If that's the case, then can't you just create subdomains within whatever domain you do have, and put the keywords there? No need to register new domains for every keyword you're trying to spamdex.
In apparent response to all this fuss, Sony has released an update that "removes the cloaking technology component that has been recently discussed in a number of articles published regarding the XCP Technology used on SONY BMG content protected CDs." However, an attempt to access the link to this update using my preferred browser (Mozilla Suite) resulted in the message "Sorry, your Internet Browser does not support ActiveX Controls. Please use Microsoft Internet Explorer to continue."
That's actually just about exactly the situation that the former lead singer of Katrina and the Waves found herself in after the hurricane a few weeks ago; she's quoted as saying "The first time I opened the paper and saw 'Katrina kills 9,' it was a bit of a shock." However, as far as I know she doesn't have any trademark on her name, and even if she did (in the field of pop music) she would have no ability to prevent it being used as the name of a hurricane.
"...providing a communications channel without professional guidance as to content and application could just as easily cause more harm then good..."
Sounds like just the sort of thing the Communist Chinese government says when they censor the Internet, jail dissident journalists, run tanks over protestors, and so on. It's shameful to have anybody in the USA express such a position.
Unfortunately, all the documents related to this case, such as the court filings and the transcripts of various relevant conversations, etc., seem to be in a domain spammerpay.us which doesn't seem to be responding at the present time (slashdotted?), although some of the other sites related to the issue are functional. This makes it harder to get to the true facts of the case.
I believe they've been using the "B" as the accelerator key since Netscape 0.9 Beta, and probably Mosaic before that... is there any reason Mozilla or Firefox should change it now and tick off all of its existing user base? I know that I went straight to the Mozilla Suite a few years ago from Netscape 4.x, without ever using IE as my main browser, so I wouldn't want anything to be changed on my preferred browser just to make it "more like IE"; that would result in its user interface being less familiar to me rather than more.
"Bookmarks" is the original, traditional terminology, used in all the earliest browsers (Lynx, Mosaic, Netscape). "Favorites" is the dumbed-down Microsoftism imposed by people who insist on changing terminology for no good reason. I'd be peeved if Mozilla ever caved into this nonsense.
Actually, according to the "Citation" link on the site, barcodinglife.org is the preferred address of their site, though the.com version works too. If they're a noncommercial project,.org is more logical.
If I were that guy, I'd sue both British Telecom and the government for a large amount of compensatory and punitive damages, for harrassment, libel, slander, defamation of character, false arrest, etc. If I won, I'd donate any excess above legal bills to a different tsunami relief organization.
And with the NFL, they're even sillier; they say "Go to nfl.com, or AOL keyword nfl.com," so there's even a pointless.com at the end of the AOL keyword for no obvious reason.
All of these browser-sniffing "arms races" have caused user agent strings to have very little resemblance to the actual names and versions of the browsers they represent. I've got some more comments on this in my site:
The evolution (devolution) of Computer Shopper fits the natural way computer magazines have always progressed (regressed), a phenomenon that predates the Internet by many years (I was griping about it as early as 1983 when it happened to the likes of Creative Computing and InfoWorld).
Normally, computer magazines start out being of, by, and for enthusiasts / hobbyists / "geeks", and are interestingly quirky as a result, but over the years they gradually become more "mainstream", slick, and corporate, with editorial policies dictated by the advertisers (and, specifically, the ones who buy full-page, full-color ads, not mom-and-pop classifieds) rather than the desires of the current readers (the management starts pining after the holy grail of a huge mainstream readership they hope to find if their content can be made more acceptable to Corporate America).
Usually, they fail to get this mass readership or the big ad dollars it's supposed to produce, so they go out of business in the end; maybe they could have survived if they kept their original format and a budget based on a cult-following audience instead of pipe dreams of something bigger.
Since when does Google need any domains other than google.com? They've generally been very clueful about knowing how to use logical subdomains for their various sites, like groups.google.com, images.google.com, and so on.
My own "old habits" were formed with Netscape a long time ago... IE has *never* been my primary browser, so any Mozilla version that based its look and feel on IE would harm rather than help its ability to "fit" my habits and preferences.
You shouldn't develop Web pages "for IE" (or any other specific browser or platform); you should develop them to standards so that they have a good chance of functioning on a wide variety of browsers and platforms.
Yeah... when looking through ads in some magazines, it seems almost ubiquitous to find references like "Check out our website at www.FooBarBaz.com, or e-mail us at FooBarBaz@aol.com!" I mentally parse this as "...e-mail us at FooBarBas@We're_Too_Fucking_Retarded_To_Use_A_Real _ISP.com!"
The linked article seems to be having some character set conversion problems... its opening paragraph says "An alleged high-tech roulette scam that saw three people walk out of a London casino with y1.3 million recently sounds too implausible even for a movie plot", with an accented "y" where there apparently should have been a British pound sign.
The site developers aren't very well-versed on character encoding standards, obviously, as also shown from their use of the bogus numeric reference • (characters from 128 through 159 are actually control characters in the Unicode set, regardless of what Microsoft thinks).
Slashdot Mirror
If that's the case, then can't you just create subdomains within whatever domain you do have, and put the keywords there? No need to register new domains for every keyword you're trying to spamdex.
And its slogan is
wikipediasucks.com
For all your adult needs
So, are they now claiming that Wikipedia can suck your [insert sexual organ reference here]?
In apparent response to all this fuss, Sony has released an update that "removes the cloaking technology component that has been recently discussed in a number of articles published regarding the XCP Technology used on SONY BMG content protected CDs." However, an attempt to access the link to this update using my preferred browser (Mozilla Suite) resulted in the message "Sorry, your Internet Browser does not support ActiveX Controls. Please use Microsoft Internet Explorer to continue."
That's actually just about exactly the situation that the former lead singer of Katrina and the Waves found herself in after the hurricane a few weeks ago; she's quoted as saying "The first time I opened the paper and saw 'Katrina kills 9,' it was a bit of a shock." However, as far as I know she doesn't have any trademark on her name, and even if she did (in the field of pop music) she would have no ability to prevent it being used as the name of a hurricane.
"...providing a communications channel without professional guidance as to content and application could just as easily cause more harm then good..."
Sounds like just the sort of thing the Communist Chinese government says when they censor the Internet, jail dissident journalists, run tanks over protestors, and so on. It's shameful to have anybody in the USA express such a position.
So you go for "double-quoting", the most pointlessly wasteful of all the possible quoting styles?
All of the seven new TLDs are living, though none have really taken off much.
I'm using some myself:
http://www.dan.info/
http://dan.tobias.name/
Unfortunately, all the documents related to this case, such as the court filings and the transcripts of various relevant conversations, etc., seem to be in a domain spammerpay.us which doesn't seem to be responding at the present time (slashdotted?), although some of the other sites related to the issue are functional. This makes it harder to get to the true facts of the case.
If you want to create a noncommercial site about why Kraft sucks, then kraftsucks.org would be more appropriate, or maybe kraftsucks.info.
I believe they've been using the "B" as the accelerator key since Netscape 0.9 Beta, and probably Mosaic before that... is there any reason Mozilla or Firefox should change it now and tick off all of its existing user base? I know that I went straight to the Mozilla Suite a few years ago from Netscape 4.x, without ever using IE as my main browser, so I wouldn't want anything to be changed on my preferred browser just to make it "more like IE"; that would result in its user interface being less familiar to me rather than more.
"Bookmarks" is the original, traditional terminology, used in all the earliest browsers (Lynx, Mosaic, Netscape). "Favorites" is the dumbed-down Microsoftism imposed by people who insist on changing terminology for no good reason. I'd be peeved if Mozilla ever caved into this nonsense.
My personal home page reaches its ten-year anniversary on March 7th!
Actually, according to the "Citation" link on the site, barcodinglife.org is the preferred address of their site, though the .com version works too. If they're a noncommercial project, .org is more logical.
And you really expect SlashDotters to be using Outhouse or Outhouse Excess instead of a decent mail program?
If I were that guy, I'd sue both British Telecom and the government for a large amount of compensatory and punitive damages, for harrassment, libel, slander, defamation of character, false arrest, etc. If I won, I'd donate any excess above legal bills to a different tsunami relief organization.
And with the NFL, they're even sillier; they say "Go to nfl.com, or AOL keyword nfl.com," so there's even a pointless .com at the end of the AOL keyword for no obvious reason.
All of these browser-sniffing "arms races" have caused user agent strings to have very little resemblance to the actual names and versions of the browsers they represent. I've got some more comments on this in my site:
http://webtips.dan.info/brand-x/useragent.html
I've used the CitiCards site for years with no problem in the Mozilla Suite. (I don't know if it works in Firefox, since I don't use that.)
The evolution (devolution) of Computer Shopper fits the natural way computer magazines have always progressed (regressed), a phenomenon that predates the Internet by many years (I was griping about it as early as 1983 when it happened to the likes of Creative Computing and InfoWorld).
Normally, computer magazines start out being of, by, and for enthusiasts / hobbyists / "geeks", and are interestingly quirky as a result, but over the years they gradually become more "mainstream", slick, and corporate, with editorial policies dictated by the advertisers (and, specifically, the ones who buy full-page, full-color ads, not mom-and-pop classifieds) rather than the desires of the current readers (the management starts pining after the holy grail of a huge mainstream readership they hope to find if their content can be made more acceptable to Corporate America).
Usually, they fail to get this mass readership or the big ad dollars it's supposed to produce, so they go out of business in the end; maybe they could have survived if they kept their original format and a budget based on a cult-following audience instead of pipe dreams of something bigger.
Since when does Google need any domains other than google.com? They've generally been very clueful about knowing how to use logical subdomains for their various sites, like groups.google.com, images.google.com, and so on.
My own "old habits" were formed with Netscape a long time ago... IE has *never* been my primary browser, so any Mozilla version that based its look and feel on IE would harm rather than help its ability to "fit" my habits and preferences.
You shouldn't develop Web pages "for IE" (or any other specific browser or platform); you should develop them to standards so that they have a good chance of functioning on a wide variety of browsers and platforms.
Yeah... when looking through ads in some magazines, it seems almost ubiquitous to find references like "Check out our website at www.FooBarBaz.com, or e-mail us at FooBarBaz@aol.com!" I mentally parse this as "...e-mail us at FooBarBas@We're_Too_Fucking_Retarded_To_Use_A_Real _ISP.com!"
The linked article seems to be having some character set conversion problems... its opening paragraph says "An alleged high-tech roulette scam that saw three people walk out of a London casino with y1.3 million recently sounds too implausible even for a movie plot", with an accented "y" where there apparently should have been a British pound sign.
The site developers aren't very well-versed on character encoding standards, obviously, as also shown from their use of the bogus numeric reference • (characters from 128 through 159 are actually control characters in the Unicode set, regardless of what Microsoft thinks).
More info:
http://webtips.dan.info/char.html
http://mailformat.dan.info/body/charsets.html
I use them...n ame/
http://www.dan.info/
http://dan.tobias.