The Right Heads Right…

The_Right_Heads_Right
Stop SOPA

Whats the difference between the Great Chinese Firewall and SOPA, let see none...

As agreement on copyright law have never seen to break down neatly along partisan lines in the past, yet it appears today is different.  As here many of the key supporters championing the Stop Online Piracy Act are interestingly enough from the yes political right. Here legislation which is supported by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) is enjoying support from none other than the right-leaning, corporate-funded organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce and Americans for Tax Reform.  Yes the typical big brother folks who you would think would be on the side of big media.  Hey wait a minute, isn’t “big media” a liberal left leaning institution after all?

Yet here is a lesson as a growing number of right-leaning individuals as well as organizations have come out vocally against SOPA. Even as of last week, the Heritage Foundation which is one of the nation’s most influential “conservative” think tanks senior researcher and fellow James Gattuso has published an article warning about the “unintended consequences” of SOPA..

It’s in his manifesto of sorts that Gattuso points out that SOPA would in fact undermine Internet security by delaying the implementation of DNSSEC by pushing Internet users to use offshore DNS servers to circumvent DNS blocks. The article also warned that this new government regulation of “search results” would be “the first step down a classic slippery slope of government interference that has no clear stopping point.”

While Gattuso takes no issue with “stealing” needs to stop [as in online privacy], he argues Congress should deal with the problem “in a way that does not disrupt the growth of technology, does not weaken Internet security, and respects free speech rights.”  As its here he doesn’t think SOPA fits the bill as just think about this way as SOPA will “censor” and yes I used the “C” word your DNS!  Do you know what that means?  Most “Joe” averages do not, however DNS (Domain Name Service) is the unsung hero of the internet which makes the internet “human” usable as without it would be nothing more than a bunch of octets.

It also mean the US Government would be encroaching upon the right to free speech there have been many discussions in the past too regarding DNS and the domain (pardon the pun) of free speech.   As the kicker here is there is nothing as Gattuso points out for users not to point their browsers to off shore DNS services.  So we’ve made a lot of ado yet solved nothing other than pushing more “authority” off American shores which is bad for commerce as yes liberals seem to forget without commerce there won’t be people to “legally” buy their products as they just tossed the baby out the 30th floor window with the bath water.

Yet you know what scares me even more, ok think about it for minute [insert pause here] as yes this is the US’s version of the “Great Chinese Firewall”.  As when you start controlling DNS, you start controlling the “free word” and we are a nation based upon our rights of “free speech”  and edification of DNS is no different than the banning of books because someone seems to think they know better…

Chopped…

Have you ever noticed there are more losers then there are winners?

So I’ve been home for the holidays a bit and the TV has been on  in the background in the evening and I’ve across an interesting show on the “Food Network”. As the later alone is interesting in that there is enough social effluence for a “food” channel in a country which is suffering from obesity however that’s for another day.  So back to “Chopped” the show as for those who aren’t aware of the show, it’s pretty simple as there is a host (Ted) with three judges who gang up on four competing chefs.

Each of these Chef’s are typically “Executive” Chefs which mean they don’t work for the Golden Arch’s if you know what I mean as the challenge is to cook a three course meal (appetizer, main course and dessert) with surprise ingredients.  Yet what struck me is after sitting through one of these in the background is by the time we got to the second (it was a holiday marathon), the question became why?

So your saying to yourself because “if” you win there is a huge (bragging rights and employment upside) and you’re right again [only] “if” you win. However what I noticed is you won’t well let’s put it this way three (3) of the four wont.  So this became an epiphany as well as good business analogy about losing as the show is more about creating “losers” then “winners”.   So let’s start with the basics and I will try to keep the math down to a low roar.

As first off, with four (4) contestants there is a 1:4 chance of winning, while a 3:4 change of losing so if someone came to you with those odds of investing your money would you take them up as its all or nothing.  Well let’s hope not, then second is  the social axiom “there is always someone out there better then you”, so since the show down is 1:2, means the odds of the next person being better then you is 50% therefore the 1:4 chance (which un-weighed statistically) is more like 1:8 (in round numbers) as we now have to “weigh” our chances of success. So the majority of the people will lose.

