(My machine running Debian Unstable, and I have an annoying tendency not to remove software I toyed with but didn't keep using until much later.)
And the amount of packages means nothing. You should look at the installed size instead. Debian derivants package all sorts of stuff in separate packages that in other distributions get packaged in other packages. We have a frigging xterm package. Even the bloody ed is separately packaged, and that's the standard text editor.
I've installed Debian 3.0 desktop system in a hard drive partition of about 500 megs (on a P166 machine =), and had to leave some space for work files, of course. Not quite thrillingly a lot of software, but just shows that the base system can be installed in a small space.
Dvorak isn't smart enough to realize that there's no way one open-source project can shut down another, very dedicated and well-known open-source project. Linux will always have its supporters - you can't shut it down.
Arrival of Linux probably had little effect on the fanatical hordes of BSD users. Arrival of OpenSolaris mostly provoked a "neat, maybe I'd try this on a spare machine if I had one around, blah" reaction from Linux users. Heck, Apple gave us Darwin and you don't see tons of people migrating to that either...
...is how much he paid for the computer program that did the encryption (or instructions on how to do this on paper).
I've heard people actually sell this sort of hard-core bedazzling cryptomagrophical systems to unsuspecting suckers for quite a nice sum of money... *cough* Adobe vs Sklyarov *cough*
Basically, the already established gTLDs are already pushing the limit of whatever is plausible and what is the purpose of DNS. The purpose is to establish names of hosts based on either geographic location or the type of organization..xxx was a stupid idea because it was about the intended use and content of the domain, for which DNS is ill suited (The DNS shouldn't care what content goes where). As it seems,.tel doesn't seem to solve any of the existing human-to-that-person's-contact-info-server mappings (Zillion people with same name, not to even mention the companies with similar names), nor does it really solve findability ("Okay, to get Foeh Bahr's contact info, what's his domain name? foehnbahr.tel? Darn, that's not him, that's the other guy. To hell with this, I'll just Google it.")
Instead, we need a new protocol for this. Wait, we already have several different directory protocols that provide contact information really easily! Someone should make an LDAP client a standard feature of the web browsers, make a spiffy interface, and provide a free directory service for Ordinary Citizens. Maybe Google's next idea. =)
DNS isn't meant for contact info lookups. LDAP is. Heck, even finger protocol is a better protocol for this than DNS.
Just out of curiosity, did the article assert the notability of the subject? Did anyone try to fix the notability assertions during the deletion period?
Because if the article doesn't assert notability, people do take a look at the notability criteria pretty hard, do some very minor research that isn't very favorable, in-depth or even accurate (like Google test or Alexa rating test), and nominate it for deletion. And if no one cares of the article to fix the assertions, there it goes.
Some cases for example: "Black Mesa (mod)" (previously "Black Mesa: Source") was previously deleted as a non-notable unreleased Half-Life 2 mod. I brought the article to deletion again when it was recreated, but it was kept this time. Why? It had gotten media attention (and attention from Valve), and it actually declared that in the article too. (I'm personally still in the "not released = not notable" line myself, but I don't carry grudges, you know, and don't much care that the article is here as is now. But that's another tale.) Likewise, someone brought "FinnWars" up for deletion. I pointed out it had had a print mention. Deletion discussion might have ended up in Keep if people would have been bothered to discuss; instead, it was a by-default no consensus keep.
If you really care about the thing, and it does have some real-world recognition, consider remaking the article. People might hesitate to delete that if you can demonstrate it does have weight now. A lot of stuff that has been nuked has been recreated later when the things have later gotten important.
The trick is not to find an example that fails. The trick is to explain why it failed, too. Plus, everyone who has tried to play with numbers on computers know they're so imprecise and clumsy beasts that are only capable for practical solutions. (Never bothered to check out what that Riemann thing is about, thanks for the link. Oh, it's a function. Computers suck at fractional numbers and have often lots of non-fun with biggish integers too. Sorry.) Boinc might be able to come up with a practical solution (or not). It would not be able to come up with a theoretical one that easily.
I remember writing, a long time ago, a Turbo Pascal program to comb through a^n+b^n=c^n (n>2) problems. No, the bloody 486SX didn't find a damn thing, but that didn't prove anything anyway even if I had let it run through the whole integer space, now did it? What good would it have done anyway, people probably tried it? Furthermore, I'm not a mathematician so I have no idea what the heck the proof that appeared later says. =)
Whoa. If this were thedailywtf.com, so many obvious phrases could spring in mind... like "the goggles, they do nothing..." =)
(Well, I tried it in Firefox in OSX and it tried to download the program, but I didn't get to see this glorious site at all in elinks in Linux... =)
And it's just typical crummy rogue anti-spyware site too - I'd guess people would be cautious to install a program that got installed the same way as the spyware itself, but regrettably sometimes logic fails.
Real-time -- Of an OS, an OS with short latencies (time to respond to input). Generally used to regulate devices in the absence of human intervention.
Bzzzt. An OS with known maximum latencies. It's not enough to have short latencies; it also must guarantee that they don't take any longer to execute than advertised. As in "if you hiccup doing some background stuff, and this whole thing takes 2 seconds to run instead of the 1.5 seconds we designed this for, people will die, and we don't want that, now do we?"
A few non-technical people I know once had to deal with a nasty virus infection.
That was from an email worm. Of course, they had heard that it's stupid to click on attachments. Of course. Common security education and all that.
The problem was, the worm said that it was an important patch and it had a nice "checked by Norton" kind of pic in it. So, obviously, these people thought "it's an important patch and it has been virus-scanned. let's try it." Even when they didn't run Norton themselves.
Certified email won't help with phishing problem. It's too easy to set up the air of legitimacy. It can also provide a false sense of security: Phishers already make "legit enough"-looking websites, how hard it would for them to make "legit enough"-looking email?
(Making me wonder where they have been for the past 10+ years where windows has been the ubiquitous consumer & business software platform.)
I've been using Linux since 1996. In 2000, I got a computer with Win98SE preinstalled. When a hard drive died in late 2004 and new one refused to work in that machine, I built a new machine from scratch, leaving OEM WinXP out of my budget. Coincidentally, win98SE refused to install on this newfangled thingy. In January, I got a new hard drive, and for first time ever, I don't have any Windows compatible partitions on my hard drive and don't even try to get it back. (If I ever find the Win98SE CD that I lost, I'll try QEMU instead.) Hell, if I want games, I have a GameCube and DS.
Over these years, I've been studying at an university. They have a bunch of Linux and OSX classrooms and labs. For some reason, I have even problems logging on in some of their Windows labs, while the Mac and Linux boxes sure know who I am. =) I've had a job once. Used Prog... prod... whatever Debian clone that was, a few years ago, as my development OS. (PHP app that ran on a Debian server, with PostgreSQL. Helped to convert that from RedHat and MySQL.)
Oh yeah, I've "used" Windows over these years, as in "sat down in front of Windows machine and tried to do stuff". And everywhere I go, I see OpenOffice.org and Firefox, basically, all the same stuff I've seen on Linux and OSX. It's not been very in-depth lately. I know next to damn about Win2K and XP, aside of how to run SpybotS&D and guess what to checkmark in HijackThis - never had to bother with that crap in 98SE though =)
Though, yeah, if someone's been using OSX there's really few reasons to use Windows. The only thing I used Windows for besides of games was video capture and editing, and OSX has tons of great apps for that, and heck, nowadays even Linux is getting video stuff that kind of works...
...why are "Document protection" and "Document revisions" such an important things, as the review says, in Word?
I've used the revision feature of OpenOffice.org and the end result is not pretty. What I end up with is a gigantic work file, with a rather limited functionality in revision comments and a rather silly end result with revision differences view. One look at that and I already got the distinct deep-rooted belief in my head that it will never work, and while I've not used Word's version of this, it isn't going to work any better. I'm now using Subversion for storing some project stuff and it's about million times more flexible than this integrated scheme.
(Plus, "essential tools for businesses"? I thought all of the security-conscious businesses have learned their lessons from these extremely handy revision tools long ago, and would take measures to eradicate revision data in the documents themselves. Remember that stink about all that leaked data through Word's quicksave a long time ago? I remember someone posting about some not so funny information discovered from Word files regarding some Iraq document or something, too...)
