"Those restrictions are there for a reason. I agree they are sometimes onerous. However, they make it so that the organization actually must do charitable things, and they make impossible to do the "screw everyone and take the money" things."
A friend of mine sent this to me this morning when we were discussing this:
"I manage the operation of about 70% of the world's root DNS servers, and run authoritative TLD servers (mostly secondaries) for about 30% of the world's TLDs (mostly CCtlds). We measure carefully.
IPv6 isn't even 0.01% of the total, and doesn't matter.
The real load on name servers comes not from IPv6 but from Windows machines flooding the world with RFC1918 in-addr requests and with lookup requests in the.LOCAL TLD. The last time I looked, about 40% of the traffic to global name servers was this bogus windows shit. If Vista fixes that, then its release will be a net positive.
We started and sponsor the AS112 Project ( http://public.as112.net/ ) to try to mop up some of the Windows mess. No one believes that we'll need to extend it to IPv6, but we're paying attention."
He is of course right, the nonsense windows does has been a problem for years.
It's the same "we need we need we need" nonsense that gave us icann. If you look at the first time icann was mentioned on this site consensus was that it was a good thing, while a few folks said "this is not good".
Now history (or is that hysteria?) is repeating itself. It's a fashion statement and the worst form of political incorrectness to disagree.
The problem I have with this whole debate is, the insistance on changes to the regulatory frameworks and addition of new laws.
It seems to me people who insist we need new laws either have no experience in this process or are self serving and are looking to get themseleves and their friends jobs in some form.
So I ask you please please please: look at actual problems that have arisen and look at what happened and how quickly and ask yourself are there existing safeguards in place and do we want and need new laws governing the Internet?
"Would programming a computer qualify as such a job?"
Yeah. I did some contract work remotely for Network Solutions a few years back (RRP diagnostics).
They made me get a two million dollar Lloyds of London liability policy. So if I screwed up they could sue me and collect up to $2M.
I live in a poor rural area and the local insurance agent had trouble coming to terms with the deal, but did. Fortuneatly I never screwed up and Lloyds of London made a few grand pretty easily. How they calculate these kinds of odds is beyond me, but it's true, they'll insure anything.
"When I saw them in costco, I bought a bunch and replaced about 80% of the lightbulbs in my house with them. The remaining bulbs are where my wife sits and reads, and she doesn't like the light from the CF, although I can't tell the difference."
Recycle your wife for a more energy efficient model. There's an energy war going on doncha know? Be patriotic... do your bit. Uh, she cute? Got her number?
Or try this trick: get a daylight CFL. They're right bluish. Ask her how she likes it. She'll hate it. Then put a regular (warm white) CFL back in and say you've fixed it. She'll say "That's better" and even when she realizes its not incandescent, because married women hate admitting they're wrong, she'll live with it rather that admit she thought it was incandescent.
"Skin takes on a yellow tinge under them so everyone looks like they have hepatitis."
First, use good tubes - GE/Philips/Osram-Sylvania. I've seen cheap Asian ones vary quite a bit even in the same batch - yellowis, quite pink, you name it.
Second, there are daylight CFLs that are not yellowish (2700 Kelvin "warm white") but instead they're bluish (5000K "daylight"). I know at least Philips makes them in 18 and 26 watts as I use them here in some places.
I haven't had an incandescent bulb in the house in years - that's a lie I have a stupid bathroom fixture that uses mini-base incandescents. I have a replacement fixture here and RSN there won't be an incandescent bulb in the house.
"I used to do the CFL bulb in every socket thing. But I later learned there is real scientific evidence that full-spectrum light will put you in a better mood. Since then, I replaced all bulbs in my house with GE Reveal incandesent bulbs."
Oh help.
A certain component of sunlight in the near-UV region has been shown to affect seasonal depression. There are receptors in the top of your head that when near-uv hits it are stimulated to synthesize serotonin. That's whay you feel better when you go outside into the blue room and get some sunlight and why many people get depressed in mid winter (which is also why we have "march break").
You are NOT going to create this near-UV from an incandescent bulb, period. What you're getting with the GE bulb is a more bluish, less yellowish light. It has zero effect on your mood.
