the whole web thing is just one way to do the internet...it's the standard we ended up adopting mainly because, blah blah blah
It's only part of a much bigger internet. Heard of email? IRC? VoIP? Instant Messaging? FTP? SSH?
The WWW is (or was) an extremely simple system, anyone with five minutes can write a webpage from scratch. When you start adding layers of cack on top (like javascript or flash) then it starts to get difficult.
But what we have now (in theory) is an entirely scalable system of pushing documents around the world.
Yet again Microsoft takes an age-old technology, like scalable icons or transparency, and turns it into the best thing since sliced bread? Shouldn't they be condemned for leaving it this long to release a tool as powerful as this, instead of praised?
I don't claim to know much about copyright law, but doesn't this fall directly under fair use? Although fair is a pretty ambiguous term, I think sensible people can tell what is and isn't.
And how is this different than regular web google showing portions of the website (which tends to be copyright) on the search results page? Authors must opt-out of this (via robots.txt) yet no one has been screeching about that at all.
In fact, google archives entire pages for public viewing, with their cache service. They don't allow entire books to be viewed through google, like they do with websites.
So I'll restate my subject: Why is this even an issue?
The discussion is in regards to the root of the DNS. This is NOT the Internet! The Internet is composed of many technologies, where the DNS is only a minor one.
Excuse me whilst I cough into my hand and mutter the word bullshit. DNS is one of the most critical parts of the internet for everyday folk, and probably non-everday folk too. Do you really think anyone is capable of remember the IP addresses for 10 websites? How about 100? No?
It's a vital part of the internet. Sure everything would still work without it, although no one would be able to get anywhere without a big list of IP addresses that they need to maintain, with a description of what they are. Oh, wait. That's what DNS is.
Geeks constitute a very small minority in todays internet. If we started using something else, no one would care. Mum still goes to ebay.com, Dad still uses google.com, granny still goes to blogspot to post about her latest cross-stitch.
It's the plebs that make up the majority of users, and have the majority of power over decisions like this now.
If what you said is true, then everyone would be running Linux on AMD. Not Windows on Intel.
Yours was just another post attempting to make geeks seem more powerful than they really are. Which is not very.
What is worse some naked pictures of people in prison (done by a handful of soldiers), or beheading civilians on TV?
At least other dictatorships make no pretences about themselves. And the USA is responsible for the deaths of thousands of civilians in Iraq, at least several British soldiers due to sheer incompetence, not to mention the hypocritical bullshit spouted by the leaders of that country.
You want to talk about leftism? How about you stop justifying the horrendous actions of your country by taking the childish "yeah but they're doing worse, miss!" stance on things.
We cannot build something that compares to the size and accuracy of the pyramids in Egypt, using only the materials and tools they had available at the time. Although we know for a fact they managed it somehow.
Just because we can't replicate it, doesn't mean it can't be done.
You have too much faith in consumers. People are fickle, if a studio said "sorry, we only do BigHitCrapMovieOfTheYear in Blu-Ray format" then the customer will buy a blu-ray player. It's that simple. The only ones that won't are the people who are too poor, and it's doubtful they are going to be out buying DVD's anyway when VHS cassettes are so cheap now.
1. perhaps the studio executives and actors are hideously overpaid, and that's why it costs a lot of money to make?
2. There will always be a way for people to perform illegal activities, there is no situation I can imagine where they can be effectively stopped. They've been trying to stop it for more than a "few years" now.
Final Fantsy 7 was close, but had too much cheesiness and more mini-games than regular combat encounters (it's almost like the designers had ADD and couldn't stand the idea of a consistently dark, deep plot).
With the exception of the Chocobo Race in the Gold Saucer (which was part of the plot), all of the other minigames were optional. You didn't have to run around breeding chocobos and whatnot, the first time I finished the game I went straight through without exploring.
I wasn't aware you needed "sharp eyes" to read over half of the summary.
