×

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!

Google Acquires G.co Domain

CmdrTaco posted more than 2 years ago | from the letters-are-money dept.

Google 133

dkd903 writes "Google has announced that they have acquired a new domain – g.co. They said, 'We’ll only use g.co to send you to webpages that are owned by Google, and only we can create g.co shortcuts. That means you can visit a g.co shortcut confident you will always end up at a page for a Google product or service. There's no need to fret about the fate of goo.gl; we like it as much as you do, and nothing is changing on that front.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

133 comments

Feet first into the meat grinder (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36810902)

Father-of-four was conscious when he fell into machine Coworkers watched in disbelief as it ripped his legs off Investigation launched by health and safety bosses Michael Raper, 24, was due to marry in February

A 26-year-old sausage factory worker suffered a grisly end when he slipped and fell feet first into a meat grinder which chewed off his legs and killed him.

Father-of-four Michael Raper was trapped from the waist down for two excruciating hours after he become entangled in the huge auger at the Bar S Foods plant in Lawton, Oklahoma.

Amid gruesome scenes co-workers watched in horror before frantic emergency workers managed to cut the machine in half and free him.

Mr Raper was taken to hospital but died the following day.

The aunt of Mr Raper's fiancee, who he was due to marry in February, told KFOR-TV: 'He slipped and went into the machine. He was still conscious at the time so I can imagine the agony he was in, and he lost both of his legs.'

Lawton Fire Department Lt Steve Thornton spoke of the terrible sight that greeted his team when they arrived.

He said they found Mr Raper, who was in charge of cleaning the machine, trapped and added that it took a further hour and 45 minutes to free him.

'His legs were caught in an auger,' Lt Thornton told OKNEWS.

'They used a forklift to stabilise the auger while cutting it in two, lifted up the auger and pulled him from the machinery.

'It was basically disentanglement because the gentleman was trapped.'

An air ambulance was requested but Mr Raper was taken to hospital by land after the tragedy on Tuesday night.

He was treated at the Comanche County Memorial Hospital where he died on Wednesday from 'severe injuries'.

Mr Raper lived in Duncan with his fiancee and four children.

Ms Ferris added: 'He made my niece very happy,

'I just can't believe it. It just happened all so fast.'

In a statement released from the firm's Arizona headquarters, Bar S Foods chief executive Tim Day said they were 'mourning the loss of our friend and co-worker'.

He added: 'We extend our deepest condolences to the employee's family, and we are committed to helping them and employees get through this difficult period.'

A vigil was held in Mr Raper's hometown on Wednesday night where friends and family paid tribute.

An investigation into the incident is being carried out by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

Bar S Foods said they were co-operating and added that they have a positive record of safety practices.

in other words (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36810906)

they are utter cunts.

in the future ... (2)

jsnipy (913480) | more than 2 years ago | (#36810946)

... it will just be "g"

Re:in the future ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36811638)

It can already be just "g", but it would cost them about $250K

methinks overconfidence could spell doom... (1)

TWX (665546) | more than 2 years ago | (#36810948)

From the article:

We’ll only use g.co to send you to webpages that are owned by Google, and only we can create g.co shortcuts.

If I were them, in an era when there are organizations dedicated to doing things for t3h lulz, I wouldn't be advertising something as essentially unhackable. This is just an excuse to point some shortcuts to goatse, tubgirl, rickroll, or lemon party...

Re:methinks overconfidence could spell doom... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36811124)

They didn't make any claim of "unhackability", simply that like most traditional domains, only they own it, and only they determine what the names mean and link to. Contrast this to goo.gl where anyone can use it to make a link that points to anything anywhere, no hacking needed.

Re:methinks overconfidence could spell doom... (1)

stms (1132653) | more than 2 years ago | (#36811174)

They're not saying its unhackable they're saying g.co will only be used to link to Google services like Gmail or Google Maps and you won't be able to make links sites like Slashdot or Twitter. It's no more likely to be hacked than Google.com.

Re:methinks overconfidence could spell doom... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36811966)

Links to google are not necessarily safe. For example try visiting http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=malware&btnI

(ok this example is safe but hopefully it makes the point...)

Re:methinks overconfidence could spell doom... (1)

E IS mC(Square) (721736) | more than 2 years ago | (#36812244)

No. It does not make the point. In fact, it makes point against your point. What was your point again?

