no, I know that, what I'm saying is that people will infer that !.safe=!safe, and !.xxx=!xxx. I know that that's the wrong assumption to make, which is why i think.xxx is a bad idea.
No, it really wouldn't. The trouble with black or white-listing based on TLD is that the implications don't hold up. if/when.xxx is approved, the implication will be that every non.xxx TLD won't contain adult content, likewise if there was a.safe, the implication would be that anything other than.safe TLDs contained 'unsafe' content. Both of these implications would be totally untrue. With.xxx, does anyone really think that all the porn sites in the world are suddenly going to drop their high traffic URLs in favour of the.xxx equivalents? No, they'll just register the.xxx as well as keeping their.com, and I bet the.com's will remain higher traffic than the.xxx's for quite some time. This is why it just won't work. If approved, this will just generate a lot of revenue for a bunch of registrars, with no benefit to users, either those who are looking for porn, or those who are trying to avoid it.
Also, there will always be fringe cases that don't neatly fit into a category.
"There is no taxonomy or more correctly, ontology, behind domain names." ? um, yes, there is. it's just that no-one adheres to it (myself included). Before you answer, wonder if there's any non-arbitrary relationship between the proposed.xxx TLD and it's content.
"Would you find it easier to remember...." I think what STBL is suggesting is a complete rewrite of the way DNS works, according to his semantic web vision. Perhaps search engines would be a thing of the past, perhaps URLs would (though that's unlikely, given that he invented them (or more accurately URIs)).
But the important thing to note is that he (and I in my comment above) isn't suggesting a fix to make DNS better. He's suggesting a whole reorganisation of the way the web works, which will also involve a new DNS system. He's said several times that he's not entirely happy with the way the web has come together.
You can't apply his potential solution to the current web. His solution would only work in a web that's fundamentally different to the one we're using now.
"I don't think we've gained anything from the.biz or.info domains - only that a few companies have benefited financially"
at least someone realises this.
If i had my way i'd redo the whole domain system; the distinctions between TLDs are totally irrelevent these days. That or enforce the distinctions, so that only ISPs can have.nets, only charities.orgs, etc etc.
ok, I shouldn't have said anything about processor speed. am I right in thinking that there's still no reason this adaptive approach will neccessarily be any better than a distributed project?
It seems the bulk of the article is bemoaning how ineffecient single processor systems are, offering Cray's planned adaptive model as a solution, but surely we've already seen the way forward in regard to supercomputing, and that is distributed single (or dual) processor machines. As stated at zakon.org, "SETI@Home launches on 17 May (2001) and within four weeks its distributed Internet clients provide more computing power than the most powerful supercomputer of its time" Surely the computing environment hasn't changed so dramatically in 5 years as to make this type of achievement redundant?
Unless 'computing power' is different to 'combined processor speed', I don't understand what Cray are up to here.. perhaps someone can enlighten me?
given that microsoft doesn't even seem to think that openoffice is a competitor, I highly doubt that MS will see this as a threat. (of course that's not to say it won't actually be a threat)
If you want a proper house of review (and you should) then you bloody well elect one
agreed, but the second best is having *any* kind of review system, which the HoL provides. Of course ideally there are a hundred improvements to be made, but what we've got shouldn't be removed (without replacement) just because it's imperfect. Or even far from perfect. It's better than nothing.
sorry gotcha, I thought this was another nail in the coffin of the Lords, but in fact it's trying to abolish(/drastically reduce the power of) the Commons. damn. that is much worse. wtf? (yes i did rtfa but c'mon, it's 1am.)
well, yeah, they're not impartial in that sense but they're free from enforced political affiliation, or at the very least less partial than the rest of the government.
The trick is that the MPs would have to effectively sign their own irrelevance warrant
surely what would happen is that the Commons would be all too eager to abolish the Lords because the Lords continually reject motions put forward by the Commons, so the Commons would have no problem tabling the motion, then they'd put it to the Lords who obviously would reject it, then it'd go back to the Commons who'd reword it and send it back. This happens three times and then it's approved; in effect the Lords is already largely redundant. This is how the anti-hunting laws got passed.
You see, the thing is, the Lords (at the moment) have a birth right to be there. They can say whatever they want without fear of parliamentary whips putting pressure on them to to stop conflicting with the current party's views, without fear of being kicked out, and without fear of losing their next election. That's why they're a good thing, because they have the chance to oppose laws even when the majority of parliament is for them. Apart from the Queen (who needless to say only perform a cursory duty), they are the only impartial group in the government. I agree that they are definately more conservative, and generally represent only the upper class white citizens (as seen in their rejection of the anti-hunting legislation), but that's better than their not being there at all. imho. ianal.
