Usually when a user installs bad software, they don't know what's going on. The problem with the Windows security model it that it is very permissive about how to execute code. All you need is a file with a particular extention. To make things even worse, it hides the extention by default and you can put an icon on it to make it look like another kind of a file. So Joe User things he's opening a birthday card.
That's one reason package managers are so cool. If you make that the only easy way to install stuff it allows for some quality control. Plus, advanced users can add extra repositories for software that is not in the main one.
I'm curious as to why they call it dihydrogen monoxide when the term hydrogen hydroxide would have been more acurate, sound just as shady, and be less awkward.
Doesn't Mono have all sorts of royalty and patent related issues that could allow Microsoft to sink the whole project if it ever wanted to. At least that's what I was told. I hope I'm wrong.
Yes, but properly escaping everything is at least as important. Whitelisting and blacklisting can't be used in a lot of situations (for example text fields) without causing problems. The easiest way to do that is to use an existing library that handles most of that for you. The more you have automated, the less room there is for human error. Unfortunatly, PHP coders tend to trive in reinventing the wheel.
I know your joking, but it already exists. Firefox, OpenOffice, and a couple other of the large and popular software have binary packages in portage. It's just that they're not teribbly popular and harder to maintain.
That is not their way. While mediawiki does have a few basic permissions to keep guests from openly spamming, wiki's tend to be pretty trusting. That's not really a problem though because it's pretty easy to rollback bad changes and in a corporate setting that is good enough because the editors are all your employees.
Welcome to slashot, where we include a slippery slope and a strawman in one post!
Once my email client admits its ability to filter it's email, it will become a never ending battle about what gets flaged and what get's let through, and now I'm receiving less emails than before. Just imagine:
Scientology not wanting any mail that mentions them badly
RIAA want emails with links to music websites blocked
It would never end and we end users are all poorer when spam is blocked.
And don't think for a moment some company won't ask to have warez spam removed the moment it is proved it's possible. My MTA's defence has to be that it's not possible in an automated system.
Lastly, filter out viagra and it will simply become v1agra. You get the idea.
Ok, I'll admit that that's slightly poor comparison as Google isn't being given much of a choice here. Google shouldn't be forced to filter results any more than my MTA should be forced to filter spam. But your arguement isn't much good. Your still free to set up you own search engine.
IANAL, but I'm pretty sure they're not a common carrier. While they show traits of one, they're not any more a common carrier than slashdot is, the biggest difference is that google's editors actually are bots.
Your right about google not creating the content, but they do play with it, and present it in their own little fashion. Now there being asked to change their presentation to avoid including illegal content. While you may think its wrong, it's not unresonable.
The past week, I've been using Gnome again on Linux via CentOS 4.3, and I can't recommend it to anyone. The person I am working with on this box is in his mid 50s and is a PhD in CS (although he knows nothing about computers:) But he is not anal retentive enough to get the mouse "just right" to manipulate the GUI. We had a bunch of text files that did not end in.txt, and it was too much of a pain to look at these files via "Open with..." or similar, so dropping to the commandline was easiest (and my preference anyway).
I've never used CentOS myself, but I've run Gnome on gentoo for the past 6-8 months or so and it's been amazingly good about telling file types. I haven't done any configuration, but from what I can tell, it does it's magic first and looks at the files contents, otherwise it looks at the file extention. If none of those do, then if it's a text file, it calls it a text file, otherwise it labels it application/octet-stream.
Since you are OSX fan, I've got another annectdote too. I've got a website, and I try to test it on as many browsers as I can. IE tends to be a bugger, but I was able to make the appropriate hacks for IE win; however IE for the Mac is a completely different beast. We have a couple of Macs here with IE on so I went to use one of them to test on. Unfortunatly the machines are a bit old (10.2, I think). I had had a bit of experience with Macs before, but not much.
So I got on the machine and downloaded the page and css files to the local machine to tinker with. Then I realied that OSX doesn't have a plain text editor! Sure there's TextEdit, but when you open up HTML files with it it goes into rich text mode and after searching through menus and all sorts of things I gave up with it. So I went to look for another editor. The internet was a wonderful tool here and brung up all sorts of results, unfortunatly only a few of them supported 10.2. After a while of downloading and tooling around with them and googling I wasn't able to get any of them to work. One said it was installing, but failed with a useless error message. Another one just said it didn't support my operating system (even though the website said it did). The other ones were even more frusturating. I would click on the icon and it would look like it was opening with StuffIt, but then it spontaneouly dissapeared, along with the bouncing stuffit icon. In the end I gave up, IE Mac support wasn't worth that much.
