[politicket]

OK computer geeks...I'm confused!

CNN says that it wasn't their fault, just some guy at Netscape messing around and he got fired.

Here's the question: the URL of the link is: cnn.netscape.cnn.com. That means that the "domain" that the image was served on was "cnn.com". The first part of the URL is "cnn.netscape", which would just be a "host name" attached to the domain through the DNS server.

The ONLY way that CNN wouldn't "know" about it is if the "cnn.netscape" host name pointed to a different server that was completely controlled by Netscape. Would CNN allow their domain to be controlled in such a way?

Thoughts???

[politicket]

Oops...Never Mind...

The page the image was USED on belongs to cnn.com, but the image itself was PULLED from a netscape.com server.

It still seems to me that a web copy editor would have to choose that image from the netscape.com server since netscape.com only provides the image and not the story.