<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>TrueJournals &#187; Internet</title>
	<atom:link href="http://truejournals.com/tags/internet/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://truejournals.com</link>
	<description>College student; Engineer; Programmer; Nerd.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Jul 2011 04:24:51 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>The Potential of .anything</title>
		<link>http://truejournals.com/2011/06/19/the-potential-of-anything/</link>
		<comments>http://truejournals.com/2011/06/19/the-potential-of-anything/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jun 2011 03:49:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>TrueJournals</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[thoughts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[domains]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ICANN]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://truejournals.com/?p=218</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Today, ICANN announced that they will allow companies to create their own top-level domains (TLDs), for a price, of course.  It&#8217;s a hefty fee (~$185,000), but every reporter has brought up a couple excellent examples.  .bank, for example.  I assume that whoever creates these TLDs would also be able to control who gets domains.  That [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Today, ICANN announced that they will allow companies to create their own top-level domains (TLDs), for a price, of course.  It&#8217;s a hefty fee (~$185,000), but every reporter has brought up a couple excellent examples.  .bank, for example.  I assume that whoever creates these TLDs would also be able to control who gets domains.  That would make it possible to ensure that only legitimate banks can have a .bank address.  The two other examples I&#8217;ve seen repeatedly are .vegas and .canon.</p>
<p>This brings up an interesting opportunity for some new domain uses we&#8217;ve never seen before.  Imagine, for example, that Canon bought .canon.  Sure, they would probably setup store.canon and support.canon, but what if we thought outside the box a bit more?  What could we do with an unlimited supply of .canon domains?</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s what I imagine: (serial number).canon.  What if instead of stumbling though a support site to find support for your product, you could just type in the serial number, followed by .(brand), and be given support information?  This is something we&#8217;ve never been able to do with traditional TLDs, buy company-oriented TLDs would make this simple.</p>
<p>What about tracking numbers?  Google makes it simple to get tracking information from almost any shipping company (just search Google for the tracking number and you&#8217;re given a link), but custom TLDs could make this even easier.  (tracking number).ups should take me right to the page to figure out where that book I ordered is.</p>
<p>How about finding out what&#8217;s around you?  It&#8217;d be neat to see some company snatch .gps, then allow some standard coordinate format to give a map and perhaps some useful information about what&#8217;s nearby.  Perhaps .gps could also allow city names.</p>
<p>Maybe you want to know the weather.  (City name).weather should be able to take you right to useful information.</p>
<p>Opening up the allowed TLDs allows a world of possibilities.  I&#8217;ve just listed a couple simple examples here, but I&#8217;m sure folks that are much more creative than I could come up with even wilder examples.  What would you like to see done with this new world of domain names?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://truejournals.com/2011/06/19/the-potential-of-anything/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why Net Neutrality is Important</title>
		<link>http://truejournals.com/2010/08/20/why-net-neutrality-is-important/</link>
		<comments>http://truejournals.com/2010/08/20/why-net-neutrality-is-important/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Aug 2010 04:45:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>TrueJournals</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[thoughts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[comcast]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[net neutrality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[network]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://truejournals.com/?p=187</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I can&#8217;t believe I haven&#8217;t written a blog post about Net Neutrality.  For those of you who know me personally, you should know that I&#8217;m a very strong supporter of Net Neutrality, and believe it&#8217;s very important that we make sure the Internet is kept neutral.  However, for whatever reason, there are a LOT of [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I can&#8217;t believe I haven&#8217;t written a blog post about Net Neutrality.  For those of you who know me personally, you should know that I&#8217;m a very strong supporter of Net Neutrality, and believe it&#8217;s very important that we make sure the Internet is kept neutral.  However, for whatever reason, there are a LOT of misconceptions about Net Neutrality, and what exactly it entails.  Since Net Neutrality in reaction to Comcast has once again come up in the news recently, I figured I should write a blog post about the subject.</p>
<p>First, let&#8217;s go into some background on the Comcast case.  A year or so ago, Comcast decided that its network was being congested by too much <acronym title="Peer-to-Peer">P2P</acronym> traffic; namely, traffic from the <a class="vt-p" href="http://bittorrent.com">BitTorrent</a> P2P protocol.  So, they decided that they would clear their network of this congestion by carefully denying BitTorrent connections.  They did this by looking into the traffic that BitTorrent was sending over the network, and sending back false information so that connections to peers would fail.  The actual details of how this was done is outside the point of this post.</p>
<p>After some outrage from Comcast customers who used BitTorrent, the <acronym title="Federal Communications Commission">FCC</acronym> decided it would step in and tell Comcast to stop or suffer consequences.  As soon as this happened, there was some question about whether or not the FCC actually had the power to do this.  But, the case went to court and a judge decided that the FCC <strong>did</strong> have the power to do this, and that Comcast had to stop denying BitTorrent connections in this way.  This was a major win for users of the Internet: the court decision basically meant that your <acronym title="Internet Service Provider">ISP</acronym> can&#8217;t deny you from accessing information on the Internet.<span id="more-187"></span></p>
<p>However, the case was appealed by Comcast because that&#8217;s just the way the US legal system works.  The appeals court reversed the decision of the first court, and decided the FCC did <strong>not</strong> have this power, which is true.  Currently, the FCC does not have power to do anything about network management on the Internet.  Because of this, their decision to sanction Comcast for shaping the network was not allowed by any law.  So, the clear answer to this conundrum is to have Congress pass a law which would give the FCC this power, right?</p>
<p>In my opinion, yes.  This is the essence of Net Neutrality: give the FCC the power to force ISPs to be neutral, that is, to allow users to access any website, with any protocol.  This is the current spirit of the Internet: that anyone can access any part of it, and that it&#8217;s easy for someone to create a new site that becomes an overnight sensation.  The idea of an open Internet is not possible without Net Neutrality.  So, why hasn&#8217;t this been an issue in the past?</p>
<p>Probably because it&#8217;s never needed to be an issue.  As users start using more bandwidth, ISPs are looking for ways to get more money.  If there is no law forcing the net to be neutral, then ISPs can manage their network however they want.  Let&#8217;s say, for example, that your ISP partners with Google and Wikipedia.  Your ISP&#8217;s basic package will allow you to access these two sites.  Want to use Bing, or Yahoo!?  That&#8217;ll be an extra $20 a month.  Want to access any website you want?  It&#8217;ll cost you.  We&#8217;ve created a situation where innovation is stifled on the greatest frontier for innovation.</p>
<p>One of the great things that has come out of the Internet is small businesses.  A small business can easily create a website with a good product, and become big.  Without Net Neutrality, this becomes <strong>very</strong> difficult.  A small business would first have to give some money to your ISP in order for you to be able to get to their site.  But, remember that there are multiple ISPs, and the small business would have to pay <strong>all</strong> of them to reach all their potential customers.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s possible, however, that competition wouldn&#8217;t allow this to happen.  One ISP would have to be &#8220;the first&#8221; to implement a pricing scheme like this.  If consumers voted with their dollars and switched ISP if this happened, then ISPs everywhere would be sent a message that this is no way to run a business.  Unfortunately, however, I have a feeling that most people would just go along with it without knowing any better.  After all, the big sites that people actually use would be able to afford the fees an ISP would put on them to get to their user base.</p>
<p>So, what do we do?  Check out http://www.savetheinternet.com/ .  Find out what net neutrality <strong>really</strong> means, and join the fight to keep the net neutral!</p>
<p>[Note: I had originally written this post on April 11.  I think it's finished, and reading over it, it does seem finished.  I'm really not sure why I never published it.  Perhaps I was going to add more... I just don't remember now!  Oh, well... better late than never.  News since this post: Google and Verizon's Net Neutrality proposal has many outraged.  I haven't looked into it much, but I'll see if I can poke around it a bit more and write a post about my thoughts.]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://truejournals.com/2010/08/20/why-net-neutrality-is-important/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why Did Wave Die so Quickly?</title>
		<link>http://truejournals.com/2010/02/15/why-did-wave-die-so-quickly/</link>
		<comments>http://truejournals.com/2010/02/15/why-did-wave-die-so-quickly/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2010 00:52:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>TrueJournals</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[thoughts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[programming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wave]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://truejournals.com/?p=175</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A while ago, I was super excited to finally get a Google Wave invite.  Today, I barely ever used the service.  I just open it every now and then to see if anything&#8217;s happened.  Generally, it hasn&#8217;t.  But&#8230; Google Wave had so much potential!  It was touted as a killer web application!  What happened?  Wave [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A while ago, I was super excited to finally get a Google Wave invite.  Today, I barely ever used the service.  I just open it every now and then to see if anything&#8217;s happened.  Generally, it hasn&#8217;t.  But&#8230; Google Wave had so much potential!  It was touted as a killer web application!  What happened?  Wave had so much momentum, but it seems to have crashed, and gone into one of those experiments that Google toyed around with, but no one really cares about anymore.</p>
<p>First off, let me say that whether Wave succeeds or not makes little difference for Google.  Google is a company with enough resources to work on a major product, even if that product is a failure.  Google wanted Wave to replace e-mail.  This is where the whole &#8220;Federated Wave Servers&#8221; idea came from.  In order for Wave to be the new standard, companies had to be able to run their own Wave servers &#8212; Google couldn&#8217;t control it.  Besides that, Google already controls a good chunk of the e-mail market with GMail, so this was mostly a fun experiment for them.</p>
<p>But, still, it seems like something that should have succeed&#8230; or, at least, lasted a good amount of time.  But, Wave has quickly lost momentum and died in everyone&#8217;s mind.  The problem is that Google stopped innovating, and the Wave server never became very popular.  I don&#8217;t believe there have been any feature additions to Wave since it launched, and I&#8217;m not sure there&#8217;s any good source other than Google Wave to get a Wave account.</p>
<p>Wave died because Google seems to have abandoned it.  They released a product, and they appeared to have stopped working on it.  Wave is something Google needed to not only push to corporations, but also continue innovating, and releasing new features, and this never happened.  Google was unable to explain to potential customers why they <strong>need</strong> Wave, and this is where it failed.  I think this is slightly unfortunate, but I&#8217;m not very surprised.  While e-mail is antiquated, it still works, and it&#8217;s going to take <strong>a lot</strong> of push in order to move away from it.  Google didn&#8217;t seem to have any major corporations backing Wave, which also contributed to the failure.</p>
<p>Who knows&#8230; maybe we&#8217;ll see Google attempt to revive Wave with some new features.  Maybe it will come back for a couple months&#8230; But Google will have to work really hard to get the momentum and excitement about Wave going again.</p>
<p>I do, by the way, have 12 Wave invites.  I suppose you can comment here or contact me if you want one.  That&#8217;s a dangerous statement to say on the Internet.  Although Wave has died, I have a feeling there are people who never got in on the game, and are still looking for invites, only to find a product that no one uses.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://truejournals.com/2010/02/15/why-did-wave-die-so-quickly/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

