There are trainers, presenters and keynote speakers available to talk about any topic for every business. I know. I represent speakers at WeSpeak Worldwide as the CEO. There are presenters whose charisma will charm you while they speak, phenomenal speakers who will leave you in awe and then there are speakers who can put you to sleep within their first paragraph. Most speakers fall somewhere in between. How do good speakers become great presenters, and how do great presenters become effective speakers?

I had the opportunity to interview one of WeSpeak Worldwide speakers, Robyn Hatcher, on Blab.im. Hatcher is the author of Standing Ovation Presentations: Discover Your Unique Actortype and Let It Shine. She has a background as a script writer for daytime television and as an actress. Hatcher uses her experience from her past careers to teach others to find their authentic selves and to become effective speakers.

Get Them At The Beginning
Hatcher suggests not starting your presentation with a typical lack-luster introduction of yourself, but instead to energize yourself and your audience with one of the five Attention Getters below. "This activates the right side of the brain and gets your audience involved," said Hatcher. Speakers can involve their audience before their introduction by using one of these five impactful methods:

5 Attention Getters

Ask a question or series of questions. i.e., "How many of you . . .?"

State something startling. i.e., "Do you realize . . . ?"

Use a powerful quote.

Tell a story.

Use an analogy or an example.

Breaking Into The Industry
By reading Hatcher's book, even experienced speakers can improve their presentation skills by identifying with their "actortype". But for new speakers she gives these tips to get started in the industry.

Start speaking for free to small groups like the Chamber of Commerce.

Always get a copy of your recorded presentation.

Find businesses that offer "Lunch & Learns (where employees learn a new skill over lunch) and present to their staff.

But What About Nerves
Hatcher recommends using a super hero stance to take up as much space as possible so that you feel powerful. "Research has shown that holding this stance for 2 minutes can lower your anxiety and stress levels," said Hatcher. Another technique is to re-identify 'nerves' as 'excitement.' And finally, to internalize your real purpose for public speaking which is that you actually have something valuable to offer the attendees who are there to hear you speak.

To learn more about inspiring standing ovation presentations, or to have Hatcher speak to your group or to present to your trainers, contact WeSpeakWorldwide.com.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

The news that Volkswagen "cheated" on emissions tests by using software was not a surprise to me. When I was the Editor of PC Magazine, we engaged in a constant battle of wits and ethics with the technology companies that sent us products for testing.

In the 1990s, PC Magazine was a dominant editorial force in the computer industry, with a circulation well above one million and outsized influence on the buying decisions of its readers. The magazine had built its reputation with transparent, scientific testing methods; our 400-to-500-page biweekly issues were chock full of tables and charts detailing the results of every available product tested and explaining our decisions about the best. You could even download many of the tests we used and run them on your own PC to see how it compared. The winners earned a coveted label: "PC Magazine Editors' Choice" that could have a huge impact on sales.

In those days, there were many more vendors in every category of product; it was not unusual that our call for PCs with a particular set of specs would result in submissions from 50 different companies - many like Northgate and Swan - long forgotten in the massive consolidation that would follow. Once, when we tested modems (remember those?) we had to review 100 different models. It took a full-time lab staff of 30 (including three people just managing the logistics of shipping and receiving) and an army of freelancers to manage the flood.
Facing such intense competition, some companies were more desperate than others to rise to the top of the charts. In one large review, our techs noticed that some PCs performed remarkably better than others on our tests. A little investigation showed that the central processors in these units had been speeded up above the rate set by the manufacturer. Like a car souped-up beyond its design limits, these chips would overheat and fail much more quickly - but last long enough, the manufacturers hoped - to get through the testing phase.

Another big differentiator in those days was the graphics card, the device that converts the bits and bytes to text and images on your computer screen. We had a rigorous test for these cards that put them through their capabilities and timed them. Again, our testers noticed that some graphics cards were scoring much higher than could be explained by superior engineering. We discovered that some vendors had embedded our entire test aboard their devices. Instead of taking the test off the hard drive where we installed it, the card took it off its own chip, which was much faster.

The problem was that these stellar results only showed up on the tests. They were useless to the everyday user of these products. In fact, once we removed or neutralized the cheats, these products often fared more poorly than their competitors.

The cheaters were in the minority, but they were a reminders that technologically-driven companies are not necessarily superior in morality, much as they like to proclaim. For Volkswagen, it was apparently a lot easier to deceive than to solve a complex engineering problem.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Volkswagen's U.S emission standards scandal will test the company's previously successful co-determination model at a time when it is struggling to manage a well-publicised power struggle. The scandal also raises significant questions about the practices of other car makers. As investigations continue our expectation is that the demand for tighter regulations will intensify. In a year when the world hopes to make serious progress on climate change, Volkswagen will become the poster child for a call for further action. If car makers are smart, they will invest their serious know-how on producing smarter, more efficient cars, and give away lobbying in the backrooms and playing games to defeat testing.

VW's internal machinations, which resulted in long serving, domineering chairman, Ferdinand Piëch being ousted in April 2015, will determine whether the company is able to proactively manage the fall-out from its manipulation of emissions readings which will include a US Justice Department criminal investigation. The company have appointed a new CEO -- Matthias Mueller -- but we must still see how he approaches the cultural issues that have led to the scandal.

Whilst the circumstances behind the internal approval of the emissions software are still unclear, VW's internal management issues have no doubt created an environment where management felt it was preferable to cheat rather than face the prospect of falling sales.

Under VW's co-determinist ownership structure, the Porsche and Piëch families control 50.7% of votes whilst the state of Lower Saxony controls 20% and trade unions have half of the company's supervisory seats. This complicated structure - that has resulted in VW becoming the largest car maker together with Toyota - only works when parties work collaboratively. The determination of Ferdinand Piëch to push for increased profits appears to have been at the heart of the internal split. The result is that the consensus model that has operated so successfully is currently broken. The question is whether VW can fix it?

VW acknowledges that it faces a challenging operating environment with the growth of electric vehicles, higher vehicle emission standards and questions whether we have reached "peak car" - the point at which car usage decreases globally. There is universal agreement that change is needed including by the dominant trade union, IG Metall, which has proposed cost cutting measures.

In the past, Germany's co-determinist economic model provided a mechanism to reach consensus on the future direction of the business. There is no reason to suggest that VW should abandon this approach. If anything, the failure to work collaboratively is at the heart of the current problems facing the company.

Management of collaboration is important at all levels of the company due the nature of disruptive innovation in the industry whereby auto manufacturers no longer control the interplay of ideas. Auto makers and their suppliers that can become experts at managing the collaboration process will stand a better chance of keeping up with the speed of innovation in this evolving ecosystem. Software and electronics are becoming a larger portion of the value of a car, as processing power becomes more important than horsepower. The traditional OEM model is under threat from new players like Tesla and Google who believe that cars should be more environmentally sustainable, safer and software-driven machinery. The game-changing nature of innovation trends in the auto sector poses a huge threat to companies that do not keep pace. The human capital challenge is to ensure that employees have the skills to collaborate and cooperate, particularly given the cultural differences that are crystallised through partnerships with organisations outside the auto industry, especially technology companies.

For investors, continuing simmering tensions with Ferdinand Piëch represent a risk. If VW is unable to demonstrate that it is able to work together with all stakeholders, then investors will be faced with unnecessary risk. Management collaboration will be the most significant factor that will determine the company's capacity to deal with the current emissions crisis, and more broadly the series of challenges facing the auto-industry globally.

VW has been part of a group of German car-makers that have lobbied within the EU against new vehicle emissions standards. According to German newspaper Spiegel, German Chancellor Angela Merkel personally intervened to block stricter emission standards, which would have impacted Germany's car makers that have long focused on high performance, powerful engines.

The EU lobbying raises questions as to whether other German car manufacturers have also sought to manipulate emission standards.

A recent report by the International Council on Clean Transportation and Germany's Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung Heidelberg (IFEU), reveals the increasing real-world efficiency gap between official and real world fuel-economy figures has reached more than 30 percent, According to ICCT, 10 years ago the discrepancy between real-world performance and sales-brochure values was at 10 per cent. For cars that were introduced after 2009, the gap, on average, increases by 60 per cent with every model change. The Global Fuel Economy Initiative is concerned that this is a strong indication that changes in consumer behavior cannot explain the growing gap. Instead, it is likely that manufacturers are optimizing their vehicles more and more for the official test cycle instead of the real driving needs of the customers.

We believe that this indicates that there is a systemic issue across the industry. We consider that now that the VW scandal has highlighted what ICCT has been saying in their reports for some time, there will be a regulatory and political response. Smart car makers will finally acknowledge that the transition to a green economy is un-stoppable and invest, not only in electric vehicles, but in energy efficiency for their broader fleets. If they don't they are going to get caught out by a rising tide of regulation in an environment where the industry will no longer be able to lobby in the back room.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

SPX DAILY 3 weeks ago, we told you how to protect yourself from a market downturn.

21 days is not a lot of time to test and investing premise but it's good to take a look at our progress on this relatively small market dip (that we accurately predicted) so perhaps you'll take the necessary precautions to avoid taking losses in the next leg of our downturn. My biggest regret in 2008 was "trying not to be so gloomy" so now I'm going to keep reminding you to hedge (or better yet, get to CASH!!!) -- all the way down to the bottom.

As you can see from Dave Fry's S&P 500 chart, we're barely down on the S&P from where we were on September 4th, so you'd think our bearish hedges wouldn't pay off -- BUT YOU'D BE WRONG! Why? Because, like our long market conditions, our bearish hedges follow our Be the House -- NOT the Gambler™ strategy, which allows you to make money in relatively flat markets too. Let's take a look at the hedges we showed you that day (Sept 4th) from our Short-Term Portfolio:

These are simple option trades called "bull call spreads" -- something our PSW Members learn in their first week of trading stock options. This isn't an educational post so we'll go right on to the results portion of the discussion:

The ultra-short S&P (SDS) Sept $21/24 bull call spread expired on 9/18 at $2.48 - up 50% from the $1.23 net we showed you on 9/4 (5th column from the right was that day's prices). With 50 contracts, the position we showed you made $6,150 in 3 weeks.

The ultra-short Nasdaq (SQQQ) Sept $21/24 bull call spread expired on 9/18 at $1.48 - up 169% from the 0.65 net we showed you on 9/4. With 50 contracts, the position we showed you made $4,150 in 3 weeks.

The ultra-short Nasdaq (SQQQ) Jan $18/30 bull call spread closed Friday at $4.50 - up 45% from the $3.10 net we showed you on 9/4. With 50 contracts, the position we showed you made $7,000 in 3 weeks.

The ultra-short Russell (TZA) Oct $11/14 bull call spread closed Friday at $1.28 - up 70% from the 0.75 net we showed you on 9/4. With 50 contracts, the position we showed you made $2,650 in 3 weeks.

So that's $50 less than $20,000 in gains from positions we showed you from our Short-Term Portfolio just 3 weeks ago (you're welcome). At the time, our $100,000 portfolio was up 214.5% and $20% added another 20% to bring us up to 234.5% all by itself but we also wisely cashed in our longs right at the September highs, locking in gains on those positions as well (as noted in that post) - so our net is a bit better than that.

