1,751 karma · joined January 11, 2011
And they were. Hence, I was lucky. As always.
I guess you could say, then, that I've always followed a sort of hybrid Panglosian/Yodan approach to life: i.e., be positive, everything really is for the best, and be focused in the present, while keeping an open mind and "letting go" towards the future.
Indeed, when I look back on what I had once perceived to be the worst, "darkest hours" of my life, I see now that they turned out to be the very best things that could have happened to me.
It appears even he had underestimated the vastness of the amazing universe around us.
To me this is the optimal point between being sincere and being socially cordial with a stranger, especially one whose shop you have just entered to do business.
As one who is a perpetually happy and upbeat person, I found it remarkably hard to follow this admonition.
Amazingly, I also found some pretty functional cached versions over at http://replay.waybackmachine.org/19990209094832/http://www.h...
If you click through to the main Win95 theme site(!) you can even click through to the above-mentioned Star Trek VIII site via the Start Menu! :)
Steve's vision for Apple -- and the products and services they have produced since his return -- prove that his passion is the "sum of all parts," i.e., the whole package of hardware, software, UI, services, etc.
Apple's software, minus the second-to-none hardware design, wouldn't be Apple.
Similarly, Apple's stellar hardware designs, minus the phenomenal software and UI, wouldn't be Apple.
So if I were to pick a singular answer to describe Steve's passion, it wouldn't be "hardware and software equally" but rather, "the end user experience." That's his passion.
I'm not sure why everyone is reading into it so much: it's just a "feel good" piece, really, illustrating how one student's practical skill set -- here, coding -- was sufficiently talented to warrant a second look by one of the country's (best) universities. And, being a private school, they were willing (and able) to peel back their own red tape and allow admission notwithstanding his otherwise disqualifying credentials.
The point of the story is simply: here's a kid who was unqualified in the traditional, technical sense. But due to his obvious skill and intelligence in a particular field, a private school was willing to look past his technical disqualifications and, by its own prerogative, make an exception to its own rules.
This is most certainly why Berkeley and other public schools were unwilling to make an exception: they have less flexibility. (As someone who attended UCLA, I can attest personally to the stringent red tape of California's public university system.) That the blog throws public and private schools into the discussion demonstrates a remarkably cavalier oversight that misses the point entirely with respect to why, precisely, MIT -- a private school -- is the school that happened to grant the student the exception.
Thing is though -- engineering marvels of these flying wonders aside -- the demand for high-pax airborne people haulers has been rapidly shrinking in recent years. Especially with new ETOPS-certified smaller, narrow-body, 2-engine aircraft, the demand for such massive capacity aircraft simply isn't what it used to be. There are already a few flights across the Atlantic using 757s, and you can be sure to see more in the next 5-10 years using ETOPs 737 and A32X aircraft.
To wit, the 747-8 has sold nowhere near expected projections, while the now comically-delayed 787 has broken all sales records in industry history, pre-order or otherwise.
My proudest accomplishment in law school was a research paper I wrote entitled "Anti-Antitrust: The Need for Antitrust Law Reform."
In that paper, I argued that antitrust law as applied today totally misses the point: the issue shouldn't be whether a company, otherwise satisfying the elements of a monopoly, is harming competitors, but whether a company is actually harming consumers. Put another way: who is complaining about the alleged anticompetitive tactics: competitors, or consumers?
If one studies all the big antitrust cases of the 20th century -- from Alcoa, to DuPont, to Microsoft -- a curious trend emerges: it was always those companies' competitors who took issue with seemingly anticompetitive tactics of the big evil "trusts," and rarely -- if ever -- was it the consumers themselves.
A great example of this is Microsoft in the 1990s: do any of you -- aside from our realm of early adopter computer savvy tech types -- genuinely remember any everyday computer users actually complaining that Windows came preinstalled with IE instead of Netscape? Were consumers actually harmed, were they actually suffering? No: the only "people" who had an issue with MS bundling IE with Windows -- frankly, a brilliant strategy -- were Microsoft's competitors, and not, in fact, MS's customers.
So my take on this ATT & T-mobile merger is simple: the investigation should not focus on whether ATT/T-mobile is a monopoly from competitors' points of view, but whether it is anticompetitive to the point of actually harming consumers, e.g., with higher prices, etc.
Frankly, a good example of a company that really deserves a DOJ investigation is Apple -- IFF customers start to actually complain, and not not just Apple's competitors' start to complain.
Put more simply: a DOJ investigation into whether a company is a monopoly should be based upon whether consumers -- not competitors -- are actually being harmed by the allegedly anticompetitive tactics of a "monopoly."
After all, a company could not become a monopoly without customers' support in the first place. So clearly they have done something right that customers appreciate.
A "monopoly" that is not causing harm to consumers, either directly or indirectly, is not necessarily so terrible a thing. In fact, as with Apple, it is often the case that consumers enjoy a net benefit from such a company.
In that paper, I argued that antitrust law as applied today totally misses the point: the issue shouldn't be whether a company, otherwise satisfying the elements of a monopoly, is harming competitors, but whether a company is actually harming consumers. Put another way: who is complaining about the alleged anticompetitive tactics: competitors, or consumers?
If one studies all the big antitrust cases of the 20th century -- from Alcoa, to DuPont, to Microsoft -- a curious trend emerges: it was always those companies' competitors who took issue with seemingly anticompetitive tactics of the big evil "trusts," and rarely -- if ever -- was it the consumers themselves.
A great example of this is Microsoft in the 1990s: do any of you -- aside from our realm of early adopter computer savvy tech types -- genuinely remember any everyday computer users actually complaining that Windows came preinstalled with IE instead of Netscape? Were consumers actually harmed, were they actually suffering? No: the only "people" who had an issue with MS bundling IE with Windows -- frankly, a brilliant strategy -- were Microsoft's competitors, and not, in fact, MS's customers.
So my take on this ATT & T-mobile merger is simple: the investigation should not focus on whether ATT/T-mobile is a monopoly from competitors' points of view, but whether it is anticompetitive to the point of actually harming consumers, e.g., with higher prices, etc.
Frankly, a good example of a company that really deserves a DOJ investigation is Apple -- IFF customers start to actually complain, and not not just Apple's competitors' start to complain.
Put more simply: a DOJ investigation into whether a company is a monopoly should be based upon whether consumers -- not competitors -- are actually being harmed by the allegedly anticompetitive tactics of a "monopoly."
After all, a company could not become a monopoly without customers' support in the first place. So clearly they have done something right that customers appreciate.
A "monopoly" that is not causing harm to consumers, either directly or indirectly, is not necessarily so terrible a thing. In fact, as with Apple, it is often the case that consumers enjoy a net benefit from such a company.
It's basically personal beliefs and lessons I've learned along the way while building our new startup, Venturocket and I thought many here could relate.
Hopefully others will suggest additional points that I've left out.
But is it really that different to the early years of sea exploration? I mean let's face it: certain -- most? -- of the ships were known to be marginally seaworthy at best, and if it wasn't the ship that cost seamen their lives, it was surely the inadequate food, water, and supplies that precluded many from a safe return.
My point is that either way, many, many adventurers knowingly and willingly embarked on their journeys to an all but certain doom. That this particular and more recent seemingly forced excursion happend as recently as the 20th century and under the circumstances described of course renders it more palpably disturbing, I agree, but I would suggest it is different only in degree, not in kind.
Again- I'm in no way intending to minimize this tragedy or others like it.* I'm just suggesting that for the sake of these great explorers' memories, it is better to remember them fondly rather than wallow in melancholic nostalgia of their (indisputably) unjust loss.
* I understand this particular tragedy is unique in that the cosmonaut knew with virtual certainty that he was being sent to his death. My focus here is not whether he knew death was certain, but the greater context in which this certainty existed, i.e., the inherently dangerous activity of (space) exploration which is "inherently dangerous" precisely because such deaths are foreseeable and indeed statistically likely to occur, just or unjust alike.
Look: explorers of all elements -- land, air, sea -- undertake their endeavors to accomplish a singular goal: the discovery of the unknown. An uncertainty of one's destination brings with it, therefore, an uncertainty of one's success and therefore of one's survival. And this is a risk that all explorers knowingly and willingly undertake -- it is a condition precedent to being such a brave traveller.
Accordingly, I think to shed so dark and negative a light on the several tragedies during mankind's nascent years of exploration is to miss the point and indeed forsake the very thing for which those pioneers lived: the furthering of our race, the advancement of our species.
Rather than mourn the loss of our fellow adventurers in their quest into the unknown, we should instead celebrate them, not only for their accomplishments in life, but additionally and especially in death.
After all, but for their risks, but for their selfless ability to consciously put their lives on the line both for their countries -- and indeed for our species as a whole -- and, certainly, to satisfy their thirst for knowledge and discovery, we would still be travelling the European continent on horseback.
As indecent as it may sound, I am certain our great explorers would be disappointed to see us saddened by their loss, and that they would far rather their memories be praised with all the pomp and circumstance worthy of their triumphant accomplishments, failures and successes alike.
(1) First, I tend to agree with russell that Hayward is one of the two most likely candidates for a devastating quake. This fault line seems the greatest threat to the SF Bay Area. That said, whether San Andreas, Hayward or otherwise, any quake on a Bay Area fault line around an M8 or larger will wreak havoc on the Bay, especially along the Marina Green and other places with similar landfill. And I agree such an event is inevitable within the next few years. Fortunately, the seismic retrofits to the Golden Gate and the current rush to rebuild the Doyle Drive Freeway should mean those structures will withstand most anything, as will the tallest skyscrapers around the Bay.
(2) That said, I think the LA basin stands the greatest risk of failure during a quake: from what I understand, LA functions like a bowl of Jell-o, geographically: bounded by the ocean to the west and mountains to the north and east, earthquake waves tend to reverberate within the "bowl" and generate far more damage than they would elsewhere due to the formation of standing waves.
(3) Either way, I think those of us living in earthquake-prone areas need to realize that it is all but a mathematical certainty that we will be struck by another devastating quake within our lifetimes. Accordingly, I think it is foolish to not take at least elementary precautions: I for one, even I could afford it, will simply never live in the Marina Green due to the risk of liquefaction. Similarly, I would far rather live in a tall skyscraper condo rather than a small home since (a) they are designed to withstand quakes far better than smaller structures and (b) it turns out they function like wind instruments (i.e., closed on one end, open on the other): when high frequency earthquake waves strike a tall building, they resonate at a much lower frequency than in a smaller building. These two factors alone -- along with stricter building codes -- explain why we've never(?) seen a modern skyscraper fail in an earthquake.