When all
dot-com companies existed in full power (late 90's), none of us could actually
use them (because of our lazy dial-up modems), now that we could use them they don't exist. "Which leads me to think that there might be another dot-com flourishing just around the corner."
Is Moby right?
posted by nandop
on Aug 28, 2003 -
21 comments
ICANN disses the
the dot. The guy who runs the
Internet Multicasting Service teamed up with the guy who runs the
Internet Software Consortium and submitted a proposal to mange the .ORG registry. ICANN's conslutants [sic]
dumped on the proposal (300KB PDF) claiming it is among the worst proposals
from a technical standpoint. Mind you, ISC produces the software that runs the DNS and actually operates root and top-level servers. And ICANN thinks they lack the technical mojo? Wow! Are we all ready to admit that ICANN is completely corrupt and beyond saving? More info
here. (via
IP)
posted by chipr
on Aug 31, 2002 -
12 comments
What ever happened to ultraprosperity? This 1999 article written on the middle of dotcom stocktopia may make you laugh, cry or keep scratching your head, at least. Now, where's the "ultraprosperity" we were promised when we need it the most - right now- us balancing in the verge of recession, burst bubbles and nonstop layoffs?
posted by betobeto
on Aug 4, 2001 -
8 comments
Buffett calls Internet investing "a big trap" If only many investors would have listened to Mr. Buffett a few years ago. Today, in Omaha, Buffett said, "But I think the idea that you could take any business idea and turn it into wealth on the Internet is just wrong." Common sense strikes again.
posted by shackbar
on Apr 29, 2001 -
14 comments
Kozmo's website is back up but this time with an interesting memo:
". . . any rental item you do not return by April 16,2001 will be deemed a purchase and your credit card will be charged the full retail value of the item."
the site came back up yesterday. not much notice for returns . . .
posted by christian
on Apr 17, 2001 -
9 comments
Disney will finally shut down Go.com Guess I wasn't the only one to think Go was a bad idea. Ever since Disney started doing the Go thing, their Disney.com site went from useful to down-right nasty. They might as well have called it goaway.com. I just hope what they mean by streamlining is take away the crap and make this stuff useful. The move was praised by Wall Street analysts. "Good riddance"
posted by jdiaz
on Jan 30, 2001 -
7 comments
Another one bites the dust.. - Riffage is dead. Long live Riffage. Just as well. I never liked their webdesign anyway, but that's a matter of personal taste. I hate to see another soldier for
"uncharted territories" fall prey to reality.
posted by ZachsMind
on Dec 8, 2000 -
1 comment
DotComFailures Lives Up To Its Name! May I use this occasion to jumpstart a meme for a new acronym: T.O.F.I. - Too Obvious For Irony.
Also notable for the article's use of F***edCompany.com's full name, but then, didn't a rumor find its way into this very forum that FC and DCF were related?
posted by wendell
on Sep 13, 2000 -
2 comments
Oh, now this is just great. Going into bankrupcy, the most valuable property that a lot of failed dot-coms have is all the information they've collected about their customers in the mean time, like names and addresses and phone numbers and credit card numbers and purchasing patterns and loads of other stuff. In order to appease creditors, three of them are actively trying to sell off their databases right now. What makes that interesting is that they had previously promised never to reveal that information to anyone.
posted by Steven Den Beste
on Jun 29, 2000 -
10 comments
Am I nuts or is it possible that
Hell.com could become one of the web's most valuable addresses?
posted by wendell
on Apr 25, 2000 -
3 comments
