. org .net . gov . com and . mil are examples of what
14460786
This is a list of the oldest extant registered generic top-level domains used in the Domain Name System of the Internet. Until late February 1986, Domain Registration was limited to organizations with access to ARPA. Public registration was revealed on Usenet on February 24, 1986. .com .org .edu Registration within .edu is restricted to accredited educational institutions. Prior to October 2001, registration was available worldwide; it has since been limited to institutions based in the United States. .net .mil .gov .int .arpa References Oldest Internet domain names Oldest things Internet domain names
List of the oldest currently registered Internet domain names
11357820
The Internet in the United States grew out of the ARPANET, a network sponsored by the Advanced Research Projects Agency of the U.S. Department of Defense during the 1960s. The Internet in the United States in turn provided the foundation for the worldwide Internet of today. Internet connections in the United States are largely provided by the private sector and are available in a variety of forms, using a variety of technologies, at a wide range of speeds and costs. In 2000, a majority of U.S. households had at least one personal computer and internet access the following year. In September 2007, a majority of U.S. survey respondents reported having broadband internet at home. In 2019, the United States ranked 3rd in the world for the number of internet users (behind China and India), with 312.32 million users. As of 2019, 90% of adults in America use the internet, either irregularly or frequently. The United States ranks #1 in the world with 7,000 Internet Service Providers (ISPs) according to the CIA. Internet bandwidth per Internet user was the 43rd highest in the world in 2016. Internet top-level domain names specific to the U.S. include .us, .edu, .gov, .mil, .as (American Samoa), .gu (Guam), .mp (Northern Mariana Islands), .pr (Puerto Rico), and .vi (U.S. Virgin Islands). Many U.S.-based organizations and individuals also use generic top-level domains, such as .com, .net, and .org. Overview Access and speed Access to the Internet can be divided into dial-up and broadband access. Around the start of the 21st century, most residential access was by dial-up, while access from businesses was usually by higher speed connections. In subsequent years dial-up declined in favor of broadband access. Both types of access generally use a modem, which converts digital data to analog for transmission over a particular analog network (ex. the telephone or cable networks). Dial-up access is a connection to the Internet through a phone line, creating a semi-permanent link to the Internet. Operating on a single channel, it monopolizes the phone line and is the slowest method of accessing the Internet. Dial-up is often the only form of Internet access available in rural areas because it requires no infrastructure other than the already existing telephone network. Dial-up connections typically do not exceed a speed of 56 kbit/s, because they are primarily made via a 56k modem. Broadband access includes a wide range of speeds and technologies, all of which provide much faster access to the Internet than dial-up. The term "broadband" once had a technical meaning, but today it is more often used as a marketing buzzword to simply mean "faster". Broadband connections are continuous or "always on" connections, without the need to dial and hangup, and do not monopolize phone lines. Common types of broadband access include DSL (digital subscriber lines), which uses a telephone line, cable Internet access, satellite Internet access, and mobile or wireless broadband, via cell phones or a mobile broadband modem, through a cellular or wireless network, and from a cell
Internet in the United States
617973
Domain name speculation, popular as domain investing, domain flipping or domaining in professional jargon, is the practice of identifying and registering or acquiring generic Internet domain names as an investment with the intent of selling them later for a profit. The main targets of domain name speculation are generic words which can be valuable for type-in traffic and for the dominant position they would have in any field due to their descriptive nature. Hence generic words and phrases such as poker, insurance, travel, creditcards, loan and others are attractive targets of domain speculation in any top-level domain, the most popular of which is .com. The speculative characteristics of domain names may be linked to news reports or current events. However, the effective period during which such opportunities exist may be limited. Quick turnaround in the resale of domains is often called domain flipping. Domain flipping may also involve the process of buying a valuable domain name and building a related website around it, all this with the objective of selling the domain and newly built website to an interested party. Concept Sometimes, domain name speculation involves finding domain names early in a market, particularly when a new top-level domain is launched, registering them and waiting until the market grows to sell them. Domains such as voice.com, sex.com, and fund.com have sold for millions of US dollars. The COM top-level domain (or 'TLD') is the focus of most domain speculation activity as it is the largest TLD. Domain speculation occurs in other TLDs as well, such as NET and to a lesser extent in ORG, INFO, and BIZ. Of the Generic top-level domains, INFO is the most popular by registration volume compared to BIZ gTLD due to the low cost of initial registration and the recognizability of INFO as being an abbreviation of information. Domain name speculation also occurs in country code top-level domains (ccTLDs) such as .uk, .de and .us. The German TLD consists of over 12 million domains. The UK's domain has over 7.7 million domains registered according to Nominet's domain registration statistics webpage, mainly in its commercial sub-domain co.uk. These TLDs are mature markets where good domain names may command high prices. The EU ccTLD is an example of what happens when speculative activity overtakes "ordinary" domain registrations. A combination of an inept registry (EURid) and excessive speculation by businesses exploiting a poorly structured regulatory framework meant that, according to EURid's own statistics at the end of 2006, over 50% of the registrations could be considered at best speculative and at worst domain name warehousing. Specialist and repurposed ccTLDs have also seen elements of domain name speculation. One of the best examples is that of the .tv ccTLD which has found the fact that TV is an abbreviation for the word television to be rather lucrative. The .mobi TLD is a good example of a specialist TLD in that it is specifically targeted at mobile phones and similar mobile technology. The operators of .mobi, mTLD, have reserved some
Domain name speculation
5020664
An unsponsored top-level domain (uTLD) is one of the categories of top-level domains (TLDs) maintained by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) for use in the Domain Name System of the Internet. IANA currently distinguishes 3 groups of top-level domains: country-code top-level domains (ccTLD), generic top-level domains (gTLD) and infrastructure top-level domain. Unsponsored TLD is a specialized top-level domain that has no sponsor, in opposition of sTLD (sponsored), that has a sponsor representing a specific community served by the domain. Generally speaking, uTLD is a TLD without "owner", where ICANN has an important governance role. It is a reduced set of TLDs: old ones (.com, .org and .net) and new ones (.biz, .info and .name). References Top-level domains Domain Name System Identifiers Internet governance
Unsponsored top-level domain
39878
In the Internet, a domain name is a string that identifies a realm of administrative autonomy, authority or control. Domain names are often used to identify services provided through the Internet, such as websites, email services and more. Domain names are used in various networking contexts and for application-specific naming and addressing purposes. In general, a domain name identifies a network domain or an Internet Protocol (IP) resource, such as a personal computer used to access the Internet, or a server computer. Domain names are formed by the rules and procedures of the Domain Name System (DNS). Any name registered in the DNS is a domain name. Domain names are organized in subordinate levels (subdomains) of the DNS root domain, which is nameless. The first-level set of domain names are the top-level domains (TLDs), including the generic top-level domains (gTLDs), such as the prominent domains com, info, net, edu, and org, and the country code top-level domains (ccTLDs). Below these top-level domains in the DNS hierarchy are the second-level and third-level domain names that are typically open for reservation by end-users who wish to connect local area networks to the Internet, create other publicly accessible Internet resources or run websites. The registration of a second- or third-level domain name is usually administered by a domain name registrar who sell its services to the public. A fully qualified domain name (FQDN) is a domain name that is completely specified with all labels in the hierarchy of the DNS, having no parts omitted. Traditionally a FQDN ends in a dot (.) to denote the top of the DNS tree. Labels in the Domain Name System are case-insensitive, and may therefore be written in any desired capitalization method, but most commonly domain names are written in lowercase in technical contexts. Purpose Domain names serve to identify Internet resources, such as computers, networks, and services, with a text-based label that is easier to memorize than the numerical addresses used in the Internet protocols. A domain name may represent entire collections of such resources or individual instances. Individual Internet host computers use domain names as host identifiers, also called hostnames. The term hostname is also used for the leaf labels in the domain name system, usually without further subordinate domain name space. Hostnames appear as a component in Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) for Internet resources such as websites (e.g., en.wikipedia.org). Domain names are also used as simple identification labels to indicate ownership or control of a resource. Such examples are the realm identifiers used in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP), the Domain Keys used to verify DNS domains in e-mail systems, and in many other Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs). An important function of domain names is to provide easily recognizable and memorizable names to numerically addressed Internet resources. This abstraction allows any resource to be moved to a different physical location in the address topology of the network, globally or locally in an intranet. Such a move usually requires changing the IP address of a
Domain name
66985566
.guru is a generic top-level domain (gTLD) owned by Donuts. It was delegated on 6 November 2013. History .guru was one of the first seven gTLDs launched simultaneously by Donuts in late 2013. The sunrise period, during which pre-existing trademark holders may register URLs prior to general availability to prevent domain squatting, lasted from 26 November 2013 through to 24 January 2014. .guru did not undergo a landrush period in which a closed group of non-trademark holders are able to purchase domains for a premium price, and instead went straight to general availability release. The launch of .guru was part of a significant movement in the creation of top-level domains; prior to 2014, only 22 gTLDs were available for registration, while over a thousand were launched in February 2014 alone. .guru quickly became the pre-eminent new gTLD in signups, having 55,000 registrations by May of that year with 35,000 in the first three weeks of its opening alone. Until the release of .app, .guru had the most pre-orders of any new gTLD at GoDaddy. However, the market for new gTLDs performed below expectations, with fewer registrations and a smaller market share than originally predicted. While .guru's first-mover advantage gave it a respectable market share amongst other minor gTLDs, the overall picture was of a more niche product than anticipated. In 2015, a year after its launch, .guru was found to have the second highest number of its registrations lapsed or deleted after .tips. Despite the failure to meet original expectations, .guru nonetheless remains a popular niche for many individuals and small businesses, particularly in India. Usage , there are 60,360 registered .guru domains, making up 0.21% of all domains. GoDaddy has the majority of the .guru market share with 47.4%, while NameCheap runs a distant second at 11.3%. Approximately 56,000 of the registrations are to active websites, and an estimated $1.5-2 million dollars are paid in .guru registration fees per year. According to The Spamhaus Project, as of September 2023 3.9% of .guru domains engage in spamming, compared to 1.5% of .com, 2.1% of .net, 6.6% of .info, 2.7% of .biz, and 0.8% of .org domains. .guru's primary competitors are .expert, which is similarly focused on expertise, and .ninja, another "edgy" expert-focused gTLD. Notes References Generic top-level domains 2013 introductions
.guru
1114155
The Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) is a process established by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) for the resolution of disputes regarding the registration of internet domain names. The UDRP currently applies to all generic top level domains (.com, .net, .org, etc.), some country code top-level domains, and to all new generic top-level domains (.xyz, .online, .top, etc.). Historical background When ICANN was first set up, one of the core tasks assigned to it was "The Trademark Dilemma", the use of trade marks as domain names without the trademark owner's consent. By the late 1990s, such use was identified as problematic and likely to lead to consumers being misled. In the United Kingdom, the Court of Appeal described such domain names as "an instrument of fraud". One of the first steps was that Member States commissioned the United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to produce a report on the tension between trademarks and domain names. Published on 30 April 1999, the WIPO Report recommended the establishment of a "mandatory administrative procedure concerning abusive registrations", which would allow for a "neutral venue in the context of disputes that are often international in nature." The procedure was not intended to deal with cases with competing rights, nor would it exclude the jurisdiction of the courts. It would, however, be mandatory in the sense that "each domain name application would, in the domain name agreement, be required to submit to the procedure if a claim was initiated against it by a third party. The WIPO Report also set out the current three-stage test of the UDRP. At its meetings on August 25 and 26, 1999 in Santiago, Chile, the ICANN Board of Directors adopted the UDRP Policy, based on the recommendations contained in the Report of the WIPO Internet Domain Name Process, as well as comments submitted by registrars and other interested parties. On October 24, 1999, the ICANN Board adopted a set of Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the UDRP Rules) setting out the procedures and other requirements for each stage of the dispute resolution administrative procedure. The procedure is administered by dispute resolution service providers accredited by ICANN. Following adoption by ICANN, the UDRP was launched on 1 December 1999, and the first case determined under it by WIPO was World Wrestling Federation Entertainment, Inc v. Michael Bosman, involving the domain name worldwrestlingfederation.com. Since then WIPO provides a globally-used Jurisprudential Overview to summarize case law on a range of common and important substantive and procedural issues under the UDRP. Adoption The policy has been adopted by all ICANN-accredited registrars. It has also been adopted by certain managers of country-code top-level domains (e.g., .nu, .tv, .ws). The policy is then applicable due to the contract between the registrar (or other registration authority in the case of a country-code top-level domain) and its customer (the domain-name holder or registrant). When a registrant chooses a domain name, the registrant must "represent and warrant", among other things,
Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy
394868
.info is a generic top-level domain (gTLD) in the Domain Name System (DNS) of the Internet. The name is derived from information, although registration requirements do not prescribe any particular purpose. The TLD info followed ICANN's highly publicized announcement, in late 2000, of a phased release of seven new generic top-level domains. The event was the first addition of major gTLDs since the Domain Name System was developed in the 1980s. The seven new gTLDs, selected from over 180 proposals, were meant in part to take the pressure off the domain. History Domain info has been operated by Afilias since its creation. In 2003, it was the first gTLD domain to support IETF standards-based internationalized domain names. In 2001, Afilias CTO (Ram Mohan) discovered problems with the Universal Acceptance of the domain due to it being the first tld whose length was greater than two or three characters. The launching of info involved a "Sunrise Period" for trademark owners, followed by a "landrush" open to all, the first time such a process had ever been conducted for a new gTLD. This process received criticism for giving trademarks precedence over words that are generic in other contexts; for instance, the Caterpillar construction equipment company was able to register before feline enthusiasts were. Although a large number of fraudulent registrations were initially made by registrants who did not actually own a valid trademark, a challenge procedure later weeded out most of these. Prior to launch, the names of countries were reserved from registration at the request of ICANN, to the consternation of those who had paid pre-registration fees to attempt to register these names in the landrush. ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee, composed of country representatives from around the world applauded the move, the first by any major domain to protect the national interests of sovereign nations. Usage Domain info has been the most successful of the seven new domain names, with over 5.2 million domain names in the registry as of April 2008. After the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority of New York switched to the easier to remember mta.info website to lead users to latest information on schedules and route changes on the area's transportation services. ICANN and Afilias have also sealed an agreement for country names to be reserved by ICANN under resolution 01.92. Info is an unrestricted domain, meaning that anyone can obtain a second-level domain for any purpose, similar to the domains com, net and org. This is in contrast to TLDs such as edu, or coop. Info is the only top-level domain that was explicitly created and chartered for unrestricted use, although various other TLDs resulted in this situation de facto. Info stands for information in about 37 languages, and is a neutral name. Afilias, the registry operator of both the info and aero top-level domains, has been aggressive in its marketing of the domain, with significant registrar incentives and outreach events. References External links .info Registry Agreement with ICANN
.info
605529
.ca is the Internet country code top-level domain (ccTLD) for Canada. The domain name registry that operates it is the Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA). Registrants can register domains at the second level (e.g., example.ca). Third-level registrations in one of the geographic third-level domains defined by the registry (e.g. example.ab.ca) were discontinued on October 12, 2010, but existing third-level domain names continue to be supported. Canadian Presence Requirements Registrants of .ca domains must meet the Canadian Presence Requirements as defined by the registry. Examples of valid entities include: a Canadian citizen or permanent resident of the age of majority a legally recognized Canadian organization an Inuit, First Nation, Métis or other people indigenous to Canada an Indian Band as defined in the Indian Act of Canada a foreign resident of Canada that holds a registered Canadian trademark an executor, administrator or other legal representative of a person or organization that meets the requirements a division of the government the monarch of Canada History The domain name was originally allocated by Jon Postel, operator of Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), to John Demco of the University of British Columbia (UBC) in 1987. The first .ca domain was registered by the University of Prince Edward Island in January 1988. In 1997, at the Canadian annual Internet conference in Halifax, Nova Scotia, the Canadian Internet community, with a view to liberalize registration procedures and substantially improve turnaround times, decided to undertake reform of the .ca Registry. The Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA) is a non-profit Canadian corporation that is responsible for operating the .ca Internet country code Top Level Domain (ccTLD) today. It assumed operation of the .ca ccTLD on December 1, 2000, from UBC. On April 15, 2008, CIRA registered its one millionth .ca Internet domain name. Any .ca registration has to be ordered via a certified registrar. Third-level (provincial) and fourth-level (municipal) domains UBC's registry operations once favoured fourth-level names (such as .on.ca) for purely local entities or third-level names for entities operating solely within one province. Nationally incorporated companies could have a .ca domain, while provincially incorporated companies required the letters of their province, like .mb.ca. Only an entity with presence in two or more provinces was typically registered directly under .ca; this complex structure (and the long delays in getting .ca registration) caused many Canadian entities to favour the .com, .org and .net registrations, despite the then-higher cost. Currently, any of the above listed parties can register a domain with a name of their choosing followed directly by .ca. CIRA stopped accepting new registrations for third-level domains on October 12, 2010, citing complexity and the low number of new third domain registration as the reason for the change. As a result, the following domains at the third-level are no longer available for registration: The second-level domain name '.gc.ca' (Government of Canada) is commonly mistaken as one of the regional domains under which CIRA will allow Government of Canada registrations. gc.ca is actually a standard domain like all other .ca
.ca
1088383
.co is the Internet country code top-level domain (ccTLD) assigned to Colombia. It is administered by .CO Internet S.A.S., a subsidiary of Neustar since 2014. , there were no registration restrictions on second-level .co domains; any individual or entity in the world can register a .co domain. .CO Internet S.A.S from Bogotá, Colombia, was appointed as the manager for the .co TLD through a public procurement process that took place in early 2009. .CO Internet received the re-delegation approval as the manager of the .co TLD by ICANN on December 9, 2009, and received formal confirmation of the request by the United States Department of Commerce on December 23, 2009. Google treats .co as a generic top-level domain (gTLD) because "users and website owners frequently see [the domain] as being more generic than country-targeted." Second-level domain names When they took over administration of the .CO domain, .CO Internet S.A.S. implemented new domain policies that were more flexible than the historic ones that had been administered by the University of the Andes. The new policies were adjusted to international best practices and defined in consultation with local and international communities. With the new policies, Colombia would be able to sell second-level domain names to the world, such as widgets.co, where previously only third-level domain names were available, such as widgets.com.co. Notable single letter .CO domain names that have been allocated include: On September 15, 2010, .CO Internet S.A.S. had taken registrations for over 500,000 .CO domain names. , more than 1 million .CO domains had been registered by people in over 200 countries and territories worldwide. As of January 2014, that number has grown to over 1.6 million .CO domains registered. As of December 2018, there were 2.2 million. With respect to search engine optimization, Google confirmed that "it will rank .co domains appropriately if the content is globally targeted". Summary of policies since 2010 Any person or entity in the world can register .co domain names There are no domicile or burdensome documentation requirements Registration period is between 1 and 5 years, subject to renewal Registrants can easily transfer domain names .CO domains became available via the following timeline: April 1, 2010 – April 20, 2010: Sunrise A allowed registered local trademarks to apply for exact match domains. April 26, 2010 – June 10, 2010: Sunrise B allowed trademarks of national effect to apply for exact match domains. June 21, 2010 – July 13, 2010: Landrush allowed anyone to apply for domain names of high commercial value. July 20, 2010: .co domains became generally available. Third-level domain registrations The third-level domain registrations closely mirror the "traditional" IANA .com / .net / .org / .gov / .edu / .mil hierarchy, with the addition of a national equivalent of .name. Different from registrations directly under .co, which are used to signal globally relevant interests, third-level domains are used to signal locally relevant business, organizations, academic institutions, and government. – commercial – organizations – educational – government – network infrastructure – military –
.co
5127900
Microsoft XML Core Services (MSXML) are set of services that allow applications written in JScript, VBScript, and Microsoft development tools to build Windows-native XML-based applications. It supports XML 1.0, DOM, SAX, an XSLT 1.0 processor, XML schema support including XSD and XDR, as well as other XML-related technologies. Overview All MSXML products are similar in that they are exposed programmatically as OLE Automation (a subset of COM) components. Developers can program against MSXML components from C, C++ or from Active Scripting languages such as JScript and VBScript. Managed .NET Interop with MSXML COM components is not supported nor recommended. As with all COM components, an MSXML object is programmatically instantiated by CLSID or ProgID. Each version of MSXML exposes its own set of CLSID's and ProgIDs. For example, to create an MSXML 6.0 DOMDocument object, which exposes the IXmlDomDocument, IXmlDomDocument2, and IXmlDomDocument3 COM interfaces, the ProgID "MSXML2.DOMDocument.6.0" must be used. MSXML also supports version-independent ProgIDs. Version-independent ProgIDs do not have a version number associated with them. For example, "Microsoft.XMLHTTP". These ProgIDs were first introduced in MSXML 1.0, however are currently mapped to MSXML 3.0 objects and the msxml3.dll. Different versions of MSXML support slightly different sets of functionality. For example, while MSXML 3.0 supports only XDR schemas, it does not support XSD schemas. MSXML 4.0, MSXML 5.0, and MSXML 6.0 support XSD schemas. However, MSXML 6.0 does not support XDR schemas. Support for XML Digital Signatures is provided only by MSXML 5.0. For new XML-related software development, Microsoft recommends using MSXML 6.0 or its lightweight cousin, XmlLite, for native code-only projects. Versions MSXML is a collection of distinct products, released and supported by Microsoft. The product versions can be enumerated as follows: Current MSXML 6.0 MSXML6 is the latest MSXML product from Microsoft, and (along with MSXML3) is shipped with Microsoft SQL Server 2005, Visual Studio 2005, .NET Framework 3.0, as well as Windows XP Service Pack 3, Windows Vista and every subsequent versions of Windows up to Windows 11. It also has support for native 64-bit environments. It is an upgrade but not replacement for versions 3 and 4 as they still provide legacy features not supported in version 6. Version 6, 4, and 3 may all be installed and running concurrently. MSXML 6 is not supported on Windows 9x. Windows XP SP3 includes MSXML 6.0 SP2. MSXML 3.0 MSXML3 is a current MSXML product, represented by msxml3.dll. MSXML 3.0 SP2 first shipped with Windows XP, Internet Explorer 6.0 and MDAC 2.7. Windows XP SP2 includes MSXML 3.0 SP5 as part of MDAC 2.81. Windows 2000 SP4 also ships with MSXML 3.0. By default, Internet Explorer version 6.0, 7.0 and 8.0 use MSXML 3 to parse XML documents loaded in a window. MSXML 3.0 SP7 is the last supported version for Windows 95. Windows XP SP3 includes MSXML 3.0 SP9. Windows Vista also includes MSXML 3.0 (SP10). Obsolete MSXML 5.0 MSXML5 was a binary developed specifically for Microsoft Office. It originally shipped with Office 2003 and also ships with
MSXML
34580797
Visual Basic .NET was released by Microsoft in 2002 as a successor to the original Visual Basic computer programming language. It was implemented on the .NET Framework 1.0. The main new feature was managed code. Programmers familiar only with Visual Basic would probably have encountered difficulties working with the new version or adapting existing programs for it. Obvious major differences The new platform bore little resemblance to its predecessor. While programmers expected to be able to recompile their Visual Basic source to a .NET target, the reality of the situation was that Visual Basic .NET was a vastly different paradigm. Obvious syntax differences aside, Visual Basic .NET provides much the same functionality as C# (since they both compile down to MSIL, with the most obvious difference being the case insensitivity of Visual Basic .NET, maintaining the original case-insensitivity of Visual Basic), which is more of a problem for C# programmers trying to inter-operate with Visual Basic .NET developers than anything else. The basic syntax remains very similar: conditions, loops, procedures, sub-routines are declared and written in the same manner (see Visual Basic). Mobility from prior Visual Basic iterations to Visual Basic .NET really are parts of existing code: programmers with experience in both worlds are required to effectively target the new platform with older logic. The Visual Basic .NET developer will have to learn the use of the basic .NET types rather than what they have been used to in Visual Basic. A programmer who has only worked with Visual Basic may encounter a steep learning curve to migrate to Visual Basic .NET. A programmer who is versed in another language or who has had exposure to the .NET runtime should be able to cope. It would be better to think of Visual Basic .NET as a new language inspired by the classic Visual Basic rather than as a continuation of Visual Basic 6.0, with the added difficulty for migrating programmers that VB.NET interfaces with the .NET Framework whereas VB6 was based on the Component Object Model (COM). More detailed comparison There are some immediate changes that developers should take note of: More C-like syntax Visual Basic .NET allows for the +=, -=, *=, /=, \=, ^=, and &= compound operators so that longer lines like: variable = variable + 1 can now be written as: variable += 1 However, increment and decrement operators are not supported. Short-circuited logic In prior iterations of Visual Basic, all statements in a condition would have been evaluated even if the outcome of the condition could be determined before evaluating a condition. For example: If foo() And bar() Then ' code here is executed if foo() and bar() both return True, however, if foo() returns False, bar() is still evaluated End If This was not only inefficient, but could lead to unexpected results for any person used to another language. In Visual Basic .NET, the new AndAlso and OrElse operators have been added to provide short-circuit evaluation like many other languages. Explicit pointer-like types
Comparison of Visual Basic and Visual Basic .NET
10641375
The Pronunciation Lexicon Specification (PLS) is a W3C Recommendation, which is designed to enable interoperable specification of pronunciation information for both speech recognition and speech synthesis engines within voice browsing applications. The language is intended to be easy to use by developers while supporting the accurate specification of pronunciation information for international use. The language allows one or more pronunciations for a word or phrase to be specified using a standard pronunciation alphabet or if necessary using vendor specific alphabets. Pronunciations are grouped together into a PLS document which may be referenced from other markup languages, such as the Speech Recognition Grammar Specification SRGS and the Speech Synthesis Markup Language SSML. Usage Here is an example PLS document: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <lexicon version="1.0" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/01/pronunciation-lexicon" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.w3.org/2005/01/pronunciation-lexicon http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/CR-pronunciation-lexicon-20071212/pls.xsd" alphabet="ipa" xml:lang="en-US"> <lexeme> <grapheme>judgment</grapheme> <grapheme>judgement</grapheme> <phoneme>ˈdʒʌdʒ.mənt</phoneme> <!-- IPA string is: "ˈdʒʌdʒ.mənt" --> </lexeme> <lexeme> <grapheme>fiancé</grapheme> <grapheme>fiance</grapheme> <phoneme>fiˈɒns.eɪ</phoneme> <!-- IPA string is: "fiˈɒns.eɪ" --> <phoneme>ˌfiː.ɑːnˈseɪ</phoneme> <!-- IPA string is: "ˌfiː.ɑːnˈseɪ" --> </lexeme> </lexicon> which could be used to improve TTS as shown in the following SSML 1.0 document: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <speak version="1.0" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/10/synthesis" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.w3.org/2001/10/synthesis http://www.w3.org/TR/speech-synthesis/synthesis.xsd" xml:lang="en-US"> <lexicon uri="http://www.example.org/lexicon_defined_above.xml"/> <p> In the judgement of my fiancé, Las Vegas is the best place for a honeymoon. I replied that I preferred Venice and didn't think the Venetian casino was an acceptable compromise.</p> </speak> but also to improve ASR in the following SRGS 1.0 grammar: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <grammar version="1.0" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/06/grammar" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.w3.org/2001/06/grammar http://www.w3.org/TR/speech-grammar/grammar.xsd" xml:lang="en-US" root="movies" mode="voice"> <lexicon uri="http://www.example.org/lexicon_defined_above.xml"/> <rule id="movies" scope="public"> <one-of> <item>Terminator 2: Judgment Day</item> <item>My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance</item> <item>Pluto's Judgement Day</item> </one-of> </rule> </grammar> Common use cases Multiple pronunciations for the same orthography For ASR systems it is common to rely on multiple pronunciations of the same word or phrase in order to cope with variations of pronunciation within a language. In the Pronunciation Lexicon language, multiple pronunciations are represented by more than one <phoneme> (or <alias>) element within the same <lexeme> element. In the following example the word "Newton" has two possible pronunciations. <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <lexicon version="1.0" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/01/pronunciation-lexicon" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.w3.org/2005/01/pronunciation-lexicon http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/CR-pronunciation-lexicon-20071212/pls.xsd" alphabet="ipa" xml:lang="en-GB"> <lexeme> <grapheme>Newton</grapheme> <phoneme>ˈnjuːtən</phoneme> <!-- IPA string is: "ˈnjuːtən" --> <phoneme>ˈnuːtən</phoneme> <!-- IPA string is: "ˈnuːtən" --> </lexeme> </lexicon> Multiple orthographies In some situations there are alternative textual representations for the same word or phrase. This can arise due to a number of reasons. See Section 4.5 of PLS for details. Because these are representations that have the same meaning (as opposed to homophones), it is recommended that they be represented using a single <lexeme> element that contains multiple graphemes. Here are two simple examples of multiple orthographies: alternative spelling of an English word and multiple writings of a Japanese word. <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <lexicon version="1.0" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/01/pronunciation-lexicon" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.w3.org/2005/01/pronunciation-lexicon http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/CR-pronunciation-lexicon-20071212/pls.xsd" alphabet="ipa" xml:lang="en-US"> <!-- English entry showing how alternative spellings are handled --> <lexeme> <grapheme>colour</grapheme> <grapheme>color</grapheme> <phoneme>ˈkʌlər</phoneme> <!-- IPA string is: "ˈkʌlər" --> </lexeme> </lexicon> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <lexicon version="1.0" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/01/pronunciation-lexicon" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.w3.org/2005/01/pronunciation-lexicon http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/CR-pronunciation-lexicon-20071212/pls.xsd" alphabet="ipa" xml:lang="ja"> <!-- Japanese entry showing how multiple writing systems are handled romaji, kanji
