Interesting observations in this New York Times article about the different users and usages of the internet in China versus the US:
"Another distinguishing feature is the youthful face of China’s online community. In the United States, roughly 70 percent of Internet users are over the age of 30; in China, it is the other way around — 70 percent of users here are under 30, according to the investment bank Morgan Stanley.
Because few people in China have credit cards or trust the Internet for financial transactions, e-commerce is emerging slowly. But instant messaging and game-playing are major obsessions, now central to Chinese culture. So is social networking, a natural fit in a country full of young people without siblings. Tencent combines aspects of the social networking site MySpace, the video sharing site YouTube and the online virtual world of Second Life.
“They have what I call the largest virtual park in China,” said Richard Ji, an analyst at Morgan Stanley. “And in China, the No. 1 priority for Internet users is entertainment; in the U.S., it’s information. That’s why Google is dominant in the U.S., but Tencent rules China.”"
Monday, February 05, 2007
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Management is All About Talent Coaching!
From Tom Peters' blog, echoing management principles Marcus Buckingham has written:
"Earlier this month I had a bit of a rant about 'Servant Leadership.' The gist of it was: Military Officers and Business Leaders have the same role ... to ensure that all members of the value-creating community are the best they can be. That's an enabling service worth paying for. Today, as a leader, you serve those who choose to bring their talent to you/your organisation. They decide if you are doing a good job or not. They decide if you are worth your management package. They choose to stay or go. They determine if you/the company will succeed or not. Control ... forget it!
Some of my clients/colleagues over here think I've gone soft. Quite the contrary, actually. I think servant leadership is much harder than command & control/micromanagement/authoritarianism. Why bother taking the harder route? Here's the disquieting logic—if you think I'm wrong, please tell me:
Traditional Command & Control logic is based on the world as it used to be, rational, predictable, and stable. A world where well-defined processes produced predictably good results, and refining processes produced better results. It was a world where there was little scope for discretionary human value added to the execution of process. As a consequence, engaging people was unnecessary in a management culture conceived in the blast furnaces and assembly lines of the 19th Century. Unfortunately, relative to the social and technological changes in the last century, little has changed in management culture.
Future winners are turning the old logic on its head by making the value creators the heroes. (Think sports teams!) The future losers are those companies where doing well is about getting out of a customer value creation role and into management.
I'd propose that our role as managers is to ensure that each member of our value creating (read org successes ensuring) community is contributing to the maximum of their potential. If we are doing anything other than that, we should STOP IT NOW or fire ourselves for dereliction of duty. We are no longer process policemen but talent coaches. It's 100% a trust thing. We're in BIG trouble.
"Earlier this month I had a bit of a rant about 'Servant Leadership.' The gist of it was: Military Officers and Business Leaders have the same role ... to ensure that all members of the value-creating community are the best they can be. That's an enabling service worth paying for. Today, as a leader, you serve those who choose to bring their talent to you/your organisation. They decide if you are doing a good job or not. They decide if you are worth your management package. They choose to stay or go. They determine if you/the company will succeed or not. Control ... forget it!
Some of my clients/colleagues over here think I've gone soft. Quite the contrary, actually. I think servant leadership is much harder than command & control/micromanagement/authoritarianism. Why bother taking the harder route? Here's the disquieting logic—if you think I'm wrong, please tell me:
Traditional Command & Control logic is based on the world as it used to be, rational, predictable, and stable. A world where well-defined processes produced predictably good results, and refining processes produced better results. It was a world where there was little scope for discretionary human value added to the execution of process. As a consequence, engaging people was unnecessary in a management culture conceived in the blast furnaces and assembly lines of the 19th Century. Unfortunately, relative to the social and technological changes in the last century, little has changed in management culture.
Future winners are turning the old logic on its head by making the value creators the heroes. (Think sports teams!) The future losers are those companies where doing well is about getting out of a customer value creation role and into management.
I'd propose that our role as managers is to ensure that each member of our value creating (read org successes ensuring) community is contributing to the maximum of their potential. If we are doing anything other than that, we should STOP IT NOW or fire ourselves for dereliction of duty. We are no longer process policemen but talent coaches. It's 100% a trust thing. We're in BIG trouble.
Thursday, January 04, 2007
8 Basics of Excellence
On the 25th anniversary of his revolutionary book, Tom Peters reminds us of the eight basics of excellence. Though embraced in principle by many, they are still rare to find in practice. This year I want to rededicate myself to building a "people-obsessed" organization.
1. A Bias for Action. Call it 'implementation.' Call it 'execution.' It's the heart of both those key ideas. Too much talk, too little do. Problem-opportunity #1, 1982. Problem-opportunity #1, 2007. And a beast as one grows—and acquires.