I would tell you that you can learn all about hedging and options strategies at www.Philstockworld.com but wait, there's more! That's right, we also showed you our long trade ideas for our Option Opportunities Portfolio - a portfolio we have partnered with over at Seeking Alpha to help teach people basic option trading strategies following our virtual portfolio. At the time (same 9/4 post), the positions looked like this:

With the full image, it's easy to see what I meant by the current price. As with our Short-Term Portfolio at PSW, the Option Opportunities Portfolio practices a strategy of cashing in the winners and adjusting the losers (assuming we still like them) until they are also winners and we can profitable take them off the table. The performance of the above positions (and we detailed our logic for each one in the "Hedging" post) over the last 3 weeks has been:

BID Jan $34 calls are now $1.95, down 28% for a loss of $1,500 in 3 weeks. We have rolled the position to the April $32 calls, now $3.80.

DIA Sept $155/159 bull call spread expired at $4, up 207% for a gain of $5,400 in 3 weeks.

RJET Feb $2.50/4 bull call spread is now net 0.45, up 350% for a gain of $350 in 3 weeks.

IRBT Jan $25/Dec $32 bull call spread is now net $4.24, up 19% for a gain of $690 in 3 weeks.

CCJ Sept 13 calls expired at 0.32, down 60% for a loss of $480 in 3 weeks.

CCJ short Dec $14 calls are now 0.36, down 69% for a gain of $790 in 3 weeks (because we were short, not long).

CCJ March $11/Jan $12 bull call spread is now net $1.05, down 58% for a loss of $1,450 in 3 weeks.

TASR 2017 3-legged spread is now net $1, up 222% for a gain of $1,800 in 3 weeks.

USO April/Jan 3-legged spread is now net $1.73, up 5,766% for a gain of $3,400 in 3 weeks.

They weren't all winners (can't be as we bet against ourselves to hedge our positions) but, as a group, the trades we showed you AS A FREE SAMPLE just 23 days ago are now up $9,000, which is 9% of our $100,000 Portfolio. Of course it's a live portfolio and we've added and subtracted positions since then but our net return of 8.1% roughly reflects the gains we've managed to take off the table and now, hopefully, our new round of trades can do just as well in the next 3 weeks (sorry, no more freebies!).

Would now be a good time to sell you on looking into our service? But wait - there's more! In that same FREE post I also laid our 3 brand new trade ideas to prevent your portfolio from losing money in the rough markets we forecast ahead. As I noted above, we haven't had much of a correction (yet) but, since we used our patented "Be the House"™ strategy to lay out our trades - we still did pretty good.

Buying 10 SQQQ October $22 calls for $4.20 ($4,200)

Selling 10 SQQQ October $28 calls for $1.90 ($1,900)

?

As you can see, SQQQ can be extremely volatile and that's why we were comfortable with such a wide spread (all the logic is laid out in the original post, which was more instructional). Now those Oct $22/28 bull call spreads are net $2.60 - up just 13% ($130) and still very playable as a hedge. We also suggested paying for the spread by selling the TASR 2017 $20 puts, which are now $3.60 (up $200) and we still like that combination but remember - you are obligating yourself to own 1,000 shares of TASR at $20 (now $23.58) - keep that in mind.

Our 2nd big hedge of that day was far more aggressive:

Buying 20 TZA Oct $10 calls at $2.20 ($4,400)

Selling 20 TZA Oct $13 calls at $1.00 ($2,000)

Selling 10 TZA Jan $10 puts for $1.00 ($1,000)

Another really volatile one but, as you can see, it's well on track to our $13 goal and already the net on this 3-legged spread is $1.24, up 77% from the net 0.70 start and good for a $1,080 gain. It's well on the way to a full $4,600 gain so it's still good as a new trade - just not as good as it was when we told you about it 3 weeks ago!

Our final hedge from that day was our most aggressive as far as commitment. We felt very strongly the S&P would not hold 1,950 and we wanted some nice portfolio protection but, since that's expensive, we offset the cost by promising to buy more of our Stock of the Year, Apple (AAPL):

Buying 30 SDS March $23 calls at $3 ($9,000)

Selling 30 SDS March $28 calls at $2 ($6,000)

Selling 5 AAPL 2017 $70 puts for $4.35 ($2,175)

AS you can see from the chart, SDS is well short of our goal but does show the tendency to show dramatic gains on a sell-off. At the moment, the March $23/28 bull call spread is up slightly (+33%) at net $1.33 (+$990) but the short 2017 Apple calls have already dropped to $2.73 for a very nice $810 gain on 5 contracts. That means our net $825 spread is already $1,800 and up 121% ($975) in just 3 weeks.

The maximum return on that spread is $15,000, so another $13,200 to go means you didn't miss much if you are coming in late to the party - it just seems that way if you didn't catch the entries we published for our Members (and for you) back on Sept 4th.

As I mentioned, we've gotten mainly to cash but that doesn't mean we don't find new opportunities for trades almost every day and that's all the commercial you're going to get in this post because I'm sure the performance of the picks we publish speaks for itself and we assume you're an intelligent man (or woman) and can make your own decision as to whether you want to invest in learning our investing techniques.

Learning how to use options (and Futures - but that's another article) to hedge your portfolio gives you BALANCE that can steer you through the roughest market waters - keep that in mind next time your portfolio is heading for the rocks!

Enjoy your weekend,

- Phil

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

It's often worthwhile for policy makers to look back on a matter to determine whether they made the right call on it. So, in this sense, I appreciate FCC General Counsel Jonathan Sallet's recent comments at TPRC describing the agency's objections to the Comcast-Time Warner Cable (TWC) transaction.

And while it is helpful that the FCC staff has provided this insight into their analysis, Sallet's comments fail to deal with some of the stronger arguments in favor of the transaction, how it would have benefitted consumers, and why many of the FCC's concerns were clearly inconsistent with market realities and competition laws.

We all can agree that the law instructs that the FCC must weigh the risk of a substantial lessening of competition against the benefits consumers are likely to receive. The promotion of consumer welfare -- as objectively analyzed in a transparent and reviewable manner -- has been the guiding light of the FCC's public interest standard, as well as US antitrust laws, for decades. Here, however, the agency seems to have focused on hypothetical theories of future risks that were inconsistent with current marketplace evidence, while ignoring immediate benefits to consumers.

The benefits of a Comcast/TWC combination were concrete and compelling, including:

Comcast's commitment to invest hundreds of millions of dollars every year to improve TWC's network and increase consumer broadband speeds and reliability well beyond what TWC was planning. There was little dispute that TWC customers would have benefitted with these investments in upgraded, faster, networks.

Comcast's expanded geographic reach would have enabled Comcast to bring substantial new competition to incumbent LECs vying for business customers, creating nearly $8 billion in cost savings over a 10-year period for large enterprise customers, according to a detailed quantification analysis submitted by Comcast. It is hard to understand why these competitive benefits alone did not outweigh the speculative harms addressed n the speech.

Comcast also promised to extend its industry-leading Internet Essentials broadband adoption program to help close the digital divide and bring low-income Americans online. Internet Essentials is the most successful private sector program to bridge the digital divide, having connected over 500,000 low-income families - more than 2 million people - in under four years. While Mr. Sallet identifies increased broadband access for all parts of society as an important public interest benefit, he does not even mention the substantial progress that would have been made through the extension of Internet Essentials to thousands of low-income families throughout the acquired TWC territories.

At the end of the day, these are the types of considerations of consumer benefit that are central to the FCC's mission of protecting the public interest. And Mr. Sallet's remarks do little to discredit them.

As for the impact on competition of the proposed Comcast/TWC combination, let's start with some bedrock principles. First, the purpose of the competition laws is to protect rivalry and consumers -- protecting competitors is only part of the analysis if it is clear that the impact on them will also have a measurable impact on consumer welfare.

Second, the competition laws seek to protect against anticompetitive conduct -- not to try to adjust the playing field so some set of rivals can prosper, perhaps at the expense of others.

Finally, when antitrust and competition regulators seek to act in order to prevent some putative form of anticompetitive conduct, they should do so only when the firm being regulated has both the incentive and ability to engage in that conduct. Absent that, regulatory intervention is unwarranted.

According to Mr. Sallet's remarks, the staff's core concern was that a larger Comcast would have an increased incentive and ability to disadvantage OVDs in order to protect its video business by (1) contractually restricting OVD access to programming, and (2) denying or degrading OVD access to Comcast's broadband network through interconnection. But these concerns are speculative and contrary to marketplace facts.

It makes little business or practical sense that Comcast would seek to harm OVDs, which are complementary to its most profitable business -- broadband -- to protect its video business. As Mr. Sallet notes, Comcast and other cable operators now have more broadband subscribers than video subscribers -- a trend that no doubt will continue.

The marketplace realities simply do not support the argument about impeding "nascent" OVD competition, given the explosive growth OVDs have experienced over the past few years:

Netflix grew from 22 million U.S. streaming customers in 2011 to over 65 million worldwide today (accounting for more than a third of peak Internet traffic).

Amazon Prime reportedly has 40 million U.S. subscribers, and Hulu has 9 million.

Linear OVDs like Sony PlayStation Vue and Dish Sling TV launched within the past year, after the Comcast-TWC merger was announced.

The staff's concern that Comcast might use MFNs and other contracting practices to deny programming to OVDs is likewise puzzling. OVDs have had no difficulty obtaining content. In fact, OVDs are increasingly obtaining original content on an exclusive basis that is denied to traditional MVPDs.

The notion that Comcast would therefore reverse course post-merger and attempt to use contracting practices to deny programming to OVDs seems inconsistent with Comcast's common-sense business incentives. And if the concerns were not merely speculative, simple prohibition on MFNs, similar to that used by other antitrust authorities, would have quite adequately addressed these speculative concerns.

The staff's asserted concerns about interconnection also seem inconsistent with basic and well-understood facts about the interconnection marketplace. Competition in the Internet backbone market is intense, creating multiple paths into Comcast's network that effectively eliminate any ability to foreclose or degrade OVDs' access to Comcast's last-mile network. And Comcast itself has dozens of settlement-free, major interconnection routes with significant capacity, and has negotiated robust and efficient interconnection agreements with numerous CDNs and ISPs. Many edge providers use these multiple paths to send their traffic onto Comcast's network every day, without directly interconnecting or negotiating with Comcast. For example, Sling TV, the new Dish linear OVD that Mr. Sallet mentions, uses high-quality third-party paths into Comcast's network to offer its online programming directly to Comcast's broadband customers - without any direct agreement with Comcast.

Further, Comcast simply lacks the incentive or ability to engage in harmful conduct with respect to interconnection. Any attempt by Comcast to degrade a particular OVD's traffic would ultimately require disrupting a major swath of Comcast's interconnectivity to the Internet. This would significantly impair Comcast's ability to serve and satisfy its broadband customers. Moreover, Comcast needs settlement-free peers, CDNs, and transit providers to connect its customers to the global Internet, just as much as edge providers need these links to send their traffic to Comcast's customers. Given these marketplace dynamics, even with 8.5 million more broadband subscribers from the transaction, Comcast would not have been able to effectively deny or degrade OVDs.

