Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Monday, May 09, 2011
Thursday, September 02, 2010
Bernanke: Shut down banks if they threaten system
– 22 mins ago
WASHINGTON – Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told a panel investigating the financial crisis that regulators must be ready to shutter the largest institutions if they threaten to bring down the financial system.
"If the crisis has a single lesson, it is that the too-big-to-fail problem must be solved," Bernanke said Thursday while testifying before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission.
Bernanke is presenting his analysis of the crisis and views on potential systemwide risks as the panel approaches the end of its yearlong investigation into the Wall Street meltdown.
The Fed chief said bailing out these institutions is not a healthy solution and that great improvement will come from the new financial overhaul law. It empowers regulators to shut down firms whose collapse pose a broader threat to the system.
"Too-big-to-fail financial institutions were both a source ... of the crisis and among the primary impediments to policymakers' efforts to contain it," Bernanke told the bipartisan panel.
"We should not imagine ... that it is possible to prevent all crises," he said. "To achieve both sustained growth and stability, we need to provide a framework which promotes the appropriate mix of prudence, risk-taking and innovation in our financial system."
Bernanke led the economy through the financial crisis and the worst recession since the 1930s. The Federal Reserve took extraordinary measures to inject hundreds of billions into the battered financial system.
Last week he said the central bank is prepared to make a major new investment in government debt or mortgage securities if the economy worsened significantly.
Sheila Bair, the chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., also is testifying at Thursday's hearing. She says in prepared testimony "the stakes are high" for regulators to effectively exercise their new powers under the financial overhaul law. If not, "we will have forfeited this historic chance to put our financial system on a sounder and safer path in the future," she says.
WASHINGTON – Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told a panel investigating the financial crisis that regulators must be ready to shutter the largest institutions if they threaten to bring down the financial system.
"If the crisis has a single lesson, it is that the too-big-to-fail problem must be solved," Bernanke said Thursday while testifying before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission.
Bernanke is presenting his analysis of the crisis and views on potential systemwide risks as the panel approaches the end of its yearlong investigation into the Wall Street meltdown.
The Fed chief said bailing out these institutions is not a healthy solution and that great improvement will come from the new financial overhaul law. It empowers regulators to shut down firms whose collapse pose a broader threat to the system.
"Too-big-to-fail financial institutions were both a source ... of the crisis and among the primary impediments to policymakers' efforts to contain it," Bernanke told the bipartisan panel.
"We should not imagine ... that it is possible to prevent all crises," he said. "To achieve both sustained growth and stability, we need to provide a framework which promotes the appropriate mix of prudence, risk-taking and innovation in our financial system."
Bernanke led the economy through the financial crisis and the worst recession since the 1930s. The Federal Reserve took extraordinary measures to inject hundreds of billions into the battered financial system.
Last week he said the central bank is prepared to make a major new investment in government debt or mortgage securities if the economy worsened significantly.
Sheila Bair, the chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., also is testifying at Thursday's hearing. She says in prepared testimony "the stakes are high" for regulators to effectively exercise their new powers under the financial overhaul law. If not, "we will have forfeited this historic chance to put our financial system on a sounder and safer path in the future," she says.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
My Thoughts on Oracle v Google
Cool article on Oracle vs Google suit regarding Java patents and Android.
Friday, July 30, 2010
What stops XP-users from switching to Ubuntu? Can we make a plan together to help those millions of XP-users (63% market share) not to have to buy a n
What stops XP-users from switching to Ubuntu? Can we make a plan together to help those millions of XP-users (63% market share) not to have to buy a new computer?
I notice that there is a growing interest for Ubuntu, now people have lost trust in Windows because of breaking XP-systems, Vista and still high demands for Windows 7. That interest should be turned into a demand.
A typical XP-machine has a Pentium 4 (or similar AMD) and 512MB of memory. Can Ubuntu or Kubuntu replace their XP on such a machine? And if so, do you have a plan to market such transitions?
My motivation for asking is that I'm tired of breaking systems of friends and MS doing a bad job on older machines, because they prefer to make money than take their responsibility: http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/security/357262/microsoft-refuses-to-patch-infected-windows-xp-machines
.
.
.
Alan Cummings • Hi Vincent
Good and complex question. I love Ubuntu but I cannot change because I teach Windows stuff. However, there are other issues:
Openoffice is V.good - but not up to MsOffice levels. Ms Access is bad enough but Base (etc) are often worse for the non-geek.
