Slashdot Mirror

News for the newly-hatched nerd: E = M x server x server. Ergo, must be short on addendium. I suggest you use http://beta.slashdot.com/.

What was the official reason from ICANN for new TLDs again?
The current scheme don't make sense anymore anyhow, a company have to register .net, .com, .de, .org anyway to secure it's trademark. For example Disney: all TLDs redirect to the domain go.com with is registered with Disney Enterprises Inc., except .gov. So the only clasification that survived is .gov, all the others are basically the same.

After the introduction of cTLDs, there was no purpose for the ICANN anymore, other then to ensure that each country gets one cTLD. With a cTLD each country can make their own DNS sub-tree, like .co.uk. So there would be no issue what-so-ever with the long discussed berlin domain: just make .berlin.de, .munich.de, etc. and if a US company wishes they can get also their own domain: pepse.us.

Mark my prediction: there will be a time in the near future where the meaning of a TLD is gone and you can choose your TLD freely. That will be the final money grab of ICANN.

Firefox already got rid of the protocol part of the URL (the http://./ So why we not just get rid of the TLD part? (It's already in firefox, for http://slashdot.com/ I can just enter "slashdot" in the URL bar).

I've been saying this for years. Most people don't know about the different TLDs, and because of that most popular sites buy up the other TLDs that match their domainname to prevent people from squatting there, and they redirect (or not) the traffic to their "proper" TLD. Take for example http://slashdot.org/ http://slashdot.com/ http://slashdot.net./

I've always held that country code TLDs are of value. It sucks to do some online searching to buy something and end up at a .com address that is in the UK.

Actually, I don't dare type a URL in my location bar that is not already in my history and/or bookmarks that is automatically completed. Too dangerous if you misspell the sucker. Google is the real DNS provider. Sometimes names aren't what they would think they are either. EG, its not bmw.com, its bmwusa.com.

To belabor this stupid point further. WTF is up with .name and .museum ? TLDs have digressed from their original goal. To simplify and classify things. I mean, how is slashdot.org really a .org anymore? Its a commercial entity. What was ever the point of .net? .biz? And then countries sell off their TLDs like .to, .fm, and .tv, and those are rarely used.

Google (or similar) is the authoritative TLD master, the rest is just novelty.

You’re absolutely correct.

Can I take small consolation in the fact that http://slashdot.com actually does redirect to slashdot.org?

[citation needed]
 
slashdot needs a [citation needed] function like facebook has for liking status updates.
 
  Hadlock and27 other people require[citation needed]

[citation needed]
 
slashdot needs a [citation needed] function like facebook has for liking status updates.
 
  Hadlock and27 other people require[citation needed]

[citation needed]
 
slashdot needs a [citation needed] function like facebook has for liking status updates.
 
  Hadlock and27 other people require[citation needed]

Wrong For one, google only saves QUERIES as the "trends" etc for auto complete. When you type http://slashdot.com/ the browser realizes this is a real address and goes straight to it... now if you type plain 'slashdot' into the url bar, it will then query google, I hate to tell you guys a little secret, Firefox does the EXACT SAME THING!

Have an even mildly intelligent system that assumes of the first field is not a recognizable protocol it must be the address? It wouldn't be that hard. Computers make guesses about what we want all the time. Pretending for a moment that I have an earlier version of Firefox without the Awesome Bar (which is actually just a more advanced version of what I'm talking about anyway), and I type "slashdot" into the address bar. Firefox sees that I have typed an invalid url and says:

"Hmmm. He probably wants to use http since I'm a web browser. Most of the urls in the world end with ".com" so he probably means http://slashdot.com/"

It then tries that url and I get to /. If http://slashdot.com/ isn't a valid url, it also looks at slashdot.org (which in this case would also work) and slashdot.net. It also tries all three with "www" in front of them if none of the bare urls work. Finally, it tries all the valid country code TLDs for the country it believes itself to be in. It may even try all of that for the ftp protocol too, I'm not sure.

Since most operating systems and even a lot of software have a list of protocols that they recognize, it would be trivial for a browser to look at a url and decide whether the first field is a protocol it can deal with or not, then act accordingly.

Have an even mildly intelligent system that assumes of the first field is not a recognizable protocol it must be the address? It wouldn't be that hard. Computers make guesses about what we want all the time. Pretending for a moment that I have an earlier version of Firefox without the Awesome Bar (which is actually just a more advanced version of what I'm talking about anyway), and I type "slashdot" into the address bar. Firefox sees that I have typed an invalid url and says:

"Hmmm. He probably wants to use http since I'm a web browser. Most of the urls in the world end with ".com" so he probably means http://slashdot.com/"

It then tries that url and I get to /. If http://slashdot.com/ isn't a valid url, it also looks at slashdot.org (which in this case would also work) and slashdot.net. It also tries all three with "www" in front of them if none of the bare urls work. Finally, it tries all the valid country code TLDs for the country it believes itself to be in. It may even try all of that for the ftp protocol too, I'm not sure.

Since most operating systems and even a lot of software have a list of protocols that they recognize, it would be trivial for a browser to look at a url and decide whether the first field is a protocol it can deal with or not, then act accordingly.

I want stable internet and I live in a developed nation!

Comcast business = crap

- The net often goes down 6+ times a day.

- When the net doesn't go down the cable modem seems to run out of memory for its routing table so random websites will stop loading. Rebooting the mobem will fix this. Slashdot's IP was one a while back and I thought Comcast was just blocking /. I had to go to http://star.slashdot.com/ to read anything.

- Field techs have been out here countless times and are as dumb as a sack of bricks. We have the cell number of one that seems to know what he's doing.

Problem still not fixed 2 months later.

TLDs are pointless.

Proof:

http://slashdot.com/
http://www.google.net/
http://www.microsoft.net/
http://www.craigslist.com/

All of those are paid for by their respective owners, and they redirect or just display the content of the "real" TLD.

Country codes would be nice, its annoying to go to a .com and find I'm in the UK, and I'm not going to order from them.

If I want to go to a company's website, I don't type www.barnes and noble.net, I ask google for it. Also, with the typosquatting, and whatnot, typing urls is simply unsafe. I do use the URL's history. s completes to slashdot, and whatnot. Just in case you need rock hard erections go to http://www.slashdot.net/

Looks like IDG (ComputerWorld, ITWorld, NetworkWorld...) is really hitting Slashdot HARD, either that or they have a deal with Slashdot. Here's a partial list of the shills that regularly show up and have almost 100% article acceptance rates:

Ian Lamont
Lucas123
coondoggie
inkslinger77
narramissic
jcatcw

Looks like they spread out the work over a few shill user accounts, which is to be expected. If it's all OK and everything with the corporate ownership of Slashdot to be played by IDG, I suppose that's their business, but one would hope that they are actually getting PAID for being part of IDG's advertising program. And of course there should be disclosure so that visitors to Slashdot realize they are reading advertisements and not an article submitted by a "real" user...

Looks like IDG (ComputerWorld, ITWorld, NetworkWorld...) is really hitting Slashdot HARD, either that or they have a deal with Slashdot. Here's a partial list of the shills that regularly show up and have almost 100% article acceptance rates:

Ian Lamont
Lucas123
coondoggie
inkslinger77
narramissic
jcatcw

Looks like they spread out the work over a few shill user accounts, which is to be expected. If it's all OK and everything with the corporate ownership of Slashdot to be played by IDG, I suppose that's their business, but one would hope that they are actually getting PAID for being part of IDG's advertising program. And of course there should be disclosure so that visitors to Slashdot realize they are reading advertisements and not an article submitted by a "real" user...

Looks like IDG (ComputerWorld, ITWorld, NetworkWorld...) is really hitting Slashdot HARD, either that or they have a deal with Slashdot. Here's a partial list of the shills that regularly show up and have almost 100% article acceptance rates:

Ian Lamont
Lucas123
coondoggie
inkslinger77
narramissic
jcatcw

Looks like they spread out the work over a few shill user accounts, which is to be expected. If it's all OK and everything with the corporate ownership of Slashdot to be played by IDG, I suppose that's their business, but one would hope that they are actually getting PAID for being part of IDG's advertising program. And of course there should be disclosure so that visitors to Slashdot realize they are reading advertisements and not an article submitted by a "real" user...