Pronunciation Lexicon Specification
3117974
Microsoft Transaction Server (MTS) was software that provided services to Component Object Model (COM) software components, to make it easier to create large distributed applications. The major services provided by MTS were automated transaction management, instance management (or just-in-time activation) and role-based security. MTS is considered to be the first major software to implement aspect-oriented programming. MTS was first offered in the Windows NT 4.0 Option Pack. In Windows 2000, MTS was enhanced and better integrated with the operating system and COM, and was renamed COM+. COM+ added object pooling, loosely-coupled events and user-defined simple transactions (compensating resource managers) to the features of MTS. COM+ is still provided with Windows Server 2003 and Windows Server 2008, and the Microsoft .NET Framework provides a wrapper for COM+ in the EnterpriseServices namespace. The Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) provides a way of calling COM+ applications with web services. However, COM+ is based on COM, and Microsoft's strategic software architecture is now web services and .NET, not COM. There are pure .NET-based alternatives for many of the features provided by COM+, and in the long term it is likely COM+ will be phased out. Architecture A basic MTS architecture comprises: the MTS Executive (mtxex.dll) the Factory Wrappers and Context Wrappers for each component the MTS Server Component MTS clients auxiliary systems like: COM runtime services the Service Control Manager (SCM) the Microsoft Distributed Transaction Coordinator (MS-DTC) the Microsoft Message Queue (MSMQ) the COM-Transaction Integrator (COM-TI) etc. COM components that run under the control of the MTS Executive are called MTS components. In COM+, they are referred to as COM+ Applications. MTS components are in-process DLLs. MTS components are deployed and run in the MTS Executive which manages them. As with other COM components, an object implementing the IClassFactory interface serves as a Factory Object to create new instances of these components. MTS inserts a Factory Wrapper Object and an Object Wrapper between the actual MTS object and its client. This interposing of wrappers is called interception. Whenever the client makes a call to the MTS component, the wrappers (Factory and Object) intercept the call and inject their own instance-management algorithm called the Just-In-Time Activation (JITA) into the call. The wrapper then makes this call on the actual MTS component. Interception was considered difficult at the time due to a lack of extensible metadata. In addition, based on the information from the component's deployment properties, transaction logic and security checks also take place in these wrapper objects. For every MTS-hosted object, there also exists a Context Object, which implements the IObjectContext interface. The Context Object maintains specific information about that object, such as its transactional information, security information and deployment information. Methods in the MTS component call into the Context Object through its IObjectContext interface. MTS does not create the actual middle-tier MTS object until the call from a client reaches the container. Since the object is not running all the time, it does not use up a lot of system resources (even though an
Microsoft Transaction Server
2336660
A United States defense standard, often called a military standard, "MIL-STD", "MIL-SPEC", or (informally) "MilSpecs", is used to help achieve standardization objectives by the U.S. Department of Defense. Standardization is beneficial in achieving interoperability, ensuring products meet certain requirements, commonality, reliability, total cost of ownership, compatibility with logistics systems, and similar defense-related objectives. Defense standards are also used by other non-defense government organizations, technical organizations, and industry. This article discusses definitions, history, and usage of defense standards. Related documents, such as defense handbooks and defense specifications, are also addressed. Definition of document types Although the official definitions differentiate between several types of documents, all of these documents go by the general rubric of "military standard", including defense specifications, handbooks, and standards. Strictly speaking, these documents serve different purposes. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), military specifications "describe the physical and/or operational characteristics of a product", while military standards "detail the processes and materials to be used to make the product." Military handbooks, on the other hand, are primarily sources of compiled information and/or guidance. The GAO acknowledges, however, that the terms are often used interchangeably. Official definitions are provided by DoD 4120.24, Defense Standardization Program (DSP) Procedures, November 2014, USD (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics): For purposes of this article, "military standards" will include standards, specifications and handbooks. There are also standard names with different letters behind ′MIL-′ like MIL-C-5040H, MIL-E-7016F or MIL-S-901. Formats The DOD has standards about the format of standards: MIL-STD-961, Defense and Program-Unique Specifications Format and Content MIL-STD-962, Defense Standards Format and Content MIL-STD-967, Defense Handbooks Format and Content Origins and evolution Defense standards evolved from the need to ensure proper performance, maintainability and reparability (ease of MRO), and logistical usefulness of military equipment. The latter two goals (MRO and logistics) favor certain general concepts, such as interchangeability, standardization (of equipment and processes, in general), cataloging, communications, and training (to teach people what is standardized, what is at their discretion, and the details of the standards). In the late 18th century and throughout the 19th, the American and French militaries were early adopters and longtime developmental sponsors and advocates of interchangeability and standardization. By World War II (1939–1945), virtually all national militaries and trans-national alliances of the same (Allied Forces, Axis powers) were busy standardizing and cataloguing. The U.S. AN- cataloguing system (Army-Navy) and the British Defence Standards (DEF-STAN) provide examples. For example, due to differences in dimensional tolerances, in World War II American screws, bolts, and nuts did not fit British equipment properly and were not fully interchangeable. Defense standards provide many benefits, such as minimizing the number of types of ammunition, ensuring compatibility of tools, and ensuring quality during production of military equipment. This results, for example, in ammunition and food cases that can be opened without tools; vehicle subsystems that can be quickly swapped into the place of damaged ones; and small arms and artillery that are less likely to find themselves with an excess of ammunition that does not fit and a
United States Military Standard
23713739
The Web Services Description Language (WSDL ) is an XML-based interface description language that is used for describing the functionality offered by a web service. The acronym is also used for any specific WSDL description of a web service (also referred to as a WSDL file), which provides a machine-readable description of how the service can be called, what parameters it expects, and what data structures it returns. Therefore, its purpose is roughly similar to that of a type signature in a programming language. The latest version of WSDL, which became a W3C recommendation in 2007, is WSDL 2.0. The meaning of the acronym has changed from version 1.1 where the "D" stood for "Definition". Description The WSDL describes services as collections of network endpoints, or ports. The WSDL specification provides an XML format for documents for this purpose. The abstract definitions of ports and messages are separated from their concrete use or instance, allowing the reuse of these definitions. A port is defined by associating a network address with a reusable binding, and a collection of ports defines a service. Messages are abstract descriptions of the data being exchanged, and port types are abstract collections of supported operations. The concrete protocol and data format specifications for a particular port type constitutes a reusable binding, where the operations and messages are then bound to a concrete network protocol and message format. In this way, WSDL describes the public interface to the Web service. WSDL is often used in combination with SOAP and an XML Schema to provide Web services over the Internet. A client program connecting to a Web service can read the WSDL file to determine what operations are available on the server. Any special datatypes used are embedded in the WSDL file in the form of XML Schema. The client can then use SOAP to actually call one of the operations listed in the WSDL file, using for example XML over HTTP. The current version of the specification is 2.0; version 1.1 has not been endorsed by the W3C but version 2.0 is a W3C recommendation. WSDL 1.2 was renamed WSDL 2.0 because of its substantial differences from WSDL 1.1. By accepting binding to all the HTTP request methods (not only GET and POST as in version 1.1), the WSDL 2.0 specification offers better support for RESTful web services, and is much simpler to implement. However support for this specification is still poor in software development kits for Web Services which often offer tools only for WSDL 1.1. For example, the version 2.0 of the Business Process Execution Language (BPEL) only supports WSDL 1.1. Example WSDL file <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <description xmlns="http://www.w3.org/ns/wsdl" xmlns:tns="http://www.tmsws.com/wsdl20sample" xmlns:whttp="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/http/" xmlns:wsoap="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/soap/" targetNamespace="http://www.tmsws.com/wsdl20sample"> <documentation> This is a sample WSDL 2.0 document. </documentation> <!-- Abstract type --> <types> <xs:schema xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns="http://www.tmsws.com/wsdl20sample" targetNamespace="http://www.example.com/wsdl20sample"> <xs:element name="request"> ... </xs:element> <xs:element name="response"> ... </xs:element> </xs:schema> </types> <!-- Abstract interfaces --> <interface name="Interface1"> <fault name="Error1" element="tns:response"/> <operation name="Get" pattern="http://www.w3.org/ns/wsdl/in-out"> <input messageLabel="In" element="tns:request"/> <output messageLabel="Out" element="tns:response"/> </operation> </interface> <!-- Concrete Binding Over
Web Services Description Language
1191806
The domain names example.com, example.net, example.org, and example.edu are second-level domain names in the Domain Name System of the Internet. They are reserved by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) at the direction of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) as special-use domain names for documentation purposes. The domain names are used widely in books, tutorials, sample network configurations, and generally as examples for the use of domain names. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) operates web sites for these domains with content that reflects their purpose. Purpose The domains example.com, example.net, example.org and example.edu are intended for general use in any kind of documentation, such as technical and software documentation, manuals, and sample software configurations. Thus, documentation writers can be sure to select a domain name without creating naming conflicts if end-users try to use the sample configurations or examples verbatim. The domains may be used in documentation without prior consultation with IANA or ICANN. In practice, these domain names are also installed in the Domain Name System with the Internet Protocol (IP) addresses for Internet Protocol version 4 (IPv4) and IPv6 of a web server managed by ICANN. The domains are digitally signed using Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC). The zone files of each domain also define one subdomain name. The third-level domain name www resolves to the IP addresses of the parent domains. History The second-level domain label example for the top-level domains com, net, and org have been reserved and registered since at least 1992. The IETF established the authority of this use in 1999. In 2013, the status and purpose of the domains was restated by the IETF as belonging to a group of special-use domain names. See also .example – Top-level domain name reserved for documentation purposes .local – Pseudo-TLD with no meaning in the DNS for use with local zeroconf networking only Fictitious domain name IPv4 § Special-use addresses – some special-use IPv4 address ranges are reserved for documentation and examples Reserved top-level domains References External links example.com example.net example.org example.edu Domain Name System Placeholder names Internet properties established in 1999
Example.com
1019932
.es (españa) is the country code top-level domain (ccTLD) for Spain. It is administered by the Network Information Centre of Spain. Registrations are permitted at the second level or at the third level beneath various generic second level categories. Some qualifications and restrictions apply to third-level registrations depending on which second-level domain they are within. Second-level registrations have had some limitations including requiring registrants to have a connection with Spain, but these restrictions were lifted in a multi-stage process completed by the end of 2005, at which point registrations at the second level of .es were open to anybody worldwide. The .es domain does not have a conventional WHOIS server operating on port 43, but WHOIS queries can be made using a page on ESNIC's website. Second-level domains There also exist a number of second-level domains: .com.es - open to all applicants (intended for commercial entities) .nom.es - open to all applicants (intended for personal names) .org.es - open to all applicants (intended for noncommercial organizations) .gob.es - for governmental entities .edu.es - for educational institutions Alternatives Until the liberalization in November 2005, registering in .es was expensive and encumbered compared to other ccTLDs. The second-level word had to be either a trade mark valid in Spain, the exact name of the registering business or association, or the first name and at least the first surname of the registering individual. Common words and placenames were unregisterable. There was also a requirement of a minimum of three characters in the name, though some exceptions like hp.es (Hewlett-Packard Spain) and pp.es (People's Party) were allowed. As an alternative many Spanish organizations registered under .com, .org or .net. Usage Although very popular in Spain for its intended use, .es has been used for domain hacks such as geociti.es, a website mirroring Geocities; adspac.es, a mobile-based advertising firm; thelettervsixtim.es, for the game VVVVVV; and iTun.es for iTunes Ping URL shortening. References External links IANA .es whois information ESNIC website Country code top-level domains Internet in Spain Council of European National Top Level Domain Registries members Internet properties established in 1988
.es
1237601
.mh is the Internet country code top-level domain (ccTLD) for the Marshall Islands. Its registry website has been inactive since the end of 2021, and prior to that had not been updated since 1997. The mechanism of registering domains listed on that site involved downloading an InterNIC template form that had been a dead link for at least several years. , a search showed three active websites using a .mh domain: one for the government's Natural Disaster Management Office, one for the school system, and one for a telecommunications company. The Natural Disaster Management Office website went offline a year later. In 2022, the Office of Commerce, Investment & Tourism created a site under the domain, but moved to .org in late 2023. The same year, Wahoo, a store based in Majuro, opened a website under the domain. Most of the people who govern a site from the Marshall Islands usually register it under .com, .net or .org. Almost all sites registered to entities in the Marshall Islands are hosted in other countries. See also Communications in the Marshall Islands Internet in the Marshall Islands Internet in the United States .us References External links IANA .mh whois information .mh domain registration website (currently inactive) Country code top-level domains Communications in the Marshall Islands Internet properties established in 1996 sv:Toppdomän#M
.mh
954515
.bg is the country code top-level domain (ccTLD) in the Domain Name System of the Internet for Bulgaria. It is currently operated by Register.BG. .bg domains can be registered by European Union citizens, companies or foreign companies that have registered branches or commercial representatives in Bulgaria. The price of domain registration is €30 per year (€36 including VAT). Until mid-2006, the price was a one-time registration fee of US$50 plus US$50 per year (total of US$120 including VAT for the first year). For local standards this was a very high price, and many Bulgarian sites were registered under .com (esp -bg.com), .org, or .net domains, as the registration costs were significantly lower (US$8–12 per year) and less of a bureaucratic hassle. From August 25, 2008, Register.BG simplified the procedures, allowing the registration of domain names in the .bg zone without providing documented grounds (trademarks, company names) for the name. Eventual disputes are to be solved via the newly established Arbitration committee. Since September 18, 2006, Register.bg proposes new, third-level domains in the a.bg, b.bg, etc., subdomains (a Latin letter or a digit +.bg), lower cost (€12/year incl. VAT), with less restrictions and no dispute resolution. They are targeted mainly at private individuals. The domain has been enabled with Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC) since October 2007. On September 5, 2009, Register.bg started accepting second- and third-level domain names in Cyrillic with letters found in the Bulgarian language only. See also .бг References External links IANA .bg whois information Register.bg Whois service Country code top-level domains Internet in Bulgaria Council of European National Top Level Domain Registries members Mass media in Bulgaria Internet properties established in 1995
.bg
840451
JScript .NET is a .NET programming language developed by Microsoft. The primary differences between JScript and JScript .NET can be summarized as follows: Firstly, JScript is a scripting language, and as such programs (or more suggestively, scripts) can be executed without the need to compile the code first. This is not the case with the JScript .NET command-line compiler, since this next-generation version relies on the .NET Common Language Runtime (CLR) for execution, which requires that the code be compiled to Common Intermediate Language (CIL), formerly called Microsoft Intermediate Language (MSIL), code before it can be run. Nevertheless, JScript .NET still provides full support for interpreting code at runtime (e.g., via the Function constructor or the eval function) and indeed the interpreter can be exposed by custom applications hosting the JScript .NET engine via the VSA interfaces. Secondly, JScript has a strong foundation in Microsoft's ActiveX/COM technologies, and relies primarily on ActiveX components to provide much of its functionality (including database access via ADO, file handling, etc.), whereas JScript .NET uses the .NET Framework to provide equivalent functionality. For backwards-compatibility (or for where no .NET equivalent library exists), JScript .NET still provides full access to ActiveX objects via .NET / COM Interop using both the ActiveXObject constructor and the standard methods of the .NET Type class. Although the .NET Framework and .NET languages such as C# and Visual Basic .NET have seen widespread adoption, JScript .NET has never received much attention, by the media or by developers. It is not supported in Microsoft's premier development tool, Visual Studio .NET. However, ASP.NET supports JScript .NET. Language differences The following are prime examples of language differences between JScript .NET and other .NET languages, including comparisons. Differences with C# JScript .NET does not require a main() function that the operating system must call directly when executing a JScript .NET application, as such, JScript .NET program flow can be based on global code. JScript .NET, because of its very loose type checking system can be very easy to learn, since the convention of explicit type declaration is not required at all. JScript .NET does not require explicit references to the .NET Framework Base Class Library, as certain functions found in earlier versions of JScript are present in JScript .NET (e.g. functions for finding the tangent of an angle for a right triangle). JScript .NET is closely linked to C syntax, and is thus very easy to learn for C#, Java or C++ developers. While JScript .NET can be used to create Windows Forms applications, JScript .NET will have some trouble, as delegates can only be consumed in JScript .NET and not created. Thus, custom events are hard to emulate in JScript .NET. Differences with C++ JScript .NET does not require a main() function. JScript .NET does not require explicit type declaration on variables. (In C++, the use of templates and generics can be compared to this, loosely emulated with template specialization, etc.) JScript .NET also does not require explicit type casts on variable use
JScript .NET
18935330
Typosquatting, also called URL hijacking, a sting site, a cousin domain, or a fake URL, is a form of cybersquatting, and possibly brandjacking which relies on mistakes such as typos made by Internet users when inputting a website address into a web browser. A user accidentally entering an incorrect website address may be led to any URL, including an alternative website owned by a cybersquatter. The typosquatter's URL will usually be one of five kinds, all similar to the victim site address: A common misspelling, or foreign language spelling, of the intended site A misspelling based on a typographical error A plural of a singular domain name A different top-level domain: (e.g. .com instead of .org) An abuse of the Country Code Top-Level Domain (ccTLD) (.cm, .co, or .om instead of .com) Similar abuses: Combosquatting - no misspelling, but appending an arbitrary word that appears legitimate, but that anyone could register. Doppelganger domain - omitting a period or inserting an extra period Appending terms such as sucks or - to a domain name Once in the typosquatter's site, the user may also be tricked into thinking that they are in fact in the real site, through the use of copied or similar logos, website layouts, or content. Spam emails sometimes make use of typosquatting URLs to trick users into visiting malicious sites that look like a given bank's site, for instance. The Magniber ransomware is being distributed in a typosquatting method that exploits typos made when entering domains, targeting mainly Chrome and Edge users. Motivation There are several different reasons for typosquatters buying a typo domain: To try to sell the typo domain back to the brand owner To monetize the domain through advertising revenues from direct navigation misspellings of the intended domain To redirect the typo-traffic to a competitor To redirect the typo-traffic back to the brand itself, but through an affiliate link, thus earning commissions from the brand owner's affiliate program As a phishing scheme to mimic the brand's site, while intercepting passwords which the visitor enters unsuspectingly To install drive-by malware or revenue generating adware onto the visitors' devices To harvest misaddressed e-mail messages mistakenly sent to the typo domain To express an opinion that is different from the intended website's opinion By legitimate site owners, to block malevolent use of the typo domain by others To annoy users of the intended site Examples Many companies, including Verizon, Lufthansa, and Lego, have gained reputations for aggressively chasing down typosquatted names. Lego, for example, has spent roughly US$500,000 on taking 309 cases through UDRP proceedings. Celebrities have also frequently pursued their domain names. Prominent examples include basketball player Dirk Nowitzki's UDRP of DirkSwish.com and actress Eva Longoria's UDRP of EvaLongoria.org. Goggle, a typosquatted version of Google, was the subject of a 2006 web safety promotion by McAfee, which depicted the significant amounts of malware installed through drive-by downloads upon accessing the site at the time. Most notably, Goggle installed SpySheriff. Later the URL redirected to google.com; a 2018
Typosquatting
4545603
In Microsoft Windows applications programming, OLE Automation (later renamed to simply Automation) is an inter-process communication mechanism created by Microsoft. It is based on a subset of Component Object Model (COM) that was intended for use by scripting languages – originally Visual Basic – but now is used by several languages on Windows. All automation objects are required to implement the IDispatch interface. It provides an infrastructure whereby applications called automation controllers can access and manipulate (i.e. set properties of or call methods on) shared automation objects that are exported by other applications. It supersedes Dynamic Data Exchange (DDE), an older mechanism for applications to control one another. As with DDE, in OLE Automation the automation controller is the "client" and the application exporting the automation objects is the "server". Contrary to its name, automation objects do not necessarily use Microsoft OLE, although some Automation objects can be used in OLE environments. The confusion has its roots in Microsoft's earlier definition of OLE, which was previously more or less a synonym of COM. Advantages and limitations To ensure interoperability, automation interfaces are limited to use a subset of all COM types. Specifically, automation interfaces must use SAFEARRAY instead of raw COM arrays. Automation-compatible COM servers can, however, rely on the in-built OLE marshalling implementation. This avoids the need for additional proxy/stub projects for marshalling out-of-process. Usage Automation was designed with the ease of scripting in mind, so controllers often provide languages such as Visual Basic for Applications to end users, allowing them to control automation objects via scripts. Automation objects are often written in conventional languages such as C++, where C++ attributes can be used to simplify development, Languages such as Visual Basic and Borland Delphi also provides a convenient syntax for Automation which hides the complexity of the underlying implementation. Type libraries In order to automate an application, the developer of an automation controller must know the object model that is employed by the target application exporting activation objects. This requires that the developer of the target application publicly document its object model. Development of automation controllers without knowledge of the target application's object model is "difficult to impossible". Due to these complications, Automation components are usually provided with type libraries, which contain metadata about classes, interfaces and other features exposed by an object library. Interfaces are described in Microsoft Interface Definition Language. Type libraries can be viewed using various tools, such as the Microsoft OLE/COM Object Viewer (oleview.exe, part of the Microsoft Platform SDK) or the Object Browser in Visual Basic (up to version 6) and Visual Studio .NET. Type libraries are used to generate Proxy pattern/stub code for interoperating between COM and other platforms, such as Microsoft .NET and Java. For instance, the .NET Framework SDK includes tools that can generate a proxy .NET DLL to access Automation objects using both early binding (with information about interfaces extracted from a type library) and late binding (via IDispatch, mapped to the .NET Reflection API), with the built-in .NET-to-COM
OLE Automation
511063
Site Finder was a wildcard DNS record for all .com and .net unregistered domain names, run by .com and .net top-level domain operator VeriSign between 15 September 2003 and 4 October 2003. Site Finder All Internet users who accessed any unregistered domains in the .com and .net domain space were redirected to a VeriSign web portal with information about VeriSign products and links to "partner" sites. This gave VeriSign the advantage of receiving greater revenue from advertising and from users wishing to register these domain names. It had the effect of capturing the web traffic for several million mistyped or experimental web accesses per day, and meant that VeriSign effectively owned all possible .com and .net domains that had not been bought by others, and could use them as an advertising platform. VeriSign described the change as an attempt to improve the Web browsing experience for the naive user, without mentioning any use of the domain name system other than by browsers. VeriSign's critics saw this claim as disingenuous. The change led to a dramatic increase in the amount of Internet traffic arriving at verisign.com. According to the web traffic measurement company Alexa, in the year prior to the change verisign.com was around the 2,500th most popular website. In the weeks following the change, the site came into the top 20 most popular sites, and reached the top 10 in the aftermath of the change and surrounding controversy. Issues and controversy There was a storm of controversy among network operators and competing domain registrars, particularly on the influential NANOG and ICANN mailing lists, some of whom asserted: that the redirection was contrary to the proper operation of the DNS, ICANN policy, and the Internet architecture in general; that VeriSign breached its trust with the Internet community by using technical architecture for marketing purposes; that the redirection broke various RFCs and disrupted existing Internet services, such as email relay and filtering (spam filters were not able to detect the validity of domain names); that the redirection amounted to typosquatting where the unregistered domain being resolved is a spelling mistake for a famous registered domain; that VeriSign abused its technical control over the .com and .net domains by exerting a de facto monopoly control; that VeriSign may have been in breach of its contracts for running the .com and .net domains; that the Site Finder service assumed that all DNS traffic was caused by Web clients, ignoring the fact that DNS is used by other applications such as networked printers, FTP software, and dedicated communications applications. If users of these applications accidentally entered a wrong host name, instead of a meaningful "host not found" error they would get a "request timed out" error, making it look like the server existed but is not responding. No statement by VeriSign in support of Site Finder even acknowledged the existence of DNS traffic not caused by Web clients, although they published implementation details which mentioned this traffic. that Site Finder contained an end-user license agreement
Site Finder
17058007
Component Object Model (COM) is a binary-interface standard for software components introduced by Microsoft in 1993. It is used to enable inter-process communication (IPC) object creation in a large range of programming languages. COM is the basis for several other Microsoft technologies and frameworks, including OLE, OLE Automation, Browser Helper Object, ActiveX, COM+, DCOM, the Windows shell, DirectX, UMDF and Windows Runtime. The essence of COM is a language-neutral way of implementing objects that can be used in environments different from the one in which they were created, even across machine boundaries. For well-authored components, COM allows reuse of objects with no knowledge of their internal implementation, as it forces component implementers to provide well-defined interfaces that are separated from the implementation. The different allocation semantics of languages are accommodated by making objects responsible for their own creation and destruction through reference-counting. Type conversion casting between different interfaces of an object is achieved through the QueryInterface method. The preferred method of "inheritance" within COM is the creation of sub-objects to which method "calls" are delegated. COM is an interface technology defined and implemented as standard only on Microsoft Windows and Apple's Core Foundation 1.3 and later plug-in application programming interface (API). The latter only implements a subset of the whole COM interface. For some applications, COM has been replaced at least to some extent by the Microsoft .NET framework, and support for Web Services through the Windows Communication Foundation (WCF). However, COM objects can be used with all .NET languages through .NET COM Interop. Networked DCOM uses binary proprietary formats, while WCF encourages the use of XML-based SOAP messaging. COM is very similar to other component software interface technologies, such as CORBA and Enterprise JavaBeans, although each has its own strengths and weaknesses. Unlike C++, COM provides a stable application binary interface (ABI) that does not change between compiler releases. This makes COM interfaces attractive for object-oriented C++ libraries that are to be used by clients compiled using different compiler versions. History One of the first methods of interprocess communication in Windows was Dynamic Data Exchange (DDE), first introduced in 1987, that allowed sending and receiving messages in so-called "conversations" between applications. Antony Williams, who was involved in the creation of the COM architecture, later distributed two internal papers in Microsoft that embraced the concept of software components: Object Architecture: Dealing With the Unknown – or – Type Safety in a Dynamically Extensible Class Library in 1988 and On Inheritance: What It Means and How To Use It in 1990. These provided the foundation of many of the ideas behind COM. Object Linking and Embedding (OLE), Microsoft's first object-based framework, was built on top of DDE and designed specifically for compound documents. It was introduced with Word for Windows and Excel in 1991, and was later included with Windows, starting with version 3.1 in 1992. An example of a compound document is a spreadsheet embedded in a Word for Windows document: as changes are made to the spreadsheet within Excel,
Component Object Model
9731827
Variant is a data type in certain programming languages, particularly Visual Basic, OCaml, Delphi and C++ when using the Component Object Model. It is an implementation of the eponymous concept in computer science. In Visual Basic (and Visual Basic for Applications) the Variant data type is a tagged union that can be used to represent any other data type (for example, integer, floating-point, single- and double-precision, object, etc.) except fixed-length string type. In Visual Basic, any variable not declared explicitly or the type of which is not declared explicitly, is taken to be a variant. While the use of not explicitly declared variants is not recommended, they can be of use when the needed data type can only be known at runtime, when the data type is expected to vary, or when optional parameters and parameter arrays are desired. In fact, languages with a dynamic type system often have variant as the only available type for variables. Among the major changes in Visual Basic .NET, being a .NET language, the variant type was replaced with the .NET object type. There are similarities in concept, but also major differences, and no direct conversions exist between these two types. For conversions, as might be needed if Visual Basic .NET code is interacting with a Visual Basic 6 COM object, the normal methodology is to use .NET marshalling. Examples In Visual Basic, a variant named A can be declared either explicitly or implicitly: Dim A Dim A as Variant In Delphi, a variant named A is declared in the following way: var A: variant; Format A variable of variant type, for brevity called a "variant", as defined in Visual Basic, needs 16 bytes storage and its layout is as follows: Types A few examples of variants that one can encounter in Visual Basic follow. In other languages other kinds of variants can be used as well. 1 The type of an uninitialized variant. 2 The type of a NULL value in a database, that is, not uninitialized, nor equivalent to a C++ null pointer. 3 Missing arguments are actually a particular Error value titled "parameter not found". 4 The object type set to a null reference. 5 TypeName will return the name of the class of the object contained. The data would be an interface pointer, that is, a pointer to a pointer to a virtual method table (which is an array of function pointers). Common uses Collections The Collection class in OLE Automation can store items of different data types. Since the data type of these items cannot be known at compile time, the methods to add items to and retrieve items from a collection use variants. If in Visual Basic the For Each construct is used, the iterator variable must be of object type, or a variant. Dispatch method calls In OLE Automation the IDispatch interface is used when the class of an object cannot be known in advance. Hence when calling a method on such an object the types of