Alright your sitting back and saying, no kidding Campbell that the idea is people will “lose” and to this I say bingo your starting to get it as in these types of competition we don’t watch for the winner we really watch for the losers!  Now there is this whole thing of the psychology of the underdog we could get into, however don’t have the time right now as the point is why you should always avoid these types of things in life.

As in general the “losers” have further to “falls” then the winners do to climb as can you see a restaurant advertising they have a head chef who was “Chopped”?  Not me baby, that means these folks [on average]  will be stuck in a “B” class existence the rest of their careers (again we are speaking in averages).  Yet you may be saying what about athletes, as they compete and lose yet compete another day.

Well it’s the later which is the first key, as again on average an athlete get multiple chances to compete whereas these chefs do not, so there is a huge change in the distribution of risk as the number of opportunities for success change the weighting, and the second is they are not competing in their field of [end] employment which is the big catch here if you will.  So if you’re a budding chef [or business person], just something to think about…

Zero Sum Fat, If There Is Such A Thing…

There are somethings, then there is a stolen smile...

Before going down this road as you’ve had a day to get over the gasps and groans over how could say such a blasphemist thing after all right? However lets look at what “zero sum” as its Christmas and the world is full of holiday cheer right?  Well Zero-Sum is a simple concept, as no matter whatever you do the answer is zero, pretty simple stuff right?  So if your do some [perceived] good there will be a similar amount of “bad” (assuming there is such a thing as good and bad).  As let’s take a minute to  look at the concepts of good and bad, so let’s play a game if you will.

I have $100 to give to you or your neighbor, so I pick your neighbor and not you, so “good” for them and “bad” for you right?  If we reverse it, then “good” for you and “bad” for them, however change up the game and I give you both $50 instead.  So now it’s both [in equal parts] “good” and “bad” for both of you as you both could have had more and less so your winners and losers.  Believe you get the idea, however another change up, what if your neighbor didn’t know they lost the opportunity for $100 and I gave it to you, would it still be “bad”.  As the saying goes, “one man’s meat is another mans poison”.

However the biggest zero-sum game I know is in fact mortality, as we leave the world with no more then we came into it with.  Now some of you smarty pants our there might get the bright idea that we leave behind “information” however you would be wrong as since law of conservation of energy says matter cannot be created nor destroyed only, so what has existed will exist  as it has existed.

If one was a really good debater, they may say we then leave behind order, however the retort would be order is lost to entropy so check and mate.  However, the greater concept of Zero-Sum is not the argument today its more so the application as there is a loop in our argument as if you know your living in a dream then are you really dreaming?  Here understanding that the game is zero-sum simply means there are new rules as the goal is to optimize the loop to the goal.  For example there is no way to stop global warming, so the next best thing is fit the goal to the loop [zero-sum works in both directions] so we need to figure out how to make the most in moment.

Now many will take this and say its exploitation and that’s so we should just go back to pillaging and robbing right?  Well not so, as if I pick a flower and hand it to my lovely wife [who I love more than the world] and make her smile, the equation says someone lost a flower, yet I’ve stolen a smile and feeling in my heart which is irreplaceable.  So which is worth more…

Back to Fat…

Calories by an other name are Carbohydrates...

So yesterday we where waxing about the topic of fat and that now in  South Africa people are both starving as well as dying of obesity as how can a dichotomy of this nature manifest itself?  Yet to understand this, we need to back up a bit to better understand this as it is one of the main reasons which I started writing this blog in the first place.  As one of the key things I’ve learned is people do not understand there is an “effect” to their “cause”, as they see the world in monochrome as each action is an independent action.

However our friend Sir Isaac Newton was very clear that for every action there would be an “equal and opposite reaction” so in short backing up the second law of thermodynamics which says there isn’t a free lunch in say burn a log, while you’ve changed its ‘state” it’s matter still exists and therefore still is a log.  Yet the dualities of these “actions” are also not independent as many times the “effect” can drive the cause.

