Posts
Sarcasm finds medical use in dementia detection
by Julie Shingleton Julie Shingleton
SYDNEY (AFP) – Sarcasm may be the lowest form of wit, but Australian scientists are using it to diagnose dementia, according to research published on Friday.
Researchers at the University of New South Wales found that patients under the age of 65 suffering from frontotemporal dementia (FTD), the second most common form of dementia, cannot detect when someone is being sarcastic.
The study, described by its authors as groundbreaking, helps explain why patients with the condition behave the way they do and why, for example, they are unable to pick up their caregivers' moods, the research showed.
"This is significant because if care-givers are angry, sad or depressed, the patient won't pick this up. It is often very upsetting for family members," said John Hodges, the senior author of the paper published in "Brain".
"(FTD) patients present changes in personality and behaviour. They find it difficult to interact with people, they don't pick up on social cues, they lack empathy, they make bad judgements," he told AFP.
"People with FTD become very gullible and they often part with large amounts of money," he said, adding that one in 4,000 people around the world are afflicted with the condition.
Researchers began studying the role of sarcasm in detecting FTD because it requires a patient to spot discrepancies between a person's words and the tone of their voice, Hodges said.
"One of the things about FTD patients is that they don't detect humour -- they are very bad at double meaning and a lot of humour (other than sarcasm) is based on double meaning," he said.
The research, conducted in 2006-07, put 26 sufferers of FTD and 19 Alzheimer's patients through a test in which actors acted out different scenarios using exactly the same words.
While in one scenario, the actors would deliver the lines sincerely, in others they would introduce a thick layer of sarcasm. Patients were then asked if they got the joke, Hodges said.
For example, said Hodges, if a couple were discussing a weekend away and the wife suggested bringing her mother, the husband might say: "Well, that's great, you know how much I like your mother, that will really make it a great weekend."
When the same words were delivered sarcastically and then in a neutral tone, the joke was lost on FTD patients, while the Alzheimer's patients got it.
"The patients with FTD are very literal and they take what is being said as genuine and sincere," said Hodges.
FTD, often referred to as Pick's disease, is similar to Alzheimer's in that it involves a progressive decline in mental powers over a number of years, but FTD affects different regions of the brain.
"It can be very difficult to diagnose in early stages and to separate from depression or, later on, schizophrenia or personality disorders," Hodges said.
The sarcasm test could replace some more expensive and less widely available tests for dementia, he said.
When questioned about the applicability of the test to people from countries not renowned for their appreciation of sarcasm or irony, Hodges said the test could be modified.
Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081212/ts_afp/healthaustraliadementia
Friday, December 12, 2008
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
by Deepak Chopra
When Barack Obama's remarkable eloquence was dismissed as "just words" during the primary campaign, he survived the criticism. Telling the truth and offering inspiration aren't just words. They are incredibly important in keeping a society together. Now Obama faces another challenge where words can make a difference over whether the economy recovers. Injections of billions of dollars have done little good to the financial system so far. What we need is an injection of confidence.
I was reminded of Japan's aging Emperor Hirohito, who went in for surgery on his pancreas in the fall of 1987. He recovered well until a year later when he suddenly collapsed, and from that time onward, his health steadily deteriorated until he died the following spring. What he didn't know is that his surgeons had discovered cancer of the duodenum during the original operation. No one told the emperor he was dying, because in Japan the news of a fatal diagnosis is traditionally kept from the patient.
The connection with the economy is this: When is too much news worse than none? Full disclosure can harm the patient, whether you are talking about a sick emperor or a sick economy. The words "You are dying" have a devastating effect, and I'd say the same is true of the words "worst crisis since the Great Depression." It's a firm belief among doctors that some patients die from their diagnosis; they go into sudden, rapid decline despite assurances that their condition is treatable. There's even a term for this, the nocebo effect, which is the opposite of the placebo effect (where patients get better because they are told they will).
The American public took the news of economic crisis harder than anyone expected. Consumer confidence and spending nose-dived, and much of it was due to "just words." It wasn't just ordinary citizens who reacted this way; sophisticated financial institutions panicked as well.
Which brings up an ethical dilemma. For decades in this country it was standard practice not to frighten patients by telling them that they had a fatal illness. Sometimes even the family wasn't told (the emperor's family wasn't, as I understand it). Then ethics changed, and now we have the opposite practice: full disclosure. Is that an improvement? Nobody knows, really. Most patients demand full disclosure as their right, just as market analysts demand full disclosure from companies. A lot of the current crisis, we are told, was brought on by lying. Banks were doing their best to keep secret their astoundingly foolish risks.
Fortunately, the U.S. economy isn't dying. But it has collapsed, just like Hirohito, when the official press report was that things were just fine. Now we are going through a weird phase in which happy talk is foisted on us, alternating with dire warnings. It's like telling the emperor, "You're dying, but the outlook is rosy." The great economist John Maynard Keynes realized almost a century ago that all markets are psychological. The current crisis is proving how right he was, and how tricky a role "just words" play in the ongoing drama. As a master of words, Obama needs to give us some we can believe.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Team of Rivals
Asked why he had retained controversial FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, President Lyndon Johnson famously said it was probably better "to have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in."
A century earlier, for similar reasons, Abraham Lincoln surprisingly chose his chief rivals for the 1860 Republican nomination for the top positions in his administration. This experiment was explained in detail in a book called Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln by Doris Kearns Goodwin. This book has become a sensation now as it has been cited as the most influential book by Barrack Obama & Hillary Clinton. This concept, first practiced by Abraham Lincoln, is now being tried valiantly by Obama as he tries to fill his top cabinet positions with people that called him names, actively worked against him, have ideologies that are really different etc.
The article below is about the same topic, the real dangers of surrounding oneself only with likeminded people & the critical ability to put aside past grudges for the sake of the country in times of need - very interesting!
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defeat Your Opponents. Then Hire Them.
By DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN
Concord, Mass.
ON the campaign trail, Barack Obama has applauded Abraham Lincoln’s decision to bring his three main rivals for the Republican nomination into his cabinet, suggesting that he might also invite his opponents to join his administration, if it would help create “the best possible government.” Lincoln understood, Mr. Obama said, that personal feelings mattered less than the issue of “How can we get this country through this time of crisis?” John McCain, too, has embraced the idea of moving beyond partisanship: “We belong to different parties,” he has said, “not different countries.”
Certainly, if the next president were to bring former adversaries into his inner circle, in the No. 2 slot or as members of his administration, he would display that rare combination of humility and confidence required to perform wisely at the highest level. But could a president really create a team of rivals today, and would that team actually be able to get anything done? While Lincoln’s model may be more appealing and more needed than ever before, several factors in our current political climate make it considerably more difficult to bring about.
First, our interminable campaigns pit rivals against one another for so many contentious debates, personal attacks and counterattacks, that feelings harden, not only between candidates, but also their staff members, who come to regard opponents as enemies.
To be sure, negative attacks have been a part of our politics from the earliest days, but in Lincoln’s day, and indeed, until the end of the 19th century, those attacks were delivered mainly through the partisan press rather than on television, where distorted words and images are replayed again and again, creating permanent grudges. Back then, it was considered unseemly for presidential candidates to take the stump, much less debate in person. And, of course, their election cycles were far shorter.
Second, our 24-hour news cycle significantly lessens the possibility of containing dissenting opinions within the president’s official circle. Lincoln’s cabinet meetings were fiery affairs. Members openly feuded with one another as well as with the president. Yet this information rarely appeared in the newspapers; we know about it mainly through diaries and letters. We learn from the diary of Attorney General Edward Bates that Montgomery Blair, the conservative postmaster general, castigated William Seward, the moderate secretary of state, as “an unprincipled liar,” and called Edwin Stanton, the radical secretary of war, “a great scoundrel.” Stanton refused for a time to sit in cabinet meetings if Blair was present.
If similar feuds were reported by the nightly news, magnified day after day by the cable shows, dissected by countless political blogs, and made fodder for late-night comedy, a team of rivals would collapse.
Third, party lines are now so rigidly drawn that if a sitting Republican or Democratic senator were to accept a top post in the opposite party’s cabinet, he would be viewed with grave suspicion by members of both parties. It wasn’t always this way. Once, politicians in Washington of both parties routinely gathered together on weekends for relaxing nights of poker, drinking and conversation. Today such friendships are less common given the need for constant fund-raising, the convenience of flights home and the numerous distractions of modern life. Four decades ago, when Lyndon Johnson needed to break a filibuster and bring the historic Civil Rights Bill to the Senate floor, he reached out to the Republican minority leader, Everett Dirksen, knowing he could rely on their personal relationship, built over years of companionship in the Senate.
Yet, while these factors make it more difficult to construct a 21st-century team of rivals, the scale of the challenges faced by the next president makes such a diverse inner circle all the more necessary. When Lincoln was asked why he had chosen a cabinet made up of rivals and opponents, his answer was simple. The country was in peril. “We needed the strongest men,” he said. “These were the very strongest men. I had no right to deprive the country of their services.”
In selecting Stanton as his secretary of war, Lincoln revealed a critical ability to put aside past grudges. He and Stanton had first met when they worked together on a trial in Cincinnati in the 1850s. At first sight of the ungainly Lincoln, with his disheveled hair and ill-fitting clothes, Stanton dubbed him a “long-armed ape” and remarked that “he does not know anything and can do you no good.” For the rest of the trial, Stanton ignored Lincoln and refused even to open the brief his colleague Lincoln had painstakingly prepared. Lincoln was humiliated.
Yet, six years later, as president, he determined that Stanton’s bluntness and single-minded intensity were precisely the qualities needed to galvanize the War Department.
Similarly, Lincoln refused to fire Salmon Chase, whose open criticisms of the president never ceased, for he believed that Chase was the best man to run the Treasury. “We have stood together in the time of trial,” he later told friends who could not understand his forbearance, “and I should despise myself if I allowed personal differences to affect my judgment of his fitness for the office.”
By building dissent into his inner circle, a president is also more likely to question his own assumptions and to weigh various consequences, leading ultimately to more farsighted decisions.
The story of the Emancipation Proclamation is a case in point. In the months before Lincoln issued his historic proclamation, he listened intently to the arguments within his cabinet over what to do about slavery. The more radical members wanted Lincoln to move quickly. The conservative members feared that emancipation would “intensify the struggle” with the Confederacy, that the border states would no longer support the Union, that it would cause such an outcry in the North that the Republicans would lose the midterm elections.
Lincoln bided his time, realizing that any assault on slavery would have to await a change in public attitudes. Gradually, he began to see a shift in newspaper editorials, in conversations throughout the North and, most tellingly, in the opinions of his cabinet colleagues, even those who represented the more conservative point of view.
Although he knew that opposition would still be fierce, he came to believe it was no longer “strong enough to defeat the purpose.” He told his cabinet that the time for debate was over, and emancipation was declared in 1863. “It is my conviction,” Lincoln later said, “that, had the proclamation been issued even six months earlier than it was, public sentiment would not have sustained it.” Because of the heated discussions within his cabinet, his timing was perfect.
Nor is Lincoln alone in reaching out to his rivals. In 1940, after much of Europe had fallen to Nazi Germany, Franklin Roosevelt decided that the time had come for a coalition cabinet.
For secretary of war, he selected a Republican conservative, Henry Stimson, who had held top posts under previous Republican presidents. He chose as Navy secretary Frank Knox, who had been Alf Landon’s running mate on the Republican ticket in 1936. Both men were unsparing critics of the New Deal, but their domestic views were far less important to the president than their willingness to stand against the isolationist tendencies of their party and aid the Allies against Hitler.
There is also the story of a meeting in Roosevelt’s office during which the president advanced a pet proposal. Everyone nodded in approval except a junior brigadier general, George Marshall. “Don’t you think so, George?” the president asked. Marshall replied: “I am sorry, Mr. President, but I don’t agree with you at all.” The president looked stunned, and Marshall’s friends predicted that his tour in Washington would soon come to an end. A few months later, reaching down 34 names on the list of senior generals, the president asked Marshall to be chief of staff of the United States Army.
Inviting such in-house dissent may indeed pose greater challenges today than in earlier times, but it’s hard to see that we have any other choice. Polls show that Americans wish to move beyond the combination of extreme partisanship and ideological rigidity that has for decades prevented Washington from addressing the serious problems facing our country. They have seen the damage caused by the creation of like-minded “echo chambers” in Washington. Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain would do well to keep this in mind as they choose their vice president and cabinet members.
History, after all, reveals how dangerous it can be for a president to surround himself with like-minded people. Lincoln’s predecessor, James Buchanan, deliberately chose men for his cabinet who thought as he did and, with the agreement of those around him, did nothing to prevent the secession of the Confederate states. He is now considered among the worst of our presidents.
Doris Kearns Goodwin is the author, most recently, of “Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln.”
The article below is about the same topic, the real dangers of surrounding oneself only with likeminded people & the critical ability to put aside past grudges for the sake of the country in times of need - very interesting!
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defeat Your Opponents. Then Hire Them.
By DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN
Concord, Mass.
ON the campaign trail, Barack Obama has applauded Abraham Lincoln’s decision to bring his three main rivals for the Republican nomination into his cabinet, suggesting that he might also invite his opponents to join his administration, if it would help create “the best possible government.” Lincoln understood, Mr. Obama said, that personal feelings mattered less than the issue of “How can we get this country through this time of crisis?” John McCain, too, has embraced the idea of moving beyond partisanship: “We belong to different parties,” he has said, “not different countries.”
Certainly, if the next president were to bring former adversaries into his inner circle, in the No. 2 slot or as members of his administration, he would display that rare combination of humility and confidence required to perform wisely at the highest level. But could a president really create a team of rivals today, and would that team actually be able to get anything done? While Lincoln’s model may be more appealing and more needed than ever before, several factors in our current political climate make it considerably more difficult to bring about.
First, our interminable campaigns pit rivals against one another for so many contentious debates, personal attacks and counterattacks, that feelings harden, not only between candidates, but also their staff members, who come to regard opponents as enemies.
To be sure, negative attacks have been a part of our politics from the earliest days, but in Lincoln’s day, and indeed, until the end of the 19th century, those attacks were delivered mainly through the partisan press rather than on television, where distorted words and images are replayed again and again, creating permanent grudges. Back then, it was considered unseemly for presidential candidates to take the stump, much less debate in person. And, of course, their election cycles were far shorter.
Second, our 24-hour news cycle significantly lessens the possibility of containing dissenting opinions within the president’s official circle. Lincoln’s cabinet meetings were fiery affairs. Members openly feuded with one another as well as with the president. Yet this information rarely appeared in the newspapers; we know about it mainly through diaries and letters. We learn from the diary of Attorney General Edward Bates that Montgomery Blair, the conservative postmaster general, castigated William Seward, the moderate secretary of state, as “an unprincipled liar,” and called Edwin Stanton, the radical secretary of war, “a great scoundrel.” Stanton refused for a time to sit in cabinet meetings if Blair was present.
If similar feuds were reported by the nightly news, magnified day after day by the cable shows, dissected by countless political blogs, and made fodder for late-night comedy, a team of rivals would collapse.
Third, party lines are now so rigidly drawn that if a sitting Republican or Democratic senator were to accept a top post in the opposite party’s cabinet, he would be viewed with grave suspicion by members of both parties. It wasn’t always this way. Once, politicians in Washington of both parties routinely gathered together on weekends for relaxing nights of poker, drinking and conversation. Today such friendships are less common given the need for constant fund-raising, the convenience of flights home and the numerous distractions of modern life. Four decades ago, when Lyndon Johnson needed to break a filibuster and bring the historic Civil Rights Bill to the Senate floor, he reached out to the Republican minority leader, Everett Dirksen, knowing he could rely on their personal relationship, built over years of companionship in the Senate.
