|
|
I'm not saying we aren't in another tech bubble -but I don't think Yahoo!'s buying Summly says anything about the industry in general.
Fast Company probably has it right - that this was more about hiring talent/changing company culture than about the actual business value of the app.
Brokers don't think you should have full access to your investment account (after all THEY are professionals and you are too stupid to understand what they are doing).
Mechanics don't think you should have full access to your car's maintenance record (see above).
file this under ruductio ad absurdum - I can understand the physicians point of view. I simply disagree...
"sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
is still a job. if you want to lower crime in general, then take steps to improve the economy - which (in the past) has meant the government getting out of the way.
I'm not opposed to gun control - I just don't think it will make any difference (except make politicians feel like they "did" something about the problem)
with my libertarian leanings satisfied, I'll point out that the only nation-state I know of to successfully manage "gun control" was feudal Japan (Samurai who had spent a lifetime perfecting their skills wanted protection from poorly trained peasants with guns).
If you believe that a primary function of government is to protect citizens from each other - then maybe we should be discussing repeal of the second amendment. Simply make it illegal for everyone (except the "government") to own guns - then be prepared to incarcerate everyone you find with a gun.
if THAT works, we could make all drugs illegal to cut down on drug addiction
on the other hand the pointless reference of the day: this debate always reminds me of the "Treehouse of Horror" episode where Lisa wishes for world peace - "He's got a board with a nail in it!" and "They constructed a board with a nail in it, but they won't stop there. They'll construct bigger boards with bigger nails, and then they'll construct a board with a nail in it so large, it will destroy them all..."
The legal question isn't "is this a common practice" but what type of contract HP had with the employees.
Years ago I was an "on site tech guy" for a small tech firm (fixing IBM PC/XTs and PS/2s - good times), they asked me to sign a "non compete" agreement which basically said if I stole their customer away that I'd have to pay damages equal to the value of the contract. I'd be surprised if HP didn't have some such agreement with their employees (it is expensive to find talent - and it sounds like these were the people that HP wanted to keep around)
I'm sure Mr. Mott is a fine human being - and will do a fine job. A huge part of his job will be hiring good people. After your post, I'm even more convinced that HP can't win and needs to re-evaluate their HR practices.
Mr. Mott doesn't make a very convincing defense. Sounds like "Yeah, we did what we are accused of - but so what"
this is probably a very simple case - assuming HP made their employees sign some form of "non compete" or other employment agreement/contract, but proving collusion or conspiracy and getting damages is going to be hard for HP. Sure, the employees in question were free to "'resign en masse and without notice' but were probably contractually limited from going to work directly with GM - (which is why HP wants to talk to the people involved).
my IANAL opinion is that no matter how this plays out, HP looks bad and "loses."
so when is he announcing his new branch of mathematics
the link the Jon Stewart interview. Two very smart men, one of them is funnier than the other, you can decide
I start wondering (every 4 years when people talk about getting rid of the electoral college) if we still teach United States History in high school. Sure let's reform it, take the rubber stamp "electors" out of the process - but you still have the fundamental "big states vs small states" issue (the reason we have a bicameral legislature) and not to mention some other big problems
Nate Silver deserves all of the plaudits he is receiving, I have nothing bad to say about Mr. Silver. I'm going to hunt up a copy of his book. #prepareToDuckAndRun do you know the difference between Nate Silver and God? Nate Silver wouldn't get booed at the Democratic convention #duckAndRun
This same question gets asked about writers and alcohol.
the question will be stated something like: There have been many incredibly talented writers who also abused alcohol (Hemingway immediately comes to mind - but there is there is a large sample size). Did alcohol make them better writers? Will alcohol make you a better writer?
The popular answer is: "The genius that made them great writers probably contributed to thier drinking, but drinking didn't make them great writers."
Drinking might make people think they are great writers, but simply being a drunk won't improve your writing. the cliche "correlation doesn't imply causality" applies.
Many great programmers may have also used recreational drugs - but recreational drugs didn't make them great programmers.
in both writing and coding there is a lot of hard work involved to become (and stay) "good" at your craft - and addiction (to anything) will interfere.
