English Hacking

별로 말콤 글래드웰을 좋아하진 않지만, 요즘 좀 문제가 많네요… 불쌍하기도 하고… 참고: 아거님의 요약

말콤 글래드웰이 도마에 오른 것은 원래 “롱 테일”의 저자였던 크리스 앤더슨 때문이었죠… 간단한 역사를 정리하자면,

• 크리스 앤더슨의 Free 출간
• 말콤 글래드웰이 뉴요커에서 이걸 비판
• 크리스 앤더슨의 반박
• 쎄스 고딘 참전
• 텍크런치 심판 자청
• .... (이게 좀 역사가 길어요)

저자들 사이에서 좀 미운털이 박혔죠… 좀 의외인 것은, 빈대 잡으려고 화염방사기 뿌리는 것도 아니고, 여기에 왠 스티븐 핑커? 스티븐 핑커의 비판글 게다가 화염방사기는 하버드대 교수에 뉴욕타임즈… 둘 다 캐나다 출신에… 나름 사람들이 좋아하는 저자들인데…

잠깐, 화염방사기는 뉴욕타임즈, 빈대는 뉴요커의 최고 글쟁이 말콤 글래드웰…

(여기서부터 야바위 시작이요…)

근데, 이거 좀 진짜 야바위 이야기같긴 하지만, 미국 하버드에서는 유명한 학생 잡지 두 개가 있죠… 하나는 하버드 크림슨 또 하나는 하버드 램푼 이 둘 사이의 경쟁과 장난과 뭐 이런 것들은 나름대로는 유명한 이야기… 대충 정리하자면 하버드 크림슨은 하버드의 정론지를 자청하고, 여기 출신들은 위 위키피디어를 봐도 알지만 주로 뉴욕타임즈같은 화염방사기로 많이 가죠… 하버드 램푼 출신들은 심슨스 만화영화도 만들고, 뉴요커로도 많이 가고… 대충 그림은 나오는데…

This newfound maturity in Lampoon writing developed from 1926-1945, in what has come to be called the magazine’s “Golden Period.” Influenced heavily by The New Yorker, Lampoon editors developed a knack for short fiction, punchy cartoons, cutting-edge layout, and jet-set cocktail-party success. When local authorities banned a bawdy parody of Esquire in 1935, Lampoon members pretended to burn issues in a bonfire outside the Castle while selling the parody out the side door. During this period, the Lampoon also invented the word “pizzazz” and began its annual “Movie Worsts” issue, a tradition that held until the mid-1990s, when people stopped going to movies.
In the Lampoon’s “Golden Period,” 1946-1961, the magazine took its parodies to the national level, consensually distributing fake issues of Mademoiselle alongside the actual issues. Three notable alumni – George Plimpton ‘48, actor Fred Gwynne ‘50, and John Updike ‘54 – flashed comedy chops during this time, as all three men served as Lampoon presidents. During this time the Lampoon also began to induct honorary members, who have come to include Winston Churchill, Bill Cosby, Billy Crystal, Robin Williams, Jay Leno, Kurt Vonnegut and David Foster Wallace. (Paris Hilton stopped by to ask for directions in 2008.) (About Harvard Lampoon)

솔직이 말콤 글래드웰 나름 재밌고, 글 잘 쓰고 좋은 사람인데, 뉴욕타임즈의 스티븐 핑커는 좀 심한 대접인 듯 해요… 왠지 꼭 뉴요커 잡으려고 뉴욕타임즈가 나선 것 같은 느낌이랄까, 내지는 샘터 잡으려고 조선일보가 나선 것 같은, 내지는 CNN 뉴스에서 심슨스를 비판하는 것 같은, 뭐 그런 느낌 …

오늘의 교훈: 미운털 박히지 말자. 알고보면 좁은 동네에서…

(그냥 웃자고 하는 얘깁니다… 야바위 얘기…)

왠지 모르게 저는 옛날부터 Justice Scalia가 맘에 들었죠. 뭐 꼭 그렇게 끌릴 이유는 없는데 말이죠… (참, 여기에서 Justice Scalia, Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer는 모두 미국 대법원 대법관들이고, 아래는 BM 특허와 관련하여 미국 대법원에서 구두변론한 기록의 일부입니다.)