Yet, while these factors make it more difficult to construct a 21st-century team of rivals, the scale of the challenges faced by the next president makes such a diverse inner circle all the more necessary. When Lincoln was asked why he had chosen a cabinet made up of rivals and opponents, his answer was simple. The country was in peril. “We needed the strongest men,” he said. “These were the very strongest men. I had no right to deprive the country of their services.”
In selecting Stanton as his secretary of war, Lincoln revealed a critical ability to put aside past grudges. He and Stanton had first met when they worked together on a trial in Cincinnati in the 1850s. At first sight of the ungainly Lincoln, with his disheveled hair and ill-fitting clothes, Stanton dubbed him a “long-armed ape” and remarked that “he does not know anything and can do you no good.” For the rest of the trial, Stanton ignored Lincoln and refused even to open the brief his colleague Lincoln had painstakingly prepared. Lincoln was humiliated.
Yet, six years later, as president, he determined that Stanton’s bluntness and single-minded intensity were precisely the qualities needed to galvanize the War Department.
Similarly, Lincoln refused to fire Salmon Chase, whose open criticisms of the president never ceased, for he believed that Chase was the best man to run the Treasury. “We have stood together in the time of trial,” he later told friends who could not understand his forbearance, “and I should despise myself if I allowed personal differences to affect my judgment of his fitness for the office.”
By building dissent into his inner circle, a president is also more likely to question his own assumptions and to weigh various consequences, leading ultimately to more farsighted decisions.
The story of the Emancipation Proclamation is a case in point. In the months before Lincoln issued his historic proclamation, he listened intently to the arguments within his cabinet over what to do about slavery. The more radical members wanted Lincoln to move quickly. The conservative members feared that emancipation would “intensify the struggle” with the Confederacy, that the border states would no longer support the Union, that it would cause such an outcry in the North that the Republicans would lose the midterm elections.
Lincoln bided his time, realizing that any assault on slavery would have to await a change in public attitudes. Gradually, he began to see a shift in newspaper editorials, in conversations throughout the North and, most tellingly, in the opinions of his cabinet colleagues, even those who represented the more conservative point of view.
Although he knew that opposition would still be fierce, he came to believe it was no longer “strong enough to defeat the purpose.” He told his cabinet that the time for debate was over, and emancipation was declared in 1863. “It is my conviction,” Lincoln later said, “that, had the proclamation been issued even six months earlier than it was, public sentiment would not have sustained it.” Because of the heated discussions within his cabinet, his timing was perfect.
Nor is Lincoln alone in reaching out to his rivals. In 1940, after much of Europe had fallen to Nazi Germany, Franklin Roosevelt decided that the time had come for a coalition cabinet.
For secretary of war, he selected a Republican conservative, Henry Stimson, who had held top posts under previous Republican presidents. He chose as Navy secretary Frank Knox, who had been Alf Landon’s running mate on the Republican ticket in 1936. Both men were unsparing critics of the New Deal, but their domestic views were far less important to the president than their willingness to stand against the isolationist tendencies of their party and aid the Allies against Hitler.
There is also the story of a meeting in Roosevelt’s office during which the president advanced a pet proposal. Everyone nodded in approval except a junior brigadier general, George Marshall. “Don’t you think so, George?” the president asked. Marshall replied: “I am sorry, Mr. President, but I don’t agree with you at all.” The president looked stunned, and Marshall’s friends predicted that his tour in Washington would soon come to an end. A few months later, reaching down 34 names on the list of senior generals, the president asked Marshall to be chief of staff of the United States Army.
Inviting such in-house dissent may indeed pose greater challenges today than in earlier times, but it’s hard to see that we have any other choice. Polls show that Americans wish to move beyond the combination of extreme partisanship and ideological rigidity that has for decades prevented Washington from addressing the serious problems facing our country. They have seen the damage caused by the creation of like-minded “echo chambers” in Washington. Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain would do well to keep this in mind as they choose their vice president and cabinet members.
History, after all, reveals how dangerous it can be for a president to surround himself with like-minded people. Lincoln’s predecessor, James Buchanan, deliberately chose men for his cabinet who thought as he did and, with the agreement of those around him, did nothing to prevent the secession of the Confederate states. He is now considered among the worst of our presidents.
Doris Kearns Goodwin is the author, most recently, of “Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln.”
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Spellcheck from Brain
Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.
Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
How to start an online business for $100
Christopher Null, PC World
November 5, 2008 (PC World) Today's economy isn't doing anyone any favors, and if you're one of the unfortunate folks to have been served a layoff notice, you might be facing a long haul when it comes to searching for another job. Is now the right moment to put your long-lingering business idea into practice? While times may be tight for many larger enterprises, in many cases, smaller, more-nimble companies are better able to withstand market uncertainty and weather downturns.
The best way to stick it to the man? Start working for yourself by founding your own company. Working for yourself has some serious and obvious advantages over job hunting. Not only do you determine your own hours and decide where you set up your office, but you keep all the profits too.
Starting your own business doesn't have to mean spending thousands of dollars on setup costs before you ever open your doors. Don't get suckered into spending loads of money on services that you don't need or that have far cheaper alternatives. Seriously, with $100, you can obtain everything you require to start just about any business online, with only minimal need to get up from your desk. Here's how to do it.
Find an Affordable Web Host
The Web site for your new business has to reside somewhere. How do you pick a Web host that won't leave you high and dry?
Most hosting plans for small companies offer similar features: basically unlimited storage space, support for common databases and publishing systems, and anywhere from a few gigabytes to 2TB of data transfer per month. Expect to pay between $5 and $15 per month for the service, with a one- or two-year upfront contract.
How to pick one from the dozens out there? Look for reviews from recent users, with a particular focus on how quickly the host resolves problems and how often the service goes down. If you expect sudden, big influxes of traffic due to promotions or Digg-like flooding, you'll want to ensure that the host can handle it. Ask about these issues if the company doesn't have written policies.
If your business is blog-centric, you can get started for free with a hosted service such as one from WordPress. You can always move to your own Web host later when you outgrow it or are ready for more.
Get Logos and Design Work
Numerous Web sites, such as Logo Ease and LogoMaker, will design a free logo for you based on options you set via a Web interface. The quality varies, but generally you can get the logo for free for online use. The services make money if you want to download the logo in EPS format, which is more suitable for printing on T-shirts and coffee mugs. A Web search for "free logo" will turn up dozens of additional alternatives.
Another, possibly better, approach is to seek out an independent designer to work on your logo. If you don't need anything fancy, you can find someone to do the job for $50 or less through a simple Craigslist ad. The advantage is that you get to work with a live person (with genuine artistic skills) to create something unique for you rather than a cold, computer-generated logo.
As for Web design, you're unlikely to encounter someone who can create an original site for you for a fee within our $100 budget range. If you can't afford a real designer from the start, begin with a simple layout and customize it as you go -- but try to avoid making incremental changes every day or week. When it's time to redesign, do all the work at once to avoid confusing and alienating your readers for a protracted time.
Build an E-Commerce Site on the Cheap
If you're planning to sell a lot of physical goods, you'll need a service that can handle e-commerce transactions, process credit cards and provide security for both. Setting all of this up on your own server is an expensive, time-consuming task laden with security risks. It's best to outsource the functions to a hosted service targeted at merchants. Such services can be surprisingly affordable. Yahoo Inc.'s popular Merchant Solutions start at $40 per month. E-commerce sites at Netfirms start at a mere $15 per month. You can customize both extensively to match your desired look and feel.
Find a Big Sales Partner
Thousands of merchants use Amazon.com to promote their goods, giving Amazon.com Inc. a cut when items sell. The big advantage: You don't need a Web site at all to sell there. You can sell just about anything that Amazon stocks by registering as a merchant, finding the product page for the item you're selling, and clicking Sell yours here. Merchants must pay $40 a month, plus a sliding scale of closing fees (6% to 20%). Individual sellers can sign up to sell with no monthly fees but must pay an extra 99 cent closing fee.
You'll find similar services (though less of a selection) at Half.com, which is part of eBay Inc. Of course, you can always try your hand at dealing on eBay itself, which is still a popular venue for selling new and used merchandise, though one drowning in noise.
Think SEO, All the Time
Don't underestimate the value of optimizing your Web site for Google. But you don't need to pay an expert thousands of dollars to optimize your site for you: Check out the expert advice from SEOmoz and other search engine optimization writers to learn the basics of SEO, and instill your site with good SEO habits from Day One. It takes time for the engines to get to know your site, so be patient. (Just make sure you've submitted your URL to all of them!)
Get Bonus Income With Google AdSense
Unless you're selling physical merchandise, try adding Google AdSense ads to your site. You might pull in only a few dollars a month while your site is small, but that's more than nothing -- plus, it opens the door for bigger ad opportunities down the road.
Constantly Promote Your Business
How do one-person businesses get big? They're always promoting themselves. Add your URL to your e-mail signature. Create a Facebook group for your business. Write a humorous blog about your product or industry (check out Chris Lindland's Cordarounds blog for ideas). Submit your gems to Digg, Reddit, and StumbleUpon. Comment on online stories in your field and cast yourself as an expert. Meet and greet at trade shows. Make T-shirts, stickers and business cards. Give away products to charity events in exchange for an ad. Hold contests for freebies and make people work for the prizes. Above all, don't let anyone forget about your new enterprise.
File for a Fictitious Business Name
Unless you intend to receive all incoming payments under your real, legal name (as, say, with a personal consultancy) you need a fictitious business name for your company, also known as a DBA ("doing business as"). You need one because of your bank's policies: If you receive a check for Acme Widgets, you won't be able to cash it unless you can prove that Acme is really you.
To make that connection, get a DBA. This is one of the few actions described in this article that you often can't do on the Web. The specifics of obtaining a business name vary from city to city and county to county, so you'll need to check with your municipality. In my city, you must make filings in person at the city hall (after you've ensured that no other businesses have the same name), and you must place a notice in a paper of record indicating that you've opened up shop. In some cities -- Little Rock, Ark., for example -- you can do the whole thing online. Some regions require county filings, too.
Check with your official city and county Web sites for specific instructions. Fees will range from nothing to about $50 to have any DBA and relevant licensing (see below) taken care of. Just make certain you go directly to the municipality to do the task: Intermediaries claiming to file forms on your behalf are often expensive scams.
What About Additional Licenses?
Again, this is a locale-specific issue. Some cities make you file for a special license if you're going to be working from home (the city doesn't want you snarling traffic if you open a cookie shop in your kitchen, for example). Others require certain types of businesses to file additional paperwork to get a license. Again, the rules vary dramatically from place to place, but usually you can take care of it all while you're filing for a DBA (and, in fact, usually the city won't give you a DBA unless you've handled any other relevant licensing issues already).
Also, if you're selling physical goods, you'll have to collect sales taxes if your state requires it, as most do. Check your state's Web site to learn about collection and filing procedures. Usually you won't have to pay any up-front fee.
Incorporate? Skip It
Many guides to starting a business will encourage you to incorporate, citing the legal protections that such a move offers. Their assertions are true, but unless your new venture is selling herbal Viagra online, your risk of facing a serious legal headache while your business is in its infancy is minimal. It's far cheaper, easier and faster to operate as a sole proprietorship, especially in dealing with finances and taxes. If things grow complicated, you can always incorporate later.
The Simple Business Bank Account
You can open a second bank account if you'd like, but if you're a proprietorship and have a DBA, you can use your personal bank account for business and not have to worry about multiple accounts. Your bank will even print your DBA on personal checks, making them suitable for business use.
If you really need a second account, ask your current bank if it has any special deals for small businesses. Many banks, for example, offer free business checking if you maintain a certain minimum balance.
Set Up a Switchboard
If you're expecting a lot of incoming phone calls, an answering service might be worth the investment. You'll seem more professional to customers, and you won't be roused from bed at the crack of dawn by callers who don't understand what time zones are.
You can have a live answering service (similar to the one your doctor uses) for $20 a month -- or less, if you have minimal incoming calls. Another option is to do it virtually. For about $10 a month, you can get an 800-number-based system such as RingCentral that answers calls with an automated greeting, routing calls to you (or other employees or contractors) or to voice mail depending on button presses.
If phone calls aren't a big deal, consider a second land line or a dedicated cell phone that you can use for business. Adding a line to either is easy, and with a cell phone you can even share minutes under a family plan.
For a Little More: Get a Virtual Office
The world doesn't need to know you're working in your basement, so many business owners turn to a P.O. box for the official address of their company. A bare P.O. box, however, doesn't seem all that professional, and you can't receive UPS or FedEx shipments there.
Another option is a virtual mailbox service, such as that of Regus PLC. With a virtual mailbox, you get a physical mailing address and someone who will sign for packages from other carriers. The catch is that people sending you mail still have to put a PMB code on the envelope, though it's less conspicuous than with a regular post office box. You pick up the mail once a week, or the service forwards it to you at cost. The plans cost $100 to $150 per month.
You can step up from there to a more serious arrangement: A virtual office setup gets you not just mail service but also a live receptionist who answers the phone however you like, plus access to a physical space with offices, conference rooms,and even videoconferencing facilities. Fees can range from $250 to $325 per month.
These costs are admittedly beyond our $100 budget, so consider whether you really need them before signing a contract. With so much business conducted online and via phone, you may never deal with visitors at all.
For a Little More: Offload Fulfillment and Shipping
Selling physical goods online often means long hours spent in your garage packing up orders to ship to buyers, and then standing in long lines at the post office to mail it all off. Another option exists, thanks to the wonders of e-fulfillment: You pay someone else to do all the inventory handling and order shipping for you. Fees can be pricey unless you have the volume to mandate it: Efulfillment Service costs a flat $70 per month, along with $1.85 per order processed and 25 cents per cubic foot per month for inventory stored, plus actual shipping fees.
Alternatively, you could hire a student or other temporary help to do the work for you a few days a week, but you'll still have to find somewhere else to park your car.
By now, your business should be up and running -- but that, alas, was the easy part. Now get out there and publish, promote and sell, sell, sell. And remember that even if, in the worst case, your business fails, "CEO" always looks good on your résumé!
Source: http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyName=Networking+and+Internet&articleId=9119119&taxonomyId=16&pageNumber=1
Christopher Null, PC World
November 5, 2008 (PC World) Today's economy isn't doing anyone any favors, and if you're one of the unfortunate folks to have been served a layoff notice, you might be facing a long haul when it comes to searching for another job. Is now the right moment to put your long-lingering business idea into practice? While times may be tight for many larger enterprises, in many cases, smaller, more-nimble companies are better able to withstand market uncertainty and weather downturns.
The best way to stick it to the man? Start working for yourself by founding your own company. Working for yourself has some serious and obvious advantages over job hunting. Not only do you determine your own hours and decide where you set up your office, but you keep all the profits too.
Starting your own business doesn't have to mean spending thousands of dollars on setup costs before you ever open your doors. Don't get suckered into spending loads of money on services that you don't need or that have far cheaper alternatives. Seriously, with $100, you can obtain everything you require to start just about any business online, with only minimal need to get up from your desk. Here's how to do it.
Find an Affordable Web Host
The Web site for your new business has to reside somewhere. How do you pick a Web host that won't leave you high and dry?
Most hosting plans for small companies offer similar features: basically unlimited storage space, support for common databases and publishing systems, and anywhere from a few gigabytes to 2TB of data transfer per month. Expect to pay between $5 and $15 per month for the service, with a one- or two-year upfront contract.
How to pick one from the dozens out there? Look for reviews from recent users, with a particular focus on how quickly the host resolves problems and how often the service goes down. If you expect sudden, big influxes of traffic due to promotions or Digg-like flooding, you'll want to ensure that the host can handle it. Ask about these issues if the company doesn't have written policies.
If your business is blog-centric, you can get started for free with a hosted service such as one from WordPress. You can always move to your own Web host later when you outgrow it or are ready for more.
Get Logos and Design Work
Numerous Web sites, such as Logo Ease and LogoMaker, will design a free logo for you based on options you set via a Web interface. The quality varies, but generally you can get the logo for free for online use. The services make money if you want to download the logo in EPS format, which is more suitable for printing on T-shirts and coffee mugs. A Web search for "free logo" will turn up dozens of additional alternatives.
Another, possibly better, approach is to seek out an independent designer to work on your logo. If you don't need anything fancy, you can find someone to do the job for $50 or less through a simple Craigslist ad. The advantage is that you get to work with a live person (with genuine artistic skills) to create something unique for you rather than a cold, computer-generated logo.
As for Web design, you're unlikely to encounter someone who can create an original site for you for a fee within our $100 budget range. If you can't afford a real designer from the start, begin with a simple layout and customize it as you go -- but try to avoid making incremental changes every day or week. When it's time to redesign, do all the work at once to avoid confusing and alienating your readers for a protracted time.
Build an E-Commerce Site on the Cheap
If you're planning to sell a lot of physical goods, you'll need a service that can handle e-commerce transactions, process credit cards and provide security for both. Setting all of this up on your own server is an expensive, time-consuming task laden with security risks. It's best to outsource the functions to a hosted service targeted at merchants. Such services can be surprisingly affordable. Yahoo Inc.'s popular Merchant Solutions start at $40 per month. E-commerce sites at Netfirms start at a mere $15 per month. You can customize both extensively to match your desired look and feel.
Find a Big Sales Partner
Thousands of merchants use Amazon.com to promote their goods, giving Amazon.com Inc. a cut when items sell. The big advantage: You don't need a Web site at all to sell there. You can sell just about anything that Amazon stocks by registering as a merchant, finding the product page for the item you're selling, and clicking Sell yours here. Merchants must pay $40 a month, plus a sliding scale of closing fees (6% to 20%). Individual sellers can sign up to sell with no monthly fees but must pay an extra 99 cent closing fee.
You'll find similar services (though less of a selection) at Half.com, which is part of eBay Inc. Of course, you can always try your hand at dealing on eBay itself, which is still a popular venue for selling new and used merchandise, though one drowning in noise.
Think SEO, All the Time
Don't underestimate the value of optimizing your Web site for Google. But you don't need to pay an expert thousands of dollars to optimize your site for you: Check out the expert advice from SEOmoz and other search engine optimization writers to learn the basics of SEO, and instill your site with good SEO habits from Day One. It takes time for the engines to get to know your site, so be patient. (Just make sure you've submitted your URL to all of them!)
Get Bonus Income With Google AdSense
Unless you're selling physical merchandise, try adding Google AdSense ads to your site. You might pull in only a few dollars a month while your site is small, but that's more than nothing -- plus, it opens the door for bigger ad opportunities down the road.
Constantly Promote Your Business
How do one-person businesses get big? They're always promoting themselves. Add your URL to your e-mail signature. Create a Facebook group for your business. Write a humorous blog about your product or industry (check out Chris Lindland's Cordarounds blog for ideas). Submit your gems to Digg, Reddit, and StumbleUpon. Comment on online stories in your field and cast yourself as an expert. Meet and greet at trade shows. Make T-shirts, stickers and business cards. Give away products to charity events in exchange for an ad. Hold contests for freebies and make people work for the prizes. Above all, don't let anyone forget about your new enterprise.
File for a Fictitious Business Name
Unless you intend to receive all incoming payments under your real, legal name (as, say, with a personal consultancy) you need a fictitious business name for your company, also known as a DBA ("doing business as"). You need one because of your bank's policies: If you receive a check for Acme Widgets, you won't be able to cash it unless you can prove that Acme is really you.
To make that connection, get a DBA. This is one of the few actions described in this article that you often can't do on the Web. The specifics of obtaining a business name vary from city to city and county to county, so you'll need to check with your municipality. In my city, you must make filings in person at the city hall (after you've ensured that no other businesses have the same name), and you must place a notice in a paper of record indicating that you've opened up shop. In some cities -- Little Rock, Ark., for example -- you can do the whole thing online. Some regions require county filings, too.
Check with your official city and county Web sites for specific instructions. Fees will range from nothing to about $50 to have any DBA and relevant licensing (see below) taken care of. Just make certain you go directly to the municipality to do the task: Intermediaries claiming to file forms on your behalf are often expensive scams.
What About Additional Licenses?
Again, this is a locale-specific issue. Some cities make you file for a special license if you're going to be working from home (the city doesn't want you snarling traffic if you open a cookie shop in your kitchen, for example). Others require certain types of businesses to file additional paperwork to get a license. Again, the rules vary dramatically from place to place, but usually you can take care of it all while you're filing for a DBA (and, in fact, usually the city won't give you a DBA unless you've handled any other relevant licensing issues already).
Also, if you're selling physical goods, you'll have to collect sales taxes if your state requires it, as most do. Check your state's Web site to learn about collection and filing procedures. Usually you won't have to pay any up-front fee.
Incorporate? Skip It
Many guides to starting a business will encourage you to incorporate, citing the legal protections that such a move offers. Their assertions are true, but unless your new venture is selling herbal Viagra online, your risk of facing a serious legal headache while your business is in its infancy is minimal. It's far cheaper, easier and faster to operate as a sole proprietorship, especially in dealing with finances and taxes. If things grow complicated, you can always incorporate later.
The Simple Business Bank Account
You can open a second bank account if you'd like, but if you're a proprietorship and have a DBA, you can use your personal bank account for business and not have to worry about multiple accounts. Your bank will even print your DBA on personal checks, making them suitable for business use.
If you really need a second account, ask your current bank if it has any special deals for small businesses. Many banks, for example, offer free business checking if you maintain a certain minimum balance.
Set Up a Switchboard
If you're expecting a lot of incoming phone calls, an answering service might be worth the investment. You'll seem more professional to customers, and you won't be roused from bed at the crack of dawn by callers who don't understand what time zones are.
You can have a live answering service (similar to the one your doctor uses) for $20 a month -- or less, if you have minimal incoming calls. Another option is to do it virtually. For about $10 a month, you can get an 800-number-based system such as RingCentral that answers calls with an automated greeting, routing calls to you (or other employees or contractors) or to voice mail depending on button presses.
If phone calls aren't a big deal, consider a second land line or a dedicated cell phone that you can use for business. Adding a line to either is easy, and with a cell phone you can even share minutes under a family plan.
For a Little More: Get a Virtual Office
The world doesn't need to know you're working in your basement, so many business owners turn to a P.O. box for the official address of their company. A bare P.O. box, however, doesn't seem all that professional, and you can't receive UPS or FedEx shipments there.
Another option is a virtual mailbox service, such as that of Regus PLC. With a virtual mailbox, you get a physical mailing address and someone who will sign for packages from other carriers. The catch is that people sending you mail still have to put a PMB code on the envelope, though it's less conspicuous than with a regular post office box. You pick up the mail once a week, or the service forwards it to you at cost. The plans cost $100 to $150 per month.
You can step up from there to a more serious arrangement: A virtual office setup gets you not just mail service but also a live receptionist who answers the phone however you like, plus access to a physical space with offices, conference rooms,and even videoconferencing facilities. Fees can range from $250 to $325 per month.
These costs are admittedly beyond our $100 budget, so consider whether you really need them before signing a contract. With so much business conducted online and via phone, you may never deal with visitors at all.
For a Little More: Offload Fulfillment and Shipping
Selling physical goods online often means long hours spent in your garage packing up orders to ship to buyers, and then standing in long lines at the post office to mail it all off. Another option exists, thanks to the wonders of e-fulfillment: You pay someone else to do all the inventory handling and order shipping for you. Fees can be pricey unless you have the volume to mandate it: Efulfillment Service costs a flat $70 per month, along with $1.85 per order processed and 25 cents per cubic foot per month for inventory stored, plus actual shipping fees.
Alternatively, you could hire a student or other temporary help to do the work for you a few days a week, but you'll still have to find somewhere else to park your car.
By now, your business should be up and running -- but that, alas, was the easy part. Now get out there and publish, promote and sell, sell, sell. And remember that even if, in the worst case, your business fails, "CEO" always looks good on your résumé!
Source: http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyName=Networking+and+Internet&articleId=9119119&taxonomyId=16&pageNumber=1
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Daily Kos founder: How you can take on the system
By Markos Moulitsas Zúniga
• Markos Moulitsas Zúniga is the publisher and founder of Daily Kos (dailykos.com), one of America's leading online political communities. This essay was adapted from his latest book, "Taking on the System: Rules for Radical Change in a Digital Era." Copyright by Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, Inc., 2008. Printed by arrangement with Celebra, a member of Penguin Group (USA) Inc.
By Markos Moulitsas Zúniga
Berkeley, Calif. – You can't change the world without conflict.
Whether you want to change Capitol Hill or Capitol Records, the corporate tower or the ivory tower, conflict must precede change, because in most of the big institutions of our society, we have too many entrenched elites who refuse to give up power without a fight.
Traditionally, these self-appointed and unaccountable gatekeepers have purported to operate in the public interest, but they are grossly out of touch with the public. Rather than empower people, they designed rules to keep the rabble out of the inner sanctums, where our ideas wouldn't infect their decisionmaking process. Whether it was record-label executives; Hollywood studio moguls; editors and producers in the media; or the clubby D.C. politicians, consultants, and lobbyists, many built walls to protect the sanctity of their turf.
The results? A sick body politic and a homogenized culture; a disengaged citizenry, cynical and despondent over its inability to effect change; and a powerful elite unhampered and unchallenged in the dogged pursuit of its own interests over those of society at large.
But all that is changing. Technology has unlocked the doors and facilitated a genuine democratization of our culture. No longer content to sit on the sidelines as spectators, a new generation of participants is taking an active role in our culture and democracy.
The changing media landscape offers this generation new challenges but also new opportunities. Chief among them is the mother lode of modern activism – the ability to dislodge "conventional wisdom" on any given topic.
Conventional wisdom refers to ideas and explanations generally accepted as the truth by the public, the gatekeepers, and the decisionmakers. Effecting societal change often requires changing the conventional wisdom on issues, especially when the "wisdom" isn't so wise.
For instance, the conventional wisdom on the stock market says that Republican administrations are good for the market, while Democratic ones are not. Yet since 1948, Democratic administrations have delivered 15.25 percent gains in the market compared with 9.53 percent for Republican ones, according to Jeremy Siegel, a finance professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School.
Clearly, the information has been accruing for more than half a century that Wall Street flourishes under Democratic administrations, yet so powerful is conventional wisdom once set that it often takes cultural or political upheaval to dislodge it. Thus, there is an inherent advantage in being the first to define the "truth," because whoever does so controls the terms of the debate.
Once the exclusive province of elite gatekeepers – media pundits, political party operatives, think tank denizens, lobbyists – shaping conventional wisdom is becoming a far more democratic affair, thanks to the networking nature of the Internet.
While activism was once predicated on influencing those gatekeepers, we can now create infrastructure that bypasses those gatekeepers, meaning that to stay relevant, they either have to be more responsive to the public, or risk losing their relevance.
Consider the British band Arctic Monkeys. Like most bands, they labored in obscurity, without a record label to promote their work. Yet they quickly built a passionate local fan base, which took on those promotional tasks for themselves. Without the band's involvement or permission, they set up a MySpace page, uploaded songs, and got the word out about their work. Word spread quickly. The buzz was so intense that record labels begged to sign the band. And when it finally signed with a small independent label, their first single debuted at No. 1 in Britain.
Record label executives no longer get to decide who succeeds and who fails. People are taking that job over for themselves. And as the Arctic Monkeys example shows, they could bypass not just the record labels, but even the band itself.
It's not just music. New empowering technologies are allowing "amateur" filmmakers to use inexpensive video and editing equipment to create content, then post it on sites such as YouTube free of charge and instant worldwide distribution. Bloggers can launch online publications for the cost of a domain name (about $10), building publications that rival their traditional media counterparts in the celebrity, political, and technology worlds. The media gatekeepers no longer get to decide who can participate in the conversation.
Nowhere has this impact been more noticeable than in politics. In the 2006 election cycle, Jon Tester of Montana and Jim Webb of Virginia were propelled to the US Senate by an energized online grass-roots network that fueled the two outsiders to victory – despite primary campaigns against well-funded and establishment-backed opponents, and difficult general election battles against entrenched, well-funded incumbents. In fact, Mr. Webb defeated Republican George Allen, who in addition to being a political legend in his state was also the then-front-runner for the GOP nomination for president.
The old gatekeepers in Hollywood, D.C., and New York can no longer determine who will lead us, what we can watch, what we can listen to, and what we can read. The age of seeking permission from authority figures is passing, and those who seize the opportunity offered by new technology to speak, act, create, and connect will be the men and women who change the world.
Whether you want to change Capitol Hill or Capitol Records, the corporate tower or the ivory tower, conflict must precede change, because in most of the big institutions of our society, we have too many entrenched elites who refuse to give up power without a fight.
Traditionally, these self-appointed and unaccountable gatekeepers have purported to operate in the public interest, but they are grossly out of touch with the public. Rather than empower people, they designed rules to keep the rabble out of the inner sanctums, where our ideas wouldn't infect their decisionmaking process. Whether it was record-label executives; Hollywood studio moguls; editors and producers in the media; or the clubby D.C. politicians, consultants, and lobbyists, many built walls to protect the sanctity of their turf.
The results? A sick body politic and a homogenized culture; a disengaged citizenry, cynical and despondent over its inability to effect change; and a powerful elite unhampered and unchallenged in the dogged pursuit of its own interests over those of society at large.
But all that is changing. Technology has unlocked the doors and facilitated a genuine democratization of our culture. No longer content to sit on the sidelines as spectators, a new generation of participants is taking an active role in our culture and democracy.
The changing media landscape offers this generation new challenges but also new opportunities. Chief among them is the mother lode of modern activism – the ability to dislodge "conventional wisdom" on any given topic.
Conventional wisdom refers to ideas and explanations generally accepted as the truth by the public, the gatekeepers, and the decisionmakers. Effecting societal change often requires changing the conventional wisdom on issues, especially when the "wisdom" isn't so wise.
For instance, the conventional wisdom on the stock market says that Republican administrations are good for the market, while Democratic ones are not. Yet since 1948, Democratic administrations have delivered 15.25 percent gains in the market compared with 9.53 percent for Republican ones, according to Jeremy Siegel, a finance professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School.
Clearly, the information has been accruing for more than half a century that Wall Street flourishes under Democratic administrations, yet so powerful is conventional wisdom once set that it often takes cultural or political upheaval to dislodge it. Thus, there is an inherent advantage in being the first to define the "truth," because whoever does so controls the terms of the debate.
Once the exclusive province of elite gatekeepers – media pundits, political party operatives, think tank denizens, lobbyists – shaping conventional wisdom is becoming a far more democratic affair, thanks to the networking nature of the Internet.
While activism was once predicated on influencing those gatekeepers, we can now create infrastructure that bypasses those gatekeepers, meaning that to stay relevant, they either have to be more responsive to the public, or risk losing their relevance.
Consider the British band Arctic Monkeys. Like most bands, they labored in obscurity, without a record label to promote their work. Yet they quickly built a passionate local fan base, which took on those promotional tasks for themselves. Without the band's involvement or permission, they set up a MySpace page, uploaded songs, and got the word out about their work. Word spread quickly. The buzz was so intense that record labels begged to sign the band. And when it finally signed with a small independent label, their first single debuted at No. 1 in Britain.
Record label executives no longer get to decide who succeeds and who fails. People are taking that job over for themselves. And as the Arctic Monkeys example shows, they could bypass not just the record labels, but even the band itself.
It's not just music. New empowering technologies are allowing "amateur" filmmakers to use inexpensive video and editing equipment to create content, then post it on sites such as YouTube free of charge and instant worldwide distribution. Bloggers can launch online publications for the cost of a domain name (about $10), building publications that rival their traditional media counterparts in the celebrity, political, and technology worlds. The media gatekeepers no longer get to decide who can participate in the conversation.
Nowhere has this impact been more noticeable than in politics. In the 2006 election cycle, Jon Tester of Montana and Jim Webb of Virginia were propelled to the US Senate by an energized online grass-roots network that fueled the two outsiders to victory – despite primary campaigns against well-funded and establishment-backed opponents, and difficult general election battles against entrenched, well-funded incumbents. In fact, Mr. Webb defeated Republican George Allen, who in addition to being a political legend in his state was also the then-front-runner for the GOP nomination for president.
The old gatekeepers in Hollywood, D.C., and New York can no longer determine who will lead us, what we can watch, what we can listen to, and what we can read. The age of seeking permission from authority figures is passing, and those who seize the opportunity offered by new technology to speak, act, create, and connect will be the men and women who change the world.
• Markos Moulitsas Zúniga is the publisher and founder of Daily Kos (dailykos.com), one of America's leading online political communities. This essay was adapted from his latest book, "Taking on the System: Rules for Radical Change in a Digital Era." Copyright by Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, Inc., 2008. Printed by arrangement with Celebra, a member of Penguin Group (USA) Inc.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Managing a Micromanager
By Lily Garcia
I am a research assistant at a not-for-profit research organization. While my immediate supervisor is a great manager, I interact mostly with a project director. My project director is a great analyst, a really nice person, and we get along very well. If he weren't such a nice person I'd probably kill him. He feels the need to be in control of his projects, yet doesn't have the time to do everything so he delegates it out, but he still needs to know what's going on. He doesn't micromanage every decision that I make, but will sometimes micromanage the overall process.
I am responsible enough and so good at my job that I feel like I should be making more decisions than I am. Sometimes I feel like I'm not being allowed to grow. Sometimes I feel like I'm not trusted, but if I weren't trusted, then why would this project director always want to work with me or rely on me for so much? I have been trying to take initiative to do more, but we're short-staffed so I'm swamped with work.
For what it's worth, I'm hopefully leaving next year to go to graduate school. Over the next year, how do I either politely get my project director to back off or how do I learn from his tendency to micromanage? I really value his opinion and I respect him a lot, but I don't need a lot of direction in order to do my job.
It's not you, as the saying goes, it's him. He probably trusts you as much as he is humanly capable of trusting anyone. Yet, his need to control the process to ensure that nothing, nothing goes wrong overwhelms his capacity to effectively delegate.
To some extent, each of us type-A overachievers harbors anxiety about ceding control of our work to someone else. I recall a graduate schoolmate of mine who lived by the words, "If you want something done right, you have to do it yourself." As chief editor of a scholarly journal, this meant line editing every article and sleeping very little. He was able to pull it off, but he was stretched to his limits. Astute managers understand that there is considerable power in being able to let go because it can expand your reach and your ability to get things done by many degrees. The key is to hire good people, train them well, and trust them to perform.
Your project director has yet to learn this lesson, and for good reason. Like my schoolmate, he has probably achieved excellent results by controlling projects as much as possible. He has not yet reached the point at which his style starts to become a limitation to achievement. And I guarantee you that he will not get there over the course of the year that you have remaining with the organization.
So, to answer your question, trying to get your project director to back off, even very politely, would be a waste of your time. His professional style is deeply rooted in who he is, and it has probably been working pretty well for him so far. Without a compelling reason to change, he will keep doing what he does in the way that he does it. Unfortunately, I doubt that your personal irritation with his approach could make the difference.
What will make the greatest difference in your project director's approach to you is your consistently thorough, timely, and error-free work. Over time, his grip on the project development process will probably loosen further. However, I do not think that you can realistically expect someone like him to learn to let go to the point that you feel that you have room for autonomy and growth.
If you find that you are no longer able to effectively function in the situation, I would suggest that you speak with your immediate supervisor about your project director's style and request to be assigned to a different project director, if possible.
Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/08/AR2008100802512.html
By Lily Garcia
I am a research assistant at a not-for-profit research organization. While my immediate supervisor is a great manager, I interact mostly with a project director. My project director is a great analyst, a really nice person, and we get along very well. If he weren't such a nice person I'd probably kill him. He feels the need to be in control of his projects, yet doesn't have the time to do everything so he delegates it out, but he still needs to know what's going on. He doesn't micromanage every decision that I make, but will sometimes micromanage the overall process.
I am responsible enough and so good at my job that I feel like I should be making more decisions than I am. Sometimes I feel like I'm not being allowed to grow. Sometimes I feel like I'm not trusted, but if I weren't trusted, then why would this project director always want to work with me or rely on me for so much? I have been trying to take initiative to do more, but we're short-staffed so I'm swamped with work.
For what it's worth, I'm hopefully leaving next year to go to graduate school. Over the next year, how do I either politely get my project director to back off or how do I learn from his tendency to micromanage? I really value his opinion and I respect him a lot, but I don't need a lot of direction in order to do my job.
It's not you, as the saying goes, it's him. He probably trusts you as much as he is humanly capable of trusting anyone. Yet, his need to control the process to ensure that nothing, nothing goes wrong overwhelms his capacity to effectively delegate.
To some extent, each of us type-A overachievers harbors anxiety about ceding control of our work to someone else. I recall a graduate schoolmate of mine who lived by the words, "If you want something done right, you have to do it yourself." As chief editor of a scholarly journal, this meant line editing every article and sleeping very little. He was able to pull it off, but he was stretched to his limits. Astute managers understand that there is considerable power in being able to let go because it can expand your reach and your ability to get things done by many degrees. The key is to hire good people, train them well, and trust them to perform.
Your project director has yet to learn this lesson, and for good reason. Like my schoolmate, he has probably achieved excellent results by controlling projects as much as possible. He has not yet reached the point at which his style starts to become a limitation to achievement. And I guarantee you that he will not get there over the course of the year that you have remaining with the organization.
So, to answer your question, trying to get your project director to back off, even very politely, would be a waste of your time. His professional style is deeply rooted in who he is, and it has probably been working pretty well for him so far. Without a compelling reason to change, he will keep doing what he does in the way that he does it. Unfortunately, I doubt that your personal irritation with his approach could make the difference.
What will make the greatest difference in your project director's approach to you is your consistently thorough, timely, and error-free work. Over time, his grip on the project development process will probably loosen further. However, I do not think that you can realistically expect someone like him to learn to let go to the point that you feel that you have room for autonomy and growth.
If you find that you are no longer able to effectively function in the situation, I would suggest that you speak with your immediate supervisor about your project director's style and request to be assigned to a different project director, if possible.
Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/08/AR2008100802512.html
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Maybe it’s time to stop calling America the “land of opportunity.”
by Clive Crook
Rags to Rags, Riches to Riches
Opportunity is the crux of the American idea. Opportunity is what the New World has always represented: struggle, risk, self-determination, and the hope of spiritual and material progress. Even now, to new immigrants, that or something like it is the pull—and for them at least, it is no false promise. If you move to America, you move up, and this is true whether you are rafting across the Rio Grande or negotiating the hazards of the H1B visa program. British emigrants (I am one) are fond of Spain and the United States. They go to Spain to retire; they come here to rise to new challenges. This lure, barely diminished after more than three centuries, has ever been an incalculable source of national strength.
But is America any longer a land of opportunity for the people born here? The evidence, such as it is, points to a surprising and dispiriting answer: no, not especially.
The idea that America is exceptional in its material opportunities is deeply lodged in the culture. For as long as the country had a western frontier with territory beyond, internal migration was just as bold a venture as crossing the ocean had been for the first settlers, and just as promising for the ambitious and self-reliant. The late-19th and early-20th centuries brought extraordinarily rapid industrial development, which nourished the American idea in a new way. Rising incomes made each succeeding generation more prosperous—and they rose so fast that people even felt more prosperous. But that phase, too, has ended. Incomes are now rising more slowly from generation to generation (and for a variety of reasons, the flattening feels worse than it is). Fewer adults today, it seems, expect their children to do better than they did. Pessimism vies with vitality for command of the national consciousness.
Much of this, no doubt, is a natural consequence of growing old. New immigrants notwithstanding, America is a middle-aged country, and striving is not a trait of the middle-aged. Still, an accumulating body of research suggests that the stiffening of America’s socioeconomic sinews is more advanced than the culture, even now, seems willing to admit; worse than the scholars who monitor it had hitherto understood; and—how shaming is this?—worse than in many older, wearier countries.
The American model has been regarded as proposing a kind of bargain. This is not Europe: Here, idleness and incompetence are sternly punished—but merit gets rewarded. Much more than elsewhere, your class background will neither prop you up nor hold you back. If you deserve to succeed, you will.
It is an inspiring, energizing offer—and still a profoundly influential one. It colors the national debate about taxes, health care, and other aspects of economic policy. But it is false advertising.
Most researchers now give America much lower marks than they used to for intergenerational economic mobility—the ease with which successive generations move up or down relative to their parents. As flaws in early postwar studies have been addressed, estimates of mobility have fallen. Before the 1990s, researchers tended to put the correlation between parents’ incomes and their children’s at around 20 percent, implying a high degree of mobility between generations. (Zero would imply no connection at all; a correlation of 100 percent would imply that parents’ incomes entirely determined the incomes of their children.) In the 1990s, using better data and techniques, experts tended to put that figure at about 40 percent. Recent estimates run as high as 60 percent. The finding is not that mobility has fallen since World War II—the studies point to no clear trend. It is that as methods of measuring mobility have improved, the result, across a span of recent decades, has gotten worse. The earlier view that postwar America was an economically mobile society is less and less borne out. Perhaps it was once (before data became available to track such things accurately); but it isn’t now.
More telling, maybe, is the international comparison. America stands lower in the ranking of income mobility than most of the countries whose data allow the comparison, scoring worse than Canada, all of the Scandinavian countries, and possibly even Germany and Britain (the data are imperfect, and different studies give slightly different results).
Strikingly, the research suggests that mobility within America’s middle-income bands is similar to that in many other countries. The stickiness is at the top and the bottom. According to one much-cited study, for instance, more than 40 percent of American boys born into the poorest fifth of the population stay there; the figure for Britain is 30 percent, for Denmark just 25 percent. In America, more than in other advanced economies, poor children stay poor. Other data show that in America, more than in, say, Britain, rich children stay rich as well.
The findings are still tentative, and the causes complicated—hardly a firm basis for prescription. Still, if the government needed another reason to retain the estate tax (aside from the fact that it is one of the most economically efficient taxes), this might serve. In general, a little less tolerance of inherited privilege would not seem amiss (hard for Americans to hear from a Brit, I understand, but look at the facts). Would it hurt, for instance, if the admissions preferences granted by America’s most prestigious universities to the children of benefactors and alumni aroused more disgust, or maybe just some mild disapproval? Or if the richest Americans bequeathed less of their wealth to universities that patently have no need of it (Harvard’s endowment is more than $30 billion), and more to those that do?
Cleansing as such gestures might be, however, aiming to go further, and improve economic mobility with an all-fronts assault on income inequality, would be misconceived, even if it could command political support (which, for now at least, it could not). The sad truth is that such inequality serves a purpose. It spurs effort and ambition—provided, of course, that poor people, through their own skill and industry, can reach the higher tiers.
The real focus of any effort to restore social and economic opportunity in America ought to be ladders out of poverty. An especially good one already exists: the Earned Income Tax Credit. Its coverage should be wider and its terms more generous, but the principle is exactly right: Supplement the wages of the low-paid to reward work, discourage idleness, and relieve poverty. More fundamentally, America needs to improve its worst and poorest schools, which sharply delimit the prospects of many poor children. Education cannot do everything. But dismal school performance is the biggest problem that policy makers concerned with opportunity in America can fix. So far, it ranks low—or not at all—on the list of issues being addressed by the 2008 presidential candidates.
America has no roots in feudalism, no notion of inherited orders of society, no instinct for deference or regard for nobility. And yet the economic mobility that is thought to follow from such freedom, and indeed ought to follow from it, appears to be a myth. Myths that defy the common experience can persist for only so long. Perhaps in the future the country will try harder to foster the opportunity it thinks it already provides. Or perhaps the culture will simply come to accept this un-American reality: a society of rigid economic orders, maintained by inheritance, blessed by its elites, and impotently endured by its underclass.
Source: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200706/land-of-opportunity
by Clive Crook
Rags to Rags, Riches to Riches
Opportunity is the crux of the American idea. Opportunity is what the New World has always represented: struggle, risk, self-determination, and the hope of spiritual and material progress. Even now, to new immigrants, that or something like it is the pull—and for them at least, it is no false promise. If you move to America, you move up, and this is true whether you are rafting across the Rio Grande or negotiating the hazards of the H1B visa program. British emigrants (I am one) are fond of Spain and the United States. They go to Spain to retire; they come here to rise to new challenges. This lure, barely diminished after more than three centuries, has ever been an incalculable source of national strength.
But is America any longer a land of opportunity for the people born here? The evidence, such as it is, points to a surprising and dispiriting answer: no, not especially.
The idea that America is exceptional in its material opportunities is deeply lodged in the culture. For as long as the country had a western frontier with territory beyond, internal migration was just as bold a venture as crossing the ocean had been for the first settlers, and just as promising for the ambitious and self-reliant. The late-19th and early-20th centuries brought extraordinarily rapid industrial development, which nourished the American idea in a new way. Rising incomes made each succeeding generation more prosperous—and they rose so fast that people even felt more prosperous. But that phase, too, has ended. Incomes are now rising more slowly from generation to generation (and for a variety of reasons, the flattening feels worse than it is). Fewer adults today, it seems, expect their children to do better than they did. Pessimism vies with vitality for command of the national consciousness.
Much of this, no doubt, is a natural consequence of growing old. New immigrants notwithstanding, America is a middle-aged country, and striving is not a trait of the middle-aged. Still, an accumulating body of research suggests that the stiffening of America’s socioeconomic sinews is more advanced than the culture, even now, seems willing to admit; worse than the scholars who monitor it had hitherto understood; and—how shaming is this?—worse than in many older, wearier countries.
The American model has been regarded as proposing a kind of bargain. This is not Europe: Here, idleness and incompetence are sternly punished—but merit gets rewarded. Much more than elsewhere, your class background will neither prop you up nor hold you back. If you deserve to succeed, you will.
It is an inspiring, energizing offer—and still a profoundly influential one. It colors the national debate about taxes, health care, and other aspects of economic policy. But it is false advertising.
Most researchers now give America much lower marks than they used to for intergenerational economic mobility—the ease with which successive generations move up or down relative to their parents. As flaws in early postwar studies have been addressed, estimates of mobility have fallen. Before the 1990s, researchers tended to put the correlation between parents’ incomes and their children’s at around 20 percent, implying a high degree of mobility between generations. (Zero would imply no connection at all; a correlation of 100 percent would imply that parents’ incomes entirely determined the incomes of their children.) In the 1990s, using better data and techniques, experts tended to put that figure at about 40 percent. Recent estimates run as high as 60 percent. The finding is not that mobility has fallen since World War II—the studies point to no clear trend. It is that as methods of measuring mobility have improved, the result, across a span of recent decades, has gotten worse. The earlier view that postwar America was an economically mobile society is less and less borne out. Perhaps it was once (before data became available to track such things accurately); but it isn’t now.
More telling, maybe, is the international comparison. America stands lower in the ranking of income mobility than most of the countries whose data allow the comparison, scoring worse than Canada, all of the Scandinavian countries, and possibly even Germany and Britain (the data are imperfect, and different studies give slightly different results).
Strikingly, the research suggests that mobility within America’s middle-income bands is similar to that in many other countries. The stickiness is at the top and the bottom. According to one much-cited study, for instance, more than 40 percent of American boys born into the poorest fifth of the population stay there; the figure for Britain is 30 percent, for Denmark just 25 percent. In America, more than in other advanced economies, poor children stay poor. Other data show that in America, more than in, say, Britain, rich children stay rich as well.
The findings are still tentative, and the causes complicated—hardly a firm basis for prescription. Still, if the government needed another reason to retain the estate tax (aside from the fact that it is one of the most economically efficient taxes), this might serve. In general, a little less tolerance of inherited privilege would not seem amiss (hard for Americans to hear from a Brit, I understand, but look at the facts). Would it hurt, for instance, if the admissions preferences granted by America’s most prestigious universities to the children of benefactors and alumni aroused more disgust, or maybe just some mild disapproval? Or if the richest Americans bequeathed less of their wealth to universities that patently have no need of it (Harvard’s endowment is more than $30 billion), and more to those that do?
Cleansing as such gestures might be, however, aiming to go further, and improve economic mobility with an all-fronts assault on income inequality, would be misconceived, even if it could command political support (which, for now at least, it could not). The sad truth is that such inequality serves a purpose. It spurs effort and ambition—provided, of course, that poor people, through their own skill and industry, can reach the higher tiers.
The real focus of any effort to restore social and economic opportunity in America ought to be ladders out of poverty. An especially good one already exists: the Earned Income Tax Credit. Its coverage should be wider and its terms more generous, but the principle is exactly right: Supplement the wages of the low-paid to reward work, discourage idleness, and relieve poverty. More fundamentally, America needs to improve its worst and poorest schools, which sharply delimit the prospects of many poor children. Education cannot do everything. But dismal school performance is the biggest problem that policy makers concerned with opportunity in America can fix. So far, it ranks low—or not at all—on the list of issues being addressed by the 2008 presidential candidates.
America has no roots in feudalism, no notion of inherited orders of society, no instinct for deference or regard for nobility. And yet the economic mobility that is thought to follow from such freedom, and indeed ought to follow from it, appears to be a myth. Myths that defy the common experience can persist for only so long. Perhaps in the future the country will try harder to foster the opportunity it thinks it already provides. Or perhaps the culture will simply come to accept this un-American reality: a society of rigid economic orders, maintained by inheritance, blessed by its elites, and impotently endured by its underclass.
Source: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200706/land-of-opportunity
US State CIO Priorities 2009
A. Priority Strategies, Management Processes and Solutions - Top 10 Final Ranking
1. Consolidation: centralizing, consolidating services, operations, resources, infrastructure
2. Shared Services: business models, sharing resources, services, infrastructure
3. Budget and Cost Control: managing budget reduction, strategies for savings, reducing or
avoiding costs, activity based costing
4. Security: security safeguards, enterprise policies, data protection, insider threat
5. Electronic Records Management/Digital Preservation/E-discovery: strategies, policies, legal
issues, opportunities for shared services, emergency preparedness
6. ERP Strategy: acquisition, implementation, expansion, upgrade
7. Green IT: policies, energy efficiency, power management, green procurement, e-waste
8. Transparency: open government, performance measures and data, accountability
9. Health Information Technology: assessment, partnering, implementation
10. Governance: improving IT governance, data governance
B. Priority Technologies, Applications and Tools - Top 10 Final Ranking
1. Virtualization (storage, computing, data center)
2. Document/Content/E-mail management (active, repository, archiving, digital preservation)
3. Legacy application modernization and upgrade (ERP)
4. Networking, voice and data communications, unified communications
5. Web 2.0 (services, collaboration technologies, social computing)
6. Green IT technologies and solutions
7. Identity and access management
8. Geospatial analysis and Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
9. Business Intelligence (BI) and analytics applications
10. Mobile workforce enablement
Source: http://www.nascio.org/publications/documents/NASCIO-CIOPriorities2008-2009.pdf
A. Priority Strategies, Management Processes and Solutions - Top 10 Final Ranking
1. Consolidation: centralizing, consolidating services, operations, resources, infrastructure
2. Shared Services: business models, sharing resources, services, infrastructure
3. Budget and Cost Control: managing budget reduction, strategies for savings, reducing or
avoiding costs, activity based costing
4. Security: security safeguards, enterprise policies, data protection, insider threat
5. Electronic Records Management/Digital Preservation/E-discovery: strategies, policies, legal
issues, opportunities for shared services, emergency preparedness
6. ERP Strategy: acquisition, implementation, expansion, upgrade
7. Green IT: policies, energy efficiency, power management, green procurement, e-waste
8. Transparency: open government, performance measures and data, accountability
9. Health Information Technology: assessment, partnering, implementation
10. Governance: improving IT governance, data governance
B. Priority Technologies, Applications and Tools - Top 10 Final Ranking
1. Virtualization (storage, computing, data center)
2. Document/Content/E-mail management (active, repository, archiving, digital preservation)
3. Legacy application modernization and upgrade (ERP)
4. Networking, voice and data communications, unified communications
5. Web 2.0 (services, collaboration technologies, social computing)
6. Green IT technologies and solutions
7. Identity and access management
8. Geospatial analysis and Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
9. Business Intelligence (BI) and analytics applications
10. Mobile workforce enablement
Source: http://www.nascio.org/publications/documents/NASCIO-CIOPriorities2008-2009.pdf
Out of Thin Air: How Money is Really Made
Out of Thin Air: How Money is Really Made
Jeremy HsuLiveScience Staff WriterLiveScience.com jeremy Hsulivescience Staff Writerlivescience.com
Jeremy HsuLiveScience Staff WriterLiveScience.com jeremy Hsulivescience Staff Writerlivescience.com
Making money in 2008 looks like a grim proposition, but not because U.S. government printing presses can't create enough dollar bills.
The U.S. Bureau of Engraving and Printing (whose web site name perhaps says it all: moneyfactory.gov) churns out about 38 million bills of varying denominations daily, all worth $750 million in face value. Facilities in Fort Worth, Texas and Washington D.C. use 18 tons of ink per day to keep up.
Yet 95 percent of fresh notes simply replace those already in circulation. Common $1 bills last about 21 months, while a $100 bill can go for roughly 7.4 years before requiring replacement. Taken all together, these physical bills represent just a drop in the bucket of global money.
The real trick to funding the $700 billion bailout of the financial industry: Make more money. However, most of that money never actually gets printed at all. Rather, it's infused into the economy by the ultimate ATM: the federal government. And it grows and grows by a rather mystical process that works only when everyone plays the lending game.
Virtual cash
Most money lives not in our wallets but in something like a banking Matrix - a virtual world of electronic numbers running between bank accounts. People typically look at their money as a figure in a bank statement, and trust that number is real. The economy runs on that faith as workers deposit their checks in banks.
Banks then get down to the business of creating money by lending it out. Assume that you put $100 in your bank account. The government requires banks to hold a certain amount in reserve, say 10 percent, so the bank may just take $90 and lend it out to someone else. That person can then buy something with the $90. The store deposits the $90 in another bank, and the lending process continues to inflate the original $100.
"The original $100 that came in gets blown up by the banking system into something much bigger - essentially $1,000 [assuming a 10 percent reserve]," said Menzie Chinn, an economist and public policy expert at the University of Wisconsin in Madison.
This system may sound a bit magical, yet it works as long as banks and other lenders believe that debtors will pay them back. And if the loans go toward spending or investments that make even more money, everyone gets paid and the money-creation cycle continues.
The problem
People typically deposit their money with commercial banks such as Citibank or Wells Fargo. Corporations and large groups deposit their money with bigger investment banks such as Lehman Brothers and Morgan Stanley.
However, this lending-as-creating process imploded this year after seemingly everyone had bet their borrowed money on the idea that housing prices would keep going up. When housing prices began to fall, many debtors lost that gamble and ended up failing to pay back their loans. Investment banks also found themselves in serious trouble after they had bet on the housing market, and either filed for bankruptcy, ended up on the auction block, or needed a federal hand.
Remaining banks have become scared of lending out money when there is no guarantee they will get any of it back. That reluctance to lend out money "short circuits the money expansion process," Chinn told LiveScience.
This is a problem because the global economy depends heavily on borrowing and loans. Individuals and corporations may need to borrow heavily during bad times, and the lack of available loans can further plunge the economy into a downward spiral of recession.
The collapse of confidence in the lending system also destroyed any grand illusions of greater wealth created by the long chain of loans and ever-rising housing prices that weren't supposed to come down. The money-creation cycle screeched to a halt.
"But at the bottom of it, there was some reality of greater wealth," Chinn said. "Just not as much as we thought."
Solutions
The U.S. government's central bank, the Federal Reserve, normally has several tactics to tweak the money-creation process. The Fed can change the amount of money that banks are required to hold in reserve, which either frees up more for loans or reduces the amount available for loans. It can also deal with banks to buy or sell Treasury securities, again to increase or decrease the amount of money available for loans.
That's how it normally works. But as Chinn and other economists point out, these are strange times. The government is now taking "extraordinary means" to try and unlock the freeze on loans, and may even consider more extreme measures such as guaranteeing all bank deposits in case a bank fails.
"They're trying to make it so banks and other financial institutions trust each other," Chinn noted.
The $700 billion bailout bill for Wall Street is another attempt to save faltering banks and financial institutions, but the government has to get all that money somehow.
One option involves issuing more U.S. Treasury bonds so that U.S. and foreign investors or governments can buy them up - basically borrowing more money from the rest of the world. That would tend to drive the interest rate up, so that the U.S. government would ultimately have to pay back more money to its lenders.
The Fed could also buy up some of the Treasury bonds itself and reduce the interest rate on its bonds. That action essentially represents "printing money," Chinn said. Creating money out of thin air may help in the short term, but in the long run reduces the value of U.S. dollars.
"Or the U.S. government can raise taxes," Chinn added.
Tape measure: X-rays detected from Scotch tape
Tape measure: X-rays detected from Scotch tape
By MALCOLM RITTER, AP Science Writer Malcolm Ritter, Ap Science Writer
NEW YORK – Just two weeks after a Nobel Prize highlighted theoretical work on subatomic particles, physicists are announcing a startling discovery about a much more familiar form of matter: Scotch tape. It turns out that if you peel the popular adhesive tape off its roll in a vacuum chamber, it emits X-rays. The researchers even made an X-ray image of one of their fingers.
Who knew? Actually, more than 50 years ago, some Russian scientists reported evidence of X-rays from peeling sticky tape off glass. But the new work demonstrates that you can get a lot of X-rays, a study co-author says.
"We were very surprised," said Juan Escobar. "The power you could get from just peeling tape was enormous."
Escobar, a graduate student at the University of California, Los Angeles, reports the work with UCLA colleagues in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature.
He suggests that with some refinements, the process might be harnessed for making inexpensive X-ray machines for paramedics or for places where electricity is expensive or hard to get. After all, you could peel tape or do something similar in such machines with just human power, like cranking.
The researchers and UCLA have applied for a patent covering such devices.
In the new work, a machine peeled ordinary Scotch tape off a roll in a vacuum chamber at about 1.2 inches per second. Rapid pulses of X-rays, each about a billionth of a second long, emerged from very close to where the tape was coming off the roll.
That's where electrons jumped from the roll to the sticky underside of the tape that was being pulled away, a journey of about two-thousandths of an inch, Escobar said. When those electrons struck the sticky side they slowed down, and that slowing made them emit X-rays.
So is this a health hazard for unsuspecting tape-peelers?
Escobar noted that no X-rays are produced in the presence of air. You need to work in a vacuum — not exactly an everyday situation.
"If you're going to peel tape in a vacuum, you should be extra careful," he said. But "I will continue to use Scotch tape during my daily life, and I think it's safe to do it in your office. No guarantees."
James Hevezi, who chairs the American College of Radiology's Commission on Medical Physics, said the notion of developing an X-ray machine from the new finding was "a very interesting idea, and I think it should be carried further in research."
Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081022/ap_on_sc/sci_scotch_tape_surprise
By MALCOLM RITTER, AP Science Writer Malcolm Ritter, Ap Science Writer
NEW YORK – Just two weeks after a Nobel Prize highlighted theoretical work on subatomic particles, physicists are announcing a startling discovery about a much more familiar form of matter: Scotch tape. It turns out that if you peel the popular adhesive tape off its roll in a vacuum chamber, it emits X-rays. The researchers even made an X-ray image of one of their fingers.
Who knew? Actually, more than 50 years ago, some Russian scientists reported evidence of X-rays from peeling sticky tape off glass. But the new work demonstrates that you can get a lot of X-rays, a study co-author says.
"We were very surprised," said Juan Escobar. "The power you could get from just peeling tape was enormous."
Escobar, a graduate student at the University of California, Los Angeles, reports the work with UCLA colleagues in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature.
He suggests that with some refinements, the process might be harnessed for making inexpensive X-ray machines for paramedics or for places where electricity is expensive or hard to get. After all, you could peel tape or do something similar in such machines with just human power, like cranking.
The researchers and UCLA have applied for a patent covering such devices.
In the new work, a machine peeled ordinary Scotch tape off a roll in a vacuum chamber at about 1.2 inches per second. Rapid pulses of X-rays, each about a billionth of a second long, emerged from very close to where the tape was coming off the roll.
That's where electrons jumped from the roll to the sticky underside of the tape that was being pulled away, a journey of about two-thousandths of an inch, Escobar said. When those electrons struck the sticky side they slowed down, and that slowing made them emit X-rays.
So is this a health hazard for unsuspecting tape-peelers?
Escobar noted that no X-rays are produced in the presence of air. You need to work in a vacuum — not exactly an everyday situation.
"If you're going to peel tape in a vacuum, you should be extra careful," he said. But "I will continue to use Scotch tape during my daily life, and I think it's safe to do it in your office. No guarantees."
James Hevezi, who chairs the American College of Radiology's Commission on Medical Physics, said the notion of developing an X-ray machine from the new finding was "a very interesting idea, and I think it should be carried further in research."
Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081022/ap_on_sc/sci_scotch_tape_surprise
Sunday, October 19, 2008
A Hemline Index, Updated
A Hemline Index, Updated
By TAMAR LEWIN
More suicides? Fewer male births? Less back pain? More laxative sales?
Data points litter the landscape as economists, sociologists, psychologists and marketers examine the societal changes, big and small, trivial and traumatic, that accompany a bad economy. And with this particular version of a troubled economy — a stock market that goes into convulsions at 3 p.m., a looming global recession, a $700 billion bailout plan that may or may not work, and a jittery public wondering what is coming next — changes should flow as freely as profits in good times.
It’s one thing to measure changes in society, however, and another to ascribe causes. But if the causal link is elusive, you still might expect to see slack soda sales, more frequent car thefts and meaning-laden tunes at the top of the pop charts during a recession.
Terry F. Pettijohn II, a professor of psychology at Coastal Carolina University, is one of those who sees popular tastes shift with economic conditions. Take beauty, for example. “What we find attractive is not a stable currency,” said Mr. Pettijohn, who has studied how economic and social factors shape preferences in popular music, movie stars and Playboy models. “It’s affected by the environment, by what’s happening in society, and what makes us feel more comfortable in threatening times.”
Looking at Billboard No. 1 songs from 1955 to 2003 for a study to be published in the journal Psychology of Music, he found that in uncertain times, people tend to prefer songs that are longer, slower, with more meaningful themes.
“It’s ‘Bridge Over Troubled Water,’ and ‘That’s What Friends Are For,’ ” he said. “In better times, it’s more likely to be faster, upbeat songs like ‘At the Hop’ or ‘My Sharona.’ ”
The correlation isn’t perfect. The song Mr. Pettijohn’s raters called most meaningless, “Macarena,” was a hit in a relatively bad year.
The Environmental Security Hypothesis that he and his colleagues have been testing, positing that people look for reassurance in worrying times, also helped explain why Playboy magazine’s Playmate of the Year in bad times tended to have a more mature appearance — that is, to be older, heavier, taller and less curvy — than those selected when times were good. Similarly, in a study of American movie stars from 1932 to 1955, he found actresses with mature features — small eyes, large chins, and thin faces — more popular in hard times.
Buying patterns too, can be predicted in economic downturns, according to Leo J. Shapiro, who has tracked consumer behavior since he was a young man in the late 1930s.
“DURING a recession, laxatives go up, because people are under tremendous stress, and holding themselves back,” said Mr. Shapiro, now chief executive of SAGE, a Chicago-based consulting firm. “During a boom, deodorant sales go up, because people are out dancing around. When people have less money, they buy more of the things that have less water in them, things that are not so perishable. Instead of lettuce and steak and fruit, it’s rice and beans and grain and pasta. Except this time the price of pasta’s so high that it’s beans and rice.”
A recent Nielsen report listed tobacco, carbonated drinks and eggs as especially vulnerable to recession, and candy, beer and pasta sauce as recession-proof. On Thursday, Hershey’s announced third-quarter sales and income higher than last year’s. (“We offer a tremendous variety of affordable indulgences, and people love chocolate, even in hard times.” said Kirk Saville, a company spokesman.)
Almost anything can be an economic indicator. Back in the 1920s, the economist George Taylor conceived the hemline index, finding that skirts got longer as the economy slowed. These days, there’s been talk of a haircut index, with short locks signaling a market drop.
The economic downturn could signal significant changes in American life.
“A stunning statistic is that unlike in past epochs, the higher up the income ladder you go, the more hours you work,” said Dalton Conley, a sociology professor at New York University. “More and more, things that used to be outside the marketplace are in the economy. Instead of mom or dad coming home with groceries, they go out, or order in.”
A downturn, then, could result in benefits unmeasured by the market. “If people eat out less, the G.D.P. goes down,” Mr. Conley said, “but nothing in the G.D.P. captures what you gain if you cook and eat in a leisurely way with your kids.”
In a study of coffee growers in Colombia, Grant Miller, who teaches health policy at Stanford’s medical school, found that infant and child mortality rates fell as coffee prices slumped, and concluded that it was because parents had more time to take care of their children.
By most accounts, bad times herald an upturn in at least some crime.
“I’ve never been able to find any relationship between violent crime and the economy,” said Stephen Raphael, an economics professor in the School of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley who specializes in urban and labor economics. “But there is a relationship with property crime. Whether it’s burglary, larceny or motor vehicle theft, they all go up with unemployment.”
And already, the market drop has created many personal crises.
“We’ve never had this level of call volume” said Dr. Richard A. Chaifetz, chief executive of ComPsych, the largest provider of employee assistance programs, covering 27 million people. “It’s been going up gradually all year, but then it spiked and we’re up 20, 30 percent since late July. And where relationships and personal psychology issues used to the be the No. 1 reason people called, it’s now financial and legal issues that are No. 1.”
In a typical downturn, young people flock to higher education, especially lower-cost alternatives like community colleges, state universities and trade schools, to bolster their employability. At the same time, parents and students nationwide are agonizing over choices between public schools and private schools and what loans they can afford or even qualify for.
And although Americans have a hard time paying their medical bills and preventive medical care takes a hit in a poor economy, some economists say that there are positive health effects.
“People are physically healthier in times of recession,” said Christopher Ruhm, an economist at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. “Death rates fall, people smoke less, drink less and exercise more. Traffic fatalities go way down, which is not a surprise when people drive less. Heart attacks go down. Back problems go down. People have more time to prepare healthier meals at home. When the economy weakens, pollution falls.”
This Panglossian view has its limits.
“People are healthier, but they’re not happier,” Mr. Ruhm said. “Suicide rises, and mental health may deteriorate.”
Generally, though, poverty is associated with bad health. And since economic downturns have so many effects, it is often impossible to sort out what mechanism might be responsible for what health result.
Some economists are skeptical of Mr. Ruhm’s findings.
“This is a very complicated area,” said Ralph Catalano, a professor of public health at Berkeley. “If you’re looking at people anticipating economic adversity, worrying about losing their job, some of them will spend less money on alcohol, take fewer risks, do more things that are good for them. So, in some places, the net effect may be fewer people having acute traumatic illness. But if you look at the people who’ve actually lost a job, or lost a business, they are more likely to have adverse health outcomes. When you get to saying there must be fewer people driving, so there must be fewer traffic accidents and cleaner air, that’s what I’d call econometric imagination.”
Mr. Catalano, who found in an earlier study, based on data from Germany, that a bad economy was linked with a decline in male births, cautioned against predicting how this recession would reshape society.
“What we don’t know is what’s going to happen next,” he said. “We don’t know yet how anxious people are going to get, or how many people are going to lose their jobs. The experience we’re going through is unprecedented. The last time we had this kind of experience was in the 1930s, and we didn’t have data.”
Mr. Conley, too, harked back to the Great Depression in suggesting that the current downturn could lead to a more equal America, if the richest people suffer the greatest economic losses.
“Nineteen twenty-nine was the peak of inequality,” he said. “It’s almost like things get too top-heavy, and they topple over.”
By TAMAR LEWIN
More suicides? Fewer male births? Less back pain? More laxative sales?
Data points litter the landscape as economists, sociologists, psychologists and marketers examine the societal changes, big and small, trivial and traumatic, that accompany a bad economy. And with this particular version of a troubled economy — a stock market that goes into convulsions at 3 p.m., a looming global recession, a $700 billion bailout plan that may or may not work, and a jittery public wondering what is coming next — changes should flow as freely as profits in good times.
It’s one thing to measure changes in society, however, and another to ascribe causes. But if the causal link is elusive, you still might expect to see slack soda sales, more frequent car thefts and meaning-laden tunes at the top of the pop charts during a recession.
Terry F. Pettijohn II, a professor of psychology at Coastal Carolina University, is one of those who sees popular tastes shift with economic conditions. Take beauty, for example. “What we find attractive is not a stable currency,” said Mr. Pettijohn, who has studied how economic and social factors shape preferences in popular music, movie stars and Playboy models. “It’s affected by the environment, by what’s happening in society, and what makes us feel more comfortable in threatening times.”
Looking at Billboard No. 1 songs from 1955 to 2003 for a study to be published in the journal Psychology of Music, he found that in uncertain times, people tend to prefer songs that are longer, slower, with more meaningful themes.
“It’s ‘Bridge Over Troubled Water,’ and ‘That’s What Friends Are For,’ ” he said. “In better times, it’s more likely to be faster, upbeat songs like ‘At the Hop’ or ‘My Sharona.’ ”
The correlation isn’t perfect. The song Mr. Pettijohn’s raters called most meaningless, “Macarena,” was a hit in a relatively bad year.
The Environmental Security Hypothesis that he and his colleagues have been testing, positing that people look for reassurance in worrying times, also helped explain why Playboy magazine’s Playmate of the Year in bad times tended to have a more mature appearance — that is, to be older, heavier, taller and less curvy — than those selected when times were good. Similarly, in a study of American movie stars from 1932 to 1955, he found actresses with mature features — small eyes, large chins, and thin faces — more popular in hard times.
Buying patterns too, can be predicted in economic downturns, according to Leo J. Shapiro, who has tracked consumer behavior since he was a young man in the late 1930s.
“DURING a recession, laxatives go up, because people are under tremendous stress, and holding themselves back,” said Mr. Shapiro, now chief executive of SAGE, a Chicago-based consulting firm. “During a boom, deodorant sales go up, because people are out dancing around. When people have less money, they buy more of the things that have less water in them, things that are not so perishable. Instead of lettuce and steak and fruit, it’s rice and beans and grain and pasta. Except this time the price of pasta’s so high that it’s beans and rice.”
A recent Nielsen report listed tobacco, carbonated drinks and eggs as especially vulnerable to recession, and candy, beer and pasta sauce as recession-proof. On Thursday, Hershey’s announced third-quarter sales and income higher than last year’s. (“We offer a tremendous variety of affordable indulgences, and people love chocolate, even in hard times.” said Kirk Saville, a company spokesman.)
Almost anything can be an economic indicator. Back in the 1920s, the economist George Taylor conceived the hemline index, finding that skirts got longer as the economy slowed. These days, there’s been talk of a haircut index, with short locks signaling a market drop.
The economic downturn could signal significant changes in American life.
“A stunning statistic is that unlike in past epochs, the higher up the income ladder you go, the more hours you work,” said Dalton Conley, a sociology professor at New York University. “More and more, things that used to be outside the marketplace are in the economy. Instead of mom or dad coming home with groceries, they go out, or order in.”
A downturn, then, could result in benefits unmeasured by the market. “If people eat out less, the G.D.P. goes down,” Mr. Conley said, “but nothing in the G.D.P. captures what you gain if you cook and eat in a leisurely way with your kids.”
In a study of coffee growers in Colombia, Grant Miller, who teaches health policy at Stanford’s medical school, found that infant and child mortality rates fell as coffee prices slumped, and concluded that it was because parents had more time to take care of their children.
By most accounts, bad times herald an upturn in at least some crime.
“I’ve never been able to find any relationship between violent crime and the economy,” said Stephen Raphael, an economics professor in the School of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley who specializes in urban and labor economics. “But there is a relationship with property crime. Whether it’s burglary, larceny or motor vehicle theft, they all go up with unemployment.”
And already, the market drop has created many personal crises.
“We’ve never had this level of call volume” said Dr. Richard A. Chaifetz, chief executive of ComPsych, the largest provider of employee assistance programs, covering 27 million people. “It’s been going up gradually all year, but then it spiked and we’re up 20, 30 percent since late July. And where relationships and personal psychology issues used to the be the No. 1 reason people called, it’s now financial and legal issues that are No. 1.”
In a typical downturn, young people flock to higher education, especially lower-cost alternatives like community colleges, state universities and trade schools, to bolster their employability. At the same time, parents and students nationwide are agonizing over choices between public schools and private schools and what loans they can afford or even qualify for.
And although Americans have a hard time paying their medical bills and preventive medical care takes a hit in a poor economy, some economists say that there are positive health effects.
“People are physically healthier in times of recession,” said Christopher Ruhm, an economist at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. “Death rates fall, people smoke less, drink less and exercise more. Traffic fatalities go way down, which is not a surprise when people drive less. Heart attacks go down. Back problems go down. People have more time to prepare healthier meals at home. When the economy weakens, pollution falls.”
This Panglossian view has its limits.
“People are healthier, but they’re not happier,” Mr. Ruhm said. “Suicide rises, and mental health may deteriorate.”
Generally, though, poverty is associated with bad health. And since economic downturns have so many effects, it is often impossible to sort out what mechanism might be responsible for what health result.
Some economists are skeptical of Mr. Ruhm’s findings.
“This is a very complicated area,” said Ralph Catalano, a professor of public health at Berkeley. “If you’re looking at people anticipating economic adversity, worrying about losing their job, some of them will spend less money on alcohol, take fewer risks, do more things that are good for them. So, in some places, the net effect may be fewer people having acute traumatic illness. But if you look at the people who’ve actually lost a job, or lost a business, they are more likely to have adverse health outcomes. When you get to saying there must be fewer people driving, so there must be fewer traffic accidents and cleaner air, that’s what I’d call econometric imagination.”
Mr. Catalano, who found in an earlier study, based on data from Germany, that a bad economy was linked with a decline in male births, cautioned against predicting how this recession would reshape society.
“What we don’t know is what’s going to happen next,” he said. “We don’t know yet how anxious people are going to get, or how many people are going to lose their jobs. The experience we’re going through is unprecedented. The last time we had this kind of experience was in the 1930s, and we didn’t have data.”
Mr. Conley, too, harked back to the Great Depression in suggesting that the current downturn could lead to a more equal America, if the richest people suffer the greatest economic losses.
“Nineteen twenty-nine was the peak of inequality,” he said. “It’s almost like things get too top-heavy, and they topple over.”
Zen To Done (ZTD): The Ultimate Simple Productivity System
Zen To Done (ZTD): The Ultimate Simple Productivity System
“It’s about the habits and the doing, not the system or the tools.”
I am a huge fan of GTD, as you probably know by now. It’s one of the best productivity systems ever invented. However, it’s not without its flaws, and because of that, I have a new productivity system for you: Zen To Done (ZTD).
Why “Zen To Done”? Well, first off, the blog is called Zen Habits, and “Habits To Done” doesn’t sound cool enough to me. I also thought of “Simple To Done” but the acronym didn’t seem right. Second, ZTD captures the essential spirit of the new system: that of simplicity, of a focus on doing, in the here and now, instead of on planning and on the system.
If you’ve been having trouble with GTD, as great as it is, ZTD might be just for you. It focuses on the habit changes necessary for GTD, in a more practical way, and it focuses on doing, on simplifying, and on adding a simple structure. Read on for more.
OverviewZTD attempts to address five problems that many people have with GTD. I should note that GTD isn’t really flawed, and doesn’t really need modification, but everyone is different, and ZTD is a way to customize it to better fit different personality types.
ZTD addresses five problems people have with GTD:
1) GTD is a series of habit changes. This is the main reason why people fall off the GTD system — it’s a bunch of habit changes that are attempted all at once. If you’ve read Zen Habits long enough, you know that focusing on one habit at a time is best, and guarantees the most success. In addition, GTDers don’t apply proven habit-change methods (the ones I talk about on this site) to change their habits.
Solution: ZTD focuses on one habit at a time. You don’t have to try to adopt the entire system at once — it’s overwhelming and it’s too hard to focus on your habit changes if you do too many at a time. Instead, focus on one at a time, and adopt the system in phases. Use proven habit-changing methods (30-day challenge, commitment, rewards, motivation hacks, etc.) to successfully adopt each new habit.
2) GTD doesn’t focus enough on doing. While it’s called Getting Things Done, often what we end up doing most of the time is Getting Things in Our Trusted System. The book, while presenting an excellent system, focuses more on the capturing and processing stages than it does on the actual doing stage.
Solution: ZTD focuses more on doing — and how to actually complete your tasks, in a simple, stress-free manner.
