In addition to not being secure, the Internet is not and never has been a social paradise.
People are not treated as equals on the Internet, and the reasons they're treated unequal are often more illogical than the reasons they're treated unequal in meatspace.
But how's it supposed to work on a one-way, push-only medium?
How is it supposed to sense anything?
Radio doesn't know that you are listening when it sends out an ad.
Google is most likely buying a radio-ad company so it can get radio-ad services for opportunity cost, and make a buck as a radio pipelining service for other companies, possibly bundling it with online ads as a value-added feature.
But anyone thinking that this somehow is a "natural" extension of AdSense...sheesh...
And I still consistently kick their asses at MoH online, with my plain-vanilla keyboard and my Logitech Wingman USB mouse (which needs its ball and rollers cleaned, badly).
It's skillz and experience, Chongo. Not some ticky-tack input device.
There's no reason to introduce such a content-based TLD except to give registrars another opportunity to bill all the trademark-holders yet again; and/or allow phishing sites to have a plausible name -- if Citibank.xxx doesn't fool anyone, Playboy.xxx might. And outside the US, where the XXX film rating scheme isn't known, XXX has no obvious porn implication.
1. There's no reason not to introduce any TLD anyone requests. Period.
2. Nobody's forced to buy URLs in any particular TLD.
3. Registrations are down to a few dollars a year, a negligible cost.
4. What you do with it is your business, not ICANN's. Their job is to associate one word or number with another in a table lookup, not to police the Internet.
5a..com has no obvious business implication outside the U.S. 5b..com has no obvious porn implication, but guess what: all porn sites use it now without compunction anyway. 5c. Most if not all of the world surely does know what "XXX" means.
6. It's not ICANN's job to decide whether.xxx would alter business practices. Those businesses wishing to buy a.xxx domain and no.com domain should have that option. Those businesses wishing to buy both should likewise be allowed.
7. Any business organized as a registrar for a TLD should be a nonprofit, anyway.
In sum, your argument is holier than the cheesecloth around the Pope's emmenthaler.
>>If sites block them, that saves the porn sites that are wholly within.xxx from having to implement those silly "click here if you are under 18" portal windows.
>So, following your logic, this would mean that they would be able show the Good Stuff on the front page instead of having to use stars to cover up the naughty bits?
Um, that's not "following my logic," that's just "reading what I just wrote..."
Its pointless. Unless you make it mandatory, there's no reason for a porn site to use it, as many places will block.xxx by default. And making it mandatory is a violation of free speech.
That's fallacious.
Any porn site will have a.xxx presence simply to improve its exposure to searches.
If sites block them, that saves the porn sites that are wholly within.xxx from having to implement those silly "click here if you are under 18" portal windows.
Frankly, there's no reason grounded in anything other than sheer bloody-mindedness to deny any TLD the light of day. It's just a part of a string used to address a worldwide table of IP associations, and the rest of the string is free-form and totally unrestrictable (except as to character set and length).
The file format included the features that existed for that format, but was being used in a context where one feature's production method wasn't supposed to have any implementation.
Not only did it have an implementation, it had a bizarre implementation.
If the WINE WMF-processing code were implemented according to the API, they should have simply ignored the abort-callback section of any WMF file.
If the WINE WMF-processing code not only processes the abort-callback section but processes it such that this bizarre behavior occurs, then it's pretty obvious that they simply copied the binary code from the Windows DLL.
The way this code is described, it could only turn up in the API under WINE if WINE used the actual code from Microsoft's DLL, not just the API definition.
Is WINE supposed to have been black-boxed? Or are they using Microsoft's DLLs?
Slashdot Mirror
>Arguably it would have been a better translation if, perhaps, it wasn't written in pseudo-German.
Given the quality of babelfish's typical translation, pseudo-German is just as good as the real thing...
What's with the reliance on anecdotal evidence?
In addition to not being secure, the Internet is not and never has been a social paradise.
People are not treated as equals on the Internet, and the reasons they're treated unequal are often more illogical than the reasons they're treated unequal in meatspace.
They still have no idea that you're listening to the radio, ever.
The correlation is tempting, but not compelling.
If this is actually worth 10 cents per ad in business creation, I'll be surprised.
But how's it supposed to work on a one-way, push-only medium?
How is it supposed to sense anything?
Radio doesn't know that you are listening when it sends out an ad.
Google is most likely buying a radio-ad company so it can get radio-ad services for opportunity cost, and make a buck as a radio pipelining service for other companies, possibly bundling it with online ads as a value-added feature.
But anyone thinking that this somehow is a "natural" extension of AdSense...sheesh...
I know these keyboards are out there.
