Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Businesses The Almighty Buck Your Rights Online

McLaughlin Defends Site Finder As 'Innovation' 507

Posted by timothy
from the problem-with-public-versus-private dept.
simeonbeta2 writes "Mark McLaughlin, Senior VP at Verisign, has an editorial up on news.com. McLaughlin casts the debate over sitefinder in terms of 'innovation' versus the status quo and threatens that stifling 'innovation' will lead to a weaker internet." There's more -- read on below.

psimeonbeta2 continues:"Additionally (shades of Darl) he suggests that an anti-capitalism animus is behind the resistance to sitefinder. This despite the known problems that sitefinder caused and despite the fact that breaking the DNS standards may have constituted a breach of contract on Verisign's part. Resistance, he concludes, must be due to some sort of techno-religious fervor.

While Verisign's chutzpah certainly doesn't rise to fiaSCO levels, I find the similar tones in spinning the issues at hand to be truly disturbing. Not only did Verisign screw us by changing how the internet works at a fundamental level, now they purport to be irritated that we didn't thank them for the favor! At least in this case the good guys(cherish this moment, ICANN!) won."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

McLaughlin Defends Site Finder As 'Innovation'

Comments Filter:
  • Utter Crap (Score:5, Insightful)

    by l810c (551591) * on Monday October 06, 2003 @09:43PM (#7149567)
    He makes this sound like the entire future of the Internet hangs in balance on this decision. Like routing all typos to Verisign is some critically important new technology.

    If someone types in a bad domain name, they should get a message that states just that. I don't know if there are any statistics on this, but for me 9 times out of 10 it is a typo. If not, then you can go to the search engine of Your Choice and search for the name.

    The decisions made over the next months and years will determine the future growth and vitality of the Internet
    Should Read
    The decisions made over the next months and years will determine the future growth and vitality of the Verisign.

    • Indeed, all unused names Must belong to verisign!

      Now, If you do not imediately grant me commercial control of all unused channel numbers on cable, all ungranted patents and all unused snazzy product names, the world will explode.
    • Re:Utter Crap (Score:3, Interesting)

      by inode_buddha (576844)
      tinfoil hat time for me: maybe they have a *use* for collecting all those typos? Just an idea...
    • Innovation (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Tony-A (29931) on Monday October 06, 2003 @10:21PM (#7149852)
      from dictionary.com [emphasis added]

      innovation

      \In`no*va"tion\, n. [L. innovatio; cf. F. innovation.] 1. The act of innovating; introduction of something new, in customs, rites, etc. --Dryden.

      2. A change effected by innovating; a change in customs; something new, and contrary to established customs, manners, or rites. --Bacon.


      Why is everybody assuming that innovation is a good thing? Seems to me it is really a bad thing.
      • Re:Innovation (Score:5, Interesting)

        by pVoid (607584) on Monday October 06, 2003 @11:11PM (#7150126)
        Cause if your customs are attaching leeches to your veins to cure yourself, you're not exactly in a good place to begin with.

        Everything in moderation. It's no use polarizing the polemic.

        It should be clear though, that what Verisign is doing is wrong, not because it wasn't done before or some very esotheric reason that only a slashdotter could come up with, it's because DNS is not only used by HTTP (as the ICANN very aptly explained). The very bottom line is that DNS is used by more than just humans. That being said, yet another point against them: DNS over HTTP is used by more than just english speaking people.

      • Re:Innovation (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Citizen of Earth (569446) on Tuesday October 07, 2003 @02:20AM (#7150964)
        from dictionary.com

        There's also a new technical meaning for "innovation", which is synonymous with "monopolization". Whenever you hear Microsoft saying "innovate", substitute "monopolize" to extract the true meaning. Now it's the same with VeriSign(R).
      • Re:Innovation (Score:3, Insightful)

        by orangesquid (79734)
        Innovation, changing society, can lead to good or bad. It's not some clear-cut evil thing. Freedom to innovate is freedom to break rules... for hackers and other clever people, with good intentions, this can lead to cutting through layers of crap and figuring something out for what it really is, solving a problem directly, and possibly confusing and/or irritating people in the process.

        There's lots of bullshit out there which isn't doing the majority of people any good... and, in fact, is doing good to a
    • by MrLint (519792) on Monday October 06, 2003 @10:32PM (#7149923) Journal
      if !known_domain
      then redirectositefinder;

      Oh my god i just stole verisigns innovation!
    • by CAIMLAS (41445)
      I think I can sense a new Mozilla browser feature approaching. Optional, of course.
    • by tugrul (750) on Tuesday October 07, 2003 @02:09AM (#7150927)
      At first I didn't read the article, figuring that it was just a longer sappier version of the summary posted here. The summary does it no fucking justice.

      More likely, ICANN caved under the pressure from some in the Internet community for whom this is a technology-religion issue about whether the Internet should be used for these purposes.

      For this vocal minority, resentment lingers at the very fact that the Internet is used for commercial purpose, which ignores the fact that it's a critical part of our economy.


      At this moment the veins in my forehead are bulging, and I'm envisioning a fate for this man pulled out of Crichton's Congo.

      Apparently this gigantic ass doesn't realize that we are the critical people that make it function as a critical part of our economy. It also happens to be the fucking critical part of putting food on our plates. Somebody needs to get this through his thick head before the next time he hops into his 6 figure car heading back to his 7 figure house.

      This unforgivable libel needs to be answered on the pages of news.com, and I think we should be petitioning to get this guy canned. He is not of the moral character I want near the big red button of the Internet.

      I need to go cool off...
  • His rational (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dattaway (3088) on Monday October 06, 2003 @09:44PM (#7149574) Homepage Journal
    appears to be the same defense used by spammers.
  • by ThatDamnMurphyGuy (109869) on Monday October 06, 2003 @09:44PM (#7149575) Homepage
    Let someone else "innovate"; someone not trusted to serve the .com/.net root zones without biased interest in the outcome of how it works.
    • by Ohreally_factor (593551) on Monday October 06, 2003 @09:56PM (#7149683) Journal
      Or better, let Verisign innovate, but without the terrible encumbrance of having to administrate the .com/.net TLDs. Give that responsibility to another organization that can handle it.
    • I agree. This isn't innovation - it is stupid.

      These comments are already full of analogies of how silly his point. When you act as a register or a controller over some major infastructure you have a responsibility to manage it in a fair and impartial way. If you don't no one will go to you for your services. Then you can no longer do business...

    • Seriously (Score:5, Interesting)

      by tugrul (750) on Monday October 06, 2003 @10:17PM (#7149840)
      I hate M$FT as much as the next guy here, but their autosearch solution was innovative* (* not sure if it was their idea). Without changing how the internet fundamentally works, they chose to render a failed DNS lookup as something more friendly and functional than a limited, rather useless OK popup. Something well within the right of a client application, and easily checked off if it doesn't float your boat. And it only affected those people that voluntarily chose to use their product (don't beat me up on the voluntarily bit).

      With Verisign, there is no choice. They took a common community resource that should benefit all equally and biased it in their favor. They were selected as guardians of the system, not burdened with a mandate to "improve it". If they really think themselves clever, have them deploy a new, distinct system and compete for our patronage.
      • Re:Seriously (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Lord_Dweomer (648696)
        "With Verisign, there is no choice. They took a common community resource that should benefit all equally and biased it in their favor. They were selected as guardians of the system, not burdened with a mandate to "improve it". If they really think themselves clever, have them deploy a new, distinct system and compete for our patronage."

        It would be interesting if instead of typing in a mispelled name......it redirected you to a google search. I wonder how it would be received if they did that....and also

        • Re:Seriously (Score:3, Interesting)

          by tugrul (750)
          It would be interesting if instead of typing in a mispelled name......it redirected you to a google search. I wonder how it would be received if they did that....and also didn't collect money from it, just offered it as a service....now THAT would be a better version of this whole fiasco, thats for sure.

          Why bother theorizing the impossible? It is evident from their low key approach to introducing this service that they knew they were in the wrong. Why would they knowingly enter into such a situation unles
      • their autosearch solution was innovative* (* not sure if it was their idea). Without changing how the internet fundamentally works, they chose to render a failed DNS lookup as something more friendly and functional than a limited, rather useless OK popup.

