Beware of URL Shorteners

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Aug 11, 2009.

  1. This is why I don't like introducing additional points of potential failure
    into the the chain <http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-330108.html>.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Aug 11, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarwebs geoff wrote:
    > Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >> This is why I don't like introducing additional points of potential
    >> failure into the the chain
    >> <http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-330108.html>.

    >
    > "Trim' ? Never heard of them - maybe that's why they've folded.
    >
    > Tinyurl seems to be just fine:
    > http://tinyurl.com/nllaku


    Couldn't agree more. I have the TinyURL preview plug-in installed in Firefox
    so I don't get any ugly surprises. "This URL re-directs to blah blah blah.
    Do you want to go there?" Great system.
    --
    Shaun.

    "Give a man a fire and he's warm for the day. But set fire to him and he's
    warm for the rest of his life." Terry Pratchet, 'Jingo'.
    ~misfit~, Aug 11, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Aug 11, 6:11 pm, "~misfit~" <> wrote:
    > Somewhere on teh intarwebs geoff wrote:
    >
    > > Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    > >> This is why I don't like introducing additional points of potential
    > >> failure into the the chain
    > >> <http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-330108.html>.

    >
    > > "Trim'  ?  Never heard of them - maybe that's why they've folded.

    >
    > > Tinyurl seems to be just fine:
    > >http://tinyurl.com/nllaku

    >
    > Couldn't agree more. I have the TinyURL preview plug-in installed in Firefox
    > so I don't get any ugly surprises. "This URL re-directs to blah blah blah..
    > Do you want to go there?" Great system.
    > --
    > Shaun.
    >
    > "Give a man a fire and he's warm for the day. But set fire to him and he's
    > warm for the rest of his life." Terry Pratchet, 'Jingo'.


    *shrug*

    Not really a big deal. The article says "what the company hasn't said:
    what will happen to existing Trim URLs"... well the tr.im homepage
    says "all tr.im links will continue to redirect, and will do so until
    at least December 31, 2009".

    And on the tr.im blog:

    "We have received more than a few emails from people asking about
    buying the domain name ASAP, and redirecting all traffic. For the
    record, I will not sell the domain name to spammers or speculators for
    any price. All links will continue to work until the end of the year
    as promised."

    > This is why I don't like introducing additional points of potential failure


    Insomuch that any sort functionality in any product is an 'additional
    point of failure', sure.
    Hamish Campbell, Aug 11, 2009
    #3
  4. In message
    <>, Hamish
    Campbell wrote:

    > Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >
    >> This is why I don't like introducing additional points of potential
    >> failure

    >
    > Insomuch that any sort functionality in any product is an 'additional
    > point of failure', sure.


    That's like saying "insomuch as having adding seatbelts to your car is just
    something else that can go wrong, you shouldn't have seatbelts in your car,
    sure".
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Aug 11, 2009
    #4
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Enkidu Guest

    ofn01 wrote:
    > "geoff" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>> This is why I don't like introducing additional points of potential
    >>> failure into the the chain
    >>> <http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-330108.html>.

    >> "Trim' ? Never heard of them - maybe that's why they've folded.
    >>
    >> Tinyurl seems to be just fine:
    >> http://tinyurl.com/nllaku
    >>

    >
    > The real problem with URL shorteners is evident here:
    >
    > http://tinyurl.com/2lrx46
    >
    >

    Thank the little gods I had the sound turned off.

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    The Internet is interesting in that although the nicknames may change,
    the same old personalities show through.
    Enkidu, Aug 11, 2009
    #5
  6. > > Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >
    > >> This is why I don't like introducing additional points of potential
    > >> failure

    >
    > > Insomuch that any sort functionality in any product is an 'additional
    > > point of failure', sure.

    >
    > That's like saying "insomuch as having adding seatbelts to your car is just
    > something else that can go wrong, you shouldn't have seatbelts in your car,
    > sure".


    Yeah, that's my point. I'll denote the sarcasm clearly next time.
    Hamish Campbell, Aug 12, 2009
    #6
  7. In message <c8ddd324-996e-4da6-
    >, Hamish Campbell wrote:

    >> > Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    >>
    >> >> This is why I don't like introducing additional points of potential
    >> >> failure

    >>
    >> > Insomuch that any sort functionality in any product is an 'additional
    >> > point of failure', sure.

