vietor

Did it strike anyone else as intellectually dishonest (or really sloppy?) that that entire article seemed to come from a parallel reality where SSDs don't exist?

I get that this would be an improvement over current SSDs. But to not even mention them while at the same time saying thigns like:

"In a first step, one could envisage attacking the Flash market and replacing the USB sticks with something much faster..."

"One could imagine the technology being useful for both small mobile devices (such as smartphones) and large systems (such as servers)."

Yes! If only there were some sort of non-volatile, low power, shock resistant, storage technology which were orders of magnitude faster than rotating hard disks! We could call it some sort of Solid State Drive, and it would totally change the storage market!

I think there is a third distinction that's missing:

  Idea + Code = Tech
  Tech + Users = Product
  Product + Plan = Business

It's also worth noting that you don't have to make it to step three to have a good M&A exit, as many examples illustrate.

(Good execution at all steps is, of course, implied)

Could someone who speaks Danish elaborate on the findings referenced on Wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg#DCSD_investi...

Though he was exonerated on technicalities, it doesn't look good. However, as I don't read Danish, I can't check any of the actual source material.

I would hope that the retain sufficient records to do so, and expect that they will. Whether that will get news coverage is a separate question...

And I'm sure that, regardless, some fraction will insist that it's a cover-up and continue to talk about it for the next decade.

Possible alternative explanation:

http://www.examiner.com/weather-in-los-angeles/missile-launc...

Fits with your point about the DoD being all kinds of crazy if they suspected it was an actual event they had no hand in.

As usual the low quality of video and unreliability of eye-witnesses are going to make this way more crazy than it needs to be, regardless of the actual eventual outcome.

EDIT: A better explanation with historical pictures: http://www.smartplanet.com/technology/blog/thinking-tech/the...

My impression is that a change of that nature would select against the applicants with strong alternative routes to funding. Either because they are already well connected and experienced, already have traction, or already have some other advantages.

So while it would reduce the number of applicants, it would also reduce the overall quality of applicants. Given that the problem with too many applicants is sifting through them to find the good ones, eliminating the good ones outright would be worse than merely having a higher chance of overlooking them.

Answering the rhetorical question...

I discovered it when I got momentarily distracted by something while entering text.

On Android letters with alternate versions have ellipsis on the image of the character which pops up when you sweep over it.

Could you go into more detail about what the reasons given were? My initial reactions on reading that was ... unreservedly hostile.

Given the likely upside of going through YC if accepted, 12 weeks of separation seems insignificant.

(On topic: I applied this year and one of my two co-founders is female.)

My understanding was that it was a low-dollar tech acquisition. The acquiree had no interest in existing customers beyond the fact that they validated functionality.

That happened to my co-founders and I on our previous product (the one visible at the website in my profile). The only thing our payment provider ended up being serious about was getting acquired.

We had to change providers about a year after we launched, and it ended up costing us nearly half of our early customers.

Your writing is clear, at least to this reader, and your point is completely valid.

I think the issue is that the general structure of what you're saying is triggering false alarms in people's bullshit detectors, and so they fail to read for comprehension.

Given that dishonest participants will specifically pretend to take positions counter to their agenda for the purpose of implying validity, authenticity, or just creating doubt, it really makes it hard to make the kind of valid point you tried to without getting misread.

The fundamental problem is that there is just no direct way to win in the face of dishonesty:

"Cellphones cannot cause cancer" -> "What about mechanism X! You can't prove it doesn't! OMG scientists are all liars! (Therefore homeopathy!)"

"Cellphones almost certainly do not cause cancer, as there is no known mechanism, and no epidemiology suggesting that they do" -> "Scientists admit that it's not impossible for cellphones to cause cancer! They admit they don't know if there is a mechanism! They can't prove anything! (Therefore homeopathy!)"

Anyhow thanks for kicking off an interesting discussion, and being a direct example of how dishonest participants have poisoned the discourse even when they aren't directly participating in it.

Nonsense! Why just look at mercolaquack.com, which helpfully tells you how he's totally not a quack, merely a victim of a massive smear campaign!

Because THEY are out to get YOU, and only HE stands in the way to stop them, by selling you thing which are "not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease."

If you go in there, don't forget to wear your critical thinking cap, some goggles, and hip-waders. You're going to need them.

I'm currently using Vrapper, and it's been a year or two since I tried Eclim. But as I recall, it's a question of which is primary.

With Eclim you get all of vim, as you say, but you lose a bit of the native eclipse editor functionality.

With Vrapper you get all of eclipse, and a subset of the core vim commands. It's not vim, but you get to keep all of the features of the native eclipse editor.