A) not open source. open source is good for me, so closed is worse
B) platform support. Flash will NOT reach the entire world, simply because you must have the flash player, which is unavailable on most platforms (all but the most popular)
C) standardization. There is none. it's proprietary vendor lock in. There's no competeing development environments, no competing players
D) breakage of the web. Flash is not the web. therefore, you can't bookmark it, index it, search it. You can't look at the code, or make the text bigger, or have your text reader read it because you are blind
Basically, flash is okay for silly games or homestarrunner, but so bad in other ways it's generally frowned upon by those who are not confused by colors and animation.
This is most certainly true. However, some people, such as myself, see such administrative restrictions as a breaking of the internet. If the network specifically prevents communication between two consenting hosts... that's not really the internet anymore, but some crippled, pathetic form of it.
If that's the case on your network, complain to the admins. The internet is supposed to enable communcations, not prevent them.
Aren't journalistst the ones who NEVER accept a story at face value, but instead dig deeper and expose the truth? This has been perverted to mean 'finding the angle', which means they sensationalize that which should not be sensationalizeed.
Now, I *could* do the reasearch and find the facts on things, but there's no way that i could personally do that for every 'fact' that is asserted. So i rely an another party to do it for me. That being the journalists and reporters that present me with news of the world at large.
And is it not those same reporters that gave us this story in the first place? I don't read the MS newspaper (doesn't exist), or watch the MS TV channel, or read the MS magazine for broad news. This info came to us all through the various media channels that we chose to watch.
Why is it that none of these journalists read the report to see if it actually said what MS said it did? Why in the world is the author explaining to everyone, even those who reported on the story, that they are COMPLETELY WRONG? Think about this.
The author wrote a report, saying X. MS starts saying the report says thing Y. The reporters agree and start telling everyone that thing Y is true. Everybody believes the report says thing Y. Then, the author comes out and says, "What? Are you all insane? READ the report! That's what it is, a report, and it says thing X!"
Does this not implicate that the journalists who reported this are assisting MS in spreading lies? Are not the journalists at fault, at least in part?
What's happened? When did the news become a way to distribute a message? But the US Gov administration is doing this. The corporations are doing this. Is there no journalistic integrity anymore?
To paraphrase Jon Stewart about the 'journalists'*: They're hurting us. Right now they're helping the politicians and corporations. And they're hurting us, the people. Won't they please, please stop?
It seems to me one cannot have a free and democratic society without a free and honest press. Lies are more harmful than bombs. Because lies can lead to bombs, genocide, and every other atrocity.
WHERE ARE THE JOURNALISTS OF INTEGRITY?
* See the clip of Jon Stewart on CNN's Crossfire. Use your preferred media-aquiring methods, it's out there.
Except that they're sitting on warehouses of classic, irreplaceable recordings by departed and living icons of the 20th century, and if they die, a large fraction of world culture dies with them...
Heh heh. No no, that's not how it works. Copyright expries, and works fall into the public domain. Thus, if the public wants these works to live, they will. And if they are an important part of culture, of course we will preserve them.
Pardon? You say copyright is already as long as my life? And it keeps getting extended, making it effectively perpetual? And thus, big media now owns our cuture? My my, when did this happen?
-----
The fact that a company going out of business could KILL a creative work is perhaps the most chilling and sinister aspect of copyright in it's current form. I am not sure of the parent's position on copyright, but, copyright was written to expire for several reasons. One of them being the idea that cuture, represented by creative works, belongs to the people, the public. Thus, a copyrighted work would, after a time, flow into the public domain. However, copyright, in it's current form, is stealing that away.
The idea of public domain should appeal to everyone, regardless of how the big media corps tell you.
The media cartels are not the artists who are getting protected by copyright law.
Yes, they are. Who is lobbying for longer copyright? It's not artists, it's companies like disney. Also, pick up a CD you own. Some music CD. Examine who owns the copyright. You may be surprised to learn that it's not the artist at all, but BMG or EMI... the label, or record company.
Now why on earth does the record company need copyright protection? They have never penned a song or sang a lyric. And why does copyright extend 70 years beyond the author's death? When the human being who created something is not capable of receiving compensation or creating anything new.
It is clear to me the intent of copyright is just, but the application of it in the world right now is corrupt. This is the essence of the argument against copyright, as it currently stands.
the only problem could be if the vendor of the frontend goes out of business, the source with its documentation vanishes, and someday iis will be dumped (hopefully;) ), so the frontend will be unusable. but even in that case it should be possible to reassemble a useable frontend given the case that the system is well designed.
Ah, yes. This is a good point. What if the vendor... of the frontend, or backend, or any of the systems, goes out of business? Then they will be screwed!
