I can't help but think an MBA made the conclusion that they are "wasting" profits.
Google has been successful because they take risks. All MBAs want to do is minimize risk.
Generalization much? Have you taken a census of all existing MBA holders (including those that come from, say, STEM and Nursing backgrounds) to arrive to such unequivocal conclusion?:) Jokes aside, risk minimization is all one should be thinking when doing engineering, for engineering is about trade-offs.
For every 99 failed projects at Google, 1 makes up for that and reaps profits that make the 100 projects operate at a 50% profit margin as a whole.
Citation please. I know where you are going with your sentiment, but that's just what it is, a sentiment, not an objective quantification. Also, it is not faulting Google for trying things out, but for putting half-cooked recipes in very critical markets (Google+ for example) or pulling the plug prematurely on things.
You can't throw millions, billions like that just to drop things out, even if you have been successful like Google. If that is how Google runs is R&D, then any success they have is just by pure economic "momentum". You can't run a company like that forever, no matter how successful you have been in the past. This is not about WS-next-quarter-pleeze MBA thinking. It's about running an R&D oriented company efficiently.
When I saw this conclusion, I looked up the background of the authors:
Mary Jander: BA, English and Business
Kim Davis: PhD, Philosophy
Nicole Ferraro: B.A. / M.A., Media Studies and Creative Writing
Clearly this bunch is qualified to tell the founders of the worlds fastest ever growing company which technology is not going to pan out 30 years from now. To their credit I was expecting to find the resumees of 3 MBA's. At least these guys are not soulless, merely clueless (about tech anyway)
You are engaging in ad-hominen attacks right there dude. Understand that some of the comments have merit. The thing is, Google pulls the plug on stuff prematurely. Unless we are all missing some in-depth Google wisdom, you can't do that with R&D prematurely, specially if throw millions and millions at it. Now, this is purely an armchair opinion that I'm posting here, I'm no Google insider. But things seems to be either half-cooked (Google+) or killed quickly after spending millions because it is not going fast enough within the next two quarters.
As it has been mentioned by others here, it's not about blaming Google for doing R&D and trying things out. It's about execution and seeing things through to the end.
Also, taking jabs at people with MBAs is kind of sad and already a broken record by this time. Not all MBAs are clueless WS suits. There is quite a big number of engineers, scientists and nurses at the senior, principal level for whom a MBA (or MIS for CS backgrounds working in IT) is the next logical step. Generalizations do not make up for poor logical arguments.
When I saw this conclusion, I looked up the background of the authors:
Mary Jander: BA, English and Business
Kim Davis: PhD, Philosophy
Nicole Ferraro: B.A. / M.A., Media Studies and Creative Writing
Clearly this bunch is qualified to tell the founders of the worlds fastest ever growing company which technology is not going to pan out 30 years from now. To their credit I was expecting to find the resumees of 3 MBA's. At least these guys are not soulless, merely clueless (about tech anyway)
You are engaging in ad-hominen attacks right there dude. Understand that some of the comments have merit. The thing is, Google pulls the plug on stuff prematurely. Unless we are all missing some in-depth Google wisdom, you can't do that with R&D prematurely, specially if throw millions and millions at it. Now, this is purely an armchair opinion that I'm posting here, I'm no Google insider. But things seems to be either half-cooked (Google+) or killed quickly after spending millions because it is not going fast enough within the next two quarters.
As it has been mentioned by others here, it's not about blaming Google for doing R&D and trying things out. It's about execution and seeing things through to the end.
You missed his sarcasm. For a long time, Bell Labs did a whole ton of shit that seemed to make absolutely no business sense -- a friend of mine is writing a book on just one employee's work there, which involved things that no modern man in a suit would approve. When they started paying attention to those guys in suits, their value and impact were tremendously diminished.
That said, my problem with Google's approach has nothing to do with whether they are or or not aimed towards making money, it's that Google tends to pull the plug on projects after spending lots of effort (and money) but before they've been seen through. Projects are started, some are brought to market, and most of those are killed quickly without a chance to be refined. Hell, sometimes slashdot runs an article on Google killing a project, and most of us are like "Oh, that sounded cool. I never knew it existed until now."
^^^ This. If I had a cigar or mod points, I'd give'em to you.
I think it may be more of a case of:
"These people are doing something new, and it scares us, with our conservative, slow progress, get money now priorities!"
Nah, the way I read the article is not that they are faulting Google for trying things out. They are faulting the execution of things, pulling the plug before shit even becomes realized. In R&D (even commercial ones), it makes no sense to spend hundreds of millions, billions, on stuff that gets killed prematurely. To dole that kind of money, people need to look beyond two-quarter time lapses. And if they can't (or aren't willing to), then they shouldn't dole that kind of moolah.
The corollary of this is that if you are going big on R&D, you need to look at it long term, you need to abandon the idea that you'll reap the dividends within a year or two.
... is demoted for rejecting the whole basis, or showing that he has a severely flawed understanding?
Who would have thought.
Intelligent design answers more the 'why' than the 'how' that Evolution does. It's entirely possible to believe both at the same time, in fact.
No, it deals with an article of faith, one that specifically goes against a scientific principle. ID rejects evolution and brings for a made-up how concotted to justify their version of 'why'. There are articles of faith in other religious movements that explain the 'why' that neither question nor challenge scientific principles (what people call Theistic Evolution). Most religions (Christian churches, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc) either have an explicit separation faith from science as things that are incomparable, or have syncretic views. Intelligent Design is categorically NOT a form of Theistic Evolution.
Intelligent design is neither one of these, and it is predominant in fundamentalist (Christian and otherwise) views, which thank God are not universal. Intelligent Design (in particular the type found in the States and among Islamic Fundamentalists) purposely states that Evolution as incompatible with their 'why' articles of faith.
I don't believe Intelligent Design, but calling people who do 'stupid' or saying they 'reject the scientific method' is juvenile
Might be juvenile in the delivery, but the essence is true. When you have all major religious denominations a)accepting or being agnostic to Evolution as a scientific fact, and b) condemning the forceful entry of Intelligent Design into the classroom as an article of science (as opposed to as an article of religious teaching), then it is stupid.
