NewWorldOrder

Personally, I can't stand when people claim ideas are worthless and execution is everything. The fact is that ideas INFORM flawless execution. Ideas and execution are inextricably linked.

I like the $1 per video idea. It sounds like an absolute steal. Another possible experiment is to have a monthly subscription fee for companies to have their name/logo show up on the pages of relevant videos. The minimum fee could be $5/month for companies (so barrier to entry is low), but precedence would be given to companies paying the most for particular pages.

Agreed (sorta). I think achieving a certain level of proficiency is a necessary condition (not a sufficient one). However, as noted in the article, sometimes reaching a particular level of proficiency creates the "I like this" emotion.

Exactly. All the strategy/techniques/hacks mean nothing without the discipline to actually consistently carry them out.

Is someone disagreeing with a member of 37siganls really that surprising? 37signals is a pretty opinionated bunch.

At any rate, when Jason states in his post that he "doesn't know the full backstory," that signaled to me that I'm reading a post that's based on a premise that could be completely wrong. And I was okay with that because Jason appropriately couched his post.

If the only two things the author got out of the 4HWW was (1) money is a means not an end, and (2) do less emailing, then the author should try actually reading the book instead of skimming it.

You can't "review" a book you haven't read.

As ScottWhigham mentioned, "The Art of the Start" is a great place to start. But if you don't want to wait until you're able to get your hands on the book, you can check out a presentation the author did on it: http://blog.guykawasaki.com/2006/06/the_art_of_the_.html

The author offers many criticisms but few real solutions.

One strategy for becoming relentlessly resourceful is to refuse to accept conditions you find undesirable. And as someone who has taken the oath to become relentlessly resourceful, you illustrate your refusal of external circumstances by finding a resolution that ultimately solves the issue or works around the issue (a.k.a. a hack).

I believe that when 37signals created Basecamp it was for internal use. They built it for themselves. As time went on other small consulting firms (possibly that 37s knew) saw it and thought it was useful. From that point, Basecamp just continued to grow in popularity.

When nobody knows you or your startup do you really need a closed beta??

The question is meant in a different vein. This article http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/... suggests that people that become "great" practice deliberately over a long period of time.

Measuring how much better you're becoming is easier in some practices than in others. Assuming everybody wants to become great hackers, how can you practice deliberately such that you reach this "greatness?" Without some way of measuring how good you're becoming this is pretty difficult to do.

http://esposure.com recently launched. It hasn't quite failed, but nobody visits really. It's a place where you can post screencasts/demos of whatever it is you or your Web app does.

If you plan on being at startup school, maybe I can express in plain English to you face-to-face "how the hell" this story made top page...I'll be the guy in the Purdue t-shirt.

Although there's been a influx of new users, I would conjecture that there are still more veteran users than novices.

If this conjecture is the case, then the solution for the "problem" on HN would be for the veteran users to vote more aggressively on the "good" submissions. After you've been vectored off to an interesting Web page via a submission, don't forget to come back to HN and vote it up.

Veteran users can use their frustration with front page stories, and turn it into determination to find better stories. This way, everybody wins :o).

What's implied in the question is that the YC would still get some percentage of the company. I'm assuming that people aren't applying to the YC just get money to live for a few months. If this assumption is the case, then, theoretically, people would come, give up some part of their company, take no money, and be perfectly happy.

Waiting for a "GOOD" hacker co-founder may have you waiting forever. If your ideas are good, somebody else is already working on it. So every day you wait, you're losing time.

As long as your idea isn't very complicated to implement, and you know what you want; by all means, use an elance or a rentacoder or a craigslist.

I'd say don't even worry about Google, because, frankly, Google could build a spaceship if it wanted to...who could stop it? Any company that can tell the U.S. government "no" has some power...so focus on what you can effect...your cutting-edge product

it's good to know that some of the somewhat/to outright discourteous comment threads aren't the norm...

please see my response below. hopefully you'll find my grasp of probability not so bad.

your absolute chance of becoming a millionaire isn't 2/3. 2/3 millionaires are entrepreneurs. The entrepreneurial route to millions is at least double that of the non-entrepreneurial route (assuming there are no more entrepreneurs than there are non-entrepreneurs -- a reasonable assumption)...in the example game given at the post, the non-entrepreneurial route is assigned the chance of 1/3 (assuming 1 out 3 non-entrepreneurs are millionaires -- not so reasonable assumption)...so 2/3 is at least double of 1/3.

To be clear, if there are 30 millionaires and 3K non-entrepreneurs and 3K entrepreneurs, the entrepreneurial route obviously wouldn't be 2/3, but it will be double that of the non-entrepreneurial route.

Excuse the confusion.

I think Sequoia Capital has some decent guidelines for what to look for: http://sequoiacap.com/ideas/ However, if you were to ask Marc Andreessen the only thing that matters is the market: http://blog.pmarca.com/2007/06/the-pmarca-gu-2.html -- according to Marc, the team doesn't have to be superstars, they just have to be "good enough"

To me, initially it was unclear when somebody would want to use this. After some thought I figured that something like this could be cool for a tech document or white paper you're reading online with a lot of unfamiliar or esoterically techie jargon in it.

So people who have to read about difficult concepts in varied areas may find this useful. This could be anyone from students to professional consultants. So finding forums where students are trying to get help with various topics could be a good place to start.

This sounds terrible. 1) why couldn't you advance? 2) wasn't the company being deprived of your talents since you were only doing a cubicle job? 3) what would you have preferred to be doing?

:the_dip => 'by Seth Godin', :essays => 'by Paul Graham', :art_of_the_start => 'by Guy Kawasaki', :the_innovators_solution => 'by Clayton Christensen & Michael Raynor', :rich_dad_poor_dad => 'by Robert Kiyosaki', :seven_habits_of_highly_effective_people => 'by Stephen Covey', :stanford_technology_ventures_program => 'by Reid Hoffman (i.e., the session he did for STVP)'