Slashdot Mirror


Google Mystery Domain Reroutes 3% of Net Surfers

An anonymous reader writes "A new Google domain — 1e100.net, a nod to the company's famously misspelled name — is now the net's 44th most visited site. Google says the domain is used to 'identify servers' on its internal network, hinting that reverse DNS plays a role. The domain was registered in September and launched in October, about the same time Google unveiled Spanner, a new addition to its backend infrastructure designed to shift loads automatically among its data centers."

140 comments

  1. 1e400.net? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "1e400.net, a nod to the company's famously misspelled name"

    Could someone explain that one cause I really don't get it or see the nod.

    1. Re:1e400.net? by eihab · · Score: 5, Informative

      Wrong summary. I emailed the editors a minute too late I guess.

      The domain is 1e100.net:

      Domain Name: 1E100.NET
            Registrar: MARKMONITOR INC.
            Whois Server: whois.markmonitor.com
            Referral URL: http://www.markmonitor.com/
            Name Server: NS1.GOOGLE.COM
            Name Server: NS2.GOOGLE.COM
            Name Server: NS3.GOOGLE.COM
            Name Server: NS4.GOOGLE.COM
            Status: clientDeleteProhibited
            Status: clientRenewProhibited
            Status: clientTransferProhibited
            Status: clientUpdateProhibited
            Status: serverDeleteProhibited
            Status: serverRenewProhibited
            Status: serverTransferProhibited
            Status: serverUpdateProhibited
            Updated Date: 13-oct-2009
            Creation Date: 25-sep-2009
            Expiration Date: 25-sep-2019

      --
      If you can't mod them join them.
    2. Re:1e400.net? by sopssa · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's right in the article..

      But on closer inspection, the domain is obviously Google's, chosen with a mathematician's wink at the search giant's famously misspelled name. This mystery domain is 1e100.net. "1e100" would be scientific notation for 10 100, a one followed by 100 zeros, also known as a googol.

      Besides, google-analytics.com is way too easy for people to remember to block. Now change it to 1e100.net and they probably get a lot more data.

    3. Re:1e400.net? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Some thoughts about the domain name itself. Google probably wanted to use 10e100, since that character string means 10 to the 100 power - in other words, a googol. Not sure why they settled for 1e100, because that only comes out to a measly 1.

      You're wrong. 1e100 is 1 * 10^100

      "e" is not the same as "^"

    4. Re:1e400.net? by Jimmy_B · · Score: 5, Informative

      XeY means X*10^Y, not X^Y.

    5. Re:1e400.net? by dorre · · Score: 1

      1e100 is the same as 1*10^100, which is a Googol, or if you're a google founder, spelled "Google"

      LMCTFY (let me correct that for you)

    6. Re:1e400.net? by Bromskloss · · Score: 2, Informative

      1e100 is the same as 1^100, which is a Googol, or if you're a google founder, spelled "Google"

      I hope that was a typo.

      • 1e100 = 1E100 = 10^100 = a googol
      • 1^100 = 1
      --
      Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
    7. Re:1e400.net? by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      (Note; summary will probably be corrected by the time most people see this)

      Doesn't look like it. I guess people will first need to see the moon before the Slashteam corrects the summary...

    8. Re:1e400.net? by azav · · Score: 0, Redundant

      1^100 = 1.

      --
      - Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
    9. Re:1e400.net? by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      1t's a recursi^e typ0, to keep with the theme of the article :)

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    10. Re:1e400.net? by vlm · · Score: 2, Funny

      Could someone explain that one cause I really don't get it or see the nod.

      Someone screwed up because it should have been 4e100.net, aka "four googol" aka "for google"

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    11. Re:1e400.net? by lavardo · · Score: 1

      I won't be surprised if someone purchases 1e400.net this morning!

    12. Re:1e400.net? by jo42 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      How about EPIC? Evil Privacy Invading Corporation.

      Let the down-mods begin...

    13. Re:1e400.net? by Cyberwasteland · · Score: 1

      They mistyped it there, it's actually a 1e100.net Which is a reference to 1e100 (1 x 10) or a "googol", the name of which google is derived.

      --
      Princess Leia: The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers
    14. Re:1e400.net? by gad_zuki! · · Score: 5, Funny

      >Could someone explain that one cause I really don't get it or see the nod.

      After a long mescaline trip Eric Schmidt and Larry Page decided the company should be called LEE00 (pronounced lee-ooooo) and the l33t-speak domain 1e400.net was born.

      After poor reception from investors and users alike a memo was written up asking all employees to suggest a new domain name. A young intern, who later committed suicide in a bizarre self decapitation with a chainsaw, suggested that 1 to the 400th power was actually a gogool. Schmidt and Page were impressed and after accepting how less fun it is to say gogool than "leeee-oooooo" decided to change the name. Because its difficult to trademark a real word, they just went with "google." 1e400.net is a nod to the good old leeee-ooooo days.

