If Microsoft declines, future legal actions could point to their anti-competitive behavior in this area.
If they agree, Xbox will lose more money than it already is losing, because people will be able to buy the handle and get their razors elsewhere.
I like it. Kudos to the Xbox Linux folks for thinking of it, and asking Microsoft publically to please sign their hobbyist project so the kids don't have to install mod chips.
As an owner and publisher I *can* say how my content is to be used because that's the licence I grant, it's MY choice.
That is not an absolute privilege. For instance, you cannot expect to enforce a license that restricts viewing your work through rose-colored glasses. You cannot expect to enforce a license that prohibits parodies of your work. It is NOT all YOUR choice how your work is used.
The information (in our case TV listings) is costly to collect. I guess the spongers don't realise that or they just don't give a fuck.
The latter, no doubt, is the case. But then of course, that is not their problem, it is yours.
These are two things we'd rather not spend our time and money on, and they distract us from creating great software.
As a storefront merchant, I can sympathize. I'd rather spend my time and money selling goods and restocking my store to keep up with sales. Installing locks on the doors and reporting theft to the police just distract me from selling to my customers.
Our downloadable software TV guide (DigiGuide) did in the past have unencrypted data files. We didn't honestly expect someone to take our content and build a (possibly competing ) product around our data but they did.
What was that you said about data that is costly to collect? Or were you just incompetent "in the past"? The School of Hard Knocks has a demanding curriculum, doesn't it?
I feel sorry for web sites like TVGuide.com because they probably think they have some very loyal users that spend a lot of time on their site and read a lot of pages...instead they just have people sucking their content and paying them nothing for it. Ignorance is probably bliss for them.
Ah yes, so you think you are smarter than the TVGuide people. They must be just as idiotic as you were "in the past" when you released "costly" data without encryption.
If your description is accurate, then an infringining product is Adobe Acrobat. It has static buttons that are not part of the document, but which are used to navigate through the document.
You haven't looked at the roots in a while, have you?;) All TLDs (except in-addr.arpa.) were moved off the roots some time ago. In the old days, the roots were also the dot-com servers (and dot-net and dot-org). They returned the NS for a 2nd level gTLD domain because they were ALSO the NS for that TLD.
This is no longer the case, and I can't paste an example because of Slashdot's LAME lameness filter. But run this command:
dig @a.root-servers.net slashdot.org mx
You will getback a delegation to the.org servers, and not the NS for slashdot.org. It's been this way for almost two years now.
"Outside of their authority"? Nothing is outside the roots' authority. "." is the parent to all domains.
Recursing nameservers recurse down the tree using the query name given them by their client, just as I described. They do not calculate what glue records are needed, and then go fetch them if they are not already cached. That isn't recursion and it's not DNS. Go check the RFCs if you don't believe me. A recursing server (client cache, whatever you want to call it) doesn't go shooting off queries for NS records, unless a client asked it specifically for a NS record. It does, however, pay attention to them, and caches them if they come in the Authority Section of a response from an authoritative server, but it does not go asking for them unbidden. It recurses using the query name and record type the client gave it, until the answer is found at the end of the delegation chain. It caches other results it finds along the way. But it doesn't go recurse for the answer to "who's the NS for dot-com" unless that was the question its client asked.
No, I believe what they are referring to is a dotted decimal IP address presented in a DNS query as if it were a domain name. In other words, some borked client thinks 192.168.1.3 is a domain name under the "dot-3" TLD. The decimal octets are wrongly interpreted by the borked client as strings, rather than as 8-bit integers.
Asking a root server to resolve anything in the first place, is bad - they should only be asked for NS records...
Actually, that's not correct. A recursing nameserver presents the query name and record type its client asked for when it recurses down the domain tree. It does not compute "Oops, I don't have any NS for dot-com, better ask the roots for dot-com NS".
What happens is that if a client asks a nameserver for the MX for hotmail.com, and the nameserver has no cached records for dot-com, it will send a query for hotmail.com MX to the roots. The roots will reply with a delegation to the dot-com servers. The nameserver then sends the same request for hotmail.com MX to the dot-com servers. They reply with a delegation to the hotmail.com NS. Finally, it sends the query for hotmail.com MX to the hotmail.com NS, and gets an answer, which it returns to the client.
Suppose it is next asked for the MX for yahoo.com. It knows the NS for dot-com that was cached from the previous query, so it sends the query for yahoo.com MX directly to the dot-com servers. In this case, it does not need to recurse from the roots, since it already knows an authority closer to the query name, namely the dot-com servers.
That's how recursion works, in a nutshell. Whatever the client asks for, the recursive nameserver queries that same name down the chain of delegations. The exception to this is when an answer is a CNAME. In that case, the nameserver puts the original query on hold, and begins anew by recursing with the new name pointed to by the CNAME. When it finally resolves that name, it returns the answer to the client's original query, which is the CNAME record, along with the data for the target of the CNAME.
So it is normal for the roots to receive queries for records other than NS records. It is not normal for them to be repeatedly sent from the same client, which is what this study has found is unfortunately happening in practice. This sort of repeated hammering on the roots is the situation the recursive delegation principle was supposed to avoid.
You aren't. What you described is how it should happen. But once you have the NS for dot-org, which you received in the reply to your first query for slashdot.org, you need not go back to the roots with any dot-org query name until the NS records expire from your cache.
If your nameserver repeatedly hits the roots for dot-org names, even after it has received the dot-org NS records, that is broken and those queries are unnecessary. Your nameserver should be hitting the dot-org servers, not the roots.
That's really quite amazing, Dr. Laura, that you can psychoanalyze me from a distance so well. How many sentences did I type, and you are able to tell that I am "set in my views" already, and you can divine my "needs"? Wow!
So to get back on topic, what exactly was the problem with my posting a link to Capital in response to your posting of a link to Wealth of Nations? That seems to have provoked the most invective from you. That's when you began calling me socialist and telling me how I was closed minded and set in my ways. You will note that I did not accuse you of being "set in your ways" or "needing people to tell you how right you are." I just posted a link and said "Here's a counter-argument." You wouldn't try to suggest that only one side of the issue should be examined, would you? Or that Marx's opinions about capitalism are unworthy of consideration? If so, then I don't want to hear any criticism of socialism from capitalists, including you.
But of course, that is an absurd position to take. I don't actually think that. Do you?
Your reply was absolutely fascinating. You treat my silly comment about racism seriously, and ignore my serious comments about capitalism altogether. You wouldn't happen to be a member of Congress, would you?
Read The Wealth of Nations and get a bit better understanding of capitalism.
Then read Capital to learn what's really going on, and why it works the way it does.
In this particular instance, Microsoft isn't being any more evil than most other large corporations.
You are confusing "is" with "should." Just because something is just so, does not mean it ought to be just so. This is no argument at all, in favor of or against anything.
So get to the back of the bus and sit down!
Nice. References to racism are real good to spice up your speech.
Slashdot Mirror
That's what libraries in Iraq are like.
And how do you know that? Who have you been collaborating with that you'd have access to an Iraqi library?
Thousands and thousands of people marched last weekend to uphold the right of the authorities in Iraq to stay in power.
Suck my dick.
OSTFUWY?
If Microsoft declines, future legal actions could point to their anti-competitive behavior in this area.
If they agree, Xbox will lose more money than it already is losing, because people will be able to buy the handle and get their razors elsewhere.
I like it. Kudos to the Xbox Linux folks for thinking of it, and asking Microsoft publically to please sign their hobbyist project so the kids don't have to install mod chips.
Brilliant!
'If you can't do anything about a warning, then there is no point in issuing a warning at all', says Dr. Geoffery Sommer.
Would sopmebody pass this along to Tom Ridge and the rest of the Bush administration?
Harvard was allowed to register harvarduniversity.com, so why not allow Dell to register LamestInternsEver.edu?
(Don't those stupid intern commercials make you wish they'd bring the Dell Dude back?)
As if somebody who was able to find my CC number and my full name would be stumped trying to figure out this bit of top-secret information.
"What's your mother's maiden name?"
"31337h@ck3rm0m"
As an owner and publisher I *can* say how my content is to be used because that's the licence I grant, it's MY choice.
That is not an absolute privilege. For instance, you cannot expect to enforce a license that restricts viewing your work through rose-colored glasses. You cannot expect to enforce a license that prohibits parodies of your work. It is NOT all YOUR choice how your work is used.
The information (in our case TV listings) is costly to collect. I guess the spongers don't realise that or they just don't give a fuck.
The latter, no doubt, is the case. But then of course, that is not their problem, it is yours.
These are two things we'd rather not spend our time and money on, and they distract us from creating great software.
As a storefront merchant, I can sympathize. I'd rather spend my time and money selling goods and restocking my store to keep up with sales. Installing locks on the doors and reporting theft to the police just distract me from selling to my customers.
Our downloadable software TV guide (DigiGuide) did in the past have unencrypted data files. We didn't honestly expect someone to take our content and build a (possibly competing ) product around our data but they did.
What was that you said about data that is costly to collect? Or were you just incompetent "in the past"? The School of Hard Knocks has a demanding curriculum, doesn't it?
I feel sorry for web sites like TVGuide.com because they probably think they have some very loyal users that spend a lot of time on their site and read a lot of pages...instead they just have people sucking their content and paying them nothing for it. Ignorance is probably bliss for them.
Ah yes, so you think you are smarter than the TVGuide people. They must be just as idiotic as you were "in the past" when you released "costly" data without encryption.
We call Solaris "OOS":
:)
(wait for it
"Oracle Operating System"
It's still going on, people, and it's still a very real possibility/threat.
Threat to whom? Vivendi or Microsoft?
No, they keep it. The payees agreed to a contract that binds them to pay. Sucks to be you, if you were in that situation, right?
There's just no comparision. The 3d card by ATI is much better at game graphics than the leaf-blower from nVidia.
If your description is accurate, then an infringining product is Adobe Acrobat. It has static buttons that are not part of the document, but which are used to navigate through the document.
Yes it's still up, and it's still a lot fucking faster than this Slashdot pile.
Has RedHat even existed for 8 years? ...2...3...4...5...6...7...8...9...10...11...12... 13...14...15...16...17...18...19...20!
You haven't looked at the roots in a while, have you? ;) All TLDs (except in-addr.arpa.) were moved off the roots some time ago. In the old days, the roots were also the dot-com servers (and dot-net and dot-org). They returned the NS for a 2nd level gTLD domain because they were ALSO the NS for that TLD.
.org servers, and not the NS for slashdot.org. It's been this way for almost two years now.
This is no longer the case, and I can't paste an example because of Slashdot's LAME lameness filter. But run this command:
dig @a.root-servers.net slashdot.org mx
You will getback a delegation to the
"Outside of their authority"? Nothing is outside the roots' authority. "." is the parent to all domains.
Recursing nameservers recurse down the tree using the query name given them by their client, just as I described. They do not calculate what glue records are needed, and then go fetch them if they are not already cached. That isn't recursion and it's not DNS. Go check the RFCs if you don't believe me. A recursing server (client cache, whatever you want to call it) doesn't go shooting off queries for NS records, unless a client asked it specifically for a NS record. It does, however, pay attention to them, and caches them if they come in the Authority Section of a response from an authoritative server, but it does not go asking for them unbidden. It recurses using the query name and record type the client gave it, until the answer is found at the end of the delegation chain. It caches other results it finds along the way. But it doesn't go recurse for the answer to "who's the NS for dot-com" unless that was the question its client asked.
No, I believe what they are referring to is a dotted decimal IP address presented in a DNS query as if it were a domain name. In other words, some borked client thinks 192.168.1.3 is a domain name under the "dot-3" TLD. The decimal octets are wrongly interpreted by the borked client as strings, rather than as 8-bit integers.
