Thought of the Day

The World is Getting Better?

2018-07-02T00:11:00.000-07:00

Experts are confounded: by all objective metrics, the state of the world (not just the United States) is getting better, yet people are less happy than ever. David Myers, in his book “The American Paradox: Spiritual Hunger in an Age of Plenty” writes “Compared with their grandparents, today’s young adults have grown up with much more affluence, slightly less happiness and much greater risk of depression and assorted social pathology.” Consider this, the average happiness in the 1940s, when only 2/3 of households had indoor showers and plumbing, was 7.5 out of 10; this compares to a score of 7.2 out of 10 in 2015, when indoor plumbing is standard in every household, even in the poorest of neighborhoods, not to mention the many modern conveniences introduced since 1940. We are healthier and wealthier than at any other point in history, yet we’re unhappier than we’ve ever been. Rather than celebrating the progress we’ve achieved, we’re railing against the injustices that still exist.

The world has been improving, and not only slightly, but dramatically. Using a fact-based view, Hans Rosling in his book “Factfulness” explains that while there are still distinctions between rich and poor, we are all collectively getting better. The views that most of us convey to each other, and read in media are opinions, not facts, and these opinions are not only antiquated, but ignorant. From a wealth perspective, there are almost no developing markets left today, even though we still label certain countries as being “developing.” In the last 20 years the proportion of the world population living in extreme poverty has halved, and the majority of the world population now lives in middle income countries (not poor countries). On the health front, 88% of the world population is vaccinated, and the world life expectancy now averages 70 years. Most of the world is clothed and sheltered, and over 80% of the world population has access to electricity. Even on the social front, the gaps we perceive to exist have vastly been eliminated. For example, in all low income countries around the world, 60% of girls finish primary school, which is about the same percentage for boys. Worldwide, 30-year old men have spent 10-years in school (on average) while women have spent 9 years. And in 2016, it was reported that 86% of the world population is literate (i.e. can read and write); this compares to only 10% in 1800. As for gender equality front, today 193 out of 194 countries provide equal rights for women and men to vote (in 1893, this figure was 0).

The world has made a lot of progress in the last two centuries, particularly the last few decades. In 1800, the majority of the world lived in extreme poverty, which meant they were living on about $1/day. They probably walked using bare feet, slept on dirt floors (with little shelter), had to fetch their own water, and cook over an open fire. Today, there are few people living like this. With the rising tide of wealth, all boats have been lifted. At $8/day, a family now had a gas stove, a mattress, a bike (perhaps to fetch water), and shoes (plus, their kids will be now able to attend school). At $32/day, a family would move to running water, a refrigerator, and a motor bike (and their kids would be able to finish high school, not to mention healthcare would be available). What most Americans would consider to be trivial upward movement is actually substantial, life-changing progress. It’s hard to believe, but even some of the wealthiest developed nations were once surviving on less than $32/day. In 1940, Sweden was one of those countries, and by 2015, they’ve become one of the richest countries in the world – quite an accomplishment! It’s not a stretch to say that America has undergone that same transformation during that period, and by further extrapolation, most middle income countries will become rich countries in the next few decades.

With all this progress, why is everyone so unhappy? In a study by Nobel Prize winners Kahneman and Deaton, they explored the correlation between “life satisfaction” and “income” amongst Americans in 2008-2009 and found that increases in income do provide happiness, but only up to a certain point. Turns out when a person moves from $10,000/year in salary (or ~$27/day) to $75,000/year in salary, their happiness increases dramatically. However, after they reach the ~$85,000/year mark, incremental income changes (on the positive side) do not provide additional happiness. In essence, when a person needs to provide basic needs and security for their family, wealth can be life-changing, as with our parent’s generation (when they earned below the $75k/year mark). Once basic needs are met, additional wealth ceases to provide as much comfort as before (if any). That means the accessible luxury products and other comforts provided by today’s modern conveniences will make us believe we should be happier, but do nothing in terms of increasing our happiness.

From another perspective, Hans Rosling argues that the increasing press freedom and improving technology brings more news about disasters than ever before. Journalists are paid to write polarizing stories (as opposed to everyday stories), because they are interesting and captivating, and readers have a hard time realizing that these stories represent the fringes of society, not the median; they represent the minority, not the majority. If we look at journalism from a historical perspective, Hans Rosling writes, “When Europeans slaughtered indigenous peoples across America a few centuries ago, it didn’t make the news back in the old world. When central planning resulted in mass famine in rural China, millions starved to death while the youngsters in Europe waving communist red flags knew nothing about it. When in the past whole species or ecosystems were destroyed, no one realized or even cared. Alongside all the other improvements, our surveillance of suffering has improved tremendously. This improved reporting is itself a sign of human progress, but it creates the impression of the exact opposite.”

This proliferation of media intensifies the gap instinct in human beings, where they divide things into two distinct groups, with nothing in between: rich vs. poor, good vs. bad, heroes vs. villains, my country vs. the rest of the world. It also leads to people simplifying problems and solutions. For example, many of us espouse the premise that all problems are caused by inequality, which we should always oppose, and the solution to all problems is redistribution of resources, which we should always support.

Some researchers argue that the rise of social media is also a source of our unhappiness. A 2017 study looked at 18-22 year olds and how social media impacted their anxiety levels. The conclusion was that the more time spent on social media, “the greater the association with anxiety symptoms and the greater likelihood of an anxiety disorder.” On lifestyle-focused sites like Instagram, a user might see a friend’s perfectly framed, glamorous photo and compare themselves negatively to those images.

Aside from information overload, social media also seems to promote materialistic attitudes, which research has shown does not lead to life satisfaction. In a study by Nickerson et al. (2003), 12,000 freshmen were surveyed about materialistic attitudes, and were re-surveyed 20 years later. Turns out materialistic individuals had much less life satisfaction than non-materialistic individuals even two decades later; they also had more mental health disorders. It stands to reason that the luxuries (and accessible luxuries) that we have come to enjoy are also the albatrosses in our lives.

In short, it seems the combination of increasing press freedom (which disproportionately reports on disasters and polarizing topics) and materialism (due to social media proliferation and lower prices from free trade) has created a world of unhappiness for all of us. This is interesting, given we live in a capitalist society, which embraces free speech, free trade, and economic growth. Perhaps these forces, which have been significant drivers of progress and prosperity, when left unchecked, might also be the biggest sources of doom and gloom.

Could it be that in our pursuit of happiness, we end up even unhappier? I think the answer is that we should learn to enjoy everything in moderation. A world with too much press, too much media, and too much materialism is simply too much for anyone to handle. As the Bible says in Proverbs 25:16, “If you have found honey, eat only enough for you, lest you have your fill of it and vomit it.” So, enjoy life, but not too much. As the World’s Most Interesting Man once said, “Stay thirsty, my friends…”

California: "A Tale of Two Signs"

2013-01-16T16:01:00.000-08:00

A while back, while visiting California clients, I noticed something about their bathrooms that I haven’t seen anywhere else on the east coast, or the rest of the country (for that matter); don’t worry – it has nothing to do with bodily fluids or functions.

