He was lucky. He was born when he was. If Bill Gates was instead born as sun to King Henry the eight of England he would have changed history, but he would not have started Microsoft.
??? I don't call that luck. I call that chance. I mean if you call that luck you can call every hobby, every computer he tinkered with, every electronic toy he had, some element of luck. That's ludicrous.
He didn't walk along a red-brick path to find a pot of gold. He had a vision. He dropped OUT of school to implement that vision. That's not luck; that's dedication. He stayed with the business from fledgling DOS to Windows 95. That wasn't luck. That was perspiration.
See. Microsoft, like Rome, wasn't created in a day. Nor was his vision implemented in a day. Winning the lottery is luck because you pick numbers and have a 1/1000000000000 chance of winning. But Gates worked on his vision and his chances of success are much, much different than a lottery. Saying that the fact he was born to his dad is luck is ludicrous. In that case we are all lucky to have been born to our parents (????).
Yes, Bill Gates was at the right place at the right time but dont' call it luck. Think of it this way: every inventor has a 1/1000th (or whatever) chance of being at the right place at the right time and he just happened to fall into that category. But luck? To me that just sounds like an excuse.
"Challenger's crew module had also broken away in one piece when the shuttle disintegrated during launch 17 years earlier. As with Challenger, the forces acting on Columbia's crew during this period were not violent enough to cause injury, and investigators believe the astronauts probably survived the initial breakup of the orbiter."
So basically after the shuttle disintegrated they most likely were intact and were able to observe themselves falling to their fate? I, too, find this hardly a "mercifully brief" death.
There's a certain irony to starting a business when you're unemployed. I know because I've been there twice.
The irony, in short, is that when you become unemployed the last thing you feel you can do is blow wads and wads of money on anything (even on a business idea). Personally, I go into this sort of "survival mode" where money is only spent on essential things like food and porn. When you're not pulling in any paychecks it's only practical to think this way.
Secondly, one has to understand that once you've been working for a while your life has certain financial characteristics. You know how much you pull in a month and your costs follow accordingly. You have car payments, maybe a house payment, food, girlfriend (cyber/imaginary of course), and maybe a savings account. When you become unemployed the last thing you will think about is how to blow your savings away which would put you on the street.
Which brings me to another point of economics. Supply and demand.
The reason why a company like Google can be successful even when it appeared in the same market (search) as 5+ other relatively successful search engines was because their technology was not easily replicable.
It's like what another person on this topic said: who needs another mail client, browser, etc? Taking that theory a bit further: You need to build something where someone cannot easily replicate it. Well, you can, but then your competition will come down to whose costs less due simply to "supply and demand".
I must say, though, that even if you come up with some incredibly intelligent technology not easily reproducible, there are companies that have tons of money that they can throw at a problem. At this point it might not be worth it for them and may be more cost effective for them to just buy you out (if you're into that).
Finally, what I've noticed is that you can get some power behind a relatively non-specialized, non-insane technology but you have to build a really huge user base (Frankel's Winamp, ICQ, Napster). The only problem is that if you want to make any money off of these ideas you have to sell them who is dumb and willing to pay a shitload for a userbase and for technology not all that special (AOL).
From what I remember, the taxation depends on your type of incorporation. There are various types of
S-corps and C-corps.
And, from what my financial friend told me, while there's double taxation there are also some advantages to certain types of corporation. Basically it involves loop holes with personal compensation and using the company as an entity to lower your taxes. People do it all the time.. how else do you think rich people get away without paying much in taxes?
In the spirit of Rounders (the movie), I wouldn't call it luck.
To quote, poorly, from the movie:
"Why do you keep on thinking it's luck? Why do you think the same 4 guys end up in the final round every year at the World Series of Poker?
I wouldn't say Bill Gates got lucky but I'd say he bet on a high probability event. He knew computers were going to get big and he knew they could exist in the consumer space so that's where he bet his money.
It's the same with Warren Buffett. He adjusts his portfolio so that a certain % of it is on high probability events and smaller %'s are invested on lower probability (high risk, big return).
My friends and I tried to start a business venture and I'd say our idea had some viability but people seemed to commit in varying degrees at varying times. I think one way to get everyone to commit is to put a price on it.
For instance, one big problem we had was determining how much we should spend on marketing. We thought it best to go on a situation by sitaution basis as we encountered them and to determine, at each time, whether marketing ventures were worth it. I think this was a big mistake.
What we should've done was determined how much it would've cost to start a business BEFORE we set out for it. Even a rough figure will be good enough to prepare everyone to how much they are going to be committing financially to a company. I would then recommend amassing this money and then setting out on your venture.
This way you can set a budget for costs such as marketing. When you send out an ad campaign for $500 or $1000 you won't be thinking about how much of that comes out of your own pocket but you'll be thinking like a real business like how much of your total marketing budget that is, whether it was worth it and whether you want to spend it again. If you pull it out of pocket right then you'll always be stingy because you have no real solid metric to evaluate costs.
