What previous similar missteps has Apple made that support your theory? Apple's been batting well over .500 and their sales and stock price both indicate appreciation and support.
Yeah, they're doing great, but you can't backup your theory with two measures that are heavily dependent on past results. If you think Apple are going to keep doing as well as they are now in the face of some pretty ferocious competition then you can't just cite current sales and stock price.
This is just common sense- most customers wouldn't buy an iBrick (iphone w/o killer apps), and even apple knows it- that's why they focus on killer apps in their ads. Google is smart enough to know that you shouldn't tax your business partners out of business, even for short-term gains. Sure, apple is going to own the ereader market on the iOS platform, but they've introduced so much risk into being an iOS developer that it's very, very silly to build a business on top of them.
I've done something similar, though gave myself many more months. I also pre-paid a number of expected expenses to get them out of the way. I still ran through the cash quicker than I thought I would. Thankfully, I've been doing consulting projects and that extended my run time.
I also gave myself a one month window at the end of the time frame to find a job. So, in your case, I'd only give you one month to work on your startup before needing to go look for a job.
I have to wonder if this article is incorrect - what part of the problem can't be solved using services already offered by the cell phone? Is a new chip really required and, if so, what will it do to costs, and what unwanted services might be included on this mandatory chip?
This problem started in the 80s, if not earlier. The original MIT "hacker" definition morphed into a definition used by the medial and the public to refer to the cyber criminals of the time. And along with this evolution in the definition came people lamenting the change and railing against the media.
Flash forward three decades and hackers are still using a term to mean one thing while the media and the public are still firmly entrenched in the cyber criminal definition.
Now, which definition was in use by the media when Hacker News was born?
I found the most interesting part of this article the following quote: "... and would make them more vulnerable to security threats." Allowing users to opt out of tracking increases their security threat? I'd like to see more detail on this.
Yet, despite the taxes, companies keep starting up in San Francisco. Maybe some people in SF don't want a Google-plex in the city? If you want to argue that it is bad for the city, post commentary from someone who isn't an investor in startups.
I am not an investor in startups, I'm running one. I have the same perspective: We are more than happy to pay San Francisco's unusual payroll tax, but this tax on employee options would force us to move out of the city in a few years.
If your argument is that you don't want startups in San Francisco, that's a very fair position to hold, but it's not what we're discussing.
The likelihood that this tax would drive startups out of the entire SFBA seems very low. Meanwhile, the tiny city of San Francisco proper is likely to remain well stocked with upwardly mobile tech company employees whether their employers are in SOMA or San Mateo.
> The likelihood that this tax would drive startups out of the entire SFBA seems very low.
Absolutely agree. The likelihood that it would drive startups out of San Francisco proper is very high. We are discussing what the city of San Francisco needs to do to not force companies to move out of the city.
> Meanwhile, the tiny city of San Francisco proper is likely to remain well stocked with upwardly mobile tech company employees whether their employers are in SOMA or San Mateo.
Also likely, although there won't be as many of them. Another big issue is that the city of San Francisco will lose out on significant tax revenue from companies based here, since they will be forced to leave.
Yes? For all practical purposes? I have never known anyone who has had a car stolen. I know several who have had their bike(s) stolen, often repeatedly.
Looking at the statistics[1], I see that in my country (Australia) there is a less than 1% chance of your car being stolen in any recent year. That seems to be pretty low, a nuisance yes but not all that bad. And that's even though cars are much more valuable than bikes - and very few people use any sort of aftermarket lock with their car.
I would say the law has dealt pretty effectively with car theft and I see no reason it could not be adapted to include bikes, too.
Car theft has been largely eradicated. There are some European organized crime groups that switch out the PCM on cars where this is possible, but the days of teenagers hot-wiring cars has long since been over. If you were to call the police and say your car has been stolen, they will tell you to call your bank and find out why your car was repo'd.
Oh, but I've had all sorts of other fun failures with dreamhost in the early days. A number of us regularly called it "dreamhose". It seems to have matured, and I keep some material on there, but I'm still wary of putting anything mission critical on it.