2. Close to the Customer. Call it 'loyalty' or 'customer intimacy' or (God help us) 'customer-centric organization.' Though I'd move it down to #3 today (people #2), it's as fresh as ever and honored in the breach—again, particularly as giantism emerges. Come hell and/or high water, get close-as-hell to that customer, listen to that customer, and love up that customer for all you're worth.
3. Autonomy and Entrepreneurship. This was, more or less, our innovation piece. Let 1,000 flowers bloom—and then turn it over to Darwin. No autonomy, no accountability; no autonomy, no insane investment in new stuff.
4. Productivity Through People. Obvious—1982. Obvious—2007. But truly 'people-obsessed companies' ('talent-obsessed' today) are still rare as can be—we keep trotting out GE's people development process for a reason—we can't think of anyone else among the giants.
5. Hands On, Value-Driven. MBWA/Managing By Wandering Around (circa 1982 and HP). MBWA today!! Absent then. Absent now. Run a place by values-first leadership? Then. Now. Rare.
6. Stick to the Knitting. Misunderstood in '82. We bought Richard Rumelt's (UCLA) act—and I still do. He called the winning approach 'related diversification.' It ain't about sticking with a pat hand, however 'excellent' today—it is about hanging in with stuff you understand. Still a good idea—just ask the private equity boys (and girls), circa 2006.
7. Simple Form, Lean Staff. We pleaded for this in 1982, but we were not aggressive enough. And, of course, there were no Internet-run companies and no outsourcing. Still, the basic idea is fresh as a daisy—and rare as apple blossoms in January in Boston. (Whoops.)
8. Simultaneous Loose-Tight Properties. Confusing to some, gospel to a few (Bob Stone—the exec in charge of re-inventing government in the 90s, who accomplished a helluva lot more than most people realize). Idea: Stick with a few key values ... then let her rip! ("Change anything not 'below the waterline'" was the way W.L. Gore founder Bill Gore put it to us—and it's still working for his firm today. (Or I hope it is—I'm depending on GORE-TEX® when I go hiking in New Zealand at the end of this month.)
Of course there are a jillion ways to say any of these—but their simplicity was the trick. I could as easily give a speech covering these exact ideas with these exact words today as 25 years ago. For instance, when I recently learned that Starbucks founder Howard Schultz visits 25 stores per week and that former Goldman Sachs boss Hank Paulson used to call 70 clients right after New Year's just to "check in," I said—"MBWA then for the best, MBWA now for the best." (Hint: I will be giving some speeches this year with the so-called "eight basics" as my exact outline. Sure my increasingly noisy "women's stuff" will be fit into "close to the customer" and "productivity through people," but the basic outline will be familiar.)
1. A Bias for Action. Call it 'implementation.' Call it 'execution.' It's the heart of both those key ideas. Too much talk, too little do. Problem-opportunity #1, 1982. Problem-opportunity #1, 2007. And a beast as one grows—and acquires.
2. Close to the Customer. Call it 'loyalty' or 'customer intimacy' or (God help us) 'customer-centric organization.' Though I'd move it down to #3 today (people #2), it's as fresh as ever and honored in the breach—again, particularly as giantism emerges. Come hell and/or high water, get close-as-hell to that customer, listen to that customer, and love up that customer for all you're worth.
3. Autonomy and Entrepreneurship. This was, more or less, our innovation piece. Let 1,000 flowers bloom—and then turn it over to Darwin. No autonomy, no accountability; no autonomy, no insane investment in new stuff.
4. Productivity Through People. Obvious—1982. Obvious—2007. But truly 'people-obsessed companies' ('talent-obsessed' today) are still rare as can be—we keep trotting out GE's people development process for a reason—we can't think of anyone else among the giants.
5. Hands On, Value-Driven. MBWA/Managing By Wandering Around (circa 1982 and HP). MBWA today!! Absent then. Absent now. Run a place by values-first leadership? Then. Now. Rare.
6. Stick to the Knitting. Misunderstood in '82. We bought Richard Rumelt's (UCLA) act—and I still do. He called the winning approach 'related diversification.' It ain't about sticking with a pat hand, however 'excellent' today—it is about hanging in with stuff you understand. Still a good idea—just ask the private equity boys (and girls), circa 2006.
7. Simple Form, Lean Staff. We pleaded for this in 1982, but we were not aggressive enough. And, of course, there were no Internet-run companies and no outsourcing. Still, the basic idea is fresh as a daisy—and rare as apple blossoms in January in Boston. (Whoops.)
8. Simultaneous Loose-Tight Properties. Confusing to some, gospel to a few (Bob Stone—the exec in charge of re-inventing government in the 90s, who accomplished a helluva lot more than most people realize). Idea: Stick with a few key values ... then let her rip! ("Change anything not 'below the waterline'" was the way W.L. Gore founder Bill Gore put it to us—and it's still working for his firm today. (Or I hope it is—I'm depending on GORE-TEX® when I go hiking in New Zealand at the end of this month.)
