I'm not proposing that anyone can get exclusive use of a TLD, as you seem to assume in your foo.com/net example.
Interesting. That is exactly what I was assuming in my example.
So, okay. How do you propose to manage such domains? You've already been hit with this, but who gets www.[someTLD]? I'm not quite sure I like the "don't allow it" tack. Which ones don't we allow? Just "www"? How about "web"? "www2"? "ftp"? "mail"? "news"? "quake"?:-)
Let's assume that 1: NSI et alia get to manage all these new domains, 2: there's still a nontrivial charge (to make it expensive to snatch up www.*, for example), and 3: we can ignore really popular ones like www and ftp and such. The namespace you create is more open, yes, but also anarchic. It's a very messy system. And even if you restrict a whole bunch of second-level domains, you're just going to get a new standard, where I use w3.cogent (say) as my domain.
Re: trademarks, I do think that you are in fact optimistic that this would eliminate the copyright-domain correlation.
What you're describing isn't infinite domains. What you're describing is similar in concept to the proposal by the gTLD-MoU, where you have such TLDs as.firm and.shop, and NSI's suggestion of.banc. What youre describing is a rigid system where you have to actually be doing a certain thing to get a certain domain (like selling cars in order to be eligible for a.cars) domain.
Okay, so you failed to demonstrate how this would ease cybersquatting or trademark silliness, but here's why it would be a catastrophically bad idea to open up the TLDs to everyone.
If you allow anyone to register whatever TLD they want, what's the difference between that and only having one TLD? You're just moving the problem upstream a level.
But you've worsened the problem, because you can't just run to a different higher-level domain (eg taking foo.net when foo.com is taken), because there *is* no higher level.
No. The answer, instead, is to create new TLDs, and regulate them better this time (only allowing nonprofits in.org, for example).
Only one of them (me:-) ) is what you might call your stereotypical geek. I have three loves: my girlfriend, computers, books, and classical music (in roughly that order). Outside of that scope I always feel a bit uncomfortable. But frankly I'm very happy with who I am.
Well, I'm happy with who I am except for that whole not-being-able-to-count-to-four thing. Drat.
I personally work with a lot of different types of programmers. Where I work, there are--say--four of us who sort of form the core of the development staff.
One of them was a CS/English double major, is now a kickass programmer who swears he hates computers and spends much of his free time with a very well-developed social life.
One of them is a talented actor/comedian who does stand up in his spare time and is working as a coder (an excllent one) while he tries for a career as a professional actor.
One of them is an early middle-aged mother, and probably the best DBA I'll have the privilege of working with.
Only one of them (me:-) ) is what you might call your stereotypical geek. I have three loves: my girlfriend, computers, books, and classical music (in roughly that order). Outside of that scope I always feel a bit uncomfortable. But frankly I'm very happy with who I am.
Whomever says that technical people are straight out of Revenge of the Nerds is very likely someone whose emotional imbalances would be unwelcome among the sort of well-rounded people that make up the men and women of our field.
perhaps a newer, better, system will come around (maybe SUN/Java-style package naming: COM.software.microsoft, or EDU.harvard.law)
Actually, that first example would be COM.microsoft.software. The second example is correct.
The reason I bring this up is to point out that the Java package naming scheme is actually an inverted domain name (appended with whatever the owner of that domain sees fit).
It seems unlikely that such a change in the naming of domains would do much good.:-)
Okay, so is it mere coincidence that the numbers here are 2^3-1=7 and 2^4-1=15? I can't imagine that powers of two would impact qubits, but the question seems worth asking.
Idiot. "Lego" actually comes from the Klingon le'Qo', meaning "building blocks of war".
(C'mon. If you're going to call someone an idiot, you damn well better back up your friggin' post with some facts. Maybe a page on InterLego's website?)
You know, I've yet to see any real evangelism going on without a healthy amount of denigration mixed in. I mean, to me, there seems to be two components to any conversion at all:
Why your beliefs are damaging, damning, etc.
Why my beliefs are productive, healthy, holy, Inspired, etc.
While I can't disagree with your characterization that some agnostics and atheists are extremely disparaging of those with religious views, I know of no atheist or agnostic organizations capable of vitriol on the scale of, say, the Southern Baptist Convention or the Mormons.
Um, that's what Mozillais. If you're wondering when it'll finally be released as a full product (not Alpha, not Beta, and bearing the Netscape logo), we're all wondering that.
