tim2

That's a compelling idea.

I hate when artists try to sell me on some philosophical message. I could care less what some guy high on coke who has never demonstrated his analytical ability has to say.

Yeah I'm one of those guys who listens because he appreciates music and its fascinating properties in and of itself, not for sung poetry or any other nonsense.

Yes those are a good example of (something like) concerts being the best business model for a group of artists now. I just find it funny how we all have witnessed the success of so many different business models, and then for someone to say that only one is possible.

Almost any type of music where vocals are not the focus can today be created through computers. More than people realize already is today. I am thinking of instrumental music such as classical, of course electronica of all types, even a bit of jazz and other styles.

Not all music is an extravagant performance art.

The TC article title clearly says that artists should not be compensated for recordings. No context, that's the title and therefore the overall message that Arrington wants us to take away. What most of the article says is that the artists shouldn't expect to be able to retroactively be compensated when they had previously agreed not to be in this particular situation.

The problem here is that, all context considered, Arrington is going one step further than just saying that the artists don't deserve compensation here. He is very clearly raising the point that artists shouldn't expect to be compensated at all for recordings ever.

Of course this is quite disapointing to me as much of the music I listen to cannot be created live by its artists but instead takes days or months to prepare. With the advancement of computers, more and more often, musical composers will be able to use just a computer to create music that traditionally could only be created by live musicians - and lots that can only be created through computers. Guess I'd better kiss that goodbye.

I'd say that the breast cancer foundation was creating most of the value... 2nd, I don't see how you can call this innovative since there are a million things you can buy for which the proceeds go to charity.

But if you want to give it to them just for having a good heart then I guess that's alright.

Overrated...pod

Just trying to speculate as to what the most important aspects were. History is too often rewritten later by writers who didn't understand why something was popular at the time that it was actually taking off. So they just pick whatever glamorous reason sounds the most revolutionary.

He may be right though.

You find restaurants similar to tech startups?

Not very dissimilar?

...maybe it's just the price and size. I'm sure people wouldn't stop buying it if it got more features.

I agree with the quoted guy in many ways. Perhaps we should congratulate him on how well he foresaw the difficulty in adapting these services to the web.

And the internet has made physical shopping obsolete? Not April 1st yet... I'm sure this idea would cause my girlfriend to burst into laughter.

I would like to see a large survey of 25 year old hackers from around the country who would like to start a startup but decided against it, or just couldn't. It is nice to believe that it's just lack of inspiration, or misconceptions about the process, but is there anything else? Maybe.

Or maybe it is because people truly do not want to work hard. Never in my life have I met someone who prioritizes hacking above all else for more than the time it would take to defeat a small video game.

One question, by "start a startup," would that refer to getting decent investment and living a quality of life overall comparable to that of one's peers, or bootstrapping and every day fighting for survival with a hope that one day the tides will turn? If the later then those outside the valley are going to be inspired with a much stronger "yearning for the sea" before they will make the jump without regret.

I am fooling around with the first option you mention, but I never see any apps that do this(?), so it doesn't quite seem right.

The second idea is feeling like making a car without breaks for simplicity in this case...

That depends entirely on whether the failure was worth the risk and amount that was actually learned. I can see this often not being the case.

What? Why is it impossible for the risk to be negligable?

What is so much more fulfilling about startups that is unlikely to be attained elsewhere?

That's not how it really works, when it works.

So is the approach here suggesting to lay everything out at once and so the user can feel what the interface 'affords' him before he clicks anything, or should an interface be broken down into very simple steps that the user can only see one at a time?

I almost always prefer the 'jet pilot' approach of having everything laid out in front of me, for example, being able to see an entire form before I decide whether to use it. BUT it seems that many usability experts suggest dragging users through one step at a time?

How to decide? Will there be an equal number of people that hate my choice either way?

Well here is evolution making a "mistake":

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=143251

Making an open source project into a startup seems like a very long road. I don't know this particular area (finance messaging) though.

Yes, this is far, far more severe than any credit card debt that that a student could possibly get into.

Related to this, I know several people who had to drop out of school recently because they hadn't built up credit and didn't have parents to co-sign on school loans.

Perhaps you should write on this some time, but I don't see how that could actually solve anything.

Actually, when the article says:

> people who are chronically sleep deprived, like people who've had too much to drink, often have no sense of their limitations.

What it means is that people don't realize the degree to which they are being inhibited (although the studies did not test this, this is based on one piece of anecdote.) The article is not saying that people think that their limitations are greater than they otherwise would, as is the case with alcohol or testosterone.

Gaining global adoption is NOT about just translating some stuff. That's probably a very distant third in what matters for global adoption.

They aren't public servants or politicians, who cares about image.

Hey wait, but ideas are worth nothing! :)

Sure. Email's in the profile. I'm here all night.

Thanks, I'll put in lots of really good selections before the full launch. This won't be anything like what they make you listen to on the radio!

Nah, I used YUI. Comes with keyboard shortcuts and other nice things. You wrote yours js by hand? You've got me on the style though:)

[email me for link]