Instead of typing "www.amazon.com" or even "amazon.com", I tend to just type "amazon" and hit ctrl+enter. It took awhile for me to get used to doing that, but now I find it to be quite the convenience... I'd recommend it to any IE users out there.
Seattle P-I cover story on draft rumors: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002046072_draft25.html
Also, since I'm already off-topic but still current, a new GTA:SA trailer at Fileplanet: http://www.fileplanet.com/files/140000/146023.shtml I haven't seen it yet-- still in the download queue.
I'm curious to know why you look down on that? I actually feel somewhat the opposite. I think its a bit obnoxious and presumptuous to assume that just the 2nd level domain name will resolve to a webserver. One of the purposes of having 3rd level domain names/hostnames is to indicate their use. So, it seems more than reasonable to assume that you should include the protocol/type of server you're connecting to somewhere in the FQDN.
Well, FB3, the drawback to that is when someone does get an unusual URL with a 3rd-level domain, they put www in front of *that*, too. I nearly had to slap my boss's hands to get her to stop typing www.ftp.domain.com when we were accessing a vendor's ftp site*. Okay, ftp's not the most common form of URL, but what about access.wa.gov or europa.eu.int-- loads of government sites use third-level domains and www.3rd.domain.com doesn't always work (okay, I checked, and it does work on those two).
Mostly, though, I'd like it if people would stop gingerly selecting parts of their homepage URL and typing whatever in. The time you save in deleting the whole thing and not retyping the unnecessary http:// could add up to, I dunno, time enough to smoke one more cigarette before you die. Hmm, bad example...
* Geez, if only more vendors and businesses used FTP instead of trying to email the most gargantuan files, especially since there are all sorts of options now to make ftp-use friendler if not totally transparent. That, or more people would know how to use it the hard way.
Couple thoughts:
-ctrl-enter is a neat trick...it's always http://www. and .com , right? It doesn't do any history lookup I mean...
-I understand the geek side of the argument that it's presumptuous to assume "no third level domain is web", but given how predominant the web is for random people contacting you, especially over http port 80...and how many syllables "www" is to say...
-LAN3, do disagreement on people thinking they're saving time by hacking the current URL rather than just typing (esp w/ rosser's ctrl-enter trick)...but FTP, I dunno...historically I've had more problems getting a solid FTP connection to [random site] so that when I see "download via HTTP / download via FTP" as options I always choose the former
Oh, and re: draft...sure it might be election time scaremongering. On the other hand the administration wouldn't admit it if it wasn't before an election, so you have to think about the situation, not about what's being said on either side.
And Dick Cheney saying we'd need a crisis "on the scale of World War II before I would think that anybody would seriously contemplate the possibility of going back again to the draft" does NOT reassure me, given A. they think Iraq is part of the "war on Terror" and B. how big they think the "war on Terror" is.
Well, there's certainly some election scaremongering going on re: the draft, because I've seen (thought not received) the email that's been passed around the blogs, and it's absolutely loaded with lies and distortions about is supporting the draft.
Frankly it would take a major reversal by the administration and most of Congress, not just the GOP, to get a draft going. I think you're holding out some sort of weird anti-hope of this happening.
As for FTP, I'd like it if users could drag a file into something that would transparently upload it (or share it, as appropriate) and give them, on the spot, an FTP link that they can send.
It's true that getting a file from a download site tends to be more accessible via http than ftp, but I suspect that's because ftp servers host all sorts of desireable things, and usually max out their bandwidth and user-limit before an http server. And the latter's also likely to be the newest, fastest machine they can afford, whereas you take what you can get for file-service because nearly anything can do the job.
LAN3: I have a bit of a utility for something like that that I run on my servers...not drag and drop, but the normal Windows browse button. (Basically a wrapper for the "upload" tag tied in with some CGI to make links...) I could set something like that up for friends if they wanted, either on their own "I can run perl cgi" serverspace or even my own...
There are several problems with FTP. One, it's a pain to support through NAT and firewalls. Sure, it's possible, but trying to FTP to a computer behind a NAT is ... fun.
Two, it *is* easier to just email a file (attachments eeeeeevil, but try to convince people of that) than to move the file to an FTP server (if one is even available). People are used to sending stuff via snail mail, and sending files via attachments in email is just a logical extention of that (not that I agree with that, but there you go). And most people *don't* have access to a server to store files where friends/family can get to them (which explains the popularity of picture sites and what not).
It took me years to understand all the brou-ha-ha over peer-to-peer file sharing (I started on the Internet in the early 90s, when *every* computer *was* a peer, and you *could* run an FTP server right on your desktop); it's a way to share files from your desktop in an environment with NAT and firewalls (and a way to search for files too).
Actually I never got too into P2P, just a touch of napster back in the day. Is P2P good at letting someone else find something from YOUR computer in particular, and/or stopping other people from seeing it as well, or do you usually just toss it into the big mix of files and try to give it a unique enough name that a search finds it?
For server-positive people, I think a URL is almost as friendly as an attachment. (Much friendlier for me, because my homebrew webmail doesn't seemlessly do attachments)