Slashdot Mirror


uk.co Domains Knocked Offline By Registrar Dispute

An anonymous reader writes "The .uk.co domain was wiped off the face of the Internet this morning with no notice, leaving more than 8,000 livid individuals and businesses - including Amazon and Priceline - with no Web presence or email. I saw this on nvnews.net, which originally came from the register, but since the domain is wiped out, you can no longer reach the article." Actually, you can read the story fine on theregister.co.uk. ;)

248 comments

  1. Not true - or an exaggeration anyway by KNicolson · · Score: 5, Informative
    leaving more than 8,000 livid individuals and businesses - including Amazon and Priceline - with no Web presence or email.

    As The Reg article says, it was used by these two companies, for example, to catch people who typed http://www.amazon.uk.co by accident. Both these two still have their co.uk versions working successfully.

    1. Re:Not true - or an exaggeration anyway by $$$$$exyGal · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Agreed. I really doubt that Amazon or Priceline have been stricken with no Web presence or e-mail. Are there any companies that use a .uk.co domain for something besides misspellings?

      --sex

      --
      Very popular slashdot journal for adul
    2. Re:Not true - or an exaggeration anyway by cyb97 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Id guess that f.uk.co can gross some money ;-)

    3. Re:Not true - or an exaggeration anyway by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Funny
      Yes. That awful "Castle Computing", much in Slashdot lately for alleged GPL violations, was www.castle.uk.co.

      Is this the wrath of any angry God, upset that his representative on Earth, Richard Stallman, should have his licence so cruelly ignored?

      Or is this just another dispute about money? Time will tell...

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    4. Re:Not true - or an exaggeration anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      What kind of twisted in-bred retard would type in uk.co by accident?

      I allege that, were there such a person, the likelihood of them correctly typing a difficult word like 'amazon' shrinks to zero once they start getting co and uk mixed up.

      Jesus, someone register me coca.com.www.cola. You know, just in case.

    5. Re:Not true - or an exaggeration anyway by cyb97 · · Score: 2, Informative
      The statement is true and is perhaps a slight exaggeration, but nevertheless it's true...
      In this capitalistic world with such tight margins as amazon & priceline operate within every sale counts. Especially on the web where the next store which has virtually the same prices and conditions is only a few clicks away, being online is essential to staying alive!

      We've all worked for customers that believe it's the end of the world and reach for their lawyer-hotline as soon as a little snag is discovered in their o-so-great web-applic, but in the end many of these are also the ones to succede...

    6. Re:Not true - or an exaggeration anyway by xihr · · Score: 1

      Indeed -- who really cares? So people who were taking advantage of people who can't type URLs faithfully got called on it.

    7. Re:Not true - or an exaggeration anyway by jericho4.0 · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      If you havn't noticed, UK domain names are all screwed up compared to the rest of the world. Well, the US, at least, but that's most of the rest of the internet world.

      What's the reasoning behind .co.uk anyway? Did the british government decide 'uk' was only for them, or what?

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    8. Re:Not true - or an exaggeration anyway by jaavaaguru · · Score: 1

      We've got a few of these TLDs, like: .co.uk .ac.uk .gov.uk .org.uk


      I think you'll find that we aren't the only country who have adopted a sensible hierarchical domain name system of ....

      The "country code" is a ccTLD, and the Internet would appear slightly more organized if everyone chose to use it.

    9. Re:Not true - or an exaggeration anyway by mpe · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I really doubt that Amazon or Priceline have been stricken with no Web presence or e-mail. Are there any companies that use a .uk.co domain for something besides misspellings?

      Why should Colombia be covering for people's misspellings in the first place? It's not as if there is a treaty covering the existance of .uk.co.

    10. Re:Not true - or an exaggeration anyway by ferret4 · · Score: 1

      The US is the most fucked up, they totally ignore their allocated .us TLD and use .com for any piece-of-shit website as if .com were their TLD. Fucking retards.

    11. Re:Not true - or an exaggeration anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mh, I think it's worse in the us, where you have only *..us adresses AFAIK. Compared to that I consider a logical structuring, as the UK does it, superior.

      And its better than no structuring at all, too. Just look at the .de TLD which is a total mess with the number of domain names registered.

      Greetings,

      Interneci

    12. Re:Not true - or an exaggeration anyway by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1

      I think that's the point the original poster was trying to make, albeit with a lot of subtlety.

    13. Re:Not true - or an exaggeration anyway by comcn · · Score: 1

      Castle Technology are also at http://www.castle.org.uk/.

    14. Re:Not true - or an exaggeration anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem isn't correcting misspellings. The problem is that if Amazon doesn't register amazon.uk.co, then someone else will. These kind of typo thieves are just low lifes. I think .co.uk should never be brought back. It's basically pretty close to extortion. "Buy your .co.uk or well sell it to someone else."

    15. Re:Not true - or an exaggeration anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yes, it looks fucked up now, but you have to reallize that when the internet was developed the US didn't except everyone to join a military network.

      Ok, the IP, domain names, and DNS didn't happen at the same time, but it's just one of those things where no one know where it was going to go, so planning it perfectly was imposible.

    16. Re:Not true - or an exaggeration anyway by RyuSoma · · Score: 1

      Cocaine

      Amazon.uk.co Sales Rank: 1

      Customers who bought this item also bought:
      Constitucion Politica de Colombia; Paperback ~ Jacobo Perez Escobar
      Jane's Gun Recognition Guide; Paperback ~ Ivan V. Hogg, Harper Collins
      Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (Book 5); Hardcover ~ J K Rowling

    17. Re:Not true - or an exaggeration anyway by fcw · · Score: 1
      What kind of twisted in-bred retard would type in uk.co by accident?

      I'll wager that the vast majority of internet users neither know nor care how domain names work; I'd even bet that most couldn't explain the difference between a URL and an e-mail address. It doesn't help that:

      • there is .org and .gov and .com
      • there is .org.uk and .gov.uk
      • there isn't a .com.uk to go with .com
      • there is .uk.com as well as the official .co.uk

      So I don't find it surprising at all that many people might expect .uk.co to exist. In fact, I'd expect people to think all kinds of things might work, since the UK also has .police.uk, .nhs.uk, .ltd.uk, .plc.uk, .me.uk, .nic.uk, .sch.uk, .jet.uk and many others, hardly anyone uses .tv for Tuvalu, and things like .biz, .name, .museum and .info are now cropping up.

    18. Re:Not true - or an exaggeration anyway by afidel · · Score: 1

      Columbia would do it because they receive hard currency for very little effort. If you could receive money with little time, effort, or resources invested you'd do it too.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    19. Re:Not true - or an exaggeration anyway by Brendan+Byrd · · Score: 1

      Is it an organization? No? Then it shouldn't get a dot-org address. The whole problem is that the registrars don't have strict enforcement of the extentions. Everybody and their mother has a .com address, and the .coms have .net, .org, and every other extention, "just in case".

      All this does is pollute the namespace, and removes valid entries for people that really need them.

    20. Re:Not true - or an exaggeration anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, change that to something, like coca.com.www.co.la, and you might actually have a chance.. :-)

    21. Re:Not true - or an exaggeration anyway by TekPolitik · · Score: 1

      What kind of twisted in-bred retard would type in uk.co by accident?

      Perhaps somebody who knows something we don't. Perhaps the Columbian drug lords really are buying governments around the world in the most literal possible way.

    22. Re:Not true - or an exaggeration anyway by dotmaudot · · Score: 1

      What kind of twisted in-bred retard would type in uk.co by accident?
      I am old enough to remember the times of JANET which, in a very British way, wrote the address backwards. Thus, an address like user@example.co.uk should be entered as user@uk.co.example. True, in those days the treat was to mistype .uk.ac, but the basic idea is the same...
      ciao, .mau.

  2. Who gives a f.uk.co by bstadil · · Score: 5, Insightful

    These domains are just a revisit of deceptive sites that uses common misspellings. Like amason.com

    --
    Help fight continental drift.
    1. Re:Who gives a f.uk.co by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny
    2. Re:Who gives a f.uk.co by nomadic · · Score: 3, Funny

      I know a genuine Panaphonix when I see it! And look, there's Magnetbox, and Sorny!

    3. Re:Who gives a f.uk.co by glesga_kiss · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wow, just how many popups does that page open? My popup killer nearly asked for a vacation afterwards...

    4. Re:Who gives a f.uk.co by Ctrl-Z · · Score: 1


      Listen, I'm not going to lie to you. Those are all superior machines. But if you like to watch your TV, and I mean really watch it, you want the Carnivalé. It features two-pronged wall plug, pre-molded hand grip well, durable outer casing to prevent fallapart...

      --
      www.timcoleman.com is a total waste of your time. Never go there.
    5. Re:Who gives a f.uk.co by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Bingo!

      Worst, while it was up legit site like amazon were force to pay money to keep other people from stealing surfers. I hope .uk.co stays down. Too bad the people profiting from it aren't getting jail time for fraud and extortion.

  3. Sub Judice... by $$$$$exyGal · · Score: 5, Informative
    What went wrong we may find out tomorrow as a Colombian judge decides whether Net Registrar has the continued right to the domain. Until then, Robert Fox tells us, he considers the matter sub judice and so does not want to comment further.

    For those that don't know, "sub judice" means that Mr. Fox doesn't want the media to do something that would influence the judge.

