It features interviews with Steve Wozniak (Apple), Caterina Fake (Flickr), Mitch Kapor (Lotus), Max Levchin (PayPal), and Sabeer Bhatia (Hotmail).
I haven't purchased the book myself, but I'm getting one as soon as I can to help me with my own startup initiatives.
Quote:
All the best things that I did at Apple came from (a) not having money and (b) not having done it before, ever. Every single thing that we came out with that was really great, I'd never once done that thing in my life.
--Steve Wozniak, founder of Apple, page 36
Is Wikipedia succeeding in its aim of becoming a reputable, reliable reference work?
To me Wikipedia is much more than an encyclopedia or a mere work of reference.
Perhaps it fails the reliability test, but we must look at what it achieves.
In as far at it is an experiment in the creation and indexing of information by
millions of users around the world: it plain works.
In as far as it is a first point of contact when doing your research: it works.
In as far as it keep track of article audits: it works.
Etc, etc, etc.
It has taken centuries to get to where we are in terms of human knowledge.
I don't know it will probably take about long time to get Wikipedia
to where it's supposed to be.
And it won't be by the efforts of some self-proclaimed "experts".
(as an aside, if you want "reliable", whatever that means, you still have
the Encyclopedia Britannicas of this world).
Some are going to pull their hairs and give up at the state of
Wikipedia affairs; but why don't the rest of us stick around for a decade or so,
and see how this thing pans out?
Reminds me of:
"Three statisticians went out hunting, and came across a large deer. The first statistician fired, but missed, by a meter to the left. The second statistician fired, but also missed, by a meter to the right. The third statistician didn't fire, but shouted in triumph, "On the average we got it!"
allows them to look deep inside a person's brain and read their intentions before they act.
If I carry out the act anyway after they read my intentions, will that make them (neuroscientists) accesories to murder (for example)?
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, now he's laughing all the way to the bank
For a in-depth look at some of the secrets for a succesful start-up, Founders at Work: Stories of Startups' Early Days might serve as an interesting read.
It features interviews with Steve Wozniak (Apple), Caterina Fake (Flickr), Mitch Kapor (Lotus), Max Levchin (PayPal), and Sabeer Bhatia (Hotmail).
I haven't purchased the book myself, but I'm getting one as soon as I can to help me with my own startup initiatives.
Quote: All the best things that I did at Apple came from (a) not having money and (b) not having done it before, ever. Every single thing that we came out with that was really great, I'd never once done that thing in my life. --Steve Wozniak, founder of Apple, page 36
Is Wikipedia succeeding in its aim of becoming a reputable, reliable reference work? To me Wikipedia is much more than an encyclopedia or a mere work of reference. Perhaps it fails the reliability test, but we must look at what it achieves. In as far at it is an experiment in the creation and indexing of information by millions of users around the world: it plain works. In as far as it is a first point of contact when doing your research: it works. In as far as it keep track of article audits: it works. Etc, etc, etc. It has taken centuries to get to where we are in terms of human knowledge. I don't know it will probably take about long time to get Wikipedia to where it's supposed to be. And it won't be by the efforts of some self-proclaimed "experts". (as an aside, if you want "reliable", whatever that means, you still have the Encyclopedia Britannicas of this world). Some are going to pull their hairs and give up at the state of Wikipedia affairs; but why don't the rest of us stick around for a decade or so, and see how this thing pans out?
Reminds me of: "Three statisticians went out hunting, and came across a large deer. The first statistician fired, but missed, by a meter to the left. The second statistician fired, but also missed, by a meter to the right. The third statistician didn't fire, but shouted in triumph, "On the average we got it!"
allows them to look deep inside a person's brain and read their intentions before they act.
If I carry out the act anyway after they read my intentions, will that make them (neuroscientists) accesories to murder (for example)?