And once the Marketing Types found out about domain names, they were determined to turn it back into a flat namespace, ignoring subdomains and top-level domains other than.com.
The guy doesn't even follow his own rules in his examples; he says which characters are allowed to be in parameter value strings that are not quoted, and the slash (/) isn't one of them; yet, in his example code, he includes some unquoted strings that include slashes. Thus, he seems to be proposing a new version of the same ill-defined tag soup that is already in wide use.
As I recall, around the 1980s or so, there were no firm standards for what the function keys did other than F1 meaning "Help". In a lot of programs I wrote around that time for diskmagazines and the like, I used F5 to mean "Print".
Hasn't this gone around in cycles already? First there was the mainframe batch processing era where everything was centralized, then the networked-terminal timesharing model where individuals could do stuff but it was all dependent on a central system... this gave way to the early PC era, where individuals could have totally separate machines and do things independently... then everybody got networked and we were back to a more central-controllable system. Because there are advantages and disadvantages of each model, things will keep going back and forth as people react to the issues of the currently-dominant model, whichever one it is.
My gripe about them is that they try to censor criticism of their site by a ridiculous ban on linking to so-called "attack sites"; I've written an essay on it.
This is an interesting example where Slim, and a few of her clique buddies, ganged up on somebody who was complaining about a possible image copyright violation. Rather than give any attention to the substance of the complaint (which apparently had validity, since the image was ultimately deleted), Slim and her friends kept character-assassinating the complainant, including attempting to use guilt by association based on other websites and IRC rooms he was in, a tactic specifically prohibited by the Wikipedia "No Personal Attacks" policy. In a major show of irony, they also accused him of violating that very same policy, and of trying to gang up on Slim. The clique seems to be very quick to accuse others of doing the stuff they do themselves all the time.
An "excellent Wikipedia administrator", maybe, in some ways... but also a top member of a clique that can be quite hypocritically nasty to anybody who gets in its way, and which pushes policies such as the silly one against linking to so-called "attack sites" under any circumstances, which end up reflecting poorly on Wikipedia by making it seem to be trying to censor its critics. I think that critics, even "lunatic conspiracy theorists", should be kept in the light of day instead of forcibly suppressed and left to fester in the dark.
Though, for Wikipedia to continue to try to suppress information even after it's been on the front page of Slashdot doesn't make them look particularly sensible either.
Try opposing SlimVirgin, or one of her many friends on Wikipedia, and see how fast you're labeled a "troll", or accused of being a "sockpuppet of a banned user" or other such character-assassination. If they can't get anything like that to stick, they'll say your views are irrelevant because you don't have a sufficiently high edit count to matter.
"Banned troll" = anybody who dares to criticize the power clique of Wikipedia. (I like Wikipedia... I hate some of the people and cliques with power there.)
Slim, Crum, and a number of others are part of a clique which has attained a high degree of power on Wikipedia, and which has been using it in a very pushy way, such as in insisting on enforcing an alleged "policy" (which has never come near getting a consensus of Wikipedians) banning links to so-called "attack sites" which do things like "outing" Slim (so I guess Slashdot is an "attack site" now). See my essay on this.
J. K. Rowling had some good commentary on the idea of school administrators trying to censor what information sources the students are allowed to read, in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, where the highly dislikeable Dolores Umbridge, put in charge of Hogwarts by the incompetent and fearful government of the wizarding world, issued a series of edicts including a ban on students reading a tabloid newspaper that had just published a lengthy article about student Harry Potter, who was on Umbridge's bad side at the time. Naturally, once it was banned it became the most popular reading matter all over the school.
Those guys are apparently too clueless to realize that Wikipedia, a noncommercial project, is quite properly at wikipedia.org, not ".com" as they listed it. (They did, however, correctly note Slashdot and Craigslist as.org sites, so they apparently aren't quite totally dot-com zombies who are unaware of any other top level domain.)
Are you perhaps thinking of The Phantom Tollbooth? That's by Norton Juster, not Roald Dahl, and (as far as I recall) does not feature any aunts being eaten, though various puns are used throughout the book.
It's my experience that lots of people in the business world insist on needlessly sending things as Word or Excel attachments that could have been done fine in plain text, thus contributing to the perception that everybody "needes" M$ Office.
Slashdot Mirror
And once the Marketing Types found out about domain names, they were determined to turn it back into a flat namespace, ignoring subdomains and top-level domains other than .com.
The guy doesn't even follow his own rules in his examples; he says which characters are allowed to be in parameter value strings that are not quoted, and the slash (/) isn't one of them; yet, in his example code, he includes some unquoted strings that include slashes. Thus, he seems to be proposing a new version of the same ill-defined tag soup that is already in wide use.