        They took something that worked to a well-established specification that's been around for decades and broke it. That is not good nor is it innovative.

        But don't take my word for it. I will defer to this guy [slashdot.org] to elaborate and this guy [slashdot.org] to explain how stu

  • Innovation? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Texas Rose on Lava L (712928) on Monday October 06, 2003 @09:46PM (#7149583) Homepage Journal
    Spammers do a lot of creative things to get their messages through. So, would it be "stifling innovation" to make spam illegal?

    There's a difference between actual innovation that benefits society vs. people just finding a way to take advantage of the system.
  • by Osrin (599427) on Monday October 06, 2003 @09:46PM (#7149594) Homepage
    ... in the form that we have recently come to know it.
  • hmmmm (Score:5, Funny)

    by the_other_one (178565) * on Monday October 06, 2003 @09:47PM (#7149597) Homepage

    This sort of innovation followed by the "This will stifle innovation defense." must surely infringe on a Microsoft business process patent

    I smell another lawsuit on the horizon.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 06, 2003 @09:47PM (#7149601)
    Why is * in bind so special? Here are some more 'innovative' wildcards: rm -rf /* (innovative on sco's lawyers machines... won't take much time at all to complete...) cat * > /dev/null (Zero loss compression of verisign's arguments...) and the best yet... cat * > /dev/sda (or /dev/hda) (Method of preserving the data, but making it useless - similar to press releases by verisign)
  • by El (94934) on Monday October 06, 2003 @09:48PM (#7149606)
    ... street beggars have announced that the "innovation" of pointing loaded guns at the people they are asking for money greatly increases their profits. "Well, we the panhandling industry can't just remain static. They should be thanking us for innovating new sources of revenue" said one street bum as he was being arrested...
    • by cgranade (702534)
      Why not? After all, Bush "innovated" with his electioneering techniques, and SCO "innovated" with their sue-your-own-customers-till-you-piss-'em-off-so-ba d-they'll-never-buy-from-you-again business model... not to mention RIAA's "innovation" with cutting back on individual rights, and MS's anti-capitalist "innovation."
    • by Anthony Boyd (242971) on Monday October 06, 2003 @11:24PM (#7150189) Homepage

      El, I have taken your concept and RUN with it. Below is a first-draft parody of the entire editorial. I think some parts are inspired, but other parts could use some help. It doesn't make Verisign's claims look as crazy as they are, yet. Anybody want to take a shot at rewriting my rewrite? I figure we can throw it up on a Web site with a similar look to it, and let the parody stand as a good rebuttal. Here it is.

      Hobocorp's decision to launch a new Bum Gun service that gives panhandlers tools and options when they harass people for money has spurred a debate about the future of a safe society. It is a debate worth having, because at the heart of it is whether innovation in a safe society will be encouraged or whether the status quo is good enough. More than 20 million times a day, innocent citizens receive a barrage of requests for cash when they walk or drive by street beggars (such as stopping at a light and having the windshield washed whether requested or not). Those requests for cash can lead to a dead end, with no money given to the beggar in compensation for his efforts.

      That's what Bum Gun is about. Instead of begging for cash, its users get an option to intimidate the citizenry, try a holdup or simply assualt the victim. Thus far, people have used these guns more than 40 million times to get the money they want to have.

      While similar services have been tested and offered before, Hobocorp's Bum Gun has triggered debate because it hasn't been tried for non-mafia and non-gang related groups. Seemingly ignoring that fact, the police cast a vote last week for the status quo by forcing Hobocorp to shut down the service. We reluctantly agreed and are exploring our options.

      The police appear to have bought into claims that our society's safety has broken or will break. Anyone who has lived through it in the last three weeks knows that claim to be false. More likely, the police caved under the pressure from some in the community for whom this is a 2nd-amendment-religion issue about whether guns should be used for these purposes.

      For this vocal minority, resentment lingers at the very fact that guns are used for extortion, which ignores the fact that it's a critical part of our economy.

      We respectfully disagree with those who, in the name of anti-gun rhetoric, strive to hold society back. Society as we know it today was built by expanding beyond its origins. When clans -- the first known humans to group together -- became prevalent thousands of years ago, its purpose was to provide strength in numbers.

      Over the next few millenia, every stage of what we now know as human society caused fierce debate and controversy. By not being afraid to test and try new things, a set of laws and rights was created that now serves as the foundation for commerce and communications.

      While the current debate is not the first over the future of society, it is critically important because it could well determine its future development. Our society has been used for many innovative purposes over the last century -- look at what the USA and the European Union have been able to accomplish -- but the reality is society itself, the infrastructure that serves as the foundation, has not significantly benefited from innovation.

      This is a significant test for the entire planet because if the world can't find a way to introduce new services while reaching a resolution on legal matters that might arise, then society's infrastructure will never improve. It's tantamount to saying that the world is flat and therefore there is no need for further exploration.

      If that is the case, it doesn't bode well for Earth. If beggars and con men are discouraged from exploring the bounds of the law, it will mean less research and development and less investment into firearms and assault weapons. In short, a weaker society.

      That should concern the panhandling community, NRA members, thieves and white-collar criminals alike. Less investment means a less-stable gun-lobby long-term, with de

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 06, 2003 @09:48PM (#7149607)
    It was obviously innovation. Nobody had ever done it before, yes. (Sure there were wildcards in other TLDs, but they weren't trying to provide the service SiteFinder was.)

    The thing is, not all innovation is good. In this case, VeriSign innovated, and most people didn't want their innovation.

    If they like, they could provide the *exact* same innovation by distributing a fully opt-in browser add-on.
  • by KevinMS (209602) on Monday October 06, 2003 @09:49PM (#7149617)


    I just innovated 4 of my domains over to
    another registrar.

    • by FattMattP (86246) on Monday October 06, 2003 @10:24PM (#7149861) Homepage
      I just noticed that VeriSign owns Thawte, who I used to get two secure certificates. My renewal is coming up and they're emailing me to renew. That's $300 each for a two year renewal. $600 total. So I'm going to get new certificates for those domains from someone else.

      What convinced me that this was the right course of action is that Thawte's slogan is "It's a trust thing." Well, yeah, it is and VeriSign has shown that it can't be trusted. So I guess I'll give my money to someone else.

  • by thecampbeln (457432) on Monday October 06, 2003 @09:49PM (#7149618) Homepage
    Looking at SiteFinder from the viewpoint of a "stupid user", it's pretty damned neat! I mean, it's kinda like calling the wrong 800 number and the person who answers says "Oh this happens all the time, the number you actually want is...". This is a nice feature!

    Now looking at Sitefinder from the technical perspective, it's a scary ass "development". As once again, calling the wrong 800 number, the person could say "Oh this happens all the time, but I know a better place get (insert product/service here)! Try calling...", here in lies the devil!

    It would be nice to have the feature in the first instance, but we all know that it will end up being served as in the second instance (besides all the anti-SPAM issues, et la). <rant>Since the CEOs of now are children of the 80's, everything always boils down to the all mighty $</rant>. BUT... is there any way that this idea could be put to good use?

    • But that same stupid user is already using MS, that does it for them.

      So back to the base question: "Why?"

      Answer more money into the Versign pockets.
    • by Chuck Chunder (21021) on Monday October 06, 2003 @10:04PM (#7149743) Homepage Journal
      Web Browsers have been doing this for non-existant domains ages.

      The web browser is the right place to implement such a feature. Providing extended functionality to the user is the role of the user agent.

      Implementing it all the way down in DNS is just bonkers.
      • by ComputerSlicer23 (516509) on Monday October 06, 2003 @11:04PM (#7150086)
        Implementing it in the DNS isn't "bonkers". Implementing in the _root_ DNS servers, with no warning, no RFC, no discussion, and no debate is bonkers. While I agree that the most appropriate way to do that is in the user agent.

        I mean if AOL wanted to put this sort of rule in their DNS server, more power to them. If cox.net wanted to do it, great. If my work wanted to do it fine. If they are prepared to suffer the consequences, and will allow me to route around it, I'm fine with it.

        The people who run the core of the DNS system for the two most commonly typed domain names? Gosh darn irresponsible. Just insane. Bonkers. Foolish. Strange. Inappropriate.

        I don't mind others breaking their perspective of the internet. However, I have serious issues with people who break my corner of the internet.

        Kirby

        • Furthermore, StieFinder or something else should be implemented in a way that a DNS query still produces something that is an authoratative 'domian name not registered' so that software that wants to deal with this can do so.

          What is bonkers with COM and NET is, for example, if I type www.bonjourdefrance.com, I get a French only website. If I type www.bonjoudefrance.com, I'd get SiteFinder, in English, not French, which is clearly the language of the person doing the search. (And that person may not speak
  • First he continues the Web==Internet BS, then he strongly implies that Verision Sitefinder's drawbacks had a technical solution other than complete negation of what they'd done. If they think there's a technical alternative to making Sitefinder useful and only show up for WWW users, suggest it. I've heard of no such thing.
    • then he strongly implies that Verision Sitefinder's drawbacks had a technical solution other than complete negation of what they'd done.

      Well, an alternative technical solution does exist, it just wouldn't put money in Verisign's pockets...

      Instead of returning basically an ad, they could instead compare the result against a table of, say, the top 1000 domains to see if they have a close match (such as off by one character). If so, return that as a likely misspelling.

      This would solve two problems with
  • by FsG (648587) on Monday October 06, 2003 @09:50PM (#7149626)
    ICANN appears to have bought into claims that the Internet has broken or will break. Anyone who has used it in the last three weeks knows that claim to be false.

    Bullshit. This is clearly written from the perspective of the user, who will click the pretty buttons while completely unaware of what's going on in the background. Instead of asking "anyone who has used it," why not ask a DNS admin or someone who is similarly qualified to make a decision on this point? Those people will tell you loud and clear that this thing indeed caused serious problems.

  • the problem is versign signed up for the status quo.. its called an internet standard!

    don't like the standard, than stand down as regsitrar and start your own internet!
  • Starting nmap 3.28 ( www.insecure.org/nmap/ ) at 2003-09-15 06:36 PDT
    Host sitefinder.verisign.com (12.158.80.10) appears to be up ... good.
    Initiating SYN Stealth Scan against sitefinder.verisign.com (12.158.80.10) at 06 :36
    Adding open port 80/tcp
    The SYN Stealth Scan took 94 seconds to scan 1643 ports.
    Warning: OS detection will be MUCH less reliable because we did not find at least 1 open and 1 closed TCP port
    For OSScan assuming that port 80 is open and port 36304 is closed and neither are firewalled
    For OSS
  • service and profit (Score:3, Insightful)

    by maliabu (665176) on Monday October 06, 2003 @09:50PM (#7149631)
    i think at least some internet users will find Site Finder a good service, especially when you're not too sure about a URL, or mistyped one.

    the annoying part is the opportunity for verisign to make a good profit out of this as there are quoted millions of mistyped URLs daily.

    however who wants/can to provide a sevice (which costs money) for free? or even, who wants to not make a profit when there is profit to be made?

    anyway, if site finder is associated with a neutral web directory like dmoz.org, it might be a different story.
  • by dpbsmith (263124) on Monday October 06, 2003 @09:51PM (#7149636) Homepage
    There's nothing innovative about having the network do centralized processing, and perform those specific functions that Ma Bell or Verisign or whomever thinks it can market and charge money for.

    What was innovative was the concept of a network that just provided connectivity, and allowed the users at the network termini to provide the innovation.

    To call SiteFinder innovative is like cutting the wings off an airplane and saying that you've created an innovative new form of ground transportation.

  • Trust and responsibility is nothing new, he's right.

    A quote from the article:

    "That error page can lead to a dead end, with no options on how to get to where you tried to go."

    Perhaps Mr. McLaughlin should try something like Google, where a service is performed at your request, not the advertiser's/coporations insistence.
  • Too easy. (Score:2, Funny)

    by Asprin (545477)

    I dub thee....

    ... Mark Mc-Laugh-In

    Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week!
  • by Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) on Monday October 06, 2003 @09:52PM (#7149647) Homepage Journal
    "You keep using that word. I believe it does not mean what you think it does." -- The Princess Bride
  • *takes article, rips into small pieces, spreads over lawn*

    Excellent! Normally I'd have to pay top dollar for such high-grade bullshit.

  • The whole idea of sitefinder is "implemented" by other companies, and this destroys all of the "competition", so how are we the anti-capitalist saying others should be able to handle DNS errors their own way, rather than have them shove their stuff down our throats using somthing that goes against RFC, they are one of the most important companies to run the net, and they don't obide basic RFC, I think the gov't should step in and take away their .com and .net privledges away and give them to someone we can
  • by rborek (563153) on Monday October 06, 2003 @09:53PM (#7149655)
    They exploited a known feature in the DNS system, and abused their monopoly. There's no innovation there - just an abuse of a government-granted monopoly position. Had they actually proposed something innovative, and proposed it as an RFC (even if it was an Informational RFC), then maybe things would be different. Instead, they decide to do something that was not contemplated by the IAB for the standard. The Internet is built on standards - and sometimes standards can be slow to change because of the sheer number of different systems involved. You can't expect things like DNS standards to change overnight.
  • by morelife (213920) <f00fbug.postREMOVETHISman@at> on Monday October 06, 2003 @09:54PM (#7149668)
    Dude, abuse of power, greed, and lying to the public are not exactly "innovation". Can we please have our "weaker" Internet back? Uh, thank you.

  • Wrong place (Score:5, Insightful)

    by countach (534280) on Monday October 06, 2003 @09:57PM (#7149689)
    The problem is not that something like sitefinder isn't a good idea. The problem is that putting it in the root name servers is the wrong place for it. Something like a browser plugin or browser feature is the correct place for it. Users can have the feature, and it may even be good, but this is the dead wrong way to implement it.

  • there is not much difference between versigns service and internet explorer forwarding you to msn search, except you can choose not to have internet explorer do that, with versign you can't.

    I would'nt exactly call reducing choice inovative at all.
  • Verisign clearly want to innovate so much that their homepage contains 87 HTML errors, check the w3c validator [w3.org], in less than 300 lines of code.

    That has to be some sort of innovation record!

  • by ron_ivi (607351) <[moc.secivedxelpmocpaehc] [ta] [ontods]> on Monday October 06, 2003 @10:06PM (#7149754)
    Cringley said it best, in his article Why Business Isn't as Fun as it Used to be [pbs.org] where he writes on innovation vs invention.

    ' But there is another issue here, one that is hardly ever mentioned and that's the coining of the term "innovation." This word, which was hardly used at all until two or three years ago, feels to me like a propaganda campaign and a successful one at that, dominating discussion in the computer industry. I think Microsoft did this intentionally, for they are the ones who seem to continually use the word. But what does it mean? And how is it different from what we might have said before? I think the word they are replacing is "invention." '

    Perhaps Verisign will help the world see through this concept of "innovation" and let us get back to inventing things.

  • by nacturation (646836) <nacturation@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Monday October 06, 2003 @10:08PM (#7149765) Journal
    Personally, I think this kind of innovation is a Good Thing. However, the innovation should be done at the application level, not at the infrastructure level. Let applications determine how to handle the case where a DNS query returns NXDOMAIN. But don't break the infrastructure and force all applications to go south just because you want a web browser (1 port out of 65K) to handle DNS differently.

    </rant>
  • McLaughlin casts the debate over sitefinder in terms of 'innovation' versus the status quo and threatens that stifling 'innovation' will lead to a weaker internet.

    Great. Where can I send donations to their lobby group/PAC that is lobbying for repeal of the DMCA/UCITA/Palladium/whatever and fighting for our digital freedom?

    What? They have no such group? They don't really want to strengthen the internet in general? Just the parts that profit them?

    Phew, glad that was cleared up.

