On Wed, 5 Feb 1997, Randy Cassingham wrote:
in the subject line: "what, no .sex?!
that's exactly what i thouht, and here's a copy of a
conversation that i had with a friend:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
[me]
> > so, i wonder how long it will be before they add
> > ".sex" to the list.
[friend]
> I think that's just what IAHC (btw, pronounced "eye-hack") is trying
> to avoid.
[me]
interesting. (i would say "stupid" but i didn't follow the discussion.)
it seems to me that having a top level of ".sex" would make it real
easy to screen for those *hot* sex sites or screen against those
nasty, repugnant sex sites. now, if you're a parent and you see
"http://random.firm"; you're pretty clueless as to where your kid
might have been whereas "http://random.sex"; would alert you to
the fact that it's time to have that birds and bees talk.
Len
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
