Day: August 6, 2011

In a word, No.

I wouldn't recommend reading the book Game of Thrones or the entire series before watching the HBO drama, for the following reasons:

• By reading the book first, there may be a natural blunting of the immersiveness of the TV series, as you start to notice small or even significant changes in plot, characters, etc.
• If you don't enjoy the book, you may have a harder time appreciating the vastly different format and medium required for a TV series.
• If you do enjoy the book, you may find fault with the execution of the series in whole or in part (similar, but distinct from my first point).
• If you continue reading past the first book, you will be engaging with content that may not show up on TV for several more years – the "availability differential" of both formats of the second book A Clash of Kings will be much greater than GoT, so the further you go, the less "fresh" things will be in your head when the TV series catches up.

In addition, I'd like to offer up the following counter-suggestion: watch the TV series first, then read the book.

• By reading the book later, you can revive memories of the TV show as you read, and since reading itself is generally slower pace and more thought-provoking, there should be less of a feeling of being "taken out" of the story. Indeed, by having clear visuals of specific characters and places, you'll expend less mental energy pausing to reflect on architectural details or overly-elaborate descriptions, and be able to "flow" better with the narrative.
• If you don't enjoy the TV series, you can save yourself a SERIOUS pagecount with even just the first book (835 pages for the paperback edition).
• Alternately, you can ditch the show for the book series, and never look back… So long as you can do so without being smug to friends, no one will think the less of you for it.
• If you do enjoy watching Game of Thrones, then you can continue to read the book, and subsequent volumes of the series as a way to bridge the gap in TV series production. If you're the type of person who agonizes between seasons, this will be an especially good prescription.

Regardless of what you choose to do, keep this in mind: George R.R. Martin is nowhere near completing this epic saga. He has encountered an incredible bout of writer's block while creating this series, with an enormous gap in production between A Feast for Crows and A Dance With Dragons that currently clocks in at almost 7 years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_D…

Long story short (heh), there's a real question over whether the series will ever be completed, and if so how long we'll have to wait. Feelings of artistic imperative aside, it's an important consideration for someone who hasn't started the series – if you can enjoy each page without hope for another, then go for it!

If reading 4164 pages (and counting!) of fantasy fiction that doesn't come to any meaningful conclusion would in any way upset you, there are a lot of alternative epic book series of similar quality to enjoy… And plenty of opportunity to start the Song of Ice and Fire (via video or book) when it's a little further along.

Should I read the Song of Ice And Fire book series before watching the HBO series Game of Thrones?

As someone who answers a fair number of questions with more questions, I'd surprisingly say it would be a vastly different experience:

Jeopardy! is not really about responding with actual questions, but rather

• "Questions" phrased as statements on some trivial topic almost always with a single clear-cut correct answer, and
• "Answers" which are usually one word or a short phrase, rephrased as a short "who, what, when, where, why"-style question.

This arrangement does not provide for nearly the same the breadth and depth of questions and answers that already exist on-site, and the requirement for a "correct" answer would also dramatically reduce the total addressable user market for the service – when opinions (or for that matter, things like humor) are completely sucked dry from answers, then only highly-educated obsessives would spend much time even trying to participate – as bad answers or even ill-phrased ones would be chastised at a level much higher than exists today – and even the existing "lower" bar turns many people off, if you search for discussions about Quora online.

On the pro side, it is possible that given the rush to enter the single correct answer, some members would gain additional skills in typing, proper question phrasation, or lateral thinking/multitasking. Still, they would be the minority, and probably would treat each other in a far more hostile/competitive manner than the real world "Quora Elites" seem to behave.

So, long story short: it would be a lot more boring, with a lot fewer regular users/community members. I love Jeopardy!, but the unique construction of this gameshow is not something that readily translates to the specific dynamic that makes Quora successful.

What would it be like if Quora met Jeopardy and you had to respond with a question?

Based on the wording of your question, and the voluminous details of your incredible backstory: Focus on the awesomeness of your idea, rather than your own personal awesomeness – your background and achievements are something to wave in front of investors, not potential technical cofounders.

The kind of partner you seek will, as part of their extensive engineering background, know how to "google you" – and if s/he likes your idea, it'll happen naturally in the course of their due diligence. Talk about the problem you're trying to solve, and the interesting engineering challenge your solution presents, and don't worry about the rest.

Advice for a non tech founder: I am 22 and have had some success in prior ventures. Have $75k for startup funds and no tech co-founder. Any advice?

You can sue anyone, at any time, for any reason.

Patent lawsuits, especially IP patent lawsuits, are for dicks.

Don't be a dick.

The entire wording of this question is focused on the future ability to sue competition which may never exist, or which would otherwise beat the pants off your startup because while you were focusing on patent trolling your industry, they were actually making products and services people wanted.

That said, is it "worth" getting the various bits of "secret sauce" of your startup patent-protected whenever possible? Maaaybe! The cost and time sink may well pay off if you have a particularly complex hardware solution, or even more complex software algorithms working together in a wholly unique fashion.

To your followup question: once you "go active" with your desire to sue infringers, all the competition and even some of your less-patent-friendly customers may start looking into prior art – that is, instances of your technology/algorithm/feature that existed before your patent was awarded. You may still certainly sue anyone who qualifies as pre-existing, but it will be a much harder case to win, and it will basically be a race to see who runs out of funding for litigation first. Good times.

Does getting a patent on your startup idea means you can instantly sue any clones out there?

Affiliate sales comes to mind – hawk other peoples' stuff for a commission. Easy, no or very low upfront investment, and whether online or offline, it'll help you build a list/infrastructure that can be reused if you later switch business models, create and sell your own stuff, etc.

Which business can one start as an entrepreneur without investments:Sales is my strength?