You'll note that of that list you've posted, the Tesla is the only one where they appear to have misrepresented a car in what is ostensibly a review. The others all occurred during the studio segments, or during one of the segments which were clearly not intended to be taken seriously.
The issue here is whether Top Gear essentially lied about the performance of the car, in a segment which appeared to be semi-objective journalism. It's fine to call out a car or manufacturer if their product is defective; to make it pure fiction without that being clear to the viewer means some are misled and Tesla has a right to feel aggrieved. The fact that the Honda FCX got a positive review throws this into a deeper pile of proverbial, as it's either clear editorialising or flat out opinion presented as an objective review. Were they paid off to do so?
Clarkson & co. clearly don't like electric cars, and they trashed a prominent one to get their point across; Tesla has a right to highlight the fictional nature of their programme.
I guess TG crossed from Informative to Infotainment to Entertainment over the years, as the stunts and big "races" drew more and more audience response. Clarkson & Co. obviously had an opinion about the Tesla prior to receiving the car for testing, and they didn't let the actual car influence them into changing it.
They used the Tesla to give an opinion, not a report - if you remember the episode, you'll recall the point they were trying to make was that Hydrogen was the better alternative fuel/power source for the future of cars, and demonstrated it with the Honda FCV. The main issue is that the "reviews" are presented as factual, whereas we see now an agenda is being pushed - and yeah, I agree, that makes me angry. Angry to think Clarkson & Co. are letting personal views influence ostensibly objective reviews. I don't agree with Clarkson's politics, but I expect at least that the car reviews aren't influenced by it. It's a slippery slope from scripting a review against a car to scripting a review for a small cash payment.
The Samsung Group is distinct from the electronics division - with revenues of $172bn in 2009, they're not really going to notice a boycott at that level, but certainly targeting the electronics division might be more noticeable.
LCDs are slightly more efficient at white; in an LCD, the backlight is typically white and the pixels determine which colour is let through, so for black the pixels need to block the light coming through. The difference is only just passing statistical significance at 6%.
Note however that this isn't true of AMOLED screens.
The problem is we've allocated too many citizens to entertainment and not enough to science and production. Also, our method of government means the citizens are restless with war weariness.
The domestic advisor recommends you build a temple to keep the populace happy.
The other way to get it to boot to the "other" partition first is to go into your system preferences, click on startup disk, and select the partition you want. Really not that hard.
1) Gross profit is a very poor indicator - you can sell a lot of junk at a low margin but you aren't going to make much money.
2) Market cap is (in theory) a reflection of expected total value of assets and future cashflows. If you expect a company to make $x billion a year for the next however-many-years-you-want-to-project-or-invest years, you would apply the NPV formula on the future cashflows, bundle that in with the assets and the "goodwill" of the company and you can make a rough guess at what it's worth. I'm not saying Apple is worth the $300 odd billion the market is currently valuing it at, but it's what the perception of future earnings is.
The other thing many investors look at is Price/Earnings ratio - and that's something that is often similar over the sector. Currently, some of the big techies are: AAPL: 19 GOOG: 22 MSFT: 11 HPQ: 11 IBM: 14 DELL: 11 HTC: 21 RIMM: 11 Motorola: 59 (!)
That gives you an idea of where investors see Apple having competitors - against Google and HTC, rather than the Windows world. (Don't ask me to explain why Motorola is so high)
It might - the GPU is usually the bit that crunches vectors best, and that is something I imagine to be fairly useful for the kinds of purposes the Air Force might put it to. Anyone know if the Cell is more suited to this task?
Surely IBM sells "computers" based on the Cell processor? I assume all this demand is because it was available as cheap commodity hardware more than anything that gears a PS3 to being a speciality clustered supercomputer.
I'm not suggesting that technical expertise is not a component of success, and I don't think TFA is either. It is saying, to my reading, that of the top 8 factors which are a perceived factor in the manager-employee relationship, technical expertise of the manager ranks 8th. That's not to say it's not there, but that the employees do not perceive it to be a high factor in their assessment of their manager.
I've worked with non-technical managers before, and I understand the difficulties in explaining some technical issues to management. Sometimes it helps to be able to explain things in simpler terms to bring management around, and sometimes you get cache hit issues like you're talking about and no amount of analogies are gonna help; that doesn't invalidate this study, which says that, for a tech-focused company which promotes on technical merit, managers should spend time focusing on soft skills in order to make a happy, efficient team. YMMV should be tacked on to the anecdote as a matter of course.
GP's argument was that since every manager has technical ability, the success of teams is independent of that. TFA is making a different point entirely: given an environment where managers have some level of technical backgrounds, what are key areas of difference between good and bad managers? Technical ability ranks 8th on the list.
No survey was taken directly asking that question; the data being analysed was the usual performance reviews and management feedback surveys, which Google apparently conducts quarterly
An attempt was made to quantify statements which were presumably qualitative, in order for it to be usable data
If you strip away the spin of the summary, what the article reads to me is that while the managers may have gotten to where they were based on their technical expertise, that is not what is valued by those that report to the manager.
