List Price: $1,049.00 Price: $499.00 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. Details Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours Ships from and sold by Amazon.com3 new or used available from $499.00

Product Details

Features

• 2 Cinema 110 L/R; 1 Cinema 110 C; 2 Cinema ADP surrounds, 1 high-performance subwoofer: 10¿ driver, 450 W Dynamic Peak / 150 W RMS. True audiophile-quality sound. Room-filling bass to 30 Hz. Compact design suits any listening environment.
• 1¿ PTD titanium domes; ferro-fluid cooled, Two 4-1/2¿ ICP injection-molded co-polymer bass/midrange cones; advanced motor structures, Powered sub with 10¿ fiber-reinforced cone; built-in high-power amplifier: 450 watts Dynamic Peak/150 watts RMS.

52% off Free Shipping, Buy Now!

We are not defined by our résumés.

Our job history is not the whole story.

Believe it or not, sometimes the best person for the job is the one who hasn’t done it before.

The paradigm is wrong.  Unemployed does not equal untalented.  There are hoardes of us, boiling with potential, chomping at the bit, ready to be let loose.  But potential cannot exist without action.  If you’ve stopped by this blog, I hope you’re like me.  I’m ready to start doing instead of dreaming of doing.  This is the heart of the Unemployed Marketers Group.

Purpose

The Unemployed Marketers Group arises from the need to provide a place to keep that edge finely honed.  This sharpening process will occur through fellowship and real-world work.  The job search sucks and you need to keep in tune with others that share your boat, both from a support and a networking standpoint.  But the real world projects will keep those creative juices at a rolling boil through the synergistic effect of collaboration, while providing incredible volunteer opportunity.  Never been a project leader?  You might have the chance.  Always knew you’d be a kick-ass copywriter, but lacked the experience for the opportunity?  Suit up, you’re on deck.  The Unemployed Marketers Group is where you prove your potential isn’t all in your head.

Who are we?

We are birthed from an economy that has been forced to either shed incredible, proven talent, or unable to support developing new talent.  We may be people with 30 years of experience, or we may be those passionate types who are ready to change the world but haven’t found the right opportunity yet.

How will it work?

I present first and foremost a base rule.  You must be unemployed at the time you join.  No, I’m not going to check up on anyone, but there’s a reason for this.  It is REALLY hard out there right now.  If you’re currently employed, you might be a mindblowing talent that we would love to have on board, but from a community perspective, you just can’t understand.  But when (yes, WHEN) you do become employed, you are welcome to stay on.

We’ll meet at an interval TBD at the first meeting.  The first part of each session will be fellowship and exchange of knowledge through discussion.  But the bulk of each meeting will be tackling marketing challenges for our non-profit clients.  From the very first meeting, we’ll have a real-world client.  The work you do will be beyond the hypothetical; it will impact lives.  In many cases, the challenge will be one you likely haven’t encountered before: our clients may have to accomplish their objectives with little-to-no expenditure, so be prepared to break the paradigm that it takes money to make money/accomplish your mission.

The Call to Suit Up

There’s no doubt in my mind that you’re out there.  You’re sick of sorting through job listing after job listing, applying along with the sea, while your absurd talent goes to waste.  I hope you found your way here and you’re ready to get started.  I’m looking for a commitment of 4-10 people to have a first meeting before I get a client on board.  Comment and let me know you’re ready to get in the game.  Just because we’re unemployed doesn’t mean we don’t know how to do incredible work.

We’re All [sic]

[26 November 2009 / Thanksgiving day]

“[sic]“; you may have seen this before, most likely written within a quote or a letter of some kind. But what exactly does it mean?

Well, good ol’ Wikipedia has the answer my friends. Sic is a Latin word meaning “thus”, “so”, “as such”, or “in such a manner”. It’s usage in writing is this: let us imagine we have a letter. It is an old historical document which we are to transcribe into, say, a textbook. But the writer of the letter did not have proper spelling or grammar.

Do you correct the spelling and grammar errors? Or do you leave them there? That is where [sic] comes in. Commonly mistaken to be an acronym for “said in context”, the word [sic] would be placed after such spelling/grammatical mistakes. This was to represent that the error was recognized, but left within the quote so as to not tamper with the quotes original contents.

Nifty little thing it is; but I like to take it one step further. Sic is pronounced like “Sick” right? Perhaps not in the original Latin; but it has been Anglicized to such a pronunciation. Sick.

After thinking about this I came to one conclusion: to me, sic means two things. 1) This is the original and uncorrected 2) it is imperfect and could use correction. So by this logic, we are all sic. We all are original, we all are flawed.

Sic is an important word to me. I consider myself to be sic; I am what I am, I know it’s fucked up, and I’m not denying it. But I am not going to waste my life striving for a perfection I’ll never have. I am sic, I’m going to stay sic, and I will always be sic. The upside of being sic is the sincerity that comes with it; you’re not seeing a facade of perfection. You’re getting the real deal, the good and the bad.

So in all honesty, I consider being sic a good thing. I am capable of error, so very capable of error. But it makes me human, and it makes me… Me.

Which brings me to how being sic ties into this blog: this is a place where I will post my thoughts about things. I am going to use profane language, I am going to say what I think, and there will be plenty of people who will disagree with me or say I am “doing it wrong”.

This is my message to them: what you see is what you get. I am what I am, which is imperfect, and I am exceedingly glad this is the case.

I am sic.

Yesterday’s cross-country flight allowed me a few hours to reflect on what is (and isn’t) happening within Paradigm, and what I’m doing (or not) as a pastor to contribute to our community’s spiritual formation. Anyone who knows me well readily admits that I’m a perfectionist in several areas, and it leads me to come across as — and sometimes be — critical and insatiable in my standards of success. But when I sit down and write out specific goals, I’m healthily forced to acknowledge that there are plenty of things going very well, even in the midst of plenty of room for improvement.

I know that the old measuring tools for ministry are bankrupt — even corruptive. Attendance in services and small groups, money in the offering plate, number of people who said the “sinner’s prayer” — these were the measurements of “success” that dominated the church landscape over the past generation. But as ministries new and old are beginning to [re-]identify themselves in the grassroots, less-institutional character of the Kingdom, new measurements for success need to emerge. They need to be contextualized for specific ministries, but generally rooted in story, shared journey, relationships, and discipleship — a paradigm for ministry success reflective of a grassroots Kingdom.

So yesterday on my flight I started jotting down my notions of ministry success — areas that, while sometimes being difficult to translate into raw data, are measurable to the extent that they help me to assess the health of our ministry. Because measuring and assessing are not in and of themselves an evil; there’s wisdom and accountability that comes from looking in the mirror from time to time. If I had to make a graph of my ministry’s success, what would the graph look like? Assuming time (months or years) is my x-axis, what measurables would my y-axis consist of? 

