Space travel and starving kids are two completely separate things. Why again are these connected, and how does funding one detract from another? It's not like the U.S. government would or even could use those funds saved from no space travel to feed starving kids.
If I'm missing something, please, enlighten me. Hargun
People blocking servers that promote internet congestion for the betterment of the 'net? That's ridiculous. I think that's punishable by death in China.
Just like a car or a bike, if the equipment is faulty, I think the company that made it should be liable. However, if you got that car or bike for free and knew before hand that hey, this thing may not work because I'm giving this to you out of the goodness of my heart, then I don't think that independent developer should be liable.
I suppose that's only a dream for us OSS kids;) Having the big boys like Microsoft liable while we get off easy. There's no way in hell those dirty politicians would see that that would make the most sense for the consumer. But hey, that's democracy for you.
I think that the Government should have at least a little bit of control (although not as much as the US has right now) and each government should be represented fairly (not this whole US gets.gov while the UK gov gets.gov.uk.) ICANN should really be an international body rather than the Dept. of Commerce one that is is now.
The problem with giving the End-User control in ICANN is that there are too many End-Users around the world to do this, and aren't the governments supposed to be representative of the people? As for corporations having control...I think they should have little, if at all. But who am I?...just an End-User.
In my humble opinion, the problem with spam block lists as they are today is that
1) they are not consolidated which means your network may end up being wrongfully isolated from one or two networks and you'll never know why your legitimate e-mail isn't reaching its destination and
2) if you get added to a list, some people aren't responsible enough to keep them updated. So if for example you had open-relaying on by accident (a common problem alleviated in the recent versions of sendmail) you may end up being "blacklisted" and if you try to contact the maintainers of those lists, you get no response and your domain is forever banished from the internet.
I heard the FCC (or one of those acronyms...maybe the FDA) is starting to create a national "blacklist" maintained by the government. I don't know if that's true, but that might actually not be a bad idea.
This is an interesting experiment, and it could even have implications in the game programming world. I used to experiment with that kind of stuff (RGB palettes, etc...) but then stopped after I couldn't tell the differences between any of the colors.
I went to the doctor only to find out I was color blind and that explained why I could only see three colors on a rainbow. It's sad, I know, but true.
Apple is just starting to open up stores around the United States (from what I've heard). If they were to start selling OS X on Intel hardware, their stores would flop (unless, of course, they started selling Intel hardware there...which I just don't see happening.) For them to consider OS X on an x86 platform, we're looking at a 180 by Apple of the same magnitude as Microsoft's recent security 180.
But hey, who knows, maybe it'll happen.
Slashdot Mirror
Space travel and starving kids are two completely separate things. Why again are these connected, and how does funding one detract from another? It's not like the U.S. government would or even could use those funds saved from no space travel to feed starving kids.
If I'm missing something, please, enlighten me.
Hargun
People blocking servers that promote internet congestion for the betterment of the 'net? That's ridiculous. I think that's punishable by death in China.
Just like a car or a bike, if the equipment is faulty, I think the company that made it should be liable. However, if you got that car or bike for free and knew before hand that hey, this thing may not work because I'm giving this to you out of the goodness of my heart, then I don't think that independent developer should be liable.
;) Having the big boys like Microsoft liable while we get off easy. There's no way in hell those dirty politicians would see that that would make the most sense for the consumer. But hey, that's democracy for you.
I suppose that's only a dream for us OSS kids
Just my US$0.02
Hargun
I think that the Government should have at least a little bit of control (although not as much as the US has right now) and each government should be represented fairly (not this whole US gets .gov while the UK gov gets .gov.uk.) ICANN should really be an international body rather than the Dept. of Commerce one that is is now.
...just an End-User.
The problem with giving the End-User control in ICANN is that there are too many End-Users around the world to do this, and aren't the governments supposed to be representative of the people? As for corporations having control...I think they should have little, if at all. But who am I?
Just my US$0.02
Hargun
In my humble opinion, the problem with spam block lists as they are today is that
1) they are not consolidated which means your network may end up being wrongfully isolated from one or two networks and you'll never know why your legitimate e-mail isn't reaching its destination and
2) if you get added to a list, some people aren't responsible enough to keep them updated. So if for example you had open-relaying on by accident (a common problem alleviated in the recent versions of sendmail) you may end up being "blacklisted" and if you try to contact the maintainers of those lists, you get no response and your domain is forever banished from the internet.
I heard the FCC (or one of those acronyms...maybe the FDA) is starting to create a national "blacklist" maintained by the government. I don't know if that's true, but that might actually not be a bad idea.
Just my US$0.02.. Hargun
I went to the doctor only to find out I was color blind and that explained why I could only see three colors on a rainbow. It's sad, I know, but true.
Apple is just starting to open up stores around the United States (from what I've heard). If they were to start selling OS X on Intel hardware, their stores would flop (unless, of course, they started selling Intel hardware there...which I just don't see happening.) For them to consider OS X on an x86 platform, we're looking at a 180 by Apple of the same magnitude as Microsoft's recent security 180. But hey, who knows, maybe it'll happen.
With the recent actions of Bush (ignoring the Geneva conventions), I'm not sure this is a good thing...