DVDs are not delievered in ANY kind of end user format that would cause the user to need to break some password or encryption that they set.
Uh, like playing them?! Bare in mind that the objective of CSS on DVDs is to prevent use of a player that hasn't paid the cartel's fee; copying a DVD neither needs nor in practice uses DeCSS, it uses bit-for-bit copying machines and programs.
Just like region encoding, CSS was developed for the price-fixing activities of the MPAA cartel, not for fighting piracy, against which is of no value whatsoever.
And kudos for keeping a second account to mod yourself up.
I've only had 3 mods over 9 posts on this topic.
I take it "Troll" in your language means "other opinion"?
The whole problem of IP/copyright claims didn't arise until the corporations realised there was money to be made on the 'net
I agree, but it has arisen now and the genie won't go back in the bottle.
Until that point, DNS was used to avoid having to worry about IP addresses at all. So it's a little of both. But there's absolutely no sense in going back to a number-based system.
I'm not suggesting that we go back to IP addresses or even a fixed format like dotted quad; I don't see why you think it would be so tough on people (hardly surprising when you refuse to say why it would be so bad). Not all number-based systems are as user-hostile as IP4 or, much worse, IP6.
Go read a book or something before you spout bogosities like that.
So you think the current system is fine and that it will continue to be fine for, say, the next 50 years?
The point of a forum is to discuss. Just saying "you're a troll" over and over is not really very useful.
99%? Very doubtful. The dot-com boom certainly imprinted the.com at the end of a URL into consumers' minds.
Think about all the office workers around the world that use their machines for: a) spreadsheets, email, and word processing, and b) only use the web at lunch. There are a LOT of them and in my experience have no idea that when they type "bill bailey" into their address line that what comes up is the result of search.microsoft/netscape. I have seen many people who's bookmarks are search URLs for the thing they think they've actually bookmarked. Most people have heard of.com but do they know what it is?
Just like someone will give you the domain name of a site, not a number for it. Words are easier to remember.
I'm not arguing that they're not. I'm arguing that the legal crap that comes with them is not worth the small difference getting rid of them would make.
Isn't it wonderful that somebody invented the.name TLD?
Oh, yeah. That was a good idea, wasn't it? Because all the people in the entire world can happily be fitted into one domain, can't they!?.name is the best example of what a load of crap TLD's are - there might just possibly be more than one Mr/Mrs Smith in the world.
If someone wants to go by number, they'll use their IP address. Domain names exist because they're far easier to remember than long numbers.
IPs change; mine changes every so often and I don't actually know what it is at the moment, nor do I care. Domain names exist to prevent IP changes screwing the whole system and the extra benefit of being memorable is outweighed by the total mess that was made of implementing it (specifically the TLD's; ccTLD's were at least an attempt to address the namespace issue, even though it has failed too).
Microsoft doesn't care if their IP addresses can change...They'd care, though, if people couldn't remember the URL to the site.
Which is why they make sure that when the 99% of their users that don't know what a URL is type "Microsoft" into their address bar the search engine behind it brings up MS's site.
If a friend tells me "check out slashdot.org"
If a friend tells you to check out The Lord of the Rings do you ask for the ISBN? No, you go to a book shop and ask or look for it; on line you go to a search engine. If he does give you the ISBN then so much the better.
In short - replacing domain names with numbers is absurd.
Not as absurd as thinking that all the world's trademarks can live peacefully in a single namespace and still leave room for ordinary users that are cursed with names like "McDonald" or "Fox".
what's the difference between a "web number" and a "telephone number".
One difference which people in the UK would notice is that the web number wouldn't need changing every 5 years because BT have run out of numbers again. They'd also be shorter than full-dialing-code phone numbers, I think.
how many people still dial the actual number on the keypad anymore?
Ah, ha! And how many people use URLs manually? They are much more likely to click on a search result or use a bookmark. If they really did type URLs a lot I wouldn't suggest this system in the first place.The only real value in the DNS system is that users need not track IP addresses and I'd keep that.
the solution is to make all domain addresses equally grim and abstract? That's a soviet communism solution.