Of course there are a jillion ways to say any of these—but their simplicity was the trick. I could as easily give a speech covering these exact ideas with these exact words today as 25 years ago. For instance, when I recently learned that Starbucks founder Howard Schultz visits 25 stores per week and that former Goldman Sachs boss Hank Paulson used to call 70 clients right after New Year's just to "check in," I said—"MBWA then for the best, MBWA now for the best." (Hint: I will be giving some speeches this year with the so-called "eight basics" as my exact outline. Sure my increasingly noisy "women's stuff" will be fit into "close to the customer" and "productivity through people," but the basic outline will be familiar.)
Monday, November 13, 2006
Web 3.0
Here's a NY Times article that's pretty interesting. Not only connecting pages on the web, but studying them and drawing relationships and conclusions about human knowledge.
"From the billions of documents that form the World Wide Web and the links that weave them together, computer scientists and a growing collection of start-up companies are finding new ways to mine human intelligence.
Their goal is to add a layer of meaning on top of the existing Web that would make it less of a catalog and more of a guide — and even provide the foundation for systems that can reason in a human fashion. "
"From the billions of documents that form the World Wide Web and the links that weave them together, computer scientists and a growing collection of start-up companies are finding new ways to mine human intelligence.
Their goal is to add a layer of meaning on top of the existing Web that would make it less of a catalog and more of a guide — and even provide the foundation for systems that can reason in a human fashion. "
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Those Big Emitters!
Uh oh...the Chinese are coming!
"China will surpass the United States in 2009, nearly a decade ahead of previous predictions, as the biggest emitter of the main gas linked to global warming, the International Energy Agency has concluded in a report to be released Tuesday.
China’s rise, fueled heavily by coal, is particularly troubling to climate scientists because as a developing country, China is exempt from the Kyoto Protocol’s requirements for reductions in emissions of global warming gases. Unregulated emissions from China, India and other developing countries are likely to account for most of the global increase in carbon dioxide emissions over the next quarter-century."
"China will surpass the United States in 2009, nearly a decade ahead of previous predictions, as the biggest emitter of the main gas linked to global warming, the International Energy Agency has concluded in a report to be released Tuesday.
China’s rise, fueled heavily by coal, is particularly troubling to climate scientists because as a developing country, China is exempt from the Kyoto Protocol’s requirements for reductions in emissions of global warming gases. Unregulated emissions from China, India and other developing countries are likely to account for most of the global increase in carbon dioxide emissions over the next quarter-century."
Sunday, October 22, 2006
The Average American: 1967 and Today
Here are stats showing the material prosperity of Americans over the past 40 years. Yet they don't feel as well off as their parents. Why? One reason is we tend to compare ourselves with those who have more, not with those who have less, and those who have more nowadays have a lot more.
"Mr. and Mrs. Median's $46,326 in annual income is 32% more than their mid-'60s counterparts, even when adjusted for inflation, and 13% more than those at the median in the economic boom year of 1985. And thanks to ballooning real estate values, average household net worth has increased even faster. The typical American household has a net worth of $465,970, up 83% from 1965, 60% from 1985 and 35% from 1995.
Throw in the low inflation of the past 20 years, a deregulated airline industry that's made travel much cheaper, plus technological progress that's provided the middle class with not only better cars and televisions, but every gadget from DVD players to iPods, all at lower and lower prices, and it's obvious that Mr. and Mrs. Median are living the life of Riley compared to their parents and grandparents. "
"Mr. and Mrs. Median's $46,326 in annual income is 32% more than their mid-'60s counterparts, even when adjusted for inflation, and 13% more than those at the median in the economic boom year of 1985. And thanks to ballooning real estate values, average household net worth has increased even faster. The typical American household has a net worth of $465,970, up 83% from 1965, 60% from 1985 and 35% from 1995.
Throw in the low inflation of the past 20 years, a deregulated airline industry that's made travel much cheaper, plus technological progress that's provided the middle class with not only better cars and televisions, but every gadget from DVD players to iPods, all at lower and lower prices, and it's obvious that Mr. and Mrs. Median are living the life of Riley compared to their parents and grandparents. "
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
300 mil and counting
The USA has just passed 300,000,000 people.
Check out the US population clock:
http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html
Check out the US population clock:
http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Pardon the Dust: Beijing Puts Its Games Face On
"For China, the world's most populous nation, it should be a giant coming-out party, as the 1964 Summer Olympics was for Japan and the 1988 Summer Games were for South Korea. For Beijing, the countdown to Aug. 8, 2008, has increased the already frenetic pace of transformation in this city of 15.3 million people and seemingly as many construction sites."
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
In China, Churches Challenge the Rules
I think we will see more and more individuals and groups like these churches who will challenge the Chinese government on legal grounds, following regulations while agitating for more rights.
"a growing number of congregations that began life as house churches -- unauthorized places of worship set up in private, often dilapidated homes -- have recently registered with the government, while continuing to spurn the rules of the official Protestant church in China. Like so many institutions in China, these churches now hover in a sort of legal netherworld."
"a growing number of congregations that began life as house churches -- unauthorized places of worship set up in private, often dilapidated homes -- have recently registered with the government, while continuing to spurn the rules of the official Protestant church in China. Like so many institutions in China, these churches now hover in a sort of legal netherworld."
Thursday, September 28, 2006
China's New Legal Eagles
China's New Legal Eagles - Christianity Today Magazine: "'We pray that a Chinese Martin Luther King will arise from the church in China,' say Christian leaders of the new Human Rights Protection Movement (HRPM)."
Friday, September 15, 2006
What's the Matter with Liberals?
This article points out the bias of liberals.
They don't like the marketplace decisions people make when they have economic freedom, so liberals want to force everyone to make the right decisions with their money. On the other hand, which he doesn't mention, they hate constraints on moral issues. They don't want anyone saying what is right and wrong for others regarding morality.
Conservatives, on the other hand, don't like people making immoral decisions. But they hate anyone telling them what to do with their money.
In either case, it comes down to control, doesn't it? We want to control others' behavior to come in line with our values, but we resist others making us do what they want.
Christians shouldn't fall into either of these camps. Our leader taught us the values we follow:
From Will:
"Their campaign [against Wal-Mart] is liberalism as condescension. It is a philosophic repugnance toward markets.... Liberals, aghast, see the choices Americans make with their dollars and their ballots, and announce -- yes, announce -- that Americans are sorely in need of more supervision by ... liberals.
Before they went on their bender of indignation about Wal-Mart (customers per week: 127 million), liberals had drummed McDonald's (customers per week: 175 million) out of civilized society because it is making us fat, or something. So, what next? Which preferences of ordinary Americans will liberals, in their role as national scolds, next disapprove? Baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and Chevrolet?
No. The current issue of The American Prospect, an impeccably progressive magazine, carries a full-page advertisement denouncing something responsible for ``lies, deception, immorality, corruption, and widespread labor, human rights and environmental abuses'' and of having brought ``great hardship and despair to people and communities throughout the world.''
What is this focus of evil in the modern world? North Korea? The Bush administration? Fox News Channel? No, it is Coca-Cola (number of servings to Americans of the company's products each week: 2.5 billion).
When liberals' presidential nominees consistently fail to carry Kansas, liberals do not rush to read a book titled ``What's the Matter With Liberals' Nominees?'' No, the book they turned into a best-seller is titled ``What's the Matter With Kansas?'' Notice a pattern here?"
They don't like the marketplace decisions people make when they have economic freedom, so liberals want to force everyone to make the right decisions with their money. On the other hand, which he doesn't mention, they hate constraints on moral issues. They don't want anyone saying what is right and wrong for others regarding morality.
Conservatives, on the other hand, don't like people making immoral decisions. But they hate anyone telling them what to do with their money.
In either case, it comes down to control, doesn't it? We want to control others' behavior to come in line with our values, but we resist others making us do what they want.
Christians shouldn't fall into either of these camps. Our leader taught us the values we follow:
"You know that in this world kings are tyrants, and officials lord it over people beneath them. But among you it should be quite different. Whoever wants to be a leader among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first should be the slave of all. For even I, the Son of Man, came here not to be served but to serve others, and to give my life as a ransom for many."
From Will:
"Their campaign [against Wal-Mart] is liberalism as condescension. It is a philosophic repugnance toward markets.... Liberals, aghast, see the choices Americans make with their dollars and their ballots, and announce -- yes, announce -- that Americans are sorely in need of more supervision by ... liberals.
Before they went on their bender of indignation about Wal-Mart (customers per week: 127 million), liberals had drummed McDonald's (customers per week: 175 million) out of civilized society because it is making us fat, or something. So, what next? Which preferences of ordinary Americans will liberals, in their role as national scolds, next disapprove? Baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and Chevrolet?
No. The current issue of The American Prospect, an impeccably progressive magazine, carries a full-page advertisement denouncing something responsible for ``lies, deception, immorality, corruption, and widespread labor, human rights and environmental abuses'' and of having brought ``great hardship and despair to people and communities throughout the world.''
What is this focus of evil in the modern world? North Korea? The Bush administration? Fox News Channel? No, it is Coca-Cola (number of servings to Americans of the company's products each week: 2.5 billion).
When liberals' presidential nominees consistently fail to carry Kansas, liberals do not rush to read a book titled ``What's the Matter With Liberals' Nominees?'' No, the book they turned into a best-seller is titled ``What's the Matter With Kansas?'' Notice a pattern here?"
