Feynman Problem-Solving Algorithm

I am a big fan of Richard P Feynman, an American physicist, scientist, teacher, raconteur, and musician.



Whenever I come across a complex problem , I follow the Feynman's Problem Solving Algorithm.

The Feynman Problem-Solving Algorithm:
(1) Write down the problem
(2) Think very hard
(3) Write down the answer

You know, what's the hard part ? Write down the problem.This looks very simple but try it out. You will find your thoughts scattered.

The moment you write down the problem clearly, your mind starts thinking over the problem. It takes few hours to few days(sometimes). You have to sleep on it. If the problem is tricky sometimes it takes few days. But if you think hard, sooner or later you will find a solution. the moment you get the light bulb moment, Write it down.

I think this is a Simple and effective approach for solving almost any kind of problems. And Mr. Feynman, a great inspiration for all times.

What We Do !

I came across this beautiful quote by John Ruskin, a perfect addition for my common place diary.


"What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is what we do !"



Check out The Elements of Drawing by John Ruskin

How to write English properly

Funny gem of a collection !
1. Verbs HAS to agree with their subjects.
2. Prepositions are not words to end sentences with.
3. And don't start a sentence with a conjunction.
4. It is wrong to ever split an infinitive.
5. Avoid cliches like the plague. (They're old hat)

6. Also, always avoid annoying alliteration.
7. Be more or less specific.
8. Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (usually) unnecessary.
9. Also too, never, ever use repetitive redundancies.
10. No sentence fragments.

11. Contractions aren't necessary and shouldn't be used.
12. Foreign words and phrases are not apropos.
13. Do not be redundant; do not use more words than necessary; it's highly superfluous.
14. One should NEVER generalize.
15. Comparisons are as bad as cliches.

16. Eschew ampersands & abbreviations, etc.
17. One-word sentences? Eliminate.
18. Analogies in writing are like feathers on a snake.
19. The passive voice is to be ignored.
20. Eliminate commas, that are, not necessary. Parenthetical words however should be enclosed in commas.

21. Never use a big word when a diminutive one would suffice.
22. Use words correctly, irregardless of how others use them.
23. Understatement is always the absolute best way to put forth earth-shaking ideas.
24. Eliminate quotations. As Ralph Waldo Emerson said, "I hate quotations. Tell me what you know."
25. If you've heard it once, you've heard it a thousand times: Resist hyperbole; not one writer in a million can use it correctly.

26. Puns are for children, not groan readers.
27. Go around the barn at high noon to avoid colloquialisms.
28. Even IF a mixed metaphor sings, it should be derailed.
29. Who needs rhetorical questions?
30. Exaggeration is a billion times worse than understatement. And the last one...
31. Proofread carefully to see if you any words out.

Nancy and the Craftsman

Milton Caniff, the creator of Terry and the Pirates and Steve Canyon, once said "a comic strip artist is like the director, the producer and the actor of his own stage play. " Using a similar analogy, Ernie Bushmiller was the architect, th e surveyor, and the building contractor for his own construction project.

 

Nancy was carefully designed to stand out clearly on the newspaper page and to be easily read and understood. Every line and letter had a specific purpose, and the composition of each panel was balanced and pleasing to the eye. The total effect was a masterfully crafted product that delivered its message with economy and precision. Bushmiller's creation served its function like a Shaker chair.

Ernie worked on an unconventional but regular schedule. Starting on Sunday evenings, he would finish six daily strips by Tuesday evening, often staying up until 2 AM. After taking two days off in the middle of the week, he then tackled the Sunday page on Friday and Saturday. A night owl, Ernie often said he got up at the "crack of noon".
 
Thinking up ideas was a laborious process for Ernie as he described in the following account: "I start with a blank piece of drawing paper and just sweat and stew until I think of a subject that seems likely to produce a ludicrous situation. I jot down items such as toaster, leaky roof, folding-chair, mail box, windy day, etc. ... anything that comes to mind. Looking at the advertising in a magazine like Life also helps, or a Sears-Roebuck catalog. When I find an item that seems likely, I start to kick it around in my mind to see if I can work out a fun ny situation. If nothing jells after a reasonable time, I discard it and try another item. Sooner or later my mind warms up and I get the nucleus of an idea. I usually can visualize how the last panel will turn out, so I start to pencil in the finish of the strip very roughly. If it looks okay, I the n w backwards toward the starting panels. I a work my strips in reverse. In this way I can the best path leading to the snapper. "

Above : Rough sketch of the visual "punchline pan el". Below: The finished s .

From the Collection of James T. Carlsson

Bushmiller rarely made preliminary sketches like the one on the previous page. When he was ready to produce his finished strips, he would pencil directly on the drawing paper. He would ink six dailies at once, switching from one to another to avoid boredom. The clean, accurate lines of Nancy were executed with the aid of drafting tools . Bushmiller claimed that his early experience producing crossword puzzles for the New York World taught him how to use a T-square.

Most of the punch lines in Nancy are visual, so the pictures need to be clearly readable to get the gag across. "I leave out all extraneous detail that may catch the eye and detract from the main point", Bushmiller explained. He went on to describe his unique philosophy of graphic layout: "I try to get some black into the object I am stressing if it is at all feasible. In a visual gag strip, clarity is more important than an artistic effect. I think variety in the panels helps the appearance of a strip. Long shots, close-ups and medium shots attract the eye and are useful in putting your idea across.

Composition is extremely important. By composition, I mean intelligent placing of your objects and characters so as to make it as easy as possible for your reader to get what you 're driving at."

Ernie Bushmiller will always be fondly remembered by his peers in the funny business as the "workingman's cartoonist".

No Tears In The Writer

I stumbled across this recently , loved it

“No Tears In The Writer, No Tears In The Reader.” by Robert Frost.

 The best writer’s feel passion about what they are writing. If the
passion is not present, the emotion is not there. If the emotion is there,
forget trying to please a reader because they will not be compelled to read any
more of your stuff. You must believe in what you write, you must feel what you
write, you must know what you write. If you do not, your readers will know.

Basic Instructions by Scott Adams

Basic Instructions, Part 1

Several months ago I clicked on a web link that led me to a comic called
Basic Instructions, by Scott Meyer. I thought, “Damn, this is good.” So I sent
him my compliments via e-mail.

Scott replied, expressing deep suspicion that I was really the Dilbert
cartoonist and not some a-hole yanking his chain. I thought, “Damn, he’s cynical
and paranoid. He’s a natural cartoonist.”

