Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

127 comments

First post! (1)

nicholas22 (1945330) | about 3 years ago | (#36714554)

Wasn't this posted a few days ago?

Re:First post! (4, Funny)

migla (1099771) | about 3 years ago | (#36714600)

Wasn't this posted a few days ago?

Nope. I'm pretty sure you just posted it. Maybe you posted a dupe comment, but it's not the same exact one, just identical.

Re:First post! (1)

impaledsunset (1337701) | about 3 years ago | (#36714622)

You're doing it wrong, Russell...

Re:First post! (2)

formfeed (703859) | about 3 years ago | (#36714872)

Wasn't this posted a few days ago?

Nope. I'm pretty sure you just posted it. Maybe you posted a dupe comment, but it's not the same exact one, just identical.

Actually, a few days ago there was another comment that said" First post!". Maybe just naming yours "First response" or "First comment" would help you not to confuse yourself with other people.

Re:First post! (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 3 years ago | (#36714666)

I don't know about a few days ago, but I've seen "first post" for years, so it wouldn't surprise me.

I just hope they don't block co.ck (5, Funny)

ZP-Blight (827688) | about 3 years ago | (#36714556)

That wouldn't be cool.

Re:I just hope they don't block co.ck (1)

DeusExMach (1319255) | about 3 years ago | (#36714724)

Total violation of the Code of Conduct for Bros...

Re:I just hope they don't block co.ck (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36714836)

Total violation of the Code of Conduct for Bros...

Wasn't BrOS/2 killed by Microsoft back in the day?

Re:I just hope they don't block co.ck (4, Funny)

interval1066 (668936) | about 3 years ago | (#36714912)

Yeah... living my life via a code invented by a tv show, that'll be the day. Live long and prosper, y'all.

Re:I just hope they don't block co.ck (0)

Xemu (50595) | about 3 years ago | (#36717664)

Proper granite slabs are really the prefered long-term storage facility for such codes.

Re:I just hope they don't block co.ck (2)

gnapster (1401889) | about 3 years ago | (#36714726)

Is that one of those new penis-shortening URL services that I've been hearing so much about? I have an idea for those that will produce shorter penises than any other service. Once I settle on a good domain (is.pen doesn't seem to be taken), I will be looking for a reputable email marketing company to get the word out.

Re:I just hope they don't block co.ck (-1, Redundant)

KingMotley (944240) | about 3 years ago | (#36714986)

Afraid of getting co.ck blocked are ya?

Re:I just hope they don't block co.ck (2, Funny)

aliquis (678370) | about 3 years ago | (#36715598)

Check out these cool pens:
Pen Island [penisland.net]
"Your pen is our business"

Re:I just hope they don't block co.ck (4, Funny)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | about 3 years ago | (#36718330)

Everyone's favourite TV tech support site, http://www.expertsexchange.com/ [expertsexchange.com]

The rest, from http://www.dba-oracle.com/oracle_news/news_fun_urls.htm [dba-oracle.com] :

http://www.kidsexchange.com/ [kidsexchange.com] - Kids clothing
http://www.whorepresents.com/ [whorepresents.com] - Celebrity agents
http://www.therapistfinder.com/ [therapistfinder.com] - Site to find therapists
http://www.powergenitalia.com/ [powergenitalia.com] - Italian power generator supplier

Re:I just hope they don't block co.ck (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36716642)

Well, I'm sure many sites in that domain are riddled with viruses, after all.

Re:I just hope they don't block co.ck (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36716978)

That wouldn't be cool.

Yeah, that'd be a dick move.

First they came (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36718366)

First Google came for the co.cc,
and i didn't speak out because i wasn't on co.cc.

