The old TLDs are plenty. It'd be nice if they actually were used, and used properly.
DNS was a nice hierarchical system once, but not
since <CompanyName>.TLD started to be considered naturally belonging to CompanyName.
Now we are where we are, and there's likely no way back. What could one live with it--in a reasonable way?
Having different companies register names under the same domain has proven to be inefficient: they blame each other, and the actual maintainer is still privileged.
A reasonable idea is to give different TLDs to different registrars, making the DNS root managed by a non-profit.
And look--surprise-- this is what evil ICANN is doing. Maybe it's time for us to give them time to do it right?
What
if an ISP defines all their customers to be part of one/64 "subnet" (which might even be defensible since some broadband
equipment is based on bridging) and
thus assigns each customer only one address?
(Emphasis mine.)
Firstly, the "thus" is incorrect. If that's how somebody decides to configure their network (which probably won't work), you'd get as many addresses as you want--with IPv6 autoconfiguration.
Secondly, you can always choose an ISP that'll give you your own/48. (Incidentally, 6to4 leaves a/48 behind it.)
When you do IPv6, you want to get rid of NATs; doing otherwise defeats all purpose. ISPs that will make their customers run NATs with IPv6 won't be popular, and there's no economic reason to do this for the ISPs.
One other thing I forgot: IPv6 was actually mentioned by name in a policy speech given by Japan's prime minister in front of parliament in September 2000.
The address allocation policy for IPv6 is different from that for IPv4. Namely, every subscriber, be it a corporation or a household, gets a/48. Yup, that's 2^80 addresses for your home.
The idea is to get ISPs out of the business of evaluating your need for address space.
Not only do they have large deployed IPv6 networks; not only their ISPs provide IPv6 service to their subscribers, and it's actually supported; not only does the government give tax breaks to ISPs that support IPv6; not only are their companies doing IPv6; not only do they develop games for freaking consoles that use IPv6; not only are their cell phone providers implementing IPv6; but they actually have a fairly large IPv6 user community.
Proposers must submit an original and 4 copies of the full proposal and 8 electronic copies
(i.e., 8 separate disks) of the full proposal (in Microsoft Word ?97 for IBM-compatible, PDF, Postscript, or ASCII format on one 3.5-inch floppy disk or one 100 MB Iomega Zip disk).
I guess I now understand why these people talk about "removing information" when somebody copies it. I suppose the only way to get some information is by taking the physical media.
Also notice the Microsoft character for apostrophe (looks like a question mark on my screen).
Slashdot won't let me post that char literally (nice job), so I replaced it with a litaral question mark.
since I'm addressing the humor-impaired, I should probably point out that http://www.kleinbottle.com is a joke as well.
Being apparently humor-impaired I bought a clear glass three-dimensional immersion of a Klein bottle from this guy maybe half a year ago, and was quite happy with my order.
A directory search limited to U.S. newspapers immediately brings up, say, an explanation by Linda Chavez about her relationship with the illegal alien in question.
If one wants political news, one can go to a political news source. If one wants information on Linda Chavez, one can do a more specific search. If one wants political news about Linda Chavez, one can (this must be getting very complex for your average dotcom founder) search a news archive.
From the language designer perspective, TeX did not change
And Perl doesn't have to change; packages can and should evolve, but the language core doesn't have to.
who really used naked TeX, without LaTeX or anything helping?
I did it when there was no LaTeX in sight, and I still fairly regularly do it for various reasons.
It's not very hard, believe me. Just read the TeXbook.
how can you think of something finished when
everything else is evolving?
There seems to be a lot of talk about open source and evolution. Don Knuth has written bug-free public domain software that is actively used for circa 20 years and is not evolving.
I still take full responsibility for the master sources of TeX, METAFONT, and Computer Modern. Therefore I periodically take a few
days off from my current projects and look at all of the accumulated bug reports. This happened most recently in 1992, 1993, 1995,
and 1998; following this pattern, I intend to check on purported bugs again in the years 2002, 2007, 2013, 2020, etc. The intervals
between such maintenance periods are increasing, because the systems have been converging to an error-free state. The latest and
best TeX is currently version 3.14159 (and plain.tex is version 3.1415926); METAFONT is currently version 2.7182 (and plain.mf is
version 2.71). All these systems are Y2K-compliant. My last will and testament for TeX and METAFONT is that their version
numbers ultimately become $\pi$ and $e$, respectively. At that point they will be completely error-free by definition.