Somehow I convinced him I was real. Over the course of the next few months I
offered him some tips for getting syndicated in newspapers. It dawned on me that
my blog readers might want to follow that conversation, like a reality show, and
see if my sage advice can help a talented unknown hit the big time.

You can help. Over the next month or more, with Scott’s permission, I’ll give
you updates showing my advice and his responses. Your comments will guide us.
When his work gets to the point where I think he should submit it for
syndication, I’ll show him how that’s done and let you follow along.

Yes, he is a lucky bastard. But talent causes luck, so it’s not a complete
accident.

First, let me catch you up. Start where I did, at his web page, and check out
some of his work as I first saw it. Be sure to read his comic titled “How to
Disguise a Yawn.”

http://www.basicinstructions.net/

The format Scott uses fits his writing style perfectly. Unfortunately, that
physical shape, and his wordiness, won’t sell to major newspapers. Newspapers
are looking for single-panel strips like Bizarro, or the three-or-four panel
strips like Dilbert. And the words have to be large enough for their older
subscribers to read. That means less wordiness and larger text.

My first advice to Scott was to put the comic in strip format and reduce the
wordiness to improve its marketability. Multi-panel strips are easier to sell
than single-panel strips because newspapers use more of them.

A change in format is a huge decision for a cartoonist. Cartoonists tend to
be natural single-panel writers or natural multi-panel writers. If I tried to
put Dilbert in one panel, it would fall flat. If Gary Larsen had written The Far
Side in more than one panel, I think he would have flopped. Douglas Adams needed
a whole page for a joke. Henny Youngman needed one sentence. I think those
differences are hard coded. You need to find the format that fits your
writing.

After a few rounds of trying to fit into the strip format, here are a few
samples of what Scott came up with.

I’ll have lots more advice on making it more marketable. But now it’s your
turn. What do you think?

---

Basic Instructions, Part 2

Holy crap. I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a positive response to a new
comic. (See yesterday’s comments.) It looks as if about 80% of you like it a
lot.

Let me put that in perspective.

Dilbert is in 2,000 newspapers, and I would guess that only 20% of the
general public enjoys it. That’s all it takes to be a big commercial success,
especially if that 20% is an identifiable demographic group.

Pick almost any famous music group and ask yourself what percentage of the
general public loves it. First, 70% of the public won’t like music from the
entire genre (country, hip hop, whatever). If your art moves two-out-of-ten
people, that’s huge.

Readers of The Dilbert Blog are far from a representative sample of the
world, so one must use caution in interpreting the feedback. As I described in a
much earlier post, the thing you look for in evaluating entertainment is
physical activity, not opinion. These two comments, for example, are not
equal:

1. I love that comic.
2. I added it to my RSS feed.

Saying you love a comic is words. Adding it to your RSS feed, or taping it to
your door, are examples of action. While only 20% of the public might enjoy
Dilbert, the workplace humor inspires an unusual amount of action. It’s probably
the most copied comic of all time, thanks to the Internet. Action predicts
commercial potential.

If you look at the comments about Basic Instruction, you see a lot of action.
People added it to their favorites list, or subscribed to it, or said they would
buy it in book or calendar form.

Opinions were divided on whether the original square-and-wordy format was
better than the slimmed down comic strip panel form. The comic strip form is far
more commercial, assuming you are selling to newspapers. But as many of you
pointed out, the market for newspapers is shrinking. Many of you advise that
Scott Meyer should take his work directly to books and calendars and Internet
publishing.

Has that ever worked?

Yes, on a small scale. I believe Scott could leverage the visibility he is
getting here to earn perhaps $100K per year with a small book deal, small
calendar deal, self-publication in smaller alternative newspapers, and a small
but growing Internet presence. I put his odds of making that strategy work at
about 90%.

Now let’s look at newspaper syndication. Assuming the comic got picked up by
500 newspapers in five years, and licensing started to take off (books,
calendars, greeting cards), that would put him in the $500K to $1 million per
year range, with lots of room for upside growth. But what are the odds of that
happening, even with my support?

Only a handful of comics per decade have made it to 500 newspapers. And the
newspaper industry is struggling, so the odds of it happening again are falling
fast. In all likelihood, Dilbert will be the last mega-comic, and it launched in
1989.

Syndication means splitting your earnings, typically 50-50, with the
syndication company, in the hope that they can more than double your sales. For
a complete unknown, as I was in 1989, that’s an easy choice. But Scott Meyer
already has traction, a small stream of income from Internet ads and small
publications, interest from potential licensees, and now some extra attention
from this blog.

What are Scott’s odds of making the syndication path work? If he keeps to the
old and square format, I would say 5%. If he moves to the strip form, all things
considered, I think his odds of getting an offer for syndication are 90%, and
his odds of making 500 newspapers, even in a declining market, might be as high
as 50%. If that happened, even if newspapers continued their decline, it would
be a springboard to larger book and calendar deals, etc.

The rational path is to try and develop the strip to the point where Scott
gets a syndication offer. Then he can make his decision.

Your question of the day is this: Should Scott stick to relationship humor,
so the comic is easier to market, or stay broad?

I’ll pause from this topic for a few days until Scott has some more
samples.

Basic Instructions, Part 3

Recently I agreed to publicly advise cartoonist Scott Meyer, in the fashion
of a reality show, with your help, as he attempts to develop his comic, Basic
Instructions, for a bigger audience. If you are new to this blog, start with
this link to catch up:

http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/08/basic-instruc-1.html

In my previous post on this topic, I asked my readers whether Scott Meyer
should focus his strip on relationships, to make it more marketable, or keep it
general. The overwhelming majority of readers recommended keeping it
general.

How many comics have succeeded with a “general” topic? The most successful
example that comes to mind is The Far Side. There’s also Bizarro, Herman, Bloom
County, and Non Sequitur.

But how general are they really?

Arguably, The Far Side had a wildlife theme. It usually featured some sort of
creature acting like a human. And it often focused on an unlucky coincidence,
such as the daycare center being next to the dingo dog sanctuary.

The purpose of having a theme is so readers can say, “That’s me.” The Far
Side accomplished that in a novel way. When people would send me their favorite
Far Side clipping, it was their way of saying, “This is my sense of humor. I am
weirder and darker than you might imagine.” It was completely personal. It was
also one-of-a-kind.

Bloom County had kids and a penguin and a guy in a wheelchair. Its themes
were all over the place. But interestingly, he won the Pulitzer Prize for
editorial cartooning. While the author, Breathed, certainly thought he was
covering a wide variety of themes, many readers perceived it as a political
comic.

Hold that thought, and allow me expand it with a story from my own
experience.

When Dilbert was new, a computer publication approached United Media to
reprint all of my computer-themed Dilbert strips in their magazine. The deal was
made. Then United Media went to the archives to assemble all of my
computer-related comics.

There were six.

Over a thousand Dilbert comics had been published, and both the computer
publication people and my own syndication company thought Dilbert was “about
computers.” Readers tell you what your comic is about, regardless of how many
times you address a theme.

Not long after that strange event, the media started going nuts for Dilbert.
They liked the fact that it showed the workers’ point of view. Again, this was
news to me. In the early days of Dilbert, my themes were quite general. Dilbert
had a job, but it wasn’t the focus. In those days, when I showed the workplace,
I was as likely to show the management view as the employee view. The media, and
my readers, told me I had a workplace strip that took the workers’ perspective.
I took the hint, changed the focus to actually be about the workplace, and
Dilbert’s perspective, and the strip took off like crazy.

It’s much easier to sell a comic if you can describe what it’s about in a
word or two.

Dilbert: cubicle dwellers
Cathy: women
Peanuts: kids
Calvin and
Hobbes: Little boy
For Better or For Worse: Family
Marmaduke: Big
dog
Get Fuzzy: Dog and Cat
Pearls Before Swine: Stupidity

My advice to Scott Meyer is to focus on men-women themes about 25% of the
time at this stage. That’s enough to give the strip an identity without
seriously limiting the topics he can address. And from the samples I’ve seen,
those themes are often his best.

For the other 75% of his comics, it’s enough to simply have a man and woman
in the conversation, acting as men and women do, and it will seem like a
relationship strip regardless of the topic. He can even feature one character, a
male, acting typically male, and it will still seem like a strip about men and
women in the larger context of the comic.

Strategically, if he plans to submit his work for syndication, this approach
will give the editors who review it some choices on which way to develop it.
Scott can always say no to any offer or advice. But if the only syndication
offer comes attached with the strong advice to make Basic Instructions more
about relationships, to make it easier for them to sell, Scott can at least have
that option.

Once he’s in 1,000 newspapers, he can do anything he wants.

Basic Instructions, Part 4

If you are new to my ongoing reality series on cartoonist Scott Meyer, start
with this link to catch up:

http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/08/basic-instruc-1.html

In an earlier post I advised Scott to try focusing on relationship themes, to
make the strip “about something,” and therefore more marketable. The readers of
this blog overwhelmingly advised the opposite.

So who gave the best advice? Was it the award-winning syndicated cartoonist
with nearly two decades of experience? Or was it the random people who have no
expertise?

See for yourself. Click to enlarge.

Yes, yes, you people with no experience as cartoonists seem to have given the
best advice. If we are to judge by these four new comics, I think you’ll agree
they don’t achieve the same level of humor as Scott’s work on http://basicinstructions.net/

But why?

First, these four comics yell to the reader, “I sat down and tried to think
of some ideas about relationships.” Once you’re in that hole, it’s hard to write
your way out. Scott’s a terrific writer, but my advice created a large
burden.

Compare these new comics to Scott’s recent comic on http://basicinstructions.net/, about trying to silently
open a bag of snacks at the movies. That premise is an inspired observation. You
immediately have that “been there” feeling. And in its own way, it is a
relationship theme because the woman solved a problem for the man. The premise
lifts the writing and makes it easy. And the reader knows the premise came from
life, not sitting and thinking of ideas.

As a creator, it’s tough to have a great inspiration every day. If you add
the constraint that the inspiration has to be in a narrow field, you bring down
the odds considerably.

Scott has another obstacle when focusing his comic on relationships, and this
one is bigger than the first: Humor requires a level of truth that is
incompatible with staying married. Realistically, Scott can’t venture too far
into relationship truth with a comic that is autobiographical.

In the aforementioned snack-opening comic, his wife was the problem-solver.
That comic works because it rings of truth. But there can’t be that many marital
truths that are also a compliment to the spouse. So Scott is limited both by the
narrow focus (relationships), and also by the fact he’s married.

When I started Dilbert, I worked in an office. I wrote truth about the
workplace, and it had an immediate negative impact on my so-called career. If
you think people will understand that a joke is just a joke, you’re wrong. Jokes
are an implied criticism. That’s why you like ‘em.

My other advice to Scott involved changing the physical form of the comic to
a rectangle, so it fits in newspapers. I also recommended making it less wordy.
Most of you advised against those changes too. Judging from the rectangle
samples I’ve seen (including a few you haven’t seen), I have to say you’re right
again. His best work is in the wordier, four-square format.

So what the hell good is all my expertise if I keep getting everything wrong?
Obviously I need to step up my game.

What now?

Do I advise Scott to quit on the relationship theme, and the strip format,
and try to be the first cartoonist to make it big the “alternative” way? Does
the Internet change the game enough to make that a smart strategy? Maybe, but
that option stays open no matter what.

Let’s try one more strategy to make the strip format and the relationship
theme work. I’d like you to suggest comic themes for Scott, based on your own
observations. They don’t have to be husband-wife centric, as long as they expose
a gender difference in how people think or act.

I’ll start. In my house, when it’s “time to go” someplace, I put on my jacket
and go stand near the door. Once there, time stands still. To me, “time to
leave” means “go stand near the door.” To other people, it signals the start of
an infinite sequence of events that may or may not culminate in leaving.

That’s a comic.

What’s your relationship observation? (Watch how hard it is to avoid clichés
you have seen a million times.)

Basic Instructions, Part 5

If you are new to my ongoing reality series on cartoonist Scott Meyer, start
with this link to catch up:

http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/08/basic-instruc-1.html

Readers of this blog overwhelmingly preferred reading Basic Instructions in
its original 4-panel and wordy format compared to the simpler strip format, the
sort that newspapers are more willing to buy. As an experiment, I asked Scott to
keep all of the content of an existing 4-panel square formatted strip and simply
stuff it into newspaper strip dimensions. The question was whether the lettering
would become too small to read.

Click to enlarge.

I think it works, but just barely. Newspaper readers are mostly older, and
they aren’t keen on tiny print. Without the benefit of real data, I would guess
at least twenty percent of newspaper readers would have a hard time reading
it.