P.S. If you give me any hints I would be most grateful, OSX does look pretty cool.
You make it out that the linux geeks are just snobbish that newbies don't know as much as them. While there is a bit of truth to that, I think that's mostly perception. Say your an American whose had no overseas experince. Then you go to live in France for a year. If it was just a tourist stay (like you were using linux, but someone else was doing all the work for you) than it wouldn't be a problem, but once you really try to live there, things become a whole lot more complicated.
First, you don't know the language. You try to learn it, but you're not much good, so all you get in reply are the french equivilant of "My English not is good?" followed by suppressed laughter. You go to the market and much of the food you're used to is either missing or looks slightly different. On top of that they all have different names. When you ask around, a few people help, but most of them end up telling you to RTFM.
Also, for some reason, people seem to act weird (of course, they all think it's you who acts weird). They don't establish eye contact when you expect them to, they stand closer to you than your confortable with, they talk at breakneck speeds so you only understand about half of what comes out of their mouth, and some of the things they say seem outright offensive.
So after one month of 'braving it out' you back up and return to the US, were people act 'normal'. Your impression is that French people are snobs, uncharitable, have peculiar like unnatural foods, and a few other distastful things you can't really make out. To the Frech, they would have seen you as another ignorant tourist or outsider.
The reality is that you would both be very wrong. It's a classic case of culture shock, and Windows users entering the Linux world will have to overcome it or return back to Windows. It's not that Windows users are stupid, or that Linux users are snobs; it's just that they don't see eye to eye and mistake differences for definancies.
Yes, you are correct. I think the source of confusion comes from the fact that the said nudity is less errotic than a dressed down barbie (at least barbies aren't pixilied) leading many people to believe there was something else.
Yes, but mostly no. Trusted computing is about not trusting anything in the user space (similar to SELinux). A compartmentalized kernel is about about not relying on anything in the kernel. (note the difference of trust and reliance) Both are good when done properly I don't know too much about kernel hacking, but my guess is that a micro-kernel would be able to handle buggy drivers better and make development of the kernel easier.
Arn't you putting to much trust that the keys on the keyservers are actually correct? I mean if I sumbit a fake key for joe@foo.example, then you go to send an email to joe and when joe gets it, he can't read his own mail.
While I understand your consern, XML namespaces are really cool. Yet I also feel that this would undermine the point of ODF. It was meant to be a standard -- not all things for all people. The Open Document format has a limited scope and while xml is powerful and extensible a standard document format needs to be standard. If it wasn't, software would take advantage of that. Cases like yours, while they may seem innocent and useful, are a deep threat to OpenDocument.
Here's an example, let's say I write a document in KWord then I send it to my friend, who dumps an image in it with MS Word. MS Work takes advantage of the extensible system and embeds the image as a WMF using it's own special things. He emails it back to me and behold, I can't open the image.
Another example. I download a document from CMSfoo which added it's own metadata. Then I upload it to CMSbar, unfortunatly CMSbar was not repectful namespaces and screw things up and now the document is unreadable. The reality is that people write buggy software sometimes and when things are not standard, it tends to get really bad really fast.
Even in the best of situations, allowing people to do this will cause problems, as people will be expecting that if something works with one syteme, it will work with the other too. But it doesn't because it's using non-standard stuff.
They probably haven't decided. Here's a likely senario.
Some of the techies that were working on the code thought it would be really cool if it they open sourced it. So they bugged their superiours about it.
Then a while later after enough bugging, someone up above heard the plea, although he probably barely knows what open source means, much less what it entailes, or the various different kinds of 'openness'.
Eventually after enough mind-numbing banter among the executives the idea of free code monkey-slaves slounded good, they tell the marketdroids.
These marketdroids, who probaly think 'GNU' is some sort of freek typo, knock up the press release you just saw.
Definitely. From my experience as a user I rarely use applets, and I didn't really notice speed issues (random slowness is normal in windows), but the UI thing screwed me up the worst. For some inane reason they had to be different from everyone else, and the things that they tried to do the same, were done poorly. In Gnome on linux this is even worse, and the bugs are more obvious.