Mr. Sallet's hypothetical positing two cable operators with 50% market share and suggesting that OVDs need access to 50% of U.S. households to survive is also inconsistent with marketplace facts. One only needs to look to the current success of many OVDs with far fewer subscribers to see that this is a fallacy. This argument also ignores the fact that OVDs are, or can be, global. Netflix, for example, has over 65 million subscribers in over 50 countries. The global marketplace for OVDs substantially expands the open field for them and further undercuts the claim that OVDs are (or would have been) dependent on access to Comcast's customers to survive.

Mr. Sallet also suggests that Comcast would have a "toolkit" of "competitive levers" that it "might have an incentive" to use to disadvantage OVDs. But these concerns too are entirely speculative and inconsistent with any current marketplace behavior or facts.

Also unexplained is why the FCC could not have addressed its perceived transaction-specific harms through the imposition of reasonable conditions, as it has done in numerous other mergers, including the AT&T/DIRECTV transaction -which, again, Mr. Sallet acknowledges raised many of the same concerns. For instance, he notes that the record there supported the FCC's conclusion that post-transaction, AT&T would have an increased incentive to use its broadband assets to discriminate against competing OVDs. Yet, he concludes that the FCC was able to address that concern by adopting some targeted conditions, such as limits on data caps and the required submission of all interconnection agreements to the FCC. There was no explanation whatsoever why similar conditions would not have also addressed the concerns in the Comcast/TWC transaction.

Calling balls and strikes correctly is the FCC's job, but in this instance, it appears that the FCC may have substituted a dubious process to arrive at a pre-determined result. As the Wall Street Journal and many others reported, the FCC threatened to designate this transaction for a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) (a process that often takes years to complete). Such a hearing designation order (HDO) is unprecedented in these circumstances. A core rationale for an HDO is that applicants have not submitted evidence sufficient to allow the FCC to resolve disputed issues. But a hearing was not needed in this case, especially in light of the searching review undertaken by staff and the incredible level of information gathered from the applicants and many third parties. More requests for information were issued and more sensitive documents collected by the FCC over the 15-month review than in any other merger I can remember.

Finally, Mr. Sallet indicates that the parties abandoned the proposed transaction after hearing the FCC's concerns, intimating that they may have done so because they accepted the FCC's analysis. Again, this notion just misses the point that an HDO perverts that very idea because it effectively deprived Comcast from getting a fair, timely, and balanced judgment until after years of protracted litigation.

Given the strong record that Comcast and TWC made for approval of the transaction, compared to the speculative theories espoused by the agency, it seems far more likely that the prospect of putting this deal out for an indeterminate hearing before an ALJ left the companies no practical choice but to abandon the transaction - no business can stay in limbo forever. The threat of an HDO essentially gives the FCC a "pocket veto" that is immune from judicial review because it's not a "final" order. This denies parties the ability to see the process through to the end and, if warranted, challenge a final decision in court - a challenge which I think they would have likely won in this case.

Mr. Sallet deserves credit for giving us a peek inside the black box of the staff's analysis. But this peek hardly gives us comfort that the FCC handled this process in a way that was fair to the parties involved or reflected a sober analysis of today's market realities.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

2015-09-28-1443462805-4550752-Photoon92815at2.01PM.jpg

Far out, man! Photo of and by Bruce Weinstein

Timothy Leary popularized the saying, "Turn on, tune in, and drop out," during the 1960s.

But as our electronic devices threaten to overwhelm our relationships, our senses, and our peace of mind, I suggest a new one for the foreseeable future:

Turn off, tune out, and drop in!

And I owe MIT professor Sherry Turkle a huge debt of gratitude for prompting this idea.

How many times have you talked with someone who insists on splitting his or her attention between you and an iPhone?

This troubling trend in our culture is the subject of Turkle's recent New York Times opinion piece, "Stop Googling. Let's Talk," based on her forthcoming book, Reclaiming Conversation: The Power of Talk in a Digital Age.

It's not a new phenomenon. In "Kamikaze Bingo," a 2005 episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm, Larry David expresses annoyance (imagine that) when his wife Cheryl divides her attention at lunch between Larry and her BlackBerry.

David surely would support Turkel's call for a change in how we regard our devices and one another:

We can choose not to carry our phones all the time. We can park our phones in a room and go to them every hour or two while we work on other things or talk to other people. We can carve out spaces at home or work that are device-free, sacred spaces for the paired virtues of conversation and solitude. Families can find these spaces in the day to day -- no devices at dinner, in the kitchen and in the car... In the workplace, too, the notion of sacred spaces makes sense: Conversation among employees increases productivity.

As I discuss in my new book, The Good Ones: Ten Crucial Qualities of High-Character People, our obsession with our devices isn't merely a psychological problem. It's an ethical one, because the time we spend on social media is an opportunity cost: we're not doing other things that might be more important. That nearly irresistible pull to check our latest Facebook posts or take yet another a peek at our inboxes threatens to derail promises we've made to clients, colleagues, family and friends.

I've been making it a point to leave my iPhone behind when I go for a walk or out to dinner. As Turkle notes, it's liberating to be free from the tyranny of constant emails and the Internet.

What do you do to balance the needs of being online and connecting with other people? I'd love to know.

By the way, I've written a smartphone pledge to promote the smarter use of our devices, and companies have been adopting it in their workplaces. If you'd like a copy, just send me an email.

* * *

Thank you for reading my blog!

Book me to speak to your organization here.

Sign up for my weekly emails on ethics, character, and leadership here.

Read my Fortune columns on ethics, character, and leadership here.

Follow me on LinkedIn, Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, and Pinterest

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

As women, we have a real problem with pace.

We drive ourselves crazy trying to keep up. We move frantically through our days. And as a result, we're so tired. So, so tired.

Everything feels urgent. Everything should have been done yesterday. We're 'behind'. But if we just get 'ahead', then we can relax. Right?

Deep down, we know better.

When we get honest, we're haunted by the knowledge that life's most beautiful gifts - like lunches with life-long friends - just can't be rushed.

When we leave the house late because we wanted to get just one more thing done ... when we schedule too many meetings with no downtime ... when we commit to an epically exhausting itinerary ... we increase our physical and emotional stress responses.

Plus, we don't do these things in a vacuum. Other people can feel our hurried energy, and it takes a concerted effort for them not to 'catch' it from us.

This may seem like bad news, because it necessitates coming out of denial and admitting that we have a problem. But it's actually good news, because it means that we can practice new ways of being.

And when we do train ourselves to slow down, we can make a tremendously positive contribution to our families, our communities, our world.

If we want to enjoy our days rather than dread them, we need to examine our pace of life. What if instead of rushing, we made a commitment to be generous with ourselves, to take the time we need?

Here's an account of a time when I decided to give it a try.

Last year, I drove to Birmingham, Alabama for a mandatory TEDx training, a four-hour round trip journey. Upon reflection, I realized that the trip was pleasant for a specific reason: it lacked the stresses that I associate with travel.

Since I'd integrated concepts like 'prepare early,' 'leave a buffer,' and 'allow margin time', there was no last-minute scrambling, no frantic feeling in my stomach.

I'd given lip service to these ideas in the past, but I'd never fully embraced them. 'Prepare early' and I were good friends, but 'margin time' and 'leave a buffer' and I were only casual acquaintances. We'd cross paths and kiss cheeks once in a while, but we never really connected.

Instead, I'd budget barely enough time to get from point A to point B. Sometimes, this meant arriving on time at yoga because every light had been green ... but sometimes it meant slinking into a doctor's office late after a wrong turn decimated my timetable. Though I was (mostly) punctual, the rushing caused unnecessary stress.

The solo trip to Birmingham was an opportunity to practice new habits. With some deliberation, I chose to leave at 2:30pm, three and a half hours before my 6pm meeting. Since I've done the drive in two hours, part of me feared that I'd lose productive time by leaving early, but I realized that I could read emails on my phone as needed.

After stopping for gas, I arrived in Birmingham at 4:50pm. In the remaining hour and ten minutes, I parallel-parked, found a bathroom, ate the picnic supper I'd packed, brushed my teeth, located the meeting room, and arrived on time.

By the end of the night, I was a margin-time convert.

In times past, I would have started that drive later. Then I'd have been frantic when the car needed gas, or when I didn't find street parking. I'd have had to park in an expensive garage, and go hungry or pick up an overpriced salad. I would have gone into the training frazzled and unhappy.

That day, I made a radical choice: to give myself the gift of margin time. I'd claim the hours I needed to make travel pleasant, not just bearable. And in doing so, I'd be tackling an insidious aspect of perfectionism.

Perfectionists like us don't feel comfortable with having needs, so we go through life lying to ourselves and others. We're afraid to give ourselves what we need - sleep, food, time - because we believe that a 'perfect' person wouldn't need those things.

I mean, who are we to require nine hours of sleep, or three and a half hours to get to Birmingham? We're human beings, that's who we are. But since we're uncomfortable with being real rather than superhuman, we find it difficult to be honest about our time.

Adding margin time to our schedules is an exercise in claiming what we need; it's a powerful spiritual practice. It grounds us in our own humanity. It prevents us from believing our own self-aggrandizement.

As Greg McKeown notes in Essentialism, most people make faulty public estimates of how long a given task will take. However, people's private estimates are far more accurate.

As always, fear and pride get us in trouble. We want to appear heroic, so we say that we'll be there in ten minutes when the trip actually takes twenty.

Can we come through? Sometimes. But it comes at a high cost to everyone involved.

There's a difference between bravado and bravery, between cockiness and courage. As Glennon Doyle Melton said in her TEDx talk, "Lessons from the Mental Hospital," "It's braver to be Clark Kent than it is to be Superman."

It's braver to be a human being, with needs and feelings and hunger, than to be an impossible paragon of strength.

Which one will you choose to be?

***

This piece first appeared on A Wish Come Clear, a blog devoted to helping you choose love, lose fear, and find home. Visit and receive free copies of Caroline's three digital books, all designed to bring you back to what matters most.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

While the noxious smog is still spreading over Volkswagen's alleged emission-rigging, questions emerge about how and if the world's largest automaker by volume can regain its footing. Mr. Matthias Mueller, VW's newly appointed CEO hailing from the company's Porsche franchise, has an unenviable task before him. In order to clear the air and begin repairing the company's tarnished reputation, Mr. Mueller should borrow a page from Alan Mullaly's Ford playbook.

Reputation risk has a price

While some surveys identify reputation risk as one of the principal threats to global firms, this risk domain, by its very nature, has remained undervalued and amorphous. With one large scandal after the other, from BP's Deep Water Horizon disaster, to FIFA and Sony Entertainment's scandals, corporate leaders are beginning to give reputation risk the deference it deserves. VW's case, however, sheds new light on how reputation risk can fell even the most robust enterprise. In 2014, VW was number 3 in the automotive industry in Fortune's list of most admired companies. Today, with $26 billion in market cap eradicated in a matter of days along with the growing volume of lawsuits, regulatory fines and injunctions, VW's financial viability may be at risk. Worse yet, its reputation may be irreparably harmed.