But that’s true of existing comics too. Doonesbury has small text and lots of
words.

Do you think he should try to get syndicated in this hard-to-read format, or
use fewer words, increase text size, and dilute the humor density?

Basic Instructions, Part 6

In yesterday’s post I showed you how Scott Meyer’s comic, Basic Instructions,
would look stuffed into a traditional comic strip format. It’s a tight fit.

Today, as an experiment, I rewrote Scott’s joke for Dilbert, to see how many
words I could save by featuring a well-understood character, and reducing the
humor peaks from four to two.

There are only about a hundred jokes in the universe. All humorists recycle
them with their own twists and characters. In this case, you’re seeing a
variation of “advice that makes things worse.” Scott’s twist on it is great
because doing a bad job calming a child is naturally worse than doing a bad job
at most other things. His setup does half of the work. That’s how he can find
four separate humor points on one setup.

I took that same excellent setup and put it in an office setting. By
featuring Dilbert, there’s a lot I don’t have to explain to the reader. You
already know Dilbert has no skill in dealing with people, much less children.
And you know his impulse for honesty and quantifying things causes him trouble.
I don’t need words to describe any of that.

Click to enlarge

Using familiar characters, in familiar situations, makes humor work more
easily. People perceive the familiar as funnier than the abstract. Familiar
situations allow readers to add their own feelings to the situation. I would
imagine, for example, that taking your own kid to the workplace would make you
wonder about the worst thing that could happen to him there. That adds
something, if you’ve ever been in that situation or considered it.

I’m not trying to compete with Scott’s frightened child comic. It’s his joke.
If it works in Dilbert, it’s only because the setup is so strong. I’m just
showing the benefit of having established characters. And one of the benefits is
reduced words.

It should be noted that The Far Side had no established characters and used
few words. There isn’t one solution to art. I’m just showing you the
options.

Basic Instruction, Part 7

In my ongoing reality series, I continue advising Scott Meyer on how to
become a syndicated cartoonist. If you haven’t been following the story, start
here:

http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/08/basic-instruc-1.html

Allow me to set the stage for today. Have you noticed that bad movies seem
like good movies when you watch them on an airplane? Your context changes the
experience. On a long flight, you are delighted about any form of
stimulation.

When you judge the potential of comics, you have to make sure you have the
right context. To make my point, here are a few of the original Dilbert comics I
submitted to syndicates in 1988. These were reviewed by the top comic
syndication editors on the planet, all experts at recognizing future comic hits.
Only one editor, Sarah Gillespie, at United Media, saw potential in Dilbert and
offered me a contract. The other editors passed.

Only one other syndicate gave me a personalized response. The editor
helpfully suggested that perhaps I could find an actual artist to do the drawing
for me. Ouch.

When United Media offered me a contract, I offered to partner with a real
artist so I wouldn't embarrass them. That’s when a strange thing happened.

Sarah Gillespie said my art was fine.

Within a week, my art improved about 30%, simply because someone with
credibility told me I was an artist. It was like my very own Wizard of Oz
moment, where the Wizard told me all I needed was a syndication contract and I
would become a talented cartoonist. In the following years, my writing and art
steadily improved. It was the mid-nineties before Dilbert grew into something
the public could embrace.

That’s your context for looking at Scott Meyer’s new batch of comics. The
question to ask is “What could it become in three years.” Would he master the
3-panel strip form, and find the rhythm? Does he have the right stuff to develop
the right stuff? Is he already there?

For your comments, please tell me your age and then list any comics currently
IN NEWSPAPERS that you like better than Basic Instructions. That will be
revealing.

Basic Instruction, Part 8

In my ongoing reality series, I continue advising Scott Meyer on how to
become a syndicated cartoonist. Most recently, I asked Scott to try drawing some
strips with three panels and fewer words. That’s the formula for successful
syndication in newspapers because newspapers traditionally avoid buying anything
else.

Every writer seems to have a natural rhythm. For example, I’ve never written
a funny single-panel comic despite numerous efforts. Scott’s natural rhythm
seems to be a longer, wordier format than you see in typical newspaper comics.
But he and I both thought it was worth testing that assumption.

Here’s a comic that Scott created primarily to test the newspaper size and
word count.

I like it, but not as much as his longer form. Compare it to his archive on
http://basicinstructions.net/

Still, his short form is funnier than 90% of what you’ll see in the funny
pages today, including Dilbert. (I just checked dilbert.com. Today’s Dilbert
wasn’t my best work.)

Is being funnier than 90% of other comics enough to be syndicated? The answer
is yes, definitely, if the comic is “about something,” such as marriage, or the
workplace, or kids, etc. Without that extra demographic hook, it’s a tougher
sell. Dilbert wouldn’t have made it without the workplace angle.

Or does it make more sense for Scott to stick with the longer and funnier
format and try to grow it online while also trying to convince newspapers to
change their ways? You can fit a square peg into a round hole if you have a big
enough hammer, but new cartoonists don’t have big hammers. There’s a first time
for everything, but it’s a tough sell.

Some of you will say Scott should stick to the long form, keep his artistic
integrity, and live a modest life with a modest income. I’ll respect that advice
from anyone who quit his job as a high powered lawyer, donated his assets to
charity, and found happiness as a barista at Starbucks.

Next step, I arranged for Scott to get some expert advice from my syndication
company, United Media. What would you advise United Media to tell Scott?

1. Keep developing Basic Instruction in the short form.
2. Try to sell the
long form to newspapers.
3. Team Scott with another artist to do the
drawing.
4. Add a theme hook to the strip. Make it “about something.”
5.
Distribute the long form online only.
6. Pass.

Keep in mind that syndicates only launch about two strips every year, and
they have thousands of submissions to choose from. I doubt any submissions will
be as funny as Basic Instructions (99% are dreadful) but some could be easier to
sell.

21 Points for Success in Writing - E. B. White

1. Place yourself in the background.
   
2. Write in a way that comes naturally.
   
3. Work from a suitable design.
   
4. Write with nouns and verbs.
   
5. Revise and Rewrite.
   
6. Do not overwrite.
   
7. Do not overstate.
   
8. Avoid the use of qualifiers.
   
9. Do not affect a breezy manner.
   
10. Use orthodox spelling.
    
11. Do not explain too much.
    
12. Do not construct awkward adverbs.
    
13. Make sure the reader knows who is speaking.
    
14. Avoid fancy words.
    
15. Do not use dialect unless your ear is good.
    
16. Be Clear.
    
17. Do not inject opinion.
    
18. Use figures of speech sparingly.
    
19. Do not take shortcuts at the cost of clarity.
    
20. Avoid foreign languages.
    
21. Prefer the standard to the offbeat.

How to Be Creative - By Scott Adams

People often ask me how I come up with ideas. The fast answer is I’m just
wired that way. But there’s also a large element of technique that I can teach
you.

In some long-ago post, I described how I filter ideas with my body more than
my mind. Internally, it feels like a slot machine with the little symbols
changing in the three windows until some combination of three makes me literally
“feel” something – a laugh, a wince, an ah-ha, whatever. It’s the ideas you can
feel in your body that will engage others.

Once I have a topic that makes me feel something, I imagine myself as the
reader and ask what my thought pattern would be on this topic. I start my
writing process by acknowledging the most common view on the topic. And then I
violate it. It’s the violating that makes it fun. The pattern looks like this:
1, 2, 3, 4, taupe.

I’ll give you an example from today. I saw an article in Time magazine about
General Petraeus, the top military guy in Iraq. I skimmed the article, but a
basic assumption was that he knows more about what’s happening in Iraq than you
do. That seems obvious enough. And it made me think of all the comments on this
blog from people who said our soldiers in Iraq know than anyone else more about
how the war is going.

That’s the 1,2,3,4 part: Soldiers in Iraq know the most about the war effort
in Iraq. It seems obvious. Okay, so that’s my topic. Here comes the creative
part. I ask myself this question:

What if it’s the opposite?

That’s the universal creative question. It works on any topic. What if your
doctor tried to kill you instead of heal you? What if your obedient dog
considered you his slave? What if your H.R. director stopped pretending the
company policies were designed with the greater good in mind?

Once I figure out the opposite position from the normal, I concoct an
argument to defend it. You can make a case for just about any point of view.
When that opposite argument turns out to be about 50% sensible, it’s often
funny. When it is 90% sensible, it’s thought-provoking.

Let’s try the “opposite method” on this Iraq topic. What if the troops
fighting in Iraq are the ones who know the LEAST about whether or not we’re
winning the war? Could I make that case?

First, I’d point to the extensive, peer reviewed, science about cognitive
dissonance. The main idea is that people who volunteer for situations that turn
out bad will concoct elaborate mental justifications for why they did what they
did. According to that theory, anyone who volunteered to defend the country, and
found themselves in Iraq, would have low credibility on the question of “Is it
working?” These folks would have the greatest access to the facts, while
simultaneously having the least objectivity for evaluating those facts. In other
words, even if the “surge” is not working, scientists would predict that a huge
number of soldiers involved in the conflict would interpret the situation as a
success in the making, or at least superior to all alternatives.

I love and respect the troops, but they are human.

Second, I’d point out that most of our information about the war comes from
the generals. All leaders are unreliable. A general would be fired immediately
if he said the surge was a bad idea. And if a general believed the surge might
succeed, even as a long shot, he’d be a crappy leader if he told anyone his true
assessment of the odds. So you can’t believe the leaders.

How about the individual troops? Cognitive dissonance aside, at the very
least, they can report the facts, right? But soldiers only see the battles
they’re in. If you hear from a soldier in a hopeless part of Iraq, he’s more
likely to think a surge won’t work. If he’s assigned to a place where things are
going well, he’s more likely to think that success could be duplicated. It’s the
classic analogy of the three blind men trying to describe an elephant. One blind
man feels the elephant’s trunk and says an elephant is just like a snake, etc.
No soldier is in a position to see all of Iraq.

Many of you will read this opposite-argument and say, “Yeah, I see your
points, but still, the soldiers are the best source we have.” Okay, let’s say
60% of the soldiers think the surge isn’t working and 40% think it is. Unless
you know how many soldiers are having cognitive dissonance, or how many are
suppressing a negative opinion in case someone finds out, you have no useful
information whatsoever.

Go.

Writing Funny by Scott Adams

Writing Funny

Today I will teach you how to write funny. I will be referring to my earlier
post about the world’s tallest man. Read that one first, two posts below, if you
haven’t already.

Picking a Topic
-------------------

The topic does half of your work. I look for topics that have at least one of
the essential elements of humor:

Clever
Cute
Bizarre
Cruel
Naughty
Recognizable

In order for something to be funny, it has to have at least two of the six
elements of humor. A story about a 7-foot 9-inch Mongolian herdsman marrying a
smallish woman is bizarre all by itself. In the humor context, bizarre simply
means two things you wouldn’t normally find together.

Notice how many of the humor elements I worked into my post about the tall
herdsman:

Clever: Retrieving an iPod in a clever way, and the salmon in a canoe
analogy

Cruel: Shish Kabob accident with his wife

Bizarre: Conjoined twins with two heads and one vagina, huge man with
smallish wife, and a Mongolian herdsman with an iPod.

Naughty: The entire post

The story of the world’s tallest man wasn’t “recognizable” in any meaningful
way, so it lacked that element. For many people, that element is the only
important one, and the other dimensions are just flavor. If you leave out the
“recognizable” element, many people won’t relate to the situation. I took that
chance because the other elements were so strong.

I also left out the “cute” element, but that one is never essential. It mixes
best with the “cruel” and “bizarre” elements, e.g. a bunny with a bazooka.

Simple Sentences
---------------------

Keep your writing simple, as if you were sending a witty e-mail to a friend.
Be smart, but not academic. Prune words that don’t make a difference.

Write About People
------------------------

It’s impossible to find humor in inanimate things. If you must write about an
object or a concept, focus on how someone (usually you) thinks or feels or
experiences those things. Humor is about people, period.

Write Visually
-----------------

Paint a funny picture with your words, but leave out any details that don’t
serve the humor. Notice how many images I packed into my post about the tall
guy. It’s hugely visual, and yet I never describe what he looks like, other than
being tall.

Leave Room for Imagination
-----------------------------------

When I described how the tall guy could retrieve an iPod from a storm drain,
I only mentioned the gum, his “python,” and a Victoria Secrets catalog. Every
reader formed a slightly different mental picture of the specifics. Leaving out
details allows readers to fill them in with whatever image strikes them as
funniest. In effect, you let readers direct their own funny movie.

