Whoosh. FedEx (used to) send everything to Memphis, TN, sort it, then send it out to it's final destination. That's what he was referring to. It went from China, across Alaska via the great circle route to TN, then back to AK.
I'm pretty sure they use more hubs now, but the OP should know where it went, since he could see the tracking info.
The article is misleading, too. It states "the 21.5-inch iMacs are some of the first known examples of an Apple computer being assembled in the U.S., according to Fortune."
However, Apple ][, ][+, Macintoshes up to at least the SE and Mac II, were all made in the USA.
"the telcos have no obligation to lose money servicing a handful of remote locations"
Actually, they do. In return, they get things like rights-of-way for running their lines and placing their equipment in areas which are highly profitable.
The telcos have no right to make use of public resources to simply "skim the cream."
When asked "did (the collective) you know about x?", and you did know, it may be easy to answer quickly - you only need identify one individual or document with that knowledge. To answer that you didn't know requires that all parties who could have known be asked, along with checking all relevant records. It's much harder to prove a negative, as they say.
bitcoins have practically zero value in the vast majority of financial transactions
Gold has practically no value in the vast majority of transactions (try paying for goods at Target with a chunk of gold). Ditto oil, corn, FCOJ, pork bellies or many other things with recognized value. That's why currencies developed, to serve as a proxy for value. Whether bitcoins will become widely recognized is yet to be see, but they can be traded for hard currency just like the items mentioned above, so they do have recognized value.
so why do we care about this?
Are you using the royal "we" (I don't care if you care - but why did you expand the topic and take the time to post), or are you professing to speak for all/.ers (you don't).
My comment came from the assumption that Amazon's DNS admin would be competent, so wouldn't try to assign an A record to the TLD, hence the requirement for a "dotted" FQDN.
Perhaps you don't consider it a "technical reason," but the fact is that it makes collisions, and therefor problems, very likely if using domain searchs (common in enterprises). Try using a rooted FQDN in your apps. Some work, some break. Consider the case where an organization has named its servers after rivers - "amazon" is likely to get resolved locally. Read RFC1535 and RFC1536 ("A name containing no dots can be appended with the searchlist right away"). Go ahead, name your servers after popular websites (www.slashdot.com.example.org, www.google.com.example.org,) , and let the fun begin.
"When I type amazon.com into a web browser, it assumes I mean www.amazon.com."
No, it doesn't. It goes out to DNS to resolve "amazon.com," and the returned record point to the hosts 72.21.211.176, 72.21.194.1, and 72.21.214.128. Your browser then attempts to do an http get from one of those hosts, and is immediately redirected to www.amazon.com. It's Amazon which is changing it to www.amazon.com, not your browser. Many/most sites do that.
Really, wikipedia? Ok, I'll play instead of point to the proper RFC(s).
Hostnames may be simple names consisting of a single word or phrase, or they may have appended a domain name, which is a name in a Domain Name System (DNS), separated from the host specific label by a period (dot). In the latter form, the hostname is also called a domain name. -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostname
Note that only in the case of an "example.com" hostname can it also be called a domain name (which should be taken to mean "a hostname within a domain," as opposed to a simple unqualified hostname). Try to connect to http://com/ or http://gov/ or http://edu/ or http://net/ and see where it gets you.
"Replacing "amazon.com" with "http://amazon" is a net increase in number of characters"
You need more than that - "amazon" is a (TL) domain, not a host. You'd need something like "http://www.amazon". Just entering "http://amazon" is likely to resolve to the user's local domain, e.g. "amazon.example.com".
Well, no. The name Amazon long pre-dates the river, being the name of a mythological tribe of warrier women who removed a breast so they could better shoot a bow. "Amazon" comes from the Greek a-mazos, "without a breast."
The countries in the Amazon River basin have a no more legitimate claim to the domain than does the company. Let them use.amazonriver, if they wish.
You're thinking of hunting range, where one must consider the effective pattern and energy necessary to make an ethical shot. Shot pellets carry much farther than that, and it wouldn't take as much energy to down a plastic helicopter as it does to penetrate to the vitals of an animal.
A slug will travel _much_ farther than 150 yards, and shot, even birdshot, will travel much farther than 60 yards.
'They easily cheat, tell lies, forget promises, they are dishonest and tell bad words, steal, fight and turn to violence and commit sex crimes,' it says.
That was supposed to go in the section on politicians.
Slashdot Mirror
Martha is from Venus. George is from Mars. There's a book about it.
Whoosh. FedEx (used to) send everything to Memphis, TN, sort it, then send it out to it's final destination. That's what he was referring to. It went from China, across Alaska via the great circle route to TN, then back to AK.
I'm pretty sure they use more hubs now, but the OP should know where it went, since he could see the tracking info.
