|
Some people earn money without adding any value to economy.
Just wanted to buy a domain name and noticed someone (who already bought over 100 other names) bought it already and now asks for "4 figures" money to give it to others. :-/
Planning to move to Germany, looking for a job there!Looking for a Windows desktop programmer? I look forward to hearing from you! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, this has been an issue for a long time. In the early days people would make a lot more than that by having prime domain names.
|
|
|
|
|
Clifford Nelson wrote: Yes, this has been an issue for a long time.
I know. By first line I was referring to a category of issues in economy, which this is a good instance in our field of work.
Problem is that I searched for tens of names and came across similar websites of people or companies. That's a bit too frustrating.
Earning money by making life of others worse is a shame, I believe.
Planning to move to Germany, looking for a job there!Looking for a Windows desktop programmer? I look forward to hearing from you!
|
|
|
|
|
Hamed Mosavi wrote: Earning money by making life of others worse is a shame, I believe.
No, it's just capitalism.
|
|
|
|
|
Upvote (if it were enabled).
Couldn't be put more simply or more concisely, so I won't try.
Ya chooses yer politics then ya win some then ya lose some, yer just lose different things and win sum uvers...
|
|
|
|
|
Mike-MadBadger wrote: Ya chooses yer politics then ya win some then ya lose some, yer just lose different things and win sum uvers...
Yelling about homosexuality outside of a slain soldier's funeral:
Free speech: Yes.
Arse-hats: Yes.
Domain name camping:
Capitalism: Yes.
Arse-hats: Yes.
Telling bad jokes in The Lounge because the voting system is down:
Opportunism: Yes.
Arse-hats: Jury still out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
That actually came into my mind too! 
My action won't change the reality of this problem in economy and specifically here, in our world.
Planning to move to Germany, looking for a job there!Looking for a Windows desktop programmer? I look forward to hearing from you!
|
|
|
|
|
In fact if everyone had did like you did, this problem wouldn't exist
Peace
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe.
Where are '5' buttons of this forum? I used to use them instead of typing 'Agree' or 'Thank you'!
Planning to move to Germany, looking for a job there!Looking for a Windows desktop programmer? I look forward to hearing from you!
|
|
|
|
|
(disclaimer, IANAL and TINLA)
I don't know if it applies to to every jurisdiction, but if you want to register a domain based on your real name and it has been hijacked by someone else, you could argue in some sort of court to have it released to you for registration.
I think I've seen it done for businesses, but I assume it could work for individuals.
Nihil obstat
|
|
|
|
|
Maximilien wrote: I think I've seen it done for businesses
It's probably because they had registered trademarks.
|
|
|
|
|
I had a domain name expire.
It was snagged by one of these guys within days.
It is a waste of his money because I won't ever do business with these guys.
|
|
|
|
|
Hamed Mosavi wrote: Some people earn money without adding any value to economy.
Lots of people would die if they'd have to pay for their food from the value they add.
It's an evolutionary advantage; maximize your gain, minimize the effort.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: It's an evolutionary advantage; maximize your gain, minimize the effort.
No it's not. Putting burden on others to have a simpler life is not evolutionary, it's actually opposite of that.
Part of the limbic system of our brain is responsible for caring about our kind/species. Some worms don't have it and don't care if by moving over their new born children, they even kill some. We aren't like that. If someone is, he has brain issues.
Planning to move to Germany, looking for a job there!Looking for a Windows desktop programmer? I look forward to hearing from you!
|
|
|
|
|
Hamed Mosavi wrote: No it's not. Putting burden on others to have a simpler life is not evolutionary, it's actually opposite of that.
Whehe, altruism brings a lot more magic than egotism, you're right there. Still, looks as if those without a consciousness are winning 
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Still, looks as if those without a consciousness are winning
I think winners aren't the most happy or successful among us. I value happiness and success in life, more than winning a lot of money but this is just a personal idea.
Planning to move to Germany, looking for a job there!Looking for a Windows desktop programmer? I look forward to hearing from you!
|
|
|
|
|
Hamed Mosavi wrote: I think winners aren't the most happy or successful among us
Philosophy; what is it that makes us happy, besides the arguments mentioned in Maslovs' pyramid? Aren't we "just animals", deep within? Driven by the four f...'s?
Hamed Mosavi wrote: I value happiness and success in life, more than winning a lot of money but this is just a personal idea.
The theory of evolution says you have to attempt to multiply your DNA as good as posssible.
..but happiness, is simply a cop o' coffee in the morning. Guess it'll depend on your definition of "happiness".
