sandroyong

I agree with your points. But what if the idea is sound on paper? The fact that people change is a variable in itself and that is my argument. No one can truly predict that this person or that will turn out to be a good entrepreneur. The 'lemons' that are picked may well be correlated not to the idea but the founders. A weighted balance on both parts (idea and entrepreneur) is required. Or is that too rare or difficult to achieve?

Would be interesting to see what success YC would have if more emphasis was placed on the idea and less so on the founders...as an experiment. I agree that founders are important. But has there been an instance where the idea sounded great but YC was really not comfortable with the founders - resulting in a missed opportunity. History has shown us that you can go from a non-entrepreneur/tech to a great CEO suggesting that the idea is a not a real factor. Yet, YC admits to choosing 'lemons'. Thus, the criteria for emphasizing on the founders is certainly not without its faults and, thus, could use a revamp.

Use a timer. Everyone has 5 or 10min to discuss their viewpoint; 6 people = 1hour; If someone finishes before their allotted time, tack it on at the end for a group discussion. You have to enforce the time constraints, otherwise you'll just waste everyone's time. It also helps everyone get in the habit of 'getting to point' of what they have to say and it makes for an efficient and productive meeting. Good luck.

The other posted comments are correct. Alternatively, it could also mean just how well the co-founders communicate, cooperate, and come to a consensus on 'pivoting', how to 'gain traction' and how to 'make money'. Time is $, and how quickly you and your team can adapt to the challenges is the main challenge in the face of all other challenges. Good luck.

Very far and few in between. So, my question is "why"?

I agree. Encryption is a good idea, but I just don't think it's all that practical. If people really wanted to crack encryption, the technology is there (and if the person has the patience and time) it will be cracked. And they don't want to spend the time and effort to get that encrypted info, there are other ways to really get at it. The user still remains the unpredictable variable and weakest link in network security. I just think there are better ways to secure networks and the internet...

Bruce Schneier was a great proponent of cryptography. In he lat 90's, he touted encryption as the end-all of security measures. Since then, he has backed off his claim. (He later went on and continues to be a proponent of legislative laws for proper surveillance and forcing companies to be more security compliant). So, even Bruce doesn't think encryption is a good idea.

Excerpt from a 1998 essay, "Security Pitfalls in Cryptography" that sums it all up:

"Strong cryptography is very powerful when it is done right, but it is not a panacea. Focusing on the cryptographic algorithms while ignoring other aspects of security is like defending your house not by building a fence around it, but by putting an immense stake into the ground and hoping that the adversary runs right into it. Smart attackers will just go around the algorithms."

I agree.

Wonder if YC, when seeking founders/team, look for these qualities as well:

    >Communicate and demonstrate a clear sense of purpose

    >Provide great coaching, mentoring, and tutoring

    >Recognize, praise, and reward achievement

    >Ensure credit is given where credit is due

    >Consistently dependable and knowledgeable

    >Always accessible

    >Treat people fairly

    >Listen well

    >Have patience and humility

    >Helpful and quick to expedite important matters

    >Demonstrates loyalty by standing up for his team, defending them to other executives, and when necessary, to customers

Interesting. I am surprised that the skin cell from the patient -> stem cell -> liver cell -> was injected into mice and that the cells were still working after 6 wks. The article does not say whether these were immunodeficient mice. Nevertheless, the proof-of-concept is halfway there. I would caution that whatever happens in vitro (in a dish) is entirely different in vivo (in animals/humans). Induction of cancer by re-injected cells would certainly be a potential concern. However, the findings from this article do show enormous potential.

This makes me angry! This is has some semblance of blackmail or a protection scheme like in gangs and the mafia - you know they're crooked, but you gotta pay up or they're going to come back and break your legs. I'm stretching the analogy a tad but you get the point. As the article says, "economic (and political) diplomacy...and yet, China is getting away with it because if you don't 'play ball' with them and start the blame game, you can kiss my economic market goodbye.

We need to do better at innovating newer security measures and start thinking outside the box so as tip the balance of cyber offense and defense dominance in our favor...

In truth and in large part because people in the field that I am interested in are not addressing the real problem, ie, they are all 'barking up the wrong tree'. When you have an answer/solution and when others still don't 'get it', there comes a time that you have to step in. I don't want to sit by the sidelines anymore, so I'm rolling up my sleeves to do it myself.

If it isn't sufficient for non-cloud systems, how is it expected to be sufficient 'up there'? Ah...I don't think so, less secure, in fact.

Social or social network simply means individuals tied by one or more specific types of interdependencies (ie, friendships, common interests, groups etc). At its basic element, such online networks are repositories of “who I know and this is what I want them to know about me”. But as a network for socializing, does the average user use these networks to really socialize? Yes (and no), but at the very minimum, it generally entails posting updates on one’s life, sharing family/vacation photos, making announcements, all with the intention that the friends/people that we have allowed to share this information will ‘click’ on your bookpage to read about it (note: strangers can visit but not share some info).