That's amazing, since the iMac wasn't even introduced until 1998!
The article is misleading, too. It states "the 21.5-inch iMacs are some of the first known examples of an Apple computer being assembled in the U.S., according to Fortune."
However, Apple ][, ][+, Macintoshes up to at least the SE and Mac II, were all made in the USA.
"the telcos have no obligation to lose money servicing a handful of remote locations"
Actually, they do. In return, they get things like rights-of-way for running their lines and placing their equipment in areas which are highly profitable.
The telcos have no right to make use of public resources to simply "skim the cream."
When asked "did (the collective) you know about x?", and you did know, it may be easy to answer quickly - you only need identify one individual or document with that knowledge. To answer that you didn't know requires that all parties who could have known be asked, along with checking all relevant records. It's much harder to prove a negative, as they say.
"Setting temperature to 75 degrees Celcius."
Gold has practically no value in the vast majority of transactions (try paying for goods at Target with a chunk of gold). Ditto oil, corn, FCOJ, pork bellies or many other things with recognized value. That's why currencies developed, to serve as a proxy for value. Whether bitcoins will become widely recognized is yet to be see, but they can be traded for hard currency just like the items mentioned above, so they do have recognized value.
Are you using the royal "we" (I don't care if you care - but why did you expand the topic and take the time to post), or are you professing to speak for all /.ers (you don't).
What's the problem, never learned division or fractions in school?
You do realize you're arguing with an AC, don't you?
Be sure to store your leftovers in a Klein bottle.
My comment came from the assumption that Amazon's DNS admin would be competent, so wouldn't try to assign an A record to the TLD, hence the requirement for a "dotted" FQDN.
Perhaps you don't consider it a "technical reason," but the fact is that it makes collisions, and therefor problems, very likely if using domain searchs (common in enterprises). Try using a rooted FQDN in your apps. Some work, some break. Consider the case where an organization has named its servers after rivers - "amazon" is likely to get resolved locally. Read RFC1535 and RFC1536 ("A name containing no dots can be appended with the searchlist right away"). Go ahead, name your servers after popular websites (www.slashdot.com.example.org, www.google.com.example.org,) , and let the fun begin.
"When I type amazon.com into a web browser, it assumes I mean www.amazon.com."
No, it doesn't. It goes out to DNS to resolve "amazon.com," and the returned record point to the hosts 72.21.211.176, 72.21.194.1, and 72.21.214.128. Your browser then attempts to do an http get from one of those hosts, and is immediately redirected to www.amazon.com. It's Amazon which is changing it to www.amazon.com, not your browser. Many/most sites do that.
Prove it to yourself - https://twitter.com/ connects, no www.
By that (naive? ignorant? stupid?) logic, San Marino has a claim to all DNS names.
Note that only in the case of an "example.com" hostname can it also be called a domain name (which should be taken to mean "a hostname within a domain," as opposed to a simple unqualified hostname). Try to connect to http://com/ or http://gov/ or http://edu/ or http://net/ and see where it gets you.
I want the www TLD. Then I could have URIs like "http://www.example.com.com.example.www//http://"
"Replacing "amazon.com" with "http://amazon" is a net increase in number of characters"
You need more than that - "amazon" is a (TL) domain, not a host. You'd need something like "http://www.amazon". Just entering "http://amazon" is likely to resolve to the user's local domain, e.g. "amazon.example.com".
Well, no. The name Amazon long pre-dates the river, being the name of a mythological tribe of warrier women who removed a breast so they could better shoot a bow. "Amazon" comes from the Greek a-mazos, "without a breast."
.amazonriver, if they wish.
The countries in the Amazon River basin have a no more legitimate claim to the domain than does the company. Let them use
"If they haven't made kernel modifications, they don't have to release their source code, just host a mirror of the original source."
If they haven't made kernel modifications, in exactly what way isn't "their source" the "original source," and what is the distinction you're drawing?
"reverse-engineering is legitimate in the eyes of the law."
Not if the device uses something which is patented. That holds, even if the "new" one is developed completely independently.
You're thinking of hunting range, where one must consider the effective pattern and energy necessary to make an ethical shot. Shot pellets carry much farther than that, and it wouldn't take as much energy to down a plastic helicopter as it does to penetrate to the vitals of an animal.
A slug will travel _much_ farther than 150 yards, and shot, even birdshot, will travel much farther than 60 yards.
"a property owner/renter "owns" the airspace up to about 500-ft (150m)."
Which is about the maximum range of a shotgun.
Then the question becomes, how does Firefox do so poorly - a disappointing 372+10 vs. Opera's 419+9 or Chrome's 448+13.
Wasn't Firefox really popular once?
That was supposed to go in the section on politicians.