My school had this layout: One course of Java followed by a C, then a C++ course.
The Java course was offered the first term we were there, and although the language was easy, the use of true, or even basic Object Orientation was useless. Only the few with good procedural programming skills found the java course very easy. The rest found it confusing and often pointless learning about things in a too dumbed down way.
Java only really started to make sense to people when we were learning C++ in third term.
I found that it is much easier to teach a person procedural programming and then Object Oriented programming than just teaching OO. I found that people fresh to programming just don't have the mindset to see the beauty hidden in OO concepts.
Unless you have REALLY tought OO concepts to death, many with find the OO paradigm, and java very uncomfortable.
By taking a position of superiority you show how nearsighted you are. Thus Spake ADRA
Googlebar changes the appearance of a web site by highlighting the words that you searched for. It is a really useful feature when trying to find relevant information in large documents. The only difference is that the Microsoft technology helps both them and the consumer. Someone may want to get more information that Microsoft offers. Maybe they don't.
Oh, now that I am at it, any web translation services like Go.Web also do this. They are fullfilling a need.
I am not thinking this is problem, as long as there is an opt-out or never-opt-in for the feature.
By taking a position of superiority you show how nearsighted you are. Thus Spake ADRA
Legally, the "product advertised" does work, even if some of it is open sourced.
The program does not segfault if the dll is missing, so on GPL terms, the code is not essential to the product. The GPL has no bearing on the product's marketing. The product as shiped comes with all the functions as promissed, so why should customers care if some of the program is open source. PS: They don't unless they are lame nerd people like us.
By taking a position of superiority you show how nearsighted you are. Thus Spake ADRA
Are you saying that if I read the code for mpeg2dec, then write my own MPEG-2 decoder, then I must release that under the GPL, merely because I viewed some GPL source?
Would you think it ethical if someone had two computers and typed the linux source code line for line on the other and then proprietarily sell the OS as a seperate closed source product? No.
When one is trying to reverse engineer a product legitimately, or create a competing product, don't look at the source or any other NDA information. That is a simple rule of thumb. Live with it and avoid heafty legal bills down the road.
By taking a position of superiority you show how nearsighted you are. Thus Spake ADRA
Mind you that I did not read the protocol as fine as you did, I still have points on the feasability to add.
1. The DNS Server must know about the "special" masquerading rules involved with sending an "expect a request to " message to the waypoint box. This is broken. Every DNS server on the internet would have to support this option, and the DNS server must find out if this masqueraded DNS name is authentic, or if it is a virtual site.
Explaination: Since DNS names are cached from one DNS server to the next, one cannot guarantee that a client would request a DNS lookup on a server under their control, so to guarantee a sucessful transaction, all DNS servers must know about this DNStoIPMASQ trickery, hence iterative adoptance of this protocol is impossible.
2. Ignoring the first point, unless every TCP/IP protocol stack also changes, it is impossible to guarantee that the DNS "expect a request to " request will ever arrive before the actual client's request. The only redemtion would have the waypoint server queue the packet for a timeframe until the DNS message arrives. See DOS attacks for why this will never be implemented.
Man, I went to a trade school for computer science so I never got a chance to do real research. Now I will never be featured on slashdot... wah!
By taking a position of superiority you show how nearsighted you are. Thus Spake ADRA
Because it is built into apache, an application layer protocol, NOT the IP firewall tool. The only difference with this system is that it brings DNS to the IP firewall level, but HTTP is the only protocol top benefit from this.
By taking a position of superiority you show how nearsighted you are. Thus Spake ADRA
The original poster implied that the services that were being offered by the servers was similar. In order to use it though, one would have to have a port for every server behind the firewall, not just port 80 for HTTP, but port 80,81,83,etc..
I would hate to type in http://www.somecompany.com:35525, and I am sure consumers would too.