As for document security, ever heard of this thing called GnuPG? =) Plus, in case of AjaxWrite, it would be pretty silly to use document security measures... To allow AjaxWrite to decrypt and open your documents, you'd need to give AjaxWrite the secret key, and you can't just hand your secret keys to anyone. And it would be pointless since AjaxWrite servers are ultimately an untrusted party (a bunch of people with a webserver somewhere out there, as opposed to a computer right front of you, not saying either can be trusted as far as you can throw them anyway =) and the link between AjaxWrite and user is encrypted already (or if it isn't, I sure as heck hope it will be!) so there's no point in doing that anyway...
Well, it's just marketingspeak. Let me translate it to geek.
"The Web and all its connected devices as one global platform of reusable services and data": When "Web 1.0" meant that everything is screen-scrapeable and people went "good heavens!" when someone even as much as suggested syndicating data, Web 2.0 means our technology has progressed so much websites automatically generate RSS feeds and the site owners have given up just a little bit on copyright paranoia in that regard.
"Data consumption and remixing from all sources, particularly user generated data": I can add a "what music I listened to" box on my blog's sidebar, and stuff like that. With a little bit of RSS and XML-RPC thrown in.
"Continuous and seamless update of software and data, often very rapidly" Kind of like saying "we're deploying a web application and updating the thing on the server as we go ong" but that doesn't sound as marketable, now does it?
"Rich and interactive user interfaces": Abusing JavaScript and DHTML to add "almost like desktop thingy!"-like user interface tricks to the website. Sometimes useful ones, often just l33t and useless ones. Oh, and "Back" button is dead too.
"Architecture of participation that encourages user contribution": Users can tag your shit and see how they tagged your shit. Perhaps blog about it too.
And why doesn't no one suggest resiously to put a specific domain for sites that contain any sort of fanatism (any religion, extreme politics, terrorism etc)?.rpt = religion, politics, terrorism etc.
Because that would cause problems for people who do Religious pornography, or Political pornography, or perhaps Terrorist pornography (or, as you said, just Fanatic pornography) - they can't decide whether or not that goes under.rpt or.xxx. They'd have to create.rptxxx or something.
...Apple Computer pushes their own brand, logos, and so on, and are known for that, and justifiedly so. People see a stylish computer and see "oh, built by Apple." People see a stylish music player. "oh, built by Apple." They see a nice web music store. "Built by Apple, of course".
But how many people pick up a Beatles album and think "oh, this was made by that Apple record company, I really need to buy more music from this record label, oh, I so love this record label"?
Record labels don't need their names to market themselves. They can rake in money without making their names hot hot hot - they have the artists to draw the attention. When the spotlight hits them, they can just grin and say "oh, the CDs we made for this lovely band are in stores as we speak, please go buy them!"
Or are they just starting to make a web music store of their own? Heck, just do what everyone else is doing these days: Start a new web music store with a separate, distinct brand.
I have a heap of music here and I can barely remember what record labels made them. Mostly because the record labels in question were major idiots. =)
The fact is, laws passed for the "common good" invariably end up harming those they were notionally intended to help and in fact end up greatly benefiting a very small group of people.
Kind of like in Ultima V.
Speaking of virtue of Honesty, if there ever will be.xxx, maybe they should set up.lies too. You know, the safe haven for all false information, so that they can be moved away from the rest of the Web and we can safely browse the stuff on the rest of the domains.
(Unless, of course, it's fake porn. We'd need.xxxlies for that.)
If he is able to realize how much of his time is being wasted waiting around in an online game where all of his "accomplishments" are ultimately meaningless.
There was an amusing description of that in a local game mag. An editor described how, before his very eyes, the addicting virtual reality vanished, he realized he was in a glorified graphical chatroom full of teenagers, and he was free, free. =) (That was EverQuest. Then he got addicted to WoW, I think. =/ )
Me, I've been playing stuff online, been playing some games pretty intensely. Luckily though, my "EverQuest" was Everything2 and my "World of Warcraft" is Wikipedia, so at least I can claim my "addiction" to those things may have had some effect toward better world. =) But my single greatest reminder that I always keep in mind with these things is the motto of ZenIRC: "You are wasting time." My last net game addiction was LotGD and I always kept that in mind, even when that thing got really addicting. =)
Ah, so we're back in the stone age then? One.xxx domain, one web server? No shared hosting with non-.xxx people, no redundant addresses with non-.xxx people?
