Why did they disallow dotless domains? Honest qyestion.
As an alternative, one could write and distribute a "free" web browser with a search box that looks like an address bar where the search goes to a particular search engine that sells ads. One might call it "omnibox" or something like that.
Or one could even add code to the browser so that a dotless domain typed into the address bar automatically submits the string typed to a particular search engine and sends the user to the website that is the first search result.
It seems like these alternatives are not enough to capture all address bar traffic... because some companies that employ the above alteratives (you know who) still applied for new gTLDs that appear to be valuable only as dotless domains.
In other words, it seems like companies want to use all three strategies to capture address bar traffic:
1. A dotless domain typed in the address bar redirects to first search result of a particular search engine.
2. A dotless domain typed in a search box, that could be (and is) mistaken for an address bar, searches a particular search engine instead of causing a DNS lookup.
3. A dotless domain typed in the address bar of a browser that does not do 1. or 2. (e.g., an alternative to the major "modern" browsers) performs a DNS lookup where search engine/browser/ad sales company is the registrar for the dotless domain looked up. That is, they paid off ICANN ($185,000+) to have sole control of what some call a "public resource" (domain address space).
There are other strategies that can also capture strings typed into the address bar, such as the NXDOMAIN redirect nonsense, but I'll stop here.
"What makes you think Mozilla does not pay taxes?"
Corporate structure. (Mozilla Corp. is wholly owned subsidiary of Mozilla Foundation. Only Mozilla Corporation pays taxes.)
2008 IRS audit.
2012 settlement with IRS.
Perhaps a better statement would have been that Mozilla tries to avoid paying taxes.
Anyway, if what you say is true regarding compilation and exclusion of the DRM code then I'm not sure what everyone in thie thread is complaining about.
Now, how easy is it to compile Firefox these days?
I have not done it in years.
I gave up on X. (Following your exact advice, even with open source: "Don't install it.")
I use UNIX with no graphics layer and simpler text only browsers and even simpler TCP clients to retrieve content. Then if necessary I view it on graphical devices running closed source software.
The interesting thing is when I want to watch video, the last thing I need is a "browser". The core of the video player software I use is the ffmpeg libraries which have nothing to do with web browsers.
I only use HTTP (and other protocols) to transfer content (i.e., to request it), not to watch it.
I see no reason why a single application has to support both (request/transfer and playback).
Why video players have to support "streaming" or why "web browsers" have to play video are still open questions in my mind.
But that's just me. Stuck in the UNIX "one utility, one job" mindset.
Correct me if I am wrong, but maybe one way to look at the CFAA or situations like this one is that every website has the right to deny access to any particular user.
This can be done via firewall ruleset but also via cease and desist letter.
That seems reasonable.
But... for this type of approach to make sense with respect to a website that wants as much traffic as posssible, we have to make certain assumptions.
One assumption is that few if any users will automate their usage.
If hundreds of people began to write their own "apps" to automate how they use this website, then the lawyers would have a more serious problem that they might not be able to solve.
The website operators might have to reconsider their access model.
Could they move to a subscription-only service?
Could they use a whitelist of IP address blocks?
Could they still be competitive if they began to move away from open access?
In my opinion, the practicality of the cease and desist letter approach to website access (anyone can access except if we tell you to stop) is reliant on expected patterns of usage.
When kids learn how to program in school, should that day ever come, then they will learn how to automate. They wil be able to write their own "apps".
Will cease and desist letters and the judicial system be fully automated at that point? (The evolution of the DMCA comes to mind.)
The RIAA and others have tried to sue large groups of users all at once and it did not achieve anything except bad PR. Could website operators bring proceedings against large numbers of users and succeed?
I am under the impression that the information that this suit could have revealed about Mr Jobs' character was potentially far more damaging than any settlement or award the defendants might have to pay.
To put it another way, I get the impression that settlement here is primarily for PR damage control, and only secondarily for limiting what the defendants must ultimately pay.
Does this idea have any support? If I am wrong, please tell me why.
Does the HN title accurately reflect the article?
Was this a wordlwide study?