On top of that, the java software UI's I've used look like they were designed by the clinically insane. Take, for example, Eclipse (on Gnome):
Preferences. It would be nice if they were under Edit, but since this is designed for windows people and the Linux version is mostly accidental, I'm not surprised it's not there. So then I go and look for the 'Tools' menu, as that's what Windows normally uses. It dozen't exist. Confused I search through 'Project', 'File', 'Navigate', and even 'Run'. Nothing. Eventually, after much frustration, I find it under 'Windows'. What it was doing there I'll never know. I don't know any regular app that does that.
So I want to find were to set the paths for extensions. Of course it's under Preferences so I open that up and start to peruse though there massive tree list. It wasn't there. I look again, and again. I couldn't find it. I looked again trough the menus to see if there was somewhere it might be, but no avail. Several minutes later by brother find it under 'Software Updates' which was under 'Help'. On every Operating System I've used (various linuxes and windows) Help was for Help Files, not configuration.
Java's a cool idea, but for the love of everything good and holy I don't want to have to sacrifice my first born to do some simple configuration. Till then python and wxWidgets looks promising.
IIRC, according to the actual specs, <! is actually the start and > is the end. the --'s specify the beginning and the end of individual lines. That's why the comment <!-- Hello World -- How are you doing --> is invalid and will cause you problems, at least with the 'good' browsers. This:
<! --Hello World-- --How are you doing-- >
Is proper syntax also (however, I think IE is confused and would probably bork that up.
It had full support for ACLs in the filesystem. Linux got that in, what, 2000? Does it even work with the standard filesystems? I've been using ACLs with UFS2 (the default FS) on FreeBSD for a couple of years, but I've not seen them in common use on Linux.
It should work fine. The main filesystems support ACLs and there's even a plugin for nautilus to allow you to edit them there. I think the reason that they're not in common use on Linux is that most people have no use for them.
The most intersting thing about your post is how you say how technicaly excellent NT 4 was. I'm sure your correct; however, I don't remember anyone caring about NT. The only reason I even heard about it was because I knew some super-geeks. Back then (I wasn't a geek yet) I would have happily stayed with 95 (I even though the multi-user thing was a waste of cpu cycles). I know it's terrible, but I have a feeling most regular users thought the same way.
Very true. The problem is it's so easy to be lazy and just plop people into respective categories, whether or not they fit. People forget the test results are determined by your personality, and not the other way around. Also people are complex, to summarize them in a 4 letter (16 bit) code makes as much sense as trying to explain the inner workings of a computer in one word. But we're lazy.
Great. I'm an INTP, by the way.
I'd be interested to see how many people on slashdot are INTPs (I turned out as a decently strong INTP too, btw). Apparently they're only a small amount of the actual population, but I think that the ratio is fairly high among geeks.
I have a problem with news articles like this. The only information the give is either obvious or highly circumstantial. They might be ok if all computers were ever used for is to install operating system; however, some people actually like to operate the systems and do real work on them.
Betas are great, their fun to try out and see what's comming up (most of the desktop software on my computer is in the unstable '~x86' branch, and some of it is even masked). But you shouldn't don't try to draw far reaching generalizations about the distros of whatever from this.
While I agree with this in theory. I have a few remarks.
That's definitly not the right meta tag. Content-Type specifies the mime-type of the document. Normally it should be something like text/plain, text/html, application/xml+xhtml (or something similar, look in/usr/share/mime for a good list). Doing this would break a gazillion things, and is just plain wrong anyways. You should use another type of meta tag that is designed particularly for this.
For that other type of meta tag system, see PICS: http://www.w3.org/PICS/. PICS is already implemented on the client level (in serveral browsers as well as in many firewall content filters, ever wondered what 'safe search' on google does?). The main reason it hasn't picked up is because porn sites don't want to use it. They want to maximize their readership and this won't help them.
You can't really force people to comply to this, as that would be censorship and unconstitutional because it violates freedom of speech. Sure, most people don't have any problems with that in an idealized world, but you need to ask your self, what constitutes porn and what does not, and who has the right to dole out rattings. The last thing I would want is an MPAA for the web, and even if it was tried it would never work, because it doesn't scale. The amount of work involed to check every website is insane, not to mention all the cases that would end up in court. (for example, lets say your site was given a bad rating because some robot dumped a whole bunch of penis enlargment spam into comments in your word press weblog.
That said, PICS is not a complete failiure, and it's much better than nothing.
Re:An idiotic idea that shows domain names are bro
on
Is It Time For .tel?
