1. I agree needed are more TLD's, but they need to be logical ones. Sex sites on.sex, Map sites on.map, ISP's on.net or.isp, only real companies as.com's etc.
you must provide clearly delineated rulesets which define what goes where. for example, porn sites that are commercial enterprises (as opposed to porn sites that give their content away for free)... would they be porn.com or porn.sex? to further complicate the issue, would porn.com.sex or porn.sex.com be allowable? the issue isn't as neatly dividable as it appears.
2. There need to be rules and the registration services need to enforce them. aka if your not a company you don't get a.com.
agreed. laws that are not enforced are useless.
3. First come first served, end of story. If you register xxxx.yyy its yours unless there is a superior claim. ie mcdonalds.com should belong to the company, but if you register mcdonalds.fam because thats your family name no one cna take it away.
if you used rule (1) and (2) above, then (3) would not be a problem. potential cases where it might be a problem would be two families who want to register mcdonalds.org, but this is solveable through subdomains.
4. Trademarks mean nothing on the internet, and should not be enforcable. see above.
this would probably not be nearly quite the problem that it is today if rules (1) and (2) were used.
5. A new central authority, the current ones don't work.
this is because the 'central authority' (NSI, previously known as Internic) has now been dissolved in the name of capitalism. IMO, the "monopoly" of internic was more efficient than the money-grabbing mess that it is turning into.
6. Registration services cannot own domain names, or horde domain names that they do not use as part of their business.
i agree, but without a practical way to enforce this, such a rule is without value. can anyone think of a way to safeguard against this sort of action?
7. Domain names are the property of the person who registers them, the fee is simply for the up keep of the central domain records, so your DNS server can be found.
i'm not sure about the term 'property'. i've never had any problem with the concept of registration of a domain... it's simply a lease of common domain space, really. everybody and nobody owns them... you're simply the person who holds the current license for it. now, on the matter of reselling the license of the domain (ie, selling the domain for millions of dollars as is done now), perhaps something could be written into the registration agreement that prohibits resale of the license, so that you can't register 'rock.com' and then sell it for a million dollars. you get the idea.
8.Owners have the right to move to a different service if they so desire at anytime.
what service? if there is a central authority then there is only one registrar, and DNS is all one service anyway. what would they switch *to*?
9. Anyone can provide registration services, just like networksolutions, register.com whatever.
i think that this would be a mistake. i do not agree with peer-to-peer domain registration concepts. i believe that they would result in more chaos than they solve. they achieve a loss of centralized control (perceived as a good thing) at the expense of centralized order (perceived as a bad thing IMO). again, if there was a 'central authority', this rule would be unnecessary.
10. Domain names cannot be suspended or taken away, unless you can provide a superior claim, TRADEMARKS do not count. You must simply have existed longer doing what you are doing on the internet...first come first served again.
what constitutes 'a superior claim'? who decides which claim is 'superior'? many of the court-combats over domain names are for easily-rememberable domain names (such as mcdonalds.com, although i doubt they've been in any litigation over it... i'm simply using it as an example.) yes, people aren't that smart commonly, and you want a commercial domain name (any domain name, really) to be easily rememberable (that being the entire point of domain names in the first place), but any advertising/marketing department worth its salt can make a terrible domain name carve itself into your retinas.
11. You have the right to a single top level domain. If you have xxxx.yyy you cannot own xxxx.zzz as well unless it is providing entirely different content and services. This is common sense stuff, that personally i had always thought was just standard practice until I really started paying attention to internet politics.
why should i have the right to a top level domain? what's the point? if things are organized well (see rules (1) and (2), and also keep in mind that DNS can go 127 levels deep in subdomains) then the need for more TLDs should be reduced significantly. anyway, with the xxxx.yyy and xxxx.zzz stuff, if you follow the recommendation of another poster and charge higher fees for domain registrations to a single entity (person/corp) then they will not want to own too many of them. again, rules (1) and (2) aid in this effort to control "domain spammers" as well.
[begin cut/paste] I think active management by a set of domain registrars who have purchased name space off a TLD is the way to go. Don't just let any dipshit register any domain. It might make the process more expensive and increase waits, but ultimately that's the only way any semblance of order is to be had. [end cut/paste]
i agree with you completely on the subject of intelligent management of resources, but let's face it: that whole concept was thrown out the window the moment they stopped requiring justification for domains, and was totally screwed when domains became easily registrable by the general public. it's nearly impossible to step back and try to implement it now, not to mention the fact that domain registration is now no longer a matter of resource-management and is instead a profitable business with lots of money at stake. the registrars will not go back and give up all their millions simply because it makes organizational sense to do so... they'll do whatever continues to make them money.
how about something a little more accurate, and get rid of the GTLDs and move them underneath the ccTLDs. ie, www.utexas.edu.us, www.whitehouse.gov.us, or www.microsoft.com.us. (sorry, but the domains i can think of off the top of my head are all us based. i live in the us. sue me.) that would make more sense IMO. plus, there is always the.int TLD for international organizations.
don't forget naming your company 'whatever.com'. (i mean, come on... your company name is supposed to be 'whatever'... your company's WEBSITE is 'whatever.com'. naming your company after its website is patently silly.)
For the matter, ever be standing by a wall and get clawed by one of those fireball guys who appears to be 100 feet above you? That's because the game has no concept of height, and sees that your X/Y coordinates are right next to the monster's X/Y coordinates, and so it starts clawing at you.
Yeah, but i'm sure this was also used in reverse... if a monster is 100 feet above you yet can claw you as though it's 2 feet away, surely you can shoot it as if it's 2 feet away as well. =)
although others have posted the correct code (uuddlrlrba, start), and also mentioned that it is a cheat (not an easter egg) that was widely used in many konami games, my comment is not about those things. my comment is simply that konami's contra was a simple game... beating it within the default limitations is not difficult.
Re:mp3.com's broken data collection not an excuse
on
Napster Wars
·
· Score: 1
[quoted] If they were serious about fairly guaging their artists' popularity and reimbursing the artist accordingly, they could monitor Napster traffic in exactly the same way that Metallica's lackeys did. Not a perfect collection of data (repeat download attempts distort the figures, for example), but certainly more helpful than ignoring the phenominon altogether. [end quote]
wouldn't the point in the network where you started 'listening' for napster traffic also be pretty important in determining exactly what data you are able to sample?
[quoted] At the very least, they should be considreed to be nothing more than another amoral, unethical company that may or may not produce a product one might need or want, and treated accordingly. [end quote]
this could be applied to any company, organization, group of people. at the lowest level, the base driving force of interaction is 'what can you do for me' (imo).
any website that has an uncircumnavigable, required registration system that must be fulfilled before you can view the site can hardly be considered to be "free"... sure, you're not paying any $ but you are paying in 1) the time it takes to fill out the peonic form and 2) the loss of privacy from giving them information. even if you fake (2) you are still paying with (1).
they *are* getting attention. if you don't think so, let's just see if we can find a way to check how many websearches have been done on the subject, and how much the traffic on the official website (if there is one) has gone up.
they should call it something new. call it a boobytrap -- that's what it really is anyway. looks to me like it catches lots of them. (the cgi script posted earlier today certainly caught me. what a maroon. *bonk self*)
The solution is for the US to do something honorable, and recognize that its creation has grown larger than its true control; the solution is for people to do something logical for a change, and create a well-designed system and follow it.
The solution as I see it is to abandon the.com/.net/.org/.mil/.gov/.edu GTLD's, and move domains that were under those (previous) GTLD's under their appropriate country codes and type designations.
For example, whitehouse.gov would become whitehouse.gov.us. Assuming yahoo.com is a US-based entity, it would move to yahoo.com.us. And so on.
I would also like to see Registrars organized more sensibly. I disagree with the splitup of Internic; I think that for each country code a single registrar would make sense, ie registrar.us, registrar.jp, etc. Alternatively, if this is too generalized, a registrar for each second level domain type could be used, ie, registrar.com.us, registrar.org.us, registrar.net.jp, etc.
