@Ungrounded Lightning: What did you study and what do you do now?
Just curious. My background is in electronics, databases, and network engineering. I taught briefly as an adjunct at WSU, but now I'm starting my own business.
I did most of my research work in my graduate program. I ran a survey of the entire state for the Indiana Dept of Health about the effectiveness of their 'abstinence-only' education...haha...3 guesses as to what I found.
I also did some work correlating GIS data with user interface and usability data.
seriously it's obvious you have real research experience and i'm happy to see it on display
I did read your comment of course, but it's a little to much for me to type a response to right now.
I'll say I do agree with this:
One of the classic errors that arose from this is the belief among psychologists that intelligence ramps up nearly linearly until early adulthood, knees over, and then slowly drops with age
Microsoft was successful b/c Bill Gates was willing to play ball with w/e the military/industrial complex told him to do.
All government computers in the 90s ran M$. That's a government subsidy from a practical perspective. Boeng, General Dynamics, etc etc all used M$ b/c that's what their customer (US gov't) used.
THAT'S WHY MICROSOFT WAS SUCCESSFUL
It's a good strategy for a business in theory: Get the gov't contract. It's guaranteed money and your product becomes an industry standard.
The shit of it is, Republitards bounced back and forth between the gov't that *gives* the contracts and the biz that *takes* the contract, so it was a closed loop.
No feedback. So the shitty, user-alienating product kept getting the contract, even though the system was designed to go to the best solution.
That's it. That's Microsoft. That's american business in the late 20th Century.
Ok, we can chat here, b/c this is a valid (but not most salient) point.
Office is one of the few things M$ does that people actually *want* to use. I use it among other options.
1. *right now* the 'Office alternative' market is booming. People are using Google docs, Mac's bundled stuff (lame, IMHO), LibreOffice, and on it goes. That's a big loss of market share NOW
2. Since the current situation is a move away from Office as a monolith, anything like the Android/Intel computer will do nothing but speed that transition, b/c it allows a *platform* that is unbiased. Then users have more choice. And, as I stated in point #1, people are definitely willing to try somethign else and the options are there for the taking.
I think M$ will eventually go the way of all MBA/bubble companies...'servies and consulting'...
I'd like to see them keep Office and make it truly good, personally. But that would require some innovation.
You 6-digit username kids might not remember this, but once upon a time, a comment like this could sink your whole product, or whole company...Windows was it for PC. (imagine Dell or HP saying this in '98)
Now, it's like, "Yeah, Microsoft can come to the party, but they'll have to bring their own booze"
I deem this Android/Intel laptop to be *the* game changer that causes even mainstream media to realize M$ dying quickly.
Good luck trying to get a report like this from facebook.com or the like...too bad, that...this data is very useful.
This is real research. Rigorous, cleanly factorized, unbiased, work shown for others to check.
In companies today, this kind of thing doesn't happen often. Usually, there is an 'economic' pressure on the results. Everything is filtered through a 'context' of who will see the report and what they will do after they see it. People's jobs are on the line.
If companies want to **truly** use 'big data' to make better business decisions, they have to start with work like this, then know how to use it. That comes with experience;)
Anything short of "free to know for everyone everywhere forever" has no place in public policy space.
I agree in theory. We definitely should demand this level of transparency.
This should replace elections.
Maybe reaching with that idea. 'elections' in the US are basically a big survey. You know this. The thing is, if you are asking a citizen who they want as their leader, it's an 'election'...so your idea really wouldn't 'replace' as much as 'improve' the current system.
People hate 'always on' DRM. No one likes it. Some hate it with a fiery passion.
It's 'people' like you who assume the following:
It is going to happen and it won't be stopped.
That gives M$ the notion that doing this would work. Seriously, only because people like you exist, the "if you're getting raped you might as well enjoy it" logic people...fsk you and your notions of consumer choice.
Platforms can die when the alienate their users and/or make bad business decisions, ex: Sega, Neo/Geo
"wasn't intellectually capable to make decisions as CEO or now as Executive Chairman of the Board of Google"
(minor correct...srsly tho I had read about it when it happened but forgot until I read your comment...Google still operates by his half-vision, fanboiness, and privacy notions...I think that's why I got modded up so much even though your info is correct)
fantasy of being intellectually superior to Eric Schmidt.