Given that it's a noncommercial organization, the .org address makes more logical sense for it than the .com address anyway.
As I recall, around the 1980s or so, there were no firm standards for what the function keys did other than F1 meaning "Help". In a lot of programs I wrote around that time for diskmagazines and the like, I used F5 to mean "Print".
Hasn't this gone around in cycles already? First there was the mainframe batch processing era where everything was centralized, then the networked-terminal timesharing model where individuals could do stuff but it was all dependent on a central system... this gave way to the early PC era, where individuals could have totally separate machines and do things independently... then everybody got networked and we were back to a more central-controllable system. Because there are advantages and disadvantages of each model, things will keep going back and forth as people react to the issues of the currently-dominant model, whichever one it is.
My gripe about them is that they try to censor criticism of their site by a ridiculous ban on linking to so-called "attack sites"; I've written an essay on it.
I tried, and got this:
We're sorry, but this site is not currently compatible with Netscape.
And I'm not even using Netscape!
I have legitimate sites in .info domains.
Fine, except that it's "Lex Luthor", and there actually is "Red Kryptonite" alongside the green variety (in the DC Comics universe, anyway).
If you outlaw ridicule of parliament, then only outlaws will ridicule parliament!
This is an interesting example where Slim, and a few of her clique buddies, ganged up on somebody who was complaining about a possible image copyright violation. Rather than give any attention to the substance of the complaint (which apparently had validity, since the image was ultimately deleted), Slim and her friends kept character-assassinating the complainant, including attempting to use guilt by association based on other websites and IRC rooms he was in, a tactic specifically prohibited by the Wikipedia "No Personal Attacks" policy. In a major show of irony, they also accused him of violating that very same policy, and of trying to gang up on Slim. The clique seems to be very quick to accuse others of doing the stuff they do themselves all the time.
An "excellent Wikipedia administrator", maybe, in some ways... but also a top member of a clique that can be quite hypocritically nasty to anybody who gets in its way, and which pushes policies such as the silly one against linking to so-called "attack sites" under any circumstances, which end up reflecting poorly on Wikipedia by making it seem to be trying to censor its critics. I think that critics, even "lunatic conspiracy theorists", should be kept in the light of day instead of forcibly suppressed and left to fester in the dark.
Though, for Wikipedia to continue to try to suppress information even after it's been on the front page of Slashdot doesn't make them look particularly sensible either.
Actually, I'm still an editor in good standing there... they haven't managed to ban me yet. :-)
Try opposing SlimVirgin, or one of her many friends on Wikipedia, and see how fast you're labeled a "troll", or accused of being a "sockpuppet of a banned user" or other such character-assassination. If they can't get anything like that to stick, they'll say your views are irrelevant because you don't have a sufficiently high edit count to matter.
She and her friends in fact do a great deal of suppressing of things from Wikipedia's history that relate to her.
"Banned troll" = anybody who dares to criticize the power clique of Wikipedia. (I like Wikipedia... I hate some of the people and cliques with power there.)
Slim, Crum, and a number of others are part of a clique which has attained a high degree of power on Wikipedia, and which has been using it in a very pushy way, such as in insisting on enforcing an alleged "policy" (which has never come near getting a consensus of Wikipedians) banning links to so-called "attack sites" which do things like "outing" Slim (so I guess Slashdot is an "attack site" now). See my essay on this.
J. K. Rowling had some good commentary on the idea of school administrators trying to censor what information sources the students are allowed to read, in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, where the highly dislikeable Dolores Umbridge, put in charge of Hogwarts by the incompetent and fearful government of the wizarding world, issued a series of edicts including a ban on students reading a tabloid newspaper that had just published a lengthy article about student Harry Potter, who was on Umbridge's bad side at the time. Naturally, once it was banned it became the most popular reading matter all over the school.
Except that Wikipedia will likely be banned from libraries as a "social networking site" since it permits user profile pages and user talk pages.
Those guys are apparently too clueless to realize that Wikipedia, a noncommercial project, is quite properly at wikipedia.org, not ".com" as they listed it. (They did, however, correctly note Slashdot and Craigslist as .org sites, so they apparently aren't quite totally dot-com zombies who are unaware of any other top level domain.)
Are you perhaps thinking of The Phantom Tollbooth? That's by Norton Juster, not Roald Dahl, and (as far as I recall) does not feature any aunts being eaten, though various puns are used throughout the book.
It's my experience that lots of people in the business world insist on needlessly sending things as Word or Excel attachments that could have been done fine in plain text, thus contributing to the perception that everybody "needes" M$ Office.
I'm going out of the way to avoid ".com" for my noncommercial projects, which are in .info, .org, and .name domains instead.
So why not use logical subdomains for those things, like resume.yourname.whatever?