피터 티엘 (Peter Thiel)

페이팔, 페이스북, 프렌드스터, 링크드인, 슬라이드닷컴, 옐프의 공통점은 무엇일까요?

당신의 파트너

Question: Hewlett Packard, Microsoft, Apple, Youtube and Google 의 공통점은 무엇일까요?

Your Partner

Question: What is common among Hewlett Packard, Microsoft, Apple, Youtube and Google?

호로위츠가 말하는 리더의 자질

TechCrunch 인터뷰에서 Horowitz가 말하는 리더의 자질이란…

Notes on Leadership: Be Like Steve Jobs, . . . And Bill Campbell, And Andy Grove http://tcrn.ch/dhMgNa

The 10/20/30 rule of Documentation (not for Presentation)

Inspired by Guy Kawasaki’s famous article “10/20/30 rule of PowerPoint“, I have developed “The 10/20/30 rule of Documentation“.

It should be “The 10/20/30 rule of Word”, but there are many people who don’t use “MS Word” as their documentation tool, so I had to generalize it.

So, what is the rule? It is to ditch PowerPoint, and go for Word (or any documentation tool). It goes like this;

10 slides

If your presentation is longer than 10 slides, use Word to document it.

20 minutes

If it takes more than 20 minutes to present it, make a separate Word document to provide details to the PowerPoint slides.

30 point font

If you have to use font size smaller than 30 pt, use Word to document it.

I don’t understand why some people stick with PowerPoint slides to make 100 pages, newspaper-size font materials. It is very painful to read, not to mention how painful it is to edit them.

Use Word for supplementary documentation for extra explanations, data, and manuals. You can take advantages of several features like auto-generation of list of contents, styles, auto-numbering of footnotes, indexes, etc., which PowerPoint does not provide.

PowerPoint for Presentations, Word for Documentation. Simple as it is.

Posted via email from 100 ovini e mi

How to Decide if Entrepreneurship is Right for You

By COLLEEN DEBAISE

Adapted from the upcoming book THE WALL STREET JOURNAL COMPLETE SMALL BUSINESS GUIDEBOOK (Three Rivers Press, Dec. 29, 2009).

Starting a business is a lot like becoming a parent. Not only do you have to prepare for your start-up emotionally and financially, but you have to be committed to its constant needs until it’s mature enough to hum along on its own. And even then (much like a child) it will always need you in some capacity, no matter how old it gets.

Here are five questions to ask before you start your own business:

[lemon] Getty Images

1. Am I passionate about my product or service? Let’s face it: the start-up phase is stressful. You will find yourself questioning whether you’ve made the right decision, especially when the hours are long and the initial profits (if any) are lean. As the business owner, you’re also chief salesperson for your company. Your enthusiasm for your product or service— whether it’s hand-knit sweaters or top-notch tax preparation— is often the difference that hooks customers, lands deals and attracts investors. It’s unwise to start down the path of entrepreneurship unless you’ve got a zeal that will get you through rough patches and keep you interested long after the initial enthusiasm has faded.

2. What is my tolerance for risk? Whether it’s quitting your day job or signing a lease on a new space, nothing about starting a business is for the faint of heart. Just ask Ina Garten, who bought a specialty-foods store called The Barefoot Contessa in East Hampton, New York, in 1978 and has since branched out into cookbooks, television and a line of products. Garten tells aspiring entrepreneurs that you have to “be willing to jump off the cliff and figure out how to fly on the way down.” Even with enough passion to launch a thousand ventures, you could find any number of circumstances hastening your failure: a location that turns out to be less than ideal, a problem with city or state zoning boards or a kink in the supply chain that can’t easily be ironed out. There’s no guarantee of success, or even a steady paycheck. If you’re risk-averse, entrepreneurship probably isn’t the right path for you.

