I've always appreciated the quotes and stories about how hard work perseveres over blind luck. While I don't discount that occasionally real luck comes along at just the right time - I suspect that more often we create our own luck. That perfect job doesn't just come along; you don't just happen to get a great mark on a test; the perfect partner doesn't just happen to be where you went out. Rather, I think you found the perfect job because you were working hard to find it (submitting resumes, searching job ads, networking with the right people); you got a great mark because you did the homework, went to class, and studied; you found your perfect partner because (like the job) you hung out with people you liked - perhaps s/he was doing the same at the same time.

Well now there is a study that shows you can improve your luck. It examined "lucky people" and their attitudes and behaviours, and compared them to those of "unlucky people." The researchers were able to show that lucky people were better at seeing opportunity (and then taking advantage of it. It wasn't that they got more opportunities, just that they were better at recognizing when they did happen. The linked article (here) used one experiment where the subjects were given a task (count the photographs in a newspaper). There was a half page ad with 2 inch type on the second page that said "Stop counting. There are 43 ..." Although the lucky people tended to see this and stop counting, the unlucky people had such a narrow focus (looking for images) that they tended to miss the ad and kept counting.

The studies examined a number of other factors, but one central fact was that tense people have a harder time noticing things - even (maybe especially) when they are specifically looking for those things. Those who are less apt to focus on only one thing will notice more.

The study's author was able to create a "luck school" and teach unlucky people how to be more lucky. They emphasized four principles and tried to teach three techniques to improve them. 80% became "luckier."

Four principles

[Lucky people] are skilled at creating and noticing chance opportunities, make lucky decisions by listening to their intuition, create self-fulfilling prophesies via positive expectations, and adopt a resilient attitude that transforms bad luck into good.

Three techniques

Unlucky people often fail to follow their intuition when making a choice, whereas lucky people tend to respect hunches.

Unlucky people tend to be creatures of routine ... In contrast, many lucky people try to introduce variety into their lives. [see my earlier blog entry on practising change]

Lucky people tend to see the positive side of their ill fortune. They imagine how things could have been worse.

So - if you are unlucky - you can with a little effort become luckier. Try it, what can you lose?

Lastly, some quotes about work and luck:

"Shallow men believe in luck. Strong men believe in cause and effect." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

The harder I work, the luckier I get. - Sam Goldwyn

When I work fourteen hours a day, seven days a week, I get lucky. - Dr Armand Hammer

It's hard to detect good luck - it looks so much like something you've earned. - Frank A. Clark

I'm a great believer in luck and I find the harder I work, the more I have of it. - Thomas Jefferson

The only thing that overcomes hard luck is hard work. ~Harry Golden

Luck? I don't know anything about luck. I've never banked on it, and I'm afraid of people who do. Luck to me is something else: Hard work -- and realizing what is opportunity and what isn't. - Lucille Ball

Dictionary is the only place that success comes before work. Hard work is the price we must pay for success. I think you can accomplish anything if you're willing to pay the price. - Vince Lombardi

Learn to be lucky. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/3304496/Be-lucky---its-an-easy-skill-to-learn.html

Support Our Troops

"Support our troops" is a phrase that is really beginning to bug me. Not because I don't think the troops deserve support - they certainly do. The phrase bugs me because it is used to justify telling us what to think and it only seems to appear during certain events.

I'll tackle the second issue first. Not all of the fatalities in Afghanistan are combat related. Some have died from the same kinds of things that were killing service members before we ever packed up and headed somewhere with lots of sand. Things like vehicle roll-overs. Before you start to think that I am suggesting these soldiers don't deserve our respect I want to make it clear: THESE SOLDIERS DESERVE OUR RESPECT - the same respect given to their comrades that die from combat. The thing is, the ones that die in-service here in Canada ALSO deserve our respect, no matter the end cause. In these situations the soldier was carrying out his/her duty to our country. The cause of death is not important. What is important is that they died doing their job - one which by it's very nature is a service to the country. But, here is where it gets really hairy - service members were dying on duty long before we ever heard of Al Queda or Taliban or even Saddam Hussein. They will still be dying in service after we have forgotten those names too. So, please respect all of those members that give the ultimate sacrifice in service - no matter the cause, location or time.

Now the issue that really, REALLY, twists my "short and curlies" into a knot: supporting your troops means realizing that a soldiers duties are not always pleasant, and yet understanding that someone needs to do them and that someone needs to feel appreciated in her/his job the way we all do. However, it does not mean that you have to agree with the reasons the soldier has been asked to do those things, nor does it mean that disagreeing with your country's political direction (etc.) disrespects the soldier (some soldiers need to sit up and take notice here as well). Many people though would have you believe that voicing opposition to a current political view that involves sending troops to foreign locations means you don't support those troops.

There are also people that believe they cannot support the troops if they do not believe in the politics. I am here to say that these are mutually exclusive. You can absolutely abhor the reason a soldier is sent on a mission - and yet still support the soldier for doing the job given to him/her. Take your opinion where it should be heard - to the soldier's ultimate masters - the politicians. If you change their minds then they will change the soldier's mission (and s/he will then tackle the new mission). Soldiers are required to obey orders - whether they agree with them or not. The rest of us have a duty to ensure they are given the correct orders.

One last note: occassionaly soldiers go beyond the morally (and legally) acceptable. It has happened in the past (most recently Canadians will remember what happened in Somalia) and will undoubtedly happen in the future. Blind support of the troops is nearly as bad as not supporting them when they are just carrying out their (lawful) orders. Thankfully these situations are not the norm. It is incumbent on the rest of our society to watch for these situations, and occassionally to censure those who go too far.

Cool optical illusion

How many colours do you see? There is orange, magenta, and green. NO BLUE! It is hard to believe but the blue stripe and the green strip are actually the same colour! (And sometimes I see two different magenta/purple/pink colours too - one of which is actually the orange.)

(On my LCD screen it looks pretty freaky if I scroll it quickly.)

Full details available here.

Opposing points of view

A couple of geeks (one that actually codes) with very different points of view:

Chris Pirillo

"When you believe you can compensate for a lack of skill by doubling your efforts, there's no end to what you can't do."

Jeff Atwood

talent is far less important than enthusiasm (Jeff's blog post on the subject)

So which is correct?
I suspect some of both. I've certainly seen the enthusiasm approach succeed in all kinds of areas - many of which have nothing to do with computers (the RMC recruit obstacle course comes to mind). On the other hand, I've also seen enthusiasm run into roadblocks that only new skills can overcome. Notice I did not say improved skills? That's because I've seen enthusiasm produce improvements. I've seen tasks (now I'm thinking of in the classroom) tackled where the participants definitely did not have the level of skills needed when they started. Enthusiasm gives them the courage to jump in and improve the skills they have - to the point where they succeed. They do not lose these skills after and can continue to use them for new challenges as they arrive. They do need some base level though (I don't think Jeff was really advocating that no skill can be overcome

In fact I think that is part of teaching - engendering the enthusiasm so that the students can learn on their own ...

Story of Stuff

This video (click picture for video) is a little over the top (for example implying that every use of flame retardants is evil) - but includes some real important points too. The big point is that we (it's American, but I'm including all of the "western world") consume too much instead of simply using items longer. Currently we cannot survive economically without growth. Many items are manufactured to fail (planned obsolescence) while many others are designed for us to simply "think" that something needs replacing (perceived obsolescence). Fact (I didn't check up on it): 99% of materials trashed within 6 months!

It's long been my opinion that the Western World's premise for economy cannot continue. Here in Canada we like to trumpet some of our social programs (IMO deservedly). However, most of those programs (like social security/old age pensions) cannot continue to be funded at current rates without continuous population growth. In fact, the Canadian birth rate isn't high enough to ensure this so we require immigration to support this. I am in no way against immigration, but I am saddened that this would be a reason for it. Many other things in our society also require the continuous growth. Watch the business news (occasionally - it's too boring to watch every day :-) and you will see stories of companies that are perceived to be worth less, simply because they failed "grow." They may have made excellent profits while offering useful products but since they only sold the same number as last year (last quarter, last month, last whatever) they aren't considered any good anymore. This is a clear example of how we force products into obsolescence. Obviously these companies MUST create a throw away product, just so investors want to own them.

The requirement for growth is much more widespread than many realize. My own employer is currently in a deficit position. The solution to that deficit is growth. With more customers, profit margins will increase and we can balance our budget. While I am aiming criticism here, it isn't at my employer per se. It doesn't have much choice in the current funding climate. It too is being forced into this situation by the overall strategies of government and economy.

How do we change this. Sadly I feel like most attempts are typical "tilting at windmills" examples of futility. Certainly supporting sustainable development is part of this. Simple things like recycling and re-use are very important but currently it is cheaper to throw away and get new stuff. Somehow it needs to become more expensive to replace with new. That statement smacks of government intervention which is something I dislike. An example that seems to work is the deposit on beer bottles (Ontario has a 95%-99% rate of return on beer bottles). I don't think that is extendable to every product we use though (what would the deposit on a car or house be?). My sadness comes from the thought that we will need some sort of crash (resource crash) to turn things around. Have you ever read "The Sheep Look Up"? A very scary book. Recently we have seen a large increase in interest in renewable energies and efficient vehicles. How come? In a large part because oil got expensive. Not because of some altruistic reasoning by the population. :-(

(Link to The Sheep Look Up search)

Physics Game

I like physics. I like games. 'Nuff said.

Online Physics Games

What is Unite for?

You've either already heard about Unite, or you will soon. This is a new product from Opera - the company that makes a supposedly really good browser, that I've never bothered to try. "Aye, there's the rub." A lot of people are used to seeing Opera in that context - just another web browser that they don't feel compelled to even try. That might be the first nail in the coffin for their new product Unite.

So what is Unite? Well basically it is a point and click web server for home use. Without going into technical details it allows you to easily put your own website on the Internet, without putting your content under someone else's control. It has drag and drop widgets for file sharing, a media site (think Internet radio with your music), photo-sharing (like flickr), a chat server, a message wall, and some others. If people like/use it I would expect many other widgets to come soon - the glaringly obvious one being video sharing (like YouTUBE).

Perhaps the biggest difference though is that since the content is on your own computer you do not have to agree to the terms of service of another site, nor give up your ownership of your files (that caused a huge backlash on FaceBook) and you can remove data when you want to. You also have control over who sees (or doesn't see) your content (if you care about this then do it carefully though).

Caveat: this is your own computer doing the serving, over your own Internet connection. If your connection isn't fast enough (upload speed, not download speed) then people won't be able to get your content fast enough. You may have limits on your total upload amounts, on top of speed issues.

So what could/will people use Unite for?

• replacing social networking software. Instead of hosting your status and your pictures (and other stuff) on FaceBook or MySpace or [insert huge list of social networking sites] host it where it already is - on your own computer. If you put up links to other people using Unite that are your friends you now have the "networking" part. P2P (peer-to-peer) social networking!
  
• replacing sharing services like flickr and YouTUBE - impose your own limits, no "pro" account required. No need to spend time uploading pictures/videos - it is already where you want to share it from
• having a personal radio station that only plays music you like (own)
• keeping in touch with people (like the social networking sites already listed)

Will people use it? I have no idea. It has a lot of potential, but like I said at the beginning many people are going to think of anything with the word Opera as just another web browser (or maybe a fat lady singing Wagner). The fact that you have to install Opera on the computer that is running Unite probably works against it. Note: people accessing the site can use any web browser.

Can people use it? On the technical side that will depend on their ISP (most will allow some use). On the useability side it doesn't look like most people will have much trouble getting it to work, although setting access/security might be a little more effort for some people.

What's missing? There should be a video sharing widget, and a friends widget. I'm also suprised there is no blog widget.

What do you think it might get used for? What do you think is missing? Have you actually tried it yet?