Me thinks that someone doesn't quite grasp the strength of OSS: That strength not just being free. Ultimately, it's the dissemination of data. Which is precisely why this problem is uniquely suited to being solved by OSS.
This will be a minor set back at worse. But, like any set back, it will make the overall product stronger.
That said..."NNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OO!!!!!!!!!!!!!". Zap2it was damn handy. Thank you Zap2it, for a great service.
I don't think they would be any more fragile that anyother glass structure in the city. The cost/availability of water strikes me as a limiting factor morse that anything else. The extra cost in real estate could conceiveably be recouped in smaller transport costs.
Actually, I would hazard a guess that agricultural wastes would be a larger problem: Out here in the country, it's simply a matter of run off. A luxury you do not have in the city.
So in the event that ATT mistakenly blocks, say, a competing VoIP service ( ATT do something like this? Perish the thought ), what recourse does the consumer have when they are an effective monopoly in the area?
Answer: They don't. Color me pessimistic, but I can only view this as a very bad thing. I had already sworn off ATT for anything beyond 911, but given how prevelant they are I understand I don't have much of a choice: My traffic will cross their networks at some point.
So out of curiosity, what bubble are you talking about? And do you have anything substantive other than the hot air coming out of your mouth to back it up?
Honestly, there are two things that should happen:
1) Kids shouldn't suffer for adults bad decisions over a decade ago 2) IBM should be paid.
How that happens doesn't really matter to me; Obligations should be met. Otherwise this same behavior will repeat over and over. And speaking of children, what kind of example does that create for them?
But you don't have to pay, go get a Nokia or Motorola whatever and move on. Very strange how folks just love to bitch about how they won't be buying an item. If you're not planning to ever buy the item in question, then you're not even a *potential* customer and really offer little value to the argument.
The problem isn't that we aren't potential customers; We'd very much like to be, or rather I would very much like to be. However, given all the strings attached to this thing, I wind up sorely dissappointed that I won't be getting one. Hence the reason for the bitching.
Their concept of money has never really reflected the real world. Mix that up with "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" and the school district's own inability to deal with money, and you can see where this came from, at least.
IBM has been more than fair. They are owed their money. Mistakes are made, but unless the consquences are paid they will happen again.
iPhone is great and all, but as long as they are paired up with ATT, I'm not touching them. Hell, given the price tag, I wouldn't touch them anyway. But ATT? No thanks
With a-la carte pricing, I guarantee channels like IFC and Sundance Channel will die. You may not watch those channels, so you personally may not care. But is the point of a-la carte pricing to bring us less choice? Is that the goal we should be working towards?
I don't know about you, but around these parts I pay for 80+ channels and watch 2 of them. Maybe. About 1/3 are foriegn language stations. Another 1/5 are sports related, then you have the MTV channels. There are about 5 selling/auction channels. The rest are made up of gardening/home channels and the basics. I don't really want to pay for any of those, and have a moral problem supporting some of them ( MTV ).
I'd be OK with less choices; If it ended up with me not having anything to watch on TV, I'd be ok with that. It's just not that important.
yeah right, there are morons out there who really believe you can survive on air alone and debate that you need to eat food to live - so by your own reasoning you would consider that grounds to consider a diet of thin air as possible.
Well, let's apply some common sense to your silly example; We have two sides: Those that eat food and those that don't. Now those that eat food also have been shown to live longer. Given no more evidence than this ( which is actually quite a bit less evidence then what we have pointing to humans causing global warming, btw ), you can already make an educated guess.
But you seem to be one of those in our country that doesn't trust science, so feel free to experiement with the whole food thing and get back to me.
oh and tying to apply risk managment in situations where you don't fully understand what is going to happen is VERY poor risk managment, VERY poor. for all you know you'll make a bad situation worse.
And yet, what are the alternatives. As unfortunate as it is, there are times when you must take a guess, a gamble, based on currently available evidence. Given the consquences of being wrong, I have no problem taking that risk.
as a simple example, your economic attempts at reducing greenhouse gases results in a global recession, forcing many countries to adopt much lower tech industry , which is much dirtier then high tech, and actually end up polluting the environment more then before.
We could also be hit by a meteor tomorrow that wipes out all life on earth; Should we just lay down and die because it's inevitable? Absolutely not; We make the best guess given the data at hand. If we choose poorly, then we correct.
Labeling it makes it that much easier to attack, doesn't it? You already feel empowered by the legions who have come before you, attacking $target. Feels like you are in good company, eh?