Re:methinks overconfidence could spell doom... (1)

Svippy (876087) | more than 2 years ago | (#36811508)

This is just an excuse to point some shortcuts to goatse, tubgirl, rickroll, or lemon party...

Not if I beat you to it and enter those websites myself! Hah! Who's laughing now?!

URL shorteners, a solution looking for a problem (2)

RussellSHarris (1385323) | more than 2 years ago | (#36810952)

Thanks largely to Twitter, a solution to a problem that doesn't exist (even text messages can be larger than 140 characters now on any modern phone).

Re:URL shorteners, a solution looking for a proble (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36811042)

It only doesn't exist if you've never used a phone before. Otherwise, you find long URLs hard to read, and on other mediums too (IRC, etc.)

Re:URL shorteners, a solution looking for a proble (1)

RussellSHarris (1385323) | more than 2 years ago | (#36811140)

The solution to long, hard-to-read URLs is not short, hard-to-read URLs.

In fact, as long as clicking them works, it really doesn't matter how long they are.

Most of the time, the beginning of the URL is the important part anyway. And if it's purposely obfuscated, maybe I just don't want to go there.

Re:URL shorteners, a solution looking for a proble (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36811440)

Can't you just write a bit of Javascript that runs in your browser so that the long URL is displayed however you want? That would seem like a less complicated solution to the problem of unwieldy URLs... a few lines of javascript as opposed to adding an entirely new domain that somehow encodes all the data in the unwieldy URL in a few short letters.

Re:URL shorteners, a solution looking for a proble (3, Insightful)

RussellSHarris (1385323) | more than 2 years ago | (#36811484)

Yes.

http://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=42+St+-+Port+Authority+Bus+Terminal+%4040.757308,-73.989735&daddr=350+5th+Avenue,+New+York,+NY+10118+(Empire+State+Building)&hl=en&ll=40.75267,-73.987169&spn=0.009899,0.016158&sll=40.752459,-73.987169&sspn=0.009899,0.016158&geocode=FTzobQIdmQGX-w%3BFUvGbQIdERKX-yFzdY-mZOGFkSlpdBGzqVnCiTEsrLWKpFygrA&mra=ls&dirflg=w&z=16 [google.com]

is much better than

http://tinyurl.com/3e38b5d [tinyurl.com]

1) In the former, I know what I'm clicking on at a glance: Google Maps.
1.5) I can also get a general idea of where in Google Maps it points.
2) Infinitely many such long links exist; not so with the short ones.
3) The long one can be shown as maps.google.com/maps?... [google.com]

Re:URL shorteners, a solution looking for a proble (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | more than 2 years ago | (#36811938)

a solution that works for "everybody"

i know that at least FireFox has an addon called Long Url Please (i have it installed) and i would bet that similar extensions exist for those browsers run by folks that would care about such things.

Re:URL shorteners, a solution looking for a proble (1)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 2 years ago | (#36812006)

And how many end users know how to edit HTML in their emails or even want to? And how many prefer to send their emails in plain text or Rich Text? Or what if I am texting it to somebody?

If somebody asked me for directions to my house - I would much rather send them something I can copy and paste straight from Google's site (which is likely how this will work) into my email that is less intimidating.

I'm curious - are you anti-zip files, too? I mean why zip 5 files into one when you could just attach all 5 to an email.

Re:URL shorteners, a solution looking for a proble (1)

RussellSHarris (1385323) | more than 2 years ago | (#36812220)

And how many end users know how to edit HTML in their emails or even want to? And how many prefer to send their emails in plain text or Rich Text? Or what if I am texting it to somebody?

The browser should shorten it. You shouldn't have to. But even if the browser doesn't, I'd prefer the long version.

If they trust you enough to click a short, random URL, they should trust you enough to click a long, "intimidating" one. Just set it off with enough white space that it's distinct from the text around it, or send it in its own message.

If somebody asked me for directions to my house - I would much rather send them something I can copy and paste straight from Google's site (which is likely how this will work) into my email that is less intimidating.

Actually, this works just fine, is much shorter, and is readable enough that I don't think it's intimidating:

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=from:42+St+-+Port+Authority+Bus+Terminal+@40.757308,-73.989735+to:350+5th+Avenue,+10118+(Empire+State+Building) [google.com]

I don't know why Google Maps won't just give you that, though.

I'm curious - are you anti-zip files, too? I mean why zip 5 files into one when you could just attach all 5 to an email.

