One thing that invalidates this argument is foreign companies. Now who would run the background check to see if company from, for example, Ukraine, has been working for a long time and is legitimate business?
Otherwise what you get is just an expensive domain that doesn't give you any "protection" against 5-days-lifespan companies.
And.pro would end up as any other domain. Would they run a check on out-of-the-US diploma to see if it's real "pro" or what? And what about IT professionals. Are they pro?
All these new domains are somewhat useless IMHO. I'd rather put museums under.edu than arguing if this or that museum is good enough for the domain.
Main question is, will they be able to sell the technology, prooven it can't survive as standalone model. And will AT&T or any other major provider be willing to buy it just to add something like MSN Companion?
Now I may be mixing up something but my question is - is the Word code small/uniformic enough to get translated once, or it will be translated again and again as something bigger than translated instructions cache? In that case performance will be just as low as benchmarks (because every time something happens in Word's tummy it will be re-translated again)...
1. Publishing a web page is the same as printing a magazine, therefore that should be licensed and regulated by the "press" rules, right?
How would you like to get a license (with fee, of course) from additional commitee to be able to maintain your own private home page?
And, after some time (when you happen to have more than, for example, 1000 hits) get it renewed?
2. Streaming from other countries can not be regulated, or can it?
If not, then all streaming services from.au would move to other countries shortly. Would that de-regulate them? If you live in Australia and want to broadcast from your US server, are you still regulated? How to enforce?
This is similar to what happens with Russian Internet, as there were attempts (and they still go on) to license every online mass-media site.
But the better solution (which currently is in place in.ru) is to offer licensing to anybody who wants it. So if you would need some protection/privelegies as a mass media/broadcasting company you could go and get a license. Otherwise - as is...
Duh:) What about Netscape? I have had enough problems with Netscape Servers (old one, and iPlanets too) working better with Netscape than IE.
Up to a degree having 90% of IE makes life of web-developers easier. At least instead of dealing with fantasy of NN developers (who in many cases are far more tricky than MS) and IE I could drop half of "don't use this because the other browser doesn't like it". On the other hand 90% of NN would work as well:)
Slashdot Mirror
One thing that invalidates this argument is foreign companies. Now who would run the background check to see if company from, for example, Ukraine, has been working for a long time and is legitimate business? Otherwise what you get is just an expensive domain that doesn't give you any "protection" against 5-days-lifespan companies.
.pro would end up as any other domain. Would they run a check on out-of-the-US diploma to see if it's real "pro" or what? And what about IT professionals. Are they pro?
.edu than arguing if this or that museum is good enough for the domain.
And
All these new domains are somewhat useless IMHO. I'd rather put museums under
-----
Main question is, will they be able to sell the technology, prooven it can't survive as standalone model. And will AT&T or any other major provider be willing to buy it just to add something like MSN Companion?
-----
Now I may be mixing up something but my question is - is the Word code small/uniformic enough to get translated once, or it will be translated again and again as something bigger than translated instructions cache? In that case performance will be just as low as benchmarks (because every time something happens in Word's tummy it will be re-translated again)...
-----
There is another question that comes with that.
.au would move to other countries shortly. Would that de-regulate them? If you live in Australia and want to broadcast from your US server, are you still regulated? How to enforce?
.ru) is to offer licensing to anybody who wants it. So if you would need some protection/privelegies as a mass media/broadcasting company you could go and get a license. Otherwise - as is...
1. Publishing a web page is the same as printing a magazine, therefore that should be licensed and regulated by the "press" rules, right?
How would you like to get a license (with fee, of course) from additional commitee to be able to maintain your own private home page?
And, after some time (when you happen to have more than, for example, 1000 hits) get it renewed?
2. Streaming from other countries can not be regulated, or can it?
If not, then all streaming services from
This is similar to what happens with Russian Internet, as there were attempts (and they still go on) to license every online mass-media site.
But the better solution (which currently is in place in
Duh :) What about Netscape?
:)
I have had enough problems with Netscape Servers (old one, and iPlanets too) working better with Netscape than IE.
Up to a degree having 90% of IE makes life of web-developers easier. At least instead of dealing with fantasy of NN developers (who in many cases are far more tricky than MS) and IE I could drop half of "don't use this because the other browser doesn't like it". On the other hand 90% of NN would work as well