"Getting data privacy 'right' is an economic and social imperative. Trust and confidence in the security and privacy of the critical systems of our planet - especially the digital version of its central nervous system, the Internet - is foundational to individuals' continued engagement and reliance on such things as online commerce, e-health and smart grids. If individual consumers don't feel that their privacy and security are protected, they will not support modernization efforts, even though the capabilities of technology advancements are proven and the potential benefits to society are extensive.
"Here's an example of the tensions we face: The ability of smart grids to conserve resources relies on the ability of, and commitment from, consumers to monitor and modify their individual usage. An individual using a smart meter understands the difference in the cost of using electricity at peak versus non-peak hours and could opt to lower their usage during more costly time periods. At the same time, data from the meters can reveal sensitive information such as work habits, shower schedules, use of medical devices such as dialysis, and whether or not a house is occupied."
"I don't worry that the technology will have a negative impact on consumer privacy," wrote Mark Roberti, founder of RFID Journal in a June overview of the state of the RFID market where privacy is concerned. "Instead, I worry that ignorant legislators trying to score points with uninformed voters will pass laws that limit the many benefits RFID can deliver--and that is a much bigger threat to consumers."
Today's agreement in Europe appears not to be the kind of legislation Roberti feared. As a framework focused on self-reporting it may be too little, ultimately, but it's a start.
"Getting data privacy 'right' is an economic and social imperative. Trust and confidence in the security and privacy of the critical systems of our planet - especially the digital version of its central nervous system, the Internet - is foundational to individuals' continued engagement and reliance on such things as online commerce, e-health and smart grids. If individual consumers don't feel that their privacy and security are protected, they will not support modernization efforts, even though the capabilities of technology advancements are proven and the potential benefits to society are extensive.
"Here's an example of the tensions we face: The ability of smart grids to conserve resources relies on the ability of, and commitment from, consumers to monitor and modify their individual usage. An individual using a smart meter understands the difference in the cost of using electricity at peak versus non-peak hours and could opt to lower their usage during more costly time periods. At the same time, data from the meters can reveal sensitive information such as work habits, shower schedules, use of medical devices such as dialysis, and whether or not a house is occupied."
"I don't worry that the technology will have a negative impact on consumer privacy," wrote Mark Roberti, founder of RFID Journal in a June overview of the state of the RFID market where privacy is concerned. "Instead, I worry that ignorant legislators trying to score points with uninformed voters will pass laws that limit the many benefits RFID can deliver--and that is a much bigger threat to consumers."
Today's agreement in Europe appears not to be the kind of legislation Roberti feared. As a framework focused on self-reporting it may be too little, ultimately, but it's a start.
bench craft company
Lakers coach Phil Jackson has been fined $75,000 for making unauthorized comments about collective bargaining, sources said Thursday.
bench craft companyIn recent weeks we've shared articles on social media sites like Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and others. Now it's time to look at how all these tools are.
bench craft companyWe're in the technology news business. To that end, if it's old, it isn't news. Given that you're reading this, chances are that you live, eat, sleep and breathe the tech lifestyle and want to get the news as soon as it happens. ...
bench craft companyApple should see a material dip, on top of the one that occurred
after I indicated that I was short the stock on March 16th. Before we
delve into my opinion, let’s peruse the news from 1 a.m. this morning:
WSJ: Apple Crunched in Nasdaq Rebalance- In
a move likely to ripple across the stock market, Nasdaq OMX plans to
announce a rare rebalancing of its Nasdaq-100 index, which will reduce
the big weighting of Apple, which currently makes up more than 20% of
the index.
Bloomberg: Apple’s Weight in Nasdaq-100 to Be Reduced as Microsoft, Cisco Are Raised
So, why do you think Nasdaq decides to reduce Apple’s weighting now?