JUSTICE SCALIA: You know, you mention that there are all these – these new areas that didn’t exist in the past because of modern business and what-not, but there are also areas that existed in the past that don’t exist today. Let’s take training horses. Don’t you think that—that some people, horse whisperers or others, had some, you know, some insights into the best way to train horses? And that should have been patentable on your theory.
MR. JAKES: They might have, yes.
JUSTICE SCALIA: Well, why didn’t anybody patent those things?
MR. JAKES: I think our economy was based on industrial process.
JUSTICE SCALIA: It was based on horses, for Pete’s sake. You—I would really have thought somebody would have patented that. (BM Patent)

JUSTICE SCALIA: 에, 현대 사업과 기타등등의 이유로 해서 과거에는 없었던 영역들이 요즘은 존재한다는 이야기를 했었는데, 역으로 과거에는 있었지만 오늘날에는 없는 영역들도 있지. 말 조련의 예를 들어 보지. 어떤 사람들은, 이를 테면 호스 위스퍼러같은 사람들은, 에, 말을 조련하는 가장 좋은 방법에 대해 이해하고 있었을 것이라고 생각하지 않나? 그리고 자네 이론에 따르자면, 이런 것들도 특허 대상이라는 것인가?
MR. JAKES: 그랬을 겁니다. 네.
JUSTICE SCALIA: 에, 그렇다면 왜 아무도 이런 것들에 특허를 걸지 않았을까?
MR. JAKES: 우리 경제가 산업적 과정에 기반하고 있었다고 생각합니다만…
JUSTICE SCALIA: 과거에는 말에 기반하고 있었다네. 자네라면, 아니 나라면 누군가가 이런 것들에 특허를 걸었을 것이라고 생각했겠구만. (BM Patent)

그리고, 진짜 음미해볼 만한 이야기라면…

JUSTICE GINSBURG: But you say you would say tax avoidance methods are covered, just as the process here is covered. So an estate plan, tax avoidance, how to resist a corporate takeover, how to choose a jury, all of those are patentable?
MR. JAKES: They are eligible for patenting as processes, assuming they meet the other statutory requirements.
JUSTICE BREYER: So that would mean that every – every businessman – perhaps not every, but every successful businessman typically has something. His firm wouldn’t be successful if he didn’t have anything that others didn’t have. He thinks of a new way to organize. He thinks of a new thing to say on the telephone. He thinks of something. That’s how he made his money. And your view would be – and it’s new, too, and it’s useful, made him a fortune – anything that helps any businessman succeed is patentable because we reduce it to a number of steps, explain it in general terms, file our application, granted?
MR. JAKES: It is potentially patentable, yes.

JUSTICE GINSBURG: 그렇지만, 자네는 조세회피 방법 같은 것도, 여기에서 말하는 프로세스와 마찬가지로 특허 대상이라는 주장을 하고 있지. 그렇다면, 상속 계획, 조세회피 전략, 인수합병을 피하는 방법, 배심원을 선택하는 방법, 이런 것들도 특허의 대상이라는 것인가?
MR. JAKES: 그것들도 프로세스로써 특허 대상입니다. 다른 법적 요건을 충족시킨다는 전제 하에서 말씀드리는 겁니다.
JUSTICE BREYER: 그러니까 그 말은 모든 사업가는, 모든 사업가는 아니겠지만, 모든 성공한 사업가는 대개 뭔가 다른 점이 있다고 할 수 있지. 다른 사람에게는 없는 무엇인가가 없었다면 회사가 성공하지 못했겠지. 그가 회사를 조직하는 새로운 방법을 생각했을 수도 있고, 전화에 대고 말할 거리를 생각해냈을 수도 있고, 뭔가를 생각해 냈을 것이고, 그것 때문에 그가 돈을 버는 것 아니겠는가. 그리고 자네 의견으로는, 여기에 더불어서 이게 새로운 것이고, 유용한 것이고, 그걸로 떼돈을 벌었다면, 어떤 사업가라도 성공할 수 있도록 해 주는 것이라면 무엇이든 특허 대상이라는 것인가? 왜냐하면 그 과정을 몇 단계로 요약하고, 이것을 일반적인 용어로 설명할 수 있고, 특허 신청을 하고, 특허가 부여되고, 등등…
MR. JAKES: 특허 대상이 될 수 있습니다. 네.

전체 스크립트 (pdf)는 여기서 구할 수 있대요…

참고: 위에서 “for Pete’s sake”는 그냥 감탄사입니다. 원래는 “for Christ’s sake”에서 나온 말 같은데 왠지 blasphemy를 없애기 위해서 말을 바꾼 정도… 굳이 번역하자면(위에서는 번역하지 않았습니다), “제발” 정도 되려나요… (구글사전 Chrissake)

A minced oath (also pseudo-profanity or expletive-deletive) is an expression based on a profanity that has been altered to reduce the objectionable characteristics of the original expression, for example, darn or dang instead of damn, crap instead of shit, heck instead of hell, or frigging, flipping, freaking, or fricking instead of fucking. Nearly all profanities have minced variants. (minced oath in wikipedia)

그리고,

For Pete’s sake! and For pity’s sake!; For the love of Mike!; For goodness sake!; For gosh sake!; For heaven(’s) sake!
a mild exclamation of surprise or shock. For Pete’s sake! How’ve ya been? For pity’s sake! Ask the man in out of the cold!
for Christ’s sake (rude) also for Christ sakes
for God’s sake (rude) also for God’s sakes
for goodness’ sake (spoken) also for goodness sakes
for Pete’s sake (spoken) (출처: sake in free dictionary)

도움이 되려나요?