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Philosophy; what is it that makes us happy,
I use my common sense for that and look at it this way: If I sacrifice something in my life, like health (could be mental health) to gain one thing, then I'm a winner but not happy so I no longer call that success. A good example is all the famous and rich actors or singers who commit suicide.
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Aren't we "just animals", deep within? Driven by the four f...'s?
Eddy Vluggen wrote: but happiness, is simply a cop o' coffee in the morning.
Have no idea but people who look for pleasure whole their lives did not become very happy in the end either. (Drug addicts for instance. )
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Guess it'll depend on your definition of "happiness".
Maybe, but the cost of trying a wrong theory in this case is a lot, I'd rather think about it through.
Planning to move to Germany, looking for a job there!Looking for a Windows desktop programmer? I look forward to hearing from you!
|
|
|
|
|
Hamed Mosavi wrote: No it's not. Putting burden on others to have a simpler life is not evolutionary, it's actually opposite of that.
Incorrect.
Hamed Mosavi wrote: Part of the limbic system of our brain is responsible for caring about our kind/species
How is caring for the species not in fact a gain?
And that ignores the fact that it just isn't true. Armies have been killing civilians, including women and children for a long time specifically for gain.
Altruism in its modern form it based on plenty. If I have plenty of food (and other life necessities) then I can rationalize giving it away in any way that I want but it doesn't alter the fact that there is only because there is extra that it happens.
Other than that theories for genetic altruism are based on the idea that one is protecting the genetic pool by caring for ones children, near relatives and social community. That however is still based on protecting genetics which is a gain.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote:
Hamed Mosavi wrote: No it's not. Putting burden on others to have a simpler life is not evolutionary, it's actually opposite of that.
Incorrect. |
You're wrong. It's correct.
jschell wrote: Altruism in its modern form it based on plenty.
Wrong again. A good example to prove it wrong is when a disaster happens. Some people put their own lives in danger to save others. One such an example is enough to prove this idea is wrong, although there are a lot of such examples and I am sure you've heard, read or probably seen it.
jschell wrote: That however is still based on protecting genetics which is a gain.
Regardless of the theory that proves people care about each other and reasons for that care, the fact is that they do and if they don't, they are probably not healthy. So again, I believe, if someone is thinking only about his/her gain while that gain puts extra burden and misery on shoulders of others, that is not in line with human nature or evolution and is a problem in economy.
Planning to move to Germany, looking for a job there!Looking for a Windows desktop programmer? I look forward to hearing from you!
|
|
|
|
|
Hamed Mosavi wrote: Wrong again. A good example to prove it wrong is when a disaster happens. Some people put their own lives in danger to save others. One such an example is enough to prove this idea is wrong, although there are a lot of such examples and I am sure you've heard, read or probably seen it.
People commit suicide every day. People engage in activities that are recognized by almost everyone, including themselves, as being very dangerous and even die from doing it.
So based on your reasoning genetically we are predispositioned to kill ourselves before we can propagate. And that obviously contradicts absolutely everything about genetics.
Hamed Mosavi wrote: and if they don't, they are probably not healthy
Utter nonsense.
Hamed Mosavi wrote: if someone is thinking only about his/her gain while that gain
No one thinks only about it. Just as no one completely ignores it. For the latter case one only need look to people who feed themselves. Feeding oneself is by its very nature selfish.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: So based on your reasoning genetically we are predispositioned to kill ourselves before we can propagate.
Where did I say that?
By that example I am only trying to say that your theory that having too much has caused giving is incorrect. People sacrifice their live which from it they only have one, which means one decreases his/her gain to increase someone elses. Now I'm not an expert in biology to say why it happens or what happens to genes when it happens. Just for a clue, I can say that I think at some point, pain of others become more painful to us and thus more critical to survival to just sit and look. Just an idea though.
jschell wrote: Utter nonsense.
Just because you call it that, it doesn't become that.
jschell wrote: Feeding oneself is by its very nature selfish.
How is this related to our discussion?
Planning to move to Germany, looking for a job there!Looking for a Windows desktop programmer? I look forward to hearing from you!
|
|
|
|
|
Hamed Mosavi wrote: Where did I say that?
You claimed that because some people help others that it must mean that people are genetically programmed to do that.
Thus it follows that any activity that people engage in must be solely based on genetic conditioning.
Hamed Mosavi wrote: ...point, pain of others become more painful to us and thus more critical to
survival to just sit and look.
That however says nothing about a genetic predespostion.
Hamed Mosavi wrote: Just because you call it that, it doesn't become that.
Yes actually it does.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
