dooshydoo

These studies that whet the appetite for 'sin secrets' are entertaining, but that's about it. I favor reductionism. Maybe it's not forced brain evolution or African-plain-life recreation. Maybe it's because when you drink you tend to eat less, which is, good.

I don’t understand the ambivalence for stealing. If you’ve ever tried to teach someone something, you know it’s impossible to get them to where you are. Maybe worse, maybe better, but never your equivalent. And if it's worse, no worries; if it’s better, it fuels your own development.

A somewhat irresponsible and hypothetical goad.

A truly bankrupt sense of self-worth would be refusing 15MM for a germ of a business. It’s one thing to entertain delusions of grandeur, but to rationalize it by concluding you’re an interchangeable cog who fell backward into a successful startup is disheartening. The rapacious quality you speak of would not preclude the acceptance of an exit; rather, it would fuel it.

A polarizing article not meant to entertain or educate, but to gain traffic from those searching for 'smart and rich'. If the story were true, I’d feel sorry for him; creating an ideology based on the corner of a puzzle piece makes you horse-headed and ultimately miserable.

Fortunately, it’s not, and he has successfully brought attention to his personal site, which, because of the content, is pleasantly ironic. My left-handed compliments to the chef.

I don't believe any idea is wholly worthless. Great ideas are on time, good ideas only feel late, and bad ideas are simply too early. For years I've kept two folders.

One I fill with concepts (if they can be called that) I plan to test, and the other is for those I think are too early. The good ideas have kept me afloat; the bad ideas however, have led to great things.

Always write it down. Circling ideas are an omen you're mastering the science but not the art.

I think most rational people have a schizophrenic response to bits like this. It’s glib and cliché for the player to beg forgiveness because the game itself is corrupt. In a different time I naively thought that if the contest is crooked, don’t play. However, you get older and realize nobility is shortsighted, and that one of the trade-offs we willingly accept, to live amongst endless possibility, is the reservation of veto power for those prepared to pay for the protection of their self-interests.

So I remain realistically optimistic. After a hem and haw, I’ve settled on believing that business with a capital B-for-billion is a much different animal with greater responsibility. But only in that their duty is to succeed for their shareholders, for their employees, and for their customers; in that order.

Taxes suck, life is short, and none of us ever feel that our share is spent wisely. Seeing a company do their homework to pay less shouldn’t feel any more like salt in a wound than meeting an octogenarian. If you knew that was your future, you’d play a similar game.

Well put. I wasn't taking the half billion in acquisition cost into consideration. However, I think with their still-huge current audience, a couple of cool-by-association acquisitions(pandora,indeed) and celebrity spokespeople, it stands in a very good place.

As a competitor to Facebook, they're sinking. But if social networking in this capacity turns, taking their medicine now for poor-sighted assumptions could make a so-so company poised to look smart in hindsight, should they right the ship.

I agree, there are major disadvantages to having this kind of link to old industry money too(being slow, hackneyed CEO culture, etc.) But, Murdoch is wily and buys talent.

I wouldn't bet against them; if for nothing else, their vehement protection of pride.

I disagree. It may be too late for Myspace to be Facebook, but any business with an audience, no matter what size, has potential. Many struggling businesses would kill to have a fraction of Myspace's brand awareness; to make a left turn and have someone care.

Instead of losing hair wondering why people are leaving in droves, they should reverse their attitude and kick people out.

They should go very narrow, maybe create a premium service priced to almost insult people, and and play up the privacy angle.

Or, be what Facebook was and probably should have stayed; an easy to use student-only network.

No doubt for more than just fatigue. There's a reason most of the longer matches occur between lower-ranked players; neither opponent has the mental fortitude to change strategy accordingly. Not to be mean, I do concede that Isner and Mahut both have heart to fight for 7 plus hours, but this wouldn't happen between Federer and Nadal because they learn and adapt during a match, not just go tit for tat. Both of these guys serve very well, but return very averagely.

Sure. After much debate, we agreed on a subscription-based model over a Freemium one. Due to the potential for fraud, a free version would be unrealistic and inviting spam. To be blunt, this way, everyone has skin in the game from the get go.

I also think it’s better for everyone involved if the structure is there to create a long-term relationship with the people we’re bringing together. The longer we can offer supplemental resources in the early throes of the startup the better, which lends itself to a membership model.

The obvious challenge will be in creating price tiers that are easiest for our members to accept. Having said that, we intend to price ourselves to attract only those who are truly prepared for the leap.