We can argue that intelligent people can do stupid things, or that stupid people do stupid things. But in the end, Intelligent Design, in particular as pursued in this country, it is stupid. Almost like believing that the world is flat and that the Ptolemaic system is an accurate description of the Universe.
and really serves the exact opposite of convincing the 'other side' that they're wrong...
For the most part, you can't convince them. And it is fine and dandy (and certainly their right) when they want to believe that (or whatever they want to believe). But when they forcefully try to replace Evolution in the classroom with their religious beliefs, then they cross the line into idiocy. Call a spade a spade. Sometimes shame brings a change, at least for the honestly misguided. For the utterly stupid, there is no hope.
For f7cks' sake man, reading comprehension. This is what I wrote with bolds to emphasize:
You don't need a 1hr long video as the sole measure with which to convey a technical point.
Now, regarding this:
It would not be conveyed by static text and diagrams.
Not even the gist of it. Are you telling me that no amount of proper technical writing can capture the gist of the idea, that it is impossible to write a summary of it? What, is it so trascendental that it escapes description, that it defies summarization in a written language? Do you realize the monumental absurdity behind that sentence? The only circumstances I've ever seen such a thing is when dealing with meta-physics snake oil salemens (or snake oil salesment in general.)
Lemme sell you a bridge, no no, the idea is to grand/complex/<insert appropriate adjective> to be described in a written summary or presentation. Come to our <insert time length in hours or days> lecture/video/meeting/whatever so that you can see why you must buy my bridge.
Can you spell "bullcrap"?*
* - btw, the sarcasm is not directed to the people who made the video (by all accounts, they could be right.) It is directed at this absurd post of yours.
Comment sections work great if those reviewing them, remember a few basic rules.
1. Don't require people to login, or at least not into Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Google, or Yahoo, etc. etc. Often people with some really helpful information will not post anything because it requires them to login.
2. Comments are usually critical of your service or information. If you don't learn and adapt from the comments, it's your own damn fault.
3. It's your responsibility to learn to parse and filter the the comments so you can get useful information from it.
But, how do you quantify that statement? I don't think that is the case at all (and I acknowledge that I have no way to quantify my statement either.)
The way I see it, people that don't login might engage in 'drive-by-posting' and by posting I mean 'posting drivel and crap). Right now, most people have an online account, be it FB or LinkedIn. Or let's not even go that far into the social media crap, most people have a gmail or hotmail account. Granted, login with your credentials into a site just to post a comment is a security risk, but (at least for most reputable sites) it isn't a significant one. Moreover, that is a tangential issue to the one at hand: those type of e-credentials are so ubiquituous, it is very trivial for Stack Overflow or CNN to let people post with their FB/Gmail accounts.
That is, people who might care enough about a subject to make an online post (and who might put some thinking effort behind it) might actually have an online account already. And I'm not referring about the geek type from the pre-Internet era, but the current netizen (I hate that word) who has grown accostumed to the Internet and online services as a content consumer (and perhaps occasional content producer). They constitute, I believe, the bulk of post makers in the interweebz (or behind gardened walls like FB.)
Here in/. we know that AC's comments have a greater tendency to be drivel. Not that/. posters with a login are immune to that. But it does put into question the idea that requiring a login (in particular a FB/Google account) is actually a significant hindrance in the exchange of ideas (both good and the ZOMG-Snooki type.)
Gawker founder Nick Denton says online comments have proven themselves to be not worth the trouble, a waste of resources, and contribute nothing to online conversation or even capture the intelligence of readers
It's all about a) execution, b) niche/focused topic, and c) clearly defined target audience. If Gizmondo, CNN's comments, or God forbids Yahoo Answers are the only examples of online comments under consideration, of course, all that is shit. But then when we consider things like Stack Exchange, or say, the comment sections on Coding Horror (or even here in/.) then the story is different.
Heck US suburban schools do as well as any schools in the world
I'm going to call BS. The only reason good students come out of certain schools is because those kids are having their education at school supplemented with additional education at home.
Exactly. Suburban schools are in general attended by children from families with more resources than those in, say, inner city schools. These families tend to supplement education at home, or via private tutoring of some time (music lessons, math lessons, etc.) Hobbies are supported. Furthermore, these kids go to not-so-cheap summer camps as well (there is really no such thing as summer-long period of idle time.)
This is not the same (in great part for economic reasons) in families with less resources. There is also a significant cultural aspect that influences appreciation for education (or lack thereof.)
It's worth a hour. But if you don't want to watch it fine. Just don't expect your comments to be worth anything if you haven't done your homework.
He has a point. You don't need a 1hr long video as the sole measure with which to convey a technical point. Summaries, diagrams, and/or a 8-10 page paper are also necessary. Asking people to devote one hour just to know that something is worth it, that is not how you present technical ideas or issues.
I've been in Japan, and I have not seen the so-called abuse that people so much cry about.
It's not abuse so much as immense societal pressure to achieve in school that it polarizes students into two groups: the ones driven by their parents and their subsequently skewed perspective on the value of their classes that they either succeed and burn out or drive themselves off a cliff, or they totally give up and either don't show up at all or act out.
It ain't any such immense social pressure as what you describe. All you are doing is describing stereotypes from afar as if they were facts.
Yes, there is a significant number of suicides in Japan compared to other countries, but to attribute it to so-called barbaric forms of education is ignorance to say the least.
Barbaric? I don't think anyone has ever called it that. Rote and oppressive, yes.
Ok, not barbaric, but rote and oppressive. The point still stands that you have made a claim linking the Japanese education system to the country's high suicide rate, a claim that is unsubstantiated. You took a very complex socio-economic problem and you pigeonhole it into a narrow (and false) cause-effect scenario just to make a (false) claim.
What they do not have over there is the habit of letting people graduate without knowing their shit (which is what we do here.)
Sure they do. It's entirely possible for a kid to graduate without ever setting foot in a classroom, if they're so disinclined to attend.
No. You can't graduate from Middle School, let alone High School without knowing the basic things one would expect from someone that has gone through the curriculum. Of course you will have the A, B, Cs and borderline Ds... in any country. But you are not going to see HS graduates who cannot add fractions or negatives (which we have here in the US), in the numbers and frequencies we have here, skewed in such a manner towards the lower economic sectors of society.
Do keep in mind that highschool in Japan is entirely optional.
Which doesn't mean squat. I can't recall the numbers, but approximately it is in the 90+% of kids finishing HS (or what they call upper-HS.) At that point kids decide whether to continue with higher education (which, like in all countries, most do not.) In the US, we have states where kids can legally drop out of school before the age of 18, so in those states, HS is also optional for all practical purposes.
Furthermore, even when HS is not optional, just look at our numbers, our results. See how they are skewed across economic/ethnic lines. Again, it doesn't matter if HS is mandatory if the entire system lets large numbers of kids down. With that context, what the hell does it matter if HS is optional in Japan? The country still has a higher rate of HS graduates than we do, and their performance is both acceptable and widespread (unlike ours).
Kids in Japan don't go to school studies till 8PM. Get your facts straight buddy.
It's called "Juku," there are entire small businesses focused on post-school studying for kids at all levels: www.jyukunavi.jp just for starters. They're a booming business over there.
Define booming to begin. I'm telling you. It is not a general thing, and only those who can afford it do so. It's no different from middle class and upper middle class families here sending their kids to Kumon Academy, and tutors, and music class and this and that. And even when that happens, it isn't that terrible on itself. Some kids enjoy it. Some do not. Some parents entice their kids for it. Some brutalize them into doing so.
And what does this has to do with education in Japan?
Rote memorization is pointless and yet it's what they do over
More to the point, though the Japanese rates of suicide are high, they aren't borderline. There are 8 other countries with higher suicide rates, and Finland (touted by its education standards in this thread here as a rebuttal to the same post of mine that you were replying to) is also among the top of the list in terms of suicide rates.
Moreover, and unlike what you are suggesting, suicide rates aren't as prevalent in students. Instead, it spreads through the different age scales. The reasons are multifaceted - lack of jobs, living in a shame society with a homeless problem, gambling, cultural attitudes toward sex, etc. Get your facts straight buddy. They have their problems. Education (and attitudes toward education) aren't among them.
You don't need to adopt the asian cram school model. The Finns get better results with far less child abuse.
What child abuse? What is it with this stereotype that the Japanese inflict this barbaric treatment on their students? I've been in Japan, and I haven't seen none of it. You got crazy parents that keep their kids up till the wee hours doing homework, but you have that everywhere. The key difference between Japan and the US is that:
1. Japanese kids go to school more days during the year. Their school day is similar in lengths to ours.
2. Kids aren't allowed to pass grades just so that they don't feel bad. If a kid is having learning problems, special care is taken for them. It's not like us that allow kids to finish HS without knowing how to read or write (literally.)
3. Whether you are working class or upper class, your kid is guaranteed to get decent public education.
4. Teachers are respected.
5. Kids clean their class room (oh no, the horror, the abuse!!!!!)
6. Kids are expected to make up their minds whether they go to college or vocational training (and tailor their HS education accordingly.) No much different from the German model.
Man, on my last trip seeing my in-laws a month ago, one of the main blockbuster movies in Japan is one about the construction and launch of the Hayabusa satellite. THAT IS ONE OF THEIR BLOCKBUSTERS!. That tells you everything about the difference between their view of education and ours.
Heck US suburban schools do as well as any schools in the world.
If that gives you comfort, and if that gives comfort to people at large, we are fucked. It doesn't mean anything if you have large swats of working class/ethnic inner cities with schools that are flat lining. Having a few suburban schools that excel means shit. Having schools that, regardless of income class or location, provide decent education on a consistent basis (as the Japanese and Finns do), that's what matters.
It's all about the total environment.
Which Japanese (and Finns) provide... and which we do not. I still want to hear about this (hopefully first hand) account about this so-called child abuse in the Asian cram school model.
To be honest, I don't care if our country adopts (or adapts from) a Japanese or Finn model. Whatever works. But I have a problem with people talking shit about a country, perpetuating stereotypes. Saying that the Japanese use or inflict child abuse to get their kids educated It is no different from the extremist Mullah in a Madrassa saying that all Western women are prostitutes, or saying that all Black people steal or all White people are racist or all Latinas get pregnant by the age of 15. It is a stereotype. It is false. It is dumb. It is bullshit. It has no room in a serious discussion about education.
The culture of this country does not appreciate education, and the idea of studying as hard as South Koreans or Japanese is seen as if it were child abuse or something like that.
Considering their suicide rate among high school students is the highest in the world, it's borderline.
I've been in Japan, and I have not seen the so-called abuse that people so much cry about. Yes, there is a significant number of suicides in Japan compared to other countries, but to attribute it to so-called barbaric forms of education is ignorance to say the least. It is not so much that kids study more hours a day, but that they go to school more days during a year. That is all. You have crazy parents who send kids till 8PM, but so do we have here.
What they do not have over there is the habit of letting people graduate without knowing their shit (which is what we do here.) Not to mention that kids over there have much better educational exposure through media than here. Hobbies are supported, and kids from an early age are expected to keep a diary as part of their education (that act alone increases a kid's exposure to meaningful writing.)
The suicide rates in Japan are multi-varied. Education is not one factor.
Sending your kid to after school studies until 8PM just to reinforce what amounts to rote memorization of facts without much in the way of abstract or critical thinking isn't exactly the way to solve our education problems.
That sentence right there has as much truth as alligators in the sewer. Kids in Japan don't go to school studies till 8PM. Get your facts straight buddy.
There's a difference between a history class spouting off dates, names, and places and a history class asking you why a certain person acted a certain way on that date in history, or what its impact was.
And what does this has to do with education in Japan? Have you ever been there? Ever seen the curriculum? Ever seen the students?
Perhaps one of the things we should do, instead, is start paying sports stars, movie stars and financial fucker-uppers less and paying the people who truly make the country's economy tick more.
ostered modern democracy for the last 2 centuries.
capital has converged on so few owners now that it is effectively crushing democracy.
In which country? In all capitalist-oriented countries? Besides, capital has always converged on few owners (which Adam Smith warned about it almost three centuries ago.) That is not, on itself, a crushing factor on democracy. What crushes democracy is a lack of social mobility. This is what exists in many other capitalist countries (like Germany, South Korea or Japan), and in others that are finally getting their act together (like Brazil.)
