Today's nations have a very different outlook than past nations. Ideology, racism, and national dogma are no longer the most important ideas in citizens' lives. Nations have a bright future because people have a bright future. But this personal prosperity hinges on a new set of ideals to ensure that a nation thrives instead of existing.
It has been a long time since Adam Smith, and while his ideas from the book The Wealth of Nations still ring true there must be an update to what is important for the future prosperity.
Here are the important factors to consider. Mankind is 99% equivalent at the DNA level the world over, that means we can expect people from Europe and Asia to be just as fast, just as smart, and just as resourceful as people from North America. We cannot assume that developed nations have the best education, the best systems, and the best trained workers. In fact, developing nations are less expensive and so it is possible to get MORE benefits to productivity for a small portion of the population involved in business than it is in richer developed nations.
The second fact is that technology is growing by leaps and bounds and that allows new and better applications for resources. We do not have to rely on old ways that force us to use a limited resource when research and development can find cheaper alternatives. What is needed is the will to fund research and the patience to see that research pay off and benefit the people.
The third fact is that citizens in most of the world have the right and responsibility to manage their government or at least protest the government's actions. Over time, all nations have developed the press and have access to mass media that can spread the message to every distant town and village. People can mobilize to change the way the government acts.
And lastly, the power of science harnessed in technology is open to the world. Most universities exchange ideas and professors with other nations, interact at conferences and publish the world's best thoughts in open literature. People are free to learn and this is encouraged in most places. The seeds of a better tomorrow can grow in any part of the world.
If resources are less of a problem, then finding solutions to technology problems is only a matter of time and research.
If people can change the way governments act, then it is possible for any determined people to change the way things work.
If people have access to all the bright ideas, then the source of future prosperity for any nation does not lie in the ground but in the way the people manage their affairs. When people choose the better path then the reward will be a more prosperous nation. Here is the new reality for the wealth of nations. The playing field is fair and the rewards will go to those who embrace the new ways of thinking and working.
When the people allow corruption in politics or in corporate management then they are endangering their own future. It won't matter if the nation is a super power or not, corrupt practises and incompentence will wreck prosperity faster than any original advantages.
So for anyone who desires a better future it is vital to stamp out corruption and incompetence. In fact, I would argue that the future wealth of nations will favor nations that make the best decisions rather than nations with the best conditions for success. Success is not borne out of the past, it is given to those who can see the better future.
Friday, June 4, 2010
Thursday, March 18, 2010
The Rule of 3 Layers
Bureaucracy is a funny thing, it starts out as a way to make things run smoothly and make it easier to manage far flung operations. It makes a process standard and it is insurance for managers that things will run smoothly. We learn the procedures, we fill in the dubious and copious forms and we hang our heads while we push the process along. In the beginning, it helps keep the organization afloat.
But bureaucracy has a dark side; when it grows too big the problem with bureaucracy reveals itself.
Workers at the low end are constantly working towards the goal of making things work. They are the foot soldiers that get things done. They don't need reminding if what is important to keep the money coming in and the customers happy.
Managers, well they are like managers everywhere - they live to make sure they control of their little fiefdoms with all the perks and pay packets. Managers have it easy but they are also responsible and they turn in the odd good year performance.
But on the side of the middle layers - the people that don't feel personally accountable for the work - they tend to lose the big picture. Who wouldn't want the pay of a mid level bureaucrat without the stress at the low end or the risk at the high end? Those without the yoke or the lash have a precarious job; they aren't strictly needed and when things get tight they look like an excess. Middle bureaucrats have a self interest in keeping their work. And of course, the story told to their managers bears that out. And over time the need, or so it is told, for more middle level bureaucracy to increase.
So here's where things get interesting; how do you reconcile the company's need to perform with the personal need to justify the papertrail? What is the self-interest for a bureaucrat to make things streamlined? More efficient administration decreases the need for their services! So this is where the tension from making things efficient hits a log jam and gets derailed. If anything, bureaucracy tends to blossom over time and needs paring to make it manageable.
So here is the rule of 3 layers. Any organization should have no more than 3 layers. There should be no more than 3 managers between the CEO at the top and the workers at the bottom. This is a simple way to keep the ideas and direction of the company in unison.