3. Am I good at making decisions? No one else is going to make them for you when you own your own business. Consider how you might handle these early decisions: Do I work from home or do I lease office space? Do I hire employees? Do I pursue high-end clients or sell to the masses? Do I incorporate? Do I advertise? Do I borrow money from friends or family? Do I use my entire savings? Keep in mind that the decision-making process only gets more complicated as time goes on, once you have employees or clients depending on you. The choices you make can lead to success or downfall, so you must feel confident in your ability to make the right call.

4. Am I willing to take on numerous responsibilities? While a corporate employee focuses on a special skill or role within the larger corporation, a business owner must contribute everything to the business. Solo entrepreneurs in particular must be versatile and play a number of roles, from chief salesperson and bookkeeper to head marketer and bill collector. If juggling many roles doesn’t suit you, entrepreneurship probably won’t, either. The recent economic downturn has made it more important than ever for business owners to have a good working knowledge of their companies’ finances. While you will undoubtedly learn much on this topic from getting your hands dirty, the more knowledge you have in advance, the better prepared you’ll be.

5. Will I be able to avoid burnout? Working seven days a week, losing touch with friends, abandoning old hobbies and interests and not making time for loved ones can quickly lead to burnout in the midst of starting up— and ultimately to business failure. That’s what happened to James Zimbardi, an entrepreneur in Orlando, Florida, who says he didn’t know any better when he started his first company in 1997 and worked as hard as possible, for as long as possible, until his creativity, enthusiasm and energy were sapped. By 2002, he was a broken man— the business took a downturn, and so did his personal life. Now Zimbardi is at work on his second company, Allgen Financial Services, and sticking to better habits to maintain work/life balance, such as not working on Sundays, making time for hobbies such as sailing and salsa dancing, and building close ties with other business owners through a faith-based support network.

Take some time to mull over these questions, do some soul-searching, and then if you think you have what it takes, go for it.

Write to Colleen DeBaise at colleen.debaise@wsj.com

A great article for young entrepreneurs from WSJ. A must read.

Posted via web from 100 ovini e mi

5 conversational mistakes that can make you look dumb

5 conversational mistakes that can make you look dumb

Here's some great advice to avoid looking dumb when making conversation:

1. Bragging
2. Judging
3. Focusing on yourself
4. Advising
5. Worry about making mistakes in conversation

Read why they're bad and how to avoid them here

Posted via email from 100 ovini e mi

Arnold Palmer’s Go-for-It Greatness

WSJ article by John Newport -

GOLF JOURNALSEPTEMBER 5, 2009, 4:43 P.M. ET
Palmer’s Go-for-It Greatness
The Legend Looks Back on a Daring, Uncompromising Style Few Attempt Anymore
By JOHN PAUL NEWPORT

At lunch a few weeks ago at a Manhattan barbecue joint, my buddy ordered iced tea and lemonade mixed. “You mean an Arnold Palmer,” our young waitress said. When she returned with the drink, I asked her on a hunch if she knew who Arnold Palmer was. “I didn’t know it was a person, I thought it was just a thing—an iced tea and lemonade,” she said.

Mr. Palmer, who celebrates his 80th birthday Thursday, has been such a deeply imbedded part of American culture for so long that it’s not surprising some people—like those too young to have known him as a golfer—might mistake him for an impersonal entity. In addition to the drink, there are two hospitals, an airport, numerous avenues, innumerable grill rooms, his own golf tournament and countless awards, scholarships and charity initiatives named after him. Mr. Palmer still ranks among the highest-earning athletes in the world (including endorsements and affiliated businesses), even though it’s been 45 years since he won the last of his seven majors, the 1964 Masters, and 21 years since his final victory on the Senior Tour.

Lasting popularity of this magnitude cannot be simply explained, but if at gunpoint you had to point to one ur-source, it would probably be his go-for-broke approach to playing the game. “The style you are referring to, I know what you mean and I know what it meant to me, but I’m not sure how to explain it without coming across as cocky,” Mr. Palmer told me in a telephone interview this week. “If I said just one thing about it, I’d say I played that way because I was afraid of losing. I was playing to win.”

