Articles Books

7 Strategies for generating ideas.: An article from: The Futurist
~ Robert B. Tucker

How do leading-edge organizations come up with new ideas? And how do they use those ideas to create new products, services, businesses, and solutions?

Well, according to researchers from the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in New York, they apply one or more of the following deliberate idea generation methods:

- Invite everyone in the quest for new ideas;
- Involve customers in the process of generating ideas;
- Involve customers in new ways;
- Focus on the needs that customers don't express;
- Seek ideas from new customer groups;
- Involve suppliers in product innovation;
- Benchmark idea-creation methods;

The methods are outlined in this article, written by Robert Tucker, who wrote the classic 'Winning the Innovation Game', among other titles.

You can read this interesting article on his corporate website, InnovationResource.

I'm a liberal. And so it seems natural for me to think of a Middle East in which Jews and Arabs live in harmony. As a matter of fact, anything else is simply not peace. And that is an opinion Daniel Gordis knows all about.

Gordis starts by pointing out that whether or not Israel can do anything to achieve peace, if its citizens think there is no hope for some sort of peace even for their children, they'll leave. So Israel has to do something.

That means trying to reduce the killing, and it means having Israelis and Arabs living apart, "so that they can stop ruining each others' lives."

Gordis says that Israeli attitudes towards the West Bank need to change. Some Israelis see only the land, and want to keep all of it. Others see only the Arabs, and want to give away all the land. Neither of these attitudes are going to work, no matter how the matter is resolved.

Gordis also advises Israelis to show some pride in winning the second intifada (assuming it does actually reach a viable truce). It is a war that Israel, on the whole, has conducted itself admirably in. Yes, there needs to be a continuation of self-criticism. But the author explains that Israelis also need to avoid internalizing some rather vicious "critiques" from Europe. I agree. It isn't easy to admit that you are right and your opponent is wrong. Oh, it is easy to do so when you want to fight. But it is so tough to do when you want to avoid a fight.

Gordis also says that Israel's population statistics are a "time bomb." I know that almost everyone agrees with him. But I do not. Israel has over five million Jews. They may flee to America or Vanuatu. But they won't be moving to Jordan or Saudi Arabia. There is no reason why ten or eleven thousand square miles should be too much land for five million Jews. Nor is there a reason why the Arabs living there ought not put up with Israel defending Jewish rights.

I recommend this very interesting article.

There are few journalists out there capable of handling such complex issues with the grace and integrity of Weisberg. I recommend it wholeheartedly, though ignore the title, most likely an editorial mishap.

"Absolutely 100% Guilty" is a 6-Tape, 12-Hour program, in which former Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney Vincent T. Bugliosi explores and explains virtually all aspects of the infamous (and massively bungled) O.J. Simpson murder trial of 1995. I, like many other Americans, was shocked and disappointed when it was announced on October 3, 1995, that the jury had declared Simpson "Not Guilty" of stabbing to death his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman.

Mr. Bugliosi, with his usual flair and no-nonsense style (along with some well-placed humor), spells out in scathing and pointed detail every reason why the prosecutors for the State of California, who were assigned the task of convincing a jury to convict a double-murderer named Orenthal James Simpson, were very nearly totally inept throughout the entire year-long trial, mishandling large chunks of evidence in the case, and even ignoring certain evidence that would have undoubtedly aided their cause greatly.

This special video program, which was produced in 1999, is the "companion" set of videos to Bugliosi's 1996 best-selling book which covers the same topic (entitled "Outrage: The Five Reasons Why O.J. Simpson Got Away With Murder"). This twelve-hour video series, hosted throughout by Mr. Bugliosi himself, is very nearly as detailed as the 513-page paperback edition of his book "Outrage".

This video set consists of not only Mr. Bugliosi's own words -- but there are many interview segments with some of the people who were closely associated with the O.J. trial. Such as: Police Detectives Mark Fuhrman, Philip Vannatter, and Tom Lange. Plus Nicole's sister Denise Brown, Nicole's friend Faye Resnick, L.A. Criminalist Dennis Fung, and several others, who all help to augment Mr. Bugliosi's commentary throughout the program.

I watched the majority of the Simpson trial on television, but via this captivating video series, I have been able to obtain an entirely fresh and enlightened perspective on those proceedings from a keenly-astute lawyer (and ex-California prosecutor) himself, Vince Bugliosi. Vincent's obvious command of the evidence in the case (even though he was in no way officially connected with the trial at all) comes through quite clearly and magnetically during this program.

It's rather startling to learn about the large number of blunders committed throughout the trial by the prosecution team (led by Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden), plus the multiple legal boners doled out by the trial's judge, Lance Ito.

Having a minimal amount of knowledge in the area of official "Rules of Law" pertaining to such a case as I watched the trial throughout the bulk of the year 1995, I had no true sense or inkling that Clark, Darden, et al, were performing so miserably in court -- until watching Mr. Bugliosi's assessment of the trial on these videos (and while reading his "Outrage" publication, which I also highly endorse).

For example, I had always thought when viewing the trial day by day, that there simply must have been SOME legal roadblock which caused the prosecution to NOT present to the jury two of THE biggest incriminating pieces of evidence in the case that would have gone a long way toward proving Simpson's guilt in the two brutal June 12, 1994, murders with which he was charged -- that evidence being: Simpson's 32-minute recorded statement to Los Angeles police the day after the murders (in which he admitted to having been bleeding the night before and further advised the authorities that he just simply couldn't remember how he happened to receive the deep cut on his left hand just hours earlier). .... Plus: The famous "Bronco Chase" of June 17, 1994, when Simpson attempted to flee L.A. in his friend Al Cowling's Ford Bronco -- with gun, passport, disguise, and thousands of dollars in cash safely aboard the vehicle. All of this equipment and money, according to Simpson, was needed to simply visit Nicole's gravesite.

~~ Pauses To Control Fits Of Laughter ~~

I kept telling myself that there MUST be some legal precedent that kept Clark and Darden from introducing this crucial evidence, damning to the defense's case, to the jury. But, alas, there was NO such legal reason to have excluded this critical evidence, and Mr. Bugliosi tells us this during this video program. (No wonder he's so boiling mad at this prosecution team.)

It was later learned that the prosecutors didn't introduce this valuable evidence at the trial for the flimsiest of reasons -- They didn't want the jury to feel "sympathy" toward Simpson. Plus, the lawyers decided not to use Simpson's police statement because they didn't want to have the jury "hear Simpson saying he was not guilty out of his own mouth" (paraphrased quote).

Mr. Bugliosi has a field day with that last piece of inane reasoning. Because, when you think about it for a second, you can see how flimsy (and silly) a reason that is to not introduce a critical piece of damaging evidence against the defendant. It's ultra-silly because the jury ALREADY OBVIOUSLY KNEW that Simpson had pled "Not Guilty" to both counts of murder -- which is the whole reason there was a trial in the first place! Why would hearing him say it on tape make a huge difference?! It's the entire reason they (the jury) were there at all, because he didn't plead "Guilty"!

Unbelievable.

Mr. Bugliosi claims that the recorded police statement given by Simpson on June 13th of '94 was not only a key piece of evidence in the case that never saw the light of day in the courtroom -- but Vince goes so far as to say that if he himself had been the prosecutor in the case, he could have convicted Simpson of murder in the eyes of even THIS awful jury, based on just that one single piece of evidence all by itself! (And knowing how Mr. B. operates in the courtroom, I certainly wouldn't have placed any bets against such a boastful assertion actually being achieved by Vincent. That would have been great to witness indeed -- instead of the weak prosecutorial effort we actually did see take place.)

In addition -- Instead of barely even attempting to strike down the absurd notion of the "Police Frame-Up", which was introduced out of thin air and manufactured from whole cloth by the so-called "Dream Team" of Simpson defense lawyers (including Johnnie Cochran, F. Lee Bailey, and Barry Scheck), if Mr. Bugliosi had been in Marcia Clark's seat in 1995, we most certainly would NOT have had the jury begin deliberations with the notion that any type of "Police Conspiracy" had occurred at any point in time following the Brentwood murders of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman.

