Scott Adams's Blog, page 371
October 8, 2010
Cooking by Internet
I remember reading about the history of a product called Hamburger Helper. The first iteration of the product did poorly, researchers discovered, because it was viewed as too easy to prepare. Women - who did almost all of the cooking in those days - didn't feel as though they were "cooking" if all they did was heat up something from a package. So, in one of the most brilliant marketing moves of all time, the makers of Hamburger Helper decided to render the product less convenient. Now you needed to buy your own hamburger meat, brown it, and combine it with the Hamburger Helper seasoning and noodles. That change made the product a huge success.
Keep that in mind, now fast forward to today. Parents are busier than ever, but they still want to feel as though they are "cooking" something for the family. Beyond that intangible, people want to tweak their food for their own tastes - maybe add some spice, subtract some broccoli, whatever. You also have your special diet needs within a family, with maybe one vegetarian, one person with lactose intolerance, one athlete who needs lots of protein, and one person who can't stand the smell of cilantro.
This is where Internet Cooking comes in. Imagine with me...
You're still at work, with some downtime before a meeting. You have five minutes to cook dinner for the family, via the Internet, to be delivered whenever you specify. Imagine a website that allows you to prepare a meal on the screen, in an animated way, so you can see yourself adding a pinch of garlic to the animated pot, perhaps starting from an online menu and tweaking it. When you're done cooking your animated meal, your exact cooking directions are transmitted to a local kitchen-business that follows your steps. They cook your meal and load it on a truck that delivers to your neighborhood.
Best of all, your user profile on the system takes into account all of your family's finicky eating preferences. You can pick from recipes that meet everyone's needs, or build as many separate meals as you like. After you have tweaked a recipe once, and liked the outcome, you can just select it again next time from your history, or tweak it further to try something new.
You might be experiencing some justifiable skepticism about whether this business model could work. I assume it all depends on volume. But I thought that about Webvan too, may it rest in peace, so don't assume I'm good at this sort of predicting.
The thing that gives this idea some hope is that the user interface would give the customer the sensation of cooking, sort of. And it would solve a host of dietary issues. If you add those benefits to the obvious convenience, it might be enough to generate volume. Not sold yet? That's okay because I'm not done selling.
Now imagine you can do the cooking on your iPhone. When you want to add salt, you shake the phone and it makes the salt shaker sound. When you want to mix your ingredients, or use a blender, it makes those sounds too (optionally). Your cooking times would be fast-forwarded, so you get the fun of preparing the meal, complete with motion and sound, and it all takes minutes.
Now do you buy it?
Don't lie. You'd pay extra for it.
Keep that in mind, now fast forward to today. Parents are busier than ever, but they still want to feel as though they are "cooking" something for the family. Beyond that intangible, people want to tweak their food for their own tastes - maybe add some spice, subtract some broccoli, whatever. You also have your special diet needs within a family, with maybe one vegetarian, one person with lactose intolerance, one athlete who needs lots of protein, and one person who can't stand the smell of cilantro.
This is where Internet Cooking comes in. Imagine with me...
You're still at work, with some downtime before a meeting. You have five minutes to cook dinner for the family, via the Internet, to be delivered whenever you specify. Imagine a website that allows you to prepare a meal on the screen, in an animated way, so you can see yourself adding a pinch of garlic to the animated pot, perhaps starting from an online menu and tweaking it. When you're done cooking your animated meal, your exact cooking directions are transmitted to a local kitchen-business that follows your steps. They cook your meal and load it on a truck that delivers to your neighborhood.
Best of all, your user profile on the system takes into account all of your family's finicky eating preferences. You can pick from recipes that meet everyone's needs, or build as many separate meals as you like. After you have tweaked a recipe once, and liked the outcome, you can just select it again next time from your history, or tweak it further to try something new.
You might be experiencing some justifiable skepticism about whether this business model could work. I assume it all depends on volume. But I thought that about Webvan too, may it rest in peace, so don't assume I'm good at this sort of predicting.
