The more and more I hear about Registrars and ICANT, the more I hate them.
I hear that, although my reaction is more one of contempt: if you're going to claim responsibility the way ICANN has, then do the job you agreed to do.
I wonder what it'd take to develop a new registry for domain names.
Not too much, from the technical side: ISC's BIND is fully capable of operating as a root nameserver...the issue of being a registrar involves convincing people to use you, to accept the domains you provide NS records for as "legit", and to provide WHOIS services. Most people like to have some web-based tool to manage their domains.
"By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,--
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law; [... ]"
Well, you can get free tools like analog or webalyzer, or commercial things like Unison, which process a webserver logfile and generate all kinds of reports like search terms, OS & user-agent breakdowns, aggregated over various time-intervals, without installing an inline traffic sniffer.
But there's a difference between a website analyzing the traffic sent to it, particularly if reasonable notice in the site's privacy policy is there, and reselling that data to third parties, or gathering data from all sites going by an MAE or ISP NAP without any permission or notification. The former is something which most people take for granted when they decide to browse to a site, but the latter is not something which most people assume is OK.
Fortunately, using SSL is a pretty good defense against man-in-the-middle attacks, so long as the server keys have not been compromised-- trying to analyze HTTPS traffic only gives you source and dest IPs, but no info about the specific URLs being hit, cookies, search keywords, and so forth.
There are several ways to do a private checkin. Other people have mentioned creating a branch, and that's a good solution.
However, it's also easy to set up your own private repository and switch $CVSROOT to point to that when creating a workarea to hold your not-yet-release-quality changes. (Once checked-out, a workarea remembers which repository it came from.)
Charles Swiger | chuck@codefab.com | Yeah, yeah-- disclaim away
Slashdot Mirror
I hear that, although my reaction is more one of contempt: if you're going to claim responsibility the way ICANN has, then do the job you agreed to do.
I wonder what it'd take to develop a new registry for domain names.Not too much, from the technical side: ISC's BIND is fully capable of operating as a root nameserver...the issue of being a registrar involves convincing people to use you, to accept the domains you provide NS records for as "legit", and to provide WHOIS services. Most people like to have some web-based tool to manage their domains.
I'm not a lawyer, but your friendly Google for "Rule 11 sanction" suggests:
... ]"
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule11.htm
"By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,--
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law;
[
There's always pcc, the original "portable C compiler", which shipped with the various BSDs through 4.3:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_C_Compiler
It doesn't seem to do C++. Some people probably consider this a feature...
Well, you can get free tools like analog or webalyzer, or commercial things like Unison, which process a webserver logfile and generate all kinds of reports like search terms, OS & user-agent breakdowns, aggregated over various time-intervals, without installing an inline traffic sniffer.
But there's a difference between a website analyzing the traffic sent to it, particularly if reasonable notice in the site's privacy policy is there, and reselling that data to third parties, or gathering data from all sites going by an MAE or ISP NAP without any permission or notification. The former is something which most people take for granted when they decide to browse to a site, but the latter is not something which most people assume is OK.
Fortunately, using SSL is a pretty good defense against man-in-the-middle attacks, so long as the server keys have not been compromised-- trying to analyze HTTPS traffic only gives you source and dest IPs, but no info about the specific URLs being hit, cookies, search keywords, and so forth.
There are several ways to do a private checkin. Other people have mentioned creating a branch, and that's a good solution.
However, it's also easy to set up your own private repository and switch $CVSROOT to point to that when creating a workarea to hold your not-yet-release-quality changes. (Once checked-out, a workarea remembers which repository it came from.)
Charles Swiger | chuck@codefab.com | Yeah, yeah-- disclaim away