vantran

What about polyphasic sleep? If the study only look at normal sleep, then obviously the ones who sleep less than 7 hours will be less likely to remember things than the ones who had a full night sleep. REM sleep is important, but REM sleep does not cover all 7 hours (more like about 2 hours). So if you get to REM sleep faster, you won't need to sleep as much.

Thank you, I can give you more examples of how people can use gmap: - If you love travel, you can show a map of where you've visited. - You can show direction to a place with Gmap Directions API

After Google Map, I'm not sure what other APIs I should work on next, any suggestions?

indeed, i've always combined wine, utorrent and its webUI. Before that it was rtorrent and another web interface, but utorrent is so much easier.

I am also working on a web app involving books, and currently using Amazon to get my books data. It seems to have anything you'll need, even the book's dimension and weight.

I'm not sure why it's privacy related... I'm on his list and as far as I know, the mailing list was vulnerable to spam, so I guess you could say security is lacking. But privacy? Your email address isn't leaked out to anyone (so once the fix comes in, no more spam), and you gave up no other info when you signed up.

terrible way to filter quality developers... why not just post an open test instead...?

May I ask who designed the site? I really like it. Very clean and simple.

You don't have to get an H1B visa right out of university to start working. You can use your OPT (Optional Practical Training). That will allow you to stay and work in the US for 12 months in your field of study, and it's possible to apply for a STEM extension (17 months).

Once again, I do mostly agree with you. Just want to add a few things:

I believe the business doesn't really have this responsibility to invest in those firms/projects that you mention. People do. Nothing is stopping the investors to invest. If investors decide that the business can/should donate, then it is the investors decision to fulfill their social responsibilities. In this sense the business is a separate entity that does not have social responsibilities.

"corporate entities almost all currently buy into the idea that charity investment is a PR stunt, and nothing more" - Well, I myself don't believe that it's "merely a PR stunt". As you say it is sorely needed by public firms that don't really generate a return on investment. But precisely because they treat it as a PR stunt that they let their business earn credit for their donation. If it's not for PR, then the business should be unrelated. Whoever made the decision to invest should get the credit instead.

No, I think you are reading too much into what I wrote about Whole Foods, mainly because I myself am being very critical of Mackey and his firm here.

"holding profit making as important and excluding everything else" is definitely not what should be done. "When Milton Friedman says a company should stay "within the rules of the game" and operate "without deception or fraud," ... he does not mean that a company should put every last nickel on the bottom line every quarter, regardless of the long-term consequences."

I'm merely arguing that it's the profit that results in businesses generating the goodness to the community, not advocating that everyone should drop everything and pursue profit only. Once you're profitable you can choose a way of contributing back to society. But Friedman suggests that corporate philanthropy isn't the only way. "what reason is there to suppose that the stream of profit distributed in this way would do more good for society than investing that stream of profit in the enterprise itself or paying it out as dividends and letting the stockholders dispose of it?"

Sure, I don't doubt that. I'm all for supporting those public services sorely needed by society. But don't make it into the business's altruistic ideal it not really is. In the case of Whole Foods, I just don't buy it. Whole Foods isn't just about natural and organic food, the food literature in there is amazing. It's not the food that's great, it's the food description that really got people to buy. For example: "Free-range" is no more than a little door which remain shut until 2 weeks before the chickens are slaughtered for food, and by then most of them don't even dare go out because they are already used to their crowded shed. Of course, customers aren't aware of these things, so it remains great business.

I noticed that you mentioned people interests at Whole Foods. I try not to get into this argument. One's self interest is one's own, and it wouldn't be right to talk about another's interest as if it is my own. But this is the business's interest we are talking about, as an entity with a relationship with society.

What I see here is Mackey merging his and Whole Foods'. When he says "Put Customers Ahead of Investors", what does that really mean, that they don't care about operating at a loss? Sure, Mackey probably really cares about his customers and society, but Whole Foods as an entity doesn't have any special obligation with that. Whole Foods aim is to increase its profitability. If one way of doing so is donating some money so society, go ahead and do so. But it's not always so convenient this way (if donating scales with profitability, businesses would go ahead and donate all their earning).

No, I don't claim to have "some sort of windows" into their minds, and I don't claim to know whatever their motives are. But I do see the pretentiousness behind what he claims it is.

Sure, they are working towards the benefit society. Anyone who has a job can justifiably claim so, unless they are doing something really evil/wrong. How? That is already covered by Friedman and Rodgers. When you work, you contribute to society in a particular way, and you can/should be proud of it.

Let's get back to Whole Foods. What is really the motive behind a business such as Whole Foods when they do something such as donate their 5% profit? Mackey gives 1 reason himself: "There can be little doubt that a certain amount of corporate philanthropy is simply good business and works for the long-term benefit of the investors." There, so 1 reason is precisely because it benefits the business, thus it benefits the shareholders. The business gains goodwill, an intangible, not taxable asset capable of generating future profit. Nobody is advocating that you should not love your society and donate a little. What's essentially being argued is your core interest. And to pretend that the investors don't have anything to do with it, well that's really just a cloak to disguise business motives.

If the core interest does not involve the shareholders, what happen if the business falls on hard time? Whole Foods may be doing well, but like I said before, what if it donated more and not getting the publicity/customers it wanted, while the business itself is failing? As a business goes through hard time, it will realize the importance of the shareholders interest, to avoid being out of business, which would serve society no good. Which is pretty much why Rodgers called Mackey's article: "How Business and Profit Making Fit Into My Overarching Philosophy of Altruism." To Mackey, what he thinks he's doing leads to profit. To Rodgers, it is profit that leads to what he did, and I agree.

Mackey also claims that it'd be justifiable even if his donation program did not generate PR/profit. To which I don't agree, on what grounds would it be justifiable when you are using someone else's money for your own interest? And also the part where he claims he "hired" his investors. I think Rodgers already talk about that. He can afford to say this only because Whole Foods is doing well. The donation program happened to serve the business needs but that doesn't mean the opposite.

Perhaps I'm not doing a very good job of explaining myself, but Friedman and Rodgers do have very good points in that article that pretty much sums up everything.

Wow. Ok, here goes. Friedman's answer to Mackey is brilliant and exactly as how I expected it should be. I remember reading Friedman's "The Only responsibility of business is to increase its profit", which makes Mackey words here quite laughable.

Mackey does not realize that Whole Food may be putting the customers first, but this is done SOLELY because it would also benefit Whole Food in the first place. It is exactly as Friedman had already stated in his article. Businesses do contribute to the community, but the motive is not (and should not) be without the consideration of the investors.

Mackey keeps talking about "balancing responsibilities to stakeholders". Well, I'm sorry but that's disguising the fact that investors do and should always have higher priority. Sure, Whole Foods did well donating 5%, but imagine a scenario where Whole Foods did bad: donating 15% of its profit, and not getting many customers in return (in other words its disguised marketing fails).

Do you think Whole Foods would continue donating 15% until it goes out of business? Will Mackey be able to use his Whole Foods argument anymore?

1) "The most successful businesses put the customer first, instead of the investors" (which clearly means that this is the way to put the investors first). I really really like this sentence, because it summarized my sentiment perfectly. How could you not see that? If it works for you, great. But you wouldn't be doing it if it doesn't work. Don't even pretend.

Mackey: "Making high profits is the means to the end of fulfilling Whole Foods' core business mission. We want to improve the health and well-being of everyone on the planet through higher-quality foods and better nutrition, and we can't fulfill this mission unless we are highly profitable."

Let's be serious. This is what Mackey wants people to think. What Whole Foods does, is "enhance the pleasure of SHOPPING for food", which I agree. Whole Foods does this well, with all the food literature in its store. It creates a false illusion that you're buying something more than just food (thus justifying its price). I have Michael Pollan's The Omnivore Dilemma next to me. If you read chapter 9 you'd have a different perspective of what Whole Foods is about (different from the one Mackey is advocating here).

Oh yes, I agree completely that wikipedia is not a horrible place to start. I do use the Notes / References whenever I go on wikipedia to double check the reliability of the information. But I do also notice that many times the references will point you to books. They don't always point you to this great primary source entirely online; at least my experience is that this is hardly ever the case, others' might differ of course.

So yeah, I do use the internet a lot to search for information. But in the end, the internet still take me back to the library.

The internet is a great way to find small bits of information, but most of the time the information is really questionable. Search for a topic and wikipedia is usually among the first entry, which is great for a start but no way reliable enough to put in an academic paper. Of course there are information sources that are just as great on the internet, but getting there is a long process (there's just too much irrelevant information out there); it might be more efficient if you just go get the book instead.

Turning books to ebooks might make it much more convenient to be accessed, but wading through ebooks for information is horrible. I regularly have to print about 20 pages that was originally in pdf form because I cannot stand reading so much on the computer on a regular basis. Not when you already do a ton of referencing and programming using the computer. I'm sure there are many people who feel the same.