point78

So improve public transport and pedestrian areas. OP wants to create multilevel highways.

For starters it means not integrating them into a country with concentration camps, kills journalists, suppresses dissent

Hong Kong was a democracy, it getting eaten up by China is horrendous.

This makes no sense whatsoever and probably one of the worst ideas I ever read on HN.

Banning cars works very well along with pedestrian streets and public transport in Europe.

how will we get to space of we kill ourselves first

Don't fool yourself, the West has it too but we don't publish it. (And anyway look at cctv in london)

Ok and your first point, but your second point...That's exactly what a free trial is by definition. It's free for a period of days until you are a paying member.

I fail to see the problem here. There are dozens of these apps offered for free, some the developer decides to charge per month. User just has to find the free ones.

Should Google now tell app developers what to charge? That's ridiculous.

Does the internet count

Troll, you're making 0 sense. Socialism and government works very well when done correctly (north europe).

Take away government you'll just have kings and queens. You think they would respect your rights and/or life.

You must still be a teenager and have not gotten through this part of world history yet. When you do you will understand.

>They do not have the ability to compel people to surrender to unlimited search

They dont? Says who? Who the heck do you think will have power to do whatever they want whenever they want?

You think the 1% will distribute wealth and power fairly and evenly?

Governments are in place to democratically do this. If you think the 1% wouldn't kill you in a heartbeat take a look at world history or some dictatorships today.

You really have no idea what you're even saying.

So you prefer to go back to kings and emperors? Without the state we will all be slaves to someone.

I think we're all specifically asking how the heck you monetize extensions

The only important question is what is his revenue

Carr to elaborate

So because your little experience in a tiny state in the middle of nowhere on a planet of 7 billion people is good, it means the entire planet is good.

Got it.

Ah I see now. Yes.

The keywords in my sentence was "american" and "eastern european"

EE is known for sex trafficking young beautiful women and mainly in Europe. That an American has his hands on them is even stranger.

The keywords in my sentence was "american" and "eastern european"

EE is known for sex trafficking young beautiful women and mainly in Europe. That an American has his hands on them is even stranger.

A 60 year old American financier who's uglier than a frog has 2 teenage eastern european models as "assistants"....does that add up to you?

This was just as true 30 years ago also

Yes they are, but you're leaving out the most important point here. It's content SPECIFICALLY designed for babies. The onus is on the producer - whether it's toys, videos, ads - for us to have some regulation saying x is ok but not y.

By your method of thinking...let's just make everything OK for babies and let the parents decide.

That makes no sense...it's why society has laws (Why can't I go buy a bazooka in Europe? Because there are laws).

Do you have kids?

Completely wrong, everything targeted at children (for decades) is regulated. If your kid is watching Sesame Street on PBS and an ad for The Sopranos appears - that does not happen for a reason.

Uploading cartoon nursery rhymes and having an ad for drug trafficking come up is idiotic.

Free. Just like public broadcasting system is free and when watching Sesame Street an ad for The Wire (Or whatever came up) will not happen.

Cartoon nursery rhymes directed at as low as even 1 year olds will sometimes have ads popup for a tv show containing drugs and guns. Completely inappropriate!

EVERYTHING that deals with children whether directly or indirectly is strictly regulated, and rightly so.

Television programming as an example, for 70 years only permits certain ads to be displayed on children's shows.

YouTube should be regulated by the FCC in regards to this and very easily can have a checkbox for advertisers and providers to check that says the content is for under 13 or not.

Brilliant and morally acceptable are definitely two different things

Google needs to be clear on what causes apps to be removed, and based on account history should be way more lenient on what would cause account termination...

I.e. 4 years good standing 3 strikes, 5 years good standing 4 strikes, etc

Say anything you want is a lie. Let's see some real hate speech in a column targeted at minorities. You won't. So why should it be tolerated for any group.

Do it. Not sure why you're being downvoted

Well as screwed up as the system is one little part of why prices are so high is to cover when people don't pay.