Because the resolved DNS request is not known on an IP level, one would have to grossly hack the application protocol to sniff out the DNS address requested, if the address was even sent with that protocol.
By taking a position of superiority you show how nearsighted you are. Thus Spake ADRA
It loosk liek a good way to help out bulk web server farms, but it does not even come close to the IP shortage problems.
Because one is using DNS as the map to the NAT'd server, the server must actually receive the DNS address as part of the request. HTTP is the only common "over the internet" internet protocol that has this functionality.
I am not too afraid of the IP shortage much in the short term anyway. ICANN and the IP sub-orgs have handled the translation to more effective IP blocks very well, and since people have to pay for them now, it is unlikely that the will be used frivilously. Plus, the internet, despite its massive growth in user nodes will eventually crest I think soon enough to eliviate heavy strains.
etc...
By taking a position of superiority you show how nearsighted you are. Thus Spake ADRA
A lot of people *hate* windoze because they make it so *simple* that moron joe sixpack can configure it. The problem, however, is that it is so simple, that you can't do anything useful with it.
Thousands of professionals would disagree with you. Get the eilitist spoon out of your ass and accept that people really don't care about the ability of the system, but the productivity they can gain from it.
By taking a position of superiority you show how nearsighted you are.
By taking a position of superiority you show how nearsighted you are. Thus Spake ADRA
Linux was Based on Minix, because Minux was a teaching OS. More importantly Minix Was Tanenbaum's OS, who was Linus' Graduate professor. Are things falling into line now?
True, Linus wanted to play more, because Tanenbaum refused to make Minix more complicated simply because he wanted it simple, since is was a teachers OS...
By taking a position of superiority you show how nearsighted you are. Thus Spake ADRA
They don't have POSIX.4 extensions yet, and I am waiting for them because SYS V IPC's are pathetic, and don't work well with the everything is a file paradigm. Mind you, POSIX.4 is not all that good either, but at least it would be a step in the right direction.
If anyone has read stevens, you "can" have fun with posix.4 IPC's, but it is only available as a kernel patch as of yet. Some day...
By taking a position of superiority you show how nearsighted you are. Thus Spake ADRA
I would say that I am a strong believer in personal responsability, but I wouldn't say that I can exume my philosophy on others.
I can not say that this can be universally applied. I mean, people are by nature influenced by one another. By ignoring this fact, then we deceive ourselves into thinking that we have sole control over our lives.
Here is another point that is worth some heat. All of the movie examples that have been about violence have only been looking at the modern day violent movies, and have totally missed the point between drama, propaganda, and the differences between the two.
When you see a movie containing violence, it is not solely the violence that causes the effect, but the premiss of the entire movie. It can be debated what the movie, or any content in that matter is trying get across to the viewer. I doubt that many have gone on a semetic killing spree for watching Schindlers list, so there is more to the portayal of violence than the violence itself. Also, it can be said that a movie enters the arena of propaganda when it is used as a tool for the viewer to take action of it. Unfortunately, all movies can be casted as propaganda, because every movie has an effect, if only negligable on the person. Now the question is, if a movie was made as propaganda to influence someone into a violent action, how could one tell the difference? This is as I see, a difficult question, simply because the whole interpretation of movies or content in general is so subjective.
On the CBC last night I watched a report of how hard-core pr0n was being displayed on satellite TV in Canada, and that it was suggestive of pain to the participant(bondage++). One could say that the participant was never in any real danger by the action, that it was simply a dramitization.
The problem with defining propaganda is that it has a subjective existence. One man's propaganda is another man's bitter sweet action movie, etc.. It can be said that the only judgement of the purpose of the content be judged by the intention of the author, or those that control the content.
Man.. What a rant.. So, in conclusion, a violent movie shouldn't incite violence unless the person watching was messed up(crazy), or it was the itent of those in control(propaganda).
