Hate Speech

Much has been made of hate speech lately, about how one side incites its followers to commit violent acts. Here is a nice compilation of what the left wing media does not choose to mention in this conversation.

"The progressive 'climate of hate:' An illustrated primer, 2000-2010" by Michelle Malkin
http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10/the-progressive-climate-of-hate-an-illustrated-primer-2000-2010/

I have only looked at a fraction of the material in this list and it is appalling. Have a look for yourself and see what you think.

Google Voice Search and Voice Actions for your phone

Do you Google Voice Search (not to be confused with Google Voice) yet? Maria Sharapova does. That's good enough for me! :)

In all seriousness, it's a great feature if you have an Android phone. It's also available on other phones through the Google Mobile App (I used to use it when I had a Blackberry, for example). Here is a video showing how to use Voice Search. Actually, on an Android phone they call it Voice Actions, because it is integrated into the phone such that it opens up the appropriate app depending on what you ask for (dialer if you say "call ...", GMail if you say "send email ...", Maps if you say "directions ...", and so forth).

In fact, one of my new year's resolutions was to use Voice Actions more. The voice recognition has truly gotten a lot better since the first time I used Voice Search over two years ago on my Blackberry.

It also makes for a fun video. Check this out on YouTube (I should add, check it out using Chrome while reading Blogger as long as I'm shilling for my employer today):
"Maria Sharapova by Dan and Jonny"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiIm-_Kq__M&feature=youtube_gdata_player

What's that? You thought I'd show a picture of Maria Sharapova rather than pictures of Voice Search? Yeah, you're right. I guess I should.

New Zodiac pickup lines

As some of you may be aware, some people believe that the Zodiac dates have shifted and a thirteenth sign should be added.

Naturally, this means that some pickup lines need to be updated. From the Huffington Post:
"Zodiac Pick-Up Lines: The Funniest Tweets!" by Katla McGlynn
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/14/zodiac-pick-up-lines-twitter_n_809267.html#s224346&title=Judes_Dickey

For you Scorpio women out there:
"With the new zodiac system it turns out I'm no longer a psychotic Scorpio bitch! Wanna go on a date?"

Some other favorites:
"we should probably date now that I have YOUR astrological sign tattooed on my ass."

"Are you a Pisces? I used to be a Pisces!"

"I beat Cancer. (Now I'm apparently a Gemini.)"

Finally, a nice play on the recent shift in dates:
"so baby, what's your signs?"

Facebook: Back to the Future

Is Facebook the next big thing, or is it just the latest in a series of fads that we'll soon forget? I've discussed this question before (Social Networking - Required Reading, December 10, 2010). Now John Dvorak weighs in. Suffice to say, he's not impressed with Facebook. From PC Magazine:
"Why I Don't Use Facebook" by John C. Dvorak
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2375715,00.asp

Summary: "Facebook is basically AOL with a different layout and all the same retro problems."

"Facebook is actually the logical end-point of what AOL should have become. AOL had some web initiatives, such as Geocities or Hometown, which could have easily morphed into Facebook, but it didn't. It could have made the transition rather easily. I can't find anyone who argues with this premise."

"Facebook is retro because, like AOL, it's retro by its nature. It's a closed system. Some people like a closed comfy system and others don't. I, for one, don't. If I want a personal webpage with all sorts of information about myself, I'll go to Wordpress.com and make one. By doing this, I don't turn over any data, control, or information to an onerous third party to sell, use, or exploit. I can close down the site when I want. I can say what I want. I can pretty much do whatever."

"Facebook is a simple system for the masses that do not really care about technology and do not want to learn anything new except something easy like Facebook."

"There is no reason for anyone with any chops online to be remotely involved with Facebook, except to peruse it for lost relatives. So, next time you log on, remember it's really AOL with a different layout.

"Welcome to the past."


This post, in the comments section, by David, sums up Dvorak's article pretty well, I think.

David:
"Darren, what you don't get is the title of the article: John is explaining why *he* doesn't use Facebook, not why no one should use. What he points out is that by subscribing to Facebook you are trading off your freedom to maneuver as you want for a standard, simple, interface to your online presence.

"If you are OK with that, as most people who just want to 'connect with old friends' are, then you can just go and create a profile. If, on the other hand, you don't want to a) provide a third party with a lot of private data b) depend on that third party to keep your internet presence, setting up a custom webpage is just a matter of hours."

For all you nerds out there.

This one is hilarious!

From Geeks are Sexy:
"Nerd Friends [Cartoon]"
http://www.geeksaresexy.net/2011/01/13/nerd-friends-cartoon/

Netflix corporate culture

Netflix is really doing a great job at the moment, finding a niche and transitioning from physical home delivery of movies to becoming one of the leaders in online content delivery. They do a great job by focusing on one thing and doing it extremely well. They also appear to have a fascinating corporate culture, worth taking a look at.

Ask yourself as you read this if this is a good culture or is it a culture that is just a bit too ruthless for long term success. Should a business be run like a sports team, where you are discarded once you're no longer useful? I don't know the answer.

From Netflix:
"Reference Guide on our Freedom & Responsibility Culture"
http://www.slideshare.net/reed2001/culture-1798664

There is so much great content in this presentation that I hardly know where to start. They start out with a bang, by focusing on value statements. As they point out, Enron had a nice value statement, too. A lot of good it did them. According to Netflix, however, "The real company values, as opposed to the nice-sounding values, are shown by who gets rewarded, promoted, or let go."

After that great start the presentation only gets better. If I quoted all the good stuff in this presentation I'd end up quoting the whole thing. I thought it was that good.

Here's another shocker: "But, unlike many companies, we practice 'adequate performance gets a generous severance package.'" That's right, adequate performers are let go.

Apparently Netflix also allows you to take as many vacation days as you want, as long as you get your work done. But is this a good thing? I know I always have more work than time, so would this mean that I don't get to ever take a vacation?


Here is a counterpoint, from Business Insider:
"The Culture Of Fear Is So Ingrained In Netflix" by Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry
http://www.businessinsider.com/netflix-culture-of-fear-2010-12

Here are some quotes:

"'A total fear of failure permeates the ranks.' Basically, you get one mistake, and after that you're fired."

"There are no processes for doing stuff and everybody wings it. And because firings happen so often, people basically spend their days covering their asses. And because there are no processes, employees aren't evaluated objectively, and people are fired and rewarded through politics."

Maybe money really can buy happiness

Can money buy happiness? Maybe it can! Consider these articles from The Economist:

"Where money seems to talk"
http://www.economist.com/world/international/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=9475891

"The rich are different from you and me—and they say they are happier."

The old theory was: "Rich countries might be happier than poor ones, but beyond a threshold, the connection weakens, and more cash would not buy more happiness—so the theory goes."

"The new polls cast some doubt on that school of thought. They add weight to the contention that growth and income play a big part in boosting people's satisfaction with life and their attitude to the future."

"As Angus Deaton of Princeton University puts it, a map of the results looks like an income plot of the world ..."

"But in general, declared levels of happiness are correlated with wealth. The pattern also seems to hold true within countries, as well as between them. Rich Americans are happier than poor ones; rich Brazilians happier than poorer ones."


"Comparing countries: The rich, the poor and Bulgaria"
http://www.economist.com/node/17722557?story_id=17722557

Why is this article interesting? It is interesting because it questions whether the relative wealth or absolute wealth is more important.

"Mr Easterlin suggested that well-being depended not on absolute, but on relative, income: people feel miserable not because they are poor, but because they are at the bottom of the particular pile in which they find themselves.

"There are now data on the effect of income on well-being almost everywhere in the world. In some countries (South Africa and Russia, for instance) the correlation is closer than in others (like Britain and Japan) but it is visible everywhere.

"The variation in life satisfaction between countries is huge (see chart). Countries at the top of the league (all of them developed) score up to eight out of ten; countries at the bottom (mostly African, but with Haiti and Iraq putting in a sad, but not surprising, appearance) score as low as three."

What does it mean? It means that absolute wealth matters. It is not just one's relative position in his or her society but the absolute amount of wealth.


Or, another possibility (and I'm surprised that these articles didn't consider this): Information changes everything. Once upon a time a poor person in a poor country who happened to be better off than his neighbors might have felt quite happy. But nowadays, with global communications reaching the furthest corners of the world, that same person realizes how little he has compared to the average person around the world. So he doesn't feel as happy as he once might have. So perhaps the original hypothesis (relative perception of wealth is what matters) still holds true, but the frame of reference has changed. People compare themselves to others around the world rather than own region.