Sunday, September 10, 2006
Building a Religion That Spreads
From Seth Godin's blog on Sept 6:
"We can learn an important lesson about ideaviruses from religions, because they are in many ways the original (and longest-lasting) examples of the genre.
If you want to build a religion that spreads, here are some things to build into it:
* Bias for evangelism
* Sharp distinction between insiders and outsiders
* Presumption that insiders are 'right' or 'blessed' or 'advantaged'
* Proscription against intermarriage without conversion
* Forbid one gender to work outside the home
* Central hierarchy that maintains the faith and settles disputes
* Offer significant (very) long-term benefits to believers
Very few organizations have the ability to deliver on all of these opportunities, but in the secular world, many brands do most of them. This works for Harley-Davidson (and certainly the Hells Angels). It works for the latest teenage trends. It works for some politicians. It even works for some computer operating systems and languages."
"We can learn an important lesson about ideaviruses from religions, because they are in many ways the original (and longest-lasting) examples of the genre.
If you want to build a religion that spreads, here are some things to build into it:
* Bias for evangelism
* Sharp distinction between insiders and outsiders
* Presumption that insiders are 'right' or 'blessed' or 'advantaged'
* Proscription against intermarriage without conversion
* Forbid one gender to work outside the home
* Central hierarchy that maintains the faith and settles disputes
* Offer significant (very) long-term benefits to believers
Very few organizations have the ability to deliver on all of these opportunities, but in the secular world, many brands do most of them. This works for Harley-Davidson (and certainly the Hells Angels). It works for the latest teenage trends. It works for some politicians. It even works for some computer operating systems and languages."
Friday, September 08, 2006
How Much Are Your Beliefs Worth?
Is there anything you believe in that you are willing to die for?
Most Westerners see the forced conversion of the Fox journalists in the Middle East as despicable because it violates human rights we believe in - individual freedom, including freedom of choice.
However, Mark Steyn comments below that most Easterners are not looking at the violation of the individual. They see the conversion as a sign of the moral bankruptcy of the West, that individuals don't have anything they believe in strongly enough they are willing to die for. Are they correct?
"...for the Fox journalists and the Western media who reported their release, what's the big deal? Wear robes, change your name to Khaled, go on camera and drop Allah's name hither and yon: If that's your ticket out, seize it. Everyone'll know it's just a sham.
But that's not how the al-Jazeera audience sees it. If you're a Muslim, the video is anything but meaningless. Not even the dumbest jihadist believes these infidels are suddenly true believers. Rather, it confirms the central truth Osama and the mullahs have been peddling -- that the West is weak, that there's nothing -- no core, no bedrock -- nothing it's not willing to trade."
Most Westerners see the forced conversion of the Fox journalists in the Middle East as despicable because it violates human rights we believe in - individual freedom, including freedom of choice.
However, Mark Steyn comments below that most Easterners are not looking at the violation of the individual. They see the conversion as a sign of the moral bankruptcy of the West, that individuals don't have anything they believe in strongly enough they are willing to die for. Are they correct?
"...for the Fox journalists and the Western media who reported their release, what's the big deal? Wear robes, change your name to Khaled, go on camera and drop Allah's name hither and yon: If that's your ticket out, seize it. Everyone'll know it's just a sham.
But that's not how the al-Jazeera audience sees it. If you're a Muslim, the video is anything but meaningless. Not even the dumbest jihadist believes these infidels are suddenly true believers. Rather, it confirms the central truth Osama and the mullahs have been peddling -- that the West is weak, that there's nothing -- no core, no bedrock -- nothing it's not willing to trade."
Thursday, September 07, 2006
Banned Chinese director to defy orders
Listen to the defiance in this statement. He is appealing to his personal rights, which will become a stronger and stronger motivator in modern China.
Is it artists that will lead the way in pushing for more individual freedom? They will probably give voice to it, but I think it is swelling up in the hearts and minds and stomachs of all this generation of China's pampered only children.
By the way, this also seems like a good way to guarantee his movie is a hit in the DVD shops around China! It seems like a little controversy helps in every culture, and maybe especially in one that is strongly controlled.
"'I won't stop making films. I will definitely continue to make films,' he told The Associated Press by phone.
'The ban is unreasonable. This is my personal right. As the film regulator for a region, you can ban my film from being shown in that area, but you don't have the right to stop a certain director from working. That is ridiculous,' Lou said."
Is it artists that will lead the way in pushing for more individual freedom? They will probably give voice to it, but I think it is swelling up in the hearts and minds and stomachs of all this generation of China's pampered only children.
By the way, this also seems like a good way to guarantee his movie is a hit in the DVD shops around China! It seems like a little controversy helps in every culture, and maybe especially in one that is strongly controlled.
"'I won't stop making films. I will definitely continue to make films,' he told The Associated Press by phone.
'The ban is unreasonable. This is my personal right. As the film regulator for a region, you can ban my film from being shown in that area, but you don't have the right to stop a certain director from working. That is ridiculous,' Lou said."
Sunday, September 03, 2006
Americans on Religion and Politics
Americans are strongly religious, and deeply engaged in political discussion. Most of the time, they don't know how to reconcile these two.
"Large majorities of Republicans (87%), independents (65%) and Democrats (60%) denounced efforts by liberals to minimize religious influence in the public square, including 70% of conservative and moderate Democrats. Just 38% of liberal Democrats expressed this view.
The survey also found that two in three respondents (67%) characterize the United States as a Christian country. A decade ago, 60% so described the nation.
Most of those surveyed (78%) also view the Bible as the word of God. But only 35% believe it should be taken literally."
"Large majorities of Republicans (87%), independents (65%) and Democrats (60%) denounced efforts by liberals to minimize religious influence in the public square, including 70% of conservative and moderate Democrats. Just 38% of liberal Democrats expressed this view.
The survey also found that two in three respondents (67%) characterize the United States as a Christian country. A decade ago, 60% so described the nation.
Most of those surveyed (78%) also view the Bible as the word of God. But only 35% believe it should be taken literally."
Monday, August 28, 2006
Map Your Life
This looks like a lotta fun....I love maps, and I love nostalgia, so making a personalized map of my favorite places and memories sounds like something I could spend hours on!
"Built on conventional mapping data from services such as Google Maps, these sites let you add digital pushpins that link to personal descriptions of the locations....any visitor can peruse the contributions of others on these sites....
"Want to follow the virtual footsteps of Jack Bauer, protagonist of the TV show 24? Users can also post comments on other users' maps."
"Built on conventional mapping data from services such as Google Maps, these sites let you add digital pushpins that link to personal descriptions of the locations....any visitor can peruse the contributions of others on these sites....
"Want to follow the virtual footsteps of Jack Bauer, protagonist of the TV show 24? Users can also post comments on other users' maps."
Thursday, August 10, 2006
Reuters Photo Fraud
Interesting to pull back the curtain and find out how the news media stages its coverage.
This article has fascinating details on several fraudulent news reports from Lebanon.
"It's important to understand that there is not just a single fraudulent Reuters photograph, nor even only one kind of fraudulent photograph. There are in fact dozens of photographs whose authenticity has been questioned, and they fall into four distinct categories. "
This article has fascinating details on several fraudulent news reports from Lebanon.
"It's important to understand that there is not just a single fraudulent Reuters photograph, nor even only one kind of fraudulent photograph. There are in fact dozens of photographs whose authenticity has been questioned, and they fall into four distinct categories. "
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
More People With More Money
"According to Capgemini consulting there were 2.9 million millionaires in America and 8.7 million millionaires worldwide in 2005"
This data refers to financial assets, not counting real estate. If real estate were included, that would add another 5 million to the ranks of American millionaires.
That's a lot of people with a lot of money!
My family and I live very comfortable lives, and consider ourselves very fortunate. We are relatively wealthy compared to the majority of people in the world.
But I am constantly amazed as I travel and shop at how many people have a lot of money to spend.
For example, hotels. We took a vacation in California this June, and stayed at a few hotels. We chose 3 star hotels and paid up to US$190 per night for very modest rooms. To me, that's a lot of money! But we found many hotels fully booked and scores of hotels MUCH nicer than any of the places we stayed in.
Who's staying in these places? I guess those millionaires.
Same goes for restaurants. It costs a lot of money to eat out in nice places, and there are a lot of them. Then there are cars and boats. And wristwatches and all kinds of luxury things for sale.
Apparently, money is really making the world go 'round. Amazing how rich our world is.
These stats mean that 1 of every 100 Americans are millionaires. 1 in 40 if you count real estate.
One-third of the world's millionaires live in the US. Worldwide, the ration is 1 millionaire for every 700 people.
This data refers to financial assets, not counting real estate. If real estate were included, that would add another 5 million to the ranks of American millionaires.
That's a lot of people with a lot of money!
My family and I live very comfortable lives, and consider ourselves very fortunate. We are relatively wealthy compared to the majority of people in the world.
But I am constantly amazed as I travel and shop at how many people have a lot of money to spend.
For example, hotels. We took a vacation in California this June, and stayed at a few hotels. We chose 3 star hotels and paid up to US$190 per night for very modest rooms. To me, that's a lot of money! But we found many hotels fully booked and scores of hotels MUCH nicer than any of the places we stayed in.
Who's staying in these places? I guess those millionaires.
Same goes for restaurants. It costs a lot of money to eat out in nice places, and there are a lot of them. Then there are cars and boats. And wristwatches and all kinds of luxury things for sale.
