A site of endless curiosity

Archive for April 3rd, 2010


leave a comment »

Everything you wanted to know (and didn’t want to know) about RF spectrum management

This Manual is issued by the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information (hereafter referred to as the Assistant Secretary) and is specifically designed to cover his/her frequency management responsibilities pursuant to delegated authority under Section 305 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Its contents are based on the advice, as appropriate, of the Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee.

Within the jurisdiction of the United States Government, use of the radio frequency spectrum for radio transmissions for telecommunications or for other purposes shall be made by United States Government stations only as authorized by the Assistant Secretary. Such use shall, unless specific provision is made otherwise, comply with the provisions of this Manual.

The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, vests in the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) responsibility for the regulation of non-Government interstate and foreign telecommunication, including the assignment of space in the radio frequency spectrum among private users, regulation of this use of that space, and authorization of alien amateur operators, licensed by their governments, for operation in the United States under reciprocal arrangements.

The Act, in recognition of the Constitutional powers of the President, provides that radio stations “belonging to and operated by the United States” shall use frequencies as determined to be in the national interest, to authorize foreign governments to construct and operate radio stations in the fixed service at the United States seat of government, and to assign frequencies thereto (47 U.S.C. 305(d)).

Written by frrl

April 3, 2010 at 5:52 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged with

Keeping your company a “Bozo-Free” Zone – the Google Way

leave a comment »

A Bozo-free Zone

Google’s leaders believe that one exceptional technologist is many times more valuable than one average engineer; hence they insist on hiring only the brightest of the bright—folks out on the right-hand end of the bell-shaped curve.

They also believe that if you let one “bozo” in, more will surely follow. Their logic is simple: A-level people want to work with A-level people—fellow savants who will spark their thinking and accelerate their learning.

Trouble is, B-level people are threatened by A-class talent, so once they get in the door, they tend to hire colleagues who are as unremarkable as they are. Worse, a B-class staffer with a bit of an insecurity problem may opt to hire C-grade employees who lack the self-confidence to challenge anyone’s point of view.

As the ranks of the mediocre expand, it becomes harder to attract and retain the truly exceptional. And before you know it, the process of dumbing-down has become irreversible.


Conventional wisdom says you should hire people who are not like you.  That’s wrong.  Hire people who are like you, only better.  Growing up, my parents always told me to get better at tennis.  I had to play with “A” players.  By playing with the best, they said, my own game would improve.

Marc Benioff CEO

More on management a la Google from the WSJ

The ultimate test of any management team is not how fast it can grow its company in the short-term, but how consistently it can grow it over the long-term. In a world where change is relentless and seditious, this demands a capacity for rapid strategic adaptation. In recent years we have witnessed adaptation failures by incumbents across a wide variety of industries: airlines, pharmaceuticals, automobiles, newspapers, and recorded music. In many cases, companies haven’t been changing as fast as the world around them.

What the laggards have failed to grasp is that what matters most today is not a company’s competitive advantage at a point in time, but its evolutionary advantage over time. Google gets this.

Evolutionary risk factor #2: A hierarchical organization that over-weights the views of those who have a stake in perpetuating the status quo. Google’s response: An organization that is flat, transparent, and non-hierarchical.

When power is concentrated at the top, a tradition-bound executive team can hold a company’s capacity to change hostage to its own ability to adapt. That’s why it so usually takes a financial meltdown and leadership change to set a company on a new course. It is noteworthy that neither Larry Page nor Sergei Brin, Google’s founders, has proclaimed himself “chief software architect,” the badge Bill Gates wears at Microsoft. Rather than assume they’re infallible seers with a divine right to dictate Google’s next strategy and the one after that, Messrs. Page and Brin have created a Darwinian environment in which every idea must compete on its merits, not on the grandeur of its sponsor’s title.

Google has invested heavily in building a highly transparent organization that makes it easy to share ideas, poll peers, recruit volunteers, and build natural constituencies for change. Every project team, and there are hundreds, maintains a Web site that is continuously monitored for peer feedback. In this way, unorthodox ideas have the chance to accumulate peer support — or not — before they get pummeled by the higher-ups. It also helps that Google is organized like the Internet itself: tightly connected, flat and meritocratic. Half of its employees — all those involved in product development — work in pint-sized teams, with an average of three or four engineers per team. Product managers typically have 50+ direct reports, making it hard for supervisors to micromanage. Critically, control is more peer-to-peer than manager-to-minion.

Written by frrl

April 3, 2010 at 4:58 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged with

%d bloggers like this: