Google rule their market ruthlessly. They will suspend people from their services penalising them and causing them damage based on their suspicions alone, based on a secret investigation, without warning, and without giving people a chance to defend themselves. Not to mention how ruthlessly Google filter their own search results. Google do not deserve to dominate any market and they are already too large, and they certainly are in no position to lecture the Chinese government on Internet ethics.

Check the Adwords forum to see numerous complaints: http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/AdWords/ People have also reported being suspended from Google Checkout. Your assumption that they 'usually have good reasons' is wrong. They will suspend people based on their suspicions alone, and they will investigate in secret and you are highly unlikely to be contacted to defend yourself. The bottom line is that they reserve the right to suspend for any reason, which is not fair given their dominance, and not an acceptable standard in the free world.

Google reserves their right to suspend services for any reason in most of their terms and they do exercise this right by suspending people for life from the use of their services. Becoming dependant on Google's services, or being dependant on a market they dominate, leads to a large penalty and damage when services are suspended. Google will suspend services based on their suspicion alone, and clearly use data collected to make decisions. Their investigations are held in secret, based on secret information, giving the victim no chance to defend it, and this is not fair treatment. It has become so bad that employers are asking job applicants if they have ever been suspended from Google services to avoid the risk that Google will suspend the employers services. Clearly something needs to be done, but what can they really do?

You are wrong around the registration requirements for .com.au domain names. Simply selling advertising relating to the domain name is enough to show a 'close a substantial connection' and qualify and the stephenconroy.com.au. name could easily meet these requirements. Things have changed since the auDA took over, and the auDA has allowed the .com.au domain name space to become full of parked monetised websites.

Selling anything related to 'Stephen Conroy' or even selling advertising for anything related to 'Stephen Conroy' would be enough to meet the commercial requirements. Further a new website would not be expected to be up a running immediately and auDA should have given them a chance to correct the issue.

You are wrong about the .com.au domain name needs to have a registered business/trading name related to the domain. The auDA allows monetised website with ads related to the name and this does not need to be your business name. Please so many people are stating misinformation on this issue could someone flag them all as misinformation.

The auDA support squatting but with the limitation that the name can not be sold for 6 months - you just have to put some advertising related to the name on the website to qualify as a monetised website under the auDA policy.

There is no requirement that a .com.au domain name is related to the company name, it just has to be related to their business activity and placing some ads on the website related to the name is enough!

Wrong, simply selling something related to the domain name is enough, such as ads. Things have changed over the paster few years.

You are wrong about the commercial requirements. These are very minimal. Just placing some ads on their website selling Steve dolls or Steve posters etc would be enough to meet the auDA monetised website requirements.

There are only very minimal requirements which are very easy to meet such as placing a few ads on the sited related to the name which would qualify the site as a commercial monetised website - you can't resell the site for 6 months, but this is not a real barrier. Yes, this is not what most people would expect, but this is how auDA have managed the .com.au domain space, which is now full of parked domain names.

Inkjets have higher resolution than dyesub printers. I explored dye sub printers but returned to Epson inkjet printers for high quality prints. Some people will argue that the wide range of ink levels that a dye sub can place on the paper will make up for the low resolution (typically 300dpi), however the dye sub ink also spreads and the heating element has a slow response so you don't even get 300dpi. A Epson Inkjet can place dots a 5760dpi so it can reproduce high resolution detail; the ink dots need to be dithered to produce shades, but the dithered pattern can still be placed at 5760 dpi compared to a dye sub can only place a pattern at 300 dpi. Another way to look at it is that a dye sub can place a fuzzy pattern on a 300 dpi grid, but an Epson Inkjet can place a fuzzy pattern at 5760 dpi and this does make a big difference. Inkjet printers also have a wider range of inks so product a much better color gamut. For example: if you combine the CMY on dye sub you get a dark brown. An Inkjey printer typically has a black ink for better blacks. Inkjet printers are a good option, and dye sub and laser printer do not appears to be replacing their quality any time soon.

There are lenticular displays that do not require glasses however they have some disadvantages and can not deliver the same image quality as solutions using glasses.

A larger horizontal translation is needed than can be achieved with a single standard lens. A slight displacement is not enough except for some macro photography. This is even more so for lenticular 3D monitors - the viewer is only seeing a fraction of the total available displacement so the recorded displacement must be at least many times the human eye separation.