The imena.bg registrar has been announced as the alternative company to provide registration of .bg IDN domains, only the interesting thing is that the particulars in and through the IDN acquisitions do not really fall inline with the final idea of the ICANN overseeing authority – namely, imena.bg seems so concerned with ‘yo0u’ domain, that it actually restricts all access (i.e. oriflame domain blocked on more than 1 cyrillic occasion/occurrence) to latin (originally serviced at Register.bg – the main BG registry) originated names even barely resembling or sounding similarly in cyrillic. The cyrillic name distribution process is such: the enrollment of each of yo0u cyrillic domains involves a parallelly ongoing arbitration (if any in ‘yo0u’s sense at all), after which all duplicated (if the focus falls on soundalikes) names, the emphasis for which is on privately marked domains already registered with latin characters, are perished. However, folks are not at all acquainted with, nor it is in any fashion clear how and if spontaneously emerged phonetic clones (cyrillic pairs) could be indemnified, why must the entity and/or the reserved trademark finance all indemnified versions and under which circumstances is purchasing a ‘lookalike’ exempt (usage of which might or might not be allowed if any advertisement shiftthrough at all). Focus on yo0u IDN – yo0u appears Not.
An internet App for creativity (its purpose – making sites) helps by telling users that visitors (apparently people who go to the created site/s location/s) can run users’/my App Scripts, which (supposedly) I’ve compiled – double App (‘Yapp’). Uh, wasn’t that the purpose of my App Script afterall or is the existence of any piece of code within my newly created App (imagine the latter without the App Script), that this very famous online App warns me of with disclosure of cautionary statements as: running App Scripts as a gadget will definately grant visitors (however many were just App-ed) personal services and sites access.
‘Finally!’, new App opportunities for creating innovative sites would <begin> depleting proportionally to the Appvailability.
The following Outlook accessory functionality issue example here is unrealistic, (more) Not. Outlook data items (e.g. Library Folder – Notes, Letters, Classic Entries and etc.) have what’s referred to as Private option (‘Private’ tab), securing handling from others (clarification appears by hoovering with the mouse cursor over the tab itself). But the former also have an Attach Item tab (Not the ‘Attach File’ tab), allowing the attachment of (you’ll never guess) the Item itself. Indeed, besides inserting formerly mentioned Outlook entries (whatever type), the very same Item (trial-ed with a saved Entry) can be attached within the now opened … (you’ve guessed it) Item itself. With the Private tab activated and a Restricted User Handling Attached Item (let’s call it the Attaching Itself Item tab) you wouldn’t care of listing possible consequential security breachings if you dare to click open the Attaching Itself, but you can only imagine it would be something of a Mirror-in-Mirror, or in Outlook terms more of an infinite Look Out Not (Look In, Look In, Look In …) loop ‘effect’. Finally, watch out Outlook-ers for system loops.
What happened to the good all in one VB/C+ application – the App ate it! That last sentence is so intertwined, that it’s hard not to forget. Indeed, File-Properties, Edit-Settings, View-Preferences, Tools-Options, Help-License are in the past – nowadays we must have the App. Today account ‘Sign In’, ‘Log In’, Enter In (the Account of course, what else if not ‘one for all, all for one’ sociability) rule and since there’s nothing unordinary in chopping up good old (referring to the beginning sentence) ‘compilations’, this bound to disappear trunced distribution trend will keep on going, going, going (until my social batteries deplete).
Considering the huge potential for using social tools in any kind of activity it comes to mind the question: Why would you/anybody enter his/her social account (e.g. click on the Facebook, jobs, i.e. Linked In, Twitter, Google+, Yahoo, Pinterest, Instagram multi-popping icons) user details for logging into ‘buddy’ websites, especially where a comment ‘has to be made’… – and the comment is: What are the agreements [in that fashion user-input safety precautions (yes, the usual ‘botted’ backend database encryption)] of those websites with any of the social networks – n’any listed. I would still stick to entering my password directly at the social account’s origin.