Well, global warming may or may not be due to human activity. Regardless what anyone thinks, the mere fact that there is a debate indicates that the issue is in question. Given the consquences, would it not therefore be prudent to take steps to reduce what we know causes the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere? If the anti-global warming crowd is right, we waste some resources just to be sure. If the otherside is right, then we've been acting in our best interests. It's called risk analysis, and from where i'm sitting cutting out the greenhouse gases is a good risk.
Were I told to get rid of all my gadgets tomorrow and I would still be able to support my family, I would in a heartbeat. Which is probably why I am as good in my field as I am; I understand the average user's aversion to anything technical.
And you think this because why? I ask because from the perspective of someone who's been using VoIP as his primary phone service for around two years now, I find that there's more of a difference between VoIP (over the scary old Internet) and POTS-over-Cu in theory than there is in practise.
It's a question of responsibility and risk. POTS, the responsibility is pushed on to the phone company; As well as the risk. They know the game, like them or hate them. And seriously, I can't remember the last time my phone was out.
Now, voip? Well, the responsibility is pushed on to me to maintain the internet link at my location. On top of that, there are all sorts of other factors that come into play; ISP staying up, power staying up. When was the last time your ISP was out? How about your power?
I have a family to worry about at home. 911 *needs* to work when time comes to use it. If someone dies because my ISP is out or my power is ( and how likely is it that I'll have to use 911 during a power outage? ), I won't care that the phone company is the definition of soulless and evil empire; A loved one will still have died.
If the phone goes out at work, it's lost business. Several thousands of dollars of lost business, every hour. Will my bosses care that the telco is evil and soulless? Or that they lost money? People pay me because I make wise and intelligent decisions for their business; My reputation pays my way. Regardless of my personal opinions, I must make the decisions that protect my clients first.
I generally agree with that assessment. I'll take it one step further; I won't do VoIP unless I can punch down into copper at some point ( or a t1. Anything with an SLA ). My phone traffic going over the same pipe as my internet is an incredibly bad idea. More so ( by 100x ) if you are a business.
VoIP over a corporate network is where it shines. But over the wild internet? No thanks.
Logically organized? That's a funny phrase; Most of us who have programmed know that logic != intuitive. Just take a look at any interface designed by a programmer. It's logically organized, but intuitive? Hardly every./pedantic
Hollywood will be able to say anything they want, whenever they want
And the problem with this lies where? We do too much to shelter our children, it's a disservice to them from us who are supposed to be raising adults. Let them hear the words, learn their intent and meaning, with a parent to teach them when it is and isn't appropriate to use them.
*WE* are the parents, not the FCC. How dare they be so arrogant as to take the roll of parenting my children for me.
So you emailed the owner/manager you still had access?
Any decent forensic work will turn up that I still have access; From there it's a short hop into believing that I logged in and covered my tracks ( assuming for a moment that I didn't log in at all ). While I agree not logging in is a good idea, they're lack of diligence puts me at risk. Therefore, I chose the course that will provide me with the greatest level of information and legal protection.
From my perspective, this is true enough. There are places that I still have access to that, by all rights, I shouldn't. I log in about once a year to see if I still have access, and if I do, I email the owner/manager of the place to that effect. Last thing I want is for something to go legal and me have a finger in the pie.
Of course, for a few places around here, me still having access is a good thing. Seeing how they call me about once a week because they couldn't follow well laid out documentation on managing the system...but I digress.
They're spammers, right? What have we learned about dealing with spammers? Techniques that cost them resources are the most effective.
To that end, I like the idea earlier about having a college student who's job is to simply waste their time. Keep them on the line for as long as possible without actually achieving anything. This may spike the amount of calls for a few months, but I think you'll find that most companies won't waste the resources long term on an obvious blackhole.
Re:Public DNS is corrupt, but Private DNS is subli
on
DNS Complexity
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
As has already been pointed out, you can have a single TLD spread across several servers. You can also have multiple TLDs on a single server. More likely, you end up with a combination of these things: Multiple TLDs on a geographically disperse cluster of systems.
Re:Public DNS is corrupt, but Private DNS is subli
on
DNS Complexity
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I have a better idea: Let's open the process for making up a new TLD to everyone. A minor cost associated with the administrative overhead of setting up a new TLD, and that's it. True, we cheapen existing TLDs considerably, but then they're artificially overpriced anyway.
It's not like it's a technical issue. The DNS system doesn't care how many TLDs there are, it's irrelevant to the immediate search.
Slashdot Mirror
Me thinks that someone doesn't quite grasp the strength of OSS: That strength not just being free. Ultimately, it's the dissemination of data. Which is precisely why this problem is uniquely suited to being solved by OSS.
O OO!!!!!!!!!!!!!". Zap2it was damn handy. Thank you Zap2it, for a great service.
