On 8/11/2011 1:34 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Aug 11, 2011, at 5:41 AM, Jamie Bowden wrote:
Owen wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 9:58 PM
To: William Herrin
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: IPv6 end user addressing
On 6/18/2011 4:14 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
If the USG operators said "sorry, the DOJ anti-trust rules don't
allow us to serve a zone with .HONDA and .BACARDI", why would the
the pressure be on them rather than on ICANN? Nobody outside the
ICANN bubble cares about more TLDs.
I think the most i
On 4/29/2011 8:57 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
Those royalties are based on the_actual_number_ of persons
tuning in to each such work. No 'averaging', no 'estimating', nothing
based on 'ratings', or other 'sampling techniques -- you have to count
the_actual_number_ of people tuned in. It gets mes
On 1/6/2011 6:23 PM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
On Jan 6, 2011, at 9:29 PM, Joe Greco wrote:
Sorry, but I see this as not grasping a fundamental security concept.
I see it as avoiding a common security misconception.
I find that the security "Layers" advocates tend not to look at the
differi
On 12/20/2010 8:51 PM, JC Dill wrote:
On 20/12/10 2:15 PM, David Sparro wrote:
There is no monopoly. They've already experimented with that and
(apparently) decided that it wasn't worth it.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/ptech/stories/DN-verizon_17bus.Stat
On 12/20/2010 12:05 AM, JC Dill wrote:
On 19/12/10 6:25 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
The laws of diminishing returns have already set the bar for the point
at which it's not profitable for a new company to enter the market and
try to compete. Right now the number is roughly 2, cable and dsl,
6 matches
Mail list logo
