Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We should retire Aaron's number

threads2.scripting.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 45 posts

Re: We should retire Aaron's number

#2

Post by a3r0 »

It's hardly a "small" hack. Who would be running the site, paying for bandwidth, etc. Who decides who gets a memorial like this? It's essentially creating infinitely long registrations and adding a "special case" that will remain in the internet's infrastructure forever.

Re: We should retire Aaron's number

#4

Post by nanch »

It's a good idea. I'd say there are a number of options; at the very least a mirroring setup would be sufficient - I'm certain that there are people that are able to do this quite easily with wget.

Even I have servers that I'd be willing to provide that could certainly handle the load his now-static mostly-text sites. I'd even be happy to hold the domains and pay the registration into the future. I think Aaron already had a post about who would be handling his assets if he "got hit by a bus".

Re: We should retire Aaron's number

#5

Post by sunils34 »

a3r0 wrote: post #2

It's hardly a "small" hack. Who would be running the site, paying for bandwidth, etc. Who decides who gets a memorial like this? It's essentially creating infinitely long registrations and adding a "special case" that will remain in the internet's infrastructure forever.

Aren't all physical memorials, statues, plaques, banners paid for? Just like paying for the upkeeping of a memorial, I see no difference.

Re: We should retire Aaron's number

#6

Post by tytyty »

While the idea is novel, domains are virtual real estate. I don't think it's in anyone's best interest to retire domains/addresses. There are many more sane ways to make all of the content easily accessible indefinitely.

Re: We should retire Aaron's number

#7

Post by a3r0 »

sunils34 wrote: post #5
a3r0 wrote: post #2

It's hardly a "small" hack. Who would be running the site, paying for bandwidth, etc. Who decides who gets a memorial like this? It's essentially creating infinitely long registrations and adding a "special case" that will remain in the internet's infrastructure forever.

Aren't all physical memorials, statues, plaques, banners paid for? Just like paying for the upkeeping of a memorial, I see no difference.

Someone just has to keep paying for the domain and hosting and it will remain forever. This is proposing that we never allow these domains to be registered again, even if they expire

Re: We should retire Aaron's number

#8

Post by charris66 »

I tried to write a comment on Dave's blog but as a guest I guess he has to approve it first. I actually think Dave Winer is a lot to blame... he was what 50 being man handled by a 14 year old! And then slashing him for being precocious. Fuck you Dave... you have contributed fuck all to modern computing . World minus you == no different at all..! Bye bye murderer, your grave is ready for you.

Re: We should retire Aaron's number

#9

Post by pemulis »

a3r0 wrote: post #2

It's hardly a "small" hack. Who would be running the site, paying for bandwidth, etc. Who decides who gets a memorial like this? It's essentially creating infinitely long registrations and adding a "special case" that will remain in the internet's infrastructure forever.

The Internet Archive, probably. They have a long-term view toward preserving Internet content, and the resources to support permanent memorials would be negligible for them. It would be similar to a university library preserving the papers of an important writer. I can't imagine a more appropriate custodian.
Post reply on HN