...but that there is little the victim of such a mistake can do, since the system is designed to stonewall them on the basis that they're in the wrong. In other words, the system assumes it is perfect.
Agreed. I've recently been turned down for a mobile phone by O2 on the basis of an incorrect "credit report". Even the fact that they turned me down now appears on my credit rating, and I face an uphill battle to prove my innocence of something that will otherwise effect many aspects of my life.
As for the rest of the comment, I think it's overly dismissive. I don't think the ousting of Mossadegh (was he not chosen as Prime Minister by a vote of 79-12 by parliament on the 28th of April 1951 and only "assented to" by the Shah... similar to the royal assent system used by the UK?) and reinstallation of the Shah, was a particularly democracy-friendly act for the US and UK intelligence services to aid. I don't claim to know everything on the subject, but it's fairly clear that the West has a history of self-interested interference in the Middle East.
Agreed, but that doesn't negate the likelyhood of people being pissed off when it other nations play dirty in their territory. Some people argue that foriegn policy is not connected to terrorism, but I don't find those arguments convincing. Without Israel/Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, and a long history of other arguably* self-interested interference I don't think we'd have the same problem we do now.
* That's the important word, because as long as extremist leaders can argue convincingly that the West is an oppressive force in the Middle East there will be some level of support for terrorists.
Everybody should stop doing this shit to others, not because we are bad people or they are good people, but because it is shit and you shouldn't do shit to people. Anything else will not hold up, nothing else will not get us forward.
The fundamental fact driving radical Islam is the 400 year decline of Islamic civilization in competition with the West.
If by "decline of Islamic civilization in competition with the West" you mean invasion of arab countries, toppling of diplomatically elected governments, installation of friendly dictators, supporting tyrants, etc. then you're absolutely correct. If you're just referring to economic competition then I suspect you're only reading literature that supports your existing world view.
Uhmm, so if I follow you correctly, the trafic to the DNS is what should be payed for?
I said I didn't think it was unreasonable for DNS to be paid for by those sites that benefit from it the most. To use the word "should" is to put a far greater certainty than I did on my opinion on the subject. Personally I think the overheads involved in all that tracking and billing would be unappealing.
That's not really the point though. My point was that no-matter who runs which bits of DNS, somehow it has to get paid for. If your DNS entry is cached all around the world then you're relying on those caching servers for the response time of your system. If your site has a massive volume of traffic, surely it makes sense to charge more for that. Your point of billing is with the registrar, so that's where you pay. An optimistic flipside could be that personal low-traffic domains would cost less.
There doesn't seem to be much evidence to suggest what the registrars are actually going to do with this so this is all speculation at the moment, and the idea that it'll be used in a perfectly fair way is obviously an optimistic one.
Disclaimer: I work for Verisign, who run two of the root nameservers (although do not speak for them, and they don't speak for me, etc. etc.)
Besides, the registrar doesn't actually do any more work registering sex.org than registering IwantApurpleMonkey.biz...
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.
Cost of Gmail backup: $0. Cost of your backup machine: $more
Time spent setting up Gmail: None. Time spend setting up your system: Lots.
Expertese required for Gmail: None. Expertese required for your system: More.
That it defaults to top-posting (and worse, offers no option to turn off this misbehavior) makes it terminally broken, IMNSHO.
Top-posting does not make an email app "terminally broken". If Gmail was broken people wouldn't be able to use it, yet strangely they can, therefore you must be mistaken.
Expected behavior is defined by the majority, who top-post. You're welcome to be a refusnik if you like, but that reduces the weight of your opinion when discussing UI design decisions for consumer-focused webmail products.
Options to do X, Y and Z cost money and add complication. There's only a borderline case for adding that option considering that proponents of bottom-posting are much more likely to have their own email arrangements.
Gmail is not for you. I accept that. However your criticism is incomplete and inaccurate, and seems motivated mostly by egotism.
I have to say I agree with the principle. It's easy to criticise them though. I think the real challenge is using that rational mind you've been given to figure out why they think the way they do and use that to further peace.
It is easy to call someone insane if you get to make up the proof yourself. But even then, your proof of "insanity" sure is close to western ideals. Consider all the honor reserved for "fallen heroes" who "gave their lives defending their country." It's the same damn thing, just with an ameliorative spin instead of pejorative.
Good point well made.
"Terrorists" believe they are doing the right thing. We call them evil. They call us evil. It's easy to say that we're just right and they're just wrong, but they'd say the opposite. Really the truth lies in neither position since the concept of evil is both subjective and subject to proximity bias.