Asking a root server to resolve anything in the first place, is bad - they should only be asked for NS records...
Actually, that's not correct. A recursing nameserver presents the query name and record type its client asked for when it recurses down the domain tree. It does not compute "Oops, I don't have any NS for dot-com, better ask the roots for dot-com NS".
What happens is that if a client asks a nameserver for the MX for hotmail.com, and the nameserver has no cached records for dot-com, it will send a query for hotmail.com MX to the roots. The roots will reply with a delegation to the dot-com servers. The nameserver then sends the same request for hotmail.com MX to the dot-com servers. They reply with a delegation to the hotmail.com NS. Finally, it sends the query for hotmail.com MX to the hotmail.com NS, and gets an answer, which it returns to the client.
Suppose it is next asked for the MX for yahoo.com. It knows the NS for dot-com that was cached from the previous query, so it sends the query for yahoo.com MX directly to the dot-com servers. In this case, it does not need to recurse from the roots, since it already knows an authority closer to the query name, namely the dot-com servers.
That's how recursion works, in a nutshell. Whatever the client asks for, the recursive nameserver queries that same name down the chain of delegations. The exception to this is when an answer is a CNAME. In that case, the nameserver puts the original query on hold, and begins anew by recursing with the new name pointed to by the CNAME. When it finally resolves that name, it returns the answer to the client's original query, which is the CNAME record, along with the data for the target of the CNAME.
So it is normal for the roots to receive queries for records other than NS records. It is not normal for them to be repeatedly sent from the same client, which is what this study has found is unfortunately happening in practice. This sort of repeated hammering on the roots is the situation the recursive delegation principle was supposed to avoid.
So let me see if I'm getting this right.
You aren't. What you described is how it should happen. But once you have the NS for dot-org, which you received in the reply to your first query for slashdot.org, you need not go back to the roots with any dot-org query name until the NS records expire from your cache.
If your nameserver repeatedly hits the roots for dot-org names, even after it has received the dot-org NS records, that is broken and those queries are unnecessary. Your nameserver should be hitting the dot-org servers, not the roots.
That's really quite amazing, Dr. Laura, that you can psychoanalyze me from a distance so well. How many sentences did I type, and you are able to tell that I am "set in my views" already, and you can divine my "needs"? Wow!
So to get back on topic, what exactly was the problem with my posting a link to Capital in response to your posting of a link to Wealth of Nations? That seems to have provoked the most invective from you. That's when you began calling me socialist and telling me how I was closed minded and set in my ways. You will note that I did not accuse you of being "set in your ways" or "needing people to tell you how right you are." I just posted a link and said "Here's a counter-argument." You wouldn't try to suggest that only one side of the issue should be examined, would you? Or that Marx's opinions about capitalism are unworthy of consideration? If so, then I don't want to hear any criticism of socialism from capitalists, including you.
But of course, that is an absurd position to take. I don't actually think that. Do you?
Are capable of conducting a civil discussion, or do you just like pissing in the Cheerios?
I decline to participate in a discussion with someone who is unable to be civil.
Your reply was absolutely fascinating. You treat my silly comment about racism seriously, and ignore my serious comments about capitalism altogether. You wouldn't happen to be a member of Congress, would you?
Read The Wealth of Nations and get a bit better understanding of capitalism.
Then read Capital to learn what's really going on, and why it works the way it does.
In this particular instance, Microsoft isn't being any more evil than most other large corporations.
You are confusing "is" with "should." Just because something is just so, does not mean it ought to be just so. This is no argument at all, in favor of or against anything.
So get to the back of the bus and sit down!
Nice. References to racism are real good to spice up your speech.
Has this country just gone flat out insane?
No, the "going insane" part was long ago finished. We're into the full-blown acting-psychotic part of our disease.
What the hell ever happened to you mind your own business and i'll mind mine?
That's all been exported to some other country.