• Send 400+ SMS text messages a month 
• Watch 1-2 hours a week TV (with advertising removed, DVR/TIVO)
• All own Apple iPods (and wouldn't consider changing)
• All buy stuff online (clothes, electronics, stuff) with either their own debit card or their parents credit card
• Most use Firefox or Safari, with some form of popup blocker / banner advertising remover
• All use myspace or facebook or both
• All see email as best for a formal communication (teachers, parents, work) and recieve 5-10 email a day.
• 1/2 use IM, those that do have an avg of 5 windows open
• 10% owned game consoles or played online gaming - as a social activity
• None knew what RSS was
• All read blogs
• 90% used Microsoft Office as an "integral part" of work/study/homework
• 50% Owned Apple Mac Laptops as their personal computer

• hi5.com ( Social Networking / Travel)
• Fark.com (Social News & Humor)
• Slide.com (Flash photosharing tool)
• PlentyOfFish.com (Dating Site)
• HotOrNot.com (Web voting / Dating)
• SuicideGirls.com (Dating, Soft porn)

All top 500 WWW websites by traffic (Alexa.com) and all bootstrapped by their founders

Interesting to hear their stories: The main points were:

• Make something people want
• You don't own you website, your visitors/customers do
• Try several iterations of your product / business model to get it right
• Luck is a big factor (or being in the right place at the right time)
• Do what you love (improves your stickiness to work on the cause)
• Starting a startup is like agreeing to become BiPolar

If your into podcasts you should check out the #1 Australian Podcast "Gday World", hosted by Cameron Reilly.

Damn good Podcast...

Favourite Episodes:

All my life I've been registering scores like that, so that I have the complacent feeling that I'm highly intelligent, and I expect other people to think so too. Actually, though, don't such scores simply mean that I am very good at answering the type of academic questions that are considered worthy of answers by people who make up the intelligence tests - people with intellectual bents similar to mine?

For instance, I had an auto-repair man once, who, on these intelligence tests, could not possibly have scored more than 80, by my estimate. I always took it for granted that I was far more intelligent than he was. Yet, when anything went wrong with my car I hastened to him with it, watched him anxiously as he explored its vitals, and listened to his pronouncements as though they were divine oracles - and he always fixed my car.

Well, then, suppose my auto-repair man devised questions for an intelligence test. Or suppose a carpenter did, or a farmer, or, indeed, almost anyone but an academician. By every one of those tests, I'd prove myself a moron, and I'd be a moron, too. In a world where I could not use my academic training and my verbal talents but had to do something intricate or hard, working with my hands, I would do poorly. My intelligence, then, is not absolute but is a function of the society I live in and of the fact that a small subsection of that society has managed to foist itself on the rest as an arbiter of such matters.

Consider my auto-repair man, again. He had a habit of telling me jokes whenever he saw me. One time he raised his head from under the automobile hood to say: "Doc, a deaf-and-mute guy went into a hardware store to ask for some nails. He put two fingers together on the counter and made hammering motions with the other hand. The clerk brought him a hammer. He shook his head and pointed to the two fingers he was hammering. The clerk brought him nails. He picked out the sizes he wanted, and left. Well, doc, the next guy who came in was a blind man. He wanted scissors. How do you suppose he asked for them?"

Indulgently, I lifted by right hand and made scissoring motions with my first two fingers. Whereupon my auto-repair man laughed raucously and said, "Why, you dumb jerk, He used his voice and asked for them." Then he said smugly, "I've been trying that on all my customers today." "Did you catch many?" I asked. "Quite a few," he said, "but I knew for sure I'd catch you." "Why is that?" I asked. "Because you're so goddamned educated, doc, I knew you couldn't be very smart."

And I have an uneasy feeling he had something there. "

http://www.haverford.edu/writingprogram/Asimov.html

TheDaveCarterShow.com

Sir Ken Robinson makes an entertaining (and profoundly moving) case for creating an education system that nurtures creativity, rather than undermining it.

Recorded February 2006 TED Monterey, California. Duration: 20:03

How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity

All creative works�??books, movies, records, software, and so on�??are a compromise between what can be imagined and what is possible�??technologically and legally.  For hundreds of years, laws have sought a balance between rewarding creativity and allowing the borrowing from which new creativity springs. 

Lawrence Lessig shows us that while new technologies always lead to new laws, never before have the big cultural monopolists used the fear created by new technologies, specifically the Internet, to shrink the public domain of ideas, even as the same corporations use the same technologies to control more and more what we can and can�??t do with culture.

As more and more culture becomes digitized, more and more becomes controllable, even as laws are being toughened at the behest of the big media groups.

What�??s at stake is our freedom�??freedom to create, freedom to build, and ultimately, freedom to imagine.

http://lessig.org/freeculture/free.html

What is identity and what does it mean? (link)

Seth Godin is the author of six bestsellers, including Permission Marketing, and now his new book "All Marketers are Liars", has already made the Amazon Top 100 and has inspired its own blog.

Seth is also a renowned speaker, and was recently chosen as one of "21 Speakers for the Next Century" by Successful Meetings Magazine and is consistently rated among the best speakers by the audiences he addresses.

Seth was founder and CEO of Yoyodyne, an interactive direct marketing company, which Yahoo! acquired in late 1998. He holds an MBA from Stanford, is a contributing editor to Fast Company magazine, and was called "the Ultimate Entrepreneur for the Information Age" by Business Week.

Read More

I received an email today from the people at iStockPhoto. I have spent several hundred dollars with them over the last few years buying stock images for different websites, and was until now extremely pleased with them as a company.

After purchasing a few images for one of our graphic designers i had posted them to my flickr account so he could view them and then choose one of them to use on one of our websites.

Then today i received this email.

Hello XXX,

It has come to our attention that you have been posting images from
our collection in your Flickr account:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/XXXXXXXX

The images seem to have been acquired from our collection utilizing a
bogus account that shares you IP and features all of the images, at
the same sizes as well, displayed illegally on your Flickr account. I
strongly suggest you remove ANY AND ALL iStockphoto images from your
Flickr account immediately.

We will be contacting Flickr to inform them of your misconduct if the
images are not removed before 12:00 PM (MST) Wednesday January 9 2007.

If you have any questions or concerns please feel free to contact me
directly.

Regards,
Chris McBurney
iStock International Inc.

NOTICE: Although we try our best to offer useful advice on
interpretation and other issues, you should bear in mind that nothing
we say should be construed as legal advice on any particular issue or
be considered a substitute for seeking proper counsel for your legal
affairs.

I was shocked. Firstly, i purchased these images to use on a website, so posting them to a Flickr account hardly seemed like a gross violation of the terms and conditions. To be advised of my "misconduct" and my "bogus account" and that i needed to "seek legal council" was quite a shock. (a friendly terms and contitions reminder would have been fine)

I removed the images from my flickr account, and replyed to the iStockPhoto people via email notifiying them that i was dissapointed that they were treating their customers as criminals (very RIAA like) and that i would look elsewhere for Stock Images in future.

To add insult to injury they replied with this.

Hello XXX,

Well done iStockPhoto. No one in the world steals iStockPhoto images, they cost 1 dollar each, and yet they send a whole legal letter "illegal distribution" and "bogus misconduct".

iStockPhoto democratised stock images, and all their customers love them and would never want to rip them off, including me.

But now, they have effectively banned me, and converted me into an angry ex customer, and over what? a few flickr photos? 

Anyone know any decent Stock Photo providers? It seems im looking for a new provider...

Lifelogging with gordon bell

1. If your throat tickles, scratch your ear!
When you were 9, playing your armpit was a cool trick. Now, as an adult, you can still appreciate a good body-based feat, but you're more discriminating. Take that tickle in your throat; it's not worth gagging over. Here's a better way to scratch your itch: "When the nerves in the ear are stimulated, it creates a reflex in the throat that can cause a muscle spasm," says Scott Schaffer, M.D., president of an ear, nose, and throat specialty center in Gibbsboro, New Jersey. "This spasm relieves the tickle."

2. Experience supersonic hearing!
If you're stuck chatting up a mumbler at a cocktail party, lean in with your right ear. It's better than your left at following the rapid rhythms of speech, according to researchers at the UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine. If, on the other hand, you're trying to identify that song playing softly in the elevator, turn your left ear toward the sound. The left ear is better at picking up music tones.

3. Overcome your most primal urge!
Need to pee? No bathroom nearby? Fantasize about Jessica Simpson. Thinking about sex preoccupies your brain, so you won't feel as much discomfort, says Larry Lipshultz, M.D., chief of male reproductive medicine at the Baylor College of Medicine. For best results, try Simpson's "These Boots Are Made for Walking" video.

4. Feel no pain!
German researchers have discovered that coughing during an injection can lessen the pain of the needle stick. According to Taras Usichenko, author of a study on the phenomenon, the trick causes a sudden, temporary rise in pressure in the chest and spinal canal, inhibiting the pain-conducting structures of the spinal cord.

5. Clear your stuffed nose!
Forget Sudafed. An easier, quicker, and cheaper way to relieve sinus pressure is by alternately thrusting your tongue against the roof of your mouth, then pressing between your eyebrows with one finger. This causes the vomer bone, which runs through the nasal passages to the mouth, to rock back and forth, says Lisa DeStefano, D.O., an assistant professor at the Michigan State University college of osteopathic medicine. The motion loosens congestion; after 20 seconds, you'll feel your sinuses start to drain. 

6. Fight fire without water!
Worried those wings will repeat on you tonight? "Sleep on your left side," says Anthony A. Starpoli, M.D., a New York City gastroenterologist and assistant professor of medicine at New York Medical College. Studies have shown that patients who sleep on their left sides are less likely to suffer from acid reflux. The esophagus and stomach connect at an angle. When you sleep on your right, the stomach is higher than the esophagus, allowing food and stomach acid to slide up your throat. When you're on your left, the stomach is lower than the esophagus, so gravity's in your favor.

7. Cure your toothache without opening your mouth!
Just rub ice on the back of your hand, on the V-shaped webbed area between your thumb and index finger. A Canadian study found that this technique reduces toothache pain by as much as 50 percent compared with using no ice. The nerve pathways at the base of that V stimulate an area of the brain that blocks pain signals from the face and hands. 

8. Make burns disappear!
When you accidentally singe your finger on the stove, clean the skin and apply light pressure with the finger pads of your unmarred hand. Ice will relieve your pain more quickly, Dr. DeStefano says, but since the natual method brings the burned skin back to a normal temperature, the skin is less likely to blister. 

9. Stop the world from spinning!
One too many drinks left you dizzy? Put your hand on something stable. The part of your ear responsible for balance -- the cupula -- floats in a fluid of the same density as blood. "As alcohol dilutes blood in the cupula, the cupula becomes less dense and rises," says Dr. Schaffer. This confuses your brain. The tactile input from a stable object gives the brain a second opinion, and you feel more in balance. Because the nerves in the hand are so sensitive, this works better than the conventional foot-on-the-floor wisdom.

10. Unstitch your side!
If you're like most people, when you run, you exhale as your right foot hits the ground. This puts downward pressure on your liver (which lives on your right side), which then tugs at the diaphragm and creates a side stitch, according to The Doctors Book of Home Remedies for Men. The fix: Exhale as your left foot strikes the ground.

11. Stanch blood with a single finger!
Pinching your nose and leaning back is a great way to stop a nosebleed -- if you don't mind choking on your own O positive. A more civil approach: Put some cotton on your upper gums -- just behind that small dent below your nose -- and press against it, hard. "Most bleeds come from the front of the septum, the cartilage wall that divides the nose," says Peter Desmarais, M.D., an ear, nose, and throat specialist at Entabeni Hospital, in Durban, South Africa. "Pressing here helps stop them."

12. Make your heart stand still!
Trying to quell first-date jitters? Blow on your thumb. The vagus nerve, which governs heart rate, can be controlled through breathing, says Ben Abo, an emergency medical- services specialist at the University of Pittsburgh. It'll get your heart rate back to normal. 

13. Thaw your brain!
Too much Chipwich too fast will freeze the brains of lesser men. As for you, press your tongue flat against the roof of your mouth, covering as much as you can. "Since the nerves in the roof of your mouth get extremely cold, your body thinks your brain is freezing, too," says Abo. "In compensating, it overheats, causing an ice-cream headache." The more pressure you apply to the roof of your mouth, the faster your headache will subside. 

14. Prevent near-sightedness!
Poor distance vision is rarely caused by genetics, says Anne Barber, O.D., an optometrist in Tacoma, Washington. "It's usually caused by near-point stress." In other words, staring at your computer screen for too long. So flex your way to 20/20 vision. Every few hours during the day, close your eyes, tense your body, take a deep breath, and, after a few seconds, release your breath and muscles at the same time. Tightening and releasing muscles such as the biceps and glutes can trick involuntary muscles -- like the eyes -- into relaxing as well. 

15. Wake the dead!
If your hand falls asleep while you're driving or sitting in an odd position, rock your head from side to side. It'll painlessly banish your pins and needles in less than a minute, says Dr. DeStefano. A tingly hand or arm is often the result of compression in the bundle of nerves in your neck; loosening your neck muscles releases the pressure. Compressed nerves lower in the body govern the feet, so don't let your sleeping dogs lie. Stand up and walk around. 

16. Impress your friends!
Next time you're at a party, try this trick: Have a person hold one arm straight out to the side, palm down, and instruct him to maintain this position. Then place two fingers on his wrist and push down. He'll resist. Now have him put one foot on a surface that's a half inch higher (a few magazines) and repeat. This time his arm will cave like the French. By misaligning his hips, you've offset his spine, says Rachel Cosgrove, C.S.C.S., co-owner of Results Fitness, in Santa Clarita, California. Your brain senses that the spine is vulnerable, so it shuts down the body's ability to resist.

17. Breathe underwater!
If you're dying to retrieve that quarter from the bottom of the pool, take several short breaths first -- essentially, hyperventilate. When you're underwater, it's not a lack of oxygen that makes you desperate for a breath; it's the buildup of carbon dioxide, which makes your blood acidic, which signals your brain that somethin' ain't right. "When you hyperventilate, the influx of oxygen lowers blood acidity," says Jonathan Armbruster, Ph.D., an associate professor of biology at Auburn University. "This tricks your brain into thinking it has more oxygen." It'll buy you up to 10 seconds.

18. Read minds!
Your own! "If you're giving a speech the next day, review it before falling asleep," says Candi Heimgartner, an instructor of biological sciences at the University of Idaho. Since most memory consolidation happens during sleep, anything you read right before bed is more likely to be encoded as long-term memory.

A fantasic 2 hour doco dicussing exteme life extension, cryogenics, nanotechnology and the philosphical debate over extending youthful human life by 100, 1000 or even more years

Full Screen 

From EconLog

I'm sick of having my choices made for me by a governing body concerned primarily with whether I can make a mistake, instead of whether I can realise my ambitions.

Read Others Responses at EconLog

"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill

"A modest little person, with much to be modest about."
Winston Churchill

"I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure."
Clarence Darrow

"He has never been known to use a word that might send a reader to the dictionary."
William Faulkner (about Ernest Hemingway)

"Poor Faulkner. Does he really think big emotions come from big words?"
Ernest Hemingway (about William Faulkner)

"Thank you for sending me a copy of your book; I'll waste no time reading it."
Moses Hadas

"He can compress the most words into the smallest idea of any man I know."
Abraham Lincoln

"I've had a perfectly wonderful evening. But this wasn't it."
Groucho Marx

"I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it."
Mark Twain

"He has no enemies, but is intensely disliked by his friends."
Oscar Wilde

"I am enclosing two tickets to the first night of my new play, bring a friend... if you have one."
George Bernard Shaw to Winston Churchill

"Cannot possibly attend first night, will attend second...if there is one."
Winston Churchill, in response

"I feel so miserable without you, it's almost like having you here."
Stephen Bishop

"He is a self-made man and worships his creator."
John Bright

"I've just learned about his illness. Let's hope it's nothing trivial."
Irvin S. Cobb

"He is not only dull himself, he is the cause of dullness in others."
Samuel Johnson

"He is simply a shiver looking for a spine to run up."
Paul Keating

"He had delusions of adequacy."
Walter Kerr

"There's nothing wrong with you that reincarnation won't cure."
Jack E. Leonard

"He has the attention span of a lightning bolt."
Robert Redford

"They never open their mouths without subtracting from the sum of human knowledge."
Thomas Brackett Reed

"He inherited some good instincts from his Quaker forebears, but by diligent hard work, he overcame them."
James Reston (about Richard Nixon)

"In order to avoid being called a flirt, she always yielded easily."
Charles, Count Talleyrand

"He loves nature in spite of what it did to him."
Forrest Tucker

"Why do you sit there looking like an envelope without any address on it?"
Mark Twain

"His mother should have thrown him away and kept the stork."
Mae West

"Some cause happiness wherever they go; others, whenever they go."
Oscar Wilde

"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts...for support rather than illumination."
Andrew Lang (1844-1912)

"He has Van Gogh's ear for music."
Billy Wilder

"Most people, including ourselves, live in a world of relative ignorance.
We are even comfortable with that ignorance, because it is all we know.
When we first start facing truth, the process may be frightening,
and many people run back to their old lives.
But if you continue to seek truth, you will eventually be able to
handle it better. In fact, you want more! It's true that many people around
you now may think you are weird or even a danger to society, but you don't care.
Once you've tasted the truth, you won't ever want to go back to being ignorant!"
- Plato taken from his most famous book 'The Republic'

"Your lies won't last, they will only tie a knot!
We aren't as stupid as you'd like!
We aren't your fantasy...A World of Robots!"
- Evolushroom

"Let us declare nature to be legitimate.
All plants should be declared legal, and all animals for that matter.
The notion of illegal plants and animals is obnoxious and ridiculous."
- Terence McKenna

Love from Meph and Numskull

I argue very well. Ask any of my remaining friends. I can win an argument on any topic, against any opponent. People know this, and steer clear of me at parties. Often, as a sign of their great respect, they don't even invite me. You too can win arguments. Simply follow these rules:

• Drink Liquor.

  Suppose you're at a party and some hotshot intellectual is expounding on the economy of Peru, a subject you know nothing about. If you're drinking some health-fanatic drink like grapefruit juice, you'll hang back, afraid to display your ignorance, while the hotshot enthralls your date. But if you drink several large martinis, you'll discover you have STRONG VIEWS about the Peruvian economy. You'll be a WEALTH of information. You'll argue forcefully, offering searing insights and possibly upsetting furniture. People will be impressed. Some may leave the room.

• Make things up.

  Suppose, in the Peruvian economy argument, you are trying to prove Peruvians are underpaid, a position you base solely on the fact that YOU are underpaid, and you're damned if you're going to let a bunch of Peruvians be better off. DON'T say: "I think Peruvians are underpaid." Say: "The average Peruvian's salary in 1981 dollars adjusted for the revised tax base is $1,452.81 per annum, which is $836.07 before the mean gross poverty level."

  NOTE: Always make up exact figures.

  If an opponent asks you where you got your information, make THAT up, too. Say: "This information comes from Dr. Hovel T. Moon's study for the Buford Commission published May 9, 1982. Didn't you read it?" Say this in the same tone of voice you would use to say "You left your soiled underwear in my bath house."

• Use meaningless but weightly-sounding words and phrases.

  Memorize this list:

  • Let me put it this way
  • In terms of
  • Vis-a-vis
  • Per se
  • As it were
  • Qua
  • So to speak

  You should also memorize some Latin abbreviations such as "Q.E.D.," "e.g.," and "i.e." These are all short for "I speak Latin, and you do not."

  Here's how to use these words and phrases. Suppose you want to say: "Peruvians would like to order appetizers more often, but they don't have enough money."

  You never win arguments talking like that. But you WILL win if you say: "Let me put it this way. In terms of appetizers vis-a-vis Peruvians qua Peruvians, they would like to order them more often, so to speak, but they do not have enough money per se, as it were. Q.E.D."

  Only a fool would challenge that statement.

• Use snappy and irrelevant comebacks.

  You need an arsenal of all-purpose irrelevent phrases to fire back at your opponents when they make valid points. The best are:

  • You're begging the question.
  • You're being defensive.
  • Don't compare apples and oranges.
  • What are your parameters?

  This last one is especially valuable. Nobody, other than mathematicians, has the vaguest idea what "parameters" means.

  Here's how to use your comebacks:

  You say	As Abraham Lincoln said in 1873...
  Your opponent says	Lincoln died in 1865.
  You say	You're begging the question.
  OR
  You say	Liberians, like most Asians...
  Your opponent says	Liberia is in Africa.
  You say	You're being defensive.

• Compare your opponent to Adolf Hitler.

  This is your heavy artillery, for when your opponent is obviously right and you are spectacularly wrong. Bring Hitler up subtly. Say: "That sounds suspiciously like something Adolf Hitler might say" or "You certainly do remind me of Adolf Hitler."

So that's it: you now know how to out-argue anybody. Do not try to pull any of this on people who generally carry weapons.

_{Stolen from Orange Papers}

On Aug. 16, two men were escorted off a plane headed for Manchester, England, because some passengers thought they looked either Asian or Middle Eastern, might have been talking Arabic, wore leather jackets, and looked at their watches -- and the passengers refused to fly with them on board. The menwere questioned for several hours and then released.

On Aug. 15, an entire airport terminal was evacuated because someone's cosmetics triggered a false positive for explosives. The same day, a Muslim man was removed from an airplane in Denver for reciting prayers. The Transportation Security Administration decided that the flight crew overreacted, but he still had to spend the night in Denver before flying home the next day. The next day, a Port of Seattle terminal was evacuated because a couple of dogs gave a false alarm for explosives.

On Aug. 19, a plane made an emergency landing in Tampa, Florida, after the crew became suspicious because two of the lavatory doors were locked. The plane was searched, but nothing was found. Meanwhile, a man who tampered with a bathroom smoke detector on a flight to San Antonio was cleared of terrorism, but only after having his house searched.

On Aug. 16, a woman suffered a panic attack and became violent on a flight from London to Washington, so the plane was escorted to the Boston airport by fighter jets. "The woman was carrying hand cream and matches but was not a terrorist threat," said the TSA spokesman after the incident.

And on Aug. 18, a plane flying from London to Egypt made an emergency landing in Italy when someone found a bomb threat scrawled on an air sickness bag. Nothing was found on the plane, and no one knows how long the note was on board.

I'd like everyone to take a deep breath and listen for a minute.

The point of terrorism is to cause terror, sometimes to further a political goal and sometimes out of sheer hatred. The people terrorists kill are not the targets; they are collateral damage. And blowing up planes, trains, markets or buses is not the goal; those are just tactics. The real targets of terrorism are the rest of us: the billions of us who are not killed but are terrorized because of the killing. The real point of terrorism is not the act itself, but our reaction to the act.

And we're doing exactly what the terrorists want.

We're all a little jumpy after the recent arrest of 23 terror suspects in Great Britain. The men were reportedly plotting a liquid-explosive attack on airplanes, and both the press and politicians have been trumpeting the story ever since.

In truth, it's doubtful that their plan would have succeeded; chemistshavebeendebunking the idea since it became public. Certainly the suspects were a long way off from trying: None had bought airline tickets, and some didn't even have passports.

Regardless of the threat, from the would-be bombers' perspective, the explosives and planes were merely tactics. Their goal was to cause terror, and in that they've succeeded.

Imagine for a moment what would have happened if they had blown up 10 planes. There would be canceled flights, chaos at airports, bans on carry-on luggage, world leaders talking tough new security measures, political posturing and all sorts of false alarms as jittery people panicked. To a lesser degree, that's basically what's happening right now.

Our politicians help the terrorists every time they use fear as a campaign tactic. The press helps every time it writes scare stories about the plot and the threat. And if we're terrified, and we share that fear, we help. All of these actions intensify and repeat the terrorists' actions, and increase the effects of their terror.

(I am not saying that the politicians and press are terrorists, or that they share any of the blame for terrorist attacks. I'm not that stupid. But the subject of terrorism is more complex than it appears, and understanding its various causes and effects are vital for understanding how to best deal with it.)

The implausible plots and false alarms actually hurt us in two ways. Not only do they increase the level of fear, but they also waste time and resources that could be better spent fighting the real threats and increasing actual security. I'll bet the terrorists are laughing at us.

Another thought experiment: Imagine for a moment that the British government arrested the 23 suspects without fanfare. Imagine that the TSA and its European counterparts didn't engage in pointless airline-security measures like banning liquids. And imagine that the press didn't write about it endlessly, and that the politicians didn't use the event to remind us all how scared we should be. If we'd reacted that way, then the terrorists would have truly failed.

It's time we calm down and fight terror with antiterror. This does not mean that we simply roll over and accept terrorism. There are things our government can and should do to fight terrorism, most of them involving intelligence and investigation -- and not focusing on specific plots.

But our job is to remain steadfast in the face of terror, to refuse to be terrorized. Our job is to not panic every time two Muslims stand together checking their watches. There are approximately 1 billion Muslims in the world, a large percentage of them not Arab, and about 320 million Arabs in the Middle East, the overwhelming majority of them not terrorists. Our job is to think critically and rationally, and to ignore the cacophony of other interests trying to use terrorism to advance political careers or increase a television show's viewership.

The surest defense against terrorism is to refuse to be terrorized. Our job is to recognize that terrorism is just one of the risks we face, and not a particularly common one at that. And our job is to fight those politicians who use fear as an excuse to take away our liberties and promote security theater that wastes money and doesn't make us any safer.

This essay originally appeared on Wired.com and has been blatently stolen

Stolen from : DeeKnow

1. Never walk down the hall without a document in your hands. People with documents in their hands look like hardworking employees heading for important meetings. People with nothing in their hand look like they're heading for the cafeteria. People with a newspaper look like they're heading for the toilet. Above all, make sure you carry loads of stuff home with you at night, thus generating the false impression that you work longer hours than you do.
2. Use computers to look busy. Any time you use a computer, it looks like "work" to the casual observer. You can send and receive personal email, calculate your finances and generally have a blast without doing anything remotely related to work. These aren't exactly the societal benefits that the proponents of the computer revolution would like to talk about but they're not bad either. When you get caught by your boss - and you *will* get caught - your best defense is to claim you're teaching yourself to use new software, thus saving valuable training dollars.
3. Messy desk. Top management can get away with a clean desk. For the rest of us, it looks like you're not working hard enough. Build huge piles of documents around your workspace. To the observer, last year's work looks the same as today's work; it's volume that counts. Pile them high and wide. If you know somebody is coming to your cubicle, bury the document you'll need halfway down in an existing stack and rummage for it when he/she arrives.
4. Voice Mail. Never answer your phone if you have voice mail. People don't call you just because they want to give you something for nothing - they call because they want YOU to do work for THEM. That's no way to live. Screen all your calls through voice mail. If somebody leaves a voice mail message for you and it sounds like impending work, respond during lunch hour when you know they're not there - it looks like you're hardworking and conscientious even though you're being a devious weasel. If you diligently employ the method of screening incoming calls and then returning calls when nobody is there, this will greatly increase the odds that the caller will give up or look for a solution that doesn't involve you. The sweetest voice mail message you can ever hear is: "Ignore my last message. I took care of it". If your voice mailbox has a limit on the number of messages it can hold, make sure you reach that limit frequently. One way to do that is to never erase any incoming messages. If that takes too long, send yourself a few messages. Your callers will hear a recorded message that says, "Sorry, this mailbox is full" - a sure sign that you are a hardworking employee in high demand.
5. Looking Impatient and Annoyed. According to George Costanza, one should also always try to look impatient and annoyed to give your bosses the impression that you are always busy.
6. Appear to Work Late. Always leave the office late, especially when the boss is still around. You could read magazines and storybooks that you always wanted to read but have no time until late before leaving. Make sure you walk past the boss' room on your way out. Send important emails at unearthly hours (e.g. 9:35pm, 7:05am, etc.) and during public holidays.
7. Creative Sighing for Effect. Sigh loudly when there are many people around, giving the impression that you are very hard pressed.
8. Stacking Strategy. It is not enough to pile lots of documents on the table. Put lots of books on the floor etc Can always borrow from library. Thick computer manuals are the best.
9. Build Vocabulary. Read up on some computer magazines and pick out all the jargon and new products. Use it freely when in conversation with bosses. Remember: They don't have to understand what you say, but you sure sound impressive.
10. MOST IMPORTANTLY: DON'T forward this to your boss by mistake!!!

How to win friends and influence people in a nutshell...

Building Personal Relationships

• Never criticize, condemn or complain.
  • Self-criticism is extremely rare. Your criticism won�??t be welcome.
  • Criticism makes others defensive and resentful.
  • Positive Reinforcement works better.

• Become genuinely interested in other people.
  • People are most interested in themselves.
  • Remember people�??s birthdays and other important details.

• Talk in terms of the other person's interests.
  • Find the interests of others and talk about those things.
  • If you know nothing of their interests, ask intelligent questions.

• Be a good listener.
  • Give your exclusive attention to others.
  • Urge others to talk about themselves. Ask pointed questions.

• Make the other person feel important.
  • People yearn to feel important and appreciated.
  • Praise others�?? strengths and they�??ll strive to reinforce your opinion.

• Use Names whenever possible.

• Smile.
  • Greet others with smiles and enthusiasm.
  • Smiling comes through even over the phone.

Selling your Ideas: Establish a Space for Cooperation

• Avoid arguments: you can only lose.
  • Arguers will defend and embrace their previous positions.
  • Even �??winning�?? will hurt the loser�??s pride and build resentment.
  • A Guide to avoiding arguments:

    1. Welcome the disagreement.  Be thankful for a new opinion.
    2. Stay calm.
    3. Listen first. Hear your opponents out.
    4. Identify areas of agreement.
    5. Admitting errors will make it easier for others to admit theirs.
    6. If no resolution is found, postpone action and promise to explore the opposing perspective.

• Begin in a friendly way.
  • Open conversation with sincere praise, appreciation and sympathy.
  • A friendly tone will allow others to broach discussions more openly.

• Let the other person do a great deal of the talking.
  • Eagerly listen to concerns to diffuse tension and build relationships.
  • Others need to finish spilling their ideas before listening to you.

• Be sympathetic.
  • Most people hunger for sympathy.
  • Tell them: �??I�??d feel the same way under those circumstances.�??

• Respect others�?? opinions. Never say, "You're wrong."
  • People don�??t like to admit they�??re wrong and may take it personally.

• If you are wrong, admit it quickly and emphatically.
  • Demonstrate your willingness to rationally examine the facts.
  • If another is about to criticize you, don�??t let them start!
  • A harsh self-rebuke may prompt the others to soften their critiques.
  • Admitting errors clears guilt and everyone to move forward quickly.

• Try honestly to see things from the other person's point of view.
  • Another�??s perspective and motivation is the key to understanding their decisions, agenda and personality.

• Frame requests in terms of what others find motivating.
• Ask yourself: �??Why would someone want to do what I'm asking?�??
  

How fast is your internet connection? I have tryed using a few tools before to test if my ISP is screwing me or really giving the speeds they claim.

They were all a little dissapointing, but this one rocks!

My Speed At Home:

SPEEDTEST.NET - Click here to find out how fast your internet is?

Today i had the pleasure of attending a Tech.Ed Blogger Brunch held by Frank Arrigo from Microsoft and was pleased to discuss with some extremely knowledgeable people (and inquisitive minds) some of Microsoft's future direction with Windows Vista and Live.

From recollection the event attendees included (in no particular order):

Microsoft
Frank Arrigo
Cathy Jamieson
John Hodgekins
John Pritchard
Tony Wilkinson
Michael Kleef

Bloggers
Hugo Ortega - UberTablet
Mitch Denny - NotGartner / Readify 
Mark Jones - Financial Review
Geoff Orr
Trevor Cook - Corporate Engagement
Dr Neil Roodyn
Nick Hodge - NickHodge.com
Jeff Putt - CIO Magazine
Rodney Gedda - Computerworld
Phil Sim - mediaconnect
Ben English?
Namir ?
Phil ?
and a few more i didnt meet.

If you were there and we didnt get in touch please leave a comment or email me.

Was great to hear about some of the new features of vista, i was especially excited about the Vista synchronisation features, which is extremely relevant for those with multiple PC's ( i have 1 desktop and 3 laptops). Also some of the Image Management capabilities seems pretty cool for the big corporates managing loads of machines..

Thanks Frank!

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0515/p13s01-stct.html

Studies show that for almost everybody, the number of people we really trust is shrinking. About a quarter of the people they talked to said they had NO ONE to confide in. Walk down the street, one out of four people you pass have nobody.

Among the people who did have somebody, the average number of people in their circle of trust was two. And that includes spouses and parents. Yes, this is new. The numbers are down a whole bunch since just 1985. The world is becoming a colder and lonelier place. Here's why.

1. Not enough annoying strangers in our lives.

2. Not enough annoying friends, either.

3. Text = Bad Communication

4. Text = Less Communication

5. We're not criticized enough.

6. The Outrage Machine

7. We feel worthless because we actually are worth less.

Read the Full Article: http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/misery.html

Don't Read These Books!

According to the conservativeHuman Events, the ten most harmful books of the 19th and 20th century are:

1. The Communist Manifesto
2. Mein Kampf
3. Quotations from Chairman Mao
4. The Kinsey Report
5. Democracy and Education
6. Das Kapital
7. The Feminine Mystique
8. The Course of Positive Philosophy
9. Beyond Good and Evil
10. General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money

Source (and the runners up): Law Librarian Blog

Why Do Beautiful Women Sometimes Marry Unattractive Men? It may be that the unattractive man has a lot of money, or some other compelling attribute.

But a new study by Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics, suggests it may be a simple supply-and-demand issue: there are more beautiful women in the world than there are handsome men.

Freakanomics 

Beautiful People have girls

Asking hard questions is a way of 'keeping honest people honest' and revealing when they're actually being deceptive.

What sort of things are on the list?

• The RIAA has sued over 20,000 music fans for file sharing. Recently, an RIAA representative reportedly suggested that "students drop out of college or go to community college in order to be able to afford [P2P lawsuit] settlements." Do you stand by this advice? Is this really good advice for our children's futures?
• Major entertainment companies have repeatedly brought lawsuits to block new technologies, including the VCR, Digital Audio Tape recorders, the first MP3 player, the ReplayTV PVR, and now P2P software. Why is your industry so hostile to new technologies?
• The RIAA says that it doesn't mind if I rip CDs to my personal computer and put them on my iPod. Do I need your permission to do this or can I legally do it even if you object?
• The major movie studios have been enjoying some of their most profitable years in history over the past five years. Can you cite to any specific studies that prove noncommercial file sharing among fans, as opposed to commercial DVD piracy, has hurt the studios' bottom line in any significant way?
• In several lawsuits, the MPAA has repeatedly said that it's illegal to make a back-up of a DVD that I purchased. Why is this illegal?
• Is it ever legal for me to use software like DVD Shrink or Handbrake to rip a digital copy of a DVD I own onto a video iPod or my laptop? What if I want clips to use for a class report? Or if a teacher wants to include a clip in a PowerPoint slide?
• Is there anything illegal about copying TV shows I've recorded off the air onto my video iPod?

At bottom, the questions try raise one fundamental question: Can the entertainment industry actually prove that backing up DVDs, engaging in non-commercial file-swapping, and recording from digital radio are a threat to the bottom line? Past studies have found that file-swapping, the music industry's biggest concern, actually leads people to purchase more music and to spend more money. If this is a problem, it's the sort of problem most businesses would kill for. Limited evidence suggests that DRM actually hurts sales of CDs and aggravates customers, especially when that DRM is a rootkit.

The list of questions is solid, and they're well worth tossing out if you find yourself in a meeting with an entertainment industry rep. It's also an opportunity for the industry, should they care to take it. How so? By gathering the strongest criticisms against the entertainment business into one high-profile list, the EFF has given the RIAA and MPAA an excellent chance to talk candidly about some thorny questions. If the industry takes the opportunity and engages the EFF�??really engages, as opposed to just labeling file-swappers "pirates" and ending the discussion�??the conversation could be quite interesting.

Last week's feelgood tale was new research suggesting there were 3,000 giant pandas left in the wild, twice earlier estimates. So what? If pandas can stand on their own four feet, good. If they cannot, tough. We should stop subsidising them. Pandas are endangered because they are utterly incompetent.

Take their diet. As we all know from the pro-panda propaganda, pandas eat almost exclusively bamboo shoots. What panda apologists ignore is that, though fine as a side dish with Szechuan beef and egg-fried rice, bamboo has so few nutrients that the piebald buffoons have to spend 16 hours a day stuffing themselves with it.

It is like trying to subsist on sugar-coated cardboard.

Opposable thumb

To shovel twigs into their mouths they use what Big Panda tries to pass off as an opposable thumb but is basically a deformed bone. And ridiculously, given their diet, giant pandas have a short digestive tract suitable for carnivores, not vegetarians, so most of the bamboo they eat goes through undigested.

They are also famously bad at sex. Even in the wild pandas do not mate much, and those in zoos are often so uninterested they have to be shown panda pornography first. Sceptics can look this up on Google.

Little wonder no respectable family of animals wants them. For a while zoologists reckoned they were distant relatives of raccoons.

Now, no doubt after lavish "research grants" to laboratories from the panda industry, they think they are bears. Clearly, though, they have "raccoon" written all over them: solitary, furry, black and white, superficially cute but fundamentally vermin.

Yet thanks to soft-headed anthropomorphism their big eyes and round faces remind us of babies, apparently they are feted everywhere, notably as the logo of the charity WWF.

And do not try that guff about cuteness as an evolutionary strategy. Humans have found furry things cute for a few thousand years. Evolution takes millions. That is not natural selection: it is dumb luck.

Misguided

It is not as if this misguided sentiment comes free. China exacts a high diplomatic price for its "panda diplomacy". Even the zoo in Washington DC, famous for its pandas, does not own them but rents them from China for about $1 million a year apiece. Now there's a trade deficit to get het up about. For $1 million you could rent a senator.

Case closed. Pandas are badly designed, undersexed, overpaid and overprotected. They went up an evolutionary cul-de-sac and it is too late to reverse. By cosseting them we are simply rewarding failure.

Pandas are doomed. Let them go.

Terrorism seems to be all the hype these days, but is it really that important? The numbers beg to differ.

Shortly after the downfall of communism, 'global terrorism' has been identified as the biggest threat to western society. The fear is there, but is it really justified? Let's check some number to see what are the real causes of death these days:

According to the Commission for Global Road Safety about 1.2 million people are killed and 50 million injured every year in traffic accidents (source).
Natural disasters took 241,400 human lives in 2004 alone (source).
And although the numbers are declining cancer still caused appr. 563,700 deaths in the US alone in 2004 (source).

Compare these figures to the alleged world-wide 2,929 terror-induced deaths since in the 5 years since 9/11, a number provided by the Bush-administration itself (source).

Though acts of terrorism are spectacular and get an amazing amount of media-coverage they actually have very little real impact compared to other factors. It's just not very likely to ever affected by an act of terrorism, let alone be killed in it.

So why do we fear terrorists?
The media convey a completely distorted view on the real effects of terrorism. It can't really be blamed for it, as showing footage of car-bombings is obviously more spectacular than showing a report about the realities of lung-cancer. At the same time terrorism has been very successfully used to push all sorts of government-power-expanding laws in almost all western democracies. The mass-media and the governments have found a very attractive target in terrorism and both use it in every possible way to fulfill their needs (getting viewers, pushing agendas).

It might be a good idea to sit back for a moment and realize that 'global terrorism' is merely a buzzword. It's a phenomenon that would have little to no impact on our lives weren't we bombarded with 'news' about all day long. It may look big, but it really isn't.

If Ray Kurzweil is right, the business landscape - indeed, the entire human race - is about to be transformed beyond all recognition.

Kurzweil is a renowned computer scientist and inventor (he built the first flatbed scanner). And no less a figure than Microsoft chairman Bill Gates has called Kurzweil the greatest thinker on artificial intelligence alive today. So when he talks, it's worth paying attention.

Here's the question Kurzweil is asking these days: What if the exponential growth shown in Moore's Law applies not just to etching transistors in silicon chips, but to all of human progress and innovation?

For many in Silicon Valley, that's not a question so much as a description of reality. Two weeks ago, the largest auditorium on Stanford University's campus was packed to capacity for the Singularity Summit. A dozen leading researchers and futurists of all stripes came together to discuss what signs of a rapidly advancing future we could already see.

At the summit, Kurzweil gave his latest vision of the future: "We won't experience 100 years of progress in the 21st century - it will be more like 20,000 years of progress at today's rate. Within a few decades, machine intelligence will surpass human intelligence, leading to the Singularity: technological change so rapid and profound it represents a rupture in the fabric of human history."

"In practical terms," Kurzweil added, "human aging and illness will be reversed; pollution will be stopped; world hunger and poverty will be solved. Nanotechnology will make it possible to create virtually any physical product using inexpensive information processes, and will ultimately turn even death into a soluble problem."

It's easy to dismiss the Singularity as a crackpot concept - indeed, Kurzweil pokes fun at himself by posing for his latest book, The Singularity is Near, with the title handscrawled on a sandwich board around his neck.

But for people working in technology, it's hard to argue with. Think of the long half-century it took IBM to rise to dominate the computing world. Now compare that to the decade between Microsoft's IPO and the establishment of its monopoly on operating systems. And then contrast that to Google's lightning-quick ascendance to power.

The Singularity's effects go far beyond tech, however. The most immediate impact of growing artificial intelligence, a speaker at the summit convincingly argued, will be in the auto industry.