3) GTD is too unstructured for many people. This can be one of the brilliant things about GTD — its lack of structure, its in-the-moment decision making about what to do next — but it can also be a huge source of confusion for many people. Some people need more structure in their day, and GTD can be disorienting. Different people have different styles.
Solution: ZTD offers a couple of habits to address this: the plan habit, where you simply plan your three MITs for the day and your Big Rocks for the week, and the routine habit, where you set daily and weekly routines for yourself. These habits, like all the habits of ZTD, are optional. If they don’t work for you, don’t adopt them. But for many people, they will compliment the other great parts of GTD perfectly.
4) GTD tries to do too much, which ends up stressing you out. GTD doesn’t discriminate among all the incoming stuff in your life, which again is part of its beauty. But the problem is that we put everything on our lists, and end up being overloaded. We try to do everything on our lists. This isn’t really a problem with GTD, but a problem with how we implement it. But it should be addressed.
Solution: ZTD focuses on simplifying. Take as much stuff off your plate as possible, so you can focus on doing what’s important, and doing it well.
5) GTD doesn’t focus enough on your goals. GTD is purposely a bottom-up, runway-level system. While it does talk about higher levels, it doesn’t really go into it much. As a result, GTD is more focused on doing whatever comes at you rather than doing what you should be doing — the important stuff.
Solution: ZTD, as mentioned above, asks you to identify the big things you want to do for the week and for the day. Another habit in ZTD is for you to review your goals each week, as a way of staying focused on them throughout the year. GTD contains an element of this, but ZTD extends it.
Again, GTD is a brilliant system, and works very well. But ZTD takes some of the problems that people have in implementing it, and adapts it for real life.The 10 Habits of ZTDEach of these habits should be learned and practiced one at a time if possible, or 2-3 at a time at the most. Focus on your habit change for 30 days, then move on to the next. The order listed below is just a suggestion — you can adopt them in whatever order works best for you, and you don’t need to adopt all 10 habits. Experiment and find the ones that work best with your working style. Habits 1-8 are the most essential, but I suggest you give Habits 9-10 serious consideration too. I will expand on each of these 10 habits in future posts.
1 collect. Habit: ubiquitous capture. Carry a small notebook (or whatever capture tool works for you) and write down any tasks, ideas, projects, or other information that pop into your head. Get it out of your head and onto paper, so you don’t forget it. This is the same as GTD. But ZTD asks you to pick a very simple, portable, easy-to-use tool for capture — a small notebook or small stack of index cards are preferred (but not mandated), simply because they are much easier to use and carry around than a PDA or notebook computer. The simpler the tools, the better. When you get back to your home or office, empty your notes into your to-do list (a simple to-do list will work for now — context lists can come in a later habit). Read more.
2 process. Habit: make quick decisions on things in your inbox, do not put them off. Letting stuff pile up is procrastinating on making decisions. Process your inboxes (email, physical, voicemail, notebook) at least once a day, and more frequently if needed. When you process, do it from the top down, making a decision on each item, as in GTD: do it (if it takes 2 minutes or less), trash it, delegate it, file it, or put it on your to-do list or calendar to do later. See Getting Your Email to Empty and Keeping Your Desk Clear for more.
3 plan. Habit: set MITs for week, day. Each week, list the Big Rocks that you want to accomplish, and schedule them first. Each day, create a list of 1-3 MITs (basically your Big Rocks for the day) and be sure to accomplish them. Do your MITs early in the day to get them out of the way and to ensure that they get done.
4 do (focus). Habit: do one task at a time, without distractions. This is one of the most important habits in ZTD. You must select a task (preferably one of your MITs) and focus on it to the exclusion of all else. First, eliminate all distractions. Shut off email, cell phone, Internet if possible (otherwise just close all unnecessary tabs), clutter on your desk (if you follow habit 2, this should be pretty easy). Then, set a timer if you like, or otherwise just focus on your task for as long as possible. Don’t let yourself get distracted from it. If you get interrupted, write down any request or incoming tasks/info on your notepad, and get back to your task. Don’t try to multi-task. See How NOT to Multi-Task for more.
5 simple trusted system. Habit: keep simple lists, check daily. Basically the same as GTD — have context lists, such as @work, @phone, @home, @errands, @waiting, etc. ZTD suggests that you keep your lists as simple as possible. Don’t create a complicated system, and don’t keep trying out new tools. It’s a waste of time, as fun as it is. Either use a simple notebook or index cards for your lists, or use the simplest list program possible. You don’t need a planner or a PDA or Outlook or a complicated system of tags. Just one list for each context, and a projects list that you review either daily or weekly. Linking actions to both projects and contexts is nice, but can get too complicated. Keep it simple, and focus on what you have to do right now, not on playing with your system or your tools.
6 organize. Habit: a place for everything. All incoming stuff goes in your inbox. From there, it goes on your context lists and an action folder, or in a file in your filing system, in your outbox if you’re going to delegate it, or in the trash. Put things where they belong, right away, instead of piling them up to sort later. This keeps your desk clear so you can focus on your work. Don’t procrastinate — put things away.
7 review. Habit: review your system & goals weekly. GTD’s weekly review is great, and ZTD incorporates it almost exactly, but with more of a focus on reviewing your goals each week. This is already in GTD, but isn’t emphasized. During your weekly review, you should go over each of your yearly goals, see what progress you made on them in the last week, and what action steps you’re going to take to move them forward in the coming week. Once a month, set aside a little more time to do a monthly review of your goals, and every year, you should do a yearly review of your year’s goals and your life’s goals.
8 simplify. Habit: reduce your goals & tasks to essentials. One of the problems with GTD is that it attempts to tackle all incoming tasks. But this can overload us, and leave us without the necessary focus on the important tasks (MITs). So instead, ZTD asks you to review your task and project lists, and see if you can simplify them. Remove everything but the essential projects and tasks, so you can focus on them. Simplify your commitments, and your incoming information stream. Be sure that your projects and tasks line up with your yearly and life goals. Do this on a daily basis (briefly, on a small scale), during your weekly review, and your monthly review.
9 routine. Habit: set and keep routines. GTD is very unstructured, which can be both a strength and a weakness. It’s a weakness for some people because they need more structure. Try the habit of creating routines to see if it works better for you. A morning routine (for example) could include looking at your calendar, going over your context lists, setting your MITs for the day, exercising, processing email and inboxes, and doing your first MIT for the day. An evening routine could include processing your email and inboxes (again), reviewing your day, writing in your journal, preparing for the next day. Weekly routines could include an errands day, a laundry day, financial day, your weekly review, family day, etc. It’s up to you — set your own routines, make them work for you.
10 find your passion. Habit: seek work for which you’re passionate. This could be your last habit, but at the same time your most important. GTD is great for managing the tasks in your life, and trying not to procrastinate on them. But if you’re passionate about your work, you won’t procrastinate — you’ll love doing it, and want to do more. The habit to form here is to constantly seek things about which you’re passionate, and to see if you can make a career out of them when you find them. Make your life’s work something you’re passionate about, not something you dread doing, and your task list will almost seem like a list of rewards.
“It’s about the habits and the doing, not the system or the tools.”
I am a huge fan of GTD, as you probably know by now. It’s one of the best productivity systems ever invented. However, it’s not without its flaws, and because of that, I have a new productivity system for you: Zen To Done (ZTD).
Why “Zen To Done”? Well, first off, the blog is called Zen Habits, and “Habits To Done” doesn’t sound cool enough to me. I also thought of “Simple To Done” but the acronym didn’t seem right. Second, ZTD captures the essential spirit of the new system: that of simplicity, of a focus on doing, in the here and now, instead of on planning and on the system.
If you’ve been having trouble with GTD, as great as it is, ZTD might be just for you. It focuses on the habit changes necessary for GTD, in a more practical way, and it focuses on doing, on simplifying, and on adding a simple structure. Read on for more.
OverviewZTD attempts to address five problems that many people have with GTD. I should note that GTD isn’t really flawed, and doesn’t really need modification, but everyone is different, and ZTD is a way to customize it to better fit different personality types.
ZTD addresses five problems people have with GTD:
1) GTD is a series of habit changes. This is the main reason why people fall off the GTD system — it’s a bunch of habit changes that are attempted all at once. If you’ve read Zen Habits long enough, you know that focusing on one habit at a time is best, and guarantees the most success. In addition, GTDers don’t apply proven habit-change methods (the ones I talk about on this site) to change their habits.
Solution: ZTD focuses on one habit at a time. You don’t have to try to adopt the entire system at once — it’s overwhelming and it’s too hard to focus on your habit changes if you do too many at a time. Instead, focus on one at a time, and adopt the system in phases. Use proven habit-changing methods (30-day challenge, commitment, rewards, motivation hacks, etc.) to successfully adopt each new habit.
2) GTD doesn’t focus enough on doing. While it’s called Getting Things Done, often what we end up doing most of the time is Getting Things in Our Trusted System. The book, while presenting an excellent system, focuses more on the capturing and processing stages than it does on the actual doing stage.
Solution: ZTD focuses more on doing — and how to actually complete your tasks, in a simple, stress-free manner.
3) GTD is too unstructured for many people. This can be one of the brilliant things about GTD — its lack of structure, its in-the-moment decision making about what to do next — but it can also be a huge source of confusion for many people. Some people need more structure in their day, and GTD can be disorienting. Different people have different styles.
Solution: ZTD offers a couple of habits to address this: the plan habit, where you simply plan your three MITs for the day and your Big Rocks for the week, and the routine habit, where you set daily and weekly routines for yourself. These habits, like all the habits of ZTD, are optional. If they don’t work for you, don’t adopt them. But for many people, they will compliment the other great parts of GTD perfectly.
4) GTD tries to do too much, which ends up stressing you out. GTD doesn’t discriminate among all the incoming stuff in your life, which again is part of its beauty. But the problem is that we put everything on our lists, and end up being overloaded. We try to do everything on our lists. This isn’t really a problem with GTD, but a problem with how we implement it. But it should be addressed.
Solution: ZTD focuses on simplifying. Take as much stuff off your plate as possible, so you can focus on doing what’s important, and doing it well.
5) GTD doesn’t focus enough on your goals. GTD is purposely a bottom-up, runway-level system. While it does talk about higher levels, it doesn’t really go into it much. As a result, GTD is more focused on doing whatever comes at you rather than doing what you should be doing — the important stuff.
Solution: ZTD, as mentioned above, asks you to identify the big things you want to do for the week and for the day. Another habit in ZTD is for you to review your goals each week, as a way of staying focused on them throughout the year. GTD contains an element of this, but ZTD extends it.
Again, GTD is a brilliant system, and works very well. But ZTD takes some of the problems that people have in implementing it, and adapts it for real life.The 10 Habits of ZTDEach of these habits should be learned and practiced one at a time if possible, or 2-3 at a time at the most. Focus on your habit change for 30 days, then move on to the next. The order listed below is just a suggestion — you can adopt them in whatever order works best for you, and you don’t need to adopt all 10 habits. Experiment and find the ones that work best with your working style. Habits 1-8 are the most essential, but I suggest you give Habits 9-10 serious consideration too. I will expand on each of these 10 habits in future posts.
1 collect. Habit: ubiquitous capture. Carry a small notebook (or whatever capture tool works for you) and write down any tasks, ideas, projects, or other information that pop into your head. Get it out of your head and onto paper, so you don’t forget it. This is the same as GTD. But ZTD asks you to pick a very simple, portable, easy-to-use tool for capture — a small notebook or small stack of index cards are preferred (but not mandated), simply because they are much easier to use and carry around than a PDA or notebook computer. The simpler the tools, the better. When you get back to your home or office, empty your notes into your to-do list (a simple to-do list will work for now — context lists can come in a later habit). Read more.
2 process. Habit: make quick decisions on things in your inbox, do not put them off. Letting stuff pile up is procrastinating on making decisions. Process your inboxes (email, physical, voicemail, notebook) at least once a day, and more frequently if needed. When you process, do it from the top down, making a decision on each item, as in GTD: do it (if it takes 2 minutes or less), trash it, delegate it, file it, or put it on your to-do list or calendar to do later. See Getting Your Email to Empty and Keeping Your Desk Clear for more.
3 plan. Habit: set MITs for week, day. Each week, list the Big Rocks that you want to accomplish, and schedule them first. Each day, create a list of 1-3 MITs (basically your Big Rocks for the day) and be sure to accomplish them. Do your MITs early in the day to get them out of the way and to ensure that they get done.
4 do (focus). Habit: do one task at a time, without distractions. This is one of the most important habits in ZTD. You must select a task (preferably one of your MITs) and focus on it to the exclusion of all else. First, eliminate all distractions. Shut off email, cell phone, Internet if possible (otherwise just close all unnecessary tabs), clutter on your desk (if you follow habit 2, this should be pretty easy). Then, set a timer if you like, or otherwise just focus on your task for as long as possible. Don’t let yourself get distracted from it. If you get interrupted, write down any request or incoming tasks/info on your notepad, and get back to your task. Don’t try to multi-task. See How NOT to Multi-Task for more.
5 simple trusted system. Habit: keep simple lists, check daily. Basically the same as GTD — have context lists, such as @work, @phone, @home, @errands, @waiting, etc. ZTD suggests that you keep your lists as simple as possible. Don’t create a complicated system, and don’t keep trying out new tools. It’s a waste of time, as fun as it is. Either use a simple notebook or index cards for your lists, or use the simplest list program possible. You don’t need a planner or a PDA or Outlook or a complicated system of tags. Just one list for each context, and a projects list that you review either daily or weekly. Linking actions to both projects and contexts is nice, but can get too complicated. Keep it simple, and focus on what you have to do right now, not on playing with your system or your tools.
6 organize. Habit: a place for everything. All incoming stuff goes in your inbox. From there, it goes on your context lists and an action folder, or in a file in your filing system, in your outbox if you’re going to delegate it, or in the trash. Put things where they belong, right away, instead of piling them up to sort later. This keeps your desk clear so you can focus on your work. Don’t procrastinate — put things away.
7 review. Habit: review your system & goals weekly. GTD’s weekly review is great, and ZTD incorporates it almost exactly, but with more of a focus on reviewing your goals each week. This is already in GTD, but isn’t emphasized. During your weekly review, you should go over each of your yearly goals, see what progress you made on them in the last week, and what action steps you’re going to take to move them forward in the coming week. Once a month, set aside a little more time to do a monthly review of your goals, and every year, you should do a yearly review of your year’s goals and your life’s goals.
8 simplify. Habit: reduce your goals & tasks to essentials. One of the problems with GTD is that it attempts to tackle all incoming tasks. But this can overload us, and leave us without the necessary focus on the important tasks (MITs). So instead, ZTD asks you to review your task and project lists, and see if you can simplify them. Remove everything but the essential projects and tasks, so you can focus on them. Simplify your commitments, and your incoming information stream. Be sure that your projects and tasks line up with your yearly and life goals. Do this on a daily basis (briefly, on a small scale), during your weekly review, and your monthly review.
9 routine. Habit: set and keep routines. GTD is very unstructured, which can be both a strength and a weakness. It’s a weakness for some people because they need more structure. Try the habit of creating routines to see if it works better for you. A morning routine (for example) could include looking at your calendar, going over your context lists, setting your MITs for the day, exercising, processing email and inboxes, and doing your first MIT for the day. An evening routine could include processing your email and inboxes (again), reviewing your day, writing in your journal, preparing for the next day. Weekly routines could include an errands day, a laundry day, financial day, your weekly review, family day, etc. It’s up to you — set your own routines, make them work for you.
10 find your passion. Habit: seek work for which you’re passionate. This could be your last habit, but at the same time your most important. GTD is great for managing the tasks in your life, and trying not to procrastinate on them. But if you’re passionate about your work, you won’t procrastinate — you’ll love doing it, and want to do more. The habit to form here is to constantly seek things about which you’re passionate, and to see if you can make a career out of them when you find them. Make your life’s work something you’re passionate about, not something you dread doing, and your task list will almost seem like a list of rewards.
Oil Shock - The Washington Post Series
In a 5-part series of articles, The Washington Post examines the economic forces that have unhinged oil prices from their longtime cyclical patterns, propelling fuel costs to once unimaginable levels that are now both fraying the lifestyles of our recent past and speeding the search for an energy source of the future.
Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/oilshock/index.html
Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/oilshock/index.html
Why you should avoid 'mingqutnguaq'
Why you should avoid 'mingqutnguaq'
Yup'ik Eskimo Grant Kashatok speaks about his life on ice in Newtok, Alaska
By Stephen Chittenden BBC News, Newtok, Alaska
The number of Eskimo words for snow has long been a point of debate.
In the Yup'ik Eskimo Dictionary published by the Native Language Centre at the University of Alaska, and found in schools throughout Alaska's Yukon Delta, there are 37 ways of referring to it.
When snow falls from the sky, an Eskimo can say "it's snowing" in four different ways: aniu, cellallir, ganir or qanunge.
Once the snow is on the ground, things can get more complicated. Light snow is kannevvluk, soft and deep snow is muruaneq and drifting snow is called natquik.
Crusted snow, corniced snow and fresh snow all have their own word too.
Safety
Grant Kashatok, the principal at Newtok school, explains one reason there are so many words for snow.
"When we say a word, instead of saying 'That is not safe snow!' we say one word and people know if it's safe or not."
If you are out hiking and an Eskimo shouts "Mingqutnguaq!" you should stop immediately. It means "rotten ice", and you could be about to fall through the ice.
For the same reasons, Eskimos like Grant Kashatok prefer the cold to warm weather,
"Cold is very good because it means we will have safe conditions...to cross the rivers," he says.
Autumn can be a dangerous time in Alaska. While they wait for the ice to harden, children can be tempted to play on frozen pools before it is thick enough to bear their weight.
Winter activity
Once winter takes grip on Alaska, the land, rivers and seas all freeze, opening up the interior and allowing ice roads to be built across the tundra which gives access for hunting.
Stanley Tom, the tribal leader in Newtok, says it is an essential part of their livelihood.
"We have to have ice", he says. "We are called Qaluyarmiut, the dip-net people. We do under-ice netting, catching whitefish."
The winter season has been given human characteristics and a harsh winter is male, or angun, and if it is milder it is described as arnaq, the Yup'ik word for female.
Yup'ik has three dialects: Central, Siberian and Alutiiqthere.
There are also two other Eskimo languages apart from Yup'ik: Inupiat and Aleut, and that means plenty of ways of referring to snow and ice.
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7671137.stm
Yup'ik Eskimo Grant Kashatok speaks about his life on ice in Newtok, Alaska
By Stephen Chittenden BBC News, Newtok, Alaska
The number of Eskimo words for snow has long been a point of debate.
In the Yup'ik Eskimo Dictionary published by the Native Language Centre at the University of Alaska, and found in schools throughout Alaska's Yukon Delta, there are 37 ways of referring to it.
When snow falls from the sky, an Eskimo can say "it's snowing" in four different ways: aniu, cellallir, ganir or qanunge.
Once the snow is on the ground, things can get more complicated. Light snow is kannevvluk, soft and deep snow is muruaneq and drifting snow is called natquik.
Crusted snow, corniced snow and fresh snow all have their own word too.
Safety
Grant Kashatok, the principal at Newtok school, explains one reason there are so many words for snow.
"When we say a word, instead of saying 'That is not safe snow!' we say one word and people know if it's safe or not."
If you are out hiking and an Eskimo shouts "Mingqutnguaq!" you should stop immediately. It means "rotten ice", and you could be about to fall through the ice.
For the same reasons, Eskimos like Grant Kashatok prefer the cold to warm weather,
"Cold is very good because it means we will have safe conditions...to cross the rivers," he says.
Autumn can be a dangerous time in Alaska. While they wait for the ice to harden, children can be tempted to play on frozen pools before it is thick enough to bear their weight.
Winter activity
Once winter takes grip on Alaska, the land, rivers and seas all freeze, opening up the interior and allowing ice roads to be built across the tundra which gives access for hunting.
Stanley Tom, the tribal leader in Newtok, says it is an essential part of their livelihood.
"We have to have ice", he says. "We are called Qaluyarmiut, the dip-net people. We do under-ice netting, catching whitefish."
The winter season has been given human characteristics and a harsh winter is male, or angun, and if it is milder it is described as arnaq, the Yup'ik word for female.
Yup'ik has three dialects: Central, Siberian and Alutiiqthere.
There are also two other Eskimo languages apart from Yup'ik: Inupiat and Aleut, and that means plenty of ways of referring to snow and ice.
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7671137.stm
Global Trends 2025: Reduced Dominance Is Predicted for U.S
Reduced Dominance Is Predicted for U.S. Analyst Previews Report to Next President
By Joby Warrick and Walter PincusWashington Post Staff WritersWednesday, September 10, 2008
An intelligence forecast being prepared for the next president on future global risks envisions a steady decline in U.S. dominance in the coming decades, as the world is reshaped by globalization, battered by climate change, and destabilized by regional upheavals over shortages of food, water and energy.
The report, previewed in a speech by Thomas Fingar, the U.S. intelligence community's top analyst, also concludes that the one key area of continued U.S. superiority -- military power -- will "be the least significant" asset in the increasingly competitive world of the future, because "nobody is going to attack us with massive conventional force."
Fingar's remarks last week were based on a partially completed "Global Trends 2025" report that assesses how international events could affect the United States in the next 15 to 17 years. Speaking at a conference of intelligence professionals in Orlando, Fingar gave an overview of key findings that he said will be presented to the next occupant of the White House early in the new year.
"The U.S. will remain the preeminent power, but that American dominance will be much diminished," Fingar said, according to a transcript of the Thursday speech. He saw U.S. leadership eroding "at an accelerating pace" in "political, economic and arguably, cultural arenas."
The 2025 report will lay out what Fingar called the "dynamics, the dimensions, the drivers" that will shape the world for the next administration and beyond. In advance of its completion, intelligence officials have begun briefing the major presidential candidates on the security threats that they would be likely to face in office. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) received an initial briefing Sept. 2, with Sen. John McCain(R-Ariz.) expected to receive one in the coming days, intelligence officials said.
As described by Fingar, the intelligence community's long-term outlook has darkened somewhat since the last report in 2004, which also focused on the impact of globalization but was more upbeat about its consequences for the United States. The new view is in line with that of prominent economists and other global thinkers who have argued that America's influence is shrinking as economic powerhouses such as China assert themselves on the global stage. The trend is described in the new book "The Post-American World," in which author Fareed Zakaria writes that the shift is not about the "decline of America, but rather about the rise of everyone else."
In the new intelligence forecast, it is not just the United States that loses clout. Fingar predicts plummeting influence for the United Nations, the World Bank and a host of other international organizations that have helped maintain political and economic stability since World War II. It is unclear what new institutions can fill the void, he said.
In the years ahead, Washington will no longer be in a position to dictate what new global structures will look like. Nor will any other country, Fingar said. "There is no nobody in a position . . . to take the lead and institute the changes that almost certainly must be made in the international system," he said.
The predicted shift toward a less U.S.-centric world will come at a time when the planet is facing a growing environmental crisis, caused largely by climate change, Fingar said. By 2025, droughts, food shortages and scarcity of fresh water will plague large swaths of the globe, from northern China to the Horn of Africa.
For poorer countries, climate change "could be the straw that breaks the camel's back," Fingar said, while the United States will face "Dust Bowl" conditions in the parched Southwest. He said U.S. intelligence agencies accepted the consensual scientific view of global warming, including the conclusion that it is too late to avert significant disruption over the next two decades. The conclusions are in line with an intelligence assessment produced this summer that characterized global warming as a serious security threat for the coming decades.
Floods and droughts will trigger mass migrations and political upheaval in many parts of the developing world. But among industrialized states, declining birthrates will create new economic stresses as populations become grayer. In China, Japan and Europe, the ratio of working adults to seniors "begins to approach one to three," he said.
The United States will fare better than many other industrial powers, in part because it is relatively more open to immigration. Newcomers will inject into the U.S. economy a vitality that will be absent in much of Europe and Japan -- countries that are "on a good day, highly chauvinistic," he said.
"We are just about alone in terms of the highly developed countries that will continue to have demographic growth sufficient to ensure continued economic growth," Fingar said.
Energy security will also become a major issue as India, China and other countries join the United States in seeking oil, gas and other sources for electricity. The Chinese get a good portion of their oil from Iran, as do many U.S. allies in Europe, limiting U.S. options on Iran. "So the turn-the-spigot-off kind of thing -- even if we could do it -- would be counterproductive."
Nearly absent from Fingar's survey was the topic of terrorism. Since the last such report, the intelligence community has projected a declining role for al-Qaeda, which was deemed likely to become "increasingly decentralized, evolving into an eclectic array of groups, cells, and individuals." Inspired by al-Qaeda, "regionally based groups, and individuals labeled simply as jihadists -- united by a common hatred of moderate regimes and the West -- are likely to conduct terrorist attacks," the 2004 document said.
The new assessment saw a continued threat from Iran, however. Fingar predicted steady progress in the Islamic republic's attempts to create enriched uranium, the essential fuel used in nuclear weapons and commercial power reactors. For now, however, there is no evidence that Iran has resumed work on building a weapon, Fingar said, echoing last year's landmark National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, which concluded that warhead-design work had halted in 2003.
He said Iran's ultimate decision on whether to build nuclear weapons depended on how its leaders viewed their "security requirement" -- whether they thought their government sufficiently safe in a region surrounded by traditional enemies.
Iranians are "more scared of their neighbors than many think they ought to be," Fingar said. But he noted that the United States had eliminated two of Iran's biggest enemies: Iraq's Saddam Hussein and theTaliban regime in Afghanistan.
"The United States took care of Iran's principal security threats," he said, "except for us, which the Iranians consider a mortal threat."
Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/09/AR2008090903302.html
By Joby Warrick and Walter PincusWashington Post Staff WritersWednesday, September 10, 2008
An intelligence forecast being prepared for the next president on future global risks envisions a steady decline in U.S. dominance in the coming decades, as the world is reshaped by globalization, battered by climate change, and destabilized by regional upheavals over shortages of food, water and energy.
The report, previewed in a speech by Thomas Fingar, the U.S. intelligence community's top analyst, also concludes that the one key area of continued U.S. superiority -- military power -- will "be the least significant" asset in the increasingly competitive world of the future, because "nobody is going to attack us with massive conventional force."
Fingar's remarks last week were based on a partially completed "Global Trends 2025" report that assesses how international events could affect the United States in the next 15 to 17 years. Speaking at a conference of intelligence professionals in Orlando, Fingar gave an overview of key findings that he said will be presented to the next occupant of the White House early in the new year.
"The U.S. will remain the preeminent power, but that American dominance will be much diminished," Fingar said, according to a transcript of the Thursday speech. He saw U.S. leadership eroding "at an accelerating pace" in "political, economic and arguably, cultural arenas."
The 2025 report will lay out what Fingar called the "dynamics, the dimensions, the drivers" that will shape the world for the next administration and beyond. In advance of its completion, intelligence officials have begun briefing the major presidential candidates on the security threats that they would be likely to face in office. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) received an initial briefing Sept. 2, with Sen. John McCain(R-Ariz.) expected to receive one in the coming days, intelligence officials said.
As described by Fingar, the intelligence community's long-term outlook has darkened somewhat since the last report in 2004, which also focused on the impact of globalization but was more upbeat about its consequences for the United States. The new view is in line with that of prominent economists and other global thinkers who have argued that America's influence is shrinking as economic powerhouses such as China assert themselves on the global stage. The trend is described in the new book "The Post-American World," in which author Fareed Zakaria writes that the shift is not about the "decline of America, but rather about the rise of everyone else."
In the new intelligence forecast, it is not just the United States that loses clout. Fingar predicts plummeting influence for the United Nations, the World Bank and a host of other international organizations that have helped maintain political and economic stability since World War II. It is unclear what new institutions can fill the void, he said.
In the years ahead, Washington will no longer be in a position to dictate what new global structures will look like. Nor will any other country, Fingar said. "There is no nobody in a position . . . to take the lead and institute the changes that almost certainly must be made in the international system," he said.
The predicted shift toward a less U.S.-centric world will come at a time when the planet is facing a growing environmental crisis, caused largely by climate change, Fingar said. By 2025, droughts, food shortages and scarcity of fresh water will plague large swaths of the globe, from northern China to the Horn of Africa.
For poorer countries, climate change "could be the straw that breaks the camel's back," Fingar said, while the United States will face "Dust Bowl" conditions in the parched Southwest. He said U.S. intelligence agencies accepted the consensual scientific view of global warming, including the conclusion that it is too late to avert significant disruption over the next two decades. The conclusions are in line with an intelligence assessment produced this summer that characterized global warming as a serious security threat for the coming decades.
Floods and droughts will trigger mass migrations and political upheaval in many parts of the developing world. But among industrialized states, declining birthrates will create new economic stresses as populations become grayer. In China, Japan and Europe, the ratio of working adults to seniors "begins to approach one to three," he said.
The United States will fare better than many other industrial powers, in part because it is relatively more open to immigration. Newcomers will inject into the U.S. economy a vitality that will be absent in much of Europe and Japan -- countries that are "on a good day, highly chauvinistic," he said.
"We are just about alone in terms of the highly developed countries that will continue to have demographic growth sufficient to ensure continued economic growth," Fingar said.
Energy security will also become a major issue as India, China and other countries join the United States in seeking oil, gas and other sources for electricity. The Chinese get a good portion of their oil from Iran, as do many U.S. allies in Europe, limiting U.S. options on Iran. "So the turn-the-spigot-off kind of thing -- even if we could do it -- would be counterproductive."
Nearly absent from Fingar's survey was the topic of terrorism. Since the last such report, the intelligence community has projected a declining role for al-Qaeda, which was deemed likely to become "increasingly decentralized, evolving into an eclectic array of groups, cells, and individuals." Inspired by al-Qaeda, "regionally based groups, and individuals labeled simply as jihadists -- united by a common hatred of moderate regimes and the West -- are likely to conduct terrorist attacks," the 2004 document said.
The new assessment saw a continued threat from Iran, however. Fingar predicted steady progress in the Islamic republic's attempts to create enriched uranium, the essential fuel used in nuclear weapons and commercial power reactors. For now, however, there is no evidence that Iran has resumed work on building a weapon, Fingar said, echoing last year's landmark National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, which concluded that warhead-design work had halted in 2003.
He said Iran's ultimate decision on whether to build nuclear weapons depended on how its leaders viewed their "security requirement" -- whether they thought their government sufficiently safe in a region surrounded by traditional enemies.
Iranians are "more scared of their neighbors than many think they ought to be," Fingar said. But he noted that the United States had eliminated two of Iran's biggest enemies: Iraq's Saddam Hussein and theTaliban regime in Afghanistan.
"The United States took care of Iran's principal security threats," he said, "except for us, which the Iranians consider a mortal threat."
Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/09/AR2008090903302.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)