Namely when I buy a domain name from who exactly am I buying it from?
Put in other words, what's the best way to buy a domain name and avoid the middleman fees?
In terms of renewal, does it make a difference if you buy it from the root TLD authority (not sure if saying something silly here) or some squatter/middle-man/domain-park?
Who decides on the price hike for the next year?
I find the whole DNS management quite broken. The new TLDs is a good example. .dev got owned by Google and a bunch of other TLDs got acquired by some VC backed digital-estate company.
So I found this article [1] about domain name transfer. Which clarified one doubt that I had. As I was under the impression that you were hopelessly stuck at paying rent for life middleman (to a reseller or in this case a registrar).
This raises another question. Is it worth starting you own registrar? Or it is fee prohibitive?
Registrars need to pay a yearly fee to ICANN (in the $xx,xxx range if I recall correctly) and significant startup fees as well.
This qualifies you to pay 'wholesale' prices for domain names. Wholesale prices are set by the registry. (e.g. Verisign sets the wholesale price for .com, Afilias for .org, etc.)
It is worth doing if you register a very large number of domain names, like 100,000+. Some large corporations have their own registrar, Google for example. (More recently Google has also entered the registry business, with their new TLDs.)
Historically, who in this chain collected the seigniorage for domain names worth much more than the transaction cost, i.e., email.com? Just whoever snatched it up first, usually a reseller? I always wondered domain names weren't auctioned off like other scarce resources whose initial distribution is controlled by the government, such as wireless spectrum.
I feel saddened by this this. But at the same time I see Japan in a very complicated situation with China expanding its maritime influence in the region.
If it doesn't flex its military muscle (needing the secracy for it) it may find itself in a vulnerable situation against China. Although on the other hand it really doesn't stand a chance against China's nuclear arsenal.
If China used a nuclear warhead would the US riposte in the same manner?
What I don't get is the "Japan to battle in the middle east". Is this a "you scratch my back and I scratch yours"? Or just a cover for not saying "we're preparing for an eventual conflict with China"?
> Although on the other hand it really doesn't stand a chance against China's nuclear arsenal.
I beg to differ; According to the U.S government, Japan maintains a latent nuclear program. According to their assessment, Japan can go from "Hey, let's build a nuclear weapon stockpile" to actually having that stockpile in as little as a few months. (Source: http://zidbits.com/2012/02/which-country-is-closest-to-build...)
Germany comes in second place and could have nuclear weapons nearly as quick.
> Or just a cover for not saying "we're preparing for an eventual conflict with China"?
Right now, if North Korea launched a missile at California, Japan would have to watch as it sailed over Tokyo. They legally cannot shoot it down in protection of their ally. Japan wants to change that. They want to be able to protect and assist their allies in more than just a minor supporting role. Japan was there in Iraq and Afghanistan, they just weren't in combat roles. They were there providing medical aid and resupplies.
People (incorrectly) think that Japan is trying to become 1935 imperial Japan again. That's not it - they just want to be like everyone else. Right now, they have less freedom (militaristicaly) than everyone else. Significantly less than Germany too.
> Right now, if North Korea launched a missile
> at California, Japan would have to watch as
> it sailed over Tokyo.
This doesn't detract from your general point, but I was curious to see if this particular thing was true.
If you use the "measure distance" tool on Google Maps you can see that even if North Korea launched an ICBM from the southernmost part of their eastern coast to the southernmost part of California it would only intersect Japanese territory by a few miles, at the point of Rebun Island northwest of Hokkaido, something they could trivially avoid. They'd have a much bigger practical problem with having to fly it over Russia than Japan.
In order for its course to go anywhere near Tokyo they'd have to be aiming said ICBM somewhere midway around Argentina, around a thousand miles south of Buenos Aires or so.
Don't let the Mercator projection interfere with your sense of reality.
It doesn't look good that the leadership must constantly "reinterpret" Article 9 to do this, though. Though I don't necessarily disagree that Japan should be beefing up its defense right about now, the whole situation would smell better - and probably have a better result - if the government just rewrote Article 9 out of the Constitution entirely and allowed itself to provision armed forces on the same level as other nations without having to justify everything. (And, for God's sake, just leave the press alone already.)