Mr. Palmer’s style resonated hugely with golf fans in the late 1950s and 1960s, as well as with the then-newly enfranchised television public at large. Various sociological reasons for this have been suggested. Mr. Palmer’s brio represented a kind of breakthrough athletic id to a population still shaken by the Great Depression and World War II (both still recent in the 1950s) and awash in anxiety about the Cold War. However valid such conceptualizing may be, Mr. Palmer’s appeal worked only because his style and its sponsoring personality were irrepressibly genuine, as thousands of testimonials over the ensuing years, from fellow pros, celebrities and everyday people he encountered and continues to encounter, have confirmed. (For a sampling, visit the Arnold Palmer Memory Book at usgamuseum.com/arnoldpalmer.) The small-town boy from Pennsylvania, son of a lowly course superintendent, succeeded by dash and daring beyond all expectation, thrilling the world because he was so obviously thrilling himself.

Several times in our conversation, coming from different directions, Mr. Palmer reiterated a central point: He played the way he did because that’s what felt natural to him. “I didn’t hit it as hard as I possibly could all the time, but I will say I didn’t back off very often either. I didn’t like laying up unless absolutely necessary. That’s just the way I was.”

Even so, he had no trouble pinpointing some early influences on his style, starting with his father. “Dad always used to say, ‘Hit it hard, hit it hard. Don’t worry about it, just hit it, go find it and hit it again,’ ” Mr. Palmer said. Then, when he was 16 and already a local standout, Babe Didrikson Zaharias, the barnstorming women’s-golf superstar, came to Mr. Palmer’s hometown of Latrobe and he and his dad were picked to play with her in an 18-hole exhibition match.

“She was an extremely attractive lady and so nice. She talked to me like a buddy and a friend,” Mr. Palmer recalled. “But she was also a great performer and I’ll never forget, she said, ‘Arnie, I’m going to loosen up my girdle and let it fly.’ And she did just that. She hit it farther than I could believe. At the time I was very young in my golf and hadn’t got to the point where I really knew what was going on, and I was very impressed with her. So that, coinciding with the things my father had been talking about, helped me model my career a little bit.”

Mr. Palmer also pointed to a formative moment at the state high-school championship at Penn State the next year. Late in the final match, holding a slender lead, he pushed a drive into the deep rough on the right. His caddie, a high-school friend, advised pitching back to the fairway, but Mr. Palmer chose instead to drill a five-iron over a gap in the trees to the green, and pulled it off. He still remembers the cheer from the small gallery, among the first ever to follow him.

Could he have won by pitching back to the fairway? “Yes, I think I could have, but I didn’t think that way. I saw the gap in the trees and thought, ‘That’s a shot I think I can make,’ so that’s what I did. I guess I wasn’t smart enough to do it any other way,” he said.

The quintessential Arnold Palmer go-for-broke legend involves the short par-four first hole at the 1960 U.S. Open at Cherry Hills. In the first three rounds Mr. Palmer tried to drive the green but failed disastrously, resulting in a double bogey, a bogey and a par. Undaunted, he tried again in the final round and succeeded. He birdied that hole and five of the next six. Mr. Palmer’s victorious charge from seven strokes back still stands as the biggest final-round comeback win in U.S. Open history.

Things didn’t always work out so well, which is equally a part of Mr. Palmer’s glory. “The truth is my playing style caused me to lose as many majors as I won,” he said. The most painful was the 1966 U.S. Open, where he blew a seven-stroke lead on the final nine of regulation and lost to Billy Casper in a playoff. His mistake was to focus on breaking the all-time Open scoring record with daring shots rather than hold off his competitor. “Did I behave irresponsibly? Not totally, because I had something in mind I wanted to do. Am I sorry for what I did? Yes, I am. Would I do it differently? Probably not. It’s the way I was, and that’s something I have to live with today,” he said.

