cybertrails

Cricket news, comment and results from The Times and The Sunday Times -- Times Online Sport

Link: Cricket news, comment and results from The Times and The Sunday Times -- Times Online Sport.

Maybe I will never undertstand Cricket...

Jones was a little lucky to end Warne’s shrewd and feisty innings in the eighth over yesterday when Warne middled a flat pull at a long hop straight to Ashley Giles on the square leg boundary. He followed up, however, by claiming Brett Lee with the help of a sharp slip catch to his left by Marcus Trescothick and then ended Gillespie’s admirably staunch innings of 111 balls and almost two hours with a ball that swung the other way.

Bye Bye Bill...Hi, Steve!

                                                   

Enough already.

Four reboots to start my PC today. 235 messages on my Sophos `spam protected' mail server; 201 Spam!

Fugg it. I've had enough of this Wintel shite.

I've been a loyal, true and generous lover for over fifteen yars. I've got a stack of  Wintel PC's, Campaq, IBM and Sony laptops, all kept for sentimental reasons.

I've got back-ups of my back-ups. I've got external hard-drives, external and internal Cd-Rom drives, interna ans external DVD drives.

And....

I HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF THIS FUGGING SHITE!

The stress. The expense. The eternal fuggin' upgrades that fug up eternally.

Now.

I will personally discover whether the Mac Myth is hype... or the real deal.

Bought an iMac G5, 20", upgraded to its limits, ditto a 17" G4 Powerbook filled to the gills. 3 year service cover on both. No expense spared.

So deliver Mac.Or else.

Frightened to fart at the learning curve.

But, enough is...enough.

I'll record my fears and, hopefully, my progress.

                                                

Stash the cash

                                                   

Brain Gym 1.

O.K., Let's assume I give you $ 4,367,632 in $1 dollar bills. Yeah. I'm runnin'.

I ask you to keep the cash in the minimum number of water-tight, sealed, bags to allow you give me ANY specific $ amount I may ask for ( between $1 and $4,367,632, in single $ increments e.g. $ 12, $7,439, $ 116,924, $2,593,091 etc., ) without you needing to open even one bag to give me - at my first asking - precisely the amount I ask you to give me.

What, exactly, is the minimum number of bags you need to have sealed?

Mission Possible: Vision. Action. Impact.

                                     

Vision & Mission Statements.

Don't yawn. Don't puke. Don't snigger. Don't giggle.

Four decades ago, 25th of May, 1961, JFK addressed Congress in unforgettable terms:

"I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth.

No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish.

We propose to accelerate the development of the appropriate lunar space craft. We propose to develop alternate liquid and solid fuel boosters, much larger than any now being developed, until certain which is superior.

We propose additional funds for other engine development and for unmanned explorations -- explorations which are particularly important for one purpose which this nation will never overlook: the survival of the man who first makes this daring flight.

But in a very real sense, it will not be one man going to the moon-if we make this judgment affirmatively, it will be an entire nation. For all of us must work to put him there."

In a subsequent speech at Rice University, the following year, he no less memorably observed:

"We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."

JFK uses the term Goal in both speeches.

But, despite the relative brevity of both speeches, it's always seemed to me that taken together they represent a comprehensive and compelling Vision: within which we're offered a view of the enduring Mission & Purpose of the USA, have its Core Values and Macro Goals spelled out, or powerfully evoked, on the basis of which the desired Positioning and Cultural / Brand Character of the USA - at its aspired-to-best - are all immediately recognisable.

Further, still within the confines of very few pages, the speeches begin the process of articulating the key actions that would be necessary to pursue the Mission and achieve the Macro Goals.

It can be difficult for those who were not around at the time to fully comprehend the impact of Kennedy's Vision; not just on citizens of America, but on a global audience.

Clear and Compelling. Jaw-droppingly Challenging. Engaging. Inspiring. Focusing. Energising. Innovation-demanding.

It's fashionable in today's era of so-called `accelerated change' to hear mantras such as `Fire! Ready! Aim!' or `Fire! Fire! Fire!'

Cute enough stuff, with serious points underlying them. My personal mantra may not be as cute - but I still think it's closer to where JFK was coming from: Vision! Action! Impact!

So, why am I banging on about Kennedy and Apollo anyway?

Because terms such as Vision, Mission, Core Values, Character & Culture have become debased currency.

They are widely used, even more widely abused and just as likely to provoke sniggers over the water-cooler and yawns in the Boardroom as they are to actually energise and inspire.

That's because so many Vision and Mission Statements are unadulterated pap and / or crap.

They don't pass what caught Dave Young's attention when reviewing `Brand Clout' by Dennis Flynn: The Giggle Test.

The Giggle Test

"One way to validate the effectiveness and relevance of the vision and mission statements is to see if they pass the mustard of The Giggle Test. This means finding out the answer to how your employees are reacting to these statements when you're not in the room. Are they laughing at them in the hallways or exchanging jokes about them in their e-mails? Have the statements created cynicism amongst the troops? Or are they nodding their heads in agreement and endorsing them in their conversations with fellow employees? Passing The Giggle Test is a critical gate in validating the effectiveness of your vision and mission statements. Again, if they don't ring true, if they're not believable and achievable to the employees, then they are useless."

Note that phrase at the end? `Believable and achievable'?

Point 1: Those factors don't even begin to kick in unless an earlier gate has been passed through: Intelligibility! Vision, Mission, Goal...whatever: is it crystal-fugging-clear?

JFK: " This nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth."

Google's Mission Statement: "Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful."

And `our survey said': Crystal clear...with the added - necessary to succeed - ingredient of a very high...`just a minute...shit...how the hell are we gonna gear up (change / innovate / work smarter together) to actually do that?' factor!

Point 2: Source-credibility. `Who said that?'

JFK: The President (CEO) of the United States of America.

GOOGLE: Google's founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin.

Does it sound like them talkin' ? Or some Agency / Consultant speak?

It doesn't matter a flyin' fug if the words are / were written by someone else. Would that CEO tell it like that ?

Do I believe they are serious? Do I believe they have the brains and the balls and the clout to drive everything we do, and impact every way in which we do what we do, to pursue that Vision / Mission successfully?

Link: Man on a Mission: Google's (GOOG) Mission Statement.

Swimmin' with Tom Peters

Love him or loathe him? Marketing Uber-guru? Megalomaniac on meth?

Whatever your take on Tom Peters, if you're directly involved in shaping Corporate or Brand destinies, it'd truly be a shame to ignore him.

                                     

I don't suggest buying into most, or even much, of Tom's brilliant insights / bravura bullshit (whichever side of the dance-floor you're on), but personally, I find so many of his observations, supported by evidence or not, to be invaluable provocations.

Captain Obvious, at times? Captain Recycle at others? Sure. But, whatever else he may be, our Tom is a provocateur par excellence.

And, whether one is CEO, CFO, Global Marketing VP, `Creative Director of the World' (yeah, I actually worked with a guy fuggtard enough to have that on his card), Brand Manager, Agency Planner, Researcher...whatever...we should all hunger to be provoked daily.

Provoked to think again, to look - to see - anew. Provoked to suspend disbelief; to strive for relevant originality and positive change.

You know the feeling one can get on vacation, particularly when visiting someplace for the first time?

Duh. No,I'm not talking about getting lashed or the tantric sex even; I'm thinking rather 'bout the way one's sensory circuits can feel as if all the controls have suddenly been set to `Max'.

Sights poke sticks in our eyes for attention; sounds seem amplified, more diverse, more competitive; odours are more pronounced, more complex; tastes...err...taste like tastes: our pallette orgasms.

We're alive. Plugged in, switched on, alert and vital.

In contrast, our `normal daily lives' can seem as if we've been in cold storage, left to the mercy of Hal to press `Defrost'.

Am I right or am I right? Don't play the retard.

Wouldn't it be neat if we could somehow feel that plugged in, switched on, alert and vital, as we faced each new day's schedule?

Whether that centred on crafting copy, enhancing an NPD programme, revising a research plan, re-vitalising an ailing Brand / Love-mark, re-Visioning the future of our `Global Corporation' or just...making some positive impact in one way or another!

Yeah, Captain Obvious strikes again. It would be great - it should be great - but truth is we don't usually feel like we're on vacation when we're `working'. We're not that plugged in, switched on, alert or vital.

Because we're not provoked enough.

But, what if one developed the habit of deliberately injecting novel sensory input into one's daily life: seeking out fresh stimuli each day, actively provoking one's brain, then trusting that brain to make its own connections between those novel inputs and the particular task at hand?

We explore novel connections all the time in pre-planned Creativity workshops, in coherent NPD programmes, in our Brand Atomics / Brand-futuring exercises, even in our Focus Groups, right?

So, why not similarly explore novel connections by and for oneself? For free. Daily.

Which brings me, not so neatly, back to Tom Peters. Tom Peters is loud, passionate, prolific and provocative.

Sure, for some, he smudges the lines between analysis, assertion and anecdote a tad too readily; sure, his day-glo slides often look as if they were compiled forty years ago by Marshall McLuhan having a bad trip.

Geddoverit. For, warts and all, Tom is not merely a great provocateur he's also a great sharer and avid `blogger'.

So, if you are even vaguely tempted to get out of the mental ice-box, interested in taking an exotic vacation before the next `working day' begins, you could do a lot worse than pay a visit to Tom Peter's  site before retiring to your bed each night.

