I thought that IANA reserved all the one-letter second-level domains under.com,.net, and.org. Whois seems to verify this for all the other one-letter domains... Why's the Open Group getting special treatment?
Whenever slashdot focuses it's collective mind on a political matter, I have to stop and suppress the temptations put forth by this beloved Hyde Park. I will not stoop to petty bickering. I will not participate in a thread that relies on two-sentence come-backs, such as, "Democrats want to to control the boardroom. Republicans want to control the bedroom," or, "Republicans support small government. Democrats support unemployment, big brother, and other liberal programs." I refuse. This stupidity (err, "political naivite") is insulting, and the shame of the matter is that there is a _real_ issue at hand.
The issue at hand is not as transient as Al Gore or the election in the year 2000. It's how this community views itself politically. How does it look at politics? Five years from now, will young politicians in training be joking about computer freaks? I can hear the jokes beginning: "Did I tell you the one about the computer nerd who tried to take his computer into the voting booth?"
And there will be grounds for the jokes. Not because the computer users will be recluses who didn't get a date for the prom, but because they (we) will be sitting on the biggest gold mine of raw power and they (we) will have no idea how to use it or how to control it. This community has only begun to comprehend that this young medium has the opportunity to take control of the staple of politics: images. Who will set the standards for communications over the Internet, Internet2, and its successor? Who will produce the technology and the content? Technology and content do go hand-in hand. (Note the controversy over MP3.)
Does Al Gore realize? He at least acknowledges as much. Does George W. Bush realize this? Who knows? Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe he's scheming. I'm not George W. Bush, and I don't know enough about him to judge. (Of course, many of the members of the slashdot community are themselves too ignorant to judge Al Gore, but, hey, he's been VP for seven years. Since we're all naturally good and take not note of what our government has been up to for the past few years [or months? days?], we have the inherent right to judge him for one boast if we damn well please.) I know,though, I certainly am not going to rule out Al Gore until I look around hte political landscape a bit more.
It seems right now that there's reaction to some foreign entity. The electronic world is sending its white blood cells out to kill the political bacteria. I'm just disappointed that we've jumped the gun on him.
While I understand that you're disappointed with the romance many attach to "[cr|h]acking," I think "graffiti artist" is a marvel of an analogy. Both graffiti artists and hackers are stereotyped, dissatisfied teenagers performing anonymously on a public stage. Although both are frowned upon, both are inevitable and ultimately benign.
Do we make software free because we have to, or because we want to? I argue that we want to. The free movement of ideas always trumps restrictions on ideas in terms of innovation and quality. So let Open Source be tested in the marketplace, not in the pulpit!
The last sentence implies two things: O'Rielly's philosophy relies on the strengh of Open Source in the marketplace, whereas the FSF philosophy degenerates into petty arguments on morality and ethics. (We all know that the marketplace transcends morality and ethics, now don't we?) But O'Reilly's decision to use a word with a negative connotation isn't what confuses me: It's the way he worked up to it.
"Free movement of ideas always trumps restrictions on ideas..." This is not very controversial -- both Stallman and O'Reilly would agree to this much. However, with the use of the two simple letters s-o, he implies that this statement supports his marketplace, not Stallman's pulpit.
Not only is that suggestion blantly wrong, it's not even supported in his essay.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought that IANA reserved all the one-letter second-level domains under .com, .net, and .org. Whois seems to verify this for all the other one-letter domains... Why's the Open Group getting special treatment?
Whenever slashdot focuses it's collective mind on a political matter, I have to stop and suppress the temptations put forth by this beloved Hyde Park. I will not stoop to petty bickering. I will not participate in a thread that relies on two-sentence come-backs, such as, "Democrats want to to control the boardroom. Republicans want to control the bedroom," or, "Republicans support small government. Democrats support unemployment, big brother, and other liberal programs." I refuse. This stupidity (err, "political naivite") is insulting, and the shame of the matter is that there is a _real_ issue at hand.
The issue at hand is not as transient as Al Gore or the election in the year 2000. It's how this community views itself politically. How does it look at politics? Five years from now, will young politicians in training be joking about computer freaks? I can hear the jokes beginning: "Did I tell you the one about the computer nerd who tried to take his computer into the voting booth?"
And there will be grounds for the jokes. Not because the computer users will be recluses who didn't get a date for the prom, but because they (we) will be sitting on the biggest gold mine of raw power and they (we) will have no idea how to use it or how to control it. This community has only begun to comprehend that this young medium has the opportunity to take control of the staple of politics: images. Who will set the standards for communications over the Internet, Internet2, and its successor? Who will produce the technology and the content? Technology and content do go hand-in hand. (Note the controversy over MP3.)
Does Al Gore realize? He at least acknowledges as much. Does George W. Bush realize this? Who knows? Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe he's scheming. I'm not George W. Bush, and I don't know enough about him to judge. (Of course, many of the members of the slashdot community are themselves too ignorant to judge Al Gore, but, hey, he's been VP for seven years. Since we're all naturally good and take not note of what our government has been up to for the past few years [or months? days?], we have the inherent right to judge him for one boast if we damn well please.) I know,though, I certainly am not going to rule out Al Gore until I look around hte political landscape a bit more.
It seems right now that there's reaction to some foreign entity. The electronic world is sending its white blood cells out to kill the political bacteria. I'm just disappointed that we've jumped the gun on him.
While I understand that you're disappointed with the romance many attach to "[cr|h]acking," I think "graffiti artist" is a marvel of an analogy. Both graffiti artists and hackers are stereotyped, dissatisfied teenagers performing anonymously on a public stage. Although both are frowned upon, both are inevitable and ultimately benign.
hmm...speaking of slashdot updates, why am I being bombarded with cookies whose names are on crack?
Do we make software free because we have to, or because we want to? I argue that we want to. The free movement of ideas always trumps restrictions on ideas in terms of innovation and quality. So let Open Source be tested in the marketplace, not in the pulpit!
The last sentence implies two things: O'Rielly's philosophy relies on the strengh of Open Source in the marketplace, whereas the FSF philosophy degenerates into petty arguments on morality and ethics. (We all know that the marketplace transcends morality and ethics, now don't we?) But O'Reilly's decision to use a word with a negative connotation isn't what confuses me: It's the way he worked up to it.
"Free movement of ideas always trumps restrictions on ideas..." This is not very controversial -- both Stallman and O'Reilly would agree to this much. However, with the use of the two simple letters s-o, he implies that this statement supports his marketplace, not Stallman's pulpit.
Not only is that suggestion blantly wrong, it's not even supported in his essay.
I already use .dot for my house's intranet's TLD. What I do if IANA up and claimed it? ;)