Slashdot Mirror

It's usually a bad idea to make a general rule to deal with a specific case (e.g. your tobacco company example). I think the goal should be helping people to go where they want to go on the Internet, not to score political or idealogical points.

Ordinarily I would agree, except that ICANN has already made it a political and idealogical issue. What I propose is not a general rule to deal with a specific case, it's a general rule to deal with a general case: we're running out of domain names, so why not ration them? Limit everyone to one and only one domain. Period. The proposal doesn't target anyone in particular so it's non-discriminatory. Why should anyone be allowed to own a domain they don't use?

How about a sidebar...

Did you find this information useful?
Donate $1
Donate $2
Donate $5
Donate $10

(Don't click on the links, they're just illustrative)

Obviously someone (one of the "electronic wallet" web sites) would have to work with the content providers. Ideally, the wallet services would work with one another, so that if you have an account with any one of several wallet services you won't have to choose which one and/or setup an account with 40 different services. If you don't think that competitive wallet services would agree to this, look at Mastercard or Visa. How many banks issue Mastercards? How many of them are competitors?

The downsides - not everyone would donate. Actually, it would probably be a small fraction of the users who would donate. But any additional income helps, right? Also, would it be appropriate for a forum such as slashdot to do this? At the macro level - "Do you find slashdot useful?" is probably ok, but not at the article level. While the people running slashdot obviously invest a lot of time and money, and pick which articles to post, they don't develop the majority of the actual content.

This is similar, IMHO, to those of you who say, in reference to mp3s - "I wouldn't mind giving money to the artist, but I don't want to buy a CD for 20 bucks when I only want one song."

Would the content providers make more money than they currently do? I don't know. [RE: Music] Would the artists? Probably.

How about a sidebar...

Did you find this information useful?
Donate $1
Donate $2
Donate $5
Donate $10

(Don't click on the links, they're just illustrative)

Obviously someone (one of the "electronic wallet" web sites) would have to work with the content providers. Ideally, the wallet services would work with one another, so that if you have an account with any one of several wallet services you won't have to choose which one and/or setup an account with 40 different services. If you don't think that competitive wallet services would agree to this, look at Mastercard or Visa. How many banks issue Mastercards? How many of them are competitors?

The downsides - not everyone would donate. Actually, it would probably be a small fraction of the users who would donate. But any additional income helps, right? Also, would it be appropriate for a forum such as slashdot to do this? At the macro level - "Do you find slashdot useful?" is probably ok, but not at the article level. While the people running slashdot obviously invest a lot of time and money, and pick which articles to post, they don't develop the majority of the actual content.

This is similar, IMHO, to those of you who say, in reference to mp3s - "I wouldn't mind giving money to the artist, but I don't want to buy a CD for 20 bucks when I only want one song."

Would the content providers make more money than they currently do? I don't know. [RE: Music] Would the artists? Probably.

How about a sidebar...

Did you find this information useful?
Donate $1
Donate $2
Donate $5
Donate $10

(Don't click on the links, they're just illustrative)

Obviously someone (one of the "electronic wallet" web sites) would have to work with the content providers. Ideally, the wallet services would work with one another, so that if you have an account with any one of several wallet services you won't have to choose which one and/or setup an account with 40 different services. If you don't think that competitive wallet services would agree to this, look at Mastercard or Visa. How many banks issue Mastercards? How many of them are competitors?

The downsides - not everyone would donate. Actually, it would probably be a small fraction of the users who would donate. But any additional income helps, right? Also, would it be appropriate for a forum such as slashdot to do this? At the macro level - "Do you find slashdot useful?" is probably ok, but not at the article level. While the people running slashdot obviously invest a lot of time and money, and pick which articles to post, they don't develop the majority of the actual content.

This is similar, IMHO, to those of you who say, in reference to mp3s - "I wouldn't mind giving money to the artist, but I don't want to buy a CD for 20 bucks when I only want one song."

Would the content providers make more money than they currently do? I don't know. [RE: Music] Would the artists? Probably.

How about a sidebar...