While walking past office restrooms, I noticed Women’s restrooms are denoted by a circle and Men’s restrooms are denoted by a triangle. Also, I noticed it wasn’t just a couple of restrooms, it was ALL restrooms. By comparison, restroom signs on the East Coast and Midwest are square. This made me wonder, why are California restrooms denoted by circles and triangles? Recently, I decided to get to the bottom of this bathroom geometry lesson…

As for the rationale behind circles and triangles, there are many theories... One theory is body shape (females are more round, especially during pregnancy and males have broader shoulders), though I doubt females would embrace this theory, and in order for the male theory to make sense, the triangle would have to be inverted. Another theory is that they’re simplified representations of the Greco Roman symbols for male ♂ and female ♀. This seems to make more sense, though after some digging (cross referencing different sources), it turns out the explanation is a bit more complicated…

The geometric shapes were created by Sam Genensky, of Santa Monica. Born in Massachusetts in the early 1900s, he, like all newborn babies of the time, had to receive drops of dilute silver nitrate in both eyes to prevent the possible passage of syphilis from mother to child. Unfortunately, in his case, the chemical had not been diluted, causing both of his eyes to burn, resulting in partial blindness.

Since then, Genensky dedicated his life towards making the lives of the blind easier. Graduating from Brown with a BS in Physics and Harvard with a Masters in Mathematics, he would later work for the RAND Corporation, where he designed the first practical closed circuit television. In high school, Genensky would improve his vision by bringing his father’s World War I binoculars to geometry class to identify the circles and triangles written on the blackboard. These were his favorite shapes, and little did he know it at the time, but it would one day become the underpinning of the California restroom signage system.

Genensky’s idea in California was to make restrooms easily identifiable to those with limited vision by using large geometric shapes with edges thick enough to be felt, and colors easy enough to be seen, even from a distance. A twelve inch diameter circle placed on the door would be used to identify a girls' or women's restroom, and a twelve inch equilateral triangle placed on the door would be used to identify a boys' or men's restroom. A triangle placed on a circle would be used to identify a single user restroom available to either sex. An important consideration was that the color of the shapes needed to contrast with the door on which they were placed.

Genensky’s idea was quite prescient, pre-dating even the American Disability Association’s (ADA) standards. This made California one of the first states to adopt accessibility options, making it unique in more than one way (which we’ll see in a moment).

When the ADA came around to it 1990 (40 years later), they began mandating their own federal standards for restroom identification, ignoring California’s well-established restroom door symbols. They wanted a raised character sign with Braille located adjacent to the door, not on the door (as suggested by Genensky). Their concern was that someone reading the sign up close would be hit in the face if the door suddenly opened. The California signs didn’t usually pose this problem, as the doors usually swung inwards vs. outwards, and under Genensky’s system, it only took a second to tell if the sign was curved (women) or straight (men). Nevertheless, the federal government insisted that the wall sign be used in place of the door sign.

There were other differences, as well. The government signs were square for both men and women, and if accessible, needed to display the International Symbol of Accessibility (ISA) wheelchair pictogram.

When the new federal mandates were put in place, California considered eliminating the requirement for geometric signs. After all, the federally mandated signs contained the same information as the geometric signs. But California being California decided NOT to remove the geometric signs. Instead, they decided to adopt both signage. Hence, restrooms in California have both the geometric signs of Genensky AND the federally mandated signs approved by the ADA. Two signs for one restroom!

Hopefully you found this brief history of the California restroom signage system interesting. I guess if there are two lessons to be learned from this, they would be: 1) California often times marches to the beat of its own drum and 2) the government makes SQUARES of us all!Iz Byer California Dress Pants (Google Affiliate Ad)Iz Byer California Dress Pants (Google Affiliate Ad)

Feeling Presidential

2010-07-15T20:34:00.000-07:00

Between Madison, Hamilton, and Jackson, it just occurred to me that today's couples may be (slightly) infatuated with naming their children after US Presidents.

Following this train of thought, I've discovered there's quite a treasure trove of names we can derive from our rich Presidential history -

Potential Names (in no particular order)

1. Carter

2. Adam

3. Jefferson

4. Harrison

5. Tyler

6. Taylor

7. Fillmore

8. Pierce

9. Monroe

10. Buchanon

11. Lincoln

12. Johnson

13. Grant

14. Garfield

15. Arthur

16. Cleveland

17. McKinley

18. Wilson

19. Truman

20. Washington

As for the first three names highlighted, here are their respective definitions -

Definitions

Hamilton - means "flat topped hill" (ummm...)

Madison - is derived from Madeleine (woman from Magdala)

Jackson - means "son of Jack"

Other Amusing Definitions

Carter - means "one who transports goods"

Pierce - means "rock" (as in "you rock" or "hard as a rock"?)

Tyler - means " worker in roof tiles"

Taylor - means "tailor"

Fillmore - means "very famous" (which is ironic considering Fillmore is probably the least famous of the Presidents); I would have thought the name meant "to fill more" (like what you want the gas attendant to do to your car)

Garfield - means "spear field" (ouch!)

Lincoln - means "lake colony"

Buchanon - means "house of the canon"

Monroe - means "mouth of the river"

Washington - means "clever man's settlement"

With a lot like this, it's no wonder Washington was our first President!

The chicken or the egg?

2010-07-06T20:25:00.000-07:00

The age old question: "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" Of course, chickens come from eggs (fertilized ones), but then that begs the question, where do the eggs come from? Chickens???

Following that line of thought, I began to wonder, where do seedless fruits (like seedless watermelon) come from? After all, a seedless fruit is somewhat of an oxymoron, since a fruit is defined as a mature ovary containing seeds. And if the fruits themselves contain no seeds, how do they propagate?

Turns out seedless fruit plants generally propagate through grafting. In other words, the farmer cuts off a part of the plant and uses it to grow a new one. And this clipping, having the same genetic makeup as its original, essentially produces a clone of the parent. Talk about identical twins gone wild!

However, one thing to note - unlike other seedless fruits, seedless watermelon actually come from seeds, which are produced by crossing diploid and tetraploid lines of watermelon. And the fruits result from pollination provided by neighboring diploid strains.

So, while we can't definitively solve the chicken egg riddle, we (at least) managed to decipher the origins of the seedless watermelon riddle... the seeds came first!

A Valuable View From the Trenches

2010-04-18T08:09:00.000-07:00

These days, up on the ivory tower of the boardroom, strategy reigns supreme – so much so, that top executives focused on “big picture” strategy (which is often times mired in charts, graphs, spreadsheets, and presentations) lose sight of the people that make it all happen.

Just watch an episode of CBS’ “CEO Undercover,” and you’ll see what I mean.

It’s a tough balancing act being a good manager – one must lead AND follow. Most managers have the “leading” part of the equation down pat, it’s the following part that still needs work.

In ancient China, a famous imperial advisor once compared the relationship between the king and his ministers to that between the head and the body, which in some ways reveals a truth. Both need each other. The head by itself is useless without the body, and similarly, the body is useless without the head.

After all, a headless body does not know where it’s going, and a bodiless head gets nowhere.

While there is an implicit understanding that both must act in concert with each other, sometimes things get lost in translation, especially as the head becomes farther and farther removed from the body.

With new technological tools at their disposal, managers may feel increasingly confident that they know everything that goes on in their supply chain, making it less likely for them to visit the trenches to see what goes on in the guts of their operations. Heeding to this newfound complacency would be a mistake.

No matter how you slice it, numbers only tell part of the story. The human aspect tells the other part, and cannot be ignored. There are plenty of examples where data points can be misleading. And more importantly, sound theories just don’t always work out in practice.

There needs to be an open dialogue between leaders and workers, based on mutual trust and respect. This relationship needs to be a partnership, so that when problems arise, they can be constructively resolved in a timely manner, without the need for finger pointing and blame.