    >>
    >> That's like saying "insomuch as having adding seatbelts to your car is
    >> just something else that can go wrong, you shouldn't have seatbelts in
    >> your car, sure".

    >
    > Yeah, that's my point. I'll denote the sarcasm clearly next time.


    Yeah, right.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Aug 13, 2009
    #7
  8. On Aug 13, 11:40 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    > In message <c8ddd324-996e-4da6-
    >
    > >, Hamish Campbell wrote:
    > >> > Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    >
    > >> >> This is why I don't like introducing additional points of potential
    > >> >> failure

    >
    > >> > Insomuch that any sort functionality in any product is an 'additional
    > >> > point of failure', sure.

    >
    > >> That's like saying "insomuch as having adding seatbelts to your car is
    > >> just something else that can go wrong, you shouldn't have seatbelts in
    > >> your car, sure".

    >
    > > Yeah, that's my point. I'll denote the sarcasm clearly next time.

    >
    > Yeah, right.


    Lawrence, you said "This is why I don't like introducing additional
    points of potential failure". My statement pointed out how absurd this
    was. You agreed. The end.
    Hamish Campbell, Aug 13, 2009
    #8
  9. In message <>, Hamish Campbell wrote:

    > On Aug 13, 11:40 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand> wrote:
    >
    >> In message <>, Hamish Campbell wrote:

    >
    >>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    >>
    >>>>>> This is why I don't like introducing additional points of potential
    >>>>>> failure

    >>
    >>>>> Insomuch that any sort functionality in any product is an
    >>>>> 'additional point of failure', sure.

    >>
    >>>> That's like saying "insomuch as having adding seatbelts to your car is
    >>>> just something else that can go wrong, you shouldn't have seatbelts in
    >>>> your car, sure".

    >>
    >>> Yeah, that's my point. I'll denote the sarcasm clearly next time.

    >>
    >> Yeah, right.

    >
    > Lawrence, you said "This is why I don't like introducing additional
    > points of potential failure". My statement pointed out how absurd this
    > was. You agreed. The end.


    No. Your objection was absurd, which I pointed out.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Aug 13, 2009
    #9
  10. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarwebs ofn01 wrote:
    > "geoff" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>> This is why I don't like introducing additional points of potential
    >>> failure into the the chain
    >>> <http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-330108.html>.

    >>
    >> "Trim' ? Never heard of them - maybe that's why they've folded.
    >>
    >> Tinyurl seems to be just fine:
    >> http://tinyurl.com/nllaku
    >>

    >
    > The real problem with URL shorteners is evident here:
    >
    > http://tinyurl.com/2lrx46


    TinyURL preview told me that it was a youtube clip and I decided I didn't
    want to proceed, not knowing exactly what video it was.

    I don't see that instance being a danger of 'URL shorteners' as the full
    youtube address doen't give you any clues as to what to expect either. I
    mean http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOU8GIRUd_g Is that any less cryptic
    than <http://tinyurl.com/2lrx46> ?
    --
    Shaun.

    "Give a man a fire and he's warm for the day. But set fire to him and he's
    warm for the rest of his life." Terry Pratchet, 'Jingo'.
    ~misfit~, Aug 14, 2009
    #10
  11. On Aug 13, 1:37 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    > In message <..com>, Hamish Campbell wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Aug 13, 11:40 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand> wrote:

    >
    > >> In message <>, Hamish Campbell wrote:

    >
    > >>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    >
    > >>>>>> This is why I don't like introducing additional points of potential
    > >>>>>> failure

    >
    > >>>>> Insomuch that any sort functionality in any product is an
    > >>>>> 'additional point of failure', sure.

    >
    > >>>> That's like saying "insomuch as having adding seatbelts to your car is
    > >>>> just something else that can go wrong, you shouldn't have seatbelts in
    > >>>> your car, sure".

    >
    > >>> Yeah, that's my point. I'll denote the sarcasm clearly next time.

    >
    > >> Yeah, right.

    >
    > > Lawrence, you said "This is why I don't like introducing additional
    > > points of potential failure". My statement pointed out how absurd this
    > > was. You agreed. The end.

    >
    > No. Your objection was absurd, which I pointed out.


