to be true without sufficent evidence. It doesn't make them irrational. Now, if they believed things to be true in the presence of contradictary evidence (the capital of England is England City), that would be irrational.
Godel helps because he removes the divine from the mundane. Which, if people just recognized, would shut up 99% of the crazies on both sides. Religious figures should talk about ethics. They study them. Scientists should talk about science. Evolution is a scientific issue. When it is moral to kill another person is an ethical one. Popes seem as valid a source as any other.
That's like saying that Flash is a useless language that makes animated ads. Don't let the fact that the majority of adherents/examples are retarded blind you to the concept that there is any validity to the theory. Having listened to both left and right wing talk radio, I found myself appalled whenever a point that I would agree with was uttered. It made me feel stupid for having some view in common with the loudmouth talking.
Many religious people are blindly accepting, but then again most atheists accept that world-view without a lot of reflection as well. The fact of the matter is that 90%+ of the people who believe anything are idiots. Religion, like politics and other soft subjects, tend to give the loudest voices to those with the best self-promotion skills as opposed to those with the best ideas. Hard subjects avoid this to some degree by having demonstrable standards, but not entirely.
Oh, and all questions have answers. It may be impossible to prove one is more correct, but discussing them can be interesting. Besides, with religion and philosophy, an answer just has to ring true enough to affect you.
The same can be said about:
- Real drugs
- Sports
- Media outlets
- Pop stars/celebrities
- Movies
- Video games
- [Fill in the blank]
Note, there are good examples of all the above. But there are also reasonable religious people and ideas that serve many of the same benefits of atheistic philosophy.Keep in mind that while many people on Slashdot would be fine switching to a Unicorn Kernel, the virginity requirement will keep it from becoming mainstream.
And I have used QNX a little. I always wanted to have the time and motivation to look at it again.
Monolithic?
You are assuming that, instead of a $600 iPhone, I am getting a different $600 phone with more features than an iPhone. My point was that I don't pay that high a premium for asthetics, so I will stick to one that is cheap and just as functional.
I have never had this happen. Mostly when I talk about technology it is with geeks. Most of them don't care what it looks like. I understand the concept of conspicuous consumption, but I keep my MP3 player in my pocket and my cellphone either in my pocket or I'm actively using it.
A suit for malicious prosecution would be a civil matter. Hence, the standard would be a proponderence of the evidence. So you would only have to convince 12 jurors that the purpose was more likely improper than proper.
Probably incredibly difficult also.
I personally buy electronic gadgets first for the functionality. The form is a nice add-on but hardly the killer feature.
Nope. Or rather, only if the user got to choose whether the server would use mod_speling -or- an alternate method. The patent is about letting the client choose one of N (N >= 2) methods of error handing, like mod_speling. It doesn't appear to cover any specific method of error handling.
Actually, that would probably obliviate the need to use similar colors for the grids/backgrounds/letters/etcetera, and thus would be more accessable to color-blind people. But CAPTCHAs always have that as an issue.
Because then you couldn't get a really, really thin laptop?
Yes. IIRC, Network Solutions would not snipe the results of whois lookups/DNS failed lookups of domains, only the domains that you searched for as the first step of registering it.
I actually see nothing wrong with letting a company reserve a domain for a short period of time to allow the transaction process to complete or allow the choice of several domains to be elevated. But 1 hour would work for that.
Their patent doesn't have anything to do with 404 pages. Their patent covers the specific case of having multiple error pages corresponding to cashed version, or closest name for a page, etcetera -and- a client side component that says failures load alternate version X. The client-side component may be prt of the browser. But the important thing is that the error type is user-settable./p
Or if your license plate was NO PLATE? It would be hell dealing with all the John Doe warrants that will pop up in automated systems whenever you try to do anything.
Sorry to those of you who follow the above link and get Zango adware.
They aren't. It's an incorrect heading (surprise). The ACLU is objecting to voters not knowing that the paper ballot they filled out will not scan correctly. They want the scantrons (or similar devices) at the polls, so you can verify that the ballot can be read. As is, no record will by made of the ballots until they are at a central location.
In the US, this is how AT&T got broken, and POTS is now better and cheaper than before. (Yes, VOIP may be even better and cheaper, but the telephone benefits predated that.)
I is a congressperson? Yippe! I get hot wife like Kucinich [did] with job?
In typical slashdot fashion, I have not taken the time to read the whole bill. I have not even read a summary of it. However, having read the title, I can say that I, living in America, support this whole concept of "protecting America." Go on Congress, allocate the funds for some more tanks or something, I'm behind you!
NASA doesn't demand widgets be custom made because new parts often have manufacturing defects for the first X-many (XBox 360, PSP, etc.) This lead to disaster in 1986.
I would argue, because the military has less accountability than NASA for the state of its programs, it has a secrecy required so big ideas are not half-assedly done. No PHB or elected offical insisting on unreasonable deadlines.
And the second part of your statement makes no sense. Good things coming from anything is a reason to put money into it.
So where's the harm in the money coming from the military. It's easier to say "the military needs X, which is also useful for civilians" than to convince people to pony up that money any other way. Hell, the DOD budget even feeds poor children.
Sorry, I must have miscommunicated. NASA (after the 1986 disaster) made their SOP to buy COTS parts, because there was so little tolerance for error and COTS parts had already had the bugs worked out. The military, on the other hand, can have pilots eject into safety, and are dealing with (on the whole) far more solved problems than cold vaccums filled with radiation.
NASA's policy is to not order special parts because of the shakedown periond.
The military and it's arms race is one of shifting goals. It is one of the few human endevors that cannot be "solved" because it involves evolving competition.
The military is much more fault tolerant than NASA. In part that is because of their larger budget, but that is also due to the higher tolerence to risk the military self-selects for. Also, because the military is not expected to produce technology with a civilian application, they have fewer time constraints. There is no election year speedup to get GPS, or the Internet, or something else, out in a specific period of time. Contrast this to "land on the moon by the next big round number in our calander" or "do something impressive because my poll numbers are sagging.
You have to when you have guest like these spilling tea everywhere, shorting out wires.