These, and the 1600-dpi mice.
And I still consistently kick their asses at MoH online, with my plain-vanilla keyboard and my Logitech Wingman USB mouse (which needs its ball and rollers cleaned, badly).
It's skillz and experience, Chongo. Not some ticky-tack input device.
There's no reason to introduce such a content-based TLD except to give registrars another opportunity to bill all the trademark-holders yet again; and/or allow phishing sites to have a plausible name -- if Citibank.xxx doesn't fool anyone, Playboy.xxx might. And outside the US, where the XXX film rating scheme isn't known, XXX has no obvious porn implication.
.com has no obvious business implication outside the U.S. .com has no obvious porn implication, but guess what: all porn sites use it now without compunction anyway.
.xxx would alter business practices. Those businesses wishing to buy a .xxx domain and no .com domain should have that option. Those businesses wishing to buy both should likewise be allowed.
1. There's no reason not to introduce any TLD anyone requests. Period.
2. Nobody's forced to buy URLs in any particular TLD.
3. Registrations are down to a few dollars a year, a negligible cost.
4. What you do with it is your business, not ICANN's. Their job is to associate one word or number with another in a table lookup, not to police the Internet.
5a.
5b.
5c. Most if not all of the world surely does know what "XXX" means.
6. It's not ICANN's job to decide whether
7. Any business organized as a registrar for a TLD should be a nonprofit, anyway.
In sum, your argument is holier than the cheesecloth around the Pope's emmenthaler.
>>If sites block them, that saves the porn sites that are wholly within .xxx from having to implement those silly "click here if you are under 18" portal windows.
>So, following your logic, this would mean that they would be able show the Good Stuff on the front page instead of having to use stars to cover up the naughty bits?
Um, that's not "following my logic," that's just "reading what I just wrote..."
Where's the
Its pointless. Unless you make it mandatory, there's no reason for a porn site to use it, as many places will block .xxx by default. And making it mandatory is a violation of free speech.
.xxx presence simply to improve its exposure to searches.
.xxx from having to implement those silly "click here if you are under 18" portal windows.
That's fallacious.
Any porn site will have a
If sites block them, that saves the porn sites that are wholly within
Frankly, there's no reason grounded in anything other than sheer bloody-mindedness to deny any TLD the light of day. It's just a part of a string used to address a worldwide table of IP associations, and the rest of the string is free-form and totally unrestrictable (except as to character set and length).
Losing the old brand name means that Intel appears to have something new.
People now fall asleep before reaching the "um" in "Pentium", figuring it's the same-old, same-old.
Have everyone in IT take a sick day on the same day.
They'll understand immediately what value you bring.
And I can just hear his next review.
But Boo-osssss, I asked really smart people and they didn't have the answer...
Maybe his attorneys should talk to Randal Schwartz's attorneys.
Schwartz Case Upheld on Appeal (slashdot story posted 2001.04.07)
Latest data on it is from November of that year.
I think they'd have noticed if WMF files were suddenly including executable code. Someone should check to see what their real process was.
Um, RTFA.
The file format included the features that existed for that format, but was being used in a context where one feature's production method wasn't supposed to have any implementation.
Not only did it have an implementation, it had a bizarre implementation.
If the WINE WMF-processing code were implemented according to the API, they should have simply ignored the abort-callback section of any WMF file.
If the WINE WMF-processing code not only processes the abort-callback section but processes it such that this bizarre behavior occurs, then it's pretty obvious that they simply copied the binary code from the Windows DLL.
Is that the case?
Wait a sec.
The way this code is described, it could only turn up in the API under WINE if WINE used the actual code from Microsoft's DLL, not just the API definition.
Is WINE supposed to have been black-boxed? Or are they using Microsoft's DLLs?
posting a URL on /. causes the server to crash?
My W-2 says a real SWE can make 6 figures, too.
But code monkeys? Forget it.
No they wouldn't.
Six-figure salaries for code monkeys are GONE, boy.
Unless you're counting in rupees...
I never noticed until just now, but CmdrTaco posts with a magic +2 karma bonus...
That just doesn't seem fair.
What should I do with a good submission from a reader with a reputation?
Post it on Fark.Com instead.
--Drew
Amazon knows more than your cookies.
My results were different.
>And, for added amusement, type "Civ 4" in to Amazon and see what recommendations come up further down the list. It may too be racist.
You do know that Amazon's recommendations are tailored to your prior buying/browsing/searching history, right?
An intranet based on the Internet is, indeed, the internet.
And the internet is a common. The RFCs aren't standards except by consent of those choosing to stay within them.
Look in the mirror for that irrelevance you seek.