Hey, great post. I really enjoy reading Getting Finances Done - keep up the good work!!

I blogged about something similar here: http://tinyurl.com/2xc2bv

I called it 10 Easy Steps to Save Thousands of $$$. It also helps you to reduce your carbon footprint as well. Can't be bad!

Nice post.

I am firmly in favour of personal carbon trading and believe that the traditional arguments just don't stack-up.

In fact I recently blogged about this exact thing here: http://tinyurl.com/2scnhk

In short: Personal carbon trading is an idea whose time has come. You can’t expect it to solve problems of inequity which already exist in the world - the rich will always be able to buy themselves a way out, and survive catastrophes better than the poor. That’s the nature of the capitalist society in which we live. But properly run, the scheme would protect the fuel poor, and allow low carbon consumers to make money from the rich.

In fact, the great thing about personal carbon trading is that government sets the outcome - a reduction in carbon - and the ‘price’ rises and falls depending on whether consumers change their behaviour. So the more people simply stick to their lifestyle and buy their way out, the price rises until people think it is better to reduce their carbon use.

Read more here: http://tinyurl.com/2scnhk

Nice post.

I am firmly in favour of personal carbon trading and believe that the traditional arguments just don't stack-up.

In fact I recently blogged about this exact thing here: http://tinyurl.com/2scnhk

In short: Personal carbon trading is an idea whose time has come. You can’t expect it to solve problems of inequity which already exist in the world - the rich will always be able to buy themselves a way out, and survive catastrophes better than the poor. That’s the nature of the capitalist society in which we live. But properly run, the scheme would protect the fuel poor, and allow low carbon consumers to make money from the rich.

In fact, the great thing about personal carbon trading is that government sets the outcome - a reduction in carbon - and the ‘price’ rises and falls depending on whether consumers change their behaviour. So the more people simply stick to their lifestyle and buy their way out, the price rises until people think it is better to reduce their carbon use.

Read more here: http://tinyurl.com/2scnhk

We don't need more wind turbines, just a giant deflector screen around the globe to fend off the cosmic rays.

Roll on the next crazy theory ...

http://tinyurl.com/2ramtc

Nice post.

I am firmly in favour of personal carbon trading and believe that the traditional arguments just don't stack-up.

In fact I recently blogged about this exact thing here: http://tinyurl.com/2scnhk

In short: Personal carbon trading is an idea whose time has come. You can’t expect it to solve problems of inequity which already exist in the world - the rich will always be able to buy themselves a way out, and survive catastrophes better than the poor. That’s the nature of the capitalist society in which we live. But properly run, the scheme would protect the fuel poor, and allow low carbon consumers to make money from the rich.

In fact, the great thing about personal carbon trading is that government sets the outcome - a reduction in carbon - and the ‘price’ rises and falls depending on whether consumers change their behaviour. So the more people simply stick to their lifestyle and buy their way out, the price rises until people think it is better to reduce their carbon use.

Read more here: http://tinyurl.com/2scnhk

Nice post.

I am firmly in favour of personal carbon trading and believe that the

traditional arguments just don't stack-up.

In fact I recently blogged about this exact thing here: http://tinyurl.com/2scnhk

In short: Personal carbon trading is an idea whose time has come. You can’t expect it to solve problems of inequity which already exist in the world - the rich will always be able to buy themselves a way out, and survive catastrophes better than the poor. That’s the nature of the capitalist society in which we live. But properly run, the scheme would protect the fuel poor, and allow low carbon consumers to make money from the rich.

In fact, the great thing about personal carbon trading is that government sets the outcome - a reduction in carbon - and the ‘price’ rises and falls depending on whether consumers change their behaviour. So the more people simply stick to their lifestyle and buy their way out, the price rises until people think it is better to reduce their carbon use.

Read more here: http://tinyurl.com/2scnhk

Smart cars: finally available at the US market: Smart cars are not new. In fact they have been around Europe since 1998.

Yeah - they've been whizzing around the street of the UK for a while now. I like the sporty version! Now these are really SMART cars:

http://tinyurl.com/yowfjv

http://tinyurl.com/2d6onm

hahaha :) Nice one!

But I shouldn't laugh, as here in the UK we're still dripping wet from the recent floods. But at least we can get a bit of comfort from The Rt Rev Graham Dow, Bishop of Carlisle [http://tinyurl.com/32mb4w] that, "due to God's judgment on the immorality and greed of modern society, including the introduction of pro-gay legislation".

Saint Gasolines decision to ignore biblical teaching will ultimately cause a lot of people around him to get very damp indeed.

I'll set-up the joke - you supply the punch-line.

MTBF for me is one the least understood and least practiced techniques. Calculations of MTBF assume that a system is restored and returned to service immediately after failure. Sometimes mean time to failure (MTTF) is a more appropriate measure. Minitab has some wonderful tools for calculating both of these.

Finally, can you change the blog link from 63 buckets: this is dead, to learnsigma.com. Thanks :)

Thanks for bringing this book to my attention. I read on Amazon that,
elegant solutions, as May correctly points out, "universally change the world's attitudes, beliefs, behaviors, and habits." Efforts to formulate elegant solutions are guided and informed by three principles: ingenuity in craft, pursuit of perfection, and fit with society. "They're the raison d'etre at Toyota, and nonnegotiable."

All good stuff, but possibly something that I didn't already know?

Yep, Iraq is a total mess, and it would be strange if Bush and his cronies, who didn't have a clue what they were doing in the beginning, suddenly begin to have a clue how to sort their mess out.

The USA, Britain and Australia should all be paying reparations to Iraq. After running scared of the UN, they barged in and then created a massive vacuum to be filled by insurgents, terrorists and gangsters. As the Oil Ministry was secured, the police force were being sacked. For such piss poor planning, and having forced millions of Iraqis into exodus and refugee status, perhaps we should be paying them?

Mike
I see this attitude in so many companies. Perhaps a gravity fed storage solution could be implemented designed with the correct dimensions to hold the right number of component bins so that they whole installation occupies the space - no more, no less - to fulfil the requirement. They could be replenished from the opposite face outside the cell to avoid any disruption to ongoing production.

Also, you've got a link to my blog: learnsigma.com, incorrectly listed as LeanSigma linking to www.leansigma.wordpress.com. Can you please change this to read: LearnSigma, linking to http://learnsigma.com. THANKS!

This is a great post. At last sort of an admission of guilt. I posted recently about how fat people are being blamed for climate-change: http://tinyurl.com/yro92j

However, I would suggest that the energy companies are slightly more to blame!

Lean and any other change program in a company depends on leadership. I hear of bottom-up implementation efforts, which almost always fail. I've also seen companies with poor senior management - the fish rots from the head, so to speak. Wikipedia does a great job summing-up the difference between merely managing and leading:

* Managers administer, leaders innovate
* Managers ask how and when, leaders ask what and why
* Managers focus on systems, leaders focus on people
* Managers do things right, leaders do the right things
* Managers maintain, leaders develop
* Managers rely on control, leaders inspire trust
* Managers have a short-term perspective, leaders have a longer-term perspective
* Managers accept the status-quo, leaders challenge the status-quo
* Managers have an eye on the bottom line, leaders have an eye on the horizon
* Managers imitate, leaders originate
* Managers emulate the classic good soldier, leaders are their own person
* Managers copy, leaders show originality

Rob

Ron - ever heard the phrase, "boring but important"? This sums up my whole job :)

Anyway how about an entire country being boring? [http://tinyurl.com/25v9w3]

Rob