Moving back to the physical world for a moment, let’s use the example of the “machine gun” as it has no external power source, yet will keep firing so long as it has bullets.  As its “action” is the firing of the bullet and its “effect” is the recoil and here it uses the “recoil” to fire the next bullet.  In turn it creates a causal cycle which builds in speed until some physical limit kicks in to hinder it.  This in turn is a perfect example of a “Viral Loop” which grows very fast and can end just as quickly as in the gun when the bullets run out its an immediate stop.

So what does all this have to with obesity in South Africa you ask, good question as this is a text book example a cause in effect  scenario playing itself out in society where we can see it.  As unfortunately, social loops are too large to be easily seen and lead “uni-blindness”   meaning we see only one the “cause” side of the equation.

So you want to solve hunger right?  Noble cause to say the least, so how are you going to tackle it is the question as economic (be functional or token denominated) systems are always the limiting factor. So with limited resources you want to supply the most for the least right?  So you buy the highest caloric staple for the dollar you can, correct?  Well what happens then, ok the first when dealing with carbohydrates, it is easy to overrun the calories which the body needs as the basal rate for an average adult is about 11 calories per pound, per day so a 160 pound person at rest would require only 1,760 calories per day. So round up to about 2,000 and  anything over that is going to fat production an yes, all calories are not created equal.

As without going into a lot of nutritional and metabolic mumbo jumbo the human has a hard time with “complex” sugars (another phrase for crabo’s) as its designed to burn simple sugars so  it likes to convert them to fat first then simple sugars so you get the picture.  The piece you might of missed is above I shared that basal caloric needs are based upon body weight and therefore as body weight rises so does the need for more calories so is a negative cycle forming here or what.

Finely (for today’s post) is when high carbohydrate food is “handed out”, less effort needs to be applied [on aggregate] to obtain those calories so the need actually falls yet the availability rises.  Again not a good cycle as we are now “fattening” people even more and all we wanted to do is feed the hungry right?  Well, you have to remember the world like it or not is “zero sum”.  Whoa you say Campbell,  zero sum really!  Well we will pick that up tomorrow…

Who’s In Charge Anyway…

Free Will? Fact or Fiction, Something you will have to decide...

There has been a long standing debate that man is not of free will, which says the universe is predefined in a way which makes us more akin to a roll-a-coaster who is tied to the tracks set to run a given route no matter what the throws of gravity and motion wish.  In turn this logic also says that “man” then is not accountable as if he decides upon an action, it isn’t his decision after all as its all predefined any way and its only his “thinking” it’s his that makes it such.

As its here that neuroscientist  Michael Gazzaniga, at the University of California, Santa Barbara, has put forward  that “we are personally responsible agents and are to be held accountable for our actions, even though we live in a determined universe.”  As the driver of this paradox if you will has come to general interest since the medical imaging of the brain became so common place starting back some 30 years ago now. As work in this area makes apparent the clash between the “mechanical” nature of the mind and the impression that people can will their own thoughts and actions separate of that.

As Gazzaniga points to animal studies to create the argument that the brain is in fact “shaped” by the tasks put before it.  As he points out that as the body is a biochemical system, what happens in the mind is in fact “mechanically” determined by the physical brain.  What becomes scary is Gazzaniga points to cases where the mechanics of the physical brain are “damaged” such as in cases where surgery is performed to separate the hemispheres of the brains and the patients “moral” reasoning is then disrupted as if we where to look at this rationally one could argue.  If ones “consciousness” and contained independently then what happens to the physical structure should not matter.

Ok, this might be a little confusing so let’s analogize for simplicity, if your “consciousness” where wine, your (physical) brain would be the wine “bottle”.  So no matter the shape or form of bottle you used, the “wine” stored in the bottle would be the same “wine” and remain unchanged.  No question this is something to think about as note Gazzaniga above relates this to “moral” questions and not computational ones which could/would more closely linked to physical structures.