Mike Weir, the 2003 Masters champion, told me last week that Mr. Palmer’s aggressive style of play isn’t the most viable model for today’s Tour pros. “The way modern courses are set up, right on the knife’s edge of risk and reward, charges like he was famous for aren’t possible the way they were,” he said. Since pros these days can earn a fortune by finishing consistently in the money, the motivation to go all out for a win is not the same. Mr. Palmer played a more visceral brand of golf: He yearned to beat the other guy, to entertain the crowds, to make the ladies swoon, yet never took his good fortune for granted.

But he’s not one to complain about the direction of the modern game. “There always were conservative players, fairways-and-greens types, and there always will be, just as there will always be risk takers,” he said. “Tiger [Woods] will take a chance if he has one. And there’s a new emphasis on short par fours you can drive. Those can be very exciting. The spectators get a kick out of seeing a player take a shot, take a risk. That’s what the public wants.” He should know.

This is what I should have… (and his swing, too. )

 

Posted via web from 100 ovini e mi

[책소개] 대국굴기 – 네덜란드편

풍차의 나라, 순박하고 튤립이 만발한 평화롭기만한 이미지로 선입견이 잡혀있는 나라 – 네덜란드. 해수면보다 낮은 저지대라 많은 탓에 간척사업이 활발하고, 척박한 농토를 개간하느라 억척스러움이 있긴 했지만, 단지 그 뿐 고도의 산업화와 표준화, 과학기술에 대해서는 잘 몰랐던 나라였다는 생각이 든다.

네덜란드는 19세기 초까지도 옛 독일 (도이치왕국)과 프랑스, 에스파냐 등의 지배를 번갈아 받던, 정치,군사적으로는 작은 나라였다. 그러나, 그 속에는 국기 안의 문구처럼 “끊임없이 투쟁하라”는 정신이 흐르고 있었고, 이는 17세기 에스파냐, 포르투갈보다 큰 무역국가, 농업국가를 이루게 된다. 17세기 네덜란드 선박의 운송량은 영국, 독일, 프랑스의 운송량을 합한 것보다 많았고, 역사상 최초의 주식회사인 동인도회사를 설립해서 동방무역을 장악하기도 했다. 또, 세계 최초의 증권거래소인 암스테르담 증권거래소도 세워서 현대적인 금융시장을 열기도 했다. 이런 사실은 네덜란드가 근대 유럽경제를 이끈 주역이었다고 해도 과언이 아닌 듯 하다.

내가 보는 네덜란드의 굴기의 배경은 한 마디로 “표준화”이다.

첫번째 표준화는 청어잡이이다.

14세기 네덜란드는 청어잡이가 국가의 기간산업이었는데, 이렇게 된 배경은 국가적인 표준화에 기인한다.

작은 어촌마을의 어부가 발명한 “단칼에 청어내장을 제거하는 방법”을 널리 알려 전문가들을 길러내었고, 숙련공들은 1시간에 약 2천만리의 청어내장을 발라냈다고 한다. 또, 오늘날의 수협 격인 “대어업위원회”는 의회로부터 법적인 권리를 부여받아 체계적인 청어산업을 관리감독했고, 이 기구는
- 청어의 포획시기,
- 가공상품중량 및 포장방법, 포장규격
- 품질기준
- 청어를 절이는 데 쓰이는 소금의 량
- 절인 청어를 넣는 나무통의 재질과 크기
- 완성가공품의 중량
등 엄격한  규격과 표준을 정했고, 이를 실행하기 위해 관리감독, 승인기구를 두었다.

이리하여, 17세가 중반 네덜란드의 추정 청어포획량은 연간 3만2천톤이 넘는 것으로 추정되는데, 이는 유럽 전체의 약 6만톤과 비교했을 때 거의 절반 이상의 시장점유율을 이룰 수 있었다.

두번 째 표준화는 플류트선이라고 하는 운반선인데, 오늘날로 치면 컨테이너선의 발명과 같다고 볼 수 있다.
사용자 삽입 이미지
플류트선은 갑판이 좁고 길며, 선창이 넓어서 많은 화물을 실을 수 있는 운송선이었다. 그러나, 돛이 매우 효율적으로 배치되어 있고 가벼워서 속도면에서도 이점이 있었다. 보통 플류트선 한 척의 적재용량은 약 250t ~ 500t  이었고, 저중심 설계라 출발 및 정지가 쉽고 폭풍우 같은 악천후에도 잘 견디었다.

