You know, I've read books on the subject, but I still don't get why: www.Calpundit.drum is better than KevinDrum.com.

I mean, all you have to do is type in KevinDrum in your browser and hit ctrl+enter.

I agree with MNPundit on this one. And why is the pricetag so high? Because it is a new offer? Or because it is actually more complicated to set up?

I agree with MNPundit on this one. And why is the pricetag so high? Because it is a new offer? Or because it is actually more complicated to set up?

So I could make it gary@garysugar.gary? I think two gary's is enough. I chose .com over .net, .org, or .us because I thought it would be easier for people to remember.

.Inkblot would probably snag more intertoobz users. I would suspect that .Domino is most likely taken already - that's why I am not suggesting it, I don't mean to insult her.

I would guess the price is as high as it is to discourage its use, particularly its frivolous use. This flattens out the namespace and flatter namespaces require more effort to adminster and more cycles to search. I don't see any benefit to users but I imagine it's a big win for search engines since the actual domain name will no longer be as intuitive (is it "www.disney.com" or "www.disney"?), as well as for registrars (registering both "disney.com" and ".disney").

If I'm understanding this, it's one of those technical innovations that are a marvelous business opportunity for a few players but no real benefit to anyone else.

Why should it matter to me whether I go to opticalweenie.com or optical.weenie to get abused? But someone can get a big chunk of weenie's money if she opts for the latter.

Melinda is correct, because creating top-level domains requires more DNS servers to handle requests for those top-level domains. I'm not a DNS expert (more of a DNS journeyman) but each TLD (.com, .net, .org, etc.) has its own DNS root server (several, I think, in the case of the .com domain) and all DNS servers can eventually look up records back to that root server (although in practice that doesn't happen very often). Adding a whole bunch of TLDs dramatically increases the number of DNS servers needed.

Widening . . . or are these those other distinct internets the president referred to.

BTW, I can imagine why common typos like www.google.cm might be valuable. In fact google might have a great database of typos that might of use the less savory denizens of the internets.

Sheesh. Vanity plates for the web.

In any case, the cost is high for no good reason. Hell's bells, we are talking about EVERYTHING that is net connected having a unique address when ip6 goes full-on. There is NO real cost associated with a DNS entry to go with that unique ip address (any more than there really is for ip4 now). It is a false ecomony based on nothing. There is no shortage vs demand and can never ever be so the cost is totally irrational.

I suggest that the cost is high to prevent domain name squatters. No one can easily afford ford.ford.ford or whatever except for deep pockets, like corporations.

Beyond that there is no reason for prices for unique domains to be high. It is cheap-assed bits associated with other cheap-assed bits (an ip address) and that is all it is. No real cost is associated.

I don't think many people genuinely prefer www.your.name to www.yourname.com -- a few will find a use for the novelty, but as mentioned it will be harder to remember than .com -- the problem is www.yourname.com is probably taken and this is an opportunity to open up a new set of url options. Very expensive ones, but options nevertheless if you're a major company and can't get a \ url you like from what's leftover today.

I can't wait to get my own, so my personal email address will be "myname@myname.myname"

Hi, Praedor, you made two statements that are not exactly true. Broadening the "tree," if you will, affects scalability across several vectors, most notably searching and administration. If I cared more about this crap I'd be asking about the impacts on performance (how long it takes to resolve a name into an address) if the root grows to 100 names, 1000 names, etc.

Also, not everything connected to the network will have a publicly reachable address with ipv6 (should that ever happen). Both operators and enterprises are concerned about concealing topology information and in preventing some address spaces from being reachable (consider things like flooding attacks). See, in particular, unique local addresses (RFC 4193).

The need for cash to keep the high roller extortionists in their choosen life style.

Providing root servers as well as the other necessary items for lots of TLDs is a fairly minor issue. Yes it costs money but nowhere near what they are gonna try and get.

And for all those of you that think I have no idea, I`ve been a net user since the days of "bang" addressing (which was how stuff got around before the Domain Name System was created) & understand "how it all works" from the electrons on up to the "just click the button" level.

The main reason for this change and where there will be some real "issues" is the topic of non-english (non-Roman) characters used in URLs etc.

The `net is truly going global.

"In the future, we will all drive standing up. In the future, love will be taught on television and by listening to pop songs." - Talking Heads

Hi, Praedor, I'm going to split hairs again because that's what I do. "The net" didn't use bang addresses, uucp used bang addresses. CSNet used .csnet addresses, the Arpanet used .arpa addresses, BITNET used .bitnet addresses, and so on. Bang addresses aside (the bangs were actually path separators for routing and weren't part of naming), while that may have looked analogous to the domain name system those were actually disjunct namespaces. The networking technologies were different, as well, in several cases, and so while you could gateway mail between the networks if you knew where the gateways were (back to routing) or if your mailer was configured to rewrite addresses appropriate, that was nearly all you could do across networks.

UUCP was still used pretty heavily into the late '90s, so it overlapped the switch from /etc/hosts to DNS.

And with all due respect, "[I] understand 'how it all works' from the electrons on up to the "just click the button" level" is pretty much on par with "I am aware of all internet traditions."

Whoops, that was actually a response to "daCascadian" rather than Praedor.

John McCain, BTW, isn't going to have much understanding or use of the "web" anyway:
He *admitted* he is computer "illiterate":

Youtube

In answer to a question, "PC or Mac"?:
"Neither. I am an illiterate that has to rely on my wife for all the assistance I can get."
Can a person like that run a nation and be an effective CIC in a technological world where IT matters a lot? We should be putting this up all over. Kevin?

UUCP was only one method of transmission on "the net" back in those days irrespective.

And you forgot FidoNet not to mention a few others.

"The Internet" has been defined as the network of all the interconnected networks BTW & not just those that might use one single form of addressing though these days most people only refer to those portions that use DNS as "the net".

My knowledge comes from experience hands on pre 1980s & general UUCP availability. Of course you are free to believe whatever you want.

“My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel.” - Saudi saying

It'll be pricey, but if we pool our resources we may just pick up the lucrative ".cum".

If its not broken, why fix it?

Dumbest idea ever (or at least since breakfast).

Nobody would be able to remember both parts of the site name (x.z).

What? No, .domino? No, .inkblot?

What is this world coming to! :/

Geez, man, if you're going to plunk down 100 big ones, go for something snazzy and onomatopoeic. Like .badumbum(rimshot).

.drum just shows no imagination at all.

polka.s
chickenpox.sonyourface
Lotsa.sperinch