Even millions of sites don't add up to that much. Let's say it's still a problem: why not just set a minimum threshold? Maybe publicize that the minimum TTL you will accept is 30 mins. Or 60 mins. At least sites stand a chance. The way things are -- with ISPs not updating DNS for a month at a time -- sites that have been hacked or that are changing providers are completely hosed.
How this SHOULD work is that, if a request comes in, the DNS server will first check it's cache. If there is a cache entry AND that cache entry is not past it's TTL, return the cached entry. Otherwise, refer to the parent nameserver and cache the response, starting the TTL timer over.
In other words, stale entries should be expected--they won't be removed until someone actually requests this domain again.
None of that will help Grandma with her browser. The major ISPs are running cache-ing DNS servers that don't flush their entries when they're told to. That's the problem.
Setting a low TTL is not abuse; it's good administration. You need a short TTL in case of outages or other emergency actions. The bandwidth is negligible, even if thousands of sites do this. The ISPs are run by idiots.
If running ads doesn't work, then obviously they have not figured out how to run their sites. Me blocking ads is just like me not reading them, only more convenient for me; if I merely ignore them, are you suggesting I'm "pirating" the site? Perhaps, using your logic, I should be required to buy a sponsor's product every time I visit a site. That way, it keeps the sponsor wanting to advertise.
Or better yet, they can stop being selfish, stubborn babybooming pricks who think they're entitled to revenue, and come up with a better way to support themselves.
Here's a way you can look at it which doesn't make us "socially irresponsible": sites that use this business model have chosen to run this way, and that's not my problem. I'll block the ads 'til the end of time. It's up to them to change their revenue model; I'm not beholden to supporting them.
Sorry, we're closed.
Sites cannot be run for free. Servers cost money. Bandwidth costs money. More importantly, quality content to fill the site with costs money.
That is not my problem. If you can't figure out how to raise that money, change your business model. Don't try to blame the public for your own stubborn incompetence.
There is no social contract. I have signed nothing and have not knowing agreed to anything.
This is merely a statement from self-important profiteers, which one may read to mean "you are required to look at our ads and if you're not careful, we'll start requiring you to buy our products."
Our response as always is: you are not entitled to a permanent business model. If yours doesn't work, go back to the drawing board and innovate.
You have a good point; this is true. I am not sure that's what the objection is -- from the article, it appears that they honestly think it's easier to run a Windows shop because MS support is so good. Gak!
C'mon, follow the money trail -- Laura DiDio works for *BSD! She's been on that payroll for years; *BSD is now little more than a troll-house, since development has slowed to a halt. Soon they'll being going the SCO route, and try to say they invented the TCP/IP stack and demand royalties.
Linux is free but support isn't? Well clearly, these geniuses have discovered an OS that has free support. Microsoft is doing that now, right?
I say this from professional experience in a small-mid-sized company: Windows complications are more common and more problematic than Linux's are. Windows has good marketing, but shit never works the way it's supposed to. And then you have to try and deal with a single-vendor platform to make it work.
But let 'em keep using Windows. Eventually they'll figure out that the guys using Linux (or *BSD) are better, faster, and more secure than they are. These guys are just a little slower than the rest of us.
Also: what do you think the odds are that these brain donors have Linux boxes running critical systems and don't even know it? Linux by stealth is really common; it's how I got Linux into my shop.
In a word, NO. Anti-spam zealots are about as bad as the spammers they hate. I've had nothing but bad experiences with MAPS -- the guys there think any email that mentions a product is automatically spam, even when it's me writing to a friend about a toy I bought.
The answer is: vote with your feet and don't use MAPS.
Actually, the Constitution lists what congress can do, and it isn't allowed to make restrictions if they aren't specifically allowed. Try Government 101 if you need help with this.
IP is not all around us; it's a fantasy. You cannot own what does not exist. And you're going to have one hell of a time trying to reign in what duplicates itself by its own nature.
It's typical of the wood-headed baby boom generationazis, who invented the myth of "IP" to begin with, to grandstand about their entitlements: We have the right to make up arbitrary rules and force you to live by them! Blah blah.
"IP" does not exist. It's not allowed by the US Constitution, and is bizarre in concept anyway: what, you own the part of my brain that knows your ideas? You cannot actually own something that only exists in people's heads, fella. Hand me a song and then we can talk.
The problem is, as usual, their feeling of entitlement to continue an outmoded business model as the world changes around them. It reminds me a little bit of the Sneeches, who ignored the rest of the world while it developed around them; bitching at each other was too important. (Yes, I know it's really about Palestine and Israel.) At some point soon, the world will be working with an entirely different business model, and these self-important ass-munches will still be whining about the "revenue streams" that they're entitled to.