Sony's use of statistics for shipped units can be a little confusing to some, since these figures do vary significantly to the amount of units thus far sold in stores. Nonetheless, citing shipment numbers for consoles is common practice within the game industry, and is carried out by all three major console manufacturers."
Why isn't there a cryout for more female plumbers? Or more male nursery school teachers? Or more elderly marketing directors? Or more Asian architects?
Men and women are not equal. It's a simple fact, and men gravitate to certain jobs, and women gravitate to others. This is not simply because of social pressures or history, it's because of fundamental differences in both mental and physical aspects between men and women. Sure, there are exceptions as with any 'rule'.
You'll find plenty of jobs suited to both genders, like sales positions, or teaching jobs, or bank managers. Then you'll find jobs suited more to one gender like programmers, welders, nurses or midwifes (do we have a P.C. term for that yet?).
As for 'women feel excluded in programming environments', it's bullshit. Geeky types are all socially inept usually, women included. Most geeks are not forward enough to make a woman feel uncomfortable in the workplace.
Who's to say there isn't a problem with video games and violence? Just because this particular ninkempoop chases the issue in the most stupid way doesn't make the issue any less valid. It only makes it appear invalid.
And if you're going to quote Fight Club, do it properly.
Geeks don't have much power, they all report to someone like Jack Thompson.
Even if the average person has downloaded it 10 times, that still means over 10 million people are using it worldwide.
It only means that 10 million people have downloaded it. Some people may try it and hate it, never to be used again. I have downloaded it over 10 times myself, but now I don't use it all.
Disclaimer: This is not a flame or troll, it's simply what I think
The USA seems to be becoming more and more totalitarian in the way it handles things in general. I realise this is less evident for those actually in the USA (the same way most Chinese are oblivious to the same type of government) but for all of us outsiders, your government is increasingly hostile and arrogant, even towards those it deems friends.
What we don't need is the DNS root servers being almost all controlled by this one country. Things could go seriously bad in a shockingly small space of time, and before you know it a key part of the Internet we all rely on is subject to the every whim of a crazy man (not necessarily G W Bush). And considering the Internet is now critical to many industries and governments, any kind of manipulation will be a very bad thing.
Now I'm not saying the UN should take control of this, but why can't we have a collection of countries known for their relatively free nature be in charge of this? USA could take a few servers (with it being so big), Canada could have one, UK have a few (because I'm British and biased), scatter some around France, Germany, maybe even Russia (*gasp*).
Why does this need to be a UN issue? Surely these countries could have come to an agreement with the US.
Although the best course of action would be for the major world players to set up their own root servers, provide incentives for ISPs to use those primarily. I don't know if the root servers have the main configuration files available publicly, but surely there wouldn't be an issue of syncing them to non-US root servers? After all it only benefits everyone, and if the US does turn into a total bastard (pardon my French) at least everything won't crumble and we'd still have unbiased root servers scattered about.
I propose the United Kingdom take over the worlds telephone systems. After all, A. we invented it, we set up the first networks, and were only later linked with other countries
Please don't explain this to me.
I'm not pro or anti-UN control. I am, however, anti-US control. A totally decentralised model (which is what it was supposed to be anyway) is the ideal solution.
And, again, this is only DNS, which was an American invention (although Mockapetris and Postel don't sound very American to me). Should England/Europe have taken complete control of the WWW because it was invented by a Brit?
They can't even do it 'militarily'. The USA may have large armed forces, but compared to the armed forces of everyone else combined, it's small. And playing the "nuke" card is silly, because everyone has some.
Slashdot Mirror
the whole web thing is just one way to do the internet...it's the standard we ended up adopting mainly because, blah blah blah
It's only part of a much bigger internet. Heard of email? IRC? VoIP? Instant Messaging? FTP? SSH?
The WWW is (or was) an extremely simple system, anyone with five minutes can write a webpage from scratch. When you start adding layers of cack on top (like javascript or flash) then it starts to get difficult.