Mr. Martin Winterkorn has stepped down as VW's ill-fated CEO. Even with this sacrifice an increasingly activist U.S. Justice Department may not be satisfied with a mere corporate settlement and monetary damages, they may very well seek criminal indictments against VW executives implicated in this case. Reputation risk now has a price and the entire automotive industry has been put on notice. Board rooms across all industries should take heed. Up until recently corporate malfeasance rarely produced individual punishment other than corporate leaders voluntarily stepping down, often falling on their own swords. This in part is driven by the so called "personhood" of a corporation shielding directors and officers from certain types of personal liability. Moreover, deep financial pools covering corporate directors and officers as well as product-related insurance defray many of the economic costs of these types of cases. VW, however, may have to go it alone, in that its insurers will likely claim along with courts and regulators that their tortious and willful acts invalidate any insurance coverage that might have been afforded.

Anything in the name of growth

VW, like Ford before it, has a large and disparate number of automotive holdings, including hyper cars for the 1 percent with Bugatti, Bentley, Lamborghini and Porsche, to the people's car wearing the Volkswagen, Audi, Skoda and Seat badges. In all, VW has 12 automotive brands in its holding structure, two more than the famous automotive conglomerate GM. VW's strategic impetus was to overtake Toyota as the world's largest automotive manufacturer. The difference, however, is that Toyota largely operates as a monoline franchise, with spinoffs such as the high end Lexus and the low end Scion brands largely developed on core Toyota platforms. VW's growth strategy on the other hand depended on cobbling together many non-core automotive holdings. Perhaps this is the reason VW lost sight of its core brand and embarked in an effort to manipulate performance by making certain diesel engined vehicles appear more efficient than they really are. Like most corporate risks, early warning signs were reportedly ignored dating back to 2007.

In late 2006, Ford had a similar automotive holding structure as VW, including mid-market and high end brands, such as Volvo, Jaguar, Land Rover and Aston Martin, among others. When the automotive manufacturer started undergoing downward pressure, eroding market share and quality in its core (legacy) brand, the company embarked on a concerted divestiture process. Spinning off all non-core holdings, Ford emerged a leaner more agile automaker, creating a "One Ford" strategy that saw the adoption of automotive platforms for world markets and a right sizing of the company's balance sheet. A decidedly smaller Ford emerged, yet the company's survival was no longer in question.

This type of bold change agenda required a leader from outside of the firm and outside of the industry. Alan Mulally, formerly Boeing's CEO, is largely credited with turning Ford around, making it the only U.S. automaker that did not require a direct government bailout during the financial crisis -- although a government line of credit was supplied . CEO's from Detroit's besmirched automakers where famously paraded in front of Congress for a public mea culpa and asked whether they drove to Washington or if they flew in their corporate jets. Public grandstanding aside, since the 2008 financial crisis the automotive industry has worked full tilt to keep its sprawling manufacturing base at capacity, often at the expense of safety and quality. While few global automotive firms are spared from the occasional product recall, VW's case takes this challenge to a whole new level with an estimated 11 million vehicles affected, and many new models facing a potential embargo, which will have a serious knock on effect on VW's dealer network. This may give VW the dubious distinction of having one of the largest automotive recalls in history.

However this case plays out in the coming months where it is likely to get much worse for VW, it is clear that Mr. Mueller and VW's sullied leadership will need to focus on their core. Divesting non-core brands on the higher end of the spectrum will not only create the capital that VW will surely need to fend off litigation and other costs, it will also enable the firm to reinvent itself and gradually regain the confidence of its customers, markets and regulators. VW has a long road ahead, whether it sees its way through this crisis depends as much on corporate focus, as it does on whether regulators want to make an example of the once great automaker. Just as VW took a calculated risk in allegedly manipulating emission results, so too U.S. regulators will have to temper their response as they may risk VW's more than 3,000 direct employees in the U.S. and thousands more in the company's dealer and supplier network.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Lee Drutman, a senior fellow at the "nonprofit civic enterprise" the New America Foundation, is the author of The Business of America Is Lobbying: How Corporations Became Politicized and Politics Became More Corporate. This chart shows the rise in political spending by corporations, money, as Drutman notes, that is now not being spent on developing new products or improving corporate efficiency.

2015-09-25-1443206617-1723759-Figure1.3.png

In an interview, Drutman explained the self-perpetuating forces behind the rise corporate political spending (lobbying and campaign contributions, often undisclosed or hard to find) and what he recommends for finding better balance between the information and access available to those who have corporate treasuries to spend and those who do not.

You describe the 2013 trade association change in name from "The American League of Lobbyists" to "Association of Government Relations Professionals." What does that signify in terms of the public perception of lobbyists and in terms of the broader scope of the members' activities?

Lobbyists complain that "lobbying" has become a dirty word. Many folks that most of us would think of as "lobbyists" choose not to refer to themselves as "lobbyists." This name change captures the sense that "government relations" encompasses many things, of which "lobbying" is just one. This might include things like coalition building, grassroots organizing, developing media and public relations strategies, policy research, or many other things. There are many aspects of the modern influence economy, which is what often makes it so tricky to understand and describe.

What do you mean when you describe lobbying as "sticky" and self-perpetuating?

Once companies start lobbying they tend to keep lobbying. This is because once they have lobbyists, they have somebody whose job it is to keep companies informed about the goings-on in Washington, and whose job also depends on corporate managers thinking lobbying is a good investment because there are lots of important policy issues to influence. Corporate managers are busy running the company. Lobbyists know what's going on in DC. There is an information asymmetry between them and their lobbyists. If lobbyists recommend the company continue to lobby and provide plausible reasons to lobby, the company will continue to lobby. Hence, lobbying is self-perpetuating.

How do lobbyists perpetuate the status quo? Would you say they entrench current structures and policies?

Corporate lobbying is a mix of offense and defense. Most companies have policies to protect and policies to change. Take the tax code -- it's an obvious mess. But so many companies and industries benefit from particular provisions, and they defend these provisions aggressively. This makes comprehensive tax reform very difficult. This example generalizes to other issues. Any change that challenges the benefits of a particular company or industry will be strongly opposed. The U.S. political system has many veto points, making it particularly hard to pass legislation generally. Each veto point provides an opportunity for a lobbyist to stop the process by raising doubts or finding an ally to slow or stop things. The more aggressively companies lobby, the harder change becomes.

Does the growth in lobbying exacerbate or reflect the increased partisanship on Capitol Hill?

Probably a little bit of both. Polarized gridlock demands more lobbying, because it becomes harder to accomplish anything. You need to build bipartisan support, which means hiring Democrats AND Republicans, and building a large coalition. But it also means that groups that aren't willing to spend big to do this may just not even bother. To the extent that lobbying is about protecting the status quo, and it often is, one good way to prevent action is to make an issue very partisan. Take climate change. That issue has become much more partisan. One reason is that the oil and coal industries doubled down on the Republican Party, fomenting division on the issue.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of the exodus from Hill jobs and some executive branch jobs to lobbying firms from the perspective of public policy?

I'm not sure there's much of an advantage. We should have a legislative and executive branch staffed by the smartest, most experienced people you can find. But this is a constant challenge, because budgets are limited in government, which means that both branches, especially Congress, demand a lot out of people and pay them only a fraction of what they could earn elsewhere. There are a lot of talented people working in government, but they are often inexperienced, and they burn out quickly. New people come in, but they often have to turn to lobbyists to teach them what they need to know, since the lobbyists are the ones who are willing to spend the time educating the new staffers.

How does information asymmetry benefit lobbyists and their clients? Are there benefits to public policy as well? You say that when industry overstates costs, it is difficult for the government to collect adequate information to rebut their data. Who is in a position to address this?

The information asymmetry benefits lobbyists because it makes them more important. It benefits their clients to the extent that they can fill that gap. I don't see how public policy benefits. Certainly, industry input is important. But government needs to have enough qualified people to be able to effectively call BS on industry figures and claims.

How does legislative lobbying at the federal level differ in technique and effect from executive branch/regulatory lobbying? From state-level lobbying?

Executive branch and regulatory lobbying tends to require more technical expertise. Regulators are more interested in the actual impact of the rules, and how it will actually work. In Congress, you can get away with generalities and moral arguments more. State-level lobbying varies, but in general, the more amateur the legislature, the more important the role of lobbyists as the providers of policy expertise.

You make a distinction between normative and instrumental arguments. Can you give examples?

A normative argument would be "Congress should simplify the tax code, because the tax code is an abomination that undermines fairness and efficiency." An Instrumental argument would be: "Here's a plan to simplify the tax code, and we've done the math and we've vetted it with a bunch of tax policy experts." Instrumental arguments provide legitimacy that things will actually work. Normative arguments speak to general values.

What is a favorite example of the way lobbying firms describe themselves from their marketing materials? How is Abramoff's example instructive?

Not sure there's one that stands out, but it's all variations on the same theme: "Our firm is staffed by Washington insiders who know how things really work here, and we can put our experience to work for you," followed by a list of things that they've accomplished. Abramoff's example is instructive because his whole shtick was how much access he had -- he puffed himself up as this insider, with close ties to DeLay and others. How much access did he actually have? Hard to tell. But notice that none of his clients were savvy companies. And Abramoff went to jail for bilking his clients of millions of dollars.

How much time do Members of Congress and Senators spend raising money? What has that meant in terms of electability?

Estimates are that they spend up to a third of their time in Washington raising money, though it probably varies. Those who are in the leadership or in close races probably spend more time; others in safe seats with little aspiration to rise within the party probably spend less. I'm not sure it has much effect on electability, since incumbents keep getting re-elected at remarkable rates. But it does take up time and energy, and it means they need to nod sympathetically to what their donors tell them. More broadly, large donors collectively play a gatekeeper role in politics. They determine who is and who is not a legitimate candidate.

Do you think that the Hill should adhere to the same kinds of disclosure requirements imposed on regulators in the Executive Branch by the Administrative Procedures Act and the Sunshine Act?

I do. I think if you lobby a congressional office, you ought to make any white papers or one-pagers or research reports public. And I do think the Administrative Procedures Act is a good model in that regard. There are problems with the APA, especially the requirement that agencies respond to everything, which wind up giving more power to aggressive corporate lobbies. But the idea that all arguments should be public -- absolutely. And with the Internet, that's very easy to do. Just as all legislation is now online, so all advocacy and argumentation around that legislation could be online. Then we can collectively vet and evaluate it.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

The fact that "pattern bargaining" (where the UAW chooses one of the Big Three automakers to negotiate with and uses the subsequent agreement as a template for negotiations with the other two companies) still exists in the industry is something of a surprise, given that people have been predicting its demise for years.

Granted, even though there is nothing legally or economically binding about this methodology, it's worked fairly well. When the UAW gets one of the Big Three to agree to something, the expectation is that the other two automakers will fall into line, the supposition being that the respective memberships will rebel if they don't receive a commensurate deal.