Not so. I don't think of intellect or superiority in that way for myself personally. I don't begrudge his personal success, but I do hate what it symbolizes (he's by no means the worst CEO).
I also would love to have his budget for my company so maybe there's some sour grapes there?
A lot of people seem to agree with your bullshit.
Strip away my style and my arguments are sound. Business in American has gone off the wheels. It is evidenced by the sizable minority who believe in the 'perception is reality' school of business.
It's not a given that Google has to profit from selling our privacy! It is possible for companies to be good to employees, the earth, pay full taxes, source in the US and still profit.
Because people like you accept the marketing-driven business model (what I mean when I say 'bullshit'), it is able to perpetuate. I use harsh language. Maybe it's too much?
I won't stop crowing about bringing business back to reality though...
My vendetta is with b.s. business practices and anyone who thinks they are the only way to do business. It's not personal to him, although Schmidt doesn't help his cause by being the CEO of Google and saying what he does about privacy.
the public face of Google and holds motivational speeches. Isn't that good for a CEO?
No. The CEO is the final decision maker on all resource allocation. The CEO has final approval of all deals. The CEO chooses who works for the company. The CEO has to sign **Sarbanes-Oxley** and risk jail time on the company's financial accuracy.
You are a troll for sure, but your notions are ruining American business and I hate it. You really deserve to work in a cubicle doing drone work with your attitude.
If you disagree, you can type your bullshit argument but it won't get a response from me. This response is the only response necessary.
You are giving the **CEO** a pass. You and everyone who uses your line of thinking is a troll.
His comments about privacy alone "...they shouldn't be doing bad things" show his ignorance.
On the Colbert Report interview, he claims, "no one knows what the internet is..." and that "humans will one day live forever" and that your "data cannot be deleted"
All of which are false. 1. The internet is a global computer network capable of running applications with continuous connections among users. 2. is not falsifiable so it's just used-car salesman bullshit and 3. if it is stored in memory, it by definition can be deleted. if it's not stored in memory, then it's not on the internet.
And from another discussion I've found that there be trolls on the topic of Schmidt...so, those who say 'He's a CEO not a technician!@!@11'...fsk off...every CEO needs a basic understanding of what they are doing. Schmidt is a fanboi of his own product and it's egregious.
They are, at best, out of touch academics who are high off 'web 2.0' bullshit. That's at best.
At worst they fully represent the military/industrial complex.
If it wasn't for WHATWG the internet would be a ridiculous clusterfuck of competing variations on HTML/CSS. Hell, CSS3 would still be 'in beta' if FOSS devs hadn't pushed it through.
Tor is a million miles off the radar if his job is running google.
for fuck's sake...I'm talking of being aware of a thing like Bitcoin. AWARE IT EXISTS and basics of HOW IT WORKS
cuss people are stupid sometimes!
i'm not saying he has to be CEO of Tor and Bitcoin...he just needs to know they exist and how they work. a tech professional could accomplish that in a matter of minutes.
a link to some random google analytics of words searched doesn't mean shit
people like you are a pox upon data analysis...the hilariously sad truth is that most people think like you...some even run their country based on some fucking graph of data that gets shoved in their face between fundraising...
You should have read more. First, bitcoin's workings were just one of a litany of things that Assange elucidated that got Schmidt all fanboi
Second. You didn't read the basics of Bitcoin that's for sure:
"In 2009, the bitcoin network came into existence with the release of the first open source bitcoin client and the issuance of the first bitcoins.[9][22][23][24] 2010 The initial prices for bitcoins were set by individuals on the bitcointalk forums. The most significant transaction involved a 10,000 BTC pizza.[9] The Mt.Gox bitcoin exchange was soon established."
Those are not the only two options. You can have core competency and still be a manager. Also, it'd be nice if a good number of management came up from production...
Used to be in America, in high level business you could expect your manager knew the basics of the entire system, and had probably done your job at some point.
You are giving the CEO position a pass on their core responsibility. He has to make decisions...among competing groups within Google. Different divisions **all want more** and he has to allocate that scarcity.