A few simple reshufflings and TLD/SLD domain name conventions could solve many domain name problems. IMO netizens simply don't make enough use of subdomains. The DNS system can support subdomains (IIRC) up to 127 levels deep, yet for the most part we've only expanded sideways -- and now we're feeling the crunch.
back when i was in high school, on a HP-UX system in the CS labs, you could redirect output to another user's tty... this was tons of fun for hs kids.:) if only we'd realized its full potential...:)
the resources available to us on earth are finite. it is my belief that we should attempt to utilize them in the most efficient manner in matters such as this.
in my mind, i'm thinking several things:
1. disposable space probes? god... everything is disposable now, eh? 2. disposable items are for resource-heavy systems. 3. we may or may not be resource-heavy. since thus far history has shown mankind to be the worst kind of resource squanderer on the planet, and the matter available to us is finite at this point in time, it seems logical to attempt to use them as efficiently as possible. 4. disposable probes may be quite cost effective in knowledge gained vs matter/resources used. 5. if we set probes to crash into the sun (as another poster mentioned), the chance of reclaiming those resources used in the probe is nil. ditto for those that drift in space indefinitely. 6. if probes crash into the moon, we may at some point either a) develop a large enough stockpile of objects on the moon to make it worthwhile to retrieve them or b) develop our technology sufficiently that the cost of reclaiming the resources from the moon is effectively trivial.
all of these points are off of the top of my head and mostly just me rambling, and they may be considered useless bean-counting in the grand scheme of things, but i didn't play all those RTS's for nothing.;)
Slashdot Mirror
1. I agree needed are more TLD's, but they need to be logical ones. Sex sites on .sex, Map sites on .map, ISP's on .net or .isp, only real companies as .com's etc.
.com.
you must provide clearly delineated rulesets which define what goes where. for example, porn sites that are commercial enterprises (as opposed to porn sites that give their content away for free)... would they be porn.com or porn.sex? to further complicate the issue, would porn.com.sex or porn.sex.com be allowable? the issue isn't as neatly dividable as it appears.
2. There need to be rules and the registration services need to enforce them. aka if your not a company you don't get a
agreed. laws that are not enforced are useless.
3. First come first served, end of story. If you register xxxx.yyy its yours unless there is a superior claim. ie mcdonalds.com should belong to the company, but if you register mcdonalds.fam because thats your family name no one cna take it away.
if you used rule (1) and (2) above, then (3) would not be a problem. potential cases where it might be a problem would be two families who want to register mcdonalds.org, but this is solveable through subdomains.
4. Trademarks mean nothing on the internet, and should not be enforcable. see above.
this would probably not be nearly quite the problem that it is today if rules (1) and (2) were used.
5. A new central authority, the current ones don't work.
this is because the 'central authority' (NSI, previously known as Internic) has now been dissolved in the name of capitalism. IMO, the "monopoly" of internic was more efficient than the money-grabbing mess that it is turning into.
6. Registration services cannot own domain names, or horde domain names that they do not use as part of their business.
i agree, but without a practical way to enforce this, such a rule is without value. can anyone think of a way to safeguard against this sort of action?
7. Domain names are the property of the person who registers them, the fee is simply for the up keep of the central domain records, so your DNS server can be found.
i'm not sure about the term 'property'. i've never had any problem with the concept of registration of a domain... it's simply a lease of common domain space, really. everybody and nobody owns them... you're simply the person who holds the current license for it. now, on the matter of reselling the license of the domain (ie, selling the domain for millions of dollars as is done now), perhaps something could be written into the registration agreement that prohibits resale of the license, so that you can't register 'rock.com' and then sell it for a million dollars. you get the idea.
8.Owners have the right to move to a different service if they so desire at anytime.
what service? if there is a central authority then there is only one registrar, and DNS is all one service anyway. what would they switch *to*?
9. Anyone can provide registration services, just like networksolutions, register.com whatever.
i think that this would be a mistake. i do not agree with peer-to-peer domain registration concepts. i believe that they would result in more chaos than they solve. they achieve a loss of centralized control (perceived as a good thing) at the expense of centralized order (perceived as a bad thing IMO). again, if there was a 'central authority', this rule would be unnecessary.