By taking a position of superiority you show how nearsighted you are. Thus Spake ADRA
Your response the post was not acceptable. You are stateing that religion is good because of the people who are associated with religion. It cannot be said that these people chose their paths because of their faith, unless their faith is their path. AKA pastor...
The poster was indicating that the system of religion itself was a bruital cold corperate entity used to suck its masses dry. The poster was half right about all religions. They all want something from the individual joining, but to classify all religions, one can only say that they all want "something".
Religion is much like nationalism, or any other formation of people. Its main objective is to hold a group of people together as a rational unit in order for survival. Just think of a wolf pack. They could all run free, but their chances for survival are diminished.
This was why religion was started; it was used to bind the sparely connected populations of the world into a connection with one another. Think of WW1. When it was christmas, everyone stopped shooting eachother, and sang christmas songs. It was a religious connection that both sides shared, even though they were bitter enemies outside of their religion.
First point, The analogy is sane. If you leave your door unlocked, you are still "actively" leaving it unlocked, so the results are the same.
By default, SMB packets are not routed ouside of one's subnet. This means that if someone wants access to your SMB shares, they would have to initiate the connection with your computer to check if you have SMB active. It is like having a robber turning your door handles to see if they are unlocked.
Second, if you live within a gated community and you leave your door wide open with a sign saying "Door wide open", you wouldn't expect someone from the outside the neighborhood on openning your door. Before I get flamed, note that nobody but the people inside the neighborhood can see that the door is open.
This applies to the "Workgroup" principle of windows. The common user should not have to expect joe internet access into their SMB network.
>Survival of the fittest. If someone is that dumb,
>they deserve to get their precious bandwidth
>wasted.
Man, what an elitist swine you are. Instead of
abusing their system, why not be a good
"educator" and enlighten them by sending them or
their ISP an email to fix the problem, instead of
justifying their abuse through intellectual
superiority.
This is the prime reason that @home, and any other decent ISP bans these ports inbound and outbound. Although it is a little extra pain if I want to set one up (vpn); It is an acceptable loss to what would happen if anyone had access all the insecure computers on the @home network, or others.
If I understand what these lawyers are saying, they want the linkers to have the same classification as those who publish the media they are linking to.
If slashdot linked to a piece of media that was later found to be unlawfull, could slashdot then be sued for "distributing" that content?
They are not distributing anything from making a link, they are simply showing them the path to find what they want.
The linking site is not a middle man(distributor), since the content never passes through them. They are a guide that shows them where to get it.
Eg: I am sitting on a corner. Someone comes up to me and asks me where to score some crack(just example), and knowing all about it, I tell him the best damn dealer in town. Am I to be arrested for trafficing crack? Hell no, and neither should linkers for showing people the way.
I think that too often people concider programming this large blob of mathamatical giberish that requires no more thought than calculating pi.
I find that coding is rather a matamatical art. It is an expression of my thought process expressed not on a canvas, but in code. It may be analytical, but it is not without creativity.
Programming paradigms are like a style of painting. One moves in and everyone loves it, but get bored, to find the next big thing.
On a side note, Too often has mathamatics and art been concidered polar to one another. I would rather thing that it is more of a circle, where the poles connect, but maybe not as frequently are the rest of the circle. It is a rare gap filled by those who can really get both areas. Many famous scientists and philosopers alike were members of this unique train of thought.
One could say that it was that this rarety of thinking that made creation of new invention so remarkable.
You cannot progress everything. Not only is text internet still around, but it is growing.
This is all thanks to wireless devices which do not have full featured displays, EG Blackberry, Palm, and even IE in many ways.
I see the need to move to newer standards, but don't force new content types on people. If one can't view pictures on their browser, they should still be able to interact with a site in a sane way.
I loved browsing with my RIM and running into:
Warning your browser is older than IE 3 or NS3. Please go to upgrade your browser, or something like that...
