More books I recommend.

BUSINESS & TECHNICAL ADVICE/NEWS: (In chronological order - newest at the bottom of section.)

Spurious Correlation That's something technical professionals are careful about, at least within their field of expertise, and successful business people have to be as well. The linked article addresses a common error, the assumption that correlation proves causation. The author, William C. Burns, quotes from books he recommends, providing illustrative examples of errors. "The point is that when there are many reasonable explanations you are hardly entitled to pick one that suits your taste and insist on it. But many people do. To avoid falling for the post hoc fallacy and thus wind up believing many things that are not so, you need to put any statement of relationship through a sharp inspection." A simplistic engineering example would be that mosquitos greatly increase the cost of building highways, because construction cost correlates to the number of mosquitos. But reality is that there is a common cause - mosquito larvae breed in stagnant water, which is usually found in swamps, and road building is difficult through swamps. Today's class lesson is "What other obvious correlations should you check the data for?" I can think of two that should show up, that actually are a direct cause. Be careful in there (your mind) ;-)

An aviation pioneer who started small (Frank Robinson's talk to the Royal Aeronautical Society "The Need for Simplicity in Helicopter Design".) Perhaps the first truly successful small helicopters in recent decades.

A designer passionate about user interface (Note why he likes his Casio watches. Look ma - no eyes needed (well, at least to enter data).) I like anyone who really cares about users. ;-)

MORE BUSINESS ADVICE/NEWS (link to archive)

Kurmudgeon Keith's Critical Comments: (In chronological order - newest at the bottom of section.)

A business example of the spurious correlation I referred to under NEWS is the frequent complaint that there is a shortage of good employees in the marketplace. But many companies are able to get all they need. Why the difference? Likely reasons include: - some prospective employees avoid troubled employers (word gets around). - turnover rate is high at a troubled employer. - employees of a good company brag to friends and good relatives, recruit them, and recommend them to their employer. - smart companies develop good employees with on-the-job training. (Ask Keith what the underlying factor is.)

Examples from a culture One company that doesn't have difficulty finding employees is Southwest Airlines. They have a positive culture, and defend their employees against abuse, but expect performance. I tell the story of two bursts of booking airline travel for myself. Only one airline website of those I had reason to look at was easy to use: Southwest's. A few years later I looked at most of the same websites again. Many had been revamped, but guess which one was up and away the most useable. (With honourable mention to Alaska Airlines.) Is anyone surprised that SWA is perennially profitable, in contrast to their competition?

MORE COMMENT (link to archive)

KEEP YOUR SHIELDS UP, SPAMMERS USE OTHERS' DOMAIN NAMES.

See CAPABILITIES for more information.

I defend what fosters peace & prosperity
- individual freedom supported by justice & defense.