thecrazyone

13 ms·

91.
by thecrazyone 9y ago
What's your point? Is it that they're good, bad? What is that you're claiming. You might think it's obvious, but unfortunately, your claims are not obvious from your post
92.
by thecrazyone 9y ago
Yeah whatever you say on your post is not considered a legal communication. The statements you post on your wall are akin to randomly shouting out statements on the street. Other parties are not expected to listening to that and taking that
93.
by thecrazyone 9y ago
I don't understand this line of reasoning usually expected of corporations. Why do they have to part with their profits which they have legitimately earned? They can but should not be required or expected to. Why would you not fund a
94.
by thecrazyone 9y ago
Wow! This would be so bad: 1) Govt will have to raise more taxes (this is a curb on freedom). Why should someone else pay for your services? 2) Bigger Govt will have political motives which will murk up the services it provides. Said anothe
95.
by thecrazyone 9y ago
Wouldn't this then mean, to each his own. Why should one person's preferences be imposed on others?
96.
by thecrazyone 9y ago
I think you do agree to a contract when you use free basics
97.
by thecrazyone 9y ago
When they buy other companies, note: 1) It's a voluntary transaction and is not compulsory 2) They precisely buy because it would be harder to build it from scratch. Which refutes your claim that Google or FB can't be competed aga
98.
by thecrazyone 9y ago
thank you for espousing the free markets ideology (I concur with you). I don't know why but these days, I feel HN also has become protectionist (where I'd have expected free marketeers). Perhaps this is out of context, but I wonde
99.
by thecrazyone 9y ago
well the manufacturers would tie into their system. If apple implemented this, you would be tied to their ecosystem, no? Don't see a way around that :)
100.
by thecrazyone 9y ago
that's a good quote. Not sure if it means much, but it sounds good and intelligent :)
101.
by thecrazyone 9y ago
I feel sad every time I hear things like this. That we've to be happy that we got our job done even when all our documents are in the clear. Or that we've to hope get some favor from them by fawning (not alleging that you did that
102.
by thecrazyone 9y ago
This puts things in perspective. I used to get angry when the other party used to screw up, have stopped getting angry seeing how futile getting angry at a random (and ever changing) customer rep is. This puts calmness in a new perspective
103.
by thecrazyone 9y ago
Wow! this is a good one. I would love to hear a lawyer's take on this to see if this is notice enough. Seems like it though :)
104.
by thecrazyone 9y ago
Thanks for the context. The other comments make it feel like this was extremely risky. Like "moving spacecrafts through closing doors". You give it more context
105.
by thecrazyone 9y ago
reading this I'm happy the OP didn't say they would pay the salary in the new crypto currency they were tasking you to create :)
106.
by thecrazyone 9y ago
What's your point? If they don't drive sales, they'll stop advertising or go out of business. Not sure what's your concern here
107.
by thecrazyone 9y ago
Well if you don't pay, how's the supplier of said free service going to survive. Note: I'm not supporting viruses and malware, here in my argument
108.
by thecrazyone 9y ago
you're on point. Also, we don't need to weigh the pros and cons of advertising as long as all actions are voluntary. Why is it somebody else's business to make the world suit your tastes, you need to put effort for it, either
109.
by thecrazyone 9y ago
Advertising is not a public service. You don't need to weight benefits of it for it to exist. This might seem harsh, but no one is weighing the benefits of your existence to decide whether you live or die. You own yourself and you can
110.
by thecrazyone 9y ago
No you owe the content publishers a living if you're consuming their content else they go out of business. Ads is how content publishers make money. Advertisers in fact pay money for publishing their ads.
111.
by thecrazyone 9y ago
Let's indeed deregulate everything. Picking from the items you've mentioned: drugs: if someone is putting substances in their own body, they don't need your permission and you don't have a say on what they can do with th
112.
by thecrazyone 9y ago
I'm a libertarian. And putting/enforcing rules on someone who's not aggressing you because you don't like it seems like needing coercion. You're voluntarily consuming ad-based content, no one's forcing you. If
113.
by thecrazyone 9y ago
You're so on-point. All these rants about ads don't think about who'd pay for the content you're consuming if not for the ads. You can't have high quality content and not pay for it - with ads or otherwise. If you w
114.
by thecrazyone 9y ago
How's it a market failure (markets not working properly) when bad regulation/ regulator regime is to blame. One should properly term it as 'Government Failure', don't you think so?
115.
by thecrazyone 9y ago
Good point. However, that's a short term benefit at the cost of long term is what we should all remember
116.
by thecrazyone 9y ago
Wow! This implication to open source software is largely overlooked in the discussions here. Good catch.
117.
by thecrazyone 9y ago
That would just lead to under-utilization (if that's the right phrase for it) of power. At most situations you might be assigning improbable risks to things. If you have a reason to believe someone is not going to abuse power, then giv
118.
by thecrazyone 9y ago
Wow! that's an amazing library name? Would you mind if I ..er.. borrow it? (JK) :D
119.
by thecrazyone 9y ago
"worth billion dollars" is not the same as "have billion dollars". FB is both worth and have multiple billion dollars. Does this make sense to you?
120.
by thecrazyone 9y ago
IANAL wait is this true? The way I understood this conversation was that BMW (continuing your example) cannot sue facebook if facebook infringes them on an of their car patents but it's not a right or a grant or even a license of any

More ›