Unless, perhaps, they were do use a system consisting ONLY of open standards. So, standard PCs for data entry. Standard hard drives for storage. Stanard ethernet for communcations. A standard web front end. I assume that they are doing a lot of this already.
Why, if they used an FLOSS database, even if no one was using it but them, they could still maintain it, because no one could take it away, and they coudl modify it and update it themselves.
The point is, relying on a single vendor, who is the only vendor who can sell you the product you need, is foolish. You've now hinged your entire operation on that single vendor. This is not wise. And in the computer world, patents are now threatening to legally remove your ability to write your own software to do the same thing.
I guess my point is that if you stick to open standards all the way, you will never end up in the position hypothesized. As long as there is an operating budget, things can carry on as they always have. Heck, if they had the money, they could even arrive at their own custom solution, developed in house. And then as long as the archives exist, and as long as the government is sound, everything should carry on.
The germans had a proprietary data format. Since no one knows how the data was arranged, it is now a mystery. But, if you were to use Postgres on Linux, then NOTHING is proprietary, you could never find yourself in a position where you are unable to decipher the info. Also, the heiroglyphs (sp) had the same problem where no one knew the key, the method of information storage. However, if you adopted a FLOSS solution, you could literally write down the exact way the info is stored, on paper, and keep it in the archive building, next to the server. Remember, the Free part is not the price, but the information.
The only way i could see these organizations screwing themselves is by adopting proprietary solutions, and finding themselves in the position of reliance on a single vendor.
This is the reason i always go for the open standards, and shun the proprietary ones. It fosters competition, and thus multiple options for me, the consumer. Thus, i win, directly, from supporting open standards. Which is why it's always confusing to have people go for proprietary solution... they are setting themselves up to get screwed.
So you feel that you, your company, and even the government should run on an IM system owned and operated by AOL/Time Warner? Or Yahoo, maybe. Or prehaps Microsoft.
What about attachments? Or long messages? What about (web)servers sending automated messages due to an error condition?
Remember, there is no IM standard, which is a key reason why it sux. If you do not see the parallels in the lack of standardization of IM, and also the lack of standardization of SPF, i cannot help you.
Email is GOOD, people like it. Witness it's massive popularity, despite it's problems. Suggesting IM system will displace them is foolish and shortsighted.
However, thanks for raising the issue, i think it's a good one.
if the filesystem does the compression, the apps (or you) can't see it happen. that's the POINT. your suggestion, above, is ridiculous. If you had a tar.gz file, you could extract it to the FS, but it would actually be equally compressed (cause it's a gzip compressed FS), and then you could play with the files to your heart's content, without worrying about the compression, cause it's transparent. You wouldn't need or want some kinda plugin or something...
Unless the FS wasn't compressed, and you wanted a transparent way to access tar.gz files. That idea would make sense.
Most javascript content I've seen is for annoying popup ads and popunders, especially from porn sites that make it almost impossible to clear your screen without quitting the browser.
Uhhh... stop using IE. Really. You'll thank me when you do. *everything else* is better.
Second, gmail is an excellent example of javascript working right. I'm almost amazed at how good it is, especially since most javascript sucks. Why don't more developers use javascript properly? Then again, why do slashdot readers use IE?
I know you were being funny... but you raise a good point. In reality the reason why the root servers are diverse is because they're run by different organizations Check it out: www.root-servers.org. That's why they have different server setups. And different locations, and etc.
So in reality the sys admins admin just one system (or copies of it in multiple loactions) and there isn't a helpdesk for the root servers. The sys admins KNOW their shit at the root servers. Can you imagine if they had a root-server helpdesk they could call... that would be wild.
Diversity won't solve the problem of requests coming in faster than they can be processed.
You're correct, rgmoore. For DDoS you get big phat internet pipes and routers in front that can absorb the extra load. Plus you can anycast the servers. Also, you make the server not a single server, but a high-performance cluster of servers, capable of handling severe loads.
And believe me, the root servers have done all these things, and more. The root server performance is really one of the best things about it. It just doesn't fail. And the operators continue to be vigilant, and take their responsibility seriously.
Anyway, diverstiy helps against platform-specific attacks, and the roots have other systems in place for other types of attacks.
A) the maintainer is a dink, and won't upgrade, plus the interested parties seem to like to whine and complain about weird craziness and misnamind of files (both problems non-existent IMHO) instead of upgrading. There's a bug about the compile problem, solaris only, as i remember. Why is it out of x86 then? Exactly. Gentoo was once great for being more current than anyone, but has been slipping, sometimes severely, as in this cae.
B) use the -U flag. like so "emerge -Upv world"
That -U is upgrade-only. I use it all the time, that way portage doesn't downgrade. Also, yes, 9.2.3 has been out for something like 8 months now, using 9.2.2 is starting to look downright silly.
Very small connection to your use of the term 'hub'.
It's a switch, not a hub. The two are different. A hub acts like a shared medium, while a switch establishes a dedicated connection between ports, and can have multiple ports doing this simultaneously.
So they can stop the uprising, put the kids back in line. What's more amazing is they get away with it. And did you notice they also suspended students for passing out a petition critizing them for having racist awards like this? The exact sort of free speech that is VEHEMENTLY defended by the supreme court, and courts all over the USA, time and time again. It's one of the freedoms they got right, and they know what it's good for.
But then, this is the USA's public school system, which is apparently pretty bad. Makes sense that the teachers are lame too, doesn't it?
No, no, this is perfectly reasonable. The courts enforce the law as it is written. The government is the lawmaker, and if the law is faulty (say a blatant murderer gets off cause of some loophole) then the law is changed to be more complete. This is normal, and *not* fundamentally wrong, whatsoever.
The PROBLEM is that the goverment is supposed to be US! That's right, we, the people, are the government. Only right now it's getting twisted around, so that the elected officials feel much more obliged to please corporate interests than the people, the individuals who make up the country. So now, when something like this happens, the CORPORATIONS whine and cry like poor babies, and the government listens, sympathizes, and changes to law to suit these corporations, and, in turn, screw the public.
The problem is not that the government makes laws. The problem is who the government is making the laws for.
Me too. Its a rather sad state of affairs when someone like Elena takes the time, fuel, and a camera along and lets the rest of the world see what its really like, and then might have to pay for the bandwidth to boot.
Apparently you're new around, well, the internet. Back in the day, there were PLENTY of free hosting sites. Geocities, Angelfire, and quite a few others. They all had that broken business model where you give stuff away for free then worry about making money later. Somehow, they didn't all die.
---- FREE ANGELFIRE Where can you get 20MB of space, great building tools, and a blog of your very own - all without spending a dime? Angelfire FREE, that's where! Who says the best things in life are free? We do! Sign up today. You'll be glad you did. ----
See? Free. Really. If you want, you can get your own space. Remember geeks run their own sites, non-geeks use free services like this, which are usually kinda huge. So don't worry about bandwidth.
I followed the whole site, wondering when the server was going to melt down like it did the last time, apparently before I even got there, but this time it held up quite well.
It *didn't* melt down, dude. Did you see her message? It said she had temporarily removed it to add more content. Now, it's back. The server didn't melt, it was always available.
Sorry if i seem harsh on you, Almost-Retired, but i just feel the need to point out how your entirely made up theories on this site are unfounded, and incorrect. For the sake of accuracy, and so we don't feel sorry for her paying this ficticious money to this free site.
What implications does this have and how will the ramifications impact how businesses view and utilize the web?
None. This isn't going to have an effect on businesses. Well, about 99.99% of them, anyway.
See, DNS, by design, has a single namespace. That is, blah.foo.bar is unique. There is only one blah.foo.bar, only one right answer. In real life, you can have two people named John Doe, in DNS, you can't.
However, there's no technical reason why you must use the ICANN view of DNS. You can use another DNS root, like AlterNIC or UCANN (or a few others), and what you'll get is a *different* namespace. So now blah.foo.bar points somewhere else. But still to only one place.
So you can use the ICANN root (like 99.99% of the world does) or you can use another root. But you cannot use them at the same time. Therefore, if ICANN chooses to make a.xxx, it won't conflict with UCANN's.xxx, because you can only use one at a time.
This is why AlterNET and UCANN have always been seen as crackpots, to an extent. They whine and bitch about these things that have no relevance. ICANN is perfectly within reason to define their namespace as they see fit. And so is UCANN and anyone who wants to. UCANN could set up their own.com, and if people are using the UCANN servers, they'd see that.com, not the ICANN.com.
Additional info: An astute reader will notice that things are not quite as simple as "one or the other" as i stated above. You see, what happens is that UCANN will use ICANN's.com,.net,.org, and the other ICANN tld's. Then UCANN adds their own.tld's, ones that ICANN has not assigned. This way, they get the ICANN tld's, plus their own additional tld's. Sometimes, though, ICANN goes and assignes one of these extra tld's, ( like.biz) themselves, and you get a namespace collision. DNS cannot use two versions of.biz. You get one or the other. Since 99.99% of the world uses the ICANN root, 99.99% of the world sees the ICANN version of the new.tld. Then UCANN whines because now their.tld will be pushed out of the way. It irony is, of course, that this same 99.99% of people who have always been using the ICANN root couldn't see the UCANN version.tld at any time before ICANN set it up. The only people this affects are the people using an alternate root, but they've always seen things differently.
So, for most people, including serious businesses, nothing changes.
