New GOP Domain Name Violates RFC 2146 235
Macki writes "Citing the poor quality of republican websites, Republican Conference Chairman J.C. Watts has started a project called 'GOP.gov' to help improve their websites. This is all well and good, except GOP.gov isn't just their name, it's also their domain. This is a pretty clear violation of RFC 2146." (Please click below for more.)
The domain is registered to 'US House of Representatives Republican Conference' and should rightfully be GOP.HOUSE.GOV.
Excerpt from RFC 2146:
C) Subsidiary, non-autonomous components of top-level or other entities are not eligible for separate registration. International organizations listed in this document are NOT eligible for registration under .GOV. Subsidiary components should register as third-level domains under their parent organization. Other Federal entities may apply to the FED.US domain."
Comment from Roblimo: Well, that's Mackie's opinion. I disagree, at least in part. I believe a political organization - and that's what a political party is; it's certainly not a government agency - should be an ".org", not a ".gov". BTW, I don't see this as a Republican vs. Democrat thing, either, but as evidence of general Congressional cluelessness. Anyone else care to weigh in on this?
Re:Should be .org. (Score:2)
I'm gonna go off topic here but, that doesn't make it right, ya know? With only two parties to chose from, it's a safe bet that most candidates follow the party line nearly to the letter. If your vote goes to a Rep., you get a less taxes (maybe), but you'll probably get shafted with ridiculous censorship attempts in the name of the children. If you vote Dem., sure, you'll sleep better knowing that you're helping the less fortunate, but more than likely you'll have to face the fact that if you make more than 50g's a year, you're going to hell. Personally I hate the government and don't trust them with anything. That's why I vote Libertarian [lp.org] [note the .org :)]. And don't even tell me that I'm throwing away my vote. It's because of that philosophy that we have congressmen/senators with 40 year incumbancies(sp?) making policy about things that they have no knowledge of... E-mail tax, gimmie a f***ing break. Screw the Post Office....whoops, did I say that out loud?... sorry. Anyway...
The lack of diversity of parties, on the other hand, is in my opinion a good thing, since it keeps flakey parties from getting elected with a plurality (instead of a majority) -sometimes of only 20 or 30 percent. For example, Hitler came to power with only a third of the vote - but there were too many uncooperating parties spltting the non-moron vote. Ergo the ass won.
Maybe you should change that to "The lack of a Hitler is a good thing." Cause that's what you meant. That was an entirely different system. Congress does NOT elect our chief executive. Even if the ENTIRE congress supported David Duke for Pres, the people are not that stupid (hopefully). The only thing that a two party system accomplishes is stiffling out change in the interest of campaign supporters. Period.
--MessiahXI
messiah11@mindless.com
Re:What in the world does "GOP" stand for? (Score:1)
Read the RFC (Score:3)
This clearly makes a policy for exceptions. The FNC Executive Committee is allowed to make exceptions to the policy at their discression.
Is GOP.GOV a reasonable use of the
Re:Should be .org. (Score:1)
Re:.org != non-profit (Score:1)
But Slashdot clearly does fit somewhere else:
[/devils-advocate]
(Totally off-topic: Has anyone figured out how to get literal angle brackets in a
Re:What about USPS? (Score:1)
Re:Should be .org. (Score:1)
And who is informing them? The media? Do you think that's a "good thing"? If you merely consume mainstream news, then you are clueless about many issues. For example, how many wars, i mean "police actions" or whatever, has the US been engaged in the past 10 years? OK, now how many of those can truly be called a success? ZERO. Phillipenes(sp?), Somalia, Iraq, Kosovo, to name a few. We got involved in these regions in the name of human rights and what did we accomplish really? The Phillipenes is as corrupt as ever. Chaos still reigns in Somalia. Hussein and Milosovich(sp?) are still in power; how long till we hear from them again? And what happens after we pull out? So does the press. If the atrocities in Somalia and Kosovo are so bad, if it was so bad that we had to get involved, then why aren't we still hearing about it? Did we fix it? No, we didn't. So tell me how informed the majority of the public is.
Most people are satisfied with their representation, however, and there is little upheaval.
I would say that is because they aren't fully aware of their rights and that the government walks over our rights on a daily basis. It's become the status-quo. And it is sad.