This will be a minor set back at worse. But, like any set back, it will make the overall product stronger.
That said..."NNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
I don't think they would be any more fragile that anyother glass structure in the city. The cost/availability of water strikes me as a limiting factor morse that anything else. The extra cost in real estate could conceiveably be recouped in smaller transport costs.
Actually, I would hazard a guess that agricultural wastes would be a larger problem: Out here in the country, it's simply a matter of run off. A luxury you do not have in the city.
So in the event that ATT mistakenly blocks, say, a competing VoIP service ( ATT do something like this? Perish the thought ), what recourse does the consumer have when they are an effective monopoly in the area?
Answer: They don't. Color me pessimistic, but I can only view this as a very bad thing. I had already sworn off ATT for anything beyond 911, but given how prevelant they are I understand I don't have much of a choice: My traffic will cross their networks at some point.
So out of curiosity, what bubble are you talking about? And do you have anything substantive other than the hot air coming out of your mouth to back it up?
Hot air and about a decade worth of experience.
Bubble 2.0, but this time it's almost entirely funded by google.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I can't wait for the crash.
Honestly, there are two things that should happen:
1) Kids shouldn't suffer for adults bad decisions over a decade ago
2) IBM should be paid.
How that happens doesn't really matter to me; Obligations should be met. Otherwise this same behavior will repeat over and over. And speaking of children, what kind of example does that create for them?
But you don't have to pay, go get a Nokia or Motorola whatever and move on. Very strange how folks just love to bitch about how they won't be buying an item. If you're not planning to ever buy the item in question, then you're not even a *potential* customer and really offer little value to the argument.
The problem isn't that we aren't potential customers; We'd very much like to be, or rather I would very much like to be. However, given all the strings attached to this thing, I wind up sorely dissappointed that I won't be getting one. Hence the reason for the bitching.
Their concept of money has never really reflected the real world. Mix that up with "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" and the school district's own inability to deal with money, and you can see where this came from, at least.
IBM has been more than fair. They are owed their money. Mistakes are made, but unless the consquences are paid they will happen again.
iPhone is great and all, but as long as they are paired up with ATT, I'm not touching them. Hell, given the price tag, I wouldn't touch them anyway. But ATT? No thanks
Sounds like it'd be fun to watch, like a train wreck.
Yeah, with a train full of lawyers and politicians.
I'll bring the hotdogs.
With a-la carte pricing, I guarantee channels like IFC and Sundance Channel will die. You may not watch those channels, so you personally may not care. But is the point of a-la carte pricing to bring us less choice? Is that the goal we should be working towards?
I don't know about you, but around these parts I pay for 80+ channels and watch 2 of them. Maybe. About 1/3 are foriegn language stations. Another 1/5 are sports related, then you have the MTV channels. There are about 5 selling/auction channels. The rest are made up of gardening/home channels and the basics. I don't really want to pay for any of those, and have a moral problem supporting some of them ( MTV ).
I'd be OK with less choices; If it ended up with me not having anything to watch on TV, I'd be ok with that. It's just not that important.
yeah right, there are morons out there who really believe you can survive on air alone and debate that you need to eat food to live - so by your own reasoning you would consider that grounds to consider a diet of thin air as possible.
Well, let's apply some common sense to your silly example; We have two sides: Those that eat food and those that don't. Now those that eat food also have been shown to live longer. Given no more evidence than this ( which is actually quite a bit less evidence then what we have pointing to humans causing global warming, btw ), you can already make an educated guess.
But you seem to be one of those in our country that doesn't trust science, so feel free to experiement with the whole food thing and get back to me.
oh and tying to apply risk managment in situations where you don't fully understand what is going to happen is VERY poor risk managment, VERY poor. for all you know you'll make a bad situation worse.
And yet, what are the alternatives. As unfortunate as it is, there are times when you must take a guess, a gamble, based on currently available evidence. Given the consquences of being wrong, I have no problem taking that risk.
as a simple example, your economic attempts at reducing greenhouse gases results in a global recession, forcing many countries to adopt much lower tech industry , which is much dirtier then high tech, and actually end up polluting the environment more then before.
We could also be hit by a meteor tomorrow that wipes out all life on earth; Should we just lay down and die because it's inevitable? Absolutely not; We make the best guess given the data at hand. If we choose poorly, then we correct.
Another loony lefty.
Labeling it makes it that much easier to attack, doesn't it? You already feel empowered by the legions who have come before you, attacking $target. Feels like you are in good company, eh?
Well, global warming may or may not be due to human activity. Regardless what anyone thinks, the mere fact that there is a debate indicates that the issue is in question. Given the consquences, would it not therefore be prudent to take steps to reduce what we know causes the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere? If the anti-global warming crowd is right, we waste some resources just to be sure. If the otherside is right, then we've been acting in our best interests. It's called risk analysis, and from where i'm sitting cutting out the greenhouse gases is a good risk.
Were I told to get rid of all my gadgets tomorrow and I would still be able to support my family, I would in a heartbeat. Which is probably why I am as good in my field as I am; I understand the average user's aversion to anything technical.
And you think this because why? I ask because from the perspective of someone who's been using VoIP as his primary phone service for around two years now, I find that there's more of a difference between VoIP (over the scary old Internet) and POTS-over-Cu in theory than there is in practise.
It's a question of responsibility and risk. POTS, the responsibility is pushed on to the phone company; As well as the risk. They know the game, like them or hate them. And seriously, I can't remember the last time my phone was out.
Now, voip? Well, the responsibility is pushed on to me to maintain the internet link at my location. On top of that, there are all sorts of other factors that come into play; ISP staying up, power staying up. When was the last time your ISP was out? How about your power?
I have a family to worry about at home. 911 *needs* to work when time comes to use it. If someone dies because my ISP is out or my power is ( and how likely is it that I'll have to use 911 during a power outage? ), I won't care that the phone company is the definition of soulless and evil empire; A loved one will still have died.
If the phone goes out at work, it's lost business. Several thousands of dollars of lost business, every hour. Will my bosses care that the telco is evil and soulless? Or that they lost money? People pay me because I make wise and intelligent decisions for their business; My reputation pays my way. Regardless of my personal opinions, I must make the decisions that protect my clients first.
I generally agree with that assessment. I'll take it one step further; I won't do VoIP unless I can punch down into copper at some point ( or a t1. Anything with an SLA ). My phone traffic going over the same pipe as my internet is an incredibly bad idea. More so ( by 100x ) if you are a business.
VoIP over a corporate network is where it shines. But over the wild internet? No thanks.
i remember when teachers would have sex with the students
It's the parents now. If the local paper is any indication, it's MILFS doing it to high school basket ball players.
In case you are wondering: She got 300 days with time served and does NOT have to register as a sex offender ( california ).
Logically organized? That's a funny phrase; Most of us who have programmed know that logic != intuitive. Just take a look at any interface designed by a programmer. It's logically organized, but intuitive? Hardly every. /pedantic
I am writing porn this from a computer boobs of the future, sex based on the mind control hot chicks input techniques described teen oral here.
Since coffee this boobs technology was first sugar implemented, I have hamsters been unable midgets to hold a single job.
Hollywood will be able to say anything they want, whenever they want
And the problem with this lies where? We do too much to shelter our children, it's a disservice to them from us who are supposed to be raising adults. Let them hear the words, learn their intent and meaning, with a parent to teach them when it is and isn't appropriate to use them.
*WE* are the parents, not the FCC. How dare they be so arrogant as to take the roll of parenting my children for me.
( 7, 5 and 3 year old girls )
So you emailed the owner/manager you still had access?
Any decent forensic work will turn up that I still have access; From there it's a short hop into believing that I logged in and covered my tracks ( assuming for a moment that I didn't log in at all ). While I agree not logging in is a good idea, they're lack of diligence puts me at risk. Therefore, I chose the course that will provide me with the greatest level of information and legal protection.
It isn't perfect, but it serves.
From my perspective, this is true enough. There are places that I still have access to that, by all rights, I shouldn't. I log in about once a year to see if I still have access, and if I do, I email the owner/manager of the place to that effect. Last thing I want is for something to go legal and me have a finger in the pie.
Of course, for a few places around here, me still having access is a good thing. Seeing how they call me about once a week because they couldn't follow well laid out documentation on managing the system...but I digress.
They're spammers, right? What have we learned about dealing with spammers? Techniques that cost them resources are the most effective.
To that end, I like the idea earlier about having a college student who's job is to simply waste their time. Keep them on the line for as long as possible without actually achieving anything. This may spike the amount of calls for a few months, but I think you'll find that most companies won't waste the resources long term on an obvious blackhole.
As has already been pointed out, you can have a single TLD spread across several servers. You can also have multiple TLDs on a single server. More likely, you end up with a combination of these things: Multiple TLDs on a geographically disperse cluster of systems.
I have a better idea: Let's open the process for making up a new TLD to everyone. A minor cost associated with the administrative overhead of setting up a new TLD, and that's it. True, we cheapen existing TLDs considerably, but then they're artificially overpriced anyway.
It's not like it's a technical issue. The DNS system doesn't care how many TLDs there are, it's irrelevant to the immediate search.