“Inexplicably, and almost overnight, SOPA has morphed into a full-on assault against lawful U.S. Internet companies,” said Markham C. Erickson, executive director of NetCoalition, a group representing Web firms and public interest groups opposed to the law.

Wildlife conservationists who spoke to The Zimbabwean said the current heat wave had worsened the situation in the park where jumbos and buffaloes are reportedly dying every day due to thirst and stress.

http://www.thezimbabwean.co.uk/news/zimbabwe/54813/elephants-in-grave-danger.html?utm_source=thezim&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=listarticle&utm_content=headinglink

Plans are great. But missions are better. Missions survive when plans fail, and plans almost always fail.

One of my colleagues pointed out that:

Missions are toothless without plans. Plans move missions from rhetoric and paper to reality. Plans make someone accountable to deliver on the mission by a specific date.

Seth's post suggests that Plans and Missions are substitutable.  But I don't think that is what he means. 

While it would be nice if Seth could expand on what he meant, I think he is just saying that both are important together.  Missions can't get the job done but plans do.  Yet plans alone won't keep you focused and motivated but Missions will.

Look at Seth Godin's blog.  Here he posts something about plans v.s. missions:

Notice how (at this point in time) 1199 people liked this content.  It likely impresses some readers, but for data geeks like me, I analyse it to death.

There are many reasons why Facebook Like's are meaningless (unsolicited responses, population bias, no sampling frame, yadda yadda) but I really want to focus on the issue of missing context.  We need another critical piece of information in order to give any sort of meaning to the number of Likes. For example, comparing Likes to the total number of page views could help.  As could having a "Facebook dislikes" button.

I could change your view of the post by saying "Of the 5 million people that viewed this post, only 1199 liked it" or "1199 liked the post, but 36,452 disliked it".  Now you'd have a different impression. 

For the past 2 years, I haven't read a novel, cover to cover.  That is, until I received a Kobo Touch e-reader for my birthday this past summer and having to take public transportation to work.  I've read 4 Doctor Who novels and currently reading a 5th.  It's only been about 3 months since I've owned the device.

Although I've nabbed a number of free ebooks, I've spent a boat load on e-books at Kobobooks.com and my favourite source for ebooks, Oreilly.com.  I love O'Reilly because of the DRM free format, access to book updates, and the multiple formats.  But O'Reilly doesn't sell novels but more techie books.  For those, I purchase from kobo books.  

After owning an E-book reader, I've realised it's no wonder E-book sales can surpass print book sales. Ebooks are killing my wallet, but here's the thing: I have come to realize just how much I miss reading and how much of a benefit it is to the human brain. Since I began reading regularly, I find my attention span on projects has increased and my comprehension rate while reading other materials has increased. I also find the brain is more "on the ball" during conversations.  

It's a bit of an expense, but totally worth it.  

While I can't say I've come across all of these types in my professional life as a public servant, I have seen some of them.  

The irony of this post is that it touches on how data is used, and I find the data in question to be misleading.  The post links to a survey that asks users Which type of CEO is worse?

The options provided are:

• One who doesn't value data analytics whatsoever  (28%)
• One who wants data analytics but shortchanges the budget  (12%)
• One who only accepts your data analysis when it says what he or she wants it to say (45%)
• One who considers your analysis but makes a gut decision anyway  (12%)
• Don't Know (3%)

Unfortunately, I think the question is poorly written and contributes to poor answers.  I am going to ignore the fact that the population sample sucks.  This question is like asking which number is greater: 1, 2, 3 or 4?  Just look at the choices, you can choose between ignorant, pragmatic, purposefully dishonest, or a risk taker.  Which is worse?  Most will choose 'purposefully dishonest' because out of all them, this is the only one that is truly abusing numbers.  The others don't know any better or at worse, ignoring them.

I think some respondants would have responded in what they felt was the intent of the survey, therefore biasing results.  Some people probably answered with "Is there currently a decision maker in your organizatin who falls into one of these categories?" or "Which is a significant problem in your organization?" 

I think it would have been better to ask

Of the CEO types below, which is the worst you have personally experienced?

Regardless of the flawed survey, the overall discussion is quite interesting and is definately valuable. My favourite comment that someone posted was that

[Some of] the very worst managers I've seen were all of the above, in sudden rapid alternation, unpredictably.  It's a subset of that dreaded creature, I'm Really Just Here To Get My Own Way, that messes up so many other things in a work environment too.

I've met such personalities.  Those, and the types that only use data to their advantage while ignoring the rest, I find are the truly dangerous ones.

Google Alert for R-Project