Well, the competitive pressures that Apple faces are nigh guaranteed to
make it impossible for it to fulfill the pie in the sky expectations
that are being built for it. That in combination with a 20% weighting
create a recipe for a guaranteed crash in the Nasdaq unless something
was done about it. Signs of heavy reliance on on or two products for 70%
of their profit, while sourcing the most important parts of those
products from their biggest competitors, were starting to show. iPad 2
supplies are tight due to Japan’s woes, and Apple does not have the
mobile computing product diversity to handle it like the 150 or so
Android competitors it is battling. This means much more than just a gap
in profits for the quarter. These companies are in race, and Apple is
being forced to give up some of its lead due to diversification issues –
issues that Android manufacturers (who are more diversified because
there are so many more of them from different places) don’t have, or at
least not to the extent that Apple does. Thus, Samsung, LG, Asus, HTC,
etc. will be rolling out to customers who may have had an Apple iPhone
or iPad.
This is also another (of many) massive triumphs of BoomBustblog
research over that of the most esteemed Godman Sachs who put a $430
price target on Apple just as it was making all time highs and in direct
contravention to BoomBustBlog’s stated logic. See Shorting Apple and Why Software Developers Can Make More Money On Android Wednesday, March 16th, 2011
I have finally started dabbling with Apple
shorts and puts. My OTM S&P put positions were profitably stopped
out due to trailings yesterday when the market recovered some of its
losses. I have decided to use Apple in the place of the S&P puts
for the time being. Medium to long term, the trade is more evident and
obvious to anyone who is objective and follows BoomBustBlog. It is
significantly more risky shorter term. Alas, there are marginal gains
already, and once they accrue to the point of indemnifying my trailing
stop, I will add more. After I finish the current leg of my global real
estate research to be disseminated to institutions, I will offer
tidbits of the modeling (I have already offered subscribers significant
info on why I think Apple is a risky long play). From a contrarian
standpoint, it may be safe to go short with tight stops, after all
although Apple Gears Up To Combat The Margin Compression That Apparently Only It, Google & Reggie Middleton Sees Coming, we still have those guys over at West Street… Goldman’s
$430 Target, Screaming Buy On Apple At Its All Time High Is In Direct
Contravention To Reggie Middleton’s Logic – Who’s Right? Well, Who
Has Been More Right In The Past? I have taken The Challenge To Goldman Sach’s Apple Proclamation One Step
Farther, Apple’s Closed System Risks
Failure! Listen, everyone, regardless of what investment positions or
tech products you may have in your stable, needs to ask themselves the
appropriate “What if’s”. I have spurred the conversation with “Will Google Win The Mobile Computing War? Let’s Walk Through Where They Stand Now & How To Value Them”
Remember, I may not always be right, but it does pay to look at the track record… Did Reggie Middleton, a Blogger at BoomBustBlog, Best Wall Streets Best of the Best? More attention should be paid to the little guy, after all by now it is Now Common Knowledge That Goldman’s Investment Advice Sucks!
Didn’t you get the memo? I’m sure many traders have spurned Apple due
to the Japanese market being cut off right at the launch of the iPad 2,
but the issues go deeper than that. I will cover it in depth at a later
date, though.
Additional thoughts on the Apple short:
- Note For The Few Realistic Apple Bears… Wednesday, March 16th, 2011
- Buffet on Apple – Common Sense! Monday, March 21st, 2011
- Competition Heats Up In The Mobile Computing Space On Many Fronts – Prices Driven Down Once Again By The Big Players Tuesday, March 22nd, 2011
- How the “I Love Apple, There Is No Other Fever” Adds To The Attractiveness Of An Ever So Unpopular Apple Short Monday, March 21st, 2011
And that Research in Motion short alert
given to subscribers is working like a charm – even more so if it get’s
caught in NASDAQ storm: Research in Motion Drops 10% After Hours, Precisely As We Warned Two Months Ago – MARGIN COMPRESSION!!! Thursday, March 24th, 2011
Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak said in an interview this week that he would consider returning to an active role at the company he helped start if asked.
During an interview in England this week, Wozniak said, "I'd consider it, yeah," when asked whether he would play a more active role if asked,
Reuters reports.
Wozniak, Steve Jobs and Ronald Wayne founded Apple Computer in 1976. Wozniak left his full-time role with the company in 1987, but remains an employee and shareholder of Apple.