If it was a fact it would be a track standard. It's not, it's Don Eastlake's opinion which is why it says "informative".
Let's not sidestep this thing. All RFCs are meant to be informative in some way, yet few of them are standards.
They aren't trying to push this as a standard either. The fact that it got out as a RFC just says that it's Probably a Good Idea.
A lot of his points concern the semanitcs of ".sex" and do not apply to ".xxx"; for example his whining thart birth control may be moved into this "red light district".
And exactly why doesn't that apply, again?
Please consider the reply very carefully before you reply. It is crucial.
The fact that the gTLD has changed from.sex to.xxx doesn't really change any of the reasons why people wouldn't try moving birth-control information there, nor would it affect the outcome the slightest.
1. Get domain name for given IP
2. Is.xxx in one of the domains?
3. Yes, ban the IP.
The kid gets the IP addy for lotsofpr0n.xxx and gets 10.20.30.40. The filter reverse-resolves the ip 10.20.30.40 to server3.cheapasshostingsite.com. Boom.
Ban the IP? Surely you wouldn't ban www.godseternallovechurchcharity.org, also hosted on server3.cheapasshostingsite.com? Or www.themostchildfriendlysiteontheinternet.kids, also hosted on server3.cheapasshostingsite.com? Or even the completely innocent www.thisdomainnameissodarnlongthatireallyneedtosto pthinkingofexamples.com?
Or are you in favor of physically segregating the.xxx to their own virtual hosts? Yeah, all web hosts will just love that, as if their customers weren't thrilled enough when they were told to move...
That's still much easier than analyzing the page content for keywords.
I hate to chew the old phrase to bits, but those who don't understand content filtering are doomed to reinvent it, poorly.
Know Westwood Studios? They don't have the rights to the Command & Conquer franchise anymore.
Oh, the Westwood Studios do have rights to C&C.
But of course, you have to ask, what Westwood Studios, exactly? Not the fled people you're referring to, but rather the hollow shell of the corporate assets, ghoulishly eaten by EA...
They had some kind of weird video RPG story game (it kind of looked like the 80s dragonslayer)
Adventure game. Adventure game. You know, like Final Fantasy but with all of the statistics and weapons and random encounters and combat and shit replaced with impossible logical-after-the-fact puzzles and pixel-hunting problems. Just as many cutscenes (no FMVs, though ones that included that tended to suck even more) and as much aimless wandering. If you want a good example of the genre, check out ScummVM - there's at least two freely downloadable games of this genre out there. Beneath the Steel Sky and something else.
They just figured it wouldn't sell on this day and age - and I kind of figure out why, people just don't have the patience to do some of the stuff. The genre is pretty much dying with RPGs stomping them out. Some say it's a bad thing; personally, I say good frigging riddance, though I think of this mostly as a gentle send-off, not a vehement condemnation. =)
There's a difference between saying "Are you mad? Don't *ever* use a car, always use a motorcycle!" (the often-criticized open source marketing plan), and what the other poster was saying - "You don't want to add wings and rocket engine on a motorcycle because that doesn't make any frigging sense - any more sense than adding them to a car either, you know."
-w4, supporting overboard allegories on all sides of the battlefront =)
Well, current Linux bootloaders probably deal with lack of space just fine. For example, GRUB installs itself as 512-byte stub loader ("stage 1") + the rest of the boot loader stored in an ordinary file in the filesystem ("stage 2"). I don't think GRUB's design will change much: It's meant to be so that stage 2 and the menu.lst can be updated without touching the boot block, anyway.
And it's probably not the OS or boot loader that sets limits to the boot block size, it's probably the BIOS that loads the stuff to memory...
Actually there was a site that emulated the browsing experiences of various old browsers - launched a browser window with almost exact replica of Netscape 1.0 GUI, for example... the HTML emulation wasn't very accurate though, it sometimes didn't strip out all CSS, for example, and didn't break enough of the new tags. Let alone HTTP 1.1 features.
Basically Sendmail was written in the age when moving mail from place A to B actually was difficult: Different headers, different cultures, different mail storage methods, different kinds of addresses. With some tweaking you could make it act as a mail gateway to some madman-designed proprietary network where addresses were kilometers long and had numbers in them, or like.
Of course, nowadays it's a little bit easier so it's kind of easy to write a more secure mail transport agent from ground up, all you need to worry about is SMTP...
Slashdot Mirror
That's not bloated.
$ dpkg -l | grep ^ii | wc -l
2017
This is.
(My machine running Debian Unstable, and I have an annoying tendency not to remove software I toyed with but didn't keep using until much later.)
And the amount of packages means nothing. You should look at the installed size instead. Debian derivants package all sorts of stuff in separate packages that in other distributions get packaged in other packages. We have a frigging xterm package. Even the bloody ed is separately packaged, and that's the standard text editor.
I've installed Debian 3.0 desktop system in a hard drive partition of about 500 megs (on a P166 machine =), and had to leave some space for work files, of course. Not quite thrillingly a lot of software, but just shows that the base system can be installed in a small space.
Arrival of Linux probably had little effect on the fanatical hordes of BSD users. Arrival of OpenSolaris mostly provoked a "neat, maybe I'd try this on a spare machine if I had one around, blah" reaction from Linux users. Heck, Apple gave us Darwin and you don't see tons of people migrating to that either...
...is how much he paid for the computer program that did the encryption (or instructions on how to do this on paper).
I've heard people actually sell this sort of hard-core bedazzling cryptomagrophical systems to unsuspecting suckers for quite a nice sum of money... *cough* Adobe vs Sklyarov *cough*
Basically, the already established gTLDs are already pushing the limit of whatever is plausible and what is the purpose of DNS. The purpose is to establish names of hosts based on either geographic location or the type of organization. .xxx was a stupid idea because it was about the intended use and content of the domain, for which DNS is ill suited (The DNS shouldn't care what content goes where). As it seems, .tel doesn't seem to solve any of the existing human-to-that-person's-contact-info-server mappings (Zillion people with same name, not to even mention the companies with similar names), nor does it really solve findability ("Okay, to get Foeh Bahr's contact info, what's his domain name? foehnbahr.tel? Darn, that's not him, that's the other guy. To hell with this, I'll just Google it.")
Instead, we need a new protocol for this. Wait, we already have several different directory protocols that provide contact information really easily! Someone should make an LDAP client a standard feature of the web browsers, make a spiffy interface, and provide a free directory service for Ordinary Citizens. Maybe Google's next idea. =)
DNS isn't meant for contact info lookups. LDAP is. Heck, even finger protocol is a better protocol for this than DNS.
Just out of curiosity, did the article assert the notability of the subject? Did anyone try to fix the notability assertions during the deletion period?
Because if the article doesn't assert notability, people do take a look at the notability criteria pretty hard, do some very minor research that isn't very favorable, in-depth or even accurate (like Google test or Alexa rating test), and nominate it for deletion. And if no one cares of the article to fix the assertions, there it goes.
Some cases for example: "Black Mesa (mod)" (previously "Black Mesa: Source") was previously deleted as a non-notable unreleased Half-Life 2 mod. I brought the article to deletion again when it was recreated, but it was kept this time. Why? It had gotten media attention (and attention from Valve), and it actually declared that in the article too. (I'm personally still in the "not released = not notable" line myself, but I don't carry grudges, you know, and don't much care that the article is here as is now. But that's another tale.) Likewise, someone brought "FinnWars" up for deletion. I pointed out it had had a print mention. Deletion discussion might have ended up in Keep if people would have been bothered to discuss; instead, it was a by-default no consensus keep.
If you really care about the thing, and it does have some real-world recognition, consider remaking the article. People might hesitate to delete that if you can demonstrate it does have weight now. A lot of stuff that has been nuked has been recreated later when the things have later gotten important.