    --sex

    --
    Very popular slashdot journal for adul
    1. Re:Sub Judice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dont see how this is off topic as I didnt know what it meant till I read this comment! :P

    2. Re:Sub Judice... by BabyDave · · Score: 1

      Either that or it's the Israeli Underground system.

      (Credit to I'm Sorry, I Haven't A Clue, from which I stole the joke ...)

    3. Re:Sub Judice... by kfg · · Score: 2, Informative

      More specifically it means "under" (sub) "judicial review" (judice).

      In other words rules of behaviour in public that could effect the case apply. This includes making statements to the public that could influence a judge or jury. Or for that matter doing *anything* that could blow your case, like, ohhhhh, confessing to a buddy or harassing a witness.

      Under some jurisdictions violating sub judice can actually bring charges of contempt of court. I don't know if Columbia is one of these.

      Sequestering jurors is based on the principles of sub judice.

      Or, as it is more commonly explained by lawyers to their clients:

      "Look, just stay home and keep your damned mouth shut. Ok?"

      KFG

  4. Uh-oh by Doctor+Sbaitso · · Score: 4, Funny

    What's with all these top-level domains disappearing? First .name, now .uk.co... I'm just glad I still have my trusty old .cx domain name.

    --

    ---
    Hello, Slashdot user. My name is Dr. Sbaitso. I am here to help you.
    1. Re:Uh-oh by Mononoke · · Score: 1, Funny
      I'm just glad I still have my trusty old .cx domain name.
      So are we, Mr. Goatse. So are we.

      --
      NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
    2. Re:Uh-oh by farfisa69 · · Score: 2, Informative


      Not to be a nit picker, but .uk.co is not a TLD anyway. .co is the TLD and I don't think it is in a hurry to disappear.

      --
      Meat is murder, I eat chicken.
    3. Re:Uh-oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Admiral Ackbar: It's a trap!

    4. Re:Uh-oh by Stephen+VanDahm · · Score: 4, Funny

      On a serious note, I think it's fascinating that all it takes is one JPEG to ruin an entire TLD forever.

      Steve

    5. Re:Uh-oh by kasperd · · Score: 1

      one JPEG to ruin an entire TLD forever.

      That got me thinking, how about a new TLD named .jpg or .jpeg?

      --

      Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
    6. Re:Uh-oh by ShavenYak · · Score: 1

      Actually I believe it takes two. A giver, and a receiver, so to speak.

      --

      Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
    7. Re:Uh-oh by lostchicken · · Score: 1

      Trust me, the domain would be scary enough even if it had just the one picture.

      --
      -twb
  5. Re:What country is .co? by YOU+LIKEWISE+FAIL+IT · · Score: 4, Informative
    Yup, it's Columbia. The domain in question is owned by the Univ. of Columbia, and they want to sell it off, like Tuvalu did. The government is not too happy, and this has sparked something of a pissing match.

    Read the article on el Reg, it's got the goods.

    Personally, I believe people that do this ( like the .au.com people ) deserve what they get.

    --
    One god, one market, one truth, one consumer.
  6. Come on this is NO NEWS. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone using a .uk.co domain deserves to be knocked off line. They were 99.99999% chance a complete scam anyway. Geez. Are we crying for the internet crooks now?

  7. Re:Why doesn't everyone just get a .com? by Repton · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Err, because if every domain was a .com, we may as well drop the .com suffix and go to arbitrary names. Which would defeat the purpose of the domain name system altogether --- we would lose easy distribution of the workload, and just put more pressure on a few servers.

    Heirarchies are a Good Thing, as any geek should know.

    [and, besides, often you want to distinguish yourself as belonging to a specific region...]

    --
    Repton.
    They say that only an experienced wizard can do the tengu shuffle.
  8. No big deal by Animats · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There were only 8,000 domains in "uk.co", and they were mostly slimeballs anyway, trolling for people who don't know they should be typing "co.uk". No big loss.

    1. Re:No big deal by jrumney · · Score: 1

      I agree. The ones that weren't slimeballs (eg amazon) only bought the domains to stop some slimeball from passing themselves off as the real thing. The uk.co domain and others like it only exist to make the owners rich. The internet bubble burst 2 years ago, and they should go away with it.

    2. Re:No big deal by jolyonr · · Score: 1

      Not true!

      Some of the companies who had .uk.co domains were perfectly honest businesses who were SOLD them by slimeballs.

      One of my clients has (had?) a .uk.co domain, they are a small husband & wife company who do specialist consultancy for companies wanting to do business into China. Their domain was eba.uk.co which they were sold (long before they came to me) because their three-letter-name wasn't available anywhere else. They most certainly aren't trying to pass-off as anyone else, the other eba. domain owners are in totally different industry sectors.

      They've now got serious problems - noone can email them, noone can view their website. The worst thing they have done is taken some bad advice in the past.

      I'm having to set them up a new domain name (a longer name with .co.uk at the end) which in itself is not a problem, but they'll have to redo all their stationery, business cards, etc. and the disruption to their business is going to be severe.

      Jolyon

      --


      Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
  9. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  10. Re:Why doesn't everyone just get a .com? by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 1

    Because there are few good .com addresses left? I wanted flarg.com, not flarg.org, but flarg.com was taken a few months before I registered mine...

    --
    "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
  11. (Idiot)UK == Colombia by TedCheshireAcad · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Cast a .co.uk domain to an idiot, and you get Colombia... It's not that big of a deal.

    1. Re:(Idiot)UK == Colombia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn...Atleast get your psuedo-logic right. Try:
      Idiot colombiz = (Idiot)UK;

      Assignment operator, not logical operator.

  12. Re:Why doesn't everyone just get a .com? by vadim_t · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Maybe because there are so many .com's that it's hard to come up with anything meaningful because pretty much everything obvious has been registered already?

  13. The Thought Process by Riomaggio · · Score: 5, Funny

    So, by wiping out this domain we avoid the typical web user playing through the following scenario:

    1) Web user thinks: "I need to order a book, let's go to Amazon"
    2) Web user types: "amazon.uk.co"
    3) Web user sees 15,000 porn sites pop up
    4) Web user starts to sweat, looks around office, hopes no one walks by
    5) Web user clicks furiously, but fails to keep up with the rush of pop-ups, pop-unders, and installation prompts
    6) Web user co-worker walks by, see's web user sweating, moaning softly and clicking so fast his/her hand is a blur
    7) Web user hits reset button on PC, loses all work, but manages to stem the tide of porn
    8) Web user sees co-worker next in cafeteria next day sitting with several other people, all are looking at web user and snickering...

    It's happened to all of us, admit it! Getting rid of "spam" domains is a good thing!

    Now, if they could could just get rid of whitehouse.com, I'd have a lot more respect for the American government!

    1. Re:The Thought Process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pop-ups? what are these pop-ups you speak of?

    2. Re:The Thought Process by agentZ · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Now, if they could could just get rid of whitehouse.com, I'd have a lot more respect for the American government!

      The US Government can't own or enforce a copyright or trademark, so they can't, by law, go after whitehouse.com. That being said, however, I'm sure the good folks at White House Apple Juice have other ideas!

    3. Re:The Thought Process by vonWoland · · Score: 1

      Yes, but that would mean getting rid of them, which would just be wrong.

    4. Re:The Thought Process by damiam · · Score: 2, Informative

      Winkey-M minimizes all windows - the perfect solution for a time such as this. (Actually, the perfect solution is Mozilla, but let's not go there).

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    5. Re:The Thought Process by kesuki · · Score: 1

      Not all of us use IE. Some of us use mozilla or opera, and don't have to deal with browser trapping.

      Yes, browser traping is annoying, and yes, I've even come across webpages that pop up a window even when unrequested windows are disabled in mozilla.
      But the torrental flood of porn ads is entirely avoidable.

      Then again you mentioned work, so maybe you're not allowed to install software on there.

    6. Re:The Thought Process by Dexheimer · · Score: 1

      I've heard many a funny story about entire school classes takin' a visit to good ole whitehouse.com. "Everybody's hugging!"

      --
      /There are 10 types of people in this world; those who steal sigs and those don't
    7. Re:The Thought Process by YetAnotherName · · Score: 1

      You forgot:

      9) ???
      10) Profit!

    8. Re:The Thought Process by lenski · · Score: 3, Funny
      Too many 90 hour weeks... I read that as "winky-M" and wondered who had come up with a "porn user protection program"...

      Happy Linux user, forgetful of those cute winky keys... :-)

    9. Re:The Thought Process by LighthouseJ · · Score: 3, Funny

      You and everyone else that laughs at that, go to Fox Searchlab and watch farmsluts (no porn shown) [17 minute clip, Quicktime format]. I'll spare you the details so you can laugh about it while watching it.

    10. Re:The Thought Process by damiam · · Score: 1

      If you were really happy Linux user, you would've used your window manager to bind the Winkey to some convenient shortcut or shortcuts, such as minimize all windows (there are some other useful ones too).

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    11. Re:The Thought Process by po_boy · · Score: 1
      Now, if they could could just get rid of whitehouse.com, I'd have a lot more respect for the American government!

      I thought that .com was not supposed to be US specific. That's what the usual slashdot complaint is. Why is it the problem of the US government?
    12. Re:The Thought Process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, this just happened to me last night. I had the misfortune of being over someone else's house and having to use Internet Exploder. I ended up mistyping the URL of the site and it brought up a page that just started spawning popup after popup after popup. What the hell is with this? Is this how people are making money on being the catchall for popular misspellings? Seems pretty sleazy to me.
      I guess I just never notice this anymore since I use Crazybrowser or Mozilla. I'm amazed people still even use plain jane IE with all the popups around. Even Netscape's home page pops up two annoying ads. Whoever invented the popup should be shot.