When in university, many of my classmates could not afford to pay ~$2000 per year on books, so they pooled together and bought 1 book, cut the spine, and made a great reproduction of the original, besides the cover. It was hard, but necessity forced them to adapt, though knowingly breaking the law.
Just because it is easy doen't mean people will do it. Just because it is hard doesn't mean people won't.
It is funny you mentioning Calcutta, concidering that the government of India did step in in helping their people by supplying better cheaper education systems. As a result, they are a growing number of technologically adapt people. Not everyone is benefitting from this boom, btu it proves there is something a government can do to help their people besides watching their people "raped" by corperations.
Nobody has talked about the bruital health conditions that these places do/did have.
If you want an eye openner, maybe somewhat dated, go to http://www.saigon.com/~nike/
I could care less if they are confusing. Are these people direct competition for one another?
It is not ICANN's responsability to fix the ambiguous similarities between domain names. That will always happen, because people are on the web with similar topics, and if I am disappointed for owning shop.com, and my competitor owns eshop.com, I have to live with that fact. It is a hazzard of doing business on the web.
Now back to the original statement,
>But their original point does stand. Having two
>sites Referee.com and eReferee.com is confusing,
>especially when it comes to things like search
>engines and so on. There needs to be a way to
>ensure sites are easily distinguishable so that >things like this aren't necessary.
Search engines could care jack about what domain name a company has. All it cares about is that they are different domains. It is the web site producers fault if a casual surfer cannot tell the difference between the two sites in the search description(There is a field in HTML to describe your site).
I followed the ICANN forums for quite some time, and the one thing that I found was that there were no easy, or hard solutions to solve this problem without making a LOT of people unhappy.
Slashdot Mirror
My school had this layout: One course of Java followed by a C, then a C++ course.
The Java course was offered the first term we were there, and although the language was easy, the use of true, or even basic Object Orientation was useless. Only the few with good procedural programming skills found the java course very easy. The rest found it confusing and often pointless learning about things in a too dumbed down way.
Java only really started to make sense to people when we were learning C++ in third term.
I found that it is much easier to teach a person procedural programming and then Object Oriented programming than just teaching OO. I found that people fresh to programming just don't have the mindset to see the beauty hidden in OO concepts.
Unless you have REALLY tought OO concepts to death, many with find the OO paradigm, and java very uncomfortable.
By taking a position of superiority you show how nearsighted you are. Thus Spake ADRA
Googlebar changes the appearance of a web site by highlighting the words that you searched for. It is a really useful feature when trying to find relevant information in large documents. The only difference is that the Microsoft technology helps both them and the consumer. Someone may want to get more information that Microsoft offers. Maybe they don't.
Oh, now that I am at it, any web translation services like Go.Web also do this. They are fullfilling a need.
I am not thinking this is problem, as long as there is an opt-out or never-opt-in for the feature.
By taking a position of superiority you show how nearsighted you are. Thus Spake ADRA
Legally, the "product advertised" does work, even if some of it is open sourced.
The program does not segfault if the dll is missing, so on GPL terms, the code is not essential to the product. The GPL has no bearing on the product's marketing. The product as shiped comes with all the functions as promissed, so why should customers care if some of the program is open source. PS: They don't unless they are lame nerd people like us.
By taking a position of superiority you show how nearsighted you are. Thus Spake ADRA
Are you saying that if I read the code for mpeg2dec, then write my own MPEG-2 decoder, then I must release that under the GPL, merely because I viewed some GPL source?
Would you think it ethical if someone had two computers and typed the linux source code line for line on the other and then proprietarily sell the OS as a seperate closed source product? No.
When one is trying to reverse engineer a product legitimately, or create a competing product, don't look at the source or any other NDA information. That is a simple rule of thumb. Live with it and avoid heafty legal bills down the road.
By taking a position of superiority you show how nearsighted you are. Thus Spake ADRA
http://www.ximian.com/evolution
As being a ximian thing, you can find the real development stuff through gnome channels. ftp.gnome.org, etc...
