we do it not because it is easy, but because it is hard
-
I was listening to talk radio this morning and the monologue hit a sore point with me. They were talking about the words to songs like "Impossible dream" and "I did it my way". They were talking about making a difference and chasing the impossible dream. This got me to thinking. I realized I've spent the last 25 or so years trying to find a company to work for that was willing to take risks and shoot for the moon. I realize that I haven't been able to find any. I haven't found a company like Edison that was willing to fail numerous times for that chance at one success. Willing to take a chance at shooting the moon, because it is too risky. We have no one that would be willing to try to land on the moon today. And I realized that the reason there is no companies like this anymore, is that they only worry about the bottom line. They no longer care to challenge or make a real difference. Only make more money. Am I wrong here? Are there companies that are willing to take these kind of risks? Maybe I'm just too cynical in my years. -- J Julian
Why not be that risk-taking company yourself? (I did it, crashed and burned, but learned...and I think I am better for so doing)
-
Why not be that risk-taking company yourself? (I did it, crashed and burned, but learned...and I think I am better for so doing)
-
Yes, and I agree. But who is to say your (generally speaking) version of the history is right and the other version is wrong? That's the irony that makes me giggle. None of us were there so we can't know everything for sure.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
If two people in the same car witness an accident on the road in front of them, there will be major differences in what they describe to the police. So what chance do we have with official histories, written by people who weren't even there to see events unfold? :laugh:
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952) Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
-
Yes, and I agree. But who is to say your (generally speaking) version of the history is right and the other version is wrong? That's the irony that makes me giggle. None of us were there so we can't know everything for sure.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
so we shouldt try? yes we can only go with what is known now but as that is probably more and more importantly more accurate than it was when the history became "history" then it should never be that history is indisputable. and edison has been shown to be a dubious character if not downright dishonest, he certainly wasnt above using violence to make his point (read inforcing patents on items that didnt infringe them) he makes the Apple/Samsung tiff look like a couple of friends having a quiet chat
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
I was listening to talk radio this morning and the monologue hit a sore point with me. They were talking about the words to songs like "Impossible dream" and "I did it my way". They were talking about making a difference and chasing the impossible dream. This got me to thinking. I realized I've spent the last 25 or so years trying to find a company to work for that was willing to take risks and shoot for the moon. I realize that I haven't been able to find any. I haven't found a company like Edison that was willing to fail numerous times for that chance at one success. Willing to take a chance at shooting the moon, because it is too risky. We have no one that would be willing to try to land on the moon today. And I realized that the reason there is no companies like this anymore, is that they only worry about the bottom line. They no longer care to challenge or make a real difference. Only make more money. Am I wrong here? Are there companies that are willing to take these kind of risks? Maybe I'm just too cynical in my years. -- J Julian
When a company reaches a certain size, it is taken over by accountants: and they know only the cost of everything, and know not the value of anything. Big companies can - and do, sometimes - take risks (even huge risks) but it needs a person of foresight and ambition at the helm to see the potential rather than the outlay. Sadly, there aren't many of those in the top echelons because the accountants weed them out... One of the reasons I prefer small companies - risks are the reason they exist at all!
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952) Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
-
I was listening to talk radio this morning and the monologue hit a sore point with me. They were talking about the words to songs like "Impossible dream" and "I did it my way". They were talking about making a difference and chasing the impossible dream. This got me to thinking. I realized I've spent the last 25 or so years trying to find a company to work for that was willing to take risks and shoot for the moon. I realize that I haven't been able to find any. I haven't found a company like Edison that was willing to fail numerous times for that chance at one success. Willing to take a chance at shooting the moon, because it is too risky. We have no one that would be willing to try to land on the moon today. And I realized that the reason there is no companies like this anymore, is that they only worry about the bottom line. They no longer care to challenge or make a real difference. Only make more money. Am I wrong here? Are there companies that are willing to take these kind of risks? Maybe I'm just too cynical in my years. -- J Julian
How about Google?[^] It's had multiple project failures, but can easily absorb them and occasionally comes up trumps with something fantastic. Problem is for you've got to be able to continue despite the failures. I reckon small companies have the flexibility to do this for a small number of projects, and big companies can abosrb the costs, I think the problem lies in the middle?
