If that means that when I type in "sex.com" into a browser, I go to 64.28.67.150 and when you type it in, you go to 209.81.7.23 so what? It's my choice which listing service I use.
Do you have an email address? Do you give it out to other people and expect that they can send mail to that address and it will get to you? Thank centralized namespace authority.
Although the Internet allows a high degree of decentralized activities, coordination of the assignment function by a single authority is necessary where unique parameter values are technically required.
The phrase "single authority" is never good.
If not a single authority, then what? What happens when one authority says www.slashdot.org is 1.2.3.4 and another says it's 4.3.2.1? What happens when i register my-domain.com through Registry A but someone else beats me to it at Registry B? I can't put that domain in my ads, and i certainly can't use it as my email address.
Imagine if you saw an ad for 1-800-FLOWERS, but when you went to call it, you got Joe's Crab Shack because you and the placer of the ad used different "telephone authorities". Imagine if you met some hot chick at the local bar and gave her your number, but when she went to call it, she got someone else.
You need an "supreme court" of the namespace or else the namespace is useless.
Sorry to be a "me too"er, but the broadband situation in Loudoun County blows. With all the Internet and telecom workers here, you'd think that we'd be super-wired. I'm willing to throw money at anyone who can hook me up. But Adelphia Cable says nothing more than, "Sometime by the end of 2003" and as was pointed out, Verizon says no DSL.
Maybe someone should make a web site about the situation so we can all keep up-to-date.
This guy just sits down in front of a computer with a not-necessarily-secure connection to the net, and then, without using SSL or anything, just logs in? Transmitting his username and password in the clear?
Doesn't he know anything about security?
Oh well, at least i don't have to worry about things like that.
Headlines for today:
RMS: Free Software Good,
Dog Bites Man, Sky Blue
--
Re:What are the ethical implications here?
on
BoyCott Advance
·
· Score: 2
Connie is the least because in Bill and Dave's cases, there is one purchaser of the book lending or copying for a very limited number of recipiants. In connies case one purchaser has probably distributed it to thousands of people.
I think that's where i draw the line, too. More specifically, i put it thusly: "When you purchase a copy of content, you can make as many copies as you want and still be ethically in the clear so long as only one of those copies is in use at any given time."
Legally and in my mind ethically, there could be a global book club that works like this:
I decide i want to read 1984
I broadcast a message asking if anyone has a copy
Some guy in Prague does
I ask him to ship his copy to me for a few weeks
I read it and ship it back
Later, i return the favor by lending a book to someone else on the network
Now, what happens when the Internet makes this faster, cheaper, and more convenient? Does it become immoral? I don't think so. But book purchases plummet. As do movie and music purchases. Is this bad for the world? I'm not sure yet. I'd really like to see some of your opinions on this, since i've been chewing on this ethical dilemma for some time and haven't been able to resolve it.
--
Re:What are the ethical implications here?
on
BoyCott Advance
·
· Score: 2
On a similar note, try to rank these in order of, uh, ethical-ness. Where do you draw the line?
Alice is about to buy a book, but then decides to read it at the library instead.
Bill is about to buy a book, but then finds out that his friend already owns it. So he just borrows it from the friend instead.
Connie is about to buy a book, but then finds a copy on the Internet and reads it instead. She immediately deletes it after reading it.
Dave is about to buy a book, but then discovers that a friend on another continent already owns it. His friend scans it and sends the file to Dave over the Internet. Dave reads it and immediately deletes it afterwards.
--
Re:Article tries to make AOL look bad
on
AOL And The GPL
·
· Score: 2
AOL is likely assuming no one will have the money to properly sue them, or perhaps they think they'd be able to have the license found invalid, or possibly they think they're in the clear by putting it all in a box that's not supposed to be open.
Or it just slipped through the cracks without being noticed, and will be fixed in the next release now that we've brought it to their attention.
