121–130 of 286 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By what definition? There are quite a few historical scientists who made great discoveries, who very extremely religious too. Newton comes to mind.
There is no place in the scientific method for belief without evidence, which is what faith is; faith forms the basis of religion.
As much as I support the anti SOPA cause, is this more of a hunger strike than a consequential action? The startups presenting at demo day need those dollars a whole lot more than the corporate venture arms need the investments. Money is money, no matter how stupid it may be.
Taking a stand is necessary. YC startups are going to have much a harder time is SOPA passes. Even from just an economic point of view, it's better to take some loses now than taking higher loses in the future.
Can you call a 6 year old site, sold to a major media conglomerate, with some of the highest traffic on the net a startup?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it depends on what you mean by "good investor". If you invest in tobacco, land mine manufacturers, and semi-competent toxic waste disposal facilities, you might make a mint. That would make you a good investor in the sense of profitable. However, no entrepreneur in his right mind would take money from people like that, because they wouldn't be good investors in the sense of being supportive of a long-term eff…
Minor tangent here that's not relevant to your main point - what exactly is wrong with trying to dispose of toxic waste in a "semi-competent" manner? Lead, mercury, asbestos, and all those other freaky things have got to go somewhere . Shouldn't you be more pissed off at people generating that waste?
I'm virulently anti-SOPA myself, have signed all the petitions, etc. But am I the only one made uncomfortable by a blacklist of people who have expressed certain opinions?
If you think about it, hunters are rarely invited to wildlife fundraisers, fur clothing manufacturers to PETA meetings, and creationists to NAS meetings -- all because of opinions expressed by each party. Dissent is part of a modern life, and not inviting people to private events is a perfectly legitimate way of voicing that dissent.
> and many startups, such as Reddit Can you call a 6 year old site, sold to a major media conglomerate, with some of the highest traffic on the net a startup?
The House Judiciary supporters list is chock-full of lawyers -- one-seventh of the list has the string 'LLP' -- and therein lies a major target of opportunity for the technology industry. I doubt anyone will change their counsel over this, but they can make them explain their position. Let every tech industry CEO, CFO and board member call their most senior contact at a supporting firm. Ask them to explain their posi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you think about it, hunters are rarely invited to wildlife fundraisers, fur clothing manufacturers to PETA meetings, and creationists to NAS meetings -- all because of opinions expressed by each party. Dissent is part of a modern life, and not inviting people to private events is a perfectly legitimate way of voicing that dissent.
The examples you gave are all of events which are defined by some belief or cause, whose opponents would simply be out of place if present. That's very different from what's going on here, where the bearers of a particular opinion are being excluded from a business relationship as a punishment for expressing an opinion which is only circuitously related to that business relationship.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no place in the scientific method for belief without evidence, which is what faith is; faith forms the basis of religion.
Wrong. In the New Testament, faith means assurance based on a reliable track record. It's the Greek word "pistis" and the two terms - faith and assurance - are used interchangeably.
This verse has always struck me as directly anti-science.