But bureaucracy has a dark side; when it grows too big the problem with bureaucracy reveals itself.
Workers at the low end are constantly working towards the goal of making things work. They are the foot soldiers that get things done. They don't need reminding if what is important to keep the money coming in and the customers happy.
Managers, well they are like managers everywhere - they live to make sure they control of their little fiefdoms with all the perks and pay packets. Managers have it easy but they are also responsible and they turn in the odd good year performance.
But on the side of the middle layers - the people that don't feel personally accountable for the work - they tend to lose the big picture. Who wouldn't want the pay of a mid level bureaucrat without the stress at the low end or the risk at the high end? Those without the yoke or the lash have a precarious job; they aren't strictly needed and when things get tight they look like an excess. Middle bureaucrats have a self interest in keeping their work. And of course, the story told to their managers bears that out. And over time the need, or so it is told, for more middle level bureaucracy to increase.
So here's where things get interesting; how do you reconcile the company's need to perform with the personal need to justify the papertrail? What is the self-interest for a bureaucrat to make things streamlined? More efficient administration decreases the need for their services! So this is where the tension from making things efficient hits a log jam and gets derailed. If anything, bureaucracy tends to blossom over time and needs paring to make it manageable.
So here is the rule of 3 layers. Any organization should have no more than 3 layers. There should be no more than 3 managers between the CEO at the top and the workers at the bottom. This is a simple way to keep the ideas and direction of the company in unison.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
The Problem Longevity Problem
There is a consistent theme on many fronts where difficult problems are tackled and then marginalized before they are complete. Often times organizations get into a vicious cycle of trying to change something, or find a solution, and then before the work is complete there is a push to change the direction. This seems like such a simple thing, but incomplete solutions are a a failed effort. And because they are unresolved, it is a reality that they stand in the way of future progress. So why would an organization turn its back on a problem left undone?
Here are the core realities that underpin this kind of situation. The most basic problem is the difficulty of the problem. Because it is difficult, in general the solution is not known in advance. Now, here is where you get into a fundamental logical flaw when it comes to unknowns: since it is unknown, how do you know what the solution will be? If you do not know what the solution will be, then how are you sure it will take 6 months or 3 years? The truth is you are never sure. Research is not linear; you don't get in a discovery for every so many hours or dollars. So everything is done with estimates. With estimates, there are no guarantees.
Let's take the Manhattan Project: the physicists had some very challenging problems. You can find out a lot of information here at wikipedia.org
Here is a rough excerpt:
"The project's roots lay in scientists' fears since the 1930s that Nazi Germany was also investigating nuclear weapons of its own. Born out of a small research program in 1939, the Manhattan Project eventually employed more than 130,000 people and cost nearly US$2 billion ($22 billion in current value). It resulted in the creation of multiple production and research sites that operated in secret.[2] "
Few organizations today could amass 130,000 people and $22 billion dollars towards a single project like the combined forces of the American, British, and Canadian governments working to a single purpose. Sooner or later, the scientists and engineers developed the right solutions for the key questions of a nuclear fission bomb.
Of course the difficult problems involved seem simple to the outside world. The whole kernel of the problem could be summed up as three problems: what nuclear material could detonate like a bomb, how much material would it take to make a sustained chain reaction, and what would the best way to start the chain reaction. These seem straightforward. Remember that this was done long before digital computers, a complete understanding of particle physics, and based on the unstructured ramblings of university professors - all difficult challenges.
Did the Manhattan project have an initial budget and project deadline? Of course it did. Did it fail to meet the original estimates? Of course it did.
So risky problems are entered into with estimate projected budget and timeframe. Unfortunately, managers choose to take these as the gospel and there's where the problem starts.
The second problem is risk aversion. Managers like to claim that they can accept some risk, but in the end all managers are looking out for number one. Association with a failing project - because it is behind schedule and over budget - is not on the good side of career advancement. If a company can only see over-budgets and time delays, there is a level of risk aversion that may make revolutionary change impossible. There needs to be enough vision to undestand the long term objectives. This gets harder and harder as companies look closer for profit and sacrifice opportunities for long term growth. Just remember all those bailed out banks and investment companies that failed because their executives were more interested in short-term (and personal) profit that disintegrated their companies.
The third reason is the personal ambition of the manager in charge of the difficult task. If a manager can find a way to avoid personal liability by eliminating an important yet unpopular or risky project then it is in his personal interest to do so. If an important project gets into the infavorable territory, it may be called a success and shuffled into the completed column without any real progress. If you let managers avoid personal liability then it makes sense they will use it to survive those failures.
Comparing most managers to the manager of the Manhattan project, General Groves was a no-nonsense character that planned to win but he understood that failure was not an option so he continued to sacrifice his personal goals for the needs of the organization which was to develop nuclear weapons first. It probably helped that this was during the war - so things like budgets and delays were not seen as failures unto themselves because people understood the Nazis might be close to completing the same capability. But the fact was that Groves saw the project through to the end- taking the heat and stress - and in the end the results changed the way wars are fought.
So we come to the crux of the problem longevity problem. A difficult project that needs to be solved sometimes - in fact in most cases - can't be solved in the time and budget that was originally set out. If the company cannot accept risk that may be enough to end the project. If the manager feels it is possible to avoid personal liability then that project may become a casualty without a realistic chance of solving it.
We can see the footprints of this every where: problems that were assumed solved when some manager completed a powerpoint claming great results. Then months or years later - well beyond the statue of limitations on the previous manager - that problem resurfaces and we find out that it was never really solved the last time resources were bent towards solving it like we were promised.
IED have been known about for 60 years, and yet the government makes it sound like we are meeting a new threat. Global warming is still not conclusively proven and so the skeptics are justifiably able to stall any climate change solutions. And the Taliban came to power because the CIA wiped their hands and claimed victory against the Soviets.
All of this has happened before, and all of it will happen again.
Here are the core realities that underpin this kind of situation. The most basic problem is the difficulty of the problem. Because it is difficult, in general the solution is not known in advance. Now, here is where you get into a fundamental logical flaw when it comes to unknowns: since it is unknown, how do you know what the solution will be? If you do not know what the solution will be, then how are you sure it will take 6 months or 3 years? The truth is you are never sure. Research is not linear; you don't get in a discovery for every so many hours or dollars. So everything is done with estimates. With estimates, there are no guarantees.
Let's take the Manhattan Project: the physicists had some very challenging problems. You can find out a lot of information here at wikipedia.org
Here is a rough excerpt:
"The project's roots lay in scientists' fears since the 1930s that Nazi Germany was also investigating nuclear weapons of its own. Born out of a small research program in 1939, the Manhattan Project eventually employed more than 130,000 people and cost nearly US$2 billion ($22 billion in current value). It resulted in the creation of multiple production and research sites that operated in secret.[2] "
Few organizations today could amass 130,000 people and $22 billion dollars towards a single project like the combined forces of the American, British, and Canadian governments working to a single purpose. Sooner or later, the scientists and engineers developed the right solutions for the key questions of a nuclear fission bomb.
Of course the difficult problems involved seem simple to the outside world. The whole kernel of the problem could be summed up as three problems: what nuclear material could detonate like a bomb, how much material would it take to make a sustained chain reaction, and what would the best way to start the chain reaction. These seem straightforward. Remember that this was done long before digital computers, a complete understanding of particle physics, and based on the unstructured ramblings of university professors - all difficult challenges.
Did the Manhattan project have an initial budget and project deadline? Of course it did. Did it fail to meet the original estimates? Of course it did.
So risky problems are entered into with estimate projected budget and timeframe. Unfortunately, managers choose to take these as the gospel and there's where the problem starts.
The second problem is risk aversion. Managers like to claim that they can accept some risk, but in the end all managers are looking out for number one. Association with a failing project - because it is behind schedule and over budget - is not on the good side of career advancement. If a company can only see over-budgets and time delays, there is a level of risk aversion that may make revolutionary change impossible. There needs to be enough vision to undestand the long term objectives. This gets harder and harder as companies look closer for profit and sacrifice opportunities for long term growth. Just remember all those bailed out banks and investment companies that failed because their executives were more interested in short-term (and personal) profit that disintegrated their companies.