Maybe the Overton Window just isn't there yet, though.
You bring up a good point, but Japan could beef up its military defenses without also shutting down the press. You'd think that the USA of all countries could be clear about that distinction and urge our ally to maintain a free press while also endorsing their participation in military operations.
Given their mutual histories, I suspect both China and South Korea expect that Japan is preparing for conflict with them, so attempting to provide "cover" in that regard would only make Japan look duplicitous, regardless of Japan's actual intentions.
What makes it even harder to understand is that it was basically the US that forced Japan to demilitarize after WW2. Now we want to ask them to fight our wars?
The possible cover for not saying "we're preparing for an eventual conflict with China" is even more troubling. It was previously the case that the US would handle Japan's defense and the Self Defense Forces would, of course, provide self-defense. Are they planning for a conflict that is not defensive?
> the US that forced Japan to demilitarize after WW2. Now we want to ask them to fight our wars?
To be fair, the U.S has literally been asking Japan to change its constitution since 1968. They've been trying to get them to be actual military allies for 50 years now. Understandably, Japan has been perfectly fine with the status quo. And who can blame them? They had Uncle Sam footing their defense bill -- at least, until recently. Now Japan has to pay the U.S for that protection in a cost sharing agreement. The U.S wanted to close up shop and leave. They also wanted to leave South Korea as well, believe it or not. Both countries now pay the U.S to be there.
> To be fair, the U.S has literally been asking Japan to change its constitution since 1968. They've been trying to get them to be actual military allies for 50 years now.
Before that, actually. As early as the late 1940s, once it became clear that the Cold War was going to be a thing, the US was leaning on Japan to beef up militarily in the hopes of countering Soviet influence in the area. Savvy politicians in the era were not necessarily pacifist, but they could say "gee, sorry guys, but the Article 9 that you put in our constitution won't let us. Guess you'll have to keep your bases here and help defend us from those darn Soviets yourselves," then throw the money they saved not having to field a military towards economic development instead.
> What makes it even harder to understand is that it was basically the US that forced Japan to demilitarize after WW2. Now we want to ask them to fight our wars?
That was 70 years ago - the world has changed a lot in that time.
Stripe ACH service has been in "beta" for at least two years. I contacted them that long ago and was told it would be available by the end of 2014 and it is still in "beta" and not generally available. As the co-founder of an enterprise SaaS app startup where our average per use charge for a customer to use our app (we charge on a per use basis not straight subscription) starts in the hundreds of dollars and can run into the thousands paying the standard 2.9% + credit card fees for every payment vs. $.10 - $.50 max for an ACH charge is a complete non-starter for us and our customers. All of Stripe's competitors have had ACH forever including Balanced who we talked to but Stripe continues to drag its feet and not provide ACH. Clearly it isn't for technical reasons but because they make significantly more revenue and profit by not offering ACH where their transaction fee is much less. So while I respect what Stripe did early on to make integrating payments into an app much easier than the previous generation payment providers requiring a lot of up front fees, merchant accounts, etc. we will never consider them again unless and until they offer ACH and I'm sure there are lots of other enterprise app companies who won't use them either without ACH because customers demand it vs. having to run up huge monthly charges on their company credit cards. Too bad that Stripe management is proven to put their profits (and greed) ahead of providing cost effective solutions for their customers.
> They can afford to take one year of to travel the world or just work on their own projects.
Can they?
> Why am I dealing with this crappy weather when I can move to somewhere where I'm paid 2-3x more and it's summer all year?
Because you don't risk bankruptcy by having a health issue, if you're single it's not a sausage fest, more laid back work (in SF it seems you're bound to stay longer times at the office), greater tourism choices (a short trip away) and probably still cheaper than rent in SF even if we're talking London
> Because you don't risk bankruptcy by having a health issue, if you're single it's not a sausage fest, more laid back work (in SF it seems you're bound to stay longer times at the office), greater tourism choices (a short trip away) and probably still cheaper than rent in SF even if we're talking London
We have another reason right in this very answer: People in SV are willing to take more risk and sacrifice. Sure there are chances one may be bankrupted because of a health issue. Sure there are fewer entertainment choices. Living in SV may not be an ideal lifestyle for many but it has attracted a lot of adventurous mind from all over the world, who together conjure up trailblazing ventures.