"La la la C'mon people now, smile on your brother, everybody get together, got to love one another right now!" Fuck off and die, hippies.
Is the Arch project really still going? I took a look at the home page, and version 2.0 is "postponed indefinately" [sic] and the other, lower versions have strange notes about not being workable, etc.
I like the idea of an open source Bitkeeper-style repo system, but should I keep an eye on Arch, or has it hit a wall?
If you can't figure out that it was Wuzfuzzy who wrote the line about cherishing freedom, and not CmdrTaco, who merely posted it, you don't deserve to read Slashdot.
Wresting control of a item away from it's owner is not a nobal pursuit.
You lost control over your "item" once you released it to the world. You want control over your items? Don't release them. But once they're out here, they're not yours anymore. That's the fundamental point you clearly don't understand. Why should it be this way? Because by releasing your items into our culture, you're affecting all of us.
If you want to change something you can do it with dollars.
Actually, Disney still does this. And no, you can't change things with dollars if a company knows it has a lock on a product. You can't go buy a Mickey Mouse DVD from anyone else, so Disney can distribute its DVDs any way it sees fit -- including forcing you to watch commercials.
Of course you want music/movies/etc. to be treated like tangible products -- you stand to make more money that way. But it's not supported by the US constitution, therefore making any congressional laws that allow this practice unconstitutional.
And it's illogical; why the hell can't I copy my DVDs even to back them up? Or make copies to take to a second home? Even the corp-centric US Congress has decreed that owners of media such as DVDs and CDs have the right to copy them for their own use.
The bottom line here: you need a new business model; pretending that the non-scarce (music, movies, anything else that doesn't exist except in people's minds) is just like the scarce (cars, coffee mugs, telephones) is silly and untenable. The big media industries are merely using the willing US govt. to prolong a business model that is clearly archaic.
Lots of innovators were called "misguided youth" when they were young; those who called them that look silly now. You look silly already.
"nobal" = noble "it's" = its (possessive) "Meida" = media "a artist" = "an artist"
Slashdot Mirror
Even millions of sites don't add up to that much. Let's say it's still a problem: why not just set a minimum threshold? Maybe publicize that the minimum TTL you will accept is 30 mins. Or 60 mins. At least sites stand a chance. The way things are -- with ISPs not updating DNS for a month at a time -- sites that have been hacked or that are changing providers are completely hosed.
How this SHOULD work is that, if a request comes in, the DNS server will first check it's cache. If there is a cache entry AND that cache entry is not past it's TTL, return the cached entry. Otherwise, refer to the parent nameserver and cache the response, starting the TTL timer over.
In other words, stale entries should be expected--they won't be removed until someone actually requests this domain again.
That's precisely how it does work.
None of that will help Grandma with her browser. The major ISPs are running cache-ing DNS servers that don't flush their entries when they're told to. That's the problem.
Setting a low TTL is not abuse; it's good administration. You need a short TTL in case of outages or other emergency actions. The bandwidth is negligible, even if thousands of sites do this. The ISPs are run by idiots.
If running ads doesn't work, then obviously they have not figured out how to run their sites. Me blocking ads is just like me not reading them, only more convenient for me; if I merely ignore them, are you suggesting I'm "pirating" the site? Perhaps, using your logic, I should be required to buy a sponsor's product every time I visit a site. That way, it keeps the sponsor wanting to advertise.
Or better yet, they can stop being selfish, stubborn babybooming pricks who think they're entitled to revenue, and come up with a better way to support themselves.
You have lost. Have a nice day.
Here's a way you can look at it which doesn't make us "socially irresponsible": sites that use this business model have chosen to run this way, and that's not my problem. I'll block the ads 'til the end of time. It's up to them to change their revenue model; I'm not beholden to supporting them. Sorry, we're closed.
Sites cannot be run for free. Servers cost money. Bandwidth costs money. More importantly, quality content to fill the site with costs money.
That is not my problem. If you can't figure out how to raise that money, change your business model. Don't try to blame the public for your own stubborn incompetence.
There is no social contract. I have signed nothing and have not knowing agreed to anything.
This is merely a statement from self-important profiteers, which one may read to mean "you are required to look at our ads and if you're not careful, we'll start requiring you to buy our products."
Our response as always is: you are not entitled to a permanent business model. If yours doesn't work, go back to the drawing board and innovate.
Considering the number of trolls who haunt the *BSD forum, this is not offtopic -- and it was funny! I chuckled.
Not to mention: what if I have a band and want to distribute my music? What if I think (logically enough) that P2P is the best way to do that?
But that is only a potential threat to the diaRIAA boys, which is why they want to block everything anyway.
You have a good point; this is true. I am not sure that's what the objection is -- from the article, it appears that they honestly think it's easier to run a Windows shop because MS support is so good. Gak!
