Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Americans have a social stigma to math (Score 2) 688

by uslurper (#47075653) Attached to: Professors: US "In Denial" Over Poor Maths Standards

If you look at the american culture vs. academics, you will see that for decades academics have had a social stigma attached to them. Especially mathematics which appears to be the most "nerdy" of them all.

Just look at how movie and tv culture ridicules the smart kids and idolizes the athletic, attractive, charismatics. Many stories are about the 'maverik' who doesnt follow the rules and goes by the 'gut' feeling overcomes the odds and wins the day. Even the science fiction buys into this! Examples: Captain Kirk sleeps around, cheats on his tests, has other people do his science and engineering. Spock has a great intellect, but is really a comic character and only wins when he goes with his 'human' side. The android Data really just wants to be human and have feelings.. doesnt care about making scientific breakthroughs even though he has the intellect for it. Luke uses the "force" -a mysterious power that is a metaphor for having a lot of "heart".

None of the stories talk about years of study, winning because you are better prepared, succeeding by hard work, etc.

Comment: How does the rotation speed affect gravity? (Score 1) 34

by uslurper (#46891335) Attached to: Astronomers Determine the Length of Day of an Exoplanet

How does the rotation affect the gravity of a planet?
If the planet is rotating fast enough, does that reduce the force of gravity, or does the gravity still 'squash' you since it is actually affecting the space around it.

For example, if there was a planet with twice the mass of Earth, but spinning twice as fast, what would it be like to stand on the surface?

Do black holes spin? -or are they 'locked in' because the mass would be impossible to move.

Comment: RULES ARE THERE FOR A REASON! (Score 1) 470

by uslurper (#45205317) Attached to: Would-Be Tesla Owners Jump Through Hoops To Skirt Wacky Texas Rules

Often times, the regulations are there for good causes.

In the case of a regulation stating that cars must be sold by an independent dealership.
Perhaps this was meant to prevent manufacturers from directly selling to buyers. If they were to sell directly, they could undercut the local dealerships and put them out of business. Many people would think that sounds reasonable.

A similar law was passed which prevented Kodak from developing its own film.

Those kinds of regulations are not limited to Texas. In California there are laws stating that any new dealership must be approved by a panel of existing dealers. (hmm going from memory, may be confusing with schools) This was intended to keep an area from being over-saturated with dealerships. I do remember a story about someone trying to setup an online car dealership that was smothered by local dealership regulations.

Problems with seemingly good regulations occur when the governing bodies are controlled by the companies they regulate. Large corporations dont just payoff government. They also plant representatives on comitties, board members, and trade organizations. These different powers separately are easy enough to bypass. But when organized into a single weapon can effectively block innovation.

Comment: I'm just a Bill (Score 1) 267

by uslurper (#45060945) Attached to: What Developers Can Learn From Healthcare.gov

Nonsense!
Congress does not get to soley decide how money is spent. They just start the process.
Any bill needs to be agreed upon by the congresss, senate, and president.
Didn't you watch schoolhouse rock?

Otherwise, whats to stop them from not paying for anything they dont like? Revoking the salaries for judges that dont agree with them? Or not paying for fuel for Air Force 1?

Congress needs to pass a budget that will pass senate and not get veto'd. Knowingly passing a budget that will not complete is purely political. Its normal and accepted for most things, but for the budget it is downright evil.

Comment: Involvment yes, micromanagement no. (Score 1) 1

by uslurper (#45031389) Attached to: In Praise of Micromanagement

I think the strong point for these CEO's is their enthusiasm, involvment, and empowerment. Executives, managers, and workers all benefit from these traits. I have seen most CEO's to far removed from the reality of their company and too insulated from their problems to be effective. Managers tent to be too powerless to control anything around them just give up and shrug.

The term micromanagement has a different connotation for me though. I have seen the downsides of it firsthand. Executives who read all the self-help books and throw around buzzwords without listening to their employees or being open to others ideas.

+ - In Praise of Micromanagement 1

Submitted by Hugh Pickens DOT Com
Hugh Pickens DOT Com (2995471) writes "Sydney Finkelstein writes at BBC that Steve Jobs, Mickey Drexler, and Jeff Bezos all have something in common. They are all builders of giant brands, very successful, and each is (or was) "an unmitigated, unapologetic, micromanager!" The modern executive is taught — in business schools and in many jobs — that to manage people effectively is to delegate, and then get out of the way. But it's not delegate and forget says Finkelstein; it must be delegate and be intimately involved with what happens next. Micromanagers must be selective. You can’t delve into the details of everything, and in fact superstar micromanagers don’t. "Steve Jobs was intimately involved with each product the company designed, and was even famously involved in designing the glass stairs at the Apple stores. But financial and operational issues were delegated to second-in-command and current Apple chief executive officer Tim Cook." One key is that micromanagers must be experts. What could be worse than a manager immersed in the details who really doesn’t know his stuff? Finally, it takes a strong, trusted team to be a micromanager. Could Steve Jobs have spent weeks with the iPhone design team if there was no one else to mind the store? If not for Tim Cook, perhaps the legend of Steve Jobs would not have turned out quite so well. "The good news is that the best micromanagers are often the best talent developers," writes Finkelstein. "Their attention to detail, their intimate knowledge of the business and their deep involvement in what’s going on actually enables more, not less, delegation.""

+ - Yale "Freakonomics" professor: Bing is not preferred 2:1 as Microsoft claims->

Submitted by UnknowingFool
UnknowingFool (672806) writes "In 2009, Microsoft launched a national TV and print advertising campaign for Bing claiming that their study showed that it was preferred 2 to 1 over Google in search results in a head-to-head challenge reminiscent of the Pepsi challenges from the 1980s. MS then invited consumers to take their own test at www.bingiton.com.

Yale law professor Ian Ayres (of Freakonomics fame) and his law students published a paper On their study that found that Google was preferred over Bing 53% to 41% with 6% ties. This was far from the 2:1 ratio MS claimed. Professor Ayres matched the small sample size (1000 people). Although the commercials gives the impression that the results of the MS was a head-to-head street challenge, the results came from a online study MS commissioned through Answer Research.

Noted differences between the two studies was that the Yale study randomly assigned the user one of three different sets of searches: 1) Bing supplied searches, 2) top 25 web searches, or 3) user defined searches. One Bing searches the results were almost the same but users preferred Google in the other two sets. Another main difference is that MS has not published the methodology used or tracked individual user responses.

Legally, one conclusion of the study was that Google might have a deceptive advertising suit against Microsoft."

Link to Original Source

If you fail to plan, plan to fail.

Working...