The real question is (Score:1)
My bet is this is a result of some sort of power struggle within the republican party. I'm sure that the house republican caucus would love to get a jump on the national committee: it would give them much more control over the agenda.
[Of course, there's a certain amount of unfairness here: I'm sure that if Bernie Sanders, the one Congressman outside the two party system, tried to create www.socialists.gov, he wouldn't be allowed to.]
ObSideNote: www.gop.com exists. It's been poached by www.politics.com.
Re:gop.org (Score:1)
Re:.org != non-profit (Score:1)
You can use the standard < and >.
Re:.org != non-profit (Score:1)
Ug.
Anyway, use ampersand-lt and ampersand-gt.
There.
Re:usps.com (Score:1)
This all kind of sucks for a lot of small businesses, who end up spending more than they should on postage. Anybody who sends out adverts will tell you they cost more to mail than to print.
The reason they aren't a .GOV domain is that they are a semi-autonomous corporation owned wholly by the US gov. - so they could probably use a .com or .gov and still be honest both ways.
The USA is a one-party state. (Score:1)
America is a one-party state. But with typical American extravagence, they have two of them.
Re:No, this isn't a mistake, perhaps (Score:1)
I disagree. I believe a political orgaization - and that's what political party is; it's certainly not a government agency - should be an ".org", not a ".gov"
Do you see? But perhaps you are right about gop.house.gov over gop.gov
Re:usps.com (Score:1)
Re:usps.com (Score:1)
Can we really say this is unfair, though? Considering that the mail gets through (most of the time
I guess, maybe a better question would be, how much do other coutries charge for stamps/shipping and how good is the quality?
--------------------------
Re:Low quality of advice (Score:1)
I think this was advice of the highest quality.
gop.gov has some measure of branding kudos, and thus it's valuable. It's the GOP's job to try and acquire such things, and the objective election watchers and federal civil servants to exercise whatever control they can to stop them.
Should it be there ? No. hrc.house.gov should be permitted instead and scrutinised very carefully to ensure it doesn't exceed whatever Whitehouse rule there is about limiting Federal funding of party campaigning.
Is it understandable ? Absolutely. It's just politicians taking anything that wasn't nailed down, and we clearly didn't nail this one down firmly enough beforehand. Don't blame crocodiles for biting your leg off, it's just what they do best.
Personally I'm dubious on any .gov domain that isn't honestly a UN-based New World Order. Having .com imply the US is reasonable enough, but the Whitehouse should stick firmly to .gov.us and stop trying to rule the whole world.
Re:Cited RFC is not a standard (Score:1)
In this case, the RFC would be a wonderful thing to have everyone follow, but...well that will not happen.
We all have to realize that as this thing of ours (no pun intended to all of you italians/mobsters) gets out to more and more people, who adopt it with abosolutely no respect for its tradidtions (or for the traditions fo those who created/run it) the RFC process which served us so well in the apst will have to be replaced by a more corrupt, easily manipulated system which could mean lots of cash for one group, or even one senator.
The current process allows argument, best of breed adaptation, and some degree of removal of the standardization process from both government and industry.
So saying that it is "just for comment" is fully correct, but you are wrong to say that this is unimportant.
Re:Should be .org. (Score:1)
Yeah, you did say that out loud, and you probably shouldn't have, since the whole thing was just a stupid chain-letter hoax. But, of course, just be because the government didn't actually do something is no reason to hate them for doing it, right?
Re:And, they hijack you to boot! (Score:1)
What you are experiencing is a javascripot which many organizations use to prevent the fracturing of their precious framed sites. Tell them to GET OFF FRAMES, and this can be avoided.
Re:gop.org (Score:1)
gop.org (Score:3)
UK perspective (Score:1)
This isn't petty. It's important. Anything with a .gov domain element should clearly be in the control of the government. Party groups are .orgs, and that's that.
Well (Score:1)
If you think you know what the hell is really going on you're probably full of shit.
Re:The real question is (Score:1)
But to your original point, the reason gop.gov is being set up is because the RNC and other Republican sites aren't being updated, and so are fairly useless. That's all.