Funny Words
-----------------

Use “funny” words when you can. Here are some I used:

Mongolian
Herdsman
Vagina
Trouser
Shish Kabob
Storm
drain
Johnson
Slap
Canoe

You can read that list of funny words totally out of context and it almost
makes you laugh. Funny words are the ones that are familiar yet rarely used in
conversation. It’s a bonus when those words have funny sounds to them, as do
most of the ones in my list.

Pop Culture References
-----------------------------

References to popular culture often add humor. It’s funny that the world’s
tallest man is retrieving a lost iPod, and not something generic such as a
wallet. And it’s funny that his manhood is compared to Ryan Seacrest as opposed
to something generic, such as an oak tree. Someone could write a thesis on why
pop culture references are funny, but just accept it.

Animal analogies
---------------------

Animal references are funny. If you can’t think of anything funny, make some
sort of animal/creature analogy. It’s easy, and it almost always works. I made
these creature analogies in my post…

King salmon
Python

Exaggerate, then Exaggerate Some
More
-------------------------------------------------

Figure out what’s the worst that could happen with your topic, then multiple
it by ten or more. Don’t say a mole is as big as a grapefruit. Say that mole is
opening its own Starbucks. (Notice the pop culture reference of Starbucks.) The
bigger the exaggeration, the funnier it is.

Near Logic
-------------

Humor is about creating logic that a-a-a-lmost makes sense but doesn’t. No
one in the real world could put gum on his penis and retrieve an iPod from a
storm drain. But your brain allows you to imagine that working, while
simultaneously knowing it can’t. That incongruity launches the laugh reflex.

Callback
-----------

A callback is when you end with a funny reference that already got a laugh.
In my post, I knew the Ganbaatar gag would get a laugh, so I used it again in a
different sense for the closing line. It puts a nice period on your humor
writing.

Genetic Abnormality
-------------------------

Humor is like any other human capacity; some people are born with more of it
than others. No amount of advice will help if you don’t have the humor gene.

Here’s a link to a newish comic called F Minus, by Tony Carrillo. He has the
humor gene. I’m picking him to be the next big comic. (Read a few weeks of his
archive before forming an opinion.)

http://www.comics.com/comics/fminus/index.html

Self Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus

Self Contained Underwater Breathing
Apparatus

I am moving gently forward

over the wild and beautiful

unexplored world below me

I am floating in silence

and breaking it up

with the sound of my breath

Above me there is nothing

but shimmery light

the place where i have come from

and will go back when i am done here

 

I am diving

I am a scuba diver

src="http://irajesh.com/commonplace/scuba.jpg" align=baseline border=0>

I am going deeper past

the wrinkled rocks and dark weaweeds

towards a deep blueness where

a school of silver fish wait

As i swim through the water

bubbles burst from me

wobbling like little jelly fish

as they rise

I check my air

i don't have as much time

as i need to see everything

but that is what makes it

so special !

 

By Leslie Burke in the motion picture "Bridge to
Terabithia"

Scott Adam's Tips on Writing

The Day You Became A Better Writer
I went from being a
bad writer to a good writer after taking a one-day course in “business writing.”
I couldn’t believe how simple it was. I’ll tell you the main tricks here so you
don’t have to waste a day in class.

Business writing is about clarity and persuasion. The main technique is
keeping things simple. Simple writing is persuasive. A good argument in five
sentences will sway more people than a brilliant argument in a hundred
sentences.

Don’t fight it.

Simple means getting rid of extra words. Don’t write, “He was very happy”
when you can write “He was happy.” You think the word “very” adds something. It
doesn’t. Prune your sentences.

Humor writing is a lot like business writing. It needs to be simple. The main
difference is in the choice of words. For humor, don’t say “drink” when you can
say “swill.” Your first sentence needs to grab the reader. Go back and read my
first sentence to this post. I rewrote it a dozen times. It makes you curious.
That’s the key.

Write short sentences.

Avoid putting multiple thoughts in one sentence. Readers aren’t as smart as
you’d think.

 

Learn how brains organize ideas. Readers comprehend “the boy hit the ball”
quicker than “the ball was hit by the boy.” Both sentences mean the same, but
it’s easier to imagine the object (the boy) before the action (the hitting). All
brains work that way. (Notice I didn’t say, “That is the way all brains
work”?)

That’s it. You just learned 80% of the rules of good writing. You’re
welcome.

Scott Meyers: Advice to Prospective Book Authors

Excerpt

If you deliver what you promised on time, all the whales in sales and
marketing that feed on the plankton of your words will develop a special
affection for you.

Remember, most authors are late with their plankton. If you distinguish
yourself by being on time, the whales take notice. That's important, because if
you're a sales rep with, say, 100 titles you're peddling to university
professors or corporations or buyers for Amazon or Borders, 100 titles on topics
you can barely pronounce (much less comprehend), which, say, 5 of those 100
titles do you push especially hard on your sales calls? Let's be frank, it's the
5 that you think will make you the most money. But there's something to be said
for goodwill, too, and I believe that authors who deliver on time make life just
a little easier, a little more predictable for the gamut of people involved in
sales and marketing, and those people are likely to try just a little bit harder
for the authors they like, for the authors who are trying to help them out.

A reliable author selling 5,000 copies a year can't expect the attention from
commission-based sales reps that an unreliable author selling 50,000 copies a
year can, but odds are that you'll be part of the masses of authors with
run-of-the-mill sales, so your real goal is to stand out from those masses.
Delivering on time can help you do that.

Delivering on time is good for your personal life, too. That's assuming you
have one, and by the time you're in the throes of completing your book, there is
a very good chance that you won't. For a great many authors (including me),
bringing a book to completion requires a tremendous expenditure of time, energy,
and concentration. It's common for it to displace almost everything else in your
life: friends, family, your "real job," etc. It stresses everybody, so it's in
everybody's interest to know when the stress will end. It will end when you
deliver your final manuscript, so it's good for both you and everybody you know
for that date to be the date you said it would be lo those many weeks or months
ago when you signed your contract.

(Incidentally, you may have noticed that the acknowledgements of almost every
book thanks the author's spouse, girlfriend/boyfriend, children, pets, etc., for
their tolerance of having been neglected during preparation of the manuscript.
Such comments aren't pro forma; they're sincere. Getting the damn thing done
typically does demand that you neglect almost everything else. On the upside,
the first glimpse of your freshly-printed darling goes a long way towards making
you forget about such things. Few things compare to the thrill of holding your
newborn book.)

