Call the person who did you wrong with a masked number and flush the toilet and then hang up. You’ll feel better!
Call the person who did you wrong with a masked number and flush the toilet and then hang up. You’ll feel better!
By Aari Ellanki
My idea is to record some intimate videos with my new date and then send them to my ex!
By Joey Catanzaro
So, My plan for revenge against my Mom (who punishes me and my sister for no reason) is to swap the salt in her salt shaker for flour or baking powder.
Looking forward to my revenge working out as planned!
By Josue-Zelaya-Molina Alexander
When my ex bff and her ex bf were at the dance I ”spilt” a drink on them and their outfits were white and grey so the drink was bright red they left fast.
by Armend Jashari
It was important mainly because it helped people to get the information they needed much easier and also connect with each other despite the distance.
The internet is an excellent innovation because it allows for communication and information sharing on a scale that was previously unimaginable. It enables connection with others across the globe. Information can be transferred in seconds.
Ideas can be quickly shared with others, projects can be collaborated on over large geographic locations and information can easily be accessed.
Also, the internet has led to many new ideas and innovations such as eCommerce, which enables you to shop for almost anything from the comfort of your arm chair!
Think of a word that has some other words that rhyme with it. For example “fan”. Get each player in your group to name another word that rhymes with this initial clue word. For example, “pan”, “tan”, and “can”.
Get each player, in turn, to continue to name a word that rhymes with your starting word.
If a player is unable to go they can shout “Pass” and it goes to the next player, who can attempt to name another word that rhymes with the initial clue word.
Keep taking turns until no one can name a new word that rhymes with the initial clue word.
The last person to name a word that correctly rhymes with the clue word wins the round and gets to pick the next rhyming clue word.
Why Inventing Is Still A One Man Job by Lynn A.Williams first published in September 1961
One of the surprises of modern life is the relatively small contribution of large corporations to the sum total of significant creative and new ideas.
Historically, important new ideas have come through individual initiative. They have come less often from the laboratories of our great corporations.
They have not come from committees, they have not come from teamwork, they have come from individuals, often working almost alone and, very frequently, under surprising and often unpromising conditions.
Despite the tremendous size, power, and wealth of our largest firms, and despite the fact that they are totally immersed in technology, their contributions have been far greater in production and in marketing than in creativity.
I am convinced, both by history and by present circumstances that this is not likely to change. It will not be changed by “brainstorming” or “pyramiding.” It will not be changed by plan or organization. A disproportionately large quota of new ideas will continue to come from individuals. The large industrial giants will continue in their roles as developers rather than creators, and as producers rather than innovators.
History, sociology, and what I term “accident” account for this.
This is not to say that corporations have invented nothing. There have been important inventions by men working within American big businesses. The transistor resulted from an idea suggested by Dr. Shockley at the Bell Laboratories. Freon refrigerants came from Midgely after he went to work for General Motors. Nylon was originated by a man in the DuPont laboratories. There are others.
The modern corporation has often been superb in development and improvement.
But the creative idea is something else. It is the pregnant suggestion that sets in motion a whole series of new consequences. One consequence is the development, improvement, refinement, manufacture, and marketing of the product that rests on the idea.
For history, let’s look at some inventions familiar to us. The expansion steam engine was invented by Watt, and the steamboat by Fulton. The telegraph was invented by Samuel Morse, and the cotton gin by Eli Whitney. And, of course, Edison invented the incandescent lamp, the phonograph, and the moving picture.
The first significant breakthrough in the making of steel was by Bessemer. The steam turbine came from Parson. The process of refining and producing aluminum, still used today was invented by Hall and Cowles in the United States and, almost simultaneously, by Heroult in France.
A salesman for bottle stoppers invented the safety razor. His name was Gillette. Wireless was invented by Marconi. It was not the telephone company or General Electric or Westinghouse that invented the three-element vacuum tube. This was the work of Lee de Forest. The modern plastics industry began with Dr. Baekeland and Bakelite.
Perhaps these things are too old to be relevant today. Very well, insulin was discovered in the 1920s not by anyone in a great pharmaceutical house but by Dr. Banting of Canada. A private experimenter, Dr. Fleming, found penicillin. Streptomycin was found by Dr. Waksman, polio vaccine by Dr. Salk.
The gyrocompass, so important to our rocketry, was invented by a German named Anschutz-Kaempfe. Frequency modulation was invented not by RCA but by Dr. Armstrong. Kodachrome film was invented not by the Eastman company but by Godowsky and Mannes, who did much of their early work in a kitchen sink.
The Polaroid camera was invented by Dr. Land, whose early work on polarizing films was done when he was 20 years old and still a student at Harvard. Stainless steel was developed not by any of the major steel companies but by two scientific entrepreneurs, Harry Brearley and Elwood Haynes. The cotton picker was invented not by International Harvester but by the Rust brothers. Cellophane was not the invention of the Du Pont Company but of a Swiss-born Frenchman, Jacques Brandenberger.
In the field of nuclear development, it was Ernest Lawrence, a University of California scientist, who invented the cyclotron. The major inventions for the atomic bomb and much of the ensuing nuclear work were by individuals like Niels Bohr, Enrico Fermi, Edward Teller, Harold Urey, and Leo Szilard.
The automobile? A number of major inventions stem from ideas within the industry. The outstanding one is the automatic transmission, initiated by Thompson while he was at Cadillac and carried by him to Oldsmobile. (The hydraulic torque converter, however, was the work of individuals not associated with any large firm.) Duco body finishing was invented by Du Pont. The sealed-beam headlight came from within the industry.
But the four-cycle engine was Otto’s, of Germany, and the two-cycle Dr. Diesel’s. Vulcanized rubber was the invention of a man named Goodyear and the pneumatic tire of an Englishman, Dr. Dunlop. The self-starter was invented by Vincent Bendix, and by Kettering before he became associated with General Motors.
Four-wheel hydraulic brakes were invented by Loughead power steering by Davis, and chromium plating by Dr. Fink, a professor at Columbia.
So much for history. The second reason that the individual inventor will continue to bulk so large in our scientific progress lies in sociology.
Critics (with whom I don’t agree) have observed that the giant corporations have indulged in welfarism, particularly for the supervisory classes, to a degree beyond the dream of any Utopian socialist. They say that the brass, including many engineers, of today’s big industrial firms, is weaned, fed, clothed, schooled, doctored, and hospitalized, has his adult being in, and can be buried without leaving, the comfortable company corridor. Let him make the company’s first team, and the likelihood of his ever getting fired is remote indeed.
What has such a man to gain by propounding an original idea? Not much. His sure path to success lies in being a good little cooperator and keeping his nose clean.
So say the critics. They may expose a grain of truth in a Sahara of unrestraint. But there are at least four more valid reasons that prevent a factory from being a fertile ground for creative ideas.
The basic purpose of a factory is to produce. To produce efficiently requires planning. Planning requires deadlines, and introducing new ideas along the way disrupts them.
Again, a big factory must avoid mistakes. If I am building a boat in my basement and put a hole in the wrong place, I can plug it and paint it over. But if I am producing 3,000 automobiles a week and put a hole in the wrong place, in a week’s time I have a major crisis. It takes a lot of nerve to change things in a factory.
Creativity also involves emotional costs which most management cannot and will not accept. Every innovator is an iconoclast. His new idea is an attack on an older idea. Through extension, it seems like an attack on the men who are in charge of the old idea – which means then men who are in charge of almost everything.
The oddball innovator is disturbing. His habits don’t fit into a smooth-running organization. I learned this rather poignantly when, as a division manager for a large corporation, I reached the limit of my patience with an engineer whose arrival in the morning must have been timed by a sundial in cloudy weather.
Sometimes he arrived at 10 and sometimes at noon. He was as bright as any engineer we had, and often he worked late into the night. But his unreliability was just too much.
Three years after I fired him, he had made several million dollars from one of his inventions.
Personnel-testing schemes are now arranged to screen out such men. Not every inventor, of course, insists on dressing like a Californian. But there are enough pressures and problems in a big factory without adding the disturbing nature of the oddballs’ creative contributions.
It is necessary to distinguish between some of these facts of business life and the public-relations utterances about our zeal for progress. Because of these statements, I think many commentators have been misled. The fact is that there are important pressures against innovation and that they are highly concentrated in any hard-working productive enterprise. I mean no disrespect to General Electric, which, in fact, has done a good job in creativity, when I say that in many firms “Progress is our most important slogan” – and little more.
