I couldn't disagree more. I moved back to NYC because after six years in the Valley, I thought I needed some change. I have two major gripes with the Valley.
The first is that it is a bubble chamber. People there follow their passions. This is a good thing but I believe they are out of touch with the common folk.
The second is what I perceive to be a general, blatant disregard for non-engineering and non-data-driven approaches to startups. I remember when I was figuring out my own project, I had wanted to take a more design-oriented approach to it, and one well-meaning friend suggested I create a "contest" to attract designers (i.e. get them to do some work for free). At least he didn't flick off the idea of making design of central importance, on par with engineering. I mean, what gives, right? Designers are makers too.
Make no mistake, now that I'm here, I don't think it's going to be easy or pretty here. The blatant disregard goes the other way around here. I can't shake the feeling that tech is regarded as second best, that people are cynically passion-impaired, and that good engineering is simply not appreciated outside of a few top shops like Jane St. Most of the startup engineers I meet are strangely risk-averse and used to working for MBAs, practically to the point that they seem defensive when introduced to someone who isn't. Chances are, I will probably end up back in the Valley at some point.
But to think that the Valley is invincible is wrong. The success of Twitter, Tumblr, Etsy and FourSquare are ample cues to the weaknesses of the Valley. These are not edge cases. They are a pattern. And this is fine. I think the two can coexist and learn from each other. If anything, going between the two makes you realize how arrogant each of their cultures are about themselves.
Make NCAs illegal. Make it so your employer doesn't own what you do in your spare time. A truly nuclear option is to bar discrimination based on previous employment history.
One major peril for erstwhile startup founders is that if you fail while bootstrapping, it can be hard to get a job because people, for some stupid reason or another, consider you to be unemployed. That problem is a non-issue in the valley but I do wonder if it will have to be solved by brute force elsewhere.
"Make it so your employer doesn't own what you do in your spare time"
The simple answer to that is to avoid employment contracts that claim that - the only time I've had a contract that claimed that was when I was CTO of a VC backed company and one of the investors insisted. My own lawyer suggested that it was unenforceable anyway - as many things are in employment contracts.
I wonder how much of this is due to Facebook deciding that location check-ins aren't that big a deal. Most of my friends still don't "get" what is the big deal with this.
Because quite frankly they aren't a big deal right now. Yes, of course it has a huge potential benefit, but it's not there. So why should they care about it.
Well that's not much different from how we play right? Make the future happen, literally. But they ultimately have to face what we will face. The markets may not buy. All that real estate stock for example.
I don't think the military shot anyone. There is a paradox here and it's that the military response would put the republic in danger if it indeed turned violent. But the mere presence of the military put the riots down. As others have pointed out in this thread, the rioters are largely opportunists. They won't stand up to the army, but it is regrettable to society at large that the army had to be deployed to begin with.
Whatever dude. Just ask anyone who grew up in anything resembling a ghetto. There's lots of us who begin to think that shooting rioters on sight is not a bad idea. Where do you think Boondock Saints came from? Honestly, at some point, you just get sick of the shit and you want it to stop, and solutions like the military become appealing.
And therein lies the problem. We know it's inhumane. We know it degrades us further to succumb to that shoot-the-fuckers mentality. It is understood then, that for riots like this to happen at all, we've already lost. That there are scarcely any viable solutions merely brings to surface the existing societal decay.
The point then, is not that you are right and he is wrong or vice versa. The point is that ultimately, the military is brought in for riots of LA-scale intensity because the people want them to be brought in, because in a lose-lose situation, you'd prefer the choice that affords peace.
p.s. It is interesting then, that folks like Jefferson were against standing armies because they were only necessary for oppressing the populace.
p.p.s. Looks like people can't handle the notion that society can slide into nihilism. =P
I was pointing out why people think the way they do. No need to get condescending or shoot the messenger here. More than that, you are merely being pedantic.
It makes little difference that Hollywood made it when it was people who made a cult out of it.
This is the path to totalitarianism. The scary thing is that the people actually want it; it doesn't take much to push them into its arms. And that's why it's so important to fight against it, at all costs.
In one incident, a man suffered life-threatening injuries when he was attacked by rioters after he tried to extinguish a fire they had started in a bin.
Other residents told how they barricaded themselves into their block of flats as more than 200 masked rioters bent on burgling houses tried to smash down the doors.
Classical composer and musician Leni White told how she escaped her blazing flat in Ealing with nothing but her violin after it was torched by thugs.
