Nicki Brøchner - Latest Comments in General

Re: What is terrorism?

Nicki — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 12:11:05 -0000

Well by definition all actions are rational in the sense that humans uses reason to act. When I am using the terms relational and irrational, I mean that the person acting needs to have a purpose with his or here action. So what I am saying is that it makes no sense to say that a person can do an act of terror irrational meaning performing an act of terror that have no purpose.
I will argue that there is a big deferens between what you feel and what is. For example a person that is afraid of the dark, which is an irrational fear in the same way that Americans being afraid of everything Muslim like is a irrational fear. Remember I am not saying that it is not a fear just that you can’t call it terror ;)

Re: What is terrorism?

Roger — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 16:16:12 -0000

Does terror have to be rational or irrational? I am not sure your argument make the point. After 9//11 a lot of people fell terorised by everything muslim-like, that was not rational, but that was terror. I think you need to think deeper on this.

Very best
~r

Re: What is terrorism?

rimbaud — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 18:18:03 -0000

The terrorists are not rich and powerful, like us. They try to get as much mileage as they can from a few dramatic acts of terror (that's what terrorism is). The reason there has not been "another 911" is we are doing a good job, all by ourselves, of extending the "mileage" from the first one. Which of them ever imagined they would be elevated to the number-one feared enemy of the world's greatest military power? How can a handful of terrorists do so much damage to us, at so little cost to themselves? I guess thay know how to draw us in, eh? By creating a trillion dollar war against them, we have inflated their importance and amplified their effect. You can bet the terrorists will attempt another attack when we have stopped bleeding from the last one and have stopped letting fear influence our choces.

Re: Is EU turning into China?

Nicki — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 12:19:56 -0000

Conmen sense would dictate that you are right. Marianne Mikko’s draft should never become more then a socialist feverish dreams. But and that is a big but, it have already been approved in committee, now that is luckily not an guaranty that it will also pass in the European parliament, but it should never have gone so fare. Now I am pretty sure that it will get killed there because to many of the old EU countries would never dear to limited frees speech in such a way, but on the other hand who would have thought that 40% of the EU budget should go to subsidizing the European agriculture industry?

Yes it is sad that we no long can make do with smiling of American lawmakers that clearly have no understanding of technology and the internet world. It is sad that we now also have to be aware of politicians with a lack of understanding and a clear technofear.

Re: U.S finally removes Nelson Mandela form the terrorist list

Nicki — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 07:45:41 -0000

You are right; there can’t be any higher ideal then the respect of private property. Also I agree with you that any organisation that is using violence and bombing of civilians to further a political agenda should be determinant as a terrorist organisation, by the South African people. Not the American people, or the European, Asian, Russian and so on.

Also we need to remember that it happened over 30 years ago. The world is a different place today then it where 30 years ago. The ANC is the rightful and lawful government of South Africa today.

My next post that is planed to be published the next couple of days will be about the subject of what a terrorist is, so keep an eye out for this. I would welcome your further feedback on the subject.

Re: U.S finally removes Nelson Mandela form the terrorist list

123pass — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 23:12:58 -0000

Dude, the ANC bombed civilian targets and used violence as a tool to create terror to further their political ends...ergo a terrorist org.

The issue is what is the role of violence when fighting an oppressive government like that that ran the apartheid program? Is terror a legitimate tool or is respect of private property the highest, and therefore inviolate, ideal?

Re: Is EU turning into China?

Lars Ettrup — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 08:19:05 -0000

Interesting blog post, Nicki - however I doubt that Marianne Mikko's draft will become anymore that a unrealistic and ridiculous point of view on democracy and the whole social mediasphere. She obviously have not grasped the true understanding of collaborative editing, commenting, sharing ie. - what the whole social web 2.0 movement is all about. A movement, that in itself servers as a quality control mark.

I think her attitude towards social media (I know some call it social software, but i don't like that word) seem old fashioned and it reminds of the record industry refusing to see that we are living in new times. New business models are introduced, new business process will take over old ones, people will find new and alternative ways to gather information etc. etc - so I say to everyone with technofear.

"Accept, Adapt and Overcome. Don't try to control it."

Lastly, please make you commenting expandable or higher :-) It sucks having to scroll up all the time :-)

Re: Ron Paulâs message of freedom - take II

Nicki — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 12:09:40 -0000

Well I am not surprised that you haven’t heard of him ;) the coverict of the presidential race has been worsen then worse hehe Basically it have been the highlights of the collective highlights from the cable news shows. So allow me to at least fill some of the blanks out ;D.

Dr. Ron Paul is a republican president candidate, that where incredible popular among college students, libertarians and republicans that long for times with small government. The reason for his popularity is basically because he is firmly committed to obeying the constitution, returning America to the gold standard and returning America to the none-interventional foreign politics. He has also famously told that if he where president he would abolish most of the, if not all, governmental agencies in America, including the FBI, IRS and so on ;D

Now I am sure that if this has sparked some interests then I am sure at Goolge will be your friend ;)

Re: Ron Paulâs message of freedom - take II

Bluehawk — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 09:05:04 -0000

Hey Nicki

Neither Ron Paul or the fight for liberty are things that i have heard about. Therefore im a little perplexed as to what inspired the good doctor to fight this war. Is the american government no longer based on libertarian values? Is he just an incredible motivator or is there an underlying problem here that i am not aware of that inspires 100000 people to take part in this fight?

It sounds interessting i hope you get a chance to fill in the blanks :)

/Bluehawk

Re: The supidity of crows

Nicki — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 20:48:16 -0000

Thanks for the link to the article. It does look interesting, I think that tomorrow I might to a blog post about it so keep and eye out for it =)

Re: The supidity of crows

jansegers — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 15:34:47 -0000

Glocality is one of the concept that made it on to my tumblr account with a reference to a great article:
http://jansegers.tumblr.com/post/25678410/the-l...

Re: The supidity of crows

Nicki — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 13:15:48 -0000

Sure but one thing is measuring relative fix physical parameters, and another is to try and predict human behaviours. The one is physics and the other is psychology. But yes, I get your point; I don’t believe that it is valid though. Because in the physical world, we can make objective observations that only are effected by predicable variables. That is not the case when dealing with psychology. Also your example of the clean toilet being an indicator for good restaurant, it might be a good rule of thump, but still it is strongly dependent on the subject doing the observation. Different people have to some degree different ideas of what a clean toilet looks it. Also the problem is that the clean toilet or shoes is only one element in the analysis, and it is an element that not necessary is connected to any of the other elements that are needed to make a decent analysis.

I do agree with you that observation is key, but you have to be critical of your observations to ensure that you analyse is viable. You really need to be careful that you don’t over simplify your observations, and in doing so are drawing the wrong conclusions. The first thing any marketer learns is that models are good but using your commonsense is better.

I haven’t hear about glocality before so I won’t comment on it right now, but it looks like something I might blog about in the near further.

Re: The supidity of crows

jansegers — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:12:44 -0000

That's true. But like micro- and macrolevels have implication on meso-scale, just watching trends anybody can observe makes some real sense.

It's like the idea that when the toilets of a restaurant are clean, the service will probably be adequate as well. It's an indicator with a high probability...

In fact, everything that can be observed is indicative up to some point for how something is going. Shoes analysis of future employees is well known...

Also the desk management style has its highly probable repercussions because it's a mark of how someone works.

Etcetera. My point is that observation is the key to any analysis, because most phenomena come with clusters of clues on the field of everyday life.

It's true that macro-analysis is enormously important, because something happening in the bigger world can have dramatic implications for any local business, but at the same time micro-events occuring locally are always at the beginning of these events.

I believe that glocality (living local with a global assessment capacity) is the very key to any real business success. But observation of the obvious, seeable indicators still are vital.

People of my age (30-40) living in Flanders have a tendancy not to have a fix telephone, but only a mobile phone. Such tendancies even if they aren't rules, have huge implications on the telecom sector. ( BTW one of the reasons for not having fix phones is not to be called by any telemarketeers... and the fact that mobile numbers were not listed in phonebooks, so only people you want to can call you ).

I still believe that many signs are quite visible to people paying some attention to what's really happening around them. Just because if nothing is changing, there is no real change (yet).

Re: The supidity of crows

Nicki — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 00:31:07 -0000

I used the specific example to prove a point, the point being that if you are basing you decisions on the average person you are in principle basing you decision on the top something lists.

Now when that is sad you are right, from a marketing perspective, the successful analysis of how the individual and crowd act can be profitable. Now the problems come when you are trying to incorporate consumer behaviours into a more general analysis. Because when looking at a given marked you need more data then just what the consumers will do, specially when buying stocks. The Micro and Macro environment of the company are vital to consider.

So to sum up my argument: there are many more much more suited way to do this kind of analysis then crowd sourcing.

Re: The supidity of crows

jansegers — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 16:54:36 -0000

I wouldn't be sure about your specific example about a person basing his assumptions upon “The 10 best things about the Iphone” for an analysis on how the Apple Stock would perform over the next 6 month based.

But I can grasp the idea of the individual making the real difference. Yet, never on his own. Difference even though initiated by an individual, are made by groups. Adopters of that idea...

Why do I give the person reading that “The 10 best things about the Iphone” article a chance ? because if he can see how that article is convincing him and others into bying an iPhone, and can extrapolate this towards a more general trend, he just might have the brilliant idea of buying a piece of the company producing these marvels...

Ok, he's basing his decision not only on the article, but like you suggested, he will be basing his analysis based on information and opinions from friends, family and mass media. Only this time information gathering is based on behavorial patterns of the same friends...

Like he's living the trend even before real numbers are out there for analysis, I might have a golden opportunity of buying some stocks before the markets realise the stock is undervaluted.

Re: Dataportatability in sync with the users

Nicki — Sat, 31 May 2008 17:33:14 -0000

First of all let me start of by agreeing with you ;) – there is a deferens between some of my Linked in contacts and most of my Facebook contacts, and yes the problem you describe is easily solved with a list as you suggest.

I address the social networks as social platforms because I believe that is what they are, different entry points to my social network, different ways for me to organise whom I know and the information around my acquaintances and me. I just believe that there is some hidden value in connecting with the same people as many places as possible ;)

And Btw… In regards with your Facebook and Messenger example you have to remember that it only goes one way, and that is the biggest problem. I would love to have my Facebook friends automatically synced in my Messenger client.

Re: Dataportatability in sync with the users

myplacedk — Sat, 31 May 2008 11:29:38 -0000

It's a very interesting idea, and I think it's a matter of time before it get implemented. We allready see hints of it here and there. For example, on Facebook you can enter your credentials to MSN Messenger, and Facebook will retrieve your contact list. It not the best way to do it, but it shows that it is possible, and both companies (websites) and users want it.

But it is a road with many obstacles.

For example, you say: "I would argue that if a user has chosen become a friend with someone why should the user not want to be friends on other platforms?"
well, what is a "friend"? I see people on Facebook with hundreds of "friends" - some even thousands. It is a way to meet people. And I'm pretty sure some user "collect" friend, just wanting a big number, but not really knowing just half of the people on the friends-list.

Contrast LinkedIn. They insist on only linking with people you know, and know well. That alone rules out most of the "links" or "friends" you see on Facebook.

But it's not just a matter of "friendship level". I have not only have friends on Facebook I wouldn't call friends on LinkedIn, I also have friends on LinkedIn I wouldn't call friends of Facebook. It goes both ways.

So I wouldn't want a system that simply replicates my friend-list to all platforms. But it would be nice if Facebook, LinkedIn, my instant messenger etc. could give me a list of people i know, but isn't available in that platform, and then I could simply select those I want available there too.

Re: The misconception of ethics in CSR

Jan Madsen — Sun, 25 May 2008 15:11:15 -0000

Well, this old curmudgeon just hates the fact, that such a travesti is being labelled as "perfect", when it is anything but perfect, that's all.

Just an angry hickup, I suppose.

Re: The misconception of ethics in CSR

Nicki — Sat, 24 May 2008 20:50:15 -0000

Hi Jan,

I am sorry, but I don’t get what it is you are resenting ;) I am starting the post by saying that the perfect marked do not exists. Also the quote you bring I am talking about that the consumers can’t make a given choose because they can’t have perfect information.

I have read your article, and for the most part I am agreeing with you. But I am still puzzled in regards to what we are disagreeing on ;)

Re: Is the Internet a human right? â Hell No!

Nicki — Sat, 24 May 2008 07:31:51 -0000

Well he did say "civil liberties and human rights". But that is still wrong. If we look at the Internet as a civil liberty then automatically look at the Internet in the same way as we look at voting and the right to marriage. You don’t have right to Internet you have a right to purchase Internet, if there are anyone that are willing to offer it to you. That is it.

Re: The misconception of ethics in CSR

Jan Madsen — Sat, 24 May 2008 00:44:20 -0000

"On the perfect marked the consumers would have no problem making that choose, but since that there are no perfect marked there are either no perfect information."

I think, I know the sort of market of which you write, and I deeply resent you calling it perfect, since such a market is anything but perfect. I explain the reason for my resentment towards this notion of “perfection” in detail here: http://liberator.dk/index.php/76

Re: Is the Internet a human right? â Hell No!

duh — Sat, 17 May 2008 21:09:27 -0000

I believe he was referring to internet access as a civil liberty, not a human right

Re: An Englishman snob

Paolo Pinkel — Thu, 01 May 2008 01:20:57 -0000

you're absolutely right.

facebook' biggest problem in germany is, that they started their german version so late. digg will have similar difficulties.

Re: Metaphysical limitation on freedom

Jan Madsen — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 02:41:57 -0000

Oh

If by "exclusiveness" you mean "excluding others from participation", by all means email me.

Re: Metaphysical limitation on freedom

Jan Madsen — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 02:37:19 -0000

If you post it here on your blog I will read it when it pops up on fimp.dk/2008

Nicki Brøchner - Latest Comments in General

Re: What is terrorism?

Re: What is terrorism?

Re: What is terrorism?

Re: Is EU turning into China?

Re: U.S finally removes Nelson Mandela form the terrorist list

Re: U.S finally removes Nelson Mandela form the terrorist list

Re: Is EU turning into China?

Re: Ron Paulâs message of freedom - take II

Re: Ron Paulâs message of freedom - take II

Re: The supidity of crows

Re: The supidity of crows

Re: The supidity of crows

Re: The supidity of crows

Re: The supidity of crows

Re: The supidity of crows

Re: Dataportatability in sync with the users

Re: Dataportatability in sync with the users

Re: The misconception of ethics in CSR

Re: The misconception of ethics in CSR

Re: Is the Internet a human right? â Hell No!

Re: The misconception of ethics in CSR

Re: Is the Internet a human right? â Hell No!

Re: An Englishman snob

Re: Metaphysical limitation on freedom

Re: Metaphysical limitation on freedom

Re: Ron Paulâs message of freedom - take II

Re: Ron Paulâs message of freedom - take II

Re: Is the Internet a human right? â Hell No!

Re: Is the Internet a human right? â Hell No!