Heh. Sorry to break it to you, but Moz is not at fault here, it's XP. Now, investingating why it gets swapped out is still an interesting question, but XP does the swapping, not Moz. Which is demonstrates yet another reason i use linux. MUCH better memory management. The only time i remember Moz getting swapped out was when i left my computer compiling for 24 hours, and came back to it. Took about 2 seconds to pull it back. On a p3-700 with 512 MB RAM. just my two cents.
Not really. AT&T is also huge, so is qwest, and sprint. There are pleny of large ISPs, plenty. And most of them aren't on this 'we host spammers' list. Which customers you serve is a concious choice by the company, and it's easy to be spam-friendly, or anti-spam.
HOWEVER, i think your point about bigness does affect their ability to not care without repurcussions. Typically if a company is hosting spammers and won't listen to advice, the response is to block that IP block utterly. This works fine for small webhosts and teh like, but who can block worldcom? No one, cause it's too huge. But you could block a small icelandic ISP (for example). In that sense, they are able to hide behind their bigness.
It parallels with MS. It's very hard to say "screw MS, i don't care it works on windows", because they've such a strong market position.
Can't ICANN just "pull the plug" and tell VeriSign to go take a hike while they find someone more competent to take care of the root DNS servers?
Yes, they can. And that's why when ICANN threatened them--back when Sitefinder was first turned on--that Verisign listened. Because, yeah, ICANN controls the root, and all authority flows from the root. (the root servers, that is)
As for your p2p root idea, well... To be blunt, it's a bit naive. First off, where does this p2p network get it's data? Remember, one of the critical ideas behind DNS is that the view is always consistent, there are no conflicting records. As in, www.exmple.com ALWAYS points to the same place, no matter who you ask. There is only one correct answer. (misconfigurations can prevent this, obviously, but that's the design of DNS). So you have to be worried about poisoning, authenticity, you have to trust this network. No current p2p network has my trust.
I give more reasons, but basically, the DNS system is set up right now with 46 root servers (count 'em). These are generally a cluster of professionally managed servers, dedicated to a single, pretty simple task: Serving the 2000-odd records in the root zone, or returning a failure. That's it. Any suggestion of a p2p network, for it to be accepted, would have to show that this proposed ad-hoc network could provide the same performance and reliability that the current system does. Not to mention re-writing all this software that assumes DNS functions in it's current state.
To summarize, sure it SOUNDS like a good plan, but for it to actually be considered, it probably has to have actual technical details. And it wouldn't hurt if it came from someone more qualified than Armchair Internet Architect, such as you or I.
Frankly, they deserve to have all authority over the root servers taken away from them before they do more harm in their quest for profits.
Your comment is otherwise excellent, but this line deserves correction. Verisign does *not* have control over the root servers*. ICANN does. This is an important distinction because control over the root servers is what gives ICANN it's authority. What Versign DOES control are the so-called 'GTLD' servers, which serve the.com and.net zones. (and the.org zone, once upon a time) And it's on those zones they are acting unilaterally. Sitefinder, when it was active, only worked on non-existant.com and.net hostnames, no others
*footnote: Verisign does, however, operate 2 of the root servers, A and J. In fact, Verisign operates them quite well, and in co-operation with the other root-server operators. But all root servers have the same data, provided by ICANN. The list of root servers (and who operates them) can be found here.
And the original author of probably the most influential piece of GPL software in the world. And he's not famous for being a nerd, as you describe. He's famous for KNOWING what he's talking about. Really. He's not the leader of Linux because he has to be, or because he's somehow cheated his way in. He's leader because the others trust him. And they trust him because he's a very good coder. And thus, his opinion DOES carry weight.
It's like you, a footsoldier, saying "Well he's just the General, his opinion isn't any better than mine!" But see, it's not just anyone who becomes a general (in a properly run army). They become general because they're BETTER than the others. And that's what i'm claiming, that Linus is still in charge of Linux because he's better. And therefore, his opinion carries a lot of weight. More even, than yours.
Ah. Good point. The insurance company pays you money to replace your house. What you need to remember here is that copyright is an absolute right over the ownership of a creative work. Let us suppose that certain software or DVDs in his house are out of production. It is now completely outside the law to obtain these works by any means. If they are no longer for sale, you cannot aquire them by any legal means. And since you've been forbidden to make backup copies, you can't prepare for the worst.
Copyright is insidious, and non-obvious in a lot of situations. But keep your wits about you.
Slashdot Mirror
I dislike flash for the reasons you pointed out.