Okay, what's wrong with Verisign having a monopoly of the.com registry? I don't remember the last time DNS went down. The only complaint you can have is that $6 a year is too much.
Well, real soon now we'll have seperate registries for.biz,.org,.net, and others. If they charge far less than $6, then there will be tremendous pressure on Verisign to drop their price, or they won't get the contract renewed in 2007. And they'd drop their price soon, not in December 2006.
But i think the new regirstries will charge close to $6 as well. It's not easy to run a database of that size with zero tolerance for downtime or latency. Plus, you know, also running root DNS.
No, absolutely not. The parent post is anything but "Insightful".
There are two parts - one is the Verisign registrar, which is all 99% of the world ever interacts with. This registrar has dozens of competitors, including OpenSRS.
There's also the Verisign registry, which is what all the registrars talk to, in order to keep things in sync.
Under the old plan, Verisign could either keep control of the.com,.org, and.net registry until 2004 and keep its registrar business, or it could sell the registrar and keep the registry of.com,.net, and.org until 2007.
Under the new plan, Verisign phases out control of the.org and.net registry, and in return gets to keep the.com registry until 2007 as well as continue running the registrar business.
And yes, there are strict regulations in place to keep the Verisign registry from giving special treatment to the Verisign registrar.
If you don't like the Verisign registrar, don't use it. It's not a monopoly. Only the Verisign registry is, and nobody ever complains about that.
Under the old plan, Verisign had a monopoly on being the registry for.com,.net, and.org until 2007. Now, they only have a monopoly on.com until 2007. What are you people complaining about?
The part of Verisign that people seem to have a problem with is the Registrar. This is -not- a monopoly. If you don't like the customer service, don't use it.
The part of Verisign that is a monopoly is the Registry. This is not a part that any of you interact with, unless you work for a registrar.
Again, how is any of this bad? If you don't like the Verisign registrar, don't use it. If you don't like the registry, be happy with this deal, because it gives Verisign's registry -less- power.
Why doesn't AOL team up with Apple? Or merge with them? With both of them, their claim to fame (or, in the case of Apple, their claim to mediocrity) was one word: "easy". Make things easy. I think there could be some slick network appliances if the two worked together.
America Online announced today that, in keeping with its recent instant messaging policy, it will no longer allow outside users to send email to any address within the @aol.com domain.
A corporate spokesperson said, "We run these mail servers. It costs us money to do so. Why should we allow outsiders, non-customers, to send mail to our servers?"
Another plan, to disallow any TCP/IP packets to pass through AOL's routers if the source or destination are not both AOL customers, was in the works....
You have a right to not be held as a slave on a plantation.
That was not a popular opinion in America in 1850. In fact, many people would say that Harriet Tubman was stealing slaves from their rightful owners, and what she was doing was morally wrong.
You don't have a right to IM your buddies on AOL.
In my opinion, i do. Just because it's not legal today does not mean it's immoral.
emacs has some weak AI algos installed, such as the famous Eliza doctor program and a collection of Zippy the Pinhead quotes. Someone created a command, M-x psychoanalyze-pinhead which connects one to the other so you can watch the ensuing conversation.
I guess some people don't understand parody, even if you beat them over the head with a near-verbatim copy of the thing being satirized.
So, for those of you who might not understand: People who say, "Stealing stuff from someone and violating the law is always wrong and unethical" are not correct, since laws and the definition of stealing are man-made and change over time.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you have an email address? Do you give it out to other people and expect that they can send mail to that address and it will get to you? Thank centralized namespace authority.
--
Although the Internet allows a high degree of decentralized activities, coordination of the assignment function by a single authority is necessary where unique parameter values are technically required.
The phrase "single authority" is never good.
If not a single authority, then what? What happens when one authority says www.slashdot.org is 1.2.3.4 and another says it's 4.3.2.1? What happens when i register my-domain.com through Registry A but someone else beats me to it at Registry B? I can't put that domain in my ads, and i certainly can't use it as my email address.
Imagine if you saw an ad for 1-800-FLOWERS, but when you went to call it, you got Joe's Crab Shack because you and the placer of the ad used different "telephone authorities". Imagine if you met some hot chick at the local bar and gave her your number, but when she went to call it, she got someone else.
You need an "supreme court" of the namespace or else the namespace is useless.
--
Maybe someone should make a web site about the situation so we can all keep up-to-date.
--
--
Wanna bet?
--
Doesn't he know anything about security?
Oh well, at least i don't have to worry about things like that.
--
RMS: Free Software Good,
Dog Bites Man, Sky Blue
--
I think that's where i draw the line, too. More specifically, i put it thusly: "When you purchase a copy of content, you can make as many copies as you want and still be ethically in the clear so long as only one of those copies is in use at any given time."
Legally and in my mind ethically, there could be a global book club that works like this:
Now, what happens when the Internet makes this faster, cheaper, and more convenient? Does it become immoral? I don't think so. But book purchases plummet. As do movie and music purchases. Is this bad for the world? I'm not sure yet. I'd really like to see some of your opinions on this, since i've been chewing on this ethical dilemma for some time and haven't been able to resolve it.
--
--
Or it just slipped through the cracks without being noticed, and will be fixed in the next release now that we've brought it to their attention.
--
Honey, i'm a karma diva.
--
Sounds like it doubles as a pay toilet.
(Why do i get the feeling i'm going to regret not clicking the "Anonymous" checkbox?)
--
--
Well, real soon now we'll have seperate registries for
But i think the new regirstries will charge close to $6 as well. It's not easy to run a database of that size with zero tolerance for downtime or latency. Plus, you know, also running root DNS.
--
There are two parts - one is the Verisign registrar, which is all 99% of the world ever interacts with. This registrar has dozens of competitors, including OpenSRS.
There's also the Verisign registry, which is what all the registrars talk to, in order to keep things in sync.
Under the old plan, Verisign could either keep control of the
Under the new plan, Verisign phases out control of the
And yes, there are strict regulations in place to keep the Verisign registry from giving special treatment to the Verisign registrar.
If you don't like the Verisign registrar, don't use it. It's not a monopoly. Only the Verisign registry is, and nobody ever complains about that.
--
The part of Verisign that people seem to have a problem with is the Registrar. This is -not- a monopoly. If you don't like the customer service, don't use it.
The part of Verisign that is a monopoly is the Registry. This is not a part that any of you interact with, unless you work for a registrar.
Again, how is any of this bad? If you don't like the Verisign registrar, don't use it. If you don't like the registry, be happy with this deal, because it gives Verisign's registry -less- power.
--
It's not easy.
--
--
--
--
From Unauthorized Use
DULLES, VA
America Online announced today that, in keeping with its recent instant messaging policy, it will no longer allow outside users to send email to any address within the @aol.com domain.
A corporate spokesperson said, "We run these mail servers. It costs us money to do so. Why should we allow outsiders, non-customers, to send mail to our servers?"
Another plan, to disallow any TCP/IP packets to pass through AOL's routers if the source or destination are not both AOL customers, was in the works....
--
That was not a popular opinion in America in 1850. In fact, many people would say that Harriet Tubman was stealing slaves from their rightful owners, and what she was doing was morally wrong.
You don't have a right to IM your buddies on AOL.
In my opinion, i do. Just because it's not legal today does not mean it's immoral.
--
--
So, for those of you who might not understand: People who say, "Stealing stuff from someone and violating the law is always wrong and unethical" are not correct, since laws and the definition of stealing are man-made and change over time.
--
Read my lips: I never agreed to it. In fact, i strongly disagree with it, in this day and age. The status quo sucks.
And if you demand payment for the time you spend observing commercial filmlets, you will be charged to watch the rest of the programming.
Fantastic! Where do i sign up? I would love to be able to pay 25 cents and watch The Simpsons without commercial interruption.
--