    13. Re:The Thought Process by d2003xx · · Score: 1

      3) Web user sees 15,000 porn sites pop up

      Preferences/General/Pop-up windows => Refuse pop-up windows

      Ah.. not for idiotic IE users

    14. Re:The Thought Process by phorm · · Score: 1

      Even with IE, I've not yet found sites that aren't a match for rapid-slapping the ol' ALT+F4. If it gets really bad, turn off you ethernet connection for a short moment (2k/XP), and then nuke the popups.

      Of course, they're still annoying as all hell, but they can be dealt with.

    15. Re:The Thought Process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just burn a Mozilla or Phoenix directory onto a mini-CD. I did that and I haven't seen popups on any computer I've used for a long time.

    16. Re:The Thought Process by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

      If you were really happy Linux user, you would've used your window manager to bind the Winkey to some convenient shortcut or shortcuts, such as minimize all windows (there are some other useful ones too).

      Or you'd just click one of your other 4 desktops that doesn't have anything on it, move your production apps over there and get back to work, killing popups only when people aren't looking, and doing it all from the panel.

      Then you'd open Mozilla and turn the pop-up blocker on. :)

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    17. Re:The Thought Process by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      It's happened to all of us, admit it!

      Actually, I just use Mozilla, and turn off popups. I also turn off images and JavaScript in my e-mail.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    18. Re:The Thought Process by raju1kabir · · Score: 1
      Now, if they could could just get rid of whitehouse.com, I'd have a lot more respect for the American government!

      I have a lot of respect for them because they haven't. The domain was registered, fair and square. Only a very petty government would try to take it away.

      --
      "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
    19. Re:The Thought Process by zcat_NZ · · Score: 1

      `alias kn="killall -9 netscape-navigator"`

      Not so much for the popups (although it helps) but just because netscape is a bitch and locks up way too often.

      --
      455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
    20. Re:The Thought Process by TiMac · · Score: 1
      Even with IE, I've not yet found sites that aren't a match for rapid-slapping the ol' ALT+F4. If it gets really bad, turn off you ethernet connection for a short moment (2k/XP), and then nuke the popups.

      Or get a browser that doesn't suck...

      Seriously....should you find workarounds, or avoid the problem completely?

      I prefer any sort of browser that allows Pop-up blocking....though tabs are also nice. For me, this means Safari is okay--but not quite there--but Chimera (soon to be Camino?) rules.

      Don't have a Mac? How's about Mozilla or Phoenix?

      Just a thought. :)

      --

    21. Re:The Thought Process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now, if they could could just get rid of whitehouse.com

      I'd much more like Michael give up squatting the censorware.org-domain

    22. Re:The Thought Process by bblgoose · · Score: 1

      Personally, I'm glad that IE doesn't filter pop-ups, for one reason. IE is the single most popular browser in the world, and it's what most sites are designed for. If it had the ability to filter pop-ups, it would force the spammers to try different tactics to target people, such as having the ad on the main page, with the actual content you want to look at in a pop-up, so you have no choice but to allow them to look at that site.

      Granted, a site that did this would lose customers at first, but if IE allowed it, it may become the norm.

    23. Re:The Thought Process by TiMac · · Score: 1
      I think you underestimate the public's ability to choose. I think that if a legitimate website (say...CNN) tried a tactic similar to what you said might happen...the web designer might be shot....out of principle.

      Although you make a valid point. I don't mind Popups (because I can block them...) nearly as much as those annoying-as-shit DHTML ads that animate elements on your screen, floating in a layer above the other content. Those piss me off. They guarantee I'll never use whatever is being advertised. I would hate for those to become the norm.

      --

    24. Re:The Thought Process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It's happened to all of us, admit it!
      No, not all of us. Many of us turned off Javascript in the mid 1990s, haven't seen a pop-up in a long, long time, and have never seen the elusive mythical pop-under.

      I think it's pretty amazing that some people out there have put up with pop-ups for more than a day or two. They are probably the same kind of people who don't know how to Just Say No to drug dealers and Microsoft.

    25. Re:The Thought Process by quantum+bit · · Score: 1

      Actually, I just use Mozilla, and turn off popups. I also turn off images and JavaScript in my e-mail.

      I love Evolution's option that will show images in emails that are actually embedded in the email, but refuses to go out to the 'net to retrieve any images. And if the mail is from someone you trust, just hit view/message display/load images (or make a toolbar button for it) to load them only for the one email.

      99% of real messages use embedded images, and 99% of spam tries to fetch them (and possibly track your address) from somewhere else.

      Every mail client should have that option. Except maybe mutt.

    26. Re:The Thought Process by prizog · · Score: 1

      The US Government *can* own a copyright -- it just doesn't get them on works it creates itself.

      And, while I don't know if the government can obtain, register, etc, a trademark, they don't need to -- they can just create another sui generis trademark-like right, like they did for the Gold Star Mothers, the Boy Scouts, the Olympic Games, and others.

    27. Re:The Thought Process by phorm · · Score: 1

      At home, I use mozilla. I also don't visit many sites that use popups, so usually I avoid the blocking features - as I've noticed that sometimes they block sitse I don't want blocked.

      Of course, I also throw in deny rules for doubleclick and co on my routering/proxying machine

    28. Re:The Thought Process by Dave2+Wickham · · Score: 1

      I think the popups take care of profit :P.

  14. Re:Why doesn't everyone just get a .com? by npietraniec · · Score: 1

    wha? That's a very us-centric and limited view of the world you have there.

    .uk.co and it's brothas are "STANDARD" too.

  15. Good riddance by Stormie · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Just like it would be good riddance if the .au.com domains dropped off the internet. These scammers register a single .com domain for $15/year or whatever and then try so sell as many ".au.com" domains as they can, all pure profit, to suckers who couldn't get the .com.au domain they wanted.

    1. Re:Good riddance by tarquin_fim_bim · · Score: 0

      But it can help those who don't want to shell out to cyber-squatters.

    2. Re:Good riddance by MrDelSarto · · Score: 1

      I got "sucked in" to this because I wanted the 'au' part to symbolise australian, but didn't have a registered business name/number at the time, which you require to get a .com.au address. This also means you have to file tax returns, etc etc. Although their model is basically pure profit, I would have been willing to keep the domain if I thought that the 'au' was attracting a few extra people without all the overhead of having .com.au.

      So I bought it, and then about a week later my Dad rang me up and said "someone gave me a business card with www.address.au.com on it, is that a typo?". he didn't even try typing it into the browser.

      after that I knew that it was never going to work...

    3. Re:Good riddance by Tailhook · · Score: 1

      Funny thing is UK.CO. is probably the most valuable (in terms of potential registrants) part of the CO. TLD!

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    4. Re:Good riddance by QueenOfSwords · · Score: 1

      Hell yes. When you're too cheap or too dodgey to get a .com.au , promote your business with a .au.com .

      Though I can see the appeal of registering a subdomain of the above, then using it for email. Nice idiot filter.

      --
      -- INTX Grouch. http://www.midnightblue.net
    5. Re:Good riddance by jrumney · · Score: 1

      I imagine dealer.co could do quite nicely though.

    6. Re:Good riddance by mpe · · Score: 1

      imagine dealer.co could do quite nicely though

      cia.co might also get quite a bit of money.

    7. Re:Good riddance by atomm1024 · · Score: 1

      Same for http://www.centralnic.com/ - they rip people off by registering subdomains of their own us.com , uk.com , etc. domains. Unfortunately, they're not gone yet...

      --
      Signature.
    8. Re:Good riddance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice idiot filter.

      Actually, it probably works better to filter out net-savvy people. The brain tends to remember things by fitting them into frameworks. Someone who hasn't use the net much, won't have the framework that .com.au is an Australian company. So, they'll read a long string of text, rather than the chunked and pre-processed version which people who have used the 'net a lot will get. It's a lot like this famous sentence, where your brain gets the meaning, and when it goes to find the error, it doesn't notice, because it's looking at a version which already has the duplication ignored.

      Actually, I'm mixing up like threee psychological phenomena, because it's been a while -- but the point remains that it's not "idiotic" to make an error like this, but natural.

  16. Re:Why doesn't everyone just get a .com? by tarquin_fim_bim · · Score: 5, Funny

    I've heard some talk of other countries, across the ocean, I don't believe it myself though.

    -------
    How do I get all this sand out of my eyes?

  17. Re:Why doesn't everyone just get a .com? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bet IAmAPastyWhiteLoserGeek.com is still available- why don't you grab that one?

  18. Re:Why doesn't everyone just get a .com? by cyb97 · · Score: 1

    How many nubies do you think key in uk.co instead of co.uk...
    Having amazon.uk.co and amazon.co.uk saves some grandmother with slight dementia from seeing hardcore russian schoolgirls instead of being able to look at book-reviews written by some phoney posing as Prince Charles (different story altogether google for it ;-)

  19. Another way to lose your domain... by Yoda2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Did you know that ICANN requires you to have a physical address in your registrar record? Someone tried take one of my ".net" domains on a technicality because I had a P.O. Box listed. More info here.

    1. Re:Another way to lose your domain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is one seriously f-ed up web page, Yodadude.

  20. I just want to know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...why the FUCK are UK companies registering COLUMBIAN domains? I have absolutely no fucking sympathy for them over this. They have reaped what they have sowed.

  21. amazon.uk.co redirects to amazon.co.uk by twistedcubic · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    SO maybe Amazon thought of this one already...

  22. Re:What country is .co? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    waht is a 'pising match"??????// pls explain, thx

    ADVthxANCE

  23. Re:What country is .co? by DrLudicrous · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    How could this be modded to informative? What a bunch of useless tripe. First of all, it's not Columbia, it's ColOmbia, there is no u. Colombia is the country in South America that controls the .co domain, and I don't believe the National University of Colombia owns it- almost all Colombian newspapers and media are using the .co domain. Columbia is the name of various cities, counties, rivers, etc. in the United States- notice the 'u', and is not to be confused with Colombia the country.

  24. Dominion of Columbia? by shepd · · Score: 1

    When did Columbia change from a (banana?) Republic to a Dominion? I must have missed that!

    --
    If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    1. Re:Dominion of Columbia? by Myco · · Score: 1

      During the Breen assault on Earth, I'd imagine.

      I know, I know. Sorry.

    2. Re:Dominion of Columbia? by shepd · · Score: 1

      >During the Breen assault on Earth, I'd imagine.

      How embarassing. I actually didn't remember that part of Star Trek and had to look it up.

      Don't say sorry. :-)

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    3. Re:Dominion of Columbia? by necio_online · · Score: 1


      You were wasting your time in School.
      It's Colombia.

      --
      http://arhuaco.org/
    4. Re:Dominion of Columbia? by shepd · · Score: 1

      >You were wasting your time in School.
      >It's Colombia.

      You're right! -- Although I do blame it on my school. School being the most uninspiring and uninteresting time of my life; I spent it reading the tags on my jacket's zipper, such as YKK, or Columbia.

      That should explain my poor spelling of that country.

      Now, what is unexplained, though, is your poor use of grammar. Exactly what school has the proper name or fully qualified place "School"? When you capitalize it and it's not the first word of a sentence, that's what it is.

      See, isn't being picky fun for the whole family? Why not join in and keep the laughs going!

      [Mocking laughter]

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    5. Re:Dominion of Columbia? by lostchicken · · Score: 1

      Now, is that embarassing for the poster, that he made that reference, or you, because you didn't remember that part of Star Trek?

      --
      -twb
    6. Re:Dominion of Columbia? by shepd · · Score: 1

      A little from column A and a little from column B! ;)

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
  25. I doubt it by carpe_noctem · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...leaving more than 8,000 livid individuals and businesses - including Amazon and Priceline - with no Web presence or email

    Somehow I doubt that amazon's web and email presence was severely limited by the lack of an amazon.uk.co domain.

    --
    "Quoting famous computer scientists out of context is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming." - K
  26. So Castle.uk.co are fucked then. by kyz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Bye bye to Castle Technologies, Linux kernel pirates*. Why you couldn't just use castle.co.uk in the first place, we may never know.

    *: ALLEGEDLY

    --
    Does my bum look big in this?
    1. Re:So Castle.uk.co are fucked then. by SN74S181 · · Score: 1

      Well, they're screwed if their main business presence was the Internet.

      Surprisingly, that isn't the case for that many businesses yet.

  27. this isn't true at all by carpe_noctem · · Score: 4, Interesting

    From www.uk.co:

    Since December 2002, we had offered to enter into a new arrangement with Net Registrar in order to safeguard your uk.co registrations with them for a short period of time to allow you sufficient time to transition to alternative domain names. ....

    A Council of State decision in Colombia dated 12 July 2002 ordered the Minister of Communications in Colombia to take over the administration of .co top level domain names by no later than 31 December 2003.


    They had been planning this since July, and while they were supposed to have done it on the 31st of December, they actually seem to have given all the .uk.co people nearly two months to find new domains. It's not like they just swept the rug out from underneath their feet as the reg's article seems to imply (though the article does mention that this was mandated last July).

    --
    "Quoting famous computer scientists out of context is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming." - K
    1. Re:this isn't true at all by damiam · · Score: 4, Informative
      31 December 2003 ... while they were supposed to have done it on the 31st of December

      Check your year.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    2. Re:this isn't true at all by miguel_at_menino.com · · Score: 1

      31 December 2003 != 31 December 2002.

      Most uk.co people still had almost 10 months left before the transfer.

    3. Re:this isn't true at all by carpe_noctem · · Score: 1

      doh you're right.

      -blush-

      --
      "Quoting famous computer scientists out of context is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming." - K
    4. Re:this isn't true at all by nachoboy · · Score: 1

      ...no later than 31 December 2003.

      ...they actually seem to have given all the .uk.co people nearly two months to find new domains.

      The way I read it, they've acted nine months too early. We've just barely finished December 2002.

    5. Re:this isn't true at all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, but it says "no LATER THAN dec 31st 2003". that does not necesary mean that they (the ministry) have to do it on that date. it doesn't say they can't do it BEFORE then. just that they have to do it BY then.
      which it seems they have. doh!

  28. Re:What country is .co? by YOU+LIKEWISE+FAIL+IT · · Score: 1
    I apologise for the misspelling of Colombia, but the linked article says "a posting on www.uk.co from the top-level domain .co owner - the University of the Andes in Bogota, Colombia". ( my emphasis )

    And that's good enough for me! Sorry again about the spelling though!

    --
    One god, one market, one truth, one consumer.
  29. Re:Why doesn't everyone just get a .com? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because I'm not pasty...

  30. Don't fuck with RMS by Fnkmaster · · Score: 4, Funny

    Remember Castle Software from the GPL violation articles on /.? You know, the guys who (supposedly) ripped off GPLed kernel code for RISC OS. Yup, they were www.castle.uk.co. Not anymore. The vengeful spirit of RMS is seeking revenge on these bastards by knocking out the whole uk.co faux-domain.

  31. Re:What country is .co? by Smurf · · Score: 1

    Yup, but you also mixed up "the Univ. of Columbia" (which is in NY), with the University of the Andes, which happens to be in Colombia. There is no "University of Colombia".

    They were honest mistakes, but certainly your post isn't informative. In fact it helps to spread misinformation.

  32. Ahh... just like my old freemail address... POOF! by The_Dougster · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    I had this spiffy engineer.com email address hosted by first iname.com and then subsequently mail.com. Well, some while ago I noticed that I hadn't gotten any email for a while. So I sent a test email message to myself which subsequently vanished. No "undeliverable" error, nothing... black hole.

    It turns out that mail.com had sold engineer.com to somebody, and that was that. I don't know how many freemailer's lost their email address because of that, but it must have been more than a few. Heck, engineer.com is still probably getting spam from all those online sweepstakes sites that I signed up with way back then, hehehe...

    What was annoying was the absolute lack of warning. Yes, the mail.com agreement stated subject to termination without advance warning but I honestly didn't expect them to actually play that trump card. Well, live and learn.

    --
    Clickety Click ...
  33. Re:Why doesn't everyone just get a .com? by llamaluvr · · Score: 1

    hardcore russian schoolgirls

    What are those? Are you talking about Russian school girls that work hard and study a lot?

    --
    Insightful: 76, Off-Topic: 379, Flamebait: 24, Funny: 152, Interesting: 201, Underrated: 55, Troll: 9, Total: 896
  34. Hmm, you're right! by YOU+LIKEWISE+FAIL+IT · · Score: 1
    I see your point - I thought that the U of the Andes also went by that name ( obviously its the N.Y. university I've been hearing of ) - so it's probably a good idea to mod that post into the pit from which it came. :-)

    I think I'll stick to replying to FP's. ;-)

    --
    One god, one market, one truth, one consumer.
    1. Re:Hmm, you're right! by Smurf · · Score: 1

      That's OK. There is a "National University of Colombia" (Universidad Nacional de Colombia), the biggest one, so you were almost right.

      The problem is not people who make honest mistakes, but moderators who help spread those mistakes.

    2. Re:Hmm, you're right! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Nonono, the NY university is usually known by the name "The University of the USA". Similarly, those clusters of colleges in Oxford and Cambridge are refered to as "The University of Britain".

      It's all quite logical...

    3. Re:Hmm, you're right! by Redmega · · Score: 1

      Eh? who told you that? If they've ever been referred to collectively, its as the 'Oxbridge' colleges.

  35. Re:Why doesn't everyone just get a .com? by droleary · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Heirarchies are a Good Thing, as any geek should know.

    Only a poser geek, really (based on moderation you received, we clearly have a lot of those on /.). Hierarchies are actually a very bad thing because they obscure information. That is, in fact, what this whole story is about!

    The real situation is this: we have companies in the United Kingdom that want to be found on the Internet. The problem is that there are two actual hierarchies in place that could be the root under which to file such a domain, those being .com and .uk. Then there are the "off" hierarchies that get used not because of their geographical location as intended, but because their abbreviation corresponds to some common usage (.co being the case here).

    So the hierarchy adds to the confusion of both the user and the company. The company has to figure out and register domains in whatever branch of the hierarchy the user may have wandered into, and the user never learns how addressing on the Internet is supposed to work and so they continue to wander around without aim. Elimination of the hierarchy would go a long way to clearing up the confusion and getting back to the simple idea of looking for, among other things, a company in the UK.

