talideon

80 ms·

841.
by talideon 11y ago
I've came across reasons, but they've always been pretty marginal, such as somebody checking in sensitive credentials without realising what they were doing.
842.
by talideon 11y ago
Only in extreme circumstances where something sensitive (such as credentials) or otherwise (such as other people's copyrighted assets, or .svn directories in the case of some repos that were moved from SVN to get in a hamfisted manner)
843.
by talideon 11y ago
The source, including the generation scripts, is here: https://github.com/BSVino/docs.gl I haven't got around to reading through the repo yet, so I can't say.
844.
by talideon 11y ago
Not at all, because the free language tool is just half of what they do. The part that actually makes the money is crowdsourced translations, which are done by more advanced students as practice.
845.
by talideon 11y ago
Pretty normal for the BSD kernels. A lot of the very basic datastructures are defined as macros. For instance, here's queue.h: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/head/sys/sys/queue.h?revisio...
846.
by talideon 11y ago
Exactly! And that's an excellent presentation that outlines what's really cool about IOCPs.
847.
by talideon 11y ago
Yes, even Windows has good stuff under all that legacy crap, and IOCPs are one of those things. The actual low-level APIs - and I'm talking kernel-level stuff here - aren't that bad. The bad stuff is what's layered on top o
848.
by talideon 11y ago
Come back to us when you've found a way to implement the good stuff that Windows has, such as IOCPs: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa3... And no, epoll isn't enough.
849.
by talideon 11y ago
...just like the executive in the US, which has only one (indirectly) elected member: the president.
850.
by talideon 11y ago
A big part of that is likely down to the fact that while static SVG rendering works just fine, the dynamic side of it hasn't got the same amount of love. Maybe as SVG gets more traction, we'll see browsers improve in that regard.
851.
by talideon 11y ago
They might've proven themselves to be bad actors, but they're backed by national governments, and that gives them a lot of sway when it comes to these things. LEAs do have a legitimate interest in this kind of thing because domain
852.
by talideon 11y ago
BTW, you shouldn't use a third-party WHOIS privacy service. That puts you in breach of ICANN-mandated T&Cs as you've effectively provided bogus contact information to the registrar.
853.
by talideon 11y ago
It's barely worth differentiating between Demand Media and Rightside Group (and Donuts, for that matter).
854.
by talideon 11y ago
Still better than having to pay redemption fees.
855.
by talideon 11y ago
Get WHOIS privacy from your registrar. If you've provided invalid contact information on the domain, you're in breach of the TOS, as ICANN requires that domains have accurate contact data on them.
856.
by talideon 11y ago
Well, blame the law-enforcement agencies: they're the ones that forced ICANN's hand on this. The registrars, particularly the European ones, fought back, and the policy is nowhere near as bad as it once was going to be. However, e
857.
by talideon 11y ago
You're thinking of WDRP emails. The WAP emails you'll be receiving are something different, and you will be required to respond. If the email bounces, or if you don't confirm the email within 15 days, you risk your domain bei
858.
by talideon 11y ago
You can't ignore the WAP emails. You have to affirm that the details are correct. If you'd like to read the specification, it's here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-20...
859.
by talideon 11y ago
Nope. This policy, WAP (WHOIS accuracy program), was enacted as part of the 2013 ICANN RAA. ghshephard is thinking of WDRP (WHOIS data reminder policy) emails, which came in as part of the 2003 RAA. The new policy, is independet of the WDRP
860.
by talideon 11y ago
You're wrong. What you've been seeing are WDRP emails. Those you can ignore. WAP is something completely different: you must follow the instructions outlined in the email, or your domain will be suspended.
861.
by talideon 11y ago
As individuals, yeah, but I know plenty of what goes on behind the scenes, and what goes on in the mailing lists is only a fraction of the story. A savvy registrar can have plenty of soft power if they know what they're doing. BTW, you
862.
by talideon 11y ago
If you can think of a way to make an alternative DNS root take off, I'm all ears. If you can some up with a non-hierarchical alternative to DNS that (a) is as fast as DNS, (b) isn't prone to spoofing or squatting, (c) isn't r
863.
by talideon 11y ago
Though some, such as Nominet (*.uk) are bringing in not dissimilar procedures: http://www.nominet.org.uk/how-participate/policy-development... Many ccTLD registries have stricter policies when it comes to WHOIS data, a
864.
by talideon 11y ago
They can't. They're contractually required to contact you about this stuff.
865.
by talideon 11y ago
Oh, and one other thing: while other registrars tried to resist stuff like this being added to the 2013 RAA, EasyDNS were one of the registrars that sat on the sideline and did nothing. Let's just say I don't have too much time fo
866.
by talideon 11y ago
No, I don't feel that charging for something is scummy. I do feel that charging for unsuspending a domain due to WAP is scummy. If some other registrar wasn't to do it, fair enough, but given the cost of unsuspending them approach
867.
by talideon 11y ago
Yup, they can, but monetising that kind of thing would be pretty scummy. After all, section five of the spec states that all we need to do is put it on client hold and prevent outgoing transfers, though we can potentially terminate it by pu
868.
by talideon 11y ago
Yup, but for customers, it's just a periodic annoyance. For registrar, it's a constant support overhead. I expect domain pricing to increase as more registrars have to move over to the 2013 RAA. Nobody's happy with this crap.
869.
by talideon 11y ago
If your domain is with a scummy registrar, then you're screwed regardless. It has nothing to do with WHOIS privacy.
870.
by talideon 11y ago
Law enforcement were still the ones who demanded it. ICANN and the registrars didn't particularly want this. In fact, what the LEAs were originally demanding was full verification and validation of all contact details supplied to the r

More ›