Vita-Lite (tm) is a full spectrum tube that does have this important UV component. Flourescent tubes work by creating UV when an arc excites mercury vapour. This UV then zaps the phosphour coating on the inside of the tube which converts it to visable light and the makup of the phosphour is what determines what kind of visible light the tube emits.
GE Chroma 50 and GE Chroma 75 are a (much!) cheaper replacement for Vita-Lite full spectrum tubes. The GE tubes will be marked "C50" or "C75" respectivly and are marketing these days in stores as "super sunshine" or something like that. Philips Colortone 50 is also equivalent. I think Osram/Sylvania makes one too but the name escapes me. These are the "big three" in fluorescent tube makers are make tubes for other companies to resell. Some of the Asian companies that make CFL's do such a poor job there was a recall on them as they were a fire hazard and I've watched ones not subject to the recall burst into flame. Stick with the "big three". They work.
Vita-lite makes one in a CFL. Not cheap (like all vita-lite products). The other GE/Philips/Sylvaina ones are available as 4' fluorescents pretty easily in stores. They do make them in other (smaller) sizes but they're special order, hard to come by and not cheap - 90% of all tubes are 4' and there's economy of scale.
Now, 50% habaneros in the brownie mix - you should be able to hear the screaming for miles. Except in South Carolina where they'd probably be quite popular.
I suppose I should put the webpages back. I didn't think anybody read them any more.
The DNS has worked non-stop for a decade however and it's all I or anyody I know use. If the legacy root servers went down, I wouldn't notice. Sorry, "when" not "if".
There was also a hiccup with.org about 7 weeks ago. It vanished for a few hours, ironically during an ICANN meeting.
Should we mirror tlds, too?
Then google Geoff Goodfellow and how he subverted the original SRI NIC.
"The DNS servers are put under more load by more popular domains. While I wouldn't agree with Registrars being able to invent their own prices, it seems no more unreasonable to charge per DNS lookup than an ISP charging for bandwidth used."
We're talking a penny versus a thirteent millionth of a cent here for a name that is essentially free to create.
"My biggest concern is that ICANN knows that Google et al are going to buy the google name for every TLD simply to prevent confusion and domain squatting, so what is to stop ICANN just making a new TLD every couple of years and then charging through the nose for the right to take a name on that TLD? "
The great irony of all this is that 10 years ago the grey hairs were afraid the "alternative TLD" people wuold do exaclty this and formed ICANN with the backing of the trademark people who they managed to FUD to near death.
Now they're doing it. In the name of net.stability.
Slashdot Mirror
"if you don't need to get to the wires often"
But golly, this is electronics. Why would you need to change anything?
"Their profit margin expectations may well be nil. It's merely that they are *allowed* to make a profit, not that they necessarily *will*."
Uh, guys? You really don't have a fucking clue about this non-profit stuff do you? Thass ok most people don't.
Non-profits can make huge amount of profit. They just can't pay it out as dividends. So they pay it out in legal ways.
Non-profits are one of the biggests scams ans boondoggles of the 20th century.
Most non-profits SHOULD be for-profits for a number of reasons beyond the scope of this minor missive.
It's good to see the goog doing the right thing here. They're clever folk and are doing the right thing here.
"Those restrictions are there for a reason. I agree they are sometimes onerous. However, they make it so that the organization actually must do charitable things, and they make impossible to do the "screw everyone and take the money" things."
A one word rebuttal: ICANN.
"And If you have watched the movie, help repair the horrendous reality distorsion field it provoked"
None the less it was one of the best movies of all time, the story was right up there with 1984 and Brace New World. A must see.
F. Sigh, think to myself "eighth year of doing this" and get it done.
"God forgive I happen to think that First Contact was a good movie."
Nobody, not even God, is THAT forgiving. It sucked. Badly.
A friend of mine sent this to me this morning when we were discussing this:
.LOCAL TLD. The last time I looked, about 40% of the traffic to global name servers was this bogus windows shit. If Vista fixes that, then its release will be a net positive.
