The Death Star is undoubtedly a worthwhile undertaking. Sure, in the Star Wars films it’s generally depicted as an offensive weapon but it could have terrific value as a defensive platform, too. The government recently responded to requests from the general public that it look into constructing the massive, moon-sized space station, shutting down the idea because of a short-sighted “we don’t blow up planets” political stance and an unwillingness to dip into the treasury.

Now, a new Kickstarter project wants to pick up those plans, using an open source design effort and crowdfunding to help make it happen.

The project has a £20,000,000 (over $30,000,000 U.S.) funding goal, which would be used to create “more detailed plans” than the initial design the team currently has (pictured below) and improve on the original from the Star Wars movies with some unique defensive measures to keep out pesky X-Wings. If the project reaches its stretch goal of £543,000,000,000,000,00 (or $850,000,000,000,000,000), then the plans will actually be put to use building a full-scale production Death Star.

The project’s founders don’t share much about their backgrounds, so it’s difficult to say if they have the chops needed to deliver on their stated December 2015 delivery timeline. And of course there’s always the possibility of Rebel saboteurs to consider, too. For what it’s worth, we’ve learned from a source that Darth Vader himself is confident things are progressing as planned. “The Death Star will be completed on schedule,” he was overheard to say in conversation with a high-placed Imperial executive.

Article courtesy of TechCrunch

Apple’s iPhone 5 hit store shelves and consumer hands today, and I got a chance to score some hands-on time with a couple of the games that were announced at the event where Apple’s smartphone was announced. EA’s Real Racing 3 and Natural Motion’s Clumsy Ninja. Neither game is available yet, but both are very playable in their current forms, and excellent examples of what Apple’s hardware updates make possible for gaming.

Real Racing 3′s gaming mechanics are simple, and will be familiar to anyone who’s played the others in the series. But where it shines is in the huge improvement in graphics performance. The intro video is on par with some current gen home console experiences, and gameplay is as well. The fact that gas control is automatic is a little bit different than what console gamers are used to, but the physics, the textures and the backgrounds all really do live up to the hype.

The game really shows off the power of the new A6 processor and improved graphics processing, and it doesn’t seem like it’s breaking a sweat. Apple provided EA with only enough access for them to come up with a tech demo that was playable at the show, too, owing to their love of secrecy, so what I got hands-on time is likely just a taste of what’s possible when developers have full access to the platform, without quick turnaround requirements and other restraints. That’s very good news for gamers.

As for Clumsy Ninja, while I didn’t have the chance to see much, what I did see was equally impressive, albeit in a different way. The experience feels unique, and uniquely suited to a touch-based interface. It’s the kind of product that’s clearly designed to be at home on the iPhone, and one that couldn’t really live anywhere else (despite being fairly similar to Microsoft’s Kinectimals series of virtual pets). Even with just a brief play period, you can tell that the use of AI at work here puts this above your average pocket pet application. And again, the graphics and animation really show off the iPhone 5′s improvements over previous generations, and it feels very close to being a shipping product. This one seriously could be the iPhone 5′s Angry Birds.

The iPhone has long been a pretty good gaming device, but it’s starting to cross over into new territory where it’s easy to see it competing with dedicated offerings from other companies. In particular, they leave even the 3DS and Sony Vita feeling a little out-dated, if only because the iPhone 5 provides so much else besides. I can’t wait to see what developers like Infinity Blade’s ChAIR, along with innovative indie dream teams like Sword & Sworcery’s Capybara can do with this new hardware.

Article courtesy of TechCrunch

For a while now, Gmail users have been able to choose between various themes to personalize their inboxes. Starting today, you will be able to add even more of a personal touch to Gmail, as Google now allows you to set your own background images in Gmail. Google actually offered a similar option for Gmail before it launched its redesign last year, but this time around, Google – of course – also offers a deeper Google+ integration and allows you to upload your own photos directly or select your backgrounds from your Google+ photos.

Google is rolling this new feature out slowly, so it may be a few days before you get to choose your favorite cat picture as a background image in Gmail.

For the rest of your interface, you get to choose between a light and a dark theme when you use your own photos. This will hopefully allow you to still see the rest of the interface, but given that Google is apparently using a lot of transparency here, you’ll probably have to try a few different images to find the right combination.

Google will also select a number of images to feature in its redesigned Gmail themes tab. It’s not clear how the company plans to select these, but it looks like these are images from Google+.

Article courtesy of TechCrunch

In any debate, it is easy to revert to anecdote and highlight examples that exemplify one point of view. Recent TechCrunch posts about women in tech have done just that. The latest of these claimed that women don’t want to run startups, because they’d rather have children. I can understand why: TechCrunch and its editors focus on the Silicon Valley/Web 2.0 world.  In this world, most startups—or at least those that get attention— are founded by young white males; aggression and arrogance are considered positive traits; companies need to be grown very fast—even recklessly—because markets change rapidly; and venture capitalists pay promising students to drop out of school to start companies that will likely fail and wreck their careers. So if you’re debating this tiny slice of the tech universe, it is fair to say that women and minorities can’t—or don’t want to—compete. But this isn’t representative of the larger tech world; and it certainly isn’t representative of American industry.

Take the issue of whether the desire to have kids or just run lifestyle businesses makes women averse to running startups. This is an accurate description of some women: they just aren’t cut out for the rough-and-tumble world of entrepreneurship—which requires extremely hard work and in which most startups fail. But it’s the same with men: men too avoid entrepreneurship because they fear risk and aren’t ready to put in the long hours. There is no black or white: many women with children have succeeded with startups, while other successful women entrepreneurs have chosen not to have children.

My research team systematically analyzed the backgrounds of 652 startup founders in the tech industry. We looked not just at the narrow slice of tech companies that gets featured most often on TechCrunch, but at the broader universe—those that economists, professors, and the general public would call high-technology companies. And then we studied the backgrounds of a sample of 549 company founders of companies in 12 industries that grow as fast as those in technology, and are equally important to the U.S. economy. Our research focused on “successful” startups—those that had made it out of the garage, had employees, and were actually generating revenue.

We learned that the average age of a successful tech-company founder isn’t 21 as is commonly believed in Silicon Valley, but 39; or, in the broader universe of high-growth companies, 40. Founders of high-growth companies are likely to be married and to have two or more kids. They typically have six to ten years of work experience and real-world ideas. They start companies because they get tired of working for others and want to build wealth before they retire. What stops most people from embarking on the path to entrepreneurship is fear of failure and of the amount of time and effort required.

The question that was posed to me by a number of women’s groups was: what is the difference between men and women founders? This is something that I hadn’t given much thought to, but that I thought was worthy of analysis because it would reveal major differences. I expected that women had very different backgrounds and motivations from those of men.

I shared our data sets with Joanne Cohoon of the National Council of Women in Technology (NCWIT), and she worked with NCWIT analysts to crunch the data. I was really surprised at what we learned: that there was almost no difference between men and women company founders. Both groups had an equally strong desire to build wealth; wanted to capitalize on business ideas; were attracted to the culture of startups; had long-standing desire to own their own company; and were tired of working for others. There were, however, slight differences between the encouragement that women received from co-founders and what men received; and women received slightly more funding than men did from business partners.

Equally importantly, we found no difference in life circumstances between men and women founders. Their average ages when founding their first companies were the same. Likewise, successful men and women entrepreneurs founded their first companies when they had similar numbers of children living at home, though men were more likely than women to be married.

But there is certainly an imbalance between the sexes entering high-tech fields, and that imbalance is increasing over time. The proportion of women studying computer science decreased from 37 percent in 1985 to 19 percent today, according to the National Science Foundation. The imbalance stems from the lack of encouragement that girls receive from their parents to study mathematics and science, and escalates when they join the workforce and receive discouragement. Only one percent of high-tech startups have a woman CEO; there are almost no women in the ranks of chief technology officers.

I recently attended the Grace Hopper Celebration of Women in Computing, which had 2150 mostly young women in attendance. This was the largest gathering ever of women in computing in industry, academia, and government. The women discussed topics such as open-source development, computer-language design, and data visualization. And they got a chance to make friends. Many of the women I talked to said this was the first time they had met others like themselves, and they felt really encouraged to continue in computing and to make a difference.

At an executive forum at the conference, I had a chance to discuss, with companies such as Microsoft, Google, and Symantec, the challenges they face in the recruitment, retention, and advancement of women technologists. Their common conclusion was that their company’s success depends on hiring the best talent.  They knew, though, that the best talent sometimes was passed over because of unintentional discrimination caused the stereotype that women do not make good techies.

The remedy we discussed was to require that their hiring executives interview at least one woman for every open position. The idea isn’t to hire any candidate less qualified than the best, but to make sure that recruiting efforts include a diverse slate of candidates. In the experience of the company executives, when hiring managers had the chance to meet qualified female candidates, they were more likely to hire women. And to further level the playing field, companies should have at least one woman on the hiring team. People tend to hire those who are similar to them—therefore, the current demographics of the hiring team and company can influence the outcome of hiring.

These are pretty simple remedies. I am not advocating that companies institute any kind of affirmative-action programs or stack the deck against men. But we need to recognize that negative stereotypes such as the ones highlighted in TechCrunch can be harmful and lead to discrimination. Let’s not blame anyone, but let’s act proactively to fix a problem that we all know exists.

Editor’s note: Guest writer Vivek Wadhwa is an entrepreneur turned academic. He is a Visiting Scholar at UC-Berkeley, Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School and Director of Research at the Center for Entrepreneurship and Research Commercialization at Duke University. You can follow him on Twitter at @vwadhwa and find his research at www.wadhwa.com.