The trick is not to find an example that fails. The trick is to explain why it failed, too. Plus, everyone who has tried to play with numbers on computers know they're so imprecise and clumsy beasts that are only capable for practical solutions. (Never bothered to check out what that Riemann thing is about, thanks for the link. Oh, it's a function. Computers suck at fractional numbers and have often lots of non-fun with biggish integers too. Sorry.) Boinc might be able to come up with a practical solution (or not). It would not be able to come up with a theoretical one that easily.
I remember writing, a long time ago, a Turbo Pascal program to comb through a^n+b^n=c^n (n>2) problems. No, the bloody 486SX didn't find a damn thing, but that didn't prove anything anyway even if I had let it run through the whole integer space, now did it? What good would it have done anyway, people probably tried it? Furthermore, I'm not a mathematician so I have no idea what the heck the proof that appeared later says. =)
Whoa. If this were thedailywtf.com, so many obvious phrases could spring in mind... like "the goggles, they do nothing..." =)
(Well, I tried it in Firefox in OSX and it tried to download the program, but I didn't get to see this glorious site at all in elinks in Linux... =)
And it's just typical crummy rogue anti-spyware site too - I'd guess people would be cautious to install a program that got installed the same way as the spyware itself, but regrettably sometimes logic fails.
Bzzzt. An OS with known maximum latencies. It's not enough to have short latencies; it also must guarantee that they don't take any longer to execute than advertised. As in "if you hiccup doing some background stuff, and this whole thing takes 2 seconds to run instead of the 1.5 seconds we designed this for, people will die, and we don't want that, now do we?"
A few non-technical people I know once had to deal with a nasty virus infection.
That was from an email worm. Of course, they had heard that it's stupid to click on attachments. Of course. Common security education and all that.
The problem was, the worm said that it was an important patch and it had a nice "checked by Norton" kind of pic in it. So, obviously, these people thought "it's an important patch and it has been virus-scanned. let's try it." Even when they didn't run Norton themselves.
Certified email won't help with phishing problem. It's too easy to set up the air of legitimacy. It can also provide a false sense of security: Phishers already make "legit enough"-looking websites, how hard it would for them to make "legit enough"-looking email?
I've been using Linux since 1996. In 2000, I got a computer with Win98SE preinstalled. When a hard drive died in late 2004 and new one refused to work in that machine, I built a new machine from scratch, leaving OEM WinXP out of my budget. Coincidentally, win98SE refused to install on this newfangled thingy. In January, I got a new hard drive, and for first time ever, I don't have any Windows compatible partitions on my hard drive and don't even try to get it back. (If I ever find the Win98SE CD that I lost, I'll try QEMU instead.) Hell, if I want games, I have a GameCube and DS.
Over these years, I've been studying at an university. They have a bunch of Linux and OSX classrooms and labs. For some reason, I have even problems logging on in some of their Windows labs, while the Mac and Linux boxes sure know who I am. =) I've had a job once. Used Prog... prod... whatever Debian clone that was, a few years ago, as my development OS. (PHP app that ran on a Debian server, with PostgreSQL. Helped to convert that from RedHat and MySQL.)
Oh yeah, I've "used" Windows over these years, as in "sat down in front of Windows machine and tried to do stuff". And everywhere I go, I see OpenOffice.org and Firefox, basically, all the same stuff I've seen on Linux and OSX. It's not been very in-depth lately. I know next to damn about Win2K and XP, aside of how to run SpybotS&D and guess what to checkmark in HijackThis - never had to bother with that crap in 98SE though =)
Though, yeah, if someone's been using OSX there's really few reasons to use Windows. The only thing I used Windows for besides of games was video capture and editing, and OSX has tons of great apps for that, and heck, nowadays even Linux is getting video stuff that kind of works...
...why are "Document protection" and "Document revisions" such an important things, as the review says, in Word?
I've used the revision feature of OpenOffice.org and the end result is not pretty. What I end up with is a gigantic work file, with a rather limited functionality in revision comments and a rather silly end result with revision differences view. One look at that and I already got the distinct deep-rooted belief in my head that it will never work, and while I've not used Word's version of this, it isn't going to work any better. I'm now using Subversion for storing some project stuff and it's about million times more flexible than this integrated scheme.