There are a few reasons that it might make sense to zip them. Lots (more than 5), big (and easily compressed), sensitive (and needing encryption) spring to mind. Short of those, I don't see any reason to zip them.

Re:URL shorteners, a solution looking for a proble (2)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 2 years ago | (#36812974)

"If somebody asked me for directions to my house - " I tell 'em "Five miles north of Foreman, left on county road 116." If they aren't smart enough to find my house with those directions, I don't want them on my property. Hell, they might be dumb enough to do a swan dive into the well, or something, then sue me! And, it ain't just liberals who would do such a thing these days, either!

It's just mind boggling that people can't give or take directions anymore. Someone asked in a forum if the internet made you stupid. I wanted to argue "Not only NO, but HELL NO, the internet doesn't make you stupid!" Then, my kid walked through the room with his GPS positioning dohicky, apparently trying to figure out if he was home yet!

Re:URL shorteners, a solution looking for a proble (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#36811580)

I agree. What is wrong with that?
Not like you need to really read it, just be able to click it.If you do want to read it you still can.

Re:URL shorteners, a solution looking for a proble (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#36811336)

In fact, as long as clicking them works, it really doesn't matter how long they are.

Right, and shorteners are frequently used when communicating over non-clickable media (phone, print, etc.) Think of it as as technology bridge with decent ergonomics.

Re:URL shorteners, a solution looking for a proble (1)

Pope (17780) | more than 2 years ago | (#36812252)

They are a good thing in a good number of circumstances. The beef I have is that now sites are using custom URL shorteners on links back to their own site! Hell, I saw one yesterday that's a WordPress plug-in, providing short links to other entires on the same friggin' blog. WTF is the point? A competent blogger/writer is going to put the link on the related words and not just dump a URL.

The National Post has natpo.st, Ars Technica has (IIRC) arst.ch (not even with an 'e'). Now THAT is a solution without a problem.

Re:URL shorteners, a solution looking for a proble (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#36813160)

The service sending the SMS should shorten those URLs for you, keeping the full version (the 'href', not necessarily the text) for HTML enabled readers.

Forcing users to shorten them for everyone is a crude hack.

Re:URL shorteners, a solution looking for a proble (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 2 years ago | (#36811144)

Ever try to read someone a full-length URL over the phone?

What about typing out a full length URL when you don't have the option of copy-paste?

Or trying to copy/paste a multi-line URL in an IRC client while on your phone w/ a screen that's 2" wide?

Please don't make the all-to-common mistake of thinking a technology or idea has no point simply because it doesn't fit your own usage patterns.

Re:URL shorteners, a solution looking for a proble (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36811240)

Ever try to read someone a full-length URL over the phone?

Out of everyone, especially Google should understand the power of the phrase "just google it".

Re:URL shorteners, a solution looking for a proble (1)

RussellSHarris (1385323) | more than 2 years ago | (#36811364)

Ever try to read someone a full-length URL over the phone?

Why on earth would I ever need to do that? Telling them 3 keywords to search for on Google would probably be easier if I really needed to tell them verbally and for some reason couldn't just say "I'll e-mail/text you the link".

And as long as we're on the subject of readibility, a string of random, case-sensitive alphanumeric characters doesn't score high on the readibility quotient. At least now they usually let you try asking for a readable URL, which will probably already be taken and you'll get whatever random one it gives you.

What about typing out a full length URL when you don't have the option of copy-paste?

What? I thought even the iPhone supported that by now. *ducks*

Or trying to copy/paste a multi-line URL in an IRC client while on your phone w/ a screen that's 2" wide?

I'd just do like I always do in Facebook chat: try to give the person on the other end enough time to read your last message and then don't put anything before the URL in the message you're sending.

Really though the IRC client should be intelligent enough to shorten the displayed text for the link. Anything after ? is probably redundant. If you need to see the rest of the link, hover over it. (And yes, there should be a way to "hover" on a link, even on a phone.)

Re:URL shorteners, a solution looking for a proble (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 2 years ago | (#36812034)

Why on earth would I ever need to do that? Telling them 3 keywords to search for on Google would probably be easier if I really needed to tell them verbally and for some reason couldn't just say "I'll e-mail/text you the link".

Requiring you to get the email address over the phone in some cases, which can be even more tedious than a URL.

What? I thought even the iPhone supported that by now. *ducks*

Not that copy paste is impossible - but that sometimes it's awkward and can be easier to type a few characters, on any phone.