Since leaving Apple, Wozniak has been involved in a wide range of entrepreneurial and philanthropic endeavors. He currently serves as Chief Scientist for storage company Fusion-io.
Meanwhile, Jobs is currently taking an indefinite leave of absence to focus on his health, though he remains CEO of Apple and continues to be involved in strategic decisions.
Wozniak, who has widely been acknowledged as the technical genius behind Apple's early success, believes that he has a lot to offer the company he helped start, which went on to become the world's second-largest company in terms of market value.
"There's just an awful lot I know about Apple products and competing products that has some relevance, some meaning. They're my own feelings, though," Wozniak said during the interview.
When asked his opinion on Apple today, Wozniak praised the company for its track record with recent products. "Unbelievable," he said, "The products, one after another, quality and hits."
Even so, Wozniak admitted that he'd prefer Apple's devices to be more open, so he can "get in there and add [his] own touches." Last December, Wozniak revealed that he had purchased a DIY kit for the iPhone 4 and "modded" the device into the as-yet-unreleased white version.
"My thinking is that Apple could be more open and not lose sales," said Wozniak, while adding, "I'm sure they're making the right decisions for the right reasons for Apple."
Wozniak has been committed to openness since the beginning. In December, Wozniak told reporters that he didn't design the original Apple I to make a lot of money and had given the designs away for free after his former employer HP showed no interest in the computer.
bench craft companybench craft companyOver the years, entrepreneurs and corporate executives have devised any number of clever ways for getting rich off the working poor, but you'd have to look long and hard to find one more diabolically inventive than the RAL. Say you have a $2,000 tax refund due and you don't want to wait a week or two for the IRS to deposit that money in your bank account. Your tax preparer would be delighted to act as the middleman for a very short-term bank loan—the RAL. You get your check that day or the next, minus various fees and interest charges, and in return sign your pending refund over to the bank. Within 15 days, the IRS wires your refund straight to the lender. It's a safe bet for the banks, but that hasn't stopped them from charging astronomical interest rates. Until this tax year, the IRS was even kind enough to let lenders know when potential borrowers were likely to have their refund garnished because they owed back taxes, say, or were behind on child support.
Hewitt didn't invent the refund anticipation loan. That distinction belongs to Ross Longfield, who dreamed up the idea in 1987 and took it to H&R Block CEO Thomas Bloch. "I'm explaining it," Longfield recalls, "but Tom is sitting there going, 'I don't know; I don't know if people are going to want to do that.'"
Tax-prep shops are as common as fast-food joints in many low-income neighborhoods—there are at least half a dozen on one three-block stretch of South Broadway in Yonkers, N.Y., where these photographs were taken. A few offer reasonably priced accounting, while others charge hundreds of dollars for 20 minutes of work. But Longfield knew. He worked for Beneficial Corp., a subprime lender specializing in small, high-interest loans for customers who needed to finance a new refrigerator or dining-room set. His instincts told him the RAL would be a big hit—as did the polling and focus groups he organized. "Everything we did suggested people would love it—love it to death," he says.
He also knew Beneficial would make a killing if he could convince tax preparers—in exchange for a cut of the proceeds—to peddle this new breed of loan on his employer's behalf. Ultimately, Longfield persuaded H&R Block to sign up. But no one was as smitten as John Hewitt—who understood that people earning $15,000 or $20,000 or $25,000 a year live in a perpetual state of financial turmoil. Hewitt began opening outposts in the inner cities, Rust Belt towns, depressed rural areas—anywhere the misery index was high. "That was the low-hanging fruit," he says. "Going into lower-income areas and delivering refunds quicker was where the opportunity was."
Customers wanting a RAL paid Jackson Hewitt a $24 application fee, a $25 processing fee, and a $2 electronic-filing fee, plus 4 percent of the loan amount. On a $2,000 refund, that meant $131 in charges—equivalent to an annual interest rate of about 170 percent—not to mention the few hundred bucks you might spend for tax preparation. "Essentially, they're charging people triple-digit interest rates to borrow their own money," says Chi Chi Wu, a staff attorney at the National Consumer Law Center.
