via New Scientist - Physics & Math on 12/13/11
Two competing experiments see similar signs of the last missing particle in the standard model – its lightweight mass points to new physics
 |  |
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
LHC sees hint of lightweight Higgs boson
via New Scientist - Physics & Math on 12/13/11
Two competing experiments see similar signs of the last missing particle in the standard model – its lightweight mass points to new physics | |
Monday, December 12, 2011
12/121896: Marconi Demos Radio -- D12/12/1901: Marconi Xmits Across Atlantic.
via Wired Top Stories by Randy Alfred on 12/12/11
On Dec. 12, 1986, Marconi amazed a London assemblage with wireless communication across a room. Five years later, he sent a signal across the Atlantic.
12/121896: Marconi Demos Radio -- D12/12/1901: Marconi Xmits Across Atlantic.
via Wired Top Stories by Randy Alfred on 12/12/11
On Dec. 12, 1986, Marconi amazed a London assemblage with wireless communication across a room. Five years later, he sent a signal across the Atlantic.
Beware the Social Business Siren Song
via The BrandBuilder Blog by Olivier Blanchard on 12/12/11
The problem with assumptions is that they always come with blind spots.
The friendlier and human a company is, the more potential for success it will have. This goes back to the theory that the company with the least amount of assholes wins. I think it goes without saying that unfriendly, emotionally disconnected, self-interested employees (and managers) always act as hurdles to internal collaboration, process improvement and the adoption of new ideas. They build walls. They create silos. They are agents of “no.”
Friendly companies are created by friendly employees and friendly management. Great customer experiences (whether they come in the form of great customer service or simply pleasant shopping adventures) begin with a culture of “we give a shit.” These customer-centric companies understand the need for fluid internal collaboration and the continuous improvement of process that affect, somewhere down the line, consumers’ perception of the brand.
But is that enough?
Consider the following two lists, and ask yourself which company you would rather buy your products from:
Company A:
- It’s a great place to work.
- I read an article about how cross-functional teams brainstorm to develop new products.
- They offer trainees $5,000 to quit their first week. No one ever takes the money.
- They have awesome customer service.
- Returns are never a problem. They treat you so nicely.
- I love shopping there.
- Their CMO seems like a really cool guy on Twitter.
Company B:
- I’ve heard it’s kind of a revolving door there.
- Made in China, I think.
- They have horrible customer service.
- Have fun getting them to send you a replacement.
- The lines at their stores are a pain.
- I have no idea who their CMO is. He sure isn’t on Twitter.
Obviously, Company A probably has a market advantage, right?
Maybe. What if Company B makes much cooler products?
What if Company B’s products are equal in every way to Company A’s but at a much lower price?
That changes the equation a bit, doesn’t it? Now, Company B might become far more competitive (and successful) in spite of all of the negatives listed above.
Now let me throw in a twist: What if, against all logic, Company B’s process actually requires an antisocial environment in order to produce cooler products? What if it requires a quasi-tyrannical leadership and hermetically-sealed silos in order to be successful? What if becoming a “social business” actually ended up hurting it?
Under Steve and Walt, Apple and Disney weren’t exactly examples of what a “social business” should be, and yet they became, in spite of many of the things that the social business model preaches, enormous successes. They changed technology. They changed entertainment. They changed culture. They changed the world for the better.
How can this be?
Would Apple and Disney have been better off with a stable of bloggers and community managers on their payroll? Twitter accounts? Facebook pages? Youtube channels? Foursquare promotions? Would they have been better off if Steve and Walt had been avid proponents of “social business” ideals, flat organizations and cowdsource-driven product design? Really?
I want you to think about that for a minute, before you go back to reading blog post after blog post about the coming “social business” revolution and all the good it will bring to the world. It just isn’t that simple. Becoming a social business doesn’t necessarily help a businesses create more value for anyone or become better at what it does.
Becoming a more social company is not the same as becoming a better company.
I am not at all suggesting that companies are better off ignoring the social space. I wouldn’t dream of ever advising a company to stay off Twitter and Facebook. It would be irresponsible of me to drive a wedge between an organization and the amazing potential that social media has in store for them. BUT, it would be equally irresponsible of me to suggest that trying to become a “social business” is always going to be in their best interest.
If you are a CEO, ask yourself why you really want your business to become “more social.” Is it because you really love your customers? Is it because you are looking for better, faster, cheaper ways to gather consumer insights? Is it because becoming “more social” allows you to increase your reach into social channels? Is it because industry experts told you it’s the thing to do this year? Why are you really focusing on this?
Here’s a better idea for you: Focus on building a better company, not just a more social one. Identify key areas of potential improvement and make those your focus. If social media can help you in this endeavor, then by all means find out how and do it:
Use social technologies to improve your customer service and reduce purchasing barriers.
Use social networks to help more people discover your great products or recommend wonderful employees.
Use social platforms to give your customers a reason to be loyal and act as good will ambassadors for you everywhere they go.
Improve internal collaboration and organizational efficiency.
Infuse your product management groups with insights and ideas from followers and fans.
Use social monitoring tools to identify new opportunities and spot potential threats.
The sky is the limit when it comes to how social media can help you become a better company.
But “being more social” doesn’t, in and of itself, amount to a whole lot. What does that even mean in a business context? Paying someone to hang out on Twitter all day and push out links to marketing content? Write formulaic blog posts to hopefully attract visitors to your website? Hire an agency to manage a Facebook page for you so you appear to be “more social?” Hire a ghost blogger to pretend that your CEO is committed to the social web? What’s the point of any of that? Why waste so much time and energy on pointless bullshit that isn’t benefiting anyone?
Now consider these two questions:
1. Will adopting a “social business” model really help patent-driven, data security conscious companies like Michelin, 3M and Pfizer become more competitive, more successful, and better at what they do?
2. Would adopting a “social business” model have helped Apple and Disney accomplish what they did? Or might it have gotten in the way by creating too much of a distraction or altering internal focus? Might an effort to become more “social” instead of generating brilliant products have worked against Apple and Disney?
Before you answer, consider this: The value of social media adoption and social process integration comes in degrees. Because every company is unique, every company will become more or less “social” based on its needs, capabilities and the dynamics of their internal cultures. Each of them will decide to what extent, and in the service of the improvement of what function, “social” will become part of its process. And guess what: There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
So again…
Question: Should Michelin, 3M and Pfizer, Disney and Apple become more “social?”
Answer: Only to the extent to which they and their customers will benefit from it. That could be a little, a lot, or not at all.
There’s a why question hidden in that Q&A, and a how question as well. You need to help companies answer both if you really want to help them.
Recap.
1. The “social business” ideal doesn’t apply to every business. That’s the problem with ideals: Ideally, they’re great. In reality, the world is messy. Things don’t always work the way we wish they would. “The road to hell,” as they say, “is paved with good intentions.” The road to epic screw-ups is as well. Proceed with clear purpose, and caution will mostly take care of itself.
2. Beware the salesmen of utopia. Selling ideals is one thing. Adapting them to your company’s needs is another entirely. Good consultants should be able to successfully put their advice into practice, not just suggest unrealistic goals and then watch you fumble at an impossible play.
3. If you focus less on “being social” and more on becoming a better company, you will be much better off by the end of the coming fiscal year. If social platforms can help you become that better company, great! Get working on it. If not, don’t sweat it. Focus on what matters, not on the flavor of the moment, no matter how many consultants and tech bloggers come to you carrying buckets of freshly brewed Koolaid.
Now stop reading blogs and go kick ass. Cheers.
Filed under: Social Business Tagged: apple, blogs, brandbuilder, business, Disney, facebook, focus, olivier blanchard, social business, social media, steve jobs, twitter
Beware the Social Business Siren Song
via The BrandBuilder Blog by Olivier Blanchard on 12/12/11
The problem with assumptions is that they always come with blind spots.
The friendlier and human a company is, the more potential for success it will have. This goes back to the theory that the company with the least amount of assholes wins. I think it goes without saying that unfriendly, emotionally disconnected, self-interested employees (and managers) always act as hurdles to internal collaboration, process improvement and the adoption of new ideas. They build walls. They create silos. They are agents of “no.”
Friendly companies are created by friendly employees and friendly management. Great customer experiences (whether they come in the form of great customer service or simply pleasant shopping adventures) begin with a culture of “we give a shit.” These customer-centric companies understand the need for fluid internal collaboration and the continuous improvement of process that affect, somewhere down the line, consumers’ perception of the brand.
But is that enough?
Consider the following two lists, and ask yourself which company you would rather buy your products from:
Company A:
- It’s a great place to work.
- I read an article about how cross-functional teams brainstorm to develop new products.
- They offer trainees $5,000 to quit their first week. No one ever takes the money.
- They have awesome customer service.
- Returns are never a problem. They treat you so nicely.
- I love shopping there.
- Their CMO seems like a really cool guy on Twitter.
Company B:
- I’ve heard it’s kind of a revolving door there.
- Made in China, I think.
- They have horrible customer service.
- Have fun getting them to send you a replacement.
- The lines at their stores are a pain.
- I have no idea who their CMO is. He sure isn’t on Twitter.
Obviously, Company A probably has a market advantage, right?
Maybe. What if Company B makes much cooler products?
What if Company B’s products are equal in every way to Company A’s but at a much lower price?
That changes the equation a bit, doesn’t it? Now, Company B might become far more competitive (and successful) in spite of all of the negatives listed above.
Now let me throw in a twist: What if, against all logic, Company B’s process actually requires an antisocial environment in order to produce cooler products? What if it requires a quasi-tyrannical leadership and hermetically-sealed silos in order to be successful? What if becoming a “social business” actually ended up hurting it?
Under Steve and Walt, Apple and Disney weren’t exactly examples of what a “social business” should be, and yet they became, in spite of many of the things that the social business model preaches, enormous successes. They changed technology. They changed entertainment. They changed culture. They changed the world for the better.
How can this be?
Would Apple and Disney have been better off with a stable of bloggers and community managers on their payroll? Twitter accounts? Facebook pages? Youtube channels? Foursquare promotions? Would they have been better off if Steve and Walt had been avid proponents of “social business” ideals, flat organizations and cowdsource-driven product design? Really?
I want you to think about that for a minute, before you go back to reading blog post after blog post about the coming “social business” revolution and all the good it will bring to the world. It just isn’t that simple. Becoming a social business doesn’t necessarily help a businesses create more value for anyone or become better at what it does.
Becoming a more social company is not the same as becoming a better company.
I am not at all suggesting that companies are better off ignoring the social space. I wouldn’t dream of ever advising a company to stay off Twitter and Facebook. It would be irresponsible of me to drive a wedge between an organization and the amazing potential that social media has in store for them. BUT, it would be equally irresponsible of me to suggest that trying to become a “social business” is always going to be in their best interest.
If you are a CEO, ask yourself why you really want your business to become “more social.” Is it because you really love your customers? Is it because you are looking for better, faster, cheaper ways to gather consumer insights? Is it because becoming “more social” allows you to increase your reach into social channels? Is it because industry experts told you it’s the thing to do this year? Why are you really focusing on this?
Here’s a better idea for you: Focus on building a better company, not just a more social one. Identify key areas of potential improvement and make those your focus. If social media can help you in this endeavor, then by all means find out how and do it:
Use social technologies to improve your customer service and reduce purchasing barriers.
Use social networks to help more people discover your great products or recommend wonderful employees.
Use social platforms to give your customers a reason to be loyal and act as good will ambassadors for you everywhere they go.
Improve internal collaboration and organizational efficiency.
Infuse your product management groups with insights and ideas from followers and fans.
Use social monitoring tools to identify new opportunities and spot potential threats.
The sky is the limit when it comes to how social media can help you become a better company.
But “being more social” doesn’t, in and of itself, amount to a whole lot. What does that even mean in a business context? Paying someone to hang out on Twitter all day and push out links to marketing content? Write formulaic blog posts to hopefully attract visitors to your website? Hire an agency to manage a Facebook page for you so you appear to be “more social?” Hire a ghost blogger to pretend that your CEO is committed to the social web? What’s the point of any of that? Why waste so much time and energy on pointless bullshit that isn’t benefiting anyone?
Now consider these two questions:
1. Will adopting a “social business” model really help patent-driven, data security conscious companies like Michelin, 3M and Pfizer become more competitive, more successful, and better at what they do?
2. Would adopting a “social business” model have helped Apple and Disney accomplish what they did? Or might it have gotten in the way by creating too much of a distraction or altering internal focus? Might an effort to become more “social” instead of generating brilliant products have worked against Apple and Disney?
Before you answer, consider this: The value of social media adoption and social process integration comes in degrees. Because every company is unique, every company will become more or less “social” based on its needs, capabilities and the dynamics of their internal cultures. Each of them will decide to what extent, and in the service of the improvement of what function, “social” will become part of its process. And guess what: There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
So again…
Question: Should Michelin, 3M and Pfizer, Disney and Apple become more “social?”
Answer: Only to the extent to which they and their customers will benefit from it. That could be a little, a lot, or not at all.
There’s a why question hidden in that Q&A, and a how question as well. You need to help companies answer both if you really want to help them.
Recap.
1. The “social business” ideal doesn’t apply to every business. That’s the problem with ideals: Ideally, they’re great. In reality, the world is messy. Things don’t always work the way we wish they would. “The road to hell,” as they say, “is paved with good intentions.” The road to epic screw-ups is as well. Proceed with clear purpose, and caution will mostly take care of itself.
2. Beware the salesmen of utopia. Selling ideals is one thing. Adapting them to your company’s needs is another entirely. Good consultants should be able to successfully put their advice into practice, not just suggest unrealistic goals and then watch you fumble at an impossible play.
3. If you focus less on “being social” and more on becoming a better company, you will be much better off by the end of the coming fiscal year. If social platforms can help you become that better company, great! Get working on it. If not, don’t sweat it. Focus on what matters, not on the flavor of the moment, no matter how many consultants and tech bloggers come to you carrying buckets of freshly brewed Koolaid.
Now stop reading blogs and go kick ass. Cheers.
Filed under: Social Business Tagged: apple, blogs, brandbuilder, business, Disney, facebook, focus, olivier blanchard, social business, social media, steve jobs, twitter
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Opening up cell phones to robocalls? Just one "benefit" of the Right's relen...
via DownWithTyranny! by KenInNY on 12/8/11
"I completely understand the concerns that people have expressed about the bill and the good thing about our system is that there is always opportunity for improvement. In fact, because this debate has begun, discussions are now taking place on the best way to strengthen the rules to address consumer privacy expectations with their mobile phones. . . ."
-- from a statement by Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-NY), the
only Dem co-sponsor of a bill to legalize cell-phone robocalls
only Dem co-sponsor of a bill to legalize cell-phone robocalls
by KenWhat else do we learn in this "extremely defensive statement" (as Daily Kos's Chris Bowers describes it, in a mailing we'll come back to) from Congressman Towns, the only Democratic co-sponsor of a bill that would deep-six the 20-year-old ban on robocalls to cell phones? Well, we learn that, as the congressman says he learned from the recent hearings, "this 20-year old law prevents consumers from getting useful information about their accounts using technology that did not exist when the law was originally passed," and also apparently somehow prevents FedEx and UPS from "using modern technology to deliver your holiday gifts on time." (I think these are two separate things. The congressman is pretty vague about them.) And, oh yes, this nasty old law "limits notifications about threats such as fraud alerts, data breaches, and product recalls."Ah, so that's why those patriotic and public-spirited business interests are pushing so hard to disappear the law that bans sending recorded-message calls to cell phones without the user's prior approval of such messaging. It's so we can get our holiday gifts on time, and learn about data breaches and product recalls!WELCOME TO THE AMERICA OF THE KOCH BROS.
AND THE OTHER MEGACORPORATE ELITESThe other day, while discussing the Right's methodical cultivation of a "bedimmed and whipped-up base" that in the new presidential campaign cycle "will only accept a cynically flagrant liar or a clueless cluck," I suggested that "we might want to ponder who thought this would be a shrewd strategy and why" and added that "I have my own thoughts." I didn't mean to be oblique or suggest some deep, dark mystery. I just didn't feel like getting into it then.But all I had in mind was stuff like this "Send in the robocallers" initiative. Here's what Chris Bowers has to say in an e-mailing that most DWT readers probably got:
Republicans are pushing new legislation that would end the 20-year ban on telemarketers calling cell phones. This would be an extremely annoying invasion of privacy. It would also be another congressional giveaway to big corporations, since robocalls from telemarketers would count against your monthly minutes.We have to stop this. Join with CREDO Action and Daily Kos to tell Congress not to allow telemarketers to call your cell phone.The public outcry against this bill is already making a difference. The lone Democratic co-sponsor, Representative Ed Towns of New York, released an extremely defensive statement after constituents gave him an earful about the bill at a recent town hall.If no Democrats support this bill, then it will be defeated. The surest path to making that happen is for people to keep giving Congress an earful. Please sign the petition telling Congress not to allow telemarketers to call your cell phone.Keep fighting,
Chris Bowers
Campaign Director, Daily Kos
OH NO, CELL-PHONE USERS CAN'T GET THEIR HOLIDAY GIFTS!
HERE'S ED TOWNS'S "EXTREMELY DEFENSIVE STATEMENT"Yeah, I thought you'd enjoy this, 'cause it's pretty darned entertaining. I know some of you were probably thinking the only imaginable reason why Congressman Towns has signed onto this right-wing thug initiative is that he's on the take or something. No, not at all!
It is undeniable that the telecommunications landscape has changed dramatically in the last twenty years. A large percentage of households have eliminated their landlines and many people rely almost exclusively on cell phones as their only means of contact. The rules and laws governing how businesses and consumers interact have not kept up with these developments. To put it in context, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act was passed some two years before the first text messaging was ever sent.We on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce have been engaging in debates about privacy and the responsible use of technology for as long as I can remember. When Congressman Terry approached me to ask if I would join him in opening up this discussion on whether the TCPA needs to be updated to take into account new consumer attitudes and their need for timely information about their accounts, I thought this was as an appropriate time as ever.I completely understand the concerns that people have expressed about the bill and the good thing about our system is that there is always opportunity for improvement. In fact, because this debate has begun, discussions are now taking place on the best way to strengthen the rules to address consumer privacy expectations with their mobile phones. I fully support these efforts and will fight to see that included in any final product. The intent of the bill is to maintain bans on telemarketing and to retain the popular “Do-Not-Call” regulations. I am pleased that we had a hearing to get all the input we can from the stakeholders in this debate. During the hearing, I thought it was especially interesting to hear how this 20-year old law prevents consumers from getting useful information about their accounts using technology that did not exist when the law was originally passed. Do we really want to stop FedEx or UPS using modern technology to deliver your holiday gifts on time? Of course not, but that is what we heard at the hearing is one consequence of this 20-year old law. Other consequences we heard were about how the law limits notifications about threats such as fraud alerts, data breaches, and product recalls.Now I and my colleagues on the committee can work to come to agreement on the best way to allow consumers to control how they receive these informational communications and to decide the best way to regulate, prevent, and punish any abuse. We will continue to gather input from constituents and groups interested in striking the right balance. I believe we can find that balance and I am glad our Committee is engaging in this debate.
Ha-ha-ha, Congressman! Oh wait, you're serious? Oops, sorry!THE POINT IS THAT UNDER COVER OF YELLING
AND WAILING ABOUT IDEOLOGICAL IMBECILITIES . . .. . . the economic elites are slipping and slamming through the remainder of their wish list, including stuff they thought was beyond their wildest imaginings. In fact, we've already reached the point where the only limitations on the elites' lust for power and money are the limitations on their own imaginings.The insatiable predators of the Corporate Right can continue and accelerate their rampaging drive of the last several decades to remake the culture of the country to their liking, which is to say to remove as much as possible of the network of limitations on their behavior, painstakingly put in place to provide us with some protection against the insatiable greed of which humans are capable, and thereby not just sanction but make to appear "normal" and even "beneficial" their encroachments across the board of American life.It's ironic -- or maybe not ironic, but just what the campaign called for -- that the Right has mobilized around a delusional last stand to protect its "freedoms," when what it's been bred to do is abandon the meaningful freedoms to elites who stand to clean up on them. Welcome to the Koch Bros.' and Gov. Scott Walker's (and all those other fire-breathing far-right-wing governors') America.Hey, aren't you going to answer your cell phone? Could be important product-recall information. Luckily, you can listen to the message at your convenience. The important thing is, you're paying for the call regardless!THE CAMPAIGN TO PUT US ALL AT THE MERCY
OF THE CORPORATE ELITES HAS COUNTLESS TENTACLESAnd they're in place nationwide at all levels of government. See, for example, Howie's 2pm PT post (see below) on the Republican smear campaign trained on Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren and the coincidentally successful GOP filibuster that nullified the Senate's 53-45 vote to confirm Richard Cordray to head the Warren-conceived Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.Sure, as Howie noted, the anti-Warren smears aren't just monumentally dishonest, they're imbecilic on their face, but haven't Karl Rove and his kind (and of course their Big Money bankrollers) gone to untold trouble and expense to create a playing field of imbeciles? And sure, the Republican opposition to the Cordray nomination is all lies, but if that's what it takes to enable them to step up the pressure to strip away consumer protection, well, what's a few hundred, or a few thousand, more lies to people who have already solemnly sworn never to speak the truth in public, so help them God?By the way, I might note that of the two "old friends," Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Jeff Merkley, Howie called on in his post as standing up to the marauding elites, one isn't going to be on the premises come the 113th Congress.
#
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)