    Of course, nobody should expect that to happen any time soon. Getting rid of the hierarchy means getting rid of the need to create new top-level domains and therefore eliminates that ICANN profit center.

  36. Re:What country is .co? by Trollbi-Wan+Kenobi · · Score: 0

    Yup, but you also mixed up "the Univ. of Columbia" (which is in NY), with the University of the Andes, which happens to be in Colombia. There is no "University of Colombia".

    Nor is there a University of Columbia. There is, however, a Columbia University in NYC.

    They were honest mistakes, but certainly your post isn't informative. In fact it helps to spread misinformation.

    Right back at you

  37. whitehouse.com by Tumbleweed · · Score: 3, Funny

    I thought whitehouse.com was for renting out the Lincoln Bedroom, and for other PAC commercial activities? :)

    1. Re:whitehouse.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, that's what George W. Bush certainly believes, as he's had more paying guests in his first few years than Clinton did in two full terms.

    2. Re:whitehouse.com by Sig+Police · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Religion breeds terrorism.

      WTF kind of sig is that? If it were "Islam breeds terrorism" you would be labeled as a bigot. Using the even broader word "Religion" just makes you an even bigger bigot. Time for a new sig, my friend.

    3. Re:whitehouse.com by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

      Strike a little too close to home, perhaps? Somebody call the wahmbulance.

    4. Re:whitehouse.com by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      WTF kind of sig is that? If it were "Islam breeds terrorism" you would be labeled as a bigot. Using the even broader word "Religion" just makes you an even bigger bigot. Time for a new sig, my friend.

      Show me one religion that hasn't used terrorism as a tactic in all its history. Just one.

      And, assuming you were going to do this, before you jump in and say Christianity, allow me to point out that you're supposed to love and "fear" God, and you're supposed to "fear" Satan and the hellfire and damnation that comes with him.

      I'd go even further and say:

      if(religion == terrorism) {
      delete religion; // terrorism will follow
      } else {
      // user probably doesn't live in the real world
      // do nothing here
      };
      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    5. Re:whitehouse.com by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 1

      Show me one religion that hasn't used terrorism as a tactic in all its history. Just one.

      Off topic, but I can't imagine Buddhists' using "terrorism" in the name of furthering their religion (or for any reason).

    6. Re:whitehouse.com by raju1kabir · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Religion breeds terrorism.
      WTF kind of sig is that? If it were "Islam breeds terrorism" you would be labeled as a bigot. Using the even broader word "Religion" just makes you an even bigger bigot.

      Au contraire. Saying "Islam breeds terrorism" would be bigoted because it would require pointedly ignoring the fact that terrorism is in no way limited to Islam.

      Religion as a whole, on the other hand, is responsible for the vast majority of terrorism and has been throughout history. Terrorism is irrational behavior that only thrives in the context of irrational worldviews.

      --
      "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
    7. Re:whitehouse.com by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

      There does appear to be isolated instances of Buddhists using terrorism, but hardly repressentative instances. :) (I didn't go into those, because if they actually happened, they would be the exception, and not the rule, eh?)

      However, the wonderful thing about Buddhism, in my opinion, is that in order to accept it as a religion, it seems like you must first define the word "religion". I've always viewed it as more of a philosophy than a religion, because a religion seems to try to answer the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything. I always say I don't have a religion because I don't even attempt to describe how the universe came into being, I just plain don't know.

      Mind you, philophically speaking, I am kindred to Buddhism, although I don't have the pacifism that they do. :) That, in and of itself, is quite a difference. Anyway, the rest of the world may disagree with me, but I still don't see Buddhism as quite a religion. It just doesn't have the trappings of a religion, to me. I won't attempt to define religion, at this point, because I would only attempt to define it to support my viewpoint. Anyone have an objective definition?

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    8. Re:whitehouse.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An even better example against Christianity is the KKK. (or even the spanish inquisition, hell there's tons of instances.)

    9. Re:whitehouse.com by MechaStreisand · · Score: 1

      Saying "Islam breeds terrorism" would be bigoted because it would require pointedly ignoring the fact that terrorism is in no way limited to Islam.

      It would require nothing of the sort. Saying "Islam breeds terrorism" does not imply that Islam is the only thing that does so, any more than saying "cows eat grass" implies that only cows eat grass.

      Saying "Islam breeds terrorism" and "religion breeds terrorism" are basically on the same level: most religious people aren't terrorists, and most Islamic people aren't either. It's kind of like saying "black people cause crime" simply because there are more black criminals than white in places like the United States. Sure, it's true in that a given person being black might make them somewhat more likely to be a criminal, statistically speaking, but the overall probability is quite low either way, and it hardly gets at the root of the problem, now does it?

      It is a shortsighted view you have indeed.

      --
      Disclaimer: IANAL. This post is, however, legal advice, and creates an attorney-client relationship.
    10. Re:whitehouse.com by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1

      There's a world of difference between some people claiming to be Christian (or Muslim, etc.) being terrorists and Chrstianity (or Islam, etc.) endorsing terrrists. Terrorists abuse religion and use it to try and further their own ends, much as politicians have done and will doubtlessly continue to do. that isn't the fault of the religion, it's the fault of the people abusing it. And I hadly think that 'love your neighbour,' 'love your enemy,' 'turn the other cheek,' 'and these three remain, faith, hope, love and the greatest of these is love,' etc. are endorsements or terror tactics.

    11. Re:whitehouse.com by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

      There's a world of difference between some people claiming to be Christian (or Muslim, etc.) being terrorists and Chrstianity (or Islam, etc.) endorsing terrrists. Terrorists abuse religion and use it to try and further their own ends, much as politicians have done and will doubtlessly continue to do. that isn't the fault of the religion, it's the fault of the people abusing it. And I hadly think that 'love your neighbour,' 'love your enemy,' 'turn the other cheek,' 'and these three remain, faith, hope, love and the greatest of these is love,' etc. are endorsements or terror tactics.

      I can't speak for much more than Christianity in this instance, but the basis of Christianity seems to be that you are a sinner, and that if you don't repent your sins, or do something else about them, you're going to ha-ell. For 2000 years christian churches and the dogma that's directly in the Bible (don't mistake me for one of those non-believers that hasn't read it) have threatened sinners with hellfire and damnation, talking about the original sin and so forth, using FEAR and GUILT as their tactics.

      That makes them terrorists, regardless of what so-called modern-day terrorists do.

      To the credit of Jesus, however, his teachings don't include this stuff. It was stacked on by other people after he died, assuming he ever lived in the first place. I definitely remember reading in Corinthians I about how men with long hair and damned straight to hell, and that women should wear hats or have long hair themselves. Admittedly, that's the Roman influence, but it is in the New Testament.

      Fear is the weapon of a terrorist, and anybody who uses it (George W Bush included) is a terrorist.

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    12. Re:whitehouse.com by raju1kabir · · Score: 1
      Saying "Islam breeds terrorism" and "religion breeds terrorism" are basically on the same level: most religious people aren't terrorists, and most Islamic people aren't either. It's kind of like saying "black people cause crime" simply because there are more black criminals than white in places like the United States. Sure, it's true in that a given person being black might make them somewhat more likely to be a criminal, statistically speaking, but the overall probability is quite low either way, and it hardly gets at the root of the problem, now does it?

      Saying "Apples grow on trees" is almost perfectly accurate, just as is saying "religion breeds terrorism." Almost all terrorism is perpetrated in the name of, or as a result of divides created by, religion.

      Saying "Apples grow on trees in Washington State" is less accurate, as is saying "Islam breeds terrorism." It implies that only Washington state trees can grow apples.

      --
      "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
    13. Re:whitehouse.com by tellezj · · Score: 1

      That's like saying mothers breeds terrorism. Show me one terrorist that didn't have a mother. Maybe if we get rid of mothers we'll get rid of terrorism. Religion, like mothers, is not a sufficient condition for terrorism. Mothers, unlike religion, is a necessary condition. There have been plenty of "secular" terrorists throughout history.

      --

      End of Line.

    14. Re:whitehouse.com by Xerithane · · Score: 1

      Saying "Apples grow on trees" is almost perfectly accurate, just as is saying "religion breeds terrorism." Almost all terrorism is perpetrated in the name of, or as a result of divides created by, religion.


      I'm trying to think, and the only terrorist movement I can think that wasn't religiously tied was the IRA. Their terrorist actions were purely because they didn't have an army to fight, and took a rogue approach to it and created many of the techniques of bombings and such. The problem is after the agreement the people who enjoyed the terrorism aspect of it factored off to start new terrorist groups.

      Religion teaches hate. Hate breeds terrorists.

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    15. Re:whitehouse.com by raju1kabir · · Score: 1
      I'm trying to think, and the only terrorist movement I can think that wasn't religiously tied was the IRA.

      The IRA is a combatant in a Catholic vs. Protestant struggle. The dividing lines are completely religious.

      --
      "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
    16. Re:whitehouse.com by Xerithane · · Score: 1

      The IRA is a combatant in a Catholic vs. Protestant struggle. The dividing lines are completely religious.

      Sorry, the IRA was originally started to gain the independance of Ireland from the British. It wasn't until much, much later in the history of the IRA that religion even became a factor.

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    17. Re:whitehouse.com by raju1kabir · · Score: 1
      Sorry, the IRA was originally started to gain the independance of Ireland from the British. It wasn't until much, much later in the history of the IRA that religion even became a factor.