Yet  Gazzaniga attempts to offer a resolution to the paradox by locating the origin of personal responsibility outside the brain.  He attempts to build the argument that the consequence of a social contract created with two or more persons occurs outside of the brain. As here he neatly removes the physical basis for good or bad behavior however yet leaves the door open to say.  If this is the case, then isn’t it in the “end” built upon the same “combined” physical structures of those engaged, so the argument is also flawed as we are still back to the roll-a-coaster scenario where it is plying the tracks not knowing it is in fact bound…

An Education By Any Other Name…

A leader in the field of innovative education delivery...

One of the things I’ve been a big fan of and something which gets very little press is the iUniversity  or iU programs on iTunes which puts college course material out in the iTunes store for free download as hey information wants to be free right? Here I’ve taken all kinds of courses, nanotechnology, to rhetorical argument and from top notch schools such as Stanford and MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) .

As it’s the later (MIT) which for a decade now as been putting its teaching materials as well as lectures online using the OpenCourseWare platform which is a great thing.  However what is even better is the university has now announced it will leverage those same materials to provide an online certification program.  The MITx certificate program which it is currently named won’t have the same weight as a full MIT degree (which costs a boat load of money).  Yet will indicate mastery of specific subject areas with the entire system being built on top of an open-source software platform.

The other positive out of this is by using this “common” platform it may also enable other universities to follow in MIT’s footsteps which is a good thing for a nation starved for higher education.  As the system will provide a complete online learning environment for the student including labs and the possibility for interactions with other students.

In addition, once the course work is completed students will have earned the chance to demonstrate their mastery of the topic, through an online test or formalized interactions with MIT staff. The pay piece if you will here is for the resulting certificate, however the word on the street is that they’ll be a whole lot cheaper than an MIT education. Rest assured too that both OpenCourseWare and the MITx teaching materials will still remain free as it will be the certificate which will carry a cost.

Rumor has it that the initial round of tests with the system will take place in the spring of 2012 and once the bugs are worked out, more courses will be rolled out.  Again all of this is good stuff for a nation which is starved for higher education as the cost of entry for these major schools and the information they provided is much needed.  As I can tell you first hand as I’ve gone to crappy schools and I’ve gone to good schools (MIT) and there is a difference, at MIT I got to meet the movers and shakers and hear their ideas first hand, and when I went to crappy schools where I was told, while let’s not go there…

Basic Ontology without the Rubber Gloves…

Being smart isn't always enough, as its achievement that puts lunch on the table...

Welcome back, and as promised we will continue on as to why even as you’re lost, you still are right and how all existing things total up to infinity.  Whoa, that’s a lot isn’t it so we should just jump in and tackle these head on as some of you might be reading this over three 3G while your lost hoping to find a way out of that recursive nagging your significant other is providing you right now.

As let’s go back to Buzz Light Years favorite saying of “Infinity and beyond” as how did I get to 1: infinity any way you ask?  Well its easy, you have “all existing stuff” as a starting point right?  That’s “1” then when you start to break it down where do you stop?  Maybe at “class” as in “car” or maker, color and so on to the point where we are talking about atoms and quarks and so on as in fact just as a number system runs into infinity, so does basically every system (as since they can be represented by a “number system” this would make sense).

Since this is the holiday season, let us say you’re going to Grandma’s house and she has moved and your lazy behind was too busy to help her “move” so you’re not quite sure where she lives, however your craving some of that great poppy seed bread she make so you and your spouse set off on a road trip.  So we can say:

Home —>Grandma’s

Is the task at hand, however as you get 30 min’s into the journey only to find you’ve left your GPS in the other car and your cell phone is dead, you decide you have no clue where you’re at.  However are you wrong? Well not, your simply just not as right as you wanted to be since the proof above is part of an “infinite set”, it also contains:

Home —> Anywhere but Home

In as much as you’ve walked out the door you have achieved a level of rightness in the transaction; however you’re simply not as “right” as you hoped to be to at that given point  in time.  Ah yes, time that nasty dimensional thing Einstein brought to life per say which adds [yet] another measure to things making life just that much more difficult.

See this is where life becomes interesting as probabilistically all things are part of a “set” and our goals are based upon these “sets” and there it becomes a measure of “resolution” which defines our true level of rightness if you will in action.  As if your having brain surgery, and the surgeon shows up then that’s half the battle right?

So Campbell my spouse is POed at me, I still can’t find Grandma’s and now you’re telling me it’s all in the resolution so  what the hell here (on top of it I’m hungry too so I’m a little grumpy). Well the point is, if you understand a “system” you have better chance at being “righter” as over the years I’ve seen to many people draw things in shades of absolutes rather than achievements. Ok, ok I get it. Well lets put it this way to explain better.

For those that are old enough to remember Wile E. Coyote and the Road Runner this one is for you (if not, find a copy and watch just one episode and you will get the idea). As what you will remember (or see if this is your first time watching) is that Wile E. (the coyote) comes up with a good idea to catch his prey the road runner, yet fails.  After, this set back if you will he devise’s yet another [different] way to attempt to corner the bird for lunch rather than altering (note, I avoided the word correcting) his prior effort.  As in short, “Wile’s” system wasn’t “wrong”, It simply wasn’t right enough.

Understanding this is of critical importance as how many times in life is something made up of just one iteration of “something”?  Even in our daily jobs we do the something “just different” each day therefore understanding  the ontological underpinnings of the “system” is critical as the morphological adaption’s (unlike Wile E.’s) is what makes for success…

If I’m so Right, Then Why Do I Feel So Wrong…

The world in fact operates in shades of gray....

Well as after waxing on Dickens’s quote from “Tail of Two Cities”, I had promised to re-wax (yes, can just hear the Karate Kid wise cracks out there; wax On, Wax Off) on the topic of “rightness”, what it means and why along with a bit more. Yesterday we explored the “yin & yang” of Charles words and I have to say “words” themselves are amazing things as they have so much power especially when assembled into a “collective” which  calls out a reflective, yet recursive idea which spins into infinity.

Yet you still have to ask about what got me here, well it is a good question as while in the Netherlands a few days back, a colleague and I headed out from Den Haag for the manufacturing city of Eindhoven for a business meeting.  To get there the colleague fired up his new fangled GPS and we were off, however why do I call this a “new fangled device” as while I have one [GPS], it’s about 4 years old and we all know what that means technologically right?

As my older unit does a good job of getting me from point “A” to “B” which is the right answer as I’m “somewhere” and the goal is to get somewhere “else” and the orange line appears and I follow the nagging voice.  Yet in the end, if I’ve selected all the right “stuff” then at the conclusion of the journey I will be at or, at least near the intended destination.  So in essence the GPS was right, as it got me there however was it really right?  As how many times have you used a GPS on your home turf per-say and noticed it took you way out of the way, or routed you though an unsafe area and so on?  So the question is, while it was “right”, how right in fact was it?

This is where the colleagues GPS struck me as interesting as it provided three options, based on the data it had been given such as traffic (remember it was a new fangled one), stops and road speed.  In short it could present a “righter” answer then my age worn battle axe of a unit could.  So both units would be “right”, however his unit has a chance at being “righter” about the answer which is a basic “proof” that “rightness” is in actuality subjective and not objective.

Whoa you say what does all this mean then?  Well (guys) when you head out and get lost and the wife is nagging at you for not asking directions, because you forgot the GPS in the other car, you can now with a straight face tell her you in fact are still right.  Alright let me explain, as we call upon “Ontology” to save us in this debate as this calls forward the concept of can we categorize things so if we were to take all “existing things” and sort them into categories how many would we have?

So pause the tape here for a minute and get your pencil and paper (no calculators please) out and figure the answer on your own, when done please restart the tape.

Ok, welcome back and what answer did you arrive at?  If it was 1: infinity then your right as the 1 is the group of “all existing things” and the “infinity” is the resolution.  What you say, well you will have to check back tomorrow and I will explain…

Producers and Consumers…

What happens when consumers become producers?

One of the reasons for writing on this blog has been my fascination with the interaction of various “things” with each other.  As all of this is based upon the concept of “System Thinking” where we see various “loops” which interact with each other and the speed of which drive the loops to a point where they (may) eventually become “viral”.  Hence the name “The Viral Loop” where for the sake of discussion I’ve broken things down into three basic “interacting” loops being, “Life” which takes us to “Leadership” and drives the “Economics” which takes us back to yes “Life”.

