Because our society is largely based on capitalist principles which uses the profit motive as an incentive to create economic growth and technological development. Being able to afford space yachts is one of the incentives that encourages this growth.
You can not provide one single instance of a 'decentralized' service that people use.
Email. Usenet. Bittorrent. The WorldWideWeb. Perhaps you don't consider them decentralised for some reason, but whatever you call it, I'm suggesting a service that's similar in nature to these.
You don't get anything done by designing it. Most programmers with the technical knowledge to implement could come up with a passable design for a decentralised social network.
It's not going to exist until someone actually creates it.
You're clearly lying. I know because I've been in contact with the representative of the real Nigerian head of state, regarding the transfer of $20,000,000 (TWENTY MILLION DOLLARS) and he said you;re the scammer.
Having a mobile phone is quite common amongst the homeless. They're very cheap and extremely useful. They usually have access to somewhere they can charge them.
Don't think it works like that.
The idea is that you tell the government that the facebook ID, or telephone, or whatever is yours, and then you can use the same facebook ID or telephone number each time you use the service. Not really different from providing an email address.
.biz?.info? and a bunch of others. It['s already failed on a small scale. Why would it succeed on a massive scale?
Because you need to get interest from several companies. They want a.com. Exactly one company will want a.microsoft, and one will want a.amazon, and one will want a.google. They're not trying to sell the subdomains.
The "rational domain name system" would be rational if people used it the way it was. But they don't! And there's no way to to make them. Nor should they. Technology should adapt to how people want to use it, we shouldn't force people to adapt to the technology.
People don't go for.co.uk and.com because they're companies. They do for marketing reasons. To most people it simply means "internet". So why bother with it at all?
As a programmer, I've always been taught not to pollute the global namespace, but that's exactly what's being planned here.
Why not? why is it so much better to pollute the second level namespace?
And I'll ask again: what exactly is the gain here: who wins? Just like every other attempt to open up the domain name system, all that will happen is that it'll become a magnet for domain squatters and companies will have to have yet another domain they have to buy.
The companies that can distinguish themselves from arbitrary domains benefit. Also the people who want to avoid domain name squatters. It's not about selling the subdomains. In fact they're actively preventing that.
The thought of having three hundred new TLDs to deal with was not something they wanted to hear.
They won't. They'll have at most, two!.company and.company.uk. If it catches on, they can eventually ditch the.com, and certainly all the other stupid tlds.
Why is that so silly? The.com has become virtually meaningless. It's just an indicator that something is on the internet. The "lets have TLDs for everything" policy is basically a plan to eliminate the redundant.com.
Similarly the.co part of the UK domain is pointless. Why bother to have it at all? It's not being used the way it was intended.
The Staten Island Ferry is itself a tourist attraction. Get a great view of the Manhattan skyline. Most tourists get on the boat and then go straight back.
In fact why not rent rooms for an integer number of rotations... This might actually be fun.
The Singapore flyer offers a dinner service for two revolutions. Not quite what you have in mind I realise but along the same lines.
Hmm so about a 50% annual load factor or a 110% daily load factor. Pick one?
Not sure about the daily load factor. I guess they rounded up. I imagine it will be less popular in the winter though. I presume they have quite a good idea about seasonal variations in tourist attractions based on other New York attractions.
It seems pretty improbable though. As far as deniability goes, this is certainly plausible enough that you'd need some pretty compelling evidence to convince a jury that this was his intention.
It's the same if CNN of Fox news broadcast this type of stuff during election day (which I assume is illegal in America)
This is not the case. The US has possibly the strongest protection of freedom of speech in the world, and any such law would be in violation of the constitution.
But most other countries do consider freedom of speech to be a right that should be balanced with other rights. A fair election being one of them, and the belief that public criticism of a candidate without adequate time for the candidate to address the accusations would violate this right.
Yes, but libel laws, prohibitions on death threats, and prohibitions on publishing government secrets are also censorship. Censorship itself is just a label. Calling something that doesn't automatically make it bad.
I realise Kickstarter has a business to run, and they need to retain a certain reputation. The risks and challenges is a good idea.
I can't help thinking that the prohibition on simulations is a little too protective. It's useful to give some sort of idea of what a product might do, and as long as it's clear that it's a simulation I think backers should be able to accept that there's a risk here.
Yet photographers do seem to use macs over PCs. This is my observation. Not something based on assumptions. Last time I worked for a design company, all the designers and photographers used Macs! The professional independent photographers I know use them as well.
I accept my sample may be skewed, but in general, observational evidence is reliable than hypothesising.
Slashdot Mirror
Because our society is largely based on capitalist principles which uses the profit motive as an incentive to create economic growth and technological development. Being able to afford space yachts is one of the incentives that encourages this growth.