Here’s what I jotted down (in no particular order):

*big-picture, long-term enjoyment of shared journey (applies to leadership and entire community)

*increased, applied understanding of what makes the gospel hopeful, good news (maybe we could call this one the conversion of “Christians” to Christ-followers)

*(similarly) people who didn’t realize God was good or loving encountering an experience/community/message that transforms their perspective

*neighbors (local and global) served

*manifestations of God’s Spirit at work (both the gifts and the fruit of the Spirit in the life and worship of the community)

*biblical literacy developed among community members at all stages of journey

*continuous development of devoted, liberated worship that overcomes both spiritual strongholds and cultural barriers (exploring creative left- and right-brained ways of worshiping that feel free to move beyond the commercialized status quo of churchiness)

*people who thought they would never “fit” in a faith community finding a home and sense of genuine place (finding an option beyond church-as-usual and no community whatsoever)

*people who never imagined they would be interested in the Way of Jesus encountering a message that is so hope-filled that they begin to journey with our community

So that’s me, but what about you? What would you consider the y-axis used to graph your ministry’s success? 

A significant element of the beauty involved with children and childhood is the lack of pretense involved. “Children say the damndest things.” is a well-known phrase because of this.

Unfortunately, pretense is often founded upon fear and insecurities, which are learned with time as things in our life do not go the way that we intended for them to go or in ways that pleased us whatsoever. To lean upon the mindset of victimization, we would often call these harmful things that happened to us and there is no disputing the harm involved in many difficult experiences.

What is interesting however, is the way in which different people come through the very same experiences with distinctly separate perspectives on what happened, why it happened and the power that it has over the future lives of individuals who have suffered.

“Children can be cruel.” is another phrase that is commonly used and often sprouts the beginnings of these insecurities that build within the human race. Little girls are often thought of as being particularly cruel to one another in emotional ways. This may be just another prejudice in society that needs to be overcome, but meanwhile a bit of thought should be given to the change of this potentially occasionally true statement.

Perhaps it is human nature to strike out against others to calm or distract ourselves from our own insecurities, or perhaps that is learned behavior from other family members and one’s environment.

Whatever the case may be, perception is a bleeding entity that women can use to their benefit or their detriment, as well as to the benefit or detriment of their children and the children whom they encounter in life.

Perspective is something that is malleable, capable of being changed and a fresh perspective can change the life, outlook and future experiences of any individual.

Many times in life, increased exposure to different perspectives creates a paradigm shift in the lives of others. New awarenesses are capable of knocking down walls that seemed to be impenetrable.

As women, we have the intelligence, resourcefulness and networking capabilities to create a significant impact on the lives of many around us with regard to perspective.

If we find ourselves feeling bitter, discouraged, or victimized, this should be a flag signal to us that it is time to attempt to educate ourselves regarding additional perspectives that can be achieved.

Certainly, we never want to rest in the idea that unacceptable circumstances are the only way that things must be. However, with a victimized outlook, we damage ourselves and those around us, especially our children, by preventing the comprehension of capabilities that can make things better for all involved.

Discouragement is a weakening tool for women that others may use against us and that we often use against ourselves unknowingly. Actions that work toward growth of understanding and education are empowering and set the stage for progress for women in the short and long-term future.

With a strong will of determination, we can conquer even our own hindrances in life, no matter what trials befall us, whether they are caused by others or by our own mistakes or inadequacies. Focusing on the work involved in a step-by-step manner to achieve rapture from our misfortunes is a positive effort that we can all choose to be involved in and that will have rapidly experienced effect upon our lives and the lives of others, especially if we unite as women and work together to achieve these higher purposes and results.

Overwhelment caused by our perception of all of the countless tasks we feel we must achieve in our daily lives will cause paralyzation, fear and increase the levels of our insecurities and decrease our effectiveness in every aspect of our lives.

Taking a moment to reflect each day upon the task of breaking each event down into smaller pieces and working on educating ourselves to find the silver lining in every scenario and working to expand that silver lining to a bright and blindingly shining glow that will distract those who would like to believe we are less capable than men of uniting and acting for the positive good of mankind on all levels.

It will open doors for women that were previously sealed with permaglue and help us to inch forward in this mission of gender equality and a better life not only for ourselves, but for our children and grandchildren who follow us in this life.

Perhaps as we grow and reduce our levels of fear and insecurity, we may too enjoy a world more filled with the lack of pretense that we enjoy experiencing in our children and grandchildren. Perhaps we can create a world with a changed perspective so that fewer and fewer people believe they must carry on any sort of pretense in order to survive and thrive in life.

There are so many ways that we can help ourselves and others with a paradigm shift resulting from efforts in educational increase and perspective changes that will benefit us all both mentally, emotionally and in our material lives.

Women are strong. We must remember this as we move forward in life. Let us help each other out in both our business ventures and our personal growth. With each day there are new opportunities for increasing the probability of a world wherein gender equality is the rule. We can achieve and change history one step at a time.

Web Content by SEO Web Content Writing Solution

we’ve all heard the phrase: “i’ve got a lot of iron’s in the fire.” in my last blog it talked about focus being a central point of attraction, attention, and activity as one part of the definition of the word defines it. i think i must be fascinated by this word so much as i’ve witnessed it’s power and lack of power in my own life.

recently i began to take a little more stock in all of the iron’s i had in the fire, and realized that there have been so many in such a way that none of them could come to thrive. most of the time around this point in the year i begin to think about all of the things i want to accomplish in the next. this of course is a good thought as it is what sets our priorities out for the given time period. but usually for me it means more irons in the fire.

however, as i began to examine this it was as if what i noticed was not that i needed to plan to do more. rather, i needed to recognize that many things need not be done, so that a few could burn very bright. or at least have a chance too. often times being the free-spirit that i am i can get very excited about something and then become un-excited about it in a short time and want to go a different direction. part of this is in personality and part is simply a lack of discipline. yep, i said it. discipline!!!

when we know there is a goal that needs to be met be it in an area of fulfillment, family, finances, friendships, or whatever we know we are meant to be working towards in our lives, it becomes very important to examine other factors that stand in the way of our focus in these areas. no matter what challenges we may be facing there are always choices we must make in the midst of them to remain focused on those areas of importance in each season that we pass through.

even when it may not be fun, discipline to do something and stick with it often is the fuel that brings out the intensity of the fire to keep the irons that we’ve chosen hot. one area of focus may not be very fun, like a particular job we may be doing at the time. but when we see the bigger picture, that it is a means of fulfillment of part of our purpose to provide for our families, then discipline can be applied to it in greater measure.

not everything will be a blast at certain times. yet it is in these times that discipline must be applied to keep focus in an area we know deep down we are meant to, so that we achieve that which we ultimately are created to.

Kameron

by Randy Clemens

“No such thing / as innocent / bystanding,” declares one of the speakers in Seamus Heaney’s “Mycenae Lookout,” a magnificent (and nightmarish) poem about the horrors of Aeschylus’ Agamemnon. Heaney crafted the centerpiece of The Spirit Level during a period of peace in Ireland. The Provisional IRA enacted a cease-fire in 1994. Sinn Fein began negotiations. Heaney started writing shortly thereafter. Even during peace, however, specters of disquiet haunted him. After decades of civil war, unrest and violence had become part of the quotidian life.

