dylangs1030

114 ms·

1081.
by dylangs1030 15y ago
Exactly. Crime would adjust itself, or find a new market. Compromising by legalizing something which has a purpose in being illegal is detrimental to solving the problem.
1082.
by dylangs1030 15y ago
That is an over-simplified solution to a complicated problem. Organized crime would change, not cease to exist. Countries where prostitution is legal still see organized abuses in the industry, like brothel owners not following regulations,
1083.
by dylangs1030 15y ago
Not only is it extremely dangerous, but it is a campaign which would be incredibly difficult to do anonymously, and even more difficult to do with the resources available to a largely disorganized movement (read: no governing authority to d
1084.
by dylangs1030 15y ago
The trouble with movements like Anonymous is that there is no centralized authority. Further, a group pushing for anarchy is either hypocritical if it's effective (because it will be organized) or ineffective because it's anarchical and dis
1085.
by dylangs1030 15y ago
Yes, and actually the police need not be corrupt. Organized crime leaders can be in the public eye and unless there is evidence against them, they cannot be penalized by the legal system.
1086.
by dylangs1030 15y ago
Wait, I'm not arguing that. I agree, Google hasn't done anything to warrant being bothered by the government. Perhaps I wasn't clear, but when I said the government has a blanket policy on trusts, I meant they catch Google without real just
1087.
by dylangs1030 15y ago
Well, that's why I said de facto monopoly. Legally, no, it has no monopoly. But the point was that it's made other search engines largely irrelevant. With the exception of Bing, you generally can't think of many search engines these days.
1088.
by dylangs1030 15y ago
This is probably the fifth essay I've read on the subject, and they all really agree. Google was being highly eccentric in choosing their brand name when they started up, and it was comparatively rare back then. But look how fantastically s
1089.
by dylangs1030 15y ago
Yep! The internet's user base has expanded so much, especially in the last decade, that formal names are no longer marketable for a lot of different purposes. They will appear boring and dull. Increasingly, the trend on the internet is to
1090.
by dylangs1030 15y ago
That is an issue of extremely successful startups making their predecessors "irrelevant." Google eradicated the market and became a de facto monopoly for searching anything on the internet. Netflix entirely dissolved physical movie stores.
1091.
by dylangs1030 15y ago
To play devil's advocate, there are different ways of looking at this. While in theory you're right, I'm not sure startup founders are thinking of their health insurance when they decide to quit their jobs. They are probably more concerned
1092.
by dylangs1030 15y ago
As with most other gambles, greater risk entails greater reward. Reduced risk (read: more comfortable safety net) means more competitors, a more diluted market for startups, and a lower payoff to fewer successes. Convesely, Google rose from
1093.
by dylangs1030 15y ago
One of the reasons I see startups being more significant for fueling the economy is momentum. A startup with 2 or 3 well collaborating founders without internal conflict is following an exciting vision - there's a certain glorification to b
1094.
by dylangs1030 15y ago
I can imagine a lot of purely business-driven connections would not be able to appreciate the startup, but this is exactly why the question is important - how necessary are they, as a necessary evil?
1095.
The Importance of Industry Contacts
1 points by dylangs1030 15y ago|2 comments
1096.
by dylangs1030 15y ago
Good points, my idea was closer to doing the same thing but better, and doing it better in such a way that a new market would emerge from the way you did things. P.S. Thanks for the responses, I'm new here.
1097.
Is it better to begin a startup with or without competition?
2 points by dylangs1030 15y ago|3 comments