By taking a position of superiority you show how nearsighted you are. Thus Spake ADRA
> I guess the scientists are faster learners.
That is a little cruel and out of context michael. A am so disappointed...
By taking a position of superiority you show how nearsighted you are. Thus Spake ADRA
Mind you that I did not read the protocol as fine as you did, I still have points on the feasability to add.
1. The DNS Server must know about the "special" masquerading rules involved with sending an "expect a request to " message to the waypoint box. This is broken. Every DNS server on the internet would have to support this option, and the DNS server must find out if this masqueraded DNS name is authentic, or if it is a virtual site.
Explaination: Since DNS names are cached from one DNS server to the next, one cannot guarantee that a client would request a DNS lookup on a server under their control, so to guarantee a sucessful transaction, all DNS servers must know about this DNStoIPMASQ trickery, hence iterative adoptance of this protocol is impossible.
2. Ignoring the first point, unless every TCP/IP protocol stack also changes, it is impossible to guarantee that the DNS "expect a request to " request will ever arrive before the actual client's request. The only redemtion would have the waypoint server queue the packet for a timeframe until the DNS message arrives. See DOS attacks for why this will never be implemented.
Man, I went to a trade school for computer science so I never got a chance to do real research. Now I will never be featured on slashdot... wah!
By taking a position of superiority you show how nearsighted you are. Thus Spake ADRA
Because it is built into apache, an application layer protocol, NOT the IP firewall tool. The only difference with this system is that it brings DNS to the IP firewall level, but HTTP is the only protocol top benefit from this.
By taking a position of superiority you show how nearsighted you are. Thus Spake ADRA
The original poster implied that the services that were being offered by the servers was similar. In order to use it though, one would have to have a port for every server behind the firewall, not just port 80 for HTTP, but port 80,81,83,etc..
I would hate to type in http://www.somecompany.com:35525, and I am sure consumers would too.
Because the resolved DNS request is not known on an IP level, one would have to grossly hack the application protocol to sniff out the DNS address requested, if the address was even sent with that protocol.
By taking a position of superiority you show how nearsighted you are. Thus Spake ADRA
It loosk liek a good way to help out bulk web server farms, but it does not even come close to the IP shortage problems.
Because one is using DNS as the map to the NAT'd server, the server must actually receive the DNS address as part of the request. HTTP is the only common "over the internet" internet protocol that has this functionality.
I am not too afraid of the IP shortage much in the short term anyway. ICANN and the IP sub-orgs have handled the translation to more effective IP blocks very well, and since people have to pay for them now, it is unlikely that the will be used frivilously. Plus, the internet, despite its massive growth in user nodes will eventually crest I think soon enough to eliviate heavy strains.
etc...
By taking a position of superiority you show how nearsighted you are. Thus Spake ADRA
A lot of people *hate* windoze because they make it so *simple* that moron joe sixpack can configure it. The problem, however, is that it is so simple, that you can't do anything useful with it.
Thousands of professionals would disagree with you. Get the eilitist spoon out of your ass and accept that people really don't care about the ability of the system, but the productivity they can gain from it.
By taking a position of superiority you show how nearsighted you are.
By taking a position of superiority you show how nearsighted you are. Thus Spake ADRA
Linux was Based on Minix, because Minux was a teaching OS. More importantly Minix Was Tanenbaum's OS, who was Linus' Graduate professor. Are things falling into line now?
True, Linus wanted to play more, because Tanenbaum refused to make Minix more complicated simply because he wanted it simple, since is was a teachers OS...
By taking a position of superiority you show how nearsighted you are. Thus Spake ADRA
They don't have POSIX.4 extensions yet, and I am waiting for them because SYS V IPC's are pathetic, and don't work well with the everything is a file paradigm. Mind you, POSIX.4 is not all that good either, but at least it would be a step in the right direction.
