What "value" did Jar Jar add?

APK: the application sounds like it does a great job of fetching the data, but it seems much more useful to stick that data inside a DNS proxy or recursive resolver. Even if the resources required to run it are prohibitive for a crappy wifi router, it could be run on a box on the local network, and the crappy router uses it as its DNS resolver.

Then when I manage my home network of varying devices (tablets, phones, mixed OS laptops & desktops, even visitors) they will all get the benefit of DNS-level filtering.

I would manage a corporate network in a similar way. During DHCP when they get some local DNS resolvers, or hard-coded, the 1-3 local resolvers do all the DNS filtering for the entire network. A unified web UI on the master DNS resolver could micro-manage the rules if necessary (unblock something, add a manual block, local dns resolution, etc).

Only 3 letter strings and longer were allowed.

Multiple applicants applied for .dot

Google: https://gtldresult.icann.org/a...
Dish: https://gtldresult.icann.org/a...

The problems with .biz and certainly .info were massive price reductions by the registry operators. They made the registration of domains so cheap it was impossible to resist by scammers. The more expensive a domain, the less scams/spam there is from the TLD overall.

Technically it was the US Dept of Commerce that didn't want .XXX (those free speech haters!)

Signing doesn't affect the distributed problem. If you want .DNS and I want .DNS, we can both sign our own TLDs with different keys and we're in the same situation.

I suppose if you get your key signed by 1000 of your friends, and mine is only signed by 5, then yours becomes more popular. Until your 999th friend sends spam from your domain, and now everyone starts signing my key and it becomes more authoritative.

Even in a block chain type system, domains or TLDs would be awarded first come, first served (like today with the hierarchical system) and then transferred from one party to another (like today).

The only difference would be the cost. Should it be inverted? The first TLD on the DNS block chain would be very, very expensive, but the last million would be inconsequential.

You should really run your own set of alternate root servers.

Then we can all just point our routers or /etc/resolv.conf to your servers, and gain all your expertise without managing shit ourselves.

And it was fair in the early days of the Internet, BEFORE you actually had to "register" a domain name.

Back then, DNS was a giant hosts file (queue APK) where one dude updated it and most people replicated it.

They chose to isolate countries based on the 2 character ISO code, and it stuck.

This app has been available since Android 2.1 or earlier, and needs root access of course:
http://www.appbrain.com/app/pe...

Google has had years to implement user-chosen permissions revocation. Even hidden in Developer Tools under Settings would have at least given app developers the chance to test their apps against losing permissions.

Google's motives for removing fine-grained permission are all speculative at this point. Some argue that Google removed permission control because they don't want a user backlash against "broken apps" and don't want to slow down their marketshare growth.

I would counter that argument with those developers should get flooded with broken app messages so they can re-design their apps to still function or quit altogether if a given permission was not available to it. E.g. The shady Dictionary App should still work if geo-location fails (which it does if you've disallowed location for all apps in the global settings).