Political parties and government (Score:2)
In a two-party system like ours, a political party's role depends on whether it is in power or out of power. In power it is the government, out of power it is an organization wanting power. But it should not be two hard to check on whether a party is acting as a government entity (i.e., when it is looking out for the public interest) and when it is acting as a private organization (e.g., when it is looking out for its own interests).
In theory that is; in practice it is not often easy to tell which is which...
--
Re:gop.org (Score:1)
Re:You whining liberals just don't get it. (Score:1)
I THOUGHT THIS WAS NOT A POLITICAL ARGUMENT!!!
ACHA!! Im A REPUBLICAN... YES I LIKE TO MAKE MONEY, AND KEEP ALL OF THE PROCEEDS OF MY WORK....
BUT THIS WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO GET POLITICAL, SO FOR ALL OF THE PEOPLE OUT THERE WHO ARE DEMOCRATS, THIS GUY JUST BIT IT:
I AS A REPUBLICAN HAVE A SENSE OF SHAME TODAY, FOR ONE REASON. THE LEADERS OF MY PARTY GO AROUND cALLING DEMOCRATS TREASONOUS BASTA_DS, BAD MOUTH THEM, ETC. ETC. ETC.
BUT THEY MISS THE POINT. THIS IS THE WAY OUR COUNTRY HAS TO BE, WITHOUT DEMOCRATS, WE REPUBLICANS BECOME TOO OBVIOUS. WE WANT POWER, AND WE DO NOT CARE ABOUT ANY ONE ELSE BUT OURSELVES.
I AM SAYING THIS BECAUSE TODAY I AM ASHAMED. I AM ASHAMED THAT OUR PARTY, THE GRAND OLD PARTY, FAMOUS FOR STEALING FROM THE POOR, AND KEEPING THE PEOPLE IN THE DARK ABOUT OUR POLICIES, KILLED THE NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY.
WITH ONE FELL SWOOP, IN THE NBAME OF MAKING A POLITICAL STATEMENT, WE HAVE MEDE THE ENTIRE COUNTRY LOOIK LIKE A BUNCH OF IDIOTS, AND LOST ANY CLAIM TO INTERNATIONAL LEADERSHIP WHICH WE MIGHT HAVE HAD IN THE PAST.
SO GO BLOW IT OUT YOUR EAR.
Re:usps.com (Score:1)
As far as universal coverage goes, can you name a place in the US that isn't served by UPS of FedEx? (Or RPS, or Airborne Express...)
Low quality of advice (Score:2)
Re:.org != non-profit (Score:1)
Should be .org. (Score:2)
Re:Typical GOP stupidity (Score:1)
Re:.org != non-profit (Score:2)
--
Uh... (Score:2)
Macki says GOP.gov is a violation of the RFC and shouldn't be allowed.
Then Roblimo says (roughly) "I don't agree with Macki's opinion, it should be GOP.org and not GOP.gov".
Don't you two agree then ?
Confused,
--Jonathan
Re:No, this isn't a mistake, perhaps NOPE (Score:2)
Really! What the hell is that about? It's part of their "Join the risk-free Revolution" logo? WTF kind of company slogan/logo is that supposed to be? Someone please explain because I _really_ would like to know.
Misunderstanding (Score:2)
(By the way, it's Congressman J.C. Watts, Not J.C. Watt)
Australian Chaos (Score:2)
We dont have a
The website i am involved in kicks most of our Gov'ts websites - http://www.airtc.defence.gov.au/
The whole reason this isnt http://www.airtc.mil.au/ is because one lame duck on a desk 'doesnt like it'.
sorta gives you an idea of what goes in in government, doesnt it?
[sorry about Anon Coward - email me on scorpion@australia.airforce.net - btw thats an american company, not our own domain!]
Teo.
well, the rfc sez... (Score:2)
I suppose it doesn't really matter. Seems pretty inconsequential to me, since naming standards are pretty routinely violated.
-lx
Re:Should be .org. (Score:1)
I admire your optimism, but tell it to the Germans in 1932. Yikes!
Re:No, this isn't a mistake, perhaps NOPE (Score:2)
This relationship would be better described as RobLimo suggested; GOP.HOUSE.GOV. This is what is intended in RFC 2146.