Then Google came for the co.ck,
and i didn't speak out because i wasn't on co.ck.

yada-yada yada

Then Google came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Re:I just hope they don't block co.ck (1)

KillAllNazis (1904010) | about 3 years ago | (#36718586)

Looks like they haven't: http://trashbat.co.ck/ [trashbat.co.ck]

Well (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36714560)

Thats a bit harsh isn't it. I'm sure there is at least one legitimate .co.cc domain

They'll migrate elsewhere (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36714814)

When it comes to the justice system, some people say that it's better to allow a hundred guilty people go free than imprison one innocent person. I'm not sure if I agree with that but it's a valid point of view. However, there is no reason to apply similar principle for search engines. When the primary function is to serve the googlers and the quality of results go significantly up when blocking that domain, that's what should be done. I don't even think that there are that big ethical concerns about the significant drop in traffic for the legitimate businesses. They can migrate to TLDs that aren't as full of malware crap (Yeah. It'll take some time before their search rankings become as good as they were but that's still relatively small amount of collateral damage)

Google spammers are getting nastier and Google must take more drastic actions to protect the quality of the service.

Re:They'll migrate elsewhere (5, Insightful)

lucm (889690) | about 3 years ago | (#36715188)

> some people say that it's better to allow a hundred guilty people go free than imprison one innocent person. I'm not sure if I agree with that

If one day you are the one innocent stuck with 100 guilty people maybe you will change your mind. If you want a second opinion on this, ask the mother of Freddy Krueger.

Re:They'll migrate elsewhere (1, Insightful)

fyngyrz (762201) | about 3 years ago | (#36715352)

You're not keeping up. In today's society, it's "fuck them, as long as it isn't fuck me."

As Pastor Martin Niemöller rightly pointed out (here [wikipedia.org] ), eventually it will become "fuck me", but that requires looking ahead further than tomorrow, and again, today's society doesn't encourage that kind of thinking.

This is a nice, safe way for the authorities (in this case, Google... a self-created and -appointed vector for network search) to do the work and cast a safety net over the incompetent; they are absolutely guaranteed to go along. The only way they'd like it better is if it was done by an act of law.

Re:In Today's Society (2)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | about 3 years ago | (#36715408)

Better to accuse 100 innocent people than let one guilty one go free!

Re:In Today's Society (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36716344)

Better to accuse 100 innocent people than let one guilty one go free!

Quote from the manual of MAFIAA, isn't it?

Re:They'll migrate elsewhere (1)

halowolf (692775) | about 3 years ago | (#36716924)

Actually we appointed them for our searches. I can just as easily change a few options in my browsers to make Google go away.

Re:They'll migrate elsewhere (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36715430)

>Completely ignoring impossibility of certain knowledge

Re:They'll migrate elsewhere (3, Insightful)

sFurbo (1361249) | about 3 years ago | (#36717504)

Why is 100 the number? Why not 1000? or 10? How many guilty people must we accept go free to make sure that one innocent doesn't get punished?
If it is infinitely worse to punish one innocent, we should just close down the police and courts, as we can never be 100%, totally, without doubt certain of anybodies guilt.
If it is zero, we should start putting everybody in prison, to make sure we get everybody who is guilty.

I think we can agree that none of these scenarios are good societies, so we need to aim for something in between. But what level of doubt should be enough for not punishing a person? Until that question is answered, the phrase about a hundred guilty going free is just words that sounds nice.

Re:They'll migrate elsewhere (2)

amRadioHed (463061) | about 3 years ago | (#36718178)

Well yes, that phrase is just words that sounds nice. You could pick the numbers 10, 1000, or any other and it would work the same. The reason is because the number isn't important. It's just an illustration of the legal doctrine of presumed innocence. The doctrine itself doesn't aim for any particular ratio of imprisoned innocent to free guilty but the level of doubt required to punish someone has been clearly established as "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Re:They'll migrate elsewhere (3, Insightful)

sFurbo (1361249) | about 3 years ago | (#36718502)

[...] the number isn't important. It's just an illustration of the legal doctrine of presumed innocence.

But the number IS important, it defines what level of presumption of innocence our judicial system has. This is a fundamental question, and yet is isn't defined anywhere. I would assume that different people found different levels of doubt reasonable, so not defining it just leads to arbitrary justice, depending on what the particular jury or judge finds reasonable.

Re:They'll migrate elsewhere (2)

hairyfeet (841228) | about 3 years ago | (#36715904)

I probably shouldn't respond to an AC, but here goes: If this were a few "rogue" sites then yes, your point would be valid. But when you are talking the VAST majority on a domain, something to the tune of over a half a million sites of malware and spam? Then any legitimate company would be wise to head for the hills and should probably thank Google if they didn't already know.

To complain this might actually hit an innocent is like saying the one Nigerian prince who really does want to give someone money is being discriminated against thanks to the spam filters. This isn't just some accidental hacking here, this bunch has been courting the malware and phishing groups similar to that colo that got shut down last year.

According to the full posting Google gave they and several others have complained repeatedly only to get ignored. If you are a slum lord repeatedly warned about all the crack dealing and you just go back to counting your money? Well don't be surprised or shocked when the buildings get damaged when the cops raid the place. It isn't like there isn't plenty of places offering cheap hosting, the big difference is this one didn't care how many complaints they got for bad behavior. Bad behavior can have consequences in the cyber world as well as the real, and they have reaped what they have sown.

Re:They'll migrate elsewhere (2)

davidwr (791652) | about 3 years ago | (#36716174)

one Nigerian prince who really does want to give someone money

Who is this Nigerian prince of which you speak? I wish to make his acquaintance.

Re:They'll migrate elsewhere (2)

Neil Boekend (1854906) | about 3 years ago | (#36717432)

Send me $10K to show me you're serious. Then I'll get you his contact data.

Re:They'll migrate elsewhere (-1, Offtopic)

Alex Belits (437) | about 3 years ago | (#36717876)

hairyfeet posting popular opinions, whoring for karma again, preparing for his BATTLES FOR THE GLORY OF MICROSOFT!

Re:They'll migrate elsewhere (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | about 3 years ago | (#36718124)

Have you taken your meds today Alex dear? I guess not since we are talking about a SPAMMING DOMAIN where NOBODY but your crazy tinfoil hat wearing ass has mentioned ANYTHING about operating systems? Are you REALLY that fucking paranoid? Or does the thought of being next to my large southern manmeat get you so wet between your legs you gotta break out the tweezrs and hope I respond?

But don't worry my little bitch, when OS talks come around I'll be happy to point out those wonderful links that you never seem to be able to respond to, you know, the ones that make you wet yourself? Ones like...oh say Dell has to run their own repos because Linux shits itself and breaks drivers otherwise [theinquirer.net] or your hero Linus, in his own words mind you, saying Plans? We don't need no steenkin plans! [kerneltrap.org]

So please, keep it up my little bitch. I do so love and consider it a public service to point out hypocrisy and bullshit whenever and wherever I find it. the fact that you can't even contemplate that a retailer would try your precious turd sandwich and find that it is shit? That it MUST be some right wing conspiracy involving Bill Gates and the illuminati? Just shows what a bunch of crazy fuckwits hang around the Linux "community". Oh and for those that want to see Alex here is a pretty good likeness [penny-arcade.com] . Enjoy!

We may be at 101:1 or higher (1)

davidwr (791652) | about 3 years ago | (#36716130)

People argue over the "acceptable ratio" of "number of guilty people who should be allowed to go free in exchange for not imprisoning one innocent person" but whatever Google's thoughts on what the ratio should be in searches, .co.cc is at least at "N+1:1" and over the limit.

I for one would be willing to be the one innocent person who went to prison for up to life in exchange for 100,000 actual criminals guilty of a charge similar in severity to the one I'm innocent of NOT going free because the standard of proof was set impossibly high. In other words, I'm willing to throw away the rest of my life to save society from the likely cumulative repeat offenses of 100,000 guilty people and the likely new offenses of others who see that it's easy to beat the system. I am NOT, however, willing to go to prison when I'm innocent to keep only 10 guilty people in prison. I'm not sure where the "n" in "n:1" is for me but it's over 10 and less than 100,000. If each person reading this thinks about it, they will realize they have their own "limit." For some, that limit may be very low, at or below 1. For others, it may be high, perhaps a billion or more.

