Cloud Hosting is The Architecture of Cloud Computing Techniques

Cloud Hosting Technique

Cloud Hosting is The Architecture of Cloud Computing Techniques

Cloud Hosting is The Architecture of Cloud Computing Techniques

provides the hosting services in the form of a single virtual machine and is implemented through the use of cloud computing and cloud architecture. It dynamically distributes data and processes across the small servers of the system for processing. The cloud hosting system is divided into many virtual machines. The services offered by a loud hosting service provider are located at its premises and these can be accessed by using client software.

The cloud hosting allows the users to get their applications up and running much faster and enables the quick readjustment of virtual resources to meet the dynamic demands like increased data rate, traffic size and storage requirements. The users can assess the cloud using different client devices like desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. Some of the user devices require real time cloud computing for running their applications, while others can interact with a cloud application via web browsers. Some cloud applications only support specific client software dedicated for these applications. Some legacy applications are also supported through screen sharing technology. The internet giants such as Google and Amazon are using this state of art hosting technology successfully for their servers.

Cloud hosting can be offered in three different modes i.e. infrastructure as a service(IaaS) , platform as a service(PaaS) and software as a service(SaaS). The basic mode IaaS , offers the services in the form of physical or virtual machines ( computers & other processing devices), raw/block storage , firewalls , load balancing mechanism and networks .The IaaS mode services provider supply these resources from a large deployed pool of resources in data centers andthis also include provisioning of local area networks and  IP addresses. The PaaS mode cloud hosting services provider offers a cloud computing platform  that include an operating system, programming execution environment, database and server. The PaaS application software can be developed and run on a cloud platform and does not involve cost and complexity of buying and managing the hardware and software layers. The (SaaS) mode cloud hosting services provider  install and operate application software in the cloud and cloud users access the software from cloud clients and the cloud platform in this case is not managed by the clients. Clouds hosting can be physically deployed in the form of public cloud, personal cloud, hybrid cloud and community cloud.

Cloud hosting has greatly reduced the website operational cost. In older versions of servers, the clients used to pay for a specific bandwidth irrespective of the traffic on that server. The cloud hosting has tackled this problem through the skillful use of variable costing method, where the cost will increase with the traffic and as the load/traffic reduces the cost will be automatically decreases.

The cloud hosting has a great advantage in terms of its security, as it operates in isolated environment and only the host has the access to it. One of the biggest advantages of cloud hosting is that the cloud platform manageability, maintenance and upgrades can be easily and remotely accomplished, as it does not require any physical/hardware maintenance repair and replacement.

How a TV Host’s Retweet Could Change Twitter

When MSNBC host Joy Reid saw a tweet decrying a racist incident this summer, she responded like many other people—she retweeted it.

The tweet in question came from an activist and showed a photo of a woman in a Make America Great Again cap appearing to berate a 14-year-old Latino boy. A caption implied she shouted “dirty Mexican” and “You are going to be the first deported,” and urged Twitter users to “spread this far and wide” because “this woman needs to be put on blast.”

Unfortunately for Reid, whose retweet broadcast the message to her 1.2 million followers, the tweet was wrong. The woman in the image, Roslyn La Liberte of Southern California, had said nothing of the sort.

The teenager in the picture later explained he and La Liberte had a civil conversation, and said the pair even hugged.

Five days after the retweet, Reid acknowledged the mistake by tweeting a news story that described what really happened:

By then, however, La Liberte had hundreds of vitriolic emails, which called her vile names and threatened to assault her. She also received menacing voicemails, including one from a man who shouted, “I will smack you upside your f**king head you stupid f***ing c**t.”

Sadly, this is all too common on Twitter: Someone posts a false and inflammatory tale, others retweet it, and an online mob descends on the unlucky target. This episode stands out, however, because La Liberte is suing Reid in federal court for allegedly defaming her with the retweet.

La Liberte may have a case. While judges have been inclined to treat inflammatory tweets (including those of Donald Trump) as opinion or hyperbole—types of speech that don’t count as defamation—that doesn’t mean you can’t libel someone on Twitter. Falsely portraying someone as a vicious racist could certainly qualify.

Reid, of course, didn’t do that. Instead, she just used Twitter’s retweet button to repeat what someone else said. The law, however, might not see a difference between tweeting and retweeting.

Lawyer Ed Klaris, who runs a media and intellectual property firm in New York, doesn’t see a distinction.

“The traditional rules of re-publication apply. You as a tweeter are very much a publisher,” says Klaris. He likens the situation to a newspaper that prints a letter to the editor that contains false and defamatory information. In such a case, the target of the letter can sue both the letter writer and the newspaper.

Or, in the context of Twitter, La Liberte can sue the author of the tweet as well as Reid for republishing it via her retweet. Klaris isn’t the only one who sees it this way; a recent Hollywood Reporter story cites lawyers who think Reid will lose the case.

If a judge agrees with this interpretation, the consequences could be enormous. A victory for La Liberte would create a new danger not only for journalists, but for many other Twitter users who inadvertently retweet false information from time to time.