An interesting experiment would be, as you suggested, to have the Democrats register DEMOCRATS.GOV, or better yet, INDEPENDENTS.GOV, and see what kind of stink that would raise.
Now what I find even more interesting is that CAIS.COM [cais.com], the nameservice provider for GOP.GOV, has a banner [cais.com] image of a major city skyline being destroyed in massive, flaming explosion. Coming on the heels of the Senate voting down participation in the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, my paranoid conspiracy theory engine purrs...
Cited RFC is not a standard (Score:2)
RFC's are just requests for comments. They are not necessarily standards. Some of them wind up getting approved through the standardization process, but apparently this is not one of them.
It's interesting that they have the gop.gov domain, but it's not interesting that they violated a non-binding, non-standard RFC.
And Malda's $3.5 million in stock options? (Score:1)
"Malda will receive an additional $3.5 million plus stock over the next two years should he remain with Andover.net. "
Note - I don't think there's anything whatsoever wrong with this - any tech site with such a big crowd is worth a lot. and it is good that linux/open source work is making money. After all, the code is GPL'd
However, it did interest me in terms of the
Can you sell a non-profit
Re:What about Slashdot? (Score:1)
Re:Should be .org. (Score:1)
Actually, Congress does have the power to elect the President if no candidate gets at least 270 votes from the electoral college( more than 50% of the 538 votes ). Each state in the House gets one vote to elect someone from the top 3 candidates. If none of them win by majority, the top two then goes to the Senate for their decision. See the FEC rules [tqn.com] for more info. The party in majority generally should have the advantage in this situation.
Re:Should be .org. (Score:1)
Totally agree w/ you, Mess. Thanks for saying it better than I wanted to...
Re:usps.com (Score:1)
I would make two assertions. First, a private corporation could deliver the mail at a lower cost and with greater reliability. The US gov itself uses Fedex for it's overnight shipping - NOT the USPS! It's just the sort of service that works much better when it's subject to competition. Second, it shouldn't even matter how efficient the USPS is. In a free country, I should be able to start a business delivering mail in my hometown. Right now, if I did, I'd be shut down and imprisoned. No kidding. It happened in Baltimore in the 80's. (not to me of course!)
Re:The USA is a one-party state. (Score:1)
better things to do than keep up with rules (Score:1)
Only geeks think hierarchically. The average non-geek has a single ACCumulator and just a JMP instruction, no JSUB. Sure, they could theoretically implement recursion, but they won't and never will because they don't have the stackspace anyway. They do stuff like watch "Voyager" on Wednesay without ever thinking, "'Voyager.UPN.net' and 'Voyager.WSBK.Ch56.tv'... must be multiple inheritance."
Actually, they don't even watch Voyager at all, but that was the only program I knew the call letters for.
TLDs should be wiped out completely. For all of our geek glory, exactly how many sites do we actually use TLDs for either? "Hmmm... let me think, do I want the profit-making foo, or the non-profit foo?" It's so stupid! We think just like everyone else does: "I want Altavista, I want Slashdot, I want Yahoo, I want InterNIC" and then we have to remember which TLD is appropriate.
"Hierarchy through obscurity" is what it is, and it's stupid.
Re:Be disgusted because it makes things harder (Score:1)
Why only two parties? (Score:1)
When you elect a single candidate from a territory (a President from the nation as a whole, a Senator from a state, etc.), this creates a very powerful incentive for all people in the system to reduce the relevent choices down to two. Suppose you have three parties contesting elections of this sort. As a quick and dirty principle, we will also suppose that everyone can rank all three parties in terms of preference, and that those rankings are reasonably consistent - supporters of party A will tend to rank all three parties in the same order (which, since we are being generic here, we can describe as A,B,C - meaning A is their first choice, and C is their last choice) and supporters of the furthest opponent (party C) will tend to rank the parties in the opposite way. If all three parties keep contesting elections, there will almost certainly be many cases where two of the parties realize that if they worked together, they could defeat the remaining party which is currently winning the election - and they would be happier with the result. For example, party A gets 40% of the vote, party B gets 35%, and party C gets 25% - so parties B and C realize that if they united behind the candidate from party B, they would win the election, and they would prefer that result. The same logic affects voters (who don't want to "waste" their vote), party organizers (who want to win elections for their party), issue activists (who want to get their preferred policies adopted), etc. Of course, once the vast majority of elections are being contested between two parties, it is quite likely that rules in the Congress will reflect that partisan "fact of life."
