markjeee.com

Manipulation can result in a short term gain–you do what I want you to do. The problem with manipulation is the long-term effects. People aren’t stupid, not forever. If I manipulate you, you end up trusting me less. If we are in an important relationship, this lack of trust is costly. That’s the utilitarian argument against manipulation–it’s too expensive. An additional cost of manipulation is the personal cost–make a habit of manipulation and you come to see other people as objects instead of people. Since they stubbornly remain people, the gap between perception and reality is a significant overhead. Or you can rely on morality, that manipulation is simply wrong. This has the advantage that when you are tempted to manipulate, there is no short-/long-term tradeoff to tempt you.

Smithfield Foods actually faces a more difficult task than transmogrifying the populations of America's thirty-two largest cities into edible packages of meat. Hogs produce three times more excrement than human beings do. The 500,000 pigs at a single Smithfield subsidiary in Utah generate more fecal matter each year than the 1.5 million inhabitants of Manhattan. The best estimates put Smithfield's total waste discharge at 26 million tons a year. That would fill four Yankee Stadiums. Even when divided among the many small pig production units that surround the company's slaughterhouses, that is not a containable amount.

That's a lot of shit to dispose of!

394 votes

Vote

How many votes?

Kristine Hermosa & Jericho Rosales for globe!!!!!

they use globe numbers in the hit teleserye Dahil May Isang Ikaw, you should review their stats in the philippines and in TFC subcribers! Plus it will be major since they were once smart users!

by anonymous | 0 comments

389 votes

Vote

How many votes?

New Commercial for Globe.

I suggest since Sharon Cuneta, Piolo Pascual transfered to smart na. Why not get Jericho Rosales and Kristine Hermosa as your new Endorsers? They're Hot Right Now. Pwedeng panlaban sa KIMERALD ng Smart and nakita namin sa teleserye nila they're both using GLOBE numbers. Sana kunin nyo sila as en... more

HAHA! :D What has Ms. Hermosa and Mr. Rosales has to do with Globe service? This is probably the kind of posts they warned about on commenting on their site. Hehe! :D If this is the case, then i'll take back what i said earlier!

• When should I post?
• Three things I am aware when making a comment:

• * I have a strong point of view?
• * I am aware that all ages are reading this    post?
• * Will my post add anything significant to the    discussion?
•  
• If you answered YES to these questions, then post away!

Of course, if people want to post comments they probably have a strong point of view, sensitive to who's going to view them, and will probably have some significant point, since they are in fact planning to post a comment.

Perhaps when they designed the site, they probably made some use case scenarios and have some profile of who will be the users. Perhaps the comment posting guideline is influenced by this. Meaning, we have some dumb users who have nothing good to say, and it's probably not worth our time. And perhaps, if anyone wants to posting anything objectionable, we are not here to moderate them, since we don't have time to look at them anyway. And since we can't look at them, we don't want our other dumb users to look at them, since it might reflect our own opinion, irregardless of the fact that it says 'Comments', which could perhaps mean 'user-contributed' contents? And of course, it probably will reflect the overall sentiment of our users with regards to our product.

If this is the attitude in accepting comments, why bothering accepting them in the first place? It would have save the negative attitude towards customer development.

UPDATE: And if anyone really have some significant point to make about Globe (or any) product, they probably have first used the social networks. I think their social networks reaches more people and network than Globe's own site. And those people in their network will probably trust their inputs more than the ones they just saw on Globe's own website. If i were doing that Globe site, i'd connect the commenting to Twitter and Facebook. So if they have something good to say (something as their guidelines say the only stuffs they'll allow), i want those comments showing up on their social networks.

It still amazes me to learn how frequently they are told by their health professionals that their chronic headaches are "all in your mind," or given the message that, in essence, "You are a bad person if you can't cope with this problem on your own." For the most part, this is not true and the patients know it. If you approach them with the idea that this is an organic problem for which we have treatments which, though helpful, may be less than ideal, they seem much happier. I've also learned that these patients can benefit greatly from talking to other patients with the same conditions. These people have all been there and really know what they are talking about. And I've learned that people with chronic severe headaches are often surprisingly reluctant to tell their doctors things they think the doctor doesn't want to hear, including such essential items as how they really feel. Perhaps this goes back to the problem of not being taken seriously by their clinicians.

I had an epiphany recently. The setting: a multi-billion dollar global giant. The topic of discussion: innovation. My epiphany: A simple two-word phrase that can hamstring innovation.

What about...

I was helping a cross-functional group review a few ideas to create new growth businesses. Like many early-stage propositions, the ideas blended intriguing potential with high degrees of uncertainty.

An interpretation of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, represented as a pyramid with the more basic needs at the bottom.^[1]

But I was wrong, on two counts. It was possible to learn about the economic and social aspects of health care while immersed in the details of biology, physiology and pharmacology. And it was impossible to become a good clinician without doing so.

Last fall the journal Academic Medicine reported that the vast majority of students felt they had received adequate clinical training during their four years of schooling. But fewer than half felt they had had adequate exposure to health care systems and practice, an area of study that extends to subjects like medical economics, managed care, practice management and medical record-keeping.

The idea of the universal health record (UHR) is that a patient would have just one file:

1) consolidated
2) comprehensive
3) universally accessible from anywhere in the world
4) under the control of the patient
5) and most important of all, is in electronic form so that all the computer-based analytical tools available can be applied to finding things in the patient's record that could be overlooked by a busy doctor.

The patient might relate to the UHR as a sort of personal health journal in which he or she can keep notes of a subjective nature or perhaps the results of home tests like blood pressure. The pharmacist might see it as, primarily, a file for keeping drug use organized. The lab might see it as a modern way to deliver laboratory results to the doctor, and so on. Several otherwise blind men would now have access to the whole elephant.

The universal health record (UHR), itself, may not be an interesting thing. It is, after all, just a glorified file folder (in cyberspace).  I see this as being similar to other public utilities. For instance, the cables installed all over the country, once extensive and reliable enough made it possible to call anybody anywhere on the telephone. And the internet itself was only 25 years ago, just an odd system the military had set up for a robust communication in the event of attack. Then, with the invention of html and browsers, we suddenly had the World Wide Web, the utility of which continues to be breathtaking.

Once this UHR, a glorified file folder in cyberspace, is in place, a lot of other really interesting things can happen.