Gotta love a 'corporate', 'professional' website that gives Kazaa Lite as one of their downloads:)
Well, if you have any questions about their professionalism, you can always email them at their @yahoo.com contact address. They've only been in business as the "premier providers of technology consulting" since 1989, so I can see how they might not have had the time to learn how to run a mail server.
No advantages???? You gotta be joking!
Tell me how to do the equivalent of 'mget *' with http. Tell me how to download the whole folder full of files at once with http.
I'm starting to sound like a broken record here, but lftp will do all that you ask, and much much more. Provides the same interface whether via FTP or HTTP.
Sure, you could write a HTTP client that acts like an FTP client (ls [pattern], mget[pattern], mput [pattern]), but to make it work reliably across all servers, the server would have to have a somewhat-standardized FTP-like LIST command or page, since it would be hard to do globbing when the index page is hard to parse.
It's been done. I believe you're thinking of lftp. Fabulous little program.
Do you think bbc.co.uk is a proper domain name? If so, then what is different with your firstname.lastname.name? You do get full control over a proper domain, just as you would under.co.uk, and a host of other services.
If that's the case, you should review your service agreement, which is very confusing on the topic. From reading this:
Personal Names does not accept applications to register or renew,name domain names without email forwarding and cloaked URL forwarding
I infer that it's not possible to get a name delegation, but only some pointless forwarding service. Speaking of confusing, the whole site is vague and ambiguous to an extreme. The FAQs are thinner than a photo of Kate Moss. And your "tour" doesn't work at all on my computer.
As for being doomed to failure, so far our campaigns show that it's only techies that seem to care at all that it's on the third level, and "ordinary people", that by far outnumber the techie users tend to love it once they see it and understand it. So our challenge is to get it out there, and make it visible, not that people don't like it.
In addition to the possibly techie-only concern about having to pay for bundled "services" that don't interest me at all, and in fact make my life more difficult, I'd have to repeat my email address or web URL twelve times to each person I tell it to because they'll have no idea what I'm talking about ("dot-name? You mean name-dot-com? Huh?").
I suspect that techies and non-techies alike will share that objection, despite your "campaigns". The usual solution to such things is to discount until it gains market acceptance.
Instead, you've jacked the price UP - either I use your horrible forwarding service and get a short name, or I get to use proper servers but have to use a name longer than something I could just find in.com and avoid the whole issue.
Anyway, it's a free market - knock yourself out, have a good time.
Yes, something like this would be voulentary, and yes there would be people out there who wouldn't do it. However, I'd love there to be a way that we could easily segregate our adult sites away from the rest of the internet, so that those who DO want to block such things can do with a reasonable accuracy.
You contradict yourself. If there are people out there who "wouldn't do it", then you can't use this voluntary domain scheme to block "such things" with "reasonable accuracy."
With a *.kids policy, you knot only have to have someone very STRICTLY controlling its use (or it becomes useless), you'd be forced to limit browsers use to just *.kids if you wanted to play it safe. That's not going to leave much of the internet left until it had a real critical mass going.
With a.sex policy, it's never useful, from day 1 to day infinity. There will always be plenty of people off it, so blocking it just takes business away from the subset of porn providers who choose only to register there. The rest of them, who want to get business from all the people who surf porn at work, from the people who do it from college campuses, from the people who do it from Singapore, well, they'll all just keep on.comming. In the long run they'll make a whole lot more money.
.kids, on the other hand, would start slow, but it would become steadily more useful over time, to nobody's detriment. The first year maybe it would only be used by parents who otherwise wouldn't allow their kids to use the internet at all. Then it would get used by schools. And it would grow from there.
You'd also have to deal with the sticky subject of what exactly IS.kids material? What's okay for 15 year olds isn't okay for 7 year olds. Whose idea of what's acceptable do you use?
What's porn? Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition? Typical northern European late-night TV fare? Manhattan cable channel 34 ads? Whose idea of what's acceptable do you use?
You seem to think that people aren't *looking* for.sex.
