A venture capitalist's observations of the consumer internet, information security, entrepreneurship, and science.

Practicing the Art of Pitchcraft

Commenting on an earlier post of mine, Sridharan suggested that my four year old son’s simple and clear presentation of his thoughts is “a management lesson…Stick to the point and say it in a single sentence.”

I know it sounds a little crazy, but indeed I’ve come to agree that a clear, compelling elevator pitch is essential to growing a business. (And I’ve paid dearly for the evidence.) So after attending a board meeting yesterday in which the management team struggled to succinctly describe their business, I resolved to blog my agreement with Sridharan. Just in time, too, because Nivi’s been bugging me to answer the question: What makes for a good elevator pitch?

Who Has Time For This?: Practicing the Art of Pitchcraft

Lantos, to Microsoft: Is your company ashamed?

Microsoft: We comply with legally binding orders whether it's here in the U.S. or China.

Lantos: Well, IBM complied with legal orders when they cooperated with Nazi Germany. Those were legal orders under the Nazi German system...Do you think that IBM during that period had something to be ashamed of?

Lantos, to Yahoo: Are you ashamed?

Yahoo: We are very distressed about the consequences of having to comply with Chinese law...We are certainly troubled by that and we look forward to working with our peers.

Lantos: Do you think that individuals or families have been negatively impacted by some of the activities we have been told, like being in prison for 10 years? Have any of the companies reached out to these families and asked if you could be of any help to them?

Yahoo: We have expressed our condemnation of the prosecution of this person, expressed our views to the Chinese government...We have approached the Chinese government on these issues.

Lantos: Have you reached out to the family? I can ask it 10 more times if you refuse to answer it. You are under oath.

Congressman quizzes Net companies on shame | CNET News.com

The Bank of Asia is a very famous building in Bangkok. It was made way back in 1985, and it's robotic appearance is just a symbol of the modernization of banking. It also has the ability to transform into a mega-robot.

Man I wish I had see this when I was there.

U: OK, this site is down, so try this one instead...

UniqueDaily.com - The Many Unusual Looking Buildings On Earth

in the public sphere, the argument goes, one's religious views must be put forward with diffidence and circumspection. You can still have them and express them - that's what separates us from theocracies and tyrannies - but they should be worn lightly. Not only must there be no effort to make them into the laws of the land, but they should not be urged on others in ways that make them uncomfortable. What religious beliefs are owed - and this is a word that appears again and again in the recent debate - is "respect"; nothing less, nothing more.

The thing about respect is that it doesn't cost you anything; its generosity is barely skin-deep and is in fact a form of condescension: I respect you; now don't bother me.

This is, increasingly, what happens to strongly held faiths in the liberal state. Such beliefs are equally and indifferently authorized as ideas people are perfectly free to believe, but they are equally and indifferently disallowed as ideas that might serve as a basis for action or public policy.

Strongly held faiths are exhibits in liberalism's museum; we appreciate them, and we congratulate ourselves for affording them a space, but should one of them ask of us more than we are prepared to give - ask for deference rather than mere respect - it will be met with the barrage of platitudinous arguments that for the last week have filled the pages of newspapers.

Stanley Fish strikes at a nerve. What he is missing is that a responsible believer wishes his ideas to win in the open marketplace of ideas rather then through force. If everyone agrees with you that 1+1=5 because you've got the most guns then what have you really won? By respecting people's individual right to make decisions about what they believe you create an environment where the best ideas win, rather then those supported by the most influential people. If you want someone else to join in your strongly held belief you actually have to convince them that you are right, rather then passing legislation requiring them to go along with it, or simply blowing them up if they don't comply. The use of force to project an idea is an admission that you're wrong.

The fundamental idea of the islamists isn't rooted on a side of the western culture war that he describes. It seeks to transcend it. The islamists beleive the tension in western culture illustrated by Fish's article is a problematic side effect of Christianity which Islamism resolves. I don't agree with them. I think they are just idealoges, like Fish, and I'd offer that we aren't going to win by becoming them.

Our faith in letting it all hang out - Editorials & Commentary - International Herald Tribune

Married people are happier than unmarrieds. People who worship frequently are happier than those who don't. Republicans are happier than Democrats. Rich people are happier than poor people. Whites and Hispanics are happier than blacks. Sunbelt residents are happier than those who live in the rest of the country.

Get rich, get married, get religion, get a gun, get a place in Miami, and vote for Jeb...

One wonders if Democrats are less happy because they spend more time thinking about poor people, gun violence, and the long term impacts of foreign policy rather then enjoying low taxes and military ass kicking.

Pew Research Center: Are We Happy Yet?

When You Make the Cover of Time

The shark has been jumped.

Sell, Sell Sell, God Damnit Sell!

John Battelle's Searchblog: When You Make the Cover of Time

Hollot was sentenced to two years of probation and ordered to complete 100 hours of community service.

While it is fortunate that he did not go to prison, this was the result of expensive legal negotiations made in face of felony threats. I'm not at all less angry about it.

AP Wire | Ga. Tech student from Pa. pleads guilty in homemade bomb case

In this book, Somit and Peterson argue that humans are social primates with an innate tendency for hierarchical and authoritarian social and political structures, and that democracy requires very special "enabling conditions" before it can be supported by a state, conditions that require decades to evolve. As a result, attempts to export democracy through nation-building to states without these enabling conditions are doomed to failure.

The Failure of Democratic Nation Building

President Bush again defended his program of warrantless surveillance Thursday, saying "there's no doubt in my mind it is legal." He suggested that he might resist congressional efforts to change or expressly endorse it.
"The program's legal, it's designed to protect civil liberties, and it's necessary," Bush told a White House news conference.

Finethen wrote:

Its...designed...to...protect...civil...liberties? i have trouble even coming up with a good joke for this comment.

How about:

President Bush again defended his program of warrantless house to house searches with robots Thursday, saying "there's no doubt in my mind it is legal." He suggested that there is a clear 4th amendment distinction between searches performed by computers and searches performed by people.
"The program's legal, it's designed to protect civil liberties, and it's necessary," Bush told a White House news conference.

BREITBART.COM - Bush Confident Warrantless Wiretaps Legal

I'm not for the war. And being against the war and saying you support the troops is one of the wussiest positions the pacifists have ever taken — and they're wussy by definition. It's as if the one lesson they took away from Vietnam wasn't to avoid foreign conflicts with no pressing national interest but to remember to throw a parade afterward.

This article has gotten the talk shows all riled up. Its inceditary. If you're really a pacifist and you think war is immoral, obviously you'd offer that those involved are immoral. My problem with pacifists is that there are times when you have to fight. We didn't ask for 9/11, and the people who got involved in the military in its wake largely sought to defend America from aggressive foreign threats. There is an arguement that pre-emptive war is immoral, but this wasn't a choice those involved with the armed services at the time made, and today, I think, walking away from the situation after creating the security vacuum we've created there is also immoral. Eventually, you do get to a point where continuing to support the armed forces is a tacit approval of the things they are doing, but the U.S. is a long, long way away from that point today. If you buy the conspiracy theories about "blood for oil" I suppose I can see reaching this point, but I don't. The strategy in Iraq is hard to understand and there are questions that can be raised about its correctness, but it shouldn't properly be an invitation to fill in the blanks with worst case scenarios. If we just wanted the oil it would have been cheaper to buy it.

I don't support the troops