10. Domain names cannot be suspended or taken away, unless you can provide a superior claim, TRADEMARKS do not count. You must simply have existed longer doing what you are doing on the internet...first come first served again.
what constitutes 'a superior claim'? who decides which claim is 'superior'? many of the court-combats over domain names are for easily-rememberable domain names (such as mcdonalds.com, although i doubt they've been in any litigation over it... i'm simply using it as an example.) yes, people aren't that smart commonly, and you want a commercial domain name (any domain name, really) to be easily rememberable (that being the entire point of domain names in the first place), but any advertising/marketing department worth its salt can make a terrible domain name carve itself into your retinas.
11. You have the right to a single top level domain. If you have xxxx.yyy you cannot own xxxx.zzz as well unless it is providing entirely different content and services. This is common sense stuff, that personally i had always thought was just standard practice until I really started paying attention to internet politics.
why should i have the right to a top level domain? what's the point? if things are organized well (see rules (1) and (2), and also keep in mind that DNS can go 127 levels deep in subdomains) then the need for more TLDs should be reduced significantly. anyway, with the xxxx.yyy and xxxx.zzz stuff, if you follow the recommendation of another poster and charge higher fees for domain registrations to a single entity (person/corp) then they will not want to own too many of them. again, rules (1) and (2) aid in this effort to control "domain spammers" as well.
eudas
quoth the previous poster:
[begin cut/paste]
I think active management by a set of domain registrars who have purchased name space off a TLD is the way to go. Don't just let any dipshit register any domain. It might make the process more expensive and increase waits, but ultimately that's the only way any semblance of order is to be had.
[end cut/paste]
i agree with you completely on the subject of intelligent management of resources, but let's face it: that whole concept was thrown out the window the moment they stopped requiring justification for domains, and was totally screwed when domains became easily registrable by the general public. it's nearly impossible to step back and try to implement it now, not to mention the fact that domain registration is now no longer a matter of resource-management and is instead a profitable business with lots of money at stake. the registrars will not go back and give up all their millions simply because it makes organizational sense to do so... they'll do whatever continues to make them money.
eudas
how about something a little more accurate, and get rid of the GTLDs and move them underneath the ccTLDs. ie, www.utexas.edu.us, www.whitehouse.gov.us, or www.microsoft.com.us. (sorry, but the domains i can think of off the top of my head are all us based. i live in the us. sue me.) that would make more sense IMO. plus, there is always the .int TLD for international organizations.
eudas
don't forget naming your company 'whatever.com'. (i mean, come on... your company name is supposed to be 'whatever'... your company's WEBSITE is 'whatever.com'. naming your company after its website is patently silly.)
eudas
I vote for 'Out to Lunch'. =)
eudas
this sounds similar to the issue between music artists and RIAA, only instead of fame, the RIAA takes the money.
eudas
eudas
especially if someone disguises the BO trojan as a BO client prog... ;) then you'd just end up infecting yourself for real, heh.
eudas
although others have posted the correct code (uuddlrlrba, start), and also mentioned that it is a cheat (not an easter egg) that was widely used in many konami games, my comment is not about those things. my comment is simply that konami's contra was a simple game... beating it within the default limitations is not difficult.
[quoted]
If they were serious about fairly guaging their artists' popularity and reimbursing the artist accordingly, they could monitor Napster traffic in exactly the same way that Metallica's lackeys did. Not a perfect collection of data (repeat download attempts distort the figures, for example), but certainly more helpful than ignoring the phenominon altogether.
[end quote]
wouldn't the point in the network where you started 'listening' for napster traffic also be pretty important in determining exactly what data you are able to sample?
[quoted]
At the very least, they should be considreed to be nothing more than another amoral, unethical company that may or may not produce a product one might need or want, and treated accordingly.
