dmv

No graph can show action ('taken') so as to demonstrate causation. That's why so many arguments are susceptible to "correlation/causation" trouble. As you suggest, there are any number of causes for the data given. To seek proof of causation from a single graph is a flawed venture.

But if we look at whether market share was reduced ('away'), an observation may be made from a single graph. Not to say 'why' or 'how much', but the observation is still valid. If you sell 90 cars last year, and 110 cars this year -- and I sell 5 comparable cars last year and 50 comparable cars this year, I have "taken market share" from you in a generally accepted sense. Within the market space of two, I have more share of our market this year than the previous, even if your sales did not decrease. It doesn't matter how I did it (cause). It may not be true next year (correlation). It may not be universally true -- if there were 500 of this kind of car sold last year, and only 400 cars this year, your share of the total market increased.

My conclusion before, and again: "the mix has steadily changed. If that's not market share loss, what is it?"

http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/10/18/dodgeballcom-officially... http://gigaom.com/2007/04/15/dodgeball-founder-quits-google/

Or Jaiku.

http://www.amazon.com/Built-Last-Successful-Visionary-Compan...

by Jim Collins

http://www.jimcollins.com/lib/books.html

and Jerry Porras, which is an analysis of companies that did that. Vision, of course, but not visionary products. Vision that leads a sustainable, cohesive culture.

From http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/16-05/mf_amazon?cur...:

Bezos doesn't disagree. "I'd be surprised if no one else does this," he says, pausing for effect. "It's a really good idea!" And there may be an ace up his sleeve. Any economist will tell you that a commodity business -- storing and processing data, for instance -- is a mug's game, with prices that plunge inevitably toward the cost of production (in the case of bits, pretty close to zero). That's music to Bezos' ears. "Commodity businesses don't scare us," he says. "We're experts at them. We've never had 35 or 40 percent margins like most tech companies."

http://sillysoft.net/lux/

http://sillysoft.net/lux/touch/

(I am just a periodic addict)

* http://glinden.blogspot.com/2006/01/early-amazon-door-desks....

* http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/85/bezos_2.html

It is questionable whether in the age of IKEA, the door desk is still truly frugal, but it is a very tangible reminder of the principle. Very tangible, very sturdy.

If I had the front-end javascript source code to gmail or salesforce or basecamp, that would neither give me access to other user's data, nor give me free access. Proof: I do have access to their complete front-end source code, just minified. Having it more readable would just be convenient.

Minification / Obfuscation != Security. Don't put anything in your front end code that you would not want an adversary to read (true of the backend too, if perhaps less urgently).

Has links to several load testing products using EC2.

I am not sure if that's a valid assumption. Almost every HIT I've written has been at least 2x (and typically 3+x) for redundancy. It is cheaper/faster to code for consensus than verify results. I have seen several HITs for which the task is likely massively redundant.

As a potential dev, I applauded the unlocked dev phone offer. But being unable to download paid apps dramatically reduces the utility especially for a small-shop, not yet Android committed dev. If hidden folders was the "launch-ready" store solution, it may be a while before this is corrected.

You can kind of see the principle in a photo on his (very old) page: http://corvis.catell.us/

When he runs free, it is a straight line of four prints and then a body length: . . . . . . . .

I'm surprised I can't easily find pictures of this. German Shepherds do this, as do many other dogs. http://www.dpca.org/JEC/illustrated_standard/Gait/gait.htm

In snow, it is obvious why this is advantageous. And yet I've never seen a museum use this print pattern in their "follow the stickers to a display" tricks.

* South Lake Union: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/395046_msftofficespac...

* Eastside: http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2009/01/19/da...

...the glut will be even more pronounced. Good for growing companies that might want to increase their Class A space; much stronger negotiation leverage.

But similar to a tepee, the top would also open (and rotate) for ventilation purposes -- domes and round structures have useful air circulation patterns.

Are they calling a top for Apple? (http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/09/apple-drops-computer-from...)

Looks like it is this script: http://twitter.com/statuses/user_timeline/venturehacks.json?...

Seems a little rude. I don't like a generic dialog box popping up asking for my credentials to an unrelated site...

http://perspectives.mvdirona.com/2008/12/22/TheCostOfBulkCol...

His is a more datacenter-level view (considering $/GB, from the perspective of arbitrary GB), but builds a convincing case why S3 @ $0.18/GB is fair).

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.10/mcdonalds.html

Because that's the first thing that came to mind reading this complaint. That was back in the wild days of the Internet, when official company spokespeople could say:

  "Are you finding that the Internet is a 
   big thing?" asked Jane Hulbert, a helpful 
   McDonald's media-relations person, with
   whom I spoke a short while ago.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/12317/arrested-development-family-...

Michael: No, no, no, no, pop. You're not doing another one of those Black Fridays, are you? The mass firings?

Narrator: Before firing his employees, George Sr. would be sure to clear the office of its valuables.

[Employees loading a truck full of office equipment]

Ted: So when do we get to see our fancy new offices?

George Sr.: [closing the truck door] When you get your fancy new jobs. You're all fired.

Narrator: The employees never saw it coming, although their first task was to unload their equipment from a truck.

Although I am not really comfortable implying that the Bush administration is acting more like scientists...

The idea of the article is that footprint matters and needs to be reexamined periodically. This is true for programmers (sadly) as well as hardware. "Hardware is cheap" is not a sustainable growth substitute for efficient solutions. We see the same thing with outsourcing, where a company discovers that ten programmers for the price of one does not always yield the desired outcome (faster, cheaper, better).

Because of course everyone wants to be in a position to use your math (10x more on hardware == 10x more value), but you can not be confident of that unless you know that your solution has a hardware bottleneck. And you don't know that until you drain the swamp (or stress test extensively).