The abysmal adoption of DNSSEC is just embarrassing, and I haven’t heard any good arguments for why we shouldn’t do it. There’s one blog post that gets passed around as justification for not adopting DNSSEC, but it doesn’t really go into any technical detail and is mostly just the author saying “I’m scared of governments and TLDs”… which is maybe fair, but you still have to trust them for regular CA certs and everything, so why not make thr base secure?
Honestly, I might care slightly more about DNSSEC than IPv6 adoption… IPv4 exhaustion and NATing everywhere sucks, but the fact that you can’t trust DNS is like… insane.
The EU regularly forces DNS server operators to remove entries or redirect certain domains. It’s super easy to circumvent but most users don’t know that.
The sites I’m thinking of never had their IPs completely blocked, the DNS entries for the domains were just removed. If you were to switch to a non-EU or self-hosted DNS server you’d get to the site.
But the domains in question are generally ones the US/EU/NATO propaganda machine has told people are bad, so there’s no outrage when they’re blocked. In many cases there are often cheers.
My company actually used a whiteboard instead of a DNS for our internal network. We used it as a temp solution during setup, then 5 years later it was still in use. It worked quite well.
I remember 1 of the Google dns ones, only because when trouble shooting network issues it is my go to ip to ping so I know the instant I am connected again.
Oh, I forgot about DNS servers. Then I remember:
8.8.8.8 - Google
9.9.9.9 - Quad9
1.1.1.1 and 1.0.0.1 - Regular Cloudflare
1.1.1.2 and 1.0.0.2 - Cloudflare “Malware blocking”
1.1.1.3 and 1.0.0.3 - Cloudflare “Malware and adult content blocking”
45.90.30.180 and 45.90.28.180 - NextDNS
And I think 2960:fe::fe is also Quad9, but I’ll have to check. Nope, it’s 2620:fe::fe. So just the ones above.
This might be funnier than all those Facebook accounts with warnings about “I do not authorize anyone to use my photos!”
Because they’re trying to copyright an internet comment that they posted on a service hosted by someone else, with a creative commons license attached. It’s like a step up in knowing how shit works, but still not knowing enough.
If you really want ownership over what you say… don’t post it on the fucking internet.
I mean, not really. You own the stuff you create regardless of who’s hosting it. Microsoft doesn’t own the copyright for the millions of projects hosted on GitHub either.
I mean, probably not. That’s such a short post, chances are courts wouldn’t find it copyrightable. And obviously attaching a license at the end of your comments is useless in practice, because no one on the internet actually properly engages with copyright law. Plus suing over copy-pasting someone’s social media post is dumb as hell and no one does that, tho I do think you could technically do it and win, because current copyright laws make zero sense if you actually stop and think about it for any amount of time.
My lawyers will argue that this willful infringement of my rights as the orignal author of the famous 1997 Internet comment "So true" means that you now owe me $4000000 in damages, but I'll settle for one bitcoin.
And yet Microsoft made Copilot, and there are currently lots of clueless programmers out there using it to inject code with god knows what licenses into their company’s software.
Which hasn’t been free of legal challenges. Current copyright law doesn’t account for machine learning, which is what allows them to do this. This could soon change.
You own the original, which you’ve written on your pc or phone. But the one that ends up on the website is a copy, on which you’ve granted the website owner a non-revokable license to do with as they please ie. a copy-right.
Not really. You’ve granted the owner some rights, such as the right to host your content and present it to any user on the platform, but they don’t own it. Twitter can’t start using any art hosted on their platform for their branding, because it’s no theirs.
They can if the license you granted them says they can. Read it. These platforms usually make you grant then extensive rights. Yes they don’t own the content but given such broad permissions it makes very little practical difference.
People swore oaths in their testicles. The words testimony, testes, and testament all have the same root. Thus the Bible is composed of old balls and new balls.
It is. Before my deconverting I was going to study it professionally. You know what a profound moment for me was? I knew that latter authors/editors had changed the text. What dawned on me was that the reason they felt like they were allowed to lie was because they grasped that the people before them were lying as well. They weren’t doing some sorta Stalinesque rewriting of their history they were writing fanfiction.
“The thigh was considered the source of posterity in the ancient world. Or, more properly, the “loins” or the testicles. The phrase “under the thigh” could be a euphemism for “on the loins.” There are two reasons why someone would take an oath in this manner: 1) Abraham had been promised a “seed” by God, and this covenantal blessing was passed on to his son and grandson. Abraham made his trusted servant swear “on the seed of Abraham” that he would find a wife for Isaac. 2) Abraham had received circumcision as the sign of the covenant (Genesis 17:10). Our custom is to swear on a Bible; the Hebrew custom was to swear on circumcision, the mark of God’s covenant. The idea of swearing on one’s loins is found in other cultures, as well. The English word testify is directly related to the word testicles.”
I mean the Bible in general is written in old language and meaning. Could it mean to support him and shoulder him as he grows older and can’t walk? Taking anything literally from the Bible tends to look strange as society has evolved over thousands of years since then
lemmy.sdf.org
Newest