If he does not have the basic competency to think critically about what his advisors tell him, he's a figurehead idiot. He will be at the whims of whoever holds his attention more not who needs the resources.
Just because many CEO's operate like this doesn't mean we should accept it.
They **do** have to have a working knowledge of the product of the company.
You're giving Eric Schmidt a pass...he doesn't deserve it. He should have a grasp of these concepts enough to make decisions about resource allocation. That means a systemic-level understanding, not all details.
We need to demand CEO's have core competency...weird as it is to say that, it's true. "management" is only part of the picture of leading a company.
I'll grant you that Assange thinks he's reinventing the wheel and high off his own 'innovation' fumes...but that doesn't justify your flame/troll tone...
It's obvious Assange overestimates himself. He talks about Wikileaks like it is the new internet and Neo from the Matrix.
From a technical perspective, innovation rhetoric aside, Assange is a journalist. Nothing more nothing less. He distributes information to a general audience chosen to be of particular interest.
Assange himself is probably best described as a news blog publisher/editor.
Fun drinking game...take a shot every time Eric Schmidt says, "That's interesting!"
This reads like a personal 'TED' talk from Assange to Schmidt. What I glean, more than anything, is that Eric Schmidt doesn't know WTF he is doing from a technical perspective. Not qualified to run a data center let alone all of Google. It seems he is the type of leader that just accepts what he is told by others.
FTA:
JA: you know about Bitcoin? ES: No. JA: Okay, Bitcoin is something that evolved out of the cypherpunks a couple of years ago, and it is an alternative... it is a stateless currency.
Slashdot Mirror
@Ungrounded Lightning: What did you study and what do you do now?
Just curious. My background is in electronics, databases, and network engineering. I taught briefly as an adjunct at WSU, but now I'm starting my own business.
I did most of my research work in my graduate program. I ran a survey of the entire state for the Indiana Dept of Health about the effectiveness of their 'abstinence-only' education...haha...3 guesses as to what I found.
I also did some work correlating GIS data with user interface and usability data.
tl;dr
but thanks!
seriously it's obvious you have real research experience and i'm happy to see it on display
I did read your comment of course, but it's a little to much for me to type a response to right now.
I'll say I do agree with this:
you got me!
i type fast when I'm angry and sometimes my wires get crossed...sorry for the typo
should read "7-digit"
Microsoft was successful b/c Bill Gates was willing to play ball with w/e the military/industrial complex told him to do.
All government computers in the 90s ran M$. That's a government subsidy from a practical perspective. Boeng, General Dynamics, etc etc all used M$ b/c that's what their customer (US gov't) used.
THAT'S WHY MICROSOFT WAS SUCCESSFUL
It's a good strategy for a business in theory: Get the gov't contract. It's guaranteed money and your product becomes an industry standard.
The shit of it is, Republitards bounced back and forth between the gov't that *gives* the contracts and the biz that *takes* the contract, so it was a closed loop.
No feedback. So the shitty, user-alienating product kept getting the contract, even though the system was designed to go to the best solution.
That's it. That's Microsoft. That's american business in the late 20th Century.
Ok, we can chat here, b/c this is a valid (but not most salient) point.
Office is one of the few things M$ does that people actually *want* to use. I use it among other options.
1. *right now* the 'Office alternative' market is booming. People are using Google docs, Mac's bundled stuff (lame, IMHO), LibreOffice, and on it goes. That's a big loss of market share NOW
2. Since the current situation is a move away from Office as a monolith, anything like the Android/Intel computer will do nothing but speed that transition, b/c it allows a *platform* that is unbiased. Then users have more choice. And, as I stated in point #1, people are definitely willing to try somethign else and the options are there for the taking.
I think M$ will eventually go the way of all MBA/bubble companies...'servies and consulting'...
I'd like to see them keep Office and make it truly good, personally. But that would require some innovation.
You 6-digit username kids might not remember this, but once upon a time, a comment like this could sink your whole product, or whole company...Windows was it for PC. (imagine Dell or HP saying this in '98)
Now, it's like, "Yeah, Microsoft can come to the party, but they'll have to bring their own booze"
I deem this Android/Intel laptop to be *the* game changer that causes even mainstream media to realize M$ dying quickly.