      *actually its 1 to 100th power

    15. Re:1e400.net? by Pharmboy · · Score: 3, Informative

      Domain Name: 1E400.NET
            Registrar: ENOM, INC.
            Whois Server: whois.enom.com
            Referral URL: http://www.enom.com/
            Name Server: NS1.NONEXISTE.NET
            Name Server: NS2.NONEXISTE.NET
            Status: clientTransferProhibited
            Updated Date: 08-feb-2010
            Creation Date: 08-feb-2010
            Expiration Date: 08-feb-2011

      It just has a picture of a very nice rainbow, over some island city.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    16. Re:1e400.net? by jeffstar · · Score: 1

      that is honolulu

    17. Re:1e400.net? by Chapter80 · · Score: 2, Informative

      A young intern, who later committed suicide in a bizarre self decapitation with a chainsaw, suggested that 1 to the 400th power was actually a gogool.

      *actually its 1 to 100th power

      Of course, 1 to the 100th power is the same as 1 to the 400th power, is the same as 1.
      You mean TEN to the 100th power.

    18. Re:1e400.net? by rabiddeity · · Score: 1

      Wrong summary. I emailed the editors a minute too late I guess.

      Slashdot has editors??? As in, people who look at the stories and fix errors before (or after) hitting the submit button? You must be new here.

    19. Re:1e400.net? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      have you gone to 1e400.net? it's a web cam

    20. Re:1e400.net? by Inda · · Score: 1

      I can't believe everyone has this wrong.

      "le hoonet" (hoo-nay) is French for "the indexer". It's a reference to the cult French film, which is ultimately a remake of The Matrix.

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    21. Re:1e400.net? by Aelcyx · · Score: 1

      Anyone have any idea just where this webcam is pointing? Judging by the timestamp and the palm trees, I'm guessing Florida.

      Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

    22. Re:1e400.net? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Grrr fucking parasites...

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    23. Re:1e400.net? by Kensai7 · · Score: 1

      Slashdot has editors??? As in, people who look at the stories and fix errors before (or after) hitting the submit button? You must be new here.

      How can he be new if he has a lower member number than you?! :p

      --
      "Sum Ergo Cogito"
    24. Re:1e400.net? by xOneca · · Score: 1

      I see a webcam...

    25. Re:1e400.net? by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      Besides, google-analytics.com is way too easy for people to remember to block. Now change it to 1e100.net and they probably get a lot more data.

      Honestly, the people who block domains don't "remember" to block anything. They add it to a list and forget about it.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    26. Re:1e400.net? by hotdog.sk · · Score: 1

      Thanks for explaining, from the summary I had impression, that l33t h4xorz misspell google as "legoo"...

    27. Re:1e400.net? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      If he bought it?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  2. So that would be... by jra · · Score: 2, Funny

    a Quoogle?

    1. Re:So that would be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Bing!

    2. Re:So that would be... by mcgrew · · Score: 1
  3. 1e400 or? by tehniobium · · Score: 3, Informative

    TFA says 1e100 as in...a gogol.

    --
    No kitty, this is my pot pie!
    1. Re:1e400 or? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      A Russian writer? This thing gets weirder and weirder.

    2. Re:1e400 or? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Have you really never seen 'e' notation before? This is the second time you have posted this nonsense.

      1e100 is standard programming-speak for 1*10^100, which is a google.

      In a number context, 'e' is not the power operator. ('^' means power.) 'e' means, 'times 10 to the power of'. So XeY, when X and Y are strings of digits, means X*10^Y

    3. Re:1e400 or? by IceCreamGuy · · Score: 0, Redundant

      1e100=1

      Scientific notation does not work like that.
      1e1 = 1*10^1 = 10
      1e10 = 1*10^10 = 10000000000
      1e100 = 1*10^100 = Slashdot doesn't let you write 100 zeros in a row. You get the idea.

    4. Re:1e400 or? by loupgarou21 · · Score: 1, Troll

      1e1 = 1*10^1

      1e10 = 1*10^10

      1e100 = 1*10^100

      1e10 is not the same as 1^10

    5. Re:1e400 or? by Stooshie · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Erm, ... no! In what universe does 1x10^100 (or 1e100) = 1?

      --
      America, Home of the Brave. ... .and the Squaw.
    6. Re:1e400 or? by wisnoskij · · Score: 2, Informative
      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    7. Re:1e400 or? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is this? Everyone is coming up with incorrect corrections?

      1e1 = 10 (for real)
      1e10 = 1 followed by 10 zeroes.

    8. Re:1e400 or? by Potor · · Score: 0

      my bad

    9. Re:1e400 or? by xOneca · · Score: 1

      Slashdot doesn't let you write 100 zeros in a row.

      You cheater! You hadn't tried!

    10. Re:1e400 or? by IceCreamGuy · · Score: 1

      Hahah, hell yeah I tried, gives you one of those goofy coversational "error: that's a really long string of characters!" errors.

    11. Re:1e400 or? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Gogols, they do nothing but write funny stories.

  4. Accuracy? by 6031769 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Presumably that should be 1e100.net? And presumably it isn't actually "rerouting" anything. Hmmm.

    --
    Burns: We're building a casino!
    McAllister: Arrr. Give me 5 minutes.
    1. Re:Accuracy? by Xest · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This is what happens when people read The Register.