Did you find this information useful?
Donate $1
Donate $2
Donate $5
Donate $10

(Don't click on the links, they're just illustrative)

Obviously someone (one of the "electronic wallet" web sites) would have to work with the content providers. Ideally, the wallet services would work with one another, so that if you have an account with any one of several wallet services you won't have to choose which one and/or setup an account with 40 different services. If you don't think that competitive wallet services would agree to this, look at Mastercard or Visa. How many banks issue Mastercards? How many of them are competitors?

The downsides - not everyone would donate. Actually, it would probably be a small fraction of the users who would donate. But any additional income helps, right? Also, would it be appropriate for a forum such as slashdot to do this? At the macro level - "Do you find slashdot useful?" is probably ok, but not at the article level. While the people running slashdot obviously invest a lot of time and money, and pick which articles to post, they don't develop the majority of the actual content.

This is similar, IMHO, to those of you who say, in reference to mp3s - "I wouldn't mind giving money to the artist, but I don't want to buy a CD for 20 bucks when I only want one song."

Would the content providers make more money than they currently do? I don't know. [RE: Music] Would the artists? Probably.

I'll just make a habit of writing all my websites like this from now on.

--Yahiko

You know what, this fucking sucks. I have no idea why people did not predict this in advance.

Napster was a wonderful, democratic thing. you could put anything on it you wanted, which meant people were listening to home grown good music and brilliant DJs who produced on their computers instead of Britney Spears. The Britney was a second-order effect of the Napster phenomenon, whose purpose was the creation of a huge music bazaar.

Music swapping (not napster in specific) revolutionized my own taste in music. I was finding archival jazz, the latest electronica from around the world, Japanese girls singing bossa nova tunes over perfect retro backgrounds..instead of all the crap on the stupid radio and at Tower Records.

If the recording company thinks that they can turn Napster into its second order effect- basically, a huge Tower Records store set up in your computer- its head is up its asshole, which we all know is even bigger than the goatse.cx man's!

A key part of DoubleClick's patent is not present in the porn mogul's business plan: DoubleClick's use of cookies to identify a user across all of DoubleClick's affiliate web sites. The use of cookies allows DoubleClick to ensure that adds are not repeated, and helps them target their adds more effectively. It is much more interesting to advertisers to know that a person has visited www.macnn.com, www.news.com www.macintoch.com, and www.slashdot.com, then to simply know that the user is viewing an add from www.slashdot.com.

While some might say DoubleClick's use of cookies is the most insidious part of their patent, I believe it is a significant enough improvement over the porn king's business plan to make it's patent still stand up. At any rate is is far to soon to proclaim that DoubleClick's patent is "busted".

A key part of DoubleClick's patent is not present in the porn mogul's business plan: DoubleClick's use of cookies to identify a user across all of DoubleClick's affiliate web sites. The use of cookies allows DoubleClick to ensure that adds are not repeated, and helps them target their adds more effectively. It is much more interesting to advertisers to know that a person has visited www.macnn.com, www.news.com www.macintoch.com, and www.slashdot.com, then to simply know that the user is viewing an add from www.slashdot.com.

While some might say DoubleClick's use of cookies is the most insidious part of their patent, I believe it is a significant enough improvement over the porn king's business plan to make it's patent still stand up. At any rate is is far to soon to proclaim that DoubleClick's patent is "busted".

So hows does Slashdot plan to keep its domain?

Good thing OSDN owns slashdot.com (but not slashdot.net).

Of course it wasn't mentioned here, because the evil slashdot.org clone site www.slashdot.com mentioned it.

Heh.. once upon a time, the URL http://slashdot.org was so frequently misquoted as http://www.slashdot.org, that the editors had an acronym for the offence - TCWWW, "the cursed WWW". Now, we get that mistake popping up on Slashdot itself. :-)

Huh? What "mistake"? The reference to "www.slashdot.org"? That link works, so where's the mistake? Indeed, these links all work just fine, and take you to the same story: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/02/13/168218 , http://www.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/02/13/16 8218, http://www.slashdot.com/article.pl?sid=01/02/13/16 8218.

Almost all the links on the site will take you to http://slashdot.org/. Try going to http://slashdot.com/ or http://www.slashdot.org/ and click on any of the "read more" links (or even that big honkin' logo at the top of every page). Slashdot.com may work, but slashdot.org is being activily pushed.

