Slashdot Mirror

I would change one thing: TLDs would be purchasable by anybody. Expensive, but the cost goes to fund and maintain the root servers. Second level domains would be purchasable from anybody with a TLD who was willing to sell. As it stands, the limited (but proliferating) TLDs mean that a big company has to buy their domain name over and over and over again. Being able to buy a TLD means they buy it once, and they're done. Who cares about http://coke.com/ when you can just go to http://coke/ ?

You mean you missed the big honking Pepsi logo right in the middle of the iTunes home page that said "Redeem your free song here"?

I've seen the replies, and the moderators are punishing me as well, but I swear, when I go to the site, I don't see any Pepsi logo. There's a big link now that says "Download now", but I don't remember seeing it there two days ago. When I click on a song title, it attempts to redirect to a "itms://" link that, since I don't have iTunes' player installed, errors out.

Where is this Pepsi logo everyone's razzing me about? Is it getting blocked by my firewall, or something? Would that mean that my sysadmin is on Coke?

Want caffeine? Do some Coke, like I do.

Gee, I believe you 're right!

> Thats because Coke is not open source. Isn't the ability to modify an inherent feature in open source software ?

This is Slashdot. We are using Linux, not Windows, and we are drinking OpenCola, not Coke. Did I miss a memo or something? Is OSS not "elite" now, or what?

I've been [ADV: Enjoy Coca Cola!] making a decent [ADV: You'll Love the New Lexus LS430'] living for six months now just by posting [ADV: WASSUUUUPPP!!!!???] micro-ads on public forums.

"Since when did Blizzard own all rights to the word "diablo"?" How about you sell some toilet paper named Diablo and see if they sue your ass.

The article states that Bliazzard wants to release a movie with the same title as their game that will follow (yes, not just the one word) but the storyline of that game! Wow, who could've guessed? They weren't trying to patent the word 'diablo' (well at least not like Coca Cola has a Trade Mark on the word 'enjoy'.

You forgot to link Coke.com and Pepsi.
It's not really hard is it?

Well, I just checked, and it looks like the Coca Cola company has a web site at http://www.coke.com/. They may run other services from that domain too; I didn't poke around.

If that particular domain (coke.com) is actually owned by a squatter or someone falsely pretending to represent the company, then I would suggest they go after that person instead. Either way, whether coke.com is legit or not, I can't imagine why they would care about coke.ch.

It just doesn't make sense. Why would they want coke.ch, when they already have something from the more appropriate TLD?

The "Coca-Cola" bottle design ("the contour bottle") is trademarked or copyrighted (see www.coke.com/legal.html).

Maybe Apple was smart enough in the beginning to do this to the "all-in-one" design of the iMac.

Maybe not. Anyone know?

-m