Oh, I agree. I'm not belittling progress because it's made in small steps on the backs of others' work. In face, it's all the more beautiful for that. It makes it something we ALL do, and something that none of us are particularly special for. Even Einstein had competitors, putting together similar ideas at a similar time, given what was known before. It's progress, with just enough redundancy that non of us is invaluable. Perfect.
Why "opt-out" at all? If there's potential for abuse, it should be opt-in. That's already been accepted with bulk commercial email. Now, it just needs to be enforced.
To be fair, the actions of Bram, et al., are necessary to protect himself from liability. He has quite intelligently always stated that he did not condone or support any of the "illegal" uses of the technology. By doing this, they can claim innocence from complicity of its uses.
Hmm. If he believes it's a good thing, and I'd rather see him stand by that belief. If he intended it to be a piracy tool because he believes in piracy, then he should stand by that, instead.
Either way, Bram doesn't seem to realise that he doesn't matter any more. The technology is out there, and neither he nor anyone else can take it back. He's unlikely to release anything more important for the rest of his life, and he may as well just accept whatever small (and it was small) contribution that he made. I say small, because however good BT is, it's only a little better than the P2P systems before. Just another piece of the slow, step-by-step, but fairly obvious puzzle we all glorify as computer science.
No one is "ignoring" microsoft's document formats -- quite the contrary. They're working their butts off to try to compete with a monopoly, and the monopoly keeps winning. At this point, in any non-corrupt society, Microsoft's format would just be made illegal for future documents (given some time to make the switch).
And we know those bastards are light, too! Sure, they may look like they weigh a couple hundred pounds, but a 90 pound girl can knock one across the room with the right acrobatic attack!
You're missing the fact that the girl, like most of the characters in the movie, is actually a superhero.
What is it useful for? To contact a domain owner and inform him about abuse or fraud, or identify someone who is using a domain for criminal activity. So far the theory.
Getting rid of whois on that basis would be "throwing the baby out with the bathwater", as they say. There's nothing wrong with the tool -- just with the tools who allow incorrect data to be entered.
Really? Can someone elaborate on its usefulness? I gave up on it years ago. (also, I simply don't need to know this info anymore)
When I was a SPAM vigalante, I would do whois lookups, and usually the information was clearly bogus. Often, if the info was not bogus, it was outdated.
Well, there are lots of TLDs out there, each with different standards, and lots of different types of domains to lookup. What you get when you look up a site likely to be targetted by spammers isn't necessarily what you'll get when an average small business person calls up and is unsure of their domain details.
There would be no other reason to use whois since it is unreliable.
Then why are you asking a question you think you know the answer to, if not that you think you're wrong? As it happens, you're VERY wrong. It's not the be-all-and-end-all of domain details, no, but it's very useful; for quickly finding out the status of a potential customer's domain, for finding out who owns an IP address that's exhibiting abuse, etc.
* you could use it as a lesson in being secretive and hiding. * you could use this as a lesson in treating people more compassionately
Note that the first option is completely unnatural: in the normal social interactions we all evolved for, you can't talk to someone while keeping everything about you secret. Sooner or later, you have to face the responsibilities that come with being able to affect other people's lives.
If the FBI puts out "criminal" warnings on too many peace protestors, then the international criminal database will start ignoring FBI criminal warnings
That's probably what people thought when Microsoft started blacklisting mailservers indiscriminately. Instead, lots of mailserver admins are being forced to jump through MS's hoops.
Oh,OK. I hadn't heard about the bad implementation. I agree that it should be multi-user, networked, and hierarchical in the sense of having organisational configs overridden by local prefs (where security access is given), etc.
No, linux users run the gamut, including some lots of purchasers of new servers, and very high end clusters of many processors (hint: more than you can put into any windows box).
Wow. This all sounded very cool, and gave me a lot more faith in Intel. Until I realised that they hadn't once mentioned testing on Linux. Do they really ignore every real OS except windows (and probably Mac, I guess?)?:/
Thats even more reason to distrust him. Standardisation on a good hierarchical DB configuration system is the main thing Unix software really lacks. After that, things would improve much faster.
I held the same view, until I read about his stance on OOXML. No one with even basic coding knowledge could honestly compare OOXML with ODF and say that OOXML is a better choice.
Ever since the dawn of man we've dreamt of it,...until finally some daredevils like the Wright brothers actually did it. I should be thrilled to fly, right? Well, last time I was just annoyed at the security checks, bored by the safety lecture...
Your conflict may be caused by mixing two quite seperate concepts: the freedom of adventure --- exploring the unknown, and achieving the impossible --- with fitting into society and going with the norms. Once, simple flight was one. Now, it is the other. The equivalent of flight today would be something entirely different -- more like what Burt Rhutan was doing (prior to the accident at least), or what people do when they build their encrypted P2P network on the ever-more-policed internet. Dreaming a long-since-realised dream isnt going to make you a dreamer.
Slashdot Mirror
Strange... I've always favoured two. Preferably twins
No, that's referred to by the phrase "scared shitless".
Oh, I agree. I'm not belittling progress because it's made in small steps on the backs of others' work. In face, it's all the more beautiful for that. It makes it something we ALL do, and something that none of us are particularly special for. Even Einstein had competitors, putting together similar ideas at a similar time, given what was known before. It's progress, with just enough redundancy that non of us is invaluable. Perfect.
Why "opt-out" at all? If there's potential for abuse, it should be opt-in. That's already been accepted with bulk commercial email. Now, it just needs to be enforced.
Damn. When I saw dear-god-please-no... I thought this comment would be the one I was looking for.
You know. The one that said, "WTF? TFA's headline isn't even in english. But it seems to conclude with something about an orgy."
Hmm. If he believes it's a good thing, and I'd rather see him stand by that belief. If he intended it to be a piracy tool because he believes in piracy, then he should stand by that, instead.
Either way, Bram doesn't seem to realise that he doesn't matter any more. The technology is out there, and neither he nor anyone else can take it back. He's unlikely to release anything more important for the rest of his life, and he may as well just accept whatever small (and it was small) contribution that he made. I say small, because however good BT is, it's only a little better than the P2P systems before. Just another piece of the slow, step-by-step, but fairly obvious puzzle we all glorify as computer science.
That and having a direct line to mother nature's plans for teaching all a lesson, yes.
No one is "ignoring" microsoft's document formats -- quite the contrary. They're working their butts off to try to compete with a monopoly, and the monopoly keeps winning. At this point, in any non-corrupt society, Microsoft's format would just be made illegal for future documents (given some time to make the switch).
No, that's a bollocks.
You're missing the fact that the girl, like most of the characters in the movie, is actually a superhero.
Getting rid of whois on that basis would be "throwing the baby out with the bathwater", as they say. There's nothing wrong with the tool -- just with the tools who allow incorrect data to be entered.
Well, there are lots of TLDs out there, each with different standards, and lots of different types of domains to lookup. What you get when you look up a site likely to be targetted by spammers isn't necessarily what you'll get when an average small business person calls up and is unsure of their domain details.
Then why are you asking a question you think you know the answer to, if not that you think you're wrong? As it happens, you're VERY wrong. It's not the be-all-and-end-all of domain details, no, but it's very useful; for quickly finding out the status of a potential customer's domain, for finding out who owns an IP address that's exhibiting abuse, etc.
Slightly more verbose BS than usual, you mean?
Not if you can't see past superficial differences to the underlying concepts, no.
The way I see it, you have two choices here:
* you could use it as a lesson in being secretive and hiding.
* you could use this as a lesson in treating people more compassionately
Note that the first option is completely unnatural: in the normal social interactions we all evolved for, you can't talk to someone while keeping everything about you secret. Sooner or later, you have to face the responsibilities that come with being able to affect other people's lives.
Speak for yourself. I use whois every day. It's invaluable.
That's probably what people thought when Microsoft started blacklisting mailservers indiscriminately. Instead, lots of mailserver admins are being forced to jump through MS's hoops.
Oh,OK. I hadn't heard about the bad implementation. I agree that it should be multi-user, networked, and hierarchical in the sense of having organisational configs overridden by local prefs (where security access is given), etc.
No, linux users run the gamut, including some lots of purchasers of new servers, and very high end clusters of many processors (hint: more than you can put into any windows box).
Wow. This all sounded very cool, and gave me a lot more faith in Intel. Until I realised that they hadn't once mentioned testing on Linux. Do they really ignore every real OS except windows (and probably Mac, I guess?)? :/
Thats even more reason to distrust him. Standardisation on a good hierarchical DB configuration system is the main thing Unix software really lacks. After that, things would improve much faster.
I held the same view, until I read about his stance on OOXML. No one with even basic coding knowledge could honestly compare OOXML with ODF and say that OOXML is a better choice.
Your conflict may be caused by mixing two quite seperate concepts: the freedom of adventure --- exploring the unknown, and achieving the impossible --- with fitting into society and going with the norms. Once, simple flight was one. Now, it is the other. The equivalent of flight today would be something entirely different -- more like what Burt Rhutan was doing (prior to the accident at least), or what people do when they build their encrypted P2P network on the ever-more-policed internet. Dreaming a long-since-realised dream isnt going to make you a dreamer.
Didn't one of the leaked MS documents talk about an "insider" they had in the open source movement?