Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:You mean CIA is taking over new TLD's (Score 1) 181

by rs79 (#49157221) Attached to: Google Taking Over New TLDs

You might with to look to see who attended the interagency task force that caused DoC/NTIA to end up with names and numbers in their bailiwick in the first place.

What you're suggesting is akin gto "omg Santa's gonna take over xmas!"

See also the SAIC/General Atomics connection to the original NSF / Internic cooperative agreement.

Comment: Re:All the more reason (Score 1) 181

by rs79 (#49157199) Attached to: Google Taking Over New TLDs

Some are, some aren't. Very few things are 100%

Te problem is he cost is so high (it was free but you had to have infrastructure and a clue when we tried) that it's discouraged those trying to do some good and leaves it more as a venue for speculative types. Which was what ICANN was purported to prevent. Oh irony I do love you so.

Comment: Re:Express Disapproval? (Score 1) 181

by rs79 (#49156959) Attached to: Google Taking Over New TLDs

It's way too late, they've had numerous public comment periods and that's all over now.

If it wasn't, ICANN would be the one to complain to. You would fly to a meeting and make your case to the board in the part where comments are taken from the audience. Stand in line and when you get your two minute chance at the microphone you can tell your story.

ICANN will thank you for your and will then says "next!".

I wish I were making this up.

Comment: Re:And no one cares (Score 2) 181

by rs79 (#49156931) Attached to: Google Taking Over New TLDs

That is very true. You have to remember that when this domain stuff started some of the actors involved still used CRTs and an old Sun and had never used the web. Postels thesis advisor's thesis advisor (Einar Stefferud) and I became good friends and I talked him into buying a laptop so could do something other than say "what is this" when I sent him a URL.

Stef was thesis advisor to a lot of people: Dave Farber, Brian Reid, etc.He was one of the coolest people ever.

Search engines were very new and there wasn't much in them at the time.

Now? NOW? I know a guy that to get to types gmail into google and cicks on the link. You're quite right most people don't get domains now, give them a name to use and they type the fucking thing into Google. Tell them they can type the name directly into the URL bar and they say "meh, this works".


Comment: is for all (Score 1) 181

by rs79 (#49156909) Attached to: Google Taking Over New TLDs

.delta is the canonical example. Who gets this, Delta Faucets or Delta Airlines?

I turned on the tap and didn't get an airline schedule. Man, I'm one confused consumer.

(Trademarks exists to 1) identify the source of good or a service in a specific geographical area and 2) "consumer confusion" is the metric by which you judge infringement)

Comment: (Score 1) 181

by rs79 (#49156899) Attached to: Google Taking Over New TLDs

It's complicated.

the RFC series defines what TLDs are not usable they're for test and local use.

ICANN maintains a list of second level words you will not use. Fifteen years ago this was "nasa" and "olympic" and it's grown substantially since then to incide batshit insane stuff like the list of all pharmaceuticals. I haven't looked in a while but I think "caffeine" was one of them. There's probably more now, the IP lawyers had their way with ICANN for a decade before any new tlds saw the light of day fifteen years after Postel said "hey, lets do this, start building registries folks. Send your TLD applications to IANA". They did and Jon published a lit of all the applications and names he received.

Pursuant to RFC 1591 says "first come first served" and "these principles apply to all levels of the DNS". So of course ICANN and the lawyers just ignored it.

That is, their fist move was to ignore the consensus we codified in the RFC series. Pretty impressive for an organization whose mandate when chartered by the USG was to "measure and implement the consensus of the internet community".

Here's another one - the $25 domain renewal late fee. Where is the "consensus of the community" for that one? It's a regressive tax ad one only the registrar's want. The registries don't care they never see it.

So we have a case where 0.000000000001% of the net wants it, it costs the users millions. How is this the "consensus of the internet community".

Cost to provision any domain is under one cent. If you're not in the US currency exchange and all the bullshit fees are edging the price of lapsed domain near to the $100 point which is where the net went to war a dozen years ago to counter, which let to ICANN who then enabled the problem they were created to solve.

Can you tell the government and lawyers had their hands all over this or what?

This is why the net neutrality legislation makes me nervous, the only other tie th e guvmint got involved they screwed the pooch badly, with the same apparent good intent then as now.

Comment: Re: Who did the study? (Score 2, Insightful) 323

by rs79 (#49154675) Attached to: We Stopped At Two Nuclear Bombs; We Can Stop At Two Degrees.

Who is NASA shilling for when they say "there has been no warming this century" ?

Who was NASA shilling for when the pointed out in 2010 the IPCC model was indeed broken in the exact same way Freeman Dyson said it was?

Who was James "Gaia theory" Lovelock shilling for when he said "I was wrong, and being alarmist . CO2 has gone up but the temperature hasn't risen this century. But them I'm not getting a climate grant so I can say that".

Who is the national snow and ice center shilling for when they point out the arctic ice as grown steadily for three years?

If you're so sure it's warming, how much warmer has it been each year compare to the previous? Why don't you know this? Why have all the graphs in the press shtoped showing up?

Because the temperature had flatlined that's why. Only the Daily Mail got this right. Imagine a world where out of all the newspaper only the Daily Mail had data that aligned with NASA and CERN, the rest misinterpreted it.

Don' t give me that "hottest year" crap, the 2014 data won't be qualified until march 2015. Not that one year indicated a trend.

At some point the math will run out. "Truthout" printed this:

"The last time we had this discussion was 2013, remember? Before that it was 2010. Before that it was 2005, and everything started with the Super El Nino in 1998. Statistically, saying that 2014 was the hottest year ever is a very valid thing, and if you understand statistics, I am envious of you."

Maybe if you hadn't skipped grade 10 stats you wouldn't be so confuzzled.

"But the global average temperature for these years, and every year since 1998 except 1999 and 2000, have all been virtually tied, if one is a casual civilian statistician watching or reading reporting on television or other media. But a few things have been overlooked in this and the periodic media outbursts that have preceded this event."

Look, I'm no math major... oh wait, yes, yes I am a math major. Not that that matters, "stats for the humanities" will also learn 'ya that when a record is tied for sixteen years that sorta mean it's NOT GOING UP. How many math classes do you have to skip to write something that fucking stupid? All of them?

When did the US become such a fact free zone?

The fact that The Guardian just got popped for publishing ghostwritten climate article as stories when they're ads may not help.

As a liberal I'm just revolted at this dumbing down. What the hell kind of world has a Comedian pretend to be a "science guy" with no science degree but who contradicts the guy that took over Einstein's job? And secretly influences media because of his "fame". Blinky the science clown strikes again.

Facts used to matter it he US.

Comment: Re:Who did the study? (Score 0) 323

by rs79 (#49154587) Attached to: We Stopped At Two Nuclear Bombs; We Can Stop At Two Degrees.

Slashdot, where facts go to die under the weight of a commercial sponsored misinformation campaign. To future historians looking at this - we're so sorry. Some of us actually know better.

To the rest of you: y'all have a lot of reading to do. Stop listening t opinions on blogs and introduce yourself to the actual data. What you don't know would make a great book.

Why and how America has gone down the shitter

It can all be summed up by the last part of THAT speech. "We used to aspire to itelligence not belittle it. We used to be informed."

The longer the title, the less important the job.