And despite the storied UAW being a shadow of its former self (with only 390,000 members today, down from a high of 1.5 million in 1979), it's still a formidable union, consisting of a savvy membership with the ability to be taken seriously when it chooses to rattle its sabers.

This year the UAW picked Fiat Chrysler (rather than Ford or GM) as their target. After months of preliminaries and across-the-table bargaining, it came away with a tentative 4-year contract that is currently being voted upon. Results are expected to be announced next week. Already there are reports of it being voted down by some of the larger locals.

As a former union negotiator, I can attest to a truism: Every contract ever negotiated can be interpreted either as "a decent settlement, given the circumstances" or as "a piece of dog-shit that never should have been brought back for ratification." I've seen both, done both, been both.

Another truism: No union can judge the contract of another union. First of all, it's none of their business, and second, the membership always knows best. Because the members -- and only the members -- will know when it's time to fight or time to accept a substandard agreement, they don't need to be prodded or second-guessed.

One reason Fiat Chrysler was chosen as the target was because two-tier wages (where new employees are paid substantially less than existing employees) was going to be a key agenda item. The two-tier configuration has been a huge blemish on the UAW. And of the Big Three automakers, Fiat Chrysler has the largest percentage (roughly 40-percent) of lower-tier employees.

Some of the tentative contract's provisions: In exchange for car manufacturing (a low profit segment) being shifted to Mexico, U.S. plants will shift to the manufacture of trucks and SUVs; the two-tier will be washed out a bit (not nearly enough, but some); profit-sharing will increase; and a ratification bonus will be offered (every employee receives $3,000 if the contract is ratified).

The ratification bonus is a prime example of how differing perceptions can affect a vote. I have personally seen people embrace the bonus as a windfall -- as unexpected cash going directly into their pockets -- and have seen people reject and ridicule it as a transparent and insulting "bribe." (Alas, I've seen people reject a "bribe," and simultaneously argue for a larger bribe.)

Again, outsiders (even labor writers like myself) have no business weighing in on the merits of a UAW contract. Those Trotskyite websites--the ones that have referred to every UAW leader since Walter Reuther as "corrupt" or as a "sellout," or as a "dupe" -- couldn't be more ignorant or self-righteously socialist.

A glance at the labor history of the U.S. reveals that the UAW has been the gold standard of unions ever since it was founded in 1935. No better union has ever existed. Indeed, there was a time when virtually every local in the country (mine was one of them) tried to emulate the UAW.

And even though the last three decades have been unbelievably cruel to the autoworkers, have seen them ravaged--lied to, cheated, manipulated, marginalized, and unfairly punished--the current UAW rank-and-file is neither stupid nor gutless. They can be trusted to do the right thing.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Recently a reader wrote to me and asked me a question about something I know a lot of people struggle with. How do I know when I'm taking things too personally?

In life many people will insult you, try to hold you back, and offer you criticism. Some of this criticism is valid and extremely valuable, but much of this criticism will just make you feel crappy.

Sometimes you simply need to accept that people are suffering and are trying to bring you down because of it. Other times you need to draw a line and let people know that what they're doing isn't working for you.

The question is how do you know the difference between valid critique and harsh criticism? How do you know the difference between the situations in which to practice acceptance and those where you need to draw a line?

Instead of being theoretical I thought I'd present the reader's situation as a case study of how I might coach her through this question. For the purpose of this case study I'll refer to the reader as Ms. K and her friend as Ms. D.

Ms. K and Ms. D: A Case Study In Compassionate Communication

Scenario 1

In the first scenario this Ms. K and her friend were discussing scripture. She related to Ms. D how her preacher said that because not eating pork and keeping Sabbath was only required in the Old Testament, as a Christian she didn't need to follow these rules.

Ms. D then asked her if she thought the preacher was going to hell because of his view? An argument ensued, in which Ms. D repeated again and again that she had gone to college all her life but Ms. K clearly didn't have a clear understanding. Ms. K interpreted this as being sarcastic and as a dig against her own lack of a college education.

This is my best guess at what's going on between Ms K. and Ms. D.

Observation 1: Your friend feels judged or annoyed by you
My guess is that there is something about the way you were expressing your opinion that she had a problem with. (Knowing you from the conversations we've had I'm not surprised by this because you are a very passionate and outspoken person, which is can be wonderful but can also cause problems).

When you express your views passionately, other people may sometimes imagine that you're not leaving any space for their views. They may see you as being cocky or arrogant. And people usually don't like this. (I know this from my own experience of being an outspoken person).

When Ms. D asked her question about the preacher going to hell, she was really saying, "Do you think he's going to hell for this because you sure seem to have a lot of opinions on what people should and shouldn't being doing. Who died and made you the Apostle Paul?"

When people start asking you these kinds of questions it's probably worth checking in to see how you've been expressing your point of view. If you've been very passionate, then they may be hearing your rightness and their apparent wrongness.

If you want to avoid coming off this way you might try adding a caveat to your opinions: "Well it's just my opinion and I could be wrong but here is what I think . . . , I think this . . . but I'm curious to know what do you think this verse means?", or "I've been struggling with this question and I came up with this answer . . . for me it's so satisfying because it makes me feel safe knowing that I am doing my best to be a good Christian."

Of course you shouldn't always do this. Women tend to over qualify when they speak so I'm not suggesting you do this all the time, but with this friend it may save an argument.

Observation 2: She's baiting the crap out of you.

Here's the tricky part. She may or may not have had a good reason to get annoyed by you. But whether or not she does, the reality is she's baiting you. She's knows exactly which buttons to push and when.

She's knows you are sensitive about not having a college education, so when she feels like you are being too big for your britches she decides to resize them for you.

This is common but also really lame. If she does this often my guess is that it's a skill she learned long ago and won't stop. So what do you do?

Well you have two options that I see:

Option 1: You kindly call her out on it.

You might say,
"Hey Ms. D when you say that to me it makes me feel sad because I'm imagining you think less of me because I don't have a degree. I'm guessing maybe you're saying it because you're feeling annoyed by me and I'm curious if instead of doing that you just tell me you're annoyed by me and why. Our connection is important to me and when you say that it erodes our relationship and I'd like to be friends with you and not quarrel. "

Here's the trick, you have to be vulnerable, honest, and willing to see your own fault in the situation. If you're more concerned about proving you're "right" than you are about connecting with your friend, then this will sound false and she'll pick up on that.

Option 2: Stop hanging out with this friend.

When you're trying to build a business and a life there are always going to be negative people who are going to be trash talk you, your views, and your abilities. These people will not help you grow and get ahead.

I don't know if this friend is that kind of person or not, but I do think you need to take a long hard look at your friendship and decide whether or not she helps you more than she hurts you.

If it's the former, then be honest and vulnerable with her. If she's the latter, then don't be unkind but choose to spend time with your fans instead.

Scenario 2

Ms. K (the reader) and Ms. D (her friend) are talking about business, and Ms. K is offering Ms. D advice on what she can do to make more money. When Ms. K does this, Ms. D ignores the advice and continues to complain about things in her business that are hard for her. Ms. K continues to offer Ms. D advice, even though she's not responding to it. Ms. K then tells Ms. D that though she is not trying to take a jab at her Ms. K has never been in business and until she's been through what Ms. D has, she won't understand what it's like.

So what's going on here?

Observation 1: When your friends complain, they want empathy not advice.

Usually when people are complaining they want to be heard and understood. They want to know that other people understand their pain and that it's okay to feel hurt. They want to know that they're okay and that you love them.

Before you do anything else, show your love by offering them empathy and reflection.

If your friend is complaining about how no one wants to pay for anything, you simply respond by saying, "Wow it sounds really frustrating to work so hard on something and feel like people don't appreciate it. Is that right?"

Just reflect back what you think you heard and do so from a place of curiosity. Of course this is an art that takes practice, but it's totally worth it.

People tell me I'm really easy to talk to and I make them feel safe. A big part of this is because I work at reflecting and giving empathy first.

Don't offer a story of your own, don't collude with her and say that her clients suck, don't say you feel really bad for her, don't quibble over how she heard something the wrong way. Simply listen and reflect. That's what she wants because that's what we all want, to be seen, heard, and loved.

Observation 2: Stop giving advice to people unless they give you permission first.

You may give the best advice in the world, I certainly think I do ;) but even if you have the perfect advice, ask for permission before you give it.

When we give people advice, you think you're saying "I love you, I want to help you, and if you try this thing I think other people will see how amazing you are."

The problem is they hear: "You're an idiot and if you'd only do what I tell you, then you wouldn't be screwing up so much but you probably won't do that because you're not as smart as me."

People want love not advice. Sometimes after giving people love and empathy, you can offer advice, but only if you ask permission.

Whenever you notice you have advice for someone simply say, "Hey I have an idea I think might help you. I'd love to share it with you, but only if you're open to it. What do you think?"

Then at least you're asking them if it's alright to give them advice and they'll be much more likely to hear it as loving advice.

Final thoughts

Talking to people is hard and not being a jerk while you do it is even harder. Your friend may be a sweet person who sometimes gets turned off by your passion and outspokenness. She may also be a negative person who looks for any reason to put you down.

Only you know what the truth is. As with all things in life when you take something personally, there is often unskillfulness on both sides.

Usually you've done something that someone else has taken badly, and there is something you can do to be kinder, wiser, and more compassionate. It's also true that your friend may be choosing to hear you with ears that always find what's wrong and bad.

Your best friends hear your best self even when you don't, and call you out when you're being a jerk. But no one can tell discern which it is which except for you.

So whenever you take something personally:

First let go of being "right".
Look at how you could have been kinder in the situation. Ask yourself about the part you played in the quarrel. Be open, vulnerable, and honest.

Next examine your relationship
Ask, "Does my friend only do this when I'm unskillful, or does she do it all the time?"

If it's the former, then work with her. Tell her how you feel while also taking responsibility for your part.

If it's the latter, it may simply be time to spend time with other people. Other people who will love you and hear your best self. Other people who will call you out in a kind way you can hear.

Life is too short to spend time with people who make you feel like crap. Tweet: Life is too short to spend time with people who make you feel like crap. @mindfitmove http://ctt.ec/cf5Kt+

Tweet: Life is too short to spend time with people who make you feel like crap. @mindfitmove http://ctt.ec/cf5Kt+

Unless of course they make you feel like crap because they lovingly reveal the truth of your own need to grow. The friends who love you, are kind to you - but make you uncomfortable - that push you to be better. Those people are friggin' gold. Love them and keep them close.

Image from Unsplash, by Charlie Foster.

Toku is an executive coach to the most influential people on the internet. His clients include everyone from the creator of Zen Habits to a serial entrepreneur who's sold million dollar businesses. To start learning the right mindset and skill set you need to become a powerful enlightened leader join his free newsletter.

This post was originally published on mindfitmove.com

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

COLOGNE - Based on its most current studies, some 200 million people worldwide are using ad blocking software which is leading to loss in unrealized revenue of $22 billion in revenue for publishers, according Johnny Ryan, Innovation Leader at Pagefair, a company that provides ad blocking solutions. The study was done jointly with Adobe.

