Imagine Leadership

Understanding the Hierarchy of Information Needs

Maslow’s hierarchy has five levels:

  • Level One includes the physiological needs such as food, water, air, etc.
  • Level Two includes safety needs such as shelter and clothes;
  • Level Three is considered sense of belonging and satisfies needs such as love, friendship, and group affiliation;
  • Level Four is Esteem where self esteem and esteem from others are prominent; and
  • on top of the hierarchy is Actualization where achieving one’s full potential will satisfy all needs.
  • Project Natal

    Moblin Open OS

    The Moblin Architecture is designed to support multiple platforms and usage models ranging fromNetbooks to Mobile Internet Devices (MID), to various embedded usage models, such as the In Vehicle Infotainment systems. The central piece of the architecture is the common layer we call “Moblin Core“, a hardware and usage model independent layer that provides one uniform way to develop such devices. Underneath the Moblin Core sits the Linux kernel and device drivers specific to the hardware platform, and above the Moblin Core are the specific user interface and user interaction model for the target device.

    Smart Business Blog

    What technologies will have the greatest impact on business success over the next 2-5 years?

    IBM Business Value Analyst

    The IBM Business Value Analyst was developed independently by leading IT research firm IDC and leading ROI tool developer Alinean, Inc. and has been authorized for use by IBM and its business partners.  This analysis tool helps customers examine current opportunities for and quantifies potential benefits from implementing a wide range IBM business and IT solutions.

    Facebook Architecture

    In this presentation filmed during QCon SF 2008, Aditya Agarwal discusses Facebook’s architecture, more exactly the software stack used, presenting the advantages and disadvantages of its major components: LAMP (PHP, MySQL), Memcache, Thrift, Scribe.

    The speed, size and dependability of programming languages

    The Computer Language Benchmarks Game is a collection of 1368 programs, consisting of 19 benchmark reimplemented across 72 programming languages. It is a fantastic resource if you are trying to compare programming languages quantitatively. Which, oddly, very few people seems to be interested in doing.

    The Benchmark Game spends a lot of efforts justifying itself against claims that the benchmarks are always flawed and that the whole exercise is pointless. I don’t think it is. In fact, I’ve found that The Game is remarkably effective at predicting which forum hosts programmers annoyed at the slowness of their language, and that’s good enough for me.

    I was happy to find that in addition to speed The Game also publishes a source-code-size metric for each benchmark programs in each language. Thanks to this The Game let us at explore a fascinating aspect of programming language design: the tension that exist between expressiveness and performance. It is this tension that gives the expression “higher-level programming language” a pejorative connotation. When you are coding this high, you might be writing beautiful code, but you are so far away from the hardware you can’t possibly get good performance, right?


    C# (3, 4) has the same shape as Java (3, 7), merely 1, 2, or three rows down, depending on how you count. The arrival of Scala (6, 7) in the Java world is a mixed blessing. While it fixes the worse convolutions (it has no top-of-the-square points) it also introduces terrible performance hiccups (the points which shoots out to the right.)

    Does introducing functional features kill performance?

    No, it does not. In the following chart, the ordering is the same as in the large chart. Languages which include functional features such as lambda, map, and tail call optimization are highlighted in green. C compilers, C++ and C-derivatives are in blue. The blues dominate the first column. The greens occupy the main diagonal, from the oddball corner to the “ideal” corner. Ultimately the first factor of performance is the maturity of the implementation.


    %d bloggers like this: