I've never used an illegal drug in my life, though I've had plenty of opportunities. Bottom line, no one could ever articulate a good reason to take drugs. Some people said that taking drugs relaxed them--I feel no need to be more relaxed than I am. Some people said that taking drugs made them happier--I'm plenty happy, and research suggests that you can have too much of a good thing. Some people said that drugs could expand my mind--this was the most interesting argument, but I saw no evidence that people who took drugs were smarter or more creative than me. Ultimately, there just wasn't any good reason to break the law or take any health risks. I think it's a pretty bizarre world where one has to justify a decision not to break the law and risk one's health!

Sadly, the very women who wouldn't be caught dead reading a romance novel will guzzle that atrocious tripe (Sex & The City) by the gallon. Worst of all, SATC masquerades as feminism, when it's really worse than any romance novel.

Ha, this should be an exciting thread.... Just as women shouldn't worry that men are taking pornography seriously as a model for one's relationships, men shouldn't worry that women will mistake romance novels for real life. I think most men realize that the typical woman they meet is not two drinks away from participating in a bisexual orgy, and that women realize that ruggedly handsome cowboys with dark pasts are unlikely to make good husbands. If you meet a woman who lets romance novels provide a model for her romantic relationships, RUN!

Man, do I hate the teachers unions. I wish there was a students union!

Excellent stuff. Try looking up "How to get away with..." It's a catalog of the deadly sins. In interesting fact I just discovered...when I typed in "naked" and "sex" there was no autosuggestion. Censorship?

Rob, I think you've hit the nail on the head. While collaboration may be able to bring major benefits by enabling new results, that's the wrong approach to overcome organizational skepticism. I'm far from convinced that the path to mainstream acceptance is to keep reiterating the potential for transformation. Go for small wins, based on limited pilot programs aimed at achieving specific results. Then build on that credibility to expand and eventually achieve the serendipitous value (that might end up being transformational). To me, the key is delivering tangible value to line-of-business managers. If they incorporate you into their span of control, you will be sticky. And only by being sticky can you earn the privilege of hanging around long enough for serendipitous value to emerge.

It will be fascinating to watch how Cisco chooses to attack this market. Given the strength of the incumbents, the focus on the network and video seems like sound strategy and practically a necessity. The question is, which use cases and verticals will respond most strongly to this pitch?

Johan is right. Studies consistently show that people care more about relative status than absolute status. When given a choice between 1) Earning an income of $50,000 when most of your friends make $25,000, or 2) Earning an income of $100,000 when most of your friends make $200,000, the majority of research subjects choose (1). Of course, what they miss is that if your friends are richer than you, you can hit them up for money. It is left to the reader to decide how this applies to Chinese purchases of US debt.

The issue is that the cost of caring for special needs children is so high that if the government didn't step in with help, those parents who happened to end up with those children would likely be bankrupted by the experience. The analogy is health insurance. In aggregate, it would make sense for all of us to self-insure, rather than paying for health insurance. But the catastrophic consequences for the unlucky few are so dire, that we recognize that it's better to institute a broad insurance scheme. It seems like you've hit upon a pretty fair division of labor though, since individuals are under no obligation to contribute their time and energy to any particular class of needy individuals. One could argue that I should help entrepreneurs who are 3s and 4s, but I prefer to help the 7s and 8s (the 10s don't need anyone's help).

The toughest part for me is reconciling two often conflicting factors: Giving people what they need, and being true to who you are. What do you do when what people need is something different than who you are?