The third reason is the personal ambition of the manager in charge of the difficult task. If a manager can find a way to avoid personal liability by eliminating an important yet unpopular or risky project then it is in his personal interest to do so. If an important project gets into the infavorable territory, it may be called a success and shuffled into the completed column without any real progress. If you let managers avoid personal liability then it makes sense they will use it to survive those failures.
Comparing most managers to the manager of the Manhattan project, General Groves was a no-nonsense character that planned to win but he understood that failure was not an option so he continued to sacrifice his personal goals for the needs of the organization which was to develop nuclear weapons first. It probably helped that this was during the war - so things like budgets and delays were not seen as failures unto themselves because people understood the Nazis might be close to completing the same capability. But the fact was that Groves saw the project through to the end- taking the heat and stress - and in the end the results changed the way wars are fought.
So we come to the crux of the problem longevity problem. A difficult project that needs to be solved sometimes - in fact in most cases - can't be solved in the time and budget that was originally set out. If the company cannot accept risk that may be enough to end the project. If the manager feels it is possible to avoid personal liability then that project may become a casualty without a realistic chance of solving it.
We can see the footprints of this every where: problems that were assumed solved when some manager completed a powerpoint claming great results. Then months or years later - well beyond the statue of limitations on the previous manager - that problem resurfaces and we find out that it was never really solved the last time resources were bent towards solving it like we were promised.
IED have been known about for 60 years, and yet the government makes it sound like we are meeting a new threat. Global warming is still not conclusively proven and so the skeptics are justifiably able to stall any climate change solutions. And the Taliban came to power because the CIA wiped their hands and claimed victory against the Soviets.
All of this has happened before, and all of it will happen again.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Companies and efficiency: Dual-use example
There are lots of ways to make your money go farther. You need to make the best of what you do, great, so the easiest way to economize is to find simple ways to reduce your effort and your resources. One way is dual-use a resource. Here is a simple way to dual-use resources.
The example I will use here is half used water bottles. You can't walk down the street without seeing a water bottle with a little bit of water in it. Some are full. and what happens when people people pick them up? People dump the water in a sink or in on the ground.
Instead of dumping the water out into the sink - so it has to be processed by the local water treatment facilities - find a plant and dump the water in. You paid for the water, and you need to feed your plants, so combine a simple need with an available resource that was about to be thrown away.
In larger offices, you can set up a funnel and an empty water jug to store the water of all employees in the building. It's that simple. You could place the recycling bin right beside the plant water jug. Now there's no excuses to avoid it.
A simple way to optimize operations is to find ways to dual use the same resources and save. Simple ways like re-using water is not a gigantic savings, but instilling a simple way to achieve more will permeate other economization thinking. And quench some thirsty plants.
That's tactical thinking at its best.
The example I will use here is half used water bottles. You can't walk down the street without seeing a water bottle with a little bit of water in it. Some are full. and what happens when people people pick them up? People dump the water in a sink or in on the ground.
Instead of dumping the water out into the sink - so it has to be processed by the local water treatment facilities - find a plant and dump the water in. You paid for the water, and you need to feed your plants, so combine a simple need with an available resource that was about to be thrown away.
In larger offices, you can set up a funnel and an empty water jug to store the water of all employees in the building. It's that simple. You could place the recycling bin right beside the plant water jug. Now there's no excuses to avoid it.
- No extra resources.
- A small outlay for operations & maintenance ( a plastic funnel)
- Re-uses the plastic jugs that get cleaned by the water company anyway.
- Feeds thirsty plants - just make sure they're not plastic too!
A simple way to optimize operations is to find ways to dual use the same resources and save. Simple ways like re-using water is not a gigantic savings, but instilling a simple way to achieve more will permeate other economization thinking. And quench some thirsty plants.
That's tactical thinking at its best.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
The Body Temperature Gauge Theory - Why do you get a flu or cold?
I am something of a philosopher and tinkerer. And from time to time I have an idea that I need to put forward, despite my lack of subject matter expertise, just as an observer of reality. I encourage anyone who is better equipped to engage and complete the theory - or explain why they refute it.
I would like to share with you my theory on why people get sick during "the flu season" based on the observation of my own personal brush with illness and moving between climates. I call it the Body Temperature Gauge Theory. I capitalized it to make it look more important. But it's just a theory.
As a control systems engineer, I know that you can model any system as a set of inputs and outputs, and if you are lucky or hard working you can construct a model of the inside system dynamics that can explain why the inputs reach the outputs for a large region of the state space.
If you didn't understand any of that, no problem, I don't fully understand it either but just go with me here.
Let me bring forward my experience in changing weather from my own journey across Alberta. I have moved over the timeframe of 14 years from Edmonton Alberta, to Calgary, and then to Medicine Hat. Calgary is about 300 km south of Edmonton, and Medicine Hat is about 300 km south east of Calgary. In those moves I have crossed some isothermal - or weather pattern - topology where the seasons operate differently from place to place. In general, it gets warmer longer the more south I went.
The winter in Edmonton that, on average, lasts about 6 months continually,has a temperature pattern where the temperature dips down below freezing and stays there from about mid- October to mid March. There are brief periods of warmer weather, but those are few and far between. And the lowest temperature will make you feel like the Arctic circle is next door. As a side note, Edmonton is the most northerly - if that's a word - city on the planet. The temperature changes slowest of the three places I am referring to.
Calgary winter weather varies somewhat from Edmonton. Calgary has a winter season that is almost as long but it undergoes a weather pattern we call a chinook. Chinook weather is when the wind off the Pacific ocean dominates the high pressure Arctic air and then the lower half of Alberta, even in winter, warms up above freezing for a period of time. Calgary normally has about 5 months of winter, from end October to March, and on an average of every two to three weeks, there is a brief period of warm weather. This weather has gotten so warm that all the snow can melt. People start appearing from their houses, and some people go without coats. This weather moves in off the Rocky Mountains - normally in the form of inverted clouds and warmer breezes.
Medicine Hat is further south and the weather during winter is even more mild. Medicine Hat, from my 7 years of experience, has even more drastic weather changes and the time it takes to change is by far the most abrupt. During some winters, the temperature climbs to 20 degrees C. I have been outside on my patio using my barbeque in shorts in the middle of January! The weather changes very quickly. I have heard stories of people driving back from Suffield to Medicine Hat that had icicles and frosted mirrors in Suffield, 32 km away, but as they neared town that temperature turned to above freezing and suddenly windows are fogged and the icicles are dropping off.
Based on that input, would it surprise you to know that I have been the sickest - or sick more often - in Medicine Hat? I was sick more often in Calgary than Edmonton. I was also sick more often in Medicine Hat than Calgary.
It is important to know that I am not from Alberta, I moved here when the Army closed the Chilliwack British Columbia (BC) army base in 1996. I used to live in Abbotsford, or Vancouver BC area where the Olympics is going on. In BC true winter is about a 2 month long timeframe and the rest of the year is liquid sunshine, or rain. So when I grew up I didn't experience the very long cold winter or the rapid changes in climate. So along with other things like age, diet, and stress, those are two factors that are the independent variables in question: the length of the winter and the differential in temperature - or the temperature acceleration.
So the output of rapidly changing weather patterns is more times when my body's immune system was compromised and I got sick with colds and flus. Right now I am fighting off a virus I picked up in January.
So here is my theory: You are most likely to get sick when your core body temperature fluctuates rapidly than when your core body temperature changes gradually.
Perhaps someone has already made a thesis about this. I would hope that if that is the case, that person communicated that to the rest of the world.
If not, then here is the simple layman's theory.
I would argue that it is not the length of the winter that is important, flu season varies from climate to climate and always appears on the ends of winter - Fall and Spring - which could also be interepreted as the two time points when the temperature acceleration is the greatest. It is also important to point out that I believe that it does not matter if the temperature is going up or down, but that it varies rapidly.
This sort of phenomenon has been known by the Inuit people for a long time; when they work outside in the winter they know not to work so hard that they sweat. If they sweat then their core body is wet and the cold air will rapidly freeze their bodies. It would appear to me that this is a long held theory that may not have been presented formally up to this point.
And here is the strangest part of the theory; I believe that my sickness problems are also based on where I grew up. I know that people that were born here and have lived here all their lives do not get as many colds and flus as I do. So I would argue that it is also linked to how my body learned to cope with changing temperatures - how quickly my internal thermometer knew to increase heating or stop heating in the face of changing temperatures.
I think that the best way to avoid illnesses then is to make sure in Fall and again in Spring that you be aware of your body temperature and make sure you have enough clothing and enough layers to accomodate those rapid changes. Of course, all the doctors advice about eating right, exercising, and washing your hands is important. But from my experience watching your own temperature guage is important too!
I would like to share with you my theory on why people get sick during "the flu season" based on the observation of my own personal brush with illness and moving between climates. I call it the Body Temperature Gauge Theory. I capitalized it to make it look more important. But it's just a theory.
As a control systems engineer, I know that you can model any system as a set of inputs and outputs, and if you are lucky or hard working you can construct a model of the inside system dynamics that can explain why the inputs reach the outputs for a large region of the state space.
If you didn't understand any of that, no problem, I don't fully understand it either but just go with me here.
Let me bring forward my experience in changing weather from my own journey across Alberta. I have moved over the timeframe of 14 years from Edmonton Alberta, to Calgary, and then to Medicine Hat. Calgary is about 300 km south of Edmonton, and Medicine Hat is about 300 km south east of Calgary. In those moves I have crossed some isothermal - or weather pattern - topology where the seasons operate differently from place to place. In general, it gets warmer longer the more south I went.
The winter in Edmonton that, on average, lasts about 6 months continually,has a temperature pattern where the temperature dips down below freezing and stays there from about mid- October to mid March. There are brief periods of warmer weather, but those are few and far between. And the lowest temperature will make you feel like the Arctic circle is next door. As a side note, Edmonton is the most northerly - if that's a word - city on the planet. The temperature changes slowest of the three places I am referring to.
Calgary winter weather varies somewhat from Edmonton. Calgary has a winter season that is almost as long but it undergoes a weather pattern we call a chinook. Chinook weather is when the wind off the Pacific ocean dominates the high pressure Arctic air and then the lower half of Alberta, even in winter, warms up above freezing for a period of time. Calgary normally has about 5 months of winter, from end October to March, and on an average of every two to three weeks, there is a brief period of warm weather. This weather has gotten so warm that all the snow can melt. People start appearing from their houses, and some people go without coats. This weather moves in off the Rocky Mountains - normally in the form of inverted clouds and warmer breezes.
Medicine Hat is further south and the weather during winter is even more mild. Medicine Hat, from my 7 years of experience, has even more drastic weather changes and the time it takes to change is by far the most abrupt. During some winters, the temperature climbs to 20 degrees C. I have been outside on my patio using my barbeque in shorts in the middle of January! The weather changes very quickly. I have heard stories of people driving back from Suffield to Medicine Hat that had icicles and frosted mirrors in Suffield, 32 km away, but as they neared town that temperature turned to above freezing and suddenly windows are fogged and the icicles are dropping off.
Based on that input, would it surprise you to know that I have been the sickest - or sick more often - in Medicine Hat? I was sick more often in Calgary than Edmonton. I was also sick more often in Medicine Hat than Calgary.
It is important to know that I am not from Alberta, I moved here when the Army closed the Chilliwack British Columbia (BC) army base in 1996. I used to live in Abbotsford, or Vancouver BC area where the Olympics is going on. In BC true winter is about a 2 month long timeframe and the rest of the year is liquid sunshine, or rain. So when I grew up I didn't experience the very long cold winter or the rapid changes in climate. So along with other things like age, diet, and stress, those are two factors that are the independent variables in question: the length of the winter and the differential in temperature - or the temperature acceleration.
So the output of rapidly changing weather patterns is more times when my body's immune system was compromised and I got sick with colds and flus. Right now I am fighting off a virus I picked up in January.
So here is my theory: You are most likely to get sick when your core body temperature fluctuates rapidly than when your core body temperature changes gradually.
Perhaps someone has already made a thesis about this. I would hope that if that is the case, that person communicated that to the rest of the world.
If not, then here is the simple layman's theory.
I would argue that it is not the length of the winter that is important, flu season varies from climate to climate and always appears on the ends of winter - Fall and Spring - which could also be interepreted as the two time points when the temperature acceleration is the greatest. It is also important to point out that I believe that it does not matter if the temperature is going up or down, but that it varies rapidly.