This is a ‘one-way’ socialization process. So are (technical/introvert) people who are ‘not sociable’ in real life (as you put it) ‘less qualified’ to produce a social network than their counterparts? Alternatively, you could argue that the people that actively use such social networks are vain, narcissist, an with an underlying desire to measure their self-worth by the number of friends they have (this is stretching it a little, so no disrespect to those who actively use such social networks). So, the techies/introverts may merely be cautious about posting their info online; it does not entirely disqualify them from making social apps.

As I see it, the medium of social networking should be less ‘one-way’ socialization and more like being in the same room with all these people. Facebook, for example, seems more like a room full of people who walk around with a whiteboard obscuring their faces and posting all of their personal info on these whiteboards, ie, we really don’t know if they are who they say they are. Google+ is no more different – it is the same room, minus the whiteboards (because you’ve invited friends to join your circle and, thus, share your info). However, the Google+ room is filled specific/private circles, ie, the ‘cool/popular kids circle’, the ‘nerdy/geeky kids circle’, the ‘rebellious kids circle’ – to use a high school analogy =).

I think there are two arguments here: 1) current online social mediums are not conducive to traditional (‘two-way’) socializing and 2) given a medium that supports ‘two-way’ socializing, everyone can and will be sociable.

Determination is the only prerequisite; everything else will fall into place. Learning C++ may be the least of your problems if you're considering entrepreneurship. Have you heard of a Mr. Jobs...=) "life's too short" Learn your C++ and everything else in between...good luck.

As the article plainly states, "cyberspace mashes up 'everything' - ie, 'The interconnectedness of cyberspace breaks down borders and distinctions around which societies and states are organized.'

As I stated in my previous threads, the current client-server model must change; the current network/internet infrastructure must change. Trust has been replaced by anonymity. We must revamp the current paradigm to strike a balance between the freedoms that the internet affords us (e.g., freedom of speech) while being able to demarcate the 'cyberborders' that currently eludes us from distinguishing 'friend' and 'foe'.

At the precipice of cyberwarfare, we must address the insecurity of the current network/internet infrastructure rather than placing our sights to the 'cloud' (ie, cloud computing - geez! talk about less secure) and blaming software.

Very cool! Technology/innovation should be about that. Just like how technology made the woman hear her own voice for the first time. If we could make new tech lead to that kind of reaction, that would be priceless and worth the effort...

I have been following these news reports since 2000/2001 and, honestly, nothing has changed. If the power grids have not been shut down and the wired world that we live in is still intact, my guess is that I will still be reading about such articles...

Software and codes will always have problems, but this is not THE problem. The PLATFORM on which it runs IS the problem.

I believe there is.

Let’s examine what we have so far. When you search for 'apple' in the library, where do you go? In truth, without indexing or the help of the librarian, you go roving through the library and gather all material related to or with the words ‘apple’ and ‘display’ your results. Google uses algorithms to do just that - and according to the materials’ the relevance and/or ‘hits’, it will be listed as such. And, when advertisers pay$ for their ads to be listed first - these listings will show up in the uppermost sections of the first page - if someone paid me at the library to look for certain material and display them first, I would too. Alas, this is the nature of things and we as end-users often have to muddle through the endless list of ‘stuff’ to find what were searching for. Yes, yes, we could narrow our search and type 'apple, fruit' and get more or less what we wanted but there is still ad ‘stuff’ that we had to dredge through.

My point is that it would be nice to have and indexing of stuff or a ‘librarian’ to go to to be able to help us narrow our search parameters. Suppose the network infrastructure ‘knew’ exactly where ‘stuff’ is - it’s more akin to you finding stuff in your room or house - if things are cluttered, you will be using algorithms to search through all that stuff; but if things were organized (since you organized it and put it there, and putting the algorithms back in your pocket), you wouldn’t have trouble finding it. Technically, this would mean that the information would be stored locally by each of the end-users on the network, and because it’s stored by end-users, the network 'publishes it' and knows where to 'look'. Just my thoughts...

FYI if you haven't seen this post, Cheers. http://entreposeur.com/yc-feedback-sharing

Yes. And with a startup, you have the freedom to bob and weave punches; in a large company, you are at the mercy of your handlers...

The article lists evidence that I have always felt held true in my experiences. Would be interesting to see if race/ethnicity is also a factor...from the point of view of cultural upbringing. My guess is 'somewhat' but not statistically significant, but I would be curious to see...

Hmmm...seems like an inflexible person. After reading your posting, I get the feeling you've already decided and your waiting for 3rd party responses before signing the divorce papers.

