movie time

long but interesting


helpdesk


suhweet


not for the motion-sickness-prone. but cool.


for linds

ANDREAS HELGSTRAND and Blue Hors Matine
by hunterjumpergirl

and one more for fun
http://www.flixxy.com/rc-plane-b29.htm

wait for it...

i'm not going to take the time right now to do a proper review of this article. however, you should read it.

i will say something about a phrase that appear part-way through the article:

The [I-won-so-stop-your-whining] exchange arose as top House and Senate Republicans expressed concern to the president about the amount of spending in the package. They also raised red flags about a refundable tax credit that returns money to those who don’t pay income taxes, the sources said.

"Returning" money to someone who never gave it in the first place? That sounds like ... wait for it ...

a handout.

Or, maybe you prefer: freeloading.

Or, maybe you think this is just another part of the socialist trend that our elected leaders seem h3ll-bent on following these days.

Maybe we should only get worried when the bill comes to the floor seeking to change our name to the U.S.S.A.

.

cold day

Our car said 9*F this morning when we left for work. It didn't get much warmer by the time I left (about 25*F and windy).

Silly (and cold) me forgot to click our lights all the way off, so when I went to leave this afternoon the car wouldn't start. I caught someone coming onto my level of the garage and asked for some quick help to jump the car. She declined, stating that she had just bought the car - but that if she was driving her old car, she would have helped.

Whatever.

No one was available in our facility management office. I called some friends who worked nearby to see if they could come. I'd now been out there for about 35 minutes. They were wrapping up with some business down the road, but said they'd come over to help.

About 10 minutes later I saw someone else come to the garage - he was in a hurry (to get to a church boy's basketball game or something), but somewhat begrudgingly said he'd help. I told him it would take 90 seconds. And it pretty much did; popped the hoods up (oddly enough, he was the guy parked next to me), connected the cables (my hands were soooo cold by this point), and started the car. Disconnected the cables. Off we went.

Success.

and Brrrrrrrrr

BCS and your tax dollars

I was reading a friend's blog and noticed the following post:

"Sports Wrap on the BCS" by ThinkinHP

NCAA is my client so naturally I've been running around like a chicken with my head cut off at work...but it's been a good time.

One of my co-workers Matt did this amazing "Sports Wrap" mentioning the criticism of the bowl and Ad Dollars spent. I pulled the numbers, yes I'm an amazing number puller... check it out.

Here's a glimpse and the link: http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/media_entertainment/sports-wrap-college-football-bowls-over-audiences/

"There’s been no shortage of criticism surrounding the College Football postseason - even the President-elect threw in his two cents - but there’s no denying the bowl season still generates a huge amount of viewer interest.

There is no better bellwether than this year’s BCS National Championship between Oklahoma and Florida. The preliminary metered market data shows last night’s FedEx BCS National Championship received a 15.8 rating, up 16% from last year’s game..."

Interesting post, and an interesting comment. How do you feel about your tax dollars at work on this issue:

http://www.house.gov/abercrombie/pdf/Final_BCS_Letter.pdf

I'm curious...so let me know!

If you have a BBQ or a smoker...

I'm giving you a break with this post. I'll even keep this under 100 words.

Check it out:
http://www.bbqaddicts.com/blog/recipes/bacon-explosion/

I don't think this will fit on my George Foreman grill; if only I had a BBQ...

My first foray into "political" blogging

My first foray into "political" blogging
My involvement in the recent presidential race prevented me from writing on the many political blogs that are out there, but I had a thought that I wanted to share and thought someone might appreciate it, so I decided to write it and post it.

I wrote it on a site I just found that was referred to me by a friend. I was impressed with the plan it presented and familiar with several of the individuals who are listed as part of the coalition (including former co-workers).

Not surprisingly, my post was based off something I read in East of Eden. I suppose I'll run out of things to say one day and will have to read something else... If you're interested, you can check out my post HERE.

Reading East of Eden, Part 3

I notice that the two of you who actually read my blog don't pay much attention to the constant invitations to "discuss." Oh well. I'm discussing; perhaps someone is listening.

Forewarning: The following quote is fairly long, and I tried to think of how I would abbreviate it, but I cannot present this idea in part. As always in these quotes, the emphasis added is mine.

