lucifer

Even just one additional qualifier would go a long way to disambiguate the community opinion.

Reply with the facts as you understand them.

The Stoic thought process would simply reject the exceptionalism of Man and the maxim naturally follows without recourse to a higher entity.

After all, we do observe that all other life forms seem to have just enough time to do their thing. And when we speak of "properly" (or "wisely"), naturally it is only meaningful given that we have the ability to make choices. (c.f. "to thine own self be true")

That's character, and based on lingual evidence alone (which I'll take to be a summation of collective knowledge) "the development of character" is very much an individual endeavor.

Is that a reasonable generalization?

Here is a case where divergence between the model and "reality" would be catastrophic: http://www.fastcompany.com/node/28121/print

I'm also interested in exactly how one would apply an iterative cycle of implement->test->formalize to this category of software? (Ooops. There goes the rocket! Back to the keyboard!)

http://prateekthapar.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/6.j...

"You are an anonymous student who is now regretting the send button on his laptop. It’s with this context I hope you register pause…REAL pause xxxx and take to heart what I am about to tell you [...]"

To me that's the subtext of this object lesson by the ex-"Muffketeer". Let me paraphrase: "I didn't know you before, and the event was forgetful. Not any more. That was stupid, and you need to learn so you won't make that mistake again."

Getting a good job, working long hours, keeping your skills relevant, navigating the politics of an organization, finding a live/work balance…these are all really hard, xxxx. In contrast, respecting institutions, having manners, demonstrating a level of humility…these are all (relatively) easy. Get the easy stuff right xxxx. In and of themselves they will not make you successful. However, not possessing them will hold you back and you will not achieve your potential which, by virtue of you being admitted to Stern, you must have in spades. It’s not too late xxxx…"

Now that is an honest to goodness teacher. xxxx is quite fortunate. She/he may or not may recognize this now, but that letter was such a huge favor.

How about this as an alternative:

Modify the plugin to route the GETs for the ad content through an anonymizer server.

'I suggest' you consider Geek vs Nerd (or even more generally avant-garde vs outlier) to recognize that the antagonism is internal.

We shouldn't have to beg to have our rights (back). Just remember how you got those rights in the first place.

(Remember fascism means the union of the corporate and the state. Egomaniacs in funny uniforms and goose stepping is optional.)

[grammar]

That's the essence of what ESR was saying.

Good read and solid advice.

But the title raised the expectation that the article would delve into how the thought process (and potential lower social/emotional intelligence) of high IQ individuals can be a detriment to starting and developing a business.

can you cite a consistent pattern in their past that would argue they would never do so?

(I can cite this: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-03/google-wants-u-s...)

How about this?

http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sec...

Why is Google applying for patents? For fun?

HTC was already mentioned in the article: they are young and do not have the patent portfolio to play with the big boys.

Every other tech company does it; why hold Apple to an exceptional standard?

The OP is not making an ethical or moral critique.

As regards to Apple, he's merely saying "in the long-term" it is bad business as Apple will experience a brain drain, and, there is an implicit shaming aspect (remember those blue boxes Steve? ;) by pointing out past actions of Steve Jobs himself.

An excellent comparative case in point that in my opinion actually undercuts what you are asserting.

You do not lose features and functionality in that transition (where as noSQL is by design reductive), and further, Git is a replacement for SVN and not a complementary tool.

WTF. How the hell do they get away with establishing non-obviousness for these things? (Wouldn't that cover OTP, Go channels, Java Channels, etc.?)

I have no beef with Apple per se (thus would have you wish that for all companies) but clearly software patent system is fundamentally flawed.

Even if they are that rare startup that has heavy weights on both sides of the data/process divide, the second issue is that intelligent schema design (imo) does not fit the agile model quite that well.

Its really more of a economic issue than a technological one: it is quite possible that the poorly designed and implemented SQL - see above - solution can not scale. Obviously the problem is not SQL or RDBMs. But when you have a very smart, but young and not yet seasoned, tech team who hasn't seen it all, do you think they will blame themselves or lament that "SQL can't scale"?

I'm curious: lets say you have a tweeter scale app that must satisfy the consistency and reliability as a primary requirement. Is there really a NoSQL solution that can take you there without (effectively) raising the costs to the point that a scalable (money not an object) SQL solution would provide? (Kinda like how the difficult to extract North Sea oil became economically viable once oil prices crashed through a certain ceiling?)

(Didn't we go through this with the XML hype? Wasn't it the "simple" golden nail? Have you checked out the "Simple" landscape of SOAP and W[TF]S-*?)

We're not living in past; its more like back to the future. (Just wait for it, and "No-NoSql" ..)