The thing that gives this idea some hope is that the user interface would give the customer the sensation of cooking, sort of. And it would solve a host of dietary issues. If you add those benefits to the obvious convenience, it might be enough to generate volume. Not sold yet? That's okay because I'm not done selling.
Now imagine you can do the cooking on your iPhone. When you want to add salt, you shake the phone and it makes the salt shaker sound. When you want to mix your ingredients, or use a blender, it makes those sounds too (optionally). Your cooking times would be fast-forwarded, so you get the fun of preparing the meal, complete with motion and sound, and it all takes minutes.
Now do you buy it?
Don't lie. You'd pay extra for it.
October 7, 2010
The Social Network - Review
By now you know there's a movie about the origins of Facebook. It's called The Social Network. I saw it a few days ago. It is the best movie I have ever seen.
Pause to digest that.
I'm not saying you'll like it as much as I do. Art is personal. And you might wonder how I can put one movie above all others, even on my own personal list. Actually, I couldn't do that until I saw this movie. It grabbed me in the first minute, and hasn't released me yet, several days later. It's actually getting better as it ages in my mind.
To begin, I appreciate the movie for what it did not do. It did not rely on special effects in a way that was obvious to the viewer. It wasn't in 3D. There was no violence. There was no car chase scene. If you make a list of all the elements that can make a movie predictable and lame, this movie had none. That's at least partly because the story is inspired by reality.
If you have ever studied the art of script writing, you might know that movie studios expect scripts to fit a fairly specific sort of formula. For example, you have your "event" early in the movie that changes someone's life, you have the so-called "third act" where things appear impossible to fix, and your main character needs to "change" as a result of his experiences. There are a number of other story requirements, but you get the idea. Normally a writer pushes these must-do elements right in your face. For example, how many movies open with loved ones dying?
The Social Network hits all of the required story elements, but with a subtlety that can only come from reality plus extraordinary writing skill. It was only after the movie was over that I realized all of the elements were in place. Normally the writer's craft is so obvious that it buries the art. When the art buries the craft, you have something special.
Speaking of reality, the fact that much of the story is real - it's not clear how much - added the extra level of fascination to put it over the top for me. I enjoy non-fiction more than fiction, and this had just the right mix of both.
The movie's writer, Aaron Sorkin, is one of the best writers of this era. And he's at the top of his game with this movie. If you can find an online betting site that takes bets on who will win the Academy Award for Best Writer, this is easy money. And I say that without even seeing the other movies that will get nominated. If you're one of the other contenders, you're feeling pretty bad that your movie came out in Sorkin's year.
There has been much curiosity about the degree to which the story is accurate, and how the main character, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, feels about his portrayal. Apparently some moviegoers feel the script treats Zuckerberg poorly. I didn't see it that way. All I saw was massive respect from a genius in one field (Sorkin) to a genius in another. The story was as close to self-love as you can get. As written, the Zuckerberg character does change, a little, but he does so in a context of changing the social fabric of the entire world. It is almost as if the world was broken, and Zuckerberg fixed it, like a super hero with a hoodie. He can't be too unhappy about that.
Someone once told me that when a movie works, you believe all of the elements were excellent at the same time, even if that wasn't true. I suspect the writing elevated the other elements in this case, but even so, the directing, casting, and acting came across as superb. Place your second bet for an Academy Award on the casting director.
Pause to digest that.
I'm not saying you'll like it as much as I do. Art is personal. And you might wonder how I can put one movie above all others, even on my own personal list. Actually, I couldn't do that until I saw this movie. It grabbed me in the first minute, and hasn't released me yet, several days later. It's actually getting better as it ages in my mind.
To begin, I appreciate the movie for what it did not do. It did not rely on special effects in a way that was obvious to the viewer. It wasn't in 3D. There was no violence. There was no car chase scene. If you make a list of all the elements that can make a movie predictable and lame, this movie had none. That's at least partly because the story is inspired by reality.
If you have ever studied the art of script writing, you might know that movie studios expect scripts to fit a fairly specific sort of formula. For example, you have your "event" early in the movie that changes someone's life, you have the so-called "third act" where things appear impossible to fix, and your main character needs to "change" as a result of his experiences. There are a number of other story requirements, but you get the idea. Normally a writer pushes these must-do elements right in your face. For example, how many movies open with loved ones dying?
The Social Network hits all of the required story elements, but with a subtlety that can only come from reality plus extraordinary writing skill. It was only after the movie was over that I realized all of the elements were in place. Normally the writer's craft is so obvious that it buries the art. When the art buries the craft, you have something special.
Speaking of reality, the fact that much of the story is real - it's not clear how much - added the extra level of fascination to put it over the top for me. I enjoy non-fiction more than fiction, and this had just the right mix of both.
The movie's writer, Aaron Sorkin, is one of the best writers of this era. And he's at the top of his game with this movie. If you can find an online betting site that takes bets on who will win the Academy Award for Best Writer, this is easy money. And I say that without even seeing the other movies that will get nominated. If you're one of the other contenders, you're feeling pretty bad that your movie came out in Sorkin's year.
There has been much curiosity about the degree to which the story is accurate, and how the main character, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, feels about his portrayal. Apparently some moviegoers feel the script treats Zuckerberg poorly. I didn't see it that way. All I saw was massive respect from a genius in one field (Sorkin) to a genius in another. The story was as close to self-love as you can get. As written, the Zuckerberg character does change, a little, but he does so in a context of changing the social fabric of the entire world. It is almost as if the world was broken, and Zuckerberg fixed it, like a super hero with a hoodie. He can't be too unhappy about that.
Someone once told me that when a movie works, you believe all of the elements were excellent at the same time, even if that wasn't true. I suspect the writing elevated the other elements in this case, but even so, the directing, casting, and acting came across as superb. Place your second bet for an Academy Award on the casting director.
October 5, 2010
Founding Fathers Version 2.0
I've been thinking about the practicality of a new American revolution, and wondering if there's any way to do it without shooting people.
The American government has proven itself unable to govern, as evidenced by the fact that there's no plan for closing the budget deficit. If we had two rational and competing plans from the major parties, or even one imperfect plan, I would consider that some form of government. But no plan means we're effectively ungoverned.
You might argue that the government is mostly working, and the budget deficit is just one wrinkle that will get ironed out in time. But given that we're in a budget death spiral that will eventually derail every other function of society, I would say that all we're talking about is a timing issue. By analogy, maybe your brain can remain conscious for a second after your head gets chopped off, but as a practical matter, you're not less dead.
It's no surprise that our system doesn't work. It was designed hundreds of years ago, and it gradually worsened over time, just like everything else that was designed hundreds of years ago. It's the ultimate legacy system, bloated and hopelessly in need of replacement. And now, thanks to the brainwashing that all American kids get about the magic and wonder of our political system, and the near Godliness of our Founding Fathers, we're unable to see the system itself as entirely broken. Instead, we assume the problem is that the people within the system are corrupt or incompetent. Or maybe the problem is the Tea Party, or the crazy Liberals, or anything but the system itself. There's plenty of blame to spread around, but a good system should be excreting the crazies instead of embracing them. Why can't we have that system?
If you want to bring a social gathering to a full stop, suggest that the Chinese system of government is the best model for our modern age. Contrary to popular belief, their system is not a dictatorship, because the top guy only keeps his job if the guys below him think he's doing it well. It's more like a corporate structure in which smart and knowledgeable people choose the best within their ranks based on ability. You can fault the Chinese leadership for a lot of things, but you can't fault them for being impractical. They have a political system that, as far as I can tell, puts science over superstition. And over time, I would expect their human rights issues to improve simply because doing so is smart government.
[Disclaimer: What I know about China would fit in a very small Tupperware container while leaving plenty of room for a sandwich. So if you disagree with my characterization of China's government, please correct me in the comments below.]
Obviously a bloodless revolution in America wouldn't get far with a slogan such as "Be More Chinese!" And our government is too constipated to make incremental improvements in itself. I've already ruled out killing people. So how can you get there from here?
Suppose, just as a mental exercise, a new set of geniuses, call them the Founding Fathers Version 2.0, hold a convention and come up with a new form of government that fits the challenges of the modern age. Then, after a lengthy public debate, a constitutional vote is held in which every citizen can decide on keeping the old system or moving to the new one. If the new one wins, a transition plan is drawn up, and the move is made over maybe five years, so there is limited shock to the system.
Let's agree that this scenario is hugely unlikely. But can we afford to not try it when the alternative is no government at all? What would Thomas Jefferson and my cousin John Adams say if they were here today?
The American government has proven itself unable to govern, as evidenced by the fact that there's no plan for closing the budget deficit. If we had two rational and competing plans from the major parties, or even one imperfect plan, I would consider that some form of government. But no plan means we're effectively ungoverned.
You might argue that the government is mostly working, and the budget deficit is just one wrinkle that will get ironed out in time. But given that we're in a budget death spiral that will eventually derail every other function of society, I would say that all we're talking about is a timing issue. By analogy, maybe your brain can remain conscious for a second after your head gets chopped off, but as a practical matter, you're not less dead.
It's no surprise that our system doesn't work. It was designed hundreds of years ago, and it gradually worsened over time, just like everything else that was designed hundreds of years ago. It's the ultimate legacy system, bloated and hopelessly in need of replacement. And now, thanks to the brainwashing that all American kids get about the magic and wonder of our political system, and the near Godliness of our Founding Fathers, we're unable to see the system itself as entirely broken. Instead, we assume the problem is that the people within the system are corrupt or incompetent. Or maybe the problem is the Tea Party, or the crazy Liberals, or anything but the system itself. There's plenty of blame to spread around, but a good system should be excreting the crazies instead of embracing them. Why can't we have that system?
If you want to bring a social gathering to a full stop, suggest that the Chinese system of government is the best model for our modern age. Contrary to popular belief, their system is not a dictatorship, because the top guy only keeps his job if the guys below him think he's doing it well. It's more like a corporate structure in which smart and knowledgeable people choose the best within their ranks based on ability. You can fault the Chinese leadership for a lot of things, but you can't fault them for being impractical. They have a political system that, as far as I can tell, puts science over superstition. And over time, I would expect their human rights issues to improve simply because doing so is smart government.
[Disclaimer: What I know about China would fit in a very small Tupperware container while leaving plenty of room for a sandwich. So if you disagree with my characterization of China's government, please correct me in the comments below.]
Obviously a bloodless revolution in America wouldn't get far with a slogan such as "Be More Chinese!" And our government is too constipated to make incremental improvements in itself. I've already ruled out killing people. So how can you get there from here?
Suppose, just as a mental exercise, a new set of geniuses, call them the Founding Fathers Version 2.0, hold a convention and come up with a new form of government that fits the challenges of the modern age. Then, after a lengthy public debate, a constitutional vote is held in which every citizen can decide on keeping the old system or moving to the new one. If the new one wins, a transition plan is drawn up, and the move is made over maybe five years, so there is limited shock to the system.
Let's agree that this scenario is hugely unlikely. But can we afford to not try it when the alternative is no government at all? What would Thomas Jefferson and my cousin John Adams say if they were here today?
October 1, 2010
Christmas Presents
I'm not good at buying gifts. I start worrying about Christmas in April, and by the time October rolls around I'm in full panic mode. Call me spontaneous, but I prefer when my failures surprise me, not when they are scheduled for December 25th every year. By this time of year I feel as if I'm tied to the railroad tracks, I hear a whistle in the distance, and it probably isn't Santa.
When it comes to gifts, they say it's the thought that counts, but I can't even get that part right. Whatever the hell I'm doing is more like the Dalai Lama clearing his mind and meditating, but without the relaxing part. When I try to think of an appropriate gift for my wife, all I see is nothingness. The problem might have something to do with my own view of material goods. I can walk through a shopping mall for hours without seeing anything I'd want to own more than I'd want to lug it back to the car.
For example, if I see a shirt that looks nice, I can't imagine why I'd want to own it. I already have shirts that keep me warm. It won't make me look more attractive, unless I wrap it around my face, and I buy two more to stuff in my shoes so I'm taller. For some reason my wife prefers it when I have new shirts, which is exactly why I get shirts for my birthday, shirts for Christmas, and shirts for Valentine's Day. And I have been led to believe there is a holiday called National Shirt Day.
I am guessing that some of you have the same gift-buying problem that I do, minus the crazy parts. I propose that we stick together and come up with some sure-fire gift ideas to make our own lives easier. I will prime the pump with this suggestion, and you can thank me later. It's a company that sells sterling silver necklaces, hand-stamped with (wait for it...) the names of a woman's children:
Hayjac Designs
Aside from the obvious brilliance that jewelry is always a correct gift for women, when you add the names of her children, it takes it to another level. That's the "thought" part you keep hearing about. I am told that sterling silver works for just about every woman and goes with just about every casual outfit. Plus, unlike a ring or clothing, there are no sizing issues. I already got this gift for my wife last year, so I can't use it again. (Full disclosure: Shelly told me to buy it for her.)
Okay, now it is your turn. Leave your gift ideas in the comment area, with links if you have them. The ideal gift idea should show some sort of thought, have no sizing issues, and be priced in the spouse-gift range. Put some thinking into it because in all likelihood you're deciding what my wife will get for Christmas for the next ten years.
When it comes to gifts, they say it's the thought that counts, but I can't even get that part right. Whatever the hell I'm doing is more like the Dalai Lama clearing his mind and meditating, but without the relaxing part. When I try to think of an appropriate gift for my wife, all I see is nothingness. The problem might have something to do with my own view of material goods. I can walk through a shopping mall for hours without seeing anything I'd want to own more than I'd want to lug it back to the car.
For example, if I see a shirt that looks nice, I can't imagine why I'd want to own it. I already have shirts that keep me warm. It won't make me look more attractive, unless I wrap it around my face, and I buy two more to stuff in my shoes so I'm taller. For some reason my wife prefers it when I have new shirts, which is exactly why I get shirts for my birthday, shirts for Christmas, and shirts for Valentine's Day. And I have been led to believe there is a holiday called National Shirt Day.
I am guessing that some of you have the same gift-buying problem that I do, minus the crazy parts. I propose that we stick together and come up with some sure-fire gift ideas to make our own lives easier. I will prime the pump with this suggestion, and you can thank me later. It's a company that sells sterling silver necklaces, hand-stamped with (wait for it...) the names of a woman's children:
Hayjac Designs
Aside from the obvious brilliance that jewelry is always a correct gift for women, when you add the names of her children, it takes it to another level. That's the "thought" part you keep hearing about. I am told that sterling silver works for just about every woman and goes with just about every casual outfit. Plus, unlike a ring or clothing, there are no sizing issues. I already got this gift for my wife last year, so I can't use it again. (Full disclosure: Shelly told me to buy it for her.)
Okay, now it is your turn. Leave your gift ideas in the comment area, with links if you have them. The ideal gift idea should show some sort of thought, have no sizing issues, and be priced in the spouse-gift range. Put some thinking into it because in all likelihood you're deciding what my wife will get for Christmas for the next ten years.
September 29, 2010
Wireless Voice Calls are Obsolete
Is it just me, or have cellphones become useless for voice conversations? To be fair, cellphones do work in limited situations, such as: "I WILL BE THERE IN TEN MINUTES! TEN MINUTES! I SAID I WILL BE THERE IN TEN MINUTES! HELLO? CAN YOU HEAR ME? FUCK THIS STUPID PHONE, I'LL TEXT YOU! AND I'M DRIVING, SO I MIGHT BE DEAD IN TEN MINUTES!"
Generally speaking, a cellphone conversation is a frustrating failure if any of these conditions is true.
1. You have a weak signal.
2. You are using an earpiece or headset.
3. The other person has a weak signal.
4. The other person is using an earpiece or headset.
5. The other person has a cell phone (delay problem).
6. You are multitasking and can't think.
7. The other person is multitasking and can't think.
8. You are in a noisy environment, such as Earth.
9. The other person is in a noisy environment, such as Earth.
10. You get another call you have to take.
11. The other person gets another call he has to take.
12. You have a dying battery.
13. You have a phone that drops calls for no good reason.
14. The other person has a phone that drops calls for no good reason.
15. The other person has a dying battery.
16. You are in a restaurant and you're not a jerk.
17. The other person is in a restaurant and isn't a jerk.
18. There is a child within 100 yards of you.
19. There is a child within 100 yards of the other person.
Yes, that covers almost every situation. And the list goes on. In my life, voice calls using cellphones fail more often than they succeed, and the situation is getting worse. There was a time when most cellphone calls involved a land line on the other end, so at least one end of the conversation was likely to be trouble-free. Now most of the calls I fantasize about making would be between my cellphone and another cellphone. I don't like those odds. So I send text messages instead.
For important calls, I use a land line that serves as my fax line. If I receive a call on my cellphone, I try to keep it short, or I call back from my fax line. Or I beg for an email that gives me whatever information I want. My situation is worse than most because I have an iPhone, and it decides on its own when my calls are done, no matter how strong the signal is. (I suspect that my ear is using the touchscreen without authorization from my brain.)
While voice calling is getting worse, texting is becoming easier. More smartphones have full keyboards. And texting isn't the huge inconvenience that phone calls are. I explained in another post that all phone calls have a victim, i.e. the person receiving the call. You're ALWAYS in the middle of doing something else when someone calls to yack. The worst offenders are the people in cars who don't have satellite radio, or books on tape, and they're just calling to make their drive less boring.
Texting is way better. It can fill in all of the tiny spaces in life while you're waiting for something else to happen and a voice call would be too large for the space. When I get a text alert, it always makes me happy, even before I read the message. When my phone rings, I think, Uh-oh, what fresh hell is this?
Another great advantage of texting is that it thwarts bores. Bores love voice conversations. In a pinch, they will send you overlong emails. But texting forces boring people to be brief. How great is that?
In a situation in which both I and the other person have smartphones, I always choose texting over a voice call. In time, everyone with whom I want to communicate outside of a business context will have a smartphone, and I'll never need to make a cellphone-to-cellphone call again. Kids are already there. Wireless voice calls are dinosaurs, and that big shadow you see is a meteor.
Generally speaking, a cellphone conversation is a frustrating failure if any of these conditions is true.
1. You have a weak signal.
2. You are using an earpiece or headset.
3. The other person has a weak signal.
4. The other person is using an earpiece or headset.
5. The other person has a cell phone (delay problem).
6. You are multitasking and can't think.
7. The other person is multitasking and can't think.
8. You are in a noisy environment, such as Earth.
9. The other person is in a noisy environment, such as Earth.
10. You get another call you have to take.
11. The other person gets another call he has to take.
12. You have a dying battery.
13. You have a phone that drops calls for no good reason.
14. The other person has a phone that drops calls for no good reason.
15. The other person has a dying battery.
16. You are in a restaurant and you're not a jerk.
17. The other person is in a restaurant and isn't a jerk.
18. There is a child within 100 yards of you.
19. There is a child within 100 yards of the other person.
Yes, that covers almost every situation. And the list goes on. In my life, voice calls using cellphones fail more often than they succeed, and the situation is getting worse. There was a time when most cellphone calls involved a land line on the other end, so at least one end of the conversation was likely to be trouble-free. Now most of the calls I fantasize about making would be between my cellphone and another cellphone. I don't like those odds. So I send text messages instead.
For important calls, I use a land line that serves as my fax line. If I receive a call on my cellphone, I try to keep it short, or I call back from my fax line. Or I beg for an email that gives me whatever information I want. My situation is worse than most because I have an iPhone, and it decides on its own when my calls are done, no matter how strong the signal is. (I suspect that my ear is using the touchscreen without authorization from my brain.)
While voice calling is getting worse, texting is becoming easier. More smartphones have full keyboards. And texting isn't the huge inconvenience that phone calls are. I explained in another post that all phone calls have a victim, i.e. the person receiving the call. You're ALWAYS in the middle of doing something else when someone calls to yack. The worst offenders are the people in cars who don't have satellite radio, or books on tape, and they're just calling to make their drive less boring.
Texting is way better. It can fill in all of the tiny spaces in life while you're waiting for something else to happen and a voice call would be too large for the space. When I get a text alert, it always makes me happy, even before I read the message. When my phone rings, I think, Uh-oh, what fresh hell is this?
Another great advantage of texting is that it thwarts bores. Bores love voice conversations. In a pinch, they will send you overlong emails. But texting forces boring people to be brief. How great is that?
In a situation in which both I and the other person have smartphones, I always choose texting over a voice call. In time, everyone with whom I want to communicate outside of a business context will have a smartphone, and I'll never need to make a cellphone-to-cellphone call again. Kids are already there. Wireless voice calls are dinosaurs, and that big shadow you see is a meteor.
September 27, 2010
Ultimate Food and Exercise App
Imagine you’re sitting down to eat, but before you take a bite, you whip out your smartphone, fire up a special app, and take a picture of your food. The app identifies the food types by appearance, then calculates the size of your portions, and estimates your intake of calories, carbs, protein, vitamin, mineral, sugar, salt, and so on. Later you can review your data in a variety of ways. You can see your calorie intake for the day, or compare yourself to other people who are your s...
September 23, 2010
Leadership is a Form of Mental Illness
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I will now present my case that leadership is a form of mental illness. To begin, let's divide the leaders of the world into two groups: friends and enemies. Please forgive me for taking a U.S.A.-centric approach in this argument, as it is just for simplicity.
In Exhibit One, we note that the leaders of countries we consider enemies are undeniably bat-spit crazy.
Kim Jong-il: crazy midget
Ahmadiniejad: crazy holocaust denier
Khadafy: designs his own hats
The list ...
In Exhibit One, we note that the leaders of countries we consider enemies are undeniably bat-spit crazy.
Kim Jong-il: crazy midget
Ahmadiniejad: crazy holocaust denier
Khadafy: designs his own hats
The list ...
September 20, 2010
The Opinions of Attractive People
Here's your next billion-dollar Internet startup idea. If it sounds like the dumbest idea in the world, remember that you didn't think of Twitter. That will keep you humble enough to get through this post.
Imagine a web site that allows any adult to post a ten-second video that is nothing but a statement of opinion, showing only the speaker's face. The opinion could be anything from "Diet Coke tastes better than Diet Pepsi" to a political preference. The web site would sort the opinions into ...
Imagine a web site that allows any adult to post a ten-second video that is nothing but a statement of opinion, showing only the speaker's face. The opinion could be anything from "Diet Coke tastes better than Diet Pepsi" to a political preference. The web site would sort the opinions into ...
September 15, 2010
Future Searching
I'm always amazed when I search for some obscure topic on the Internet and get a perfectly good answer in seconds. I'm just as amazed when I find a hole in what the Internet can tell me. I wonder how different life will be when most of the holes are plugged.
Example: What is the most profitable ***LEGAL*** cash crop that an inexperienced farmer could plant on five flat acres in Northern California? And I want the choices sorted by how much effort is required for each sort of crop. I would ac...
Example: What is the most profitable ***LEGAL*** cash crop that an inexperienced farmer could plant on five flat acres in Northern California? And I want the choices sorted by how much effort is required for each sort of crop. I would ac...
September 13, 2010
Your Next Gym
Imagine the gym of the future. It has rows of exercise devices, same as now, but the machines have sensors that can detect who is using them (maybe via RFID from your gym card) and how much poundage is being moved at any moment. For the cardio machines, your speed and distance would be measured, just as it is now.
Now imagine that each machine is networked to a server. Everyone in the gym works as a team, with their actions becoming the inputs for a wall-sized video game. Each gym would have a...
Now imagine that each machine is networked to a server. Everyone in the gym works as a team, with their actions becoming the inputs for a wall-sized video game. Each gym would have a...
Scott Adams's Blog
- Scott Adams's profile
- 1258 followers
Scott Adams isn't a Goodreads Author
(yet),
but they
do have a blog,
so here are some recent posts imported from
their feed.