Looks like IDG (ComputerWorld, ITWorld, NetworkWorld...) is really hitting Slashdot HARD, either that or they have a deal with Slashdot. Here's a partial list of the shills that regularly show up and have almost 100% article acceptance rates:

Ian Lamont
Lucas123
coondoggie
inkslinger77
narramissic
jcatcw

Looks like they spread out the work over a few shill user accounts, which is to be expected. If it's all OK and everything with the corporate ownership of Slashdot to be played by IDG, I suppose that's their business, but one would hope that they are actually getting PAID for being part of IDG's advertising program. And of course there should be disclosure so that visitors to Slashdot realize they are reading advertisements and not an article submitted by a "real" user...

Looks like IDG (ComputerWorld, ITWorld, NetworkWorld...) is really hitting Slashdot HARD, either that or they have a deal with Slashdot. Here's a partial list of the shills that regularly show up and have almost 100% article acceptance rates:

Ian Lamont
Lucas123
coondoggie
inkslinger77
narramissic
jcatcw

Looks like they spread out the work over a few shill user accounts, which is to be expected. If it's all OK and everything with the corporate ownership of Slashdot to be played by IDG, I suppose that's their business, but one would hope that they are actually getting PAID for being part of IDG's advertising program. And of course there should be disclosure so that visitors to Slashdot realize they are reading advertisements and not an article submitted by a "real" user...

Looks like IDG (ComputerWorld, ITWorld, NetworkWorld...) is really hitting Slashdot HARD, either that or they have a deal with Slashdot. Here's a partial list of the shills that regularly show up and have almost 100% article acceptance rates:

Ian Lamont
Lucas123
coondoggie
inkslinger77
narramissic
jcatcw

Looks like they spread out the work over a few shill user accounts, which is to be expected. If it's all OK and everything with the corporate ownership of Slashdot to be played by IDG, I suppose that's their business, but one would hope that they are actually getting PAID for being part of IDG's advertising program. And of course there should be disclosure so that visitors to Slashdot realize they are reading advertisements and not an article submitted by a "real" user...

Looks like IDG (ComputerWorld, ITWorld, NetworkWorld...) is really hitting Slashdot HARD, either that or they have a deal with Slashdot. Here's a partial list of the shills that regularly show up and have almost 100% article acceptance rates: Ian Lamont
Lucas123
coondoggie
inkslinger77
narramissic
jcatcw

Looks like they spread out the work over a few shill user accounts, which is to be expected. If it's all OK and everything with the corporate ownership of Slashdot to be played by IDG, I suppose that's their business, but one would hope that they are actually getting PAID for being part of IDG's advertising program. And of course there should be disclosure so that visitors to Slashdot realize they are reading advertisements and not an article submitted by a "real" user...

Looks like IDG (ComputerWorld, ITWorld, NetworkWorld...) is really hitting Slashdot HARD, either that or they have a deal with Slashdot. Here's a partial list of the shills that regularly show up and have almost 100% article acceptance rates: Ian Lamont
Lucas123
coondoggie
inkslinger77
narramissic
jcatcw

Looks like they spread out the work over a few shill user accounts, which is to be expected. If it's all OK and everything with the corporate ownership of Slashdot to be played by IDG, I suppose that's their business, but one would hope that they are actually getting PAID for being part of IDG's advertising program. And of course there should be disclosure so that visitors to Slashdot realize they are reading advertisements and not an article submitted by a "real" user...

Looks like IDG (ComputerWorld, ITWorld, NetworkWorld...) is really hitting Slashdot HARD, either that or they have a deal with Slashdot. Here's a partial list of the shills that regularly show up and have almost 100% article acceptance rates: Ian Lamont
Lucas123
coondoggie
inkslinger77
narramissic
jcatcw

Looks like they spread out the work over a few shill user accounts, which is to be expected. If it's all OK and everything with the corporate ownership of Slashdot to be played by IDG, I suppose that's their business, but one would hope that they are actually getting PAID for being part of IDG's advertising program. And of course there should be disclosure so that visitors to Slashdot realize they are reading advertisements and not an article submitted by a "real" user...

Looks like IDG (ComputerWorld, ITWorld, NetworkWorld...) is really hitting Slashdot HARD, either that or they have a deal with Slashdot. Here's a partial list of the shills that regularly show up and have almost 100% article acceptance rates: Ian Lamont
Lucas123
coondoggie
inkslinger77
narramissic
jcatcw

Looks like they spread out the work over a few shill user accounts, which is to be expected. If it's all OK and everything with the corporate ownership of Slashdot to be played by IDG, I suppose that's their business, but one would hope that they are actually getting PAID for being part of IDG's advertising program. And of course there should be disclosure so that visitors to Slashdot realize they are reading advertisements and not an article submitted by a "real" user...

Looks like IDG (ComputerWorld, ITWorld, NetworkWorld...) is really hitting Slashdot HARD, either that or they have a deal with Slashdot. Here's a partial list of the shills that regularly show up and have almost 100% article acceptance rates: Ian Lamont
Lucas123
coondoggie
inkslinger77
narramissic
jcatcw

Looks like they spread out the work over a few shill user accounts, which is to be expected. If it's all OK and everything with the corporate ownership of Slashdot to be played by IDG, I suppose that's their business, but one would hope that they are actually getting PAID for being part of IDG's advertising program. And of course there should be disclosure so that visitors to Slashdot realize they are reading advertisements and not an article submitted by a "real" user...

Looks like IDG (ComputerWorld, ITWorld, NetworkWorld...) is really hitting Slashdot HARD, either that or they have a deal with Slashdot. Here's a partial list of the shills that regularly show up and have almost 100% article acceptance rates: Ian Lamont
Lucas123
coondoggie
inkslinger77
narramissic
jcatcw

Looks like they spread out the work over a few shill user accounts, which is to be expected. If it's all OK and everything with the corporate ownership of Slashdot to be played by IDG, I suppose that's their business, but one would hope that they are actually getting PAID for being part of IDG's advertising program. And of course there should be disclosure so that visitors to Slashdot realize they are reading advertisements and not an article submitted by a "real" user...

Everyone gets their panties in a bunch over Roland's blog but it's OK for IDG Drones (ComputerWorld, ITWorld, NetworkWorld...) to *SHILL* for their corporate mothership on Slashdot? Hmmm...

Lucas123
coondoggie
inkslinger77
narramissic
jcatcw

Everyone gets their panties in a bunch over Roland's blog but it's OK for IDG Drones (ComputerWorld, ITWorld, NetworkWorld...) to *SHILL* for their corporate mothership on Slashdot? Hmmm...

Lucas123
coondoggie
inkslinger77
narramissic
jcatcw

Everyone gets their panties in a bunch over Roland's blog but it's OK for IDG Drones (ComputerWorld, ITWorld, NetworkWorld...) to *SHILL* for their corporate mothership on Slashdot? Hmmm...

Lucas123
coondoggie
inkslinger77
narramissic
jcatcw

Everyone gets their panties in a bunch over Roland's blog but it's OK for IDG Drones (ComputerWorld, ITWorld, NetworkWorld...) to *SHILL* for their corporate mothership on Slashdot? Hmmm...

Lucas123
coondoggie
inkslinger77
narramissic
jcatcw

Everyone gets their panties in a bunch over Roland's blog but it's OK for IDG Drones (ComputerWorld, ITWorld, NetworkWorld...) to *SHILL* for their corporate mothership on Slashdot? Hmmm...

Lucas123
coondoggie
inkslinger77
narramissic
jcatcw

Looks like IDG (ComputerWorld, ITWorld, NetworkWorld...) is really hitting Slashdot HARD, either that or they have a deal with Slashdot. Here's a partial list of the shills that regularly show up and have almost 100% article acceptance rates: Lucas123
coondoggie
inkslinger77
narramissic
jcatcw

Looks like they spread out the work over a few shill user accounts, which is to be expected. If it's all OK and everything with the corporate ownership of Slashdot to be played by IDG, I suppose that's their business, but one would hope that they are actually getting PAID for being part of IDG's advertising program. And of course there should be disclosure so that visitors to Slashdot realize they are reading advertisements and not an article submitted by a "real" user...

Looks like IDG (ComputerWorld, ITWorld, NetworkWorld...) is really hitting Slashdot HARD, either that or they have a deal with Slashdot. Here's a partial list of the shills that regularly show up and have almost 100% article acceptance rates: Lucas123
coondoggie
inkslinger77
narramissic
jcatcw

Looks like they spread out the work over a few shill user accounts, which is to be expected. If it's all OK and everything with the corporate ownership of Slashdot to be played by IDG, I suppose that's their business, but one would hope that they are actually getting PAID for being part of IDG's advertising program. And of course there should be disclosure so that visitors to Slashdot realize they are reading advertisements and not an article submitted by a "real" user...