"I manage the operation of about 70% of the world's root DNS servers, and run authoritative TLD servers (mostly secondaries) for about 30% of the world's TLDs (mostly CCtlds). We measure carefully.
IPv6 isn't even 0.01% of the total, and doesn't matter.
The real load on name servers comes not from IPv6 but from Windows machines flooding the world with RFC1918 in-addr requests and with lookup requests in the
We started and sponsor the AS112 Project ( http://public.as112.net/ ) to try to mop up some of the Windows mess. No one believes that we'll need to extend it to IPv6, but we're paying attention."
He is of course right, the nonsense windows does has been a problem for years.
Q: "When, exactly, did Slashdot become so retarded?"
A: During the Bush admistrations war on science, reason, morals and ethics.
"let US make up our mind"
Thank you.
This net.neutrality debate terrifies me.
It's the same "we need we need we need" nonsense that gave us icann. If you look at the first time icann was mentioned on this site consensus was that it was a good thing, while a few folks said "this is not good".
Now history (or is that hysteria?) is repeating itself. It's a fashion statement and the worst form of political incorrectness to disagree.
The problem I have with this whole debate is, the insistance on changes to the regulatory frameworks and addition of new laws.
It seems to me people who insist we need new laws either have no experience in this process or are self serving and are looking to get themseleves and their friends jobs in some form.
So I ask you please please please: look at actual problems that have arisen and look at what happened and how quickly and ask yourself are there existing safeguards in place and do we want and need new laws governing the Internet?
"Would programming a computer qualify as such a job?"
Yeah. I did some contract work remotely for Network Solutions a few years back (RRP diagnostics).
They made me get a two million dollar Lloyds of London liability policy. So if I screwed up they could sue me and collect up to $2M.
I live in a poor rural area and the local insurance agent had trouble coming to terms with the deal, but did. Fortuneatly I never screwed up and Lloyds of London made a few grand pretty easily. How they calculate these kinds of odds is beyond me, but it's true, they'll insure anything.
Alex I'll take what's the most trivial story ever published on slashdot for $1000.
"Has anybody found bulb-sized full-spectrum CFLs for closer to $5 a pop?"
There aren't any. But you can use 50/50 (4 daylight CFLs and 4 warm white ("regular") in your case) CFLs to get the same effect.
Looks right decorative in a geeky sorta way. My parents have this going in their kitchen. It actually works.
"When I saw them in costco, I bought a bunch and replaced about 80% of the lightbulbs in my house with them. The remaining bulbs are where my wife sits and reads, and she doesn't like the light from the CF, although I can't tell the difference."
Recycle your wife for a more energy efficient model. There's an energy war going on doncha know? Be patriotic... do your bit. Uh, she cute? Got her number?
Or try this trick: get a daylight CFL. They're right bluish. Ask her how she likes it. She'll hate it. Then put a regular (warm white) CFL back in and say you've fixed it. She'll say "That's better" and even when she realizes its not incandescent, because married women hate admitting they're wrong, she'll live with it rather that admit she thought it was incandescent.
Worked here.
"Skin takes on a yellow tinge under them so everyone looks like they have hepatitis."
First, use good tubes - GE/Philips/Osram-Sylvania. I've seen cheap Asian ones vary quite a bit even in the same batch - yellowis, quite pink, you name it.
Second, there are daylight CFLs that are not yellowish (2700 Kelvin "warm white") but instead they're bluish (5000K "daylight"). I know at least Philips makes them in 18 and 26 watts as I use them here in some places.
I haven't had an incandescent bulb in the house in years - that's a lie I have a stupid bathroom fixture that uses mini-base incandescents. I have a replacement fixture here and RSN there won't be an incandescent bulb in the house.
"I used to do the CFL bulb in every socket thing. But I later learned there is real scientific evidence that full-spectrum light will put you in a better mood. Since then, I replaced all bulbs in my house with GE Reveal incandesent bulbs."
Oh help.
