Make it a tld. Post the nameservers here. That is if it's a usefull tool. If you jsut want to speculate on the names the line forms at the right over by the icann booth.
Marc Hurst set this up in 96. It still works. You just can't see it. But that's your choice how you configure what servers you believe to tell you what tlds exist.
Joe Baptista set this up in 98. It still works. You just can't see it. But that's your choice how you configure what servers you believe to tell you what tlds exist.
"I always assumed the reason behind.org,.net,.com and country TLDs was to keep things organized and consistent. Why have they decided to do what appears to me as simply going back on themselves?"
It's documented. Look at the "msggroup" archives from the era, it's the first mailing list at a time when there was only one mailing list. They say this is how it went down. The network was young, maybe 1000 nodes or so, and totally arbitrary hostnames were about to be phased out in favour of hierarchical DNS names. This would eliminate the problem of the host table getting huge, and the bigger it got the more often it needed updating.
DNS names were decentralized. Nameservers point to other nameservers which point to nameservers, thus the whole name database management problem went away as the data was decentralized.
But about the only thing poeple agreed on was "." or dot. Remember at the time the network was being used by military and aerospace contractors and universites. That's pretty much it.
So there was.mil,.nato,.arpa and then.com and.net for "commercial networks" (not that any existed then) and.net for "network infrastructure" - it was supposed to be for routers and stuff. >org was for "anything else" and wasn't "for non profits" as the icann bozos now claim. Check the rfc.
Nobdoy really like the names, they argued about it for about a month, then Jon Postel just decided, and that was that.
Steve Wolff is the guy that took the network out of the hands of the US government and freed it so anybody could do anything. But in moving administration of the network he *forgot* about the domain system so it stays in the hands of the US government. Where of course it was immediatly taken over by special interest groups where it's been ever since.
Don't expect any ratinal name schemes out of thesde clowns. If you look at the 2000 Marina Del Rey ICANN conference video where they picked the.museum and.coop winners you'll hear Darth Cerf say "I don't like the way that plays on the ear" and that was that, for $50K application for a tld that's how much thought you got, made only more ironic by the fact Cerf is deaf.
For $50K a deaf guy says it doesn't sound right to him.
I'm dying to see what the $185K test is although I suspect it involved telepathy, midgets and a sausage.
Christian, uh, forgot his last name, the guy in the BOFH and Usenet II discussions, set.DOT up in 94. It still works. You just can't see it. But that's your choice how you configure what servers you believe to tell you what tlds exist.
http://slash.dot/ has worked just about forever. I've always found it amusing slashdotters never noticed, even when other poeople did.
People have to understand that ICANN has this power because people choose to point their nameservers at the legacy root servers. Take them out of the loop and poeple, not governments make the decision about what tlds are "legitimate".
We'll see just how much "change" is really coming in America. Remember that icann was mandated by the USG to be a voting member oriented organization. From the get-go there was a coup d'etat by a bunch of old white guys whove held on to it since then, in the interest of big business.
Ten years ago when icann was formed it had two diectoives. Accomplishing these two goals was why icann was (on the face of it) formed. 1) make new tlds 2) do something about trademarks. In reality when icann was coopted by the old-white-guys their real mandate was to stall new tlds which they did for 10 years and now of course only big business can afford them.
But I get a snese it Lucy and Charlie Brown playing football here. Recall than in 1999 they accepted $50K applicaitons for new tlds and took about 20 or 30. Their vetting of the tld applications was so badly done that the day one of them went live a court tied them up with an injunction for running an illegal lottery. Something that had ben pointed out to them well in advance, but they knew better. Dumbshits.
So there are still a bunch of companies that paid $50K and got bugger all. They're supposed to pay another $185K for another spin of the wheel?
Keep in mind there is a backlog of tld applications lodged in varios root server consrtiums around the world, plus an IANA published list of TLD applications receievd from 12 years ago, per the instuctions on the ogiginal internic form inviting people to do so, in accodance with the provisions of the original internic contract.
If they can't figure out how to tell if a tld is bullshit for less than $185K they have no right being in this business - but we've known that all along. These are not the best and the brightest, these are the control freaks that got government jobs, and now that they're losing control, they're just freaks.
I actually suggested ISO a decade ago as it seemed safe then - at least safer than anything else. The ITU was the worst possible choice it's been concerned with prolonging monopolies for decades and was desparatly seeking relevance in a post telophony internet era; the WTO was a more logical choice for the kind of "just do it" internet anarchy, as they'd been promoting breaking down trade barries for ages but they were undergong bad press at the time from anti-globalization demonstrations. Tony Rutkowski was ITU general council at the time and very narrowly got an ITU draft resolution very quietly passed that mad e the internet *legal* as it was not, at the time, under international telecommunications treaty.
