I’m on the board of directors for a school KIPP Bayview Academy in San Francisco, it’s a truly extraordinary school helping some of the most disadvantaged kids, economically and educationally, in our society. The cornerstone for the KIPP philosophy is taking responsibility for one’s self; the one thing you won’t hear at any of the 46 KIPP schools around the country is the blame game… children blaming their school, parents blaming teachers, teachers blaming administrators, administrators blaming government, and so on. KIPP schools are public schools within public schools, they take what public schools have in terms of resources and deliver superior results. Here’s a great segment on Oprah about the KIPP philosophy.
The KIPP model works, when the 5th grade class enters the Bayview Academy (KIPP is grade 5-8, we are teaching 5-7 at Bayview) they are underperforming SF Unified’s mean and by extension the rest of the state by a wide margin, but by the end of the 7th grade these kids from the Bayview (one of SF’s worst neighborhoods) are outperforming every other public school in SF and outperform each of the 6 other urban school districts in California.
Here’s a segment on local news about KIPP Bayview, please consider supporting KIPP Bayview Academy and KIPP across the country.
Every one of the news stories I read about the Sony battery recall at Apple makes a point of saying that the recall doesn’t affect MacBook and MacBook Pro batteries, but just a month ago they started a recall for those batteries as well (I received a replacement for mine).
Apple said Sony batteries in some of its older models â€œhad not met Apple standards of performanceâ€. The recall did not apply to newer Apple computers containing Intel microchips. Models affected include Appleâ€™s iBook and PowerBook laptops.
Anshu followed up on the Enterprise 2.0 post I wrote on Monday with his own post. Despite being in the employ of the opposition, Anshu and I get along quite well and his comments on enterprise 2.0 reflect the reality that this is not some vendor specific scheme being cooked up and sold by the truckload… in fact one could easily argue that the technology implications of enterprise 2.0 are the least of anyone’s worries. I think that Anshu and I agree that the real implications of this stuff are how it’s sold and delivered, who is buying it, what their expectations are, and lastly, how a single vendor plays in a larger ecosystem.
If Enterprise 2.0 looks, feels and behaves like Web2.0 then why is it so hard. It is not hard, its hard for the existing enterprise applications that will in five years be legacy just as client-server applications became legacy and mainframe apps before that.
Ismael’s Office 2.0 conference is shaping up rather nicely, the dates are Oct 11-12 and the venue (here in SF) will be announced shortly. The list of sponsors and speakers (including yours truly) is impressive (minus yours truly) and I’m hoping that this will be a great opportunity to realize Enterprise 2.0 on the ground with actual companies and customer examples rather than just powerpoints (or should I say Thumbstacks!).
The first Office 2.0 Conference is organized by IT|Redux, and brings together Office 2.0 companies, early adopters, investors, industry analysts, and journalists. The goal for the event is to collectively build the foundation for Office 2.0, investigate technical challenges, and showcase practical applications. Most importantly, it will be an opportunity for like-minded people to meet and network with an elite group of visionaries and industry leaders.
If you have ever worked in a large company I am sure you can relate to this. This is a story about someone, let’s call him Harry, who works for a large company who we will refer to as GlobalTech. Harry has been very responsible with the budget for his group, spending only what is really needed and always trying to get the best deal possible. These values he imparts on his team members who behave responsibly, in many ways acting like a startup in a big company by always trying to stretch resources. Harry has the attitude that at the end of the year he is going to return his unspent budget to GlobalTech because that’s the kind of attitude he would want to see if he were a shareholder of GlobalTech, which he is. It may be his budget but it’s not his money, it belongs to the shareholders.
All throughout the year Harry hears from his colleagues about how they are going to spend all of their budget by Q3 because invariably it gets taken away in the Q4 crunch, and also because if they don’t spend all their budget by the end of the year it will get reduced next year. Harry hears all this, and knows that it’s the norm in other companies too, but fundamentally believes it’s wrong to put in place a system that encourages people to waste for the “use it or lose it” reason. Harry also believes that in that ideal corporation, based in Fantasy Land, that companies would actually incentivize and reward management for wisely spending shareholder resources.
Q3 rolls around and sure enough there is an budget crunch, Harry’s budget is frozen even though he is well under his quarterly and year-to-date numbers. Harry is fucked for doing the right thing and he is pissed. The moral of this story is that companies aren’t logical or rational and doing the right thing isn’t rewarded.
It’s interesting that so much attention gets paid to Oracle and their acquisition strategy while little attention is given to IBM for having a similar, if not much smarter, strategy.
This underscores a point I have been writing and speaking about for over a year, the move to SOA is creating a entirely new category of software company that is becoming so not simply through being a services provider or application developer, but a combination of both and most interestingly, they are doing it while using application services provided by other companies.
And that’s just the announcements made in the last month. If all recent deals go through, IBM will have shelled out more than $9 billion (all in cash) since 2003 on acquisitions, with the bulk of the money going to 31 software companies.
Just when you think you have seen everything some stupid asshole steps up and raises the bar. Instead of “Hitler’s Cross” they should have named it “Adolf’s Place” so that it would be higher up in the phone book… that’s just marketing 101.
‘Hitler’s Cross’, which opened last week, serves up a wide range of continental fare and a big helping of controversy, thanks to a name the owners say they chose to stand out among hundreds of Mumbai eateries.
“We wanted to be different. This is one name that will stay in people’s minds,” owner Punit Shablok told Reuters.
“We are not promoting Hitler. But we want to tell people we are different in the way he was different.”