What was valued was the "soft skills" - this is not to remove technical skill as a requirement for success, but that it is not perceived as a key component.
I agree there's no story here, but for different reasons - the conclusion was that soft skills are perceived as more valuable in a manager than technical expertise. To me, that's something that's stupendously obvious.
Most importantly, I think the following demonstrates a rather mature attitude from Google:
Google executives say they aren't crunching all this data to develop some algorithm of successful management. The point, they say, is to provide the data and to make people aware of it, so that managers can understand what works and, just as important, what doesn't.... For now, Bock says he is particularly struck by the simplicity of the rules, and the fact that applying them doesn?t require a personality transplant for a manager.
"You don't actually need to change who the person is," he says. "What it means is, if I'm a manager and I want to get better, and I want more out of my people and I want them to be happier, two of the most important things I can do is just make sure I have some time for them and to be consistent. And that's more important than doing the rest of the stuff."
They're sticking to their policies, but making sure the managers understand what areas need focus.
You're in luck. This is another case of #statisticsfail.
Can we please, please, please leave out the #topic notation from slashdot? It has no relevance here.
If all of their managers are selected to have deep technical expertise, it isn't going to correlate with success any more than "having two ears" will. This is a well known phenomenon called "sample bias" and is dearly beloved by everyone who wants to lie with statistics.
Statistics are data; their interpretation is information, and that information can be spun in many ways, like the fact that you didn't RTFA at all. The tl;dr version is that Google's HR "analytics" team reviewed the data of performance reviews, feedback surveys etc and found that technical expertise in a boss was not ranked highly by the people reporting to them. Given that the manager is one of three key reasons for staff turn-over, according to the article, ensuring that the manager-managed relationship is as positive as possible is a way to reduce turnover and thus improve the effectiveness of the team.
There's nothing about all-managers-are-experts, it's more about what the employee feedback says about what an employee values in a manager.
Slashdot Mirror
You'll note that of that list you've posted, the Tesla is the only one where they appear to have misrepresented a car in what is ostensibly a review. The others all occurred during the studio segments, or during one of the segments which were clearly not intended to be taken seriously.
The issue here is whether Top Gear essentially lied about the performance of the car, in a segment which appeared to be semi-objective journalism. It's fine to call out a car or manufacturer if their product is defective; to make it pure fiction without that being clear to the viewer means some are misled and Tesla has a right to feel aggrieved. The fact that the Honda FCX got a positive review throws this into a deeper pile of proverbial, as it's either clear editorialising or flat out opinion presented as an objective review. Were they paid off to do so?
Clarkson & co. clearly don't like electric cars, and they trashed a prominent one to get their point across; Tesla has a right to highlight the fictional nature of their programme.
I guess TG crossed from Informative to Infotainment to Entertainment over the years, as the stunts and big "races" drew more and more audience response. Clarkson & Co. obviously had an opinion about the Tesla prior to receiving the car for testing, and they didn't let the actual car influence them into changing it.
They used the Tesla to give an opinion, not a report - if you remember the episode, you'll recall the point they were trying to make was that Hydrogen was the better alternative fuel/power source for the future of cars, and demonstrated it with the Honda FCV. The main issue is that the "reviews" are presented as factual, whereas we see now an agenda is being pushed - and yeah, I agree, that makes me angry. Angry to think Clarkson & Co. are letting personal views influence ostensibly objective reviews. I don't agree with Clarkson's politics, but I expect at least that the car reviews aren't influenced by it. It's a slippery slope from scripting a review against a car to scripting a review for a small cash payment.
The Samsung Group is distinct from the electronics division - with revenues of $172bn in 2009, they're not really going to notice a boycott at that level, but certainly targeting the electronics division might be more noticeable.
Australian pronunciation is "cay-sh" for cache. Frustrates the hell out of the Americans and English here, but it doesn't leave anything ambiguous.
Tomb Raider, Hitman, Commandos, Deus Ex, Legacy of Kain, Thief, Timesplitters, and Fear Effect. That's just one studio.
LCDs are slightly more efficient at white; in an LCD, the backlight is typically white and the pixels determine which colour is let through, so for black the pixels need to block the light coming through. The difference is only just passing statistical significance at 6%.
Note however that this isn't true of AMOLED screens.
...someone else heard it as "there's plutonium in your soil! some terrorist could make a dirty bomb out of dirt!"
+5 Informative
and which country will volunteer to shut down their steelmills for a year until more can be made?
Japan?
(not to be facetious or anything, but if any country has the industrial capacity to move on this with a viable solution, it's Japan)
The problem is we've allocated too many citizens to entertainment and not enough to science and production. Also, our method of government means the citizens are restless with war weariness.
The domestic advisor recommends you build a temple to keep the populace happy.
(If you have some way to fix the order and labeling, I'd love to know it.)
Use rEFIt.
The other way to get it to boot to the "other" partition first is to go into your system preferences, click on startup disk, and select the partition you want. Really not that hard.