      I don't even know why Slashdot links there anymore, it's become such a stupid site, it really is worse than Fox News nowadays.

      The issue is that The Register really isn't a news site anymore, it's a pressure group passing itself off as a news site. You'll note many of Andrew Orlowski's articles there for example are full of outright lies, often there is no opportunity to comment on his stories, but when there is they are heavily moderated such that any disagreeing viewpoint is not accepted through. Even if they are, Andrew himself generally deletes them shortly afterwards. He claims it's because he likes correspondence direct to his e-mail, but obviously that misses the point of a comments section which is that it enables discussion with peers on the topic. As seen by his constant congratulations to himself in his articles- things like "I was the only one anyone in the audience applauded", "I was first to unveil the news on this" it's pretty clear what his real problem is, he's an attention seeker, and worse an insecure one, who can't take criticism even when he bluntly knows he's not being honest.

      But it's not just Andrew Orlowski, Google is one of The Registers targets of hate along with Wikipedia and some others, as such you cannot treat anything coming from there with any real seriousness. They constantly attack Jimmy Wales for example, and whilst he's far from perfect, let's face it, he's contributed far more to the web with the creation of Wikipedia than anyone at The Register ever has or likely ever will.

      It wouldn't be so bad if they weren't so hypocritical, they for example launch attacks on climatologists with the arguments of them not being open enough, not being willing to accept criticism, and then in the very same articles they go and block comments either altogether or from anyone dissenting from their viewpoint, anyone pointing out errors in their analysis and so forth. Point out enough errors in their articles, even if you keep yourself reasonable about it, even if you backup your point with perfectly legitimate sources and so forth and eventually your account will just break and you'll get a "Sorry, there was a problem logging in, please contact the webmaster" - any attempt to get your account "fixed" is simply ignored, it's quite clear what their game is. But worse, they sometimes even give the impression they allow dissent with things like "Andrew's mailbag", they will post dissenting comments here, but they'll be very carefully selected, and swamped with counter-comments attacking back, with no right to reply again.

      Really, this Google domain is no big deal- it is after all no different to the likes of Akamai domains and so forth which spuriously appear but which no one questions in the same. It's really just a case of The Register making a story where there isn't one, trying to make Google look evil when there's really no big deal. The result is though we get people like have posted here on Slashdot in response to this article, who fall for The Register's agenda, shit bricks and start blocking said hosts when there's really no need unless you're so paranoid that you probably shouldn't be on the internet anyway.

      The Register is as agenda based as Fox News and really does not deserve the slightest bit of attention, it's best to just leave it to rot as an "also ran" in the internet's list of IT news sites.

    2. Re:Accuracy? by ilikejam · · Score: 1

      This message brought to you by The Inquirer

      --
      C-x C-s C-x k
    3. Re:Accuracy? by jimwelch · · Score: 0

      You attack Fox News as agenda based, so are any of the big networks honest? NBC, CBS, ABC, BBC, MSNBC, climatologists? Please advise as I would like to see and hear honest news. What is the definition of honest news? It usually depends on the listener. The only honest think you have to say is the Register and Andrew Orlowski can't take criticism.

      --
      Never trust a man wearing a coat and tie!
    4. Re:Accuracy? by Xest · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well you're right, there's no such thing as truly unbiased news.

      But certainly there are extremely biased sources, and it's certainly the case that Fox is one of those sources.

      The likes of the BBC are generally much more unbiased, because they exist without needing to answer to shareholders and in fact, have a legal duty in many cases to avoid bias. Whilst you do get cases of individual bias with the BBC, they are just that, and multiple reporters with multiple views will post on the same topics, meaning the likely hood of some inherent bias is much lower than in places like Fox, where people are employed specifically with the goal of a pre-defined agenda.

      So yeah, it's hard to find an entirely objective source, but suggesting the likes of the BBC for example are on par with Fox and The Register in terms of bias and zealotry of their agenda is really quite ignorant. The BBC for example does not censor comments for starters based on anything other than a set of objective rules which are clearly laid out and adhered to. They have a proper process for ensuring that anyone who believes their moderation was unfair can appeal.

    5. Re:Accuracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone has something of an agenda, but Fox "News" really is something else. The first time I found the channel (I was visiting US on a business trip) it was enough entertainment for the evening in my hotel room. I couldn't believe it wasn't a joke. I'm sure there are equally amusing characters and programs on other channels but that was just non-stop entertainment...

      My personal opinion is that you can't get much less fair or balanced than that.

    6. Re:Accuracy? by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      The Register is as agenda based as Fox News and really does not deserve the slightest bit of attention, it's best to just leave it to rot as an "also ran" in the internet's list of IT news sites.

      But... but... I agree with them so often, they must be right ;)

    7. Re:Accuracy? by sopssa · · Score: 1

      The Register has never been an usual news site. I take it you just haven't understood the site.

      btw, they don't just hate Google or Wikipedia. They hate everyone.