·
· Score: 1
You have just described REST my friend.
I wish so very much that the web worked like this, but it doesn't, and for the most part won't for a long time. Personally I think HTTP is actually a decent protocol, but it still has some serious confusion involved. The biggest problem of course, are all those code monkeys who don't know what their doing.
As far as ifl is conserned it has some serious problems associated with it. Sure it would work ok for sites like slashdot and google that have a large user base, it doesn't work well for small things at all.
For example, what if I set up my own website and I start using the tag foobar. I put my resume on there at ifl:foobar/resume and I tell a potential employer they can get it there. However, during the time of my interview, someone else (lets say Jeff K.) wants to use the domain so he and all his friends start to associate his site with the foobar keyword. And my interveiwer goes to get my resume, and he finds some other kids webpage instead.
While the current DNS system isn't that great, it has integrity, which is very important in a naming/uri system (see http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI.html). Why is it important? Well think of all of the confusion you would have if everyone in your office traded names for a day.
personally, I would like to see the tld system dropped. I don't really see any purpose in it. There are a few tlds that have use (like.mil or.gov), but I think they would be much better of if they were dropped too. (then you just use mil.country or gov.country). Instead of slashdot.org, just use slashdot.
What Limbaugh's feelings would be on that are another matter entirely
Please don't listen to people like him. He's the John Dvorak of the modern-American-evangelical-fundamentalist Christian (I know that's a lot of words. Just trying to point out that he's not a good example of a regular sensible person).
Same here in the Philippines. IIRC the going rate is 70-80 peso's per cd (1.5 US Dollars). It's also pretty difficult to find legal non-free software, esspecially if it's a popular program.
Slashdot Mirror
Usually when a user installs bad software, they don't know what's going on. The problem with the Windows security model it that it is very permissive about how to execute code. All you need is a file with a particular extention. To make things even worse, it hides the extention by default and you can put an icon on it to make it look like another kind of a file. So Joe User things he's opening a birthday card.
That's one reason package managers are so cool. If you make that the only easy way to install stuff it allows for some quality control. Plus, advanced users can add extra repositories for software that is not in the main one.
Alan Trick
I'm curious as to why they call it dihydrogen monoxide when the term hydrogen hydroxide would have been more acurate, sound just as shady, and be less awkward.
Doesn't Mono have all sorts of royalty and patent related issues that could allow Microsoft to sink the whole project if it ever wanted to. At least that's what I was told. I hope I'm wrong.
Yes, but properly escaping everything is at least as important. Whitelisting and blacklisting can't be used in a lot of situations (for example text fields) without causing problems. The easiest way to do that is to use an existing library that handles most of that for you. The more you have automated, the less room there is for human error. Unfortunatly, PHP coders tend to trive in reinventing the wheel.
I know your joking, but it already exists. Firefox, OpenOffice, and a couple other of the large and popular software have binary packages in portage. It's just that they're not teribbly popular and harder to maintain.
That is not their way. While mediawiki does have a few basic permissions to keep guests from openly spamming, wiki's tend to be pretty trusting. That's not really a problem though because it's pretty easy to rollback bad changes and in a corporate setting that is good enough because the editors are all your employees.
Welcome to slashot, where we include a slippery slope and a strawman in one post!
Once my email client admits its ability to filter it's email, it will become a never ending battle about what gets flaged and what get's let through, and now I'm receiving less emails than before. Just imagine:
Scientology not wanting any mail that mentions them badly
RIAA want emails with links to music websites blocked
It would never end and we end users are all poorer when spam is blocked.
And don't think for a moment some company won't ask to have warez spam removed the moment it is proved it's possible. My MTA's defence has to be that it's not possible in an automated system.
Lastly, filter out viagra and it will simply become v1agra. You get the idea.
Ok, I'll admit that that's slightly poor comparison as Google isn't being given much of a choice here. Google shouldn't be forced to filter results any more than my MTA should be forced to filter spam. But your arguement isn't much good. Your still free to set up you own search engine.
IANAL, but I'm pretty sure they're not a common carrier. While they show traits of one, they're not any more a common carrier than slashdot is, the biggest difference is that google's editors actually are bots.
Your right about google not creating the content, but they do play with it, and present it in their own little fashion. Now there being asked to change their presentation to avoid including illegal content. While you may think its wrong, it's not unresonable.
