I agree with the majority of this post, except for the book choice. I found Connolly And Begg to be a much less idea book as compared to "Fundamental of Database Systems" by Elmarsri/Navathe ISBN 0805317481. Granted it has been about 4 years since I last really read either book, but from what I remember, Elmarsri was a much more consice and clear read.
The book seems to also have gone up in price since I bought it (by about 15$!), but used is great too:).
I realize that I may not be the most unbiased person to reply to this post, seeing as how I am an American, but I didn't take to be a "We're American, so we are always right case". Rather, I believe that it was "We're an American company, who was publishing something mainly for Americans, we don't think litigation should take place where the good was consumed, rather where it was manufactured."
Think about it - if this is allowed, where do we draw the line? Is every paper in every country responsible for knowing all countries laws regarding publishing issues? Or do we censor on the lowest common denominator? Should organisations that promote literacy and education for women have removed from the net when the Taliban was in power (I know that they weren't internationally recognized as the government, but you get my point). Should all on-line publications be censored from showing a woman without a head covering because it would offend some Muslim?
At what point does it stop? This case is about WHERE the plaintiff can litigate, not who 'owns' the WWW.
Regards,
-Tammie
BTW: I didn't vote for that bumbling, fumbling idiot.
I can tell you that it is not recommended. Spending time on the firewalls list, they almost never keep their original IPs in the log snippets they post... From what I can gather it is because alot of them do internal routing, and don't want others to know their subnet ranges etc.
The real problem with this is that if you read the by-laws, they need a 2/3rds majority to pass anything. With the number of At-Large Directors elected, they kept that portion under 1/3 of the total slots. Thus even if all of the At-Large Directors are opposed to a measure, they can STILL pass it.
Disgusted with ICANN,
-Tammie
PS Also take a look at this article submitted last Wednesday that talks about the same thing.
I was one of the lucky few who was able to participate in the voting for the At-Large ICANN directors.
Reading the full At-Large study was mildly interesting. Upon starting to read the document, I felt irate that they were thinking about axing all of the At-Large Directors, but with further reading, some of their points started to make sense. I found the most interesting (and concrete) section to be the Membership Registration/Election Process. This section details how many people attempted to register, how many actually voted, and what the cost per vote for ICANN was. The only bullet I have problems with is:
Evidence suggests that elements engaged in aggressive, nationalistic registration campaigns that raises questions about an informed, committed (to ICANN) At-Large membership (these three countries accounted for 59% of all registrations)
This bullet is not preceeded by any information telling what three countries they are referring too.
The best points raised were those in which they feared there was some ballot-stuffing going on. Multiple registrations to the same household or IP(legimiate, multiple family or roomates may have registered), and multi-lingual problems.
So now they want to move to a membership scheme in which only domain name holders can be At-Large members, and charge a fee for the membership. Mpawlo stated above:
The work of ICANN affects mostly those who still have not found their way out on the Internet. To make domain name ownership a condition for voting rights is therefore not appropriate.
But I don't agree. ICANN does not affect those who are unwired the most - it is the opposite! Would the way Norway decide to enforce it's driving laws affect a citizen of Australia? I think not. ICANN is there to regulate the street names, and to standardize the pavement. The problems arise when two people want to live at the same address, or when one person would like to carve a river across the land, so they may move around by boat, while another wants to pave it, so they can move by automobile.
I believe ICANN's problem boils down to "No taxation without representation". They are trying to be democratic (Yay!) about it, but without some way to validate just who its' representing, they are having logistical problems. However, I don't belive that one must own a house to have a say in where the river or road is placed.
I do agree with mpawlo about those which already have registered domain names wouldn't want other TLDs added, but I don't believe that is just because they are being stingy. Rather, it is because of the way the TLDs of today have been run..Com,.Net and.Org have no type of hierarchy associated with them, so even though there may be many Main Streets in cities across the country, they are all localized. With the TLDs as they are now (minus the.cc codes) there is no type of hierarchy saying which main street you are looking at! With new TLDs now you can distinguish between Main Street(.com), Anytown, Canada and Main Street(.info), Anytown, USA. With the flat structure of the TLDs today, I don't believe there is anyway to get more unique street names without adding more.TLDs with or without the support of current DN Holders.
Regards,
-Tammie
PS. I tried to be non-country specific, but I am an American, and we all know how dumb they can be:).
I thank you for the pointer, it led me to the right direction, but even these instructions were not entirely correct. There is a checkbox under the list of file types that needed to be checked. Just associating the CDA type doesn't work.
this argument makes me think of someone that just runs into a door, then keeps trying, and then complains when they can't find the doorknob even though they've flipped all the light switches in teh room.