When will emacs or vim be available for Mac???
You mean like they already are?
Python packages are also a huge problem on a Mac. It is not like setuptools exist for Mac OS X....
Do you just just not know how to google that shit?
Also, when I develop for the web I always format all my devices to HFS+. I will never use FTP or SAMBA as they do not work on Mac.
What on earth?! Are you suggesting you can't just FTP from or to a Mac? Are you trying to mount a Mac drive as a Samba share? why?
So buy a real damn keyboard.
In fact, just plug in any damn keyboard you want. Or use a Real(tm) Text Editor and forget about these pussy pre-programmed keys.
1) Gross profit is a very poor indicator - you can sell a lot of junk at a low margin but you aren't going to make much money.
2) Market cap is (in theory) a reflection of expected total value of assets and future cashflows. If you expect a company to make $x billion a year for the next however-many-years-you-want-to-project-or-invest years, you would apply the NPV formula on the future cashflows, bundle that in with the assets and the "goodwill" of the company and you can make a rough guess at what it's worth. I'm not saying Apple is worth the $300 odd billion the market is currently valuing it at, but it's what the perception of future earnings is.
The other thing many investors look at is Price/Earnings ratio - and that's something that is often similar over the sector. Currently, some of the big techies are:
AAPL: 19
GOOG: 22
MSFT: 11
HPQ: 11
IBM: 14
DELL: 11
HTC: 21
RIMM: 11
Motorola: 59 (!)
That gives you an idea of where investors see Apple having competitors - against Google and HTC, rather than the Windows world. (Don't ask me to explain why Motorola is so high)
It might - the GPU is usually the bit that crunches vectors best, and that is something I imagine to be fairly useful for the kinds of purposes the Air Force might put it to. Anyone know if the Cell is more suited to this task?
Surely IBM sells "computers" based on the Cell processor? I assume all this demand is because it was available as cheap commodity hardware more than anything that gears a PS3 to being a speciality clustered supercomputer.
The iPad goes to 11.
Want to give the Add-on compatibility report a try?
Generally speaking, a step-down transformer has very high efficiency, while a rectifier to convert from AC to DC doesn't.
Unless you're suggesting Einstein examined a patent for a Method to Determine Energy-Mass Conversion, I'm not sure how the patent office was relevant?
Yo dawg, I heard you like cars, so we put a car in your computer so you can drive while you compute!
Now imagine a Beowulf cluster of these...
I'm not suggesting that technical expertise is not a component of success, and I don't think TFA is either. It is saying, to my reading, that of the top 8 factors which are a perceived factor in the manager-employee relationship, technical expertise of the manager ranks 8th. That's not to say it's not there, but that the employees do not perceive it to be a high factor in their assessment of their manager.
I've worked with non-technical managers before, and I understand the difficulties in explaining some technical issues to management. Sometimes it helps to be able to explain things in simpler terms to bring management around, and sometimes you get cache hit issues like you're talking about and no amount of analogies are gonna help; that doesn't invalidate this study, which says that, for a tech-focused company which promotes on technical merit, managers should spend time focusing on soft skills in order to make a happy, efficient team. YMMV should be tacked on to the anecdote as a matter of course.
GP's argument was that since every manager has technical ability, the success of teams is independent of that. TFA is making a different point entirely: given an environment where managers have some level of technical backgrounds, what are key areas of difference between good and bad managers? Technical ability ranks 8th on the list.
Again, if you actually read TFA:
Most importantly, I think the following demonstrates a rather mature attitude from Google:
Google executives say they aren't crunching all this data to develop some algorithm of successful management. The point, they say, is to provide the data and to make people aware of it, so that managers can understand what works and, just as important, what doesn't. ...
For now, Bock says he is particularly struck by the simplicity of the rules, and the fact that applying them doesn?t require a personality transplant for a manager.
"You don't actually need to change who the person is," he says. "What it means is, if I'm a manager and I want to get better, and I want more out of my people and I want them to be happier, two of the most important things I can do is just make sure I have some time for them and to be consistent. And that's more important than doing the rest of the stuff."
They're sticking to their policies, but making sure the managers understand what areas need focus.
You're in luck. This is another case of #statisticsfail.
Can we please, please, please leave out the #topic notation from slashdot? It has no relevance here.
If all of their managers are selected to have deep technical expertise, it isn't going to correlate with success any more than "having two ears" will. This is a well known phenomenon called "sample bias" and is dearly beloved by everyone who wants to lie with statistics.
Statistics are data; their interpretation is information, and that information can be spun in many ways, like the fact that you didn't RTFA at all. The tl;dr version is that Google's HR "analytics" team reviewed the data of performance reviews, feedback surveys etc and found that technical expertise in a boss was not ranked highly by the people reporting to them. Given that the manager is one of three key reasons for staff turn-over, according to the article, ensuring that the manager-managed relationship is as positive as possible is a way to reduce turnover and thus improve the effectiveness of the team.
There's nothing about all-managers-are-experts, it's more about what the employee feedback says about what an employee values in a manager.