For the death penalty I'm not willing to execute anyone until I'm 100% sure of guilt. I am, however, willing to convict and, if the charge and circumstances warrant it (which is very rare - we are talking genocidal war crimes, not typical murder), give a provisional death sentence then hold off on the execution until all questions of guilt are settled.

Re:Well (5, Informative)

kai_hiwatari (1642285) | about 3 years ago | (#36714840)

.co.cc is not an officially recognized second level domain. It is just sub-domains given out by a Korean company that owns the domain http://co.cc/ [co.cc] So, Google is actually removing just one domain with 11 million sub-domains. (source http://digitizor.com/2011/07/06/google-removes-cc-domains/ [digitizor.com] )

I see that domain a LOT from (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36716440)

http://www.malwareurl.com/ [malwareurl.com] (from their lists for populating HOSTS files).

* Search thru their databases & see what I mean (You can do a "trial membership" for free to do so).

Now, based on that experience here?

The MOST/MAJORITY TYPES OF TLD's I have seen populating a custom HOSTS file here (vs. adbanners, known bad sites/servers/hosts-domains, botnet C&C Servers + bogus DNS servers) are as follows:

---

.cn

.ru

.co.cc (the topic of the article no less)

.info

.uk

.net

.biz

.org

.in

.fr

.de

.tw

.jp

.eu

.ws

.it

.dk

.ch

.nl

.br

.kr

.pl

& of course, the ubiquitous .com...

---

(Again - That's since my starting one in 1997 to present, from 17 reputable & reliable sources for HOSTS file data & DNSBL's I convert over for HOSTS using domains/subdomains, only...)

APK

P.S.=> Currently, as of right now? I am @ 1,468,636++ & growing entries in said HOSTS file...

(Forcing me to turn off the limited size local DNS client in Windows (no such thing afaik in Linux though, I'll give linux that over Windows @ least), but so what?

The local diskcache kernel mode subsystem caches it after first request, & I read it up from a TRUE SSD (non-FLASH RAM, DDR2 instead on PCI-Express x4 bus))

...apk

Re:I see that domain a LOT from (0)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | about 3 years ago | (#36717516)

Trying to decide if you're for real or not. Every time I see one of your posts, I have the same mental discussion with myself.

Re:Well (1)

ralphdaugherty (225648) | about 3 years ago | (#36714970)

Thats a bit harsh isn't it. I'm sure there is at least one legitimate .co.cc domain

I think this domain was supposed to be for some small island but a Korean company owns it. And no, I don't think any of the 11 million subdomains of garbage spewed out by this Korean spammer is legitimate.

If there really is someone that ended up doing business with this company putting up a website with this domain they need to find a real ISP.

Re:Well (1)

AlecC (512609) | about 3 years ago | (#36718434)

.cc is the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. .co.cc is just a single, corporately owned, address within .cc. Any legitimate Cocos Islands company can get a .cc address for themselves; the islands are small enough that it would appear that they have quite reasonably decided they don't need a .co.cc subdomain. Google's action appears to me a reasonable reaction to a significant ill.

Re:Well (1)

ralphdaugherty (225648) | about 3 years ago | (#36718534)

I agree. Thanks for the info.

Re:Well (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36715060)

legitimate my ass, those stupid spam spitting bastards deserve it! Go gooooooooooooogle!

Re:Well (1)

1u3hr (530656) | about 3 years ago | (#36716956)

Thats a bit harsh isn't it. I'm sure there is at least one legitimate .co.cc domain

If it bothers them being excluded from Google, they can move to another free domain in 10 minutes. If you use a free domain you ave no security anyway. I've used one for several years for a single-issue website at cjb.net. But now they keep hassling me to reconfirm it every month. If I miss one of those, it's gone.

did anyone else read that phonetically ? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36714582)

Google blocks cock from search results.

Re:did anyone else read that phonetically ? (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | about 3 years ago | (#36715232)

did anyone else read that phonetically ?

No, we were all taught to read properly.

Re:did anyone else read that phonetically ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36715518)

No, we were all taught to read properly.