  • by alexandre (53) on Monday October 06, 2003 @10:37PM (#7149947) Homepage Journal
    decentralizing the DNS system... or at least promoting alternatives 8)

    http://www.opennic.unrated.net/ would be a good start.
  • Innovation (Score:5, Funny)

    by dmiller (581) <djm AT mindrot DOT org> on Monday October 06, 2003 @11:09PM (#7150112) Homepage
    VeriSlime's sitefinder is innovation is much the same way that the SARS virus is evolution.
  • by Guspaz (556486) on Monday October 06, 2003 @11:09PM (#7150114) Homepage
    They break all sorts of applications that rely on proper DNS behaviour, and typosquat EVERY domain name, and they call it innovation?

    Hell, there isn't even an entry in sitefinder for every domain, (Try searching for my site, novasearch.net, on sitefinder. No hits.), so it's not even good at the task they purport it to be for!
  • by phorm (591458) on Monday October 06, 2003 @11:23PM (#7150186) Journal
    threatens that stifling 'innovation'

    I could make a special-toed boot specially designed for kicking people such as McLaughlin in the arse. I will of course, have features that makes it optimal for aiming directly towards that great rectal divide.

    Then, when McLaughlin tries to press charges, I'll just state that my device is an innovation, and just because it damages the way he works doesn't mean it isn't useful to somebody...

    Of course, I wouldn't have the power to force the masses to use such a device... but really I think that a swift-kick-in-the-arse is probably a lot more useful for many people than sitefinder ever was.
  • by The Gline (173269) on Monday October 06, 2003 @11:37PM (#7150251) Homepage
    ...so much as the sneaky excuses.

    I'm reminded, distantly, of a hoax that took place in the art world in the Sixties. A modern art exhibit was set up at a small downtown (NY) gallery, with about forty paintings, and an art critic for one of the major rags came down to check it out. He started doing this gush to the curator full of the usual ArtSpeak jargon, and then the hoax was revealed: the paintings were all the work of a two-year-old boy. There was a pause, and then the critic shifted gears as if nothing had happened and started gushing about the purity of a child's untarnished perspective!

    The more I live, the more I see that people will do absolutely anything to pretend that everything is just hunky dory, even if it means being a consummate horse's ass. VeriSign are just the latest heirs to ass-dom.
  • by Dark Coder (66759) on Monday October 06, 2003 @11:48PM (#7150306)
    Sigh...
    Anyone who has used it in the last three weeks knows that claim to be false."


    Need I say that anti-spam applications, networked printers, mail forwarders and mobile IP users were hung because of these highly-modified genetic root servers?


    Should I point out that Mae-West traffic actually shot up because spammers were having a wonderful and rare day for unfeterred spamming?


    He must be smoking crack...

  • Internet Explorer (Score:5, Interesting)

    by truesaer (135079) on Tuesday October 07, 2003 @12:31AM (#7150556) Homepage
    The funny thing here is that Internet Explorer already suggested alternatives for mistyped domains on their special 404 page. And their suggestions, based on my use, were usually spot on.


    In contrast, sitefinder's suggestions were never even close and it broke protocols to boot. Amazing here that Microsoft could actually have come up with the right solution. I never liked their error pages, but it was only because the error number wasn't immediately obvious. If they had just added "404" or "505" in big letters I would have been happy with them.


    Someone ought to tell Verisign that they didn't innovate anything. Microsoft already had this idea, and they did it way better.

  • by release7 (545012) on Tuesday October 07, 2003 @01:15AM (#7150765) Homepage Journal
    Note: This post has been censored for your reading pleasure.

    Jesus, what else is this a**hole going to say? It'd be great if they could say what's really on their mind:

    "Profit is our number one motivation. F*ck the Internet, f*ck standards, f*ck all you others who get in the way of us making a profit. We are duty bound to make money for our shareholders and we aren't going to apologize for it. Now f*ck off."

    Instead, we all pretend they are making valid arguments when they talk about "service to the community," "innovation," and all the other "we care" b*llsh*t they spew. The bottom line is that when anything gets in the way of the bottom line, they will f*ck their own mothers to get ahead. The sooner we realize it the better.

Help me, I'm a prisoner in a Fortune cookie file!

Working...