Sometimes peace is not enough. What happens to the voices of the dead, the wronged but not innocent? After a never-ending series of reprisals, do the departed demand or deserve justice? ”Mycenae Lookout” is the story of modern Ireland clothed in the myth of Greek tragedy. The poem is Heaney’s attempt at ablution.

I thought of the poem while reading Yvonna Lincoln’s (2001) article about quality in qualitative research. Yvonna recounts a conversation. Her colleague, referring to researchers, says “there are no innocent bystanders” (p. 63). I tried to make sense of the connection. I pondered Gage’s (1989) ”paradigm wars,” an oft cited phrase to describe conflicting views within and without qualitative research.

Let me be clear now: Gage’s use of war is metaphorical. By yoking rather disparate ideas together, I am not equating a nation’s history of violence to academia’s history of rhetoric. Rather, I am describing my process of meaning-making.

Qualitative research is in stasis. As an apprentice qualitative methodologist, I am not entering a war. If there ever was one, it occurred before my time. I am sensitive to the history of educational research, to the unsettled voices who are not quite satiated. But the reality is that we live in an era of accountability. Methods aren’t that special; they are the means, not the end. Most of my fellow PhD students do not view qualitative or quantitative methods with the same passion and reverence that I do. They are non-partisan. Everything reduces to use-value.

Thirty years ago, policy-makers asked “How can a life history and an n of one inform policy?” The answer was always “It can’t.” They believed in positive science. Yet, science is no longer unassailable. Policy-makers now ask the same question, and qualitative methodologists have failed to give them an answer.

I hear the agitated voices, the marginalized researchers who worked tirelessly to legitimize their methodology. But this is my attempt at ablution, an attempt to look forward, not backward. We are in a new era, an era of possibility. Now we have work to do.

Gage, N. L. (1989). The paradigm wars and their aftermath: A “historical” sketch of research on teaching since 1989. Educational Researcher, 18(7), 4-10.

Lincoln, Y. S. (2001). Varieties of validity: Quality in qualitative research. In J. Smart & W. G. Tierney (Eds.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 25-72). New York: Agathon Press.

Catholic historian and author, Fr. Malachi Martin, offers interesting observations concerning the nature of political movements and leaders.  In his book, The Jesuits – The Society of Jesus and the Betrayal of the Roman Catholic Church, Fr. Martin compares and defines two well-known historical figures.

“[They shared] a clear perception of the only means by which history can be deliberately made, and human destinies can be materially altered.  Gold or pleasure won’t do the trick; not for long, at any rate.., it is not blind economic forces or weight of numbers or even access to power that enables men to make history.  Only an ideal does that.  An ideal by which the wills of individuals can be won.  An ideal for which people are convinced it is worth fighting and sacrificing everything – even life itself.  It is men under the complete control and all-abiding influence of such an ideal accepted without reserve.  Men, in other words, whose ordinary self-interest is transformed by an ideology into an all-absorbing devotion shot through with a high romanticism.“

The two individuals refered to above are V. I. Lenin and Ignatius Loyola, the founder of the Jesuits.

Regardless of how we feel about their respective accomplishments, Fr. Martin gives us an important insight.  Diametrically opposed in goals, both men, nevertheless, keenly understood human motivation and how to exploit it.  Whether motivated by secular humanism or ‘other-worldy’ idealism, the mechanics of political agitation and organization remained the same.  Both employed similar techniques to create and command large numbers of dedicated cadre.

Although separated by approximately 350 years, both Lenin and Loyola understood that it was an organization with military style discipline, supported and guided by a unifying ideology, that would prove succesful in effecting sociopolitical change.  

As we move forward in our struggle for freedom, however, the organizational challenge to bring down tyranny will be different.  An acknowledgement of past organizing strategies, balanced with thinking embracing a new paradigm of freedom will be called for.   It will call for creativity and originality.  Indeed, the voyage into the new era will be into uncharted waters.  Unity, singleness of purpose, and maintaining an integral ideology, must be reviewed and reinterpreted within a context that excludes group mind-control methods of past political leaders and movements.  Less hype, idealism, and romanticism, and more independent analytical thinking will be the key.

The strategy of a leaderless resistance will be become more practical and effective.  The advanced communications ability of this era will favor independent and spontaneous action.  Regimented orchestration from a central leadership will become less necessary.  The Internet has provided a means for open discussion and non-local coordination of activity.  A unifying ideology will still be available, but with the enhancement of more democratic input with less time to ossify – the gap between theory and practice can lessen with virtual realtime empirical testing.  The roles of leader and cadre can become more fluid to meet the challenge of the multi-tentacled and multidimensional New World Order.

I was watching an interesting panel discussion from the World Science Festival 2009 called Time Since Einstein that Sean Carroll, a participant in the discussion, pointed to.  However, during the discussion (in segment 2 of 5), the moderator, who was not a physicist asked the following question:

If there is a future, physically speaking, do you believe that that means that it’s also determined and there’s kind of no point in doing one thing or the other, that it’s all been figured out?  Can there be a non-deterministic future that exists independent of this flow of time?

The second question was the one that was answered, but the content of the first question is what interests me.  The moderator seems to be indicating that if the future is determined, that there’s “no point in doing one thing or the other, that it’s all been figured out”, which betrays an erroneous concept of the relationship between determinism and choice.

Determinism is well summed up by Wikipedia as:

the view that every event, including human cognition, behavior, decision, and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences.

So essentially, in determinism, cause and effect invariably holds.  If you had unlimited computational power and knew the universe’s past in every minute detail, you could extrapolate its future with certainty.  Now, superficially, this may seem problematic for the concept of choice, especially when you consider that a deterministic future cannot be changed—it is fixed.

But this intuition is mistaken precisely because human intuition is not meant to apply to the viewpoint of an omniscient observer with unlimited computational power.  We are very much ignorant of the world and limited in our ability to assess what we do know.  At the very least this means that we should be wary of drawing quick conclusions when conceptualizing the world from the point of view of an omniscient observer.

But these limitations are very important to understanding choice.  An omniscient actor in a deterministic universe in fact has no need for choice, as such an actor would know without deviation all of its future actions.  Choice for us requires multiple steps that are irrelevant to the omniscient actor.  The first and most important of these is the recognition of options.

In a given situation, there are usually multiple ways that we can conceive of acting.  For instance, at a grocery store, one may choose between buying one of three brands of peanut butter.  So, the shopper can recognize the options and then begin to weigh them.

One way of weighing the option is to create counterfactual scenarios.  That is, imaging the results of choosing each option.  This capacity probably is the reason that a fixed future intuitively seems to prohibit choice.  After all, if only one future is possible, then you really can only choose one of the three options.

But it’s important to recognize that the imagined future is not real and is part of the process of making the choice.  The notion that you, given your knowledge, preferences, and the dynamics of your decision-making process, would end up making a particular choice given a certain situation with no chance of making the other choices does not preclude the act of making a choice.

To look at it another way, the counterfactual scenarios—the future where you’ve picked up a container of JIF peanut butter, the future where you’ve picked up a container of Skippy peanut butter, and the future where you’ve picked up a container of the grocery store’s generic brand of peanut butter—are all projections based upon your own expectations and only exist within your mind.  The future that actually occurs happens after you’ve made your choice.

In a deterministic universe, you will make a specific choice as a result of your preferences and decision-making process applied to the situation at hand and there’s no chance (from the view of the omniscient observer) that you would have made any other choice.  But that doesn’t mean that replacing you with someone else given the same situation would necessarily provide the same result.

The problem with the notion that in a deterministic universe, there’s “no point in doing one thing or the other” is that your decision making process is an integral part of how things turn out, so accepting that viewpoint would (counterfactually) alter your decision making process and thus lead you to a different result than if you had chosen to reject that erroneous attitude toward the world.

It’s important to keep in mind that you approach the world from a human’s point of view and not from that of an omniscient observer.  Intuitions that are useful in the world of humans can be misleading when trying to hypothetically explore the world through the eyes of the omniscient.

Water is the basic necessity of life on this planet. Without water we die. In Canada we are extremely lucky with the overall quantity and quality of freshwater that we have access to. Nonetheless, throughout the world, freshwater is a scarce commodity. If all of the water on the planet was placed into a five litre bucket, the available freshwater wouldn’t fill one teaspoon (Government of Canada, 2008).

Canada has the third largest amount of freshwater in the world behind Brazil and Russia (Government of Canada, 2008). Furthermore, British Columbia contains a quarter of all fresh flowing water in Canada (Government of British Columbia, n.d.). This definitely helps account for the “myth of abundance” (Brandes & Kriwoken, 2006, p. 76) of freshwater in Canada and in particular in British Columbia. Even in semi-arid and water stressed regions such as the Okanagan Valley we suffer from the notion that access to water is limitless (Brandes & Kriwoken, 2006). This notion is reinforced by the fact that the Okanagan Valley is filled with many lakes; the largest being Okanagan Lake, which has a surface area of 351 km² and a total volume of 24,644 km³ (International Lake Environment Committee, n.d.). Nonetheless, “drinking water supplies are at risk, conflicts among water users are common, economic opportunities are threatened, and aquatic ecosystem health and fisheries are declining” (Brandes & Kriwoken, 2006, p. 76).

As we make our way through the first part of the 21^st century, and the awareness of environmental degradation slowly spreads, it is evident that “new approaches to long-term water planning and management” (Gleick, 1998, p. 571) are required. Whatever these approaches may take they must be both equitable and sustainable (Gleick, 1998). Too often, it is the poor and powerless that suffers the consequences of most environmental planning, absorbing the burdens of development that often benefit the rich and powerful.

In the 20^th century, the notion of growth coupled with the supplementation of water supply infrastructure dominated the paradigm of water development (Gleick, 1998). If water was needed, vast and expensive projects were undertaken to produce or exploit new sources of water. These large projects were often dams, the social and environmental effects of which are now being contested worldwide (Gleick, 1998; Scudder, 2005). The contestation of these large projects is due to the fact that people around the globe have suffered and are beginning now to understand their social and ecological repercussions (Gleick, 1998). “Tens of millions of people have been displaced from their homes by water projects in the last century…[and t]wenty-seven percent of all North American freshwater fauna populations are now considered threatened with extinction” (Gleick, 2003, p. 1).

In light of the challenges that face the issue of water supply, a new approach to managing water demand is required. Demand management and conservation practices are an effective and significant means to realizing sustainable approaches for water (Brandes & Kriwoken, 2006). Rather than focusing on exploiting new sources of water and building the requisite infrastructure to do so, Brandes and Kriwoken (2006), and Gleick (2003) describe the “soft path” for water management. The soft path is described as “[m]oving away from a focus on supply-side options and towards an integrated and long-term approach…” (Brandes & Kriwoken, 2006, p. 76) to managing water. Furthermore, “[t]he soft path for water strives to improve the productivity of water use [first and foremost] rather than seek endless sources of new supply” (Gleick, 1998, p. 3) which characterize the ‘hard path’ of water management.

It is sobering to think that while water demand in the Okanagan will increase 30 percent by 2025, the amount of precipitation received at that time is projected to decrease by 35 percent from the 1961-1990 average (Brandes & Kriwoken, 2006). Where will the necessary water come from as we see water supply decrease and water demand increase? Kriwoken and Brandes (2006) argue, “[t]he dual challenges of both water supply limitations and demand increases in the region may only be addressed by considering conservation as the best source of “new” water for the Okanagan” (78). Our present paradigm of water supply must change to one of water conservation and be directed by the soft path approach.

Our concentration on water supply in the past led to an inattention of water (over)use, which consecutively lead to ineffective and wasteful technologies and uses, and furthermore, to discriminatory distributions of water resources (Gleick, 1998). A trend towards an ethic of conservation regarding water in the Okanagan should go a long way towards reducing the amount of water that is used and wasted. This is especially true considering that 70 percent of the water used is for agricultural irrigation purposes, and 15 percent is used for business and residential irrigation (Okanagan Water Stewardship Council, 2008). It is obvious that the largest efforts at conservation need to be directed at the use of water for irrigation as 85 percent of water is used strictly for irrigation purposes.

Nonetheless, according to the Okanagan Water Stewardship Council, conservation won’t be enough as “water storage capacity will [also] need to be increased in some sub-basins to meet the joint challenges of population growth and climate change” (2008, p. IX). However, considering the reduction of precipitation that we are forecasted to see in the region, how can we increase storage capacity for water that we won’t have? If we are even able to increase capacity, what will the effect of stockpiling this water be on natural systems that will be stressed due to an overall decrease of water? We must also be reminded that “it is now increasingly difficult to build major new water supply systems because of both environmental and economic constraints” (Gleick, 1998, p. 572); constraints that are bound to greatly increase in the future.

The Okanagan Water Stewardship Council has also given water conservation an important role into the future as they state one of their goals is to “[p]romote a Basin-wide culture of water conservation and efficiency” (2008, p. VI). There seems to be an intrinsic conflict, however, between the assumption that storage capacity will need to be increased in the future, yet recognizing that conservation will play a vital role as well. There is a conflict in these two approaches because the supply side views water as a limitless resource, while the conservation approach acknowledges water is a finite resource (Brandes & Kriwoken, 2006). So, which is it? This internal conflict demonstrates, once again, a structural fear on the part of governance institutions to undertake a truly paradigm shifting approach to reaching sustainable goals. Simply readjusting or reformulating the ‘status quo‘ will nonetheless reproduce the ‘status quo‘, albeit in a different guise.

The question that must be asked is this: “How can we deliver the services currently provided by water in new ways (emphasis mine) that recognize the need for long-term systemic changes to achieve social sustainability?” (Brandes & Kriwoken, 2006, p. 79). These systemic changes must come from social, political and cultural spheres of influence that produce and entrench a new ethic and paradigm of sustainability; moreover, “long-term water planning must include all stakeholders, not just those traditionally trained in engineering and hydrologic sciences” (Gleick, 1998, p. 4). Alas, it is our reliance on experts trained in the field of engineering and water sciences where we can understand why a discourse of technical solutions to water management is reproduced. What is required are “institutional changes, new management tools and skills, and a greater reliance and actions by many individual water users rather than a few engineers” (Gleick, qtd in Brandes & Kriwoken, 2006, p. 80).

