In a perfect world, DNS would not have been setup in such a way that everyone would be using the same one. Here is my proposal to god so he can go back and change history.

ICANN makes one tld, I don't care the name, perhaps .icann. They become the dominant system and everyone has them setup as the default. They may have com.icann, net.icann, etc. However, this is not necessary.

I then decide ICANN is doing something stupid. They are handling it all wrong and I can do better. I decide to make .edu which will be so much better than .edu.icann. It is EASY and normal to install another TLD from another company.

ICANN is very US centric and follows US laws. China decides they want to control DNS... fine. All they need to do is make there own and then mandate that computers sold in the country use it. I disagree with this... but it would not affect the rest of the internet.

I use google very often. Google has a tld. I install it and I can now can go to maps.google instead of maps.google.icann.

US blocks the pirate bay dns. Good thing I have .pirate tld installed. And if I didn't, I could look up the dns info on some central hub.

What about conflicts? How do we handle ports? Name conflicts would happen occasionally, people would need to be smart enough to ignore them.

How can you trust tlds? You get them from official websites. You assign trust as necessary. People tend to trust a couple big ones because everyone uses them.

Smart people will add dns info to the links they post. For example dns-FFFFFFFF://http://google.icann. In this case, the dns master IP is included in the link (as a hex string). Because of fishing attempts, a browser will point out with a glaring error message (ssl like) that something is horribly wrong if one of your known TLDs has a different dns hex. People will use bookmarks or add the TLD if they so choose.

This is in my opinion of the perfect system. Decentralized and left in the user's hands. Some may think I give users too much credit, but the end result would be a couple big guys and a common idea that you only accept tlds from big companies. Centralization would naturally occur, but it would not be forced.

-- Stephen

I am not sure if I am a google fanboy or not. I just use the best product which is often Google. I use GMail, Chromium, and Google Search. I have android on my phone/laptop and contributed to the Go Programming Language. What makes me probably not a google fanboy is I would drop any one of their products in a heartbeat if I found something better. Looking at the changes the EU wants, my answer to all but one is that I would personally be upset if they did what the EU wanted.

None of the EU's business. I like to see results from other services. It is useful.

I like to see user reviews in my search results. I find it useful.

This I agree with. It is wrong for Google to do these types of things. I would probably still not want the government to stop them... but that is because I lean libertarian. As much as I dislike anti-trust laws, this is what they are supposed to stop. I will save arguments over anti-trust laws for another day. But the other changes the EU wants are for Google to make their product less useful out of fairness to other companies. I don't care if the fact that Google has the money and power to make a better product makes it harder for others to compete. That is no reason to regulate them into removing features.

You do not quite understand. It is entirely possible. Please read up on refundable tax credits. When I lived with my mother, a single mother of two who was a secretary, she had truly negative tax liability. This was not withholding. We subtracted withholding before coming to this conclusion. She makes some extra cash working for H&R Block (doing taxes) during tax season, so she is not tax illiterate. So for who chose negative? I imagine there are many people who get negative tax liabilities. But that percentage is a bit too high based on the general population of slashdot. Probably some idiots who did not understand that you need to subtract withholding. Also, for anyone who wonders why the US is in so much debt, this does not help.

The QOTD at the bottom of the page so perfectly matched this story.

It is not exactly renewable, but we have enough material for it. Nuclear is clean and can produce a lot of power. You would not even need to pay people to implement it! Just remove the regulations that make it impossible to build.

In other words, you can pay them to host your video for you. BBC's data moves at the same speed and with the same priority as that ninja guy's data. The difference is that BBC's data will move less distance because it is being hosted by the ISP near the user. Amazon does the same thing with cloud front except that it is not an ISP and may not be able to do it as efficiently.

This is absolutly true. If you are not willing to pay for premium content hosting from the ISP, you will have less efficent service. However, that is becase the data is being hosted in a new way that could not be done before. Not because other data is being slowed down. This is not a direct threat to net neutrality. This is yet another buisness model/industry for ISPs to expand to.

No, instead us lower classes should just take from the rich! They are throwing around too much money in a way that displeases you, they should be taxed more.

Now, I don't actually think this "moral commitment" means anything, but that does not matter. People donating because are compassionate (or at least want to look like they are) is much better morally than it being taken from them by force.

Of course, it would be even better if they didn't tell anyone or make an agreement and just did it. Of course, they want to look compassionate more than be compassionate.

Lets just say for a moment that these machines could not be used badly. Also, people would actually buy them. Now what?

Case 1: The car that won't move
So, there is a fire in the parking garage I am in. Being nice to their customers they only allow them to drive at 5mph. Well... I won't live to sue

Case 2: NO ME GUSTA CELL

I don't like people talking on cell phones. I think it is not nice. When I walk past people on the street their cell phones stop working. It turns out one of them was calling 911. Of course the powers that be made sure 911 works even with a kill switch. What they did not expect is that a defect in the phone causes it to malfunction when it gets the signal after the call has been started.

I could continue. But limiting people by technology does not work. If a person enforces a no phone policy, he will make exceptions in the case of 911 or something else. He will not care you are driving 50mph in a 5mph zone do to fire about to engulf you. Computers are just not smart enough to know when to bend the rules.