I'm sorry you feel this way, and I'm really sorry you feel you have to be vulgar about it. However, you're wrong about my ignorance of the topic. Having an arbitrary number of TLDs does not make a flat namespace -- I didn't say TLDs should be abolished. Look at the way Usenet works these days -- ignoring the problems with spam, etc. -- there are many small special-purpose hierarchies (like gnu., or linux., or 3dfx.), yet that certainly doesn't make it a flat namespace
The DNS isn't meant to be a directory service. That's what dmoz is for.
How is having any TLD more confusing than, say, allowing human beings to have any last name? (Imagine the trouble if we were restricted to "Hi, I'm Matthew Com...")
I hadn't thought of the www.tld issue. I can think of two work-around solutions.
First, enforce (technically, not legally, of course) the RFC, which specifies that a domain name is NOT a hostname. This would require the holder of www.cocacola to actually put their website at www.www.cocacola (or something like that), which would look silly and defeat the problem.
Or, we could simply make www disallowed as a second-level domain. I think that would probably remove the issue.
Yes. This is exactly why trademarks should not apply to domain names ever -- trademarks are ONLY meaningful/valid in context.
As for the www.tld problem -- that's really only an artifact of the current system. Perhaps as a work-around, the "www" second-level domain would be disallowed in the new scheme.
Check out the USPTO trademark FAQ. Some examples at random: Chemicals, Pharmaceuticals, Hand tools, Vehicles, Housewares, Advertising and business, Insurance and financial, Telecommunications, Education and entertainment.
Right now, there is only one dot-com domain (and net TLD, now generally used as a second-class.com). So if someone registers legitimatefamousname.com, well, there's that. But if there are an infinite number of TLDs, no one can possibly take them all. Reasonably speaking, there's going to be a large-but-finite number, and taking all of the good ones is still an extremely expensive proposition.
I'm not proposing that anyone can get exclusive use of a TLD, as you seem to assume in your foo.com/net example.
As for trademarks: there currently seems to be the weird assumption that anyone with a trademark is entitled to thattrademark.com. Perhaps I'm being optimistic, but I'm hoping that with a more open namespace, this special-status assumption would go away.
There is NO technical reason not to allow ANY top-level domain. This would ease the "cybersquatting" issue (there are some cases where that's actually a legitimate complaint) and, interpretted in a rational way, would reduce the trademark silliness.
So why isn't this even being considered? As far as I can tell, it's because big companies want to be guaranteed that they can get the second-level domain corresponding to their trademarks under ALL existing TLDs. This is ridiculous, and totally unlike the way trademarks act in the real world.
(If I have a trademark on the word "Foo" for my brand of widgets, I can't stop you from using that trademark for an entirely different kind of product, and I certainly can't stop you from using it in conversation, or as a nickname, etc.)
Increasingly, it seems that big-money interests see the digital age as a chance to extend their (government-given) intellectual property rights much much farther than they've ever been before -- taking more and more rights away from the individual.
So sure, allow a.gnu TLD. Allow.cocacola and.microsoft and.foo and.sucks and.whateverelse.
Some of it may be personal preference. Some of it is objective, however.
For example, the GIMP UI is not very customizable short of hacking the source, whereas it's very easy to rearrange PhotoPaint to your liking -- you can put everything in what is an intuitve place for you.
There are other things which are more subjective, but I think can be argued as something more than personal preference -- for example, the right-click menu issue, or the fact that there's two separate-but-similar file menus.
Sure, always possible. But how likely is it that organisms from Earth would survive to contaminate a gas giant? A lot less likely than it is on the more earth-like moons. Bacteria are hardy little things, but even they have their limits.
I've been using the development versions out of CVS, and I'm still not too pleased with the menu structure -- since the main functions are through a pop-up (right click) menu, you have to hunt to find where the thing you want is each time.
It also has a user interface which is far far better than the GIMP's. (Even given the little glitches from running under Wine.)
The UI is VERY customizable -- you can configure the toolbars, menus, dialogs, and keys to be whatever and wherever you like.
The GIMP is a great project, and I applaud everyone who has put effort into it. I hope PhotoPaint can serve as a wake-up call and inspire the GIMP people to do some serious UI work.
[....] "Imminent Death Of The Net Predicted!" has become a running joke, hauled out any time someone grumbles about the S/N ratio or the huge and steadily increasing volume,
or the possible loss of a key node or link, or the potential for lawsuits when ignoramuses post copyrighted material, etc., etc., etc.
Try configuring a Workstation 420 smp-capable system. In the config I tried (1 CPU, 256MB RAM, 10krpm 9GB SCSI), with everything being the same except OS, I get a price difference of almost $300 in Microsoft's favor.
How do you know what I think? In fact, what I think is: they think they're going to get money from me, but they certainly aren't if they can't do better than that. They certainly aren't "righteous", dood or otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
--
How is having any TLD more confusing than, say, allowing human beings to have any last name? (Imagine the trouble if we were restricted to "Hi, I'm Matthew Com...")
--
First, enforce (technically, not legally, of course) the RFC, which specifies that a domain name is NOT a hostname. This would require the holder of www.cocacola to actually put their website at www.www.cocacola (or something like that), which would look silly and defeat the problem.
Or, we could simply make www disallowed as a second-level domain. I think that would probably remove the issue.
--
As for the www.tld problem -- that's really only an artifact of the current system. Perhaps as a work-around, the "www" second-level domain would be disallowed in the new scheme.
--
--
I'm not proposing that anyone can get exclusive use of a TLD, as you seem to assume in your foo.com/net example.
As for trademarks: there currently seems to be the weird assumption that anyone with a trademark is entitled to thattrademark.com. Perhaps I'm being optimistic, but I'm hoping that with a more open namespace, this special-status assumption would go away.
--
--
--
So why isn't this even being considered? As far as I can tell, it's because big companies want to be guaranteed that they can get the second-level domain corresponding to their trademarks under ALL existing TLDs. This is ridiculous, and totally unlike the way trademarks act in the real world.
(If I have a trademark on the word "Foo" for my brand of widgets, I can't stop you from using that trademark for an entirely different kind of product, and I certainly can't stop you from using it in conversation, or as a nickname, etc.)
Increasingly, it seems that big-money interests see the digital age as a chance to extend their (government-given) intellectual property rights much much farther than they've ever been before -- taking more and more rights away from the individual.
So sure, allow a
--
--
--
--
For example, the GIMP UI is not very customizable short of hacking the source, whereas it's very easy to rearrange PhotoPaint to your liking -- you can put everything in what is an intuitve place for you.
There are other things which are more subjective, but I think can be argued as something more than personal preference -- for example, the right-click menu issue, or the fact that there's two separate-but-similar file menus.
--
--
--
--
The UI is VERY customizable -- you can configure the toolbars, menus, dialogs, and keys to be whatever and wherever you like.
The GIMP is a great project, and I applaud everyone who has put effort into it. I hope PhotoPaint can serve as a wake-up call and inspire the GIMP people to do some serious UI work.
--
--
1. Stop billing when the ad begins to be sent.
2. Start billing again when the next pay-area thing begins to be sent.
It's not like it's on the internet where it's difficult to judge such things -- it's all within AOL's software.
--
--
Imminent Death Of The Net Predicted!
--
A moderated submission queue would fix this, but the
--
--
--
--