[Previous] [Next] - [Index] [Thread Index] - [Previous in Thread] [Next in Thread]


Subject: Re: UKNM: What if it's all shite? (was .TV)
From: Ray Taylor
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 18:48:53 +0100

I agree with Tim 100%.

Anyone else want to strike a blow for sanity and help destroy the ISP/domain
registry monopoly stranglehold of new businesses?

Ray Taylor

----- Original Message -----
From: <tim [dot] haywardatdigitaljwt [dot] com>
To: <uknmatchinwag [dot] com>
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 9:14 AM
Subject: UKNM: What if it's all shite? (was .TV)


> I'm unendingly amused by the unbelievable stupidity and greed of URL
> speculators
> but here's a question.
>
> Is there any fundamental technical reason why the whole mess couldn't be
> replaced by another metaphor at a keystroke? Let's say for a moment, that
a
> browser or iTV company wanted to make the whole process simpler and added
> their
> own layer of nicknames, hotlinks, whatever? Surely the verbal URL itself
is
> only
> a mnemonic.
>
> I can't help feeling that market forces will push us toward a simpler
> solution
> over time. Have I missed some simple mathematical or logical reason why
this
> couldn't eventually happen?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
looking for useful books about the new media biz?
check out the UKNM books page for some suggestions:
http://www.chinwag.com/uk-netmarketing/books.shtml
Email suggestions to: helpatchinwag [dot] com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To unsubscribe or change your list settings go to
http://www.chinwag.com/uk-netmarketing or helpatchinwag [dot] com



Replies
  RE: UKNM: What if it's all shite? (was ., Richard Bailey

Replies
  UKNM: What if it's all shite? (was .TV), tim.hayward

[Previous] [Next] - [Index] [Thread Index] - [Next in Thread] [Previous in Thread]