Echo Etc

Besides fiction chick-lit, the non-fiction books I read are typically books purchased by my husband at the airport (think very mainstream).   However, even within the “mainstream” genre, there are thousands of different books to choose from, so thought I’d share some of the books I read and liked the most.   I don’t want to give everything away, but have also included my comments on each regarding why I liked it and what I found to be the best bits:

1. Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die (by Chip Heath and Dan Heath) - Lots of great concepts covered in this book and an easy read end to end.  The most interesting bit that stuck (he-he) with me was (not related to stickiness) about how when study participants are asked to read an emotional versus analytical passage followed by a donation request, participants who read the emotional passage contribute significantly larger amounts than those who read the analytical passage.  This appears to be true even if the two passages and the reason for the donation are completely unrelated.  Overall, excellent read: I give it 4.5 stars.

2. Microtrends: the small forces behind tomorrow’s big changes (by Mark J. Penn with E. Kinney Zalesne) -  A very easy read and, with each chapter focused on it’s own microtrend, it’s possible to digest bit by bit and jump chapters by using the table of contents to find what sounds most interesting to you.   However, if you’re a big economist fan, don’t expect the author to explain why the trends are happening (he is not nor does he claim to be an economist), his purpose is to observe and identify trends as they happen and predict how these trends may affect the future.  Easy and interesting toilet reading: I give it 4 stars.

3. The Long Tail: How endless choice is creating unlimited demand (by Chris Anderson) - Also easy to read and a very interesting concept on how the internet has broken the bottleneck of availability and how we are entering an era of unprecendented choice.  He goes on to explain that even the most obscure products have at least one consumer and how the total purchase of obscure products (or non-”hits”) can surpass the total purchase of the “hits”.   I didn’t finish it because I felt he explained the concept very well in the first few chapters.   One good concept drawn throughout the entire book: I give it 3 stars.

4. Confessions of an Economic Hitman (by John Perkins) - Not super easy to read and one that many anti-conspiracy-theorists will dislike due to anti-capitalism sentiments throughout the book.   However, still an interesting perspective to keep in mind.  It took a little long to finish: I give it 2 stars.

5. Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything (by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner) - an “oldie” but goodie, this is the original book I read that got me started on all the other non-fiction books I’ve since read.  Before this book, I only read fiction and believed that all non-fiction books are like textbooks and boring.   The most interesting part of this book is why crime rate dropped in America (the surprise answer is the legalization of abortion).  The best economics book I’ve read yet: I give it 4.5 stars.

6. Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference (by Malcolm Gladwell) - Also an “oldie” and easy to read with lots of interesting examples.   The best part of this book is it’s premise: that trends and “things” in general do not happen unilaterally, but build gradually until they “tip” and hit the mainstream.   Also a good read is “Blink” by the same author, but I liked Tipping Point more: I give it 4 stars.

7. Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything (by Don Tapscott and Anthony D. Williams) - I’m cheating.  I’m actually only into the second chapter, but I have already encountered lots of great ideas and examples.  Fairly easy to read and I like how the authors address the naysayers to wikinomics.   Also, great examples.   Not sure it’s fair to rate this yet, but so far so good… current star rating is 4 stars.

Yes, it’s true!  Tomorrow (Sep 2), Google is launching “Chrome“, their new web browser.   The beta version will be available for download on their website in the next few hours, and I hope to be one of the first users to download and try it out.   

As part of their pre-launch, Google released a comic strip book describing Chrome and Incognito (browsing in privacy mode) and, after a quick read, I feel like Google has made being geeky mainstream and almost “cool”.   Armed with a dated (over 5 years) computer science degree, I still find myself scratching my head when reading through a lot of tech blogs, but the comic does a great job of explaining Chrome and it’s benefits in basic, laymen terms.  

On a side note: Are geeks the new chic?   Also see this.

References:

• http://googleblog.blogspot.com/
• http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/technology/02google.html?pagewanted=2&ref=technology
• http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2008-09-01-n47.html

Last weekend, Clark and I sat down with two friends for a competitive game of Monopoly.   We each put HK$50 in the pot for a winner-takes-all game.   It was intense, fun, and long (over 3 hours, mainly due to the modified Free Parking rule and some soft-heartedness early in the game).  

After playing and debating on the merits of purchasing utilities, railroads, build-order, house and hotels strategy, and more, I finally googled “Monopoly Strategies” today and found hundreds of sites that provide detailed, calculated odds and strategies for the competitive monopoly player.  

Most repeat the same basic strategies as below:

1. The properties most often landed on (excluding Jail) are Illinois, B&O railroad, and GO
2. Orange is the best monopoly to own due to the frequency of visitors (based on it’s relation to Jail and the probability of dice rolls)
3. The dark blue property (Park Place and Boardwalk) give the most bang for your buck, especially if you follow the ”build evenly” rule because you can get to hotels relatively cheaply (compared to the dark greens which have three properties)
4. Build houses strategically.   Three homes are ideal in terms of return on investment.  Also, there are only 32 houses and 12 hotels so it’s possible to build four houses on each property in order to block other players from building on their properties
5. The second set of properties on each side of the board are a better investment because building costs along the same side are the same, but the rent on the second set of properties is higher

Just to name a few.   There are more.   Much more.   And some players have complicated spreadsheets calculating probabilities to ensure they have the best chance at winning.   Although luck does play a big role in the outcome of the game, over time, players who are familiar with the odds of the game should ultimately perform better.

After reading up on the strategies, I think I’ll stick to playing with my own strategy: buy as much property as soon as early as possible.  This non-strategy is mandatory when playing with 4 (or more) people.   It’s unlikely you will be able to buy a monopoly outright because there are other people who may land on the properties you want, so having the additional property puts you in a better position to make trades in order to eventually get the monopoly you do want.   

That said, it was really interesting to know rule #1 which means next time I play, I’ll be making trades and gunning for the orange properties, Illinois, and the railroads.   Armed with this knowledge, I hope to win (again -yes, I am HK$150 richer after last weekend) next time.

One last reminder, the rule everyone should remember (but is especially difficult to follow when playing with close family and friends) is strategy #6: Be ruthless.

References:

• http://boardgames.about.com/cs/monopoly/ht/win_monopoly.htm
• http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/29/from-a-monopoly-veteran/
• http://www.gamesinfodepot.com/games/board/monopoly/strategy/

Ricky Martin has been receiving a lot of coverage and media attention on his decision to become a single dad of twins with an unidentified surrogate mother.  

The babies look adorable (and kind of asian?) and he looks very happy.   And we should be happy for him… but are we?    The media and the general public opinion seems to take a negative stance on his decision to become a single father.

Clay Aiken also became a single father (by choice) through in vitro fertilization with a female, platonic friend.   Likewise, Clay Aiken has received mostly negative press on his decision.  

Perhaps most telling of all, the usual publications (People, US Weekly, etc…) have not started a bidding war for the first-ever baby photos, whereas Brangelina twins reportedly received over $11 million!

(Also a good read: Are celebrity photos really worth millions?)

Why is that?   Perhaps it’s because Ricky and Clay have been linked to being gay and many people do not approve of gays (or lesbians) raising children. 

Or, maybe it’s because, despite advances in gender equality (which I personally think is BS because we are not equal and hopefully never will be), people still believe that women are the more “natural” caregivers. 

Or, maybe people simply disagree with their decision to have biological children, especially when it’s clear they both had to jump through hoops (to find a woman to carry the babies to term, pay for in vitro fertilization, etc…) when they could have put their resources to “better” use by providing a home for orphans.

Or, in Clay’s case, it seems many people just don’t want him to be reproducing (poor Clay).

I personally think the best way to raise children is with both a mother and a father so that children have both male and female influences.   That said, I do know several terrific single mothers and single fathers who have raised brilliant, normal, happy, healthy children.   

It’ll be interesting to see whether cases of “single fatherhood” rise in the next few years due to the publicity generated by Ricky and Clay.   I wish them all the best.   Being a parent isn’t easy and I imagine being a male, single, and famous parent is probably tens time harder.

• http://www.theinsider.com/news_event/1138588_Ricky_Martin_Fathers_Twins
• http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,407341,00.html
• http://blogs.abcnews.com/screenshots/2008/08/single-celeb-da.html

Passing along an interesting and very, very long article titled The Great Consumer Crash of 2009 I found from Lisa’s blog.   I know very little about economics, but sounds scary to me.   I would have liked to see someone take the opposite stance as to why the government would “allow” something like this to happen.  

Reader comments are funny, too:

• One reader warns you to build a huge fence around your house, load up on guns and ammunition, canned foods, soap, water, first aid supplies and other necessities in the event of severe shortages.  
• From another reader: What’s the point?  Specifically, how can we benefit from reading this (and make money in the markets-to-come described in the article)? 

There’s been a lot of whining from the U.S. about the ages of the Chinese gymnasts.   After weeks of investigations coming up blank, the scruntiny has intensified again over the last few days due to an American computer expert who claims he uncovered documents proving that He Kexin (pictured below), a Chinese gymnast who won the gold medal for the uneven bars, is actually 14 years old (current legal age to participate in the gymanastics events is 16). 

The U.S. is being dominated by China in the Beijing Olympics this year.  

I’m Chinese and I’ll admit the girls look young, but enough is enough.   Various government agencies have provided proof (birth certificates, passports, etc…) proving the girls’ ages and the girls were put through several intensive interviews asking questions about their school experiences, what chinese zodiac animal they are, and their home and family life to try and dig out inconsistencies to prove that they are under-age.

After all this, it’s beginning to sound a little desparate and a lot like sore losers to me.   In the U.S., press coverage of the Olympics has been decidedly negative, with heavy focus on the “fake” fireworks, the lip-synching little girl, and now this.   Not only that, but I’ve noticed that much of American media do not use the official method of ranking countries performance:  The International Olympic Committee (IOC) rank countries by most gold.    With the U.S. trailing China in gold medals, much of American-based media rank countries differently, by the number of total medals (The U.S. is currently leading in overall medal count). 

To see more Americans whining, see this thread on answers.yahoo.com.

To be fair, this post may seem a little Anti-American, but I’m not.   I think the U.S. is one of the greatest countries in the world (after Canada, of course).   But I do think Americans are having a hard time lately what with a struggling economy and a generally negative reputation globally.   Perhaps this leads them to be a little defensive. 

Also, despite controversy over human rights and environmental issues in China, China is proving itself to be a rising power in the world, whereas the American light has dimmed slightly.   But if you asked me which country I would prefer to be a citizen of right now, I would definitely choose the U.S. over China.

On a funnier note, read Sex and the Olympic City, written by former Olympic athlete Mathew Syed.

Resources:

• Olympic Officials Launch Probe Into Chinese Gymnast’s Age (photo source)
• Canada comes to defence of tiny, too-perfect gymnasts
• http://edition.cnn.com/2008/TECH/08/12/fake.fireworks.ap/
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/aug/12/olympics2008.china1
• http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/olympics/wires/08/22/2080.ap.as.oly.usoc.beijing/
• http://thunderhouse.wordpress.com/2008/08/13/olympic-medal-count-methodology/