At Americanwicca.com, we make sure that our site is utterly secure by refusing
to release details.
A lot is known simply from a cursory inspection--site hosted by Hypermart on elderly FreeBSD, running software that anybody can buy from e-classifieds (and privately audit for security holes), etc.
Your site (assuming you in fact have anything to do with it) of course isn't utterly secure.
People use security through obscurity all the time.
But people who rely on security through obscurity to protect their networks are simply waiting for trouble to happen.
Its winners have all shown something of interest to the public (disclaimer: our application is one of them, so I am not a neutral party).
Our demo included, we think, the first ever demonstration of interdomain operation of DiffServ-based IP QoS (more on this to come on the QBone web site) as well as an interesting application developed by Computer Music Center folks from Stanford. The application (audio teleportation) allows one to be teleported into a space with different acoustics (with CD-quality sound). During SC2000, two musicians gave a live performance from two different places with their sound being mixed in the air in the acoustics of a marble hall in Stanford.
The bit on using personal firewalls looks quite different from the point of view of network administrators.
These things rarely protect their users, since they usually only block closed ports.
What they do is annoy the admins by sending bogus emails "somebody from your network just sent me a packet". These emails are deliberately huge (megabytes) and include very little useful information.
I wish people would stop advocating use of this sort of broken software. It's far easier to not run redundant services than to install them anyway.
Not to mention the fact that these kids have made the firewalls newsgroup completely useless with the childish questions and "expert advice."
Looks like the author of the article is confused about the difference between networks and applications. Research and Education networks, such as Internet2, are there to facilitate existence of advanced applications, such as various data grids, teleimmersion, LBE bulk data transfers, etc.
Appearence of new applications reinforces the need for advanced networks, not the other way around. In fact, we (Internet2) work with the U.S. counterparts of the described European project
Perhaps a lot of students don't realize this, but all traffic between Internet2 participating Universities goes over Abilene (Internet2 backbone).
More information about Internet2 and its activities can be found at:
Once they convince AOL, UUNET, SPRINT, and all the
other backbone providers to stop Napster
packets, then the schools should follow suit.
For Internet2-connected schools, traffic between
the schools doesn't go through commercial transit
backbones (of which, by the way, AOL isn't one).
Internet2 backbone (Abilene) won't ban Napster
or anything else for a number of reasons,
including technical infeasibility.
In many schools Napster traffic is 20-40% of their
total traffic. Some of the schools might decide
they don't want the burden on their networks.
These schools will likely adopt a non-techinical
solution (don't do it, or risk expulsion) for a
number of reasons, of which the main is that
it's so easy to run similar protocols very
stealthily.
"Big" schools aren't bandwidth-strapped, so
there's no reason for them to do anything
regarding Napster use unless they get into
a serious legal trouble.
Well, it would be much easier to include a token somewhere (e.g., in a comment) that would be unique to this page. A randomly generated string of 20 ASCII characters would do the job.
But this is prone to the same highjaking attack as the original scheme.
A much better solution would be to fetch by MD5: teach search engines to compute MD5 sums of every document they index, then include MD5 sum somewhere in the URL.
Slashdot Mirror
Now we are where we are, and there's likely no way back. What could one live with it--in a reasonable way?
Having different companies register names under the same domain has proven to be inefficient: they blame each other, and the actual maintainer is still privileged.
A reasonable idea is to give different TLDs to different registrars, making the DNS root managed by a non-profit.
And look--surprise-- this is what evil ICANN is doing. Maybe it's time for us to give them time to do it right?
One other thing I forgot: IPv6 was actually mentioned by name in a policy speech given by Japan's prime minister in front of parliament in September 2000.
The idea is to get ISPs out of the business of evaluating your need for address space.
Go, Japan!
Also notice the Microsoft character for apostrophe (looks like a question mark on my screen).
Slashdot won't let me post that char literally (nice job), so I replaced it with a litaral question mark.
SEE ALSO:
baby(1), celibacy(1), choad(1), condom(1), dream(1), echo(1), lsd(1), sex(6).
I hope we'll get a clean interface in the best spirit of Google tradition.