      Better read those history books. It was religious from day one. Catholics weren't even allowed to vote as Union was originally structured. The Protestant authorities feared domination by the much more rapidly-growing Catholic population (thank the Pope for that!). In Ulster, the violence really began in the 1810s when Protestant groups marched through Catholic neighborhoods. By the 1830s segregation was almost complete, and we all know what happened from there.

      Fact is, religion is used to create divides between groups of people where they otherwise wouldn't exist. Other tactics can be used for this too, but they have rational bases (economic and social differences) and therefore are more likely to find rational expression.

      --
      "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
    18. Re:whitehouse.com by Xerithane · · Score: 1

      Better read those history books. It was religious from day one. Catholics weren't even allowed to vote as Union was originally structured. The Protestant authorities feared domination by the much more rapidly-growing Catholic population (thank the Pope for that!). In Ulster, the violence really began in the 1810s when Protestant groups marched through Catholic neighborhoods. By the 1830s segregation was almost complete, and we all know what happened from there.

      Funny, considering the IRA wasn't even formed until 1916. Easter Rising, April of 1916 Patrick Pearse begins the Irish Republic movement, with the Irish Republican Army. It's sole goal was to win independance from the British. The violence before hand was not the IRA.

      Here's a good timeline for you. My guess is you do not know anything of the IRA, or the history of Ireland and just copy and pasted the violence of Ireland and didn't actually stop to reference when the IRA came in. To re-iterate my original point, the IRA is known as the founders of modern day terrorist tactics. The IRA was not founded because of unfair treatment of religious groups in Ireland. The IRA was founded and worked towards an independant Irish Republic. If it was about religion, you wouldn't see Protestants and Catholics getting along in Dublin or Cork.

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    19. Re:whitehouse.com by Xerithane · · Score: 1

      Let me actually post the link... *shrug* preview.. grumble grumble. here

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    20. Re:whitehouse.com by raju1kabir · · Score: 1

      Um, my point is that the sectarian schism predated and underlines the terrorist movement. You can claim that all was forgiven and all wounds healed before the IRA formed, but it won't be very convincing.

      I lived in the UK during the Canary Wharf attack, when the IRA was the centerpiece of every conversation, and have a good many Irish friends, who will talk about this stuff forever. I'm going to have to say I'm more likely to believe them than a PBS viewer who thinks that history is context-free.

      If it was about religion, you wouldn't see Protestants and Catholics getting along in Dublin or Cork.

      Now we're back to logic class. The existence of Catholics and Protestants who get along does not mean that their different religions can't be the cause of conflict elsewhere or in other times. Likewise the existence of Muslims who are amiable towards the west does not mean that al Qaeda doesn't have an axe to grind.

      --
      "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
    21. Re:whitehouse.com by Xerithane · · Score: 1

      Um, my point is that the sectarian schism predated and underlines the terrorist movement. You can claim that all was forgiven and all wounds healed before the IRA formed, but it won't be very convincing.


      The point of the IRA was for independance and civil rights in general. Not just a religious fight. My point is that the IRA is one of the few that doesn't have to do with religion as a factor. Same with Black Panthers. There is always religion as a background, as is the case in almost any conflict between humans.

      I lived in the UK during the Canary Wharf attack, when the IRA was the centerpiece of every conversation, and have a good many Irish friends, who will talk about this stuff forever. I'm going to have to say I'm more likely to believe them than a PBS viewer who thinks that history is context-free.


      The IRA changed a lot from the inception to the Good Friday Agreement. After Sinn Fein was officially a force in Ireland, the IRA became mostly obsolete. In fact, many would argue that after the War of Independance that the IRA should have retired at that point, I don't so much agree with that though. As for you calling me a PBS viewer, you want me to start talking in Gaeilge?

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    22. Re:whitehouse.com by raju1kabir · · Score: 1
      The IRA changed a lot from the inception to the Good Friday Agreement. After Sinn Fein was officially a force in Ireland, the IRA became mostly obsolete. In fact, many would argue that after the War of Independance that the IRA should have retired at that point, I don't so much agree with that though. As for you calling me a PBS viewer, you want me to start talking in Gaeilge?

      Nà bac leis. The discussion grows tedious. We'll just have to disagree.

      --
      "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
    23. Re:whitehouse.com by amRadioHed · · Score: 1
      Show me one religion that hasn't used terrorism as a tactic in all its history. Just one.
      There are many religions that haven't used terrorism as a tactic, though in many of these religions (even Buddhism) there have been times when it's practitioners have used violence or terrorism, despite their doctrine (ahimsa). However, in a quick search I was not able to find a single instance where any followers of Jainism used violence in the name of their religion.
      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    24. Re:whitehouse.com by Xerithane · · Score: 1
      The discussion grows tedious. We'll just have to disagree.

      You disagree with history, and even what Patrick Pearse says. Good for you, sir.

      AND I say to my people's masters: Beware,
      Beware of the thing that is coming, beware of the risen people,
      Who shall take what ye would not give. Did ye think to conquer the people,
      Or that Law is stronger than life and than men's desire to be free?
      We will try it out with you, ye that have harried and held,
      Ye that have bullied and bribed, ....... tyrants, hypocrites, liars!
      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    25. Re:whitehouse.com by Sig+Police · · Score: 0

      It was only a suggestion. I don't know you, nor do I read your posts often enough for your sig to matter that much to my life. I only created this account to go around pointing out stupid sigs. Yours was the first I decided to go after.

      Personally, I just wouldn't go around waving that kind of banner. It is one thing to have a Flamebait sig by accident, but yours is purely Troll, existing to gain attention. Of my friends that could be considered "religious", none are terrorists. Even if you could somehow prove that all terrorists are religious, they are certainly the exception, not the rule.

      I'm sure you read the other threads that spawned from my post. I'm at least glad there was some bit of insightful discussion, despite the Offtopic moderation I received (and rightfully so).

      Good day.

    26. Re:whitehouse.com by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

      > I only created this account to go around pointing out stupid sigs.

      Uh huh. You should get a job, you obviously have too much free time on your hands. :)

      As for my sig, it's not a troll (and you were the first one to ever say anything about it). And please to note - you're the only one in the discussion you spawned to disagree with it (though that ratio is perhaps not too surprising considering the venue). As a "spiritual but non-religious" person, when I see terrorism around the world, it's almost always based in religion, rightly or not. The drawbacks of religion seem to me to outweigh any benefit it once had. Even religious charitable works (here in the U.S., anyway) seem to me to be more like recruitment than true charity.

      Just an observation.

    27. Re:whitehouse.com by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1
      Actually the message of Christianity is that God created us to have a relationship with him and despite us messing up, wants that relationship to continue. Of course, since we've messed up, a price had to be paid. Fortunately, Jesus dying on the cross was that price paid. Well, for anyone willing to accept it that is. Everyone needs to ask for forgiveness. There is no 'something else'. The 'tactics' of Christianity are love and grace, not fear and hate. Yes, a consequence of not asking for forgiveness for sins is going to Hell, but the message is that we can ask for forgiveness. It's a message of hope. Good news. That's why they call the first four books the Gospels.

      And Jesus very definitely made those claims. The Gospels were written by people who either knew him or got their information directly from other eye-witnesses. These people then went on to die for what they had written. I don't think they would have died for something that was a lie. As for the question of him existing, well to claim he didn't would be to deny historical fact.

      Incidentally, Just because we should fear God does not mean that fear is used as a weapon by him. An analogy would be the army. If you were to face the US Army in battle, you should be afraid of it. That doesn't mean that the army is a terrorist organisation.

    28. Re:whitehouse.com by MechaStreisand · · Score: 1

      Saying "Apples grow on trees in Washington State" is less accurate, as is saying "Islam breeds terrorism." It implies that only Washington state trees can grow apples.

      It implies no such thing. All that statement does is tell the truth (presumably). The reader may infer that apples only grow on Washington State trees, but the statement says nothing about that.

      Go ahead and make a dumb shit statement like "religion breeds terrorism" if you want to. It might even be true, from a certain point of view. This point of view is not at all useful. Let's assume for the sake of argument that most terrorists are religious people and that their causes have something to do with their religion. Now, are most religious people terrorists? No, of course not. They make up a tiny minority of the largely peaceful whole. But religion is still largely a prerequisite for terrorism, by our assumption. Fair enough. You know what else is, though? Terrorists have to be human beings. They're mostly men, too. These are prerequisites for terrorism as well, and once again, just as with religion, the vast majority of these groups aren't terrorists. So while you can say "religion breeds terrorism," and it does have a measure of truth, so do the statements "men cause terrorism," "human beings cause terrorism," and "the planet Earth breeds terrorism." Hell, why stop there? "Women marry for money," (true in that most people who marry for money are women, although debatable) "men cause war," and "cars kill people." (That last one is a bit different in that not only cars kill people, but it's similar in the way I'm talking about.) All these statements are true, and all are equally useless.

      Your original analogy "apples grow on trees" is remarkably similar to this. Once again, the vast majority of trees do not produce apples even though trees are a prerequisite for apples. It is a similar statement to "apples are fruits" or "apples come from plants": a specific thing that requires but is not implied by something general. But this time we know of another statement with more meaning than that one: "apples grow on apple trees." This statement differs from the rest in that not only must apples come from apple trees, but apple trees usually (as in most of the time) produce apples! Look at that! Apple trees cause apples! They produce them! Apples are an inherent property of apple trees!