The philosophy seems to be the same one that has made Linux good: It'll be done when it's done.
(But it's predicted to happen sometime about April or May.)
Can some businessperson of the/. community (hey, we've got Lawyers, why not?) explain to us what a secondary offering is, what kinds of things secondary offerings do, etc.?
See, this is my problem with Windows. (Really trying to avoid a flamewar. *please* don't think I'm saying that Windows is to Linux as Linux is to the HURD.) Windows just throws more and more things in, eventually turning the thing into Frankenstein's OS. It seems to me that the cleaner approach is better, especially as we get massively faster hardware.
Besides, wasn't there a problem with Linux's ability to scale to many (>4, say) processors? Wouldn't HURD's modularity allow it to scale much higher? (This is a serious question. I'm curious.)
I have yet to see a single review that posts the distributed.net rc5 client scores. That's a real test of the raw power of a CPU.
--Anonymous Coward
Lies, damned lies, and benchmarks.
--Someone Else
Not even the RC5/DES scores will work. I put forth as evidence the fact that DEC (Compaq?) Alphas get *horrible* keyrates. It has to do with the fact that the cracking algorithm requires a rotate opcode at the processor level. The DEC, being a RISC, optimized its choice of opcodes, and the rotate fell through the cracks. Thus, it has to simulate a rotate using a shift and an add.
My point is that, whatever choice of benchmarks one uses, these benchmarks will be worthless for some segment of the user population.
"The same thing goes for every rule of war there is, even the so-called humane ones. They're all practicalities."
Exactly.
Let's look at this from a purely practical standpoint. Let's say I'm going to war against you. We're fighting, when it occurs to me to broadcast a (false) video of you telling your troops to surrender. Just as the order is beginning to be relayed to the soldiers doing the actual fighting, you come on the air, say the previous broadcast was a hoax, and please keep fighting for the {mother|father|great-uncle}land to save it from the infidels.
Then, let's say I beat you. Badly. You come on the air again and order your troops to surrender, because otherwise I'm going to use these Really Nasty weapons against your cities (hey, this is war). Your troops don't surrender. It's just another plot from the despicable infidels!
Then what? I have no choice but to destroy you, utterly, because you have no way of surrendering.
That, friends, is why this thing has to be illegal. Because otherwise any war would result in the complete annihilation of a nation.
(Not, I suppose that that would be any big change, but it's the thought, as it were, that counts.)
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting. That is exactly what I was assuming in my example.
So, okay. How do you propose to manage such domains? You've already been hit with this, but who gets www.[someTLD]? I'm not quite sure I like the "don't allow it" tack. Which ones don't we allow? Just "www"? How about "web"? "www2"? "ftp"? "mail"? "news"? "quake"? :-)
Let's assume that 1: NSI et alia get to manage all these new domains, 2: there's still a nontrivial charge (to make it expensive to snatch up www.*, for example), and 3: we can ignore really popular ones like www and ftp and such. The namespace you create is more open, yes, but also anarchic. It's a very messy system. And even if you restrict a whole bunch of second-level domains, you're just going to get a new standard, where I use w3.cogent (say) as my domain.
Re: trademarks, I do think that you are in fact optimistic that this would eliminate the copyright-domain correlation.
What you're describing isn't infinite domains. What you're describing is similar in concept to the proposal by the gTLD-MoU, where you have such TLDs as .firm and .shop, and NSI's suggestion of .banc. What youre describing is a rigid system where you have to actually be doing a certain thing to get a certain domain (like selling cars in order to be eligible for a .cars) domain.
This is a more acceptable solution, IMHO.
Okay, so you failed to demonstrate how this would ease cybersquatting or trademark silliness, but here's why it would be a catastrophically bad idea to open up the TLDs to everyone.
If you allow anyone to register whatever TLD they want, what's the difference between that and only having one TLD? You're just moving the problem upstream a level.
But you've worsened the problem, because you can't just run to a different higher-level domain (eg taking foo.net when foo.com is taken), because there *is* no higher level.
No. The answer, instead, is to create new TLDs, and regulate them better this time (only allowing nonprofits in .org, for example).
Well, my girlfriend does play the viola...
Well, I'm happy with who I am except for that whole not-being-able-to-count-to-four thing. Drat.
Hear, hear!
I personally work with a lot of different types of programmers. Where I work, there are--say--four of us who sort of form the core of the development staff.