I don't know how it will be in the years to come. There are monstrous changes taking place in the world, forces shaping a future whose faces we do not know. Some of these forces seem evil to us, perhaps not in themselves but because their tendency is to eliminate other things we hold good. It is true that two men can lift a bigger stone than one man. A group can build automobiles quicker and better than one man, and bread from a huge factory is cheaper and more uniform. When our food and clothing and housing all are born in the complication of mass production, mass method is bound to get into our thinking and to eliminate other thinking. In our time mass or collective production has entered our economics, our politics, and even our religion, so that some nations have substituted the idea collective for the idea God. This in my time is the danger. There is great tension in the world, tension toward a breaking point, and men are unhappy and confused.

At such a time it seems natural and good to me to ask myself these questions. What do I believe in? What must I fight for and what must I fight against?

Our species is the only creative species, and it has only one creative instrument, the individual mind and spirit of a man. Nothing was ever created by two men. There are no good collaborations, whether in music, in art, in poetry, in mathematics, in philosophy. Once the miracle of creation has taken place, the group can build and extend it, but the group never invents anything. The preciousness lies in the lonely mind of a man.

And now the forces marshaled around the concept of the group have declared a war of extermination on that preciousness, the mind of man. By disparagement, by starvation, by repressions, forced direction, and the stunning hammerblows of conditioning, the free, roving mind is being pursued, roped, blunted, drugged. It is a sad suicidal course our species seems to have taken.

And this I believe: that the free, exploring mind of the individual human is the most valuable thing in the world. And this I would fight for: the freedom of the mind to take any direction it wishes, undirected. And this I must fight against: any idea, religion, or government which limits or destroys the individual. This is what I am and what I am about. I can understand why a system built on a pattern must try to destroy the free mind, for that is one thing which can by inspection destroy such a system. Surely I can understand this, and I hate it and I will fight against it to preserve the one thing that separates us from the uncreative beasts. If the glory can be killed, we are lost. (pp.130-31)

Steinbeck surely has some strong words there at the end of this passage. But these few paragraphs present some bold thoughts. Thoughts that I believe bear some investigation, and can be applied to several different aspects of our lives that come to my mind. I'm sure you have other things that you could add.

The first thing that came to mind relates to the idea that there are forces shaping the future that displace "other things we hold good." Steinbeck indicates that we are able to recognize that some of these forces "seem evil," but what about the forces that we don't recognize?

Last month, Jill and I attended a lunch hosted by the BYU Management Society (DC Chapter) sponsored by an anonymous donor (although my money would have been on the Marriott family or Nolan Archibald, both of whom were in attendance). It was a rather fun lunch, held on the 9th floor of the Hart Senate Office Building, and we ran into some old and new friends.

The special guest at the luncheon was Clayton M. Christensen, HBS Professor, Author, and Area Authority Seventy. (I also happened to work for his company, Innosight, briefly after college before embarking on my political journey).

Now, back to the "forces." Christensen's topic was "Shared Mechanisms behind the Failure of Successful Countries, Companies, and Families" and he discussed in depth how great companies had failed -- for doing those things that ostensibly they were supposed to be doing. He said that executives in companies like the integrated mills, disk manufacturers, laptop manufacturers, and others were following what the Harvard Business School teaches it students and what Wall Street "demands" (things like listening to your best customers and giving them more of what you want; sacrificing parts of the company that produce low profit margins for activities that have a higher profit margin), and ended up failing because they began to follow a strategy that wasn't suited to their circumstances. He explored, briefly, the conflict of doing what makes you more profitable VS doing what makes sense. Sometimes it's hard to see the difference, and that these statements aren't necessarily mutually inclusive: making the choice now to do what makes you more profitable may not actually make sense.

Christensen told the story of a laptop manufacturer who started outsourcing some of the very basic stuff. The chips were pretty standard and cheaper to make overseas with this other company, so they gladly handed over the reins (and the manufacturing outlays) to this other company. The relationship was working pretty well, and then the chip maker (CM) came back with another proposal: they had gotten pretty good at the basic chips and had developed the ability to make more parts of the "guts" (N.B. Although I'm pretty familiar with the inside of a laptop, I can't remember the order that this took place in, so bear with me). They showed the laptop manufacturer (LM) that they could produce these new parts for 20% less. The LM reviewed the numbers and once again with the option that made them more profitable. The CM came back some time later and said, "You know, it's really pretty easy to snap these pieces together, and we're making some of the basic components, so why don't you let us do some partial assembly out here. We can save you 20% on the cost." The LM crunched the numbers, liked the idea, and once again made the choice that made them more profitable. This pattern continued. Supply chain management. Assembly and shipping. Even design of the new systems. After a period of time, the LM had outsourced just about everything, and was essentially a company whose core competence was its brand, for it did nothing else.