A manager setting lofty sales targets may be pleased at rising growth rates, unaware that salespeople are stuffing the inventory channel to make current numbers, at the expense of future sales. This would have been more evident if the manager had ongoing dialogues with his sales force.

A manager launching a superior product offering may be unaware that sales are declining because consumers are not sufficiently informed about the product. This would have been different if managers spoke with training and marketing personnel, as well as potential consumers buying their products.

A manager setting new manufacturing productivity protocols may not have realized that these guidelines are causing discontent within the workforce, resulting in an impending strike that would lower future productivity. This would have been different if managers visited their manufacturing plants to witness worker’s reactions to the new plans. At the very least, managers should visit the plants to see the new protocols in action.

Just because we are living in the information age, where data can be accessed at a mouse click (without the need for human interaction) does not mean that old business practices can be tossed aside. The workers are the life-blood of the company. Managers must not forget that.

I am reminded by Sun Tsu’s famous saying from his work Art of War, “Regard your soldiers as your children, and they will follow you into the deepest valleys. Look on them as your own beloved sons, and they will stand by you even unto death!”

The Long Tail

2009-11-11T18:47:00.000-08:00

One of my readers recently asked, “How and why do stores like The Sharper Image and catalogs like Sky Mall survive?” After all, one would think the market for a personal ionic air purifier that you wear around the neck, or a Lord of the Rings incense burner shouldn’t be that large - and if you’re catering to such a small customer demographic, it would only seem logical that the amount of sales generated by these niche products would scarcely be able to cover the operating expenses needed to run the businesses (profitably).

Well, turns out these businesses are able to survive. For example, the Sky Mall has been around for nearly two decades, and the Sharper Image (although it declared Chapter 11 in 2008) operated for over 32 years before its shutdown. The reason for this is a concept called the “long tail.”

What is the long tail, you may ask? I know what you’re thinking, but it’s not part of an animal…

It’s a concept popularized by Chris Anderson in an October 2004 Wired magazine article, which highlights the art of selling less of more. Turns out, in a market with a high freedom of choice, people will gravitate towards the upper 20% of items sold (for example, scented candles v. LOR incense burners, or pop music v. alternative, or CNN.com v. some unknown blog site). The other 80% is much less popular. In business, this is generally referred to as the “80/20 rule.”

You’re probably now wondering, if people only buy the top 20% of items, doesn’t that make the other 80% worthless? Not necessarily.

Even though 20% of the products out there are deemed “bestsellers” or “blockbusters,” products in low demand or have low sales volume (those in the other 80%) can collectively make up a market share that rivals or even exceeds best-selling products. The total sales of these “non-hit items” are the Long Tail. And the trick to capturing this “long tail” (those in the 80% group) is “variety.”

For example, if you only sold LOR incense burners, you would only capture a fraction of the population who liked LOR and incense (and more importantly, the two combined together – a very small population indeed). However, if you sold LOR incense burners and Star Trek coasters, and all other things sci fi, you would broaden your customer appeal to comic book lovers, astronomy aficionados, and nerds/geeks everywhere. And if you broadened your inventory of niche products even further, your customer base would grow even larger.

The long tail is pretty obvious when it comes to a business like eBay (think about the weird things you find there). However, it’s also found in more traditional businesses like Amazon, Netflix, and even Wal*Mart. Amazon used to be just books, but now it’s toys, electronics, appliances – and even niche items like spare cell phone parts and memorabilia. Netflix not only offers blockbusters, but foreign films and artsy films that cater to only a small subset of the population.

So remember, it’s all about variety. As some say, variety is the spice of life, and the long tail proves that true. So, next time you peruse through the Sky Mall catalog and think, “What kind of weirdo would buy that?” Just remember, one weirdo may not make a difference, but a bunch of weirdoes is a powerful thing (because they make up a long tail)…

What's in a (last) name?

2009-11-05T04:54:00.000-08:00

I've noticed it's become much more common for women to hyphenate their last names when they get married. Perhaps it's to retain their independence, or individuality, or to preserve their family history (when there are no males to carry on the family name). Whatever the case, it makes for an interesting topic of discussion. For one, what happens when the next generation of hyphenated last names hits the block?

Will last names turn into complex amalgamations, like names of law firms or merged investment banks? The name Carol Lynn-Johnson sounds alright, but what about Carol Lynn-Johnson-Smyth-Simpson-Thatcher-Adams? What was your last name again? On the bright side, the hyphen key (which has been much neglected on the keyboard) would finally see the light of day. On the other hand, imagine filling out your name to apply for a driver's license or a standardized test! I recently read that the investment bank Fox Pitt's full name is "Fox-Pitt Kelton Cochran Caronia Waller." What a mouthful! That even tops Morgan Stanley Dean Witter. And by that logic, should there be JP Morgan Chase Bear Stearns Washington Mutual? What if we truncated names after a certain point - how would you decide what stays and what goes?

Then again, what if we merged last names together, kind of like how "spoon" and "fork" combine to form "spork"? I mean, some West Indian and Russian cultures ascribe to this naming convention. Though, that could lead to some amusing results. For example, if Robert Butts marries Jody Kissinger, would she be called Mrs. Jody Buttkissinger?

And what if last names turned into rolling couplets? True, the FIFO naming convention would surely cut down on the wordiness of last names, but it would also create some confusion. Are the Larke-Friar's of Connecticut related to the Potato-Friars of Idaho? I don't know... maybe Shakespeare was wrong - perhaps there is more to a name...

For now, tradition seems to have fallen by the wayside, which means the Scrabble board is still in play. Alphabet soup, anyone?

The Innovation Game

2009-10-18T10:44:00.000-07:00

In business, it is often thought that the secret to success is to deliver what your customer wants. Therefore, the logical solution is to ask your customer.

Unfortunately, things are not that simple. Often times, customers don't know what they want, and companies that soley rely on customer feedback to determine their new product pipeline inherently fail at the innovation game.

For example, if you asked a person in the 1800's what they really wanted in a transportation device, they would probably reply, "a faster horse." And in response, a horse seller would innovate his product line by feeding his horses a better diet, or putting them on a more intensive training regiment in attempts to create the "faster horse." Using this methodology of thinking, there would be no way the horse seller would move his new product line towards the development of an automobile, which would eventually displace horses. On the same note, the consumer would probably never envision a four-wheeled rolling steel carriage capable of carrying them quickly from point A to point B. Both would fail at the innovation game.

More recently, in the 1970's, if you asked a secretary what they wanted in a device that would improve their lives, they would probably respond, "a more versatile typewriter, that would allow them to correct mistakes on the fly." The typewriter maker, in attempts to satisfy their customer's request would look towards adding a "white-out" feature to their typewriter, and call it a day. Both parties would fail to see the potential of the computer (which was originally considered to be a big, clunky adding machine). And the computer would eventually displace both secretaries and typewriters, effectively putting both the customer and the manufacturer out of business.

I'm not berating the customer or the manufacturer - just pointing out how hard the innovation game is. In both examples, both parties acted rationally (to the best of their abilities, yet both parties failed). This is because customers don't know what they want (they only know what they like or dislike), and on the flip side, manufacturers have no crystal ball for telling the future.

Sure, ask the first person whether they like the automobile, fax machine, or cell phone, and they will nod fervently (with an emphatic YES), but ask them what they will need in the future, and they will either shrug their shoulders (or settle for the status quo).

In short, businesses that continue to succeed need to think out of the box. They need to take giant leaps, not baby steps - and therefore, if you're a manufacturer that's just plodding along, you might need to "think differently" (to paraphrase Apple's old slogan). This seems pretty self evident, but it actually isn't - that's why so many successful businesses fail.

Leading manufacturers need to anticipate what customers want in the future, before they even think it. They have to innovate, and take the leap of faith that their customers will eventually move in that same direction - and that's the difference between good and great.

The Pen is Mightier than the Sword

2009-10-10T05:06:00.000-07:00

The phrase "the pen is mightier than the sword" is commonly attributed to the old English author Edward Bulwer-Lytton, who coined the phrase in his 1839 play, Richelieu; Or the Conspiracy, though it has appeared in many forms prior. For example, in 1600, Shakespeare in Hamlet stated (through the character Rosencrantz) that "many wearing rapiers are afraid of goosequills." And the Greek playwright Euripides (who died in 406 BC) had supposedly written, "the tongue is mightier than the blade." Before that, the Old and New Testaments state, "Indeed the word of God is living and effective, sharper than any two edged sword, penetrating even between soul and spirit, joints and marrow, and able to discern reflections and thoughts of the heart."

Clearly, this powerful phrase has penetrated the hearts and souls of many - and stood the test of time.

This got me thinking - what would a more updated version of this concept be? After all, writing implements have long gone to the wayside (with the advent of computers) and the only time we see swords are in fencing matches (or movies).

Hmmm... how about the keyboard is mightier than the semi-automatic machine gun? Or facebook and twitter and mightier than the atomic bomb?

Perhaps there's something to be said about our society, where everything is already electronic (or in the process of going electronic). For today's youth, there's little concept of a non-virtual universe, let alone electronic relics, like record players, cassettes, land lines, or even remote-less TVs. They've become dependent on a online world that they've assumed will exist forever (simply because it's existed all their lives).

When today's archaeologists dig up the past, they find physical evidence of stone tablets and withered papyrus sheets, filled with cryptic symbols that they struggle to decipher. Even so, for them, there's concrete evidence that these civilizations took the time to (thoughtfully) solidify their thoughts and opinions in a highly accessible medium (possibly for the benefit of future generations).

What happens when future generations dig up our past, only to find plastic shells, silicon chips, and magnetic plates? Without the tools to uncover what lies hidden beneath, will they think of us as uncultured heathens and hoarders of metal and plastic?

Technology has allowed us to store vast amounts of information, but it has also created a very virtual medium for all of this data. This works well - as long as the power doesn't shut down.

Years from now, when we pull the plug, will all of this go away? And what will future generations do, when they have to revert back to ink (and gasp) paper?

Just a thought.

20 Questions

2009-09-20T13:14:00.000-07:00

Have you ever played the handheld game 20Q and wondered how it works? It's a pretty ordinary looking plastic orb that's sold in most toy stores, but no matter what you think of, it seems to miraculously read your mind (by asking you just 20 questions) - which makes it quite extraordinary!

Like me, you probably thought it was a cheap parlor trick. In actuality, it isn't. Turns out 20Q uses a form of artificial intelligence called neural networks to figure out what you're thinking.

The computer program not only asks for input, but also has the ability to draw its own conclusions on how to interpret the information you provide. With every game played, it develops more knowledge and learns, and like an actual human brain, it builds synaptic connections from the information it receives.

In fact, the online version of the game, which garners far more playtime than individual 20Q games (which sometimes get neglected in the toy chest), has developed about 10,000,000 synaptic connections - and the more games 20Q plays, the smarter it gets.

What's more stunning is the program can learn and adapt. For example, if the player was thinking of a "horse" and answered "No" to the question "Is it an animal?," the neural network would still guess correctly, despite being told that a horse is not an animal.

In effect, 20Q is not only good as guessing things, but it also can read between the lines and ignore irrelevant information. Furthermore, it is not bound by emotional biases or other human frailties, and in some ways can serve a human "lie detector" test.

Just think of all the conflicting and competing information that we get inundated with during the day. What if a program like 20Q could cut through the clutter and tell us what people are really thinking? And what if it told us what people's true motivations were, even if they told us otherwise. It's both an exciting (and scary) thought.

Today, a lot of needless arguments arise because people simply can't read minds. But what if computers can?

On a personal level, there would no longer be an excuse for not doing something because you didn't know what someone was thinking - that would certainly help guys out on the dating (and marriage) front.

From a business standpoint, the human psyche (which remains a black box) would be open for the public to see (and possibly exploit). And unlike Mel Gibson from the movie "What Women Want," you wouldn't need to paint your nails, dress up in pantyhose, and get struck by lightening.

In essence, it would be a heightened form of reality - and all it would take is for you to answer 20 questions...

Ready for question #1?

Re-Gift Robin: How does it work?

2009-09-19T20:53:00.000-07:00

Have you ever used Re-Gift Robin and wondered how it works?

First try it out (http://www.regiftable.com), then view the proof below -

The trick lies in the number 9

All of the items corresponding with a multiple of nine on the grid are the same re-gift...

Here's the simple mathematical proof:

f = first digit of the number

s = second digit of the number

= (10*f) + (1*s) - f - s

= 10 * f - f

= 9 * f

The website randomly changes the item every time, so that it seems like they're playing a Jedi mind trick on you...

But don't be fooled! ;-)

Nothing to Lose

2009-09-10T21:10:00.000-07:00

We’re all born with a sense of wonderment. As children, our curiosity and our never-ending drive to learn have led us to achieve many milestones in our lives: from our first steps, to learning to read and write, to finishing up high school and beyond.

In the early days, we were taught that if we stumbled, we should get back up and try again (like the little train that could, or the tortoise from that famous fable). We had no fear of trying new things (or failing). We expected no reward for our success, aside from the sheer joy of accomplishment. We had no expectations. We were free to explore successes and failures alike without judgment or ridicule.

However, somewhere between then and now, we became trapped. We started worrying about what others thought about us. We started measuring our success. We started to be set in our ways. We started to be complacent. We started to be lazy.

True, we had come a long way from where we’ve been, and we had accomplished quite a bit. We had risen to a certain level in life, but it also made us wary of looking down, because the fall would be too great. We felt we earned ourselves a break, having worked so hard before. We became enamored by our successes and crippled by our failures. And somewhere between then and now, success and perfection became ideals that we could not live without, and failure became a curse word deemed unacceptable.

What causes this? Dr. Carol Dweck calls it the “CEO disease” – I call it pride (incidentally, one of the seven deadly sins). CEOs (surrounded by “yes” men) face this dilemma all the time. Should they continue doing what they’ve been accustomed to doing, or should they change course at the risk of looking stupid?

Lots of famous people get the CEO disease. Lee Iacocca had it. After his initial success as head of Chrysler Motors, he kept bringing out the same car models over and over again with superficial changes. This worked well for a while, until eventually these became the models that nobody wanted.

Tennis star John McEnroe also is a classic case. He would make excuses about why he lost matches, rather than doubling his efforts to succeed the next time around. This cost him his career.

Even ordinary people get this disease. They become complacent in their lives. They take people for granted. They become too self-centered.

Pride makes you feel like you have something to lose, and making excuses provides a mental cushion for mistakes. It’s often easier to say you “could have” or “should have” done something without actually doing it, than to put all of your heart and soul into something just to see it fail.

Leaders who are successful are usually humble enough to admit their mistakes and to change course when they’re wrong. For example, Steve Jobs was publicly fired from a company that he himself built, but rather than mope on his “fall from grace,” he started two companies (Pixar and Next) and later returned to Apple to turnaround the company he started. He realized that (even he) had nothing to lose – that every day could be his last. Similarly, Michael Bloomberg was fired from Salomon Brothers only to end up creating one of the largest financial media conglomerates, and to become the mayor of New York.

In his commencement speech to Stanford graduates in 2005, Steve Jobs’s advice came from the last issue of “The Whole Earth Catalog,” which featured a photograph of an early morning country road with the caption saying, “Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish.”

Perhaps if we all took this advice, and were a little more foolish (and a little more humble), we’d be better off… because we all have nothing to lose (and everything to gain).

Is God a Mathematician?

2009-09-07T01:13:00.000-07:00

It may be mere coincidence, but the number 1.61803 has been popping up everywhere - from art to mathematics to science to nature and beyond. Nobody exactly knows what makes this number so special, but its mere impact on everything we see, touch, feel, taste, and hear should be proof enough of its importance.

Once denoted by the Greek letter tau (now represented by the Greek letter phi), this number is often referred to as the "golden ratio" - and some call it the "divine ratio" or "divine proportion," given its unique properties and prevalence in nature.

Euclid first defined the "divine proportion" in 300 B.C. as the ratio produced when a "whole line is to the greater segment, as the greater is to the less." In other words, assuming a line segment ACB, the divine ratio is the ratio at which AC/CB = AB/AC. Specifically, the ratio equals 0.5 *(1+sqrt(5)), or approximately 1.61803.

Since Euclid's accidental discovery, this ratio has appeared in many unexpected places, leading biologists, artists, musicians, historians, architects, psychologists, and even mystics to ponder on its ubiquity and appeal. Intellectuals have attempted to uncover the meaning behind this "golden ratio" for the past 2,400 years, but to this day, more is known about where it exists, than why it exists.

Below are some places where the "divine ratio" is found:

Mathematics

Fibonacci Sequence - A Fibonacci sequence is constructed by summing the two preceding numbers to produce the next number. The divine ratio is used to calculate the nth number in a Fibonacci sequence.

Trigonometry - The trigonometric functions (and natural logs) can be defined using the "divine ratio."

Biology

Human Heartbeat - The human heartbeat is often considered to be an integral part of the human soul. It has been shown that a heartbeat that follows the "divine ratio" represents a state of health, peace, and harmony."

Human anatomy - Each section of your index finger is proportionately larger than the preceding one by the "divine ratio." The ratio of your forearm to your hand is also the "divine ratio." Your feet follow the divine ratio: 1) the middle arch of the foot 2) the widest part of the foot 3) the base oft the toe line and the big toe. And it doesn't stop at that - your body, your face, even your teeth follow the divine ratio!

DNA - The double helix of a DNA molecule follows the "divine ratio."

Nature - The spiral of sea shells, the eye-like markings of moths, and even the dimensions of a dolphin's body follow the "divine ratio." This can be applied to all other types of fish, birds, mammals, and insects.

Plants - Flower petals, fruit seed, and tree branches have been shown to follow the "divine ratio."

Art

Beauty - De Divina Proportione by Luca Pacioli, a three-volume work published in 1509 suggests the golden ratio's application yields pleasing, harmonious proportions, which we interpret as beauty.

Architecture - Studies show the Parthenon and the Great Mosque of Kairouan's proportions approximate the "divine ratio."

Painting - The "divine ratio" was employed in Leonardo da Vinci's illustrations in De Divina Proportione and the Mona Lisa, Salvador Dalí's The Sacrament of the Last Supper, many of Mondrian's works.

Music

Music - The "divine ratio" appears in a variety of works, including Debussy's Image, Reflections in Water.

Stock Market

Technical Analysis - Elliott Wave Theory uses the "divine ratio" to predict up and down movements in the stock market.

Astronomy

Space - Anything from the distance between planets, to the structure of Saturn's rings relates to the "divine ratio."

In many ways, the "divine ratio" seems way too methodical to be random. It provides a sort of harmonious predictability in a world where things are often times considered to be unorganized and chaotic. It also unifies us all. Perhaps this is part of the divine message: we all come from the same place. We may never fully understand the relevance behind the actual number itself, but the beauty that manifests itself from this ratio is truly "divine" - and it doesn't take much brain power to see that...

Pesticides: Costs & Benefits

2009-09-05T16:14:00.000-07:00

Over the years, there has been quite a bit of publicity surrounding the risks associated with consuming non-organic produce, which may be laced with harmful pesticides.

Clearly, it's a controversial topic. There are costs and benefits associated with the use of pesticides, but often times the negatives seem to be more prevalent than the positives. In fact, for every positive article on the benefits of pesticides, there are forty negative articles, so the bias is definitely towards the negative.

This led me to wonder: are there benefits towards pesticide use, and how do we balance those with the negative externalities affecting society and the environment.

Below is a cost benefit/analysis regarding pesticide use:

Costs

Health problems associated with consuming pesticide-laced produce
Pesticides that are resistant to breakdown may remain in the soil and water for long periods of time
Long-term effects from consuming pesticides are unknown - the FDA sets tolerances for pesticides based on toxicity levels; however toxicity levels are tested for single pesticides, but little is known about the synergistic effects of exposure to multiple pesticides
Environmental effects - 98% of of insecticides and herbicides reach a destination other than their target species

Benefits

Reduces disease vectors (caused from insects & bacteria)
Produces aesthetically pleasing produce
Reduces pressure to expand land use (by increasing crop yields on farmland and reducing labor costs)
Reduces damage to structures (i.e. from termites)

What Farmers Can Do

Health problems - use of non-harmful "organically certified" pesticides
Environmental Effects - use of phermones (highly selective with negligible residues, reduces the use of harsher pesticides), use twist ties v. sprays (more effective at targeting species, without the environmental effects)

What Consumers Can Do

Learn more about the produce you eat (70% of produce grown is laced with no pesticides at all)
Selectively substitute for organic produce (especially for young children, since they have increased sensitivity towards pesticides), though it's important to note, even organic food uses pesticides
Wash, peel, and cook produce - according to the FDA, up to 99% of pesticide residues can be removed from produce just by washing with large amounts of cold water (do NOT use soap) [make sure to peel skins from apples, pears, potatoes, and carrots]
Trim off fat from meat, poultry, and fish - residues of some pesticides concentrate in animal fat

Produce with the most amount of pesticides

Peaches
Strawberries
Apples
Spinach
Nectarines
Celery
Pears
Cherries
Potatoes
Bell Peppers
Raspberries
Cantaloupe
Cucumbers
Squash
Grapes (Chile)

Produce with the least amount of pesticides

Sweet corn
Avocado
Pineapples
Plums
Brussel Sprouts
Eggplants
Cauliflower
Mangoes
Sweet peas
Asparagus
Onions
Broccoli
Bananas
Kiwi fruit
Papaya
Watermelon

So you think you speak with a Jersey accent...

2009-09-02T19:31:00.000-07:00

Well, this may very well be true, since I've spent a good part of my life living there. Though, the problem is - I don't know exactly what constitutes a Jersey accent, so I don't know if I speak with one... So, let's ask Google...

Thus far, my conclusions are inconclusive. This leads me to believe that the "all powerful" Google doesn't know either.

