From Jessica Livingston’s Founders at Work, I just read this interview (quotation is about 3/4 of the way in) with Steve Wozniak, about what really made a success of the Apple II (it was launched in 1977):

“We made it easy for anyone to do what they wanted to do. And I think that was one of the biggest keys to its success. We didn’t make it a hidden machine that we own-we sell it, it does this, you got it-like Commodore and RadioShack did.

We put out manuals that had just hundreds of pages of listings of code, descriptions of circuits, examples of boards that you would plug in, so that anyone could look at this and say, “Now I know how I would do my own.” They could type in the programs on their own Apple II and then see “that’s how that works” instantly and know how to write their own programs. Running cards was the most important thing. All these companies started up making cards that you could plug into your Apple II and write a little software (mostly games at first) on cassette tapes. You’d go to the store and they’d just have all this stuff that you could buy to enhance the Apple II. So one of our big keys to success was that we were very open. There’s a big world out there for other people to come and join us.”

Open source history here.

ps: to those reading this in facebook, I do have a life beyond writing notes!

A philosopher’s case for donating more than you’re comfortable with. (NYT Magazine, free registration required).

“For more than 30 years, I’ve been reading, writing and teaching about the ethical issue posed by the juxtaposition, on our planet, of great abundance and life-threatening poverty. Yet it was not until, in preparing this article, I calculated how much America’s Top 10 percent of income earners actually make that I fully understood how easy it would be for the world’s rich to eliminate, or virtually eliminate, global poverty. (It has actually become much easier over the last 30 years, as the rich have grown significantly richer.) I found the result astonishing. I double-checked the figures and asked a research assistant to check them as well. But they were right. Measured against our capacity, the Millennium Development Goals are indecently, shockingly modest. If we fail to achieve them, as on present indications we well might, we have no excuses. The target we should be setting for ourselves is not halving the proportion of people living in extreme poverty, and without enough to eat, but ensuring that no one, or virtually no one, needs to live in such degrading conditions. That is a worthy goal, and it is well within our reach.”

By Peter Singer, Ira W. DeCamp professor of bioethics at the Center for Human Values at Princeton University. He is the author of many books, including most recently “The Way We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter.”

I have a savings account with ING Direct. I got a funny email a couple of days ago:

“Dear Mr Taggar

While some people may be willing to follow headline-grabbing rates, we know from talking to our customers that the majority prefer their savings to be earning consistently and want to relax knowing they don’t have to constantly check Best Buy tables. “

What? A brilliant example of doublespeak, it’s really funny how they frame not increasing my saving rate as being in my interest. I wonder if they value ‘consistency’ as much when rates head back down.