There has been too much hype centering around the .com. Probably companies should be more accurate on choosing the domain name they are in. .org could be much more succesfull.

As an example. How many hits does get this company compared to this one organisation?

Recently, Slashdot.com has been posting stories with malformed links, links pointing to the incorrect address, and stories misgarbled to the point where the reader cannot click through to a web page or understand the entire article. Meanwhile, many readers have been submitting news articles about free domain names, new anti spam legislation, and even the popular "Microsoft Plan to Take Over the World. "

Thankfully, several readers were able to quickly post links to today's story.

In conclusion, maybe all the Slashdot editors have been so drunk, they have hired minions of horny monkeys to approve story submissions. Can it get any worse? Hopefully, only better..

Jeff Bates is a co-founder of Slashdot.org, and executive editor of Slashdot.com

And there are other days when I think it's only a matter of time before the domain squatting starts to wind down as more gTLDs are opened up

NOT. Witness Google.net and Google.org . Microsoft.com is the same site as Microsoft..net . Squatters will squat on every available TLD. Even Slashdot.org has its own .com.

-It is not neccesary to follow the link in question. Just skim it, and post something amusing enough related to it, while bashing Microsoft.

Yeah, the article could have said something useful but it is really flaimbait.

-If it has screenshots, mirror them. Doesn't matter if they are downloading fine, someone somewhere will have a problem downloading them and your mirror will be better, and wham, instant Score 5.

Get the pics here. I mirrored them because the site was slashdotted in the first minute.

-Take a strong stand, say whatever it is sucks really really bad because , or say this is the best thing since sliced bread, you are so exited this came to be, you are practically pissing in your pants due to the joy it has caused you.

This guy knows what he's taking about. Definately the smartest and best post since sliced bread.

-Flame John Katz, if he didnt post it, flame him anyways.

John Katz is the biggest dumbass. He's so stupid he couldn't even post how to get a five on Slashdot!

-If you do follow the link and read any part of it, cut and paste the entire article, and put it in italics, then make fun of every paragraph. Insert a few "Microsoft Sucks" references here and there.

If you don't get the joke, then just stop reading.

-Say something else is much better and you dont know what all the fuss is about regarding . Mention it's bloated and whine about wanting everything to be text. Post a link, that will might get you an "Informative or insightful".

Ah screw it, anything would be better than this. Especially if it had been in ALL TEXT instead of this "H-T-M-L" phenomenon!

-Post a link of the same story that is another website, this should at least get you a "Informative or Insightful".

Go here for more information.

-Have a funny .sig

See below.

I hope this helps.

Hell ya it did dude!

http://slashdot.com
http://zanyantics.com
http://slashdork.org
http://smashdot.org
http://crashdot.org
http://splashdot.org //not set up yet...
http://splashdot.org
http://hashdot.org
http://slapdash.org
http://slashnot.org
http://slashrot.org //not set up yet...
http://slashpot.org
http://slashbot.org
http://hotgrits.org
http://slashroot.org
http://slashback.org
http://smokedot.org
http://crackdot.org

Those are the ones I've found so far anyways...

Slashdot.org
Slashdot.com
Hmmm....

this.

errr... your point again?

why not slashdot.org vs. slashdot.com

http://slashdot.com/

You mean, like slashdot.com instead of slashdot.org?

What do you think will be the future of Khronos?

• It will become a significant factor in bringing Linux to the desktop PC and displacing M$'s monopoly.
• It will end up being controlled by a few Big Corporations and have unnecessary API kludges to accomodate for their interests.
• It will be a Good Thing (tm) for Linux, but won't do much to bring Linux to the desktop PC.
• It will die off and never gain popularity.
• Who cares, I use Windows: DirectX forever!!
• Does it run Quake? Man I can't wait they start selling it! (huh?)
• Hemos rules!

BTW you ever try going to www.slashdot.com? no? hmmm...

slashdot.com is now slashdot.org

(or is that the other way around?)

www.slashdot.com redirects to www.liason.com.

forgot the http:// so it should be here. Forgive me. Netscape is actually crashing in another window as I write this!

forgot the http:// so it should be here. Forgive me. Netscape is actually crashing in another window as I write this.

they must remove the silly names like "Commander Taco," get rid of the Monty Python foot, clean up their horrible spelling, and generally clean up the site so it's much more of a serious-looking place. A domain name change to "slashdot.com" wouldn't be out of the question.