Because we all know that co.cc is a word that has a "proper" meaning.

Stop being an ass.

Re:did anyone else read that phonetically ? (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | about 3 years ago | (#36715540)

Because we all know that co.cc is a word that has a "proper" meaning.

So you admit, then, that 'cock' was a misreading of it.

Stop being an ass.

Take your own advice.

Re:did anyone else read that phonetically ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36715568)

unlike your mouth

Re:did anyone else read that phonetically ? (1)

Neil Boekend (1854906) | about 3 years ago | (#36717460)

It would be unwise to object to "legal" searches by TSA agents.

Continue, please! (1)

Seumas (6865) | about 3 years ago | (#36714588)

Now, please do the same for anything on that ripoffreport extortion site. Ooh, and anything ending in ehow.com or answers.yahoo.com or chacha.com or the other endless streams of bullshit content farm crapfests. Those we actually run into all the time, via google. I don't know when the fuck the last time was I ran into a co.cc link of any kind, via google. Probably never.

Re:Continue, please! (2)

ArchieBunker (132337) | about 3 years ago | (#36714610)

If you make an account and login to google it gives you the option of hiding domains but you have to visit them first for the hide option to show up. Someone also made a handy greasemonkey script if you want to go that route.

Re:Continue, please! (4, Interesting)

Seumas (6865) | about 3 years ago | (#36714674)

Problem is, it only allows you to blacklist 50 domains (or did, last time I used the feature).

I suppose suggesting google should block them is a bit harsh, but it'd be nice if they had a way to more appropriately rank them. The quality and accuracy and meaningfulness of the content deserves placement a few pages down; the only reason they have the top three or five results most of the time, is due to a more broad manipulation unrelated to the actual individual content. If the content was valuable (like wikipedia results), I'd have no problem with it rising to the top - even with a nudge by google as a judgement call.

Re:Continue, please! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36714748)

You can also use the optimizegoogle extension for FF to create an infinite amount of wildcard enabled filters, the only downside is that the extension doesn't work with the HTTPS version of google.

Re:Continue, please! (1)

alexandre_ganso (1227152) | about 3 years ago | (#36714782)

You can always edit your dns settings and direct those domains to, say, lolcats or whatever.

Re:Continue, please! (1)

Seumas (6865) | about 3 years ago | (#36714906)

Yeah, but isn't the point to improve the google customer/browsing/searching experience? Otherwise it'd be a wild west of search engines with the caveat that you should manipulate the results however you want on your end, for a better result set. Things like the ability to block domains per-user are nice for one-off circumstances, but things like ehow/yahoo.answers/chacha and similar are of no use to anyone and certainly don't belong in the top results anymore than a malware site does.

Re:Continue, please! (3, Informative)

Seumas (6865) | about 3 years ago | (#36714884)

Actually, it looks like they've raised the limit to 500 domains. That's a lot more reasonable. There's more than 50 that I need to block for a better experience, but I probably couldn't come up with near 500 regular offenders.

Re:Continue, please! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36714718)

Now, please do the same for anything on that ripoffreport extortion site. Ooh, and anything ending in ehow.com or answers.yahoo.com or chacha.com or the other endless streams of bullshit content farm crapfests. Those we actually run into all the time, via google. I don't know when the fuck the last time was I ran into a co.cc link of any kind, via google. Probably never.

Yahoo Answers isn't a content farm. It's a legit place where users post general questions and other users answer, and there's no "sign up to see the answers" bullshit. It'd be like removing Stack Overflow from search results.

Places like eHow and Experts Exchange are different stories. (I have no idea what chacha is. Never seen it in any results.)

Re:Continue, please! (2)

sakdoctor (1087155) | about 3 years ago | (#36714822)

By what criteria are you saying that Stack Overflow is the same tier as Yahoo answers, but eHow and ExpertSexchange are content farms?

Yahoo answers is borderline retarded. I've seen better quality questions and answers on 4chan.

Re:Continue, please! (4, Insightful)

Lehk228 (705449) | about 3 years ago | (#36714858)

Expert Sex Change is a pile of shit and ehow is a waste of space

Re:Continue, please! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36716106)

The quality of the questions and answers isn't what's being measured here, it's the intent of the website. Sites like eHow mass-produce content on their own just to drive themselves up to the top of search results so they can rake in the ad revenue... Yahoo Answers and Experts Exchange are legitimate question-and-answer sites.

Re:Continue, please! (1)

anonum (1057442) | about 3 years ago | (#36717662)

All computer-related technical searches on Google need to be accompanied by -site:www.experts-exchange.com
All GNU/Linux related searches need to be accompanied by -Ubuntu
Too bad the definition of legitimacy apparently doesn't cover the absence of laming and/or ignorance...

Re:Continue, please! (3, Funny)

lucm (889690) | about 3 years ago | (#36715208)

> Yahoo Answers isn't a content farm. It's a legit place where users post general questions and other users answer

I love Yahoo Answer, especially when people take the time to reply "I don't know".

Re:Continue, please! (1)

CrazyDuke (529195) | about 3 years ago | (#36715464)

...and that gets selected as the best answer. Although, my personal favorite are the compulsive internet nannys that post woo and appeals to authority for responses in loo of an actual answer.

Re:Continue, please! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36716598)

In lieu [wiktionary.org]

Re:Continue, please! (1)

CrazyDuke (529195) | about 3 years ago | (#36718056)

Thank you. I was looking for that.

Re:Continue, please! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36714780)

answers.yahoo.com actually sometimes has useful information. Usually not because the people that answer questions on there are morons but it's a legit site.

ehow on the other hand, yeah, ban that fucking linkfarm site.

Re:Continue, please! (1)

perryizgr8 (1370173) | about 3 years ago | (#36716782)

actually y answers is mostly useful.

Good business is where you can find it (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36714660)

I can't feel too much animosity towards malware writers as long as they exploit the mindless windoze using masses.

Karma whoring (I'm doing it wrong) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36714760)

From Wikipedia: .cc is the TLD for for Cocos (Keeling) Islands, an Australian territory.

Note: "co.cc" is not an official hierarchy; it is a domain (www.co.cc) owned by a company who offers free subdomain redirection services.

This company offers two free co.cc domains, as well as bulk discounts for ordering as many as 15,000 domain names at a time. These domains are often used by spammers to create spam blogs, or "splogs," often with nonsense names like "extensitiesdiminutal.co.cc" and the like.

Suggestions the co.cc site pops up for free domain names to register include "bestantivir" and "autoloan," belying its true use - the creation of spam domains. Step-by-step instructions for spammers to use free hosting services like Blogger, Windows Live, and Google Apps for Nonprofits are included on its homepage, under the heading "Mapping with co.cc".

From http://co.cc/
Accounts 5,750,326
Domains 11,415,995
Records 7,231,075

You an report 'abuse', including spam or phishing websites @ http://www.co.cc/prosecution/prosecution.php

Terrible news (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36714880)

The just shows how easy it is for a handful of actors to censor large portions of the Internet.

Re:Terrible news (2)

sakdoctor (1087155) | about 3 years ago | (#36714900)

Not large portions of the internet. Just a single spam domain name.

Re:Terrible news (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36715660)

You can still go there

You'll still find out about them in your email

Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36715024)

It's about time Google and ISPs start completely blocking this crap. Content filters on firewalls and in security software can also help. It won't eliminate every piece of malware out there, but it's better than the wild west going on now. Time for some rough Judge Roy Bean justice.

Next to go: (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | about 3 years ago | (#36715028)

The di.cc sub-domain, as well as the Icelandic pen.is sub-domain.

Re:Next to go: (1)

belg4mit (152620) | about 3 years ago | (#36715064)

But where shall I hosht my forum about the merits of shwords vershus writing implements Alex?

Re:Next to go: (1)

Bacon Bits (926911) | about 3 years ago | (#36716628)

Please phrase your question in the form of an answer.

this FP for gNAA (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36715032)

here, but what is[ plainly states that

Maybe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36715252)

I want a penis extension :( Google is always stepping on the little guy...