But what we have now (in theory) is an entirely scalable system of pushing documents around the world.
What would you rather we all use, PDF?
Yet again Microsoft takes an age-old technology, like scalable icons or transparency, and turns it into the best thing since sliced bread? Shouldn't they be condemned for leaving it this long to release a tool as powerful as this, instead of praised?
The best I can say is "It's about damn time".
I don't claim to know much about copyright law, but doesn't this fall directly under fair use? Although fair is a pretty ambiguous term, I think sensible people can tell what is and isn't.
And how is this different than regular web google showing portions of the website (which tends to be copyright) on the search results page? Authors must opt-out of this (via robots.txt) yet no one has been screeching about that at all.
In fact, google archives entire pages for public viewing, with their cache service. They don't allow entire books to be viewed through google, like they do with websites.
So I'll restate my subject: Why is this even an issue?
The discussion is in regards to the root of the DNS. This is NOT the Internet! The Internet is composed of many technologies, where the DNS is only a minor one.
Excuse me whilst I cough into my hand and mutter the word bullshit. DNS is one of the most critical parts of the internet for everyday folk, and probably non-everday folk too. Do you really think anyone is capable of remember the IP addresses for 10 websites? How about 100? No?
It's a vital part of the internet. Sure everything would still work without it, although no one would be able to get anywhere without a big list of IP addresses that they need to maintain, with a description of what they are. Oh, wait. That's what DNS is.
Geeks constitute a very small minority in todays internet. If we started using something else, no one would care. Mum still goes to ebay.com, Dad still uses google.com, granny still goes to blogspot to post about her latest cross-stitch.
It's the plebs that make up the majority of users, and have the majority of power over decisions like this now.
If what you said is true, then everyone would be running Linux on AMD. Not Windows on Intel.
Yours was just another post attempting to make geeks seem more powerful than they really are. Which is not very.
I think they're being defensive because DNS is one of very the few things America has ever made.
What is worse some naked pictures of people in prison (done by a handful of soldiers), or beheading civilians on TV?
At least other dictatorships make no pretences about themselves. And the USA is responsible for the deaths of thousands of civilians in Iraq, at least several British soldiers due to sheer incompetence, not to mention the hypocritical bullshit spouted by the leaders of that country.
You want to talk about leftism? How about you stop justifying the horrendous actions of your country by taking the childish "yeah but they're doing worse, miss!" stance on things.
Why use computers at all if you're going to have to check everything with a paper counterpart?
We cannot build something that compares to the size and accuracy of the pyramids in Egypt, using only the materials and tools they had available at the time. Although we know for a fact they managed it somehow.
Just because we can't replicate it, doesn't mean it can't be done.
I like the way you censored the word "fuck", when attempting to defend some freedom...
You have too much faith in consumers. People are fickle, if a studio said "sorry, we only do BigHitCrapMovieOfTheYear in Blu-Ray format" then the customer will buy a blu-ray player. It's that simple. The only ones that won't are the people who are too poor, and it's doubtful they are going to be out buying DVD's anyway when VHS cassettes are so cheap now.
1. perhaps the studio executives and actors are hideously overpaid, and that's why it costs a lot of money to make?
2. There will always be a way for people to perform illegal activities, there is no situation I can imagine where they can be effectively stopped. They've been trying to stop it for more than a "few years" now.
Final Fantsy 7 was close, but had too much cheesiness and more mini-games than regular combat encounters (it's almost like the designers had ADD and couldn't stand the idea of a consistently dark, deep plot).
With the exception of the Chocobo Race in the Gold Saucer (which was part of the plot), all of the other minigames were optional. You didn't have to run around breeding chocobos and whatnot, the first time I finished the game I went straight through without exploring.
Tech Support!
*tongue in cheek*
I wasn't aware you needed "sharp eyes" to read over half of the summary.
Sony's use of statistics for shipped units can be a little confusing to some, since these figures do vary significantly to the amount of units thus far sold in stores. Nonetheless, citing shipment numbers for consoles is common practice within the game industry, and is carried out by all three major console manufacturers."
Why isn't there a cryout for more female plumbers? Or more male nursery school teachers? Or more elderly marketing directors? Or more Asian architects?
Men and women are not equal. It's a simple fact, and men gravitate to certain jobs, and women gravitate to others. This is not simply because of social pressures or history, it's because of fundamental differences in both mental and physical aspects between men and women. Sure, there are exceptions as with any 'rule'.
You'll find plenty of jobs suited to both genders, like sales positions, or teaching jobs, or bank managers. Then you'll find jobs suited more to one gender like programmers, welders, nurses or midwifes (do we have a P.C. term for that yet?).
As for 'women feel excluded in programming environments', it's bullshit. Geeky types are all socially inept usually, women included. Most geeks are not forward enough to make a woman feel uncomfortable in the workplace.
</minirant>
Who's to say there isn't a problem with video games and violence? Just because this particular ninkempoop chases the issue in the most stupid way doesn't make the issue any less valid. It only makes it appear invalid.
And if you're going to quote Fight Club, do it properly.
Geeks don't have much power, they all report to someone like Jack Thompson.
A cracker is someone who breaks copy protection methods.
A hacker (contrary to what all the geeks would like to think) is someone who unlawfully enters a computer system. For whatever reason.
Tell me... what are other software companies doing to improve their product security?
What is your software vendor doing in that arena?
The same thing they've been doing for over a decade in most cases, and that is always having security as one of the top priorities.
Even if the average person has downloaded it 10 times, that still means over 10 million people are using it worldwide.
It only means that 10 million people have downloaded it. Some people may try it and hate it, never to be used again. I have downloaded it over 10 times myself, but now I don't use it all.
Disclaimer: This is not a flame or troll, it's simply what I think
The USA seems to be becoming more and more totalitarian in the way it handles things in general. I realise this is less evident for those actually in the USA (the same way most Chinese are oblivious to the same type of government) but for all of us outsiders, your government is increasingly hostile and arrogant, even towards those it deems friends.
What we don't need is the DNS root servers being almost all controlled by this one country. Things could go seriously bad in a shockingly small space of time, and before you know it a key part of the Internet we all rely on is subject to the every whim of a crazy man (not necessarily G W Bush). And considering the Internet is now critical to many industries and governments, any kind of manipulation will be a very bad thing.
Now I'm not saying the UN should take control of this, but why can't we have a collection of countries known for their relatively free nature be in charge of this? USA could take a few servers (with it being so big), Canada could have one, UK have a few (because I'm British and biased), scatter some around France, Germany, maybe even Russia (*gasp*).
Why does this need to be a UN issue? Surely these countries could have come to an agreement with the US.
Although the best course of action would be for the major world players to set up their own root servers, provide incentives for ISPs to use those primarily. I don't know if the root servers have the main configuration files available publicly, but surely there wouldn't be an issue of syncing them to non-US root servers? After all it only benefits everyone, and if the US does turn into a total bastard (pardon my French) at least everything won't crumble and we'd still have unbiased root servers scattered about.
I propose the United Kingdom take over the worlds telephone systems. After all, A. we invented it, we set up the first networks, and were only later linked with other countries
Please don't explain this to me.
I'm not pro or anti-UN control. I am, however, anti-US control. A totally decentralised model (which is what it was supposed to be anyway) is the ideal solution.
And, again, this is only DNS, which was an American invention (although Mockapetris and Postel don't sound very American to me). Should England/Europe have taken complete control of the WWW because it was invented by a Brit?
They can't even do it 'militarily'. The USA may have large armed forces, but compared to the armed forces of everyone else combined, it's small. And playing the "nuke" card is silly, because everyone has some.
Is that it will blow.
Every person with a gmail account has a googlemail.com address anyway.