Really though the IRC client should be intelligent enough to shorten the displayed text for the link. Anything after ? is probably redundant. If you need to see the rest of the link, hover over it. (And yes, there should be a way to "hover" on a link, even on a phone.)

Possibly - and yet software has shortcomings. Saying that the tool to workaround them is not useless because the workaround shouldn't be necessary is not a valid argument.

Another use case - and one I mostly use it for - I have something I'm looking at on my phone, and want to get it on my desktop. Since I rarely use email on my desktop, simply sending myself the link is a lot more work than typing "b + 5 chars", since I have "b" as a shortcut to bit.ly. Ideally all of my devices could talk to each other - shared clipboard and notification. Until that happens, though, workarounds like the one above keep it relatively painless.

Re:URL shorteners, a solution looking for a proble (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36811406)

sure, blame sub par services for this.

hey, my phone doesn't have copy and paste, the fault is long urls!

I see a problem here, don't you?

sure, the problem is the phone without copy and paste!
dull, uhu?

Re:URL shorteners, a solution looking for a proble (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 2 years ago | (#36812060)

So what you're saying is - because software has shortcomings - any workaround to those shortcomings is invalid?

I see a problem here, don't you?

Re:URL shorteners, a solution looking for a proble (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 2 years ago | (#36813114)

Yeah, there is a problem here. What are the workarounds for the shortcomings of your underthought workarounds for the original shortcommings?

Also, what are the workarounds for the other thounsand of (way more common) use cases where one'd want copy/paste but doesn't have it?

Re:URL shorteners, a solution looking for a proble (1)

MrP- (45616) | more than 2 years ago | (#36811460)

The company I work for has a hyphen/dash in the URL. Trying to tell someone to go to "w w w foo DASH bar dot com" over the phone is a nightmare!

Them: "What's a dash?"
Me: "A hyphen"
or
Me: "A minus sign"
or
Me: "the key next to the 0"

And then they end up saying they got it but when I tell them to click a link they say they don't see it and I realize they went to www.foobar.com instead of www.foo-bar.com and I end up having to ask if they have an email address so I can send them a link instead.

Oh and then when I have to give out my e-mail address... sigh.

Re:URL shorteners, a solution looking for a proble (1)

RussellSHarris (1385323) | more than 2 years ago | (#36811724)

You work for experts-exchange? Yeah, it's too bad, really; ExpertSexChange.com doesn't even work any more.

I guess you could tell them to Google "ExpertSexChange", that works...

Re:URL shorteners, a solution looking for a proble (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36812228)

Yes. It presents no problems, and I'm not convinced that it's easier to read a random code to someone than a page name.

Re:URL shorteners, a solution looking for a proble (1)

AdamHaun (43173) | more than 2 years ago | (#36812956)

The solution to this problem is hyperlinks. Hyperlinks were also the solution to this problem a decade ago. On a computer, text doesn't have to be plain.

Never understood why Twitter didn't allow those. (Or why it's 140 characters instead of 160, for that matter.)

Re:URL shorteners, a solution looking for a proble (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#36811300)

Thanks largely to Twitter, a solution to a problem that doesn't exist (even text messages can be larger than 140 characters now on any modern phone).

I just wrote a letter yesterday (distribution to ~100 people) which includes a link to an online calendar. I don't control that infrastructure, and the original URL was about 80 characters long. I included an is.gd URL in the letter so people only have to type about 10 characters to see the calendar.

Why is this not a valid solution?

Re:URL shorteners, a solution looking for a proble (1)

RussellSHarris (1385323) | more than 2 years ago | (#36811598)

A letter? Like one of the kind that you mail? With real stamps?

Okay, I'll begrudgingly admit that if I had to inscribe a long URL in hieroglyphics on a clay tablet, a URL shortener might be helpful.

Why is this not a valid solution?

It's valid, it's just less than ideal. Much less than ideal.

Re:URL shorteners, a solution looking for a proble (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36811356)

No, text messages cannot be longer than 140 characters (or 160, or whatever the limit actually is).

Your phone just sends out multiple texts invisibly. Some phones stitch these together on the receiving end. Others do not.

Either way, it's more than a single text if you have a message limit.

Re:URL shorteners, a solution looking for a proble (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36811532)

its 1120 bits, which is 140 octets or 160 septets. In europe the networks use septets, in USA its apparently octets, not sure why though

Re:URL shorteners, a solution looking for a proble (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36812808)

It's the same in the US. 140 chars is the twitter limit, not the SMS limit.