The use of command lines is a real barrier to the non-geek.
Lack / poor of wireless connectivity can be an issue for many.
Hardware drivers are not always good / available.
Businesses need some Windows based applications. OK, WINE exists but there is no guarantee that without a degree in Linux you can get it to work - and the risk is too great.
Forum support is great for the home user but no use to the professional who needs to be able to balme someone if the "fix" does not work.
Why oh why do Linux applications have such bloody stupid names? Super geek. An application should have a name that indicates its use. Most users do not have time to trawl through 200 apps searching for one that does x effectively.
The plethora of Linux flavours confuses and complicates - what exactly will or will not load into which OS? I don't have time to find out.
The 6 monthly updates often (in my experience) need total re-installs and frequently leave something that did work not working. Do I really want to have to do this every 6 months?
I could go on but you get the gist. The domestic market has fewer of these issues but then you need to address games compatability etc. and a fresh range of issues start again.
Linux is improving along with some applications but there are still some real issues to be acknowledged and addressed before any Linux becomes mainstream - regardless of price.
I notice that there is a growing interest for Ubuntu, now people have lost trust in Windows because of breaking XP-systems, Vista and still high demands for Windows 7. That interest should be turned into a demand.
A typical XP-machine has a Pentium 4 (or similar AMD) and 512MB of memory. Can Ubuntu or Kubuntu replace their XP on such a machine? And if so, do you have a plan to market such transitions?
My motivation for asking is that I'm tired of breaking systems of friends and MS doing a bad job on older machines, because they prefer to make money than take their responsibility: http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/security/357262/microsoft-refuses-to-patch-infected-windows-xp-machines
.
.
.
Alan Cummings • Hi Vincent
Good and complex question. I love Ubuntu but I cannot change because I teach Windows stuff. However, there are other issues:
Openoffice is V.good - but not up to MsOffice levels. Ms Access is bad enough but Base (etc) are often worse for the non-geek.
The use of command lines is a real barrier to the non-geek.
Lack / poor of wireless connectivity can be an issue for many.
Hardware drivers are not always good / available.
Businesses need some Windows based applications. OK, WINE exists but there is no guarantee that without a degree in Linux you can get it to work - and the risk is too great.
Forum support is great for the home user but no use to the professional who needs to be able to balme someone if the "fix" does not work.
Why oh why do Linux applications have such bloody stupid names? Super geek. An application should have a name that indicates its use. Most users do not have time to trawl through 200 apps searching for one that does x effectively.
The plethora of Linux flavours confuses and complicates - what exactly will or will not load into which OS? I don't have time to find out.
The 6 monthly updates often (in my experience) need total re-installs and frequently leave something that did work not working. Do I really want to have to do this every 6 months?
I could go on but you get the gist. The domestic market has fewer of these issues but then you need to address games compatability etc. and a fresh range of issues start again.
Linux is improving along with some applications but there are still some real issues to be acknowledged and addressed before any Linux becomes mainstream - regardless of price.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
In Afghanistan, history rhymes
JUN 29, 2010 10:09 EDT
AFGHANISTAN
The faltering war in Afghanistan brings to mind a famous quote attributed to Mark Twain and a less famous one by Robert Gates, the U.S. Secretary of Defense. Twain: “History does not repeat itself but it rhymes.” Gates: “Tough decisions: … how to get out, when, and without losing face.”
The Gates quote, in his 1996 memoir (From the Shadows), refers to the Soviet leadership which by the mid-1980s had decided to end its disastrous occupation of Afghanistan but had not figured out exactly how to do that.
The last Russian soldier left Afghanistan in February 1989, at the end of an exit strategy which began with a sharp increase in the number of troops and centered on building up government forces to fight an insurgency rapidly gathering momentum.
Sound familiar? Since taking office, President Barack Obama has ordered an additional 51,000 troops into Afghanistan “to provide the time and the space for the Afghan government to build up its security capacity, to clear and hold population centers that are critical, to drive back the Taliban to break their momentum.”
Next, a transition phase, beginning in July 2011, “in which the Afghan government is taking more and more responsibility for its own security.”
That rhymes with the way then Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev extricated his country from Afghanistan. Not long after taking power in 1985, he ordered the deployment of thousands of additional troops and told his generals they had a year to crush the U.S.-backed opposition. Failing that, they would have to pull out. They did, after four years, not one.
