cal5k

67 ms·

631.
by cal5k 16y ago
I'm reading through this now, and thus far it is a remarkably interesting (and amusing) read.
632.
by cal5k 16y ago
I'm sorry you feel that way?
633.
by cal5k 16y ago
I've addressed this already above.
634.
by cal5k 16y ago
Nowhere did I say that I hadn't read what was written. However, the format was cause for suspicion. As I mention above, my objection is that it paints an overly simplistic picture of the "myth" by reducing it to a one-line straw man which c
635.
by cal5k 16y ago
Fair enough. However, my objection is that it paints an overly simplistic picture of the "myth" by reducing it to a one-line straw man which can then easily be dismantled in the "fact" section. So while it's true that it is important to eva
636.
by cal5k 16y ago
Hence "or something similar"... I'm attempting to draw a parallel to a common PR tactic that has a rather remarkable track record of being disingenuous.
637.
by cal5k 16y ago
I've found that a pretty good rule of thumb for recognizing corporate BS is any time a campaign is called "Get The Facts" or something similar. For example, look on the side of many boxes of junk cereal and you'll find a "Get The Facts" box
638.
by cal5k 16y ago
This article featured perhaps one of the greatest lines I've ever read in the Economist: "Schumpeter was tempted to visit some creative destruction on the book with a blowtorch."
639.
by cal5k 16y ago
Has it occurred to anyone that operational transformation, a la Google Wave ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_transformation ), is basically the solution to the transclusion problem?
640.
by cal5k 16y ago
Actually, $44/hour isn't so expensive - it costs ~$120/hr to rent a Cessna 172. Granted the $44/hour doesn't include the cost to actually purchase and maintain the thing, but what a small price to pay for your own personal helicopter :-D
641.
by cal5k 16y ago
That's a point I absolutely agree with. However, your hyperbolic introduction (which admittedly isn't coming from your fingertips, but nonetheless one you say you agree with) seems to be arguing that VCs are dead PERIOD, which I don't buy a
642.
by cal5k 16y ago
The idea is actually a good one, but there is much talk of "killing" Monster.com - what's to stop Monster.com from developing a similar scheme and piloting it to its massive user base as soon as this idea catches on?
643.
by cal5k 16y ago
I think it's crazy to assert that VCs are dead because companies like UrbanSpoon and Xobni, both of which required little more than time and some basic infrastructure to start, are not good candidates for VCs. Companies once backed by VCs -