Another domain needs blocking (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36715304)

Now if they would just block experts-exchange.com

As someone who fights abuse for a living... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36715364)

Bravo, Google. Bravo. co.cc is the Nazi party of the internet. While I'm sure there are some nice people in there somewhere, the actions that the rest of them take ruin the world.

Well then.. (2)

Shadyman (939863) | about 3 years ago | (#36715474)

co.cc blocked by Google. Ouch.

oh no (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36715714)

co.cc blocked!

Safe search (2)

Monoman (8745) | about 3 years ago | (#36715920)

Heck setup the safe search options so I can pick which TLDs are in/out of my search results. I'm pretty sure it would be fine to eliminate some TLDs completely and not miss much.

Re:Safe search (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36716594)

You can easily accomplish that with -inurl:[tld]
Example: co.uk -inurl:co.uk
Removing the -inurl would yield sites with the co.uk TLD.

Re:Safe search (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36717160)

Wall your own garden!

co.cc =/= .com (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36716318)

I think it's pretty clear why google is blocking it, because it's incredibly convenient for spammers to fake out a .com you have the .co and the top's of the cc could be seen as a m if the person viewing the link can't see the bottom or right-most part of the domain.

Bulk free hosting is on the way out because you get a better site for 1.99/mo from crap-service bulk hosting sites like dreamhost, and have someone to hold accountable.

"Today" or last week? (2)

uofitorn (804157) | about 3 years ago | (#36716482)

From el reg (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/06/google_cans_11m_dot_co_dot_cc_sites/):

Google dumps all 11+ million .co.cc sites from its results By Kevin Murphy Posted in Hosting, 6th July 2011 09:30 GMT

Another parasitic linkspamming blogger (3, Insightful)

1u3hr (530656) | about 3 years ago | (#36716570)

"tekgoblin writes": i.e., plaigiarised from Engadget [engadget.com] . But Engadget plagiarised it from ExtremeTech [extremetech.com] .

The ORIGINAL FUCKING STORY IS ON THE REGISTER [theregister.co.uk]

For fuck's sake, stop this linking to every scumbag linkspamming plaigiarising blogger who submits his crappy blog to scam some ad hits.

What took them so long? (2)

Tony Isaac (1301187) | about 3 years ago | (#36717070)

Blocking sites from Google search results is about the same thing as shutting them down completely.

Judging by how well they block spam in GMail, Google should be able to do a pretty good job of blocking bad Web sites.

I wish they had started blocking malware sites long ago!

co.cc (3, Interesting)

mpe (36238) | about 3 years ago | (#36717564)

Interesting that the article says that co.cc is being managed by a company in Korea. When CC is The Cocos Islands and Keeling Islands, a territory of Australia. (Christmas Island, CX is also an Australian territory.)
co.ck would be The Cook Islands, which is a semi-autonomous part of New Zealand.

Re:co.cc (2, Funny)

Afty0r (263037) | about 3 years ago | (#36718386)

co.ck would be The Cook Islands, which is a semi-autonomous

Hunh hunh hunh, you said "semi".

bad news (-1, Offtopic)

sunny8512 (2290522) | about 3 years ago | (#36717632)

Google Blocks co.cc From Search Results this is bad news for many people,this will effect so much http://bit.ly/pF8cVx [bit.ly]

Next step... (1)

tbird81 (946205) | about 3 years ago | (#36717866)

.info, and then all the other crap TLDs that ICANN keeps approving.

free domain = spam (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36718258)

First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Balls (1)

hh4m (1549861) | about 3 years ago | (#36718426)

This is BS. g00gle engineers are being lazy. clowns

And we will tolerate this because? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36718526)

By definition this is a major search engine removing our freedom to see sites that they deem as wrong or harmful to us the consumer. How is this not a slippery slope? When do we object, when Slashdot is added as a blocked destination? When Google games the results to erase their competition from search results? When Google makes a religious decision to not display Muslim sites in search results?

Question - should search engines not be user tunable content neutral engines?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...