This contrasts sharply with the experience of many European countries, which use a proportional representation system of elections. They do not divide territory up into single-member districts, but instead cast votes nationwide, and allocate seats within the legislature in proportion to the votes received (ignoring a broad range of variation in mechanics - there are a whole bunch of different proportional representation schemes). In these countries, we usually see a noticeably larger array of different parties regularly participating in elections, and we see entirely different forms of legislative organization as well.
Of course, this explanation still has a few holes. The continued survival of the British Liberal party, and the rise of the Social Democrats in Britain, and the New Democrats in Canada are still seen as anomolies (both Britain and Canada use single-member district elections). There are probably additional "problem" cases elsewhere in the world (my comparative politics classes were taken several years ago.) However, I think it is fair to say that for many political scientists, the interesting question is not why there are only two parties in the US, but why there are more than two in Canada and Britain.
Re:All these "new" domains are not new (Score:2)
Tonga, or rather the hey.to domain, has been bastardized fully [hey.to] to my own purposes.
Wait 'till November (Score:1)
If they have their way it will be gop.gov
Re:Should be .org. (Score:1)
So who gets to register .gov domains now? (Score:4)
Can the Reform, Green, Libertarian, and Communist parties get .govs? Or hey, how about an anarchist "no.gov"? Or a Lenny Bruce "fuckthe.gov"? ("If you can't say `Fuck,' you can't say, `Fuck the government.")
Most importantly, can I register EmperorNorton.gov to commemorate the first and only Emperor of the United States [sfmuseum.org]?
The Republican and Democratic parties are private entities with no more special legal standing than other parties, or the Church of SubGenius for that matter. If a group of them in the House want a domain, the house.gov admin can give them gop.house.gov. If the party can get a .gov, anyone should be able to.
Re:Should be .org. (Score:1)
That's true, but there are many other examples to the contrary, like Spain, and even France. Maybe Swedes are more homogenous in their political beliefs, in spite of the multiplicity of parties.
Yeah. Stability. Great. Just imagine how terribly unstable the whole system would be if there was a chance for *poor* people to get into politics - or a non-WASP majority. Gee, then the people of America may become politically aware, and a reasonable amount of people might vote, and then where would we be? Sheesh
You really see no value in benign stability? Most Americans want the government to be neither seen nor heard. It's hard to see where your sarcasm is taking you. Are you a US citizen? If you were, you'd know that poor people can get into politics, though I wouldn't start with the US Senate. I certainly wouldn't vote for somebody who couldn't get a job, though. What idiot would? And there are many non-WASPs involved in politics. And the people of America are fairly aware, especially when a poor job is being done. Most people are satisfied with their representation, however, and there is little upheaval.
Re:Should be .org. (Score:1)
How about freekevin.mil to stir things up a bit (Score:1)
TLD's for Dummies (Score:1)
Re:Political parties and government (Score:1)
--
It probably is (Score:5)
Their use of GOP instead of HRC makes me particularly suspicious that the intent of the site is for party business, not HRC business. They are using the HRC's government status to get access to an address they would otherwise not have access to. A political party should never masquerade as a government entity, we are not the Soviet Union (nor is Russia anymore).
In fact, I question the need to give the HRC (and whatever the Democrats' counterpart is, the HDC?) official house committee standing. The fact that members of Congress share a party should not be something to form a committee over, it should be an unofficial caucus at best.
----
Re:Political parties and government (Score:1)
Second, it is usually easy to tell the difference. Where does the money come from? Private donations or tax dollars? Parties, although they probably do receive some government funds, receive most of their money from private donations, thus that ARE NOT part of government.
Re:No, this isn't a mistake, perhaps NOPE (Score:1)
Maybe you're right, but gop.gov is much simpler, and that Conference Committee is probably going to be here longer than the IRS.