If anyone has read stevens, you "can" have fun with posix.4 IPC's, but it is only available as a kernel patch as of yet. Some day...
By taking a position of superiority you show how nearsighted you are. Thus Spake ADRA
I would say that I am a strong believer in personal responsability, but I wouldn't say that I can exume my philosophy on others.
I can not say that this can be universally applied. I mean, people are by nature influenced by one another. By ignoring this fact, then we deceive ourselves into thinking that we have sole control over our lives.
Here is another point that is worth some heat. All of the movie examples that have been about violence have only been looking at the modern day violent movies, and have totally missed the point between drama, propaganda, and the differences between the two.
When you see a movie containing violence, it is not solely the violence that causes the effect, but the premiss of the entire movie. It can be debated what the movie, or any content in that matter is trying get across to the viewer. I doubt that many have gone on a semetic killing spree for watching Schindlers list, so there is more to the portayal of violence than the violence itself. Also, it can be said that a movie enters the arena of propaganda when it is used as a tool for the viewer to take action of it. Unfortunately, all movies can be casted as propaganda, because every movie has an effect, if only negligable on the person. Now the question is, if a movie was made as propaganda to influence someone into a violent action, how could one tell the difference? This is as I see, a difficult question, simply because the whole interpretation of movies or content in general is so subjective.
On the CBC last night I watched a report of how hard-core pr0n was being displayed on satellite TV in Canada, and that it was suggestive of pain to the participant(bondage++). One could say that the participant was never in any real danger by the action, that it was simply a dramitization.
The problem with defining propaganda is that it has a subjective existence. One man's propaganda is another man's bitter sweet action movie, etc.. It can be said that the only judgement of the purpose of the content be judged by the intention of the author, or those that control the content.
Man.. What a rant.. So, in conclusion, a violent movie shouldn't incite violence unless the person watching was messed up(crazy), or it was the itent of those in control(propaganda).
By taking a position of superiority you show how nearsighted you are. Thus Spake ADRA
Your response the post was not acceptable. You are stateing that religion is good because of the people who are associated with religion. It cannot be said that these people chose their paths because of their faith, unless their faith is their path. AKA pastor...
The poster was indicating that the system of religion itself was a bruital cold corperate entity used to suck its masses dry. The poster was half right about all religions. They all want something from the individual joining, but to classify all religions, one can only say that they all want "something".
Religion is much like nationalism, or any other formation of people. Its main objective is to hold a group of people together as a rational unit in order for survival. Just think of a wolf pack. They could all run free, but their chances for survival are diminished.
This was why religion was started; it was used to bind the sparely connected populations of the world into a connection with one another. Think of WW1. When it was christmas, everyone stopped shooting eachother, and sang christmas songs. It was a religious connection that both sides shared, even though they were bitter enemies outside of their religion.
Thus Spake ADRA
First point, The analogy is sane. If you leave your door unlocked, you are still "actively" leaving it unlocked, so the results are the same.
By default, SMB packets are not routed ouside of one's subnet. This means that if someone wants access to your SMB shares, they would have to initiate the connection with your computer to check if you have SMB active. It is like having a robber turning your door handles to see if they are unlocked.
Second, if you live within a gated community and you leave your door wide open with a sign saying "Door wide open", you wouldn't expect someone from the outside the neighborhood on openning your door. Before I get flamed, note that nobody but the people inside the neighborhood can see that the door is open.
This applies to the "Workgroup" principle of windows. The common user should not have to expect joe internet access into their SMB network.
Thus Spake ADRA
Your post was trollish.
I mean, you totally contradict the previous poster's message, then you give an ambiguous one line description of why it is wrong.
Don't change the mod. (I guess my comment was trolling too.. doh!)
Thus Spake ADRA
>Survival of the fittest. If someone is that dumb,
>they deserve to get their precious bandwidth
>wasted.