In 1988, the first year he began offering the loans, Hewitt owned 49 stores in three states. Five years later, he had 878 stores in 37 states. And five years after that, when Cendant Corp.—the conglomerate that owned Avis, Century 21, and Days Inn—bought Jackson Hewitt for $483 million, his earliest backers received a $2 million payout on every $5,000 they'd invested. Today, with 6,000 offices scattered across the country, Jackson Hewitt is more ubiquitous than KFC, and has about as many imitators.
THERE WOULD BE NO refund anticipation loans, of course, without tax refunds. And by extension there would be no RALs without the Earned Income Tax Credit, the federal anti-poverty initiative that served as the mother's milk nourishing the instant-refund boom. Welfare reform was the catalyst for the EITC, which was aimed at putting extra cash in the pockets of low-income parents who worked. What motive does a single mother have to get a job, conservative thinkers asked, if there was scant difference between her monthly take-home pay and a welfare check? It was Richard Nixon who first floated the idea that led to the Earned Income Tax Credit; Ronald Reagan dubbed it "the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress." In 2007, the US Treasury paid out $49 billion to 25 million taxpayers.
Kevin’s post and David Glenn’s story are deeply troubling in so many aspects that it’s hard to pick out which ones are the worst. The popularity of the business major, the low work-demands made of students, the quirky assignments and exams . . . they add up to, well, what we get as documented in Academically Adrift. That is, low learning outcomes, little coordination between pedagogy and outcomes, and meager effort on the part of students.
But something else in the story bears highlighting, and it might go to the heart of the problems of the business major. In their analysis of CLA scores for undergraduates, Arum and Rooksa found that business majors score the lowest on writing-and-reasoning skills improvement while in the first two years of college.
A big problem, indeed, when set alongside another statement made by Glenn at the end of the piece: “According to national surveys, [employers] want to hire 22-year-olds who can write coherently, think creatively, and analyze quantitative data.” Note what comes first: the writing. We hear it in just about every survey I’ve seen which asks employers about problems or needs in the workplace. They always emphasize communication skills, particularly writing skills. In sum, businesses need competent writers who draft clear prose. Not PowerPoint slides, spread sheets, or Web sites alone, but prose for reports, correspondence, agreements, white papers, etc. Not collaborative composition only, but solitary composition, too.
That’s the reality, but in Glenn’s story, I found only one case in which the examination of writing quality was emphasized, the University of Viriginia’s business school.
Why doesn’t it come up all the time?
Obviously, because writing is a labor-intensive activity for student and for professor. Assign each student a 15-page white paper on some subject or another and the workload for everyone rises considerably. For the student, it means paying attention to punctuation, diction, transitions, and structure, not to mention pursuing one line of thought through 3,000 words. For the professor, it means grading punctuation, diction, transitions, and structure, not to mention one line of thought through 3,000 words.
It is precisely the kind of training that business majors need and employers prefer, but it looks just too darn onerous for students and for teachers. Even if students end up on the job writing more PowerPoints than long papers, the training in prose composition in school pays off.
We should guard against an assumption cited in the article that what people will do in the workplace should be replicated in the classroom. This is to align training and the thing you will eventually do too closely. Students should write papers that are longer than the things they will have to write in the workplace. They should spend more time alone than they will in the workplace. Training should always require practices that exceed the tasks that need to be handled later on.
If business school leaders wish to improve learning outcomes and raise the workplace readiness of graduates, they have a simple option: require a year-long composition course at the beginning of the major. That course should focus on prose and should minimize collaborative work.
bench craft companyGreat news: Working population percentage drops to three-decade low.
bench craft companyTrackBack. TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef01538dd79809970b. Listed below are links to weblogs that reference MRSA News: ...
Peter Risdon Says:
May 16, 2011 at 2:40 pm | Reply
The paragraph you quoted from ends with this sentence:
“According to the best-sited stations, the diurnal temperature range in the lower 48 states has no century-scale trend.”