      This is not true of terrorism and religion. That's why I, and others, object to that statement. Even though it is technically true or at least arguable that terrorism requires religion, religion does not produce terrorism the same way that apple trees produce apples. The way it is said, though, that's how it looks it was meant.

      --
      Disclaimer: IANAL. This post is, however, legal advice, and creates an attorney-client relationship.
    29. Re:whitehouse.com by Mr_Dyqik · · Score: 1

      Northern Ireland? I suppose you could argue that it was a civil war divided along Religious lines.

  38. Re:Why doesn't everyone just get a .com? by zobier · · Score: 1

    Ah, for a second I thought you said often you want to distinguish yourself as belonging to a specific religion.

    --
    Me lost me cookie at the disco.
  39. Re:What country is .co? by Smurf · · Score: 1
    Nor is there a University of Columbia. There is, however, a Columbia University in NYC.

    You're right! My mistake. (Although in my opinion a slightly smaller one). There is a University of British Columbia to make matters worse.

    Right back at you

    OK, point taken. Although I was not really criticizing the poster, but the moderators who modded him as informative.

  40. Re:Why doesn't everyone just get a .com? by thedji · · Score: 1

    Take my domain for example. wickeddj.com doesn't have quite the same effect as wicked.dj.

    --
    ... and then there were none
  41. Re:Why doesn't everyone just get a .com? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Long hierarchies are confusing to users. OTOH, a "monocline grouping" (cheesy term, I know, but it gets the point across) is very natural and straightforward.

    A monocline grouping is essentially a two-level hierarchy; like car makes and models, brands and products, file folders and files, or menus and menu items. That's the reason (or one of 'em) that the CCTLDs that had been holding out for a complex city.region.category.tld naming system have been reluctantly converting to name.tld - a two-level hierarchy is ideal, from a UI perspective, and has many useful parallels in the real world.

  42. Yeah, really by Cyno · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why doesn't everyone just get an IP address? This system only works if everyone gets equal share and plays fairly. But we're all a bunch of liers, cheaters and theives.

    1. Re:Yeah, really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yep, and us hosting companies who virtual host many domains on a single IP are the biggest cheaters of the lot, oh and thats also why just using the IP address isn't a solution :)

  43. Re:What country is .co? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The full name is "Columbia University in the City of New York." HTH.

  44. Tight margins? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every sale counts? Every dollar matters. Ok, lets explain the multimillion dolllar executive salaries. Every dollar is critical!

    Ahahaha! HAHA!!!!!

    1. Re:Tight margins? by cyb97 · · Score: 1
      Money comming in and money going out is two different things...
      The bean-counters that count incomming beans has only learned how to do addition, while the once that do the salaries has learnt multiplication...

      Who said it didn't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world?

    2. Re:Tight margins? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Ok, lets explain the multimillion dolllar executive salaries.

      Executive salaries being what they are, the margins are even tighter and every dollar mattres even more.

  45. Re:Why doesn't everyone just get a .com? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >Heirarchies are a Good Thing, as any geek should know. of course they are, except for The Evil.

  46. Re:Ahh... just like my old freemail address... POO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Parent is off-topic. Please mod down.

  47. Re:Sig Readme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No offense, but nobody cares about your stupid bash prompt (which looks horrendous, by the way). Moderators, please moderate parent down as -1, Offtopic (can anybody argue that it ISN'T?)

  48. Can someone please moderate this down? by YOU+LIKEWISE+FAIL+IT · · Score: 1
    As subsequent posters pointed out, the country is Colombia, and the university was the The University of the Andes, Bogota.

    As I've got no way to fix this in the above post, it would be better if we just buried it somewhere, like -1.

    Yours,
    Y.L.F.I.

    --
    One god, one market, one truth, one consumer.
  49. Re:Why doesn't everyone just get a .com? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're standards as in W3C standards, in that they are made up by a bunch of dorks nobody ever listens to.

  50. Re:Why doesn't everyone just get a .com? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The linux kernel development follows a clear hierarchy. I guess that means data is being obscured and that's a very bad thing, according to your logic. You really should think before you recite your leftwing dogmas. You sound like another lunatic from the "informtion wants to be" linux fringe.

  51. Re:Why doesn't everyone just get a .com? by shiflett · · Score: 2, Funny

    Because goatse.com just doesn't have the same ring to it.

  52. Re:What country is .co? by DrLudicrous · · Score: 1

    For flamebait, we have a pretty interesting discussion going on here! I have a pet peeve about people that can't spell the name of South America's oldest democracy correctly.

  53. Re:What country is .co? by Trollbi-Wan+Kenobi · · Score: 0

    No worries. I was just giving you shit.

  54. What the...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I officially dub that the nicest flamewar ever.

  55. [ot, big time] by shepd · · Score: 1

    You might want to check my journal... Just FYI. I was wondering exactly who that it was that the stalking was actually meant for. I guess he took my link to your site in my user info page to mean it was my site. Ho hum.

    BTW: Handy webpage. :-) It's my only real claim to fame.

    --
    If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    1. Re:[ot, big time] by carpe_noctem · · Score: 1

      oh my fucking lord this is funny. Why the FUCK is he stalking YOU? You're not the one going to rose-hulman (hell, my /. page isn't even on rose's servers...it's on my own).

      btw, haven't gotten around to updating the spider anytime soon. maybe in a week or so. wanna help out?

      --
      "Quoting famous computer scientists out of context is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming." - K
    2. Re:[ot, big time] by shepd · · Score: 1

      >btw, haven't gotten around to updating the spider anytime soon. maybe in a week or so. wanna help out?

      I can try, but my coding skills are still green. I'll drop ya a line...

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
  56. Re:Sig Readme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, I find things like this pretty cool. Granted, they don't belong here, but you don't have to be such a jerk about it. I know, it's slashdot, and you're some 12-year-old kid weighing 180 lbs. trying to impress your 7-year-old little brother, but you're impressing no one else by trolling.

  57. Wrath Of An Angry God by Landaras · · Score: 2, Funny

    That would be quite ironic that a god would choose an atheist as his representative...

    (Yes, I realize you are joking)

    1. Re:Wrath Of An Angry God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      That would be quite ironic that a god would choose an atheist as his representative...

      Yes well, he's quite an ironic God.

    2. Re:Wrath Of An Angry God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      that a god would choose an atheist as his representative

      A well man needs no doctor, and last time I saw a picture of RMS, he looked in need of a doctor.

  58. Re:Ahh... just like my old freemail address... POO by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
    I had this spiffy engineer.com email address hosted by first iname.com and then subsequently mail.com. Well, some while ago I noticed that I hadn't gotten any email for a while. So I sent a test email message to myself which subsequently vanished. No "undeliverable" error, nothing... black hole.

    I was quite proud of my "permanent" iname.com address several years ago... till mail started to jam or be delayed for days. Then they were bought by mail.com, and it got even worse. The conditions kept deteriorating slow, bounces, no POP mail, and one day ALL my mail folders disappeared during an outage when no mail was delivered fpr several days. They apologised, but it was gone. By then of course I'd gotten a (slightly) more reliable primary address, but it was still galling. At least it still worked well enough for me to set up an auto responder to tell people to telephone me instead (I wasn't going to give my new address to spammers). So I use Yahoo, and then they upped the charge (for POP) to $20/year....

  59. zelda!!! more like celda!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd like to introduce you to this wonderfull little thing called punctuation, here's something to get you started: http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2002-10 -11&res=l.

    I suggest you also investigate the "comma", see, the English language isn't so hard when you try.

    1. Re:zelda!!! more like celda!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, you first sentence would have been better off with a semicolon.

  60. Re:What country is .co? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    The claim to "South America's oldest democracy" really isn't that impressive. I have molds in my refrigerator that have maintained a functioning government longer than any South American nation.

  61. Re:whitehouse.com (offtopic) by darco · · Score: 1

    Off the top of my head... I would imagine that the difference between philosophy and religion is that religion dictates specific guidelines for social interaction.

    Also, religions have a tendency to be (on a individual scale) mutually exclusive. ie: someone cannot be both Jewish and a Muslim -- a person claiming to be both would be neither.

    Philosophies do not seem to be mutually exclusive.

    I generally consider Buddhism to be a religion, but Taoism to be more of a philosophy. (If someone has a different opinion about Taoism, I'd be welcome to hear it)

    --
    — darco
  62. Re:Why doesn't everyone just get a .com? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that's not hierarchy and that's why you're not paid as well as some of your peers.

  63. Re:Why doesn't everyone just get a .com? by Microsoft-2001 · · Score: 1

    Well I had a opition to get a .com yahoo address but since yahoo is part of .ca which is Canada I got that. For web site hosting you have your opitions also .org.ca.com. and now some address has change to .tv.

    --
    http://www.freewebs.com/welcome_to_my_store
  64. Re:Why doesn't everyone just get a .com? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Only a poser geek, really (based on moderation you received, we clearly have a lot of those on /.). Hierarchies are actually a very bad thing because they obscure information. That is, in fact, what this whole story is about!
    Well I am glad the Internet architects were poser geeks or IP routers would have lookup tables with 2 billion entries.
  65. Re:Why doesn't everyone just get a .com? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > I've heard some talk of other countries, across
    > the ocean, I don't believe it myself though.

    You mean the USA is just a myth??! Whoa, why didn't someone tell me.

  66. Never underestimate the power of human stupidity. by edunbar93 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Heh. You've obviously never done tech support. Or, for that matter, dealt with the general public as part of your job.