* of the ones I used. Obviously there are some that really didn't work.
Just browsing through the list of extensions at tinyurl.com/cjhbh, there's plenty that have a new version which simply says "incremented maxVersion for 1.5". I think this kinda proves my point.
well, maybe with major version changes, but the majority (if not all) of the extensions that "didn't work" in 1.5 only didn't work because of the maxVersion field.
I'm not suggesting that a developer should state that their extension either *will* or *will not* work in any given future version of FF. What I'm suggesting is that extensions should have a minVersion, and a maxVersion, but if the version of FF that you're installing the extension on exceeds the maxVersion of the extension, FF should notify the user that "this extension was not designed for this version of Firefox. If you'd like to take your chances and install it anyway, click install, but remember that it might work unexpectedly or not at all. Otherwise, click cancel", rather than just saying "too bad buddy, the developer says his extension won't work in this version, though he can't possibly have known that when he wrote the extension" which is effectively what it does at the moment.
Again, I'm mad that I have to piss about editing extensions that would work perfectly well except that they think they won't work.
the problem isn't that security software is too technical (look at zonealarm's nice and friendly interface), it's that people aren't educated about the most fundamental aspects of computer security, like what firewalls are, and that AV programs only work if you keep them updated. Bleh.
In the extension, you can specify a maximum version number under which the extension works
... and I *wish* that when installing extensions, FF would give me an option to override the developer's choice.
Yes, I know, rename the xpi to.zip (once you've re-downloaded it), open install.rdf, change the version number, put it back into the zip at normal compression, rename back to.xpi and open in FF... how about a simple "I don't give a crap that the developer says this extension won't work in 1.5. I wanna see" button
I think it's useful for the developer to be able to say; "will only work in versions greater than x.y", but surely it's impossible for an extenion author to say that their extension won't work in a version of FF that doesn't exist yet, which is effectively what the maxVersion allows them to do. It's ridiculous. When I upgraded to 1.5, I had to spend ages tediously hacking all my extensions so they'd work with 1.5. There was nothing inherent in the functionality that made them break, just some arbitrary maxVersion crap - gimme an override button!!!
Slashdot Mirror
no, I know that, what I'm saying is that people will infer that !.safe=!safe, and !.xxx=!xxx. I know that that's the wrong assumption to make, which is why i think .xxx is a bad idea.
No, it really wouldn't. The trouble with black or white-listing based on TLD is that the implications don't hold up. if/when
Both of these implications would be totally untrue. With
Also, there will always be fringe cases that don't neatly fit into a category.
erm that would be funny, except that for this test, a lower score is better....
except for russia
In Germany, you beat piracy,
In Soviet Russia, a pirate beats you!!
sorry.
and, yeah I know the russian dude won the fight.
i'll go now.
(and i might add, is a damn fine entry level image editor)
the firefox slashdot extension does this, with google cache and internet archive.
oh hey, cancel that, they've introduced a great new feature to MSIE: tabbed browsing, now what this mean is that.. hey wait a sec..
p ic=2201
more screenshots at http://www.x64bit.net/site/board/index.php?showto
especially given that Paint.NET already exists (and was sponsored by MS).
so, I ask again, what's *new*?
"There is no taxonomy or more correctly, ontology, behind domain names." .xxx TLD and it's content.
? um, yes, there is. it's just that no-one adheres to it (myself included).
Before you answer, wonder if there's any non-arbitrary relationship between the proposed
"Would you find it easier to remember...."
I think what STBL is suggesting is a complete rewrite of the way DNS works, according to his semantic web vision. Perhaps search engines would be a thing of the past, perhaps URLs would (though that's unlikely, given that he invented them (or more accurately URIs)).
But the important thing to note is that he (and I in my comment above) isn't suggesting a fix to make DNS better. He's suggesting a whole reorganisation of the way the web works, which will also involve a new DNS system. He's said several times that he's not entirely happy with the way the web has come together.
You can't apply his potential solution to the current web. His solution would only work in a web that's fundamentally different to the one we're using now.
"I don't think we've gained anything from the .biz or .info domains - only that a few companies have benefited financially"
.nets, only charities .orgs, etc etc.
at least someone realises this.
If i had my way i'd redo the whole domain system; the distinctions between TLDs are totally irrelevent these days.
