"At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step" - Jasper Kirkby
In what seems like an eternity ago I had a similar decision to make - choosing between a very large (100k+ employees; non-IT focus) organisation and what today would probably have been called a startup (~10 people across 2 continents; IT product development & sales)
I chose (your) option 1, partly because I figured they were a good company to have on my cv whatever the outcome, and partly because they offered a few k more a year. Frankly I think you should try to ignore the money aspect, but when a few k is a sizeable percentage of your total salary, I know this is difficult to do.
10+ years later I've lived in 3 countries, flown business a lot more often then I would probably have paid for myself, and enjoyed the sort of perks you seem to like the look of in option 1. I've done some interesting technology based work along the way, but I've also done a lot of administrativa.
In my case, it was important that the organisation kept trading for the duration of my year's internship, or I wouldn't have recieved the course credit. If this is applicable to you, it is something to consider in your choice. Remember both organisations (their Australian office at least) could have risks in this regard.
I think the challenge with Facebook, is that a large number of people using it don't understand what they are sharing. What they share about themselves is really none of my business. What I do need to be mindful of is:
A lot of people, including those who get paid to work in IT roles and are supposedly of a technical mindset, don't understand what information they are sharing about themselves and their friends when they interact with FB applications
This is different from real life, where most people will evaluate what they share about you with 3rd parties. In the case of FB applications, many people don't understand what is happening, and thus the evaluation phase is completely bypassed. Even if you would put your life in somebodies hands in the real world, you have to apply a different set of criteria to that same person / decision in the virtual world.
The observation you make depends on the DNS configuration for any particular domain, but ok, lets not worry further about that.
Assuming that we wish to start again with a flat name space, I'd be interested to understand:
What rules would be put in place to govern the names that would be allowed? Do you believe you should still be entitled to the domain “pedro”? Or are you willing to accept Pedro-Kostelelec-DateOfBirth ? Or some other (likely more complex combination) that is a unique distinguish-er for you globally?
Do you believe there should only be one company globally with any given name? Or is it acceptable to have a “BurgerKing” company in one country that operates restaurants, and another “BurgerKing” in the same / different country that makes BBQ's? How do you allow for those to coexist, noting the rules we already decided on in the previous question?
Personally I don't believe having a flat or hierarchical domain name space makes any difference to the underlying challenge: users need to enter the exact domain name of the business they wish to visit, if they fail to do this the result may not be what they expect. The fact that so many people choose to type some arbitrary text into a search engine and visit what ever site is returned, is fundamentally an error of understanding that should be corrected. I don't believe working around this misunderstanding by modifying the name space used serves any useful purpose in the long run.
So the intention is to prevent counterfeiting by attaching something to the product that is easily counterfeitable. If this makes sense to you, and your business is not selling RFID components / products, please do enlighten me.
I agree with you. My point was that in http://blog.pedro.si/why-not-forget-about-top-level-domains-... the "www" is present in the example, yet the focus is on the "com". I am curious to understand the though process that directed focus to eliminating "com" before "www"
I'm interested to understand why you would propose removing the ".com" before first proposing the removal of "www."? From my perspective the "more superfluous of the two" is the "www." in this example.
"At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step" - Jasper Kirkby