This sort of phenomenon has been known by the Inuit people for a long time; when they work outside in the winter they know not to work so hard that they sweat. If they sweat then their core body is wet and the cold air will rapidly freeze their bodies. It would appear to me that this is a long held theory that may not have been presented formally up to this point.
And here is the strangest part of the theory; I believe that my sickness problems are also based on where I grew up. I know that people that were born here and have lived here all their lives do not get as many colds and flus as I do. So I would argue that it is also linked to how my body learned to cope with changing temperatures - how quickly my internal thermometer knew to increase heating or stop heating in the face of changing temperatures.
I think that the best way to avoid illnesses then is to make sure in Fall and again in Spring that you be aware of your body temperature and make sure you have enough clothing and enough layers to accomodate those rapid changes. Of course, all the doctors advice about eating right, exercising, and washing your hands is important. But from my experience watching your own temperature guage is important too!
Monday, November 9, 2009
The Simpsons - The great assimilator
The Simpsons cartoon show is a great show, I like it. Well, truth be told I enjoy it so much I quote from it constantly. But that got me thinking, and that made me scratch my head and write this article.
The Simpsons is a good thing because it is all things pop culture. It is us so it can be a good medium for poking mankind in the eye with a light-hearted jest and still make us laugh and cry about the whole situation. It speaks to people and situations because it addresses ideas and feelings that are universal.
How it got that way is simple, it assimilated everything in mankind - even going so far as to try and skirt copyrights by making things like "Blocko" blocks instead of Lego ( We all know its lego they are refering to). "In Flanders Field" is a famous WWI poem, "When Flanders Failed" is an episode. Clancy Wiggum is the actor Edward G. Robinson in a poorly fitting uniform.
The Simpsons is a bad thing because in some ways it is the most devoid of original content platform out there. People know who Chief Wiggum is when they should know the crafty character and influential artist Edward G. Robinson was. And the biggest irony is that The Simpsons copyright material is guarded by the same copyright law they skirt when they need to. How much of the content is foreground intellectual property when it is so derivative of all of pop culture? Am I going to get sued simply by stating the name?
In this reality lies the paradox, make it universal to all but at the same time decrease its internal value to an asymptotic value of zero? Will people watch it, of course they will. Will they continue to "borrow" from everything else, of course they will until we stop asking for more episodes.
And the big question is not what is The Simpsons, but is it a force for good in society? I believe that The Simpsons meets the human need; it is entertaining. I think the Simpsons creators have spent a lot of time and effort trying to talk about things we all see everyday and maybe make us change our thinking. So if the greater good is served we can all sit down and laugh at the next eye-poke and smile. But we should also remember where it all came from. If mimicry is the sincerest form of flattery, then The Simpsons remembers where the inspiration came from.
The Simpsons is a good thing because it is all things pop culture. It is us so it can be a good medium for poking mankind in the eye with a light-hearted jest and still make us laugh and cry about the whole situation. It speaks to people and situations because it addresses ideas and feelings that are universal.
How it got that way is simple, it assimilated everything in mankind - even going so far as to try and skirt copyrights by making things like "Blocko" blocks instead of Lego ( We all know its lego they are refering to). "In Flanders Field" is a famous WWI poem, "When Flanders Failed" is an episode. Clancy Wiggum is the actor Edward G. Robinson in a poorly fitting uniform.
The Simpsons is a bad thing because in some ways it is the most devoid of original content platform out there. People know who Chief Wiggum is when they should know the crafty character and influential artist Edward G. Robinson was. And the biggest irony is that The Simpsons copyright material is guarded by the same copyright law they skirt when they need to. How much of the content is foreground intellectual property when it is so derivative of all of pop culture? Am I going to get sued simply by stating the name?
In this reality lies the paradox, make it universal to all but at the same time decrease its internal value to an asymptotic value of zero? Will people watch it, of course they will. Will they continue to "borrow" from everything else, of course they will until we stop asking for more episodes.
And the big question is not what is The Simpsons, but is it a force for good in society? I believe that The Simpsons meets the human need; it is entertaining. I think the Simpsons creators have spent a lot of time and effort trying to talk about things we all see everyday and maybe make us change our thinking. So if the greater good is served we can all sit down and laugh at the next eye-poke and smile. But we should also remember where it all came from. If mimicry is the sincerest form of flattery, then The Simpsons remembers where the inspiration came from.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
The Art of War for Business 4
Sun Tzu said:
"Before the engagement, one who determines in the ancestral temple that he will be victorious has found that the majority of factors are in his favor. Before the engagement one who determines in the ancestral temple that he will not be victorious has found few factors are in his favor.
If one finds that the majority of factors favor him will be victorious, while one who has found few factors favor him will be defeated, what about someone who finds no factors in his favor?
If I observe it from this perspective, victory and defeat will be apparent."
There are many ways to interpret this passage; I will focus on what I believe is the most important interpretation here.
What he is saying in this passage is a common theme I will impress upon you: it is less about the state of things but more about the truth of the situation that determines outcome. It is imperative to plan in advance and to know what the likelihood is. Of course, if you are aware of the "few factors" in your favor beforehand, that should stop you from launching what will be a doomed plan. Instead, go back and plan accepting that eventuality, and recraft your tactics until there are more factors in your favour than your opponent's. That is the art of war. You are not defeated until you allow yourself to be beaten.
This passage also brings up a very important point for business that is being trampled under the ever-increasing weight of manners and politeness: the truth. The truth is vital from everyone in your organization and it is vital for more than hurt feelings, it is vital for survival. You need the truth to come to the right conclusions about your plans in business. You should instill a truth policy for everyone in the organization: and you should reciprocate with the same to your employees - if you don't you won't last in the long run.
It is natural for people to try and protect their jobs, and in certain poisoned work environments - some of which I have occupied - management was their own worst enemy when it came to employee mistrust and ultimately to the downfall of the company. A ship can't survive if everyone is protecting their own personal safety first; nor an army in the field. And it is so with a business.
I guess I am different from most people, I find it disrespectful to not speak the truth: diplomatically if necessary. I encourage and reward truthfulness and suggest you do the same to instill the right corporate attitude. No one can be right all the time, and if you assume that you can then you are fooling yourself first and foremost. Your employees won't see you as perfect despite what they tell you. So treat them with the same respect and courtesy by being as straight as you can with them. You should never outright lie to them: that will never be forgotten nor forgiven.
"Before the engagement, one who determines in the ancestral temple that he will be victorious has found that the majority of factors are in his favor. Before the engagement one who determines in the ancestral temple that he will not be victorious has found few factors are in his favor.
If one finds that the majority of factors favor him will be victorious, while one who has found few factors favor him will be defeated, what about someone who finds no factors in his favor?
If I observe it from this perspective, victory and defeat will be apparent."
There are many ways to interpret this passage; I will focus on what I believe is the most important interpretation here.
What he is saying in this passage is a common theme I will impress upon you: it is less about the state of things but more about the truth of the situation that determines outcome. It is imperative to plan in advance and to know what the likelihood is. Of course, if you are aware of the "few factors" in your favor beforehand, that should stop you from launching what will be a doomed plan. Instead, go back and plan accepting that eventuality, and recraft your tactics until there are more factors in your favour than your opponent's. That is the art of war. You are not defeated until you allow yourself to be beaten.
This passage also brings up a very important point for business that is being trampled under the ever-increasing weight of manners and politeness: the truth. The truth is vital from everyone in your organization and it is vital for more than hurt feelings, it is vital for survival. You need the truth to come to the right conclusions about your plans in business. You should instill a truth policy for everyone in the organization: and you should reciprocate with the same to your employees - if you don't you won't last in the long run.
It is natural for people to try and protect their jobs, and in certain poisoned work environments - some of which I have occupied - management was their own worst enemy when it came to employee mistrust and ultimately to the downfall of the company. A ship can't survive if everyone is protecting their own personal safety first; nor an army in the field. And it is so with a business.
I guess I am different from most people, I find it disrespectful to not speak the truth: diplomatically if necessary. I encourage and reward truthfulness and suggest you do the same to instill the right corporate attitude. No one can be right all the time, and if you assume that you can then you are fooling yourself first and foremost. Your employees won't see you as perfect despite what they tell you. So treat them with the same respect and courtesy by being as straight as you can with them. You should never outright lie to them: that will never be forgotten nor forgiven.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)