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!

Google Mystery Domain Reroutes 3% of Net Surfers

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the 3%-of-a-lot-is-still-a-lot dept.

Google 140

An anonymous reader writes "A new Google domain — 1e100.net, a nod to the company's famously misspelled name — is now the net's 44th most visited site. Google says the domain is used to 'identify servers' on its internal network, hinting that reverse DNS plays a role. The domain was registered in September and launched in October, about the same time Google unveiled Spanner, a new addition to its backend infrastructure designed to shift loads automatically among its data centers."

cancel ×

140 comments

1e400.net? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31060010)

"1e400.net, a nod to the company's famously misspelled name"

Could someone explain that one cause I really don't get it or see the nod.

Re:1e400.net? (5, Informative)

eihab (823648) | more than 4 years ago | (#31060042)

Wrong summary. I emailed the editors a minute too late I guess.

The domain is 1e100.net:

Domain Name: 1E100.NET
      Registrar: MARKMONITOR INC.
      Whois Server: whois.markmonitor.com
      Referral URL: http://www.markmonitor.com/ [markmonitor.com]
      Name Server: NS1.GOOGLE.COM
      Name Server: NS2.GOOGLE.COM
      Name Server: NS3.GOOGLE.COM
      Name Server: NS4.GOOGLE.COM
      Status: clientDeleteProhibited
      Status: clientRenewProhibited
      Status: clientTransferProhibited
      Status: clientUpdateProhibited
      Status: serverDeleteProhibited
      Status: serverRenewProhibited
      Status: serverTransferProhibited
      Status: serverUpdateProhibited
      Updated Date: 13-oct-2009
      Creation Date: 25-sep-2009
      Expiration Date: 25-sep-2019

Re:1e400.net? (1)

lavardo (683333) | more than 4 years ago | (#31060428)

I won't be surprised if someone purchases 1e400.net this morning!

Re:1e400.net? (3, Informative)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 4 years ago | (#31060712)

Domain Name: 1E400.NET
      Registrar: ENOM, INC.
      Whois Server: whois.enom.com
      Referral URL: http://www.enom.com/ [enom.com]
      Name Server: NS1.NONEXISTE.NET
      Name Server: NS2.NONEXISTE.NET
      Status: clientTransferProhibited
      Updated Date: 08-feb-2010
      Creation Date: 08-feb-2010
      Expiration Date: 08-feb-2011

It just has a picture of a very nice rainbow, over some island city.

Re:1e400.net? (1)

jeffstar (134407) | more than 4 years ago | (#31060836)

that is honolulu

Re:1e400.net? (1)

rabiddeity (941737) | more than 4 years ago | (#31061448)

Wrong summary. I emailed the editors a minute too late I guess.

Slashdot has editors??? As in, people who look at the stories and fix errors before (or after) hitting the submit button? You must be new here.

Re:1e400.net? (-1)

Potor (658520) | more than 4 years ago | (#31060132)

Some thoughts about the domain name itself. Google probably wanted to use 10e100, since that character string means 10 to the 100 power - in other words, a googol. Not sure why they settled for 1e100, because that only comes out to a measly 1.

Source [seroundtable.com]

Re:1e400.net? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31060176)

Some thoughts about the domain name itself. Google probably wanted to use 10e100, since that character string means 10 to the 100 power - in other words, a googol. Not sure why they settled for 1e100, because that only comes out to a measly 1.

You're wrong. 1e100 is 1 * 10^100

"e" is not the same as "^"

Re:1e400.net? (5, Informative)

Jimmy_B (129296) | more than 4 years ago | (#31060212)

XeY means X*10^Y, not X^Y.

Re:1e400.net? (3, Interesting)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31060142)

It's right in the article..

But on closer inspection, the domain is obviously Google's, chosen with a mathematician's wink at the search giant's famously misspelled name. This mystery domain is 1e100.net. "1e100" would be scientific notation for 10 100, a one followed by 100 zeros, also known as a googol.

Besides, google-analytics.com is way too easy for people to remember to block. Now change it to 1e100.net and they probably get a lot more data.

Re:1e400.net? (0, Flamebait)

jo42 (227475) | more than 4 years ago | (#31060524)

How about EPIC? Evil Privacy Invading Corporation.

Let the down-mods begin...

Re:1e400.net? (-1)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 4 years ago | (#31060162)

1e100 is the same as 1^100, which is a Googol, or if you're a google founder, spelled "Google"
 
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googol [wikipedia.org]
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google [wikipedia.org]

Re:1e400.net? (1)

dorre (1731288) | more than 4 years ago | (#31060218)

1e100 is the same as 1*10^100, which is a Googol, or if you're a google founder, spelled "Google"

LMCTFY (let me correct that for you)

Re:1e400.net? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31061920)

GFYWASYRPA (go fuck yourself with a shillelagh you redundant posting asshole)

Re:1e400.net? (2, Informative)

Bromskloss (750445) | more than 4 years ago | (#31060234)

1e100 is the same as 1^100, which is a Googol, or if you're a google founder, spelled "Google"

I hope that was a typo.

  • 1e100 = 1E100 = 10^100 = a googol
  • 1^100 = 1

Re:1e400.net? (1)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 4 years ago | (#31060344)

1t's a recursi^e typ0, to keep with the theme of the article :)

Re:1e400.net? (0, Redundant)

azav (469988) | more than 4 years ago | (#31060342)

1^100 = 1.

Re:1e400.net? (2, Funny)

vlm (69642) | more than 4 years ago | (#31060382)

Could someone explain that one cause I really don't get it or see the nod.

Someone screwed up because it should have been 4e100.net, aka "four googol" aka "for google"

Re:1e400.net? (1)

Cyberwasteland (1467347) | more than 4 years ago | (#31060556)

They mistyped it there, it's actually a 1e100.net Which is a reference to 1e100 (1 x 10) or a "googol", the name of which google is derived.

Re:1e400.net? (5, Funny)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 4 years ago | (#31060690)

>Could someone explain that one cause I really don't get it or see the nod.

After a long mescaline trip Eric Schmidt and Larry Page decided the company should be called LEE00 (pronounced lee-ooooo) and the l33t-speak domain 1e400.net was born.

After poor reception from investors and users alike a memo was written up asking all employees to suggest a new domain name. A young intern, who later committed suicide in a bizarre self decapitation with a chainsaw, suggested that 1 to the 400th power was actually a gogool. Schmidt and Page were impressed and after accepting how less fun it is to say gogool than "leeee-oooooo" decided to change the name. Because its difficult to trademark a real word, they just went with "google." 1e400.net is a nod to the good old leeee-ooooo days.

*actually its 1 to 100th power

Re:1e400.net? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31061338)

The word 'bizarre' is redundant in your sentence -- there has never been a non-bizarre suicidal chainsaw decapitation. Although your post is awesomely funny and clever, it's of course not true. I say this for those naive enough to believe it.

Re:1e400.net? (2, Informative)

Chapter80 (926879) | more than 4 years ago | (#31061412)

A young intern, who later committed suicide in a bizarre self decapitation with a chainsaw, suggested that 1 to the 400th power was actually a gogool.

*actually its 1 to 100th power

Of course, 1 to the 100th power is the same as 1 to the 400th power, is the same as 1.
You mean TEN to the 100th power.

Re:1e400.net? (1)

Inda (580031) | more than 4 years ago | (#31062138)

I can't believe everyone has this wrong.

"le hoonet" (hoo-nay) is French for "the indexer". It's a reference to the cult French film, which is ultimately a remake of The Matrix.

Re:1e400.net? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31061922)

have you gone to 1e400.net? it's a web cam

So that would be... (2, Funny)

jra (5600) | more than 4 years ago | (#31060018)

a Quoogle?

Re:So that would be... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31060170)

Bing!

1e400 or? (3, Informative)

tehniobium (1042240) | more than 4 years ago | (#31060020)

TFA says 1e100 as in...a gogol.

Re:1e400 or? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31060124)

A Russian writer? This thing gets weirder and weirder.

Re:1e400 or? (-1, Redundant)

Potor (658520) | more than 4 years ago | (#31060140)

1e1=1

1e10=1

1e100=1

Re:1e400 or? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31060230)

Have you really never seen 'e' notation before? This is the second time you have posted this nonsense.