Social mobility (going up and down the social scale across generations) is what we had before in the US (in tandem with capital converged in few potentates). It is its reduction in the last three decades (not capital convergence on the few) that is killing democracy.
Nope. Democracy has survived the capitalists, not been fostered by it. Like how Daddy Warbucks is really an abusive bastard who throws his child in danger for his own goals.
Modern democracy and its multiple implementations are a by-product of free market societies. No other economic system has sprouted a modern democratic system. Obviously, capitalism implementations have also sprouted tyrannies, but that is the nature of all economic systems. It is not a nature of them, however, to sprout a democratic system.
Furthermore, just as there are many modern implementations of democracy there are many implementations of capitalism. To say "capitalist this-that democracy" makes absolutely no sense. It is just a slogan.
From the article: 'He said he has considered multiple directions that an Education X Prize could take, such as coming up with better ways to crowd-source education, or rewarding the creation of "powerful, addictive game" that promotes education.
This isn't a game or something that is fixed by simply throwing money at. It is a social problem first and foremost. The culture of this country does not appreciate education, and the idea of studying as hard as South Koreans or Japanese is seen as if it were child abuse or something like that.
But he isn’t sure which way to go.
Look at Japan, South Korean, Germany, Finland. Copy, adapt, rinse and repeat. Moreover, for changes specific to our country, I would suggest the following:
1. Get rid of summer school (or provide vouchers for low-income people to put their kids in summer camps.)
2. From that above, increase the number of school hours during the year, like in Japan or Germany, or like in almost any other country, developed and otherwise.
3. Teach kids to stand up when a teacher enters and leaves a room, and teach them, no, put them to clean their own class rooms as part of their daily school day.
4. Give teachers better pay and better training.
5. Don't pass kids to the next grade unless they have actually demonstrated they are capable off. Enough of giving HS degrees to kids who LITERALLY cannot read or add fractions.
6. De-emphasize 4-year college degrees. Instead, emphasize vocational training at the HS and community college level. That is, implement something akin to that the Germans and Japanese have.
7. Increase the number of commercials that laud education. Increase the number of educational programs (.ie. musicals and documentaries) in TV. Compare the number of educational programs and commercials in Japanese TV to ours, and you'll see the difference.
Do that and in a generation you'll see a change, all without throwing the coffers out of the window and without looking for the next e-silver bullet.
You can throw billions at the problem, but if we don't change our culture and the basic nature of our curricula, it ain't gonna count for shit.
Not just in Japan, but everywhere. Bureaucrats and politicians are in the deep pockets of corporations and don't give a rancid wet fart about "The People" - then they spew so much bullshit at The People to get elected.
Capitalism crushes everything in its path, including democracy and common sense.
Funny. I thought capitalism was the only viable economic system that has fostered modern democracy for the last 2 centuries. Stupid history got it all wrong.
I pretty much knew that that was the case. But I am surprised that the US government is admitting it in national news. Talk about brazen arrogance of power...
Arrogance of power, what the heck are you talking about?
Look, if you get distracted, that's a not a problem with the tablet: That's a problem with you. Notifications bothering you? Turn off the wifi, cellular... in the case of the iPad, just flip it into "airplane" mode. Can't stay off Facebook? Not an iPad problem. A "you" problem. Have to see tweets? That's 140 characters of you-fail. Don't go blaming technology because you fail to use it well. And don't clamor for it to change because you suck at coping. You change. Then you can benefit from judicious use of technology instead of letting it knock you around.
Hmmmm... this reminds of the old canard "There are no atheists in foxholes." That's not a flaw in atheism. That just demonstrates that foxholes are really fucked up. You dig? lol...
^^^ This. Indeed, blaming the iPad and tablets for distractions not present when reading a book is no different from blaming one's car and smartphone for getting into an accident trying to post a tweet while driving. And you can get distractions while reading a printed book also, like trying to read a book on, I dunno, Calculus while sitting at the back of a yoga class full of hot chicks. I mean, c'mon. Common sense people.
This is an example of a complain looking for a root cause to be honest.
If the government wasn't allowed to print fake money and meddle with business, labour and asset costs, USA economy would have continued its domination in all aspects of production past 1913 to current era and there wouldn't have been any of this destruction of economy and money.
US industrial and financial domination has been in great part due to being the sole industrial powerhouse (and with 3/4 of the world living in pre-industrial poverty.) As Fareed Zakaria has said, it is not about the decline of America, but the rise of everybody else. It is a process that started in the 60's and which started to pick up speed in the 80's (with Japan taking over the semiconductor/electronics industry.)
Even if someone decides to enter S&E career fields, there are very few real jobs offered by real employers -- it is much easier to use "this gun is for hire" contractors that you can REALLY abuse and dump with few consequences.
Contractors are used with great success appropriately. My father contracted out to a number of contractors the company could never justify having full-time, to do specialist work, which is the whole point. For example - a guy who knew CCDs inside and out. Another specialized in PCB layout, generating boards my father (an EE for decades, no stranger to PCB layout) described as "art."
All these guys were well compensated for their work and in some cases had more work than they could handle. So, if you're a programmer - find something that you think has a market which interests you and you're highly qualified in, hone your skills, and market yourself. You will never be able to be a contractor as a Java programmer - you're a total commodity.
Say what? You don't know what you are talking about. I did Java for 11 years, almost 9 of which were as a paid contractor, with O/T. Excellent money making with no shortage of jobs (not even during 2008.)
The reality is that the majority of job opportunities in Java (and "enterprise" and web software development for that manner) are in the form of contract work, many of them with paid O/T. If you are really good at Java, you can make a 6-figure salary as a contractor. Granted that most of the Java work available out there is just monkey coding crap that can be easily outsourced, but that is also true for all fields, even EE.
When it comes to Java, there is a good number of well-paying gigs out there, most of that for contractors only. So, sorry, you are wrong. If you work in Java, chances are you are a contractor. And if you are good, there is no shortage of work with good salaries.
If you want to talk about inappropriate use of contractors...well, the IRS has been cracking down on companies that use contractor status to avoid payroll taxes and benefits. My state has been, too.
But that is usually with contracting agencies "subcontracting" to other contractors (in particular while abusing 1099 forms and other "inventive" forms of S-corps.) Midsize and large Java shops predominantly use contractors via reputable contracting agencies (and both tend to avoid the 1099 scheme just to avoid the IRS wrath.)
Slashdot Mirror
Those people are speculators, not investors.
Unfortunately the legal system and day-to-day economics do not make a distinction between the two. Mod points to you if I had them.
I can't help but think an MBA made the conclusion that they are "wasting" profits.
Google has been successful because they take risks. All MBAs want to do is minimize risk.
Generalization much? Have you taken a census of all existing MBA holders (including those that come from, say, STEM and Nursing backgrounds) to arrive to such unequivocal conclusion? :) Jokes aside, risk minimization is all one should be thinking when doing engineering, for engineering is about trade-offs.
For every 99 failed projects at Google, 1 makes up for that and reaps profits that make the 100 projects operate at a 50% profit margin as a whole.
Citation please. I know where you are going with your sentiment, but that's just what it is, a sentiment, not an objective quantification. Also, it is not faulting Google for trying things out, but for putting half-cooked recipes in very critical markets (Google+ for example) or pulling the plug prematurely on things.
You can't throw millions, billions like that just to drop things out, even if you have been successful like Google. If that is how Google runs is R&D, then any success they have is just by pure economic "momentum". You can't run a company like that forever, no matter how successful you have been in the past. This is not about WS-next-quarter-pleeze MBA thinking. It's about running an R&D oriented company efficiently.
When I saw this conclusion, I looked up the background of the authors: Mary Jander: BA, English and Business Kim Davis: PhD, Philosophy Nicole Ferraro: B.A. / M.A., Media Studies and Creative Writing
Clearly this bunch is qualified to tell the founders of the worlds fastest ever growing company which technology is not going to pan out 30 years from now. To their credit I was expecting to find the resumees of 3 MBA's. At least these guys are not soulless, merely clueless (about tech anyway)
You are engaging in ad-hominen attacks right there dude. Understand that some of the comments have merit. The thing is, Google pulls the plug on stuff prematurely. Unless we are all missing some in-depth Google wisdom, you can't do that with R&D prematurely, specially if throw millions and millions at it. Now, this is purely an armchair opinion that I'm posting here, I'm no Google insider. But things seems to be either half-cooked (Google+) or killed quickly after spending millions because it is not going fast enough within the next two quarters.
As it has been mentioned by others here, it's not about blaming Google for doing R&D and trying things out. It's about execution and seeing things through to the end.
Also, taking jabs at people with MBAs is kind of sad and already a broken record by this time. Not all MBAs are clueless WS suits. There is quite a big number of engineers, scientists and nurses at the senior, principal level for whom a MBA (or MIS for CS backgrounds working in IT) is the next logical step. Generalizations do not make up for poor logical arguments.
When I saw this conclusion, I looked up the background of the authors: Mary Jander: BA, English and Business Kim Davis: PhD, Philosophy Nicole Ferraro: B.A. / M.A., Media Studies and Creative Writing
Clearly this bunch is qualified to tell the founders of the worlds fastest ever growing company which technology is not going to pan out 30 years from now. To their credit I was expecting to find the resumees of 3 MBA's. At least these guys are not soulless, merely clueless (about tech anyway)
You are engaging in ad-hominen attacks right there dude. Understand that some of the comments have merit. The thing is, Google pulls the plug on stuff prematurely. Unless we are all missing some in-depth Google wisdom, you can't do that with R&D prematurely, specially if throw millions and millions at it. Now, this is purely an armchair opinion that I'm posting here, I'm no Google insider. But things seems to be either half-cooked (Google+) or killed quickly after spending millions because it is not going fast enough within the next two quarters.
As it has been mentioned by others here, it's not about blaming Google for doing R&D and trying things out. It's about execution and seeing things through to the end.
You missed his sarcasm. For a long time, Bell Labs did a whole ton of shit that seemed to make absolutely no business sense -- a friend of mine is writing a book on just one employee's work there, which involved things that no modern man in a suit would approve. When they started paying attention to those guys in suits, their value and impact were tremendously diminished. That said, my problem with Google's approach has nothing to do with whether they are or or not aimed towards making money, it's that Google tends to pull the plug on projects after spending lots of effort (and money) but before they've been seen through. Projects are started, some are brought to market, and most of those are killed quickly without a chance to be refined. Hell, sometimes slashdot runs an article on Google killing a project, and most of us are like "Oh, that sounded cool. I never knew it existed until now."
^^^ This. If I had a cigar or mod points, I'd give'em to you.
I think it may be more of a case of: "These people are doing something new, and it scares us, with our conservative, slow progress, get money now priorities!"
Nah, the way I read the article is not that they are faulting Google for trying things out. They are faulting the execution of things, pulling the plug before shit even becomes realized. In R&D (even commercial ones), it makes no sense to spend hundreds of millions, billions, on stuff that gets killed prematurely. To dole that kind of money, people need to look beyond two-quarter time lapses. And if they can't (or aren't willing to), then they shouldn't dole that kind of moolah.
The corollary of this is that if you are going big on R&D, you need to look at it long term, you need to abandon the idea that you'll reap the dividends within a year or two.
... is demoted for rejecting the whole basis, or showing that he has a severely flawed understanding?
Who would have thought.
Intelligent design answers more the 'why' than the 'how' that Evolution does. It's entirely possible to believe both at the same time, in fact.
No, it deals with an article of faith, one that specifically goes against a scientific principle. ID rejects evolution and brings for a made-up how concotted to justify their version of 'why'. There are articles of faith in other religious movements that explain the 'why' that neither question nor challenge scientific principles (what people call Theistic Evolution). Most religions (Christian churches, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc) either have an explicit separation faith from science as things that are incomparable, or have syncretic views. Intelligent Design is categorically NOT a form of Theistic Evolution.
Intelligent design is neither one of these, and it is predominant in fundamentalist (Christian and otherwise) views, which thank God are not universal. Intelligent Design (in particular the type found in the States and among Islamic Fundamentalists) purposely states that Evolution as incompatible with their 'why' articles of faith.
I don't believe Intelligent Design, but calling people who do 'stupid' or saying they 'reject the scientific method' is juvenile
Might be juvenile in the delivery, but the essence is true. When you have all major religious denominations a)accepting or being agnostic to Evolution as a scientific fact, and b) condemning the forceful entry of Intelligent Design into the classroom as an article of science (as opposed to as an article of religious teaching), then it is stupid.
We can argue that intelligent people can do stupid things, or that stupid people do stupid things. But in the end, Intelligent Design, in particular as pursued in this country, it is stupid. Almost like believing that the world is flat and that the Ptolemaic system is an accurate description of the Universe.
and really serves the exact opposite of convincing the 'other side' that they're wrong...
For the most part, you can't convince them. And it is fine and dandy (and certainly their right) when they want to believe that (or whatever they want to believe). But when they forcefully try to replace Evolution in the classroom with their religious beliefs, then they cross the line into idiocy. Call a spade a spade. Sometimes shame brings a change, at least for the honestly misguided. For the utterly stupid, there is no hope.
Yes you do need a video for it.
For f7cks' sake man, reading comprehension. This is what I wrote with bolds to emphasize:
You don't need a 1hr long video as the sole measure with which to convey a technical point.
Now, regarding this:
It would not be conveyed by static text and diagrams.
Not even the gist of it. Are you telling me that no amount of proper technical writing can capture the gist of the idea, that it is impossible to write a summary of it? What, is it so trascendental that it escapes description, that it defies summarization in a written language? Do you realize the monumental absurdity behind that sentence? The only circumstances I've ever seen such a thing is when dealing with meta-physics snake oil salemens (or snake oil salesment in general.)
Lemme sell you a bridge, no no, the idea is to grand/complex/<insert appropriate adjective> to be described in a written summary or presentation. Come to our <insert time length in hours or days> lecture/video/meeting/whatever so that you can see why you must buy my bridge.
Can you spell "bullcrap"?*
* - btw, the sarcasm is not directed to the people who made the video (by all accounts, they could be right.) It is directed at this absurd post of yours.
Comment sections work great if those reviewing them, remember a few basic rules.
1. Don't require people to login, or at least not into Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Google, or Yahoo, etc. etc. Often people with some really helpful information will not post anything because it requires them to login.
2. Comments are usually critical of your service or information. If you don't learn and adapt from the comments, it's your own damn fault.
3. It's your responsibility to learn to parse and filter the the comments so you can get useful information from it.
But, how do you quantify that statement? I don't think that is the case at all (and I acknowledge that I have no way to quantify my statement either.)
The way I see it, people that don't login might engage in 'drive-by-posting' and by posting I mean 'posting drivel and crap). Right now, most people have an online account, be it FB or LinkedIn. Or let's not even go that far into the social media crap, most people have a gmail or hotmail account. Granted, login with your credentials into a site just to post a comment is a security risk, but (at least for most reputable sites) it isn't a significant one. Moreover, that is a tangential issue to the one at hand: those type of e-credentials are so ubiquituous, it is very trivial for Stack Overflow or CNN to let people post with their FB/Gmail accounts.
That is, people who might care enough about a subject to make an online post (and who might put some thinking effort behind it) might actually have an online account already. And I'm not referring about the geek type from the pre-Internet era, but the current netizen (I hate that word) who has grown accostumed to the Internet and online services as a content consumer (and perhaps occasional content producer). They constitute, I believe, the bulk of post makers in the interweebz (or behind gardened walls like FB.) Here in /. we know that AC's comments have a greater tendency to be drivel. Not that /. posters with a login are immune to that. But it does put into question the idea that requiring a login (in particular a FB/Google account) is actually a significant hindrance in the exchange of ideas (both good and the ZOMG-Snooki type.)
Gawker founder Nick Denton says online comments have proven themselves to be not worth the trouble, a waste of resources, and contribute nothing to online conversation or even capture the intelligence of readers
It's all about a) execution, b) niche/focused topic, and c) clearly defined target audience. If Gizmondo, CNN's comments, or God forbids Yahoo Answers are the only examples of online comments under consideration, of course, all that is shit. But then when we consider things like Stack Exchange, or say, the comment sections on Coding Horror (or even here in /.) then the story is different.
Heck US suburban schools do as well as any schools in the world
I'm going to call BS. The only reason good students come out of certain schools is because those kids are having their education at school supplemented with additional education at home.
Exactly. Suburban schools are in general attended by children from families with more resources than those in, say, inner city schools. These families tend to supplement education at home, or via private tutoring of some time (music lessons, math lessons, etc.) Hobbies are supported. Furthermore, these kids go to not-so-cheap summer camps as well (there is really no such thing as summer-long period of idle time.)
This is not the same (in great part for economic reasons) in families with less resources. There is also a significant cultural aspect that influences appreciation for education (or lack thereof.)
It's worth a hour. But if you don't want to watch it fine. Just don't expect your comments to be worth anything if you haven't done your homework.
He has a point. You don't need a 1hr long video as the sole measure with which to convey a technical point. Summaries, diagrams, and/or a 8-10 page paper are also necessary. Asking people to devote one hour just to know that something is worth it, that is not how you present technical ideas or issues.
It's not abuse so much as immense societal pressure to achieve in school that it polarizes students into two groups: the ones driven by their parents and their subsequently skewed perspective on the value of their classes that they either succeed and burn out or drive themselves off a cliff, or they totally give up and either don't show up at all or act out.
It ain't any such immense social pressure as what you describe. All you are doing is describing stereotypes from afar as if they were facts.
Barbaric? I don't think anyone has ever called it that. Rote and oppressive, yes.
Ok, not barbaric, but rote and oppressive. The point still stands that you have made a claim linking the Japanese education system to the country's high suicide rate, a claim that is unsubstantiated. You took a very complex socio-economic problem and you pigeonhole it into a narrow (and false) cause-effect scenario just to make a (false) claim.
What they do not have over there is the habit of letting people graduate without knowing their shit (which is what we do here.)
Sure they do. It's entirely possible for a kid to graduate without ever setting foot in a classroom, if they're so disinclined to attend.
No. You can't graduate from Middle School, let alone High School without knowing the basic things one would expect from someone that has gone through the curriculum. Of course you will have the A, B, Cs and borderline Ds... in any country. But you are not going to see HS graduates who cannot add fractions or negatives (which we have here in the US), in the numbers and frequencies we have here, skewed in such a manner towards the lower economic sectors of society.
Do keep in mind that highschool in Japan is entirely optional.
Which doesn't mean squat. I can't recall the numbers, but approximately it is in the 90+% of kids finishing HS (or what they call upper-HS.) At that point kids decide whether to continue with higher education (which, like in all countries, most do not.) In the US, we have states where kids can legally drop out of school before the age of 18, so in those states, HS is also optional for all practical purposes.
Furthermore, even when HS is not optional, just look at our numbers, our results. See how they are skewed across economic/ethnic lines. Again, it doesn't matter if HS is mandatory if the entire system lets large numbers of kids down. With that context, what the hell does it matter if HS is optional in Japan? The country still has a higher rate of HS graduates than we do, and their performance is both acceptable and widespread (unlike ours).
It's called "Juku," there are entire small businesses focused on post-school studying for kids at all levels: www.jyukunavi.jp just for starters. They're a booming business over there.
Rote memorization is pointless and yet it's what they do over
Moreover, and unlike what you are suggesting, suicide rates aren't as prevalent in students. Instead, it spreads through the different age scales. The reasons are multifaceted - lack of jobs, living in a shame society with a homeless problem, gambling, cultural attitudes toward sex, etc. Get your facts straight buddy. They have their problems. Education (and attitudes toward education) aren't among them.
You don't need to adopt the asian cram school model. The Finns get better results with far less child abuse.
What child abuse? What is it with this stereotype that the Japanese inflict this barbaric treatment on their students? I've been in Japan, and I haven't seen none of it. You got crazy parents that keep their kids up till the wee hours doing homework, but you have that everywhere. The key difference between Japan and the US is that:
1. Japanese kids go to school more days during the year. Their school day is similar in lengths to ours.
2. Kids aren't allowed to pass grades just so that they don't feel bad. If a kid is having learning problems, special care is taken for them. It's not like us that allow kids to finish HS without knowing how to read or write (literally.)
3. Whether you are working class or upper class, your kid is guaranteed to get decent public education.
4. Teachers are respected.
5. Kids clean their class room (oh no, the horror, the abuse!!!!!)
6. Kids are expected to make up their minds whether they go to college or vocational training (and tailor their HS education accordingly.) No much different from the German model. Man, on my last trip seeing my in-laws a month ago, one of the main blockbuster movies in Japan is one about the construction and launch of the Hayabusa satellite. THAT IS ONE OF THEIR BLOCKBUSTERS!. That tells you everything about the difference between their view of education and ours.
Heck US suburban schools do as well as any schools in the world.
If that gives you comfort, and if that gives comfort to people at large, we are fucked. It doesn't mean anything if you have large swats of working class/ethnic inner cities with schools that are flat lining. Having a few suburban schools that excel means shit. Having schools that, regardless of income class or location, provide decent education on a consistent basis (as the Japanese and Finns do), that's what matters.
It's all about the total environment.
Which Japanese (and Finns) provide... and which we do not. I still want to hear about this (hopefully first hand) account about this so-called child abuse in the Asian cram school model.
To be honest, I don't care if our country adopts (or adapts from) a Japanese or Finn model. Whatever works. But I have a problem with people talking shit about a country, perpetuating stereotypes. Saying that the Japanese use or inflict child abuse to get their kids educated It is no different from the extremist Mullah in a Madrassa saying that all Western women are prostitutes, or saying that all Black people steal or all White people are racist or all Latinas get pregnant by the age of 15. It is a stereotype. It is false. It is dumb. It is bullshit. It has no room in a serious discussion about education.
Considering their suicide rate among high school students is the highest in the world, it's borderline.
I've been in Japan, and I have not seen the so-called abuse that people so much cry about. Yes, there is a significant number of suicides in Japan compared to other countries, but to attribute it to so-called barbaric forms of education is ignorance to say the least. It is not so much that kids study more hours a day, but that they go to school more days during a year. That is all. You have crazy parents who send kids till 8PM, but so do we have here.
What they do not have over there is the habit of letting people graduate without knowing their shit (which is what we do here.) Not to mention that kids over there have much better educational exposure through media than here. Hobbies are supported, and kids from an early age are expected to keep a diary as part of their education (that act alone increases a kid's exposure to meaningful writing.)
The suicide rates in Japan are multi-varied. Education is not one factor.
Sending your kid to after school studies until 8PM just to reinforce what amounts to rote memorization of facts without much in the way of abstract or critical thinking isn't exactly the way to solve our education problems.
That sentence right there has as much truth as alligators in the sewer. Kids in Japan don't go to school studies till 8PM. Get your facts straight buddy.
There's a difference between a history class spouting off dates, names, and places and a history class asking you why a certain person acted a certain way on that date in history, or what its impact was.
And what does this has to do with education in Japan? Have you ever been there? Ever seen the curriculum? Ever seen the students?
Perhaps one of the things we should do, instead, is start paying sports stars, movie stars and financial fucker-uppers less and paying the people who truly make the country's economy tick more.
This I agree with you.
ostered modern democracy for the last 2 centuries.
capital has converged on so few owners now that it is effectively crushing democracy.
In which country? In all capitalist-oriented countries? Besides, capital has always converged on few owners (which Adam Smith warned about it almost three centuries ago.) That is not, on itself, a crushing factor on democracy. What crushes democracy is a lack of social mobility. This is what exists in many other capitalist countries (like Germany, South Korea or Japan), and in others that are finally getting their act together (like Brazil.)
Social mobility (going up and down the social scale across generations) is what we had before in the US (in tandem with capital converged in few potentates). It is its reduction in the last three decades (not capital convergence on the few) that is killing democracy.
Nope. Democracy has survived the capitalists, not been fostered by it. Like how Daddy Warbucks is really an abusive bastard who throws his child in danger for his own goals.
Modern democracy and its multiple implementations are a by-product of free market societies. No other economic system has sprouted a modern democratic system. Obviously, capitalism implementations have also sprouted tyrannies, but that is the nature of all economic systems. It is not a nature of them, however, to sprout a democratic system.
Furthermore, just as there are many modern implementations of democracy there are many implementations of capitalism. To say "capitalist this-that democracy" makes absolutely no sense. It is just a slogan.
From the article: 'He said he has considered multiple directions that an Education X Prize could take, such as coming up with better ways to crowd-source education, or rewarding the creation of "powerful, addictive game" that promotes education.
This isn't a game or something that is fixed by simply throwing money at. It is a social problem first and foremost. The culture of this country does not appreciate education, and the idea of studying as hard as South Koreans or Japanese is seen as if it were child abuse or something like that.
But he isn’t sure which way to go.
Look at Japan, South Korean, Germany, Finland. Copy, adapt, rinse and repeat. Moreover, for changes specific to our country, I would suggest the following:
1. Get rid of summer school (or provide vouchers for low-income people to put their kids in summer camps.)
2. From that above, increase the number of school hours during the year, like in Japan or Germany, or like in almost any other country, developed and otherwise.
3. Teach kids to stand up when a teacher enters and leaves a room, and teach them, no, put them to clean their own class rooms as part of their daily school day.
4. Give teachers better pay and better training.
5. Don't pass kids to the next grade unless they have actually demonstrated they are capable off. Enough of giving HS degrees to kids who LITERALLY cannot read or add fractions.
6. De-emphasize 4-year college degrees. Instead, emphasize vocational training at the HS and community college level. That is, implement something akin to that the Germans and Japanese have.
7. Increase the number of commercials that laud education. Increase the number of educational programs (.ie. musicals and documentaries) in TV. Compare the number of educational programs and commercials in Japanese TV to ours, and you'll see the difference.
Do that and in a generation you'll see a change, all without throwing the coffers out of the window and without looking for the next e-silver bullet.
You can throw billions at the problem, but if we don't change our culture and the basic nature of our curricula, it ain't gonna count for shit.
Not just in Japan, but everywhere. Bureaucrats and politicians are in the deep pockets of corporations and don't give a rancid wet fart about "The People" - then they spew so much bullshit at The People to get elected.
Capitalism crushes everything in its path, including democracy and common sense.
Funny. I thought capitalism was the only viable economic system that has fostered modern democracy for the last 2 centuries. Stupid history got it all wrong.
I pretty much knew that that was the case. But I am surprised that the US government is admitting it in national news. Talk about brazen arrogance of power...
Arrogance of power, what the heck are you talking about?
He was arrested about 9 months ago.
Talking about a decapitating strike... for the lulz.
Look, if you get distracted, that's a not a problem with the tablet: That's a problem with you. Notifications bothering you? Turn off the wifi, cellular... in the case of the iPad, just flip it into "airplane" mode. Can't stay off Facebook? Not an iPad problem. A "you" problem. Have to see tweets? That's 140 characters of you-fail. Don't go blaming technology because you fail to use it well. And don't clamor for it to change because you suck at coping. You change. Then you can benefit from judicious use of technology instead of letting it knock you around.
Hmmmm... this reminds of the old canard "There are no atheists in foxholes." That's not a flaw in atheism. That just demonstrates that foxholes are really fucked up. You dig? lol...
^^^ This. Indeed, blaming the iPad and tablets for distractions not present when reading a book is no different from blaming one's car and smartphone for getting into an accident trying to post a tweet while driving. And you can get distractions while reading a printed book also, like trying to read a book on, I dunno, Calculus while sitting at the back of a yoga class full of hot chicks. I mean, c'mon. Common sense people.
This is an example of a complain looking for a root cause to be honest.
If the government wasn't allowed to print fake money and meddle with business, labour and asset costs, USA economy would have continued its domination in all aspects of production past 1913 to current era and there wouldn't have been any of this destruction of economy and money.
US industrial and financial domination has been in great part due to being the sole industrial powerhouse (and with 3/4 of the world living in pre-industrial poverty.) As Fareed Zakaria has said, it is not about the decline of America, but the rise of everybody else. It is a process that started in the 60's and which started to pick up speed in the 80's (with Japan taking over the semiconductor/electronics industry.)
Even if someone decides to enter S&E career fields, there are very few real jobs offered by real employers -- it is much easier to use "this gun is for hire" contractors that you can REALLY abuse and dump with few consequences.
Contractors are used with great success appropriately. My father contracted out to a number of contractors the company could never justify having full-time, to do specialist work, which is the whole point. For example - a guy who knew CCDs inside and out. Another specialized in PCB layout, generating boards my father (an EE for decades, no stranger to PCB layout) described as "art."
All these guys were well compensated for their work and in some cases had more work than they could handle. So, if you're a programmer - find something that you think has a market which interests you and you're highly qualified in, hone your skills, and market yourself. You will never be able to be a contractor as a Java programmer - you're a total commodity.
Say what? You don't know what you are talking about. I did Java for 11 years, almost 9 of which were as a paid contractor, with O/T. Excellent money making with no shortage of jobs (not even during 2008.)
The reality is that the majority of job opportunities in Java (and "enterprise" and web software development for that manner) are in the form of contract work, many of them with paid O/T. If you are really good at Java, you can make a 6-figure salary as a contractor. Granted that most of the Java work available out there is just monkey coding crap that can be easily outsourced, but that is also true for all fields, even EE.
When it comes to Java, there is a good number of well-paying gigs out there, most of that for contractors only. So, sorry, you are wrong. If you work in Java, chances are you are a contractor. And if you are good, there is no shortage of work with good salaries.
If you want to talk about inappropriate use of contractors...well, the IRS has been cracking down on companies that use contractor status to avoid payroll taxes and benefits. My state has been, too.
But that is usually with contracting agencies "subcontracting" to other contractors (in particular while abusing 1099 forms and other "inventive" forms of S-corps.) Midsize and large Java shops predominantly use contractors via reputable contracting agencies (and both tend to avoid the 1099 scheme just to avoid the IRS wrath.)