Article courtesy of TechCrunch

Instead of another boring lecture, last week my students at UC-Berkeley got quite a treat: a lively discussion with TechCrunch founder Mike Arrington. I once described Mike as a cross between Oprah Winfrey and Howard Stern; so I was ready for a little controversy. But he ended up lighting such a big fire, that I’ve been bombarded with questions from students about their education and careers. The questions aren’t just coming from Berkeley; after the discussion was posted on TechCrunch, students at Duke asked me to discuss this at a keynote I am giving at their entrepreneurship symposium on Wednesday; and students at other schools, from as far as India and Singapore, have asked for advice.  So I’ll just respond here in the hope of quenching this fire.

At the UC-Berkeley Distinguished Innovator Lecture Series, this week, Mike and I discussed a variety of topics.  We agreed on most subjects—except on the importance of education (and dearth of women in tech—which is a battle I’ll fight another day). When I brought up my TechCrunch post on the importance of MBA degrees, Arrington questioned why students needed to get any degree or go to college at all.  He talked up the success of tech CEOs who had dropped out of college—Zuckerberg, Gates, and “countless high-profile entrepreneurs including Larry and Sergey” (Mike: Larry and Sergey both have undergraduate degrees and were completing PhD’s). Despite being interrupted by Berkeley professor Ikhlaq Sidhu (who I was afraid would come on stage and strangle Mike before he could finish his sentence), Arrington said that he didn’t learn much from college; gaining admittance to a Berkeley or Harvard is the only certification a student needs; dropping out from college doesn’t carry a stigma anymore; so “the best thing in the world is to go to Harvard for a year and drop out because everyone knows you were smart enough to get in”.

Arrington told students that the kind of person who wants to increase his chances of success by getting a masters degree isn’t an entrepreneur; older entrepreneurs have no chance of raising money (so they’re a lost cause); success means building a billion dollar business and making a lot of money—it’s not good enough to build a good lifestyle business that pays the bills and brings you happiness. So they should “ready-fire-aim” and go for the big prize rather than thinking small.

Here is the problem with Arrington’s logic: students may come up with great ideas and start a company, but they aren’t going to be able make it big unless they have the educational foundation. Maybe Zuckerberg lucked out by being at the right place at the right time, but he wasn’t born with the knowledge of how to grow a business. To build a business, you need to understand subjects like finance, marketing, intellectual property and corporate law. Until you have been in the business world for a while, you don’t know how to negotiate contracts, deal with people, manage and nurture employees, and sell to customers. Most importantly, if students don’t learn the importance of finishing what they start, they will never achieve success—this requires perseverance and determination.  And by dropping out of college, they won’t have the alumni networks that they need to help them later in their careers and in business.

The harsh reality is that for every Zuckerberg, there are a thousand who drop out of college and fail. Many get discouraged after their failures and move to other professions which require less skill and education. Some universities do readmit students who dropped out for a short period of time, but most students end up burning through their savings and loans from friends and relatives, and can no longer afford their education. Some give up and look for jobs in big companies, but big companies don’t generally hire people without degrees—because they want employees who have the discipline to finish what they start; who won’t jump ship and chase every rainbow.

Plus, if you look at the backgrounds of the people who actually built Facebook—the executives and employees of the company—you’ll find that they aren’t college dropouts; they are highly educated. Facebook, Microsoft, and Apple—all started by college dropouts are the most selective in hiring; they are the most fussy about degrees.

My advice to students is to get all the education they can, while they can. Complete at least a bachelors and get a masters degree if you can. The degree doesn’t have to be from an elite college like Harvard or Stanford; any education will carry you far. As this chart shows (based on an analysis of the backgrounds of the founders of 652 successful technology companies), there is a huge difference in the size and revenue of companies founded by people with college degrees. But there is only a small difference between those with ivy-league degrees and the average (which includes all startups).

After you graduate, you should gain some practical work experience and learn the realities of the business world before making the plunge into entrepreneurship. Work for a big company for a few years; learn about how the corporate world works; get good at people management, project planning, and teamwork. Then join a startup—which will probably fail as most startups do. But you get to fail on someone else’s dime and learn all the valuable lessons.

In his talk, Mike Arrington said that he got little from his education.  He also said that he wished he had gotten an MBA instead of a law degree.  But what Mike didn’t seem to axknowledge was that he needed the law degree to become a lawyer; when he was a lawyer, he gained an in-depth knowledge about the tech world and its problems —which led to his startups; and this education gave him the knowledge to take on unethical companies and question unethical practices—all of which have helped make TechCrunch the world’s leading tech blog. Does anyone think that Mike would have been able to build TechCrunch if he was a college dropout?

In our discussion, Mike joked that instead of doing the law degree, he wishes he had learned to play the guitar in junior high—“maybe he would have become a rock star”. I have no idea if Mike has any musical talent, but a smaller proportion of guitarists become rock stars than techies who become CEOs.

Editor’s note: Guest writer Vivek Wadhwa  is an entrepreneur turned academic. He is a Visiting Scholar at the School of Information at UC-Berkeley, Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School and Director of Research at the Center for Entrepreneurship and Research Commercialization at Duke University. You can follow him on Twitter at @vwadhwaand find his research at www.wadhwa.com.

Article courtesy of TechCrunch