You could 1) accept it and endure it (but your company suffers because of it once it goes public or is more public) 2) confront him about it because this is a 'company issue' and you have to resolve it if you are going to move forward for the good of the company 3) cut your losses and start anew with a new cofounder or a new startup (4-5 months into it shouldn't be too high a price to pay for more headaches later)

From your point of view (and I've haven't seen his side of the story) you have made reasonable concessions, and any more concessions on your part I don't think (from reading your post) will unlikely resolve things.

Good luck.

I would replace the server - I mean, do we really need servers? In short, the internet and networks in general were not designed with security in mind. (I would like to apologize in advance for the lengthy response but I want to make myself clear)

The Client-Server model is the most widely adopted model of networking. As the basis of the internet, it is also most difficult to depose. Even in its most basic form, it precludes security and rejects attempts to secure interacting systems for the following reasons: 1) The server is just that - a slave that serves its masters, the clients. Despite security measures to limit and control client access, the server must at least: a) Listen for client requests - clients must be able to locate, and thus can target servers. b) Attempt to interpret, then determine whether to grant or deny the request - performing redundant (permissions are decided a-priori) and risky work in its own environment. 2) Clients need servers throughout their entire presence on the network, so servers remain open to attack throughout a client’s session. 3) Servers have access to all resources and to other clients’ data during any session with an individual client. 4) Exploiting a server confers the ability to exploit all of its clients and all resources.

The mode of implementation of networks introduces even more insecurities: 1) The system relies on explicit security-related information - such information can be falsified, thus the system cannot support non-repudiation. 2) The system transports clients to any destination they specify - it is up to the destination to defend itself against unwanted guests. 3 )Any client or server on the network can be discovered by any other client or server - the network can be searched systematically to find and exploit vulnerable targets.

In short, the server is and will continue to be a target for hackers. However, if the target (server) was removed, would we have security breaches? Probably not, but more importantly for all users, we would not have an internet as we know it. Therefore, we need a medium that accomplishes both - a hardware element that allows for network communications (but without the insecure handles that make up a server) as well as allowing us to make up the network we now call the internet. Pure fantasy or are we just too engrained with what we have to be able to ‘think outside the box’?

Let’s look at why? There have been admirable strides towards making today’s systems more secure. There is also significant and proactive efforts focused on finding vulnerabilities and developing patches to fix them before they can be exploited. Although security measures exist, none are truly pre-emptive. In my view, everyone is just making variations of the same thing and, more importantly, we’re just ‘barking up the wrong tree’! Current defense strategies follow three common underlying themes: 1) most tend to focus on particular attackers, attacks, or attack methodologies; 2) many aim to defend particular targets or groups of targets; 3) all are confined and subverted by the existing framework for computing and networks. In its entirety and more importantly, current defensive strategies cannot 1) prevent most unknown attacks; 2) make targets unavailable for exploitation, nor 3) compensate for design flaws in the system being defended. Therefore, would it not be more instructive to examine what enables the initiation of attacks? i.e., what are the handles that allow the system to be breached?

As I eluded to above, the interaction between client and server software/systems, on which (often flawed) software is based, presents too many handles for misuse and abuse. Therefore, this argument points to one and only one common denominator - the network is inherently insecure by design, i.e., this is the problem that security people should be addressing, not a new variant-kind-of patch. So, if I could travel back to the 1990’s to design the networks/internet (as you have suggested) and knowing what I know now, what and how would I design it? More importantly, can it be redesigned today? Or should security product developers stay content and conform to the present hardware and software platforms and just develop ‘patches’? Even if software could be made flawless in logic, it may not be feasible to prevent the misuse of software. Don’t forget the human element - that in itself is the weakest ‘link’ in network security.

We are therefore left with redesigning the computer and network environments to allow flawed software (and people) to operate securely and render such software (and people) inoffensive should their flaws (and actions) be targeted (be used) for exploitation. This implies that the network (and elements of the network) be fault-tolerant or, more to the point, secure by design. So, we can have the benefits of a network and the protection from network security into one all encompassing computer-network infrastructure.

My suggestion: It should be conceivable and possible to map and mete out resources to clients/users as they are accepted onto the network. This is the basis of client completion; for each user/client, a host environment is created in which all allowable services and resources are locally available and locally supported. We already pre-determine the "stuff" the user needs/requires to have access to on the server - so why not bypass the server? Since access to and management of these resources is local, there is no need, or means by which, to interact with the server or the network; the client is thus complete - a discrete entity on the network. The containment of this discrete component must be as complete as possible to ensure that there is no "leakage" to other client or server environments if the user exploits any vulnerability in the client.

I can see a distinct and separate internet from the current one and more businesses and services coming out from this model.