I guess we'll see...
Good luck trying to get a report like this from facebook.com or the like...too bad, that...this data is very useful.
This is real research. Rigorous, cleanly factorized, unbiased, work shown for others to check.
In companies today, this kind of thing doesn't happen often. Usually, there is an 'economic' pressure on the results. Everything is filtered through a 'context' of who will see the report and what they will do after they see it. People's jobs are on the line.
If companies want to **truly** use 'big data' to make better business decisions, they have to start with work like this, then know how to use it. That comes with experience ;)
I agree in theory. We definitely should demand this level of transparency.
Maybe reaching with that idea. 'elections' in the US are basically a big survey. You know this. The thing is, if you are asking a citizen who they want as their leader, it's an 'election'...so your idea really wouldn't 'replace' as much as 'improve' the current system.
Pedantics aside, I like where you're coming from.
People hate 'always on' DRM. No one likes it. Some hate it with a fiery passion.
It's 'people' like you who assume the following:
That gives M$ the notion that doing this would work. Seriously, only because people like you exist, the "if you're getting raped you might as well enjoy it" logic people...fsk you and your notions of consumer choice.
Platforms can die when the alienate their users and/or make bad business decisions, ex: Sega, Neo/Geo
"wasn't intellectually capable to make decisions as CEO or now as Executive Chairman of the Board of Google"
(minor correct...srsly tho I had read about it when it happened but forgot until I read your comment...Google still operates by his half-vision, fanboiness, and privacy notions...I think that's why I got modded up so much even though your info is correct)
Not so. I don't think of intellect or superiority in that way for myself personally. I don't begrudge his personal success, but I do hate what it symbolizes (he's by no means the worst CEO).
I also would love to have his budget for my company so maybe there's some sour grapes there?
Strip away my style and my arguments are sound. Business in American has gone off the wheels. It is evidenced by the sizable minority who believe in the 'perception is reality' school of business.
It's not a given that Google has to profit from selling our privacy! It is possible for companies to be good to employees, the earth, pay full taxes, source in the US and still profit.
Because people like you accept the marketing-driven business model (what I mean when I say 'bullshit'), it is able to perpetuate. I use harsh language. Maybe it's too much?
I won't stop crowing about bringing business back to reality though...
I'll allow it.
My vendetta is with b.s. business practices and anyone who thinks they are the only way to do business. It's not personal to him, although Schmidt doesn't help his cause by being the CEO of Google and saying what he does about privacy.
No. The CEO is the final decision maker on all resource allocation. The CEO has final approval of all deals. The CEO chooses who works for the company. The CEO has to sign **Sarbanes-Oxley** and risk jail time on the company's financial accuracy.
You are a troll for sure, but your notions are ruining American business and I hate it. You really deserve to work in a cubicle doing drone work with your attitude.
If you disagree, you can type your bullshit argument but it won't get a response from me. This response is the only response necessary.
You are giving the **CEO** a pass. You and everyone who uses your line of thinking is a troll.
He is not intellectually qualified to be making the decisions of the Google CEO. He's a dork. A geek minus the technical understanding.
He really showed his ass on Colbert last night: http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/425750/april-23-2013/eric-schmidt
His comments about privacy alone "...they shouldn't be doing bad things" show his ignorance.
On the Colbert Report interview, he claims, "no one knows what the internet is..." and that "humans will one day live forever" and that your "data cannot be deleted"
All of which are false. 1. The internet is a global computer network capable of running applications with continuous connections among users. 2. is not falsifiable so it's just used-car salesman bullshit and 3. if it is stored in memory, it by definition can be deleted. if it's not stored in memory, then it's not on the internet.
And from another discussion I've found that there be trolls on the topic of Schmidt...so, those who say 'He's a CEO not a technician!@!@11'...fsk off...every CEO needs a basic understanding of what they are doing. Schmidt is a fanboi of his own product and it's egregious.
The W3C is the NRA of the internet.
They are, at best, out of touch academics who are high off 'web 2.0' bullshit. That's at best.
At worst they fully represent the military/industrial complex.
If it wasn't for WHATWG the internet would be a ridiculous clusterfuck of competing variations on HTML/CSS. Hell, CSS3 would still be 'in beta' if FOSS devs hadn't pushed it through.
I hate the W3C...despite my sig.
your 3 points are all technically valid, but they are all red herrings...
my point, the point that proved you wrong about Schmidt, is that the 'either/or' context of 'manager/tech' is dumb and a gross oversimplifiction
it is a false equivalence
**working knowledge** and **understanding basics** and **professional awareness** are mandatory for a CEO to make decisions
Tor is a million miles off the radar if his job is running google.
for fuck's sake...I'm talking of being aware of a thing like Bitcoin. AWARE IT EXISTS and basics of HOW IT WORKS
cuss people are stupid sometimes!
i'm not saying he has to be CEO of Tor and Bitcoin...he just needs to know they exist and how they work. a tech professional could accomplish that in a matter of minutes.
see, he just has to **be aware** that it exists and the basics of how it works
you understand that, right? it takes a matter of minutes for an intelligent technical professional to understand Bitcoin...
a matter of minutes...so you're argument fails.
just accept that Google's CEO is kind of an airhead...it's not like he's your fucking child
a link to some random google analytics of words searched doesn't mean shit
people like you are a pox upon data analysis...the hilariously sad truth is that most people think like you...some even run their country based on some fucking graph of data that gets shoved in their face between fundraising...
You should have read more. First, bitcoin's workings were just one of a litany of things that Assange elucidated that got Schmidt all fanboi
Second. You didn't read the basics of Bitcoin that's for sure:
"In 2009, the bitcoin network came into existence with the release of the first open source bitcoin client and the issuance of the first bitcoins.[9][22][23][24]
2010
The initial prices for bitcoins were set by individuals on the bitcointalk forums. The most significant transaction involved a 10,000 BTC pizza.[9] The Mt.Gox bitcoin exchange was soon established."
Full article and sources here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin
Here's a /. from 2009 on Bitcoin V.3 release: http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/07/11/1747245/bitcoin-releases-version-03
Bitcoin had been in the news for awhile. Schmidt should have at least know of its existence and the basics of how it works.
See, this is what gets my hackles up!
Those are not the only two options. You can have core competency and still be a manager. Also, it'd be nice if a good number of management came up from production...
Used to be in America, in high level business you could expect your manager knew the basics of the entire system, and had probably done your job at some point.
You are giving the CEO position a pass on their core responsibility. He has to make decisions...among competing groups within Google. Different divisions **all want more** and he has to allocate that scarcity.
If he does not have the basic competency to think critically about what his advisors tell him, he's a figurehead idiot. He will be at the whims of whoever holds his attention more not who needs the resources.
Just because many CEO's operate like this doesn't mean we should accept it.
They **do** have to have a working knowledge of the product of the company.
You're giving Eric Schmidt a pass...he doesn't deserve it. He should have a grasp of these concepts enough to make decisions about resource allocation. That means a systemic-level understanding, not all details.
We need to demand CEO's have core competency...weird as it is to say that, it's true. "management" is only part of the picture of leading a company.
I'll grant you that Assange thinks he's reinventing the wheel and high off his own 'innovation' fumes...but that doesn't justify your flame/troll tone...
It's obvious Assange overestimates himself. He talks about Wikileaks like it is the new internet and Neo from the Matrix.
From a technical perspective, innovation rhetoric aside, Assange is a journalist. Nothing more nothing less. He distributes information to a general audience chosen to be of particular interest.
Assange himself is probably best described as a news blog publisher/editor.
Fun drinking game...take a shot every time Eric Schmidt says, "That's interesting!"
This reads like a personal 'TED' talk from Assange to Schmidt. What I glean, more than anything, is that Eric Schmidt doesn't know WTF he is doing from a technical perspective. Not qualified to run a data center let alone all of Google. It seems he is the type of leader that just accepts what he is told by others.
FTA:
JA: you know about Bitcoin?
ES: No.
JA: Okay, Bitcoin is something that evolved out of the cypherpunks a couple of years ago, and it is an alternative... it is a stateless currency.