The Okanagan Water Stewardship Council has included community stakeholders; however, they remain top-heavy with engineers and water scientists in their ranks. This fact could help account for the conflict in the Okanagan Water Stewardship Council’s Action Plan that calls for both hard and soft path options; increasing water supply capacity as well as promoting conservation efforts. Furthermore, is it problematic if “the intention of the [water stewardship] Council is to be a technical advisory committee” (Warwick Sears, personal communication, November 19, 2009)? Does this reduce the issue of water management to one that requires a technical solution, when it has been clearly demonstrated that the technical approach to managing water should be moderated by political, social, and cultural frameworks?

Together, education, pricing, efficiency, recycling, reuse, and conservation present considerable prospects for reducing water use and managing water demand in the future for the Okanagan Valley (Brandes & Kriwoken, 2006). In the Okanagan, and the rest of Canada, there are obstacles and perceptions that must be overcome for the soft path to be effective at managing water resources into the future. However, for the Okanagan Valley to have any chance at meeting water needs in an uncertain future, “[a]pproaches to water management must evolve to more fully embrace a fundamental water conservation paradigm if the region is to deal with the uncertainties of climate change and remain prosperous in the face of rampant growth” (Brandes & Kriwoken, 2006, p. 83). This paradigm shift could be made possible by a dedicated effort at following the soft path of water management.

As it stands now, by calling for conservation and increased storage capacity, conflict is built into the Okanagan Water Stewardship Council Action Plan, therefore impairing and subverting a true attempt at any real shift of paradigm of water management. If we are serious about creating a sustainable future for water use in the Okanagan Valley, we must undertake a serious and concerted effort at conserving our water resources. We must choose one path or the other, for as Gleick argues, “[w]e cannot follow both paths” (2003, p. 4) (emphasis mine).

Works Cited

Brandes, O. M., & Kriwoken, L. (2006). Changing perspectives–changing paradigms: taking the “soft path” to water sustainability in the Okanagan Basin. Canadian Water Resources Journal.

Gleick, P. H. (1998). Water in Crisis: Paths to Sustainable Water Use. Ecological Applications, 8(3), 571-579.

Gleick, P. H. (2003). Global Freshwater Resources: Soft-Path Solutions for the21st Century. Science, 302(5650), 1524-1528.

Government of British Columbia. (n.d.). Water Stewardship Division – Water Conservation. Mininstry of Environment. Retrieved November 19, 2009, from http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wsd/plan_protect_sustain/water_conservation/index.html

Government of Canada, E. C. (2008). Freshwater Website: Did you know (Water quantity). Retrieved November 17, 2009, from http://www.ec.gc.ca/water/en/info/facts/e_quantity.htm

International Lake Environment Committee. (n.d.). OKANAGAN LAKE. International Lake Environment Committee. Retrieved November 17, 2009, from http://www.ilec.or.jp/database/nam/nam-51.html

Okanagan Water Stewardship Council. (2008). Okanagan Sustainable Water Strategy: Action Plan 1.0.

Scudder, T. (2005). Future Of Large Dams (illustrated edition.). Earthscan Publishers.

I have one word for Microsoft on PDC 2009:

Awesomeness!

This years Product Developers Conference was much scaled back compared to last years but it had a great innovation in format that allowed people who didn’t attend the conference physically to still interact with it virtually.

And so the good folks at Channel 9 had built up a talkshow like studio at the PDC, with live streaming video through Silverlight, and the ability to viewers to ask questions live on air via Twitter.

This was immensely fun. I had the opportunity to ask questions to at least two technical fellows at Microsoft. Technical Fellow is the highest technical ranking at Microsoft besides of course Chief Technical Architect, a position which is currently held by Ray Ozzie.

I asked a question to Patrick Dussud, Technical Fellow and lead architect of the .Net Common Language Runtime (CLR), designer of the CLR GC and a member of the Windows Core Architechture team. The question was about how how parallel you could make the GC and what possible downsides this had.

I also asked a question to David Campbell, another Technical Fellow, from the Business Platform Division (BPD) where he manages Microsoft SQL Azure and .Net services in the cloud computing space. This question was about whether databases (e.g. SQL Server), programming runtimes (e.g. CLR) and … are merging. David mentiond that MSIL/CIL bytecode execution on SQL Server – “close to the data” – has improved performance of managed code accessing data greatly.

LINQ shows us where things are going: tighter and tighter integration. Erik Meijer, who is perhaps the lead architect of LINQ and whom I was also able to ask a question, also works for David Campbell on cloud programmability. The  new Reactive Extensions (Rx) for .Net is a pearl which we’ll see permeate .Net soon. It also builds smoothly on top of Parallel Extensions for .Net (Px), which is Microsoft’s near- to mid-term answer to the manycore challenge.

Parallel Extensions for .Net comes from the Parallel Computing Platform (PCP) team which is the team tasked with the strategic challenge posed by the massively parallel hardware of the future.

It gets better. I also asked a question to the director of NASA’s Mars programme as well as a NASA scientist.

I repeat: Awesomeness!

NASA had a marked pressence at this years PDC because they have offered up data on Microsoft’s new “Dallas” data marketplace. The attendees were apparently given 3D goggles and were viewing stereoscopic images of Mars. Pretty damned cool.

Supposedly recordings of the live Channel 9 stream will be available. I’d certainly like it.

This years PDC will be one tough PDC to outdo.

I was recently asked by a fellow pastor, “Wes, are you going to show something new every time we get together?”  When I responded what this pastor meant they replied, “Well, I still haven’t figured out the last tool you showed off.” I get this pastor’s point, the problem is it springs from a mentality that no longer works.  A mentality, I might add, many churches still work from.

My friend still thinks of the trends I show in technology as a series of tools to be learned, mastered, and leveraged.  As such, the rapid development of these tools – e-mail, personal web-sites, blogs,myspace/facebook, texting, IM, linkedIN, youTube, and twitter – seems overwhelming.  After all, no sooner do you master one tool, that seven more are developed!  It’s no wonder that people and churches which are working from the mentality of “tools to be learned, mastered, and leveraged” retreat into their shell.  The rapidity of change and development is enough to drive anyone mad.

Here’s the problem.  The above mentality springs from the old industrial revolution mind-set of specialization.  People learned to do one thing, and do it well – that’s all they needed to master.  That was revolutionary in it’s day, and created a lot of displacement when it happened, but over time it became the accepted norm.  It was simply how things got done – and that mentality migrated off of the manufacturing floor and into every facet of industrialized society.  Heck there’s even a seminary out there that boldly proclaims how they train “specialists in the Bible.”

The Industrial Revolution, however, is over.  We are in the midst of the Communications Revolution and the old mentality of “learn, master, leverage” no longer functions.  The tools expand, adapt, and migrate away from the specialists to rapidly to keep up.  Every vocation needs to accept this paradigm shift, even pastors.  We can no longer simply hope to teach people a tool to master so they can Communicate with others in this shifting environment – people will feel discouraged and overwhelmed near-instantly.  Rather, we need to train people into embracing a mentality which can migrate with the shifting tool-set along with those who are native to the Revolution.  This mentality would help people to first focus on the nature of the Communications Revolution, rather than it’s tools – a mentality which helps people to understand that it is act of networking and strengthening connections that matters more than the tools that are used to make the connections.  From this mentality,  an intuition can be learned that assists people as the tools shift.  Instead of wondering what buttons to press in order to master the tool, people will learn to watch and see how any given tool is helping people to connect.