C'mon, follow the money trail -- Laura DiDio works for *BSD! She's been on that payroll for years; *BSD is now little more than a troll-house, since development has slowed to a halt. Soon they'll being going the SCO route, and try to say they invented the TCP/IP stack and demand royalties.
Linux is free but support isn't? Well clearly, these geniuses have discovered an OS that has free support. Microsoft is doing that now, right?
I say this from professional experience in a small-mid-sized company: Windows complications are more common and more problematic than Linux's are. Windows has good marketing, but shit never works the way it's supposed to. And then you have to try and deal with a single-vendor platform to make it work.
But let 'em keep using Windows. Eventually they'll figure out that the guys using Linux (or *BSD) are better, faster, and more secure than they are. These guys are just a little slower than the rest of us.
Also: what do you think the odds are that these brain donors have Linux boxes running critical systems and don't even know it? Linux by stealth is really common; it's how I got Linux into my shop.
In a word, NO. Anti-spam zealots are about as bad as the spammers they hate. I've had nothing but bad experiences with MAPS -- the guys there think any email that mentions a product is automatically spam, even when it's me writing to a friend about a toy I bought.
The answer is: vote with your feet and don't use MAPS.
Actually, the Constitution lists what congress can do, and it isn't allowed to make restrictions if they aren't specifically allowed. Try Government 101 if you need help with this.
IP is not all around us; it's a fantasy. You cannot own what does not exist. And you're going to have one hell of a time trying to reign in what duplicates itself by its own nature.
Sorry, you lose.
It's typical of the wood-headed baby boom generationazis, who invented the myth of "IP" to begin with, to grandstand about their entitlements: We have the right to make up arbitrary rules and force you to live by them! Blah blah.
"IP" does not exist. It's not allowed by the US Constitution, and is bizarre in concept anyway: what, you own the part of my brain that knows your ideas? You cannot actually own something that only exists in people's heads, fella. Hand me a song and then we can talk.
The problem is, as usual, their feeling of entitlement to continue an outmoded business model as the world changes around them. It reminds me a little bit of the Sneeches, who ignored the rest of the world while it developed around them; bitching at each other was too important. (Yes, I know it's really about Palestine and Israel.) At some point soon, the world will be working with an entirely different business model, and these self-important ass-munches will still be whining about the "revenue streams" that they're entitled to.
"La la la C'mon people now, smile on your brother, everybody get together, got to love one another right now!" Fuck off and die, hippies.
Is the Arch project really still going? I took a look at the home page, and version 2.0 is "postponed indefinately" [sic] and the other, lower versions have strange notes about not being workable, etc.
I like the idea of an open source Bitkeeper-style repo system, but should I keep an eye on Arch, or has it hit a wall?
Sources are reporting that BitKeeper's decision was primarily based on Linus' refusal to PAY THE $599 SCO LICENSE FEE.
If you can't figure out that it was Wuzfuzzy who wrote the line about cherishing freedom, and not CmdrTaco, who merely posted it, you don't deserve to read Slashdot.
Wresting control of a item away from it's owner is not a nobal pursuit.
You lost control over your "item" once you released it to the world. You want control over your items? Don't release them. But once they're out here, they're not yours anymore. That's the fundamental point you clearly don't understand. Why should it be this way? Because by releasing your items into our culture, you're affecting all of us.
If you want to change something you can do it with dollars.
Actually, Disney still does this. And no, you can't change things with dollars if a company knows it has a lock on a product. You can't go buy a Mickey Mouse DVD from anyone else, so Disney can distribute its DVDs any way it sees fit -- including forcing you to watch commercials.
Of course you want music/movies/etc. to be treated like tangible products -- you stand to make more money that way. But it's not supported by the US constitution, therefore making any congressional laws that allow this practice unconstitutional.
And it's illogical; why the hell can't I copy my DVDs even to back them up? Or make copies to take to a second home? Even the corp-centric US Congress has decreed that owners of media such as DVDs and CDs have the right to copy them for their own use.
The bottom line here: you need a new business model; pretending that the non-scarce (music, movies, anything else that doesn't exist except in people's minds) is just like the scarce (cars, coffee mugs, telephones) is silly and untenable. The big media industries are merely using the willing US govt. to prolong a business model that is clearly archaic.
Lots of innovators were called "misguided youth" when they were young; those who called them that look silly now. You look silly already.
"nobal" = noble
"it's" = its (possessive)
"Meida" = media
"a artist" = "an artist"
Pay your $599 SCO license fee for DeCSS, you lazy slack-off pigs!
You guys are idiots.
You still owe your $599 SCO license fee, you slack-off losers!
You forgot that SCO owns all *.h files as well as the UNIX ABI. Pay your $699 licensing fee, you lazy ass!