The title of the article is
"U.S. children read, but not well or often: report"
Who said it did? Consider that I was commenting in a general sense.
djb's work, whether it's coding style or build system or something else, tends to differ from what is "popular".
The parent's comment is along the lines of: what is unfamiliar can appear more difficult, but after the adjustment it may actually appear easier than the prior alternative.
If you view the parent's comment in this light, then you will see that both the Linux kernel coding style and the GNU build system are very familiar for lots of folks.
If you are migrating to using tinyssh and other software that follow's djb's style for the first time, then you will no doubt have to "get used to it" and you might even perceive it as being difficult.
To be crystal clear, I'm not singling out the Linux kernel or the GNU build system. The GNU build system is but one example; the Linux kernel coding style is another.
I could make a lengthy list of "familiar", popular approaches that I could argue are inferior to djb's approach to the same task.
It's just my opinion. If you disagree, feel free to state your own opinion.
"You (presumably) and I have beaten ourselves into submission to the Linux style; the authors' haven't."
An awakening!
Is it really so terrible to have things compile quickly and without the usual ./configure nonsense? It seems there are an infinite number of ways an author can organise her project using ./configure; for every one I have to spend time figuring out what they have done.
One of my favourite aspects of djb's build approach (which is what is being used here) is that it's easier (than with the popular build systems) to change compiler and linker options and make static binaries: in most cases, simple edit the conf-* files. Thankfully, authors who use djb's approach usually do not vary much from the model. This means less time spent figuring out how things are organised.
I like (portable) open source software that compiles quickly and cleanly.
djb has continued to deliver on this point.
Nice to see someone discovering this build system for the first time.
Sorry for the misquote. I guess that my misquote completely misrepresents the issue?
I never said the data should be not provided in an API.
If you read closely (for more than only "errors"), then you would observe the word "option".
That word is there for a reason.
The role of the FTP site (or whatever protocol you prefer) is to transfer the raw data in bulk to my local media.
Then I move it into my own database of choice and write my own code to access it.
Anyway, fear not. Your preferred www "API" world is not in jeopardy.
Cogent arguments why raw, bulk _public data_ _should never be provided_ in addition to rate-limited, by the slice snippets via "APIs" and third party "app developers" are welcome.
Crawling others' websites then selling ads. <--- Blekko
Scraping others' websites then selling ads. <--- ????
Selling access to user-generated content. <--- OSVDB
Amusing to watch these folks argue about ethics.
Who owns the copyrights in this data? Surely not the one who is demanding that you pay a license fee. These "services" are middlemen, plain and simple.
This might be why McAfee was wondering about how much manual curation is done.
Maybe that is the only possible theory of how OSVDB could assert any rights in the data (and only in a select few jurisdictions).
Great story. It is good to know that some programmers do learn over time.
For every 1 story like yours there are probably 10 where someone is still traying to get "revenge" by saying nasty things about you know who.
Those more common stories get replicated through the wires and the end result is that no one cares about programming anymore; they are simply interested in discussing interpersonal relations.
Would you rather have your software written by a foolish programmer who is pleasantly tactful or a competent and conservative one who is tactless?
The answer of course varies depending on what you are really after.
Customers of a business care about who sits on the Board and exercise their right to take their business elsewhere.
The horror!
It sounds like the whimper of someone who stands to gain from a Dropbox IPO.
"There is only one boss-the customer. And he can fire everybody in the company from the chairman on down, simply by spending his money somewhere else." - Sam Walton
As an alternative, one could write and distribute a "free" web browser with a search box that looks like an address bar where the search goes to a particular search engine that sells ads. One might call it "omnibox" or something like that.
Or one could even add code to the browser so that a dotless domain typed into the address bar automatically submits the string typed to a particular search engine and sends the user to the website that is the first search result.
It seems like these alternatives are not enough to capture all address bar traffic... because some companies that employ the above alteratives (you know who) still applied for new gTLDs that appear to be valuable only as dotless domains.
In other words, it seems like companies want to use all three strategies to capture address bar traffic:
There are other strategies that can also capture strings typed into the address bar, such as the NXDOMAIN redirect nonsense, but I'll stop here.