Sebastian Thrun, director of the Stanford AI Lab, gave an overview of the DARPA Grand Challenge, in which teams were challenged to build a car that would drive itself, without remote assistance, across the desert from LA to Las Vegas inside ten hours. In 2004, the idea was a joke, and none of the robot cars came close to finishing; in 2005, with double the number of teams entering, four cars crossed the finish line. It's hard to find a better example of the kind of utterly surprising, paradigm-shifting exponential improvement in technology that Kurzweil is talking about.

In 2007 and 2008, the DARPA Grand Challenge shifts to city streets (in particular, those of Stanford's campus, which you may want to avoid for a while). Robot cars will be challenged to complete a course while obeying all traffic laws and avoiding collisions.

Thrun predicts we'll have reliable urban robot driving by 2010, and that a majority of miles will be driven autonomously by 2030. You'll have more time to answer your e-mail, and arguments over who's going to be the designated driver would be a thing of the past.

Even this small piece of the Singularity, if true, would be immensely disruptive. Worried about the effect of rising oil prices and wages on the cost of shipping goods? You could offset both if your trucks could drive themselves across the continent, at the most fuel-efficient speed, without taking a break.

Roadside restaurants would suffer, but there'd be a whole new market for on-the-road feeding and refueling. Many McDonald's franchises would have to go mobile.

Look further ahead, says Kurzweil, and you'll see nanotech taking over manufacturing in the 2020s, and uploading our brains into computer storage - digital immortality, in other words - shortly thereafter. (He's dead serious about this last part, and has put himself on a radical course of intravenous vitamins and supplements in hopes of staying alive long enough to live forever).

All three of these developments would cause such radical shifts in commerce, you could spend from now until the Singularity coming up with new business plans.

Which is precisely Kurzweil's point. Not enough of us are talking about the prospect of speeded-up change. Established businesses will become vulnerable faster than ever, unleashing new possibilities for entrepreneurs. If the Singularity happens, basically, the only limits to what you can achieve are in your imagination. So it's time to start exercising it.

Download the AudioBook MP3 of "The Law" by Frederick Bastiat here (17MB)

Text Source: http://www.constitution.org/law/bastiat.htm

What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Each of us has a natural right--from God--to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?

If every person has the right to defend -- even by force -- his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right -- its reason for existing, its lawfulness -- is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force -- for the same reason -- cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?

If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.

A Just and Enduring Government

If a nation were founded on this basis, it seems to me that order would prevail among the people, in thought as well as in deed. It seems to me that such a nation would have the most simple, easy to accept, economical, limited, nonoppressive, just, and enduring government imaginable -- whatever its political form might be.

Under such an administration, everyone would understand that he possessed all the privileges as well as all the responsibilities of his existence. No one would have any argument with government, provided that his person was respected, his labor was free, and the fruits of his labor were protected against all unjust attack. When successful, we would not have to thank the state for our success. And, conversely, when unsuccessful, we would no more think of blaming the state for our misfortune than would the farmers blame the state because of hail or frost. The state would be felt only by the invaluable blessings of safety provided by this concept of government.

It can be further stated that, thanks to the non- intervention of the state in private affairs, our wants and their satisfactions would develop themselves in a logical manner. We would not see poor families seeking literary instruction before they have bread. We would not see cities populated at the expense of rural districts, nor rural districts at the expense of cities. We would not see the great displacements of capital, labor, and population that are caused by legislative decisions.

The sources of our existence are made uncertain and precarious by these state-created displacements. And, furthermore, these acts burden the government with increased responsibilities.

The Complete Perversion of the Law

But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.

How has this perversion of the law been accomplished? And what have been the results?

The law has been perverted by the influence of two entirely different causes: stupid greed and false philanthropy. Let us speak of the first.

A Fatal Tendency of Mankind

Self-preservation and self-development are common aspirations among all people. And if everyone enjoyed the unrestricted use of his faculties and the free disposition of the fruits of his labor, social progress would be ceaseless, uninterrupted, and unfailing.

But there is also another tendency that is common among people. When they can, they wish to live and prosper at the expense of others. This is no rash accusation. Nor does it come from a gloomy and uncharitable spirit. The annals of history bear witness to the truth of it: the incessant wars, mass migrations, religious persecutions, universal slavery, dishonesty in commerce, and monopolies. This fatal desire has its origin in the very nature of man -- in that primitive, universal, and insuppressible instinct that impels him to satisfy his desires with the least possible pain.

Property and Plunder

Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of property.

But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder.

Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain -- and since labor is pain in itself -- it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it.

When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor.

It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder.

But, generally, the law is made by one man or one class of men. And since law cannot operate without the sanction and support of a dominating force, this force must be entrusted to those who make the laws.

This fact, combined with the fatal tendency that exists in the heart of man to satisfy his wants with the least possible effort, explains the almost universal perversion of the law. Thus it is easy to understand how law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds.

Victims of Lawful Plunder

Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are victims. Thus, when plunder is organized by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes try somehow to enter -- by peaceful or revolutionary means -- into the making of laws. According to their degree of enlightenment, these plundered classes may propose one of two entirely different purposes when they attempt to attain political power: Either they may wish to stop lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it.

Woe to the nation when this latter purpose prevails among the mass victims of lawful plunder when they, in turn, seize the power to make laws!

Until that happens, the few practice lawful plunder upon the many, a common practice where the right to participate in the making of law is limited to a few persons. But then, participation in the making of law becomes universal. And then, men seek to balance their conflicting interests by universal plunder. Instead of rooting out the injustices found in society, they make these injustices general. As soon as the plundered classes gain political power, they establish a system of reprisals against other classes. They do not abolish legal plunder. (This objective would demand more enlightenment than they possess.) Instead, they emulate their evil predecessors by participating in this legal plunder, even though it is against their own interests.

It is as if it were necessary, before a reign of justice appears, for everyone to suffer a cruel retribution -- some for their evilness, and some for their lack of understanding.

It�??s a good philosophy, and one we could all adopt�??there�??s no need to allow things to which you object into your homes, but there�??s no need to try to say the world at large should be disallowed to have them. But sometimes censorship seems so reasonable that some of us accept it, or even encourage it.

Take for example the recent conflicts revolving around papers in Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, and Spain publishing a series of cartoon depicting the Prophet Muhammad. The newspaper France Soir first stated that it choose to print the cartoons �??to show �??religious dogma�?? had no place in a secular society�??, but after the riots erupted they sacked their managing editor.

Having reviewed the cartoons in question, I do feel like they are in poor taste�??the story of Muhammad universally tell of a man didn�??t ostracize other faiths, but rather told he was sent by god to complete the teachings�??but are crass cartoons enough to fire people, start riots, and set fire to things? If you don�??t like it, I say, you can retaliate in kind: write a letter or publish a cartoon. Don�??t let it in your home. Don�??t censor it.

Censorship is the act of cowards.

"At one point, consciousness-altering devices like the microscope and telescope were criminalized for exactly the same reasons that psychedelic plants are banned today. They allow us to peer into bits and zones of Chaos".�??Timothy Leary

Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzio Galilei, of Florence, aged seventy years, were denounced in 1615, to this Holy Office, for holding as true a false doctrine taught by many, namely, that the sun is immovable in the center of the world, and that the earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion; also, for having pupils whom you instructed in the same opinions; also, for maintaining a correspondence on the same with some German mathematicians; also for publishing certain letters on the sun-spots, in which you developed the same doctrine as true; also, for answering the objections which were continually produced from the Holy Scriptures, by glozing the said Scriptures according to your own meaning; and whereas thereupon was produced the copy of a writing, in form of a letter professedly written by you to a person formerly your pupil, in which, following the hypothesis of Copernicus, you include several propositions contrary to the true sense and authority of the Holy Scriptures; therefore (this Holy Tribunal being desirous of providing against the disorder and mischief which were thence proceeding and increasing to the detriment of the Holy Faith) by the desire of his Holiness and the Most Emminent Lords, Cardinals of this supreme and universal Inquisition, the two propositions of the stability of the sun, and the motion of the earth, were qualified by the Theological Qualifiers as follows:

1. The proposition that the sun is in the center of the world and immovable from its place is absurd, philosophically false, and formally heretical; because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scriptures.
2. The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world, nor immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal action, is also absurd, philosophically false, and, theologically considered, at least erroneous in faith.

      Therefore . . . , invoking the most holy name of our Lord Jesus Christ and of His Most Glorious Mother Mary, We pronounce this Our final sentence: We pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo . . . have rendered yourself vehemently suspected by this Holy Office of heresy, that is, of having believed and held the doctrine (which is false and contrary to the Holy and Divine Scriptures) that the sun is the center of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the earth does move, and is not the center of the world; also, that an opinion can be held and supported as probable, after it has been declared and finally decreed contrary to the Holy Scripture, and, consequently, that you have incurred all the censures and penalties enjoined and promulgated in the sacred canons and other general and particular constituents against delinquents of this description. From which it is Our pleasure that you be absolved, provided that with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, in Our presence, you abjure, curse, and detest, the said error and heresies, and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Church of Rome.

1630 A.D.

Across consumer markets, attention is becoming the scarcest - and so most strategically vital - resource in the value chain. Attention scarcity is fundamentally reshaping the economics of most industries it touches; beginning with the media industry.

Let's take a step back to examine why and how. In a mass media world, distribution was the scarcest resource in the value chain. In some segments, this was due to regulation �?? spectrum scarcity, for example, enforced an artificial broadcast distribution scarcity. In others, this was due to natural monopoly dynamics �?? newspapers, for example, are natural monopolies. In either case, media industries were dominated by monopoly dynamics �?? either naturally, or by fiat.

This distribution scarcity gave rise to a single dominant strategy, over and over again: marketing economies of scale and scope. These are best exemplified in the blockbuster. Blockbusters realize superior returns to expensive content by redistributing it through numerous channels according to simple price discrimination strategies.

Essentially, the blockbuster strategy is a choice to invest in attention rather than production �?? through leveraging scale and scope effects to realize economies in marketing and distribution. Because attention was scarce relative to distribution �?? largely due to the natural monopoly effects discussed above �?? investing in it yielded superior returns.

These scale and scope effects, despite the best efforts of regulators and industry execs alike, created huge economic incentives for the media players to consolidate; hence, the consolidation waves first seen in the 30s, periodically again after that, and last seen throughout the 90s.

New technologies are disrupting and inverting these economics, by making attention the scarcest resource in the value chain. Because these technologies make production and distribution relatively more abundant than attention, returns to attention for incumbents begin to erode. Diminishing returns to attention are at the root of falling newspaper circulation, magazine subscriptions, TV ad revenue, radio listenership, and book sales �?? at the heart of the industry�??s current malaise.

Why does attention become relatively scarce in a Media 2.0 world? Fundamentally, because 2.0 technologies create a Cambrian Explosion in number and kind of media �?? a micromedia explosion. Since its birth, media has been limited in number and in kind. But cheaply networked digital technologies, on the other hand, are producing vast amounts of entirely new kinds of media �?? more than have ever concurrently been seen before.

By networking digital media, the incentives for prosumers to produce a huge plethora of forms of micromedia pop into existence; blogs, podcasts, vlogs, machinima, fan films, and cosplay are just a few examples. The relationship between technology and media relationship has undergone a phase shift: from one to one, to many to one. This is the Cambrian Explosion in micromedia.

The primary economic consequence of the micromedia explosion is that the equilibrium price of media everywhere falls. This is due to the simple economics of supply and demand, where prices fall when the supply curve shifts outward. In turn, the micromedia explosion means that competition for attention becomes truly intense, with economics most media markets haven't seen since the era of the printing press: attention becomes relatively more expensive than production.

These economics create competence traps for media incumbents in a 2.0 world: since attention is now relatively scarce, economic advantage flows to whichever players can allocate attention �?? not production �?? most efficiently. That is, to try and make sure, wherever possible, each viewer, listener, or reader is consuming media where, when, and how they derive the most value from doing so.

But media incumbents, have spent the last century largely developing exactly the opposite competences �?? by using blockbusters to allocate production resources, they�??ve developed competences in buying attention �?? in marketing, branding, and star power.

These competences become traps in the Attention Economy: incumbents throw more and more dollars into marketing, star power, and branding, and less and less dollars into production, each marketing dollar chasing a smaller and smaller return on attention, just to keep margins constant. This is, in a nutshell, the reason Hollywood marketing budgets (or radio/network TV ad time, or magazine ad space) have exploded in the last 20 years.

How can incumbents and new entrants alike compete in a world of increasingly scarce attention? What strategies dominate the new economics of attention scarcity? Bubblegen's work is recognized as driving deep insight into Attention Economics and the strategies that dominate them. Bubblegen�??s Attention Economics competence and practice is detailed in this presentation , which offers some avenues to approach finding dominant strategies.

To get started thinking about the Attention Economy, ask yourself:

To what extent are my industry economics still dominated by distribution and production scarcity?

To what extent are my industry economics now dominated by attention scarcity?

Is efficient attention allocation on my list of priorities?

Can I use efficient attention allocation strategically, to co-opt or pre-empt competitors, or to build a sustained competitive advantage in market share?

If so, what resources and capabilities do I need to drive efficient attention allocation? At what layers of the value chain do I need to invest? What alliances and partnerships will be valuable in developing these resources and capabilities?

Can I leverage edge competences to efficiently allocate attention?

The Seattle Times has a great article on turbans and how different turban configuration means different things in different countries and religions

• Write stuff down.
• Quit reading e-mail and blogs.
• Work on open source late at night, with a beer on your desk. 
• Work disconnected
• Listen to music while you work. 
• Work long hours on Monday and Tuesday.
• Avoid meetings at all costs.
• Sleep.
• Work on something you're passionate about.

Also

• If you're not happy at work, quit.
• Always try to be a contractor before a full-time employee.
• Don't work at a company with a two-week vacation policy.
• Don't travel if you have kids.
• Ask for more responsibility.
• Most things can be learned by reading

Read the Full Article

The Japanese have a reputation for inventing new technology and exporting it to the rest of the world. But as Christopher Hogg discovers at a Tokyo beauty salon, there are some things in Japan which may not be to everyone's tastes.

A Spring Clean the Japanese Way

"Software is a conversation, between the software developer and the user. But for that conversation to happen requires a lot of work beyond the software development. It takes marketing, yes, but also sales, and public relations, and an office, and a network, and infrastructure, and air conditioning in the office, and customer service, and accounting, and a bunch of other support tasks."

I wonder what is the most efficient business and social structure best supports this?

Please leave your comments....

As intellectual property protection has expanded exponentially in breadth, scope and term over the last 30 years, the fundamental principle of balance between the public domain and the realm of property seems to have been lost. The potential costs of this loss of balance are just as worrisome as the costs of piracy that so dominate discussion in international policy making. Where the traditional idea of intellectual property wound a thin layer of rights around a carefully preserved public domain, the contemporary attitude seems to be that the public domain should be eliminated wherever possible. Copyrights and patents, for example, were traditionally only supposed to confer property rights in expression and invention respectively. The layer of ideas above, and of facts below, remained in the public domain for all to draw on, to innovate anew. Ideas and facts could never be owned. Yet contemporary intellectual property law is rapidly abandoning this central principle. Now we have database rights over facts, gene sequence, business method and software patents, digital fences that enclose the public domain together with the realm of private property . . . the list continues. And while these rules differ from nation to nation, the pressure is to harmonize them only upwards, adopting the strongest protections of facts, the longest copyright terms, the greatest scope of patentability.

Intellectual property policy is in the sway of a maximalist "rights-culture" which leads debates astray. The assumption seems to be that to promote intellectual property is automatically to promote innovation and, in that process, the more rights the better. But both assumptions are categorically false. Even where intellectual property rights are the best way to promote innovation, and there are many areas where they are not, it is only by having rules that set the correct balance between the public domain and the realm of private property that we will get the innovation we desire. Yet trade treaties require very high "floors" of international intellectual property protection while rarely imposing "ceilings," even though too much intellectual property protection is just as harmful, and as distorting of trade flows, as too little. This asymmetry is reflected in the international policy-making process.

Read the Manifesto at Duke Law

It has become fashionable to describe copyright, patents, and trademarks as "intellectual property". This fashion did not arise by accident--the term systematically distorts and confuses these issues, and its use was and is promoted by those who gain from this confusion. Anyone wishing to think clearly about any of these laws would do well to reject the term.

One effect of the term is a bias that is not hard to see: it suggests thinking about copyright, patents and trademarks by analogy with property rights for physical objects. (This analogy is at odds with the legal philosophies of copyright law, of patent law, and of trademark law, but only specialists know that.) These laws are in fact not much like physical property law, but use of this term leads legislators to change them to be more so. Since that is the change desired by the companies that exercise copyright, patent and trademark powers, these companies have worked to make the term fashionable.

Read the full article by Richard Stallman (Creator of GNU / Linux)

As a project of the National Continence Management Strategy, the "National Public Toilet Map" is a fine example of the Australian governments adoption and useage of community driven websites. Next time i need to splash my boots ill be sure to drop by toiletmap.gov.au before heading to the nearest convienience... what a fucking joke ... http://www.toiletmap.gov.au/ Well done australia... you've really hit the 21st centuary now...

Most developers are morons, and the rest are assholes. I have at various times counted myself in both groups, so I can say this with the utmost confidence.

Assholes

Assholes read specs with a fine-toothed comb, looking for loopholes, oversights, or simple typos. Then they write code that is meticulously spec-compliant, but useless. If someone yells at them for writing useless software, they smugly point to the sentence in the spec that clearly spells out how their horribly broken software is technically correct, and then they crow about it on their blogs.

There is a faction of assholes that write test cases. These people are good to have around while writing a spec, because they can occasionally be managed into channeling their infinite time and energy into finding loopholes before the spec is final. Unfortunately, managing assholes is even harder and more time-consuming than it sounds. This is why writing good specs takes so long: most of the time is frittered away on asshole management.

Morons

Morons, on the other hand, don�??t read specs until someone yells at them. Instead, they take a few examples that they find �??in the wild�?? and write code that seems to work based on their limited sample. Soon after they ship, they inevitably get yelled at because their product is nowhere near conforming to the part of the spec that someone else happens to be using. Someone points them to the sentence in the spec that clearly spells out how horribly broken their software is, and they fix it.

Besides the run-of-the-mill morons, there are two factions of morons that are worth special mention. The first work from examples, and ship code, and get yelled at, just like all the other morons. But then when they finally bother to read the spec, they magically turn into assholes and argue that the spec is ambiguous, or misleading in some way, or ignoreable because nobody else implements it, or simply wrong. These people are called sociopaths. They will never write conformant code regardless of how good the spec is, so they can safely be ignored.

The second faction of morons work from examples, ship code, and get yelled at. But when they get around to reading the spec, they magically turn into advocates and write up tutorials on what they learned from their mistakes. These people are called experts. Virtually every useful tutorial in the world was written by a moron-turned-expert.

Angels

Some people would argue that not all developers are morons or assholes, but they are mistaken. For example, some people posit the existence of what I will call the �??angel�?? developer. �??Angels�?? read specs closely, write code, and then thoroughly test it against the accompanying test suite before shipping their product. Angels do not actually exist, but they are a useful fiction to make spec writers to feel better about themselves.

Why specs matter

If your spec isn�??t good enough, morons have no chance of ever getting things right. For everyone who complains that their software is broken, there will be two assholes who claim that it�??s not. The spec, whose primary purpose is to arbitrate disputes between morons and assholes, will fail to resolve anything, and the arguments will smolder for years.

If your spec is good enough, morons have a fighting chance of getting things right the second time around, without being besieged by assholes. Meanwhile, the assholes who have nothing better to do than look for loopholes won�??t find any, and they�??ll eventually get bored and wander off in search of someone else to harass.

Source: http://diveintomark.org/archives/2004/08/16/specs

Google have hired Chuck Norris because...

1. Chuck Norris can reference Null pointers
2. When Chuck Norris issues an invalid command the computer does it anyway
3. Chuck Norris can address an infinite amount of memory, twice!
4. Chuck Norris will never run out of Handles
5. Chuck Norris can sort a list in O(1)
6. Chuck Norris doesn�??t need to be Authenticated, he just does what he wants.
7. Chuck Norris�??s ZX Spectrum runs at 1000GHz
8. Chuck Norris can�??t be cached
9. If Chuck Norris looks at Spam, the spammer dies!
10. Chuck Norris doesn�??t need a Load-Balancer, he can handle anything.

Source: http://www.janbannister.com/blog/2006/03/google-hire-chuck-norris-because-he.html

The threat to Microsoft comes from online applications, which are changing how people use computers. Rather than relying on an operating system and its associated application software�??bought in a box from Microsoft, and then loaded onto a PC�??computer users are increasingly able to call up the software they need over the internet. Just as Amazon, Google, eBay and other firms provide services via the web, software companies are now selling software as a subscription service that can be accessed via a web-browser. Salesforce.com, the best known example of this trend, offers salesforce management tools; other firms offer accounting and other back-office functions; there are even web-based word-processors and spreadsheets. This lowers the economic and technical barriers to entry for firms wanting to compete with Microsoft, as well as diluting the advantages the firm gets from controlling how the computer works.

These huge shifts in computing take a very long time, because there is so much inertia in the marketplace�??the idea of online applications has taken years to get even this far. Microsoft is still in a position that most firms would kill for. Its two main products�??Windows and Office�??remain fabulously profitable quasi-monopolies. Even if online applications and open-source software make rapid progress, Microsoft would retain a powerful and profitable position for some time.

For all that, however, online applications clearly threaten the way Microsoft makes its money. Its licensing agreements are geared for a world where software is a physical product, purchased on discs, and paid for at once or in regular instalments. But its online competitors charge each user a subscription: some like Google are even supplying software as a free online service, financed by advertisements. Last month Google acquired the firm that created Writely, a popular online word-processing program that is an obvious potential competitor to Microsoft Word.

Read the full article

Is it me, or are we becoming two nations, a society where what occurs in one half of the country bears no relation to events in the other?

I'm talking not about the divide identified by Disraeli - that between rich and poor. Nor do I mean the gap between north and south, or even black and white. No, the contrast to which I refer is starker than that.

It's the split between Negative Countries, in which we appear to be under relentless attack from an increasing list of death-inducing ailments and Positive Countries, where life expectancy is rising at such a rapid rate that the pension system is on the brink of collapse.

Flick through the daily papers' news pages and it's difficult to avoid the conclusion that everything is killing us. But then turn to the personal finance sections and it seems that our pension funds are skint because nobody is dying...

There are four basic types of business plans, each serving a different purpose. How you prepare your plan depends in part on the type you are preparing.

Approaches to Writing a Business Plan

Wondering what your pre-money valuation will be if a VC ever puts a term sheet on the table? Valuing a startup is intrinsically different from valuing established companies. Because of the high level of risk and often little or no revenues, traditional quantitative valuation methods like P/E comparables or discounting free cash flows are of little use. Startup valuations are largely determined based on qualitative attributes.

High Tech Startup Valuation Estimator

You need three things to create a successful startup: to start with good people, to make something customers actually want, and to spend as little money as possible. Most startups that fail do it because they fail at one of these. A startup that does all three will probably succeed.

And that's kind of exciting, when you think about it, because all three are doable. Hard, but doable. And since a startup that succeeds ordinarily makes its founders rich, that implies getting rich is doable too. Hard, but doable.

If there is one message I'd like to get across about startups, that's it. There is no magically difficult step that requires brilliance to solve.

How to start a startup, an essay by paul graham

Protesters in Indonesia are publically declaring hatred for australia. Seems this is just the beginning...

Yesterday a ban was imposed in Scotland on all public smoking. A similar law was recently passed in Colorado. The idea behind the legislation is basically noble but there is one problem I personally have with this clean-air trend.

Bars. For Christ sakes, we can�??t smoke in bars anymore. What kind of blasphemous crap on a crap cracker is that? These laws will kill the fun level of every bar and pool hall that falls in their evil jurisdictions. I agree that smoking should be prohibited in most places.

These non smoking crusaders need to leave our local liquor houses alone. By god, we were there first. We will give you your parks and restaurants, fair enough, but don�??t push it so far that you end up taking our last vestige of public inhalation.

I am far from the only one who enjoys a good smoke between beers. I mean, seriously, you are already in the place killing your liver, what does it matter if you do a bit of work on your lungs as well? It is not like there are children hanging around. Self Righteousness can only go so far before it becomes Nazism.

We can bet this trend of bans on public smoking will continue to grow like a Autraliran bushfire. Soon, smoky bar rooms will become the kind of thing that only lives in old Clark gable movies and drunken tales of adventure that soon fade out over time. All we can do is enjoy the last few puffs before our drunken cigarettes are extinguished forever.

Microsoft has announced its proposed release dates for the WPF/E project. WPF/E, which stands for Windows Presentation Foundation "Everywhere", aims to bring the rich application environment available with Microsoft's .NET platform to other, non-Windows platforms and mobile devices.

Source: Microsoft Brings .NET to the Mac