This is what happens when you start a website called hacker news.

I remember once hearing that a privacy advocate had replied to that argument from a politician with "Senator, when you make love to your wife, do you kiss her breasts?"

I'm a 10PM sleeper - the morning is a really under-appreciated hacking time. I've found, generally, that 12AM and later hacking sessions both aren't sustainable and aren't as productive as they seem at first glance. Plus, I'm usually so excited in the morning to get working that I have no trouble getting up (around 5am - 7 hours sleep) to start hacking.

Personally, when I was doing the 4AM hacking sessions, I was working on a million problems at once and trying to build rome in a day. Since switching to regular hours, I've learned to appreciate progress, small steps, and sustainable delivery, and have launched 3 side projects somewhat successfully (and higher quality).

Awesome and very inspiring. And this is priceless:

  But it wasn't an overnight eureka, and it wasn't intentional. I didn't just walk out of high school, pick up a Ruby book, 
  meet Tom and PJ, then launch the site GitHub.
  Before GitHub came, in chronological order, Spyc, Ozimodo, my ozmm.org tumblelog, ftpd.rb, 
  Choice, Err the Blog, acts_as_textiled, Cheat!, acts_as_cached, Mofo, Subtlety,  
  cache_fu, Sexy Migrations, Gibberish, ginx_config_generator, fixture scenarios builder, Sake, Ambition, and Facebox.

Sorry for the delay. WSGR wanted to add some disclaimers to the documents, and then we ourselves were busy with Demo Day(s).

There's now a termsheet as well, which some people had asked for.

OMG! Someone found the ??? between launch site and profit! MAKE TECHCRUNCH! You don't even need to have a business model anymore.

1. Launch site.

2. Make TechCrunch

3. PROFIT!!!!

Sheer genius. And to think, all these years we were wondering.

he contradicts himself, but there are still some excellent points. I actually think that "the government gets to define what's wrong" is a better argument than an "intrinsic" right argument. Ayn Rand may not be too popular around here but I think this applies: There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted and you create a nation of law-breakers.