A) not open source. open source is good for me, so closed is worse
B) platform support. Flash will NOT reach the entire world, simply because you must have the flash player, which is unavailable on most platforms (all but the most popular)
C) standardization. There is none. it's proprietary vendor lock in. There's no competeing development environments, no competing players
D) breakage of the web. Flash is not the web. therefore, you can't bookmark it, index it, search it. You can't look at the code, or make the text bigger, or have your text reader read it because you are blind
Basically, flash is okay for silly games or homestarrunner, but so bad in other ways it's generally frowned upon by those who are not confused by colors and animation.
This is most certainly true. However, some people, such as myself, see such administrative restrictions as a breaking of the internet. If the network specifically prevents communication between two consenting hosts... that's not really the internet anymore, but some crippled, pathetic form of it.
If that's the case on your network, complain to the admins. The internet is supposed to enable communcations, not prevent them.
Where are the journalists?
Aren't journalistst the ones who NEVER accept a story at face value, but instead dig deeper and expose the truth? This has been perverted to mean 'finding the angle', which means they sensationalize that which should not be sensationalizeed.
Now, I *could* do the reasearch and find the facts on things, but there's no way that i could personally do that for every 'fact' that is asserted. So i rely an another party to do it for me. That being the journalists and reporters that present me with news of the world at large.
And is it not those same reporters that gave us this story in the first place? I don't read the MS newspaper (doesn't exist), or watch the MS TV channel, or read the MS magazine for broad news. This info came to us all through the various media channels that we chose to watch.
Why is it that none of these journalists read the report to see if it actually said what MS said it did? Why in the world is the author explaining to everyone, even those who reported on the story, that they are COMPLETELY WRONG? Think about this.
The author wrote a report, saying X. MS starts saying the report says thing Y. The reporters agree and start telling everyone that thing Y is true. Everybody believes the report says thing Y. Then, the author comes out and says, "What? Are you all insane? READ the report! That's what it is, a report, and it says thing X!"
Does this not implicate that the journalists who reported this are assisting MS in spreading lies? Are not the journalists at fault, at least in part?
What's happened? When did the news become a way to distribute a message? But the US Gov administration is doing this. The corporations are doing this. Is there no journalistic integrity anymore?
To paraphrase Jon Stewart about the 'journalists'*: They're hurting us. Right now they're helping the politicians and corporations. And they're hurting us, the people. Won't they please, please stop?
It seems to me one cannot have a free and democratic society without a free and honest press. Lies are more harmful than bombs. Because lies can lead to bombs, genocide, and every other atrocity.
WHERE ARE THE JOURNALISTS OF INTEGRITY?
* See the clip of Jon Stewart on CNN's Crossfire. Use your preferred media-aquiring methods, it's out there.
Except that they're sitting on warehouses of classic, irreplaceable recordings by departed and living icons of the 20th century, and if they die, a large fraction of world culture dies with them...
Heh heh. No no, that's not how it works. Copyright expries, and works fall into the public domain. Thus, if the public wants these works to live, they will. And if they are an important part of culture, of course we will preserve them.
Pardon? You say copyright is already as long as my life? And it keeps getting extended, making it effectively perpetual? And thus, big media now owns our cuture? My my, when did this happen?
-----
The fact that a company going out of business could KILL a creative work is perhaps the most chilling and sinister aspect of copyright in it's current form. I am not sure of the parent's position on copyright, but, copyright was written to expire for several reasons. One of them being the idea that cuture, represented by creative works, belongs to the people, the public. Thus, a copyrighted work would, after a time, flow into the public domain. However, copyright, in it's current form, is stealing that away.
The idea of public domain should appeal to everyone, regardless of how the big media corps tell you.
The media cartels are not the artists who are getting protected by copyright law.
Yes, they are. Who is lobbying for longer copyright? It's not artists, it's companies like disney. Also, pick up a CD you own. Some music CD. Examine who owns the copyright. You may be surprised to learn that it's not the artist at all, but BMG or EMI... the label, or record company.
Now why on earth does the record company need copyright protection? They have never penned a song or sang a lyric. And why does copyright extend 70 years beyond the author's death? When the human being who created something is not capable of receiving compensation or creating anything new.
It is clear to me the intent of copyright is just, but the application of it in the world right now is corrupt. This is the essence of the argument against copyright, as it currently stands.
the only problem could be if the vendor of the frontend goes out of business, the source with its documentation vanishes, and someday iis will be dumped (hopefully ;) ), so the frontend will be unusable. but even in that case it should be possible to reassemble a useable frontend given the case that the system is well designed.
Ah, yes. This is a good point. What if the vendor... of the frontend, or backend, or any of the systems, goes out of business? Then they will be screwed!
Unless, perhaps, they were do use a system consisting ONLY of open standards. So, standard PCs for data entry. Standard hard drives for storage. Stanard ethernet for communcations. A standard web front end. I assume that they are doing a lot of this already.