Not for most people. Go watch a normal (ie, not a geek) user. Many of them don't even know what a URL is; they just type things into their address bar and wait for MS search to bring something up. Most people would not even notice the change.
Your art analogy fails because what is happening is not that people can't afford the "art" but that other people, backed by the WTO, are allowed to come round and take their legally held "art" off them with no compensation (indeed often at a cost of the poor sod that's on the losing end of this). That's fascist.
So then you will have everyone bidding their buns off to be "Number 1". All you will see is we're #1, and those with anything else (ie http://2.*) will be at a disadvantage marketing wise....
Well, I imagine that the root registrar would be #1 or that an ISP looking for a nice number to sub-domain would buy it, but even if you're right the marketing value would be pretty small, much the same as having a simple phone number.
Seeing as how the whole point of DNS was so that people WOULDN'T HAVE TO REMEMBER NUMBERS.
No, it was so the people WOULDN'T HAVE TO TRACK CHANGING IP ADDRESSES. Duh!
It was thought that the ability to have memorable names was a nice side-effect and that it would be managed by keeping different intellectual property claims in separate domains. That worked for a while but once companies started to leak out of.com and into.net and.org the system rapidly fell apart and it now SUCKS. Go on, set up cocacola.info for all your cola-wars stories and see how long you'll last with the "but it's clearly not THE cocacola because it's.info, not.com" argument. How about something more generic like "apple.co.uk" for your orchard business? Or perhaps the world's Mr McDonalds would like a site devoted to their families? Good luck to them!
Recognisable names seemed like a good idea but are not viable in the long run; abstracting IP's is vital.
The inability of people to get domains which are safe from either squatters or big business. The idea behind the TLD's was to allow separation, for example, of two companies that do things in different spheres or places. This has failed. For example, try going to Tuvalu and setting up a database of vulpine observations. I think you'll find that your "fox.tv" will get a very sharp letter and your ISP will drop you like a stone about 4 days later! The number of cases like this has got out of hand and can only get worse over time. In addition the limited number of TLDs and the way they are doled out gives ICANN far too much power.
Are you proposing that people type in "66.35.250.150"
Possibly, if 66 TLDs were sold and then the owner of #65 sold 35 subdomains and the owner of #35 sold 250 sub-subdomains and the owner of the 250th of those sold 150 sub-sub-subdomains and you wanted the site on the that sub-sub-sub domain, then yes. In reality I doubt that the sub divisions would ever get that deep since there would be no 255 limit; http://86625000/ would be totally legal and would allow as many individual sites as you would need in the example you gave. Would you care if the URLs in your bookmarks or on Google looked like this? How many sites do you regularly type the URL for? How many phone numbers have you memorised that are even longer than 86625000?
What happens when IP addresses change?
I specifically said that this is an abstraction on top of IP's and that there would be no change. If you like, I'm sort of suggesting that DNS servers accept numbers as legal name characters. There is absolutely no connection between web numbers and IP numbers.
No, but it has the exact same problem - impossible to remember.
The biggest prblem with IP numbers is that they change, memory is secondary.
I'd rather not have to remember http://2093.927348/ - gimme http://slashdot.org/ anytime.
Just stick in your bookmarks. I admit that it's easier to remember slashdot.org but how did you first find slashdot? Did you just guess the url? Of course not, you clicked on a link somewhere or read it or saw it on Google or something. After you found it and liked it what would be the big deal if it was a number?
TWW
DNS is broken, let's just kill it
on
Plans For New TLDs
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
The whole IP crap has killed the utility of DNS; the mistake was basing it on letters. Letters mean memorable words (the original intent) but memorable words mean "branding" and "trademark" and "lawyers".
A number based system is the only practical alternative: people and companies would publicise their "web number" just as they do their phone and/or fax today. So the first root domain would be "http://1/" and the owner of that could sell http://1.1 or 1.2 or 1.3 etc to whoever s/he likes. Meanwhile http://2 is sold off, then//3,//4 etc with no effective limit.
This is NOT the same as using IP numbers - the "web number" is still translated into an IP number and the IP number can be changed without changing the web number.
This kills almost all the problems with the current crap system of trademarked names and squatting while, thanks to search engines and bookmark files, not actually making the system much harder to use. A few numbers might still go for higher prices, like some phone numbers do, but this would be a far smaller issue than it is now. Meanwhile, by effectivly increasing the number of TLD's to infinity the power of ICANN is completly undermined and reigned in.
I personally would not stop old style names being used but I would like to see and end to new ones being registered. But even if the current name system just became totally commercial and everyone else went to numbers, free from the threat of legal action because their name is "too like" someone elses, it would be an improvement.
The ultimate improvement is to eliminate the control of registration of new names/numbers from a single person/group. In my alternative there is a lot less power invested anywhere since the owner of//1 can sell sub-domains forever without having to go back to the root registrar and since the numbers don't mean anything there is not such a big reason to keep wanting a TLD, but the root registrar still has too much power. I just can't think of a working system to eliminate that person and their DNS server(s) competely.
What if this CEO was raised poorly, and without religion, and generally was a mean, racially prejucided man?
Religion breeds evil, indeed many require it to exist so that people can be frightened into doing what they're told ("Be good (as defined by us) or the devil will get you when you die").
What happens if Brin one day is the victim of a hate crime by a white person? Will he start blocking Google from indexing predominantly white Web sites such as J. Crew, Kuro5hin, or the New York Islanders home page?
Then do your own. All you're saying is that you don't want Google to have an opinion unless it matches yours.
I, for one, will no longer visit Google because I simply can't trust them anymore.
Don't talk shite. The policy is there for you to see and if it changes it will be too. Trust comes from information about what they are doing, not from them just pretending to be some sort of super-amoral web bucket so that you never have to actually do some thinking.
TWW
Re:I haven't seen it, and never will because...
on
Taken?
·
· Score: 1
I will not spend one second nor one cent on what
he produces, as he would only turn around and
give it to his fellow socialists.
Oh, no! A person that shares things instead of thinking of new ways to shit on everyone else. Hanging's too good for him.
If you're going to post things like that you could at least be more specific for those of us that have never heard Spielburg (who, for the record, I don't like) talking politics. But I suppose that wouldn't be as good a troll.
The compromise between sci-fi and mainstream always sucks.
Yep, the science is the first thing to go followed by any attempt at having characters act intelligent, followed by any expectation that the audience will.
Most Americans probably could not find Montana on a political map of the Unites States.
I think I could do that.
They definately could not find Monaco, Andorra, or Luxemborg.
Well, they wouldn't be on a map of the United States! Assuming you meant on a European map then you've picked three of the hardest (outside the Balkans) and I'd have a little trouble with that.
I'm British, BTW; I think you're being a bit hard on Americans.
I personally want to wait for the movie to hit the big screen...it's all about the suspense. What do others think?"
After seeing FotR I'm still wondering how I could get my money back; I'm certainly not forking out another dollar's worth to see a film advertising a DVD which is a taster for the director's cut DVD which is still a sloppy hack-work version of a good book.
Transportation maps underwent a revolution in representation when unnecessary information about how points and relationships between them such as distance and elevation were eliminated.
Indeed, Beck was at the forefront of this change but in technical terms this is the change from beng a map to being a diagram. When there is no scale and the relationship between the locations on the page and the real world are totally arbitary then there is no "mapping" of points and therefore no map. Certainly common usage of the term "map" applies but technically, which was the original claim, the word is not accurate.
As a matter of fact, old NYC subway maps were unusable because they were too representative.
