What is Digg?Sponsored by Double Your Dating
Get Her To Pick YOU Up view!
doubleyourdating.com - An easy way to get a woman to start a conversation with you - no fancy lines required...
59 Comments
- tallerthenyou, on 06/24/2008, -2/+26dibs on .awesome
- mithrasinvictus, on 06/24/2008, -0/+22.con for all fraudulent websites
- Zachariah, on 06/24/2008, -0/+15.xxx would work just fine on a voluntary basis.
Explicit content creators would love the recognition of having a .xxx site, so they would buy them. People who were worried about ill effects of visiting explicit content could do a blanket block on .xxx, and if you were a content creator of non-explicit stuff, then it'd be wise to NOT put it on .xxx
The other TLDs would be the same as they've always been (mixed content), it would add just a little easier filtering. No one NEEDS to be forced to do anything. - HigherLogic, on 06/24/2008, -3/+18The problem with tucking the porn industry into a namespace is, where do you stop? Where does it end? What you might consider pornographic, another might not. What about nude art? Does that belong on the .xxx namespace, or is it tasteful? Starting to get tough now, eh?
Should we force all drug-related sites to .drugs? Hell, let's just categorize the entire internet, we can put everyone in their own little namespace to keep everyone "safe" and free from being offended.
And if these Christian groups want this stuff censored, let's put all of their sites on the .bs namespace, that way if someone doesn't want their kids reading that kind of stuff, they can just ban it. Yeah, that'll do it! - manitoba98xp, on 06/24/2008, -0/+14This is a horrible idea. It would totally pollute the domain name system – imagine how hard it would be for people to fine websites: "Oh, Bob's web site is bob.family-site.fun." Not to mention making the existing problem of fraudulent websites worse. Imagine if someone registered the TLD "co". They would instantly get all of the queries from people who missed the "m" key in domains ending in ".com". That would be an absolute gold mine for people like that.
I vote "NO" to this proposal. - Zachariah, on 06/24/2008, -0/+13This article was very vague.
- cuoops, on 06/24/2008, -2/+15They need to clean the tubes first.
- TalahRama, on 06/24/2008, -1/+14Finally! www.clownpenis.fart shall be a reality, after all these years of wanting.
- Peck3277, on 06/24/2008, -0/+12And you have to have .reply
- jellygraph, on 06/24/2008, -0/+12This is going to end up badly
- solidcube, on 06/24/2008, -2/+13When people propose a shakeup for the net, I get really nervous. Kind of like when Bill Gates said a couple of weeks ago that in ten years the internet is going to be a very different place. I'm sure, no matter what, that it is going to be very different, but his tone of voice seemed to imply that he knew more than he was saying.
I don't like that. - inactive, on 06/24/2008, -0/+9It would be kinda annoying if this happened:
www.digg.com
www.digg.digg
www.digg.ggid
www.gidd.digg
www.digg.xxx
www.digg.poo
www.digg.www
www.digg.tv
www.digg.lol
www.digg.whendoesitstop
etc all of them being different sites, since you can't copyright 'digg'.
Google search would ***** itself. - robbiemuffin, on 06/23/2008, -1/+9a few years ago there still wasn't enough standardization in unicode to really do this fairly.
- MtheoryX, on 06/24/2008, -1/+7digg.youdown
- Kral, on 06/24/2008, -1/+7This isn't much of a shakeup. It just means tiny nations comprised of 3 people and a mule won't have dibs on selling high demand TLDs, and there'll be internationalized DNS all the way up the stack. Of course, ICANN sees dollar bills from heaven..
- inactive, on 06/24/2008, -0/+5Join the Rebellion!!! Get a X-Wing! Fight off the evil empire! Death to Vadar!
- SethEllis, on 06/24/2008, -0/+5I agree. I'm all for new top level domains like XXX to be opened up, but we shouldn't allow just anybody to make a new one.
- captmorgan555, on 06/24/2008, -0/+3Did you really save that much time typing 'eb' instead of 'ay'?
- inactive, on 06/24/2008, -0/+3 And a new dump truck.
- iamnobody8614, on 06/24/2008, -1/+4lol. Did you really just steal that from a comment above you?
- KragTheDigger, on 06/23/2008, -4/+7I've heard that this change is being justified as needed because the current available space (based on IPv4) is expected to run out by 2010 or 2011, while IPv6 allows for a larger space. I also heard that justification is BS :)
- WomensUnderwear, on 06/24/2008, -2/+5ICANN HAS INTERNET?
- dirTdogE, on 06/24/2008, -0/+3You are referring to IP addresses, as opposed to domains. We aren't running out of available domain names, we are only running out of GOOD available domain names.
- netneutrality, on 06/24/2008, -0/+3ICANN are royally screwing everything up again I see, making it harder for people to hold onto their domains. I still haven't forgiven them over the RegisterFly debacle.
- inactive, on 06/24/2008, -1/+3"We are doing this on a cost recovery basis. We've already spent $10m on this," he said.
Wow, sitting around and flipping a coin to choose Yes or No, that is progress! - inactive, on 06/24/2008, -0/+2We need a .spam and .news
The .com will still be the most sought after though, but eventually when they create enough new TLDs and more people can get a good domain, there might be less need for a .com - inactive, on 06/24/2008, -1/+2 Ummm,it's really easy to tell nude art from erotica and these two from porn...Not rocket science here.
I see no problem with them having their own domain...And I really like the xtains having their own as well and then us atheists can ban them. - grapes4tantalus, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1"Dr Twomey said Icann was still working through how much the application fee to register a domain name will be, but it is expected to be at least several thousand dollars."
Don't understand that. Does that mean I won't be able to get a domain name from godaddy for $10 anymore? - HigherLogic, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1Oh really? And what is pornography then? I mean, it has no well-defined meaning. The dictionary says:
"Obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, esp. those having little or no artistic merit."
So are we going to put writing on a .xxx namespace? Again, what you consider pornographic, others may not. I might not consider the softcore stuff they show on Cinemax to be pornographic, there's usually no genitalia being shown. Others might, and do consider it pornographic.
There's also no legal definition of pornography. If the Supreme Court has trouble defining it, how do you expect anyone else to do it when we all look at the world differently?
The very lack of consensus is why pornography is such a controversial legal issue. - iamnobody8614, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1Well as the word 'dig' is spelled with one 'g' and 'digg' isn't actually a standard dictionary word at all, I'd imagine that digg.com has already officially copyrighted their name.
- HonoredMule, on 06/24/2008, -1/+2The problem:
It WILL turn into a money making scheme somewhere, somehow. - boohiss, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1I can not give you a big enough thumbs up.
- Zachariah, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1I agree that it's a ***** idea, but I'm not so sure it would screw stuff up ... I think that .com (or .co.uk) is still the easiest to find/remember fo 99% of the English-speaking world.
.com will probably always be most desirable. - Cyberen, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1Drunkmagikoopa?
- zaxnyd, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1It's not referring to .xxx literally; they're variables. As in they're going to liberate domain suffixes to be customizable.
- pyro789x, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1and yet, google doesn't ***** itself now, even though there's the possibility for someone to register
www.diggg.com
www.digggg.com
www.diggggg.com
www.digggggg.com
www.diggggggg.com
and call them all "digg.com" - sparrowkc, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1I think it was on SNL or something.
- mentor972, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1I know, that's why I said it. See that was the joke.
- iamnobody8614, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1I'm not sure. I really don't know much about copyright law on an international scale. I just know in the United States the creator of something original can claim exclusive rights to his or her work once it is recorded in a physical medium. The name 'digg' would be covered under copyright law, at least in the United States
- inactive, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1But what if Digg is an actual word with a meaning in some other language, how does the copyright function in that regard?
- inactive, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1A simple algorithm can sort those out. There is little variation to your examples.
- pyro789x, on 06/24/2008, -1/+1isn't that a video game?
- mithrasinvictus, on 06/24/2008, -4/+4.xxx would make it a lot easier for parents and schools to filter content.
Most adult filtering proxies now are run by christian groups, who knows if other stuff (like evolution) gets censored.
What would be the downside to all current x-rated .com domains being changed over to .xxx?
As long as it doesn't turn in to a money making scheme for some people i don't see a problem. - Baryn, on 06/24/2008, -2/+2blah blah blah professor
- mentor972, on 06/24/2008, -2/+1lo. Actually, I didn't read any of the other comments.... douche.
- tama00, on 06/24/2008, -2/+1ill pay you $10 for iam.awesome
- starmanjones, on 06/24/2008, -2/+1you gotta go back a ways to remember but for a long time domains were free and you applied and got an entire class C licence for the asking... acutally, you got a C whether you wanted it or not. you could get a top level if you had any plausable use for it. an ISP.
the reason it stopped was that the IP numbers were running out. i guess we skipped IPv6? are going to anything domains. - Braeggles, on 06/24/2008, -1/+0This is probably welcome news for Google, Yahoo, and others who have been investing in dark fiber for years now:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Google/?p=241 - inactive, on 06/24/2008, -2/+0Who isn't but you can only take so much of Alex's rants.
I read Infowars mebbe 2 or 3 times a month, he is a brave human and is right in what he does. -
Show 51 - 60 of 60 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is