However the idea today isn’t to wax about the name of this blog, however wanted to talk about the idea of “Producers” and “Consumers”, as what has me thinking about this?  Well I was listening to a podcast where the hosts were driving their audience to be frugal “Producers” which struck me as problematic.  As without “consumers”, why should we have “producers” as there will be no one to “consume”.  As yes, yes I get the idea that everyone who is a consumer must be at some level also be a producer to earn income in order to consume.

Yet this is the reason for waxing in the first paragraph about loops as I want to keep this high level (rather than go into all the internal recursive supporting loops as the end game would be the same anyway) as this will help us understand the basics of what we are dealing with.

As think about it this way, if everyone were to go to college, graduated with a degree and got a white collared job, who would then pick up your trash?  If your trash isn’t collected, what will happen next within the loop?  In short you get the idea as we need all the pieces to make things work, and therefore we need hard lines between [the roles of] producers and consumers to keep the system running.  However what happens when this breaks down?

As in the past we’ve waxed on the topic of the pro-summer movement where people want to “produce” as well as “consume”, however this is an act of dilution.  As here your no longer buying “complete” [product], therefore you are no longer being paid in “complete” terms either as you’ve now traded off “value”.  For example if you were to sew your own clothes, then someone would not be paid to sew them for you and in turn you somewhere down the way would earn less as someone would take from you also.

With this said, what will this mean for us who have set historical ideas of how the world works as the lines between hobby and profession blur?  As it’s here where I wonder where the bottom is or if there is even a bottom to this or is this a paradigm which is set to stay and the effects of erosion upon social effluence are simply part of our new world order as with the “greening” of Greenland which is something we simply will accept…

We’re the Leading (Insert Description Here)…

Whats the difference between #1 and #2? (answer just one number)

What is interesting is everyone works for a “leader” or so it seems as if I received a dollar (or better yet a euro) for every time I’ve heard this, I would be giving Carlos Slim a run for his money shooting for the spot of the wealthiest person in the world.  So why do I write this you ask, well I’m sitting in the KLM lounge at Schiphol airport here in Amsterdam waiting for my flight home and out of the corner of my ear I catch this conversation of two other travelers making small talk and as one introduces himself (as in person) he’s then announces his company affiliation by saying “We’re the leading XXXXX company”.

Alright no big deal right, you (we) hear this all the time as for me in the lounge this was most likely the third occurrence this morning. Also not sure  why it struck me, however it did that we always want to be part of a “leader” and we are happy to distill it down to a denominator where are.  An example is a colleague upon changing jobs shared that his firm was the largest supplier of IT services to “organic farmers”.  To myself it was “wow, he had to really distill this one down, as it wasn’t agriculture, nor farming, however “organic farming”.  Yet they where the leader and he was at least anthropologically speaking part of the top quartile.

The urge to be part of something is interesting in itself as we are social animals seeking others of like and kind.  However we now seek to also be at the top, and how many people can be at the top?  Good question right, as there can only be one “number one”, so now we must start to “classify” to open up more number “one” slots, then when those run out of those we move on to “stratification” as in having “differing levels” of number one.

Ironically, this is where I found the old Avis commercials of interest as they use to say “we’re number two trying hard to be number one”.  As here is another anthropological axiom in that “everyone loves an underdog”, so why do we “brag” or “boast” (depending on the fact or fiction of the reality) being number one if our goal is to be “loved” (a rhetoric phrase to seek acceptance)?  As wouldn’t it make more sense to be more like Avis if we truly want to seek the love?

As on the other side of the coin, isn’t there always a level of animosity toward those folks we perceive to be higher in “classification” and “Stratification”?  Aren’t we always shooting for (i.e. at number one), so why then place ourselves there?  From here on out, for me it’s going to be the Avis model as I’m happy to be number two, just trying a bit harder…

Just Thinking About It…

A brain by any other name would be just a lump of calories...

Well folks this is the last month of yes, 2011 and the end is nearing as the sands of time in the hour glass of December start to run short.  With this we all know what comes next don’t we?  Alright, here is a hint as it all starts with the New Year and what do people typically do at that time?  Yes, they make New Years resolutions as what do they want to change in the New Year.  In essence it is one of the few times where we “reflect forward”, instead of the backwards as in what do we want to be rather then looking in the rear-view mirror at what we were.

The list is a pretty common one and typically topped with losing weight or quitting smoking.  Yet the problem with these as they are more “wishes” then actionable items for us to tackle which means it’s harder to make them happen.  So why is this, as there isn’t a question all of this is good stuff and good for us too?

Well part of the answer is energy as we create rules for ourselves which we have to think about.  So you’re “thinking” what does this have to do with “energy”, well its simple as your brain takes a lot of this.  As  this heat is generated by burning calories, yet this post isn’t about the physiology of the brain (however you can look at some of the back posts for more info).

Yet what I wanted to wax about today is the absolutes of this as how can we use this to our benefit.  As one of the things when we decide upon a resolution we want to make where we do not have to “think” about them.  As when we think about things, it takes energy; our brains want to conserve energy so no matter how great the logic, our brains still may betray us because of this.  So what’s the trick?

Simple, rules should be hard and not soft and before going further need to give the standard disclaimer as many of these affect our health.  So if they do, then please seek advice of a healthcare professional.  Now with this said, where failure typically takes place is flexible rules as in ramping up or down.  As when things are flexible you have to think about it, and if you have to think about “it”, you will burn more energy.  In burning energy, your brain wants to take the easy way so in the end the process breaks down.

The solution is hard rules on the other hand make for easy action as you don’t have to think about it as it is what it is. Therefore the brain burns less energy and bada bing, bada boom you move on rather than waxing about it (giving in to temptation) and failing.  Yea I know sound easier then it is, yet it does works save for one thing; yes you guessed it, food.  As cigarettes, alcohol and the like you can just say no to as you don’t need them (physiologically).  However food is a different story as you can’t live without it, so we always must think about it which makes it hard to form into an absolute.  This is why dieting typically fails as you always have to think about…

That Internet Fad Thing Again…

The magic is in the "domain name" and not the bottle...

Well it seems that after a number  of what appears to have been one-sided hearings, the luxury goods maker Chanel was awarded a  win in a recent court order lodged against hundreds of websites trafficking what appear to be “counterfeit luxury goods”. As a federal judge in Nevada has agreed with Chanel that they may “seize” the domain names listed in the suit and then transfer them all to a US-based registrar (GoDaddy in this case). However where it gets even more fun is that the judge also ordered “all Internet search engines” and “all social media websites” to “de-index” the domain names and  further more they must be remove from any future search results.  Also if the implicit nature of the statement wasn’t enough, he also explicitly named Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Bing, Yahoo, and Google directly.

Concerning counterfeiting, this has been an interesting suit as Chanel has filed a joint suit in Nevada naming nearly 700 domain names which appear to have nothing in common. Also, as Chanel finds more domain  names it feels doing the same, it simply uses the same case and files new requests for yet more seizures which means that none have had a chance to contest the request until after it was approved and the names have been seized.

As all this redirect stuff maybe one thing however, a total ban on search engine indexing was also ordered too.  As it’s here were it gets interesting as how does one comply and even the question beg should they?  As a search engine only represents what it finds to a user request, it does not curate, or authenticate the claims of what they report.  It also good to note that neither Bing nor Google appears to have complied with the court order as of yet and my hope would be they would push back (legally) on the topic.

As what the judge also seems to have missed from his ruling is any consideration of the Internet’s global nature.  Here, the judge failed to show an awareness that the domains which were brought into question may not even be registered in the United States.  Additionally, his ban on search engine and social media indexing appears to extend to the entire world (wow talk about power, at least perceived power).

While it’s understandable for Chanel to want to protect its business interests, there is also the concept of due process which should match the task at hand.  In addition, this also highlights a coming challenge which is here today and that is a global based consumer economy which will bring a whole different set of rules which we just aren’t ready for…