Looks like IDG (ComputerWorld, ITWorld, NetworkWorld...) is really hitting Slashdot HARD, either that or they have a deal with Slashdot. Here's a partial list of the shills that regularly show up and have almost 100% article acceptance rates: Lucas123
coondoggie
inkslinger77
narramissic
jcatcw

Looks like they spread out the work over a few shill user accounts, which is to be expected. If it's all OK and everything with the corporate ownership of Slashdot to be played by IDG, I suppose that's their business, but one would hope that they are actually getting PAID for being part of IDG's advertising program. And of course there should be disclosure so that visitors to Slashdot realize they are reading advertisements and not an article submitted by a "real" user...

Looks like IDG (ComputerWorld, ITWorld, NetworkWorld...) is really hitting Slashdot HARD, either that or they have a deal with Slashdot. Here's a partial list of the shills that regularly show up and have almost 100% article acceptance rates: Lucas123
coondoggie
inkslinger77
narramissic
jcatcw

Looks like they spread out the work over a few shill user accounts, which is to be expected. If it's all OK and everything with the corporate ownership of Slashdot to be played by IDG, I suppose that's their business, but one would hope that they are actually getting PAID for being part of IDG's advertising program. And of course there should be disclosure so that visitors to Slashdot realize they are reading advertisements and not an article submitted by a "real" user...

Looks like IDG (ComputerWorld, ITWorld, NetworkWorld...) is really hitting Slashdot HARD, either that or they have a deal with Slashdot. Here's a partial list of the shills that regularly show up and have almost 100% article acceptance rates: Lucas123
coondoggie
inkslinger77
narramissic
jcatcw

Looks like they spread out the work over a few shill user accounts, which is to be expected. If it's all OK and everything with the corporate ownership of Slashdot to be played by IDG, I suppose that's their business, but one would hope that they are actually getting PAID for being part of IDG's advertising program. And of course there should be disclosure so that visitors to Slashdot realize they are reading advertisements and not an article submitted by a "real" user...

coondoggie
inkslinger77
narramissic
jcatcw
jpkunst

Looks like they spread out the work over a few shill user accounts, which is to be expected. If it's all OK and everything with the corporate ownership of Slashdot to be played by IDG, I suppose that's their business, but one would hope that they are actually getting PAID for being part of IDG's advertising program. And of course there should be disclosure so that visitors to Slashdot realize they are reading advertisements and not an article submitted by a "real" user...

coondoggie
inkslinger77
narramissic
jcatcw
jpkunst

Looks like they spread out the work over a few shill user accounts, which is to be expected. If it's all OK and everything with the corporate ownership of Slashdot to be played by IDG, I suppose that's their business, but one would hope that they are actually getting PAID for being part of IDG's advertising program. And of course there should be disclosure so that visitors to Slashdot realize they are reading advertisements and not an article submitted by a "real" user...

coondoggie
inkslinger77
narramissic
jcatcw
jpkunst

Looks like they spread out the work over a few shill user accounts, which is to be expected. If it's all OK and everything with the corporate ownership of Slashdot to be played by IDG, I suppose that's their business, but one would hope that they are actually getting PAID for being part of IDG's advertising program. And of course there should be disclosure so that visitors to Slashdot realize they are reading advertisements and not an article submitted by a "real" user...

coondoggie
inkslinger77
narramissic
jcatcw
jpkunst

Looks like they spread out the work over a few shill user accounts, which is to be expected. If it's all OK and everything with the corporate ownership of Slashdot to be played by IDG, I suppose that's their business, but one would hope that they are actually getting PAID for being part of IDG's advertising program. And of course there should be disclosure so that visitors to Slashdot realize they are reading advertisements and not an article submitted by a "real" user...

coondoggie
inkslinger77
narramissic
jcatcw
jpkunst

Looks like they spread out the work over a few shill user accounts, which is to be expected. If it's all OK and everything with the corporate ownership of Slashdot to be played by IDG, I suppose that's their business, but one would hope that they are actually getting PAID for being part of IDG's advertising program. And of course there should be disclosure so that visitors to Slashdot realize they are reading advertisements and not an article submitted by a "real" user...

