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

Are these qualities not applicable in the early stages of a 2-4-man startup? Perhaps, it is left for the later stages of the startup? Personally, such qualities in founders would be a great asset for the company as a whole for when the startup grows and acquires more employees. Thoughts and comments?

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.