1e100 is standard programming-speak for 1*10^100, which is a google.

In a number context, 'e' is not the power operator. ('^' means power.) 'e' means, 'times 10 to the power of'. So XeY, when X and Y are strings of digits, means X*10^Y

Re:1e400 or? (-1, Troll)

tehniobium (1042240) | more than 4 years ago | (#31060248)

Remember to think before you post ;)

Re:1e400 or? (0, Redundant)

IceCreamGuy (904648) | more than 4 years ago | (#31060254)

1e100=1

Scientific notation does not work like that.
1e1 = 1*10^1 = 10
1e10 = 1*10^10 = 10000000000
1e100 = 1*10^100 = Slashdot doesn't let you write 100 zeros in a row. You get the idea.

Re:1e400 or? (1, Troll)

loupgarou21 (597877) | more than 4 years ago | (#31060262)

1e1 = 1*10^1

1e10 = 1*10^10

1e100 = 1*10^100

1e10 is not the same as 1^10

Re:1e400 or? (0, Redundant)

Stooshie (993666) | more than 4 years ago | (#31060266)

Erm, ... no! In what universe does 1x10^100 (or 1e100) = 1?

Re:1e400 or? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31060294)

What is this? Everyone is coming up with incorrect corrections?

1e1 = 10 (for real)
1e10 = 1 followed by 10 zeroes.

Re:1e400 or? (0)

Potor (658520) | more than 4 years ago | (#31060334)

my bad

Blocked in my hosts file. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31060022)

I've just blocked it in my /etc/hosts file. I don't really care what sort of games they're playing here, but the fuck if I'm being part of them.

Re:Blocked in my hosts file. (3, Informative)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 4 years ago | (#31060112)

You realize that it's just infrastructure, right? You might as well block images.google.com for all the good it will do you. It's just a domain name.

Re:Blocked in my hosts file. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31060564)

It's deceptive, which of course makes it look underhanded, even if it may not be. When I saw it appearing in my firewall logs, I blocked it immediately.

They could have easily used spanner.google.com, or loadshift.google.com, or balancer.google.com, or something else that isn't so suspicious.

Re:Blocked in my hosts file. (2, Insightful)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 4 years ago | (#31060642)

Well, you really showed them. Next time they roll out a new domain name, I am sure they will check with you first to see if you approve.

And the domain name is actually the numerical equivalent of a googol, which makes it clever, not underhanded. Just because you didn't get it doesn't make it sneaky.

Re:Blocked in my hosts file. (1)

The Clockwork Troll (655321) | more than 4 years ago | (#31061966)

I'm with you, brother. That's why I never run optimized executables - no symbol tables?? What are you hiding, son? Unrolled loops?? Kindly step the fuck back, thanks.

Re:Blocked in my hosts file. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31060808)

I did notice that I was seeing "Waiting for 1e100.net" on a few non-Google sites. I put it as 127.0.0.1 in hosts and noticed some of these sites started loading faster.

Accuracy? (2, Insightful)

6031769 (829845) | more than 4 years ago | (#31060026)

Presumably that should be 1e100.net? And presumably it isn't actually "rerouting" anything. Hmmm.

Re:Accuracy? (5, Interesting)

Xest (935314) | more than 4 years ago | (#31060452)

This is what happens when people read The Register.

I don't even know why Slashdot links there anymore, it's become such a stupid site, it really is worse than Fox News nowadays.

The issue is that The Register really isn't a news site anymore, it's a pressure group passing itself off as a news site. You'll note many of Andrew Orlowski's articles there for example are full of outright lies, often there is no opportunity to comment on his stories, but when there is they are heavily moderated such that any disagreeing viewpoint is not accepted through. Even if they are, Andrew himself generally deletes them shortly afterwards. He claims it's because he likes correspondence direct to his e-mail, but obviously that misses the point of a comments section which is that it enables discussion with peers on the topic. As seen by his constant congratulations to himself in his articles- things like "I was the only one anyone in the audience applauded", "I was first to unveil the news on this" it's pretty clear what his real problem is, he's an attention seeker, and worse an insecure one, who can't take criticism even when he bluntly knows he's not being honest.

But it's not just Andrew Orlowski, Google is one of The Registers targets of hate along with Wikipedia and some others, as such you cannot treat anything coming from there with any real seriousness. They constantly attack Jimmy Wales for example, and whilst he's far from perfect, let's face it, he's contributed far more to the web with the creation of Wikipedia than anyone at The Register ever has or likely ever will.

It wouldn't be so bad if they weren't so hypocritical, they for example launch attacks on climatologists with the arguments of them not being open enough, not being willing to accept criticism, and then in the very same articles they go and block comments either altogether or from anyone dissenting from their viewpoint, anyone pointing out errors in their analysis and so forth. Point out enough errors in their articles, even if you keep yourself reasonable about it, even if you backup your point with perfectly legitimate sources and so forth and eventually your account will just break and you'll get a "Sorry, there was a problem logging in, please contact the webmaster" - any attempt to get your account "fixed" is simply ignored, it's quite clear what their game is. But worse, they sometimes even give the impression they allow dissent with things like "Andrew's mailbag", they will post dissenting comments here, but they'll be very carefully selected, and swamped with counter-comments attacking back, with no right to reply again.

Really, this Google domain is no big deal- it is after all no different to the likes of Akamai domains and so forth which spuriously appear but which no one questions in the same. It's really just a case of The Register making a story where there isn't one, trying to make Google look evil when there's really no big deal. The result is though we get people like have posted here on Slashdot in response to this article, who fall for The Register's agenda, shit bricks and start blocking said hosts when there's really no need unless you're so paranoid that you probably shouldn't be on the internet anyway.

The Register is as agenda based as Fox News and really does not deserve the slightest bit of attention, it's best to just leave it to rot as an "also ran" in the internet's list of IT news sites.

Re:Accuracy? (1)

ilikejam (762039) | more than 4 years ago | (#31060582)

This message brought to you by The Inquirer [theinquirer.net]

Re:Accuracy? (0)

jimwelch (309748) | more than 4 years ago | (#31060706)

You attack Fox News as agenda based, so are any of the big networks honest? NBC, CBS, ABC, BBC, MSNBC, climatologists? Please advise as I would like to see and hear honest news. What is the definition of honest news? It usually depends on the listener. The only honest think you have to say is the Register and Andrew Orlowski can't take criticism.

Re:Accuracy? (3, Insightful)

Xest (935314) | more than 4 years ago | (#31060934)

Well you're right, there's no such thing as truly unbiased news.

But certainly there are extremely biased sources, and it's certainly the case that Fox is one of those sources.

The likes of the BBC are generally much more unbiased, because they exist without needing to answer to shareholders and in fact, have a legal duty in many cases to avoid bias. Whilst you do get cases of individual bias with the BBC, they are just that, and multiple reporters with multiple views will post on the same topics, meaning the likely hood of some inherent bias is much lower than in places like Fox, where people are employed specifically with the goal of a pre-defined agenda.

So yeah, it's hard to find an entirely objective source, but suggesting the likes of the BBC for example are on par with Fox and The Register in terms of bias and zealotry of their agenda is really quite ignorant. The BBC for example does not censor comments for starters based on anything other than a set of objective rules which are clearly laid out and adhered to. They have a proper process for ensuring that anyone who believes their moderation was unfair can appeal.

Re:Accuracy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31061038)

Everyone has something of an agenda, but Fox "News" really is something else. The first time I found the channel (I was visiting US on a business trip) it was enough entertainment for the evening in my hotel room. I couldn't believe it wasn't a joke. I'm sure there are equally amusing characters and programs on other channels but that was just non-stop entertainment...

My personal opinion is that you can't get much less fair or balanced than that.

Re:Accuracy? (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 4 years ago | (#31061512)

The Register is as agenda based as Fox News and really does not deserve the slightest bit of attention, it's best to just leave it to rot as an "also ran" in the internet's list of IT news sites.