Factors leading to the growth of ad blocking are intrusive ads and those that harvest browser information. One bright spot for publishers is to publish skippable video advertising, he explains here.

We spoke with Ryan last week at DMEXCO.

You can find this post on Beet.TV.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

"I feel like I'm doing a good thing for the world. I have four kids. I want to model that this is what adults who care about the world do. They decide that they are going to make the world a better place and then they make the world a better place."
Chef/Farmer Eric Skokan, owner of the Black Cat Bistro in Boulder, Colorado.

I found myself unexpectedly in Boulder for tango and an economics conference a few months ago. I prayed there would be some decent organic food to enjoy. And that is how I discovered the Black Cat Bistro.

The Black Cat Bistro boasted of mostly organic farm to fork "Front Range" cuisine, rooted in produce unique to the local forests, fields and mountains. Surprisingly, however, the restaurant was about as local as local gets, and was sourcing produce from its own fields - a farm that included sheep, pigs, geese, turkeys and chicken spread out over 130 acres of land. How in the world can a husband and wife team, with four kids, run a farm and a restaurant for over a decade, I wondered, when any one of those factors could be the straw that broke the business? For answers, I turned to the source: owner/executive chef/farmer Eric Skokan.

Natalie Pace: Did you grow all of the food that is being served tonight?

Eric Skokan: The rule that Jill and I have is that if we can grow it, we'll try our best to. The greens are us. Every vegetable that you've seen is us.

NP: How important is sustainability to your operation?

ES: I purchased a set of harvest and transport boxes seven years ago. I still use them. We use and reuse the same totes over and over again.

NP: You have a pretty big smile on your face for a man who has been up since dawn.

ES: It's a great operation. I love it, though it can get muddy in the fields. That's okay. It comes with the territory.

NP: You're in the fields in the morning and here at night. It seems like your day is endless. How do you keep the energy going?

ES: If I didn't love cooking and I didn't love farming, it would be hard to make it happen. I feel like I'm doing a good thing for the world. I have four kids. I want to model that this is what adults who care about the world do. They decide that they are going to make the world a better place and then they make the world a better place.

NP: Do you ever bring in other young chefs and show them the way?

ES: All the time. We have some fly-by-night, ephemeral internships that happen, when someone will come from another restaurant and say, "Hey Eric, I love what you're doing, can I come hang out with you guys for three nights in July?" Then we have a proper, set, internship program.

NP: What's the process behind harvest-inspired dining?

ES: An intern will receive a text from the cooks saying, "Hey, we need these things." Then the interns will write a long text, row by row, "Here's what's happening at the farm," which creates the product list for the cooks to know what they are going to have for the following day. That texting goes back and forth.

NP: That sounds a lot more exciting than peeling carrots...

ES: I love having the interns in that interplay, instead of just saying, "This is how you pull weeds," or have them do rather mindless things. They are harvesting. The interns wash, dry, pack and sort everything in the walk-ins.

NP: Boulder feels so isolated. Do you think you'd get more attention from the culinary world if you were in a different city?

ES: This is the hinterlands. Not only that, this is a bubble in the hinterlands.

NP: Your sommelier is extraordinary!

ES: We have more master sommeliers in this town than L.A. does. We have more in this town than Atlanta or Chicago or Seattle. It's a bubble. The quality of life here is so spectacular. It attracts sommeliers from around the country, who come here and beg to work for free. It's nuts! I don't get it. But that is just the way it is!

NP: The Boulder climate is so unique, there must be a lot of crops that simply don't work here.

ES: We were talking about sesame seeds with someone who asked, "What does sesame even look like?" I thought, "I have no idea!" So, I looked at the sesame plant. It's gorgeous. We're right on the edge of where it can grow. Not super well, but we can get it to grow here. So, we supply our sesame seeds now. Only because someone asked and I thought, "Why not?!"

NP: The arugula flowers were a pleasant surprise and very tasty. Are your fields organic?

ES: Two of our four fields are certified organic. The other ones we are transitioning in. The sheep will be certified next year, now that the field they are eating in is. We're debating whether or not we'll certify the hogs as organic. Even though the hogs eat all organic feed, we also give them brewer's grains and some of that is not certified. We don't use any antibiotics or anything. They get food scraps from the school district, and that's not certified organic. So, bit by bit. We're taking it in stages. The big push this year, in addition to certifying and getting some of the fields ready, was that we had the different parts of the animal operation certified animal welfare approved. That was great. It was a lot of work. We didn't have to retool our operation much. It turned out we were doing everything correctly to begin with, which is good. Just the paperwork part was challenging. This next year, we'll certify one more field and then the year after that, we'll get the last one certified. So, bit by bit.

NP: Did you start out as a farmer or a chef?

ES: I've always been a chef. I started a garden as a stress-reduction thing. Opening a restaurant is a pretty stressful endeavor. I fell in love with it, so I doubled the size of the garden and then doubled it again. I plowed my neighbor's front yard with a tractor.

NP: With the interns and experienced team, have you been able to pare back to a normal work schedule? Or are you still working insane hours?

ES: The hours are really long. But at this point, Jill and I have surrounded ourselves with a spectacular staff. They make it so that Jill and I don't have to do all of the heavy lifting that we used to have to do. Which is a luxury.

The Black Cat Bistro is fine dining with a uniquely impressive wine list. Next door is the more moderately priced Bramble and Hare, Skokan's organic gastro-pub. At Bramble and Hare, bar czar Griffin Farro mixes up some of the most unique cocktails on the planet - such as the popular "So Much More Than a Toy," made with beet juice, vodka, lemon and rosewater. I immediately became addicted to the spinach tart, only to discover one evening that sadly the spinach had been saturated too much by the previous rain for that evening's meal. Ackk! That's the downside of farm-to-fork... You fall in love with something, and it leaves you on one sad, rainy day.

In the end, however, that's real life and part of becoming more in harmony with nature, accepting the seasons and the storms, with the sesame seeds and soggy spinach.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Take a minute from whatever mundane management task you're doing. Forget about the donor who won't return your calls or the board member suggesting that Lady Gaga would be a great celebrity to have at your event. Maybe you are having a bad day.

Set that all aside for just a few minutes.

I'd like to tell you a story that I guarantee will remind you why you work in the nonprofit sector.

It's not the easiest story you will ever hear.

I met Judy Kottick more than 20 years ago when our daughters were in a toddler playgroup together. Judy's daughter Ella was kind and full of life. A joy. Apple right near the tree.

Ella grew into a remarkable dancer and artist and graduated from Macalester College in 2011. She planned to pursue a doctorate in psychology, aspiring to provide mental health services to underserved populations.

In January 2013, while crossing a Brooklyn intersection known to be among the most dangerous in the city, Ella was hit by a bus. She never had a chance.

Her mom and dad, Judy and Ken, broke into a million pieces, unsure how they could go on.

It was a sleepless year for Ken and Judy. Judy often found herself at her computer in the middle of the night. She wasn't entirely sure what she was looking for -- maybe there was someone who might understand her pain.

One night, she found HP and Amy Tam Liao. Their 3-year-old daughter Allison had just been killed on October 13 that same year while crossing the street with her grandmother.

She emailed them and they responded in less than a day.

Through them, Judy met Amy Cohen. Amy Cohen and Gary Eckstein's 12-year-old son Sammy had been struck by a van on his own block just five days before HP and Amy lost Allison.

Three couples. Kindred spirits. Unimaginable grief.

A COMMUNITY IS BORN

Amy and Gary were members of Transportation Alternatives, a NYC-based nonprofit whose mission is to "reclaim New York City's streets from the automobile." The organization works to promote bicycling, walking, and public transit as a better alternative to driving a car.

These three couples began to find other grieving parents; grieving parents found them. All bound together by the unimaginable and determined to build legacies in their children's memories.

Soon there was a small army.

On the first anniversary of Ella's crash, this army of mourners, along with Transportation Alternatives, organized a vigil calling for safe streets at her Brooklyn intersection.

The turnout was huge. Ken and Judy were stunned.

That day they learned their first lesson about community organizing: if you get a press person to cover a vigil (essentially an outdoor press conference), politicians appear. The more press, the more politicians. The combination can lead to action.

A QUICK WIN

A month later, the army had a name. Families for Safe Streets was born as an initiative of Transportation Alternatives and its goal was clear and specific -- fight to lower the NYC speed limit.

They would soon need a new goal.

These grieving activists, including Judy and Ken, got some media training and went to Albany to tell their tragic stories to their elected officials. Imagine telling the same awful story over and over, holding up graphic pictures. They did what needed to be done.

Just three months later the speed limit in NYC was dropped from 30 to 25 mph. Warp speed.

KNOCK DOWNS

After this huge win, Families for Safe Streets is now focusing on enforcement. This time it's David vs. Goliath. Families for Safe Streets (David) is taking on the bus drivers' union and the Taxi and Limousine Commissions (Goliaths). This will be a much tougher fight. The unions will fight back.

Get this. It's assumed that bus drivers will have a certain number of "knock downs" (their words) each year. This is considered normal and acceptable. Unbelievable.

Makes you want to donate to Families for Safe Streets, doesn't it? You can learn more here.

BUILDING A LEGACY

Ken and Judy are made of special stuff. In their shoes, I'm not sure I would have the kind of fortitude they have and I consider myself an activist. But something happening to one of my three children? And then participating on weekly steering committee calls, reminded every single day of the tragedy? I'm not sure I could bear it.

Some days this work feels like the best thing Judy could possibly do. On other days, it's just a different kind of torture.

I asked Ken what it was like to be involved in a nonprofit for the first time in such a big way. Ken took his time answering and his response has stayed with me.

When it all happened, it all felt so random. Something insane, impossible and unimaginable. Being a part of Families for Safe Streets and this group of the most impressive and passionate people has helped me to reframe my daughter's death in a way that helps me to make more sense of it. It's been reframed for me as a problem to be solved. 24,000 crashes and 100 fatalities in NYC year to date. I see that our work can save lives.

NOW, WHY YOUR WORK MATTERS

There are lessons for all of us who work in nonprofits in the story of Ella and Sammy and their parents and the growing number of families like theirs banding together as part of FSS.

You are needed. Badly. You may be in the business of advocating for the homeless, caring for sick kids with cancer, or standing in a courtroom fighting for immigrants about to be deported. You may be delivering meals to seriously ill patients or teaching in a school for autistic kids. These people are counting on you. Sure it's a lot of responsibility. But even more so, it's a privilege.

You make things happen. You have an expertise in your field that you share with those who need it. Re-read what Ken said. TA helped Ken make a shift in his point of view. He is motivated to solve a problem. While his grief remains unimaginable, an organization that was there for him is sharing its expertise to enable him to play a role in solving a problem. That's a gift.

You raise awareness about societal problems. You provide an opportunity to folks like Ken and Judy to turn their grief into action. You advocate like hell, inspired by your clients to change the system. You organize vigils and press conferences, you write op-eds. You ensure that the story of each family, each client reverberates - that the larger point is made - and you call people to action.