For fuck's sake! The police shot one guy by accident and suddenly we're all living in terror of police death squads. What fucking planet are you living on ?
Mohammed Abdul Kahar, and Jean Charles de Menezes. That's two innocent people, and zero terrorists. Not a very good record.
Wouldn't a better solution be to redirect *.om and *.cm to the.com equivalent?
What happens if the typo wasn't in the TLD? They'll then get redirected to a site they didn't ask for instead of recieving a more appropriate "Not Found" message. What happens to systems that rely on DNS returning those "not found" messages? There's also the question of US-bias. There are other TLDs that could be mistyped to produce the ones mentioned.
If you want your typos to be automatically translated into what the system thinks you *might* have meant then that should happen at the application level (i.e. your web browser) so that users have a choice. It shouldn't be built into DNS.
I agree, although by using terms like "good guys" and "god-forsaken" you're in danger of being as irrational and downright inaccurate as the post you reply to.
I think what's missing from these metaphors is the act of opposition. There isn't a team of professional anti-mechanics trying to stop you fixing the transmission.
Certainly, this is an arguement against state sponsorship of any marriage, non?
Absolutely. If it's unacceptable to force one group to accept another group's opinion of what constitutes marriage, the same should apply the other way too. In the case of homosexuals this fairly logical principle is being denied because those in charge are disproportionately heterosexual (or at least claim to be heterosexual).
It was a completely new approach to how a country was run, designed by a group of men that put the people of the country first and designed to keep the people free.
Exactly, democracy was named after its inventor, Democracy Jones, from Ohio.
The day India writes a new government declaring all people born equal...
Yeah! The current constitution is clearly rubbish and doesn't declare that everyone is equal at all!
...and every person is allowed or even encouraged to own guns...
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed. I've recently been turned down for a mobile phone by O2 on the basis of an incorrect "credit report". Even the fact that they turned me down now appears on my credit rating, and I face an uphill battle to prove my innocence of something that will otherwise effect many aspects of my life.
Yes, I meant democratically. It was a long day.
As for the rest of the comment, I think it's overly dismissive. I don't think the ousting of Mossadegh (was he not chosen as Prime Minister by a vote of 79-12 by parliament on the 28th of April 1951 and only "assented to" by the Shah... similar to the royal assent system used by the UK?) and reinstallation of the Shah, was a particularly democracy-friendly act for the US and UK intelligence services to aid. I don't claim to know everything on the subject, but it's fairly clear that the West has a history of self-interested interference in the Middle East.
Nations and civilizations play dirty...
Agreed, but that doesn't negate the likelyhood of people being pissed off when it other nations play dirty in their territory. Some people argue that foriegn policy is not connected to terrorism, but I don't find those arguments convincing. Without Israel/Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, and a long history of other arguably* self-interested interference I don't think we'd have the same problem we do now.
* That's the important word, because as long as extremist leaders can argue convincingly that the West is an oppressive force in the Middle East there will be some level of support for terrorists.
Everybody should stop doing this shit to others, not because we are bad people or they are good people, but because it is shit and you shouldn't do shit to people. Anything else will not hold up, nothing else will not get us forward.
Well said.
The fundamental fact driving radical Islam is the 400 year decline of Islamic civilization in competition with the West.
If by "decline of Islamic civilization in competition with the West" you mean invasion of arab countries, toppling of diplomatically elected governments, installation of friendly dictators, supporting tyrants, etc. then you're absolutely correct. If you're just referring to economic competition then I suspect you're only reading literature that supports your existing world view.
The problem is that because of the nature of DNS caching these high volume sites put less strain on the root servers than a lot of low volume ones.
Less strain on the root servers, more strain on the caching servers. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.
It shows.
Haha... I'd like to know how. My business unit is independent from DNS. If we don't make money we get chopped just like anyone else.
When was the last round of layoffs at Verisign? Why do these fat cats need more money for nothing?
They don't. RTFA.
Uhmm, so if I follow you correctly, the trafic to the DNS is what should be payed for?
I said I didn't think it was unreasonable for DNS to be paid for by those sites that benefit from it the most. To use the word "should" is to put a far greater certainty than I did on my opinion on the subject. Personally I think the overheads involved in all that tracking and billing would be unappealing.
icann control the root nameservers...
You've been misinformed.
That's not really the point though. My point was that no-matter who runs which bits of DNS, somehow it has to get paid for. If your DNS entry is cached all around the world then you're relying on those caching servers for the response time of your system. If your site has a massive volume of traffic, surely it makes sense to charge more for that. Your point of billing is with the registrar, so that's where you pay. An optimistic flipside could be that personal low-traffic domains would cost less.