Variant type (COM)
16271198
The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to the United States: United States of America – federal republic located primarily in North America, and the world's third-largest country by both land and total area. It shares land borders with Canada to its north and with Mexico to its south and has maritime borders with the Bahamas, Cuba, Russia, and other nations. With the Soviet Union's collapse and the subsequent end of the Cold War in 1991, the United States emerged as the world's sole superpower. General reference Pronunciation: Abbreviations: USA or US Common English country name: United States Languages of the United States: English, Spanish and Hawaiian Official English country name: United States of America Common endonyms: United States, U.S., U.S.A., America Official endonym: United States of America Common exonyms: United States; America or The States (chiefly British/Commonwealth); North America (chiefly Latin America) Adjectivals: United States, American Demonyms: American (among others) Etymology International rankings of the United States ISO country codes: US, USA, 840 ISO region codes: See ISO 3166-2:US Internet country code top-level domain: .us, .com, .org, .net, .gov, .edu Geography of the United States The United States is: a megadiverse country Location (50 states): Northern Hemisphere and Western Hemisphere (except western Aleutian Islands) Americas North America Northern America Oceania Polynesia Time zones: Atlantic Standard Time (UTC-04), Atlantic Daylight Time (UTC-03) (Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands) Eastern Standard Time (UTC-05), Eastern Daylight Time (UTC-04) Central Standard Time (UTC-06), Central Daylight Time (UTC-05) Mountain Standard Time (UTC-07), Mountain Daylight Time (UTC-06) Pacific Standard Time (UTC-08), Pacific Daylight Time (UTC-07) Alaska Standard Time (UTC-09), Alaska Daylight Time (UTC-08) Hawaii-Aleutian Standard Time (UTC-10), Hawaii-Aleutian Daylight Time (UTC-09) Extreme points of the United States: North: Point Barrow, Alaska South: Ka Lae, Island of Hawai'i, Hawai'i () East: Sail Rock, just offshore West Quoddy Head, Maine Physically East: Eastern Semisopochnoi Island, Alaska West: Peaked Island, offshore Cape Wrangell, Attu Island, Alaska Physically West: Western Amatignak Island, Alaska High: Denali (Mount McKinley), Alaska at Low: Badwater Basin, Death Valley, California at Land boundaries: 12,034 km (7,477 mi) 8,893 km (5,525 mi) 3,145 km (1,954 mi) Coastline: 19,924 km (12,380 mi) Population of the United States: 308,745,538 (2010 census) – 3rd most populous country Area of the United States: – 4th most extensive country Atlas of the United States Cities of the United States, by population Environment of the United States Beaches in the United States Climate of the United States Climate change in the United States Environmental issues in the United States Ecoregions in the United States Geology of the United States Earthquakes in the United States National parks of the United States Protected areas of the United States Superfund sites in the United States Wildlife of the United States Flora of the United States Fauna of the United States Birds of the United States Mammals of the United States Reptiles of the United States Amphibians of the United States Geographic features of the United States Fjords
Outline of the United States
55114493
An emoji domain is a domain name with one or more emoji in it, for example 😉.. Function With the exception of the information emoji (), the trademark emoji () and the "m" emoji (), for an emoji to work as a domain name, it must be converted into so-called "Punycode". Punycode is a character encoding method used for internationalized domain names (IDNs). This representation is used when registering domains containing special characters. The ASCII representation starts with the prefix "xn--" and is followed by the emoji-containing domain name encoded as Punycode, for example "xn--i-7iq" is "❤" when converted back to Unicode. Each emoji has a unique Punycode representation. For example, "😉" in an IDN is represented as "xn--n28h". There are several generators on the Internet that allow one to convert emoji to Punycode and back. Availability and registration , there are 11 top-level domains for which emoji domain registration is possible: .cf, .fm, .ga, .gq, .kz, .ml, .st, .tk, .to, .uz, and .ws; as well as 12 second-level domains: .radio.am, .radio.fm, .co.il, .org.il, .biz.ua, .co.ua, .pp.ua, .co.uz, .com.uz, .com.ws, .net.ws, and .org.ws. The registration of an emoji domain can be more difficult than with normal domain names using only ASCII characters, since it is sometimes not possible to enter emoji into the online registration forms of domain name registrars, and instead the Punycode representation must be entered. The availability of an emoji domain can be verified by using an emoji domain search engine or by checking the WHOIS data of the punycoded domain. History At least four emoji domains were created on April 19, 2001:☻.com (xn--84h.com), ♨️.com (xn--j6h.com), ♨️.net (xn--j6h.net), and ☮️.com (xn--v4h.com). In 2005, ♌️.com (xn--q5h.com) was registered. On 9 September 2003, https://I♥You.com (xn--iyou-5u3b.com), https://I♥.com (xn--i-n3p.com), I❤️You.com and over a thousand other emoji domains were registered by Menno de Ruiter for the first emoji project on the internet in conjunction with the two principal programmers for the Punycode/IDN project at VeriSign and Galcomm ICANN registrar in Israel. Cabel Sasser of Panic created 💩.la (xn--ls8h.la), "The World's First Emoji Domain", on April 13, 2011. In February 2015, Coca-Cola used a domain name containing a smiley emoji in an advertising campaign aimed at mobile users in Puerto Rico. A 2018 survey of the .ws TLD recorded approximately 25,000 registered emoji domains. On June 26, 2020, an online collective called It Is What It Is employed the 👁️👄👁️.fm (xn--mp8hai.fm) emoji domain to raise money for various social justice causes. The viral campaign, which relied on people's fear of missing out, caused thousands of Twitter users to post both the emoji domain and the phrase "It Is What It Is" in hopes of getting access to a rumored exclusive social network. In the end, It Is What It Is turned out to be a hoax designed to redirect attention to social issues; it ultimately raised over $200,000 and was featured in Wired, Forbes, Business Insider, The Verge, and Gizmodo, among other publications. Issues Support among domain name registrars for emoji domains is
Emoji domain
14687744
A Runtime Callable Wrapper (RCW) is a proxy object generated by the .NET Common Language Runtime (CLR) in order to allow a Component Object Model (COM) object to be accessed from managed code. Although the RCW appears to be an ordinary object to .NET clients, its primary function is to marshal calls and data between a .NET client and a COM object. For example, a managed application written in C# might make use of an existing COM library written in C++ or Visual Basic 6, via RCWs. The runtime creates exactly one RCW for each COM object, regardless of the number of references that exist on that object. The runtime maintains a single RCW per process for each object. If you create an RCW in one application domain or apartment, and then pass a reference to another application domain or apartment, a proxy to the first object will be used. References External links MSDN Runtime Callable Wrapper Reference Component-based software engineering Inter-process communication Microsoft application programming interfaces Object-oriented programming Object models
Runtime Callable Wrapper
5529573
The Nintendo DS Browser is a port of the Opera 8.5 web browser for use on the Nintendo DS, developed by Opera Software and Nintendo, and sold as a standalone game cartridge. Two versions were sold, one for the original Nintendo DS and one for the Nintendo DS Lite, each with a different Slot-2 memory expansion pack to fit the respective system. The browser received mixed reviews from critics, largely focusing on its slow speeds despite its functionality. It was later rendered obsolete by an improved browser on the system's upgraded version, the Nintendo DSi, which, unlike its predecessor, was onboard software. Features Nintendo DS Browser makes use of the Nintendo DS's touchscreen for input, with an on-screen keyboard as well as handwriting recognition and a stock of pre-set text (for example, the .com and .org top-level domains). The browser can render pages in two modes, Small Screen Rendering (SSR) or Overview. In Small Screen Rendering mode, the contents of the page are displayed in a single column fitting the width of the screen - for example, a page featuring two columns of text side-by-side would be displayed as a single column, one after the other. In Overview mode, a scaled-down version of the page is displayed on the touchscreen with a small selection box which can be moved around using the stylus. The contents of the selection box are displayed on the top screen at their full size. This selection can be brought into the touchscreen to perform such actions as click on links or entering text in boxes. The browser connects to the network through IEEE 802.11 Wi-Fi access points or hotspots using the built-in wireless capability of the Nintendo DS. While WEP encryption is supported, WPA encryption is not. Nintendo has partnered with Internet security company Astaro to integrate web filtering technology into the Nintendo DS Browser. Called Astaro Parental Control, the technology acts as a proxy filter, providing the option of blocking inappropriate content. This is provided free of charge and can be activated through a simple menu option. The Nintendo DS browser supports JavaScript and SSL in web pages, but does not support plugins like Adobe Flash, or bold text. Due to limited system resources, most other dynamic media, such as videos or sound, will not work in the browser. Search Both browsers include a web search feature. The Nintendo DS Browser defaults to Yahoo! (currently powered by Bing) outside of Japan, or Yahoo! Japan (currently powered by Google) in Japan, but can be configured to any supported search engine by editing the URL in the browser settings. The Nintendo DSi Browser limits search engine options to Google or Yahoo! Yahoo! Japan is no longer supported, as the browsers' security certificates have expired. Standards compliance The Nintendo DSi Browser passes the Acid1 test. It nearly passes the Acid2 test, except for fixed element positioning, resulting in two stray squares. It receives a 59% on the Acid3 test in Overview Mode and a 53% in Column
Nintendo DS Browser
578946
The domain name mil is the sponsored top-level domain (sTLD) in the Domain Name System of the Internet for the United States Department of Defense and its subsidiary or affiliated organizations. The name is derived from military. It was one of the first top-level domains, created in January 1985. The United States is the only country that has a top-level domain for its military, a legacy of the United States' military's role in the creation of the Internet. Other countries often use second-level domains for this purpose, e.g., mod.uk for the United Kingdom's Ministry of Defence. Canada uses norad.mil with the United States as they jointly operate the North American Aerospace Defense Command. Despite having a dedicated top-level domain, the US military also uses com domains for some of its recruitment sites, such as goarmy.com, as well as for the Defense Commissary Agency's website www.commissaries.com and most non-appropriated fund instrumentalities such as military MWR organizations and military exchanges. Also, the military uses edu domains for its service academies: the United States Military Academy, United States Coast Guard Academy, United States Naval Academy, and the United States Air Force Academy can all be reached using either an edu or a mil domain name. The official athletic program sites of the three academies that are members of NCAA Division I (Army, Navy, Air Force) use com domains, as well as Coast Guard, which is a member of NCAA Division III. The Department of Defense itself uses gov for its home page, with at least three second-level domains within mil (defense, dod, and pentagon) redirecting to its domain name www.defense.gov. The United States Coast Guard, like other military services, uses the mil domain, although during statutory peacetime the service falls under the United States Department of Homeland Security. References External links IANA .mil whois information Sponsored top-level domains Military terminology of the United States Domain names in the United States Internet in Canada Internet properties established in 1985
.mil
20846650
This is the list of countries by number of Internet hosts, based on 2012 figures from the CIA World Factbook. Several dependent territories, not fully recognized states, and non-state territories are also listed. The European Union host (.eu) is mostly composed of French, Polish and German hosts. List (*) The U.S. figure includes hosts in the .us, .mil, .gov, .edu, .com, .org, and .net domains. See also Internet Census of 2012 References Internet-related lists Internet Hosts IT infrastructure
List of sovereign states by number of Internet hosts
2523900
German Scholars Boston, also known as German Scholars Agency, and abbreviated as GSA or GSB, is an independent organization of more than 12,000 German-speaking scholars, alumni and professionals living and working in Cambridge or the greater Boston area interested in Germanic culture. It comprises scientists, scholars, students, fellows, post-docs and alumni from all major universities in the area, such as Harvard University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston University and Tufts University, as well as professionals from different companies, and people from government- and non-governmental organizations. It has more than 6000 alumni. GSB provides a forum for its members to meet, discuss, exchange ideas and vital information. GSB invites to specific cultural and social events to get together on a regular basis. References External links German Scholars Boston .NET website German Scholars Boston .COM website German Scholars Boston .ORG website German Students Boston .NET website German Students Boston .COM website German Students Boston .ORG website German Scholars Agency .NET website German Scholars Agency .COM website German Scholars Agency .ORG website Organizations based in Boston German-American culture in Massachusetts Germany–United States relations
German Scholars Boston
387462
The Internet uses the Domain Name System (DNS) to associate numeric computer IP addresses with human-readable names. The top level of the domain name hierarchy, the DNS root, contains the top-level domains that appear as the suffixes of all Internet domain names. The most widely used (and first) DNS root is administered by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). In addition, several organizations operate alternative DNS roots, often referred to as alt roots. These alternative domain name systems operate their own root name servers and commonly administer their own specific name spaces consisting of custom top-level domains. The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) has spoken out strongly against alternative roots in . Overview The DNS root zone consists of pointers to the authoritative domain name servers for all top-level domains (TLDs). The root zone is hosted on a collection of root servers operated by several organizations around the world that all use a specific, approved list of domains that is managed by ICANN. By contrast, alternative roots typically include pointers to all of the TLD servers for domains delegated by ICANN, as well as name servers for other, custom top-level domains that are not sanctioned by ICANN. Some alternative roots are operated by the organizations that manage these alternative TLDs. Zach Bastick proposes that alternative DNS roots have allowed for more democratic control of the Internet: Unless one specifically changes their DNS resolution settings, alternative DNS top level domains are generally unreachable, and very few Internet service providers provide this configuration by default. Implementations Some organizations provide alternative DNS root services, such as additional top-level domains. Handshake Handshake is a decentralized implementation of a DNS root zone using blockchain and cryptocurrency technology to create a peer-to-peer alternative to the 13 root name servers managed by ICANN. Unlike other attempts, Handshake does not aim to replace the existing DNS; rather, it seeks to supplement and enhance it by allowing anyone to bid, register, and manage their own TLDs without an intermediate registrar or delegating authority. Since the root zone file records are not centrally managed, and instead are stored on a public blockchain, owners of Handshake TLDs can add or change top-level resource records to delegate authoritative name servers and set up DNSSEC zone signing directly. Existing TLDs are reserved in the Handshake blockchain such that resolving traditional domain names (i.e. zones under .com, .org, .net, etc.) through a Handshake node or name server are directed back to ICANN's root servers. In addition, the top 100,000 most popular domains are reserved as Handshake TLDs which can be redeemed by the original domain owner. Namecoin Namecoin is a blockchain and cryptocurrency to support the alternative top-level domain .bit. OpenNIC OpenNIC is a user owned and controlled alternative to InterNIC and ICANN providing a non-national democratic alternative to traditional domain registries. OpenNIC servers are able to resolve all ICANN top-level domains, some OpenNIC original top-level domains, and the resolution of other Alternate DNS Roots with which they have reached peering agreements.
Alternative DNS root
3002110
In programming and software design, binding is an application programming interface (API) that provides glue code specifically made to allow a programming language to use a foreign library or operating system service (one that is not native to that language). Characteristics Binding generally refers to a mapping of one thing to another. In the context of software libraries, bindings are wrapper libraries that bridge two programming languages, so that a library written for one language can be used in another language. Many software libraries are written in system programming languages such as C or C++. To use such libraries from another language, usually of higher-level, such as Java, Common Lisp, Scheme, Python, or Lua, a binding to the library must be created in that language, possibly requiring recompiling the language's code, depending on the amount of modification needed. However, most languages offer a foreign function interface, such as Python's and OCaml's ctypes, and Embeddable Common Lisp's cffi and uffi. For example, Python bindings are used when an extant C library, written for some purpose, is to be used from Python. Another example is libsvn which is written in C to provide an API to access the Subversion software repository. To access Subversion from within Java code, libsvnjavahl can be used, which depends on libsvn being installed and acts as a bridge between the language Java and libsvn, thus providing an API that invokes functions from libsvn to do the work. Major motives to create library bindings include software reuse, to reduce reimplementing a library in several languages, and the difficulty of implementing some algorithms efficiently in some high-level languages. Runtime environment Object models Common Object Request Broker Architecture (CORBA) – cross-platform-language model Component Object Model (COM) – Microsoft Windows only cross-language model Distributed Component Object Model (DCOM) – extension enabling COM to work over networks Cross Platform Component Object Model (XPCOM) – Mozilla applications cross-platform model Common Language Infrastructure – .NET Framework cross-platform-language model Freedesktop.org D-Bus – open cross-platform-language model Virtual machines Comparison of application virtual machines Porting Portable object – cross-platform-language object model definition See also Application programming interface (API) Application binary interface (ABI) Calling convention Embedded SQL Name mangling Simplified Wrapper and Interface Generator (SWIG) – interface binding generator from many languages to many languages, open-source Wrapper function References External links JTC1/SC22/WG11 - Binding Techniques, an ISO standard for language bindings What is a language binding? Compilers Computer libraries
Language binding
4701327
IDN.IDN is an abbreviation for an Internationalized domain name whose Top level domain (TLD) is also internationalized, which could be transliterated .com, .net, .org, etc. or be groupings relevant to the language at hand. Culturally relevant proposals Chinese: Korean: Japanese: Russian: Hebrew: שלום.דבר : shalom.dbr (dbr being roots of the verb 'to talk') דפנה.שלי : daphne.shli (shli being a preposition 'of me,' for personal homepages, etc.) Arabic: كوم : .com نت : .net اورج : .org Concerns and considerations As this is an issue still being "decided upon," (for many years, apparently) there are many factors to be considered. Here are a few just thrown out to be edited around and made to look pretty. IDN.COM vs. IDN.IDN, important issue as IDN.COM is already available. Compatibility Punycode "branching off from the *main* internet" (various POVs) Who Owns The Internet The UN Resolution from meeting in Tunisia Localization Transliteration of COM NET ORG vs. culturally significant TLD names of the languages' own choosing. Right-to-left formatted languages such as Arabic and Hebrew External links ICANN's IDN Committee Proposal for the Implementation of Internationalized TLDs IDN Guide IDN News Korean Government Position on IDN TLDs IDN's Forum Local Domains Forum International Domain Forum Domain Name System
IDN.IDN
15331067
Andrew W. Troelsen is currently a technology manager at Thomson Reuters in the Enterprise Content Platform (ECP - Big Data) division. He is an author of several books in the Microsoft technology space including books on Microsoft (D)COM, ATL, .NET, C#, VB (4.0 - modern) and COM & .NET Interoperability. His latest edition of his C# book covers the .NET Core platform and each C# 7.0 update. He has over 18 years experience authoring software development (3-5 day) workshops for engineers on MS platform technologies. Books Developer's Workshop to Com and Atl 3.0 (Andrew Troelsen (2000)) C# and the .NET Platform (Andrew Troelsen (2001)) COM and .NET Interoperability (Andrew Troelsen (2002)) Visual Basic .NET and the .NET Platform: An Advanced Guide (Andrew Troelsen (2002)) C# and the .NET Platform, Second Edition (Andrew Troelsen (2003)) Exploring .Net (Andrew Troelsen, Jason Bock (2003)) Pro C# 2005 and the .NET 2.0 Platform, Third Edition (Andrew Troelsen (2005)) Pro VB 2005 and the .NET 2.0 Platform, Second Edition (Andrew Troelsen (2006)) Expert ASP.NET 2.0: Advanced Application Design (Dominic Selly, Andrew Troelsen, Tom Barnaby (2006)) Pro C# 2008 and the .NET 3.5 Platform, Fourth Edition (Andrew Troelsen (2007)) Pro C# with .NET 3.0, Special Edition (Andrew Troelsen (2007)) Pro VB 2008 and the .NET 3.5 Platform (Andrew Troelsen (2008)) Pro VB 2010 and the .NET 4 Platform (Andrew Troelsen, Vidya Vrat Agarwal (2010)) Pro C# 2010 and the .NET 4 Platform, Fifth Edition (Andrew Troelsen (2010)) Pro Expression Blend 4 (Andrew Troelsen (2011)) Pro C# 5.0 and the .NET 4.5 Framework, Sixth Edition (Andrew Troelsen (2012)) C# 6.0 and the .NET 4.6 Framework, Seventh Edition (Andrew Troelsen, Philip Japikse (2015)) Pro C# 7: With .NET and .NET Core, Eighth Edition (Andrew Troelsen, Philip Japikse (2017)) Pro C# 8 with .NET Core 3: Foundational Principles and Practices in Programming, Ninth Edition (Andrew Troelsen, Phil Japikse (2020)) Pro C# 9 with .NET 5: Foundational Principles and Practices in Programming, Tenth Edition (Andrew Troelsen, Phillip Japikse (2021)) Pro C# 10 with .NET 6: Foundational Principles and Practices in Programming, Eleventh Edition (Andrew Troelsen, Phil Japikse (2022)) References http https://www.linkedin.com/in/awtroelsen/ Computer programmers Living people Year of birth missing (living people)
Andrew Troelsen
918282
.nu is the Internet country code top-level domain (ccTLD) assigned to the island state of Niue. It was one of the first ccTLDs to be marketed to the Internet at large as an alternative to the gTLDs .com, .net, and .org. Playing on the phonetic similarity between nu and new in English, and the fact that means "now" in several northern European languages, it was promoted as a new TLD with an abundance of good domain names available. The .nu domain is now controlled by the Internet Foundation in Sweden amid opposition from the government of Niue. Google treats .nu as a generic top-level domain (gTLD) because "users and website owners frequently see [the domain] as being more generic than country-targeted." Administration Unlike most ccTLDs, .nu is not administered by a representative of its country. In 1997, IANA awarded administration of .nu to The IUSN Foundation (formerly 'Internet Users Society - Niue'), a Massachusetts-based non-profit organisation. The administration and technical operation of the domain were transferred to The Internet Foundation in Sweden (IIS) in September 2013. The IIS said that 66.7 percent of "active" .nu domains at the time were registered to Swedish users. The government of Niue has been trying to administer the .nu ccTLD since at least 2003. In November 2018, the government of Niue initiated a lawsuit against the IIS in the Stockholm District Court to obtain control over the domain. It stated that the Foundation had "taken over Niue's .nu domain without consent in 2013", resulting in a significant loss of revenue for the country. Niue's government stated that the .nu domain was a "national asset of Niue" and had been taken over "unfairly", estimating that it had earned between $27 million and $37 million for the IIS. A later estimate by Niue's legal team stated that the country had missed out on a total of during the combined time that the domain had been administered by IUSN and the IIS. The IIS responded by saying that "It was and is essential for the Swedish internet infrastructure that .nu works in a stable and secure way", and that it had "done the necessary investigations before deciding to become the registry in 2013, involving several leading legal specialists and a direct contact with the relevant governmental institutions". The government of Niue continues the legal discussion on two fronts: directly with ICANN to get the domain name back, and with the Swedish government to reclaim the lost profits. Toke Talagi, the Premier of Niue from 2008 to 2020, called it a form of neo-colonialism. Usage of .nu The .nu domain is particularly popular in Sweden, Denmark, and the Benelux region, as is the word for "now" in Swedish, Danish and Dutch – an example of a domain hack. Although in Norwegian is an archaic word for "now", with being used instead, .nu was initially more popular than .no, with 43,000 .nu addresses being registered in Norway in 1999 compared to 30,000 .no ones. Partially owing to restrictive domain
.nu
9524131
Blittable types are data types in the Microsoft .NET Framework that have an identical presentation in memory for both managed and unmanaged code. Understanding the difference between blittable and non-blittable types can aid in using COM Interop or P/Invoke, two techniques for interoperability in .NET applications. Origin A memory copy operation is sometimes referred to as block transfer, shortened to bit blit (and dedicated hardware to make such a transfer is called a blitter). Blittable is a .NET-specific term expressing whether it is legal to copy an object using a block transfer. Interoperability overview Interoperability can be bidirectional sharing of data and methods between unmanaged code and managed .NET code. .NET provides two ways of interoperating between the two: COM Interop and P/Invoke. Though the methodology is different, in both cases marshalling (conversion between representations of data, formats for calling functions and formats for returning values) must take place. COM Interop deals with this conversion between managed code and COM objects, whereas P/Invoke handles interactions between managed code and Win32 code. The concept of blittable and non-blittable data types applies to both—specifically to the problem of converting data between managed and unmanaged memory. This marshalling is performed by the interop marshaller, which is invoked automatically by the CLR when needed. Blittable types defined A blittable type is a data type that does not require special attention from the interop marshaler because by default it has a common representation in managed and unmanaged memory. By pinning the data in memory, the garbage collector will be prevented from moving it, allowing it to be shared in-place with the unmanaged application. This means that both managed and unmanaged code will alter the memory locations of these types in a consistent manner, and much less effort is required by the marshaler to maintain data integrity. The following are some examples of blittable types available in the .NET Framework: System.Byte System.SByte System.Int16 System.UInt16 System.Int32 System.UInt32 System.Int64 System.UInt64 System.IntPtr System.UIntPtr System.Single System.Double Additionally, one-dimensional arrays of these types (including unsafe fixed buffers) as well as complex types containing only instance fields (which includes readonly fields) of these types are blittable. The presence of static or const fields that are non-blittable does not cause the type to become non-blittable, because such fields play no part in marshalling. Complex types (that is structs or classes) must also have instance field layout of Sequential applied using the [StructLayout] attribute in order to be considered blittable by the .NET marshaler. Structs have this attribute applied automatically by the compiler, but it must explicitly be added to a class definition to make an otherwise non-blittable class blittable. If a type is not one of the blittable types, then it is classified as non-blittable. The reason a type is considered non-blittable is that for one representation in managed memory, it may have several potential representations in unmanaged memory or vice versa. Alternatively, there may be exactly one representation for the type in both managed and unmanaged memory. It is also often the
Blittable types
55459039
Lilia Katri Moritz Schwarcz is a Brazilian historian and anthropologist. She is a doctor in social anthropology at the University of São Paulo, full professor at the Faculdade de Filosofia, Letras e Ciências Humanas in the same institution, and visiting professor (Global Scholar) at Princeton University. Her main fields of study are anthropology and history of 19th-century Brazil, focusing on the Brazilian Empire, social identity, slavery and race relations between White and Afro-Brazilian peoples. Schwarcz is Jewish. In 1986, she co-founded the Companhia das Letras publishing house with her husband Luis Schwarcz. She is a curator for the São Paulo Museum of Art, and writes a column at the news website . In 2024, Lilia was elected to occupy seat number 9 of the Academia Brasileira de Letras (ABL). Bibliography Retrato em branco e negro: jornais, escravos e cidadãos em São Paulo no fim do século XIX. Companhia das Letras, 1987. * (English edition: ) As Barbas do Imperador (English edition:The Emperor's Beard: Dom Pedro II and His Tropical Monarchy in Brazil. Hill and Wang, 2003. ) O Império em Procissão - Zahar, 2000. A Longa Viagem da Biblioteca dos Reis - Do terremoto de Lisboa à Independência do Brasil. Companhia das Letras, 2002. O Sol do Brasil: Nicolas-Antoine Taunay e as Desventuras Dos Artistas Franceses na Corte de D. João 1816-1821. Companhia das Letras, 2008. - Prêmio Jabuti - Melhor Biografia 2009 D. João Carioca - A corte portuguesa chega ao Brasil 1808-1821. Companhia das Letras, 2008. Um enigma chamado Brasil (Org. com André Botelho). Companhia das Letras, 2009. - Prêmio Jabuti - Ciências Sociais 2010 Agenda brasileira (Org. com André Botelho). Companhia das Letras, 2011. História do Brasil Nação Vol. 3 - A abertura para o mundo 1889-1930 (Org. do volume e Diretora da Coleção). Objetiva, 2012. Nem preto nem branco, muito pelo contrário. Claro Enigma (Companhia das Letras), 2012. A batalha do Avaí - a beleza da barbárie: a Guerra do Paraguai pintada por Pedro Américo. Rio de Janeiro, Sextante. 2013. Brasil: uma Biografia (co-written with Heloisa Murgel Starling). Companhia das Letras. 2015. (English edition: Brazil, a Biography. Penguin Books, 2018) Lima Barreto: Triste Visionário. Companhia das Letras, 2017. Dicionário da Escravidão e Liberdade (organizer, with Flávio dos Santos Gomes). Companhia das Letras, 2018. References External links Lilia Moritz Schwarcz official site Lilia Moritz Schwarcz profile on University of São Paulo Department of Anthropology Brazilian anthropologists Brazilian women anthropologists Brazilian publishers (people) Academic staff of the University of São Paulo Living people 20th-century Brazilian historians Brazilian women historians Brazilian women activists Internet activists Year of birth missing (living people) 21st-century Brazilian historians