Man, what an elitist swine you are. Instead of
abusing their system, why not be a good
"educator" and enlighten them by sending them or
their ISP an email to fix the problem, instead of
justifying their abuse through intellectual
superiority.
Thus Spake ADRA
This is the prime reason that @home, and any other decent ISP bans these ports inbound and outbound. Although it is a little extra pain if I want to set one up (vpn); It is an acceptable loss to what would happen if anyone had access all the insecure computers on the @home network, or others.
Thus Spake ADRA
If I understand what these lawyers are saying, they want the linkers to have the same classification as those who publish the media they are linking to.
If slashdot linked to a piece of media that was later found to be unlawfull, could slashdot then be sued for "distributing" that content?
They are not distributing anything from making a link, they are simply showing them the path to find what they want.
The linking site is not a middle man(distributor), since the content never passes through them. They are a guide that shows them where to get it.
Eg: I am sitting on a corner. Someone comes up to me and asks me where to score some crack(just example), and knowing all about it, I tell him the best damn dealer in town. Am I to be arrested for trafficing crack? Hell no, and neither should linkers for showing people the way.
I think that too often people concider programming this large blob of mathamatical giberish that requires no more thought than calculating pi.
I find that coding is rather a matamatical art. It is an expression of my thought process expressed not on a canvas, but in code. It may be analytical, but it is not without creativity.
Programming paradigms are like a style of painting. One moves in and everyone loves it, but get bored, to find the next big thing.
On a side note, Too often has mathamatics and art been concidered polar to one another. I would rather thing that it is more of a circle, where the poles connect, but maybe not as frequently are the rest of the circle. It is a rare gap filled by those who can really get both areas. Many famous scientists and philosopers alike were members of this unique train of thought.
One could say that it was that this rarety of thinking that made creation of new invention so remarkable.
You cannot progress everything. Not only is text internet still around, but it is growing.
This is all thanks to wireless devices which do not have full featured displays, EG Blackberry, Palm, and even IE in many ways.
I see the need to move to newer standards, but don't force new content types on people. If one can't view pictures on their browser, they should still be able to interact with a site in a sane way.
I loved browsing with my RIM and running into:
Warning your browser is older than IE 3 or NS3. Please go to upgrade your browser, or something like that...
Convenience has nothing to do with it.
When in university, many of my classmates could not afford to pay ~$2000 per year on books, so they pooled together and bought 1 book, cut the spine, and made a great reproduction of the original, besides the cover. It was hard, but necessity forced them to adapt, though knowingly breaking the law.
Just because it is easy doen't mean people will do it. Just because it is hard doesn't mean people won't.
It is funny you mentioning Calcutta, concidering that the government of India did step in in helping their people by supplying better cheaper education systems. As a result, they are a growing number of technologically adapt people. Not everyone is benefitting from this boom, btu it proves there is something a government can do to help their people besides watching their people "raped" by corperations.
Nobody has talked about the bruital health conditions that these places do/did have.
If you want an eye openner, maybe somewhat dated, go to http://www.saigon.com/~nike/
I could care less if they are confusing. Are these people direct competition for one another?
It is not ICANN's responsability to fix the ambiguous similarities between domain names. That will always happen, because people are on the web with similar topics, and if I am disappointed for owning shop.com, and my competitor owns eshop.com, I have to live with that fact. It is a hazzard of doing business on the web.
Now back to the original statement,
>But their original point does stand. Having two
>sites Referee.com and eReferee.com is confusing,
>especially when it comes to things like search
>engines and so on. There needs to be a way to
>ensure sites are easily distinguishable so that >things like this aren't necessary.
Search engines could care jack about what domain name a company has. All it cares about is that they are different domains. It is the web site producers fault if a casual surfer cannot tell the difference between the two sites in the search description(There is a field in HTML to describe your site).
I followed the ICANN forums for quite some time, and the one thing that I found was that there were no easy, or hard solutions to solve this problem without making a LOT of people unhappy.