Why, if they used an FLOSS database, even if no one was using it but them, they could still maintain it, because no one could take it away, and they coudl modify it and update it themselves.
The point is, relying on a single vendor, who is the only vendor who can sell you the product you need, is foolish. You've now hinged your entire operation on that single vendor. This is not wise. And in the computer world, patents are now threatening to legally remove your ability to write your own software to do the same thing.
I guess my point is that if you stick to open standards all the way, you will never end up in the position hypothesized. As long as there is an operating budget, things can carry on as they always have. Heck, if they had the money, they could even arrive at their own custom solution, developed in house. And then as long as the archives exist, and as long as the government is sound, everything should carry on.
The germans had a proprietary data format. Since no one knows how the data was arranged, it is now a mystery. But, if you were to use Postgres on Linux, then NOTHING is proprietary, you could never find yourself in a position where you are unable to decipher the info. Also, the heiroglyphs (sp) had the same problem where no one knew the key, the method of information storage. However, if you adopted a FLOSS solution, you could literally write down the exact way the info is stored, on paper, and keep it in the archive building, next to the server. Remember, the Free part is not the price, but the information.
The only way i could see these organizations screwing themselves is by adopting proprietary solutions, and finding themselves in the position of reliance on a single vendor.
This is the reason i always go for the open standards, and shun the proprietary ones. It fosters competition, and thus multiple options for me, the consumer. Thus, i win, directly, from supporting open standards. Which is why it's always confusing to have people go for proprietary solution... they are setting themselves up to get screwed.
So you feel that you, your company, and even the government should run on an IM system owned and operated by AOL/Time Warner? Or Yahoo, maybe. Or prehaps Microsoft.
What about attachments? Or long messages? What about (web)servers sending automated messages due to an error condition?
Remember, there is no IM standard, which is a key reason why it sux. If you do not see the parallels in the lack of standardization of IM, and also the lack of standardization of SPF, i cannot help you.
Email is GOOD, people like it. Witness it's massive popularity, despite it's problems. Suggesting IM system will displace them is foolish and shortsighted.
However, thanks for raising the issue, i think it's a good one.
uhhhh... what?
if the filesystem does the compression, the apps (or you) can't see it happen. that's the POINT. your suggestion, above, is ridiculous. If you had a tar.gz file, you could extract it to the FS, but it would actually be equally compressed (cause it's a gzip compressed FS), and then you could play with the files to your heart's content, without worrying about the compression, cause it's transparent. You wouldn't need or want some kinda plugin or something...
Unless the FS wasn't compressed, and you wanted a transparent way to access tar.gz files. That idea would make sense.
Most javascript content I've seen is for annoying popup ads and popunders, especially from porn sites that make it almost impossible to clear your screen without quitting the browser.
Uhhh... stop using IE. Really. You'll thank me when you do. *everything else* is better.
Second, gmail is an excellent example of javascript working right. I'm almost amazed at how good it is, especially since most javascript sucks. Why don't more developers use javascript properly? Then again, why do slashdot readers use IE?
I know you were being funny... but you raise a good point. In reality the reason why the root servers are diverse is because they're run by different organizations Check it out: www.root-servers.org. That's why they have different server setups. And different locations, and etc.
So in reality the sys admins admin just one system (or copies of it in multiple loactions) and there isn't a helpdesk for the root servers. The sys admins KNOW their shit at the root servers. Can you imagine if they had a root-server helpdesk they could call... that would be wild.
Diversity won't solve the problem of requests coming in faster than they can be processed.
You're correct, rgmoore. For DDoS you get big phat internet pipes and routers in front that can absorb the extra load. Plus you can anycast the servers. Also, you make the server not a single server, but a high-performance cluster of servers, capable of handling severe loads.
And believe me, the root servers have done all these things, and more. The root server performance is really one of the best things about it. It just doesn't fail. And the operators continue to be vigilant, and take their responsibility seriously.
Anyway, diverstiy helps against platform-specific attacks, and the roots have other systems in place for other types of attacks.
I know the problem, and i have a solution
A) the maintainer is a dink, and won't upgrade, plus the interested parties seem to like to whine and complain about weird craziness and misnamind of files (both problems non-existent IMHO) instead of upgrading. There's a bug about the compile problem, solaris only, as i remember. Why is it out of x86 then? Exactly. Gentoo was once great for being more current than anyone, but has been slipping, sometimes severely, as in this cae.
B) use the -U flag. like so "emerge -Upv world"
That -U is upgrade-only. I use it all the time, that way portage doesn't downgrade. Also, yes, 9.2.3 has been out for something like 8 months now, using 9.2.2 is starting to look downright silly.
Very small connection to your use of the term 'hub'.
It's a switch, not a hub. The two are different. A hub acts like a shared medium, while a switch establishes a dedicated connection between ports, and can have multiple ports doing this simultaneously.
Just wanna keep people on the right track.
A: Some clients have nice network hardware, but legacy copper
B: Some clients have gig copper, but not enough hardware
What are you saying here? Are you saying you were screwed cause you only had like cat3 cable that counldn't support GigE, or what?
I'm just confused as to what's actually going on, here, your explanation seems unclear.
So they can stop the uprising, put the kids back in line. What's more amazing is they get away with it. And did you notice they also suspended students for passing out a petition critizing them for having racist awards like this? The exact sort of free speech that is VEHEMENTLY defended by the supreme court, and courts all over the USA, time and time again. It's one of the freedoms they got right, and they know what it's good for.
But then, this is the USA's public school system, which is apparently pretty bad. Makes sense that the teachers are lame too, doesn't it?
No, no, this is perfectly reasonable. The courts enforce the law as it is written. The government is the lawmaker, and if the law is faulty (say a blatant murderer gets off cause of some loophole) then the law is changed to be more complete. This is normal, and *not* fundamentally wrong, whatsoever.
The PROBLEM is that the goverment is supposed to be US! That's right, we, the people, are the government. Only right now it's getting twisted around, so that the elected officials feel much more obliged to please corporate interests than the people, the individuals who make up the country. So now, when something like this happens, the CORPORATIONS whine and cry like poor babies, and the government listens, sympathizes, and changes to law to suit these corporations, and, in turn, screw the public.
The problem is not that the government makes laws. The problem is who the government is making the laws for.
Me too. Its a rather sad state of affairs when someone like Elena takes the time, fuel, and a camera along and lets the rest of the world see what its really like, and then might have to pay for the bandwidth to boot.
Apparently you're new around, well, the internet. Back in the day, there were PLENTY of free hosting sites. Geocities, Angelfire, and quite a few others. They all had that broken business model where you give stuff away for free then worry about making money later. Somehow, they didn't all die.
Anyway, from Angelfire's Site:
----
FREE ANGELFIRE
Where can you get 20MB of space, great building tools, and a blog of your very own - all without spending a dime? Angelfire FREE, that's where! Who says the best things in life are free? We do! Sign up today. You'll be glad you did.
----
See? Free. Really. If you want, you can get your own space. Remember geeks run their own sites, non-geeks use free services like this, which are usually kinda huge. So don't worry about bandwidth.
I followed the whole site, wondering when the server was going to melt down like it did the last time, apparently before I even got there, but this time it held up quite well.
It *didn't* melt down, dude. Did you see her message? It said she had temporarily removed it to add more content. Now, it's back. The server didn't melt, it was always available.
Sorry if i seem harsh on you, Almost-Retired, but i just feel the need to point out how your entirely made up theories on this site are unfounded, and incorrect. For the sake of accuracy, and so we don't feel sorry for her paying this ficticious money to this free site.
What implications does this have and how will the ramifications impact how businesses view and utilize the web?
.xxx, it won't conflict with UCANN's .xxx, because you can only use one at a time.
.com, and if people are using the UCANN servers, they'd see that .com, not the ICANN .com.
.com, .net, .org, and the other ICANN tld's. Then UCANN adds their own .tld's, ones that ICANN has not assigned. This way, they get the ICANN tld's, plus their own additional tld's. Sometimes, though, ICANN goes and assignes one of these extra tld's, ( like .biz) themselves, and you get a namespace collision. DNS cannot use two versions of .biz. You get one or the other. Since 99.99% of the world uses the ICANN root, 99.99% of the world sees the ICANN version of the new .tld. Then UCANN whines because now their .tld will be pushed out of the way. It irony is, of course, that this same 99.99% of people who have always been using the ICANN root couldn't see the UCANN version .tld at any time before ICANN set it up. The only people this affects are the people using an alternate root, but they've always seen things differently.
None. This isn't going to have an effect on businesses. Well, about 99.99% of them, anyway.
See, DNS, by design, has a single namespace. That is, blah.foo.bar is unique. There is only one blah.foo.bar, only one right answer. In real life, you can have two people named John Doe, in DNS, you can't.
However, there's no technical reason why you must use the ICANN view of DNS. You can use another DNS root, like AlterNIC or UCANN (or a few others), and what you'll get is a *different* namespace. So now blah.foo.bar points somewhere else. But still to only one place.
So you can use the ICANN root (like 99.99% of the world does) or you can use another root. But you cannot use them at the same time. Therefore, if ICANN chooses to make a
This is why AlterNET and UCANN have always been seen as crackpots, to an extent. They whine and bitch about these things that have no relevance. ICANN is perfectly within reason to define their namespace as they see fit. And so is UCANN and anyone who wants to. UCANN could set up their own
Additional info: An astute reader will notice that things are not quite as simple as "one or the other" as i stated above. You see, what happens is that UCANN will use ICANN's
So, for most people, including serious businesses, nothing changes.
