Woman passes 950th driving test

Valuable lesson in persistence. She narrowly beats my record for most driving tests attempted.

BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | Woman passes 950th driving test

What the credit crisis should tell us about climate change

Given how well excessive financial engineering seems to have buggered the economy, I’m amazed that there are some who advocate “climate engineering” to address the issue of global warming.

I’m all for trying out new technologies, in addition to reducing carbon emissions, as a way to try to mitigate some of the potential damage that climate change could have on the very fabric of humanity.

But thinking that there are some quick and easy gadget-driven fixes such as, and I quote: “one proposal would have boats spray seawater droplets into clouds above the sea to make them reflect more sunlight back into space” seems a little...ahem...pie-in-the-sky.

To further quote:
Some economic models find that target impossible to reach without drastic action, like cutting the world population by a third. Other models show that achieving the target by a high CO2 tax would reduce world GDP a staggering 12.9% in 2100—the equivalent of $40 trillion a year.

Some may claim that global warming will be so terrible that a 12.9% reduction in GDP is a small price to pay. But consider that the majority of economic models show that unconstrained global warming would cost rich nations around 2% of GDP and poor countries around 5% by 2100.

Right, because, as we’ve noticed with a credit crisis, economic models have served us so well.

Again, I’m not trying to be anti-intellectual here. I greatly respect the models economists do as a guide to help us think about the possible consequences of our actions. But that is all they are, models and guides, which do, and should, change as new data becomes available. I greatly respect technology as a fundamental tool for human advancement. But that is all technology is, a tool used by intelligent people, not a deus ex machina, bailing us out at the critical moment of tragedy.

In a time when we worry about how government action will have “unintended consequences” on the global economy, I’m amazed at how readily people accept the notion of climate engineering. The Earth’s climate is an infinitely more complex system than the global economy. The climate is the poster child for Chaos theory and how small perturbations can lead to enormous and unexpected results.

I defer here to Black Swan Nicholas Nassim Taleb who has had some of the most fascinating comments on our current economic crisis. Of climate change he said:

I am hyper-conservative ecologically (meaning super-Green). My position on the climate is to avoid releasing pollutants in the atmosphere, on the basis of ignorance, regardless of current expert opinion (climate experts, like banking risk managers, have failed us in the past in foreseeing long term damages and I cannot accept certainty in a certain class of nonlinear models). This is an extension of my general idea that one does not need rationalization with the use of complicated models (by fallible experts) to the edict: "do not disturb a complex system" since we do not know the consequences of our actions owing to complicated causal webs. (Incidentally, this ideas also makes me anti-war). I explicitly explained the need to “leave the planet the way we got it” .



Bjorn Lomborg: Technology Can Fight Global Warming - WSJ.com

Inversion of Statements Made During My Meeting With David Cameron

Venture capital in America: The brightest and the rest | The Economist

Few thoughts here based on the Economist story:

Is it really “Too much money has been chasing too few great start-ups” as written in the subhead or is the problem as indicated further down the story“…much of the money has ended up in me-too companies that will not become the shining stars venture funds so badly need. All that cash has also inflated valuations of fledgling businesses, making it harder for VC funds to turn a profit on them.”

To modify the sub-head, I’m inclined to think that it is too much money chasing the same types of companies; everyone simultaneously going after Web 2.0, cleantech or whatever is sexy at the time. Potentially great companies that are not a flavor-du-jour are left behind while Paris Hilton companies (trendy but vapid) are actively sought after. (Is she still trendy… I’m so out of touch!)

Also, this is focused on the US. I think there are great VC opportunities abroad. The challenge here (as highlighted before) isn’t the lack of money or the lack of good business ideas, it is the lack of highly experienced VCs who can play the mentoring role to help local entrepreneur with great technologies build great companies.


Venture capital in America: The brightest and the rest | The Economist

C-BAM: Mentoring Canadian start-ups, Silicon Valley-style

I’ve written here and elsewhere that a main problem with the start-up communities in different parts of the world (both developed and emerging) isn’t the lack of capital, it is the lack of mentoring. While it may seem counter-intuitive in this age of “credit crisis”, the world is actually flush with capital opportunities if you have the right business plan.

Aye, there’s the rub, coming up with a business plan that investors will feel comfortable with. A lot of the times you come across great ideas, interesting technologies but weak companies and inexperienced (although usually very enthusiastic) management teams.

This is where mentoring comes in. An experienced mentor can help a start-up get its business plan in order and can provide an inexperienced/enthusiastic management team with the sage advice and coaching that will calm a rattled investors’ nerves.

Enter C-BAM!

C-BAM stands for Canada-Bay Area Mentoring (goofy name I know, it was the best I could come up with at the time) and the goal is to provide some Silicon Valley style advice to promising start-ups up in Canada.

The program is exciting to me because it uses technology to bring business mentoring to a whole new level. Although this is not a Cisco event, we used Cisco’s Telepresense (TP) to link up mentors in the Bay Area and start-ups in Canada (in our first instance, in Ottawa.) The start-ups pitched their companies via TP and got real-time feedback from a super group of experienced Canadian Bay Area-based executives and VCs.

