From my personal experience - I was running a services company which was very profitable and doing good. I tried building 2 different products in parallel but got no where. As there always was money coming in and I was moving far deep into a comfort zone to motivate me. Finally I decide to shut down services business to focus on latest product. Even though its still early, I have at least been able to get product in front few hundred users.
I think thats why having too long runway (excessive funding) has its own downside.
I want to archive this comment as evidence that in the year 2011 Google and Wikipedia still were not as good as books and libraries.
I'm happy to be wrong, but showing that requires a source. As far as I can tell, the story was originally about Tariq ibn Ziyad (see my other comment in this thread) and subsequently hopped to Caesar, Alexander, and Cortes, probably because they were better known.
On the other hand, Google book search has never worked for me. But I do think Google is waaaay better then nothing. Howewver, I am not certain that Wikipedia, as it stands, is actually a net gain.
That is also why I think the author's logic falls short here. It may be brave to say "victory or death" but it is also kind of stupid. Especially if there's a chance you could be defeated but escape to fight another day.
Conflict is about strategy whether it be in business or war. Winning means using every resource you have available to you in the most efficient way possible. So I don't see the logic in destroying resources as motivational tools.