Clearly, the Jersey accent exists, but there are a lot of disagreements regarding its characteristics - and furthermore, it's disturbing that many of these so-called "Jersey accent experts" haven't even lived in New Jersey - which means, much of the folklore surrounding the Jersey accent is largely derived from movies and pop culture.

True, movies and pop culture may provide a good starting point for examining the subject, but a lot of the references I saw didn't seem to jive with my own personal experience. Maybe I'm just tone-deaf (which is always a possibility). And to their credit, it makes sense that an outsider would be able to discern a Jersey accent (more so than an insider, like myself, who's heard Jersey-speak all of their life).

So, keeping an open mind (and an open ear), below are some "clip-its" from my findings -

wikipedia - Uses the example "over deir" (v. "over there") to denote the Jersey accent. Hmmm... any teenager in America who slurs their words together would sound like that. And where's the reference to the word "water"???

eHow.com - Claims the Jersey accent requires dropping the "r" in words - for example, saying "ba," instead of "bar" or "ca," instead of "car." Hmmm... isn't that the Bostonian accent? Later on, in the comments section, someone writes, "a grinder/hero sandwich is referred to as a "sub" in North Jersey and a "hoagie" in South Jersey." But, isn't the word "sub" pretty common vernacular throughout the US (not just Jersey) - after all, even Californians stop by their local Subway to "eat fresh."

Antimoon.com - Recommends their readers to listen to Frank Sinatra or Jon Bon Jovi speak to truly understand the Jersey accent. Ummm... yeah, they're from Jersey, but that doesn't tell me much. And doesn't Frank Sinatra have a New York accent???

Then, in the comments section, one of the commentators presents this ditty as a representation of the Jersey accent:

Toity little boids
sittin' on a coib'
a choipin' and a boipin'
and eatin' doity woims
along came a squoit (squirt) named Moyt (Myrt)
and a floit (flirt) named Boyt (Bert)

Hmmm... that sounds more like a Brooklyn gangsta accent than a Jersey mall rat accent to me.... am I wrong?

youtube - According to someone there, Jersey folks misplace their "t's" from words. This might be the case (I'll have to listen more carefully). Though, I would like to provide the disclaimer that I generally "talk" (not "alk") to people. Plus, I had no clue what she was writing on her sign, so maybe I'm not a "true" Jersey boy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQJv04Y1rhc

Urban Dictionary - They actually provided a list! Incidentally, water was their first entry (which is promising).

War-der (Water)
Daw-der (Daughter)
Tawk (Talk)
Dawg (Dog)
Ax-cent (accent)
Wud-ever (whatever)
Jur-zee (Jersey)
Draw (Drawer)

So, there you have it. The Jersey accent in a nutshell. We slur our words, misplace our t's, r's, and every other letter from the alphabet, call a "sub" a "sub," and don't know what clear liquid we're drinking when we turn on the tap (i mean, fauce(t))....

Dead Pants Walking

2009-09-01T16:31:00.000-07:00

There's a school nearby my apartment, but I generally never notice the children, because our schedules never coincide. Today was different. It was the first day of school, and I was walking by a row of classrooms, just as the school bell rang (denoting the end of the school day). Expecting to be greeted by a crowd of cheerful faces celebrating the conclusion of their first day, I surprisingly witnessed a parade of saggy pants before me. True, this should come as no surprise, considering that the saggy pants phenomenon has been around for years, a remnant of the gansta look, which gained popularity during the 90's. But even so, the sight was shocking - perhaps it was the sheer quantity of exposed underwear (and bottoms) that passed me by. This got me thinking: where did this "saggy pants" phenomenon originate?

Well, digging deeper into the issue (with the help of my trusty friend Google), I discovered there are several theories on the topic. These range from prisoners wearing "saggy pants" (aka "jailin") to signify relationship availability, to a better way for gangters to conceal weapons.

In any case, the apparent truth behind saggy pants was the result of ill-fitting clothes in the prison system. Prisoners were often times provided clothing a few sizes too large (due to resource constraints), and since they weren't given belts to hold up their pants (for fear they would use these straps to commit suicide), they had nothing to keep their pants up. This led to constant hitching, causing the wearer to saunter around in a "penguin-like" walk (funny, you never seem to see that in prison movies).

Anyway, eventually this seeped out of the prison system into mainstream society, and soon thereafter a new fashion statement was born. Rappers and gangsters everywhere adopted the style to show how tough they were.

The ironic part about saggy pants is this: the origin of the phenomenon was due to a lack of belts in the prison system, yet today's wearers need belts just to keep their pants wrapped around their knee caps. And practically speaking, rather than being a sign of toughness, low-hanging pants are probably somewhat of a hindrance (especially during a fight). It's hard to keep balance when your pants are so low, and the odds of tripping over yourself are that much greater. Just think how much faster you'd run from the police, with your pants hitched up high, rather than hanging from your knees...

I guess, in a way, the joke's on them. Talk about getting caught with your pants down!

Tapping into the Teenage Mind

2009-08-30T18:25:00.000-07:00

What do today's teenagers like? Where do they like to shop/eat/hang out? What do they think about?

In order to delve deeper into the teenage psyche, I decided to participate in a teenage consumer marketing panel to unlock the secret behind today's teenager...

The results were interesting.

Myth #1: Teenagers spend without regard to money.

Reality: Today's teenagers are quite attuned to rising food costs, high gas prices, and the slowing economy. Many have made conscious efforts to consolidate trips, save money, and buckle down on discretionary spending.

Myth #2: Teenagers are vain and are not aware of current events.

Reality: The teenagers I spoke with had plenty to say about everything from economics/politics to the environment to the local dating scene.

Myth #3: Teenagers love shopping online (after all, everything is going digital!)

Reality: Teenagers are adverse to the idea of shopping online. Shopping is an experience - they like going to the mall to try on outfits, touch the fabric, and see what they're buying. Many had horror stories to tell about shopping online (wrong sizes, wrong items, etc.) and in many cases, some indicated the trade-off between shipping costs and gas mileage was negligible.

Myth #4: Teenagers care about brands.

Reality: Teenagers care more about fashion trends than brands (this is a different mindset from the teenager of years past). Teenagers of today want a certain fashion style, but are not willing to pay and an "arm and a leg" to get it. The girls we spoke to all cited Forever 21 as their favorite store (Forever 21 is similar to H&M, and sells name brand knock-offs for less). One girl criticized her friend for wearing Coach sneakers at gym (how obnoxious, she quipped!)

Myth #5: Teenagers care more about quality v. quantity.

Reality: Teenagers want more for their money. They are OK with clothes that only last a few weeks - they are constantly refreshing their wardrobe. They would rather have a trendy outfit that lasts a few days than a well-made item that lasts for years.

Myth #6: Teenagers hang out all the time.

Reality: With rising gas prices, teenagers have spent less time wandering the malls, watching movies, and dining out. Where do they spend their time, you ask? Well, they've gone back to basics - visiting friend's houses, going to the beach, hiking, and sitting at home (twiddling their thumbs).

The Good Enough Generation

2009-08-25T09:05:00.000-07:00

For generations, companies have struggled to build the "better mousetrap." Enormous amounts of resources have been dedicated towards making machines better, faster, smarter, and more efficient - and this has been mutually beneficial for the public and the companies themselves. For the public, better products increase people's standard of living, and for the companies, this means goods that command higher prices, and also higher profits.

This paradigm has worked for many years, because each iteration of a product design has brought along a disproportionate amount of benefit to the customers buying them. For example, over past couple of decades, each new computer a customer bought was significantly faster than the one before, which allowed them to multi-task and be more efficient.

However, what if this paradigm is changing? What if each new iteration is only slightly better than the one before? A recent Wired magazine article suggests this new "revolution" is already happening. Better may not be good enough. And when "Good to Better" doesn't work, society turns to "Good Enough."

The article highlights several innovations which employ this philosophy:

mp3's: True, the mp3 format provides inferior audio quality when compared to a music CD. However, mp3's are the "good enough" solution for casual listening. In addition, it is low-cost, portable, and can be copied, distributed, and shared quickly.

Flip Camera: A stripped down camcorder with minuscule viewing screen, no color-adjustment features, and only the most rudimentary controls (it doesn't even have digital zoom!) However, it's small, inexpensive, and so simple to use a child can use it.

Predator Drone: A rudimentary plane that only flies 135 mph with an altitude ceiling of 25,000 feet (compared to a military aircraft, which can travel up to 420mph and cruise at 45,000 feet). Unlike a piloted plane, it can record more flight hours (since it never needs to rest). In addition, it is always available, cheap to build, and enables remotely guided surgical strikes with fewer troops and armaments.

The above rings true for many other "products" that have started to seep into our lives. For example, Skype is the "good enough" phone. WebMD is the "good enough" doctor. youtube is the "good enough" television.

And the most recent debate within the media industry is similar. Will consumers upgrade from the DVD video format to the "much" better quality blu ray format (introduced by Sony). Will the "better mousetrap" win? Or will the "good enough" solution prevail. If recent history is any indication, DVDs may be here to stay for a while...

History is Written by the Victors

2009-08-24T20:21:00.000-07:00

It's interesting that China's foreign policy has evolved into a more accommodating stance for all countries, with exception of the US, Japan, and Taiwan. Surprisingly, amongst the three, Japan is the biggest "hot button" issue due to historical tensions between the two countries (especially given humiliation from the Sino-Japanese War and devastation from World War II atrocities). A Chinese citizen measured the intensity of his feelings by stating, "I would like to donate one month's salary if our army fought against Taiwan. I would like to donate one year's salary if our army fought against America. I would like to donate my life if our army fought against Japan."

Emotions run high in China when it comes to Japan. In fact, riots broke out all over China when Prime Minister Koizumi decided to make annual visits to the Yasukuni Shrine, which honors Japanese soldiers that died during World War II, many of whom were tried as war criminals for persecuting Chinese during the Nanjing Massacre (where some 200,000 Chinese were killed and 20,000 women were raped). To show their outrage for past events, Chinese today refer to their toilets as Yasukuni Shrines. In another recent incident, a magazine fashion spread featuring a Chinese actress wearing a short dress with a large imperial Japanese flag printed on it sparked a media frenzy. Protesters smashed the actress' house with bricks and bottles. The actress apologized; nevertheless, at a New Year's party, an enraged man still accosted her and smeared excrement all over her.

What is the source of this hatred? Perhaps the way historical events are portrayed within these countries helps to explain why they harbor such intense feelings towards each other.

In China, it was low point in history when a small island in the South Pacific (Japan) defeated their great nation during the Sino Japanese War. Later on, that small island even occupied China for a brief period. To add to injury, the Nanjing Massacre (which is sometimes referred to as the Rape of Nanjing) is equivalent of the Holocaust for the Jewish in Germany.

In Japan, history books generally gloss over the Nanjing Massacre as a non-event. More emphasis is placed on the human suffering caused by the American nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, with hardly any mention of the Japanese attack over Pearl Harbor, which provoked it. In fact, students visiting museums are often surprised to hear that Americans suffered casualties during World War II and many aren't familiar with the Nanjing Massacre at all. In short, students generally study a "white-washed" version of history, which glorifies the rise of Japan as an economic power. It's no wonder that today's Japanese feel unfairly victimized, to the point where there has been some talk of reversing Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution, which limits their military to peacekeeping forces.

It just goes to show you that history is told "in the eye of its beholder" - which can often times be problematic. And here's another thought for the day - when it comes to China, the media often places emphasis on its imperial ambitions towards Taiwan. However, could there be another war in waiting, that's even more pressing on the horizon? Only time will tell...

Harley Davidson: Riding into the Sunset

2009-08-23T08:40:00.000-07:00

Harley Davidson has shown stellar growth for decades, introducing the "baby boomer" generation to the "Harley Davidson lifestyle" - a semi-fictional image of the care-free, biker-dude, Easy Rider.

However, since the early part of this decade, the company (and its stock price) has gone from "stud" to "dud." Why?

Well, the average age of the current Harley customer is approx. 55 years old, and they are now starting to face physical challenges and financial troubles from the recent credit crisis that might keep them off of their Hogs for good.

Below we highlight some of the key demographic segments the company must court in the coming years (in order to reinvigorate growth), as its loyal core demographic "rides into the sunset:"

Women - Only 12% of their customer base is female. In other words, 88% of their customers are male.
Blacks/Hispanics - Ethnic groups are also a weak demographic for Harley. This must change. Hispanics are one of the few demographics that still experience "normal" population growth and their buying power is growing faster than all other ethnic groups (+8.5% CAGR during last five years). In fact, it is expected that Hispanics will constitute close to 1/4 of the US population by 2050.
Gen X/Y'ers - The average age of a Harley rider has risen from 38 to 55 in the past decade and a half. This trend is expected to continue, as their core demographic ("baby boomer" easy riders) continue to age, AND more importantly, retire from the biker lifestyle. Meanwhile, Harley has not been able to attract Gen X/Y'ers (25-34 yr olds) to replace the aging baby boomer population. Competitors Suzuki, Honda, Yamaha, and Kawasaki have a combined 92% of the Gen X/Y market.

Furthermore, Harley's motorcycles are still considered pricey investments (the typical cruiser costs $16,000), which plays against trends towards more inconspicuous consumption. This compares to cheaper models introduced by competitors.

What Harley needs to do -

1) Something dramatic; small tweaks will not work; they will need to reinvent themselves

- Major Re-branding Initiatives -
this will allow the company to segregate their core market segment from new market initiatives

2) Harley needs a more relevant message, and at the very least it needs to -

- Tout the eco-benefits of a motorcycle v. a car
(i.e. how can riding a motorcycle make you more "green?")

- Tout the cost benefits of a motorcycle v. a car
(introduce sleeker, sportier, cheaper models - perhaps using a different sub-brand)

The tricky balance the company has to achieve is: appeal to new demographic groups, without alienating their current customer base, which still generates the majority of their revenues. This is not an easy task!

Conventional strategy suggests creating sub-brands to appeal to these new target segments (women, ethnic groups, Gen X/Y). Harley has already made strides marketing to these new demographics (albeit not through creating new sub-brands), but they need to do more AND QUICKER. The clock is ticking...

The Dating Market

2009-08-21T11:50:00.000-07:00

I was reading the following Financial Times article on marriage, when it sparked a thought -

For films, there's already an efficient market for predetermining box-office performance before a movie's debut. "Stock" charts on the Hollywood Stock Exchange reveal up-to-the-minute guesstimates of future box office results.

In politics, researchers often survey audience reactions to candidate speeches in order to gauge public sentiment. And the Iowa Electronic Markets provides an interesting window into who will take the lead in the upcoming Presidential elections.

So, what if we had a market for dating - and price movements determined how well we performed during dates? I'm sure that would prove to be devastating for all of us (but amusing to market watchers everywhere) As if life wasn't competitive enough already... How's your stock doing, baby? Points off for wandering eyes and things stuck on your teeth... ; )

From Infinity & Beyond

2009-08-20T09:33:00.000-07:00

When I was little, I would stare out into the night sky in fascination and awe. The moon, the stars, and the comets all seemed to float about in such perfect synchrony. There was so little I knew about it, yet I knew it was beautiful, and it greeted me each and every night, as the sun dimmed.

In school, I learned about the stars, planets, and galaxies, and their place in the overall universe, yet there was one question that plagued me most: how big was the universe? I asked my teacher, and she was clearly startled by my question. Nevertheless, she responded, "The universe is infinite." That meant, there was no end to the universe – it went on forever! It was a baffling answer - how can something go on forever?

Several years later, I was introduced to the Big Bang Theory, which suggests, "The universe expanded from a primordial hot and dense point, and continues to expand to this very day." This begs the question, if the universe began as some hot, dense point in time, what was around that point (or next to it)? And if the universe continues to expand, is there an edge to the universe? What does that look like?

I still don't know the answers to these questions, but I'm comforted that nobody else knows, either.

The funny thing about the Big Bang Theory is its origin. The premise behind it is not rocket science (no pun intended) – in fact, it's actually quite simple. A while back, astronomers noticed that stars (and other objects in the universe) had been consistently moving farther and farther away from each other. Therefore, they postulated that at some point in time during the past, these objects must have been closer– so close, in fact, that they were clumped together in a hot dense point of mass. This is probably not the high-tech scientific explanation you were expecting, but it does involve some inference, and a lot of faith.

Pretty weird that hundreds of years of science have given us the perception that we've unlocked all the mysteries of the world, only to discover that in reality, we've only scratched the surface.

We Are What We Eat

2009-08-19T11:17:00.000-07:00

People say "we are what we eat" - and if that holds true, we'd be adequately described as living embodiments of "corn."

Decedents of the Maya living in Mexico still sometimes refer to themselves at "the corn people," due to their heavy consumption of tortillas. Though, that title may be a misnomer - examining levels of carbon 13 within the body (since corn takes in more carbon 13 than any other C-3 plant) - Americans would beat out Mexicans as the leading consumers of corn. In fact, the average American consumes 1,500 pounds of corn a year (that's 4 pounds a day!)

Corn is in everything we eat: most famously chicken, beef, soda, and candy. However, corn has been known to be present in tea, sauces, cookies, chips, cosmetics, paper, paint/varnish, pharmaceuticals, toothpaste, beer, and whiskey - amongst many other things...

Corn - > Chicken (56% corn)
Corn - > Cows (52% corn)
Corn - > Cows - > Milk - > Cheese
Corn - > High-Fructose Corn Syrup - > Soda (100% corn)
Corn - > High-Fructose Corn Syrup - > Candy (100% corn)

Interestingly, speaking with meat processing analysts, they often refer to chicken as "corn with wings" and to beef as "corn with legs." After all, 60% of the corn produced in the US goes to feed livestock. Well, if chicken is "corn with wings," and beef is "corn with legs," I wonder what that makes us - "corn with heads," or better yet, "corn with ears"?? Well, corn already has ears (figuratively speaking, of course) ; )

Corn is a big part of our past (Pilgrims switched from wheat to corn, because of its versatility for growing in virtually every climate in the US) and corn already looks to be a big part of our future... which prompts for an interesting food for fuel discussion.

Thanks to a government sponsored tax break, more than 25% of American corn will be turned into ethanol, thus diverting from other uses (mainly animal feed) - this will displace less than 2% of oil consumption. Chickens (corn with wings) will also play a role in this discussion - there are already plans to mix chicken fat with diesel to create bio-diesel and high-grade jet fuel; plus, chicken feathers will soon be transformed into bio-plastics (2010/11 and beyond).

Either way, corn is an integral part of the world we life in. I guess we could say corn fuels human beings just like oil fuels machinery. So, I guess next time you refer to someone as "cheesy," the word "corny" is probably just as apropos (for you as well)... ; )

Equality or Inequality

2009-08-18T09:30:00.000-07:00

Newton stated that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Well, in modern physics, every force has an opposite, but not necessarily equal force - and that's a good thing.

There are four different forces that exist in nature: weak, strong, electromagnetic, and gravitational.

On the microscopic scale, atoms are govern by two forces: weak and strong. Weak forces are from weak gauge bosons, which are responsible for radioactive decay of substances, like uranium and cobalt. Strong forces are from gluons, which hold atoms together.

On a larger scale, everything from people/animals, to the earth and universe is also governed by two forces: electromagnetic and gravitational. Electromagnetic forces are from photons, (i.e. light, which has both electric and magnetic properties), and gravity, which keeps our feet planted on the ground.

All four of these forces are present everywhere (and at all times) though interestingly, the unequal ratio of these forces to each other creates a perfect and divine balance throughout the universe.

For example, suppose there are two people standing next to each other. Both gravitational and electromagnetic forces act on these two people. However, if the gravitational force were several times greater than the electromagnetic force, the two people would be stuck together like glue and they would have a hard time pushing each other away (which for some people, wouldn't be a bad thing). Though, in many ways, thankfully, this isn't the case.

This exercise is even more interesting at the subatomic level. If we place two electrons next two each other, the same two forces act on them. Is the electromagnetic force or the gravitational force stronger? No contest. The electromagnetic repulsion between the two is about a million billion billion billion billion times stronger (or 10^42). In fact, if you were holding one of the electrons using your left hand, your right hand would extend beyond the edge of the known universe to represent the strength of this electromagnetic force. The reason why electromagnetic forces don't completely overwhelm gravitational forces in our world, is because there are usually enough positive and negative charges to cancel each other out. Good thing, because otherwise, we'd have complete chaos!

In fact, the delicate balance of charges creates all of the elements on the periodic table. For example, protons crammed together in atomic nuclei all repel each other, but the strong force of gluons holds them together in place, and the ratio of these forces is structured to create a sort of divine harmony. A rather small change between these forces at the subatomic level would easily disrupt the balance of every atom in nature and cause nuclei to disintegrate.

Consider this - if the mass of an electron were a few times greater than it is, electrons and protons would combine to form neutrons, creating an entire world of hydrogen (the simplest element). Not only would it prevent the production of more complex elements, but it would wipe out the existence of life itself. The existence of this perfect ratio creates everything around us - all that we cherish.

We often espouse the benefits of equality in the world, but in essence, there is a place for equality AND inequality. The equal balance of charges results in harmony, while the unequal balance of masses (of subatomic particles) results in life. Perhaps if we could all learn to strike the same delicate balance (as nature has done), we would all be better off...

Piracy as a business model

2009-08-17T20:55:00.000-07:00

Piracy is often considered to be little more than a crime in the US, but interestingly, it's blossoming into a "legitimate" business model in other countries, like China and Brazil. In fact, some companies have found creative ways to thrive in a virtually "piracy-dominated" environment, and more importantly, discovered ways to transform it into a new, innovative medium for marketing and branding products.

Of course, piracy also exists in the US (though is not as prevalent [or accepted], due to our established legal & patent system). Nevertheless, it's still considered a looming threat for many companies that fail to embrace it. Perhaps some learnings from developing countries can be applied towards developing new trend-based marketing solutions, especially with a consumer that's finally learning to cut back -

Piracy as a Business Model