Radix

The author thinks start-ups should change the world. She's mistaken. Start-ups are businesses, they're meant to support the owners, provide services or goods, and feed families. If the owners manage to sell for some multiple of what they would have made working during that same time frame, Great. That's all that is needed.

Her call for start-ups to be swinging for the fences is as well founded as I would be in calling for her, as a journalist, to go report on something that really "matters", something that could cause a "positive" change, something with at least as much impact as jgrahamc's petition (edit: just reread this, I am not knocking the petition, just setting a bar. I was impressed.). It's she who chose start-ups, they're just business men, engineers, and programmers, they don't owe TC. And besides, how does the following work exactly? TC chose the attendees, and now they pass the blame.

I don’t say this to knock the conference or the selections we made. But the truth is I heard it too consistently backstage to ignore it. To be fair, we’re at that point in the start-up cycle where this is to be expected.

(I like the idea of labeling posts against Paul's system. I think it would make the only useful meme I have ever known.)

How can one balance everyone's good? In order to do so you would need to be able to take the world in its entirety as those in the thought experiment do. We can't do this, so the suggestion is that we trust what people want. The problem is not only do people not have the foresight to know what they want their wants change relative to their haves. 'Need' would have been a better choice with a given definition. Because we can not balance everyone's good I suggest everyone must be chiefly responsible for themselves and their charges. They should be expected to be honest about their desires and, to be fair to others, they should be as little burden as possible. Such that the greatest good is caring for ones own needs first while avoiding hindering others from acquiring their own base needs. The only thing needed now is a definition of 'need', but I would probably just choose a level on Maslow's hierarchy.

I probably communicated as poorly as the author, so my point is: communication is an interesting problem, and these are week assumptions and poorly communicated as it is too easy for an alternate, though in my case similar, theory of ethics to be built.

I have friends who, to save money, break into buildings on the MIT campus to steal food and drink and naps and showers. They use the money they save to promote the public good. It seems like these criminals, not the average workaday law-abiding citizen, should be our moral exemplars

What if every student, faculty member, staff member, alumnus, and donor want food, drink, and grounds to be used in an ordered way. How are their collective wants less important than some few "poor" people? I don't see how that jump was made.

This is a bigger problem. Most housing developments don't have lots with enough space for this sort of thing, but it's silly that in Massachusetts they would be opposed to a windfarm. There must be some deal that could be struck that would leave the local town, city, or suburb with ownership of the farm after an allotted time or profit.

I'm not sure she has enough space, but really a town should consult with the neighbors, and if it's safe be done with it.

[edit]

http://www.backpacker.com/researchers_new_species_papua_new_...

My point is that making can be more social than shopping.

ps: That paper cutting slide show it great. I'm sure I'll imitate the style next time I need to create one.

http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~EWD/ewd08xx/EWD831.PDF

A little surprised everyone is positive. I guess I was wrong thinking it was possible to make a mistake here.

Thank you jaquesm! I'm looking forward to watching this while supping.

Wait, where did guys meet your wives? Where do you meet someone who is aware of their templating of things in casual conversation?

Tags are bad because keeping the article space flat keeps out people with only marginally similar interests.

But yeah, you're right, my experience blinded me. And cheer up, your comment seems out of place.

Edit: Also, sometimes I have correctly named mp3's, but I haven't tagged them. Itunes gracefully renames my files to 'unknown' removing any trace to the correct name. And, if the files were in a folder prepended with the album year iTunes will kindly create a new folder to hold the files to leave the album art in the original folder. (okay, that last one is Windows only)

I expect classical music is probably always tagged badly, which is why the composer ends up in the artist field. Also, am I supposed to enter for Radiohead: Johnny Greenwood, Thom York, et al. or, just Radiohead? I tunes tagging ability is weak in some places. Also it doesn't help when you have a non-ipod and want to remove some songs and replace with others.