jgowdy

McConnell has already released a statement saying there WILL be a vote on a Trump nomination.

This is a complete lie and total slander of GoDaddy. https://domaininvesting.com/godaddy-still-not-frontrunning-d...

The whois information is masked, because that's what we do to protect customer privacy.

https://domaininvesting.com/godaddy-whois-records-no-more-co...

It's registered to someone in New York, not to GoDaddy.

Registrant Organization: Registrant State/Province: New York Registrant Country: US

This is a lie and total slander of GoDaddy. https://domaininvesting.com/godaddy-still-not-frontrunning-d... The whois information is masked, because that's what we do to protect customer privacy.

https://domaininvesting.com/godaddy-whois-records-no-more-co...

It's registered to someone in New York, not to GoDaddy.

Registrant Organization: Registrant State/Province: New York Registrant Country: US

That's because this is a lie and total slander of GoDaddy. https://domaininvesting.com/godaddy-still-not-frontrunning-d...

The whois information is masked, because that's what we do to protect customer privacy.

https://domaininvesting.com/godaddy-whois-records-no-more-co...

It's registered to someone in New York, not to GoDaddy.

Registrant Organization: Registrant State/Province: New York Registrant Country: US

Just so you know, this is a complete lie and total slander of GoDaddy. https://domaininvesting.com/godaddy-still-not-frontrunning-d...

The whois information is masked, because that's what we do to protect customer privacy.

https://domaininvesting.com/godaddy-whois-records-no-more-co...

It's registered to someone in New York, not to GoDaddy.

Registrant Organization: Registrant State/Province: New York Registrant Country: US

Just so you know, this is a complete lie and total slander of GoDaddy.

https://domaininvesting.com/godaddy-still-not-frontrunning-d...

The whois information is masked, because that's what we do to protect customer privacy.

https://domaininvesting.com/godaddy-whois-records-no-more-co...

It's registered to someone in New York, not to GoDaddy.

Registrant Organization: Registrant State/Province: New York Registrant Country: US

I'm just going to nit on your phrasing here. NANP and the associated +1 country code originated from the United States. Technically I am talking about "changing theirs." The fact that it's very reasonably shared with other North American countries in a manner that allows for plenary power on the part of each other member nation is the source of this issue. I'm suggesting the US revise NANP and put more conditions on sharing the +1 country code, although most preferably with a consensus of the other members.

Bad actors in different nations than consumers shouldn't be able to leverage sovereignty or agreements like NANP to be bad actors with impunity.

Good point. The purpose of my comment you replied to above was that there should be either pricing normalization such that callers aren't surprised, OR split the +1 country code.

Its not just "kick everyone out of the US country code", it's protect consumers by principle of least surprise sorta. But again, this only protects against toll fraud and not all of the other "Appear to be in a nation you aren't" scams.

I tried to be clear that I believe the principle should apply to all callers. No on planet earth should second guess whether they're calling a different nation or not. That principle includes other +1 nations.

Caller ID is an untrusted advisory best effort service. It has absolutely no integrity of any kind today. There's an American law against spoofing it in theory, but it's not very enforcable at the moment. Understand it's literally a string that you can set to any value, including complete nonsense, and calls will often work.

Heck, we constantly receive calls with invalid phone numbers. And it's not always on purpose, sometimes it's just crummy or small-time carriers in rural areas (no disrespect intended, this is just an honest statement from experience). If we ingress filtered all invalid numbers, it would almost certainly be devistating to our customers.

This is like with email. First we need an integrity mechanism, then we can start doing reputation and identifying bad actors.

From my best interpretation of your comment you seem to think VoIP is far more "carrier peer to carrier peer" than it is in practice. As a value added telecom provider I have a few upstream carriers but it's not as if I receive calls from every carrier. Just like the Internet, my upstream carriers are my access points to the PSTN, so all of my SIP invites come from either my customers or my know upstream carriers. Those carriers are effectively my ISPs of the PSTN. I chose them and I pay them for service.

Distrusting one of them and the calls that come from them is something of a non-sequitur since you chose them and intentionally became one of their customers and pay them to receive those calls.

TL;DR This isn't like email or IP traffic where you're interacting with other IPs in a purely untrusted network model. Merely analyzing the previous hop doesn't tell us anything valuable.

As someone who has worked in telecom for a long time, I assure you most of us carriers / service providers (Except maybe Big Red and Big Blue) desperately want to implement signed SIP invites and kill robocall for our customers. We also want to universally deploy G.722 HD Voice without unnecessary transcoding. The telephone industry and the Big Color Telecoms (Red /Verizon, Blue / AT&T, Green / CenturyLink, Yellow / Sprint, Pink / T-Mobile) moves at a snail's pace. The security model of domestic VoIP right now is largely IP whitelisting or private IP circuits, no encryption allowed unless it's an entirely on-net call where you deal with that yourself and send it to the telecom unencrypted. We'd like to fix that too, but again, big telecoms aren't interested as best we can tell (they don't communicate their strategy reliably so we have to infer from their actions). Encryption of in flight calls, even with wiretap laws and legalized domestic surveillance, is important in my opinion.

Of all of them, I think T-mobile is the most willing to actually improve the industry for everyone's benefit.

When we receive a SIP invite (incoming call) from one of our upstream carriers, the amount of metadata information they're able to provide us is often very limited (largely due to interop issues in my opinion). If you think about IP spoofing, BGP, and the state of egress filtering on the internet, it's a very similar situation.

Since this is related to my work, obviously all of the above is just my personal opinion.

I'm disinclined to damage communication to stop bad actors. And I believe that this type of solution completely ignores the largely disproportionate economic impacts that reverting to those prices would have on different socioeconomic tiers. Human communication is a good thing and largely responsible for the positive aspects of where we are today. Respectfully, diminishing it to provide relief from an inconvenience seems short sighted.

Your thoughts in light of that?

As someone who has worked in the telecom space for nearly 20 years, I really think we need to remove other countries from country code +1. People in any country should have confidence when they dial a number that it isn't unexpectedly billing them for international calls. This applies to people in any of the +1 nations, not just the United States.

Otherwise, we need to set the rules and pricing conditional for being a part of +1 to mitigate this issue.

No disrespect to Canadians, but I wonder if most Canadians are aware of how much fraud operates out of Canada and takes advantage of the +1 area code plus the protections of being in another nation. This isn't just Carribean Island nations as people tend to stereotype.

(Please miss me with the whataboutism, I'm not throwing stones simply sharing information and experience.)

Legislative votes aren't typically public?

What do you mean remember HughesNet? People are still on it. Some of those people are young. All of them have been taught what latency is by having satellite internet.

There are plenty of non-technical consumers who have had a very unwilling education in what latency is and how it differs from speed.

Yeah, I'm specifically pointing to the idea of leveraging HTTP/2's multiplexed streams to embed VPNs into the same connection as normal web traffic from CDNs. Things like 1.1.1.1 Warp don't attempt to hide the fact that they're a VPN and thus wouldn't really help with what I'm talking about.

I've noticed this issue a lot more recently. Developers who live in a language / platform bubble that assume that the large majority of paid developers are using whatever trendy language and less than 24 month old framework they're on etc.

Listen kids. A colossal amount of the software engineering that takes place on this earth is paid development for closed source apps and services. It's not on GitHub. It's not written in JavaScript. It's not done on Node.js. A great deal of it doesn't happen in California. And it dwarfs the amount of software on GitHub or GitLab.

It happens in Java and C++ and C# and Visual Basic and other not-sexy languages and involves writing crappy enterprise interfaces and tons of backend code.

The great thing about TIOBE is its a good indicator of what jobs are being hired for. That's why it doesn't match whatever trendy expectations most people expect to see in a languages ranking. That's why Visual Basic is always ranked so highly. Because the actual world of paid software engineering and your mental view of that world are wildly different.

Personally I think TIOBE is very valuable for what it's for. I tell young developers to use its top 10 list as a guide for where to invest your time IF you're taking a "safe" approach to career skills and employability. If you use one of the other guides for that, you may decide that learning new and exciting languages might be optimal for employment. Generally speaking that's not the case.

If one wants filter bubble expectations met, I recommend sticking to language rankings that are solely based on GitHub and other publicly available source code.

Privacy idealist hat on.

I believe there's a lot of potential for CDNs and major sites to offer anti-censorship pass through traffic with HTTP/2 via CONNECT. By having a multiplexed protocol with multiple streams that spans "normal" traffic and tunneled traffic, it should be harder to identify. This would allow major sites or CDN providers to provide service to those people behind such bans and possibly require governments to break a significant portion of the web in order to institute those blocks. I think it's valuable to increase the damage done by government blocking so we can ensure that mainstream persons are sufficiently upset by this conduct. I also think CloudFlare and other major CDN providers should be the ones to provide this type of VPN access either as a product or as a special case offering for people in countries who censor the web.

I realize there are many businesses who wouldn't damage their primary offerings to provide such a secondary service. But it only takes one or two companies to increase the collateral damage of the bans, and thus make them much more costly for the governments imposing them.

That's a pretty poor assumption. If you've been following either effort, Microsoft's involvement in Clang and their efforts to bring it to both Windows and Visual Studio predate the Edge moving to Chromium concept significantly.

I quit ProtonMail / ProtonVPN after trying over and over and over again to import mail through their IMAP bridge. They won't provide an open API for interacting with their mail services so someone can write a better bridge, and their bridge is very slow, disconnects repeatedly, and basically makes any migrations impossible. If you're willing to start over with an empty mailbox, maybe ProtonMail is for you. I eventually gave up trying to move my mail account in (many tries, with Thunderbird in chunks, with Lamiral's awesome imapsync tool, you name it), and let them keep the money I paid for a year of ProtonMail Visionary.

I ended up using StartMail from the StartPage people. It's not perfect, but I was actually able to migrate to it and use it effectively.

I prefer to direct my thoughts towards the project as a whole and not fixed on any particular person or persons within the project. I have a very limited view of the project, certainly not enough to question anyone's motives specifically.

I wouldn't get too excited. The way the Chromium project responded to concerns over the API change leads me to believe that Chromium has a lot more restricting... I mean "redesigning" of extension APIs in the pipeline regardless of what users want. Think about it.