But... but... I agree with them so often, they must be right ;)

Re:Accuracy? (1)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31061670)

The Register has never been an usual news site. I take it you just haven't understood the site.

btw, they don't just hate Google or Wikipedia. They hate everyone.

wtf? (1)

iCantSpell (1162581) | more than 4 years ago | (#31060032)

Is this on a qwerty board? How do you 1e400 trying to type google?

Re:wtf? (5, Informative)

Spad (470073) | more than 4 years ago | (#31060150)

It's supposed to be 1e100.net, i.e. 1x10^100 or a Googol.

1e400.net? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31060036)

A new Google domain — 1e400.net, a nod to the company's famously misspelled name

Surely you mean 1e100.net, as the original report states.

(Note; summary will probably be corrected by the time most people see this)

Re:1e400.net? (1)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 4 years ago | (#31060302)

(Note; summary will probably be corrected by the time most people see this)

Doesn't look like it. I guess people will first need to see the moon before the Slashteam corrects the summary...

do no evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31060050)

rerouting traffic is only adware activity until google starts doing it

err (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31060052)

1e400 or 100?

400? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31060064)

Looks like googol grew by quite a few orders of magnitude.

Re:400? (1)

Filip22012005 (852281) | more than 4 years ago | (#31060748)

Looks like googol grew by quite a few orders of magnitude.

Binary orders of magnitude?

Why with all the mystery? (5, Insightful)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 4 years ago | (#31060072)

Why not just call it 1e400.google.com? Screwy domain names with numbers in them make me think of ads, spam, or malware. I'd be a lot more likely to allow javascript/cookies and not put the site in Adblock or the hosts file if it was clearly a Google domain.

Re:Why with all the mystery? (1)

Apotekaren (904220) | more than 4 years ago | (#31060184)

Uuuh, I'd block it anyway unless blocking it caused any disruption in my use of Google's services. Google-analytics, for one. Script-blocked a long time ago. Just in case.

Re:Why with all the mystery? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31060366)

Cross-site scripting.

Re:Why with all the mystery? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31060404)

That pissed me off too. I about dropped dead when I looked at my network traffic and saw all the open connections to 1e100, and feared I had some kind of awful virus running amok on my network.

Re:Why with all the mystery? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31060886)

Screwy domain names with numbers in them make me think of ads, spam, or malware..

Congrats! You broke the code. It turns out google does ads, and spam and malware often come along for the ride.

Jimmy, tell him what he's won....

The googol network? (2, Insightful)

srussia (884021) | more than 4 years ago | (#31060110)

From TFA:As pointed out by Sebastian Stadil, founder of the Silicon Valley Cloud Computing Group, 1e100.net translates to "Google Network".

Tha would be the googol network. Why not: -o-o-o-.net? (That would be a goggle with an extra "o".)

Re:The googol network? (1)

gzipped_tar (1151931) | more than 4 years ago | (#31060174)

-o-o-o-.net is neither RFC1123- nor RFC952-compliant.

Re:The googol network? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31060214)

Or like we normal people like to say it, it is an invalid domain name.

Re:The googol network? (2, Funny)

srussia (884021) | more than 4 years ago | (#31060420)

-o-o-o-.net is neither RFC1123- nor RFC952-compliant.

With longer straps perhaps?

l-o-o-o-l.net

Re:The googol network? (1)

gzipped_tar (1151931) | more than 4 years ago | (#31061456)

lol, that's like, well, a bra for the three-boobed erotic dancer in Star Trek V: The Final Frontier.

Lazy (or penny pinching?) Slashdot geeks (4, Funny)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 4 years ago | (#31060242)

Such an egregious spelling mistake, and nobody yet has snatched up the name and directed it to goatse.fr? Come on guys, you can do better than that!

Re:Lazy (or penny pinching?) Slashdot geeks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31060376)

As you saw in the thread, hardly anybody knows what a googol is, whereas everybody knows what "Google" is.

3% (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31060370)

Of my lettrs were routed by 1e100.net.

Its not a "site" per se... (4, Interesting)

nweaver (113078) | more than 4 years ago | (#31060408)

Really, what google has done is change their reverse information for a LOT of their stuff to point to 1e100.net rather than google, since Google these days is so much more than google: you have youtube, blogger, analytics, doubleclick, and a host of others.

The 1e100.net name is nice because it allows admins etc to go "this is GOOGLE" rather than "this is X" (which got assimilated by google).

Re:Its not a "site" per se... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31060484)

This is Google territory. You have 30 seconds to vacate the premises.

Slashdot helps (1)

wesw02 (846056) | more than 4 years ago | (#31060430)

I'm sure being listed on the front page of Slashdot will help push that domain up a few spots.

Re:Slashdot helps (4, Insightful)

ajs (35943) | more than 4 years ago | (#31060606)

You would be surprised how little impact that has these days. Slashdot continues to be popular with its core demographic, but that Internet has grown by orders of magnitude since being Slashdotted meant something. Now, if this had been posted to a World of Warcraft forum... ;-)

Re:Slashdot helps (2, Interesting)

jonadab (583620) | more than 4 years ago | (#31060798)

> Now, if this had been posted to a WoW forum... ;-)

Meh. Really the modern equivalent of the old slashdot effect these days is when the Google doodle returns your site as the first result. Hopefully your hosting provider doesn't bill by the megabyte...

Re:Slashdot helps (0, Offtopic)

socsoc (1116769) | more than 4 years ago | (#31061008)

really, it was easier for you to retype and abbreviate gp's post than accurately copy/paste it with quote tags?

Re:Slashdot helps (3, Informative)

aywwts4 (610966) | more than 4 years ago | (#31061382)

Slashdot really has stayed still while the internet changed and matured around it, other than the absence of some memes and Y2K stories the slashdot of '99 looks much like today. (For better or worse) ...

We are the tech Luddites!

And yes "Slashdotting" is such and incredibly dated and egocentric word dating back to when our population was something to be impressed with, that day has long since passed, the few times we do "slashdot" a real server everyone gets all giddy, and I just don't have the heart to tell them that it was fine when it hit our front-page, but it just hit the front of reddit and digg.

(If you don't recall what it looked like, this is what ten years of progress on a cutting edge geek/tech site looks like http://web.archive.org/web/19991013054427/http://slashdot.org/ [archive.org] )

Re:Slashdot helps (1)

jpmorgan (517966) | more than 4 years ago | (#31062306)

You're very right, and that's sad. If you don't think /. is full of luddites, just look at the reaction to any new piece of technology. Half the comments will be moaning about it and complaining that the old way is better.

Re:Slashdot helps (1)

V!NCENT (1105021) | more than 4 years ago | (#31062462)

What else should it look like, full of Adobe Flash?

It's functional, although it could need some performance tweaks in places that I know shit about...

In other news... (2, Funny)

srussia (884021) | more than 4 years ago | (#31060492)

W-U03B1.net ranks in the top 1e100 domains, according to Alexa.

Re:In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31060818)

Great news indeed. Slashdot at its best, once again.

Very mysterious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31060516)

Google says the domain is used to 'identify servers' on its internal network, hinting that reverse DNS plays a role.

Some fucking mystery. Identifying servers is what reverse DNS does.

what a load of crap (1)

timster (32400) | more than 4 years ago | (#31060544)

I imagine someone pointed out that a million bucks a year of bandwidth costs could be saved by using a shorter domain name. What a non-story.

And what's this about Google being "misspelled"? That's the stupidest thing I ever heard. "Google" is a great brand name loosely based on a word that would have been a terrible brand name.

Re:what a load of crap (4, Funny)

proslack (797189) | more than 4 years ago | (#31060628)

I thought it was a contraction of "Go ogle" as a nod to the amount of porn viewed on the internet each day.

Re:what a load of crap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31060740)

1e100.net = one e-loo network = one electronic toilet network. I like the name, it suits them.

Not misspelled (2, Interesting)

joeyblades (785896) | more than 4 years ago | (#31060580)

Googol is the name of a number, Google is the name of a company. How could anyone claim that the company misspelled their own name?

Re:Not misspelled (4, Informative)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31061834)

Because they originally did:

"Sean and Larry were in their office, using the whiteboard, trying to think up a good name - something that related to the indexing of an immense amount of data," Koller writes.