SiteTruth
Integrity check of http://slashdot.com/
Alpha test version
Site ownership unknown or questionable.

Site rating
Rating: "Site ownership unknown or questionable."

Secure certificate
No valid certificate.

Domain slashdot.com
Wrong host for SSL certificate. Certificate for "slashdot.org", actual host "slashdot.com". (Peer certificate commonName does not match host, expected slashdot.com, got slashdot.org)

No usable certificate available.
Contents of web site
Site "Slashdot: News for nerds, stuff that matters"
Examined 21 web pages in 35.0 seconds.

1. http://slashdot.com/
2. Ask Sony's Phil Harrison About PS3 and Games (Problem with page "http://interviews.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/ 03/19/1729238": Access prohibited by Robot Exclusion Protocol (robots.txt).)
3. Ask CCP About EVE Online (Problem with page "http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/22 /1815258": Access prohibited by Robot Exclusion Protocol (robots.txt).)
4. about
5. FAQ
6. FAQ Meta
7. About Slashdot
8. privacy
9. What MSN, Google, Yahoo and AOL Know About You (Problem with page "http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/10/1 331206": Access prohibited by Robot Exclusion Protocol (robots.txt).)
10. Your House Is About To Be Photographed (Problem with page "http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/06/1 88251": Access prohibited by Robot Exclusion Protocol (robots.txt).)
11. Blizzard Seeks to Block User Rights, Privacy (Problem with page "http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/10/1 24218": Access prohibited by Robot Exclusion Protocol (robots.txt).)
12. Senate Introduces Strong Privacy Bill (Problem with page "http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/08/0 323226": Access prohibited by Robot Exclusion Protocol (robots.txt).)
13. Social Network Users Have Ruined Their Privacy (Problem with page "http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/26/1 321226": Access prohibited by Robot Exclusion Protocol (robots.txt).)
14. Pendulum Swinging Toward Privacy (Problem with page "http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/24/1 77208": Access prohibited by Robot Exclusion Protocol (robots.txt).)
15. The Privacy Candidate (Problem with page "http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/28/2 155219": Access prohibited by Robot Exclusion Protocol (robots.txt).)
16. Face Search Engine Raises Privacy Concerns (Problem with page "http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/19/1 923259": Access prohibited by Robot Exclusion Protocol (robots.txt).)
17. Gates Says Microsoft Will Support OpenID (Problem with page "http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/06/2 152214": Access prohibited by Robot Exclusion Protocol (robots.txt).)
18. Digital Credentials Offer Enhanced Privacy (Problem with page "http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/20/2 158240": Access prohibited by Robot Exclusion Protocol (robots.txt).)
19. IT and A National Security Letter Gag Order (Problem with page "http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03 /23/1234211": Access prohibited by Robot Exclusion Protocol (robots.txt).)
20. RFID Guardian Protects Your Privacy (Problem with page "http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/03/2 333244": Access prohibited by Robot Exclusion Protocol (robots.txt).)
21. The Failing Right of Laptop

SiteTruth
Integrity check of http://slashdot.com/
Alpha test version
Site ownership unknown or questionable.

Site rating
Rating: "Site ownership unknown or questionable."

Secure certificate
No valid certificate.

Domain slashdot.com
Wrong host for SSL certificate. Certificate for "slashdot.org", actual host "slashdot.com". (Peer certificate commonName does not match host, expected slashdot.com, got slashdot.org)

No usable certificate available.
Contents of web site
Site "Slashdot: News for nerds, stuff that matters"
Examined 21 web pages in 35.0 seconds.