Finally, I venture the suggestion that our big corporations don’t really need to innovate. When they do, they take risks which they can avoid by depending less upon creativity and more upon the size, momentum, organization, skill, and advertising.
We come now to the third and last basic reason why I believe our big corporations will not come to dominate creativity as they dominate the marketplace. That lies in “accident” Invention defies planning. It is simply not possible to corral into industrial research laboratories any but a small fraction of the men who contribute significant ideas.
I refer to two kinds of accidents. The first is the legendary accidental inventions – like Dr. Fleming’s observations of an unusual mold in a culture plate that turned out to be penicillin.
The other kind of accident is in the nature of the non-professional inventor. As observed by Jewkes, Sawers, and Stillerman in The Sources of Invention, George Eastman of Kodak was trained as a bookkeeper, not as a technician; Midgely was a mechanical engineer, not a chemist; the men who invented color film were not chemists but musicians; the inventor of the ball-point pen had been at various times a painter, sculptor, and journalist; Dunlop was a veterinarian, and the inventor of the dial telephone was an undertaker.
If the director of a modern research laboratory had hired this motley crew to work on the kinds of things they invented, he would have been fired.
It is important that our big businesses welcome new ideas. I find much of American business far less receptive to new ideas than the businesses of Europe.
So long as our conservatism is confined to our business organizations, I do not fear any desiccation of the well spring of creativity from individuals. The danger lies in this: The organizers, who in business keep the innovators in their place, may extend their dominion to society at large. This could lead to economic stagnation and, more important, to the atrophy of the creative spirit.
If big business comes to want new ideas, it can help itself by improving the climate for their growth within the business. It can help itself much more by opening its doors to creative individuals outside the walls.
As a lawyer, I have written some of the documents that inventors are required to sign before their inventions will be considered. I know something about the kind of reception that inventors usually receive.
I think that our corporations are lawyer-ridden. There is far more concern to avoid a possible lawsuit than there is to get hold of a new idea. This, I think, has to change.
Beyond this, I would urge the manager of any business who is really interested in new ideas to get a new crew of people to interview inventors. He should also set aside an amount of money that he fully expects to lose. If a man is never explaining his failures because he has only successes, it means simply that he is not taking enough risks.
[End of Article]
Go To Innovation Articles
Go From Why Inventing Is Still A One Man Job To The Home Page
What to invent… For an invention to make a profit it has to create a business. To make a business you need to be inventing something that is cheaper, better and / or substantially different to competing products.
What should you invent? by Martin Mann First Published March 1961
The formula for profitable inventions sounds simple. Listen to Jim Rand, one of the most successful of modern inventors:
“For an invention to make a profit it has to create a business. You can create a business if this invention is cheaper and just about as good as the previous product. You can start a business if it is better, even though it costs a little more. The jackpot is something cheaper and better.
Rand, besides being an inventor himself, is president of a Cleveland firm specializing in inventions. One of his men is Claud Foster, a saxophone player who first hit it big with the Gabriel Horn, an auto accessory that hooked onto the exhaust pipe and played “My Country ‘Tis of Thee” at the push of a button.
But Foster’s specialty is making things cheaper. Years ago he took a hard look at shock absorbers, which are rather expensive. One day he was driving down a country road and saw a farm boy secure a bull by wrapping its rope around a tree.
“That’s for me,” he said, and adapted the idea to his Gabriel Snubber shock absorber.
The famous Charles Kettering leaned the other way to invent the self-starter. He saw that a great many could be sold, even though they cost much more than hand cranks. Boss Ket’s mechanical genius showed up when he seized on a fact that other engineers, blinded by their experience with continuous-running trolley motors, had overlooked: A light-duty motor could be heavily overloaded to crank an engine if it carried the load only briefly.
Either approach works-if the invention is one that enough people will pay enough money for. That’s the point. When considering what to invent, don’t invent just for the sake of inventing.
Most amateur inventors ignore this and miss the pot of gold. “They do things backwards,” says veteran consultant Charles Welling.
“They jump right in, inventing away, just because they feel impelled to invent. They don’t think about markets for their inventions until after the inventions are made. Then it’s too late.”
Welling tells of a fellow townsman who rigged up a mechanized bucksaw for cutting firewood.
“It worked fine. He had used it for several years, and built a couple for friends. Then he came to me for advice on commercializing his invention. But he hadn’t the foggiest idea of how many people might buy such a machine or how much they might be willing to pay for it, let alone what kinds of stores might sell it. He never got anywhere.”
What to invent – A mechanical bucksaw?
How a new kind of machine was born. The big companies that earn dividends on new products do exactly the opposite. Take Harnischfeger Corp., the heavy machinery manufacturers. At the end of World War II Harnischfeger worried about its crane business. So many cranes had been built during the war that there seemed little chance to sell new ones for years to come.
Welling was assigned to find a way to keep that division busy. So in determining what to invent Welling asked himself two questions:
Welling spotted the opportunity in soil stabilization: Harrows, trucks, and gangs with shovels were needed to beef up the dirt foundations under roads and runways.
Only at this point did mechanical inventing begin.
Harnischfeger’s engineering department got the word and duly produced an ugly but efficient single-pass soil stabilizer. Operated by one man, it munches its way across the landscape, churning up dirt, mixing in the required amount of stabilizing asphalt, and patting the strengthened soil back into place, all in one continuous operation.
As it turned out, Harnischfeger’s crane business boomed instead of dying, but that hasn’t made the profits on the soil stabilizer any less pleasant.
So who needs it? Before you begin, stop and think about what to invent. Inventing to please the customers instead of yourself is not always surefire, of course. The biggest corporations have blown millions on market studies only to create monumental disasters (just ask Ford about the Edsel). Yet hard thinking before you decide what to invent does improve your chances greatly.
Some hints from the experts on what to invent. The men who pay their rent with inventions have learned some rules the hard way.
What to invent… here’s what they do:
Homeowners will pay extra to save effort even small lawns are now cut by power mowers.
Businessmen are even more willing to invest in labor-saving machinery because they get their money back (and then some) in reduced man-hours.
Notice the power-operated tailgate elevators on trucks; they’re expensive but they pay off. The success of the quick-copying machines (like Thermofax) rests on plain dollars-and-cents. It costs so much to have a typist copy a letter that the machines-at $100 up-more than pay for themselves.
Small Improvements in small products can pay off big. The pros in the inventing business concentrate on small improvements in standard products. That’s where the money is. A radically new idea takes so long to win public acceptance that the original inventor may get little out of it.
The zipper, for example… It was invented by E. P. Judson in 1891. Not until 1905 was the Hookless Fastener Co. formed to exploit his patent. And not until the 1930s did the zipper really push aside buttons and hooks. The important, profit-making patent was not Judson’s, but later ones issued to Gideon Sundback, chief engineer of the Hookless Fastener Co., for improvements in the zipper and the machines that produce it.
When deciding what to invent, keep it simple: The Case of the Square Clothespin. The simpler the improvement the bigger the rewards. A Texas housewife made a fortune because she became annoyed at the way ordinary clothespins rolled onto the floor-and thought up the squared-off clothespin.
Another woman made squeamishness pay: Offended by the sight of the toilet-bowl brush, she invented a small disposable mop to eliminate it.
Consider things like these when deciding what to invent, items in everyday use in ordinary homes, are best for independent inventors to aim for. You already know the requirements. You can build and test experimental models with little trouble.
And you’ll get more attentive consideration from manufacturers of consumer goods.
A few rules to follow about what not to invent: It’s easier to pinpoint what not to invent. Some fields are overcrowded. So many varieties of bottle caps and tube caps have been tried that the chances of hitting on a successful new idea are slim. More than 6,000 patents have been issued on self-locking nuts, and dozens of efficient types are already on the market (yet inventors keep right on devising new ones). You can get a patent in a crowded field, but it’s not likely to be worth much. It will be so “narrow”- pertain to such fine details of design that a smart engineer can work his own design around it.
Some fields are tough to crack, among the toughest being automobiles. One automaker looks at about 8,000 ideas a year, but buys only eight. Even when a deal is made, the terms are rarely generous.
You have only five possible customers for an automotive invention; if they don’t buy, you have nowhere else to go. (There is a good market, however, for auto accessories that don’t have to be installed at the factory; the many small and medium-sized manufacturers in this business are looking for new ideas.)
The prospects for an airplane invention are even more dismal. Most aircraft manufacturers pool all patents, so no single firm has much to gain from buying an idea on the outside. While the pool itself occasionally buys a patent from an independent, it is the one and only customer and can set the price.
And perhaps most important of all
You should be ready to break any rule. Last summer one esteemed independent inventor, ticking off his own private list of dead fields not worth wasting time on, included flypaper. It certainly seems obsolete in the DDT age. Yet only recently scientists have discovered powerful chemical lures that will attract bugs for miles around to meet extinction on flypaper.
Maybe there’s hope even for steam locomotive inventions.
[End of What To Invent article]
Go From What To Invent To Innovation Articles
Article by: Vic Womersley and Natalie Abemayor
The modern workplace is changing thanks to the adoption of new technologies and flexible working hours. Additionally, a sharper focus on safety, inclusion, and innovation is helping companies attract top talent.
Imagine, for example, that your business centers around manufacturing different products. If your team works alongside autonomous machinery, they bear the risk of injury. Choosing to take a reactive, rather than proactive, approach to workplace safety, means you risk the well-being of your employees.
Doing so could have a negative impact on your retention rates and productivity levels. Financially, as one work injury lawyer in Philadelphia explains, you could be responsible for paying up to 500 weeks of compensation to injured employees. This could leave a sizeable dent in anyone’s bottom line.
Human resources (HR) teams will need to evolve to support businesses and employees in new ways. Putting an emphasis on health and safety training is just one way to do so.
Below are five developments businesses can expect HR teams to implement over the coming years. Doing so will allow them to keep up with employee expectations and the changing face of workplaces around the world.
As employees of all kinds seek to find a better balance between their working and personal lives, flexible work arrangements will become increasingly common. The standard eight-hour workday is becoming a thing of the past as more people choose to telecommute or work longer days and shorter weeks. Job sharing is also growing in popularity, which consists of splitting one role between two people.
In turn, the expectation for flexible hours or remote work is shaping how employees’ roles are created. Businesses that don’t offer flexible work arrangements are putting themselves at a disadvantage in terms of recruiting and retaining top talent.
Fortunately, the proliferation of digital tools such as CRM software, project management tools, video conferencing, and smartphones has made remote work and flexible office hours increasingly possible. People no longer have to work from a central location for their employers to be sure they are actually being productive. This year, as many as half of all Americans are expected to work remotely for at least part of the week.
Along with a change in working practices and hours comes the development of cross-functional teams to replace the older top-down management hierarchies. HR departments will need to organize and engage employees to form networks that cooperate and collaborate for better and smarter ways of working. Another benefit of this practice is an increase in productivity.
It’s important to support the devolved decision-making approach to teams and allow them to operate effectively. In order to do so, HR professionals will need to ensure these units incorporate a range of skills and personalities to optimize work relationships and enable them to deliver on projects of all kinds.
HR departments will need to utilize a range of digital tools to support the trend toward increased collaboration and innovation. Digital platforms, wearable tech, and even virtual reality are being leveraged. These new technologies serve to enhance collaboration, enable remote work, and provide safe and efficient training for employees.
HR teams will need to come to grips with these technological developments in order to support their own function within the business. Not only that, but these advancements can also gather useful data and gain meaningful insights that can be used to improve business processes. This will increase the company’s ability to innovate and create value for both customers and employees.
Web-based and mobile applications, along with augmented and virtual reality tools, are making it possible for employees to access information and instructions as needed. It is critical that HR departments ensure employees are able to access the information and knowledge they need to be successful in their roles no matter where or when they need it.
Performance and learning are closely linked; having content easily available will drive employee engagement and development. It will also empower people at all levels of an organization to learn new skills quickly and much more efficiently.
As well as expecting a flexible work schedule, people are now looking for roles that provide more than just a regular salary. HR teams will need to work hard to provide opportunities for employees to connect with the business on a more meaningful level. It’s equally important to highlight the purpose of the offered role and explain how it fits with the business’ aims.
Opportunities for growth and challenging work, a better fit for skills, and a company’s culture were rated almost as highly as remuneration by respondents to LinkedIn’s talent survey last year. To attract and retain staff, HR professionals will do their best by remaining transparent when recruiting new prospects and authentic in their communication.
Please note that as an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Martin Gilliard is a participant in the Amazon EU Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.co.uk