Would it make sense to have both wikipedia.com and wikipedia.org? Both would point to the same data, the same database servers, but wikipedia.com would have ads and would have some other subtle advantage, like maybe some more bandwidth or more web servers. You'd get a slightly better response at the cost of seeing ads. I'd still choose the.org version, but many people don't mind ads and would prefer the better response time. There are a bunch of disadvantages, like the response time of.org might suffer excessively, or the page rank would be diluted, or no one would ever link to.com, meaning it would never show up on Google search results. I've never seen this suggested. Why must we choose between ads and no ads?
After working in San Francisco for five years I decided to spend some time in Europe, and after 6 months of job searching I finally got a job offer (Web programming) a few weeks ago. The company is in the UK.
A few things I learned:
salaries are really low in the UK while cost of living is about the same or higher.
laws regarding work permits are outdated and although Europe (and particularly the UK) has a huge IT shortage, it's still tricky and time-consuming to get a visa or work permit.
see BritainUSA for information on working in the UK, Overseas Labour Service for work permit info (again UK) and in particular the section on the Tier 1 part of applying for a work permit.
it's much easier to work for an American company that is trying to establish a presence in Europe. It's easier because you can apply locally, they take care of relocation, and they pay you in American dollars, which means you get a much higher salary because the dollar is so strong. I've heard that PeoplePC is desperate for IT workers in Paris and London.
get a book on working and living in whatever country you're interested in. I highly recommend Living and Working in Britain for the UK-inclined.
Slashdot Mirror
Would it make sense to have both wikipedia.com and wikipedia.org? Both would point to the same data, the same database servers, but wikipedia.com would have ads and would have some other subtle advantage, like maybe some more bandwidth or more web servers. You'd get a slightly better response at the cost of seeing ads. I'd still choose the .org version, but many people don't mind ads and would prefer the better response time. There are a bunch of disadvantages, like the response time of .org might suffer excessively, or the page rank would be diluted, or no one would ever link to .com, meaning it would never show up on Google search results. I've never seen this suggested. Why must we choose between ads and no ads?
A few things I learned: