What is Digg?Sponsored by She's Out of My League
This "She's Out of My League" Trailer Is NSFW view!
GetYourRating.com - Exactly why you want to watch it, probably at work, hopefully while your boss is out sick...
19 Comments
- radu79, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10I don't think blogspot really needs a mirror..
- NoHandle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9#6 LISP is so great one person can make everything.
Uh huh...
I believe people don't use LISP because it is not a imperative programming language and had horrible memory consumption, at a time memory was at a premium. Thus people learned how to program using imperative languages, like we mostly use today. I've had my experience with logical and functional languages (no homoiconic) and I hated them all because they completely destroy any fundamental understanding of expected syntax and structure you create to produce programs.
Besides, the last thing we need these days is for everyone to go out creating their own expressions for everything. That is horribly counter productive. Which leads into my next point.
LISP is faster? One person can do everything?
That is really laughable. Is anyone, these days, stupid enough to believe that programs take a long time because they are difficult to program? Programming is the easy part! It is defining what the user wants and how to go about doing it that is complicated. The actual code writing part is and should be a very small percentage. - NinjaBoy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4And its too bad we forced you to read it. Its a blog so the writer is obviously a moron.
/end sarcasm - radu79, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Yes, it is pretty true, at least from my point of view (I happen to have a relatively successful online business).
- radu79, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Good luck replacing the billion lines of code that already run on the current platforms.
Yes, you can port most of them, but who will bother doing so, when X86 is a pretty good architecture to begin with.
I mean, while X86 itself is almost 30 years old, the protected mode, starting with 386, and various other extensions such as MMX, SSE, the newer virtualization things and so on, are pretty modern and well designed. - peer2all, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I really enjoyed reading this article- The points were (in my experience) right on the mark. I'd love to see a follow-up article on what the author looks for in a no-BS business plan- especially in the situation mentioned in the article (where not much capital is needed, and the future is unknown).
Definitely dugg! - ChristinaMedia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's a great article. It is interesting, worth noting and probably mostly true. The reason it was written is probably because most don't want to accept these facts of business. Which is probably the same reason why there are haters right now! :)
- Matic, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Very nice. Thanks
- DeBurgo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Talk about missing the point.
I think most geeks don't do what they do to get rich or even successful. They do what they do because they like doing it. Getting rich just happens to be a hilarious side-effect. - ronbarr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yes, it is a very good article, and every point is a valid one.
- TheOddMan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yeah, I definately have to agree with this comment. 99% of programming has nothing to do with writing code.
- Matadon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The '1%' comment strikes me as a little off.
Sure, you would never want to pitch 'We will make $BIGNUM if we only capture 1% of the market' to any investors or clients. At the same time, it is reasonable to look at your target market and ask yourself, "How much of this do we need to capture in order to be self-sustaining? Can our product do that?"
It's not an matter of having no self-confidence. If your product requires 90% market penetration in order to break even, you need to rethink some things, maybe consider working in the airline industry. - Four20, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1http://duggmirror.com/business_finance/Top_ten_geek_business_myths
- cvecve, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Those are some very canonical examples of geek myths.
- cellis, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Get Dummy!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2With regard to #2, commoditization is a key in the tech industry. That is, if it isn't commodity, then it's dead. For example, imagine trying to build a CPU to take on the x86. Stupid, of course. Instead, an innovator would do better to "stand on the shoulders of giants" by creating a co-processor. In fact, this is all the rage now with GPUs and FPGAs.
As for #3, a great line I once heard was, "ideas are worthless because they have no risk." Only academics care about credit for an idea (because their funding depends on it). A business has to actually build something.
Regarding #4, there are tons of film school graduates who will never make something as popular as "American Idol".
For #5, the 1% argument is equivalent in logic to saying, "there are over three billion women in the world; I only need one of them to get married."
As for #7 (the first one): I know. I'm finishing my Ph.D. right now. I've effectively proven to the world that I'm a patient man. Now days I tell seniors that grad school will be the worst five years of their lives.
And as for the summary, the customer focus of the US and Japan have made us the wealthiest countries in the world, namely because consumers have been willing to spend money and thus generate tremendous growth in GDP. Compare that to Europe where we have to beg merchants to take our money. - sensibledriver, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3Yay, more lame-o blog spam.
- Serinox, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3"For example, imagine trying to build a CPU to take on the x86. Stupid, of course."
I would bet that the cell processor, when we actually see one in the wild, will replace the x86 in most scientific tasks. - pogfreak, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1I THINK THE AUTHOR HAS SOMETHING AGAINST MICRO$OFT (see what I did there)