Yes, Tube maps from the 1800's get progressively less and less readable with a few notable exceptions such as the maps with a sliding scale so that the central area is magnified in relation to the outer areas, but these still couldn't cope with the increase in lines in the central "thermos flask" and were also technically tricky to produce when changes were made.
A map is any representation of the nature of relations among points in space.
Harry Beck's diagram of the London Underground is a representation of the nature of connections, not relations of points in space. That's why it's not a map.
only that such-and-such station is near another station.
It gives no such information; if it did the LU map would be huge unless it had a regular, calculated, distortion applied. It does not.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, like playing them?! Bare in mind that the objective of CSS on DVDs is to prevent use of a player that hasn't paid the cartel's fee; copying a DVD neither needs nor in practice uses DeCSS, it uses bit-for-bit copying machines and programs.
Just like region encoding, CSS was developed for the price-fixing activities of the MPAA cartel, not for fighting piracy, against which is of no value whatsoever.
TWW
Well, that clears DeCSS up, then!
If only it were that simple, eh?
TWW
This is getting more and more like a game of Illuminati every day!
TWW
I've only had 3 mods over 9 posts on this topic.
I take it "Troll" in your language means "other opinion"?
The whole problem of IP/copyright claims didn't arise until the corporations realised there was money to be made on the 'net
I agree, but it has arisen now and the genie won't go back in the bottle.
Until that point, DNS was used to avoid having to worry about IP addresses at all. So it's a little of both. But there's absolutely no sense in going back to a number-based system.
I'm not suggesting that we go back to IP addresses or even a fixed format like dotted quad; I don't see why you think it would be so tough on people (hardly surprising when you refuse to say why it would be so bad). Not all number-based systems are as user-hostile as IP4 or, much worse, IP6.
Go read a book or something before you spout bogosities like that.
So you think the current system is fine and that it will continue to be fine for, say, the next 50 years?
The point of a forum is to discuss. Just saying "you're a troll" over and over is not really very useful.
TWW
Think about all the office workers around the world that use their machines for: a) spreadsheets, email, and word processing, and b) only use the web at lunch. There are a LOT of them and in my experience have no idea that when they type "bill bailey" into their address line that what comes up is the result of search.microsoft/netscape. I have seen many people who's bookmarks are search URLs for the thing they think they've actually bookmarked. Most people have heard of .com but do they know what it is?
Just like someone will give you the domain name of a site, not a number for it. Words are easier to remember.
I'm not arguing that they're not. I'm arguing that the legal crap that comes with them is not worth the small difference getting rid of them would make.
Isn't it wonderful that somebody invented the .name TLD?
Oh, yeah. That was a good idea, wasn't it? Because all the people in the entire world can happily be fitted into one domain, can't they!? .name is the best example of what a load of crap TLD's are - there might just possibly be more than one Mr/Mrs Smith in the world.
If someone wants to go by number, they'll use their IP address. Domain names exist because they're far easier to remember than long numbers.
IPs change; mine changes every so often and I don't actually know what it is at the moment, nor do I care. Domain names exist to prevent IP changes screwing the whole system and the extra benefit of being memorable is outweighed by the total mess that was made of implementing it (specifically the TLD's; ccTLD's were at least an attempt to address the namespace issue, even though it has failed too).
TWW
Which is why they make sure that when the 99% of their users that don't know what a URL is type "Microsoft" into their address bar the search engine behind it brings up MS's site.
If a friend tells me "check out slashdot.org"
If a friend tells you to check out The Lord of the Rings do you ask for the ISBN? No, you go to a book shop and ask or look for it; on line you go to a search engine. If he does give you the ISBN then so much the better.
In short - replacing domain names with numbers is absurd.
Not as absurd as thinking that all the world's trademarks can live peacefully in a single namespace and still leave room for ordinary users that are cursed with names like "McDonald" or "Fox".
TWW
One difference which people in the UK would notice is that the web number wouldn't need changing every 5 years because BT have run out of numbers again. They'd also be shorter than full-dialing-code phone numbers, I think.
