Precisely. Within ISO 9001/13485 certified companies, an individual (usually head of quality/regulatory) is designated the Quality System Management Representative. This individual is explicitly powered by the chief executive with the "responsibility and authority to ensure proper functioning of the quality system" and expected to 'pull the plug' when quality/compliance is at risk.
Not math but could be interesting anyway: Genomics, specifically quality engineering. When hiring for my team we ask candidates to generally describe 1) DNA translation and 2) statistics for experimental design (AQL, RQL, etc).
As personalized medicine becomes more mainstream, it will be important to use accurate terminology in general overviews like OP's website.
For example, 23andme does not provide DNA sequencing. Instead, they evaluate samples against a comprehensive panel of small nucleotide polymorphisms. This "fingerprinting" is informative and actionable, but not technically sequencing.
In the same way, I doubt whether Genetik Ink will actually "take your DNA, sequence it, and turn it into an artistic representation" for <$500 (full genome sequencing is still $5000+, though dropping quickly in cost).
That is a good point. What we do is Sanger sequencing. This is sequencing of up to 500bp of DNA and not the whole genome. This type of sequencing is much more affordable.
That is not the definition of abuse. Per DSM-IV criteria for substance abuse addiciton:
"One of the following must be present within a 12 month period: (1) recurrent use resulting in a failure to fulfill major obligations at work, school, or home; (2) recurrent use in situations which are physically hazardous (e.g., driving while intoxicated); (3) legal problems resulting from recurrent use; or (4) continued use despite significant social or interpersonal problems caused by the substance use."
I know that we technically-minded people like to be precise in our wording, but I think that "continued use despite consequences" is a reasonable summary of that exhaustive definition. :)
First Github, then Meteor. As Peter Levine pointed out in his blog (http://peter.a16z.com/2012/07/25/meteor-magic/) Andreessen Horowitz is making strides towards "help[ing] developers build the next generation of applications."
Are there any other VC firms that have had such a stong foothold on the foundation of application development?
Implementing a rotational leadership program in the mold of GE, Nielsen, Abbot Labs, et al was definitely a great accomplishment for Mayer. I would hesitate, however, to call this a "secret weapon." She would be wise to implement a similar program at Yahoo, but implying that significant APMs would follow her from Google out of 'den mother' loyalty is ridiculous.
Every time I've seen a good exec move from a company, over the next 6 months you see people follow them. Every. Single. Time.
To say that it is ridiculous for this to happen to Marissa is in my books the same as saying that she is not a good executive. People will follow her. The only question is who, and what their impact will be.
Especially given the currently depressed state of Yahoo stock, and the potentially enormous upside of the stock options that will undoubtedly be available.
Every time I've seen a good exec move from a company, over the next 6 months you see people follow them. Every. Single. Time.
Exactly. Now that she is a CEO, her old direct reports can follow her over and be in higher positions than they were at Google. They can have more control than they had at Google and implement their collective ideas as they see fit.
First, as the article clearly states, many of the APMs are no longer at Google. So, there's no universal notion of jumping ship from Google to go to yahoo.
Second, I think it's ludicrous to dismiss the value of the connections and impression that someone like Mayer would make by heading up such a program at such company. In short, she's got one of the best networks of talent, many of whom feel indebted to her. I'd expect at least a few of them will be glad to come to Yahoo, if Mayer calls.
I completely agree with your point, also made in the article: It would be not be surprising if some of these baccalaureate APMs wind up at Yahoo.
As the article pointed out, however, It’s not surprising that a high percentage of APMs go elsewhere. APMs are chosen for their ambition and independence. Those traits are often at odds with working at a big company
A successful executive at any organization could be expected to bring along X number of of loyal reports if they move laterally. It seems likely though that the especially ambitious and independent individuals discussed would be less likely to do so.
This could be compounded by the reported personal difficulty some individuals had while working with her (Douglas Edwards' book http://www.amazon.com/Im-Feeling-Lucky-Confessions-Employee/...).
In all, the headline sensationalized the situation: she developed an employee incubator program at Google and some of the graduates will probably end up at Yahoo.
The viability of this depends on whether she can sell the idea of Yahoo Reborn. To do that, she's going to have to cull a huge number of bad actors from the existing management, PM, engineering, and design staff -- across the board.
The last big move like this I'm aware of was Steve Jobs' Apple take-over, where he managed to turn Apple into a bigger NeXT, and either shunt all the classic Mac OS people to the sidelines, or force them (as much as possible) to adapt.
It wasn't a perfect transition (see: Carbon vs Cocoa and attempts to retire Carbon internally), but it was a pragmatic one, and it worked.
I'm not holding my breath, but it would be a major coup if she can do the same. Unfortunately for her, and unlike Apple's acquisition of NeXT, Yahoo didn't acquire her previous employer -- this would have greatly facilitated the wholesale replacement of entire dysfunctional teams from a new, better talent pool.
While I agree with the first 3 paragraphs of your opinion, I don't understand why Yahoo HAS to acquire Google to make your argument count? NeXT was not on its way to become the next-big-one. It was mostly Steve Jobs who changed things at Apple with other people's help and contribution.
If Marissa Mayer is as good as the general consensus is and has built connections with all these other smart people, I don't see why it would be a surprise if she turns Yahoo around as a genuine competitor. I don't think that she has to achieve this via some 'coupe'. After all, Yahoo has paid her massive amounts. I am sure they believe in her and respect her decisions rather than be upset with it.
"Especially given the currently depressed state of Yahoo stock, and the potentially enormous upside of the stock options that will undoubtedly be available." -- http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4282459
"Strictly on market cap alone, there is a lot more headway in YHOO. It's much easier to image their stock (and thus stock options) tripling in the next few years than GOOG. Microsoft ran into this problem when Google was still small." -- http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4283129
Likewise, implying that Mayer was somehow innovative in starting a program that was already widespread in large companies—that is ridiculous. I have yet to hear anything about Melissa Mayer that is actually innovative or impressive.
This tagline is misleading. A single paragraph discusses "How Yahoo kept it all under wraps" while the rest of the article is an also-ran discussion about Mayer's potential success/failure at Yahoo.
"Xiaomi appears to have hit a sweet spot in the market, selling high-spec devices that compete with the iPhone on quality, but undercut it substantially in price"
This strategy follows Christensen's disruptive innovation to the letter. Interesting to see Apple on the brink of disruption in a consumer category it principally defined.
"This strategy follows Christensen's disruptive innovation to the letter. Interesting to see Apple on the brink of disruption in a consumer category it principally defined."
Sorry I'm not seeing it. Who's to say Xiaomi doesn't end up eating Samsung's lunch instead of Apple?
I mean people in the market for "a cheaper iphone" or "a more open iphone" traditionally that's where Samsung and company have been making money right?
> This strategy follows Christensen's disruptive innovation to the letter.
Really?
They offered a different package of attributes valued only in emerging markets remote from, and unimportant to, the mainstream.[1]
So basically it's the same exact device but cheaper. That doesn't represent "different package of attributes". Sorry, but I'd barely call that "to the letter".
FDA requirements for electronic data transmission (21 CFR Part 11) are a hassle to implement even for devices starting from a blank slate. That being said the sooner NTP standards are universally required, the better. As the article mentions it will be very resource-intensive to retrofit devices for this standardization - an EMR consultant's dream project.
You have the order wrong. Gene alteration + reproduction -> evolution, rather than evolution causing gene alteration.
You're right about the rate and general harmlessness of plant evolution, but the gamma ray from outer space is a bit far-fetched. Wikipedia has a nice overview of genetic alteration in plant developmental biology here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_evolutionary_developmenta..., with a more academic discussion of the effect of polyploidy here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22540042
That being said, I think the fear is that scientists potentially have the motive to create dangerous/unhealthy strains of plants - a motive which miRNA and transposons (god-willing) do not have.