1) Propose API changes with blatantly obvious impacts on some of the most popular extensions. Include no explanation of how these extensions can rationally adapt to these new APIs and provide the same or adequately similar functionality.

2) Don't bring any timing data to justify the performance claim that ad blockers are taking an irrational amount of time implementing their content filtering. When others run these same tests they find no performance issues.

3) Characterize any strong reactions to such a suggested change as inappropriate. Feign surprise and dismay at the fact that such reckless API changes, which would drastically change the status quo on the web, are invoking.

4) Condemn those who didn't react the way you expected when you threatened to vastly change their web browsing experience for the worse. This helps diminish user input in the future, by tying everyone with honest opinions to those who express their opinions in an inappropriate or unprofessional way.

5) Act insulted when people point out that your employer, who is in control of the situation, happens to financially benefit from the changes.

The above experience was so distastefully handled across the board, I really think it justifies a unified and community supported "ungoogled-chromium" project without any of their trademarks in the name. That way we the users of the web can determine our relationship with the browser. It's the user's agent, not the browser vendor's agent.

But most importantly, use Firefox with containers and uBlock Origin.

PS. Despite the above, kudos on the port of NoScript. Never give up, never surrender.

Respectfully, I think calling the most used language, or at the very least one of the top 3 languages on the entire planet a language that "has its niche" doesn't really do it justice. Niche is usually a dimunitive term.

Right? I wonder if we take storage out of it...

>Sellers can use “Fulfillment by UPS,” so UPS handles shipping of its products through its vast logistics network. But UPS also charges for that privilege.

Spooky!

What we do know is the intent of the developers in open sourcing their work and that those working on these ports are violating that intent. They specifically chose this license with the belief that it protected their software from being consumed by GNU/Linux.

The counterargument, maybe their license doesn't block us from using their work in the way they think it does, and until it's proven in court we won't know is extremely offensive and self-serving.

This is the same argument raised by many GPL violators. "The GPL hasn't been proven well enough in court in my jurisdiction so I'm just going to use your code in violation of your license terms."

This is theft, an open source license violation, and lawyering to defend that theft. It violates the principles of open source. We are literally discussing an OSI approved license. I believe that any responsible member of the open source community would respect the authors license and not try to lawyer their license out of your way so you can have their code on your terms.

If this was Linux devs and GPL, rather than Solaris devs and CDDL, everyone would be on the other side of this argument. It's hypocrisy and it should be called out.

This argument appears multiple times in this thread. However, realistically I've never seen a mainstream website that was drastically disadvantaged by their tracking mechanisms. I'm concerned that a lot of the tech savvy people who are making this claim may be working on severely outdated machines for which this makes a difference. With even the cheapest Dell computer sold today, it doesn't really matter, which is why everyone is tracking everywhere. I'm not a huge fan of ping, but the idea that websites are going to choose not to track with JavaScript based on the bad UX on a years old Core 2 Duo is just absurd. The economic incentive you are imagining does not exist, thus ping isn't truly eliminating a critical UX difference between tracked and untracked websites.

TL;DR ITT: "Link auditing / ping will eliminate the disadvantages of tracking!" - Ad Industry and sites that serve tracking: "What disadvantages?"

Thank you!

It's incredible to me how many people are suddenly comfortable violating the license of ZFS, simply because Cannonical says it's okay? This is an open source project, under an OSI approved open source license (CDDL) which is quite known to not be GPL compatible. The license is derived from MPL 1.1, which is also known to not be GPL compatible. Why did they bother creating MPL 2, when we could have just ignored the GPL incompatibility in MPL 1.1?

You can't be someone who loses their mind over GPL violations, but then willfully misinterpret someone else's open source license because they have something you want. The developers involved specifically picked CDDL because it wasn't GPL compatible. That was their desire / intent, and so that's the license they went with. By ignoring the license and the clearly known intent of the developers in choosing that license, simply because they made something you really want, I believe that ZFS on Linux is really a form of theft in the open source world. It's the same sort of attitude that leads to GPL violations.

I don't agree with making things CDDL to be explicitly GPL incompatible, but I do believe in respecting the author of the software in question and the license he or she chose. If people choose licenses I don't agree with, I don't use their software. I don't just use it anyway and pretend like there's no license issue.

You don't have to be RMS to see that these people who are ignoring the licensing issues (not just shipping user mode tools like a FUSE implementation which is legit) honestly don't care about open source and licensing and copyleft. They just see something someone else made that they want and they take it and ignore the licensing and developer intent. How can we hope to enforce the GPL successfully but then ignore other OSI approved licenses when it suits us?

This is why big names in Linux kernel development aren't remotely interested in ZFS.

Not to mention the fact that the users of ZFS on Linux are all setting themselves up for Oracle to bring the licensing inquisition.

I'm confused. You mean like on a wired mouse, where the cord is constantly exposed to the strain of the movement and is typically just fine for many many years? I have Microsoft Intellimouse devices which are many years old and work perfectly. The differences between a USB plugged in cable and a permenantly attached cable don't seem relevant in this instance.