PB 369,783 wrote:
I just find him very unlikeable, and I think the way he looks like a prettier version of his Mum is very disturbing.[^]
-
If two people in the same car witness an accident on the road in front of them, there will be major differences in what they describe to the police. So what chance do we have with official histories, written by people who weren't even there to see events unfold? :laugh:
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952) Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
yes but if you take the two stories, add more evidence gathered post the incident and apply reasoning to the situation you will end up with a better indication of what happened and relying on what one of the main parties said in exclusion of any other point of view is a recipe for diaster (eg if you do that you end up with something like the Japanese version of WW2)
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
When a company reaches a certain size, it is taken over by accountants: and they know only the cost of everything, and know not the value of anything. Big companies can - and do, sometimes - take risks (even huge risks) but it needs a person of foresight and ambition at the helm to see the potential rather than the outlay. Sadly, there aren't many of those in the top echelons because the accountants weed them out... One of the reasons I prefer small companies - risks are the reason they exist at all!
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952) Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
+1 on the bean-counters bit, wouldn't blame it solely on accountants, but they do deserve special mention. I've seen companies transition from the small/flexible to the bigger/hidebound and it's never pretty.
PB 369,783 wrote:
I just find him very unlikeable, and I think the way he looks like a prettier version of his Mum is very disturbing.[^]
-
If two people in the same car witness an accident on the road in front of them, there will be major differences in what they describe to the police. So what chance do we have with official histories, written by people who weren't even there to see events unfold? :laugh:
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952) Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
-
so we shouldt try? yes we can only go with what is known now but as that is probably more and more importantly more accurate than it was when the history became "history" then it should never be that history is indisputable. and edison has been shown to be a dubious character if not downright dishonest, he certainly wasnt above using violence to make his point (read inforcing patents on items that didnt infringe them) he makes the Apple/Samsung tiff look like a couple of friends having a quiet chat
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
Quote:
so we shouldt try?
Of course we should try. I'm not accusing anyone in particular but the people who have ego issues and feel they have to prove to the world that the history is wrong make me nauseous.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
edison was con artist, most of what he is credited with he stole or bought the rights to, there are laws nowadays to stop companies like edison succeding
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
I think Marconi took a page out of Edison's book too...
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
-
I was listening to talk radio this morning and the monologue hit a sore point with me. They were talking about the words to songs like "Impossible dream" and "I did it my way". They were talking about making a difference and chasing the impossible dream. This got me to thinking. I realized I've spent the last 25 or so years trying to find a company to work for that was willing to take risks and shoot for the moon. I realize that I haven't been able to find any. I haven't found a company like Edison that was willing to fail numerous times for that chance at one success. Willing to take a chance at shooting the moon, because it is too risky. We have no one that would be willing to try to land on the moon today. And I realized that the reason there is no companies like this anymore, is that they only worry about the bottom line. They no longer care to challenge or make a real difference. Only make more money. Am I wrong here? Are there companies that are willing to take these kind of risks? Maybe I'm just too cynical in my years. -- J Julian
The problem is that that you are using the benefit of hindsight and are doing selective analysis. Most companies "shooting for the moon" and being "willing to fail numerous times" look like a bunch of crackpots to contemporaries. Working for these companies is typically rather brutal since they expect you to carry the risk without much of an upside--are you willing to go without pay for months? Are you willing to work 80 hour weeks with no weekends or vacations? Are you willing to work with outdated hardware and software? Do you want to take the risks or do you want someone else to take the risks while you collect a salary and nice benefits? (BTW, I've done all of that. It was great fun, but I had to sell my house, almost declared bankruptcy and am still paying the price vis-a-vis retirement.)