Not only do I not think that is true, I think there's real danger that people conclude that more risk is better. SV is in many ways risk averse. The days when any kid could get a million dollars are over. Almost every success story seems to happen on a background of brand name colleges, companies, incubators or investors. What I think people mean when they talk about risk is really "hype". People move to SV to work in the tech industry because that is THE place to be. You don't have that in London, Berlin or even New York. The pure momentum of the industry simply overshadows any health care, housing, dating problems in the bay area.
> Not only do I not think that is true, I think there's real danger that people conclude that more risk is better
I don't think people in general consider more risk being better. Rather, higher reward often comes with higher risk. People aim for higher reward obviously have to accept the risk associated with it. It just so happens that, as you said, SV is the place to be for the tech industry.
> SV is in many ways risk averse. The days when any kid could get a million dollars are over. Almost every success story seems to happen on a background of brand name colleges, companies, incubators or investors.
I don't argue for or against the risk averse nature of SV. And of course, knowing the right people helps get your foot in the door everywhere. Undeniably though, for variety of reasons, there exists an ecosystem in SV that breeds the creation of hi tech businesses. If you want to make a name for yourself, being in SV makes a lot of sense. It isn't easy to replicate that elsewhere.
Just look at the list of car companies that set up shop in SV in the last few years:
Why would you risk bankruptcy? Every company in Valley typically offers great health insurance. London rents are more expensive than San Fran in particular areas and buying property has become nearly impossible at any reasonable price.
Gender distribution is not particularly different in the European tech scene than in the US one. Quite a lot of companies (both in the startup and agency world) have no female employees.
Hours I'd assume wouldn't be so different in a real startup, since that sort of business kind of depends upon its employees not really doing anything else in the day.
And rent is definitely not cheaper, not if you want to live anywhere decent.
Still, you're right in terms of tourism choices, and it's a lot easier and more enjoyable to explore London on foot.
Reducing London to "all this crappy weather" is just nuts. It's one of the greatest cities in the world. A lot of people are motivated to live in London for reasons other than the weather!
> Why am I dealing with this crappy weather when I can move to somewhere where I'm paid 2-3x more and it's summer all year?
Actually, London's weather isn't half bad compared to other places in Europe. At least there is no freezing cold, no real heat waves and less rain than in Paris, especially in the summer.
The problem is xenophobia. Hate of Europe is getting ever more vitriolic and irrational.
"How many people do you know in Europe that can do that?"
I did that, after only a couple of years in the tech industry. Most of my friends could do that. I wrote a tutorial of sorts how to do things like this in a comment on HN a while ago, but removed it because people seemed to get upset (I could summaries if someone is interested).
AirBnB needs to make sure you are not undermining it by making the deal outside of their system ... b/c then they don't get a provision for it. So I'd say it's fine in this case. AirBnB is no medium where free speech is a significant concept.
You would think that is the reason, and not the fact that their matching service can only appropriate value into the company if the two peers being matched can not effectively coordinate themselves?
That's plausible, except when you do it that way there's a really great chance you'll be screwed over. Airbnb can protect its users to some degree, it's up to you whether you want to use it or not.
Not in my experience. AirBnB holds all the money and they can choose to refund or not depending on the circumstances. Just try renting in another city with Craigslist. It's full of scams.
But yeah, they censor emails, phone numbers and such in order to prevent deals from being made off site. They don't do it to protect anyone.
Namely when I buy a domain name from who exactly am I buying it from?
Put in other words, what's the best way to buy a domain name and avoid the middleman fees?
In terms of renewal, does it make a difference if you buy it from the root TLD authority (not sure if saying something silly here) or some squatter/middle-man/domain-park?
Who decides on the price hike for the next year?
I find the whole DNS management quite broken. The new TLDs is a good example. .dev got owned by Google and a bunch of other TLDs got acquired by some VC backed digital-estate company.