    Round and round in circles.

    Of course what I said was absurd.

    So was the statement "This is why I don't like introducing additional
    points of potential failure".

    A seatbelt is an additional point of failure, but no one suggests you
    don't have them.

    My point is that every feature is an additional point of failure,
    which is why using tr.im as an example of "why you shouldn't add
    features" absurd too.
    Hamish Campbell, Aug 14, 2009
    #11
  12. In message <734bdfc5-0855-444a-
    >, Hamish Campbell wrote:

    > Of course what I said was absurd.
    >
    > So was the statement "This is why I don't like introducing additional
    > points of potential failure".


    No it's not.

    > A seatbelt is an additional point of failure, but no one suggests you
    > don't have them.


    It's _not_ an additional point of failure, because it doesn't make the car
    less reliable. That's what "additional point of failure" means. URL
    shorteners add an extra link into the chain; break any link, and the chain
    is gone. Hence more links => less reliability. That's what "additional point
    of failure" means.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Aug 14, 2009
    #12
  13. On Aug 14, 5:55 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    > > A seatbelt is an additional point of failure, but no one suggests you
    > > don't have them.

    >
    > It's _not_ an additional point of failure, because it doesn't make the car
    > less reliable. That's what "additional point of failure" means. URL
    > shorteners add an extra link into the chain; break any link, and the chain
    > is gone. Hence more links => less reliability. That's what "additional point
    > of failure" means.


    Seatbelts never break?

    *sigh*

    So, you're saying that it only counts as a potential point of failure
    if it is key to the operation of the product? Funny, I'm not aware of
    any services, applications or sites that are going to stop working if
    tr.im turns off tomorrow.
    Hamish Campbell, Aug 15, 2009
    #13
  14. In message <49001a58-21b1-4dd7-8c66-
    >, Hamish Campbell wrote:

    > ... I'm not aware of any services, applications or sites that are going to
    > stop working if tr.im turns off tomorrow.


    Except for all the links that are suddenly going to break. Which is why I
    don't like introducing additional points of potential failure into the
    chain.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Aug 15, 2009
    #14
  15. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarwebs ofn01 wrote:
    > "~misfit~" <> wrote in message
    > news:h62br1$foa$-september.org...
    >> Somewhere on teh intarwebs ofn01 wrote:
    >>> "geoff" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>>>> This is why I don't like introducing additional points of
    >>>>> potential failure into the the chain
    >>>>> <http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-330108.html>.
    >>>>
    >>>> "Trim' ? Never heard of them - maybe that's why they've folded.
    >>>>
    >>>> Tinyurl seems to be just fine:
    >>>> http://tinyurl.com/nllaku
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> The real problem with URL shorteners is evident here:
    >>>
    >>> http://tinyurl.com/2lrx46

    >>
    >> TinyURL preview told me that it was a youtube clip and I decided I
    >> didn't want to proceed, not knowing exactly what video it was.
    >>
    >> I don't see that instance being a danger of 'URL shorteners' as the
    >> full youtube address doesn't give you any clues as to what to expect
    >> either. I mean http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOU8GIRUd_g Is that
    >> any less cryptic than <http://tinyurl.com/2lrx46> ?

    >
    > You successfully extracted all the fun out of my Rickroll!


    Apologies.
    --
    Shaun.

    "Give a man a fire and he's warm for the day. But set fire to him and he's
    warm for the rest of his life." Terry Pratchet, 'Jingo'.
    ~misfit~, Aug 16, 2009
    #15
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. NEMISIES

    Beware !!!!! Do Not Open If U Recieve !!!

    NEMISIES, Jun 22, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,329
    Sam Spade
    Jun 22, 2003
  2. Just Me

    !!!AD-AWARE -- BEWARE!!!

    Just Me, Sep 20, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    27
    Views:
    969
    [ Doc Jeff ]
    Sep 21, 2003
  3. Jim Prather

    beware

    Jim Prather, Oct 1, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    642
    Petit Alexi
    Oct 1, 2003
  4. xman Charlie

    beware newest 7.0 Sound Forge Sony

    xman Charlie, Oct 10, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    412
    xman Charlie
    Oct 10, 2003
  5. Mikey
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    731
Loading...

Share This Page