There's already a slashdot.com, you moron, and anyway some of us aren't so shallow as to think that every site name must necessarily end in ".com".

There's not much point in replying to the rest of this comment, since it demonstrates exactly why Anonymous Cowardice should be abolished just fine by itself.

It's not the case now, but slashdot.com used to point to an white paper on cybersquatting.
Maybe Chris Richardson will be accommodating.

jeremy f wrote:

Legally, this place needs to change it's domain to slashdot.com -- there's money going into Rob & Jeff's pockets, guaranteed.

Legally, there's no difference between .com, .org and .net domains. A nonprofit organization can have a .com domain just as lawfully as a company can have an .org domain.

The difference is a matter of convention, not law. It's reasonable for slashdot to not follow convention because:
* People are used to the current DNS name
* There is no pressing reason to switch
* The slashdot.com domain is owned by someone else (A Chris Richardson, in California).

----

Orson,

I have been always curious to ask you if you ever drew any of the social dynamics of _Ender's Game_ from _Lord of the Flys_ by by William Golding? For me, your books have taught as much about human behaviour as any sociology or psychology book; at least within the context of the personalities presented in the plot.

I really do think it is too bad that Peter Brook (Who directed the original _Lord of the Flys_ movie) isn't around to direct this film.

-AP

P.S. Come to think of it, have you ever considered using the sociological behaviour patterns of the average SlashDot user as the premise for a book? :)
Speaking of SlashDot, howabout a SlashDot interview!

Write Malda and set that one up!

OK let's say I'm one of the artists at etoy.com right, chilling at the office with my fellow artists then suddenly we get the offer from eToys.com.
Here's where I go into logical reasoning mode and postulate what happens if we refuse and they take legal action.
"Ok guys what could happen if this goes to a court or similar regulatory body?".
Well the judge on one hand sees a bunch of artistic types who use profanity on their website and on the other hand sees a legitimate business. Score 1 against us...(I've been to court that is how judge-types think.)

Secondly what hapens if we win a.) eToys.com (a legitimate business) stands to loose a number of customers who come to our site by accident and loose some reputation among the unknowledgeable b.) eToys.com is decides to forego the website and creates a new one, has to start a new marketing campaign and maybe change its stock ticker. What if we loose...well the judge says buy another domain for $70 bucks and do what is currently done at slashdot.com . So the judge has a choice of costing a legitimate business thousands to millions of dollars or costing a bunch of artists $70.

I wonder what he'll choose?

At this point my friends and i accept the stock, sell it, buy ourselves some kick ass SGI boxes and some killer software and keep doing what we do at another domain name.


PS: I can't get over the way people on slashdot make it seem like a domain name is some necessity of life like food, air, water or shelter. We were not born with them and they'll be gone before we die. So what's the fscking point of all this ruckus. If a new domain naming scheme comes into effect tomorrow all domain names will be null N void. If slashdot changed it's name to geeknews.com or something all that would happen is a bunch of geeks would have to update their bookmarks. no crying, no sickness, no famine, no plague, just updated bookmarks.

sheeesh!

Bad Command Or File Name

Scary.

(I wouldn't mention Slashdot.com, but I figure someone should bring it to public attention that guys out there are making money off of mis-hits to /.)

Guys, /. must already know about barrapunto.com -- it's listed on http://slashdot.org/code.shtml as a known user of the Slash engine.

Anyway, /. is probably more annoyed about the squatters over at http://www.slashdot.com. Now, those guys are just being irritating.

Will this mean that http://www.slashdot.org is going to change to http://www.slashdot.com ?

No, seriously, congratulations, and I hope your contracts are waterproof. Just two questions :
-Will the source of /. remain open ?
-Can they fire you and take over the site ? Or did you get guarantees on paper. Sure hope you did, I'd hate to lose my favourite site.

Sorry, this is a random place to put it, but who is this Chris Richardson (SLASHDOT-DOM)
806 Arnold Way
Menlo Park, CA 94025
US
guy?