Lilia Moritz Schwarcz
33104533
Windows Runtime (WinRT) is a platform-agnostic component and application architecture first introduced in Windows 8 and Windows Server 2012 in 2012. It is implemented in C++ and officially supports development in C++ (via C++/WinRT, C++/CX or WRL), Rust/WinRT, Python/WinRT, JavaScript-TypeScript, and the managed code languages C# and Visual Basic (.NET) (VB.NET). WinRT is not a runtime in a traditional sense but rather a language-independent application binary interface based on COM to allow object-oriented APIs to be consumed from multiple languages, with services usually provided by a full-blown runtime, such as type activation. That is, WinRT is an "API delivery system". Apps using the Windows Runtime may run inside a sandboxed environment to allow greater security and stability and can natively support both x86 and ARM. WinRT components are designed with interoperability among multiple languages and APIs in mind, including native, managed and scripting languages. Built-in APIs provided by Windows which use the WinRT ABI are commonly known as WinRT APIs; however, anyone can use the WinRT ABI for their own APIs. Technology WinRT is implemented in the programming language C++ and is object-oriented by design. Its underlying technology, the Windows API (Win32 API), is written mostly in the language C. It is an unmanaged application binary interface based on Component Object Model (COM) that allows interfacing from multiple languages, as does COM. However, the API definitions are stored in .winmd files, which are encoded in ECMA 335 metadata format, which .NET Framework also uses with a few modifications. For WinRT components implemented in native code, the metadata file only contains the definition of methods, classes, interfaces and enumerations and the implementation is provided in a separate DLL. This common metadata format makes it easier to consume WinRT APIs from .NET apps with simpler syntax than P/Invoke. Windows provides a set of built-in APIs which are built on the WinRT ABI which provide everything from the XAML-based WinUI library and device access such as camera, microphone etc... The previous C++/CX (Component Extensions) language, which borrows some C++/CLI syntax, was introduced for writing and consuming WinRT components with less glue code visible to the programmer, relative to classic COM programming in C++, and imposes fewer restrictions relative to C++/CLI on mixing types. The Component Extensions of C++/CX are recommended for use at the API-boundary only, not for other purposes. Regular C++ (with COM-specific discipline) can also be used to program with WinRT components, with the help of the Windows Runtime C++ Template Library (WRL), which is similar in purpose to what Active Template Library provides for COM. In 2019, Microsoft deprecated C++/CX in favor of the C++/WinRT header library. Most WinRT applications run within a sandbox and need explicit user approval to access critical OS features and underlying hardware. By default, file access is restricted to several predetermined locations, such as the directories Documents or Pictures. WinRT applications are packaged in the .appx and later the .msix file format; based upon Open Packaging Conventions, it uses a ZIP format with added XML
Windows Runtime
3682503
A dot-com company, or simply a dot-com (alternatively rendered dot.com, dot com, dotcom or .com), is a company that conducts most of its businesses on the Internet, usually through a website on the World Wide Web that uses the popular top-level domain ".com". As of 2021, .com is by far the most used TLD, with almost half of all registrations. The suffix .com in a URL usually (but not always) refers to a commercial or for-profit entity, as opposed to a non-commercial entity or non-profit organization, which usually use .org. The name for the domain came from the word commercial, as that is the main intended use. Since the .com companies are web-based, often their products or services are delivered via web-based mechanisms, even when physical products are involved. On the other hand, some .com companies do not offer any physical products. History Origin of the .com domain (1985–1991) The .com top-level domain (TLD) was one of the first seven created when the Internet was first implemented in 1985; the others were .mil, .gov, .edu, .net, .int, and .org. The United States Department of Defense originally controlled the domain, but control was later transferred to the National Science Foundation as it was mainly used for non-defense-related purposes. Beginning of online commerce and rise in valuation (1992–1999) With the creation of the World Wide Web in 1991, many companies began creating websites to sell their products. In 1994, the first secure online credit card transaction was made using the NetMarket platform. By 1995, over 40 million people were using the Internet. That same year, companies including Amazon.com and eBay were launched, paving the way for future e-commerce companies. At the time of Amazon's IPO in 1997, they were recording a 900% increase in revenue over the previous year. By 1998, with a valuation of over $14 billion, they were still not making a profit. The same phenomenon occurred with many other internet companiesventure capitalists were eager to invest, even when the companies in question were not profitable. In late 1999, the Nasdaq index reached a price-to-earnings ratio of over 200, more than double that of the Japanese asset price bubble at the beginning of the 1990s. Burst of the dot-com bubble (2000–2001) A common indicator used to show the dramatic rise in the number of dot-com companies is the number of advertisements purchased at the Super Bowl. In 1999, only two internet companies bought advertisements, but that number reached 17 the following year. However, this number sharply decreased in 2001, with only 3 dot-com companies purchasing an advertising slot. While the term can refer to present-day companies, it is also used about companies with this business model that came into being during the late 1990s with the rapid growth of the World Wide Web. Many such startups were formed to take advantage of the surplus of venture capital funding and were launched with thin business plans, sometimes with just an idea and a catchy name. The stated goal was often to
Dot-com company
12118296
Co (continued) Com |- class="vcard" | class="fn org" | Combe | class="adr" | East Sussex | class="note" | | class="note" | |- class="vcard" | class="fn org" | Combe | class="adr" | Somerset | class="note" | | class="note" | |- class="vcard" | class="fn org" | Combe (Salcombe) | class="adr" | Devon | class="note" | | class="note" | |- class="vcard" | class="fn org" | Combe (Yealmpton) | class="adr" | Devon | class="note" | | class="note" | |- class="vcard" | class="fn org" | Combe (Buckfastleigh) | class="adr" | Devon | class="note" | | class="note" | |- class="vcard" | class="fn org" | Combe | class="adr" | Herefordshire | class="note" | | class="note" | |- class="vcard" | class="fn org" | Combe | class="adr" | Oxfordshire | class="note" | | class="note" | |- class="vcard" | class="fn org" | Combe | class="adr" | Berkshire | class="note" | | class="note" | |- class="vcard" | class="fn org" | Combe Almer | class="adr" | Dorset | class="note" | | class="note" | |- class="vcard" | class="fn org" | Combebow | class="adr" | Devon | class="note" | | class="note" | |- class="vcard" | class="fn org" | Combe Common | class="adr" | Surrey | class="note" | | class="note" | |- class="vcard" | class="fn org" | Combe Down | class="adr" | Bath and North East Somerset | class="note" | | class="note" | |- class="vcard" | class="fn org" | Combe Fishacre | class="adr" | Devon | class="note" | | class="note" | |- class="vcard" | class="fn org" | Combe Florey | class="adr" | Somerset | class="note" | | class="note" | |- class="vcard" | class="fn org" | Combe Hay | class="adr" | Bath and North East Somerset | class="note" | | class="note" | |- class="vcard" | class="fn org" | Combeinteignhead | class="adr" | Devon | class="note" | | class="note" | |- class="vcard" | class="fn org" | Combe Martin | class="adr" | Devon | class="note" | | class="note" | |- class="vcard" | class="fn org" | Combe Moor | class="adr" | Herefordshire | class="note" | | class="note" | |- class="vcard" | class="fn org" | Combe Pafford | class="adr" | Devon | class="note" | | class="note" | |- class="vcard" | class="fn org" | Combe Raleigh | class="adr" | Devon | class="note" | | class="note" | |- class="vcard" | class="fn org" | Comberbach | class="adr" | Cheshire | class="note" | | class="note" | |- class="vcard" | class="fn org" | Comberford | class="adr" | Staffordshire | class="note" | | class="note" | |- class="vcard" | class="fn org" | Comberton | class="adr" | Herefordshire | class="note" | | class="note" | |- class="vcard" | class="fn org" | Comberton | class="adr" | Cambridgeshire | class="note" | | class="note" | |- class="vcard" | class="fn org" | Combe St Nicholas | class="adr" | Somerset | class="note" | | class="note" | |- class="vcard" | class="fn org" | Combe Throop | class="adr" | Somerset | class="note" | | class="note" | |- class="vcard" | class="fn org" | Combpyne | class="adr" | Devon | class="note" | | class="note" | |- class="vcard" | class="fn org" | Combrew | class="adr" | Devon | class="note"
List of United Kingdom locations: Com-Cor
22062382
Register.com v. Verio, 356 F.3d 393 (2d Cir. 2004), was a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that addressed several issues relevant to Internet law, such as browse wrap licensing, trespass to servers, and enforcement of the policies of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The decision upheld the ruling of a lower court which prevented a provider of web development services from automatically harvesting publicly available registration data from a domain name registrar's servers for advertising purposes. Background Register.com Register.com is a World Wide Web domain name registrar, appointed by ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers). All registrars must abide by ICANN's Registrar Accreditation Agreement. This agreement included several clauses that were important in this case. The ICANN Registrar Accreditation Agreement First, the Agreement includes a requirement that: "At its expense, Registrar shall provide an interactive web page and a port 43 Whois service providing free public query-based access to up-to-date (i.e. updated at least daily) data concerning all active SLD (second-level domain) registrations sponsored by Registrar in the registry for the .com, .net, and .org TLDs (top-level domains)." Data that is typically listed in a Whois service includes name, address phone number and email address. The Agreement also includes the following clause: "Registrar shall not impose terms and conditions on use of the data provided except as permitted by an ICANN-adopted policy… Registrar shall permit use of data it provides in response to queries for any lawful purposes except to: (a) allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission of mass unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations via e-mail (spam)…" Finally, the Agreement also included the following clause: "No Third-Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement shall not be construed to create any obligation by either ICANN or Registrar to any non-party to this Agreement, including any SLD holder." Register.com's Terms of Use Register.com followed the rules of the Agreement and set up a WHOIS lookup service. It affixed the following statement to each set of data it returned: "By submitting a WHOIS query, you agree that you will use this data only for lawful purposes and that under no circumstances will you use this data to…support the transmission of mass unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitation via email." In addition to domain name registration, Register.com also provides web development services. It only solicited its registration customers with its services if they opted to receive such solicitation. Verio, Inc. Verio is a provider of website development services such as web site design and operation. It developed automated software that submitted port 43 WHOIS queries to various registrars on a daily basis. Verio used this data to contact recent registrants and advertise its services to them. These messages included references to Register.com, which led many consumers to believe the advertisements were actually from Register.com, including those who had opted not to receive solicitations. Register.com began to receive complaints from its customers regarding the advertisements. Register.com in turn complained to Verio, saying that the confusion
Register.com v. Verio
222859