I think it's more like someone runs up to a secret entrance to the secret lab hiding the computer secrets, and gives up after trying to find the pressure plate located exactly 10cm out of their range.
Really now, have you ever tried to talk your mother through getting pictures off of a CD? Mother - "What do you mean what drives show up? All I see are little folder things on the left, and little gray things with them".
I must admit however, that the solution proposed by Mr. Rosenberg is a bit misguided. The whole thing with XP was that it was better to take all the icons off the desktop. Putting a big ol' dialog up there saying "Which program do you want to view with?" is hardly the best in terms of GUI design, but he does have an interesting point. Currently I have RealJukebox and Winamp installed on my Win2k machine, and I still can't friggen figure out how to make only Winamp startup when I put a CD in - and I read/.!
Slashdot Mirror
The book seems to also have gone up in price since I bought it (by about 15$!), but used is great too :).
-Tammie
-Tammie
He wouldn't proactively have to do anything about it because someone else would.
-Tammie
Think about it - if this is allowed, where do we draw the line? Is every paper in every country responsible for knowing all countries laws regarding publishing issues? Or do we censor on the lowest common denominator? Should organisations that promote literacy and education for women have removed from the net when the Taliban was in power (I know that they weren't internationally recognized as the government, but you get my point). Should all on-line publications be censored from showing a woman without a head covering because it would offend some Muslim?
At what point does it stop? This case is about WHERE the plaintiff can litigate, not who 'owns' the WWW.
Regards,
-Tammie
BTW: I didn't vote for that bumbling, fumbling idiot.
Spending time on the firewalls list, they almost never keep their original IPs in the log snippets they post... From what I can gather it is because alot of them do internal routing, and don't want others to know their subnet ranges etc.
Merly postulating,
-Tammie
-Tammie
Disgusted with ICANN,
-Tammie
PS Also take a look at this article submitted last Wednesday that talks about the same thing.
Reading the full At-Large study was mildly interesting. Upon starting to read the document, I felt irate that they were thinking about axing all of the At-Large Directors, but with further reading, some of their points started to make sense. I found the most interesting (and concrete) section to be the Membership Registration/Election Process. This section details how many people attempted to register, how many actually voted, and what the cost per vote for ICANN was. The only bullet I have problems with is:
This bullet is not preceeded by any information telling what three countries they are referring too.The best points raised were those in which they feared there was some ballot-stuffing going on. Multiple registrations to the same household or IP(legimiate, multiple family or roomates may have registered), and multi-lingual problems.
So now they want to move to a membership scheme in which only domain name holders can be At-Large members, and charge a fee for the membership. Mpawlo stated above:
But I don't agree. ICANN does not affect those who are unwired the most - it is the opposite! Would the way Norway decide to enforce it's driving laws affect a citizen of Australia? I think not. ICANN is there to regulate the street names, and to standardize the pavement. The problems arise when two people want to live at the same address, or when one person would like to carve a river across the land, so they may move around by boat, while another wants to pave it, so they can move by automobile.I believe ICANN's problem boils down to "No taxation without representation". They are trying to be democratic (Yay!) about it, but without some way to validate just who its' representing, they are having logistical problems. However, I don't belive that one must own a house to have a say in where the river or road is placed.
I do agree with mpawlo about those which already have registered domain names wouldn't want other TLDs added, but I don't believe that is just because they are being stingy. Rather, it is because of the way the TLDs of today have been run. .Com, .Net and .Org have no type of hierarchy associated with them, so even though there may be many Main Streets in cities across the country, they are all localized. With the TLDs as they are now (minus the .cc codes) there is no type of hierarchy saying which main street you are looking at! With new TLDs now you can distinguish between Main Street(.com), Anytown, Canada and Main Street(.info), Anytown, USA. With the flat structure of the TLDs today, I don't believe there is anyway to get more unique street names without adding more .TLDs with or without the support of current DN Holders.
Regards,
-Tammie
PS. I tried to be non-country specific, but I am an American, and we all know how dumb they can be :).
Standard Operating Environment I would say.
Regards, -Tammie
Really now, have you ever tried to talk your mother through getting pictures off of a CD? Mother - "What do you mean what drives show up? All I see are little folder things on the left, and little gray things with them".
I must admit however, that the solution proposed by Mr. Rosenberg is a bit misguided. The whole thing with XP was that it was better to take all the icons off the desktop. Putting a big ol' dialog up there saying "Which program do you want to view with?" is hardly the best in terms of GUI design, but he does have an interesting point. Currently I have RealJukebox and Winamp installed on my Win2k machine, and I still can't friggen figure out how to make only Winamp startup when I put a CD in - and I read /.!
Regards,
-Tammie