Shopkeepers were also robbed and one was left with stitches after looters beat him up and demanded his money.
What is the state of patent law, especially regarding software patents, across the world? If patents really are going to be a murder on innovation, then the least broken system should enjoy an advantage, no?
Keep in mind that the standard for "First to File" is actually present in much of the rest of the world. Large US corporations have argued that this switch will make our companies more competitive. What's happened is that American companies see a unified global patent system eventually taking hold and they want to use their resource advantage to dominate a future marketplace. They're primarily concerned with establishing market leadership lock in. Innovation as a desired outcome for the advancement of mankind couldn't be further from their thought process.
Maybe it would've been nicer if we just said "deep shit" instead of "default." When you owe the bank a million dollars, the bank owns you, but when you owe the bank a trillion dollars, you own the bank.
Greece knows that there are lots of important people who are overexposed. It knows that if it does the wrong thing, it could trigger a run on its creditors that is akin to what happened to Lehman. It doesn't want to be the bad guy necessarily, who does? But its finances are untenable.
It just means that instead of having the train quickly derail, they're going to stretch it out like it were a Hollywood movie. Seriously. No one believes that debt is going to be repaid. The politicos are just praying that the train doesn't hit the ground on their watch. If you read the text of this, it just "says" they're going to extend all the terms.
But we all know the truth. Shit is going to happen. If for no reason other than that the Greek government is going to stop working because it can't fund itself.
[Edit: What diff does it make if they're going to practically indefinitely extend the terms? And at those rates? That's like hoping that inflation will make the debt go away. Except Greece is in the Eurozone so that's not quite going to happen.]
Wrong. The way it appears now, the debt is going to be repaid over a longer period of time. Your confusion about this indicates that writers are not doing a good job explaining this to people.
Even if it does get repaid over a longer period, this more or less means those bonds are shot as an investment. Moreover, this means that no one is going to lend the Greek gov't any more money. I didn't see any terms in the agreement where they said they'd be lending the Greeks more money. That means the government is going to stop working. Or Greece will exit the Eurozone. The Greek gov't could of course cut all the way back, but that means a depression, which also means the money won't be paid back.
That remains to be seen; they aren't going to access the global credit market for at least few years anyway because they have too much debt to begin with.
But the existing bonds still have value and they'll still be held as investments. It's not like the whole country has collapsed and the value of its debt is worthless. A haircut is just that, a downward adjustment in the value of the debt.
It's inane to think that Greece will exit the Euro zone because of this. The Euro zone is the only thing keeping them going at this point.
You mean they're promising to repay it over a longer period of time, the same way they originally promised to pay it over a shorter period of time. The odds that they'll actually pay the debt over any time frame are very small and everyone knows it.
I think that the point that baguasquirrel is making is that if Greece cannot pay their debts now, how confident should anyone be that they'll be able to pay the debts years down the road? It would appear that the larger day of reckoning is being postponed.
It's not written anywhere that they won't pay upon the agreed schedule.
Debtors have "an option" to gain additional guarantees at an additional cost. For debtors that don't enter into such additional contracts, Greece made all the payments up to date.
The first is that it is a bubble chamber. People there follow their passions. This is a good thing but I believe they are out of touch with the common folk.
The second is what I perceive to be a general, blatant disregard for non-engineering and non-data-driven approaches to startups. I remember when I was figuring out my own project, I had wanted to take a more design-oriented approach to it, and one well-meaning friend suggested I create a "contest" to attract designers (i.e. get them to do some work for free). At least he didn't flick off the idea of making design of central importance, on par with engineering. I mean, what gives, right? Designers are makers too.
Make no mistake, now that I'm here, I don't think it's going to be easy or pretty here. The blatant disregard goes the other way around here. I can't shake the feeling that tech is regarded as second best, that people are cynically passion-impaired, and that good engineering is simply not appreciated outside of a few top shops like Jane St. Most of the startup engineers I meet are strangely risk-averse and used to working for MBAs, practically to the point that they seem defensive when introduced to someone who isn't. Chances are, I will probably end up back in the Valley at some point.
But to think that the Valley is invincible is wrong. The success of Twitter, Tumblr, Etsy and FourSquare are ample cues to the weaknesses of the Valley. These are not edge cases. They are a pattern. And this is fine. I think the two can coexist and learn from each other. If anything, going between the two makes you realize how arrogant each of their cultures are about themselves.