Yo David!
> regardless of the price. There is absolutely no rational
> defense for this
> ruling that I can imagine, and with no bargaining power, the
> utilities were raped by the generators.
Without the high prices companies like Kaiser Aluminum would not have
sent 7,000 workers home so they could sell their power to California.
Right, because the lost productivity would have been greater than the value
of the power. This is just a really awkward way of saying that power became
so expensive that Kaiser Aluminum couldn't affort to buy it anymore.
Kaiser's productivity was lost because of high energy prices.
Like it or not, the higher prices did make more energy available to
California than would have been otherwise the case.
Of course, because it priced consumers with smaller budgets out of the
picture. To put it another way, higher energy prices hurt some customers
more than others. Marginal users of electricity, those for whom the value of
what they could do with the electricity wasn't much more than its cost, were
squeezed out. Net productivity decreases because these marginal benefits are
lost and the sum total of a large number of marginal values can be quite a
bit.
Prices do need to rise when demand exceeds supply. But to eliminate the
checks and balances on the process for an essential item destroys the
natural market forces that keep prices stable. One of the most important
checks in the system is that a buyer won't pay more for something than it's
worth to them. Remove that check and prices will rise until the buyers are
broke. That can't be good for anyone.
DS
William Allen Simpson
Anyway, the fact that some of us now block BGP acceptance for the
new.net blocks, because it causes us support costs, would be an
argument that the Internet is less "stable".
If it is, it is because they ("some of us") are unwilling to support their
customers' use of the Internet, not because of New.net. If they decide that
IRC is increasing support costs, will they block port 6666+? How about
Napster, did any of them block that one?
I think they are blocking New.net for some other reason, and are being
dishonest claiming increased support costs as the justification. There are
plenty of other services on the Internet - like Napster, or any MP3 trading
service, especially with all the DMCA notifications that are flying around -
that can increase support costs. Why not just block all of them and save
even more money? I'm not particularly fond of New.net, but I am even less
fond of nerds on power trips who think they know what's good for the
(l)users. Blocking new.net is, in fact, censorship, not a cost saving
measure.
RFC 2606 is I think what you are looking for.
I hear this same argument from clients who want me to unblock Napster. If you look at the definition of censorship, it becomes fairly clear that when a private company decides to block certain types of content from its private network, that is not censorship. In order to "censor" Napster, or new.net, or anything else, I would have to block (or at least attempt to block) every possible access to it, rather than simply blocking it from my company's private network.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=censor
The New.Net approach doesn't add new TLDs. It is an application solution,
piggybacked on existing TLDs.
It essentially consists of replacing DNS with something else, that
unfortunately still requires DNS to function. It is, in a word, parasitic.
Perhaps we need a tld or a group of tld's which are analogous to RFC1918
addresses?
I concur, it's elegantly easy and follows with accepted prior ways of
dealing with things.
The only hard part id everyone agreeing on the tld(s).
Internally, we use: .local
Yea, I know it's long, more than 3 chars but it works.
Incorrect. There are multiple ways in which to enable access, one of them
is with an application, the other method involves reconfiguration of DNS
servers/resolvers. When a registration happens, a user receives two
registrations: one in the TLD that they are registering under, and one
under TLD.new.net for compatibility with the legacy root system.
I'm choosing to stay out of the rest of this argument as it has been
beaten to death previously, but wanted to clear up technical
misstatements/misunderstandings.
There was some mention (cue bill) at the last IETF about an endorsement of
'.int' for internal networks by some insert-dns-clueless-company-here.
which of course sends (significant?) unwanted traffic towards the .int
nameservers.
A better step would be to thoroughly endorse .private or similar, and have
the distributed root.hints file point it back to the local nameserver, so
such dns traffic does not end up on the cruel and heartless internet.
Of course, lack of clue when setting up internal networks will always
happen (such as allowing those queries out, or not setting up a correct
private tree off your regular domain etc etc).
Did you mean "127.0.0.1" as "the local nameserver", or did you mean "some
magic to direct it to the same IP as the nameserver is listening on"?
It's quite possible that the nameserver running on the local machine isn't
actually listening on the loopback address. Of course, in this case,
routing .private to 127.0.0.1 might be considered a feature, not a bug.. 
There has been much talk of the introduction of new TLDs -- either new
ICANN/DoC ones or those of the likes of New.Net -- affecting the "stability"
of the Internet. And yet so far on all the lists, not just this one, I have
not seen a single example of how the "stability" would or could be affected
by such introductions. Can anyone give me even one example?Uh, this is a Forbidden Topic on this list. Even one example could
affect the stability of the Internet
all i have to add to this discussion is that i await the time when i
can register index.html as a domain name. it seems to me that someone
will miss the significance of that at some point in setting an
"alternate root" and make really strange waves.