A certain component of sunlight in the near-UV region has been shown to affect seasonal depression. There are receptors in the top of your head that when near-uv hits it are stimulated to synthesize serotonin. That's whay you feel better when you go outside into the blue room and get some sunlight and why many people get depressed in mid winter (which is also why we have "march break").
You are NOT going to create this near-UV from an incandescent bulb, period. What you're getting with the GE bulb is a more bluish, less yellowish light. It has zero effect on your mood.
Vita-Lite (tm) is a full spectrum tube that does have this important UV component. Flourescent tubes work by creating UV when an arc excites mercury vapour. This UV then zaps the phosphour coating on the inside of the tube which converts it to visable light and the makup of the phosphour is what determines what kind of visible light the tube emits.
GE Chroma 50 and GE Chroma 75 are a (much!) cheaper replacement for Vita-Lite full spectrum tubes. The GE tubes will be marked "C50" or "C75" respectivly and are marketing these days in stores as "super sunshine" or something like that. Philips Colortone 50 is also equivalent. I think Osram/Sylvania makes one too but the name escapes me. These are the "big three" in fluorescent tube makers are make tubes for other companies to resell. Some of the Asian companies that make CFL's do such a poor job there was a recall on them as they were a fire hazard and I've watched ones not subject to the recall burst into flame. Stick with the "big three". They work.
Vita-lite makes one in a CFL. Not cheap (like all vita-lite products). The other GE/Philips/Sylvaina ones are available as 4' fluorescents pretty easily in stores. They do make them in other (smaller) sizes but they're special order, hard to come by and not cheap - 90% of all tubes are 4' and there's economy of scale.
"Use both laxative and Jalapenos,"
Jalapeno browies sound pretty good.
Now, 50% habaneros in the brownie mix - you should be able to hear the screaming for miles. Except in South Carolina where they'd probably be quite popular.
They're not ready yet but I've been told they will be doing this.
Only on new domains"
Nope.
I got a renewal notification today from netsol with an option for a 100 year renewal.
You noticed. How sweet.
.org about 7 weeks ago. It vanished for a few hours, ironically during an ICANN meeting.
I suppose I should put the webpages back. I didn't think anybody read them any more.
The DNS has worked non-stop for a decade however and it's all I or anyody I know use. If the legacy root servers went down, I wouldn't notice. Sorry, "when" not "if".
There was also a hiccup with
Should we mirror tlds, too?
Then google Geoff Goodfellow and how he subverted the original SRI NIC.
"Is it just a coincidence that this comes out a mere 9 days after ICANN gets its contract renewed?"
No.
icann has proven to be very crafty and there are no coincidences with things like this.
It's also no coincidence this came out on a friday. The story ages over the weekend and by monday mainstream reporters have forgotten about it.
Information icann wants out comes out early in the week.
"Should fred's rates be raised, when google is causing more load on the servers?"
No.
There aren't THAT many really popular servers so it all evens out in the wash. DNS has been around for twenty years now.
You might notice there's been no hue and cry about the cost of running DNS servers to date.
Don't fix what aint broken. Try to ignore other peoples cash-grabs.
"Personally I think the overheads involved in all that tracking and billing would be unappealing."
The last time we looked at this the cost of doing the accounting was greater than providing the service.
Ironically the theory behind icann is it is supposed to recognize consensus in the internet community and codify policy based on it.
How many
You'll be told it's too expensive to do this. I submit:
"The DNS servers are put under more load by more popular domains. While I wouldn't agree with Registrars being able to invent their own prices, it seems no more unreasonable to charge per DNS lookup than an ISP charging for bandwidth used."
We're talking a penny versus a thirteent millionth of a cent here for a name that is essentially free to create.
"My biggest concern is that ICANN knows that Google et al are going to buy the google name for every TLD simply to prevent confusion and domain squatting, so what is to stop ICANN just making a new TLD every couple of years and then charging through the nose for the right to take a name on that TLD? "
The great irony of all this is that 10 years ago the grey hairs were afraid the "alternative TLD" people wuold do exaclty this and formed ICANN with the backing of the trademark people who they managed to FUD to near death.
Now they're doing it. In the name of net.stability.
Pardon me while I giggle uncontrollably.