The best coverage of this is the freely downloadable book "Exploring the Internet" by Carl Malamud. Go find and ready it for important understanding of the ITU process and how it differs from the IETF process that built the internet. Pay particular attention to one Robert Shaw in the book, you'll see him come up behind the scenes in icann and to this day involved in the areas where there is the least transparency. There are icann meetings thatr are held in secret, to this day. That's Bob's contribution to all this.
Golly. If only somebody could do it for under thirteen million. *cough* *choke*
Let me be the first to call bullshit. While there's no question vetting a new tld is a bit of work you have to keep in mind the number of alternative tlds grew from 0 to over one thousand, ten years ago, and nobody spent a dime. They just put their servers where their mouths were and just did it.
The cool thing about this issue popping up 10 years later (dormant that long because icann went and chased trademark issues for a decade just to find out, as we pointed out, "existing laws work") is that no matter what point you're thinking of, it's been brought up already and settled either on paper or in practice.
Some good did come out of it. I standardized on IBM Serveraid controllers at work each running a pair of redundant drives. I've been more than happy with that, hasn't even hiccuped once in 4 years under FreeBSD. Under xp at home either a drive would go bad, or a controller wold go bad or the boot sector would go missing or windows would just shit itself. This happened every month for 8 months till I gave up and just used 3 or 4 unraided SCSI LVD drives per machine and haven't had a problem since.
You get your first RAID controller from a trusted friend. "Here" he says "try this" and hands you a Mylex board. It has a 64 bit bus and 3 SCSI LVD connectors. Oooh. That looks fast. So you start ebaying drives, cables, adapters, more controllers, the inevitable megawatt power supply and you mess around with raid 1, raid 0 raid 1+0 and raid 5. Suddenly every system falls prey to RAIDMANIA; eventually for yourself you build a system with 3 controllers, with 3 busses each and a drive on each one of 9 busses. With a controller for swap, one for data and one for the system will Windows now be fast? Yeah, sorta. Those drives sure are quiet - from a click-click busy noise perspective, NOT from a "sounds liks a jet airplane when running" perspective. Heat is an issue, too.
I just use a laptop now and make several sets of backup DVDs or just copy to spare drives. I love RAID to death. But it's really only marginally worth the effort in the real world. But if you need fast, OMG.
"Are doomed to reimplement it, poorly. Does anyone have any confidence that the US Government WONT mess this up completely? Give the key to Google or AOL or IBM or something."
Those who don't understand DNS would recommend giving it to IBM.
Hi. I run the root server that was the first runner up in the contest to administer it, ahead of two other groups. We were actually asked by the gov to advise icann which we did until we realized all they were doing is using us to get away with what they wanted to do, instead of listening to advice on horrific problems. Hint: the mandate specifies icann is a membership organization and 10 years later you still can join and have a vote. Ahem.
During this time and for 5 years before that I run the a root to one of the alternative root zones.
If you think dnssec will fix the problem or that it's the right answer or that it will actually secure it then you and Dan Kaminsky haven't thought about it enough.
But if you wanna go ahead with the broken dnssec model the keys should be held by Paul Vixie. This is all his mess anyway and he already holds the keys to usenet.
She claims to like ads because they keep her "informed"
They do. When you stop seeing ads for luxury goods, it means something. Ads are a reflection of the culture at the moment.
I don't like them and even wish they'd go away but I can understand how poeple would be interested in reading them. I do enjoy reading ads from, say 100 years ago; some peoples thresholds are different - they like newer ads too for some definition of newer.
I've used C since 76. Back then it was a shorthand for assembly. You'd compile the program, look at the PDP-11 code is spat out (way cleaner than anything intel) and either run it or change the source.
The idea that *p isn't safe but p[i] is varies as a value for i.
I use pointers all over the place and always have. You know what? If you're careful and rigorous they're no more of a problem than adding.
I get the idea that in this fast food add visual studio world people aren't used to "do one thing, do 5 leverls of error checking, do one thing do 5 levels of error checking".
Look at Dan Bernsteins or Brian Reids code if you want to see how C should be written. And they alwazys use pointers, even where I'd use arrays.
Hi there all you programming langauges. I've called you all here because we need to talk. There's some things I need to get off my chest.
SNOBOL
If the world revolved around writing backgammon games, baby, you'd be the end all be all. But you're bloody useless at anything else. You're pretty but uselss.
Logo
You wear me out. I have to tell you to do everything.
FORTH
DARLING I MISS YOU. Where are you?
Prolog
You look good on paper, but you scare me. Remember that time in Beverly Hills? You have some very odd friends. And what's with the pink ties?
Algol
Oh algol. We had some great times together. But there is life after college, really.
Lucid
Lucid: you aren't. You should have been called "heroin".
PL/I you are the perfect ex langauge. There's nothing to like about you and I don't miss you. Hell I don't even remember you that well any more. You're so damn difficult even your name cant be used in a URL because you screw that up. Put skip THIS, bitch.
Forth come back! All is forgiven. Let's just you and me go someplace and dup dup dup. Or was that postscript. No no, she's just a friend.
"The funny thing is that for some 20 years, before I started using Python, my favorite and almost only language was C, and I don't know of any really good site for C."
There isn't a site for C. That's because if you need one, you shouldn't be using it. Sorry. The spirit moved me.
The K&R book is all you need. Really.
Ok I guess somebody could summarize the book at openkandr.com or something. That'd be sorta cool. I betcha dmr would even help a bit which would be even more cool.
Jay-sus, they're just gonna arrest her just like that ? I thought there'd at least be a hearing about whether or not she misappropriated government resrouces first.
"Haven't done much multi-threaded programming, have you?"
Aww hell. I've used Opera since about version 4 or so and I was there the day they foisted tabs on is. Neat idea but it sure makes browsers crash a lot.
It's mostly better these days. Mostly. I still open things in new windows which seems to be a bit safer.
So it aint just an unfamiliarity with threaded code, one has to wonder about the whole, uh "tabbing experience" factor here.
Slashdot Mirror
Make it a tld. Post the nameservers here. That is if it's a usefull tool. If you jsut want to speculate on the names the line forms at the right over by the icann booth.
Marc Hurst set this up in 96. It still works. You just can't see it. But that's your choice how you configure what servers you believe to tell you what tlds exist.
Joe Baptista set this up in 98. It still works. You just can't see it. But that's your choice how you configure what servers you believe to tell you what tlds exist.
"I always assumed the reason behind .org, .net, .com and country TLDs was to keep things organized and consistent. Why have they decided to do what appears to me as simply going back on themselves?"
It's documented. Look at the "msggroup" archives from the era, it's the first mailing list at a time when there was only one mailing list. They say this is how it went down. The network was young, maybe 1000 nodes or so, and totally arbitrary hostnames were about to be phased out in favour of hierarchical DNS names. This would eliminate the problem of the host table getting huge, and the bigger it got the more often it needed updating.
DNS names were decentralized. Nameservers point to other nameservers which point to nameservers, thus the whole name database management problem went away as the data was decentralized.
But about the only thing poeple agreed on was "." or dot. Remember at the time the network was being used by military and aerospace contractors and universites. That's pretty much it.
So there was .mil, .nato, .arpa and then .com and .net for "commercial networks" (not that any existed then) and .net for "network infrastructure" - it was supposed to be for routers and stuff. >org was for "anything else" and wasn't "for non profits" as the icann bozos now claim. Check the rfc.
Nobdoy really like the names, they argued about it for about a month, then Jon Postel just decided, and that was that.
Steve Wolff is the guy that took the network out of the hands of the US government and freed it so anybody could do anything. But in moving administration of the network he *forgot* about the domain system so it stays in the hands of the US government. Where of course it was immediatly taken over by special interest groups where it's been ever since.
Don't expect any ratinal name schemes out of thesde clowns. If you look at the 2000 Marina Del Rey ICANN conference video where they picked the .museum and .coop winners you'll hear Darth Cerf say "I don't like the way that plays on the ear" and that was that, for $50K application for a tld that's how much thought you got, made only more ironic by the fact Cerf is deaf.
For $50K a deaf guy says it doesn't sound right to him.
I'm dying to see what the $185K test is although I suspect it involved telepathy, midgets and a sausage.
Christian, uh, forgot his last name, the guy in the BOFH and Usenet II discussions, set .DOT up in 94. It still works. You just can't see it. But that's your choice how you configure what servers you believe to tell you what tlds exist.
http://slash.dot/ has worked just about forever. I've always found it amusing slashdotters never noticed, even when other poeople did.
Hey guys. Fancy seeing you here.
People have to understand that ICANN has this power because people choose to point their nameservers at the legacy root servers. Take them out of the loop and poeple, not governments make the decision about what tlds are "legitimate".
We'll see just how much "change" is really coming in America. Remember that icann was mandated by the USG to be a voting member oriented organization. From the get-go there was a coup d'etat by a bunch of old white guys whove held on to it since then, in the interest of big business.
Ten years ago when icann was formed it had two diectoives. Accomplishing these two goals was why icann was (on the face of it) formed. 1) make new tlds 2) do something about trademarks. In reality when icann was coopted by the old-white-guys their real mandate was to stall new tlds which they did for 10 years and now of course only big business can afford them.
But I get a snese it Lucy and Charlie Brown playing football here. Recall than in 1999 they accepted $50K applicaitons for new tlds and took about 20 or 30. Their vetting of the tld applications was so badly done that the day one of them went live a court tied them up with an injunction for running an illegal lottery. Something that had ben pointed out to them well in advance, but they knew better. Dumbshits.
So there are still a bunch of companies that paid $50K and got bugger all. They're supposed to pay another $185K for another spin of the wheel?
Keep in mind there is a backlog of tld applications lodged in varios root server consrtiums around the world, plus an IANA published list of TLD applications receievd from 12 years ago, per the instuctions on the ogiginal internic form inviting people to do so, in accodance with the provisions of the original internic contract.
If they can't figure out how to tell if a tld is bullshit for less than $185K they have no right being in this business - but we've known that all along. These are not the best and the brightest, these are the control freaks that got government jobs, and now that they're losing control, they're just freaks.
Jacking in from the razors edge,
rs79
I actually suggested ISO a decade ago as it seemed safe then - at least safer than anything else. The ITU was the worst possible choice it's been concerned with prolonging monopolies for decades and was desparatly seeking relevance in a post telophony internet era; the WTO was a more logical choice for the kind of "just do it" internet anarchy, as they'd been promoting breaking down trade barries for ages but they were undergong bad press at the time from anti-globalization demonstrations. Tony Rutkowski was ITU general council at the time and very narrowly got an ITU draft resolution very quietly passed that mad e the internet *legal* as it was not, at the time, under international telecommunications treaty.
The best coverage of this is the freely downloadable book "Exploring the Internet" by Carl Malamud. Go find and ready it for important understanding of the ITU process and how it differs from the IETF process that built the internet. Pay particular attention to one Robert Shaw in the book, you'll see him come up behind the scenes in icann and to this day involved in the areas where there is the least transparency. There are icann meetings thatr are held in secret, to this day. That's Bob's contribution to all this.
Golly. If only somebody could do it for under thirteen million. *cough* *choke*
Let me be the first to call bullshit. While there's no question vetting a new tld is a bit of work you have to keep in mind the number of alternative tlds grew from 0 to over one thousand, ten years ago, and nobody spent a dime. They just put their servers where their mouths were and just did it.
The cool thing about this issue popping up 10 years later (dormant that long because icann went and chased trademark issues for a decade just to find out, as we pointed out, "existing laws work") is that no matter what point you're thinking of, it's been brought up already and settled either on paper or in practice.
Some good did come out of it. I standardized on IBM Serveraid controllers at work each running a pair of redundant drives. I've been more than happy with that, hasn't even hiccuped once in 4 years under FreeBSD. Under xp at home either a drive would go bad, or a controller wold go bad or the boot sector would go missing or windows would just shit itself. This happened every month for 8 months till I gave up and just used 3 or 4 unraided SCSI LVD drives per machine and haven't had a problem since.
You get your first RAID controller from a trusted friend. "Here" he says "try this" and hands you a Mylex board. It has a 64 bit bus and 3 SCSI LVD connectors. Oooh. That looks fast. So you start ebaying drives, cables, adapters, more controllers, the inevitable megawatt power supply and you mess around with raid 1, raid 0 raid 1+0 and raid 5. Suddenly every system falls prey to RAIDMANIA; eventually for yourself you build a system with 3 controllers, with 3 busses each and a drive on each one of 9 busses. With a controller for swap, one for data and one for the system will Windows now be fast? Yeah, sorta. Those drives sure are quiet - from a click-click busy noise perspective, NOT from a "sounds liks a jet airplane when running" perspective. Heat is an issue, too.
http://rs79.vrx.net/works/photoblog/2005/Sep/15/DSCF0007s.jpg
But oh my are the failure modes spectacular.
I just use a laptop now and make several sets of backup DVDs or just copy to spare drives. I love RAID to death. But it's really only marginally worth the effort in the real world. But if you need fast, OMG.
Not in the hydroponics industry.
"Are doomed to reimplement it, poorly. Does anyone have any confidence that the US Government WONT mess this up completely? Give the key to Google or AOL or IBM or something. "
Those who don't understand DNS would recommend giving it to IBM.