    We've managed to prove that human stupidity isn't infinite by the sheer fact that we haven't yet left the planet for the cockroaches, but I assure you that value is very, very large indeed.

    --
    "No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
  67. JANET addresses by udif · · Score: 1

    Another reason why people might get mixed up and use .uk.co domains is due to the JANET addressing scheme.

    JANET (Joint Academic Network) is a UK network, and it used (uses??) a reverse domain names, i.e. you would mail someone@uk.ac.* (Well the Brits always does things backwards...)

    Just google for JANET and co.uk or co.ac and you will see enough references for that.

    1. Re:JANET addresses by cybergibbons · · Score: 1

      What? Reverse domains haven't been used for years and years, and it was only for academic use, i.e. people who should know what they are doing.

      E-mail at all universities is someone@*.ac.uk, not the other way round.

    2. Re:JANET addresses by gorilla · · Score: 1

      Grey book addresses were used by non-academic users too, but since at the time the internet was much smaller, there were very few.

  68. Re:Never underestimate the power of human stupidit by Lectrik · · Score: 1
    Or, for that matter, dealt with the general public as part of your job.


    Heh, you think a simple uk.co backwardnocity is bad, at I'll explain very slowly and clearly that "It is very important to make sure the long end of your gun is pointed toward you at all times. If you have the short end, the only one with the hole in it pointed toward you you will be shooting yourself and i will point and laugh." Then I get to watch as the people don't notice that they are shooting themself in the face with their laser the entire 7 minutes of the game.

    Some times I wish we had paintball instead of laser tag.

    Off-topic?!? ummm what was the topic again?
    --
    --- As to make my comment seem, by comparison, more intelegent... doodie doodie doodie poop poop poop!
  69. Re:Why doesn't everyone just get a .com? by dkf · · Score: 1

    One problem with this: it doesn't scale all that well to hundreds of thousands of entries. Guess how many virtual hosts there are...?

    --
    "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
  70. UK cc level domain logic by siliconowl · · Score: 1
    What's the reasoning behind .co.uk anyway? Did the british government decide 'uk' was only for them, or what?

    It's called logical hierarchy. Rather than lump everything together in one monolithic mass it's broken down into logically related topics. In much the same way as the top-level has com, org and net the UK cc domain has:

    • co, ltd, plc for companies
    • org for non-profit and other roganisations
    • mod for the military
    • police for the police
    • gov for the government
    • me for people
    and probably some others.
    --
    (\/)atthew
    1. Re:UK cc level domain logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the UK, we tend to favour things being ordered in a logical way.
      So, for example, we have the entirely logical DD/MM/YYYY, while the Americans have the completely illogical MM/DD/YYYY.

      :-)

    2. Re:UK cc level domain logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, for example, we have the entirely logical DD/MM/YYYY, while the Americans have the completely illogical MM/DD/YYYY.

      I realize (note the 'z') that the above was in jest, but the American date format is perfectly logical - it reflects the way Americans speak their dates. While a Brit would say "18 February", the American would say "February 18th". Thus, the British date format is day-month, while the American is month-day. Makes perfect sense.

    3. Re:UK cc level domain logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it doesn't make sense.

      Measurements (and dates are a measurement of time) should always go from most significant to least significant, or the other way around. Since we already measure daily time MS to LS, 'making perfect sense' would imply the same applies to dates. There is no sense in mixing them up randomly.

      Usonians aren't the only people in the world to say "February 18", and yet they're the only ones who choose an illogical date format. I'm not saying all Usonians should conform to our method, just stop trying to defend your bizarre choice and sense of tradition as being perfectly sensible. It's not. You do it that way because you've always done it that way, and that's pretty much all there is to it.

  71. Re:Why doesn't everyone just get a .com? by jrumney · · Score: 1
    You mean the USA is just a myth??!

    Well, they do have a top-level domain registered, but noone much seems to use it. I guess they're just some backward third world country that hasn't discovered the internet yet.

  72. Ashoka by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 1
    There was this Bollywood film advertised as being the story of this great king who spread Buddhism across India. I went to see it hoping for some insight. It turned out to be four hours of blood and gore as he rampaged across the sub-continent and killed the people he loved.

    And at the very end of the film there was a text screen saying "oh, and after this he converted to buddhism and became a nice guy." Argh!

  73. Re:whitehouse.com (offtopic) by perlyking · · Score: 1

    someone cannot be both Jewish and a Muslim

    Sure they can, they are quite similar religions.
    --
    no sig.
  74. Re:Why doesn't everyone just get a .com? by darien · · Score: 1

    Also presumably it lets you make some good gags about "shaking Djibouti."

  75. Re:What country is .co? by sergio.garcia · · Score: 1
    In the beggining Universidad Nacional de Colombia (public) and Universidad de los Andes (private) agreed to manage the .co domain. For some reason Universidad de los Andes ended up managing it alone, and no one really cared much. It is only now, with money being made from selling .co domains, than the government wants control of the .co domain back.

    Sergio Garcia (Colombian, and former student of universidad de los andes)

    --
    "Agree with them now, it will save so much time."
  76. Re:What country is .co? by DrLudicrous · · Score: 1

    Ha ha. Colombia has been a democracy since the early 19th century. And while it has it problems now, the government has been continuous since the beginning, which is more than can be said for its neighbors. So maybe its not impressive due to a lack of knowledge on the part of ./ readers, or better yet, the American public in general. By the way, the terror to drug link in Afghanistan? 80% of your coke and heroin is coming from Colombia. Betcha didn't know that either.

  77. Difference between domain and SUB domain, links by MagicFab · · Score: 1

    It's amazing how an ignorant writer can fail to inform

    He need to know the difference between a DOMAIN (.co) and a SUBDOMAIN (.uk.co).

    The SUBDOMAIN .uk.co was wiped, which in turn has 8000+ holders of *.uk.co 3rd LEVEL SUBDOMAINS hanging dry. How can the registrar be held responsible for a domain registrant's sale of such 8000 subdomains ? More importantly, why did they care in the first place ?

    This has been going on for several years, those interested may babelfish it here:
    http://www.colext.org/article.php?sid=316&m ode=nes ted&order=1

    --
    Notepad specialist & FAT administrator, group training available
    1. Re:Difference between domain and SUB domain, links by gfreeman · · Score: 1

      Ex-squeeze me?

      In this instance, .co is the TLD, and uk.co is the domain name.

      When you registered fabianrodriguez.com you didn't register a subdomain, you registered a domain.

      The registrar, or more accurately the registration agent, is not the same as the domain registrant. In this instance a registrant would be castle.uk.co - not the operation who sold the domain.

      You're confusing yourself here.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    2. Re:Difference between domain and SUB domain, links by MagicFab · · Score: 1

      You're absolutely right. I missed a domain level there. :)

      However, registrar = www.nic.co and registrant = the company behing uk.co.

      UniAndes is *not* an agent, it's the registrar itself.

      --
      Notepad specialist & FAT administrator, group training available
    3. Re:Difference between domain and SUB domain, links by gfreeman · · Score: 1


      Quite possibly right now I think about it. Sorry for assuming .co is like .uk

      No doubt they have their own rules about who is the agent and who is the registrant.

      Be fluffy

      Gr

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
  78. Re:Why doesn't everyone just get a .com? by droleary · · Score: 1

    Well I am glad the Internet architects were poser geeks or IP routers would have lookup tables with 2 billion entries.

    You're looking at my comments the wrong way. Hierarchies often make things easier for computers, and that was necessary when a lot of the technology (networking and otherwise) was new. It's the same way a file hierarchy made sense for simple storage, but a database is usually a better choice when you want to deal with the actual properties of the data rather than their path. So the properties a domain might have are entity="commercial" and location="United Kingdom". Those could be abbreviated to co and uk respectively, and discarding the hierarchy would actually reduce the size of lookup tables because register.co.uk and register.uk.co (to say nothing of all the other combinations) would resolve to the same entry. The only tricky part is doing discovery without a hierarchy in place, but that could be addressed by associating a priority with a property.

  79. Re:What country is .co? by Smurf · · Score: 1

    Now that is informative. By the way, I also graduated from Los Andes. :-)

  80. DNS doesnt work by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

    I thought the whole idea of the domain name system was that it was supposed to be simple. If you need to register extra addresses to catch typo's or use weird combinations of other country's tld's then the system doesnt work. Also the fact is people like the ".com" tld, its become a fashon label, this also goes against the system. Maybe we need a new way of naming - (obviously one thats open and free)

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  81. Re:Never underestimate the power of human stupidit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Heh. You've obviously never done tech support. Or, for that matter, dealt with the general public as part of your job.

    Well, actually, I have... I spent at least three years doing tech support in New Zealand, and not once did I encounter someone doing something that stupid.

    However, since you obviously have, you must tell me what country you work in, so I can avoid taking support jobs in that country. I thought the people I had to deal with were fuck-knuckles, but they were geniuses compared with whoever you have to deal with.

    You have my deepest condolences!

  82. Re:US Internet addresses not using .us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Internet started out in the US, so when the TLDs were made up, all the Internet hosts were mostly in the US, so they saw no need to give their domains a CC. They gave other countries CCs so as not to confuse them with their own systems. As the US invented the Internet, they got to make this up. It's a bit like with England inventing postage-stamps. English stamps are the only country's stamps that do not say which country they're from. All other country's postage-stamps print the country's name on them, so if there's no country's name on a stamp, it's English.