"Sean verbally suggested the word 'googolplex' [a one followed by a googol zeros], and Larry responded verbally with the shortened form, 'googol'....Sean was seated at his computer terminal, so he executed a search of the Internet domain name registry database to see if the newly suggested name was still available for registration and use.

"Sean is not an infallible speller, and he made the mistake of searching for the name spelled as "google.com," which he found to be available. Larry liked the name, and within hours he took the step of registering the name 'google.com" for himself and [fellow co-founder] Sergey [Brin]."

And... so what? (1)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 4 years ago | (#31060840)

What's the significance of this? Why should I care? Article neglected to mention that.

"Oh wow, Google registered a domain name and now they're using it. THAT IS DEFINITELY NEWSWORTHY!!!"

Re:And... so what? (1)

NeoSkandranon (515696) | more than 4 years ago | (#31060926)

Read up a bit at all the paranoiacs freaking out, there may be the significance if you tend to be a suspicious dude.

On the other hand, if your personal tinfoil cranium coating is sufficiently loose as to not restrict circulation, it's just a notice of google being slightly clever with a domain name.

Re:And... so what? (2, Informative)

Xest (935314) | more than 4 years ago | (#31061070)

Rather than repeat myself, see my post here:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1541436&cid=31060452 [slashdot.org]

Effectively it's a non-story, hyped up into a story by typical The Register anti-Google trolling.

I don't like a lot of things Google does, particularly Schmidt's "done nothing wrong, got nothing to hide" style comments, but really, non-stories like this are just utterly stupid and as they're part of The Register's agenda based bullshit wagon, don't even deserve to be entertained.

Re:And... so what? (0, Flamebait)

hduff (570443) | more than 4 years ago | (#31061298)

What's the significance of this? Why should I care? Article neglected to mention that.

You have read Slashdot before, yes?

"Slashdot" is a proto-Sanskrit word meaning redundant, useless, confusing, wildly inaccurate, poorly documented bumfuggery.

For an example, please read this this entire thread, which makes FARK appear erudite and meaningful by comparison.

Um, no, not that funny... (0)

rickb928 (945187) | more than 4 years ago | (#31061162)

A mathematician mibht misspell 'google' as '1e100'.

And I hear tell some mathematicians have a sense of humor. But the rest mistake obsucrity for humor.

Just so you know (and you know who you are), obscurity is not inherently funny. And neither are you.

There are not 10 kinds of people in the world. There are only two. Your number base doesn't change that. Put them side by side and see.

So there.

Re:Um, no, not that funny... (1)

gtbritishskull (1435843) | more than 4 years ago | (#31062210)

They are talking about "google" being a misspelling of googol which is equal to 1e100. Just thought you would like to know.

Re:Um, no, not that funny... (1)

rickb928 (945187) | more than 4 years ago | (#31062316)

(I knew that. I can and did read. It's still not that funny)

79 comment about the scientific notation of google (4, Interesting)

terraformer (617565) | more than 4 years ago | (#31061522)

...and 1 comment asking what the article means to all of us. Not a single comment on why are they redirecting things through this domain.

Yup, this is /.

Re:79 comment about the scientific notation of goo (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 4 years ago | (#31062168)

Does that 79 comments include yours? We need accurate reporting on slashdot. Scientific principles are closely followed here! We obviously need a numerologist to pipe in to explain what's going on.

Nothing too new... (2, Interesting)

Qubit (100461) | more than 4 years ago | (#31061914)

I had to do some network analysis last year to try to track down the source of massive overload on our firewall. The domain 1e100.net came up a few times, and it took me a second before I figured out the clever naming choice.

I guess I never thought that the name was a big enough deal to be worthy of a whole Slashdot story.

Don't believe it. (2, Interesting)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 4 years ago | (#31061954)

At home, I run a squid proxy and all port 80 requests must go through it.

I checked the logs, which go back 8 weeks, and there is not a single instance of 1e100.net in them. It might be on an alternate port, but my personal browser is explicitly set to use the proxy.

Clearly Alexa sees the requests to this domain, but, Alexa only has information from people who have installed the Alexa toolbar, so perhaps the 1e100.net domain is somehow only used by people who have the Alexa toolbar?

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...