(Plus, "essential tools for businesses"? I thought all of the security-conscious businesses have learned their lessons from these extremely handy revision tools long ago, and would take measures to eradicate revision data in the documents themselves. Remember that stink about all that leaked data through Word's quicksave a long time ago? I remember someone posting about some not so funny information discovered from Word files regarding some Iraq document or something, too...)
As for document security, ever heard of this thing called GnuPG? =) Plus, in case of AjaxWrite, it would be pretty silly to use document security measures... To allow AjaxWrite to decrypt and open your documents, you'd need to give AjaxWrite the secret key, and you can't just hand your secret keys to anyone. And it would be pointless since AjaxWrite servers are ultimately an untrusted party (a bunch of people with a webserver somewhere out there, as opposed to a computer right front of you, not saying either can be trusted as far as you can throw them anyway =) and the link between AjaxWrite and user is encrypted already (or if it isn't, I sure as heck hope it will be!) so there's no point in doing that anyway...
...I'm kind of rambling here. Sorry, it's late.
Well, it's just marketingspeak. Let me translate it to geek.
"The Web and all its connected devices as one global platform of reusable services and data": When "Web 1.0" meant that everything is screen-scrapeable and people went "good heavens!" when someone even as much as suggested syndicating data, Web 2.0 means our technology has progressed so much websites automatically generate RSS feeds and the site owners have given up just a little bit on copyright paranoia in that regard.
"Data consumption and remixing from all sources, particularly user generated data": I can add a "what music I listened to" box on my blog's sidebar, and stuff like that. With a little bit of RSS and XML-RPC thrown in.
"Continuous and seamless update of software and data, often very rapidly" Kind of like saying "we're deploying a web application and updating the thing on the server as we go ong" but that doesn't sound as marketable, now does it?
"Rich and interactive user interfaces": Abusing JavaScript and DHTML to add "almost like desktop thingy!"-like user interface tricks to the website. Sometimes useful ones, often just l33t and useless ones. Oh, and "Back" button is dead too.
"Architecture of participation that encourages user contribution": Users can tag your shit and see how they tagged your shit. Perhaps blog about it too.
Because that would cause problems for people who do Religious pornography, or Political pornography, or perhaps Terrorist pornography (or, as you said, just Fanatic pornography) - they can't decide whether or not that goes under .rpt or .xxx. They'd have to create .rptxxx or something.
...Apple Computer pushes their own brand, logos, and so on, and are known for that, and justifiedly so. People see a stylish computer and see "oh, built by Apple." People see a stylish music player. "oh, built by Apple." They see a nice web music store. "Built by Apple, of course".
But how many people pick up a Beatles album and think "oh, this was made by that Apple record company, I really need to buy more music from this record label, oh, I so love this record label"?
Record labels don't need their names to market themselves. They can rake in money without making their names hot hot hot - they have the artists to draw the attention. When the spotlight hits them, they can just grin and say "oh, the CDs we made for this lovely band are in stores as we speak, please go buy them!"
Or are they just starting to make a web music store of their own? Heck, just do what everyone else is doing these days: Start a new web music store with a separate, distinct brand.
I have a heap of music here and I can barely remember what record labels made them. Mostly because the record labels in question were major idiots. =)
Kind of like in Ultima V.
Speaking of virtue of Honesty, if there ever will be .xxx, maybe they should set up .lies too. You know, the safe haven for all false information, so that they can be moved away from the rest of the Web and we can safely browse the stuff on the rest of the domains.
(Unless, of course, it's fake porn. We'd need .xxxlies for that.)
There was an amusing description of that in a local game mag. An editor described how, before his very eyes, the addicting virtual reality vanished, he realized he was in a glorified graphical chatroom full of teenagers, and he was free, free. =) (That was EverQuest. Then he got addicted to WoW, I think. =/ )
Me, I've been playing stuff online, been playing some games pretty intensely. Luckily though, my "EverQuest" was Everything2 and my "World of Warcraft" is Wikipedia, so at least I can claim my "addiction" to those things may have had some effect toward better world. =) But my single greatest reminder that I always keep in mind with these things is the motto of ZenIRC: "You are wasting time." My last net game addiction was LotGD and I always kept that in mind, even when that thing got really addicting. =)
Ah, so we're back in the stone age then? One .xxx domain, one web server? No shared hosting with non-.xxx people, no redundant addresses with non-.xxx people?
