Ideologically, yes. The whole point of domains is supposed to be so people don't have to remember IP addresses; it's supposed to reflect organisational and network topology.
It currently does not, and is primarily used as a 'web lookup service' and as a flat database (yes it's heirarchial, but few use it).
I'm a proponent of independent lookup systems for filing information/websites, and leave DNS to do what it's good at.
Should all those companies that have paid registration fees have their domains taken away? No... not immediately, but no new registrations should be handed out, and none should be allowed to renew. It should be phased out. They didn't buy domains; they paid registration fees for someone to put an entry in a database.
Whether it's geographic, or some new system, I maintain it has to stay heirarchial, that's how it was designed.
Though I have yet to see a solution to the problem, we all know (or should know) the problem exists.
It used to be that all the ccTLD's and such were not paying 'fees' to have their domains, they just had them. THey administered them as they saw fit..com was for commercial,.net for network providers, and.org for organisations that don't fit into the other two..gov for US Government sites, and.MIL for us military sites..edu for official US educational insitutes.
Yes, this is because the root servers were sponsored by the american taxpayers.
Now.. the thing is, in this world, if you control something, you can make money off it. As long as this system is privatised, it will be run as a cash cow, period. What wee need is an international taxpayer-funded coop, so that big business can't get involved. We need to do away with *all* generic TLD's, and get back to ccTLD's.
That's rather obvious. but you see, from a data protection point of view, most places don't audit every single jack in every single wall. They don't run switches in ultra-secure mode and don't use static arp tables on all their servers, etc etc etc....
Yes, there is a point, in that others should not be able to connect to your network. That's important.. but not the same thing as network security. We still need higher layer secure protocols.. ALL protocols...
But who ever said one of the duties of layer 2 was to provide security?
That's not entirely an accurate statement, I relize.. but the concept is there.
Ethernet is very hackable.
You should rely on higher-layer protocols to prevent hackability.... not your lowest layers. 802.11b was not developed for super-secret communications; it's not for spies. It's for every-day-people...
Well.. the original phrase is 'All your base are belong to us'... but of course, base was supposed to be plurall.. it should mean 'we have conquered all your bases!' or some such thing.
SO in order for the title to fit with this mis-translated-yet-somehow-taking-the-world-by-sto rm statement, it should read 'all your bit are belong to us!'
Summary: The DMCA provides for either statutory or actual damages. If you don't have a registered copyright, the courts currently say you can only claim actual damages.
His stuff wasn't registered, and the company won't negotiate, so his only option is to go to court. And as it wasn't a registered copyright, he can only sue for actual damages, which could cost a bundle, and is harder to prove. And he can't afford it.
So what he's really saying, unless I misunderstand, is that the DMCA doesn't protect the little guy because you still have to go to court, and lawyers cost money....... I don't really see how that's failure.. that's, unfortunately, how law works.
The implication for GPL is more obvious: How do you prove actual damages on GPL or other open-type license code? Who actually can claim the 'lost profits'?
What he says, remember, is that you can't claim statutory damages (which gpl violators would be liable for) unless the copyright was registered.
Bluetooth is good because it can be implemented in 1 or 2 chips, with the antennae and transmitter in the chips..... so it is *cheap* to wirelessly enable a device. That was the whole point of bluetooth.. so all these pda developers and shit could easily and cheaply make stuff communiacate.
Had BeOS been multiuser, I might have given it a much more serious look.
And I'm not just picking at it.. I like lots of things about it. But not having multiuser really bothered me.
You say 'why isn't it considered a desktop choice?'. Considered by whom?
OSS bandwagoners? People who have never really used anything but linux (other than windows)?
Some people will tell you Linux is not a choice. Some will tell you MacOS is the *only* choice... etc... ad nauseum.
I use OpenBSD on my desktop.. why? Because.. it's the best match for what I need/want. Which may or may not be anything like what you need/want. I want simplistic, traditional unix. I don't want fancy package management. I want consistency. I tried OpenBSD, and it suited me perfectly.
Is it a choice for my mom? No. A mac, or perhaps Windows is good for my mom. Is it good for a comp. sci student? Perhaps linux is better.. more multimedia type apps and other neat bleeding edge stuff to play with.
Also.. why do you seek to have others acknowledge your OS as a good choice? I don't understand this... use what you use for your own reasons... and don't worry about what other's think. That's just plain silly. I use what I use with great conviction (even if that conviction is that I'm using it because it happens to do the job, and even though 10 other products might do the same job, I JUST DON'T CARE). Let your own experience dictate such things for you.
SO I guess it sounds cool, that it's deregulated.