The domain com is a top-level domain (TLD) in the Domain Name System (DNS) of the Internet. Created in the first group of Internet domains at the beginning of 1985, its name is derived from the word commercial, indicating its original intended purpose for subdomains registered by commercial organizations. Later, the domain opened for general purposes. The domain was originally administered by the United States Department of Defense, but is today operated by Verisign, and remains under ultimate jurisdiction of U.S. law. The .com domain is also more commonly used than the more specific .us by American businesses and enterprises. Verisign registrations in the .com domain are processed via registrars accredited by ICANN. The registry accepts internationalized domain names. The domain was one of the original TLDs of the Internet when the Domain Name System was implemented in January 1985, the others being edu, gov, mil, net, org, and int. It has grown into the largest top-level domain, and has lent its name to the dot-com bubble, the era of the late 1990s during which excessive speculation in Internet-related concepts and companies led to rapid growth in the use and adoption of the Internet. By 2001 it led to a stock market bubble and crash of company valuations and stock pricing. History The domain com was one of the first set of top-level domains when the Domain Name System was first implemented for the Internet on January 1, 1985. The domain was administered by the U.S. Department of Defense, but the department contracted the domain maintenance to SRI International. SRI created DDN-NIC, also known as SRI-NIC, or simply the NIC (Network Information Center), then accessible online with the domain name nic.ddn.mil. Beginning October 1, 1991, an operations contract was awarded to Government Systems Inc. (GSI), which sub-contracted it to Network Solutions Inc. (NSI). On January 1, 1993, the National Science Foundation assumed responsibility of maintenance, as com was primarily being used for non-defense interests. The NSF contracted operation to Network Solutions (NSI). In 1995, the NSF authorized NSI to begin charging registrants an annual fee for the first time since the domain's inception. Initially, the fee was US$50 () per year, with US$35 going to NSI, and US$15 going to a government fund. New registrations had to pay for the first two years, making the new-domain registration fee US$100. In 1997, the United States Department of Commerce assumed authority over these first seven generic TLDs. It is currently operated by Verisign, which had acquired Network Solutions. Verisign later spun off Network Solutions' non-registry functions into a separate company that continues as a registrar. In the English language, the domain is often spelled with a leading period and commonly pronounced as dot-com, and has entered common parlance this way. Although com domains were initially intended to designate commercial entities, the domain has had no restrictions for eligible registrants since the mid-1990s. With the commercialization and popularization of the Internet, the domain was opened to the public and quickly became the most
.com
40899
In telecommunication, a combat-net radio (CNR) is a radio operating in a network that (a) provides a half-duplex circuit and (b) uses either a single radio frequency or a discrete set of radio frequencies when in a frequency hopping mode. CNRs are primarily used for push-to-talk-operated radio nets for command and control of combat, combat support, and combat service support operations among military ground, sea, and air forces. In the United States, two military standards govern the use of combat net radios and the host applications that communicate over the network: MIL-STD-188-220 and MIL-STD-2045-47001. In addition to IETF RFCs governing UDP, TCP, and IPv4/IPv6, all seven layers of the OSI communications architecture are addressed. MIL-STD-2045-47001 covers layer 7 (application), while MIL-STD-188-220 covers layers 1 through 3 (physical, data link, and network). Examples AN/PRC-152 by Harris Corporation AN/PRC-117 AN/PRC-77 SINCGARS AN/PRC-148 MBITR PR4G by Thales Communications PRC-525 by EID Clansman Leopard1 by Sat-Com Pty Ltd See also JTRS Joint Electronics Type Designation System Software-defined radio References Military radio systems
Combat-net radio
41841421
Tor2web (pronounced "Tor to Web") is a software project to allow Tor hidden services to be accessed from a standard browser without being connected to the Tor network. It was created by Aaron Swartz and Virgil Griffith. History Tor is a network which enables people to use the Internet anonymously (though with known weaknesses) and to publish content on "hidden services", which exist only within the Tor network for security reasons and thus are typically only accessible to the relatively small number of people using a Tor-connected web browser. Aaron Swartz and Virgil Griffith developed Tor2web in 2008 as a way to support whistleblowing and other forms of anonymous publishing through Tor, allowing materials to remain anonymous while making them accessible to a broader audience. In an interview with Wired Swartz explained that Tor is great for anonymous publishing, but because its focus is not user-friendliness and thus not many people would install it, he wanted to "produce this hybrid where people could publish stuff using Tor and make it so that anyone on the internet could view it". The software developed by Swartz and Griffith is today considered version 1.0. Since then, it has been maintained and developed by Giovanni Pellerano from the Hermes Center for Transparency and Digital Human Rights as part of the GlobaLeaks Project, with financial support from the Open Technology Fund. Version 2.0 was released in August 2011, and version 3.0 is in beta . Operation and security Rather than typical top-level domains like .com, .org, or .net, hidden service URLs end with .onion and are only accessible when connected to Tor. Tor2web acts as a specialized proxy or middleman between hidden services and users, making them visible to people who are not connected to Tor. To do so, a user takes the URL of a hidden service and replaces .onion with .onion.to. Like Tor, Tor2web operates using servers run voluntarily by an open community of individuals and organizations. Tor2web preserves the anonymity of content publishers but is not itself an anonymity tool and does not offer any protection to users beyond relaying data using HTTP Secure (HTTPS). Since version 2.0, a privacy and security warning is added to the header of each web page it fetches, encouraging readers to use the Tor Browser to obtain anonymity. See also Dark web References External links List of active tor2web-like services / Dark web Tor (anonymity network) Free software programmed in Python Software using the GNU AGPL license
Tor2web
1781528
Single-letter second-level domains are domains in which the second-level domain of the domain name consists of only one letter, such as . In 1993, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) explicitly reserved all single-letter and single-digit second-level domains under the top-level domains com, net, and org, and grandfathered those that had already been assigned. In December 2005, ICANN considered auctioning these domain names. Active single-letter domains On December 1, 1993, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) explicitly reserved the remaining single-letter and single-digit domain names. The few domains that were already assigned were grandfathered in and continued to exist. The six single-letter domains in existence at that time under .com, .net and .org were the following: The .org TLD was subsequently reopened for single-letter domain registrations. These and selected other gTLD and ccTLD single-letter domain names currently in use, typically as shortcuts, are listed below. Many other single-letter second-level domains have been registered under country code top-level domains. The list of country code top-level domains which have been identified to allow single-letter domains are: .ac .af .ag .ai .am .bo .by .bz .cm .cn .co .cr .cx .cz .de .dk .fm .fr .gd .gg .gl .gp .gs .gt .gy .hn .hr .ht .ie<ref>One and Two Letter .IE Domains Now Available "The release of short .ie domain names " Dublin, 12 October 2015</ref> .im .io .is .je .kg .ki .kw .la .lb .lc .ly .md .mg .mk .mp .ms .mw .mx .mu .nf .np .nz .pe .ph .pk .pl .pn .pr .pw .ro .sh .st .tc .tl .tt .to .tv .ua .vc .vg .vn .vu .ws Non-ASCII single-character domains Single-character non-ASCII second-level domains also exist (as seen below), also known as Internationalized domain names (IDN), these domains are actually registered as their Punycode translations (which are more than a single character) for DNS purposes. ICANN oversees a process for determining registration rules that involves wide-ranging stakeholder input and assorted Working Groups. In the case of .com domains, decisions are then implemented by Verisign, the contracted backend operator for the .com registry. The result is a list of 96,957 codepoints allowed for IDN registrations. As mentioned above, some additional domains previously-registered are "grandfathered" and remain active. Many gTLDs also allow IDN registration. These 96,957 distinct IDN characters eligible for registration in .com are the essential building-blocks of languages worldwide. A single letter domain does not provide the context found in a longer string or group of words. They may appear similar to one another or to other English / Latin characters; due to this potential for confusion, browsers have restricted the characters that may be rendered and will display the restricted characters in their Punycode form. They are sometimes used as pictorial symbols and memorable links. Project94 In 2012, the Public Interest Registry (PIR) initiated Project94, in which 94 one- and two-letter domains in the top-level domain org, that had been traditionally reserved, are awarded to qualifying organizations. Market value of single- or two-letter domains Only three of the 26 possible single-letter
Single-letter second-level domain
67156995
In the afternoon of January 21, 2014, the Chinese internet suffered a major failure. The country's DNS infrastructure, which is responsible for translating domain names into IP addresses, started directing unrelated domains from various TLDs to the completely unresponsive IP address 65.49.2.178 at 15:10 (UTC+8). As a result, two-thirds of all domestic websites became non-functional, including such high-traffic sites as Baidu and Sina. It is debated what caused this incident. Chinese officials point to the fact that the IP address is owned by Dynamic Internet Technology, an American Falun Gong-affiliated corporation most known for developing the Great Firewall circumvention tool Freegate, and argue that it was caused by external hacking. Independent researchers, however, argue that the incident is more likely caused by a misconfiguration in Great Firewall's DNS poisoning mechanism. Incident timeline At 09:00 on January 21, many of Tencent's online services failed. Tencent later clarified that this failure had nothing to do with the subsequent nationwide incident. At 15:15, China's DNS servers started malfunctioning. Many sites ending in .com, .org, and .net were resolved to a wrong IP address, 65.49.2.178, affecting about two-thirds of the country's websites, while the .cn top level domain was not affected. GreatFire reports that the malfunctioning stopped by 15:39, and by 16:00 the various internet service providers have started manual flushes of the DNS cache to remove the poisoned entries. By 16:50, most sites were back to normal, although it could take up to 12 hours for the DNS cache to completely flush. n.baidu.com, a sub-domain under Baidu, was found to show "catch me if you can" when visited via a browser, although it's unclear whether this was connected to the incident. The source code on the front page of DNS service provider DNSPod's official website was found to include snide content, but DNSPod said via the official Weibo that it was an Easter Egg. Theories The IP address 65.49.2.178 is owned by DIT, as aforementioned in the lead. WooYun, a now-defunct internet security platform, claimed on Weibo to have evidence of the said address sending out spam and carrying out other politically motivated hacking operations. Researchers of Kingsoft Antivirus similarly believe that the IP has carried out attacks. Bill Xia of DIT denied any allegations of hacking. The hacking theory is widely questioned. Dong Fang of Qihoo (China), Ye Xuhui of Hong Kong ISP Association, and two other Chinese experts point out that any attack to cause a simultaneous dysfunction must be enormous in scale, as it needs to cover all the high-level DNS servers in China. Such an attack would be beyond the ability of most hackers. The power, however, is available to the ISPs, and a misconfiguration could have caused this issue. Reuters and Bloomberg report that the attack was caused by a misconfiguration of the Great Firewall. Prof Xiao Qiang of UC Berkeley concurs. GreatFire.org, which specializes in monitoring the Great Firewall, shows "decisive evidence" that the incident was caused by the said firewall. GF.org argues that if such a
Internet anomalies in mainland China in 2014
605077
.us is the Internet country code top-level domain (ccTLD) for the United States. It was established in early 1985. Registrants of .us domains must be U.S. citizens, residents, or organizations – or foreign entities with a presence in the United States or any territory of the United States. Most registrants in the U.S. have registered for .com, .net, .org and other gTLDs, instead of .us, which has primarily been used by state and local governments, even though private entities may also register .us domains. The domain is managed by Registry Services, LLC, a domain name registry, on behalf of the United States Department of Commerce. The .us domain is less commonly used by American businesses and enterprises than the more international .com. History On February 15, 1985, .us was created as the Internet's first ccTLD. Its original administrator was Jon Postel of the Information Sciences Institute (ISI) at the University of Southern California (USC). He administered .us under a subcontract that the ISI and USC had from SRI International (which held the .us and the gTLD contract with the United States Department of Defense) and later Network Solutions (which held the .us and the gTLD contract with the National Science Foundation). Postel and his colleague Ann Westine Cooper codified the .us ccTLD's policies in December 1992 as RFC 1386 and revised them the following June in RFC 1480. Registrants could only register third-level domains or higher in a geographic and organizational hierarchy. From June 1993 to June 1997, Postel delegated the vast majority of the geographic subdomains under .us to various public and private entities. .us registrants could register with the delegated manager for the specific zone they wished to register in, but not directly with the .us administrator. In July 1997, Postel instituted a "50/500 rule" that limited each delegated manager to 500 localities maximum, 50 in a given state. In June 1998, Postel raised the possibility of covering IANA operating costs by charging locality name registrars, who would pass the costs along to individual registrants. In September 1998, the United States Postal Service proposed funding the operations in order to assume control of .us, as part of a plan to diversify away from postage revenue. On October 1, 1998, the NSF transferred oversight of the .us domain to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) of the United States Department of Commerce. Postel died that month, leaving his domain administration responsibilities with ISI. In December 2000, these responsibilities were transferred to Network Solutions, which had recently been acquired by Verisign. On October 26, 2001, Neustar was awarded the contract to administer .us. On April 24, 2002, second-level domains under .us became available for registration. One of the first .us domain hacks, icio.us, was registered on May 3, 2002, for the creation of the subdomain del.icio.us. A moratorium was placed on additional delegations of locality-based namespaces, and Neustar became the default delegate for undelegated localities. Neustar's contract was renewed by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) in 2007
.us