1. http://slashdot.com/
2. Ask Sony's Phil Harrison About PS3 and Games (Problem with page "http://interviews.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/ 03/19/1729238": Access prohibited by Robot Exclusion Protocol (robots.txt).)
3. Ask CCP About EVE Online (Problem with page "http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/22 /1815258": Access prohibited by Robot Exclusion Protocol (robots.txt).)
4. about
5. FAQ
6. FAQ Meta
7. About Slashdot
8. privacy
9. What MSN, Google, Yahoo and AOL Know About You (Problem with page "http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/10/1 331206": Access prohibited by Robot Exclusion Protocol (robots.txt).)
10. Your House Is About To Be Photographed (Problem with page "http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/06/1 88251": Access prohibited by Robot Exclusion Protocol (robots.txt).)
11. Blizzard Seeks to Block User Rights, Privacy (Problem with page "http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/10/1 24218": Access prohibited by Robot Exclusion Protocol (robots.txt).)
12. Senate Introduces Strong Privacy Bill (Problem with page "http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/08/0 323226": Access prohibited by Robot Exclusion Protocol (robots.txt).)
13. Social Network Users Have Ruined Their Privacy (Problem with page "http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/26/1 321226": Access prohibited by Robot Exclusion Protocol (robots.txt).)
14. Pendulum Swinging Toward Privacy (Problem with page "http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/24/1 77208": Access prohibited by Robot Exclusion Protocol (robots.txt).)
15. The Privacy Candidate (Problem with page "http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/28/2 155219": Access prohibited by Robot Exclusion Protocol (robots.txt).)
16. Face Search Engine Raises Privacy Concerns (Problem with page "http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/19/1 923259": Access prohibited by Robot Exclusion Protocol (robots.txt).)
17. Gates Says Microsoft Will Support OpenID (Problem with page "http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/06/2 152214": Access prohibited by Robot Exclusion Protocol (robots.txt).)
18. Digital Credentials Offer Enhanced Privacy (Problem with page "http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/20/2 158240": Access prohibited by Robot Exclusion Protocol (robots.txt).)
19. IT and A National Security Letter Gag Order (Problem with page "http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03 /23/1234211": Access prohibited by Robot Exclusion Protocol (robots.txt).)
20. RFID Guardian Protects Your Privacy (Problem with page "http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/03/2 333244": Access prohibited by Robot Exclusion Protocol (robots.txt).)
21. The Failing Right of Laptop

click here you stupid nigger

/. did a lot of joking about the size of various football fields when an ice shelf as big as 11,000 of some variety of them (or, in more normal units, 66 sq. km) broke away from part of Canada. http://science.slashdot.com/article.pl?sid=06/12/2 9/1946227
I refuse to use grapefruit for measurements. They vary in size more than you might imagine. I've seen grapefruit the size of oranges, & vice versa. ;)
Americans generally use bags of sugar that are two-and-a-half pounds or five pounds. The kg is on there, but we don't always look.

• salshdot has a frame redirect to slashdot. Does not seem to be affiliated.
• .com redirects to .org.
• slsahdot is a misspelling counter. :-)
• lsashdot.org, slashodt.org, slashdto.org, slashdot.net, slashdot.info, slshdot.org slshdot.org, slahdot.org, slasdot.org, slashot.org, slashdt.org, slashdo.org, salshdot.com - these are all typosquatters.
• slashdot.biz - is registered but hasn't even a domain parking site
• Typosquatters pay attention: slashdot.eu is not yet taken!

I'm going to grossly oversimplify here, but basically, when I submit a query for foo.com, the very first thing queried is the top level domain, in this case, .com. If I were to submit a query to foo.org, the query would take a different path in resolving the name. Same with foo.net, foo.us, foo.biz, etc.

Yeah, try http://slashdot.com/ , http://slashdot.org/ , http://slashdot.net/ , http://slashdot.info/ , http://slashdot.tv/ and see what the results are.

Everything that is not slashdot.org is a wannabe, and even if there was a new TLD that was, say, .notslashdotdotorg and someone registered slashdot.notslashdotdotorg would still be confused with slashdot.org

Name me two well known organizations that have two same names with different TLDs that have not had a legal dispute over one forfeiting the other.

I mean like when you go to http://www.slashdot.com/ and are re-directed to http://www.slashdot.org./

Steve

"You're the one that's reality challenged. Alternative viewpoints do not constitute a lack of understanding of reality."

I'm not stupid you are. No wait, I'm a mirror you're glue. Or is it sticks and stones?

Alternative viewpoints on slashdot are aka FICTION.

Delusional: A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence

Tell me, what major sites have been build using Ruby?

I can list several very high volume sites/applications that use Perl.

Nah, the story was posted on slashdot.COM. More TLDs to the rescue, ICANN!

I'm not sure if you're joking, but slashdot is actually based on slashdot.org; slashdot.com just redirects to it. This was probably done to prevent domain sitting. The other domains you've listed - including slashdot.net - aren't controlled by Slashdot, and are being domain sat.