    8. Re:Accuracy? by Xest · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Oh I understand what The Register was originally, what it was intended to be (I'm British, we invented that type of humour thanks), and what it kept true to for a long while, but in recent years, perhaps the last 3 or 4 it's strayed much further than that, and been hijacked to push certain agendas. It is not merely a case of hating everybody, I understand they have a very sarcastic negative slant, but you'll notice reoccuring themes that gone well beyond hating everybody. Examples range from climate change, to persistent character assasination of people like Jimmy Wales, to pro-RIAA agenda, to a heavily anti-Google agenda, to often outright false/incorrect opinion pieces on the British military related matters.

      What's notable is for some of these repeated themse (pro-RIAA agenda, Climate change) you'll find a strong correlation with prevention of comment posting, or manipulation of comment posting. There is a clear difference between posting news articles with a sarcastic tone, and persistently pursuing certain targets with zeal, and with a clear attempt to manipulate published public opinion of visitors to the site.

    9. Re:Accuracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fox News, MSNBC, CNN... they're all the shits, based on their opinion shows. The problem seems to be that people have a hard time differentiating opinion shows from news shows...

    10. Re:Accuracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      During the times like these the BBC do spread the propaganda of psych-ops of both the US and the UK and that of the number 10. (I just had to use the psych-word to sound cool..) One should probably choose the news channel based on the subject of the news, even though news agencies do spread the same bits to them all.

    11. Re:Accuracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [citation needed]

    12. Re:Accuracy? by Xest · · Score: 2, Informative

      You do realise that there is a legal separation between the government and the BBC right?

      The BBC exists by royal mandate, it is entirely separate from government and the government has no influence over it. This is exactly what makes the BBC one of the least bias news sources out there, because any bias can only exist at an individual level, and even then is accountable to the BBC Trust which oversees it. It also has a mandate to transparently handle complaints- the same can't be said of commercial channels like Sky news for example, who may choose to just ignore your complaint and broadcast whatever they wish within the bounds of the law.

      Interestingly, this is also why the BBC has historically been able to get reporters where many other Western news channels have struggled, for example Alan Johnston in Gaza before his kidnap and eventual release. The BBC's objectivity is recognised world wide, there are a few exceptions, for example, the current Iranian leadership, but the Taliban for example have also been willing to give interviews where others have struggled.

      The BBC's somewhat unique situation is actually good for a lot of televised British news in general because it forces other media outlets to raise the bar somewhat also- Channel 4 News, ITV News for example are of very high quality in comparison to the likes of Fox, and even many Newspapers such as The Daily Mail, The Telegraph and so forth.

    13. Re:Accuracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is exactly what makes the BBC one of the least bias news sources out there, because any bias can only exist at an individual level, and even then is accountable to the BBC Trust which oversees it.

      Bias or equanimity often do seem to be properties of individual journalists and their editors in other channels and news sources as well. How would be a traditionally left wing newspaper spewing xenophobia at regular intervals be explainable otherwise?
        Sometimes a unbiased reporter might encounter and report a situation which creates a inherently biased view of a more complex issue. The channel and the reporter in these situations is not the one to be blamed. The "viewer beware" principle does work in a general case.

      The BBC's somewhat unique situation is actually good for a lot of televised British news in general because it forces other media outlets to raise the bar somewhat also- Channel 4 News, ITV News for example are of very high quality in comparison to the likes of Fox, and even many Newspapers such as The Daily Mail, The Telegraph and so forth.

      Even the yellow press in Britain (according to my limited experience) is often of a better quality than the commercial bubble heads of the American television.

    14. Re:Accuracy? by jthill · · Score: 1

      Start at 3:00 into this video clip. This is a news anchor pointing out that on many channels the news reports on one candidate had been more often positive recently than those for another.

      She cites that preponderance as if it were objectionable. That over any given stretch of time one candidate might actually do things right more often than another apparently doesn't even enter her mind.

      She's not ignorant, and not stupid. She knows full well that the facts she cites don't even remotely support any accusation of bias.

      And despite her heated tone, she doesn't actually make that accusation. Her accusation is that the reports aren't "balanced".

      Plainly, "News" at Fox doesn't mean reporting what actually happened, it means selecting what's reported to fit preconceived, acceptable notions.

      --
      As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
    15. Re:Accuracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love when people talk of the BBC's lack of bias, completely ignoring issues such as the BBC's tabloid-esque coverage of the arrest of Oink.me.uk's administrator, and their more recent total lack of coverage of his acquittal.

      BBC good, FoxNews baaaaaad.

  5. wtf? by iCantSpell · · Score: 1

    Is this on a qwerty board? How do you 1e400 trying to type google?

    1. Re:wtf? by Spad · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's supposed to be 1e100.net, i.e. 1x10^100 or a Googol.

    2. Re:wtf? by Idbar · · Score: 1

      If trying to type Gogol you type Google, why not getting 1E400 when typing 1E100, although perhaps I'd assume is more like dyslexia, rather than a typo ;)

  6. 1e400.net? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A new Google domain — 1e400.net, a nod to the company's famously misspelled name

    Surely you mean 1e100.net, as the original report states.

    (Note; summary will probably be corrected by the time most people see this)

  7. do no evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    rerouting traffic is only adware activity until google starts doing it

  8. err by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1e400 or 100?

  9. 400? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like googol grew by quite a few orders of magnitude.

    1. Re:400? by Filip22012005 · · Score: 1

      Looks like googol grew by quite a few orders of magnitude.

      Binary orders of magnitude?

      --
      When the policeman of the tie, rule you violate, hello punishment of the kitty?
  10. Why with all the mystery? by Dachannien · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why not just call it 1e400.google.com? Screwy domain names with numbers in them make me think of ads, spam, or malware. I'd be a lot more likely to allow javascript/cookies and not put the site in Adblock or the hosts file if it was clearly a Google domain.

    1. Re:Why with all the mystery? by Apotekaren · · Score: 1

      Uuuh, I'd block it anyway unless blocking it caused any disruption in my use of Google's services. Google-analytics, for one. Script-blocked a long time ago. Just in case.

      --
      She: Hey, are you a traitor? Me: No, I'm atheist.
    2. Re:Why with all the mystery? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Cross-site scripting.

    3. Re:Why with all the mystery? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That pissed me off too. I about dropped dead when I looked at my network traffic and saw all the open connections to 1e100, and feared I had some kind of awful virus running amok on my network.

    4. Re:Why with all the mystery? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Screwy domain names with numbers in them make me think of ads, spam, or malware..

      Congrats! You broke the code. It turns out google does ads, and spam and malware often come along for the ride.

      Jimmy, tell him what he's won....

    5. Re:Why with all the mystery? by bogie · · Score: 1

      But I thought everyone liked seeing Firefox hang with ....Transferring data from ssl.google-analytics.com.... displaying and having the webpage only partially open? And of course being tracked is fun as well. Everyone loves being tracked. Who wants free cookies!

      --
      If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
  11. The googol network? by srussia · · Score: 2, Insightful

    From TFA:As pointed out by Sebastian Stadil, founder of the Silicon Valley Cloud Computing Group, 1e100.net translates to "Google Network".

    Tha would be the googol network. Why not: -o-o-o-.net? (That would be a goggle with an extra "o".)

    --
    Set your phasers on "funky"!
    1. Re:The googol network? by gzipped_tar · · Score: 1

      -o-o-o-.net is neither RFC1123- nor RFC952-compliant.

      --
      Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
    2. Re:The googol network? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Or like we normal people like to say it, it is an invalid domain name.

    3. Re:The googol network? by srussia · · Score: 2, Funny

      -o-o-o-.net is neither RFC1123- nor RFC952-compliant.

      With longer straps perhaps?

      l-o-o-o-l.net

      --
      Set your phasers on "funky"!
    4. Re:The googol network? by gzipped_tar · · Score: 1

      lol, that's like, well, a bra for the three-boobed erotic dancer in Star Trek V: The Final Frontier.

      --
      Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
  12. Re:Blocked in my hosts file. by FlyingBishop · · Score: 3, Informative

    You realize that it's just infrastructure, right? You might as well block images.google.com for all the good it will do you. It's just a domain name.

  13. Lazy (or penny pinching?) Slashdot geeks by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 4, Funny

    Such an egregious spelling mistake, and nobody yet has snatched up the name and directed it to goatse.fr? Come on guys, you can do better than that!

    1. Re:Lazy (or penny pinching?) Slashdot geeks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As you saw in the thread, hardly anybody knows what a googol is, whereas everybody knows what "Google" is.

    2. Re:Lazy (or penny pinching?) Slashdot geeks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give us a break, /b/ is down for Verison Wireless users and we're too busy DDoSing their servers to care about yet another /. spelling error.

  14. 3% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of my lettrs were routed by 1e100.net.

  15. Its not a "site" per se... by nweaver · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Really, what google has done is change their reverse information for a LOT of their stuff to point to 1e100.net rather than google, since Google these days is so much more than google: you have youtube, blogger, analytics, doubleclick, and a host of others.

    The 1e100.net name is nice because it allows admins etc to go "this is GOOGLE" rather than "this is X" (which got assimilated by google).

    --
    Test your net with Netalyzr
    1. Re:Its not a "site" per se... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is Google territory. You have 30 seconds to vacate the premises.

    2. Re:Its not a "site" per se... by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      +1; Sane and Rational. Reverse DNS domain for administration purposes. Move along folks.

  16. Slashdot helps by wesw02 · · Score: 1

    I'm sure being listed on the front page of Slashdot will help push that domain up a few spots.

    1. Re:Slashdot helps by ajs · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You would be surprised how little impact that has these days. Slashdot continues to be popular with its core demographic, but that Internet has grown by orders of magnitude since being Slashdotted meant something. Now, if this had been posted to a World of Warcraft forum... ;-)

    2. Re:Slashdot helps by jonadab · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > Now, if this had been posted to a WoW forum... ;-)

      Meh. Really the modern equivalent of the old slashdot effect these days is when the Google doodle returns your site as the first result. Hopefully your hosting provider doesn't bill by the megabyte...

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    3. Re:Slashdot helps by socsoc · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      really, it was easier for you to retype and abbreviate gp's post than accurately copy/paste it with quote tags?