Heh. Sorry to break it to you, but Moz is not at fault here, it's XP. Now, investingating why it gets swapped out is still an interesting question, but XP does the swapping, not Moz. Which is demonstrates yet another reason i use linux. MUCH better memory management. The only time i remember Moz getting swapped out was when i left my computer compiling for 24 hours, and came back to it. Took about 2 seconds to pull it back. On a p3-700 with 512 MB RAM. just my two cents.
Not really. AT&T is also huge, so is qwest, and sprint. There are pleny of large ISPs, plenty. And most of them aren't on this 'we host spammers' list. Which customers you serve is a concious choice by the company, and it's easy to be spam-friendly, or anti-spam.
HOWEVER, i think your point about bigness does affect their ability to not care without repurcussions. Typically if a company is hosting spammers and won't listen to advice, the response is to block that IP block utterly. This works fine for small webhosts and teh like, but who can block worldcom? No one, cause it's too huge. But you could block a small icelandic ISP (for example). In that sense, they are able to hide behind their bigness.
It parallels with MS. It's very hard to say "screw MS, i don't care it works on windows", because they've such a strong market position.
of all the things to forget to check on preview...
correct link to www.root-servers.org.
Can't ICANN just "pull the plug" and tell VeriSign to go take a hike while they find someone more competent to take care of the root DNS servers?
Yes, they can. And that's why when ICANN threatened them--back when Sitefinder was first turned on--that Verisign listened. Because, yeah, ICANN controls the root, and all authority flows from the root. (the root servers, that is)
As for your p2p root idea, well... To be blunt, it's a bit naive. First off, where does this p2p network get it's data? Remember, one of the critical ideas behind DNS is that the view is always consistent, there are no conflicting records. As in, www.exmple.com ALWAYS points to the same place, no matter who you ask. There is only one correct answer. (misconfigurations can prevent this, obviously, but that's the design of DNS). So you have to be worried about poisoning, authenticity, you have to trust this network. No current p2p network has my trust.
I give more reasons, but basically, the DNS system is set up right now with 46 root servers (count 'em). These are generally a cluster of professionally managed servers, dedicated to a single, pretty simple task: Serving the 2000-odd records in the root zone, or returning a failure. That's it. Any suggestion of a p2p network, for it to be accepted, would have to show that this proposed ad-hoc network could provide the same performance and reliability that the current system does. Not to mention re-writing all this software that assumes DNS functions in it's current state.
To summarize, sure it SOUNDS like a good plan, but for it to actually be considered, it probably has to have actual technical details. And it wouldn't hurt if it came from someone more qualified than Armchair Internet Architect, such as you or I.
Frankly, they deserve to have all authority over the root servers taken away from them before they do more harm in their quest for profits.
.com and .net zones. (and the .org zone, once upon a time) And it's on those zones they are acting unilaterally. Sitefinder, when it was active, only worked on non-existant .com and .net hostnames, no others
Your comment is otherwise excellent, but this line deserves correction. Verisign does *not* have control over the root servers*. ICANN does. This is an important distinction because control over the root servers is what gives ICANN it's authority. What Versign DOES control are the so-called 'GTLD' servers, which serve the
*footnote: Verisign does, however, operate 2 of the root servers, A and J. In fact, Verisign operates them quite well, and in co-operation with the other root-server operators. But all root servers have the same data, provided by ICANN. The list of root servers (and who operates them) can be found here.
He's just one famous nerd. Nothing more.
And the original author of probably the most influential piece of GPL software in the world. And he's not famous for being a nerd, as you describe. He's famous for KNOWING what he's talking about. Really. He's not the leader of Linux because he has to be, or because he's somehow cheated his way in. He's leader because the others trust him. And they trust him because he's a very good coder. And thus, his opinion DOES carry weight.
It's like you, a footsoldier, saying "Well he's just the General, his opinion isn't any better than mine!" But see, it's not just anyone who becomes a general (in a properly run army). They become general because they're BETTER than the others. And that's what i'm claiming, that Linus is still in charge of Linux because he's better. And therefore, his opinion carries a lot of weight. More even, than yours.
Ah. Good point. The insurance company pays you money to replace your house. What you need to remember here is that copyright is an absolute right over the ownership of a creative work. Let us suppose that certain software or DVDs in his house are out of production. It is now completely outside the law to obtain these works by any means. If they are no longer for sale, you cannot aquire them by any legal means. And since you've been forbidden to make backup copies, you can't prepare for the worst.
Copyright is insidious, and non-obvious in a lot of situations. But keep your wits about you.