But remember: Mr Garrison says drugs are bad.
This is your brain: this is your brain on
Follow your dreams, but stay in school.
I admit my considerable ignorance of Nate Silver's blog - and humbly ask for pardon. i did not mean to question anyone's integrity and I don't think I was "making up shit"
I question the value of any polling - even if it is well done. example: The Carter/Reagan 1980 election was "too close to call" according to the polling data - and reagan won an electoral college landslide. Of course most
They're not necessarily useless, but state-by-state polls are critical for determining a winner because of the electoral college. Fortunately, they conduct state-by-state polls.
Yes, there is polling done on a state by state basis - but that does not seem to be what is being discussed: from the blog, emphasis mine: "And increasingly, it is hard to find leads for Mr. Romney in national surveys — although several of them show a tie."
I'm surprised the NY Times says the race is that close. Even if we throw out the Times' bias and the fact that a bunch of inaccurate/biased polls don't make them more accurate, I disagree with the logic behind the article
I have no idea who will win, but "national" polls aren't useful because of the Electoral college (skipping the U.S. history lesson) - I'll wholeheartedly agree that Obama has a 98% chance of winning the popular vote, but the election will come down to a couple "swing states" (Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin). Romney could lose the popular vote big in California and New York, therefore lose the popular vote, but win enough of the other (smaller) states to win the required 270 Electoral college votes.
I am also extremely confident in predicting that neither candidate will win a "landslide" of the popular vote, but either candidate could win an electoral college landslide (define "landslide" as 60% or more).
For example: 1984 the popular vote was 58.8% Reagan over 40.6% Mondale, but Mondale only won 13 Electoral college votes to Reagan's 525 ("landslide").
In 2008 the popular vote was 52.9% Obama over 45.7% McCain, the Electoral College result was 365 to 173
the only thing that is 97.7% probable is that it will be very close. The "election experts" have been saying for a long time that it will come down to voter turnout, which is 100% true
something about history repeating itself probably applies
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
all this study illustrates is a low level of moral reasoning skills on the part of the reasearchers
isn't this sort of thing covered in introductory statistics classes? How the question is asked will always impact the results of the study. If you are making your living taking polls, it is possible to get the results you want by skewing the sample size/distribution and/or writing biased questions.
BTW: what is the difference between "ethics" and "morality?" If you are a politician (who just got caught cheating on his wife) you might say "Ethics is what I do on the job, morality is what I do in private." What the politician is REALLY saying is that "Whatever I do is right - because I say it is right."
moral relativity is a very dangerous thing which has become the norm in western society (but the other extreme is the Spanish Inquisition - and nobody expects the
I will argue that "ethics" is the day to day interpretation of "morality." for example: do you believe "stealing" is wrong? yes, you shouldn't take other people's stuff - that would be WRONG. ("morality") Is it stealing if I walk off with the bank teller's pen? ("ethics").
you have to wait until 2:15 but here is an interview with Elon Musk/walk-thru of the Tesla factory
you raise an interesting point.
the Apple culture seems to irritate Steve Ballmer, and mystify industry experts. Yes, there is a sizable "Apple fanboy" market (those eagerly waiting to pre-order Apple's next product sight unseen) but that has been built on the fact that Apple has been releasing great products for a long time (but it hasn't ALWAYS been that way - the company went through some lean times once)
Apple is in a position in the tablet market that they once held in the personal computer market (and we all know how that ended).
Is someone really making something better AND cheaper than the iPad? Is the iPad just a $500 status symbol/fashion statement? I'd argue the answer to both question is "no." The iPad is positioned as a productive piece of hardware that happens to be elegant
My personal bias: I would like an iPad - but I don't want to pay $500 for one (I love my iPod though) - so I have a Nook color. The Nook color is "nice", only cost me $100, but is just a glorified reading device (although I could watch Netflix with it - which was important in my decision process).
Children begin by loving their parents. After a time they judge them. Rarely, if ever, do they forgive them. - Oscar Wilde