Web hosts aren't going to put up with that.
Let's not sidestep this thing. All RFCs are meant to be informative in some way, yet few of them are standards.
They aren't trying to push this as a standard either. The fact that it got out as a RFC just says that it's Probably a Good Idea.
And exactly why doesn't that apply, again?
Please consider the reply very carefully before you reply. It is crucial.
The fact that the gTLD has changed from .sex to .xxx doesn't really change any of the reasons why people wouldn't try moving birth-control information there, nor would it affect the outcome the slightest.
The kid gets the IP addy for lotsofpr0n.xxx and gets 10.20.30.40. The filter reverse-resolves the ip 10.20.30.40 to server3.cheapasshostingsite.com. Boom.
Ban the IP? Surely you wouldn't ban www.godseternallovechurchcharity.org, also hosted on server3.cheapasshostingsite.com? Or www.themostchildfriendlysiteontheinternet.kids, also hosted on server3.cheapasshostingsite.com? Or even the completely innocent www.thisdomainnameissodarnlongthatireallyneedtosto pthinkingofexamples.com?
Or are you in favor of physically segregating the .xxx to their own virtual hosts? Yeah, all web hosts will just love that, as if their customers weren't thrilled enough when they were told to move...
I hate to chew the old phrase to bits, but those who don't understand content filtering are doomed to reinvent it, poorly.
You see, it is never as easy as it looks.
Oh, the Westwood Studios do have rights to C&C.
But of course, you have to ask, what Westwood Studios, exactly? Not the fled people you're referring to, but rather the hollow shell of the corporate assets, ghoulishly eaten by EA...
Adventure game. Adventure game. You know, like Final Fantasy but with all of the statistics and weapons and random encounters and combat and shit replaced with impossible logical-after-the-fact puzzles and pixel-hunting problems. Just as many cutscenes (no FMVs, though ones that included that tended to suck even more) and as much aimless wandering. If you want a good example of the genre, check out ScummVM - there's at least two freely downloadable games of this genre out there. Beneath the Steel Sky and something else.
They just figured it wouldn't sell on this day and age - and I kind of figure out why, people just don't have the patience to do some of the stuff. The genre is pretty much dying with RPGs stomping them out. Some say it's a bad thing; personally, I say good frigging riddance, though I think of this mostly as a gentle send-off, not a vehement condemnation. =)
There's a difference between saying "Are you mad? Don't *ever* use a car, always use a motorcycle!" (the often-criticized open source marketing plan), and what the other poster was saying - "You don't want to add wings and rocket engine on a motorcycle because that doesn't make any frigging sense - any more sense than adding them to a car either, you know."
-w4, supporting overboard allegories on all sides of the battlefront =)
Well, current Linux bootloaders probably deal with lack of space just fine. For example, GRUB installs itself as 512-byte stub loader ("stage 1") + the rest of the boot loader stored in an ordinary file in the filesystem ("stage 2"). I don't think GRUB's design will change much: It's meant to be so that stage 2 and the menu.lst can be updated without touching the boot block, anyway.
And it's probably not the OS or boot loader that sets limits to the boot block size, it's probably the BIOS that loads the stuff to memory...
Actually there was a site that emulated the browsing experiences of various old browsers - launched a browser window with almost exact replica of Netscape 1.0 GUI, for example... the HTML emulation wasn't very accurate though, it sometimes didn't strip out all CSS, for example, and didn't break enough of the new tags. Let alone HTTP 1.1 features.
Basically Sendmail was written in the age when moving mail from place A to B actually was difficult: Different headers, different cultures, different mail storage methods, different kinds of addresses. With some tweaking you could make it act as a mail gateway to some madman-designed proprietary network where addresses were kilometers long and had numbers in them, or like.
Of course, nowadays it's a little bit easier so it's kind of easy to write a more secure mail transport agent from ground up, all you need to worry about is SMTP...