As a non-smoker, I do the same, except for the cigarette part.
Can't say I like your habit much, but as long as it doesn't affect me, this seems to be way too much of an intrusion into private lives of employees.
Email. Usenet. Bittorrent. The WorldWideWeb. Perhaps you don't consider them decentralised for some reason, but whatever you call it, I'm suggesting a service that's similar in nature to these.
I'll just make a few calls...
Just what I was going to say.
You don't get anything done by designing it. Most programmers with the technical knowledge to implement could come up with a passable design for a decentralised social network.
It's not going to exist until someone actually creates it.
You're clearly lying. I know because I've been in contact with the representative of the real Nigerian head of state, regarding the transfer of $20,000,000 (TWENTY MILLION DOLLARS) and he said you;re the scammer.
Having a mobile phone is quite common amongst the homeless. They're very cheap and extremely useful. They usually have access to somewhere they can charge them.
No idea how he had an iPhone though.
Don't think it works like that. The idea is that you tell the government that the facebook ID, or telephone, or whatever is yours, and then you can use the same facebook ID or telephone number each time you use the service. Not really different from providing an email address.
It won't become mandatory. I think this was a sarcastic quip by the submitter or editor.
Thing is, when you have to be this specific, the analogy no longer has any purpose, and you might as well describe the situation.
Because you need to get interest from several companies. They want a .com. Exactly one company will want a .microsoft, and one will want a .amazon, and one will want a .google. They're not trying to sell the subdomains.
.co.uk and .com because they're companies. They do for marketing reasons. To most people it simply means "internet". So why bother with it at all?
The "rational domain name system" would be rational if people used it the way it was. But they don't! And there's no way to to make them. Nor should they. Technology should adapt to how people want to use it, we shouldn't force people to adapt to the technology.
People don't go for
Why not? why is it so much better to pollute the second level namespace?
The companies that can distinguish themselves from arbitrary domains benefit. Also the people who want to avoid domain name squatters. It's not about selling the subdomains. In fact they're actively preventing that.
They won't. They'll have at most, two! .company and .company.uk. If it catches on, they can eventually ditch the .com, and certainly all the other stupid tlds.
Why is that so silly? The .com has become virtually meaningless. It's just an indicator that something is on the internet. The "lets have TLDs for everything" policy is basically a plan to eliminate the redundant .com.
.co part of the UK domain is pointless. Why bother to have it at all? It's not being used the way it was intended.
Similarly the
Why? Does this sort of thing happen a lot with nominet? I haven't heard a lot of stories about the organisation being inherently corrupt.
The Staten Island Ferry is itself a tourist attraction. Get a great view of the Manhattan skyline. Most tourists get on the boat and then go straight back.
The Singapore flyer offers a dinner service for two revolutions. Not quite what you have in mind I realise but along the same lines.
Not sure about the daily load factor. I guess they rounded up. I imagine it will be less popular in the winter though. I presume they have quite a good idea about seasonal variations in tourist attractions based on other New York attractions.
It seems pretty improbable though. As far as deniability goes, this is certainly plausible enough that you'd need some pretty compelling evidence to convince a jury that this was his intention.
You seem to have inferred an opinion on whether I think either of those viewpoints is more valid. Pretty certain I didn't state one.
This is not the case. The US has possibly the strongest protection of freedom of speech in the world, and any such law would be in violation of the constitution.
But most other countries do consider freedom of speech to be a right that should be balanced with other rights. A fair election being one of them, and the belief that public criticism of a candidate without adequate time for the candidate to address the accusations would violate this right.
Yes, but libel laws, prohibitions on death threats, and prohibitions on publishing government secrets are also censorship. Censorship itself is just a label. Calling something that doesn't automatically make it bad.
See part D.
File charges wherever they state. If they don't defend, then presumably you get a default judgement in your favour.,.
I don't think Slashdot has ever really intended to be non biased.
My reading is that this would be okay. It is an actual prototype after all, which can be demonstrated as working.
I realise Kickstarter has a business to run, and they need to retain a certain reputation. The risks and challenges is a good idea.
I can't help thinking that the prohibition on simulations is a little too protective. It's useful to give some sort of idea of what a product might do, and as long as it's clear that it's a simulation I think backers should be able to accept that there's a risk here.
No, you see, there's something magical about the specific frequencies used!
Yet photographers do seem to use macs over PCs. This is my observation. Not something based on assumptions. Last time I worked for a design company, all the designers and photographers used Macs! The professional independent photographers I know use them as well.
I accept my sample may be skewed, but in general, observational evidence is reliable than hypothesising.