Dive randomly into any one of the many pools of ideas freely accessible there; then swim through the links to other people's pools, let your brain do a few lengths in each. Make it a habit to take a random dip each day.

Do it with no clothes on!

Just do it. Tick.

[Main]

7/7

                                                       

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way..." (Charles Dickens, `Tale of Two Cities')                                                      

                                                           

"I wish to speak directly to those who came to London today to take life.

I know that you personally do not fear giving up your own life in order to take others - that's why you are dangerous.

But I know you fear that you may fail in your long-term objective of destroying our free society.

And I can show you why you will fail.

In the days that follow, look at our airports, look at our sea ports and look at our railway stations and, even after your cowardly attack, you will see that people from the rest of Britain, people from around the world, will arrive in London to become Londoners and to fulfill their dreams and their potential.

They choose to come to London, as so many have come before, because they come to be free; they come to live the life they choose, they come to be able to be themselves.

They flee you because you tell them how they should live. They don't want that.

And nothing you do, however many of us you kill, will stop that flight to our city where freedom is strong and where people can live in harmony with one another. Whatever you do, however many you kill, you will fail." ( Ken Livingstone, Mayor of London, 07/07/05)                                             

                                                           

Fine words. Words matter.

Words like `we', words like `us'...words like `you', words like `them'.

Words like `Islamic', words like `Christian'.

Words like `Fundamentalist', words like `Terrorist' .

Definitions matter. Distinctions matter.

We each have a responsibility, a duty, to define our terms so well - to define our terms in such terms - that only the most fucktard of psychopaths could reject our definitions.

And, thereafter, to apply our terms appropriately and consistently.

It is beyond shame - it is at best an act of cowardice and at worst an act of support for murderers - when the BBC directs that the word `bombers' be applied instead of the word `terrorists', as it has done.

Be clear on what is meant by `terrorism'. ( Read it all to appreciate its operational import)

"terrorism is the intentional use of, or threat to use violence against civilians or against civilian targets, in order to attain political aims."

Whatever `motivations' are advanced, whatever goals are aspired to, whatever grievances are cited `in justification' or `explanation'...are all irrelevant on such a definition of terrorism.

It is a mighty fine definition.

It does not negate nor argue against the legitimacy of any grievances felt by any community, however small, however large, regardlesss of creed, ethnicity, sexual-orientation, political aspiration or any other variable you care to mention; it does not prejudge the social, communal or global desirability - or otherwise - of the achievement of the aspired-to goals of any given individual, group, race or religion; it, rightly, treats such grievances and aspirations as irrelevant.

If we are engaged in a global `war on terrorism' - and you had better believe, like in your bones we, all non-terrorists, are - we must be united and clear in what we are truly at war with.

Because, from that, it should become clearer to us all what we are not - and do not wish to be - at war with in error.

I'll return to `Fundamentalism' on other day.

[Main]         

         

The Holy Grail

                                              

For those who may simply not know how different chess pieces move, a) you're on the wrong page and b) the marvel I pay homage to here must sadly, for now, remain unintelligible.

That's not me being smug or elitist, it's more a case of how I imagine I could deal with a kind offer from Stephen Hawking to `explain the Universe' to me, one on one, tete a tete, over a Remy and Monte Christo, given that I can't tell a quark from a quasar.

"Oh, c'mon Stevie, cut the crap, everyone knows electricity boils down to magic in the end!"

If, however, you do play chess but the term `Babson' means nothing to you yet, then I implore you, please read on.

For this post is about a masterpiece of creativity, art, intellect and perseverance.

It ranks, in terms of aesthetic perfection, as highly as the most mature, most refined, most celebrated works of Bach, Mozart, Leonardo, Michelangelo or Shakespeare.

In sporting terms it represents, in terms of magnitude of achievement, something akin to an amateur golfer winning all four majors, each year, for ten years straight.

It is, quite simply, the most sublime chess problem ever composed.

"Neil Armstrong, Tom Cruise...Tom, Neil."

Seems to me the diminutive, yet perfectly-formed, Tom Cruise is getting something of a bum rap in these post-Oprah days.

                                                    

In an interview, Wednesday, with the German tabloid Bild, the world's most `out' Scientologist was reported to have confirmed his belief in the existence of aliens.

We are all, armed with this `earth-shattering' news, implicitly invited to mock the vertically-challenged-one and to speculate as to at which precise time-space location ("Get a life, Heisenberg!")Tom first discovered he couldn't get all the marbles back in the bag.

More than a smidgin unfair I feel, since, if you are amongst those who do not believe in the existence of aliens I've got good and bad news for you.

Good news first, O.K.?

You are not alone.

Bad news?

You just got an F in math.

Here's a true story.

Back in January, 2000, I had the - to me - extraordinary privilege of spending three days with Neil Armstrong.

                                                    

Neil was the keynote speaker at a global management conference I was helping make happen. Over the course of those few days, in casual conversation in his suite, seated next to him at a `formal' dinner, when just chatting as he prepped his slides on the `mac', or simply when listening to his eventual presentation, I was struck by a number of things about the great man.   

Thing 1: I have never met another human being within whom the gulf between genuine modesty and actual lifetime achievements is on such a Grand Canyon-like scale.   

Thing 2: Neil Armstrong isn't just a `great driver'. He's a very sharp bag of nails indeed in the cranial department.    

At the dinner following his presentation, a fellow guest asked Neil "Do you believe there's life elsewhere in the Universe?" Naturally, we all waited with proverbial bated.

Bizarrely for me, yet consistent with his own tendency for self-effacement, the Columbus of our age simply put a hand on my sleeve and invited "What do you think, Brian?"

Duh. A true Homer Simpson moment in my life.

As it happened, I'd recently read Amir Aczel's `Probability1' and found the arguments therein compelling. IMHO, I tentatively offered,"It's statistically certain." Fence-sitter? Moi?

Columbus concurred. Phew.

So, let's maybe cut Mr.Cruise a bit more slack, right here, right now, O.K.,and just remind ourselves of the math supporting his `weird' belief in aliens?

Now, as far as I'm aware, the count ain't actually over yet. The polling booths are still open. But, current projections as to the number of stars in our own little galaxy tend to range from around 100 billion upwards towards 300 billion.

And estimates as to the number of galaxies within the visible Universe currently hover around the 140 billion mark.

As Bill Bryson observes in his wonderful `A Short History of Nearly Everything`, "If galaxies were frozen peas, there would be enough galaxies to fill the Royal Albert Hall", (or any Olympic Stadium you care to think of, for those for whom the venue for Eric Clapton's annual godfest is unfamiliar territory).

And to continue the analogy, if you had 140 billion - repeat billion - such Olympic stadiums and stars were themselves the size of frozen peas, you would have 140 billion Olympic stadiums each of which would be overflowing with its own hundreds of billions of frozen-pea-stars.

O.K., so let's try holding that image of 140 billion Olympic-sized stadiums, each overflowing with some two or three hundred billion pea-stars, in our minds for a moment longer?

Nice trick. Very cool. Well done.You really must show me how you did that sometime.

On y va. Now, let me quote the math, as advanced by Aczel:

" Let's start by making some reasonable and minimal (that is, most conservative) assumptions (but fully consistent with all scientific discoveries to date) about the basic probabilities of the existence of life on a planet orbiting any one star, other than the Sun.

Let's take the estimate of the number of stars with planets, as at or around p = 0.5 (some now hold this to be too conservative)

Then, let's assume that only one in nine of any such planets will lie in the habitable zone (consistent with all extrasolar planets to date discovered and confirmed in our own solar system).

Now we come to the hard part, getting a lower bound for the actual probability of life: what is the probability that DNA develops on a planet that is within its star's DNA habitable zone?

Let's entertain the notion that DNA is an extremely complex molecule with a very small chance of occurring on its own and that life is precarious because the universe is a dangerous place. Let's therefore assume that the probability of life occurring on any single planet that is already within its star's habitable zone is extremely, extremely, remote: only one in a trillion.

By multiplication of that extrmely small number by the previous factors of 0.5 and 1/9, we get the assumption that the probability of life around any one given star is 0.00000000000005.

(Slimmish, uh?)

Our galaxy has about 300 billion stars, and lets assume there are 100 billion galaxies in the universe. We can plug those numbers into our estimates and we get:

P ( the probability of life in orbit around at lest one other star in the known universe ) = 1 - (0.99999999999995) to the power 30,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

The `answer' is a number indistinguishable from 1.00 at any level of decimal accuracy reported by a computer. The answer is, for all practical purposes, equal to 1.00 or 100 percent.

But...

Even were we to assume that there were only 10 billion stars in our own galaxy (rather than 300 billion) and that there were only 1 billion galaxies (rather than 140 billion), the answer still comes out to a number indistinguishable from 1.00 for the probability of life elsewhere in the universe.

Finally, we really don't know for certain the size of the entire universe. Some believe that the universe is infinite. If there are infinitely many stars, the answer to our question is that the probability of extraterrestrial life is identically equal to 1.00 (not just a number indistinguishable from 1.00 to any level of computable acuracy) - and this holds true no matter how small the probability of life on any planet may be, as long as that number is not identically zero (and we know that to be impossible, since we ourselves exist)."

Got a hunch Tom and Neil would get along just fine.

[Main]