이런 이점으로 발트해에서 다른 나라 선박이 1번 왕복할 동안, 네덜란드의 플류트선은 2번 왕복할 수 있었고, 승선인원이 보통 9-10명으로 영국의 동급선박의 30명에 비해 저렴하게 운행할 수 있었다.

이런 장점을 가진 배를 대량 건조하기 위해서 조선소의 설비와 자재, 계측장비등을 표준화하여 저렴하고 빠르게 건조할 수 있었다.

세번째는 근대 시장경제체제를 확립했다는 점이다.

발트해 해상무역을 장악하여 대규모 경제시스템을 확보한 네덜란드는 이런 경제시스템을 굴리기 위해 동인도회사를 설립하게 된다. 설립시기는 영국의 동인도회사가 2년 정도 빨랐지만 (1600년), 근대자본주의 시장경제체제 확립이라는 면에서 보면 네덜란드의 동인도회사가 더 빠르다고 볼 수 있다.

네덜란드의 동인도회사는 국가자본과 몇몇 귀족들의 자본으로 한정된 프로젝트에 각각의 책임으로 자본을 운영하는 현대로 치면 “프로젝트파이낸싱” 혹은 “유한회사”의 그것과 유사한데 비해, 네덜란드의 동인도회사는 소액주주들의 참여, 거래소를 통한 유동성의 확보와 시장거래개념, 단일프로젝트 (한 번 인도까지 다녀오는 원양항해)에 대한 투자가 아닌 장기적이고 지속적인 투자가 가능하게 되었다는 점에서 현대적인 주식회사에 상당히 근접하다고 볼 수 있다.

이런 선진화된 금융시스템을 바탕으로 설립된 동인도회사는 영국의 설립자금보다 10배가 넘는 대규모의 경영을 할 수 있었다.

은행에서는 “신용거래”의 개념을 처음 도입하여, 신용도에 따라 이자율을 달리 적용하는 등 신용있는 회사들이 저비용으로 차입할 수 있도록 하였다. 이런 저금리자금은 영국 등 다른 나라의 상인들에 비해 유리하게 작용하여 대규모의 무역을 가능하게 만들었다.

표준화와 이를 위한 국가의 지원으로 네덜란드는 늦깍이 대항해시대 제국이었지만 선발주자였던 에스파냐, 포르투갈보다 더 큰 이득을 챙기고 오늘날의 네덜란드가 있게 되었다.

Remember Sir Arthur C. Clarke

지난 2008년 3월 19일 “2001: Space Oddyssey”로 유명한 아서 C 클라크경이 타계했다. 사실 그에게는 타계라는 말 보다는 이제서야 우주로, 그리고 미래로 긴 여행을 떠났다고 말하는 것이 더 나은 표현인지 모르겠다.

어린 시절, 내가 가장 감명깊게 읽었던 책을 꼽으라면 그의 책 “2001: Space Oddyssey” 와 칼 세이건(Carl Sagan, 1934-1996)의 “Cosmos“일 것이다. 이 두권의 책으로 내 인생의 큰 방향이 결정되었고, 지금의 내가 만들어졌다고 해도 크게 틀린 말은 아니다.

사춘기 이후 그의 책을 다시 복습할 기회가 없었는데, 이번 기회에 다시 알아보니 1994년 노벨상 후보가 되기도 했으며, 2000년 이후에도 “The Light of The Other Days” 등의 책을 쓰는 등 활동을 지속했다. (아직 출판되지 않은 책도 있는데, “The Last Theorem” 이라는 책도 곧 출판된다고 한다.- wikipedia)

그의 90세 생일에 녹화한 비디오를 보도록 하자. 그를 기리며.