An interesting experiment would be, as you suggested, to have the Democrats register DEMOCRATS.GOV, or better yet, INDEPENDENTS.GOV, and see what kind of stink that would raise
Now, I'm sure the Dems could do this - they have a Conference Committee, too. But there is no 'Independent' conference in the House. There is only one Independent member, and he organizes with the Dems.
Now what I find even more interesting is that CAIS.COM, the nameservice provider for GOP.GOV, has a banner image of a major city skyline being destroyed in massive, flaming explosion. Coming on the heels of the Senate voting down participation in the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, my paranoid conspiracy theory engine purrs...
hehe- that's funny. But what dumbass would sign an unverifiable treaty? The image of a burning city would be more likable if the skyline was DC instead of NYC, though. ;)
All these "new" domains are not new (Score:2)
Both of these domains quite verifiably belong to those countries--and if you notice, the global TLDs section ONLY has .com, .edu, .gov, .int, .mil, .net, and .org. Everything else is a country.
/me expresses his disgust at the abuse of the domain name system.
And, they hijack you to boot! (Score:1)
...but characteristic of GOP Internet understandin (Score:1)
In fact, although some would say this is a violation of an obscure, subtle, lesser known rule of the net... I would say that this is an example of how the GOP don't know or care to really know the culture and rules and how things work on the Net.
Yet, they want to legislate it.
The time to complain about domain names and TLD (Score:3)
Years ago, non network entites registered
But as soon as you had to pay for the domain, as long as you had the money, you were able to register what you want.
The time to complain was back when the first non
My personal favorite is wildwildwest.net - a domain to promote a movie has exactly WHAT to do with offering network services? Warner Brothers didn't answer my e-mail asking that question, and the InterNIC's e-mail was like "So what".
If they allow GOP.gov, then
What it comes down to. (Score:2)
The evolution of the American political process has led people to equate the parties with government, but the fact remains that the Republican and Democratic parties are not part of the government.
To me, the GOP's efforts to secure a
Re:It probably is (Score:1)
Hate to break it to you, but the political parties pretty much act like they are the elected government...and for good reason. Hopefully, this reason will go away within our lifetimes - but until then, the Democrats and Republicans are, for the most part, the de facto American government.
Re:usps.com (Score:1)
Re:It's use, not abuse (Score:1)
I suspect however, that at some point, Niue will either get a new namespace if the current system gets scrapped, or that Niue will be assigned a new country code. Same with Tonga.
Re:What about USPS? (Score:1)
Re:All these "new" domains are not new (Score:1)
While I think that the "domain name crunch" is all hype (kxq7m_zy.com is as good a domain name as any), and that these businessmen went about this in the wrong way, it was with the permission, even blessings, of those countries. They get their infrastructure upgraded, the businessmen make their money, and greedy, rapacious Americans (but I repeat myself) get their shiny, new, 1-word domain status symbols to park in their driveways next to their shiny new BMWs.
dot com (Score:3)
Hmmm. eSenator.com -> buy yourself an ear in American politics. Methinks I have a new startup idea.
Re:All these "new" domains are not new (Score:1)
What about it? .arpa is not a TLD--not according to RFC 1591. And if it is, show me a site that uses it--doing a quick search in google, I came up with no .arpa domains.
Re:Should be .org. (Score:1)
>You're throwing away your vote. The only libertarian who are ever going to vote in Congress are going to be elected as Republicans, like Ron Paul (R-TX), who was previously the Libertarian candidate for President. If enough libertarians had his sense, they could actually accomplish something within the GOP.
Except that being in the GOP is antithetical to the idea of Libertarianism. In fact, at its deepest heart, being in the LP is antithetical to being a libertarian, but as you say, we have to work within reality.
When I vote LP, I am NOT throwing away my vote. If I simply failed to vote, THEN I would be throwing it away. But, by voting LP, I am voting None Of The Above, which is an entirely different matter. It's an active statement, rather than passive disinterest.
By the way, in many parts of the country, you cannot write in a ballot. If you were to attempt it, you would be required to get a form from the people checking registration, and then, with a strong possibility that you were the only one asking for such, your write-in is no longer secret.
In fact, I feel any kind of organized political parties are a serious distortion of the ideas of the founding fathers, and it was only after they were actually infected with running the government that they succumbed to the idea of parties.