Finally, putting your money on the line from the beginning (whether it's $1000 or $10000) makes you try a lot harder.
I hadn't really thought about it from Episode 1, but after Episode 2 I found the acting for both Christensen and Portman to be very, very poor. Portman just looked stiff throughout the whole movie and repeated lines as if she were in her first year of acting. Christensen, it seemed, put in good effort but I just didn't buy it when he tried to look like he was converting from good to evil.
I don't think I'm much of a film critic either nor do I think I'm any sort of pundit but this is just an average viewer's point of view. Oh well.
I don't understand WHY one would ever program Java in Notepad anyway. It's like walking on your hands when you have two feet. There are plenty of FREE text editors/IDEs that work much better for coding.
Oh please. People like you are taking my casual remark WAY too seriously. I'm just joking! You people need to lighten up.
If it makes you feel any better, I'm sure there are a lot of intelligent people who've learned JUST through reading books. I'm sure of them did it through reading about the Java SDK and only program in Notepad.
Oh, c'mon. I'm just joking!! I can't help it if I found that little bit amusing given that everyone else had degrees from places like Yale, Harvard and Oxford.:)
Re:Eternal vigilance the cost of freedom...
on
Perens on Patents
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Well, yeah, the big issue as of late is how much America is becoming a litigous country and how it's affecting all of society. Doctors are wary of patients who will sue of malpractice, cops are wary of serving the public for being sued, etc etc.
It's quite sad how a nation that was built on laws is being exploited by the very means that give it legitimacy.
Interesting. So one is not allowed to patent mathematical formules but what about algorithms? They are similar but there must be some distinction. And if algorithms can't be patented then what about methods of technology that use these algorithms? (one more level up).
I think "authorization" is pretty self-explanatory. I don't think it means "authorization" in the computer sense, but in the normal sense where you have to get an "ok" from the owner or from a designated person who can give authorization. I'd say that in court this would be difficult to contest.
Slashdot Mirror
He was lucky. He was born when he was. If Bill Gates was instead born as sun to King Henry the eight of England he would have changed history, but he would not have started Microsoft.
??? I don't call that luck. I call that chance. I mean if you call that luck you can call every hobby, every computer he tinkered with, every electronic toy he had, some element of luck. That's ludicrous.
He didn't walk along a red-brick path to find a pot of gold. He had a vision. He dropped OUT of school to implement that vision. That's not luck; that's dedication. He stayed with the business from fledgling DOS to Windows 95. That wasn't luck. That was perspiration.
See. Microsoft, like Rome, wasn't created in a day. Nor was his vision implemented in a day. Winning the lottery is luck because you pick numbers and have a 1/1000000000000 chance of winning. But Gates worked on his vision and his chances of success are much, much different than a lottery. Saying that the fact he was born to his dad is luck is ludicrous. In that case we are all lucky to have been born to our parents (????).
Yes, Bill Gates was at the right place at the right time but dont' call it luck. Think of it this way: every inventor has a 1/1000th (or whatever) chance of being at the right place at the right time and he just happened to fall into that category. But luck? To me that just sounds like an excuse.
Also:
"Challenger's crew module had also broken away in one piece when the shuttle disintegrated during launch 17 years earlier. As with Challenger, the forces acting on Columbia's crew during this period were not violent enough to cause injury, and investigators believe the astronauts probably survived the initial breakup of the orbiter."
So basically after the shuttle disintegrated they most likely were intact and were able to observe themselves falling to their fate? I, too, find this hardly a "mercifully brief" death.
May the crew RIP. God bless them.
There's a certain irony to starting a business when you're unemployed. I know because I've been there twice.
The irony, in short, is that when you become unemployed the last thing you feel you can do is blow wads and wads of money on anything (even on a business idea). Personally, I go into this sort of "survival mode" where money is only spent on essential things like food and porn. When you're not pulling in any paychecks it's only practical to think this way.
Secondly, one has to understand that once you've been working for a while your life has certain financial characteristics. You know how much you pull in a month and your costs follow accordingly. You have car payments, maybe a house payment, food, girlfriend (cyber/imaginary of course), and maybe a savings account. When you become unemployed the last thing you will think about is how to blow your savings away which would put you on the street.
Well, yeah, my friend was the one who was doing all the finances and dealing with this stuff.
I wish he was a bit more practically minded like you and didn't waste money on incorporation. That idiot.
Which brings me to another point of economics. Supply and demand.
The reason why a company like Google can be successful even when it appeared in the same market (search) as 5+ other relatively successful search engines was because their technology was not easily replicable.
It's like what another person on this topic said: who needs another mail client, browser, etc? Taking that theory a bit further: You need to build something where someone cannot easily replicate it. Well, you can, but then your competition will come down to whose costs less due simply to "supply and demand".
I must say, though, that even if you come up with some incredibly intelligent technology not easily reproducible, there are companies that have tons of money that they can throw at a problem. At this point it might not be worth it for them and may be more cost effective for them to just buy you out (if you're into that).
Finally, what I've noticed is that you can get some power behind a relatively non-specialized, non-insane technology but you have to build a really huge user base (Frankel's Winamp, ICQ, Napster). The only problem is that if you want to make any money off of these ideas you have to sell them who is dumb and willing to pay a shitload for a userbase and for technology not all that special (AOL).
From what I remember, the taxation depends on your type of incorporation. There are various types of S-corps and C-corps.
.. how else do you think rich people get away without paying much in taxes?
And, from what my financial friend told me, while there's double taxation there are also some advantages to certain types of corporation. Basically it involves loop holes with personal compensation and using the company as an entity to lower your taxes. People do it all the time
In the spirit of Rounders (the movie), I wouldn't call it luck.
To quote, poorly, from the movie:
"Why do you keep on thinking it's luck? Why do you think the same 4 guys end up in the final round every year at the World Series of Poker?
I wouldn't say Bill Gates got lucky but I'd say he bet on a high probability event. He knew computers were going to get big and he knew they could exist in the consumer space so that's where he bet his money.
It's the same with Warren Buffett. He adjusts his portfolio so that a certain % of it is on high probability events and smaller %'s are invested on lower probability (high risk, big return).
My friends and I tried to start a business venture and I'd say our idea had some viability but people seemed to commit in varying degrees at varying times. I think one way to get everyone to commit is to put a price on it.
For instance, one big problem we had was determining how much we should spend on marketing. We thought it best to go on a situation by sitaution basis as we encountered them and to determine, at each time, whether marketing ventures were worth it. I think this was a big mistake.
What we should've done was determined how much it would've cost to start a business BEFORE we set out for it. Even a rough figure will be good enough to prepare everyone to how much they are going to be committing financially to a company. I would then recommend amassing this money and then setting out on your venture.
This way you can set a budget for costs such as marketing. When you send out an ad campaign for $500 or $1000 you won't be thinking about how much of that comes out of your own pocket but you'll be thinking like a real business like how much of your total marketing budget that is, whether it was worth it and whether you want to spend it again. If you pull it out of pocket right then you'll always be stingy because you have no real solid metric to evaluate costs.
Finally, putting your money on the line from the beginning (whether it's $1000 or $10000) makes you try a lot harder.
Remember:
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
I hadn't really thought about it from Episode 1, but after Episode 2 I found the acting for both Christensen and Portman to be very, very poor. Portman just looked stiff throughout the whole movie and repeated lines as if she were in her first year of acting. Christensen, it seemed, put in good effort but I just didn't buy it when he tried to look like he was converting from good to evil.
I don't think I'm much of a film critic either nor do I think I'm any sort of pundit but this is just an average viewer's point of view. Oh well.
I second that.
Maybe if you're doing a quick change vi is acceptable. But, even then, i'd use pico.
Wow. I hope you don't have any firearms, sir.
I don't understand WHY one would ever program Java in Notepad anyway. It's like walking on your hands when you have two feet. There are plenty of FREE text editors/IDEs that work much better for coding.
:) Shows what a degree from Yale is worth...
Speaking of which, does this pictures look like it was taken through a sniper scope? It looks like someones about to off him.
Oh please. People like you are taking my casual remark WAY too seriously. I'm just joking! You people need to lighten up.
If it makes you feel any better, I'm sure there are a lot of intelligent people who've learned JUST through reading books. I'm sure of them did it through reading about the Java SDK and only program in Notepad.
Oh, c'mon. I'm just joking!! I can't help it if I found that little bit amusing given that everyone else had degrees from places like Yale, Harvard and Oxford. :)
hahahahahaaaa
Oh, pooh on you! Did it have to get all serious? Couldn't you just let me laugh hysterically for a couple minutes without bringing up Bushie?
hahahahhhahah that was great!!!!!
How about a 5-star rating while you're at it? User reviews anyone?
Tell me about it. The best part about him is:
Education: Self-educated by reading
Now that, people, is what I call a TRUE American.
"I read me some books edumacated mah self."
Well, yeah, the big issue as of late is how much America is becoming a litigous country and how it's affecting all of society. Doctors are wary of patients who will sue of malpractice, cops are wary of serving the public for being sued, etc etc.
It's quite sad how a nation that was built on laws is being exploited by the very means that give it legitimacy.
Interesting. So one is not allowed to patent mathematical formules but what about algorithms? They are similar but there must be some distinction. And if algorithms can't be patented then what about methods of technology that use these algorithms? (one more level up).
I'm sure the line is drawn somewhere in the law.
I think "authorization" is pretty self-explanatory. I don't think it means "authorization" in the computer sense, but in the normal sense where you have to get an "ok" from the owner or from a designated person who can give authorization. I'd say that in court this would be difficult to contest.