The irony is that the mentality central to the Communications Revolution is actually closer to the heart of the Church than the specialist model of the Industrial Revolution – churches have been in that model so long, however, that specialization is viewed as the way things have “always been done.”  It’s my hope that the Holy Spirit will continue to make believers aware of the possibilities for ministry in this revolutionary time as we move forward.

Getting started, however, is the trick.  Many people feel as though they’ve been forcibly migrated into the Communications Revolution – exiled from their home in the Industrial mentality.  Resentment among these people high, as is sorrow for what has been lost and bitterness towards those who have managed to adjust.  Perhaps in this the prophetic message with call upon the exiles in Babylon to embrace life in the foreign realm, along with the Biblical tradition of healthy lamentation, may help move us forward.  Time will tell, but we must make a start.

Nature is worth a set of equations; (Nov. 17, 2009)

I have been reading speeches and comments of Albert Einstein, the greatest theoretical physicist in the 20^th century. Einstein is persuaded that mathematics, exclusively, can describe and represent nature’s phenomena; that all nature’s complexities can be comprehend and imagined as the simplest system in concepts and principles. The fundamental creative principle resides in mathematics and formulas have to be the simplest and most beautifully general. Mathematical concepts can be suggested by experience, the unique criteria of utilization of a mathematical construct.

I got into thinking. I read this dictum when I was graduating in physics and I have been appreciating this recurring philosophy ever since. The basic goal in theoretical physics for over a century was to discovering the all encompassing field of energy that can unite the varieties of fields that experiments have been popping out to describing particular phenomena in nature such as electrical and magnetic fields as well as all these “weak” and “stronger” fields of energy emanating from atoms, protons, and all the varieties of smaller elements.

I got into thinking. Up until the first quarter of the 20^th century most experiments in natural sciences were done by varying one factor at a time; experiments never used more than one independent variable and more than one dependent variable (objective measuring variable or the data).  Even today, most engineers perform these kinds of totally inefficient and worthless experiments: no interactions among variables can be analyzed, the most important and fundamental intelligences in all kinds of sciences. These engineers have simply not been exposed to experimental designs in their required curriculum! 

Although the theory of probability was very advanced the field of practical statistical analysis of data was not yet developed; it was real pain and very time consuming doing all the computations by hand for slightly complex experimental designs. Sophisticated and specialized statistical packages constructs for different fields of research evolved after the mass number crunchers of computers were invented. 

            Consequently, early theoretical scientists refrained from complicating their constructs simply because they had to solve their exercises and compute them by hand in order to verify their contentious theories.  Thus, theoretical scientists knew that the experimental scientists could not practically deal with complex mathematical constructs and would refrain from undertaking complex experiments in order to confirm or refute any complex construct. The trend, paradigm, or philosophy for the theoretical scientists was to promoting the concept that theories should be the simplest with the least numbers of axioms (fundamental principles); they did their best to imagining one general causative factor that affected the behavior of natural phenomena or would be applicable to most natural phenomena. When Einstein mentioned that equations should be beautiful in their simplicity he had not in mind graphic design; he meant they should be simple for computations.

            This is no longer the case. Nature is complex; no matter how you control and restrict the scope of an  experiment in order to reducing the numbers of manipulated variables to a minimum there are always more than one causative factor that are interrelated and interacting to producing effects.

            Man is far more complex than nature to studying his behavior. Psychologists and sociologists have been using complex experimental designs for decades in order to study man’s behavior and his hundreds of physical and mental characteristics and variability. All kinds of mathematical constructs were developed to aid “human scientists” perform experiments commensurate in complexity with the subject matter. The dependent variables had no longer to be objectively measurable and many subjective criteria were adopted. Certainly, “human scientists” did not have to know the mathematical constructs that the statistical packages were using, just the premises that justified their appropriate use for their particular field. Anyway, these mathematical models were pretty straightforward and no sophisticated mathematical concepts were used: the human scientists should be able to understand the construct if they desired to go deeper into the program without continuing higher mathematical education.

            Nature is complex. Theoretical natural scientists should acknowledge that complexity; studying nature is worth a set of equations! Simple and beautiful general equations are out the window.  There are no excuses for engineers and natural scientists for not expanding their imagination and focusing their intuition on complex constructs that may account for many causative factors and analyzing simultaneously many variables for their interactions.

            There are no excuses that experimental designs are not set up to handle three independent variables (factors) and two dependent variables; the human brain is capable of visualizing the interactions of nine combinations of variables two at a time.  Certainly, scientists can throw in as many variables as they need and the powerful computers will crunch the numbers as easily and as quickly as simple designs; the problem is the interpretation part of the reams and reams of results; worst, how your audience is to comprehend your study. A set of coherent series of relatively complex experiments can be designed to answer most complex phenomena and yet be intelligibly interpreted.

It is time to account for all the possible causatives factors, especially those that are rare in probability of occurrence (at the very end tail of probability graphs) or for their imagined little contributing effects: it is those rare events that have surprised man with catastrophic consequences. If complex man was studied with simple sets of equations THEN nature is also worth sets of equations; be bold and make these equations as complex as you want; the computer would not care as long as you understand them for communication sake.

Locuspokus webchat is a ~= 200ko app, including all the html, graphics & logic.

The first time you arrive  on the home page, you load the full application. 90% of it is cached by your browser, so the next time you only download 10k. This is very light, because we build it having in mind mobile-users.

What’s happening when you load the page ?

This connection scheme is fully Event Driven ( like all the GUI ), using an Observer Pattern à la Mozilla.

BLACKBERRY PIE by Marisa Coughlan & Karen Fedele
PAR/Phillips
Logline: A work obsessed ad exec has chosen work over life, believing that she can’t have it all.  When she is thrust back to the 1950’s she is forced to reevaluate her choices and ultimately realizes that not only can you have it all, you can have a little more.

Lecture: Friday 13th November @ Blue room, Foulis Building, Glasgow School of Art

John Wood presented the concept of Metadesign in a 1.5 h lecture. It included system theory as well as the mindset of utopias to create change.

To my understanding Metadesign is about an optimistic mindset which creates and fosters synergies within teamwork. These synergies are unleashed through tools and methods. Underneath I outlined the most important concepts about metadesign picked up from this lecture:

1. Replicable synergies

Synergy is an enhanced effect from two or more factors collaborating. What are the environmental factors which encourage synergy? Relation between factors, factor’s awareness of strengths and weaknesses, comfort and trust. Communication and bonding. John Wood argues synergies go beyond what we are used to. We may not even notice them when we experience them as the mind does not notice things that are running smooth and well. How do you create synergies and make this process of bonding replicable? Humour is an effective type of synergy. It creates comfort and relation. But how do you replicate personal trades such a humour?