(If you think there aren’t a lot of fantastically talented Canadian executives and VCs in the Bay Area, I challenge you to come down here, pick up a rock, throw it and try not to hit one. It can’t be done, I’ve tried.)

We had the first C-BAM last week and I think (hope) we were able to provide some real value to the participating start-ups. We looked at start-ups in the mobile, video conferencing and semiconductor optimization spaces. I have to say the companies were far more sophisticated than I had anticipated, so the discussions happened at a really advanced level.

We still have a few kinks to work out in the overall format but we’re continuing to plan future events, so I’m sure C-BAM will get better in each iteration.

$80-$100 m "me toos" to bring bling to Bing

I guess I don’t understand MSFT’s new push into search with Bing. Yes, I understand the importance of search and the value of search advertising, but I’ve used Bing and yes it is nice, yes it works well, yes it has a couple of nice features, but it seems to me to be at best an incremental improvement on what is currently out there from Yahoo and Google.

There is no earth-shattering innovation here. There is no new take on search. So I’m not sure what the big deal is. (The trivia-filled photos are nice, but it feels like they’re trying too hard to be “fun”)

Microsoft is going to spent $80-$100 million to say “look, we’re here also.” It looks like an $80-$100 million “me too” campaign.

I wish they would go back to Jerry Seinfeld, I found those ads super amusing (at least the first one in the shoe store.)

If you can't bring Silicon Valley to Canada, bring Canada to Silicon Valley!

Through a series of “bootcamps”, the Canadian Trade Commissions in the US are helping provide guidance to Canadian start-ups on how to pitch and compete is a market as demanding as the US.

Select start-ups event get to move down into Silicon Valley for a while to establish operations and build a presence down here.

I’ve heard this process has taken some heat up in Canada because some claim this program is actually assisting the “brain drain” and creating incentives for start-ups to move out of Canada.

Rubbish! This is actually a very savvy move. What goes on in Silicon Valley cannot really be replicated elsewhere. Many programs around the world have tried, and almost all (if not all) have failed.

This program by the Trade Commissions is far more reasoned. Instead of spending all sorts of time and money attempted to re-create Silicon Valley someplace else, why not bring companies down here and let them learn from the original incarnation?

Canadian tech start-ups need access to the Valley’s ecosystem. It is not just access to capital, but access to talent, mentorship, new ideas and to customers. Companies, with one foot in Silicon Valley and one foot in Canada, are the best conduits through which some of the culture of innovation that exists down here can begin to filter north.

The local Trade Commissions realized this and through this “bootcamp” process have come up with a very creative initiative.

Will some companies move their HQs down here? Sure, probably. But they’ll also keep some functions back up in Canada and thereby create a great platform for SV/Canada exchanges.

And for the other companies that only stay down here for a short while and then head back, they’ll be newly armed with professional and commercial contacts that will help them grow their businesses.

Access to Silicon Valley means access to capital, expertise, and customers. The Trade Commissions are allowing Canadian start-ups to benefit from this access. Well done!


Canadian Technology Accelerator now open in Silicon Valley

Conceding risk capital in Canada

Another story about a Canadian researcher being lost to the US due to budget cuts.

This shouldn't be dismissed as another example of Canada's "brain drain." Sure, Canada and many other countries will always lose talent to the US because it is a bigger market, more things are happening, and there will always be more opportunity.

But there is no reason why this trend should be exacerbated by budget cuts. Quite the opposite, money should be spent in order to stem this tide as much as possible. This isn’t a cost, it is an investment in the future (yes, I know this is clichéd)

There are two clear negative repercussions to losing R&D talent:

1) It will be more difficult to attract foreign investment, especially VC money, to fuel innovative industries. People invest risk capital in countries where they see new products and services being developed. A leading indicator for this is the relative health of the local R&D community. A non-existent community means no innovations, which mean no outside risk capital coming into Canada.

2) It threatens Canada's future as a hub for innovation. If Canada wants to diversify its economy away from just commodities, then it needs to make this sort of long term investments. The hope of Canada becoming a center for any sort of innovation will be dimmed without active R&D investing, which will lead to the commercialization of products and the creation of industries later down the line.

What is the point of creating an "urban paradise" if no one is around to enjoy it?

Canada slipping in innovation

I’ve decried the lack of innovation in Canada before and while I (admittedly) don’t know the details of this announcement, it sends the wrong signal to the world. While most other countries are looking for ways to increase their national R&D capabilities, Canada should not be cutting its own. Not now, not in a crisis where, on the other side, innovation will be a premium.

For too long we’ve lived beyond our means financially and environmentally. If this economic crisis results in some sort (however small) of realignment of our priorities and our expenditures, we will need innovative thinking to help shape the new order.

I’ve seen Canada slip over the past few years in almost every global index of innovation. As someone who spends a great deal of time thinking about how to invest corporate funds in different countries, I can honestly say that a country’s capacity to do research and innovation is a huge criteria that impacts a decision.

For too long, it seems that Canada doesn’t really care about innovation. Now it seems that it cares even less.