rooshdi

42 ms·

361.
by rooshdi 15y ago
What if I own cats.com and just want to put a picture of my cat fuzzy wuzzy? I'm sure a .meow domain would suit your personal purposes just fine. A .com, however, would be better suited for commercial purposes if you intend to profit off
362.
by rooshdi 15y ago
It seems to think that there are only two groups registering domains: squatters and startups. Even if we expand "startups" to "companies", this is clearly bullshit. When speaking of startups/companies registering domains I clearly stated
363.
by rooshdi 15y ago
Don't take this the wrong way, I actually appreciate the dialogue you and I are having. I like debating with an opposing view in order to bring more issues to the surface. My argument is that domain squatters provide very little value in co
364.
by rooshdi 15y ago
Go pay the 185k fee and get .startup or .beta and create an official startup tld and regulate how you see fit. Let it compete, like a startup should. I'm sorry but most start-ups can't afford 185k for a domain. Plus, re-branding takes ano
365.
by rooshdi 15y ago
Domain squatting is a specific term, it means someone who registers in bad faith to infringe on another company's trademark. Let's be clear about that. Yes, the bad faith intent is the major issue we are trying to deter. There are way t
366.
by rooshdi 15y ago
There are many stakeholders from various backgrounds that all need to be considered before trying to push through one specific and narrow interest group. Yes, each type of "stakeholder" could be reserved a certain type of domain suffix ba
367.
by rooshdi 15y ago
Could multiverses be playing a role in the mass of our own universe? And if so, would the mass of dark matter within our universe far outweigh any of those effects?
368.
by rooshdi 15y ago
It's such a complex mess, these simple solutions don't even begin to grasp at understanding the system. Just because it's complex doesn't mean we can't work towards trying to solve or improve this issue. We can either try to improve it fo
369.
by rooshdi 15y ago
Every "simple" solution I've heard for the squatter problem is only simple because it's focusing on a simple case. Yes, but more sophisticated solutions will gradually be put in place to consider most cases. Think of it sort of like the A
370.
by rooshdi 15y ago
Just because you don't have the absolute best one shouldn't stop you, and if it does, you're doing it wrong. It may not stop you, but the system right now sure doesn't help the situation. Shouldn't we work towards improving it for start-u
371.
Google reveals US government leads way in private data requests(guardian.co.uk)
4 points by rooshdi 15y ago|0 comments
372.
by rooshdi 15y ago
It is a tough issue, but I think setting some clear requirements for owning a domain name could go a long way. Restricting domain owners from placing parking pages and requiring them to actively work on an online service, be that a web app,
373.
by rooshdi 15y ago
Along with patent reform, I'm hoping there's some sort of domain squatting reform down the line. There are way too many squatters doing absolutely nothing with way too many good domains. The domain system right now seems to be working again
374.
by rooshdi 15y ago
At 33:30 into the video, Jobs pushes a powerful insight that many found hard to believe at the time: "Apple can win without having to have Microsoft lose." Maybe, even then, he had a foresight into how significant mobile computing would bec
375.
by rooshdi 15y ago
Investors would over-invest, but business would not get enough revenue to pay them back. We shall see, but just for the fact their product and technology improves a previous experience in such an obvious way, I have much less of a problem
376.
by rooshdi 15y ago
I'd say that investors would lose lots of money on that venture. I'd bet against that. They definitely solve a problem people have with taking focused photos and I see this technology becoming even more popular as it becomes integrated in
377.
by rooshdi 15y ago
To whoever down voted, I welcome you to reply and support your stance.
378.
by rooshdi 15y ago
Retail investors who do it a la carte are going to net hurt themselves anyway. This assumes there aren't any adept retail investors in the public market. There will still be an increasing number of savvy retail investors who will now be i
379.
by rooshdi 15y ago
Although start-up investments may be more volatile than established company investments, the fortunate few elite will still sustain an ever-growing head start over the general public when investing. Plus, the original incentives of founders
380.
by rooshdi 15y ago
Yes, but doesn't the decreasing importance of public offerings hurt the general public now? Seems like the rich investors of private markets are going to have an ever-growing first-mover advantage in rapid-growth companies while the general
381.
by rooshdi 15y ago
The culprit may have posted to HN just hours ago: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2671766
382.
by rooshdi 15y ago
Here is a list of other companies you may want to consider boycotting: http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/Boycotts/CurrentBoycottsList....
383.
by rooshdi 15y ago
It's just a joke, don't take it too seriously. The utility behind this is quite good though.
384.
U.S. Fought To Lower Minimum Wage In Haiti For Hanes & Levis(businessinsider.com)
10 points by rooshdi 15y ago|2 comments
385.
by rooshdi 15y ago
Sounds like a good idea, now build it!
386.
WhatTheFuckShouldINameMyStartup.com(whatthefuckshouldinamemystartup.com)
3 points by rooshdi 15y ago|3 comments
387.
by rooshdi 15y ago
If the author really watched my videos, he would see that I start most of them telling the listener to be skeptical of anything I tell them or anyone tells them; that no matter how footnoted something is, in the end it is dependent on peop
388.
by rooshdi 15y ago
Isn't a secret...to some. If Groupon knew all potential investors would come to these same conclusions, why inflate the CSOI figures in the first place? They may believe that their marketing costs may not stay high once they've locked users
389.
by rooshdi 15y ago
Yes, but Groupon is deliberately excluding certain expenses, such as online marketing, from their CSOI in order to inflate their profitability. Excluding this figure seems quite deceiving since their figures imply they don't rely heavily o
390.
by rooshdi 15y ago
Yes, but the G round investors still have a personal stake in ensuring the public are deceived into buying those IPO shares so they themselves can turn a profit. Deceiving is deceiving either way you cut it.

More ›