I've never used CentOS myself, but I've run Gnome on gentoo for the past 6-8 months or so and it's been amazingly good about telling file types. I haven't done any configuration, but from what I can tell, it does it's magic first and looks at the files contents, otherwise it looks at the file extention. If none of those do, then if it's a text file, it calls it a text file, otherwise it labels it application/octet-stream.
Since you are OSX fan, I've got another annectdote too. I've got a website, and I try to test it on as many browsers as I can. IE tends to be a bugger, but I was able to make the appropriate hacks for IE win; however IE for the Mac is a completely different beast. We have a couple of Macs here with IE on so I went to use one of them to test on. Unfortunatly the machines are a bit old (10.2, I think). I had had a bit of experience with Macs before, but not much.
So I got on the machine and downloaded the page and css files to the local machine to tinker with. Then I realied that OSX doesn't have a plain text editor! Sure there's TextEdit, but when you open up HTML files with it it goes into rich text mode and after searching through menus and all sorts of things I gave up with it. So I went to look for another editor. The internet was a wonderful tool here and brung up all sorts of results, unfortunatly only a few of them supported 10.2. After a while of downloading and tooling around with them and googling I wasn't able to get any of them to work. One said it was installing, but failed with a useless error message. Another one just said it didn't support my operating system (even though the website said it did). The other ones were even more frusturating. I would click on the icon and it would look like it was opening with StuffIt, but then it spontaneouly dissapeared, along with the bouncing stuffit icon. In the end I gave up, IE Mac support wasn't worth that much.
P.S. If you give me any hints I would be most grateful, OSX does look pretty cool.
You make it out that the linux geeks are just snobbish that newbies don't know as much as them. While there is a bit of truth to that, I think that's mostly perception. Say your an American whose had no overseas experince. Then you go to live in France for a year. If it was just a tourist stay (like you were using linux, but someone else was doing all the work for you) than it wouldn't be a problem, but once you really try to live there, things become a whole lot more complicated.
First, you don't know the language. You try to learn it, but you're not much good, so all you get in reply are the french equivilant of "My English not is good?" followed by suppressed laughter. You go to the market and much of the food you're used to is either missing or looks slightly different. On top of that they all have different names. When you ask around, a few people help, but most of them end up telling you to RTFM.
Also, for some reason, people seem to act weird (of course, they all think it's you who acts weird). They don't establish eye contact when you expect them to, they stand closer to you than your confortable with, they talk at breakneck speeds so you only understand about half of what comes out of their mouth, and some of the things they say seem outright offensive.
So after one month of 'braving it out' you back up and return to the US, were people act 'normal'. Your impression is that French people are snobs, uncharitable, have peculiar like unnatural foods, and a few other distastful things you can't really make out. To the Frech, they would have seen you as another ignorant tourist or outsider.
The reality is that you would both be very wrong. It's a classic case of culture shock, and Windows users entering the Linux world will have to overcome it or return back to Windows. It's not that Windows users are stupid, or that Linux users are snobs; it's just that they don't see eye to eye and mistake differences for definancies.
Yes, you are correct. I think the source of confusion comes from the fact that the said nudity is less errotic than a dressed down barbie (at least barbies aren't pixilied) leading many people to believe there was something else.
Yes, but mostly no. Trusted computing is about not trusting anything in the user space (similar to SELinux). A compartmentalized kernel is about about not relying on anything in the kernel. (note the difference of trust and reliance) Both are good when done properly I don't know too much about kernel hacking, but my guess is that a micro-kernel would be able to handle buggy drivers better and make development of the kernel easier.
Arn't you putting to much trust that the keys on the keyservers are actually correct? I mean if I sumbit a fake key for joe@foo.example, then you go to send an email to joe and when joe gets it, he can't read his own mail.
While I understand your consern, XML namespaces are really cool. Yet I also feel that this would undermine the point of ODF. It was meant to be a standard -- not all things for all people. The Open Document format has a limited scope and while xml is powerful and extensible a standard document format needs to be standard. If it wasn't, software would take advantage of that. Cases like yours, while they may seem innocent and useful, are a deep threat to OpenDocument.
Here's an example, let's say I write a document in KWord then I send it to my friend, who dumps an image in it with MS Word. MS Work takes advantage of the extensible system and embeds the image as a WMF using it's own special things. He emails it back to me and behold, I can't open the image.
Another example. I download a document from CMSfoo which added it's own metadata. Then I upload it to CMSbar, unfortunatly CMSbar was not repectful namespaces and screw things up and now the document is unreadable. The reality is that people write buggy software sometimes and when things are not standard, it tends to get really bad really fast.
