A collective crime against humanity – The result of lax gun control in the US.A

Story source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/nov/28/gun-lobby-children-us

The Guardian ran an heart breaking story about how lax gun control in the US.A are taking lives, children and parents are killed. I like to share you two stories that makes me want to shout “this is not right” to all people of the world

Tragic story 1:

“The results of such a lack of regulation are stark. In the last decade, some 29,000 children under 18 have been killed by firearms in the US, making it the second leading cause of death in this age bracket after car crashes. That’s a rate 12 times higher than those in the other 25 industrialised nations put together.

Local papers carry gun death stories with a frequency that is emotionally numbing. “Two young children have been shot by their siblings in the space of 24 hours.” “A two-year-old girl is in critical condition after being shot at a wedding reception.” “An 11-year-old boy in Mississippi accidentally killed his nine-year-old brother with a shotgun blast after arguing about a video game.”

“Boy accidentally kills himself with Uzi,” was the Associated Press headline in October 2008. “An eight-year-old boy died after shooting himself in the head while firing an Uzi submachine gun under adult supervision at a gun fair.” The Uzi was designed by the Israeli army in the 1940s and has been used by soldiers in wars around the globe. It can fire 600 rounds a minute. It is not, as a general rule, considered suitable for eight-year-olds. It recoiled, the barrel went up into the air and it discharged a round into the boy. One of the adult supervisors present was a firearms instructor who loaded the gun and handed it to the boy. The boy’s father was also supervising; he was standing behind his son, holding him, when the bullet entered the right side of the boy’s head.”

Tragic story 2:

“On the evening of 4 November, the boy had a row with his parents. They had already stopped him watching TV because he was failing to do his homework, and that night Romero was so angry he told the stepmother to spank the boy five times.

The next day, when Romero arrived home from work with a friend who rented a room in the house, the boy picked up the rifle his father had given him. He shot and killed the friend, then he killed his father. Both men were struck about five times, with the boy reloading after every shot.”

The cause:

Free gun ownership and lax of gun control, i couldn’t say this better than the Guardian writer ( Ed Pilkington):

“After all, many eight-year-old boys get cross with their fathers, but they can’t turn that anger into a bloodbath unless they have access to a gun.”

Access to firearms with live ammo allows fatal accidents, allows anger (a part of the friction that happens when humans live with humans) to escalate into blood bath.

The states where gun ownership is high are also the states with the most number of children have died by gun.

Let me rephrase, the states where the gun manufacture enjoy the most revenue from civilian sales are also the states whose children dies by guns

How? how? how can any human do this?

I think arm manufactures who flame wars in distant continent to push their sales are worse than slave merchant.

But this? gun manufacture and lobbyist are looking the same fact as we do, a strong correlation between children’s death by gun, with a strong sales of gun. Yet they keep selling, they keep promoting less restriction on the possession, carrying, and use of gun, they even advertise gun for kids.

I heard stories of people killing many other people for money, i never thought any human is capable of killing many of their kids for money.

And then i think about the NRA, about the senator and representatives (sane smart humans) backing this Faustian deal, about citing constitution right to bear arms where the damn fact is a lack of control means death to children and parents, and how this entire crime against humanity gets legitimized by lawmakers and citizen alike. I feel nauseated.

US.A claim to be able to taught the world about civilization

(go visit the link, the news are eye opener and the comments are golden,  i love this one

“The argument that ‘guns don’t kill people, it’s people who do’ is, well, foolish. The same thing can be said of stones, bombs, knives or any other weapon. Would you give your 5 year old a knife as a plaything? Or a crossbow?Do I hear the knife and crossbow lobbies crying ‘foul!’ ?” “

link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/nov/28/gun-lobby-children-us)

Is it really there? This difference between the gen Y’s and the other generations?

http://www.businesspundit.com/generational-panel-tells-all/

I’ve read some articles (newspaper, mags, blogs, and pieces of books) about the difference between Gey Y (~ 1980-1999), Gen X (~ 1965-1980) and Baby Boomers (~ 1945-1965) in the work place. I wonder whether these articles are really relevant, some parts of it is not, but i found some part of comparison which are somewhat accurate.

The potential fallacies of such comparison

As I read these articles I feel that it somehow has a disconnect with reality due to several things:

1. They have to make some generalities and generalities can be false (the generalities are not representative of a dominant, significant, or important part of the population), unrepresentative (it can only represent one part of the entire population), and incomparable (the segment of Gex Y compared is different to the segment of Gen X compared, you could be comparing qualities of the top 10% of Gen Y with the 50% of Gen X)

2. It’s mostly made by American to explain a piece of social segmentation with the American context. Since different GDP allows access to different level of education (better paid teachers, better class room, better teaching equipments, better museums, better libraries, etc) the portrayal made in these articles might not be relevant for Indonesia.