That or enforce the distinctions, so that only ISPs can have
yes, i constantly get death threats for closing port 25... ;-)
ok, I shouldn't have said anything about processor speed. am I right in thinking that there's still no reason this adaptive approach will neccessarily be any better than a distributed project?
so it's actually nothing new at all then, just two existing techs merged into one with a cool sounding name from a well known company. I see.
It seems the bulk of the article is bemoaning how ineffecient single processor systems are, offering Cray's planned adaptive model as a solution, but surely we've already seen the way forward in regard to supercomputing, and that is distributed single (or dual) processor machines. As stated at zakon.org, "SETI@Home launches on 17 May (2001) and within four weeks its distributed Internet clients provide more computing power than the most powerful supercomputer of its time"
Surely the computing environment hasn't changed so dramatically in 5 years as to make this type of achievement redundant?
Unless 'computing power' is different to 'combined processor speed', I don't understand what Cray are up to here.. perhaps someone can enlighten me?
given that microsoft doesn't even seem to think that openoffice is a competitor, I highly doubt that MS will see this as a threat. (of course that's not to say it won't actually be a threat)
agreed, but the second best is having *any* kind of review system, which the HoL provides. Of course ideally there are a hundred improvements to be made, but what we've got shouldn't be removed (without replacement) just because it's imperfect. Or even far from perfect. It's better than nothing.
sorry gotcha, I thought this was another nail in the coffin of the Lords, but in fact it's trying to abolish(/drastically reduce the power of) the Commons. damn. that is much worse. wtf?
(yes i did rtfa but c'mon, it's 1am.)
well, yeah, they're not impartial in that sense but they're free from enforced political affiliation, or at the very least less partial than the rest of the government.
surely what would happen is that the Commons would be all too eager to abolish the Lords because the Lords continually reject motions put forward by the Commons, so the Commons would have no problem tabling the motion, then they'd put it to the Lords who obviously would reject it, then it'd go back to the Commons who'd reword it and send it back. This happens three times and then it's approved; in effect the Lords is already largely redundant. This is how the anti-hunting laws got passed.
You see, the thing is, the Lords (at the moment) have a birth right to be there. They can say whatever they want without fear of parliamentary whips putting pressure on them to to stop conflicting with the current party's views, without fear of being kicked out, and without fear of losing their next election. That's why they're a good thing, because they have the chance to oppose laws even when the majority of parliament is for them. Apart from the Queen (who needless to say only perform a cursory duty), they are the only impartial group in the government. I agree that they are definately more conservative, and generally represent only the upper class white citizens (as seen in their rejection of the anti-hunting legislation), but that's better than their not being there at all. imho. ianal.
the majority (if not all)*
* of the ones I used. Obviously there are some that really didn't work.
Just browsing through the list of extensions at tinyurl.com/cjhbh, there's plenty that have a new version which simply says "incremented maxVersion for 1.5". I think this kinda proves my point.
well, maybe with major version changes, but the majority (if not all) of the extensions that "didn't work" in 1.5 only didn't work because of the maxVersion field.
I'm not suggesting that a developer should state that their extension either *will* or *will not* work in any given future version of FF. What I'm suggesting is that extensions should have a minVersion, and a maxVersion, but if the version of FF that you're installing the extension on exceeds the maxVersion of the extension, FF should notify the user that "this extension was not designed for this version of Firefox. If you'd like to take your chances and install it anyway, click install, but remember that it might work unexpectedly or not at all. Otherwise, click cancel", rather than just saying "too bad buddy, the developer says his extension won't work in this version, though he can't possibly have known that when he wrote the extension" which is effectively what it does at the moment.
Again, I'm mad that I have to piss about editing extensions that would work perfectly well except that they think they won't work.
shouldn't the goal be to make it more secure?
the problem isn't that security software is too technical (look at zonealarm's nice and friendly interface), it's that people aren't educated about the most fundamental aspects of computer security, like what firewalls are, and that AV programs only work if you keep them updated. Bleh.
Yes, I know, rename the xpi to
I think it's useful for the developer to be able to say; "will only work in versions greater than x.y", but surely it's impossible for an extenion author to say that their extension won't work in a version of FF that doesn't exist yet, which is effectively what the maxVersion allows them to do. It's ridiculous. When I upgraded to 1.5, I had to spend ages tediously hacking all my extensions so they'd work with 1.5. There was nothing inherent in the functionality that made them break, just some arbitrary maxVersion crap - gimme an override button!!!
google reported a massive dDos, as slashdotters around the world simutaneously searched their own names and handles in panic.