Whomever says that technical people are straight out of Revenge of the Nerds is very likely someone whose emotional imbalances would be unwelcome among the sort of well-rounded people that make up the men and women of our field.
Actually, that first example would be COM.microsoft.software. The second example is correct.
The reason I bring this up is to point out that the Java package naming scheme is actually an inverted domain name (appended with whatever the owner of that domain sees fit).
It seems unlikely that such a change in the naming of domains would do much good. :-)
Actually, if you want this subject in some pretty serious depth, try Lolita , by Vladimir Nabokov. It's a really good book, but not a happy one.
Well, yeah. But don't expect anyone to admit to that in public...
Okay, so is it mere coincidence that the numbers here are 2^3-1=7 and 2^4-1=15? I can't imagine that powers of two would impact qubits, but the question seems worth asking.
Idiot. "Lego" actually comes from the Klingon le'Qo', meaning "building blocks of war".
(C'mon. If you're going to call someone an idiot, you damn well better back up your friggin' post with some facts. Maybe a page on InterLego's website?)
Yeah, and my college scholarship.
blargh
Read the FAQ.
You know, I've yet to see any real evangelism going on without a healthy amount of denigration mixed in. I mean, to me, there seems to be two components to any conversion at all:
While I can't disagree with your characterization that some agnostics and atheists are extremely disparaging of those with religious views, I know of no atheist or agnostic organizations capable of vitriol on the scale of, say, the Southern Baptist Convention or the Mormons.
I just about spit my tea on my monitor for this one. Anonymous orifice. Heh. That's a truly good one.
BTW: Thanks for fighting the good fight. You rock.
Um, that's what Mozilla is. If you're wondering when it'll finally be released as a full product (not Alpha, not Beta, and bearing the Netscape logo), we're all wondering that.
The philosophy seems to be the same one that has made Linux good: It'll be done when it's done.
(But it's predicted to happen sometime about April or May.)
Heh. It never occurred to me, but--you know--that is what it looks like, now that I think about it.
No, it isn't a stereogram, but you can have the source code to create the image, if you want. (The noise is different each time.)
Blargh. Signal 11 is so friggin' annoying. I can't believe I'm replying to one of his posts.
But this seems to be a good place to post the link to my small piece of the LiViD Resistance.
Can some businessperson of the /. community (hey, we've got Lawyers, why not?) explain to us what a secondary offering is, what kinds of things secondary offerings do, etc.?
Yeah, but at what cost?
See, this is my problem with Windows. (Really trying to avoid a flamewar. *please* don't think I'm saying that Windows is to Linux as Linux is to the HURD.) Windows just throws more and more things in, eventually turning the thing into Frankenstein's OS. It seems to me that the cleaner approach is better, especially as we get massively faster hardware.
Besides, wasn't there a problem with Linux's ability to scale to many (>4, say) processors? Wouldn't HURD's modularity allow it to scale much higher? (This is a serious question. I'm curious.)
Not even the RC5/DES scores will work. I put forth as evidence the fact that DEC (Compaq?) Alphas get *horrible* keyrates. It has to do with the fact that the cracking algorithm requires a rotate opcode at the processor level. The DEC, being a RISC, optimized its choice of opcodes, and the rotate fell through the cracks. Thus, it has to simulate a rotate using a shift and an add.
My point is that, whatever choice of benchmarks one uses, these benchmarks will be worthless for some segment of the user population.
When you talk about years, you assume that the leap years are counted as "1 year", not "1 year plus 1 day".
CPol wrote:
Exactly.
Let's look at this from a purely practical standpoint. Let's say I'm going to war against you. We're fighting, when it occurs to me to broadcast a (false) video of you telling your troops to surrender. Just as the order is beginning to be relayed to the soldiers doing the actual fighting, you come on the air, say the previous broadcast was a hoax, and please keep fighting for the {mother|father|great-uncle}land to save it from the infidels.
Then, let's say I beat you. Badly. You come on the air again and order your troops to surrender, because otherwise I'm going to use these Really Nasty weapons against your cities (hey, this is war). Your troops don't surrender. It's just another plot from the despicable infidels!
Then what? I have no choice but to destroy you, utterly, because you have no way of surrendering.
That, friends, is why this thing has to be illegal. Because otherwise any war would result in the complete annihilation of a nation.
(Not, I suppose that that would be any big change, but it's the thought, as it were, that counts.)
This is a thing of beauty. I cracked up when I saw this.
I already sent in my vote: