www. © .com

erri2000 · Jul 7, 2004

Hello,

I would like to turn this domain, http://www. © .com/, into a open directory project like dmoz or in association with. I have alot of friends that are artists, poets and writers, including myself and the problem of copyright infringement is huge.

My vision is similar to the "Library of Congress" except on the net and free. What do you see as potential pitfalls in making this happen?

I also hold http://www. ® .com/ and would like to do the same with trademarks.

Thank you for any suggestions.

bobrat · Jul 7, 2004

Getting 5000-10,000 volunteer editors and learning to run a controlled anarchy

erri2000 · Jul 7, 2004

I am on it!

arubin · Jul 7, 2004

Are those legal URLs? My contacts say "no".

erri2000 · Jul 7, 2004

It is for real

arubin said:
Are those legal URLs? My contacts say "no".

Come on man! You are halarious

.

They are multilingual domains, they were just converted from race code to puny code last month, idnnow.com for more information. The actual puny is xn--lba.com, I forget which that one is, but it is live.

Use netscape, ie will ask you to use the idnnow plug in (a verisign company) then look at the html to make sure there are no pop-ups or garbage ads, click a link and be amazed. This is the future.

senox · Jul 7, 2004

then look at the html

Mozilla (1.6) displays the page, but says 'not found' when trying to view the source code?

erri2000 · Jul 7, 2004

Here is the source

<html>

<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Language" content="en-us">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 4.0">
<meta name="ProgId" content="FrontPage.Editor.Document">
<title>Coming September 2004</title>
</head>

<body>


<a href=" http: //www . ® .com"><img border="0" src="reg.gif" width="267" height="71">

</a>
Registered Trademark Dot Com

Coming September 2004
Another Errichetti. Com Production
In association with


<a href="http:// classified .ad" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="classifieds.gif" width="468" height="60"></a>

Also Check Out

 

<a href=" http :// www. © .com">
<img border="0" src="copy.gif" width="267" height="71"></a>

Copyright Dot Com

</body>

</html>

leer · Jul 7, 2004

ie (6.02) shows a 502 for me but ok in Opera 7.23

Sort of limiting the audience.

erri2000 · Jul 7, 2004

Is that so bad?

I didn't know about the other browsers, but thinking about it, is that so bad that your code can't be displayed. I kind of like the fact that you have to request it. I don't plan on doing anything devious, and you could always go to the puny equiv if you really wanted to see it

ishtar · Jul 7, 2004

Opera 7.51 can see the source just fine.

xixtas01 · Jul 7, 2004

My Mozilla Firefox Beta 0.9.1 can view the content but not the source.

Callimachus · Jul 8, 2004

I didn't know about the other browsers, but thinking about it, is that so bad that your code can't be displayed. I kind of like the fact that you have to request it.

Actually it is. Given the increasing numbers of web sites that have embedded malicious code, plus the spammers and mirrors and affiliates then not having page code to look at becomes a definite issue.

Additionally, such domain names will, at least in the short term, impede efforts to make the web useable regardless of platform or browser.

motsa · Jul 8, 2004

>>ie will ask you to use the idnnow plug in (a verisign company)

I can tell you right now that I wouldn't be bothering checking out a site that required I download a special plugin (especially a Verisign one). And I doubt I'd be the only one so you limit your audience by relying on such a particular URL.

And the plugin only works in Windows so you're limiting yourself there as well.

spectregunner · Jul 8, 2004

And if you think about it, how happy would you be if your site sat in a submission pool for 18 months or so, and when an editor finally got to it, they skipped over it because it either did not come up cleanly on their browser or it required a plugin -- thus relegating it to the submission pool for who knows how long.

bobrat · Jul 8, 2004

And I think the plugin only works in certain version of Windows. I do my reviews on a WIndows 98 machine which I don't think supports it.

erri2000 · Jul 8, 2004

You talked me out of it

I will develop it for a fee based service

erri2000 · Mar 17, 2006

arubin said:
Are those legal URLs? My contacts say "no".

My contacts say yes. Verisign, Microsoft, Apple, W3C

You need better intel

erri2000 · Mar 17, 2006

Callimachus said:
Actually it is. Given the increasing numbers of web sites that have embedded malicious code, plus the spammers and mirrors and affiliates then not having page code to look at becomes a definite issue.

Additionally, such domain names will, at least in the short term, impede efforts to make the web useable regardless of platform or browser.

Wrong!

erri2000 · Mar 17, 2006

spectregunner said:
And if you think about it, how happy would you be if your site sat in a submission pool for 18 months or so, and when an editor finally got to it, they skipped over it because it either did not come up cleanly on their browser or it required a plugin -- thus relegating it to the submission pool for who knows how long.

Submissions to DMOZ seem to rarely get updated. So this is not really an issue is it.

motsa · Mar 17, 2006

You *are* kidding me, right? You come back to a thread after two years to argue that people are wrong about something they wrote back then? Are you serious?

www. © .com

erri2000

Member

bobrat

Member

erri2000

Member

arubin

Editall/Catmv

erri2000

Member

senox

Member

erri2000

Member

leer

Regional/Europe/UK

erri2000

Member

ishtar

Member

xixtas01

Member

Callimachus

Member

motsa

spectregunner

Member

bobrat

Member

erri2000

Member

erri2000

Member

erri2000

Member

erri2000

Member

motsa