Apparently, money is really making the world go 'round. Amazing how rich our world is.
These stats mean that 1 of every 100 Americans are millionaires. 1 in 40 if you count real estate.
One-third of the world's millionaires live in the US. Worldwide, the ration is 1 millionaire for every 700 people.
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
China Church Demolitiion Leads to Clash
There will be more and more clashes like the one reported in this article, as normal Chinese citizens raise their expectations of how they should be treated by their government.
And there will be more reporting of incidents like this, as the power of technology makes information more available to people.
The Chinese government will have to change as a result of pressure from both their own citizens and the international community.
China church demolition leads to clash - Yahoo! News: "Police clashed with 3,000 Christians protesting the forced demolition of a partially built church in eastern China, leaving four people with serious injuries, a human rights group said Monday."
And there will be more reporting of incidents like this, as the power of technology makes information more available to people.
The Chinese government will have to change as a result of pressure from both their own citizens and the international community.
China church demolition leads to clash - Yahoo! News: "Police clashed with 3,000 Christians protesting the forced demolition of a partially built church in eastern China, leaving four people with serious injuries, a human rights group said Monday."
Monday, June 05, 2006
How Long Will America Lead the World?
Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek regularly writes insightful commentary. This brilliant article reviews tons of relevant statistics and opinions of leaders and comes to the conclusion that what America is best at is adapting, and if it remains scared about competition and flexible in its response, it will remain the most prosperous society on earth.
"History has arrived in the form of 'Three Billion New Capitalists,' as Clyde Prestowitz's recent book puts it, people from countries like China, India and the former Soviet Union, which all once scorned the global market economy but are now enthusiastic and increasingly sophisticated participants in it. They are poorer, hungrier and in some cases well trained, and will inevitably compete with Americans and America for a slice of the pie. A Goldman Sachs study concludes that by 2045, China will be the largest economy in the world, replacing the United States.
It is not just writers like Prestowitz who are sounding alarms. Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of GE, reflects on the growing competence and cost advantage of countries like China and even Mexico and says, 'It's unclear how many manufacturers will choose to keep their businesses in the United States.' Intel's Andy Grove is more blunt. 'America ... [is going] down the tubes,' he says, 'and the worst part is nobody knows it. They're all in denial, patting themselves on the back, as the Titanic heads for the iceberg full speed ahead.'
....
The national academies' report points out that China and India combined graduate 950,000 engineers every year, compared with 70,000 in America; that for the cost of one chemist or engineer in the U.S. a company could hire five chemists in China or 11 engineers in India; that of the 120 $1 billion-plus chemical plants being built around the world one is in the United States and 50 are in China.
There are some who see the decline of science and technology as part of a larger cultural decay. A country that once adhered to a Puritan ethic of delayed gratification has become one that revels in instant pleasures. We're losing interest in the basics—math, manufacturing, hard work, savings—and becoming a postindustrial society that specializes in consumption and leisure. "More people will graduate in the United States in 2006 with sports-exercise degrees than electrical-engineering degrees," says Immelt. "So, if we want to be the massage capital of the world, we're well on our way."
There is a puzzle in all this, however, which is that these trends and features have been around for a while, and they do not seem to have had an impact—so far at least—on the bottom line, which is GDP growth. Over the past 20 years, America's growth rate has averaged just over 3 percent, a full percentage point higher than that of Germany and France. (Japan averaged 2.3 percent over the same period.) Productivity growth, the elixir of modern economics, has been over 2.5 percent for a decade now, again a full percentage point higher than the European average. In 1980, the United States made up 22 percent of world output; today that has risen to 29 percent. The U.S. is currently ranked the second most competitive economy in the world (by the World Economic Forum), and is first in technology and innovation, first in technological readiness, first in company spending for research and technology and first in the quality of its research institutions. China does not come within 30 countries of the U.S. on any of these points, and India breaks the top 10 on only one count: the availability of scientists and engineers. In virtually every sector that advanced industrial countries participate in, U.S. firms lead the world in productivity and profits."
The situation with regard to higher education is even more dramatic. A new report, "The Future of European Universities," from the London-based Center for European Reform, points out that of the world's 20 top universities, 18 are American. The U.S. invests 2.6 percent of its GDP on higher education, compared with 1.2 percent in Europe and 1.1 percent in Japan. The situation in the sciences is particularly striking. A list of where the world's 1,000 best computer scientists were educated shows that the top 10 schools were all American. Our spending on R&D remains higher than Europe's, and our collaborations between business and educational institutions are unmatched anywhere in the world. America remains by far the most attractive destination for students, taking 30 percent of the total number of foreign students globally. These advantages will not be erased easily because the structure of European and Japanese universities—mostly state-run bureaucracies—is unlikely to change. And while China and India are creating new institutions, it is not that easy to create a world-class university out of whole cloth in a few decades.
The American economy is also particularly good at taking technology and turning it into a product that people will buy. An unusual combination of an entrepreneurial culture, a permissive legal system and flexible capital markets all contribute to a business culture that rewards risk. This means that technology is quickly converted into some profitable application.
....
And then there are the demographics. The United States is the only industrialized country that will not experience a work-force or population loss in the coming decades, thanks to immigration. Germany and Japan are expected to see their populations drop by 5 and 12 percent, respectively, between now and 2050. China will also face a demographic crunch. By 2040, it will have a larger percentage of elderly people than the United States. The one-child policy has led to something that China's demographers call the "4-2-1 problem"— four grandparents and two parents will have to be supported by one worker.
"History has arrived in the form of 'Three Billion New Capitalists,' as Clyde Prestowitz's recent book puts it, people from countries like China, India and the former Soviet Union, which all once scorned the global market economy but are now enthusiastic and increasingly sophisticated participants in it. They are poorer, hungrier and in some cases well trained, and will inevitably compete with Americans and America for a slice of the pie. A Goldman Sachs study concludes that by 2045, China will be the largest economy in the world, replacing the United States.
It is not just writers like Prestowitz who are sounding alarms. Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of GE, reflects on the growing competence and cost advantage of countries like China and even Mexico and says, 'It's unclear how many manufacturers will choose to keep their businesses in the United States.' Intel's Andy Grove is more blunt. 'America ... [is going] down the tubes,' he says, 'and the worst part is nobody knows it. They're all in denial, patting themselves on the back, as the Titanic heads for the iceberg full speed ahead.'
....
The national academies' report points out that China and India combined graduate 950,000 engineers every year, compared with 70,000 in America; that for the cost of one chemist or engineer in the U.S. a company could hire five chemists in China or 11 engineers in India; that of the 120 $1 billion-plus chemical plants being built around the world one is in the United States and 50 are in China.
There are some who see the decline of science and technology as part of a larger cultural decay. A country that once adhered to a Puritan ethic of delayed gratification has become one that revels in instant pleasures. We're losing interest in the basics—math, manufacturing, hard work, savings—and becoming a postindustrial society that specializes in consumption and leisure. "More people will graduate in the United States in 2006 with sports-exercise degrees than electrical-engineering degrees," says Immelt. "So, if we want to be the massage capital of the world, we're well on our way."
There is a puzzle in all this, however, which is that these trends and features have been around for a while, and they do not seem to have had an impact—so far at least—on the bottom line, which is GDP growth. Over the past 20 years, America's growth rate has averaged just over 3 percent, a full percentage point higher than that of Germany and France. (Japan averaged 2.3 percent over the same period.) Productivity growth, the elixir of modern economics, has been over 2.5 percent for a decade now, again a full percentage point higher than the European average. In 1980, the United States made up 22 percent of world output; today that has risen to 29 percent. The U.S. is currently ranked the second most competitive economy in the world (by the World Economic Forum), and is first in technology and innovation, first in technological readiness, first in company spending for research and technology and first in the quality of its research institutions. China does not come within 30 countries of the U.S. on any of these points, and India breaks the top 10 on only one count: the availability of scientists and engineers. In virtually every sector that advanced industrial countries participate in, U.S. firms lead the world in productivity and profits."
The situation with regard to higher education is even more dramatic. A new report, "The Future of European Universities," from the London-based Center for European Reform, points out that of the world's 20 top universities, 18 are American. The U.S. invests 2.6 percent of its GDP on higher education, compared with 1.2 percent in Europe and 1.1 percent in Japan. The situation in the sciences is particularly striking. A list of where the world's 1,000 best computer scientists were educated shows that the top 10 schools were all American. Our spending on R&D remains higher than Europe's, and our collaborations between business and educational institutions are unmatched anywhere in the world. America remains by far the most attractive destination for students, taking 30 percent of the total number of foreign students globally. These advantages will not be erased easily because the structure of European and Japanese universities—mostly state-run bureaucracies—is unlikely to change. And while China and India are creating new institutions, it is not that easy to create a world-class university out of whole cloth in a few decades.
The American economy is also particularly good at taking technology and turning it into a product that people will buy. An unusual combination of an entrepreneurial culture, a permissive legal system and flexible capital markets all contribute to a business culture that rewards risk. This means that technology is quickly converted into some profitable application.
....
And then there are the demographics. The United States is the only industrialized country that will not experience a work-force or population loss in the coming decades, thanks to immigration. Germany and Japan are expected to see their populations drop by 5 and 12 percent, respectively, between now and 2050. China will also face a demographic crunch. By 2040, it will have a larger percentage of elderly people than the United States. The one-child policy has led to something that China's demographers call the "4-2-1 problem"— four grandparents and two parents will have to be supported by one worker.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)