You offer hope. When the truck arrives to deliver a nutritious meal to a seriously ill patient, you're delivering hope - "maybe I can beat this thing." A homeless gay teen finds a bed at a shelter and the next day meets with someone dedicated to getting that teen a part time job? That's hope. A hospital researching the cure for pediatric cancers is offering hope. That's what nonprofit work is about.

You lift us all up. Surrounded by passionate, dedicated people for whom the work feels like a vocation? It's inspiring to be in your company. It's a privilege to know you.

Before you head back to the mundane work it felt like you were doing, remember something important: Every single thing you do, even the mundane and the frustrating, is a means to an end.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Jeff Hayzlett is the former CMO at Kodak and now a bestselling author, TV show host and owner of more than 50 businesses.

In this new book, Think Big, Act Bigger: The Rewards of Being Relentless Hayzlett writes about how to fix some of the biggest mistakes we make in our pursuit of happiness at work.

Mistake #1: Chasing Squirrels

Do you remember the scene from the Disney/Pixar animated film, Up, when the little boy finds the dog with the translation collar? The collar translates exactly what the dog is thinking into English for the humans to understand. At one point the dog's sentance is abruptly paused and he shouts, "Squirrel!"

We are faced with distractions at work everyday. Staying on track and focusing on the most important things can be a challenge. Hayzlett and I break down more about how to do this in the video above. Here's a great matrix and reminder that I keep in my notebook from author Steven Covey from his book, First Things First.

Mistake #2: Caring (too much) about what others say

This week a friend of mine sent me a nice note thanking me for an article I wrote but had some follow up questions. [Full article here]
He asked:

"Of the 5 habits you listed, #1 is trickiest to me. I wonder if not caring what others think about us could have some pitfalls. It sometimes seems like a necessary gauge for fine-tuning our reputation, which is often how we leverage ourselves. I know we have to let go of much of life's disapproval, measured failure, and even beware of excessive adulation--all arguably having something to do with what others think of us. But somehow, underneath it all I keep weighing whether we have to keep the opinions of others within our periphery. Thoughts?"

Here's my answer:

Make no mistake, I believe feedback is important. But whether or not we should listen or make changes depends on a few things:

-Context:
We're friends so I care what you think more than a stranger

-Intention:
Sometimes the people we care about the most have the best intentions but don't actually know what's best for us.

Example: Your mom says, "No one should ever rock climb, it's too dangerous." This is a false over-generalization not grounded in facts. No need to heed this advice.

Example: Your sister says, "Always tell someone where you are before you go on a solo climb." This is common sense and good advice worth doing.

*Be careful of the so-called wisdom of the few or many:
Who really knows truth? What worked once or failed twice is unlikely to repeat itself especially if the person, place or timing has changed.

Henry Ford is famous for saying, "If I would have asked the people what they wanted before starting Ford Motor Co. they would have answered 'Faster horses.' No one was dreaming big like Ford and the so-called wise few or informed masses always seem to mistake genius for crazy: Jobs...Disney...Einstein...there is a long list...

*Be careful of giving too much value to applause or lack of it:
This is feedback but is it a true measure of the quality? Not always. More importantly, should we feel personal worth based on it? Never.

Most of the talented artists and musicians of the early years, whose work is now priceless, were largely ignored and unappreciated. Some of the the most famous pop icons today may not have much talent except for being able to take good selfies...

I believe we have to follow our heart and mind. We have both for a reason. We have to trust ourselves but leave room for error and course correction. We must reject any unjustified shame tactics either self-inflicted or in disguise as "constructive feedback" from others.

We should be the one setting our own goals, not others. We should be the one who decides to quit, pivot or keep grinding it out. We define who we are and what we will become.

Mistake #3: Asking the wrong questions

Hayzlett tells the story of Kaitlin, a new hire at his company. A few minutes before a big client meeting she asked Jeff (the CEO) if he thought they should bring color copies of the presentation.

Hayzlett taught her that she should be very careful about the kinds of questions (not permissions) shes asks, especially to the CEO. If the CEO can easily answer tactical questions that Kaitlin could handle, why would he need to keep her around?

Mistake #4: Failure to execute

This is a big one and many people are stuck with great ideas. Failure to take action is like having an amazing car in your garage but you never put in gasoline. This is a destination to nowhere and likely to cause you heartache, frustration and pain.

What did I leave out? Watch the full video above with me and Jeff and let me know. Post a comment below or tweet me @BryanElliott and I promise to reply. For more episodes of Behind the Brand go here.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

In our western society, money represents a significant part of life. We are constantly busy making it, spending it or saving it.
As a money coach who enjoys international travels, I'm always curious to see how money is perceived and managed in other cultures.
This past summer, I had the chance to travel to Eastern Africa. One of the most memorable experiences of my trip was visiting a traditional Maasai village and other local communities where over 120 different tribes live.

At the end of my trip, I reflected back on some of my observations and discussions with the locals. Here are 5 valuable money lessons I learned in Africa:

Resourcefulness is Omnipresent

Let's take a cow for example. How many uses for a cow do we have in our western societies?
I can count two: milk and meat.
The Maasai however, left with very little resources in the regions they inhabit, are able to find many more uses for a cow: They drink the cow milk but also its blood (extracted without killing the cow), they eat its meat, they use its skin as a mat to sleep on, and they build their huts with wood and cow dung. Cow dung also seems to be popular in Rwanda where it is used to make traditional paintings (Imigongo).

Another tribe I visited also found many uses for banana trees: of course, they sell the bananas at the market, but they also use the banana tree branches to make brooms and use the leaves to build their houses' roofs.
Seeing this level of resourcefulness put in practice has taught me to become more creative at using what I already have at my disposal.

Cash is King

Of course, the concept of credit cards and spending money you have not yet earned is almost non-existent. This entails that it can take a family up to 15 years to build their house.
Our guide explained that every year, families use the money they earned from selling their harvest produce to buy a certain number of bricks. If it was a good harvest, they would buy more bricks; a less abundant harvest meant fewer bricks.
Because they don't take a mortgage to build the house, once they have bought enough bricks and they are ready to build it, they own it 100% once it's completed.
In other words, they follow my favorite motto of "Save Now, Buy Later".
They are surely not after instant gratification of owning a home and spending the next 20 years paying for it.

Contentment Stems From Within

Most people I visited in the local communities do not own a bank account and own very little possessions. Yet there was always a smile on their face and a sense of contentment they naturally projected.
Seeing the children joyfully play with rocks, a blanket or an old car tire showed me that, contrary to our belief, we need much less to be happy. Happiness truly stems from within and is not found in a store or in "stuff".

Community's Wellbeing Comes First

When I wanted to visit the local communities to observe their way of life, I hired a guide from the Cultural Tourism Programme. The tour money I paid went directly to help the tribes I was visiting.
In those villages, everything is done for the benefit of the community. I came across artists painting Xmas balls and carving African wood statues, only to sell them for the benefit of the community as a whole. I truly felt like everyone is taken care of and no one is forgotten. Resources and skills are shared, profits are shared, and everyone is looked after.
They projected a deep sense of resilience and strength, because the tribe members were working for their collective, rather than their individual, well-being.

Having Fun is Free

In our western societies, we tend to associate having fun with spending money. Yet on so many occasions during my trip, I noticed children and adults having fun that did not involve any money: in the evening, adults would gather on the beach and have some sort of acrobatic competition; other evenings, I would see them playing soccer, diving off a cliff, or practicing martial arts in a group.
It was truly a joy to watch them have so much fun outdoors, with little or no equipment.

As one of my favorite quotes says "Travel is the only thing you buy that makes you richer."
As a money coach, this enriching trip surely taught me a few lessons and helped me better understand the role of money in different cultures.

What money lessons have you learned from your travels? I would love to hear them in the comments below.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

By Jason Uechi, Director of Engineering and Data Science at YP Mobile Labs

It's no secret that brands and agencies are swimming in an ocean of data and that the best are benefiting enormously from fresh insights that make their campaigns smarter and better targeted. Institutional change, specifically the restructuring of marketing organizations to successfully navigate these new waters, is hard, but the promise of "big data" to amplify creative and make it more impactful at scale is starting to be fulfilled.

While this infusion of data is transforming the practice of digital marketing for the better, it's also making it more complex. Marketers now have myriad buckets of data at their fingertips - demographic, behavioral, shopping, location, and so on - that they often struggle to make sense of it and to establish effective measurement standards that gauge whether data-rich digital campaigns are really resonating with consumers in the real world.

However, for all the data that marketers now have access to, there's still one gaping hole: the data marketers get -- or largely don't get -- from their tech platform partners.

To a large extent, digital advertising is still a black box, driven by invisible algorithms. Brands and agencies know their campaign results in terms of impressions, clicks, installs and other metrics, and they can track that against their spend, but they don't have much visibility into how their buy is actually moving through the digital advertising ecosystem. The problem has been compounded by the rise of programmatic, a notoriously opaque channel.

As a result, transparency has become a major concern for marketers, who are no longer satisfied with the wink and nod that used to suffice from their partners; they want true visibility from media sellers and ad-tech vendors to ensure they're getting maximum ROI and, importantly, an explanation of why the campaign is performing well. And they want insights that they can use to better plan and measure future campaigns.

As a result, tech platforms should look beyond performance results to satisfy marketers; they need to open up their black boxes and deliver valuable insights that will help brands from the very inception of a campaign. Platforms typically have thousands of anonymized data points for individual consumers gleaned through modeling and machine learning, and this data can be immensely valuable to brands and agencies, provided they have the right people to help interpret it.

In other words, brands need smart humans to complement the machines; the latter isn't of much use without the former. Of course, recruiting technical talent that also intuitively grasps the role data should play in amplifying creative work is an ongoing challenge for brands and agencies, but they're getting there.

Platforms are starting to get the message, and an increasing number have begun furnishing data insights to their marketer partners. Take Facebook, which introduced a free data product called "Topic Data" earlier this year; which shows marketers what users are saying about specific brands, products, events, activities and other subjects, making it a valuable resource for market research and campaign planning. And at YP, we're providing insights to retailers on which of the customers who walked into their stores had seen an ad beforehand. (Not surprisingly, those who click on retailer ads enter stores at a much higher rate.) It's a metric that goes well beyond impressions and clicks to demonstrate an ad buy's effectiveness.

So what comes next?

As data science continues to mature as a marketing discipline, we'll see brands and agencies apply it to their businesses in new and innovative ways. In particular, we've only seen the tip of the iceberg of what mobile location data can do, both in terms of targeting and measurement. Also keep in mind that consumer adoption of wearable devices at scale, which seems inevitable, will make location data even richer and potentially more accurate. And, the expected rise of connected devices like smart refrigerators and smart cars could provide a whole new bucket of data to round out what marketers know - anonymously, of course - about consumer behavior. As an industry, we'll rush to make all of that meaningful for advertisers.

As more and more data is made available, freed from black boxes or even piped in from your fridge or toaster, the need for marketers to actively interpret human insights from abstract data is only going to become more acute. It's an exciting opportunity for those who want to be at the very active intersection of data and creativity.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

You've seen it happen in movies, soaps and to your friends, but you never thought it would happen to you. Your best customer just sent you the news. They want to see other people. Instead of boozing the night away or wallowing in self-pity (or a pint of Ben & Jerry's), do these things instead.

Stay Positive - Chances are you're pissed and hope your soon-to-be-former customer walks their dog during rush hour on the highway this evening. Either that or at least you hope they choose to watch Home Alone 3 instead of the original this weekend. No matter which way you slice it breaking up is hard to do. There's that inevitable moving-out period where you've got to be in contact with your replacements (which I can assure you isn't easy on them....since they've also been in your shoes before) and of course there is the lost money. Those emotions are fine, but do yourself a favor and stay positive. You're upset and that means you had a good run and the work meant a lot to you. Tons of businesses and people never get the opportunity to work with great customers (like you just did) or on work they actually like doing.

Evaluate - Nobody wants to be criticized and we don't criticize anyone because of that. When you lose a customer you need to be objective and figure out why and what to do next time. Sometimes it's not you, it's them. But sometimes it's not them...and it's you. Either way you need to look in the mirror and be honest with yourself so you can improve. You owe that much to the customers still with you and the ones you'll get in the future. That self-assessment is going to help you a lot more than belting the hook to I Will Always Love You at the steering wheel on the way home.

Keep Perspective - Sure, losing customers is a big hit. Particularly if you are a small business owner where 90 percent of your revenue comes from 5 percent of your customers. But be realistic. Are you going to eat tonight? Sleep in your own bed? Are you able to walk? Is everyone in your family reasonably ok? If you answered yes to those 4 questions then your life is still better than 90 percent of the world's population.

Consider this, the higher the stakes your business goes the more customers you are likely to win, but also lose. How many customers do you think AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile lose to each other? Sure, they win customers every day, but they lose tons too. If you're into sports then you know Roger Federer has won more tennis grand slams than anyone in history. You don't even realize the fact that he's lost more finals than just about anyone. Or the fact that millions of people dedicate their lives to making a grand slam final and don't come close to that goal. Snap out of it. You're one of the lucky few businesses that has great customers to lose. There aren't many of us.

Rise Up - These days it's not uncommon for people to define themselves by what they do for a living. That's a little dangerous. Suppose losing this customer means you lose your job or are out of business. Does that mean your life is over? Obviously not. You have millions of options ranging from flipping burgers to working with your former competition. Don't put anything above you or beneath you as you try to put the pieces back together. Obviously, your stay at the top was temporary, and if you continue to put in the time and effort so will your stay at the bottom.

You can't control a customer leaving you, but you can control what you do next. After all, what you do next is entirely up to you. You can take your ball and go home. Or, for the first time since you can remember, you can stay after work and work on building a real sales and marketing process to get new customers. That means taking a step back and figuring out what kind of customers you want and figuring out how to get them. Was this customer a good fit? Maybe there are other customers that love what you do and you love helping. There's a lot to consider when coming up with your marketing strategy. Do you use inbound or content marketing tactics? Have you tried Social Selling? Maybe you get customers by showing up to their office with donuts. However you get them you need to make a process out of it. Something that you can wash, rinse and repeat every day. That lead generating machine won't be finished today. But if you devote a bit of time each day to mapping out that process then this one hit will be the start of something bigger for you (here's an ebook on how to hire a marketing agency). Who knows? In a year or so you may be writing your former customer a thank you card.

Or, they may write you an email asking for your help again.

About the Author

Sajeel Qureshi is the Vice President of Operations at Computan, a digital-marketing and software company. Computan serves as the back-end digital department for hundreds of short-handed marketing departments, businesses and marketing agencies. Ranging from start-ups to multinationals. He has a degree in business administration from St. Bonaventure University, and an MBA from Eastern Illinois University.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

"Any color so long as it's black."

So said Henry Ford - or at least so says Henry Ford's autobiography....

When or where or if he said it is irrelevant - he was making a point that was really about production efficiencies and less about customer opportunity.

Yet today, besides the myriad choices we have as to color, style and options - just about every car being manufactured can be configured and personalized based on its resident software.

In a fascinating New York Times article, "Complex Car Software Becomes the Weak Spot Under the Hood," the three authors share that while Facebook is composed of about 60 million lines of code and Science Fiction like the Large Hadron Collider has only about 50 million lines, new high-end cars contain 100 million and more lines of code....

"Cars these days are reaching biological levels of complexity," said Chris Gerdes, a professor of mechanical engineering at Stanford University.

So one can only wonder what Henry Ford's view would be about the news from Volkswagen, this week, as the full extent of its scandal became apparent.

Bottom line...millions upon millions - more than 11 million vehicles so it seems...had special software that alerted the system to emission testing and then gave fraudulent results.

The very same software systems that can save lives with collision warning and emergency breaking; that can make your ride more pleasant with fully customizable interior controls and your overall experience more efficient by monitoring your usage - can contain hidden in those millions of lines scam-ware...and you would never know.

And, as if that's not enough...system security is a growing and real concern as hackers have proven that they can drive you right off of the road and cause damage and mayhem that is too horrifying to contemplate.

Technology has always given us ying and yang choices - or as the famed Spiderman would say (thank you Teddy, my 6-year-old grandson) "with great power comes great responsibility..."

Succinctly reported (by The New York Times) in this quote from Thomas Dullien, a well-known security researcher and reverse engineer (think on that notion!!!), "The reality is that more and more decisions, including decisions about life and death, are being made by software...but for the vast majority of software you interact with, you are not allowed to examine how it functions."

Look - there was a time when a product had to work - out of the box, off the showroom floor, from the store, whatever - work 100% -- or you returned it and never bought one again.

Today we live in a world of versions and releases and patches and fixes - we have been socialized to accept product failure as the price of entry into great things, and we dutifully plod on waiting for the next release, hoping that they will fix whatever it is that isn't working.

And if that is the price we pay - if that is what it takes to make technology work harder and more efficiently for us - if that is what it takes for the next big life/game changer to come to fruition - I guess that it's a fair price and most of us have made and accepted that Devil's deal.

Yet...I still wonder what Henry Ford might have said...Listen:

"Quality means doing it right when no one is looking." - Henry Ford

And there you have it.

Philip Koopman, an associate professor at the department of electrical and computer engineering at Carnegie Mellon University was quoted in that same New York Times report as follows: "There's no requirement that anyone except the car companies looks at the code."

HMMMMM - I guess we have to paraphrase or amend his thought:

Quality means doing it right even when no one can look...is allowed to look...

Seems to me the opportunities are bigger for the folks who get both of those points...No?

What do you think?

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

This article comes from Byline, a crowdfunded independent media platform that gives you a personalized newspaper.

As the international community struggles with the Syrian refugee crisis, many are looking at Jordan's courageous position in absorbing as many as a million and a half Syrians as guests of the kingdom.

While this hospitality has been duly recognized and rewarded, the longevity of the Syrian conflict is forcing all players to rethink the policy towards the Syrian refugees. What was thought to be a short term crisis that would end with the happy return back to Syria is turning out to be a long-term conflict that requires more than immediate housing, food and medical aid.

Alexandra Francis of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has produced an important study on the issue and has suggested a number of takeaways that Jordan would do well adhering to. She recommends integrating development and humanitarian aid, maintaining protection space for refugees, formalizing access to livelihoods and empowering local governance actions as they integrate capacity building programs that help deliver services to the Jordanian population as well as to Syrian refugees.

The challenges facing Jordan are made even more acute as the slow but steady political reform process has resulted in a relatively progressive election law that has been welcomed by Jordanian democrats and civil society.

Jordan must have a long-term relationship with its Syrian guests, otherwise, it will face problems.

Jordan is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee treaty and therefore doesn't have the obligations of turning the temporary guests into asylum seekers. But Jordan is a signatory to the convention against torture which forbids the kingdom from sending individuals to a country that might torture them.

Court documents reportedly connected to the Jordanian government revealed by the book "Radio al Balad" have shown that the issue of refugees is one handled by the Ministry of Interior and thus it is impossible to know exactly how many Syrians are in Jordan and how many have been sent back in contravention of the torture convention and in violation of the agreement Jordan has signed with the UNHCR.

As the stay of the Syrians in Jordan continues without a solution in sight, there is no running away from the need for a much wider discussion about the mid to long-term solutions.

The issue of opening up the job market to Syrians has taken up a lot of the public discussion in a country with double digit unemployment. Many observers have noted that Syrians are very good at creating jobs rather than replacing Jordanians and that the cheap labor that Syrian refugees fill up takes away jobs of Egyptian laborers rather Jordanians.

Until a solution is found to the civil war, Jordan and its friends from around the world must find the mid to long-term solutions for the hundreds of thousands of Syrians who for the time being have made Jordan their home.

An international conference by Chatham House and Jordan's Identity Center on the long-term status of Syrians revealed a desire by local government officials for easing the strict labor laws that forbid work for Syrian guests. Mayors from northern Jordanian towns and cities were complaining that many Syrian businesspeople are willing to provide jobs for Syrians and Jordanians if the country easies its policies regarding Syrian employment. At present it is difficult for a Syrian to get a work permit, although there are many working illegally at below minimum wages.

The difficulty facing the government of Jordan stems in part from the ignorance of the public, which in turn produces hate speech and stereotyping of Syrians. A concerted effort to deal with this is needed and a number of donors have stepped up and identified this area as one that should be addressed before words turn into actions and result in unnecessary tensions for the country.

Finding the right balance between opening up the job market for Syrians while also making sure that Jordanians who want to work at different levels are given an opportunity is possible. But this requires a wise leadership that refuses to keep its head in the sand and is fully aware of the destructive policy of keeping Syrians closed in and jobless.

Jordanians and the international community understand that the most important long-term solution to the Syrian refugee crisis is a resolution to the civil war raging across Jordan's northern borders. But until such a time that a solution is found that brings back stability and economic viability, Jordan, working with its friends from around the world, must find the mid to long-term solutions for the hundreds of thousands of Syrians who for the time being have made Jordan their home.

Read more at Byline.

Earlier on The WorldPost:

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

5 Public Speaking Tips for Standing Ovations

It's Not Just Carmakers Who Cheat

What Volkswagen -- and All Car Makers -- Must Do Next

Hedging for Disaster -- NOW Are You Ready to Listen?

Getting the Story Straight on Comcast, Time Warner

Turn Off, Tune Out, and Drop In!

Tired of Rushing Around? Read This

Volkswagen and the Price of Reputation Risk

Lobbying as Business and Business as Lobbying

Union Votes on Fiat Chrysler Deal

A Case Study in Not Being an Ass

Ms. K and Ms. D: A Case Study In Compassionate Communication

Scenario 1

Scenario 2

Final thoughts

(VIDEO) Ad Blocking is $22 Billion Problem but Skippable Video Ads Work

From Farm to Fork, Literally

Why Nonprofits Matter

The 4 Biggest Mistakes People Make About Being Happy at Work

What I Learned About Money in Africa

Why Marketers Need to Pry Open Digital Advertising's Black Box. (Hint: It's About Data.)

What to Do When You Lose a Customer

Volkswagen and the Ying and Yang of Technology

What Jordan Needs to Do for Its Syrian Refugees