-
I was listening to talk radio this morning and the monologue hit a sore point with me. They were talking about the words to songs like "Impossible dream" and "I did it my way". They were talking about making a difference and chasing the impossible dream. This got me to thinking. I realized I've spent the last 25 or so years trying to find a company to work for that was willing to take risks and shoot for the moon. I realize that I haven't been able to find any. I haven't found a company like Edison that was willing to fail numerous times for that chance at one success. Willing to take a chance at shooting the moon, because it is too risky. We have no one that would be willing to try to land on the moon today. And I realized that the reason there is no companies like this anymore, is that they only worry about the bottom line. They no longer care to challenge or make a real difference. Only make more money. Am I wrong here? Are there companies that are willing to take these kind of risks? Maybe I'm just too cynical in my years. -- J Julian
J Julian wrote:
And I realized that the reason there is no companies like this anymore, is that they only worry about the bottom line.
Sure there are, but they don't make themselves known because they're usually startups where folks work out of their garage (or their college dorm room) and they're hard to find unless you know the right people. For example, I happen to be working with a few people that are doing some really interesting things, potentially completely revolutionary -- here's one example,[^], sorry, it's "invite only." Another thing is, a lot of great ideas don't need to start with a technology solution -- the technology comes later. I'm talking about social structure changes, like local economies, un-monetized transactions, information organization / management, and so forth. For example, look at what these folks[^] are doing -- technology obviously helps but isn't the core impetus. And in my opinion, that's where the most interesting and revolutionary ideas are. Anyways, I think you're view is inaccurate. Marc
-
I was listening to talk radio this morning and the monologue hit a sore point with me. They were talking about the words to songs like "Impossible dream" and "I did it my way". They were talking about making a difference and chasing the impossible dream. This got me to thinking. I realized I've spent the last 25 or so years trying to find a company to work for that was willing to take risks and shoot for the moon. I realize that I haven't been able to find any. I haven't found a company like Edison that was willing to fail numerous times for that chance at one success. Willing to take a chance at shooting the moon, because it is too risky. We have no one that would be willing to try to land on the moon today. And I realized that the reason there is no companies like this anymore, is that they only worry about the bottom line. They no longer care to challenge or make a real difference. Only make more money. Am I wrong here? Are there companies that are willing to take these kind of risks? Maybe I'm just too cynical in my years. -- J Julian
J Julian wrote:
And I realized that the reason there is no companies like this anymore, is that they only worry about the bottom line
Pretty sure Edison was all about the bucks. And companies that don't "worry" about the bottom line don't have a bottom line. Which means you don't get paid. Plenty of opportunities for that online - join an open source project or three.
-
so we shouldt try? yes we can only go with what is known now but as that is probably more and more importantly more accurate than it was when the history became "history" then it should never be that history is indisputable. and edison has been shown to be a dubious character if not downright dishonest, he certainly wasnt above using violence to make his point (read inforcing patents on items that didnt infringe them) he makes the Apple/Samsung tiff look like a couple of friends having a quiet chat
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
he certainly wasnt above using violence to make his point (read inforcing patents on items that didnt infringe them) he makes the Apple/Samsung tiff look like a couple of friends having a quiet chat
Except your point is in fact ignoring the rest of history for that period. Edison worked in the culture that existed then. You don't get to rewrite history by imposing current morals, laws and regulations that exist now on someone in the past and claim that they were somehow "bad". Under that criteria Edison doesn't even rank because there were vastly more vicious acts of all sort happening all over the place in various cultures during that time.
-
Big companies don't take risks, so if you want to be a part of that then here's what you do: Find a start-up or young business to join. They don't have a choice but to take some risks. The benefit of joining a start up is that they are always working on something new, they are taking risks, and it means you can aggressively advance. The down side is that start ups fail, and most don't have a lot of working capital for a while, so you will have to trade job growth/opportunity for pay and benefits. This is why a lot of people don't bother with start ups, its not just the businesses looking at the bottom line, employees worry about their bottom line too. Take it from somebody running a start up, risks are out there, but if you want a business that takes risks, you will have to take a risk with it.