Even in the best of situations, allowing people to do this will cause problems, as people will be expecting that if something works with one syteme, it will work with the other too. But it doesn't because it's using non-standard stuff.
They probably haven't decided. Here's a likely senario.
Definitely. From my experience as a user I rarely use applets, and I didn't really notice speed issues (random slowness is normal in windows), but the UI thing screwed me up the worst. For some inane reason they had to be different from everyone else, and the things that they tried to do the same, were done poorly. In Gnome on linux this is even worse, and the bugs are more obvious.
On top of that, the java software UI's I've used look like they were designed by the clinically insane. Take, for example, Eclipse (on Gnome):
Java's a cool idea, but for the love of everything good and holy I don't want to have to sacrifice my first born to do some simple configuration. Till then python and wxWidgets looks promising.
IIRC, according to the actual specs, <! is actually the start and > is the end. the --'s specify the beginning and the end of individual lines. That's why the comment <!-- Hello World -- How are you doing --> is invalid and will cause you problems, at least with the 'good' browsers. This:
Is proper syntax also (however, I think IE is confused and would probably bork that up.
It should work fine. The main filesystems support ACLs and there's even a plugin for nautilus to allow you to edit them there. I think the reason that they're not in common use on Linux is that most people have no use for them.
The most intersting thing about your post is how you say how technicaly excellent NT 4 was. I'm sure your correct; however, I don't remember anyone caring about NT. The only reason I even heard about it was because I knew some super-geeks. Back then (I wasn't a geek yet) I would have happily stayed with 95 (I even though the multi-user thing was a waste of cpu cycles). I know it's terrible, but I have a feeling most regular users thought the same way.
Very true. The problem is it's so easy to be lazy and just plop people into respective categories, whether or not they fit. People forget the test results are determined by your personality, and not the other way around. Also people are complex, to summarize them in a 4 letter (16 bit) code makes as much sense as trying to explain the inner workings of a computer in one word. But we're lazy.
I'd be interested to see how many people on slashdot are INTPs (I turned out as a decently strong INTP too, btw). Apparently they're only a small amount of the actual population, but I think that the ratio is fairly high among geeks.
I have a problem with news articles like this. The only information the give is either obvious or highly circumstantial. They might be ok if all computers were ever used for is to install operating system; however, some people actually like to operate the systems and do real work on them.
Betas are great, their fun to try out and see what's comming up (most of the desktop software on my computer is in the unstable '~x86' branch, and some of it is even masked). But you shouldn't don't try to draw far reaching generalizations about the distros of whatever from this.
While I agree with this in theory. I have a few remarks.
That said, PICS is not a complete failiure, and it's much better than nothing.
You have just described REST my friend.
.mil or .gov), but I think they would be much better of if they were dropped too. (then you just use mil.country or gov.country). Instead of slashdot.org, just use slashdot.
I wish so very much that the web worked like this, but it doesn't, and for the most part won't for a long time. Personally I think HTTP is actually a decent protocol, but it still has some serious confusion involved. The biggest problem of course, are all those code monkeys who don't know what their doing.
As far as ifl is conserned it has some serious problems associated with it. Sure it would work ok for sites like slashdot and google that have a large user base, it doesn't work well for small things at all.
For example, what if I set up my own website and I start using the tag foobar. I put my resume on there at ifl:foobar/resume and I tell a potential employer they can get it there. However, during the time of my interview, someone else (lets say Jeff K.) wants to use the domain so he and all his friends start to associate his site with the foobar keyword. And my interveiwer goes to get my resume, and he finds some other kids webpage instead.
While the current DNS system isn't that great, it has integrity, which is very important in a naming/uri system (see http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI.html). Why is it important? Well think of all of the confusion you would have if everyone in your office traded names for a day.
personally, I would like to see the tld system dropped. I don't really see any purpose in it. There are a few tlds that have use (like
Please don't listen to people like him. He's the John Dvorak of the modern-American-evangelical-fundamentalist Christian (I know that's a lot of words. Just trying to point out that he's not a good example of a regular sensible person).
It's not "no family life". We call it "commitment to the job" or "hard worker".
Same here in the Philippines. IIRC the going rate is 70-80 peso's per cd (1.5 US Dollars). It's also pretty difficult to find legal non-free software, esspecially if it's a popular program.