Ahh, I get what you mean now about sending a reply TO the server that was just QUERIED. I mis-read this as some kind of convoluted typo, but I follow the logic now. Interesting.
... and then sends the server he issued that request to a response to that query that also has a glue record...
I don't understand what you mean there; I'm presuming you meant to say "...and the server issues a response to that query that also has a glue record..." In any case, I don't understand why a properly-designed resolver would pay any heed to such a reply. If it's asking the google.com authority to resolve "lbixds", and it receives an answer, why would it also expect (and cache) an unsolicited answer for the domain "ns" (in your example)?
There were no replies when I started typing mine, and the story was not on the front page yet (saw it in the Firehose). It was worth a try. At least I actually formulate a response relevant to the article, instead of posting "frosty piss" or some other type of one line nonsense. I would have gotten first post if I had done that.
You seem to think that anyone really gives a shit.
After reading your post twice to parse its punctuation-free style, I think what you're saying is that "the practice" is to hard-number the.local stuff into a 'hosts' file (or equivalent) on every client PC, right?
I would never set up a LAN this way; I would run a DNS that would first resolve against a local list, and only send requests to an outside recursor for anything that it didn't have itself. That way, the local.local domain would take precedence (and nobody on the LAN would ever be able to see your.local ICANN domain).
He's an asshole. But more to the point, he's likely now laughing masturbatorily at the fact that people like you and me are responding to his childishness.
And the solution will be to make it illegal for one to make loud noises in public, or some other such nonsense. How is that a solution to any relevant problem under discussion? The CCTV stuff is presumably a practical attempt to aid in catching people who perform more lothesome acts. The loathesome acts in question are already illegal; the question of whether an act is or is not legal is not the focus.
Do you have a log of such replies? It might be somewhat interesting to read.
When I was younger for the longest time I thought "intensive purposes" was the correct phrase. Once I sorted it out, I was surprised to realise I didn't seem to be the only one.
Slashdot Mirror
If they wouldn't let him sign up, he would of gone elsewhere.
You mean he would have gone elsewhere.
These types of posts are getting on my nerves.
Agreed.
If you battery went you would not of made the post at all...I'm not stupid.
If you had learned English, you would not have said "would not of", and the "I'm not stupid" would have rung more true.
What? Why?
You're promoting terrorism because you're making a stupid "you know that as soon as X happens, people will say Y" doomsaying remark.
There, saved some time.
Ahh, I get what you mean now about sending a reply TO the server that was just QUERIED. I mis-read this as some kind of convoluted typo, but I follow the logic now. Interesting.
Thanks for taking the time to expand.
-b
... and then sends the server he issued that request to a response to that query that also has a glue record...
I don't understand what you mean there; I'm presuming you meant to say "...and the server issues a response to that query that also has a glue record..." In any case, I don't understand why a properly-designed resolver would pay any heed to such a reply. If it's asking the google.com authority to resolve "lbixds", and it receives an answer, why would it also expect (and cache) an unsolicited answer for the domain "ns" (in your example)?
-b
According to my definition, a coop is where chickens live.
I can't tell if "your" making a clever language joke, or offering an actual reply to the parent. :P
Not only that, he doesn't know how to spell the common word or the name of the program he used for so long. ("Aperature"?)
For a self-described "word snob" I'm surprised you bungled "its" ("it's") and "a lot" ("alot"). :)
There were no replies when I started typing mine, and the story was not on the front page yet (saw it in the Firehose). It was worth a try. At least I actually formulate a response relevant to the article, instead of posting "frosty piss" or some other type of one line nonsense. I would have gotten first post if I had done that.
You seem to think that anyone really gives a shit.
That is in opposition to, let say, a meter, which is a fraction of the distance light travels in a specific amount of time.
Actually, a meter is what you use to measure a metre. :)
The irony, though, is that it's only in conversations that involve keyboards where people raise such ideas
That's not irony, although it is an interesting observation.
-b
It has been well known since Apple got into the retail business that their RAM and HDD upgrade pricing is routinely ludicrous.
-b
I think you have confused a hyphen with an em-dash.
After reading your post twice to parse its punctuation-free style, I think what you're saying is that "the practice" is to hard-number the .local stuff into a 'hosts' file (or equivalent) on every client PC, right?
I would never set up a LAN this way; I would run a DNS that would first resolve against a local list, and only send requests to an outside recursor for anything that it didn't have itself. That way, the local .local domain would take precedence (and nobody on the LAN would ever be able to see your .local ICANN domain).
Wouldn't that just result in those people being unable to reach your site, though?
In that vein however, "localhost" might be a fun one too.
Or more to the point, just "google".
He's an asshole. But more to the point, he's likely now laughing masturbatorily at the fact that people like you and me are responding to his childishness.
So why don't people say what they mean? Yeesh.
The summary doesn't really make sense, given that "broadband" doesn't mean what the author (nor apparently the FCC) seem to want it to mean.
Alternatively, perhaps the FDA could put out a memorandum reclassifying spatulas as "spools", just because it sounds cooler to the layperson.
Bravo!
Do you have a log of such replies? It might be somewhat interesting to read.
When I was younger for the longest time I thought "intensive purposes" was the correct phrase. Once I sorted it out, I was surprised to realise I didn't seem to be the only one.