Why Gen Y across the globe has more similar experience

But you know what, i found that for latter generation (gen Y), the portrait of Gen Y is more comparable across nations than for the previous generations. That is, a comparison of traits of Gen Y in America and Indonesia would show more compatibilities than a trait comparison of Gen X in both countries.

Why?

The experience of growing up with technology.

The latter generation (Gen Y) experience a strong common experience through Technology. Growing with TV Shows for Gen Y in Indonesia and America are a common reality (somewhat public TV channels in Indonesia expanded in the 1990s), while for Gen X, the American Gen X grows up with TV shows, while only the very privileged Indonesian Gen X grew with TV show.

Same with computer, for Gen Y in America and Indonesia, computers invades their life in their teens (at least in the form of video games and early windows O/S). For Gen X in Indonesia, computer only becomes prevalent after they are in the 20s .

How about the prevalence of cell phones? or the internet?

Oh, the internet, this is interesting. One can say that both Gen X and Gen Y in both Indonesia and America are exposed to the internet, so for both Gen X and Gen Y, the internet should produce the same range of traits (not experience) wherever they are.

Not necessarily, since we are talking about traits, no experience, we have to take note of in which period of life does this experience took place. For Gen X, the internet comes in their late 20s, after the reality of life started to sinks in, after they had said to themselves what life and it myriad components is all about, after they have choose how they would view life and work, after all those, then the internet comes in.

For Gen Y, the internet is part of their formative experience, the openness, the lack of boundaries, the lack of censorship, the need for self-censorship, the utter impossibility of reading everything on the net, the need to prioritize on what you want to know, it’s all part of the formative experience. Life is open, life has no boundaries. All this coincides nicely with the views of a growing generation in their teens and adolescence, dreams are still alive, the hope of a life open with possibilities, hope of a self with unbound potential.

This openness ripples across the globe, that’s why Gen Y has a lot more similar traits across the globe then the previous generation

But still, the comparison are only accurate in some parts of the segment

Not all Gen Y are equal,

there are many who grew up without television, without computer, even without electricity. There are many who grew up with less than great education. There are those, that although can afford can good to school, choose to forfeit the advantage that education provides. There are those with a stronger intention to excel in what they do.

Two main factors create segment within any generation: economic background and level of self motivation

Why am I mentioning all these?

Because I’m going to draw observations about the difference between Gen X and Gen Y based on what I see, and when I draw these observations, please remember that this is based on a segment of society place in a certain spot, their position their being allowed by both their economic background and self motivation.

These observations might not be relevant or true for any other segment of Gen X and Gen Y

The difference between Gen Y and the previous generation

1. Gen Y: ideas are easy, ideas are to be shared, ideas grows when they are shared.

Example, Facebook relies their live on their technology, their ability to arrange data from million of users to a server and then back and forth allows their user to enjoy their service, their ability to serve millions of concurrent user allows them to be interactive. Gen X companies would protect these abilities like mad men, if it were Intel and Windows, the would be creating patents for each step in their technology chain. But let’s say you want to replicate what Facebook is doing, you can access almost all of their knowledge on the internet, the have engineering blogs where they share what they do, they open source their system methodology.

In terms of intellectual property, what you need to replicate facebook is out there in the open. Then what do you don’t have? The existing network effect of Facebook, an army of Gen Y’s doing something they like in a place totally cool being paid handsomely. You don’t have the people, you don’t have the capable and motivated people. You can have those who replicate, but not those who create. Big difference when it came to trying to replicate a Facebook.

2. Gen Y: source of knowledge are abundant, and thus the acquisition of knowledge is not limited by your age but more by your willingness to acquire knowledge and the 24 hour/day time limit (which is equal to everyone)

For the previous generation, age is an very very important indication of knowledge. During their education time, knowledge are imparted in a very structured manner, after a set amount of schooling, you would now about this and this. It’s all limited by the curriculum. After education, knowledge are expensive and secretive, you want to understand taxes? go pay a course; you want to understand database and analytics? go pay a course; you want to understand how to be better at your field of work? pray to God that your boss is willing to share with you.

For previous generation, knowledge is expensive, you have to pay someone to give it to you. For previous generation, knowledge is secretive, no master or peer would willingly to give knowledge to any pupil, they could be your competitor one day, you have to build relationship, you have to give favors, you have to build trust, then you might, might get knowledge. Now all these, takes time. That’s why for previous generation, age is an important indicator of knowledge (and also are degrees and certificate, again, all takes age to acquire).