Ron Beyer wrote:
Big companies don't take risks,
Of course they do. Matter of fact there are very large investment firms that do only that - venture capitalists. Larger companies just take risks that will not cripple their bottom line. Very small companies don't do that. Sometimes because they don't have a bottom line. And if they do then they often fail (statistically.)
-
Ron Beyer wrote:
Big companies don't take risks,
Of course they do. Matter of fact there are very large investment firms that do only that - venture capitalists. Larger companies just take risks that will not cripple their bottom line. Very small companies don't do that. Sometimes because they don't have a bottom line. And if they do then they often fail (statistically.)
-
I was listening to talk radio this morning and the monologue hit a sore point with me. They were talking about the words to songs like "Impossible dream" and "I did it my way". They were talking about making a difference and chasing the impossible dream. This got me to thinking. I realized I've spent the last 25 or so years trying to find a company to work for that was willing to take risks and shoot for the moon. I realize that I haven't been able to find any. I haven't found a company like Edison that was willing to fail numerous times for that chance at one success. Willing to take a chance at shooting the moon, because it is too risky. We have no one that would be willing to try to land on the moon today. And I realized that the reason there is no companies like this anymore, is that they only worry about the bottom line. They no longer care to challenge or make a real difference. Only make more money. Am I wrong here? Are there companies that are willing to take these kind of risks? Maybe I'm just too cynical in my years. -- J Julian
I can't agree with the broad generality that big companies don't take risks. Yes, it's true in the hardware and software world that legacy support is a ball-and-chain around development; I do not believe from that you can assume that risks are not taken. In fact, large companies spend substantial amounts on R&D, and groups in large companies, like ATG at Microsoft, Google Labs, Apple Labs, are busy prototyping hardware and software whose "payout," if any, may be years off. The catch for mere-mortal developers is that to get a job as a developer in those groups at large companies you have to be a very remarkable programmer, and person ... as in "world class." And, there are serendipitous ways one can get in a position of being on the "cutting edge:" when the start-up I worked at in the late 1980's, Emerald City Software, in which I held the (ridiculous) title of "Director of PostScript Development" (perhaps the equivalent of being a Bolivian ... Bolivia is land-locked ... Admiral) was acquired by Adobe, John Warnock, deliberately, I believe, used us newcomers as "guerrillas" to create the prototype of what became Acrobat, having been very frustrated with trying to get his existing technology groups to deliver his vision. Now that "skunk works" project, which I nick-named, "Carousel," was fun and games galore, which included vicious assaults by other groups in the company, some of whom actually accused the four of us of trying to "destroy Adobe" :) High-risk, high-stress, insane deadlines, and no immediate glory. But, the moment we had a demo going where a NeXT machine, a Mac, and a PC, were all displaying the same richly-formatted document almost identically ... that moment was worth a lot. Are you willing to take the risk to make yourself a "great programmer" ? They don't call it the "bleeding edge" for nothing.
“But I don't want to go among mad people,” Alice remarked. “Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.” “How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice. “You must be," said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.” Lewis Carroll
-
I was listening to talk radio this morning and the monologue hit a sore point with me. They were talking about the words to songs like "Impossible dream" and "I did it my way". They were talking about making a difference and chasing the impossible dream. This got me to thinking. I realized I've spent the last 25 or so years trying to find a company to work for that was willing to take risks and shoot for the moon. I realize that I haven't been able to find any. I haven't found a company like Edison that was willing to fail numerous times for that chance at one success. Willing to take a chance at shooting the moon, because it is too risky. We have no one that would be willing to try to land on the moon today. And I realized that the reason there is no companies like this anymore, is that they only worry about the bottom line. They no longer care to challenge or make a real difference. Only make more money. Am I wrong here? Are there companies that are willing to take these kind of risks? Maybe I'm just too cynical in my years. -- J Julian
There must be venture capitalists and romantic people founding companies like Ubuntu, but the rest are like you describe for a very good reason. They are controlled by managers who easily migrate from one company to another and thus think only about the bottom line. Even worse, they think only about the tomorrow bottom line at best.
-
very cool, however insane, wasn't there talk of a Tesla movie at one time...