Ours is too; we could also do the same thing, but probably don't have big enough markets to make it worthwhile.
But when you get your service, who is the entity you chiefly deal with. I assume you don't deal with all 3 providers on your own from the start. Do you call the ISP and they arrange the rest or what?
This wasn't about government licensing for genetically modified crops.. it was about a patented crop.. he was growing without a license from the patent holder.
let me get this straight.
In the US.. the DSL provider is not the same as the ISP providing internet?
See.. up here in Canadia.. the copper is provided by telco, and the DSL service is provided by whoever the ISP is..... period. THe telco isn't likely to go broke....
So my ISP sends out people to hook up the DSL gear.. test the lines, etc...
From what I understand, y'all have this system down there where an independent entity sets up a huge DSL call center and then farms out bandwidht to differnet ISP's.. well no duh it's not gonna work....
What's the deal? AOL owns the servers; AOL is allowed to say who can connect.
And be glad they are fighting this technically, not legally. I'm sure we'd all MUCH rather see a company simply spend effort doing somethign technical than going around suing everyone.
It most certainly is a virus. The traditional virus is always spread by human action. The 'viral 'nature involves attaching itself to executables so that when the executable is run, the virus then replacates to other executables. Later virii had memory-resident portions and such.
Something that moves from computer to computer on a network is a worm.
Something that spreads from executable to executable, using the executable as a primary launch mechanism is a virus.
Slashdot Mirror
But that's the point, exactly.
Web URL's should be using a lookup service other than DNS, if simplicity is what we're after.
slashdot.andover.ma.us is *perfect*. It tells me where a machine is.... it's great. That's what dns was designed for...
Previous ownership? It was outright STOLEN from him using forged transfer documents; that's not anything at all like 'squatting' or anything else.
What kind of trend are you referring to?
The guy 100% *stole* the domain, using forged transfer documents... and it took 6 years for the courts to give it back....
what I want to know is why couldn't he get it back way before that?
Ideologically, yes. The whole point of domains is supposed to be so people don't have to remember IP addresses; it's supposed to reflect organisational and network topology.
It currently does not, and is primarily used as a 'web lookup service' and as a flat database (yes it's heirarchial, but few use it).
I'm a proponent of independent lookup systems for filing information/websites, and leave DNS to do what it's good at.
Should all those companies that have paid registration fees have their domains taken away? No... not immediately, but no new registrations should be handed out, and none should be allowed to renew. It should be phased out. They didn't buy domains; they paid registration fees for someone to put an entry in a database.
Whether it's geographic, or some new system, I maintain it has to stay heirarchial, that's how it was designed.
Though I have yet to see a solution to the problem, we all know (or should know) the problem exists.
.com was for commercial, .net for network providers, and .org for organisations that don't fit into the other two. .gov for US Government sites, and .MIL for us military sites. .edu for official US educational insitutes.
It used to be that all the ccTLD's and such were not paying 'fees' to have their domains, they just had them. THey administered them as they saw fit.
Yes, this is because the root servers were sponsored by the american taxpayers.
Now.. the thing is, in this world, if you control something, you can make money off it. As long as this system is privatised, it will be run as a cash cow, period. What wee need is an international taxpayer-funded coop, so that big business can't get involved. We need to do away with *all* generic TLD's, and get back to ccTLD's.
That's rather obvious. but you see, from a data protection point of view, most places don't audit every single jack in every single wall. They don't run switches in ultra-secure mode and don't use static arp tables on all their servers, etc etc etc....
Yes, there is a point, in that others should not be able to connect to your network. That's important.. but not the same thing as network security. We still need higher layer secure protocols.. ALL protocols...
No actually.. I didn't...
But who ever said one of the duties of layer 2 was to provide security?
That's not entirely an accurate statement, I relize.. but the concept is there.
Ethernet is very hackable.
You should rely on higher-layer protocols to prevent hackability.... not your lowest layers. 802.11b was not developed for super-secret communications; it's not for spies. It's for every-day-people...
Well.. the original phrase is 'All your base are belong to us'... but of course, base was supposed to be plurall.. it should mean 'we have conquered all your bases!' or some such thing.
o rm statement, it should read 'all your bit are belong to us!'
SO in order for the title to fit with this mis-translated-yet-somehow-taking-the-world-by-st
Summary: The DMCA provides for either statutory or actual damages. If you don't have a registered copyright, the courts currently say you can only claim actual damages.
His stuff wasn't registered, and the company won't negotiate, so his only option is to go to court. And as it wasn't a registered copyright, he can only sue for actual damages, which could cost a bundle, and is harder to prove. And he can't afford it.