[end quote]
this could be applied to any company, organization, group of people. at the lowest level, the base driving force of interaction is 'what can you do for me' (imo).
eudas
nothing will pacify the riaa except a full return to the 'old' (?) profit-making ways.
eudas
brock97 wrote:
" There were things, like the fact the aliens did NOT keep humans around for manual labor as indicated in the book, "
...isn't that a pretty important thing? i mean, pretty much the whole plot of the movie revolves around it, right?
details, detials...
eudas
isn't that happening already (DMCA, UCITA, etc) without the help of the scientologists? Or are they merely 'behind the scenes' ?
=)
eudas
it does if you are referring to several new things...
eudas
any website that has an uncircumnavigable, required registration system that must be fulfilled before you can view the site can hardly be considered to be "free"... sure, you're not paying any $ but you are paying in 1) the time it takes to fill out the peonic form and 2) the loss of privacy from giving them information. even if you fake (2) you are still paying with (1).
eudas
what is to prevent fake slashdot accounts from moderating their troll-posts upward?
they *are* getting attention.
if you don't think so, let's just see if we can find a way to check how many websearches have been done on the subject, and how much the traffic on the official website (if there is one) has gone up.
eudas
they should call it something new. call it a boobytrap -- that's what it really is anyway. looks to me like it catches lots of them. (the cgi script posted earlier today certainly caught me. what a maroon. *bonk self*)
eudas
New TLD's are not the solution.
.com/.net/.org/.mil/.gov/.edu GTLD's, and move domains that were under those (previous) GTLD's under their appropriate country codes and type designations.
The solution is for the US to do something honorable, and recognize that its creation has grown larger than its true control; the solution is for people to do something logical for a change, and create a well-designed system and follow it.
The solution as I see it is to abandon the
For example, whitehouse.gov would become whitehouse.gov.us. Assuming yahoo.com is a US-based entity, it would move to yahoo.com.us. And so on.
I would also like to see Registrars organized more sensibly. I disagree with the splitup of Internic; I think that for each country code a single registrar would make sense, ie registrar.us, registrar.jp, etc. Alternatively, if this is too generalized, a registrar for each second level domain type could be used, ie, registrar.com.us, registrar.org.us, registrar.net.jp, etc.
A few simple reshufflings and TLD/SLD domain name conventions could solve many domain name problems. IMO netizens simply don't make enough use of subdomains. The DNS system can support subdomains (IIRC) up to 127 levels deep, yet for the most part we've only expanded sideways -- and now we're feeling the crunch.
This has been another $0.04 by
eudas
back when i was in high school, on a HP-UX system in the CS labs, you could redirect output to another user's tty... this was tons of fun for hs kids. :) if only we'd realized its full potential... :)
eudas
have you noticed how often the term 'jack-booted thugs' has been used in recent press to describe people or groups who do unpopular things?
well, at least they're not devaluing the word 'nazi' anymore... *smirk*
eudas
Plus, of course, as usual it would be America screwing the rest of the world, which it has no right to do
I object to this statement... we have just as much right to fuck everybody else as they do fuck us.
eudas
the resources available to us on earth are finite. it is my belief that we should attempt to utilize them in the most efficient manner in matters such as this.
;)
in my mind, i'm thinking several things:
1. disposable space probes? god... everything is disposable now, eh?
2. disposable items are for resource-heavy systems.
3. we may or may not be resource-heavy. since thus far history has shown mankind to be the worst kind of resource squanderer on the planet, and the matter available to us is finite at this point in time, it seems logical to attempt to use them as efficiently as possible.
4. disposable probes may be quite cost effective in knowledge gained vs matter/resources used.
5. if we set probes to crash into the sun (as another poster mentioned), the chance of reclaiming those resources used in the probe is nil. ditto for those that drift in space indefinitely.
6. if probes crash into the moon, we may at some point either a) develop a large enough stockpile of objects on the moon to make it worthwhile to retrieve them or b) develop our technology sufficiently that the cost of reclaiming the resources from the moon is effectively trivial.
all of these points are off of the top of my head and mostly just me rambling, and they may be considered useless bean-counting in the grand scheme of things, but i didn't play all those RTS's for nothing.
that's my $0.04.
eudas