Within teamwork synergy is about Evolving together. Creating synergy within teams by sharing knowledge which is held in individuals in retention to others. Others can unleash knowledge and skills which we are used to having not acknowledging the fact we have these skills. Only in relation to other people this knowledge can be appreciated. This is not just applicable to people and interaction, but also interaction with space and environment.

2.There is no paradigm

There is no fit all problem solution. There is no silver bullet (a quick solution for a difficult problem). John Wood argues that we need fractal replication : the replication of ‘utopias’. Many utopias will flourish within, pick up momentum, spread and create an overall impact. He argues we need new forms of collaborative design, which focus on single solutions locally applicable in multiple locations. It is about steering desires and creating opportunities, basically: manipulation and education.

3. Design = possible + unthinkable

Normally design is perceived to be the possible and thinkable, but we should strive towards the unthinkable, stretching beyond the known. After all miracles are just unlikely, not impossible! This involves taking risks and acknowledging possible failures. What kind of mindset is required to nurture such behaviour?

4. Auspicious

be welcoming and positively open thinking. Pessimists can not be designers. Focus on possibilities rather than problems. In brainstorming: pointing out faults and too much logic limits possibilities.

5. The control of positive feedback

In system theory: negative feedback is the normal trigger for change. If something is not working as it should, a reaction is caused to adjust to strive towards equilibrium, a balanced environment. Negative feedback only exists in close order systems. The world however is not such a system, it is an open system.

Positive feedback on the other hand are reactions that are same directional. It keeps growing exponentially. Nonetheless this reaction holds the fear of loosing control. Afterall an avalanche is a positive feedback and it grows into a non predictable swallowing mass. John Wood however argues that this mindset is based on negative thinking. He encourages dreaming and optimism. I agree with the overall statement, but would highlight within limits, natural constraints of our brains driven by logic and responsibility.

6. Design is… about shifting paradigms.

imagining something that does not exist yet, which is thinkable, talkable, possible and shifts paradigms. It is basically the creation of new solutions/systems which are beyond fitting their purpose (Donella Meadows). According to Tomas Kuhn there is a paradigm shift every 40 years.

Which impact will paradigm shifts have? Take an intertwined economic system, the car industry for instance: According to John Wood 25% of income is spend on the car. 10% of the population is involved in the car industry. If these numerous groups are addressed imagine the impact this has on wealth etc.

Here are some academic papers from attainable utopias.

Have you ever tried to focus on heavenly things? I pondered on what that meant and it suddenly occur to me. You and Iwill see God’s bigger picture. You and I may have problems and struggles along life’s journey, but if your focus is on heaven, your life take on an eternal perspective. Viewing your life through this new paradigm gives us peace, comfort, hope, and a sense of purpose & destiny that you are part of God’s grand plan.
Colossians 3:1-4 “Since you have been raised to new life with Christ, set your sights on the realities of heaven, where Christ sits in the place of honor at God’s right hand. Think about the things of heaven, not the things of earth. For you died to this life, and your real life is hidden with Christ in God. And when Christ, who is your life, is revealed to the whole world, you will share in all his glory.“

Power Thoughts:
1.  The place to improve the world is first in one’s own heart and head and hands. - Robert M. Pirsig
2. You are today where your thoughts have brought you; you will be tomorrow where your thoughts take you. - James Allen
3. The significant problems we face in life can not be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them. - Albert Einstein

I tweeted this, and I posted it on facebook, and now I’m posting it on my blog b/c I think it’s an excellent article.

http://bit.ly/4wl2ui

Succinctly written that we’re not just passing through to heaven. Create heaven on earth 4 others. Excellent paragraph on why not to solely have an “evacuation theology.”

Open letter to our President:

That’s right, Sir. Don’t listen to the same old, same old military plans. Ignore their mantras, “We need more troops.”  Avoid going to war AGAIN with no exit strategy.

Will we never learn?

This is a new era, and we need major paradigm shifts to survive.

The old solutions won’t solve new problems.

Get out of the middle east. It’s all about oil, anyway.

The new Civilian Conservation Corps–which could put to work the thousands of us who are unemployed–should be an army of citizens driving an economy based on alternative fuel sources. No more oil!

I’m from New Hampshire, and we’re all about common sense.

Continue to demand alternative options, Mr. President. Military intervention is something that must become obsolete. We’ve got some serious problems to address in this country!

Take the military budget and pour it into education and alternative energy, and you will truly change the world.

Resist troop build-up. PLEASE!

Re-sponsible, Re-mold, Re-create, Re-deem.

My blog is therapeutic for me in many instances. It helps me process different theological thoughts that are bouncing around in my head.  In a way it’s recreation for me. Recreation in its origins means to re-create. To make something a-new that has changed.

Many things on our earth, which were either created directly by God or created by God’s creation – man, have changed from their original intent .  Institutions, organizations, politics, art, education, medicine, healthcare, the planet and so many other things have gone adrift from people “in charge” who felt no obligation to be held responsible (able to respond) to a higher truth than their own selfish pursuits. (Tragedy of the Commons)  We’re co-creators with God and with each of our own kingdoms we need to be able to: be re-sponsable, re-mold, re-create, and re-deem what was meant to bring glory to God.

Last night I had a great evening out with Tad talking about life and theology over nachos, fine malt beverages, and a very tasty Rocky Patel cigar (it was their decade series, box press, and I highly recommend it!).  My life right now is consumed with work, travel, and soccer; and last night was re-creation for me during a time of crazy busy-ness.  So all this to say that as these thoughts keep bouncing around in my head I will be more regular at posting some of these thoughts. I just sometimes need a good strong cup of mental coffee to keep me regular.

You May Just Be An Entrepreneur if… Written By: Darren Bocksnick @2009

1) You May Just Be An Entrepreneur If you are driven by a burning, insatiable desire for something better and something more: The entrepreneurial spark innate within you is not doused by disappointments nor snuffed-out by setbacks; rather, it grows moment by agonizing moment until it completely engulfs you and the flames of potential consumes you to action. This pioneering seed latent within you may have been dormant, hidden and undiscovered or worst, it may have been covered by layers of neglect yet it fights for life and for the light of a new day to dawn.

Some may perceive or label you as overly-ambitious and others may be intimidated, even jealous over your drive but what they cannot perceive or possibly know is that you must act upon your entrepreneurial instinct to press on toward new heights. For, to the entrepreneur, to do anything contrary is tantamount to being stripped of his or her potential.

Such is the angst of an entrepreneur; they must continuously strive to satisfy that hunger for success until something gives and the situation turns to their advantage.

2) You May Just Be An Entrepreneur If you are never completely satisfied or contented working for someone else: To the entrepreneur, working for someone else is a temporal, transitional obstacle at best; and an utter, unresolved disappointment at worst. Entrepreneurs make both the best and worst employees. They are some of the best employees because they have a natural proclivity toward business and their modus operandi is fueled by principles of success that tend to place them in a category unto themselves.