There doesn't seem to be much evidence to suggest what the registrars are actually going to do with this so this is all speculation at the moment, and the idea that it'll be used in a perfectly fair way is obviously an optimistic one.
Disclaimer: I work for Verisign, who run two of the root nameservers (although do not speak for them, and they don't speak for me, etc. etc.)
A clean install would have looked suspect aswell IMO.
Exactly. Is it really that hard to find evidence that shows the date of an installation?
Besides, the registrar doesn't actually do any more work registering sex.org than registering IwantApurpleMonkey.biz...
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.
That it defaults to top-posting (and worse, offers no option to turn off this misbehavior) makes it terminally broken, IMNSHO.
Top-posting does not make an email app "terminally broken". If Gmail was broken people wouldn't be able to use it, yet strangely they can, therefore you must be mistaken.
Expected behavior is defined by the majority, who top-post. You're welcome to be a refusnik if you like, but that reduces the weight of your opinion when discussing UI design decisions for consumer-focused webmail products.
Options to do X, Y and Z cost money and add complication. There's only a borderline case for adding that option considering that proponents of bottom-posting are much more likely to have their own email arrangements.
Gmail is not for you. I accept that. However your criticism is incomplete and inaccurate, and seems motivated mostly by egotism.
I have to say I agree with the principle. It's easy to criticise them though. I think the real challenge is using that rational mind you've been given to figure out why they think the way they do and use that to further peace.
Yours too, unless you also happen to be a member of the Wahabbist sect.
Your evidence for these people being Wahabbiyyah is what?
Make Islam the State Religion, impose Shari'a law and ban all others.
Sorry, I consider people who kill themselves and others in the name of ancient fairy tales to be insane.
Are you saying Islam is an ancient fairy tale?
There isn't a great deal any politician can do right now.
Things Tony Blair can do to reduce the risk of terrorism in the UK:
I have emphasized the part that may have caused your misunderstanding.
Surely you mean "no terrorist in Quiet_Desperation's right mind would try to..."
The terrorists think their actions are justified. They're not insane, they've just chosen to be your enemy.
It is easy to call someone insane if you get to make up the proof yourself. But even then, your proof of "insanity" sure is close to western ideals. Consider all the honor reserved for "fallen heroes" who "gave their lives defending their country." It's the same damn thing, just with an ameliorative spin instead of pejorative.
Good point well made.
"Terrorists" believe they are doing the right thing. We call them evil. They call us evil. It's easy to say that we're just right and they're just wrong, but they'd say the opposite. Really the truth lies in neither position since the concept of evil is both subjective and subject to proximity bias.
For fuck's sake! The police shot one guy by accident and suddenly we're all living in terror of police death squads. What fucking planet are you living on ?
Mohammed Abdul Kahar, and Jean Charles de Menezes. That's two innocent people, and zero terrorists. Not a very good record.
Wouldn't a better solution be to redirect *.om and *.cm to the .com equivalent?
What happens if the typo wasn't in the TLD? They'll then get redirected to a site they didn't ask for instead of recieving a more appropriate "Not Found" message. What happens to systems that rely on DNS returning those "not found" messages? There's also the question of US-bias. There are other TLDs that could be mistyped to produce the ones mentioned. If you want your typos to be automatically translated into what the system thinks you *might* have meant then that should happen at the application level (i.e. your web browser) so that users have a choice. It shouldn't be built into DNS.I agree, although by using terms like "good guys" and "god-forsaken" you're in danger of being as irrational and downright inaccurate as the post you reply to.
Britney Spears is popular in the UK too.
The law is like a very intricate transmission...
I think what's missing from these metaphors is the act of opposition. There isn't a team of professional anti-mechanics trying to stop you fixing the transmission.
Certainly, this is an arguement against state sponsorship of any marriage, non?
Absolutely. If it's unacceptable to force one group to accept another group's opinion of what constitutes marriage, the same should apply the other way too. In the case of homosexuals this fairly logical principle is being denied because those in charge are disproportionately heterosexual (or at least claim to be heterosexual).
According to this there are only two open source vendors in the UK (one in Berkshire and one on the Isle of Man).
Clearly a huge data sample there.
It was a completely new approach to how a country was run, designed by a group of men that put the people of the country first and designed to keep the people free.
Exactly, democracy was named after its inventor, Democracy Jones, from Ohio.
The day India writes a new government declaring all people born equal...
Yeah! The current constitution is clearly rubbish and doesn't declare that everyone is equal at all!
Yeeha! Lets go fire some guns in the air.
Moron.