OK, I've said enough...hopefully that will spur more discussions on this subject =)

top schools does not equal to successful starups; idea + drive + timing + general business sense (ie know ur market, thinking outside the box, calculated risk taker, etc) are some of the qualities I equate to with successful startus; don't know if top tier schools offer such courses? lol

You can have an IT person from the hospital, from where the doctors in question work, set up a server with cloud software - essentially setting up your own cloud server with no 3rd party involvement while maintaining privacy issues within the said hospital. Whenever you are dealing with cloud computing, an IT person has do have access to the data/server with the data to perform upgrades, maintenance and security. So, to remove privacy concerns, this IT person must be associated with the hospital so that he/she complies with HIPAA guidelines.

WRT "...a customer to purchase their own cloud?" Ans: each patient under the care of these doctors would have to each setup and maintain their own cloud server.

Ideas come in all shapes and sizes, disruptive and not-so disruptive. Take the iPhone and iPad; disruptive because so many other apps and startups based on making apps have been developed. Not-so disruptive are the apps themselves; do you want to share photos? there are many, many apps for that. If you're looking for one idea, here is one that no one has really captured and the reasons for this will become clear throughout my post.

Why is it that our greatest idea hasn't really been capitalized or used to its fullest. I am referring to the internet. We keep touting ourselves as "being connected"; we really are not, but can we become more connected? We are effective in Tweeting for a flash mob to occur in central station at time X, but why is it that we cannot issue an Amber alert of a missing child by the same means?; most of us now use mobile devices more than ever. Perhaps, because incidents like the NBC Twitter account being hacked and posting a bogus tweet on 9/11, just doesn't instill a lot of confidence in such a system. Nonetheless, it seems silly to me that we have to issue an Amber alert on highways for maximum exposure when we have the internet and mobile devices.

I'm really talking about our inter-connectivity and maximizing it to its full potential. Forums come close to making my point. For example, when was the last time you searched for a medical condition using Google. You often have to filter through a lot of pages to get the answer that you are looking for. The problem with forums is that the anonymity of the internet doesn't really afford the luxury of trusting Dr. Quack on the other side of the post. Wouldn't it be nice to just get more than a 2nd medical opinion? What about 1000 or 10000 medical opinions in a forum-like setting? It is unlikely in the current infrastructure because 1) we cannot verify whether the people posting are indeed professionals, 2) legal and liability issues, 3) compensation? (just listing it here because it's inevitable that people might want to be $ for their advice). Disregarding #1 and #3 for the moment, we could negate #2 if we could get an aggregate graph or pie chart of the responses. For example, "My son has this disease and he exhibits x, y, z, symptoms. What could it be?" Imagine how much more confident the parent would feel if he/she had an aggregate result of 80% respondents said disease x and 10% said disease y - from 1000 or 10000 medical professionals. Too far fetch of an idea? Perhaps, if we had a private and secure network along side the current internet, I can see it working. Social media forums, like FB, could take this on. Unfortunately, they exist as part of the current fabric of the internet and, by default, anonymity is rampant, and users in this forum I described would be less likely to submit their professional information to be stored in a server ‘out there’ with the risk of it being misused. Mistrust is the underlying issue; remember, the internet was built for 'trusted' parties - that is a rare commodity in this commercialized internet.

Forums (of all shapes and sizes) from legitimate people/professionals existing in this so-called private network could take on a whole new life of their own; and if you still want to post things anonymously, just go back to the old internet. But imagine the power of the 'many' -it clearly outweighs the 'few' and we aren’t really maximizing it; the internet has become a dumping ground for data...

Be my guest on taking on this idea, otherwise, we could use more apps =)

From an evolutionary perspective, it is a beautiful thing. This is how natural selection has favored the species with the best adaptability to survive. It also speaks to a larger issue - life elsewhere. It really demonstrates how tenacious and robust life is. (Life outside of Earth...without a doubt!) Back to the article...the tech is very cool and will surely yield benefits. But how does one "attack the process of resistance acquisition"? In essence, you are trying to prevent mutations from occurring at the DNA level. Mutations are the basis for creating new forms of the same species and whether it survives or dies depends on mutation and the environment. I wonder if this is what the researchers mean by designing drugs that target the 'resistance acquisition' - ie preventing cell replication.

If you do not feel strongly about your idea and, more importantly, you do not believe the product is needed by the market, then do not quit your job. Only when you have satisfied these needs, then take the step of deciding whether it is worth the risk to pursue your startup dream...

Such a network does not exist. In an ideal world, where the network 'knows' who the user is would be any advertiser's dream. As it currently exists, we need platforms like FB, a search engine (Google), and now mobile devices, to reside on this network/internet infrastructure we have built for ourselves as means to bombard us with ads. The distinction here are the platforms, not the network itself...