Personally, I think anyone who feels like they need to run for political office, especially anyone who does so because they think others need their help in running their lives, is certifiably insane, and should be declared incompetent and confined for treatment. I'm too busy running my own life to try to run someone elses.
What do we do instead? Try the suggestion in James P. Hogan's Voyage to Yesteryear.
Which is worse: the TLD abuse or FrontPage? (Score:1)
What really pisses me off is that GOP.gov was written in: [drum roll] FrontPage.
Yes, the all-powerful Grand Old Party, powerful enough to merit its own
And, so, I hereby offer my service as web developer for GOP.gov for the low-low price of one (1) cogent.gov, free of charge, forever. Who should I talk to in GOP.gov? (FrontPage put the META NAME="generator" tag in, but the developer didn't put the META NAME="author" tag in.)
s/TDL/TLD/g (Score:1)
Re:general cluelessness happens (Score:1)
Umm, I think that was the point. But thanks for playing.
Re:...but characteristic of GOP Internet understan (Score:1)
But actually this is true of most issues, not just technical ones. Congressmen must vote every day on things they cannot possible have had time to study and understand. It's just a fact of life.
The Evil Empire sets the rules (Score:3)
Re:It probably is (Score:2)
Then you truly, truly, don't know how Congress works on a day-to-day basis. The member runs around all day meeting constituents, attending to lots of committee meetings, occasionally making speeches, going to hearings, and voting in the full House. They have only a small amount of time for learning about legislation, or party work. The Conference Committees keep members from duplicating tons and tons of effort. Most of the bills Congress votes on are incredibly complicated and non-controversial. The Conference Committees are essential to sorting all of this mess out. They are a vital organizing element of Congress.
Re:...but characteristic of GOP Internet understan (Score:1)
What with Janet "No Strong Crypto" Reno, and Louis "Wiretappin' Must Be" Freeh, I think there are plenty of people on both sides of the aisle to complain about.
Isn't .gov itself a violation of good sense (Score:1)
On a side line, I wonder why the US have a
Is that the new world order?
---
Re:.org != non-profit (Score:2)
And, actually, it doesn't really fit within the original plan for
It'd be better if we had a more complicated hierarchical structure (a la usenet) from the beginning -- slashdot.tech.news, or something. But it's probably too late for that.
--
Re:Isn't .gov itself a violation of good sense (Score:2)
No one made the rest of the world adopt the protocols and RFCs of ARPAnet/Internet; you could have all standardized on JANET's wierd reverse protocol, or stuck with UUCP, or made up something new. But Internet was the biggest and best, and so with that came the inheritance of
I'll note that no one is stopping other countries from setting up their own nameservers that don't pay attention to
Laura
Re:What about Slashdot? (Score:2)
Here's the snippet from RFC 1591 [isi.edu], written by Jon Postel himself:
"ORG - This domain is intended as the miscellaneous TLD for organizations that didn't fit anywhere else. Some non-government organizations may fit here."
.org != non-profit (Score:5)
"ORG" was NEVER meant to be restricted to non-commercial entities, despite the widesspread misconception. Check out RFC 1591 [faqs.org]:
--
No, this isn't a mistake, perhaps (Score:5)
I think the source of the misunderstanding here is that you guys think this is something coming out of the RNC (Republican Nat'l Committee) Headquarters-this is totally different. The Party Conference is an official standing sommittee of the US House, and exists as long as there are Republicans on the Hill. The Democrats could do the same thing. Any party could.
Re:What about USPS? (Score:2)
Re:gop.org (Score:2)
There should be a line drawn between special interests bodies and official government services.
What about Slashdot? (Score:4)
Re:It probably is (Score:2)
I agree that it's questionable whether or not it should be an official part of the government; but the fact is that the HRC (like its Democratic counterpart) is provided for in the House rules (established in accordance with Article I Section 5 of the Constitution).
Re:usps.com (Score:2)
I need online tracking like I need a hole in my head - I don't care what route my package takes, I just want it delivered quickly and undamaged. And if they can't do that (and they can't), I want a quick resolution, not to have to make eight phone calls to finally have someone come out to look at a computer with its case bashed in, shrug, and say, "Sorry 'bout your luck."
Sorry if I'm ranting, but UPS has managed to make my Permanent Shit List.
Re:It probably is (Score:2)
Secondly, if the purpose of these groups is to handle all the complicated technical details, preventing duplication of effort on non-controversial issues, then why are they separated by party? Every technical committee is bipartisan, these are not technical committees. My understanding is that their purpose is to make it easier for those congressmen who want to be loyal party members to see which bills they are supposed to be voting for or against.
Sure enough, a quick look at these websites show them both to be sharply partisan. The HRC opens with bright red text saying "STOP THE RAID", referring to the GOP's stand on recent social security debates. The HDC hides it a little better, but the partisan sentiment is at least as strong on their site.
Again, these are clearly extensions of the political parties, why do they have official government standing? Secondly, why does the HRC, who already have a website, need another one; particularly one whose name carries the implication that the Republican Party is a core government agency?!?
----
Re:Political parties and government (Score:2)
I hate to tell you this but this tendency towards a two-party system predates TV. You are partially right when you say that there have always been multiple parties, but the system is set up to encourage two main parties.
Other parties are formed when the two "official" parties lose touch due to the rise of a new political reality. They are usually small, single-issue parties and very often disappear. Sometimes they grow and become one of the two dominant political parties (like the GOP did circa the Civil War when the other parties became paralyzed by the foremost issue of the day: slavery).
If you would like to learn more about the political party system in the U.S., be sure to read Dynamics of the Party System : Alignment and Realignment of Political Parties in the United States by James L. Sundquist. It illustrates how political parties must remain relevant or they will either die out or be absorbed by another party.
And yes, I studied Political Science and History in college...
--
Re:usps.com (Score:2)
Is postal mail important enough to warrant government intervention to ensure universal one-price service? I dunno. Most of mine goes right to the recycling bin. (And I mean "right to" - I have a small trash can right underneath my mailbox, don't even bother bringing the junk into the house anymore.)
I tell you this, though: after my experience with UPS's abysmal customer service when they damaged two packages of mine, USPS looks a whole lot better than it used to! Their "Priority Mail" service is a pretty good deal.
EXACTLY (Score:2)
The price is almost irrelevant. The real issue is that if it was a private corporation, they would instantly disenfranchise anybody living in that shack at the top of a mountain- thus getting the lower price. Well, other countries may feel differently (socialist ones may actually understand this even better than we do!) but the USA was founded on the concept that _everyone_ counts, and that the government looks after everybody's interests, as best it can- very likely unimpressively, but you have to give it points just for being willing to try. The mail system is a perfect example- it is in fact pretty competitive on price with the private corporations (though you can pay extra to a private corporation whose representative then refuses to bother to knock on your door and squanders the time savings you thought you were buying), but the real issue is what the private corporations will refuse to do because it's a money sink- who they'll put the screws to in order to make better offers to the majority.
Damn right it's socialist thinking. This nation was founded on little carefully chosen bits of socialist thinking. It's a problem when that is lightly brushed aside. Why yes, let's disband the post office! Hell, let's disband the judicial system, and law enforcement, and people can take their gripes and concerns, for instance about fraud practiced by big corporations, or negligence resulting in loss of life, to efficient for-pay courts paid for by the mysteriously immune-from-guilt defendants! Then they can be informed of the loss of their suit through a for-pay mail system that refuses to deliver to an address that won't co-pay (or something- now wouldn't that be profitable: pay to get your mail!). Most efficiently of all, we could have the for-pay law enforcement take notice of these miserable plebian worthless drags on the country, and go out and shoot them in the head, whereby the whole nation can be made to run more efficiently and profitably!
If anybody thinks that isn't sarcasm, go see a doctor...
Re:What about USPS? (Score:2)
For that matter, what the Post Office? Sure, we've got usps.gov, but its also usps.com. Surely the USPS part of the government and not allowed to be a
IRS.Gov? MyName.Gov? (Score:2)
As I've been politically active, I asked NIC.Gov if I can register my name under .Gov also. I wonder how large a staff they'll need to monitor when political clubs drop below the registration requirements and get de-registered.
But I am surprised that AlGore didn't already get GOP.Gov registered to the GOvernment Printing office...