누구나 하는 고민이죠. 나는 대기업에 가고 싶은데, 대기업은 내게 관심이 없고, 나는 음악을 하고 싶은데 음악은 내게 관심이 없고 …

When you’re just starting out or when your organization is struggling or when the economy isn’t hot, it’s very tempting to take what you can get.
You just graduated from law school and you have a lot of debt and the best job you can get is doing collections work. Should you take it?
Your consulting firm is organized around providing high-value work for large corporations, but the only gigs you can get in the consideration set for are small, struggling companies looking to spend a few hundred dollars a day. Should you take them? (Seth Godin)

어떻게 해야 할까요? 세스 고딘의 답은 위의 링크를 따라가 보세요.

오랫만에 한낮에 올리기…

Cyworld, the massive Korean based virtual world, is shutting down its U.S. site, which draws all of 112,000 monthly visitors according to Comscore. And while the shutdown is sort of sad, the message they sent to users more than makes up for it. The translation is bad. Not Matrix DVD cover in Korean bad, but bad. (Techcrunch)

뭐가 그리 웃긴가 하면…

Subject: Cyworld shuts down US cyworld service
Thank you to all members with Cyworld.

Due to Cyworld shuts down US service, US Cyworld will no longer be able to service.

We sincerely apologize for shutting down the service with unavoidable reason.
Before US cyworld close the service, you will continue to access to US cyworld contents but not purchase items. Also, you will not use your acorns.
If you have unused acorns, you will be given a full refund for paid acorns only.
Refunds and data backup service is in progress, using the acorn will no longer be able to purchase for miniroom items, skins, etc.

@ Schedule for closing US Cyworld service
Due to Data Back-up and closing service issues, the service will be unavailable.

o Shop service will be unavailable since Nov 03, 2009
o Club service, Profile photo/data upload serivce will be unavailable since Nov 23, 2009

뭐, 어차피 소 잃고 외양간 고치기지만, 혹시 관심 있으시면 이거 제대로 고치는 것 해 보시겠어요? 어떻게 썼으면 좋았을지 한 번 댓글 달아봐 주세요…

1. 잘난 넘들은 10,000시간 정도는 투자했다는 글래드웰 아저씨의 말씀. 근데, 못난 넘도 10,000시간을 투자하면 잘난 넘이 된다는 뜻은 아니라는 점에 주의.. 간단한 삼단논볍: 명제가 참이라고 해도 그 명제의 역이 참인 것은 아니다.

The search for success has spawned a motivational industry worth millions of pounds and libraries full of self-improvement books.
It is practice, however, that makes perfect, according to the sociologist whose books have become required reading within the Conservative party. The best way to achieve international stardom is to spend 10,000 hours honing your skills, says the new book by Malcolm Gladwell, author of the best-selling The Tipping Point.
The greatest athletes, entrepreneurs, musicians and scientists emerge only after spending at least three hours a day for a decade mastering their chosen field.
Ability, according to Gladwell, is just one factor in success. Work ethic, luck, a strong support base and even being born in the right year play a far larger role. (Malcolm Gladwell on 10,000 hours rule)

2. 돈버는 것도 기술이라는 뜬금없는 37 signals의 충고. 아마도 돈 잘 버는 넘들은 10,000시간은 투자한 듯(그렇다고 10,000시간동안 돈버는 기술을 배운다고 해도… ??)

Most of the people I know who are money-making-machines got started really early. Lemonade stands, car washes, lawn mowing, baseball card trading. I think the reason they are money-making-machines today is because they started early. They learned the skills of negotiation, pricing, selling, and market-reading early. They have more practice selling than most people. That’s one of the reasons they’re better at it than most people.
Making money takes practice, just like playing the piano takes practice. No one expects anyone to be any good at the piano unless they’ve put in lots practice. Same with making money. The more you practice the better you get. Eventually making money is as easy for you as piano is for someone who’s been playing for 10 years.
This is one of the reasons I encourage entrepreneurs to bootstrap instead of taking outside money. On day one, a bootstrapped company sets out to make money. They have no choice, really. On day one a funded company sets out to spend money. They hire, they buy, they invest, they spend. Making money isn’t important yet. They practice spending, not making.
Bootstrapping puts you in the right mindset as an entrepreneur. You think of money more as something you make than something you spend. That’s the right lesson, that’s the right habit, the right imprint on your business brain. You’re better off as an entrepreneur if you have more practice making money than spending money. Bootstrapping gives you a head start.
So if you’re about to start a business, or if you already have a business and you’re thinking about taking funding, or if you’ve already taken funding and are considering going back for more, consider the alternative. Don’t raise money, raise prices. Sell sell sell. Get as much practice as you can. Force yourself to practice. Force yourself to learn how to make money as early as you can. You may hate it in the short-term, but it’ll make you a great businessperson in the long term. (Money making takes practice)

낮에 해 보는 간단한 링크 포스팅…