301–310 of 314 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Minecraft install process was on his new podcast. Here's the episode: http://atp.fm/episodes/25-thrustmaster-joystick But yes, John Siracusa is a national treasure.
"Who the hell is Casey?" :-)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have mixed feelings about the "correct" answer. Davy showed that wires glowed when enough current was passed through them. Does that count? Swan improved on that with his lightbulb lasting longer, but a few minutes life is incomplete. Edison finished the invention. Me, I tend to give the credit for the invention to Edison, while acknowledging that he stood on the shoulders of others. It's how credit is done for mos…
You might give more credit to the hundred or so people (all the equivalent of our PhD graduates today) who were doing the actual work for him. Edison's contribution was to pay them enough so they could eat and live, and point them at a project. And Edison's an even more interesting example to bring up in a Jobs discussion because of the whole history between himself and Tesla (and if nothing else tells you about the…
Edison's long string of inventions suggest his contribution was far more than that. (And the money used to pay his staff came from his prior inventions, Edison was not born rich.)
> elephant-electrocuting nonsense
We find that reprehensible today. But people at the time did not, and it's better to judge him in the context of his time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is not the answer to the question that I had asked. The question is, if you have to choose, which world would be the sadder place? World without Jobs or world without Woz? The reason to ask that question is because it gives a clue, which person and which principles we ought to celebrate more .
Maybe it was the wrong question to ask. Why does either need to be celebrated more? Vision and perseverance, determination and resolve, integrity and magnanimity are all culturally celebrated virtues. To honor one man while denying the other is to ignore part of what made that endeavor the success it was.
"And when Jobs (in the movie, but really a board does this) denied stock to the early garage team (some not even shown) I'm surprised that they chose not to show me giving about $10M of my own stock to them because it was the right thing. And $10M was a lot in that time." Nothing more need be said, really. This is the very definition of character and integrity.
And this as well: "I begged Steve that we donate the first Apple I to a woman who took computers into elementary schools but he made my buy it and donate it myself."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://www.kickstarter.com/
I've never backed anything on Kickstarter yet, nothing's caught my eye, but an iWoz film would be a great way to get into the whole crowdfunding thing. He's a great engineer, but unfortunately for big-budget film-makers, isn't a name that'll draw people into the box office.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Steve Jobs left Apple, wasn't Wozniak there that whole time? Then he came back and lo and behold, not just did a good job of running the company but turned it into world's biggest company by market cap. Could Woz have done that? Once they parted ways, Woz did not much ( relatively ), while Jobs did a lot.
> Steve Jobs left Apple, wasn't Wozniak there that whole time? No, he left shortly after. > Then he came back and lo and behold, not just did a good job of running the company but turned it into world's biggest company by market cap. The company struggled when Jobs was outed in the first place. > Could Woz have done that? Probably not, Wozniak is not a businessman. But I have a better question, could Jobs become a le…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe it was the wrong question to ask. Why does either need to be celebrated more? Vision and perseverance, determination and resolve, integrity and magnanimity are all culturally celebrated virtues. To honor one man while denying the other is to ignore part of what made that endeavor the success it was.
Well said.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow. You do get, don't you, that there's no real difference between personal wealths of $100 million and $1000 million? And that there shouldn't be? Why do so few people get that there's a ceiling here? You earn enough money so that you can live off the interest of what's in your bank account, and congratulations, your financial worth is now $MAX. Seriously. $MAX is a real thing in the real world. It's where you can…
There is a big difference. A person with a wealth of $100 million shouldn't be called a billionaire which is why I wrote that comment. :) I don't get why you wrote what you did as a response to mine; I just made a factual correction. (I even stated that the point still stands.) Edit: This was not an argument over the meaning of the word 'billionaire'; the post I replied to likely assumed that Wozniak was a billionair…
Not sure why a simple correction turned out to be controversial. I was wrong and you corrected me. I'm not offended so no one else should be either.
"And when Jobs (in the movie, but really a board does this) denied stock to the early garage team (some not even shown) I'm surprised that they chose not to show me giving about $10M of my own stock to them because it was the right thing. And $10M was a lot in that time." Nothing more need be said, really. This is the very definition of character and integrity.
What I want to know is when do we get a movie about Woz?
Screenwriter is Aaron Sorkin - he also wrote the screenplay for The Social Network.