I hope they are going to do it with humans, since for some species, parthenogenesis is the normal way to reproduce.
But let's be honest. We always knew it: Sex is best.
What interesting things, besides positioning, can be done with low bit-rate channels?
Why does one need cheesy dotcoms to tell us what a directory is?
A directory search limited to U.S. newspapers immediately brings up, say, an explanation by Linda Chavez about her relationship with the illegal alien in question.
If one wants political news, one can go to a political news source. If one wants information on Linda Chavez, one can do a more specific search. If one wants political news about Linda Chavez, one can (this must be getting very complex for your average dotcom founder) search a news archive.
There seems to be a lot of talk about open source and evolution. Don Knuth has written bug-free public domain software that is actively used for circa 20 years and is not evolving.
Knuth writes:
My, the original link really made my eyes hurt, even with Junkbuster.
A lot is known simply from a cursory inspection--site hosted by Hypermart on elderly FreeBSD, running software that anybody can buy from e-classifieds (and privately audit for security holes), etc.
Your site (assuming you in fact have anything to do with it) of course isn't utterly secure.
But people who rely on security through obscurity to protect their networks are simply waiting for trouble to happen. Because you're childish and "elite"?One of the interesting things that went on at SC2000 was Netchallenge competition with cash prizes.
Its winners have all shown something of interest to the public (disclaimer: our application is one of them, so I am not a neutral party).
Our demo included, we think, the first ever demonstration of interdomain operation of DiffServ-based IP QoS (more on this to come on the QBone web site) as well as an interesting application developed by Computer Music Center folks from Stanford. The application (audio teleportation) allows one to be teleported into a space with different acoustics (with CD-quality sound). During SC2000, two musicians gave a live performance from two different places with their sound being mixed in the air in the acoustics of a marble hall in Stanford.
The bit on using personal firewalls looks quite different from the point of view of network administrators.
These things rarely protect their users, since they usually only block closed ports.
What they do is annoy the admins by sending bogus emails "somebody from your network just sent me a packet". These emails are deliberately huge (megabytes) and include very little useful information.
I wish people would stop advocating use of this sort of broken software. It's far easier to not run redundant services than to install them anyway.
Not to mention the fact that these kids have made the firewalls newsgroup completely useless with the childish questions and "expert advice."
Looks like the author of the article is confused about the difference between networks and applications. Research and Education networks, such as Internet2, are there to facilitate existence of advanced applications, such as various data grids, teleimmersion, LBE bulk data transfers, etc.
Appearence of new applications reinforces the need for advanced networks, not the other way around. In fact, we (Internet2) work with the U.S. counterparts of the described European project
Perhaps a lot of students don't realize this, but all traffic between Internet2 participating Universities goes over Abilene (Internet2 backbone).
More information about Internet2 and its activities can be found at:
- Internet2 main page
- QBone (web site runs Slash)
- Abilene NOC site
--Stanislav Shalunov (Internet Engineer at Internet2)For Internet2-connected schools, traffic between the schools doesn't go through commercial transit backbones (of which, by the way, AOL isn't one).
Internet2 backbone (Abilene) won't ban Napster or anything else for a number of reasons, including technical infeasibility.
In many schools Napster traffic is 20-40% of their total traffic. Some of the schools might decide they don't want the burden on their networks. These schools will likely adopt a non-techinical solution (don't do it, or risk expulsion) for a number of reasons, of which the main is that it's so easy to run similar protocols very stealthily.
"Big" schools aren't bandwidth-strapped, so there's no reason for them to do anything regarding Napster use unless they get into a serious legal trouble.
From the X(1) manual page, right on top:
\begin{quote}
The X Consortium requests that the following names be used
when referring to this software:
X
X Window System
X Version 11
X Window System, Version 11
X11
X Window System is a trademark of X Consortium, Inc.
\end{quote}
It's depressing when people who don't know how a
piece of software is called start discussing its
fate and how it "must die."
Well, it would be much easier to include a token somewhere (e.g., in a comment) that would be unique to this page. A randomly generated string of 20 ASCII characters would do the job.
But this is prone to the same highjaking attack as the original scheme.
A much better solution would be to fetch by MD5: teach search engines to compute MD5 sums of every document they index, then include MD5 sum somewhere in the URL.
That would also allow for better caching!