This is especially relevant if one keeps in mind the remark by author Jeff
Ullman that authors should never keep track of how much time it takes them to
write a book, because if they do, they'll be able to calculate how much they
made per hour, and the result will almost certainly be depressing. I've also
heard from acquisitions editors that though they have a pretty good idea how
many hours it takes the average author to write a book, they never tell
prospective authors this information, because they fear it will scare them away.
(Sorry, I don't remember the number. I know that it's big, but having written
books of my own, that's hardly news. On the other hand, writing a book is also
intensely satisfying, and there's something to be said for a few thousand hours
of intensely satisfying work.)

Also remember that from a financial point of view, your goal is to maximize
your income, not maximize your royalty rate. If publisher A offers you a 20%
royalty rate and publisher B offers you a 10% rate, publisher B is still the
more profitable option if B can sell more than twice as many of your books as A
can. Of course, it's generally not possible to know which of two publishers will
be able to sell more of your books, much less by what factor, so you'll want to
listen carefully to your prospective publishers' marketing plans before deciding
whom to climb in bed with. In reaching your decision, remember that royalty
rates are only one piece of the compensation puzzle and that compensation is but
one aspect of the overall book-publishing experience. My advice is to try to
optimize the overall experience, not just the financial part.

Speaking of translations, I find that few things evoke quite the level of
giddiness as seeing a copy of your book in a foreign script. I, for one,
cherished my books in Chinese, and I continued to cherish them even after I
found out that they were actually in Korean.

If you write for profit, and if sales are important to you, then you can not
just leave promotion to your publisher. You need to be on the newsgroups
answering questions and gently (!) mentioning your book. You also need to be
ready to do book signings and other public appearances. If your publisher
doesn't set it up, do so yourself. Don't EVER knock anyone else's book, but
don't be afraid to mention your own book when asked for recommendations or for
guidance.

Be ready to support your book. That means constant attention to your
errata sheet, creating an internet (email/web) connection with your users and so
forth. And keep your book up to date.

Link

Coming is like El Nino !

El Nino is spanish word for child. Like all things spanish, it is dangerous.
It kills people and burn down trees. This child is more than a child. It really
isn't child at all. It is a storm. A deadly storm that kills people and burns
down trees.

Warm water usually builds up around Australia. But not any more with
El Nino. El Nino moves the warm water from Australia to somewhere else, namely
to other places. Where are these other places? These are places that also have
water, but water that usually not as warm as the warm water El Nino moves to
these said other places. These other places are to the east. Of the
water.

In Peru, they have many names for many things, one of the things
they have names for is for people who go fishing, go fishing to make a living.
If we had a word for this kind of people that would be "fisherman". But we
don't.

In Peru, they have different names for things that we do in
America. They call that kind of people "pescadores". That's Spanish. That's what
they speak in Peru. When El Nino comes, these "pescadores" can't catch any fish.
El Nino is caused when the peruvian god get angry. They have been angry for
millions of years and have made El Nino for millions of years. Many many moons
ago, the Peruvians commited human sacrifices to satiate there gods and end the
flood that was caused by El Nino. In todays modern dog-eat-dog work-a-day world
of scientists, diplomats, McSalad Shakers and George Bush Jr., we no longer have
access to such solutions. We are too proud. We will not commit human sacrifices.
We refuse to satiate the Peruvian gods. Thus, they remain angry and keep killing
us and burning our trees with El Nino.

Instead of satisfying the gods,
many of "these" scientists have tried to control El Nino with "science". They
put up expensive fish-attracting-buoys that run on flashlight batteries.
Imagine, fighting the power of gods with flashlight batteries! Needless to say,
they didn't work and everyone died

Jeremy Lavine

----------------------

Dilbert's' 9-point financial plan worthy of economics Nobel

OK, so Dilbert didn't win the Nobel Prize in economics this year.

Fortunately for America's 95 million investors, Adams' secret nine-point
formula was finally revealed in "Dilbert and the Way of the Weasels." Notice its
simple brilliance in the exact reproduction of his formula:

• 1. Make a will
  
• 2. Pay off your credit cards
  
• 3. Get term life insurance if you have a family to support
  
• 4. Fund your 401k to the maximum
  
• 5. Fund your IRA to the maximum
  
• 6. Buy a house if you want to live in a house and can
  afford it
  
• 7. Put six months worth of expenses in a money-market
  account
  
• 8. Take whatever money is left over and invest 70% in a
  stock index fund and 30% in a bond fund through any discount broker and never
  touch it until retirement
  
• 9. If any of this confuses you, or you have something
  special going on (retirement, college planning, tax issues), hire a fee-based
  financial planner, not one who charges a percentage of your portfolio

We know creativity and science share much in common. Both science and art
begin with what-ifs, unproven ideas about unknown realities, dreams of the
future before it unfolds. And often all it takes is a small, simple "key" such
as "E=mc2" to unlock the door.

In fact, we saw proof last week as Nobel prizes were awarded for simple
dreams unlocking great truths: in physics, revelations about cosmic radiation
before the Big Bang; in medicine, the genetic flow of information; in chemistry,
cell production of proteins.

This year, we were rooting for Adams. His simple formula reminds us of how,
after being awarded the Nobel Prize, Albert Einstein spent his entire life
searching for the "Unified Theory of Everything." It eluded him. Adams, on the
other hand, did discover a "Unified Theory of Everything Financial," which
deserves a prize.

Adams' formula was originally published in "Dilbert and the Way of the
Weasels" at virtually the same time Princeton psychologist Daniel Kahneman was
awarded the 2002 Nobel Prize. You will recall that Kahneman destroyed Wall
Street's historic theory of the "rational investor." Dilbert made a
complementary discovery, defining a weasel as "anyone trying to get away with
something," thus explaining two centuries of psychological behavior on Wall
Street where weasels have been misleading Americans with the false theory that
investors are rational.

'Unified Theory of Everything Financial'

Quietly hidden in Adams' groundbreaking work is a financial formula so simple
it rivals Einstein's E=mc2. In its original form Adams' formula was apparently
so heretical and so explosive that no major house would touch it when he
proposed publishing it as a one-page book. After initial rejections, he
announced sadly that "if God materialized on earth and wrote the secret of the
universe on one page, he wouldn't be able to find a publisher" either.

Adams boldly states that this is "everything you need to know about personal
investing." In just 129 words, nine simple points, one page you have the
unabridged "Unified Theory of Everything Financial."

That's it. Everything!

Thanks to Adams' formula, the average irrational investor can ignore Wall
Street: "Everything else you may want to do with your money is a bad idea
compared to what's on my one-page summary. You want an annuity? It's worse. You
want a whole life insurance policy? It's worse. You want to invest in individual
stocks? It's worse. You want a managed mutual fund instead of an index fund?
It's worse. I could go on, but you get the point."

Check the bottom line: A portfolio with an asset allocation of 70% in
Vanguard's Total Stock Market Index and 30% in the Total Bond Market Fund is
doing just fine, performing remarkably close to the S&P 500 index. Moreover,
that simple two-fund portfolio is perfect for the vast majority of America's 95
million investors who are passive much as Adam's Dilbert character.

The truth is, most investors have little or no interest in Wall Street's
casino action; all the time-consuming research, the sophisticated stock-picking
tricks, the costly trading necessary to play in a market drowning in 10,000
stocks, 18,000 funds and more than 100,000 bonds. Most investors have jobs and
kids as their top priority. Moreover, Dilbert's simple two-fund portfolio
compares favorably with our other lazy portfolios.

Prize winners in parallel worlds

Folks, before you dismiss the idea of Adams winning the Nobel Prize in
economics, please remember, there is precedent: Back in 2002 the Nobel committee
ignored the usual suspects and picked a psychologist. So there's hope that
sometime in the future a brilliant humorist can also one-up all the pedigreed
pundits in this "dismal science." Adams predicted that "someday an economist
will win the Nobel Prize for discovering the exact dollar-per-weasel equation
that explains our world." But it's now obvious that he's already done much more!
Adam's formula would eliminate thousands of weasels from Wall Street, vastly
improving the efficiency of America's financial markets, while his "Unified
Theory" would improve the wealth-building power of all investors.

If you want more information on how you and your kids can win the prize,
please read 1989 winner Michael Bishop's "How to Win the Nobel Prize." The good
doctor innocently calls himself an "accidental scientist." Also read "The
Beginner's Guide to Winning the Nobel Prize" by 1996 winner Peter Doherty, an
Australian veterinarian who says the winners come rather unpredictably from
"unlikely backgrounds, one-room schoolhouses and concentration camps," yet all
have one thing in common, a "fire in the belly."

One final word: Remember that we all live in parallel worlds -- in politics
and religion, in art and science, in our dreams and in reality -- where nothing
is ever impossible, where you can achieve your wildest dreams, where your
investments succeed simply by using simple formulas and by living with
"fire-in-your-belly."

By Paul
B. Farrell, MarketWatch here

Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication

Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. - Leonardo da Vinci

You know you've achieved perfection in design, not when you have nothing more
to add, but when you have nothing more to take away.

The ability to simplify means to eliminate the unnecessary so that the
necessary may speak.

Simplicity carried to the extreme becomes elegance. - Jon Franklin

if your customers don't experience quality in your product throughout, they
may conclude there is lack of quality everywhere - some developer

Blogs ! What about them ?

A blog is like watching the market, current trends,

Whats coming next makes it exciting

Here is what i subscribe

Fabulous Adventures In Coding - By Eric lippert - current Favorite href="http://blogs.msdn.com/ericlippert/default.aspx" rel=nofollow>here[title="New Window" href="http://blogs.msdn.com/ericlippert/default.aspx"
target=_blank rel=nofollow>^]

Nikhil Kothary my current favorite rel=nofollow>here[target=_blank rel=nofollow>^]

Articles by Juval Lowy href="http://idesign.net/idesign/DesktopDefault.aspx" rel=nofollow>here[title="New Window" href="http://idesign.net/idesign/DesktopDefault.aspx"
target=_blank rel=nofollow>^]

Scott Gu very cool, rel=nofollow>here[href="http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/" target=_blank rel=nofollow>^]

Everybody reads Scott Hanselman also very cool,href="http://www.hanselman.com/blog/" rel=nofollow>here[title="New Window" href="http://www.hanselman.com/blog/" target=_blank
rel=nofollow>^]

Gregg m weblog rel=nofollow>here[href="http://blogs.msdn.com/greggm/default.aspx" target=_blank
rel=nofollow>^]

I used to read - Duncan Mackenzie Code,Tea, etc but not anymore lot of
outside links which becomes annoying href="http://blogs.duncanmackenzie.net/duncanma/" rel=nofollow>here[title="New Window" href="http://blogs.duncanmackenzie.net/duncanma/"
target=_blank rel=nofollow>^]

and

last not the least Scott Adams which i never miss :) href="http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/" rel=nofollow>here[title="New Window" href="http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/" target=_blank
rel=nofollow>^]

To Blog or Not to Blog ....

People who are trying to decide whether to create a blog or not go through a
thought process much like this:

1 .The world sure needs more of ME.
2. Maybe I'll shout more often so
that people nearby can experience the joy of knowing my thoughts.
3. No,
wait, shouting looks too crazy.
4. I know - I'll write down my daily
thoughts and badger people to read them.
5. If only there was a description
for this process that doesn't involve the words egomaniac or unnecessary.
6.
What? It's called a blog? I'm there!

The blogger's philosophy goes something like this:

Everything that I think about is more fascinating than the crap in your head.

---------------------------------------------

by scott adams when he first started his blog..

Story of a Thief

There once was a man who went to a computer trade show. Each day as he
entered, the man told the guard at the door:
"I am a great thief, renowned
for my feats of shoplifting. Be forewarned, for this trade show shall not escape
me unplundered. "

This speech disturbed the guard greatly, because there were millions of
dollars of computer equipment inside, so he watched the man carefully. But the
man merely wandered from booth to booth, humming quietly to himself.

When the man left, the guard took him aside and searched his clothes, but
nothing was to be found.

On the next day of the trade show, the man returned and chided the guard,
saying, "I escaped with a vast booty yesterday, but today will be even better."
So the guard watched him ever more closely, but to no avail.

On the final day of the trade show, the guard could restrain his curiosity no
longer. "Sir Thief," he said, "I am so perplexed, I cannot live in peace. Please
enlighten me. What is it that you are stealing?"

The man smiled. "I am stealing ideas," he said.

There Really is Another Way

"Here is Edward Bear, coming downstairs, bump, bump, bump, on the back of his
head, behind Christopher Robin. It is, as far as he knows, the only way of
coming downstairs, but

sometimes he feels that there really is another way,

if only he could stop bumping for a moment and think of it"

- AA Milne's "Winnie-the-Pooh"