Actually, there are valid reasons that two different sites should have the same name. For example, I see no reason why either American Naughtical Institute or Autism Network International would have more a right to the domain "ani.org." (Note, the former had the domain at one point, the latter went to "ani.ac.") True, some hold names hostage, and many (porn and otherwise) use similar names to attract user. And some names are household words which would be deceptive for anyone else to use. But there are valid reasons for it.
I suppose that from a business perspective the goal is to attract as many viewers as possible, and keep them from competitions. Still, it always seems like an excercise in wanton selfishness when the doctorine of "take ever variation of you name as an URL" is preached.
I see hyphens as a good thing, both because they make domains easier to read, and because they increase the amount of namespace for meaningful (to human readers) domains. I find it unfortunate that this is sacrificed out of greed, paranoia, and similar motivations.
I see a potential for difficulty in tell what is a rip-off and and what is not. I, for example, read about frames (something that seems to go in and out of style, but is most out now) soon after Netscape developed them, and used them to create a scrollable table of content -- but mine was on the left side, something I've only seen in one other site since, becuase I had just made the layout up. Many others would come up with a similar idea. Many elements are bound to appear repeatably for practical reasosn. Thus, it is sometimes hard to tell where coincidence, rip-offs, and come influence (electronic or otherwise) / current culture, are the reasons for similarity.
Still, if it is a total copy, it seems to go without saying that, at least credit should be given. Still, I'd hate to see formal copyrights become a common and legally powerful practice in this area, since that would open a can-of-worms; there are to many people trying to pattent the wheel (read: mouse clicks, or commerse, or....) already, and the inherent vagarities would make this a dangerous area for such tactics.
I for one wouldn't borrow actual code from someone else's pages, unless I were making new pages for the the same site, and needed an identical layout (which I have done). Seems like bad form. Still, I suppose, thats one way to do it....:-/
I agree totally that this could be dangerous in the hands of some governemt. However, there is another danger to consider. This same devise could also be used for the "good" of people pressumed not able to make valid choices, either by well meaning bumblers or corrupt individuals standing to make a proffit. (To get an idea of what I'm talking about, look ar http://www.madnation.org/.) The kind of governmental parenting advocated in recent years makes this use more likely to be approved in (supposedly) more "enlightened" societies. Considering the constant "bracket creep" in mental "health" anyone seen as eccentric or "disturbed" could be in dangered by this sort of tracking.
But, then, this was probably only a mater of time....
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, there are valid reasons that two different sites should have the same name. For example, I see no reason why either American Naughtical Institute or Autism Network International would have more a right to the domain "ani.org." (Note, the former had the domain at one point, the latter went to "ani.ac.") True, some hold names hostage, and many (porn and otherwise) use similar names to attract user. And some names are household words which would be deceptive for anyone else to use. But there are valid reasons for it.
I suppose that from a business perspective the goal is to attract as many viewers as possible, and keep them from competitions. Still, it always seems like an excercise in wanton selfishness when the doctorine of "take ever variation of you name as an URL" is preached.
I see hyphens as a good thing, both because they make domains easier to read, and because they increase the amount of namespace for meaningful (to human readers) domains. I find it unfortunate that this is sacrificed out of greed, paranoia, and similar motivations.
I see a potential for difficulty in tell what is a rip-off and and what is not. I, for example, read about frames (something that seems to go in and out of style, but is most out now) soon after Netscape developed them, and used them to create a scrollable table of content -- but mine was on the left side, something I've only seen in one other site since, becuase I had just made the layout up. Many others would come up with a similar idea. Many elements are bound to appear repeatably for practical reasosn. Thus, it is sometimes hard to tell where coincidence, rip-offs, and come influence (electronic or otherwise) / current culture, are the reasons for similarity.
Still, if it is a total copy, it seems to go without saying that, at least credit should be given. Still, I'd hate to see formal copyrights become a common and legally powerful practice in this area, since that would open a can-of-worms; there are to many people trying to pattent the wheel (read: mouse clicks, or commerse, or....) already, and the inherent vagarities would make this a dangerous area for such tactics.
I for one wouldn't borrow actual code from someone else's pages, unless I were making new pages for the the same site, and needed an identical layout (which I have done). Seems like bad form. Still, I suppose, thats one way to do it .... :-/
I agree totally that this could be dangerous in the hands of some governemt. However, there is another danger to consider. This same devise could also be used for the "good" of people pressumed not able to make valid choices, either by well meaning bumblers or corrupt individuals standing to make a proffit. (To get an idea of what I'm talking about, look ar http://www.madnation.org/.) The kind of governmental parenting advocated in recent years makes this use more likely to be approved in (supposedly) more "enlightened" societies. Considering the constant "bracket creep" in mental "health" anyone seen as eccentric or "disturbed" could be in dangered by this sort of tracking.
But, then, this was probably only a mater of time....