There's a problem (1)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 2 years ago | (#36812400)

You don't know what URL shorteners are really for?

They're for tracking/counting, particularly for outbound links when your own httpd isn't where the link leads. (But also for whenever someone simply doesn't want to ask IT for the apache logs or wants to use a trendy new reporting tool rather than rely on the last couple decades worth of accreted tools (what can I say, people are funny).)

And the best thing about counting is that you don't have to count the cost. [slashdot.org]

Re:There's a problem (1)

RussellSHarris (1385323) | more than 2 years ago | (#36812462)

Outgoing link trackers don't necessarily shorten the links, and URL shorteners don't necessarily provide handy tracking tools.

They're similar, but still mostly-unrelated, things.

Re:URL shorteners, a solution looking for a proble (1)

scheveningen (305408) | more than 2 years ago | (#36813214)

google also uses a lot of one-character variable names in their javascript. Maybe at their scale, they do care about saving a few characters on each page they serve.

This is indeed news (4, Insightful)

Idimmu Xul (204345) | more than 2 years ago | (#36810954)

Please keep me updated on other domains Google buy, you've just made my day better.

Well, if they merged with Facebook (1)

alostpacket (1972110) | more than 2 years ago | (#36811208)

And got GoogFace.com or FoogleBook.com I think that would be.... um

Re:Well, if they merged with Facebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36812380)

FaceGoog?

Re:This is indeed news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36812308)

Similar to every point release Apple does that gets to the front page?

goog.gl was better (1)

blahbooboo (839709) | more than 2 years ago | (#36810986)

Seriously, g.co is lame. The Goog.Gl is so much more fun.

Why does anyone care about saving 3 characters of space!?

Re:goo.gl was better -- sorry for the typo (1)

blahbooboo (839709) | more than 2 years ago | (#36810996)

Darn, I mean goo.gl

And again, it's two characters different?? Who cares??

Re:goo.gl was better -- sorry for the typo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36811284)

Evidently because g.co is easier to remember.

Re:goo.gl was better -- sorry for the typo (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 2 years ago | (#36811930)

When I see goo.gl I'm trained to think it's goatse because I believe anyone can use that domain where Google stated that g.co will be for Google to use only.

Re:goog.gl was better (2)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 2 years ago | (#36811112)

G.co is much cleaner in its spelling. I think Goog.gl poses a huge security risk for users because someone could easily provide a malware link to something spelled remarkably similar to goog.gl. Honestly, a normal user is not going to "get" the concept of a TLD that is oh-so-clever in almost spelling out "Google." It is not intuitive. This is the same reason I never bothered with Delicious; I'm not going to play a guessing game as to where the dots could be ambiguously placed.

Re:goog.gl was better (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#36811218)

Case in point: the domain is actually goo.gl, not the goog.gl as you called it. GP messed it up too, so maybe he needs look no further than himself for the question to which g.co is the answer.

Re:goog.gl was better (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36811282)

Goo.gl doesn't feel horribly awkward to you? I've always hated that domain.

Re:goog.gl was better (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#36811358)

Why does anyone care about saving 3 characters of space!?

Because typing long strings of characters is boring, tedious, and error prone.

I know, I used to enter multi-page listings of machine code from Run magazine.

goog.gl Remains the Only Public Option (1)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 2 years ago | (#36811408)

The headline misled you. From the official release:

We’ll only use g.co to send you to webpages that are owned by Google, and only we can create g.co shortcuts. That means you can visit a g.co shortcut confident you will always end up at a page for a Google product or service. There’s no need to fret about the fate of goo.gl; we like it as much as you do, and nothing is changing on that front. It will continue to be our public URL shortener that anybody can use to shorten URLs across the web.

It sounds like only Google owned URLs will be available through g.co and the public will continue to use goo.gl so no need to debate this it's really a minor amount of links compared to what users produce.

Re:goog.gl Remains the Only Public Option (1)

basotl (808388) | more than 2 years ago | (#36811916)

I thought the summary did pretty well as it used most of your quoted text. I know this is Slashdot but people should at least read the summary before posting.

Re:goog.gl was better (1)

pz (113803) | more than 2 years ago | (#36811660)

Ever since Twitter, which puts a premium on brevity since it was originally based on the SMS limitation of 160 characters, having short URLs has become vital.

