I'm glad to see that someone pointed this out. It's true that YC makes very low valuations, but that is because the expected success rate for such early-stage companies is quite low.
I've had the pleasure of meeting a few YC backed founders and I can say with absolute certainty that they are not dumb guys who are clueless about business. If anything, the selected few know the true value of strategic support -- YC selection almost guarantees that you will be a highly discussed start-up and provides the necessary fire under one's ass to build the company on a shoestring budget and according to Paul Graham's (PG) philosophies (not a bad thing).
If you look at Guy Koswaski's portfolio (garage.com), you'll see that early-stage seed funding is not about cash. Guy's portfolio sucks. If anything, such large angel infusions work AGAINST the start-up ethic and creates the same false sense of security which cripples most large organizations.
Lastly 5% is NOT alot of equity for companies at the idea stage. More mature companies receive higher valuations, sometimes leading YC to only ask for 2% equity. Clearly not a controlling stage (and YC's official stance is that they will not fight for control of your company). As PG will be quick to point out, to justify selling 6% of the company's equity you only need to increase the value of your company by 7% -- something it is not tough to do at such an early stage.
Anyone find it kinda depressing that in the last 20-odd years we still haven't made substantial progress on personal robotics?
You can add all the color cameras and bowling pins you want, but the bottom line is that we're still using remotes to tell these things exactly what to do. For God's sake, robosapien can't even fetch me a cold beverage. (A step back!)
There's no use in trying to discern a useful page from one which isn't, when indexing. It's a separate matter when it comes to returning results, but honestly this all goes to show the futility of lending a sense of importance to index size above a certain threshold in the first place.
I'm not exactly sure why Slashdot would choose to publish such a poorly conducted study as this.
The entire experiment is founded on the idea that there is a strong, if not direct, correllation between returned results and index size, which is absolutely rediculous. Given that each engine's search algoritms are so closely guarded, there is no way to tell what sort of correllation there is between the number of results for random queries and the searchable index size. Without addressing this issue, this article looks to be nothing more than part of the typical google fanboy fare posted here, and it's frustrating to say the least.
My original impressions are that this is a hoax, given that it looks to be nothing more than a rebranded out-of-the-box jabber client (and it doesn't appear as though any of the locational features of meetroduction's client).
Also, what kind of idiot developer would post a screenshot of such a highly anticipated application? Discuss!
Ugh. Sorry, I meant to say in the red. Slip of the tongue. But what I meant by "Gross profit != profit" was just that; the gross profit is the monetary difference between revenue and cost of revenue, which doesn't include untraceable overhead (such as management pay, marketing expenses, etc.) or taxes. So, it's impossible to say that because a company has a positive gross profit, it will have a positive net income (which is required in order to be "in the black").
Also, I really shouldn't have to point out that a growth in revenue does not mean a growth in profitability. While this isn't a proper forum for business discussion (armchair economists withstanding), an examination of more than just your one statistic is needed to really identify the health of a company. For example, the company still has a profit margin of -38.84%; regardless of their revenue, unless their cost structure improves, this company will continue losing money.
But really any further discussion of this is pointless. After all, we cannot predict who will have what barganing power and when, so the whole argument is rather moot.
Listen, "gross profit" != profit.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=TIVO
Check the "net income" for the last few years, which is the actual "profit" of the company. They've been in the black for the last three years.
Furthermore, this is basically a market in which ESPN is the price-setter. They produce a product which is hard to replicate, but high in demand. If comcast wants ESPN, for example, they are going to have to pay whatever ESPN is asking because there are few, if any, market forces causing them to lower their price. Services such as the ones offered by comcast and TiVo are in much more competitive markets, thus they must bow to the whims of the content creators. And while this isn't a hard-and-fast rule, it's the correct way of looking at the situation.
I think you're looking at things a little backwards. Without content, there's no reason for a customer to pay TiVo an extra fee to get access to downloads. Thus, TiVo will not have the necessary funds to make content agreements with the likes of ESPN, unless they take on a fair bit of liabilites first. Given that TiVo is still yet to show a profit, this isn't exactly an easy move to make. It's a bit of a catch 22.
So it appears the "big dogs" have the upper hand in this situation, and more likely we'll see the content providers making agreements with the service provider (ie TiVo or Comcast) which is willing to pay the most.