Mr. Bugliosi, on these videos, totally demolishes the idea of a "Police Frame-Up" with respect to the Simpson case. For one thing, Mark Fuhrman couldn't possibly have "planted" the bloody glove on Simpson's property even if he had WANTED to do so -- because 14 separate LAPD officers SAW ONLY A SINGLE GLOVE AT THE MURDER SITE BEFORE FUHRMAN EVEN ARRIVED AT THE SCENE OF THE CRIME!

So, unless somebody got FOURTEEN different police officers to blatantly lie about seeing only ONE glove at the 875 South Bundy Drive murder scene BEFORE Detective Fuhrman even arrived there, then that point alone eliminates the fanciful notion that Fuhrman planted the incriminating glove.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg regarding the "Police Frame-Up" idiocy. Vince tells us lots more on these tapes -- simple stuff too, that SHOULD have been used by Clark and Darden at the trial, stuff that completely eradicates the "Frame-Up and Police Misconduct" line of defense. And it should have been utilized over and over again (relentlessly) by the prosecutors to totally extinguish the groundless and despicable allegations that the low-life defense team made against the LAPD officers, detectives, and lab workers. These police officials, as we can easily see now (with Vincent Bugliosi's help), actually did a very good job in handling themselves throughout the Simpson murder investigation.

But instead of hammering the defense viciously in an attempt to knock down the Frame-Up/Misconduct junk, Clark and Darden (et al) barely even grazed the surface with their weak arguments to the jury on this matter. It's almost as if they themselves (the lawyers for the prosecution) had reservations about fighting these allegations. Based on their actions, it's as if they, too, might have believed the defense's silly "He Was Framed" smoke screen to some extent. Amazing.

Vince methodically takes apart and ridicules the defense team's "Race Card" tactics as well (and deservedly so, IMO). The subject of "Race" was injected into the Simpson case due to the Mark Fuhrman "N Word" tapes that were allowed in as evidence during the trial by Judge Ito. And Vince tells us just why that whole "Sub-Trial" was a sham, and absolutely preposterous, right from the start.

If Mr. Bugliosi had been the lead prosecutor in the O.J. case, there's little doubt in my mind that the outcome of the trial would have been drastically different. Even with the very poor jury that sat in judgment of Simpson (a jury which thought a whopping four hours of deliberation was enough to sort out and evaluate the entire eight months of witness testimony), I'm confident that Mr. Bugliosi could have secured the proper verdict in the case -- and that verdict, per the overwhelming evidence that leads us there, is "Guilty as charged".

Another thing that burns both sides of Vincent's toast during this video program is the fact that he knows that the location (venue) of the trial COULD very easily have been changed. The trial should NOT have been held where it was (downtown Los Angeles, with a predominantly black jury). It should have been staged in Santa Monica, which would have probably changed the make-up of the jury greatly, because Santa Monica is populated by a majority of whites. That white vs. black fact alone might not have meant anything in the long run, but let's face facts -- statistics during and after the trial told all of us that a majority of whites felt Simpson was as guilty as Hitler; while a good-sized percentage of black citizens thought O.J. should walk. Vince gives us the reasons WHY Los Angeles D.A. Gil Garcetti fumbled the ball in this potentially-critical "venue" department.

This whole six-volume set is fascinating to watch, but Tape #6 is by far the most riveting portion of the program, as Mr. Bugliosi concludes the twelve-hour documentary with a lengthy section of "Mock Closing Arguments", complete with Lance Ito and O.J. Simpson look-alikes in the courtroom. Plus actors who fill in for defense lawyers Johnnie Cochran and Robert Shapiro as well.

But Vince does all of the talking on Tape 6 during his "Closing Arguments", as he gives what would have been his Final Summation to the jury if he himself had been the prosecuting attorney in the case against Simpson. Great, great stuff, complete with Vincent's occasional sly, tongue-in-cheek humor (e.g.: "Where does the defense GET guts like this?! Can you BUY them?! I've never seen any for sale here in Los Angeles! Maybe Mr. Scheck brought some with him from The Bronx!"). ~LOL~

Tape Six (all by itself) is most definitely worth the steep price that I paid for this intriguing set of videos (in my humble personal opinion, that is).

These videos contain lots of footage of the actual Simpson trial too, mixed in with the comments of Vincent and the others who are interviewed. Watching Vince evaluate, piece by piece, the various clips we find on these tapes, puts things in perspective. We see a clip -- and then Mr. Bugliosi tells us just why that footage is an absolute embarrassment to anyone prosecuting a man for murder (we see several scenes that play out in that form).

"Platinum Productions" produced this set of "Absolutely 100% Guilty" videocassettes. This progam, in a truncated version, was also made available for a limited time on the DVD format as well. But I have the VHS "Professional Edition", which consists of six individually-sleeved videotapes, housed inside a sturdy and attractive outer slipcase box. It's a good-looking set for the library shelf.

These now-out-of-print videos might be difficult to locate, but (obviously) I feel they are worth tracking down. When this program originally was distributed, a cleverly-titled website -- ojdidit.com -- was constructed for the sole purpose of selling these videos. An appropriate dot-com moniker, IMO. ~wink~

----------------------

Product Specifications:

> 6-Tape Set (VHS format).
> Tape Speed: Standard Play ("SP") Mode.
> Run Time: Approximately 2 Hours Per Tape.
> Audio Recorded In Hi-Fi Stereo.
> Video Aspect Ratio: Full Frame (1.33:1).
> In Color.
> Deluxe Boxed Set (Slipcased).
> Outer Slipcase Box Features Gold Embossed Lettering On The Back (Marked: "Vincent Bugliosi's Absolutely 100% Guilty; The Professional Edition").

> Two Other VHS Editions Were Also Marketed -- "The Library Edition", Which Included A Hard-Cover Copy Of Vincent Bugliosi's Book "Outrage" ... And "The Consumer Edition", Which Consisted Of Just One VHS Tape (2+ Hours Of Content).

> List Price (MSRP) For "The Professional Edition": $129.95.
> List Price (MSRP) For "The Library Edition": $249.95.
> List Price (MSRP) For "The Consumer Edition": $39.95.

----------------------

My Final "100% Guilty" Summation.........

Ladies and gentlemen of the video-collecting jury -- Vincent T. Bugliosi's "ABSOLUTELY 100% GUILTY" set of videos is an essential item for any collector of O.J. Simpson-trial material. Through the eyes of a man who knows of what he speaks (Bugliosi being a lawyer himself, who has handled hundreds of criminal cases in a stellar career while working in the Los Angeles prosecutor's office, to the tune of the enviable record of 105-1 in felony jury trials as Deputy D.A., and an unblemished 21-0 in murder cases), this special video program succeeds in providing the viewer a candid, refreshing, and completely forthright assessment of the facts in the murder case against ex-football great O.J. Simpson.

If you truly believe that evil L.A.P.D. "conspirators" attempted to "frame" O.J. Simpson for two murders in 1994, I suggest you hunt down a copy of this video set. Vincent can then give you the straight dope on the "Trial Of The Century" -- and he can tell you via his very powerful style of presenting the facts just exactly why O.J. Simpson is "Absolutely 100% Guilty".

I found this artice to be very instructive. While it was written a few years ago, it is even more true today, in our fast moving world. Highly recommend Diane's work.

Holstein was right on when he made this comment. I test drove the RL, and in my humble opinion it offers the best value and bang for your buck in this class. As he says, the ride isn't as cushy as the Lexus or Infiniti, but offers more road feel but without being bumpy due to the excellent suspension. This contrasts with the Audi, which had a harder suspension. The all-wheel drive provides great handling under all conditions, most of the Lexi having rear wheel drive, but there is an all wheel drive option in the GS, if I remember right. The RL also had the most sophisticated navigation unit, with real time traffic monitoring which currently works in over 40 cities. The headlamps, which turn left and right to follow the steering are also a nice feature. The Lexus LS had an 18 speaker stereo system compared with the RL's 11, but I found that enough and it offers true surround sound that is best appreciated by buying the DVD audio disks. The CMBS or collision mitigation breaking system works well and other minor features like the pull up window shades for the rear seats and the automatic window shade for the rear windshield are nice for the hot, bright months. Also, the navigation's operating system was the best of all the luxury sedan models we drove, the Lexus's and Audi's just weren't as good. I've been told that with the all wheel drive and ABS the car is just about impossible to roll. I like the interior the best of anything in its class except for the Audi which many consider the best in terms of design. But the RL is a close second. And the 300 hp V6 engine does sound impressive under acceleration just like he says. Some of the car writers complain about not having a V8 option which is commmon in this class, but I found the V6 more than adequate. All that means is that you can do 0 to 60 in 5.8 seconds instead of 6.8. I'd rather have the better gas mileage these days in the V6. Overall we really liked the car and found it the best value in its class, offering the same features for $5000 less. In the case of the Lexus, it was probably even more, since they usually sell for close to the sticker price with not much of a discount, which you can get on the RL. Whichever car you choose, good luck and happy motoring!

This article reads as though Ibogaine is somewhat of a novelty. It is not. They worked with it down at the Univ of Florida or Univ of Miami for awhile til some legal issues came out. Ibogaine has been around for over 100 years..and there is no doubt that it does IN FACT help those with addictions to heroin, cocaine, alcohol. However, there are risks, that are mostly cardiac. It decreases the cravings of addictions according to those who have used it. Atrial fibrillations and flutters must be watched for, so those with any cardiac problems probably should not take IBO. In Ibogaine clinics you need a sitter, that is, someone with you AT ALL times. I know personally two people who went to clinics and the IBO did eliminate their addiction, but the costs at the clinics were around $5000--one was in Canada and one at St. Kitts. Also, this article is incorrect-- as there are at present about 12 ibogaine clinics including the ones in Europe that are in operation. I don't know what the FDA has against this drug, seeing as they allowed about 60,000 to die before they pulled Enkaid and Tambocor from the market for cardiac problems during the early 89-90s season. Ibogaine is considered a psychodelic drug from their point of view, and the FDA remains hard lined against it. Ibogaine's 12 or 18 hydroxy isomer is the one most effective in the studies so far. Also, the "millions" (see article) spent by the NIDA in the 90s for research on ibogaine was mostly corrupted and mismanaged, so very little of the money went for research. From my studies about 70% of the "recovered" addicts, go back to addiction in some other form sometimes a year or two later. So, support groups are needed. However, we have other drugs that work for addicts now, so we should be trying those as well. In this country, addiction recovery is not exactly a priority item listed on the walls of law enforecement. There is too much search and seizure incentive to have that. guyairey

I have been struggling with my health for over four years. It started with a bed, bad allergy flare up. The drugs used I was not told would mess me up and the doctors had no clue what the allergen was, even though I gave them all the facts. I have spent the last year surviving on student loans, grant, what little work I could keep because I would hurt myself and lose the job or be too tired to do the long hours my jobs require. I kept searching for answers on the internet and this book appeared in an article one day. I bought it. Best thing I ever did. No doctor I have seen in the last two years ever brought up anything in this book. I have since taken the saliva test advised in this book and my cortisol levels are really low, hence my hormones are also very, very low. It is a very easy to read book and I recommend it to anyone who is always tired, especially in the morning but wakes up in the evening. This book will bring so much to light and also help you see there are other problems that may need to be addressed beside your adrenal glands being messed up. The biggest problem you will have if you figure out this might be what you have is a doctor that will agree with you. I have just found one. She is a N.D. and I drive 40 miles one way to see her. It is worth every penny of gas to get there because she has found other things wrong that all tie together for the cause of my symptoms.
I highly recommend this book.

Many of us are aware of the controversy about some cartoons that appeared about the Prophet Muhammad in a Danish newspaper. In this article, Pernille Ammitzboll and Lorenzo Vidino address the questions of why the cartoons were drawn and why there was a reaction to them.

I think those of us who saw the cartoons realize that Christians, Jews, Pagans, and others are often subjected to more serious attacks than we see in these cartoons. However, a couple of the cartoons did indeed portray the Prophet negatively, and that's probably in poor taste.

Readers may want to think about whether or not they've ever seen Jesus, Abraham, Moses, the Buddha, Odin, Thor, or Jupiter depicted in a negative manner. And they may want to think about what sort of reaction that sort of thing gets.

In any case, as Ammitzboll and Vidino explain, the cartoons were especially commissioned in response to what was felt to be some incidents of self-censorship in which some European artists and publishers "refused to display art or perform plays that could expose them to" threats given the assassination of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh. After the cartoons appeared, there were protests from quite a few Muslims, and some Muslim ambassadors to Denmark asked to meet with the Danish Prime Minister to discuss the issue. But the Danish Prime Minister refused, given that Denmark is a democracy that has freedom of the press.

Muslim protestors did indeed torch Denmark's embassies in Beirut and Damascus at the height of the tension. But what has been the outcome of the entire affair?

Ammitzboll and Vidino argue that the radicals, who made more of the issue than was warranted, lost plenty of credibility. Quite a few folks noticed that two delegations of Danish Muslims had stretched the truth considerably in their complaints, both by coming up with some far more offensive cartoons (which in fact had never been published in any Danish publication) and by making false claims that Muslims do not have a legal right to build mosques in Denmark, and that the Danish government was planning to censor the Qur'an. And some genuinely moderate Muslim leaders have emerged who have "affirmed their pride in living in a society that gives them freedom of expression and religion."

In addition, Danes have become more aware of the differences between radical Muslims and moderate ones, and more sensitized to issues of Muslim integration into Danish society.

The authors conclude that the cartoon saga has helped Denmark move towards resolving the problems "of how to empower moderate Muslims without tainting them and how to marginalize radicals without backlash." And they explain that some other Europeans are watching to see if what Denmark is doing may be a good idea elsewhere on the continent. But they also note that many other Europeans are instead "in a state of denial, handicapped by political correctness and self-destructive taboos."

I think the authors have made some good points. I recommend this article.

If you spend a lot of time on the internet, you probably have dozens of websites you need a username and password to log into. You may be tempted to use the same username and password for all websites, but this is bad for your security. For example, for your online banking account or any site that stores financial or any important information, you should have a unique username and password that is used nowhere else.

The problem is it is impossible to remember more than a few usernames and passwords. More and more websites require a username and password to use their services, even the free ones. It's maddening! So what do you do? You use software that will save and automatically fill in your username and password.

I've been using Roboform for at least 2 years now and I've tried a few others similar programs. Roboform has been around the longest and it shows. It has withstood browser updates and minimal competition.

While Internet Explorer and some other web browsers have the ability to save form information and usernames/passwords, you have no access to that stored information whatsoever, and you can't even tell what is being stored. That is why you may need password management software. Both software will allow you to save passwords and save form information. That is the minimum you should expect in a password manager.

Time-saving Benefits of Roboform:

* Save multiple profiles (Save different information to be filled in - work profile, home profile, business profile)
* Save multiple credit cards
* Require password prompting before filling in information (optional--can be turned off)
* View and edit saved usernames and passwords.
* Go to login url - you can go to the login URL (which isn't always on the main page).
* Choose to have forms filled in automatically or click a button when prompted to fill in information.
* Custom fields (Create custom-named fields (such as PIN) and enter the information you want filled in. Most password managers/form fillers only fills in fields it
recognizes (name, address, city, state, etc.)

Conclusion: I've tried several password manager programs and Roboform simply can't be beat. It is very easy to use and very versatile. If you use the internet a lot, you need this software and you can get it for free.