Re:goog.gl was better (1)

Pope (17780) | more than 2 years ago | (#36812276)

I dunno about that. The first few times I saw goo.gl addresses, I assumed they were for phishing. I still second guess them because it's easy to poison the URL.

Also on the news... (4, Funny)

ccguy (1116865) | more than 2 years ago | (#36811002)

Google hired the guy that made the original decision to use 2 digits for the year in dates back in the 60.

When asked, Joe Dinousaur said: "Well, if you think I saved memory then and it was 2 bytes per date, imagine what I can do now with millions of URLs. Back in the day I weren't able to convince Tim that he should stick to Pascal compatible strings in URLs, and now we're stuck with Kb long string in the URL. I believe with google's support I will be able to fix that horror."

Understatement (1)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | more than 2 years ago | (#36811014)

That means you can visit a g.co shortcut confident you will always end up at a page for a Google product or service.

I'm only confident that I will be tracked, photographed, my wifi details leaked and/or x-rayed. Privacy stops wherever you g.co?

Re:Understatement (1)

ccguy (1116865) | more than 2 years ago | (#36811046)

I'm only confident that I will be tracked, photographed, my wifi details leaked and/or x-rayed.

Yes. So nothing new really added to the system, it's just the convenience.

Which country? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36811030)

Which country has the .co TLD ?
My guess would be Colombia

I wonder how many 'g's (grand) the had to pay the drug lords there?

Re:Which country? (2)

omnichad (1198475) | more than 2 years ago | (#36811394)

Yeah. It's Colombia. Twitter has one, and I'm surprised Conan O'Brien hasn't bought Co.Co yet (his new nickname). I remember the Super Bowl ad where GoDaddy said that .co was the new .com. It doesn't make any sense to me.

Re:Which country? (1)

mimio (151368) | more than 2 years ago | (#36811626)

Although the .co TDL is owned by Colombia, it's being administered by a private company. Let's hope some of the money earned by the sale of these .co domains is reinvested in Colombia. My country needs it.

Re:Which country? (1)

Trilkin (2042026) | more than 2 years ago | (#36812568)

Considering how businesses behave in general... I'd say not likely=( Your country is fucked=(

g.cx to be bought (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36811032)

The most convientient way to access the most famous site on the internet.

Don't look at me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36811090)

I downvoted it. Why the hell is whatever Google buys news anyway?

I can't wait for .ly (Libya) to open up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36811180)

Not long after Team America:World Police get Khadafi out then maybe we'll be able to have goog.ly. Woo hoo. Maybe I'll jump in and register it myself and sell it to the googolplex for a cool $1M.

New TLD rules... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36811212)

I thought with the new anything goes TLD rules Google could just buy and make a .google or .g TLD?

mod Down (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36811272)

everything elsNe at this Point

ok, but ko (2)

lfourrier (209630) | more than 2 years ago | (#36811312)

try https://g.co/

g.co use an invalid security certificate

Certificate valide only for :
    *.google.com , google.com , *.atggl.com , *.youtube.com , youtube.com , *.ytimg.com , *.google.com.br , *.google.co.in , *.google.es , *.google.co.uk , *.google.ca , *.google.fr , *.google.pt , *.google.it , *.google.de , *.google.cl , *.google.pl , *.google.nl , *.google.com.au , *.google.co.jp , *.google.hu , *.google.com.mx , *.google.com.ar , *.google.com.co , *.google.com.vn , *.google.com.tr , *.android.com , *.googlecommerce.com

(error code : ssl_error_bad_cert_domain)

Re:ok, but ko (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36811674)

So what you're saying is that it is using a perfectly fine and working SSL certificate, which is most likely almost assuredly originating from Google themselves.

What charset? (1)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 2 years ago | (#36811464)

OK .. so I can trust g.co links, 'cause Google tells me that they are un-hackable (and I trust Google implicitly - more so than FB ;-) ) But what happens when those glyphs are rendered in different charsets (or what ever the correct terminology is) that look like g.co, but aren't what Google says are g.co? This just seems like a spoofing attack just waiting to happen.

good site (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36811614)

I want to follow your site and publish your site on Digg and twitter and Facebook,that's cause my friend see your site,you site is so nice, http://www.intelbd.com/ [intelbd.com]

I guess it's for those people who bookmark Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36812828)

Really, anyone who can't type gee-oh-oh-gee-el-ee-dot-see-oh-em in under a millionth of a second by now shouldn't be using the internet anyway.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...