PSFK picks it’s top 10 health innovations of the week. Evidently math isn’t one of them.
Xbox Kinect Makes Finding the Perfect Pair of Jeans Easy. Does this sensor make me look fat?
Take Your Meds Or This Ultra-Expensive Pillbox Will Guilt You Into Remembering.
Medstartr.com is a funding platform for medical innovations. Did web 2.0 lose all of it’s vowels?
Meme of the week: McKayla is not impressed
Hi-
When we upgraded our servers, the plug in for all the contact forms got hosed. If you’d like to get in touch with me, please send me a note at thisiswhereyoureachme [at] gmail [dot] com. I hope to have this resolved shortly.
-Bill
On June 13th, ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) approved a slew of new gTLDs (generic top level domains) that potentially create new web suffixes ( or, more technically, strings ) to supplement the existing stable which includes .com. .net, .org, .gov, .mil, .edu, .biz, .info and .int ( country specific gTLDs also exist ). The full list, which can be found here requires a $185,000 application fee, plus a yearly service fee of $25,000 paid directly to ICANN. Needless to say, that’s some serious
coin.
The requested gTLD strings included applications from some major pharma companies, with some applying for brand trademarks and program names. I may have missed a few combing through the list, but at last tally they included:
Also interesting to note that several of the bigger pharma companies opted to pass on securing a new gTLD string, including Roche, GSK, Novartis, AZ and Bayer. Pepsi, along with a few other mega-brands, have been very vocal about their decision to stay on the sidelines of the gTLD land rush, while Google and others have applied for multiple strings. So who’s going to come out ahead? Those who acquired the domains now, or those who waited? Given the expense involved and the lack of a road map to implementation, the answer isn’t a clear one.