TWW
Ah, ha! And how many people use URLs manually? They are much more likely to click on a search result or use a bookmark. If they really did type URLs a lot I wouldn't suggest this system in the first place.The only real value in the DNS system is that users need not track IP addresses and I'd keep that.
the solution is to make all domain addresses equally grim and abstract? That's a soviet communism solution.
Not for most people. Go watch a normal (ie, not a geek) user. Many of them don't even know what a URL is; they just type things into their address bar and wait for MS search to bring something up. Most people would not even notice the change.
Your art analogy fails because what is happening is not that people can't afford the "art" but that other people, backed by the WTO, are allowed to come round and take their legally held "art" off them with no compensation (indeed often at a cost of the poor sod that's on the losing end of this). That's fascist.
TWW
Well, I imagine that the root registrar would be #1 or that an ISP looking for a nice number to sub-domain would buy it, but even if you're right the marketing value would be pretty small, much the same as having a simple phone number.
TWW
No, it was so the people WOULDN'T HAVE TO TRACK CHANGING IP ADDRESSES. Duh!
It was thought that the ability to have memorable names was a nice side-effect and that it would be managed by keeping different intellectual property claims in separate domains. That worked for a while but once companies started to leak out of .com and into .net and .org the system rapidly fell apart and it now SUCKS. Go on, set up cocacola.info for all your cola-wars stories and see how long you'll last with the "but it's clearly not THE cocacola because it's .info, not .com" argument. How about something more generic like "apple.co.uk" for your orchard business? Or perhaps the world's Mr McDonalds would like a site devoted to their families? Good luck to them!
Recognisable names seemed like a good idea but are not viable in the long run; abstracting IP's is vital.
TWW
The inability of people to get domains which are safe from either squatters or big business. The idea behind the TLD's was to allow separation, for example, of two companies that do things in different spheres or places. This has failed. For example, try going to Tuvalu and setting up a database of vulpine observations. I think you'll find that your "fox.tv" will get a very sharp letter and your ISP will drop you like a stone about 4 days later! The number of cases like this has got out of hand and can only get worse over time. In addition the limited number of TLDs and the way they are doled out gives ICANN far too much power.
Are you proposing that people type in "66.35.250.150"
Possibly, if 66 TLDs were sold and then the owner of #65 sold 35 subdomains and the owner of #35 sold 250 sub-subdomains and the owner of the 250th of those sold 150 sub-sub-subdomains and you wanted the site on the that sub-sub-sub domain, then yes. In reality I doubt that the sub divisions would ever get that deep since there would be no 255 limit; http://86625000/ would be totally legal and would allow as many individual sites as you would need in the example you gave. Would you care if the URLs in your bookmarks or on Google looked like this? How many sites do you regularly type the URL for? How many phone numbers have you memorised that are even longer than 86625000?
What happens when IP addresses change?
I specifically said that this is an abstraction on top of IP's and that there would be no change. If you like, I'm sort of suggesting that DNS servers accept numbers as legal name characters. There is absolutely no connection between web numbers and IP numbers.
TWW
The biggest prblem with IP numbers is that they change, memory is secondary.
I'd rather not have to remember http://2093.927348/ - gimme http://slashdot.org/ anytime.
Just stick in your bookmarks. I admit that it's easier to remember slashdot.org but how did you first find slashdot? Did you just guess the url? Of course not, you clicked on a link somewhere or read it or saw it on Google or something. After you found it and liked it what would be the big deal if it was a number?
TWW
A number based system is the only practical alternative: people and companies would publicise their "web number" just as they do their phone and/or fax today. So the first root domain would be "http://1/" and the owner of that could sell http://1.1 or 1.2 or 1.3 etc to whoever s/he likes. Meanwhile http://2 is sold off, then //3, //4 etc with no effective limit.
This is NOT the same as using IP numbers - the "web number" is still translated into an IP number and the IP number can be changed without changing the web number.
This kills almost all the problems with the current crap system of trademarked names and squatting while, thanks to search engines and bookmark files, not actually making the system much harder to use. A few numbers might still go for higher prices, like some phone numbers do, but this would be a far smaller issue than it is now. Meanwhile, by effectivly increasing the number of TLD's to infinity the power of ICANN is completly undermined and reigned in.
I personally would not stop old style names being used but I would like to see and end to new ones being registered. But even if the current name system just became totally commercial and everyone else went to numbers, free from the threat of legal action because their name is "too like" someone elses, it would be an improvement.
The ultimate improvement is to eliminate the control of registration of new names/numbers from a single person/group. In my alternative there is a lot less power invested anywhere since the owner of //1 can sell sub-domains forever without having to go back to the root registrar and since the numbers don't mean anything there is not such a big reason to keep wanting a TLD, but the root registrar still has too much power. I just can't think of a working system to eliminate that person and their DNS server(s) competely.
TWW
Religion breeds evil, indeed many require it to exist so that people can be frightened into doing what they're told ("Be good (as defined by us) or the devil will get you when you die").
What happens if Brin one day is the victim of a hate crime by a white person? Will he start blocking Google from indexing predominantly white Web sites such as J. Crew, Kuro5hin, or the New York Islanders home page?
Then do your own. All you're saying is that you don't want Google to have an opinion unless it matches yours.
I, for one, will no longer visit Google because I simply can't trust them anymore.
Don't talk shite. The policy is there for you to see and if it changes it will be too. Trust comes from information about what they are doing, not from them just pretending to be some sort of super-amoral web bucket so that you never have to actually do some thinking.
TWW
Oh, no! A person that shares things instead of thinking of new ways to shit on everyone else. Hanging's too good for him.
If you're going to post things like that you could at least be more specific for those of us that have never heard Spielburg (who, for the record, I don't like) talking politics. But I suppose that wouldn't be as good a troll.
TWW
Yep, the science is the first thing to go followed by any attempt at having characters act intelligent, followed by any expectation that the audience will.
TWW
Yes, in fact DeCSS is a crap way to pirate DVD's.
If that's true, then the prosecution case is considerably weakened.
You have confused "law" and "justice"; there is no connection between the two.
TWW
Most people are idiots, IME.
Most Americans probably could not find Montana on a political map of the Unites States.
I think I could do that.
They definately could not find Monaco, Andorra, or Luxemborg.
Well, they wouldn't be on a map of the United States! Assuming you meant on a European map then you've picked three of the hardest (outside the Balkans) and I'd have a little trouble with that.
I'm British, BTW; I think you're being a bit hard on Americans.
TWW
After seeing FotR I'm still wondering how I could get my money back; I'm certainly not forking out another dollar's worth to see a film advertising a DVD which is a taster for the director's cut DVD which is still a sloppy hack-work version of a good book.
TWW
Indeed, Beck was at the forefront of this change but in technical terms this is the change from beng a map to being a diagram. When there is no scale and the relationship between the locations on the page and the real world are totally arbitary then there is no "mapping" of points and therefore no map. Certainly common usage of the term "map" applies but technically, which was the original claim, the word is not accurate.
As a matter of fact, old NYC subway maps were unusable because they were too representative.
Yes, Tube maps from the 1800's get progressively less and less readable with a few notable exceptions such as the maps with a sliding scale so that the central area is magnified in relation to the outer areas, but these still couldn't cope with the increase in lines in the central "thermos flask" and were also technically tricky to produce when changes were made.
I think we're both now officially anal.
TWW
TWW
Harry Beck's diagram of the London Underground is a representation of the nature of connections, not relations of points in space. That's why it's not a map.
only that such-and-such station is near another station.
It gives no such information; if it did the LU map would be huge unless it had a regular, calculated, distortion applied. It does not.
No accounting for idiots, I suppose.
TWW
On a Sunday? A brave choice. I'll assume the Old Kentish option is in force, then:
Aldgate
TWW
TWW
You need more training.
TWW