That was a surprise given the tenor of this post: “… maybe this is the end to questions as to whether surface temperature increases actually exist.”
Did you mean that we can now say the answer to that is that surface temperature increases do not exist? Or that, pace Keenan in the WSJ, the data do not contain statistically significant trends?
andyrussell Says:
May 16, 2011 at 2:58 pm | Reply
I don’t think diurnal temperature range is very important. Do you?
What’s more, the “century-scale” bit covers some interesting detail. Before Fall et al., it seems that the only work on diurnal temperature range showed a negative trend from the mid-century to 1980s-ish. What Fall et al. found was that this has increased again since the 1980s. So there’s no “century-scale trend”.
But that tells you very little about mean surface temperature trends.
Mark Says:
May 17, 2011 at 10:45 pm
I have heard it claimed that the reduction in diurnal temperature range over the past few decades provides evidence that GHG increases are responsible for the warming. In that sense, some people think diurnal temperature range is important.
Incidentally, I don’t think Fall et al. were the first to find that DTR has increased since the 1980s. I read a paper that said much the same thing a few years ago.
Sorry for the lack of references to back up these statements. I’m a little too busy at the moment to chase them up.
Ben Says:
May 16, 2011 at 4:49 pm | Reply
So Peter… If the diurnal high and the diurnal low both rise by 1°C, you think this means there has been no warming? After-all, the diurnal range hasn’t changed! Others might draw a different conclusion.
Peter Risdon Says:
May 17, 2011 at 8:26 am | Reply
I understand diurnal range has significance, and the relationship between day and night time temperature ranges is important, especially with regard to the period 1950 to 1980 when the effect of man-made global warming, it has been argued, was masked by a cooling but revealed by the changes in the relationship between these ranges.
I further understand that this argument is based on the idea that human pollution caused this daytime cooling, that it affected the range of day time temperatures as well as the difference between night time temperatures which continued to show warming, and daytime ones that didn’t. This makes day time temperature range significant: if this is right it would be expected to show a variation that correlates with human activity.
But this isn’t my field; I’m just reading what I can in an attempt to understand as much as possible about an important issue and, for me at least, that means reading Watts and reading this blog. Just searching out stuff you’re already disposed to accept isn’t good enough. My comment was prompted by what struck me as a somewhat partial quotation and exasperation: I’m with Feynman when he said you should point out the problems with a theory, not just the things that support it.
[It's not really a "partial quotation" is it? That sentence you are interested in is stuck on the end of the abstract as a new paragraph and isn't really related to the 2 sentences I quote and which are related to the subject of this post. I'm not really interested in DTR and I doubt Watts was either. - AR]
At least Watts invites people with different views to post on his blog and has been at the forefront of attempts to cross the ideological divide, not least with Judith Curry.
Ben, of course you’re right. Andy, a century is an arbitrary scale, of course.
I’d still be interested in your take on statistical significance.
JMurphy Says:
May 17, 2011 at 12:05 pm | Reply
In what way has Watts atempted to cross “the ideological divide” ?
Ben Says:
May 17, 2011 at 3:16 pm | Reply
Peter, I encourage a critical (i.e. thoughtful) reading of Anthony’s blog but my god do you really think he’s “at the forefront of attempts to cross the ideological divide”? Anthony has done more to harden denialist thought than anyone, with the possible exception Marc Morano.
The “different views” he solicits are unthreatening fig-leaves.
andyrussell Says:
May 17, 2011 at 3:24 pm | Reply
I’ve got no problem with most of what Keenan says, although he’s not the first/only person to be saying these things. There’s a JoC paper from 2010 and it was one of the useful points to come out of the UEA email enquiries (i.e. working more with stats people). Not sure where the funding was supposed to come from for these new people though!
I suppose the bigger problem comes down to climate science covering so much stuff – you can’t just look at problems from a stats/dynamics/modelling/chemistry/radiation/whatever perspective for too long before a) not getting very far or b) needing to doing something you’ve not done before.