But for Gen Ys, you want to know about database and analytics? start with Google, from there on, the only limit is your willingness to know about database and the 24hour/day time limit.

You want to know about how to dress proper for certain event? go to Askmen.com

You want to know more on how to navigate the workplace in general? go to bnet.com

Knowledge is abundant.

True, there are some things that remains secretive and has to be obtained through favors and trust, how to navigate your office, understand how to approach specific people in your office, things that are right down on the ground has to be obtained on the ground.

And true, the 24hour/day time limit means that your age would somewhat be factor (you know more studying database 16hours/day after 8 years than after 2 years)

But, the speed and access to knowledge acquisition is much different. You only need a Net Book and internet connection to learn about database, you can do this 4 to 6 hours a day, depending how high is your motivation level. You’re not limited to a course curriculum and their allotted study time.

So while previous generation might need an A amount of time to gain B amount of knowledge, the Gen Y might only need less than A amount of time, depending only the Gen Y’s motivation level.

Can the previous generation acquire knowledge in the same pace now? Yes, but what matter is their view about the importance of age in knowledge acquisition. Imagine someone who spend his life moving from city to city with a horse, can he use a car now? maybe, but his perception about how long it takes to move from point A to point B is influenced by the horse he had been using.

Not all Gen Y are like these

But this rule of faster acquisition of knowledge does not apply to all Gen Ys, some has to low level of motivation to take advantage of the abundant knowledge source, some does not have access to the abundant knowledge

But for those who have access and enough motivation, ideas are open, and knowledge is abundant

–

The following picture is from entrepreneur.com

http://www.entrepreneur.com/magazine/entrepreneur/2009/march/200104.html

How organization can be stiffled by their mindset about people

http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/ConsGroup04.asp

After working some more and see more workings of other organization, i’m impressed by the extent of the role of people in the organization.

Saying “organization is all about the people in it” make sense, since organization is nothing but a group of people working toward a (supposedly) common goal or purpose.

But to see that all competitive advantage is created or destroyed by people in an organization is…scary, a company could build a dominant business for decades, and then they have the wrong mindset about people and everything could go bust or slowly dies.

What constitute a company’s mindset to people aspect:

- what the members think are the qualities of a person with a culture fit

- what the members think about what others in the organization would think about the qualities of a person with a culture fit

- compensation mix (e.g. “we’re want to grow so we need to pay for good people with good pay, bonus, and perks”, “we’re big, we want to stay dominant, and we will pay for good people with good pay and perks”, or “we’re big, we’re stable, we don’t pay much, but there’s a small chance of you losing your job”)

- how people are expected to work (e.g. “you know, we’re all flying solo here, so just do the job your boss allocate to you and it will all trickle down”, “here work are done by those who build consensus leveraging their personal relationship with their co worker”)

- how promotion decisions are made (e.g. “you need do this and do that if you want to be in that place”, “it’s an open game baby, open game, you want that post, then you need and may try to kick the guy who’s sitting there right now”, “we’re very concerned with seniority here, the other employee and the union would throw fits if we promote someone so young, despite that person being capable, we don’t want to rock the boat”)

It’s ridiculous, how companies could be blind to the long term impact of their mindset to people, how their mindset means slow death to their company. This is especially true for a dominant company in a developing market, the company’s sheer size and scale would nearly guarantee good financial result year after year, despite having a passive aggressive culture, year after year the company can justify poor compensation and promotion policy, saying “look man, everything’s ok, we have good financial results” while strong talent (experienced and fresh) are leaving the company, making the company to be more saturated with less than stellar people, which in turn fertilize the poor mindset toward people policy.

What’s even more tragic is that such company could justify their poor people policy for many years, while smaller competitors constantly engaging on them, the company would say “we have a strong network effect, nobody can touch us in our game”, well that could be true, until (what i can i think of right now) 3 things happens: a. your customer starts to see value in the competitor’s offering, b. your competitor gang up to achieve your network effect, c. technology shift make a viable substitute to your existing network effect.

As the book “Upgrading” said, A people hires A people, B people would hire C people, C people would hire D people.

So either companies create people policy that seeks, rewards, and harness A people, or it’s facing a downhill trajectory.

http://www.dangerouslyirrelevant.org/2006/09/first_break_all.html

They think all Indonesian are stupid

In a corruption case, the most important object is the flow of money, because corruption is all about the money.
-
Flow of money, large amount of money, could be easily proven, one would not stash $550,000 in the mattress for a long time, they would want to bring it to a bank, or any other financial system to allow easy and safe transportation of the money.
-
Now, the Police has a missing link on the flow of money, you cannot make evidence based on hearsay, “oh kata si yulianto, dia udah kasih ke B dan S”.
-
The police, for the sake of law, as they like to say it themselves, has to find this Yulianto, get the testimony from the horses mouth, get evidence that an exchange of money has taken place, and that the said recipient of the cash has indeed receive the cash, that the exchange is for accused illegal purposed. How else can you prove that so and so had received bribery?
-
They’re still unable to find this missing link, and they keep pushing the case like all Indonesian are stupid fucks who cannot discern facts
-
So far, the best piece of “evidence” they have is: a money exchange has taken place at a location in Jakarta AND the suspect car is seen in the parking lot during the day of the money exchange. uhhh.. but doesn’t that mean that everybody with a car parked at said location during the day of the money exchange could also be a suspect?
…
that’s their piece of evidence?
Do they think each and every Indonesian is a clinically certified moron?
Even the Wall Street Journal is writing news about this…hey guys, we’re on the business world spotlight, not in the best of light, but you know what, we’ve been right down there on the corruption list for so long, we just don’t care

Short note on 3 Indikator Kedewasaan

3 indikator kedewasaan (tanggungjawab, penguasaan diri, pengertian)

3 indikator ini dilihat orang lain melalui perkataan, tingkah laku, kasih, kesetiaan, kesucian

Cutting prices by 20% and yet maintain your margin

News source at:

http://finance.yahoo.com/career-work/article/108119/the-accidental-hero.html?mod=career-selfemployment

Business finance flow in a very simple manner, it starts from the top (gross revenue) to bottom (profit).

Now between that two point, there’s cost, cutting numbers from the revenue until they reach profit.

Equation wise, R – C = P (totally simplified)

So, one would suspect that a significant in reduction in revenue would cause similar reduction in profit.

[0.8 R - C] would be far less than [R-C]

Well, that’s not the case with Subway, in a business move bound to spawn pricing case studies, Subway cut prices for some of their 30 cm (1 foot) sandwiches from 6 dollar to 5 dollar.

Again, you cut your price by 20%, all things being equal, revenue drop by 20%, and since you’re selling the same stuff, cost stays at past level, and there goes your profit.

In turns out that all thing are not equal, it turns out that human psychology plays a huge role in pricing (surprise surprise). Customers LOVE the 5 dollar price, 5 dollar is a round number, not cheap, but round. 5 dollar allows you to stuck out one 5 dollar bill, instead of 2 bill (one 5 dollar and one 1 dollar).

Revenue soars and yet margin stays…

Now, the effect of the 5 dollar is great, and is heavily explored on the article above. The 5 dollar explain why revenue soars.

But it didn’t explain why margin stays, because you’re bound to have margin pressure due to cost.

Now, my guess margin stays because 3 things:

1. Subway’s sandwiches has been grossly overpriced all along, so even when they cut prices by 20%, they have a ton of cushion on their margin

2. Subway has a lot of idle capacity in its stores (labor and machine), whether these capacity is running at 10% or 100%, they cost about the same. So, the increase volume allows Subway to optimize resource capacity at its stores. The additional cost is minimal, and margin stays

3. Significant increase in unit volume allows them to reduce cost of goods from their supplier and lower the per unit cost from fixed cost items (this one is very theoriticall)

Interesting right? A key lesson here, is that maybe this strategy can be applied to industries where they have capacity lying around, and costing them the same whether being used at 10% or 100%. This opens room to increase volume (by cutting prices), optimizing the idle capacity, and thus in the end, maintain margin but with higher

Ridicilious mark up by indonesian software distributor

Recently i was evaluating a very nice looking visual mining software named Advizor.

The software allows a very visual manipulation of a large data set, it doesn’t provide the deep analysis afforded by SAS data mining tool, or the more automatic approach by SPSS PASW modeler,

but it greatly support business user with some interest in data (like me) to play with the data that i have

Now, the guy who introduce the software was very nice, very nice, he spend time to introduce us to the software, to show what we can do, he even create and test some hypothesis, and you know what? he’s not the guy distributing the software in Indo

He spend all this time explaining something he can’t even sell to us

So, i contact the distributor of the software in Indonesia, ask them for a quote

And they give me quotes ranging from US$ 3,000 to US$ 5,700 for the desktop version of the software (only the software, no maintenance etc)

It was outrageous, it was overpriced to the point where i feel kinda insulted

why do i feel that?  the software is sold online by the developer, i can easily check the price on their website, which i have done before hand (the software is price from US$ 500 to US% 1,000 on the website)

I mean, to release such ridiculous price, what were they thinking? that i’m so stupid i won’t check the price? and it’s out there right on the developer website, and they, as the reseller of all people should know.

Man, this really makes me reconsider all the quotes that i’ve seen and to be very careful about future quotes