Hi. I run the root server that was the first runner up in the contest to administer it, ahead of two other groups. We were actually asked by the gov to advise icann which we did until we realized all they were doing is using us to get away with what they wanted to do, instead of listening to advice on horrific problems. Hint: the mandate specifies icann is a membership organization and 10 years later you still can join and have a vote. Ahem.
During this time and for 5 years before that I run the a root to one of the alternative root zones.
If you think dnssec will fix the problem or that it's the right answer or that it will actually secure it then you and Dan Kaminsky haven't thought about it enough.
But if you wanna go ahead with the broken dnssec model the keys should be held by Paul Vixie. This is all his mess anyway and he already holds the keys to usenet.
This proves little. I have an ex that fails the Turing test.
She claims to like ads because they keep her "informed"
They do. When you stop seeing ads for luxury goods, it means something. Ads are a reflection of the culture at the moment.
I don't like them and even wish they'd go away but I can understand how poeple
would be interested in reading them. I do enjoy reading ads from, say 100 years
ago; some peoples thresholds are different - they like newer ads too for some
definition of newer.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7656546.stm
Imagine somebody paying an author to write slanderous material about whoever opposed the Republican party.
Golly I'm *so* surprised.
"A war ends the moment that one contestant decides he cannot win,"
Iraq is not a war. It's an invasion and occupation. Just like Gaza and the West bank.
MS spend tend of millions lobbying against this. They'll get something for their (considerable) money.
Yabbut, you can put anything in the name with "BSD" and it's just fine thanks. Those of us who program these things simply go "phew".
Besides I like the name. It tells me it's BSD that's been tweaked for a PC. So maybe there's a chance sound, flash and my camera will work.
I've used C since 76. Back then it was a shorthand for assembly. You'd compile the program, look at the PDP-11 code is spat out (way cleaner than anything intel) and either run it or change the source.
The idea that *p isn't safe but p[i] is varies as a value for i.
I use pointers all over the place and always have. You know what? If you're careful and rigorous they're no more of a problem than adding.
I get the idea that in this fast food add visual studio world people aren't used to "do one thing, do 5 leverls of error checking, do one thing do 5 levels of error checking".
Look at Dan Bernsteins or Brian Reids code if you want to see how C should be written. And they alwazys use pointers, even where I'd use arrays.
Hi there all you programming langauges. I've called you all here because we need to talk. There's some things I need to get off my chest.
SNOBOL
If the world revolved around writing backgammon games, baby, you'd be the end all be all. But you're bloody useless at anything else. You're pretty but uselss.
Logo
You wear me out. I have to tell you to do everything.
FORTH
DARLING I MISS YOU. Where are you?
Prolog
You look good on paper, but you scare me. Remember that time in Beverly Hills? You have some very odd friends. And what's with the pink ties?
Algol
Oh algol. We had some great times together. But there is life after college, really.
Lucid
Lucid: you aren't. You should have been called "heroin".
PL/I - http://www.users.bigpond.com/robin_v/resource.htm
PL/I you are the perfect ex langauge. There's nothing to like about you and I don't miss you. Hell I don't even remember you that well any more. You're so damn difficult even your name cant be used in a URL because you screw that up. Put skip THIS, bitch.
Forth come back! All is forgiven. Let's just you and me go someplace and dup dup dup. Or was that postscript. No no, she's just a friend.
Aww dammit. Forth? Honey?
I expected to find the book online. Instead, there's a link to buy it on Amazon.
Figgers. I didn't get the book, I got a pointer to the book.
(Sorry)
(not)
"The funny thing is that for some 20 years, before I started using Python, my favorite and almost only language was C, and I don't know of any really good site for C."
There isn't a site for C. That's because if you need one, you shouldn't be using it. Sorry. The spirit moved me.
The K&R book is all you need. Really.
Ok I guess somebody could summarize the book at openkandr.com or something. That'd be sorta cool. I betcha dmr would even help a bit which would be even more cool.
Somebody go do this. Really.
"the FBI and Secret Service will react strongly."
Jay-sus, they're just gonna arrest her just like that ? I thought there'd at least be a hearing about whether or not she misappropriated government resrouces first.
But, what-ever.
Where's the cop page? I was gonna link to it.
"Haven't done much multi-threaded programming, have you?"
Aww hell. I've used Opera since about version 4 or so and I was there the day they foisted tabs on is. Neat idea but it sure makes browsers crash a lot.
It's mostly better these days. Mostly. I still open things in new windows which seems to be a bit safer.
So it aint just an unfamiliarity with threaded code, one has to wonder about the whole, uh "tabbing experience" factor here.
But carry on.