So?

The CM realized it could make more money by moving its business from the LM to an electronics chain and now uses their core competence of laptop manufacture and design to build "store brand" laptops. (And I imagine they don't even need their own IT support, because the customers will contact the store's specialists and operate on the store's warranty. Genius, right?)

So?

Where else are we outsourcing things (perhaps because it would make more profit) and may find ourselves in the dangerous predicament where only the "brand" exists?

The Family.

Out of curiosity, does anyone know when the term "soccer mom" came into existence? Looking back, we can see how families have come to outsource practically everything that used to be part of the "family" several generations back -- some from when even our parents and grandparents were children! Take a second and think about it: What are (generally) the current core competencies of the family? And, what should they be?

Without professing to present a complete or unbiased list, here are a few things I've noticed families have outsourced. The convenience (and "profitability"?) of grocery stores have replaced family gardens, making bread at home, and home canning, etc. And restaurants, fast food, and "healthy" fast food are replacing family meals in the home. We send children off to space camp, fat camp, music camp, scout camp, horseback riding camp, and who knows what else -- instead of finding ways to instruct and entertain at home / in the family unit. And, are we outsourcing the teaching of morals, ethics, and citizenship in the home to schools, the media industry, and church (which might not be so bad, right?, to outsource teaching morals to a church. But I do recall many of my adolescent classes involved a lot of hangman and candy, and don't recall many morals from those lessons). So what is left of the organization we call the family? With so many things outsourced, and questions remaining regarding its core competency, it's no wonder we have a rising "class" of "soccer moms" who deliver their children from one activity to another and only represent the "brand" of the family while other organizations "manufacture" the substance.

I would add outsourcing to the list of "forces shaping a future whose faces we do not know. [And] seem evil to us, [...] because their tendency is to eliminate other things we hold good." Outsourcing--especially under the guise (as I hope was illustrated by the LM/CM example) of choosing what is profitable over what makes sense--can be dangerous to an organization.

What about Government?

I'll set this one aside for another day, and leave it now for you to consider if government (or politicians or political parties) may be found guilty of "over-outsourcing" and on the path towards becoming a "brand" while other organizations perform the actual functions of the "parent" organization.

Now I'll move on to something else that got me thinking, this idea of the conflict between the collective and the individual. I recently read a book about innovation where the author discussed the many benefits of the group brain storming session, and how (if done properly) this can bring energy to projects and create solutions that are truly game-changing. A group exercise in my Organizational Behavior class tried to show us that groups performed better than individuals on a quiz. (Although this might be better stated as the average or aggregate of the individuals, and noted in our case that groups did not perform better than the best individuals. I point this last part out because in some cases a group can drag down an individual's performance right along with raising the performance of portions of the rest of the class.)

Do these claims about innovation and studies about group vs. individual knowledge successfully counter Steinbeck's claim that "Nothing was ever created by two men. There are no good collaborations"?

While recognizing and respecting the arguments made by people like Tom Kelley (innovation) and psychologists/sociologists/business teachers/and the like (groups performing better than individuals), I do not believe their observations are applicable when applied to Steinbeck's statement. First, the group dynamic is talking about the transfer and/or sharing of individual of knowledge in a group setting to affect the outcome that is (hopefully) greater than the individuals alone would obtain. It might be said that this was a good collaboration. But isn't it essentially just picking the right answers of the individuals in the group and combining them in a fashion that gives the right answers a greater "result" by grouping them into one score?

For example (overly simplified and generalized, I know), if a difficult test included three parts--math, music, anatomy--and there were three people taking the test--a mathematician, a composer, and a medical doctor--what do you suppose the individual test results would look like? I venture that the mathematician did well on the part relating to his field and was less knowledgeable on the other parts. The same goes for the other two individuals. Now, some might have experience in some of the other subjects, but are not experts. Individually, they may have decent scores, correct? But as a group (and for good measure, suppose they couldn't tell each other they were experts, they just had to work together to choose an answer), the study now shows us that these three individuals got a much higher score together. Voila! A good collaboration, right? But if tests are the measure of knowledge understood (which, isn't that what teachers tell us?), then the results aren't really better. It seems they just show that each section scored well because there was an individual who happened to convince the group that his/her answer was right and thus the group should choose it. Therefore, while the "result" may have been good (higher score), the "collaboration" itself is not good since it (1) is not a good reflection of what the individuals who make up the group know and (2) has not been claimed or proven that the individuals who made up the group actually learned/retained anything by the exercise. And at this point in my ramblings I'll just move on. Feel free to argue with me in the comments.

It would appear that the Kelley/innovation argument has better footing. However, this too finds itself subject to the same predicament as the group test: while an innovation session / brain storm is a group exercise, it is made up of individuals. An individual comes up with an idea, shares it with the group, which sparks ideas in other individuals, who share them, and the group combines and shapes and modifies these. But the ideas came from individuals. I think this is what Steinbeck meant when he concluded this thought with, "Once the miracle of creation has taken place, the group can build and extend it, but the group never invents anything."

The only creation that requires more than an individual to actually bring it into existence is the creation of human life. (And then, I suppose one could argue that this was actually two "ideas" that the female gestated on [aside: do you ever wonder why we sometimes use "gestation" to describe the thought process?] and then created something with.)But back to Steinbeck.

Groups are indeed important. They can be efficient. They can provide outcomes or produce products or refine ideas with outcomes typically better than the individual. But that "creative instrument, the individual mind and spirit of a man" should be fostered, not diminished; celebrated, not relegated to group thought.

Obviously, this idea has implications across different aspects of society and public policy. For example, does our public education system encourage the creative instruments of individuals, or does it favor group thought and conformity as superior methods of "faux creation"? What else can you think of? How else is the "free, roving mind [...] being pursued, roped, blunted, [or] drugged"?

I too place high value on the "free, exploring mind of the individual human" -- and of the blessing of agency (while also remembering that natural and other law provides a consequence (reward or punishment) for thoughts and actions).

But more on this another time. Moving on.

Lastly, I wanted to point out the questions that Steinbeck asked and then answered for himself, "What do I believe in? What must I fight for and what must I fight against?"

At this time of reflections and resolutions, of ringing out the old and bringing in the new, the answers to these questions just might provide a little more personal direction to those goals and give a little more steel to our spine as we face the coming blessings and challenges of a new year.

What do you believe in? And what will you fight for and fight against?

And with that, I'll leave more of my ramblings, personal musings, and thoughts on Steinbeck to another day and another time. Cheers!

Reading East of Eden, Part 2

Don't we all do this?

I have spoken of the rich years when the rainfall was plentiful. But there were dry years too, and they put a terror on the valley. The water came in a thirty year cycle. [...] The live oaks got a crusty look and the sage-brush was gray. The land cracked and the springs dried up and the cattle listlessly nibbled dry twigs. Then the farmers and the ranchers would be filled with disgust for the Salinas Valley. The cows would grow thin and sometimes starve to death. People would have to haul water in barrels to their farms just for drinking. Some families would sell out for nearly nothing and move away. And it never failed that during the dry years the people forgot about the rich years, and during the wet years they lost all memory of the dry years. It was always that way. (p.6)

Water cycles. Economic cycles. Even personal cycles of prosperity and dearth: physical, spiritual, monetary, or emotional. Not only should this make us want to "put away" for the "dry years," but when the cycles come 'round perhaps we should recognize that the situation may not be the fault of anyone- and that we can choose our response.

Do you dig in, haul some water, adjust your lifestyle to do more with less? Or do you sell out for nearly nothing, seek comfort in another area, perhaps enjoy some plenty in the new area's cycle, and yet remain woefully unprepared for when the opposition comes again?

Any applications to us today? Do "dry years" still affect us?

Discuss.

How Corrupt is your Country?

The Corruption Perceptions Index compares 180 countries according to the degree of public-sector corruption perceived by business leaders and analysts. In the 2008 index, the United States was tied in 18th place with Japan and Belgium. (In 2007, the U.S. came in 20th.)
>

Source: "Harvard Business Publishing: The Daily Stat: January 6, 2009"
See Also:
"2008 Corruption Perceptions Index"

tips for living in a tech world

[[I meant to post this back on 12/19/08, but wanted to make sure the whole article was worth linking to. I think the examples are humorous in the ComputerWorld article, but would not recommend nor endorse any links beyond the actual text.]]

[[In honor of Paige]]

Top 10 Tech Embarrassments you'll want to avoid
Dan Tynan
December 18, 2008 (PC World) Call it the "oh-no second." You know -- the interval between clicking the Send button on a private e-mail and realizing you just cc'd the entire universe.

But it's not just e-mail. Thanks to the ease, speed, and reach of technology, we now have the potential to be bigger doofuses in front of more people than at any other time in history.

For example, nothing says "I am a professional" more than intimate messages from loved ones popping up on screen during a presentation to the board. Then there are the pricey pocket-size gadgets that always seem to wind up in the swimming pool, the washing machine, or worse. [...]

Here's a comforting thought: Whatever mortifying things you've done, somebody else has probably done worse. In fact, following are ten examples of real people who have been shamed by technology, along with some ways you can avoid a similar fate -- lest you end up in articles like this one.

Tech Embarrassment 1: Bad Husband, No Nookie
[...]
Tech Embarrassment 2: Is That a Laser Pointer, or Are You Just Happy to See Me?
[...]
Tech Embarrassment 3: The Audience Is Listening
[...]
Tech Embarrassment 4: Your Cell Phone Is Not a Flotation Device
[...]
Tech Embarrassment 5: When You Animate E-Mail, the Terrorists Win
[...]
Tech Embarrassment 6: Change Your Wiki Ways
[...]
Tech Embarrassment 7: Good Morning...Now Please Clean Out Your Desk
[...]
Tech Embarrassment 8: Don't Show, Don't Tell
[...]
Tech Embarrassment 9: Photo No-No's
[...]
Tech Embarrassment 10: Twitterrhead

Read the full article here.

Reading East of Eden, Part 1

A friend of mine for whom I have great respect has long suggested I read the John Steinbeck novel, East of Eden, and listed it as one of his top books of all time. Since it wasn't a part of my personal library and my trips to a public library have been rather non-existent as of recent personal history, reading this book wasn't likely to happen. Instead, what little free time I had to read was spent skimming articles in my Google Reader (set yours up if you haven't done it yet!) and re-visiting "candy books" (such as Ian Fleming stories). Needless to say, these reads didn't require much thought, and hence produced little insight...

For Christmas, I received the Steinbeck Centennial Edition of East of Eden, complete with artificial deckle edge (or rough cut?) pages. I was excited to begin to reading, but concerned that I might be getting into the book with expectations too high. After thinking briefly about this supposed dilemma, I tried to set all other thoughts aside and just being to read.

Which wasn't hard to do. I was drawn into the story right from the beginning. I suppose that having spent some of my teenage years about 90 miles from where the story takes place I had little trouble imagining the Salinas Valley, the oak trees, and the river that comes and goes with the seasons. It occurred to me as I read Steinbeck's descriptions that I had seen (and was thus able to remember now 10 years later) these trees and hills and river, but had not noticed them, nor the many other things that Steinbeck associates with these aspects of life in the Salinas Valley.

I found myself not wanting to put the book down and managed to finish reading it fairly quickly. It stirred up thought in me, and I scribbled down notes while I read in a little notebook I got while visiting the Body Worlds exhibit in SLC. I didn't give this book and its themes the amount of thought they deserve (pardon me, I was on Christmas vacation), but I hope to share over the next few posts what did come to mind.

Although I've never fancied myself much of a literary critic (I'll leave that to the English majors out there), I've decided to share my thoughts. In short, I found the novel compelling and a must-read. I have read good books, intriguing books, books that make you think, fun books, and informative books. Despite the vast number of pages I've read (likely in the hundreds of thousands; I set a record in third grade during the March of Dimes reading contest and beat out 8th graders in both number of pages and difficulty of material) and the broad array of topics which have graced the pages (from spy thrillers to legal fiction and historical non-fiction; from academic articles and classic works of political science to magic how-to books; from how-things-work books to encyclopedia sets (ours at home was the New Book of Knowledge) to introductions to accounting and computer programming and histories and how-to's of code making and breaking; from biographies and autobiographies to various "sets" and "trilogies" to poetry and plays; and from religious and scriptural writing to the musings of philosophers), very few times have I turned the final pages on a book and thought to myself,

"This was a great book. I came away changed in some way, and now feel sad that I have to set its pages down. I look forward to picking this up again from my bookshelf and participating in another transformation."

East of Eden, to me, is such a book.

Question #63

Taking personality and skills tests...

63. Are you more satisfied having
* work in progress
* finished product

Thinking about this, I realized that I like the work in progress. I was always relieved and proud when I finished a research paper, but I was happy and excited while I was writing it.

Perhaps this will provide some insight into the many predicaments of life...

Using Biology to Animate

Click to start. It's long, but interesting- especially at minute 14.