By the end of this year, the length of the U.S. presence in Afghanistan will exceed that of the Soviet Union. U.S. and NATO troops already outnumber the 115,000 soldiers Moscow deployed at the height of the Soviet involvement. By the end of summer, 105,000 U.S. troops will be in place, plus around 40,000 NATO soldiers.
When to withdraw substantial numbers of American forces is a tough decision still to be made by Obama and his new commander in Afghanistan, General David Petraeus, America’s most celebrated soldier. He replaced David McChrystal, who was fired on June 22, the second four-star general to lose his job as top commander in Afghanistan in just over a year. They were removed for very different reasons but their cases speak volumes about disarray in Obama’s Afghan policy.
IN AFGHANISTAN UNTIL 2020 OR BEYOND?
No hard-and-fast date has been set for the end of the transition and there is no shortage of experts who think U.S. troops will still be in Afghanistan by 2020 or beyond. Their eventual departure will cause America to lose face in the volatile region, as did the Soviet Union.
There are many verses in the Soviet and American adventures in Afghanistan that do not rhyme but here are two more that do: foreign invaders backing corrupt governments lacking legitimacy, and insurgents more motivated than government forces.
A key difference: the Soviets were fighting insurgents across the entire country, the Americans and their allies are focused on the south, where the Taliban are strongest.
The two wars also differ in tactics and the number of casualties. In a campaign in which 14,500 Soviet soldiers died, the Russians employed scorched-earth tactics that leveled entire villages and by some estimates killed more than a million civilians. In contrast, the NATO death toll stood at 1,879 (1,139 of them Americans) at the end of June. The number of Afghan civilians killed since the invasion, in October 2001, has been estimated at between around 10,000 and 13,000.
In the casualty-averse democracies that make up the coalition, the war is so unpopular that key members are beginning to set their own withdrawal timelines, regardless of what the United States is doing.
The Netherlands is set to withdraw its 2,000 troops by the end of this year, Canada is scheduled to pull out by next summer, Poland said this week it would bring home its forces by 2012 and Prime Minister James Cameron of Britain, which provides the second-largest contingent in the coalition, says he wants British troops out of Afghanistan by the time of the next general elections in 2015.
That shows limited faith in the ability of the world’s only superpower to turn the tide in a war that is going from bad to worse. Or to come to a decision on how to get out, when, and without losing face.
--------------------------
It is necessary to complete the war in Afghanistan no matter how long it takes.
AFGHANISTAN
The faltering war in Afghanistan brings to mind a famous quote attributed to Mark Twain and a less famous one by Robert Gates, the U.S. Secretary of Defense. Twain: “History does not repeat itself but it rhymes.” Gates: “Tough decisions: … how to get out, when, and without losing face.”
The Gates quote, in his 1996 memoir (From the Shadows), refers to the Soviet leadership which by the mid-1980s had decided to end its disastrous occupation of Afghanistan but had not figured out exactly how to do that.
The last Russian soldier left Afghanistan in February 1989, at the end of an exit strategy which began with a sharp increase in the number of troops and centered on building up government forces to fight an insurgency rapidly gathering momentum.
Sound familiar? Since taking office, President Barack Obama has ordered an additional 51,000 troops into Afghanistan “to provide the time and the space for the Afghan government to build up its security capacity, to clear and hold population centers that are critical, to drive back the Taliban to break their momentum.”
Next, a transition phase, beginning in July 2011, “in which the Afghan government is taking more and more responsibility for its own security.”
That rhymes with the way then Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev extricated his country from Afghanistan. Not long after taking power in 1985, he ordered the deployment of thousands of additional troops and told his generals they had a year to crush the U.S.-backed opposition. Failing that, they would have to pull out. They did, after four years, not one.
By the end of this year, the length of the U.S. presence in Afghanistan will exceed that of the Soviet Union. U.S. and NATO troops already outnumber the 115,000 soldiers Moscow deployed at the height of the Soviet involvement. By the end of summer, 105,000 U.S. troops will be in place, plus around 40,000 NATO soldiers.
When to withdraw substantial numbers of American forces is a tough decision still to be made by Obama and his new commander in Afghanistan, General David Petraeus, America’s most celebrated soldier. He replaced David McChrystal, who was fired on June 22, the second four-star general to lose his job as top commander in Afghanistan in just over a year. They were removed for very different reasons but their cases speak volumes about disarray in Obama’s Afghan policy.
IN AFGHANISTAN UNTIL 2020 OR BEYOND?
No hard-and-fast date has been set for the end of the transition and there is no shortage of experts who think U.S. troops will still be in Afghanistan by 2020 or beyond. Their eventual departure will cause America to lose face in the volatile region, as did the Soviet Union.
There are many verses in the Soviet and American adventures in Afghanistan that do not rhyme but here are two more that do: foreign invaders backing corrupt governments lacking legitimacy, and insurgents more motivated than government forces.
A key difference: the Soviets were fighting insurgents across the entire country, the Americans and their allies are focused on the south, where the Taliban are strongest.
The two wars also differ in tactics and the number of casualties. In a campaign in which 14,500 Soviet soldiers died, the Russians employed scorched-earth tactics that leveled entire villages and by some estimates killed more than a million civilians. In contrast, the NATO death toll stood at 1,879 (1,139 of them Americans) at the end of June. The number of Afghan civilians killed since the invasion, in October 2001, has been estimated at between around 10,000 and 13,000.
In the casualty-averse democracies that make up the coalition, the war is so unpopular that key members are beginning to set their own withdrawal timelines, regardless of what the United States is doing.
The Netherlands is set to withdraw its 2,000 troops by the end of this year, Canada is scheduled to pull out by next summer, Poland said this week it would bring home its forces by 2012 and Prime Minister James Cameron of Britain, which provides the second-largest contingent in the coalition, says he wants British troops out of Afghanistan by the time of the next general elections in 2015.
That shows limited faith in the ability of the world’s only superpower to turn the tide in a war that is going from bad to worse. Or to come to a decision on how to get out, when, and without losing face.
--------------------------
It is necessary to complete the war in Afghanistan no matter how long it takes.
Analysis: Doing nothing might have been best for oil spill
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65R5RC20100628
(Reuters) - It might have been better for the environment to have done nothing about the enormous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico except to keep the oil out at sea, British scientists said on Monday.
Marine biology and environmental experts said they feared the aggressive cleanup operation, during which oil has been set alight and oil-dispersing chemicals have been dumped into the sea, might be more damaging than the oil itself.
Previous experience suggests that containing the oil out at sea but otherwise leaving it alone to disperse and evaporate naturally is better in the long run but is regarded as politically unacceptable, they said.
"One of the problems with this spill is that it has gone from the environmental arena into the economic and political arena, so if you ask how bad it is, that depends on which perspective you're coming from," said Martin Preston, an expert in marine pollution, earth and ocean sciences from Britain's Liverpool University.
"Economically, clearly the impact has been very large, but environmentally the jury is still out. One of the tensions between environment and politics is that politicians cannot be seen to be doing nothing, even though doing nothing is sometimes the best option."
Scientists told the briefing in London that although the Deepwater Horizon rig blowout and explosion, the death of 11 workers and the leak added up to a major incident, they did not yet constitute an environmental catastrophe.
The U.S. government estimates that up to 60,000 barrels (2.5 million gallons/9.5 million litres) of oil a day are spewing from the damaged BP Plc oil well on the seabed about a mile below the surface.
Much of the oil is still far out at sea, but some is starting to drift toward the southern U.S. coast, where Louisiana's fragile wetlands have been hardest hit so far.
BP and the Obama administration have been under pressure from the public to take serious action to clean up the oil.
Opinion polls have shown that the U.S. public disapproved of BP's response to the spill and grew more skeptical about the Obama administration's response in the weeks after the accident.
The spreading oil has halted major fisheries and covered wetlands and beaches from Louisiana to Florida. The public has been horrified by images of birds and other wildlife soaked in oil.
"LEAVE WELL ALONE"
There have been around 20 major spills of more than 20 million gallons since the 1960s. The largest recent spill was in 1991 in the Gulf as a result of the Gulf War when between 240 and 460 million gallons were spilled.
The largest previous spill resulting from a rig blowout like that of the Deepwater Horizon was the Ixtoc 1 off Mexico's Gulf coast in June 1979, which continued for 9 months during which more than 140 million gallons of oil was spilled.
The Exxon Valdez accident in Alaska in 1989 spilled around 10 million gallons.
Simon Boxall, an expert at Britain's National Oceanography Center who has helped analyze various major oil spill cleanups, said several detailed experiments had been conducted since the Exxon Valdez spill, looking at areas that were left alone, as well as at areas cleaned up chemically or mechanically.
"The chemically cleaned up areas have taken the longest to recover and they are still damaged," Boxall said. "The areas that were left alone actually recovered much quicker."
Some 10,000 people were flown in to deal with the Exxon Valdez spill, and Boxall said scientists now wondered whether the "cleanup town" that grew up around it caused more environmental damage than the oil itself.
Christoph Gertler of Bangor University, who has been studying various potential bacterial remedies for oil spills, said reports by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration suggested that dispersants were "changing the nature of the oil in a very unfavorable way," making it more difficult for naturally occurring marine bacteria to break it down.
Boxall said it was important to remember that oil coming from the BP well was a light crude that would break down and evaporate fairly quickly when it came to the surface.
He said there were three golden rules of oil spills:
"The first is don't spill it in the first place: the second is, if you do spill it, try and pick it up as quickly and easily as possible," he said. "And the third is that in the open ocean, the best thing to do is leave well alone. Unfortunately, politically that always looks like a cop-out."
Scientists agreed that the wetlands of Louisiana were the most sensitive areas at risk, but said that here again a light touch might be the safest solution.
"The more delicate an area is -- and many of these areas around the Gulf coast are very delicate -- the more significant is the risk of making things worse by acting," said Preston. "A rather gung-ho attitude to the cleanup could end up doing more damage than if it had simply been left alone."
(Editing by Maggie Fox and Tim Pearce)
(Reuters) - It might have been better for the environment to have done nothing about the enormous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico except to keep the oil out at sea, British scientists said on Monday.
Marine biology and environmental experts said they feared the aggressive cleanup operation, during which oil has been set alight and oil-dispersing chemicals have been dumped into the sea, might be more damaging than the oil itself.
Previous experience suggests that containing the oil out at sea but otherwise leaving it alone to disperse and evaporate naturally is better in the long run but is regarded as politically unacceptable, they said.
"One of the problems with this spill is that it has gone from the environmental arena into the economic and political arena, so if you ask how bad it is, that depends on which perspective you're coming from," said Martin Preston, an expert in marine pollution, earth and ocean sciences from Britain's Liverpool University.
"Economically, clearly the impact has been very large, but environmentally the jury is still out. One of the tensions between environment and politics is that politicians cannot be seen to be doing nothing, even though doing nothing is sometimes the best option."
Scientists told the briefing in London that although the Deepwater Horizon rig blowout and explosion, the death of 11 workers and the leak added up to a major incident, they did not yet constitute an environmental catastrophe.
The U.S. government estimates that up to 60,000 barrels (2.5 million gallons/9.5 million litres) of oil a day are spewing from the damaged BP Plc oil well on the seabed about a mile below the surface.
Much of the oil is still far out at sea, but some is starting to drift toward the southern U.S. coast, where Louisiana's fragile wetlands have been hardest hit so far.
BP and the Obama administration have been under pressure from the public to take serious action to clean up the oil.
Opinion polls have shown that the U.S. public disapproved of BP's response to the spill and grew more skeptical about the Obama administration's response in the weeks after the accident.
The spreading oil has halted major fisheries and covered wetlands and beaches from Louisiana to Florida. The public has been horrified by images of birds and other wildlife soaked in oil.
"LEAVE WELL ALONE"
There have been around 20 major spills of more than 20 million gallons since the 1960s. The largest recent spill was in 1991 in the Gulf as a result of the Gulf War when between 240 and 460 million gallons were spilled.
The largest previous spill resulting from a rig blowout like that of the Deepwater Horizon was the Ixtoc 1 off Mexico's Gulf coast in June 1979, which continued for 9 months during which more than 140 million gallons of oil was spilled.
The Exxon Valdez accident in Alaska in 1989 spilled around 10 million gallons.
Simon Boxall, an expert at Britain's National Oceanography Center who has helped analyze various major oil spill cleanups, said several detailed experiments had been conducted since the Exxon Valdez spill, looking at areas that were left alone, as well as at areas cleaned up chemically or mechanically.
"The chemically cleaned up areas have taken the longest to recover and they are still damaged," Boxall said. "The areas that were left alone actually recovered much quicker."
Some 10,000 people were flown in to deal with the Exxon Valdez spill, and Boxall said scientists now wondered whether the "cleanup town" that grew up around it caused more environmental damage than the oil itself.
Christoph Gertler of Bangor University, who has been studying various potential bacterial remedies for oil spills, said reports by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration suggested that dispersants were "changing the nature of the oil in a very unfavorable way," making it more difficult for naturally occurring marine bacteria to break it down.
Boxall said it was important to remember that oil coming from the BP well was a light crude that would break down and evaporate fairly quickly when it came to the surface.
He said there were three golden rules of oil spills:
"The first is don't spill it in the first place: the second is, if you do spill it, try and pick it up as quickly and easily as possible," he said. "And the third is that in the open ocean, the best thing to do is leave well alone. Unfortunately, politically that always looks like a cop-out."
Scientists agreed that the wetlands of Louisiana were the most sensitive areas at risk, but said that here again a light touch might be the safest solution.
"The more delicate an area is -- and many of these areas around the Gulf coast are very delicate -- the more significant is the risk of making things worse by acting," said Preston. "A rather gung-ho attitude to the cleanup could end up doing more damage than if it had simply been left alone."
(Editing by Maggie Fox and Tim Pearce)
Friday, June 25, 2010
Lessons from the Football Field
Lessons from the Football Field
Maybe you've become sick of hearing about it all over social networks (Twitter even has a dedicated section for it on their site). Perhaps you're a fan and have watched every game. No matter what you think of the FIFA World Cup, there are certainly some great business lessons to gain out there on the pitch.
That's right. The players and teams that are there in South Africa are the best in their sport. They don't just happen to have talent; they also work hard to improve. Here are just some of the traits you'll find being displayed on and off the grass.
Perseverance
These people don't give up. They've reached that position because they've battled through many obstacles and shown amazing perseverance.
Teamwork
Becaus there are 11 people on a field, they all know the value of teamwork. As well as being great individually, they work hard on being a cohesive team.
Constant education
These players kept on improving even when they'd made the big league. They constantly train and refine, spending years learning what works and what doesn't.
Celebrating success
The game is more than just about physical skills; the players keep their momentum up by celebrating their successes, as well as learning from their failures.
Communication
It's all about communication out on the field. We could all take a lesson out of their book for how they communicate with fellow team members.
Self-belief
These guys believe in themselves. You have to have a great self-belief to walk out in front of millions of viewers and do your work. They cut through any self doubt and know they can achieve.
Exceptional focus
The players keep their eyes on the ball, pardon the pun. They're at the peak of their sport because they have an amazing focus on the end goal -- being the best at what they do. You can be assured that they're not distracted easily.
If you work within or manage a team, I'm sure that you could take from some of these points as lessons on how to improve. We could all do with a bit of inspiration from time to time. Best of luck being the best in your field too!
Maybe you've become sick of hearing about it all over social networks (Twitter even has a dedicated section for it on their site). Perhaps you're a fan and have watched every game. No matter what you think of the FIFA World Cup, there are certainly some great business lessons to gain out there on the pitch.
That's right. The players and teams that are there in South Africa are the best in their sport. They don't just happen to have talent; they also work hard to improve. Here are just some of the traits you'll find being displayed on and off the grass.
Perseverance
These people don't give up. They've reached that position because they've battled through many obstacles and shown amazing perseverance.
Teamwork
Becaus there are 11 people on a field, they all know the value of teamwork. As well as being great individually, they work hard on being a cohesive team.
Constant education
These players kept on improving even when they'd made the big league. They constantly train and refine, spending years learning what works and what doesn't.
Celebrating success
The game is more than just about physical skills; the players keep their momentum up by celebrating their successes, as well as learning from their failures.
Communication
It's all about communication out on the field. We could all take a lesson out of their book for how they communicate with fellow team members.
Self-belief
These guys believe in themselves. You have to have a great self-belief to walk out in front of millions of viewers and do your work. They cut through any self doubt and know they can achieve.
Exceptional focus
The players keep their eyes on the ball, pardon the pun. They're at the peak of their sport because they have an amazing focus on the end goal -- being the best at what they do. You can be assured that they're not distracted easily.
If you work within or manage a team, I'm sure that you could take from some of these points as lessons on how to improve. We could all do with a bit of inspiration from time to time. Best of luck being the best in your field too!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