No, I know that some people are looking for it, and others who aren't motivated enough to go looking, will take it when it jumps out at them. Hence all the spam. Hence the need to advertise. More importantly, not only do I know that, but so do the pornistas.
If there was such a TLD I am pretty sure a fairly large number of searches on google (and even more at images.google.com) would be restricted to the.sex domain - those looking for their favorite porn star named "bambi" aren't interested in pictures of animated deer after all. It works both ways - both someone with a fetish and someone who doesn't want to see that would know the likely differences between nurses.com and nurses.sex. To some extent the porn providers would move to.sex on their own to follow the market.
That's excellent reasoning for 1962.
However, in 2003, a porn provider can be both in.sex and in.com without any additional cost. It's not like having to decide whether to use one's limited resources for a store either in Hell's Kitchen or in the Museum District. Even if the center of gravity of the industry moved to.sex (which I don't see happening), only a highly irrational actor would choose not to be accessible in.com as well, gaining whatever incremental traffic was available that way.
Re:Now I have to pay attention to TLDS - agggh
on
.NAME at a Crossroads
·
· Score: 1
Next they will try a TLD with umlauts and maybe some of the cyrilic letters.
That's oldnews. Incidentally, why just "some" of the cyrillic letters? You mean, like these: A B E M H O P T X ?
Now instead of this ridiculous ".name" they should have introduced ".sex" and forced all those sex-companies into that TLD. That could have helped parents to make sure their children do not get exposed to lots of the smut on the net and I'd be happy with just blocking all mails from "*.sex" and have way less spam in my inbox. Of course that wouldn't have worked out completly -- someone is bound to try to offer adult content under other TLDs -- but I'm sure it would have helped.
No, it's very stupid and it wouldn't help at all. I don't say this to be insulting, but because this supposed panacea is constantly being brought up by people who can't or won't think things through.
People selling smut want to get it under the noses of as wide a potential audience as possible. Hence the existence of things like www.whitehouse.com. You will not be able to stop them or even put a dent in their operations unless you manage to outlaw porn in general worldwide, which is (A) bad policy, and (B) highly unlikely. If you create a.sex domain, then the porn operators will register in both - it costs them $10 and gets them more exposure.
If you want to provide a child-friendly environment, you can create a domain called.kids or whatever. Require organizations registering in it to either provide references from established child-friendly outfits (school system, CTW, etc.) or to post a large cash "smut bond". Anyone found with porn on a site reachable via a.kids URL (whether it's because they ran an open web proxy, or because they willingly put it up) forfeits their bond and loses their domain.
This works, because you have a finite number of domains to monitor, and you have specific disincentives to leverage. Trying to keep pornographic content out of the "rest of the internet" is an impossible task and only an idiot (or someone with a fat non-outcome-based contract) would attempt it.
Seriously, I can imagine this being (ab)used a great deal; think of the fuss over people registering domains like "fordsucks.com" and pointing them at GM's website, or whatever - but multipled a thousandfold. Just run a "whois microsoft.com", then tell me that "microsoft.bankrupt" would stay unregistered for long!
Re:Selling to individuals is good
on
.NAME at a Crossroads
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
But once one person have bought smith.whatever, the remaining 3 million people with Smith as their lastname will be out of luck. Hence.name, where all of them still have a chance at getting their firstname@smith.name
In other words, it's a totally useless service and I can't imagine anyone using it. You can get a proper domain from anyone else and do what you want with it, and do it properly. Why pay for this crippled version where you have to depend on servers run by some unknown entity with unproven email/web server expertise to pass your mail/web traffic along? I wouldn't use this for my personal snapshots-of-friends-weddings site, let alone something connected to my work as an author or artist.
The reason this is doomed to failure is because the only people whose needs are so shallow that they'd accept this arrangement, don't care enough to go to the trouble and spend the money, especially for something they can't really understand.
This enterprise will be belly-up by the year's end. They can go hang out at the bar with the Realnames people.
I remember reading somewhere a few years ago that in their contracts, it restricts them from doing the character voices in public or on something televised.
Ages ago I worked for a pop-media magazine. I was friends with a reporter who did an interview with Dan Castellaneta, and at the end he persuaded him to do answering machine messages for a few of us on the tape he used for the interview.
Sad thing is, it was almost impossible to get people to believe it was the real Homer! Everyone thought it was a passable fake but nevertheless obviously a fake.
Where is the boundary between acceptable viewing and unacceptable viewing of content they are making publicly available?
What if I have my display resolution set differently to the web designer's?
What if I use Netscape instead of IE?
What if I use a black & white screen?
What if I surf the site with image loading turned off?
What if I wear dark glasses with holes cut through so I can only see the content and not the ads?
What if I use a text-only browser?
What if I use a screen reader?
What if I use a hypothetical browser that summarizes paragraphs to the first few lines?
What if I use a browser that "collapses" paragraphs on the first few lines and lets me click on an arrow to reveal the entire paragraph?
There's a continuum between displaying the content exactly as they envisioned it, and reducing or distilling it to some other form. Other than sitting at the same computer used by the web designer, anyone who visits a web site is somewhere along that continuum.
Unless they can define a specific point beyond which viewing is objectionable to the publisher - and I don't think they can - then I don't see how this case could get anywhere. The person making the software can keep backing up slightly until the plaintiff's position is absurd.
Furthermore, the tool in question is not a commercial product, the developer is not trafficking in the publisher's data, and, as a practical matter, it's easy enough to rewrite it so that the web server can't tell the difference anyway.
This is just another case of someone with a lousy business model trying to fix their problems with a lawyer instead of a good solid application of common sense (CueCat anyone?).
I find it amusing that in all the "past grace events" linked on that page they have been all over the country but never come to Washington DC.
DC is a hotbed of high-tech companies as well as non-profits. The city is knee-deep in computers. But just imagine the holy hell that would rain down upon the BSA as one NGO after another gets this letter just as someone happens to be heading out the door to give congressional testimony or have a meeting at a senator's office.
Who says we start a mass call-in to thier 1-888 number from phone booths? Watch thier phone bill rise and have a literal DDOS of thier phone system! I plan to call in reports for the following orginazations over the next few days. Microsoft and other BSA members along with the IRS, NSA (You can look at our computers but then we would have to shoot you), CIA, FBI, Delta Force (can you audit something that dosen't officially exist?), just to name a few.
I suspect they'll be able to screen those out. But if people just start going through the phone book and turning in everyone, eventually the quality of their Stasi-style informant reports will be so diluted they won't be any use to them.
"They send you a postcard and ask you if you want to know about licensing. If anyone in your company signs it and returns it, it actually gives them authority to come in and audit your company. I don't have direct experience with it, and if you go look into the press on BSA you will find out about this one. They target low-level employees in your company, and it sounds on the postcard like it's a seminar on software licensing. But if someone checks "Yes, I'm interested", then somewhere in the fine print it's actually an invitation to come and audit the software licensing for the company."
How does a "low-level employee" have the authority to extend such an invitation? Let's say I send postcards to everyone at General Motors offering a free calendar, and the small print obliges the company to sell me all the cars I want for $1 apiece, and someone from the janitorial department sends one back. How far do you think I'll get when I show up with my carny roll?
They've been around for many a year, and imho, many people would be reluctant to see them go - three months ago I wired my mum's computer onto Tim-Net (my home network and information control system) and she still believes in sneakernet as opposed to drag and drop through shared directories.
I don't think that's a fair comparison. After seeing the multi-page ads in Wired, I paid you people $250 startup plus $50/month for three months to get signed up on Tim-Net and the damn thing barely ever worked. If that were my only option I'd be using floppies too. Still trying to get my money back but your mom keeps chasing me out of the house.
In French, "mobilix" would be pronounced something like "mo-bee-leex" while "obélix" would be pronounced "o-bay-leex." (Well, sort of. E accent égu is a bit more clipped than the English "ay" sound.) The point is that they do sound different.
Not sure I can agree. I've lived in French-speaking countries (admittedly France has not been among them) and a vowel surrounded by stressed syllables (the first and last syllables in these words take the stress) is elided to neutrality to my ear. I just tried it out with a real live French colleague and she agrees - only when she pronounced the words at deliberately (and unnaturally) slow speed was the difference audible.
they can't even understand spelling and pronounciation.
Mobilix, with an i in the middle. Like fish, chips, wit.
Obelix, with an e in the middle. Like wretch, bench,wench.
The sounds you're talking about are in unstressed syllables and thus, in both English and French, are schwas. Therefore they sound basically alike. There are reason for finding the decision dumb but this isn't one of them.
I agree. But it's interesting to note that if this software had been written by an individual, rather than a corporation, the FBI would already be looking for the culprit. For some reason, corporate misbehavior is below the FBI's radar.
Naw, it's just that most virus authors are too lazy to include a 12-page "terms and conditions" shrinkwrap rider that grants them access to the victim's computer.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but what your suggesting is that we should blame the people who made the street that the rape occured on as opposed to blaming the rapist (keeping with the analogy)?
You tell me. Did the street-makers put up friendly signs saying "Women, walk here!" that led into dark alleys?
Since you are living in Morocco, any idea of how to make inexpensive calls to Morocco from North America.
It looks like the moroccan telco is practicing very high rates to make any incoming call to Morocco.
I believe Morocco is one of the countries where US phone companies have failed to reach termination agreements at or below the $0.19 benchmark set under the FCC's 1997 Settlement Rate Reform rule. The FCC has just finished taking comments on this issue and will be considering approaches to dealing with it.
This doesn't just affect calls to or from the USA, since third countries can (and do) route calls via the USA in cases where it's cheaper to do so. The FCC has been quite aggressive - to the considerable annoyance of telecom monopolies in many countries - in using US market power to force down the cost of international calls, to spectacular effect. Just look at how prices have come down since 1997: Transatlantic minutes from the USA are now widely available to consumers for US$0.03 and transpacific from $0.06.
One of the key factors under consideration is how the emergence of IP telephony has changed the landscape of the marketplace. I think it's reasonable to predict that countries banning VOIP services will find their pet monopolies at the ugly end of the forthcoming ruling.
So, stay tuned - there's a good chance the prices will come down soon.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if you have any questions about their professionalism, you can always email them at their @yahoo.com contact address. They've only been in business as the "premier providers of technology consulting" since 1989, so I can see how they might not have had the time to learn how to run a mail server.
I'm starting to sound like a broken record here, but lftp will do all that you ask, and much much more. Provides the same interface whether via FTP or HTTP.
It's been done. I believe you're thinking of lftp. Fabulous little program.
I infer that it's not possible to get a name delegation, but only some pointless forwarding service. Speaking of confusing, the whole site is vague and ambiguous to an extreme. The FAQs are thinner than a photo of Kate Moss. And your "tour" doesn't work at all on my computer.
In addition to the possibly techie-only concern about having to pay for bundled "services" that don't interest me at all, and in fact make my life more difficult, I'd have to repeat my email address or web URL twelve times to each person I tell it to because they'll have no idea what I'm talking about ("dot-name? You mean name-dot-com? Huh?").
I suspect that techies and non-techies alike will share that objection, despite your "campaigns". The usual solution to such things is to discount until it gains market acceptance.
Instead, you've jacked the price UP - either I use your horrible forwarding service and get a short name, or I get to use proper servers but have to use a name longer than something I could just find in .com and avoid the whole issue.
Anyway, it's a free market - knock yourself out, have a good time.
You contradict yourself. If there are people out there who "wouldn't do it", then you can't use this voluntary domain scheme to block "such things" with "reasonable accuracy."
With a .sex policy, it's never useful, from day 1 to day infinity. There will always be plenty of people off it, so blocking it just takes business away from the subset of porn providers who choose only to register there. The rest of them, who want to get business from all the people who surf porn at work, from the people who do it from college campuses, from the people who do it from Singapore, well, they'll all just keep on .comming. In the long run they'll make a whole lot more money.
.kids, on the other hand, would start slow, but it would become steadily more useful over time, to nobody's detriment. The first year maybe it would only be used by parents who otherwise wouldn't allow their kids to use the internet at all. Then it would get used by schools. And it would grow from there.
What's porn? Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition? Typical northern European late-night TV fare? Manhattan cable channel 34 ads? Whose idea of what's acceptable do you use?
No, I know that some people are looking for it, and others who aren't motivated enough to go looking, will take it when it jumps out at them. Hence all the spam. Hence the need to advertise. More importantly, not only do I know that, but so do the pornistas.
That's excellent reasoning for 1962.
However, in 2003, a porn provider can be both in .sex and in .com without any additional cost. It's not like having to decide whether to use one's limited resources for a store either in Hell's Kitchen or in the Museum District. Even if the center of gravity of the industry moved to .sex (which I don't see happening), only a highly irrational actor would choose not to be accessible in .com as well, gaining whatever incremental traffic was available that way.
That's old news. Incidentally, why just "some" of the cyrillic letters? You mean, like these: A B E M H O P T X ?
No, it's very stupid and it wouldn't help at all. I don't say this to be insulting, but because this supposed panacea is constantly being brought up by people who can't or won't think things through.
People selling smut want to get it under the noses of as wide a potential audience as possible. Hence the existence of things like www.whitehouse.com. You will not be able to stop them or even put a dent in their operations unless you manage to outlaw porn in general worldwide, which is (A) bad policy, and (B) highly unlikely. If you create a .sex domain, then the porn operators will register in both - it costs them $10 and gets them more exposure.
If you want to provide a child-friendly environment, you can create a domain called .kids or whatever. Require organizations registering in it to either provide references from established child-friendly outfits (school system, CTW, etc.) or to post a large cash "smut bond". Anyone found with porn on a site reachable via a .kids URL (whether it's because they ran an open web proxy, or because they willingly put it up) forfeits their bond and loses their domain.
This works, because you have a finite number of domains to monitor, and you have specific disincentives to leverage. Trying to keep pornographic content out of the "rest of the internet" is an impossible task and only an idiot (or someone with a fat non-outcome-based contract) would attempt it.
I think you need to visit this site.
In other words, it's a totally useless service and I can't imagine anyone using it. You can get a proper domain from anyone else and do what you want with it, and do it properly. Why pay for this crippled version where you have to depend on servers run by some unknown entity with unproven email/web server expertise to pass your mail/web traffic along? I wouldn't use this for my personal snapshots-of-friends-weddings site, let alone something connected to my work as an author or artist.
The reason this is doomed to failure is because the only people whose needs are so shallow that they'd accept this arrangement, don't care enough to go to the trouble and spend the money, especially for something they can't really understand.
This enterprise will be belly-up by the year's end. They can go hang out at the bar with the Realnames people.
Ages ago I worked for a pop-media magazine. I was friends with a reporter who did an interview with Dan Castellaneta, and at the end he persuaded him to do answering machine messages for a few of us on the tape he used for the interview.
Sad thing is, it was almost impossible to get people to believe it was the real Homer! Everyone thought it was a passable fake but nevertheless obviously a fake.
Anyway, that's public, isn't it?
Actually I think most people would shake their heads in confusion. How could I steal back the tires I just finished stealing?
Where is the boundary between acceptable viewing and unacceptable viewing of content they are making publicly available?
What if I have my display resolution set differently to the web designer's?
What if I use Netscape instead of IE?
What if I use a black & white screen?
What if I surf the site with image loading turned off?
What if I wear dark glasses with holes cut through so I can only see the content and not the ads?
What if I use a text-only browser?
What if I use a screen reader?
What if I use a hypothetical browser that summarizes paragraphs to the first few lines?
What if I use a browser that "collapses" paragraphs on the first few lines and lets me click on an arrow to reveal the entire paragraph?
There's a continuum between displaying the content exactly as they envisioned it, and reducing or distilling it to some other form. Other than sitting at the same computer used by the web designer, anyone who visits a web site is somewhere along that continuum.
Unless they can define a specific point beyond which viewing is objectionable to the publisher - and I don't think they can - then I don't see how this case could get anywhere. The person making the software can keep backing up slightly until the plaintiff's position is absurd.
Furthermore, the tool in question is not a commercial product, the developer is not trafficking in the publisher's data, and, as a practical matter, it's easy enough to rewrite it so that the web server can't tell the difference anyway.
This is just another case of someone with a lousy business model trying to fix their problems with a lawyer instead of a good solid application of common sense (CueCat anyone?).
I find it amusing that in all the "past grace events" linked on that page they have been all over the country but never come to Washington DC.
DC is a hotbed of high-tech companies as well as non-profits. The city is knee-deep in computers. But just imagine the holy hell that would rain down upon the BSA as one NGO after another gets this letter just as someone happens to be heading out the door to give congressional testimony or have a meeting at a senator's office.
I suspect they'll be able to screen those out. But if people just start going through the phone book and turning in everyone, eventually the quality of their Stasi-style informant reports will be so diluted they won't be any use to them.
How does a "low-level employee" have the authority to extend such an invitation? Let's say I send postcards to everyone at General Motors offering a free calendar, and the small print obliges the company to sell me all the cars I want for $1 apiece, and someone from the janitorial department sends one back. How far do you think I'll get when I show up with my carny roll?
An NDA can supersede your right to free speech.
An arbitration clause can supersede your right to a jury trial.
A contract to work in Celine Dion's recording studio can supersede your protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
I don't think that's a fair comparison. After seeing the multi-page ads in Wired, I paid you people $250 startup plus $50/month for three months to get signed up on Tim-Net and the damn thing barely ever worked. If that were my only option I'd be using floppies too. Still trying to get my money back but your mom keeps chasing me out of the house.
Travelocity.com. SFO-NRT 6-Feb, NRT-SFO 14-Feb. Round-trip fare $750 on ANA, Japan Airlines, United, American, Northwest, and Air Canada.
How much cheaper could it get? Best I've ever gotten on that route was $550 with 3 weeks advance purchase in the Early December Dead Zone.
Not sure I can agree. I've lived in French-speaking countries (admittedly France has not been among them) and a vowel surrounded by stressed syllables (the first and last syllables in these words take the stress) is elided to neutrality to my ear. I just tried it out with a real live French colleague and she agrees - only when she pronounced the words at deliberately (and unnaturally) slow speed was the difference audible.
The sounds you're talking about are in unstressed syllables and thus, in both English and French, are schwas. Therefore they sound basically alike. There are reason for finding the decision dumb but this isn't one of them.
Naw, it's just that most virus authors are too lazy to include a 12-page "terms and conditions" shrinkwrap rider that grants them access to the victim's computer.
You tell me. Did the street-makers put up friendly signs saying "Women, walk here!" that led into dark alleys?
I believe Morocco is one of the countries where US phone companies have failed to reach termination agreements at or below the $0.19 benchmark set under the FCC's 1997 Settlement Rate Reform rule. The FCC has just finished taking comments on this issue and will be considering approaches to dealing with it.
This doesn't just affect calls to or from the USA, since third countries can (and do) route calls via the USA in cases where it's cheaper to do so. The FCC has been quite aggressive - to the considerable annoyance of telecom monopolies in many countries - in using US market power to force down the cost of international calls, to spectacular effect. Just look at how prices have come down since 1997: Transatlantic minutes from the USA are now widely available to consumers for US$0.03 and transpacific from $0.06.
One of the key factors under consideration is how the emergence of IP telephony has changed the landscape of the marketplace. I think it's reasonable to predict that countries banning VOIP services will find their pet monopolies at the ugly end of the forthcoming ruling.
So, stay tuned - there's a good chance the prices will come down soon.
I wouldn't think so, but let's see what happens when you start selling McSteak sandwiches at your new joint "Lunch R We" (or "Lunch B Us").