    4. Re:Slashdot helps by aywwts4 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Slashdot really has stayed still while the internet changed and matured around it, other than the absence of some memes and Y2K stories the slashdot of '99 looks much like today. (For better or worse) ...

      We are the tech Luddites!

      And yes "Slashdotting" is such and incredibly dated and egocentric word dating back to when our population was something to be impressed with, that day has long since passed, the few times we do "slashdot" a real server everyone gets all giddy, and I just don't have the heart to tell them that it was fine when it hit our front-page, but it just hit the front of reddit and digg.

      (If you don't recall what it looked like, this is what ten years of progress on a cutting edge geek/tech site looks like http://web.archive.org/web/19991013054427/http://slashdot.org/ )

      --
      Web Developers: Celebrate to our roots! Animated Gifs and Tiled Backgrounds, dont let our history die!
    5. Re:Slashdot helps by jpmorgan · · Score: 1

      You're very right, and that's sad. If you don't think /. is full of luddites, just look at the reaction to any new piece of technology. Half the comments will be moaning about it and complaining that the old way is better.

    6. Re:Slashdot helps by V!NCENT · · Score: 1

      What else should it look like, full of Adobe Flash?

      It's functional, although it could need some performance tweaks in places that I know shit about...

      --
      Here be signatures
    7. Re:Slashdot helps by FonzCam · · Score: 1

      http://web.archive.org/web/19991013054427/http://slashdot.org/

      Those were the days... 1-click patents and Rambus

    8. Re:Slashdot helps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot has an Alexa rank of 1250 right now. What makes you think a mention on its front page would have any noticeable effect on the site ranked #44?

    9. Re:Slashdot helps by jonadab · · Score: 1

      I did copy and paste, of course. (Well, technically I selected the text, then pasted the current selection with a middle-click, without involving the copy clipboard; but that distinction is probably lost on kids these days, I suppose.)

      I substituted the abbreviation because spelling it out roughly doubled the length of what I was quoting. Using the shorter form made it more likely to stay on one line, among other benefits.

      As for quote tags, I don't use them because I don't like them. As far as I'm concerned, actual quote marks along the left edge are much better, a more readily apparent visual indication of quoting. So that's what I use. Slashdot even has a post setting (Extrans) that makes this easy, and a preference you can turn on that makes this the default for all your posts. Slashdot has such facilities because they have deliberately chosen to put up with, and even deliberately accommodate, geezers who remember usenet fondly. If you don't like this, you can always go find a site that doesn't offer such options. MyBook or FaceSpace or something along those lines, perhaps. Personally, I'd rather be here, hanging out with the old geezer computer nerds who actually remember usenet, but YMMV.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    10. Re:Slashdot helps by socsoc · · Score: 1

      All copying requires the use of a clipboard capacity, the method used doesn't matter

      It isn't on a single line for all devices, another sign that you're old school and want your way or no way.

      You don't like quote tags, but are not obviously any sort of web programmer. Using them allows the site to style it how they wish.

      Despite what you think, usenet is still alive grandpa.

  17. In other news... by srussia · · Score: 2, Funny

    W-U03B1.net ranks in the top 1e100 domains, according to Alexa.

    --
    Set your phasers on "funky"!
    1. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great news indeed. Slashdot at its best, once again.

  18. Very mysterious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google says the domain is used to 'identify servers' on its internal network, hinting that reverse DNS plays a role.

    Some fucking mystery. Identifying servers is what reverse DNS does.

  19. what a load of crap by timster · · Score: 1

    I imagine someone pointed out that a million bucks a year of bandwidth costs could be saved by using a shorter domain name. What a non-story.

    And what's this about Google being "misspelled"? That's the stupidest thing I ever heard. "Google" is a great brand name loosely based on a word that would have been a terrible brand name.

    --
    I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
    1. Re:what a load of crap by proslack · · Score: 4, Funny

      I thought it was a contraction of "Go ogle" as a nod to the amount of porn viewed on the internet each day.

      --


      Floating in the black seas of infinity without a paddle.
    2. Re:what a load of crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1e100.net = one e-loo network = one electronic toilet network. I like the name, it suits them.

    3. Re:what a load of crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My mother was worried about identity theft, so I told her to Google herself and she slapped me.

  20. Re:Blocked in my hosts file. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's deceptive, which of course makes it look underhanded, even if it may not be. When I saw it appearing in my firewall logs, I blocked it immediately.

    They could have easily used spanner.google.com, or loadshift.google.com, or balancer.google.com, or something else that isn't so suspicious.

  21. Not misspelled by joeyblades · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Googol is the name of a number, Google is the name of a company. How could anyone claim that the company misspelled their own name?

    1. Re:Not misspelled by sopssa · · Score: 4, Informative

      Because they originally did:

      "Sean and Larry were in their office, using the whiteboard, trying to think up a good name - something that related to the indexing of an immense amount of data," Koller writes.

      "Sean verbally suggested the word 'googolplex' [a one followed by a googol zeros], and Larry responded verbally with the shortened form, 'googol'....Sean was seated at his computer terminal, so he executed a search of the Internet domain name registry database to see if the newly suggested name was still available for registration and use.

      "Sean is not an infallible speller, and he made the mistake of searching for the name spelled as "google.com," which he found to be available. Larry liked the name, and within hours he took the step of registering the name 'google.com" for himself and [fellow co-founder] Sergey [Brin]."

  22. Re:Blocked in my hosts file. by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well, you really showed them. Next time they roll out a new domain name, I am sure they will check with you first to see if you approve.

    And the domain name is actually the numerical equivalent of a googol, which makes it clever, not underhanded. Just because you didn't get it doesn't make it sneaky.

    --
    "But this one goes to 11!"
  23. Re:Blocked in my hosts file. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I did notice that I was seeing "Waiting for 1e100.net" on a few non-Google sites. I put it as 127.0.0.1 in hosts and noticed some of these sites started loading faster.

  24. And... so what? by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

    What's the significance of this? Why should I care? Article neglected to mention that.

    "Oh wow, Google registered a domain name and now they're using it. THAT IS DEFINITELY NEWSWORTHY!!!"

    1. Re:And... so what? by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      Read up a bit at all the paranoiacs freaking out, there may be the significance if you tend to be a suspicious dude.

      On the other hand, if your personal tinfoil cranium coating is sufficiently loose as to not restrict circulation, it's just a notice of google being slightly clever with a domain name.

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    2. Re:And... so what? by Xest · · Score: 2, Informative

      Rather than repeat myself, see my post here:

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1541436&cid=31060452

      Effectively it's a non-story, hyped up into a story by typical The Register anti-Google trolling.

      I don't like a lot of things Google does, particularly Schmidt's "done nothing wrong, got nothing to hide" style comments, but really, non-stories like this are just utterly stupid and as they're part of The Register's agenda based bullshit wagon, don't even deserve to be entertained.

    3. Re:And... so what? by hduff · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      What's the significance of this? Why should I care? Article neglected to mention that.

      You have read Slashdot before, yes?

      "Slashdot" is a proto-Sanskrit word meaning redundant, useless, confusing, wildly inaccurate, poorly documented bumfuggery.

      For an example, please read this this entire thread, which makes FARK appear erudite and meaningful by comparison.

      --
      "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
  25. Um, no, not that funny... by rickb928 · · Score: 0

    A mathematician mibht misspell 'google' as '1e100'.

    And I hear tell some mathematicians have a sense of humor. But the rest mistake obsucrity for humor.

    Just so you know (and you know who you are), obscurity is not inherently funny. And neither are you.

    There are not 10 kinds of people in the world. There are only two. Your number base doesn't change that. Put them side by side and see.

    So there.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    1. Re:Um, no, not that funny... by gtbritishskull · · Score: 1

      They are talking about "google" being a misspelling of googol which is equal to 1e100. Just thought you would like to know.

    2. Re:Um, no, not that funny... by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      (I knew that. I can and did read. It's still not that funny)

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  26. 79 comment about the scientific notation of google by terraformer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...and 1 comment asking what the article means to all of us. Not a single comment on why are they redirecting things through this domain.

    Yup, this is /.

    --
    Who are you? The new #2 Who is #1? You are #617565. I am not a number, I am a free man! Muhahaha.
  27. Nothing too new... by Qubit · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I had to do some network analysis last year to try to track down the source of massive overload on our firewall. The domain 1e100.net came up a few times, and it took me a second before I figured out the clever naming choice.

    I guess I never thought that the name was a big enough deal to be worthy of a whole Slashdot story.

    --

    coding is life /* the rest is */
  28. Don't believe it. by whoever57 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    At home, I run a squid proxy and all port 80 requests must go through it.

    I checked the logs, which go back 8 weeks, and there is not a single instance of 1e100.net in them. It might be on an alternate port, but my personal browser is explicitly set to use the proxy.

    Clearly Alexa sees the requests to this domain, but, Alexa only has information from people who have installed the Alexa toolbar, so perhaps the 1e100.net domain is somehow only used by people who have the Alexa toolbar?

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    1. Re:Don't believe it. by aywwts4 · · Score: 2, Informative

      6 months of 100 user's squid logs to grep, 1e100 turns up nothing other than the image on this story's link, it can't be http.

      We use Google for everything including our site wide mail, advertising, website Analytics, and even our DNS and Chrome is the default browser at a lot of locations, then we have the android handsets... (The owners have daughters working at Google, but hey, we aren't a Microsoft shop, and their daughters already sold them on the value of Linux for everything else, so my life is easy.)

      --
      Web Developers: Celebrate to our roots! Animated Gifs and Tiled Backgrounds, dont let our history die!
    2. Re:Don't believe it. by welsh+git · · Score: 1

      Both you and the parent are wrong.

      They are using 1e100.net for the REVERSE LOOKUP. And to keep things right, they also have the corresponding domain name with the relevant A record.

      However, they don't actively use these domain names in the web requests, and squid logs the web address request, NOT the reverse PTR.

      All your accesses to google, youtube and others are 1e100.net if you look up the PTR

       

      --
      Sig out of date
  29. Re:Blocked in my hosts file. by The+Clockwork+Troll · · Score: 1

    I'm with you, brother. That's why I never run optimized executables - no symbol tables?? What are you hiding, son? Unrolled loops?? Kindly step the fuck back, thanks.

    --

    There are no karma whores, only moderation johns
  30. Re:79 comment about the scientific notation of goo by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

    Does that 79 comments include yours? We need accurate reporting on slashdot. Scientific principles are closely followed here! We obviously need a numerologist to pipe in to explain what's going on.

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  31. Google.HT by wsanders · · Score: 1

    I thought the same thing as parent, actually, and looked up the domain myself when I saw it on my netstat output.

    Anyway, you don't want to DoS .com Spread the load around.

    Or you could just give Google their own TLD.

    Better yet, Google could register google.ht. The process of registering a host name for every molecule in the universe would bail that country out in no time at all.

    --
    Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
  32. Google briefly took over Wikipedia that way by Animats · · Score: 4, Informative

    For a brief period on February 5, "en.wikipedia.org" was directed by DNS to an address at "pw-in-f139.1e100.net". That was quickly corrected, although it may have happened more than once. Apparently somebody at Google sent out some bad DNS records. (Google is now in the DNS business, remember.) They need to be more careful.

  33. Re:Blocked in my hosts file. by FlyingBishop · · Score: 1

    They could have easily used spanner.google.com, or loadshift.google.com, or balancer.google.com, or something else that isn't so suspicious.

    In theory. In practice I wouldn't be surprised if you're wrong. One thing off the top of my head (which would be deceptive) is they might be trying to treat areas that whitelist Google differently from normal sites. Especially as regards pagerank.

    But on the non-deceptive side, there are any number of situations where someone's poor configuration involving .google.com domains makes it necessary to use a different domain. And though obviously this makes the most sense where someone is blocking Google, it could also show up when someone has done something well-intentioned that's breaking something for Google.

    Though if it's not something deceptive, I would've expected to see a blog post about it from Google, since an architecture issue like that would be interesting to the world.

  34. The story from Google... by chrisd · · Score: 4, Informative
    Hey, the fellows in netops asked me to clarify for you folks here's the story:

    1e100.net is a Google-owned domain name used to identify the servers in our network. Following standard industry practice, we make sure each IP address has a corresponding hostname. Starting in October 2009, we started using a single domain name to identify our servers across all Google products, rather than use different product domains such as youtube.com, blogger.com, and google.com. We did this for two reasons: first, to keep things simpler, and second, to proactively improve security by protecting against potential threats such as cross-site scripting attacks. Most typical Internet users will never see 1e100.net, but we picked we picked a Googley name for it just in case (1e100 is scientific notation for 1 googol).

    So there you go!

    --
    Co-Editor, Open Sources
    Open Source Program Manager, Google, Inc.
    1. Re:The story from Google... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Hey, the fellows in netops asked me to clarify for you folks here's the story:

      Remainder DELETED because it's boring.

      Actually answering the elfin question is not proper SlashDot procedure, unlike endless carping about the non-existence of editorial fact checking which is obligatory.
      By answering the question in a reasonable and informative manner (incidentally showing the flaws in the moderation system, which currently has you as "informative", when you're obviously trolling), then you're showing that you've faked your usernumber to look like it's a tenth of mine (how'd you do that, BTW? Probably cheated by being here before me. Huh!) because you're obviously new here.

      1. Introduce internal changes for security reasons.
      2. Demonstrate Google's evil intentions.
      3. ????
      4. Profit !

      In SlashDoltLand, you don't google 1e100.net to find out what the story is about, but in Soviet Russia, Google 1e100.nets YOU!

      Have I left out any SlashMemes? Oh yes,

      I for one welcome our 1e100.netting overlords.

      "dibona". That name rings a bell. Are you a lawyer or something? Dog food specialist?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  35. Re:Blocked in my hosts file. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a responsible network administrator, I immediately blocked access to it because it looked very unusual and thus suspicious. I will not put my network at risk due to Google and their word games.

    Can you please provide me with your full name, email address, home address, and past job experience, so I can make sure that I never hire you?

  36. Re:Blocked in my hosts file. by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

    Can you please provide me with your full name, email address, home address, and past job experience

    Says the Anonymous Coward.

    --
    "But this one goes to 11!"
  37. Re:Blocked in my hosts file. by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

    Actually, a responsible network administrator would actually check into it, maybe do a whois, etc. to determine who owns it, then make an informed decision based on information. A hack admin would just assume something looks "unusual and thus suspicious" with no info other than a gut instinct, and do a knee-jerk block of that entire domain without actually knowing what is being blocked, or why.

    So if you could kindly provide your info so I can never hire you, we will both be set.

    --
    "But this one goes to 11!"
  38. Re:Blocked in my hosts file. by welsh+git · · Score: 1

    Its LESS DECEPTIVE that the old way.

    Before, you'd see blogger.com or youtube.com or many of the others, and not necessarily know it was google.

    Now, ALL google companies are using 1e100.net for the reverse, so you can tell straight away it's a google server without needing to know all the spinoffs and other companies they may have bought.

    --
    Sig out of date