Actually, what we do is not at all related to indexing, nor is it related to locally-sensitive hashing (LSH). Hyperspace hashing, the central technique that underlies HyperDex, is a data placement technique akin to consistent hashing.
Here is one way to put it:
Paul Vixie cannot write worth crap and we all have to suffer for it.
If you haven't ditched BIND yet, this is a good opportunity to do so, since DJBDNS has been placed in the public domain. Otherwise, you'll be monkeying around with disruptive BIND patches for the rest of your life.
Parent said: ICANN's fee is not a lot - 20 cents (US) per year - but that is expected to be sufficient to make domain tasting unprofitable.
But the article is entirely at odds with this assessment, and I agree:
If the GNSO council were to recommend
making ICANN's $0.20 fee non-refundable, the measure may not be enough. Not only would it fail to
eliminate the practice completely, but there would be pressure by the constituencies within ICANN to
give the new change time and thus it could ultimately slow down the process of bringing about
positive change.
The article suggests a "restocking" fee when a name changes hands, as well as a threshold limit to the
number of drops and adds a registrar can make (to avoid domain kiting). These are smart, targeted
fixes to a huge problem, namely, most good names are taken, yet there is little of value. In fact,
the article claims that a handful of "domainers" are squatting on the vast majority of names.
The Coral mirror is not working. I have had no luck clicking on Coral links - on the rare occasions where Coral is up, the images fail to come through.
There wasn't anything fundamentally wrong with Europe that necessitated grand exploration, and most of the people leading these expeditions could have enjoyed a very comfortable life had they desired to do so. In short, the biggest thing driving the exploration was sheer curiosity
There was something fundamentally wrong: Europe's access to East Asian resources was blocked by the Ottoman Empire and tough terrain to the east.
Large scale expeditions were by no means vanity projects for adventurers, unless they could be bankrolled by a very small group of people.
For a society to commit so many resources to such a task, there has to be some tangible payback. Tang doesn't really count.
Also, keep in mind that progress is often exponential. What costs immense amounts of money and entails large risks today can often be done cheaply and safely with tomorrow's technology. Think Moore's Law applied to space exploration. You certainly don't want to undertake a challenge ahead of its time. Those billions are better spent on healthcare so less children die in the US, one of whom might invent the space elevator/ion drive/whatever else that will get us to Mars much more easily.
So, why do you think the law provides such protections ? Why can a company not discriminate among its customers on the basis of race ?
There was a big outcry by the public that such behavior was unacceptable. The poster has the foresight to note that a similar outcry will take place about personal privacy, and this kind of snooping, videorecording, etc. will be banned when it becomes amply clear that corporations lack the means to keep such data private, and really have no good reason to store it in the first place.
By that logic, Segregated Airlines should be able to ask all blacks to please move to the back of the plane. Don't like them ? Don't fly them!
And LiveAction Emergency Hospitals should have a bittorrent feed of all of their patients and their personal histories on the Internet. Don't like them ? Don't get sick!
These kinds of extreme libertarian arguments seem compelling because of their simplicity ("my plane, my rules!"). But the public at large has already decided that some limitations need to be placed on people's freedoms to protect the freedoms of the public at large. The poster is clearly worried that 10 years down the line, United is going to unveil some footage of him on the plane (e.g. drinking, chatting up the stewardess, whatever). Should United have a right to take my pic and look it up in a database as I board ? I suspect most people would think that that's reasonable (though some would disagree). Should they have a right to videotape everything I do in their plane ? Maybe, as long as there is no chance of that tape leaking into the wrong hands. Should they keep these tapes around for 10 years, along with personal details of who flew on what flight and when ? No way, that database is just begging to be hacked into or abused by insiders. The technology is not secure enough for the sensitivity of the data in question.
There is a whole spectrum of possibilities here. The question is "what rights should corporations have ?" A simplistic approach based on "any and all rights they like" is a poor idea. The public needs to be informed, and actively respond to retain their (precarious) right to privacy.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, what we do is not at all related to indexing, nor is it related to locally-sensitive hashing (LSH). Hyperspace hashing, the central technique that underlies HyperDex, is a data placement technique akin to consistent hashing.
There's an old adage that says that "the Internet detects damage and routes around it."
Anybody who thinks that compiling from source provides security should read Ken Thompson's Turing Award talk titled Reflections on Trusting Trust.
If you haven't ditched BIND yet, this is a good opportunity to do so, since DJBDNS has been placed in the public domain. Otherwise, you'll be monkeying around with disruptive BIND patches for the rest of your life.
But the article is entirely at odds with this assessment, and I agree:
The article suggests a "restocking" fee when a name changes hands, as well as a threshold limit to the number of drops and adds a registrar can make (to avoid domain kiting). These are smart, targeted fixes to a huge problem, namely, most good names are taken, yet there is little of value. In fact, the article claims that a handful of "domainers" are squatting on the vast majority of names.The Coral mirror is not working. I have had no luck clicking on Coral links - on the rare occasions where Coral is up, the images fail to come through.
Diamonds would be much cheaper if we could bring this closer to earth Astronomers find 10 billion trillion trillion carat diamond.
Large scale expeditions were by no means vanity projects for adventurers, unless they could be bankrolled by a very small group of people.
For a society to commit so many resources to such a task, there has to be some tangible payback. Tang doesn't really count.
Also, keep in mind that progress is often exponential. What costs immense amounts of money and entails large risks today can often be done cheaply and safely with tomorrow's technology. Think Moore's Law applied to space exploration. You certainly don't want to undertake a challenge ahead of its time. Those billions are better spent on healthcare so less children die in the US, one of whom might invent the space elevator/ion drive/whatever else that will get us to Mars much more easily.
There was a big outcry by the public that such behavior was unacceptable. The poster has the foresight to note that a similar outcry will take place about personal privacy, and this kind of snooping, videorecording, etc. will be banned when it becomes amply clear that corporations lack the means to keep such data private, and really have no good reason to store it in the first place.
By that logic, Segregated Airlines should be able to ask all blacks to please move to the back of the plane. Don't like them ? Don't fly them! And LiveAction Emergency Hospitals should have a bittorrent feed of all of their patients and their personal histories on the Internet. Don't like them ? Don't get sick! These kinds of extreme libertarian arguments seem compelling because of their simplicity ("my plane, my rules!"). But the public at large has already decided that some limitations need to be placed on people's freedoms to protect the freedoms of the public at large. The poster is clearly worried that 10 years down the line, United is going to unveil some footage of him on the plane (e.g. drinking, chatting up the stewardess, whatever). Should United have a right to take my pic and look it up in a database as I board ? I suspect most people would think that that's reasonable (though some would disagree). Should they have a right to videotape everything I do in their plane ? Maybe, as long as there is no chance of that tape leaking into the wrong hands. Should they keep these tapes around for 10 years, along with personal details of who flew on what flight and when ? No way, that database is just begging to be hacked into or abused by insiders. The technology is not secure enough for the sensitivity of the data in question. There is a whole spectrum of possibilities here. The question is "what rights should corporations have ?" A simplistic approach based on "any and all rights they like" is a poor idea. The public needs to be informed, and actively respond to retain their (precarious) right to privacy.
Project Dauphin website is here.