Standing in the way of control!

Academics at the University of Padua, Italy, claim that bisexual men may have inherited their attraction to men through “hyper-heterosexual” female family members.

Dr Andrea Camperio Ciani and colleagues showed that the female relatives of homosexual men tend to have more children, which they believe suggests that genes on the X chromosome are responsible.

The team now believes that the same is true for bisexuality.

The researchers carried out a survey of 239 men, asking about their families and sexual experiences.

The results showed that gay and bisexual men’s female relatives on the maternal side had more children than those of straight men.

Dr Camperio Ciani stressed that this does not prove the existence of a “gay gene”, but that an unidentified genetic factor promotes sexual attraction to men in both men and women.

This in turn would influence a woman’s sexual attitude (but not increase her fertility), making her likely to have more children.

California Neuroscientist Dr Simon LeVay describes this genetic factor as “hyper-heterosexuality”, and claims that it would help pass homosexuality on through the generations.

Dr Camperio Ciani and colleagues say that the genetic factor appearing in both bisexual and gay men supports the heory that sexuality is determined by a mixture of genes and experience.

Dr Camperio Ciani told The New Scientist: ‘We understand that the genetic component has to interact with something to produce different phenotypes.

“Genetics is not determining the sexual orientation, it’s only influencing it.”

Dr Camperio Ciani studys sexual behaviour and sexual strategies in primates and humans, and victims of sexual crimes.

[Pinknews]

Popularity: 94% [?]

ShareThis

(Sponsor Link: assetant.co.za)

What is it about meetings that brings out the worst in otherwise reasonable and intelligent people? Is it an opportunity to childishly engage and disrupt others? Or perhaps it’s a chance to demonstrate animalistic dominance. Who knows.

All I do know is, for companies to operate effectively, executives, managers, and key employees need to know how to run effective meetings. Meetings are how conflicts are resolved and plans are agreed upon. They are how critical strategic and operating processes are developed, managed, and to some extent, executed.

Conversely, ineffective meetings result in lost productivity and frustration. They can also be a sign of a dysfunctional workplace, which can result in operating failure.

In my experience technology managers and executives are so inept at conducting effective meetings you’d think it’s rocket science or a rare genetic trait. I have no idea why that is.

In any case, 15 years ago, a consultant taught me his version of the rules for effective meetings. I’ve adapted those rules to my own style and used them to help management teams work together effectively ever since. And let me tell you, they really work.

So here they are in two parts: The three rules of meeting etiquette and the five rules of engagement for effective meetings.

Three rules of meeting etiquette

Every meeting has a start time and an end time. That means it starts on time and ends on time. If someone is chronically late to meetings, the others must bring peer pressure to bear on that individual. If most of a company’s executives exhibit this trait, then find another company. It’s a sign of immaturity and disrespect for others.

Every meeting is run by someone who is responsible for every aspect of the meeting including agenda, attendance, punctuality, and documentation. That person keeps everyone on topic and moves the meeting along using the methods described below.

Key decisions that are reached during the meeting regarding strategies, plans or objectives should be published by whoever ran the meeting within one day. That also goes for follow-up or action required and an owner for each item.

Five rules of engagement for effective meetings

Listening is good. Gratuitous speech is bad. Silence means consent. Don’t chime in just to hear your own voice.

Presenting new ideas or brainstorming is good. Knocking down another’s idea is bad. There’s a time for reaching consensus.

Attack the problem or issue, not the person you disagree with. “I don’t agree with you” is okay, but “I think you’re an idiot” isn’t.

Stay on topic, but don’t beat a dead horse. Save other subjects for other meetings. Use a “parking lot” for important issues that may need to be revisited at a later date.

Be open, honest, and forthcoming. Don’t hold back, bullshit, or sugar-coat issues. This is especially critical in meetings where key decisions are based on the information presented.

Don’t just follow these rules yourself; teach them to others. Present them at meetings you conduct. Make work life easier and less frustrating for all your fellow employees and help to make your company more successful. It’ll pay off big-time in the long run.

[CNET]

Popularity: 28% [?]

ShareThis

(Sponsor Link: assetant.co.za)

When Angelina Jolie headed to Nice, France, to unload her two kids, it wasn’t because the doctors there were any better than the U.S. It’s because the privacy laws there forbid photographers from taking publishing her picture, or that of her newborns, without her permission. Knowing those photos would fetch a hefty sum — $14 million, it turns out — she set up camp among the French until she blew.

In the United Kingdom, there’s a similar phenomenon going on: “libel tourism,” where lawsuits get filed in British courts over news reports that celebrities and other plaintiffs couldn’t even get on a court docket in their own countries.

That’s because the U.K. has some of the strictest libel laws in the world, if you discount North Korea’s tendency to make anybody who says something questionable disappear.

Plenty of publishers around the world aren’t happy with the British way of doing things, especially because the Internet and global distribution of many publications put their works inside U.K. jurisdiction, opening them up to lawsuits.

But now there’s a tiny organization who’s on their side. Perhaps you heard of it?

The United Nations.

Concerned with a little thing called “human rights,” the U.N.’s committee dedicated to the matter has gone on the record slamming the U.K.’s strict interpretation of libel:

The committee warns that the British libel laws have “served to discourage critical media reporting on matters of serious public interest, adversely affecting the ability of scholars and journalists to publish their work, including through the phenomenon known as libel tourism”.

The case that has provoked the most concern is that of an American researcher, Dr Rachel Ehrenfeld, who was sued in London by a Saudi businessman and his two sons over a book that sold 23 copies over the internet into the UK, where it was never officially published. One chapter of the book was available online.

The action led to the New York state legislature passing legislation to protect writers and publishers working there from defamation judgements in any country that does not give the same same freedom of speech rights as New York and US federal law.

The committee’s report highlights the grey area created by the internet whereby alleged libel can be read in different countries. There is a risk, warns the committee, that restrictive libel laws could affect legitimate international discussion, contrary to article 19 of the covenant on civil and political rights, which guarantees the right to freedom of speech “regardless of borders”.

The UK government has been urged to consider “a so-called ‘public figure’ exception” that would require a would-be claimant to prove actual malice by a publisher or author.

This would apply in cases involving public officials and prominent public figures, as currently exists in the US, where a public figure can only sue for libel if he or she can demonstrate malice, recklessness or indifference to the truth and that the statement is false.

A move like this could quash lawsuits like the one Las Vegas Sands CEO Sheldon Adelson filed against The Daily Mail, or Lisa Marie Pressley suing that same newspaper for calling her fat.

Not that it would do anything for News of the World: Though Formula 1 chief Max Mosley is certainly a public figure, it’d still be illegaly to t say somebody enjoys Nazi-themed S&M sex when he actually just enjoys just regular-themed S&M sex.

Bringing this story full circle, then, is this interesting aside: Ms. Jolie, a celebrity who benefits from Britain’s restrictive libel laws and would likely enjoy keeping them on the books, is an official U.N. ambassador.

[Guardian]

Via Jossip

Popularity: 33% [?]

ShareThis

(Sponsor Link: assetant.co.za)

I found this arresting chart on Swivel. It plots the number of bloggers who have been incarcerated over the past few years, based on data collected by the World Information Access project. The number of incidents it tracks went from five arrests in 2003 to 35 last year. As blogging expands internationally, so do the risk of speaking one’s mind. (Something many of us take for granted).

Most of those arrests are in countries with oppressive regimes, such as Egypt, China, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. But bloggers have been arrested in Canada, France, Greece, and even the U.S. (with Josh Wolf being one of the most famous incidents—he spent the better part of a year in jail for refusing to turn over journalistic video footage to a grand jury).

A few involve cases of alleged terrorism or pedophilia, but the majority involve some form of political speech. Some typical examples:

Reza Valizadeh (Iran; November, 2007). “For revealing Iranian president’s overpriced dogs that his security team uses.”

Charles Leblanc (Canada; June, 2006): “For taking pictures at a conference for his blog.”

Josh Wolf (USA; August, 2006): “For videotaping a burning police car.”

Hu Jia (China; December, 2007): “For posting his vocal critiques of human rights abuses and environmental degradation in China and calling the Olympics a ‘human rights disaster.’”

Reza Valizadeh (Iran; November, 2007): “For revealing Iranian president’s overpriced dogs that his security team uses.”

Nay Phone Latt (Burma; January, 2008): “For posting pictures of monks and people demonstrating on the streets.”

I’ve uploaded a spreadsheet with the names of all 64 arrested bloggers tracked by the WIA that includes their country, date of arrest, and reason for arrest. These do not include people arrested for impersonating someone else on Facebook or unfortunate enough to be beaten to death during an arrest.

From TechCruch

Popularity: 30% [?]

ShareThis

(Sponsor Link: assetant.co.za)