However; they make the worst employees because they know what opportunities await them and what unfulfilled dreams still vie for their undivided attention. In this respect, they are never truly passionate about another company’s product, service or vision since invariably, it is not their own. If left unresolved, those with an entrepreneurial nature become indifferent and intolerable as employees, to the point they are difficult to deal with…

Such is the struggle of the entrepreneur; they are like square pegs trying to be fit into society’s round mold and are never quite able to adapt. They are forced by reason of job status to make the transition to mere employee but deep down know they must heed their heart’s calling to chart their life’s course and chip out their niche.

3) You May Just Be An Entrepreneur If you are a perfectionist or have a low tolerance level for ineptitude, incompetence and inefficiency: Entrepreneurs are by nature, achievers. The entrepreneur’s desire to achieve goals and see their dreams come into fruition is unparalleled. When dealing with individuals who don’t seem to possess the same drive or determination, entrepreneurs become annoyed and impatient to the point of being unbearable. Since seeking perfection in all they do is the gage by which they measure and thereby, scrutinize a matter or an individual, ineptitude and incompetence are indicative of failure and they will thereby, avoid or keep at bay those exhibiting such characteristics.

They will spend countless hours researching opportunities, reviewing start-up business ventures and interviewing other successful people in the hopes that somehow, amidst it all, to find that single product or idea that best embodies their ambitions. They are seldom satisfied though with what they discover and their search is never quite complete until they create their own opportunity or modify an existing one to their own liking.

Such is the lot of entrepreneurs; they are always seeking out that perfect situation be it in an opportunity or a relationship but are never quite able to find what they’re looking for until they create it for themselves.

4) You May Just Be An Entrepreneur If your thoughts are constantly at work “brainstorming” and “master-minding” on ideas for helping improve existing processes or for the development of new products: In other words, the entrepreneur epitomizes the Japanese ideal of Kaizen or “continuous improvement”. When an entrepreneur-at-heart is present at a typical, company-wide or departmental brainstorming session, others sitting near will sometimes cringe with uncertainty and trepidation over what the entrepreneur among them will say or do next since, entrepreneurs are by nature, a bit unpredictable.

Yet, their ideas are over-the-top and revolutionary. Therefore, entrepreneurs typically visualize what others overlook or have not completely thought-through. Their imagination is constantly at work; analyzing and theorizing possible conclusions or solutions until a resolution occurs or a resignation follows. Though they are often criticized in public for their “wild notions”, it is the entrepreneur who is typically called on in private for his or her conclusions in such matters from an almost, consultative stand-point.

Such is the case with entrepreneurs; their minds and thought processes typically out-pace that of their peers in the discovery of new ideas or paradigms and as such, must slow down till others catch up or worst, separate themselves altogether until they do it themselves.

5) You May Just Be An Entrepreneur If you are constantly in “create mode”; conceptualizing new product ideas, dabbling in the arts, playing musical instruments and/or tinkering with gadgets in an effort to figure out how things work: It is no coincidence that the movers and shakers of society past such as the DaVinci’s and the Benjamin Franklin’s of their time were inventors, artists and / or proficient musicians. There is a direct correlation between the creative faculties of the mind and higher levels of intelligence. This creative stroke of genius is what beckons the entrepreneur forward in his or her quest for success and sustains them when all has not occurred according to plan.

Entrepreneurs by interpretation are creators; they create innovative products, they create companies from ground-floor on up to top-tier and they create opportunities for others to benefit from in terms of their effort and labor. Innumerable are society’s advancements and conveniences that could safely be attributed to the work of an entrepreneur. Their noted mark of influence is shared by all and is routinely experienced on an ongoing basis.

Such is the plight of the entrepreneur; their efforts often go unnoticed and worse, are accredited to others. Their crowning achievements are typically so frequent and routine that others capitalize off of their works and take credit for the entrepreneur’s efforts.

6) You May Just Be An Entrepreneur If you don’t accept paradigms as routine; but rather, you break them and create new ones: Paradigms are established patterns of thought that become the standard norm for how individuals function and carry out their daily duties. These paradigms are “safe-zones” for many since they represent a form of tradition that’s been accepted and adapted as standard rule. Yet, to the entrepreneur; their inquisitive mind questions the establishment, bucks up against tradition and compels them to map out a new set of rules; their own!

Since, the entrepreneur by instinct is a trend-setter, a rule-breaker, and in most cases, an over-achiever; he or she cannot be boxed in or made to fit into society’s mold. Rather than making the pivotal mistake of attempting to tame the entrepreneur to become society’s civilized pet, society rather needs to release the entrepreneur out into the wild where he or she can roam, rule and run their course, uninhibited.

Such, however is the role of the entrepreneur; to leave his or her indelible mark on society by setting certain changes in motion that usher in a new paradigm shift in forward thinking and yet, be forced in many ways to watch from a distance as well as to savor the satisfaction of what they’ve accomplished in silence.

7) You May Just Be An Entrepreneur If you live your life as if endowed with purpose and empowered by a higher calling from somewhere beyond… To some, the entrepreneur may seem indifferent, aloof or even a bit out-of-touch. This isn’t necessarily the case but their sense of quiet contemplation and reserve can be unsettling. Typically, people will mark them as different and place them in a category unto themselves. If the truth be told though, entrepreneurs ARE different in every sense of the word. Entrepreneurs are dreamers whose thoughts of grandeur and success keep them up long into the night and rising up early into the morning as if to seize the day. It is this desire for better things, this drive to break free from the status-quo that makes the entrepreneur stand out and easy to spot in a crowd.

 Entrepreneurs may initially cause unease and unrest to those closest to them but it is the impact the entrepreneur leaves behind that often drastically improves circumstances for those same individuals, though entrepreneurs are seldom credited for doing so. In this regard, it could indeed be said that entrepreneurs do live their lives as if endowed with purpose and empowered by a higher calling because, by their mere actions- they break society free from the routines that have kept her at a stand-still and in doing so, usher in positive changes that improve the lives of those they’ve touched.

Such is the legacy of the entrepreneur; he or she may positively impact the lives of many and improve society on a routine basis but will most likely, not see the full scale of their influence nor realize the part they have played in the grand scheme of positive change they have introduced to their world.

In conclusion, entrepreneurs have left their indelible mark on society through the roles they have played in the advancement of technology, scientific breakthroughs and in pivotal, paradigm shifts that have helped procure new phases in our development as a civilized people. No doubt, without the impact of the entrepreneur, society may very well still be stuck in the agricultural age or worst. In the final assessment of things, it will be said by future generations that the entrepreneurs; those daring enough to do differently than what society’s expectations had confined them to- were the true heroes and heroines of their day; not the politicians, the celebrities or the CEO’s of large corporations. Though they are few and far between, society can still breathe a sigh of relief knowing that there always has and always will be the entrepreneur among us working quietly behind the scenes; contemplating development, creating improvements and causing advancement in the world to which they’ve been assigned…

 Darren.Bocksnick@gmail.com

http://mySuccessfulThinkers.com/Darren-Bocksnick

 http://highercaliber.blogspot.com/

http://lifeascent.wordpress.com/

http://hubpages.com/profile/WordWielder

Facebook:  http://profile.to/darrenbocksnick/

http://twitter.com/wordwielder