So what he's really saying, unless I misunderstand, is that the DMCA doesn't protect the little guy because you still have to go to court, and lawyers cost money....... I don't really see how that's failure.. that's, unfortunately, how law works.
The implication for GPL is more obvious: How do you prove actual damages on GPL or other open-type license code? Who actually can claim the 'lost profits'?
What he says, remember, is that you can't claim statutory damages (which gpl violators would be liable for) unless the copyright was registered.
Ethernet != Internet.. that's just what we tend to use it for. And Bluetooth can be used the same way.
But the point is.. you hook printers to the network because its' FAST. You use bluetooth because it's tiny, low-power, and convenient.
Bluetooth is what IRDA should have been.
Bluetooth is good because it can be implemented in 1 or 2 chips, with the antennae and transmitter in the chips..... so it is *cheap* to wirelessly enable a device. That was the whole point of bluetooth.. so all these pda developers and shit could easily and cheaply make stuff communiacate.
I've done near that anyway.. yes it's theoretical, but it's also practical.
Though to get 25 miles, you'll need precicion installation... good cable, solid connections.. 2.4Ghz is very succeptible to small errors in cabling.
Also.. having a high point is good.. but you'll need to cover several channels in order to service many people from that distance...
802.11 and Bluetooth are *totally different*.
It makes me sick to see all this 'bluetooth networking'.
802.11 is for wireless lan.
Bluetooth is for simple data communications between portable devices.
SHEESH.
Had BeOS been multiuser, I might have given it a much more serious look.
And I'm not just picking at it.. I like lots of things about it. But not having multiuser really bothered me.
Which province is that?
You say 'why isn't it considered a desktop choice?'. Considered by whom?
OSS bandwagoners? People who have never really used anything but linux (other than windows)?
Some people will tell you Linux is not a choice. Some will tell you MacOS is the *only* choice... etc... ad nauseum.
I use OpenBSD on my desktop.. why? Because.. it's the best match for what I need/want. Which may or may not be anything like what you need/want. I want simplistic, traditional unix. I don't want fancy package management. I want consistency. I tried OpenBSD, and it suited me perfectly.
Is it a choice for my mom? No. A mac, or perhaps Windows is good for my mom. Is it good for a comp. sci student? Perhaps linux is better.. more multimedia type apps and other neat bleeding edge stuff to play with.
Also.. why do you seek to have others acknowledge your OS as a good choice? I don't understand this... use what you use for your own reasons... and don't worry about what other's think. That's just plain silly. I use what I use with great conviction (even if that conviction is that I'm using it because it happens to do the job, and even though 10 other products might do the same job, I JUST DON'T CARE). Let your own experience dictate such things for you.
SO I guess it sounds cool, that it's deregulated.
Ours is too; we could also do the same thing, but probably don't have big enough markets to make it worthwhile.
But when you get your service, who is the entity you chiefly deal with. I assume you don't deal with all 3 providers on your own from the start. Do you call the ISP and they arrange the rest or what?
This wasn't about government licensing for genetically modified crops.. it was about a patented crop.. he was growing without a license from the patent holder.
let me get this straight.
In the US.. the DSL provider is not the same as the ISP providing internet?
See.. up here in Canadia.. the copper is provided by telco, and the DSL service is provided by whoever the ISP is..... period. THe telco isn't likely to go broke....
So my ISP sends out people to hook up the DSL gear.. test the lines, etc...
From what I understand, y'all have this system down there where an independent entity sets up a huge DSL call center and then farms out bandwidht to differnet ISP's.. well no duh it's not gonna work....
Where are your lawyers, and how exactly does the company justify not letting it go through? This is one for the lawyers.
Is that, the gist of this is, get credit card numbers.
How is using a friends house as a' drop site' for carded equipmetn safe? How do they not track it down? Someone explain this to me...
Yes.. I indicated I suspected it was power levels.
Yes, I was referring to ISM band devices, and yes, I know that MMDS occupies licensed spectrum.
The whole spectrum, though, is regulated. The 2.4Ghz ISM band is also regulated. There are rules one must follow.
What's the deal? AOL owns the servers; AOL is allowed to say who can connect.
And be glad they are fighting this technically, not legally. I'm sure we'd all MUCH rather see a company simply spend effort doing somethign technical than going around suing everyone.
It most certainly is a virus. The traditional virus is always spread by human action. The 'viral 'nature involves attaching itself to executables so that when the executable is run, the virus then replacates to other executables. Later virii had memory-resident portions and such.
Something that moves from computer to computer on a network is a worm.
Something that spreads from executable to executable, using the executable as a primary launch mechanism is a virus.