They never mean it. It's equivalent to saying "I support the war, but don't want to fight in it."
In case you think I'm lying, test out their "commitment" by engaging in a conversation about, for example, the importance of data typing in a weak static typed environment. Explain how it allows the compiler to catch errors! Then watch as she walks away...... And don't ask how I know I'm right.
Q. How do you double the value of a Yugo?
A. Fill the Tank.
Q. What do you call a Yugo at the top of a hill?
A. A miracle.
Q. What is found on the last two pages of every Yugo owner's manual?
A. The bus schedule.
Q. What did the parts dealer say when the customer said, "I'll take a set of wiper blades for my Yugo"?
A. "Sounds like a fair trade to me."
Q. What do you call a Yugo with brakes?
A. Customized.
No, you're wrong. Production houses don't have a vertical monopoly on the industry, as you state.
Yes, it used to be true that houses owned all of the theaters in which their movies were shown, but that ended in 1948 when an antitrust case was brought against paramount (U.S. vs. Paramount Pictures, et. al) causing them, and others in suit, to divest their theaters.
I'd like to also point out that all of your examples of the movie industry "robbing america of its right to culture" are not the result of an evil mastermind, but the American Free Market. It's simple economy of scale, and it's the reason that you're paying $3.99 for a movie that cost millions to produce.
A CRUCIAL part to any free-market is the protection of individual property rights, and as value is increasingly being assigned to intangible property, this includes intellectual property, too.
So yes, George Lucas IS a role model for Americans.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm glad to see that someone pointed this out. It's true that YC makes very low valuations, but that is because the expected success rate for such early-stage companies is quite low.
I've had the pleasure of meeting a few YC backed founders and I can say with absolute certainty that they are not dumb guys who are clueless about business. If anything, the selected few know the true value of strategic support -- YC selection almost guarantees that you will be a highly discussed start-up and provides the necessary fire under one's ass to build the company on a shoestring budget and according to Paul Graham's (PG) philosophies (not a bad thing).
If you look at Guy Koswaski's portfolio (garage.com), you'll see that early-stage seed funding is not about cash. Guy's portfolio sucks. If anything, such large angel infusions work AGAINST the start-up ethic and creates the same false sense of security which cripples most large organizations.
Lastly 5% is NOT alot of equity for companies at the idea stage. More mature companies receive higher valuations, sometimes leading YC to only ask for 2% equity. Clearly not a controlling stage (and YC's official stance is that they will not fight for control of your company). As PG will be quick to point out, to justify selling 6% of the company's equity you only need to increase the value of your company by 7% -- something it is not tough to do at such an early stage.
I was scanning the comments looking for someone discussing solid state drives (whoops, almost said discs) with server applications.
Any idea on the kind of performance increase you've seen from making the switch?
Something tells me Slashdot isn't the target market for diet products.
I stand corrected! http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-182284760 8640116316
Anyone find it kinda depressing that in the last 20-odd years we still haven't made substantial progress on personal robotics?
You can add all the color cameras and bowling pins you want, but the bottom line is that we're still using remotes to tell these things exactly what to do. For God's sake, robosapien can't even fetch me a cold beverage. (A step back!)
Omnibot 2000
Modicum? Looks like I'm not the only one using dictionary.com's word of the day!
You write like Ali G talks!
As this movie was made before I (and I suspect quite a few others here) was born, here's some help:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083943/
Thank you captain obvious!
There's no use in trying to discern a useful page from one which isn't, when indexing. It's a separate matter when it comes to returning results, but honestly this all goes to show the futility of lending a sense of importance to index size above a certain threshold in the first place.
I'm not exactly sure why Slashdot would choose to publish such a poorly conducted study as this.
The entire experiment is founded on the idea that there is a strong, if not direct, correllation between returned results and index size, which is absolutely rediculous. Given that each engine's search algoritms are so closely guarded, there is no way to tell what sort of correllation there is between the number of results for random queries and the searchable index size. Without addressing this issue, this article looks to be nothing more than part of the typical google fanboy fare posted here, and it's frustrating to say the least.
Best of luck overcoming the network effect.
It's worth noting that, almost without exception, one of the first main uses for ANY new medium is the dissemination of pornography.
That's a more telling look at how the world operates.
My Moustache is claiming to have found a screenshot of a google alpha client. It's clearly identified as a Jabber client.
t -messenger-screenshot.html
Take a look: http://mymoustache.com/blog/2005/08/google-instan
My original impressions are that this is a hoax, given that it looks to be nothing more than a rebranded out-of-the-box jabber client (and it doesn't appear as though any of the locational features of meetroduction's client).
Also, what kind of idiot developer would post a screenshot of such a highly anticipated application? Discuss!
Ugh. Sorry, I meant to say in the red. Slip of the tongue. But what I meant by "Gross profit != profit" was just that; the gross profit is the monetary difference between revenue and cost of revenue, which doesn't include untraceable overhead (such as management pay, marketing expenses, etc.) or taxes. So, it's impossible to say that because a company has a positive gross profit, it will have a positive net income (which is required in order to be "in the black"). Also, I really shouldn't have to point out that a growth in revenue does not mean a growth in profitability. While this isn't a proper forum for business discussion (armchair economists withstanding), an examination of more than just your one statistic is needed to really identify the health of a company. For example, the company still has a profit margin of -38.84%; regardless of their revenue, unless their cost structure improves, this company will continue losing money. But really any further discussion of this is pointless. After all, we cannot predict who will have what barganing power and when, so the whole argument is rather moot.
Listen, "gross profit" != profit. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=TIVO Check the "net income" for the last few years, which is the actual "profit" of the company. They've been in the black for the last three years. Furthermore, this is basically a market in which ESPN is the price-setter. They produce a product which is hard to replicate, but high in demand. If comcast wants ESPN, for example, they are going to have to pay whatever ESPN is asking because there are few, if any, market forces causing them to lower their price. Services such as the ones offered by comcast and TiVo are in much more competitive markets, thus they must bow to the whims of the content creators. And while this isn't a hard-and-fast rule, it's the correct way of looking at the situation.
I think you're looking at things a little backwards. Without content, there's no reason for a customer to pay TiVo an extra fee to get access to downloads. Thus, TiVo will not have the necessary funds to make content agreements with the likes of ESPN, unless they take on a fair bit of liabilites first. Given that TiVo is still yet to show a profit, this isn't exactly an easy move to make. It's a bit of a catch 22. So it appears the "big dogs" have the upper hand in this situation, and more likely we'll see the content providers making agreements with the service provider (ie TiVo or Comcast) which is willing to pay the most.
They never mean it. It's equivalent to saying "I support the war, but don't want to fight in it." In case you think I'm lying, test out their "commitment" by engaging in a conversation about, for example, the importance of data typing in a weak static typed environment. Explain how it allows the compiler to catch errors! Then watch as she walks away... ... And don't ask how I know I'm right.
My first first!
Q. How do you double the value of a Yugo? A. Fill the Tank. Q. What do you call a Yugo at the top of a hill? A. A miracle. Q. What is found on the last two pages of every Yugo owner's manual? A. The bus schedule. Q. What did the parts dealer say when the customer said, "I'll take a set of wiper blades for my Yugo"? A. "Sounds like a fair trade to me." Q. What do you call a Yugo with brakes? A. Customized.
Dude that's pretty weird.
http://mirrordot.org/stories/38d3ca8d0f1450ecd904c fee28fb683c/index.html
Zeno of Elea? Is that you? Wow, I think it's been, geez... 2500 years? Sooo, how are you doing?
there!=their
No, you're wrong. Production houses don't have a vertical monopoly on the industry, as you state.
Yes, it used to be true that houses owned all of the theaters in which their movies were shown, but that ended in 1948 when an antitrust case was brought against paramount (U.S. vs. Paramount Pictures, et. al) causing them, and others in suit, to divest their theaters.
I'd like to also point out that all of your examples of the movie industry "robbing america of its right to culture" are not the result of an evil mastermind, but the American Free Market. It's simple economy of scale, and it's the reason that you're paying $3.99 for a movie that cost millions to produce.
A CRUCIAL part to any free-market is the protection of individual property rights, and as value is increasingly being assigned to intangible property, this includes intellectual property, too.
So yes, George Lucas IS a role model for Americans.
Americans, remember. Not socialists.