Courts Silent on Retweets

La Liberte’s lawsuit doesn’t specify how much money she’s seeking over Reid’s tweet, but does state the claim is worth at least $75,000.

There’s no guarantee La Liberte will prevail, of course. In response to a request for comment, her lawyers sent a document to Fortune, which argues the case should be thrown out, and that La Liberte should pay damages for filing a frivolous lawsuit.

This isn’t just wishful thinking. Reid’s lawyers are relying on a well-known law known as the Communications Decency Act (CDA). The law, broadly speaking, says “no provider or user of an interactive computer service” can be held responsible for what other people say on an Internet platform.

Many Internet entrepreneurs have relied on the CDA as a legal foundation for their business. For instance, the law ensures Facebook isn’t responsible for criminal threats posted by its users, or that a blog owner isn’t liable for defamatory rants posted by a trollish commenter.

How the law applies to retweets is unclear, however. Even though Twitter’s retweet button has been around since 2009, no court has decided whether those who retweet defamatory claims are shielded by the Communications Decency Act.

Professor Eric Goldman, who has written extensively about the law, says retweets are clearly covered.

“It’s not even a hard case. Retweeting is just a different technical way of sharing third party content with a broader audience,” he said, citing a pair of cases involving email. In those cases, courts sided with defendants who sent or forwarded defamatory content written by a third person.

Free speech scholar Eugene Volokh, who recently published a blog post on the email cases, shares Goldman’s view. In an interview with Fortune, he added that Reid’s case is strengthened by the fact her retweet didn’t include additional comment endorsing the opinions in the tweet.

Meanwhile, the New York lawyer Klaris disagrees that a judge will let Reid use the CDA as a shield. He argues that allowing the law to protect anyone who retweets a false statement is too broad a reading, and would make the traditional republication rule meaningless.

“Taken to its logical extreme, according to the defendant’s argument, a “user” (i.e. reader) of could cut an entire defamatory article and paste it to her own site without changing it and not be liable for defamation,” he said. “That outcome does not make sense.”

A Bigger Role for Twitter?

As it stands, the Reid case is troubling because either outcome will produce an unsatisfactory result. If La Liberte wins, millions of people will face legal jeopardy for the commonplace act of sharing what they see on social media—a situation that would chill free speech. But if Reid wins, there is little to dissuade people from contributing to online mob behavior of the sort that dragged La Liberte through the mud.

This raises the question of whether Twitter and other online platforms should do more to stop false and defamatory information from going viral in the first place. One idea for addressing the problem—incidentally, suggested by a former Fortune editor—is a warning system would let those in Reid’s situation respond more promptly by broadcasting a correction (as Reid did but only five days later), and by removing the original retweet or shared post from their social media feeds.

This wouldn’t stop people from sharing defamatory content altogether (it’s just too easy when all it takes is clicking “retweet” or “share”) but it would certainly mitigate the problem. But would the social media companies even consider offering such a notification tool?

“This is an ongoing legal issue. We don’t have a statement to share,” said a Twitter spokesperson in response to a question about Twitter’s obligations in the Reid case.

The response is not surprising. Social media platforms have long seen policing user posts as a political minefield, and are wary of becoming arbitrators in deciding what is defamatory or fake news.

In this vacuum of authority, Klaris predicts courts may become more willing to interpret the CDA in a way that curtails the law’s protection. He acknowledged, however, that they have declined to do so in the past and that it may be a matter for Congress.

Volokh, the free speech scholar, pointed to legal precedents establishing a broad scope for the law, and says any changes should come from lawmakers, not the courts.

The White House's Fake-News Shenanigans Top This Week's Internet News Roundup

Another week, another seven days so full of events that it’s difficult to remember all that’s happened. That’s especially true on a week that saw another mass shooting, as if everyone needed a reminder of what that felt like. I mean, we were just a week out from the last one, so perhaps some people had forgotten. Elsewhere, California is on fire again, Scotland has made LGBTQ education compulsory and someone’s getting free soup. Of course, this week was dominated by the midterm elections, which took place on Tuesday, but lingers like a cold; results and hot takes are still coming in as I write this, despite everything else that happened this week to steal the attention of the internet. What kinds of everything else? We’re glad you asked!

Don’t Look Back In Anger

What Happened: Normally, it’s only the President of the United States who prematurely ages during his White House tenure—but according to this week’s favorite meme, it’s happened to all of us.

Where It Blew Up: Twitter, media reports

What Really Happened: It was fair to say that a lot of people had a lot of anxiety about this week’s midterm elections. They were, after all, being touted as the most important in a generation and a potential rebuke to President Trump, even though he personally wasn’t on the ballot and refused to take responsibility for any Republican losses, even though many GOP House members fretted that he had hijacked the campaign. No surprise, then, that people took to Twitter prior to Election Day to vent their anxiety.

As the meme got picked up by the media, at least one person took a different approach to the meme, just to emphasize that the election hadn’t actually happened yet.

Let’s be honest: as a motivator, this is far, far better than the ensuing deluge of “I Voted” sticker selfies across social media.

The Takeaway: At least Concerned Voter and celebrity Mark Ruffalo impersonator Mark Ruffalo joined in—because aren’t we all Bruce Banner these days?

The End Of The Tour

What Happened: In his first public appearance after the midterms, President Trump seemed like he wanted to come across as unbothered—but the reality was just the opposite.

Where It Blew Up: Twitter, media reports

What Really Happened: So, yes; the midterm elections happened, and even if people debated the reality of theBlue Wave,” Democrats took control of the House for the first time in eight years, giving them the chance to investigate his dealings (and his taxes) and curb his power. Many people wondered just how he’d react, but the president’s initial response to the midterms was certainly not what people expected:

Pressing ahead with his weird victory lap, he announced a press conference for the next morning:

How did it go? Probably not the way he imagined.

The surreal, combative, disaster was obviously much discussed across the media, because of course it was; it was a chance to watch the President live down to everyone’s worst expectations across an almost unbelievable 87 minutes. All that was missing was someone being fired by proxy from the White House — but, wait, we’ll get there soon enough.

The Takeaway: What should be the takeaway from this meltdown? Let’s go with the one that perfectly summarizes the problem, as President Trump would no doubt be secretly delighted by it.

Me Or Your Lyin’ Eyes

What Happened: The Trump Administration takes its war on the press to the next level after a particularly intense confrontation gets the literal fake-news treatment.

Where It Blew Up: Twitter, media reports

What Really Happened: By Thursday, it had become obvious that an exchange between the President and CNN reporter Jim Acosta during the previous day’s press conference had turned into something far bigger than the traditional Presidential press bullying. The problem—well, a problem—began as the right-wing Twitterverse sought to use the moment to bring down Acosta:

Did it work? Better than anyone could have anticipated. (“Better” in a very specific context, of course.)

Yes, the White House pulled Acosta’s press credentials after the press conference, which is a totally normal thing to do, yes, definitely. Hey, Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, what gives?

In other words, Sanders was repeating the right-wing version of events, which is problematic for reasons we’re about to get to. Before that, though, CNN responded quickly:

The network wasn’t the only organization releasing a statement:

Here’s the thing, though; Jim Acosta didn’t actually do what he was accused of by Sanders and the White House, as he pointed out:

It doesn’t have to rely on his word, though; the press conference was broadcast live, including the event (mis-)described by Sanders; but that didn’t stop Sanders from tweeting out a doctored video in support of her argument:

Yes, that’s right; the White House press secretary was sharing a doctored video to argue her case. Funny story — it was actually the same video that had been posted by an InfoWars contributor earlier that evening:

People noticed the connection.

Here’s CNN’s VP of Communications and Digital Partnerships on the release:

Oh, and here’s a comparison between the raw footage and the version posted by—once again—the White House press secretary:

The dude from InfoWars claimed that he hadn’t touched the video:

Well, surely he’s telling the truth, right?

At time of writing, reporters are condemning the White House’s move, and others are making the argument that this isn’t a fight the President should have. You’d think that that someone so stuck in the past as President Trump would remember the saying about never arguing with people who buy ink by the barrel

The Takeaway: This is just the beginning of a bigger fight—and one that’s likely going to happen sooner rather than later.

Wave Hello, Say Goodbye

What Happened: If no one expects the Spanish Inquisition, and no one expected the president to fire his attorney general immediately after the midterm elections, does that mean that Jeff Sessions was a victim of the Spanish Inquisition? Asking for a friend who may or may not be fired A.G. Jeff Sessions.

Where It Blew Up: Twitter, media reports

What Really Happened: As if this week wasn’t seem busy enough with everything happening all at once, a tidbit of news broke just an hour or so after the Wednesday press conference, potentially explaining why the President was acting so testy. (As if the midterms wouldn’t have been explanation enough.)

…Wait. What? But, yes, the Attorney General had resigned, when no one was expecting it.

Please note the opening sentence of that letter, because it’s important:

Yes, the resignation came at the President’s request, which is to say, Jeff Sessions was fired, which is a big deal. As should be expected, the internet was sad to see him go:

But people didn’t get too carried away with the upside of what was unfolding, because once again, the President firing his Attorney General when he’s under investigation by the authorities overseen by that Attorney General is a big deal:

The President announced his replacement via Twitter, because of course he did:

As if we needed any more proof that the government is a well-oiled machine these days, Twitter was also how people at the Department of Justice found out about Sessions’ resignation, it was swiftly announced:

Who is this Matthew Whitaker, anyway?

…Oh. As it turned out, Whitaker was a fascinating choice for a replacement, based on everything that came out about him in a surprisingly brief period:

He is almost definitely not going to recuse himself. But then again, he may not have the position for that long. In the face of widespread disbelief at his hiring, Trump stood behind his choice in traditional fashion on Friday:

The Takeaway: Chalk another White House departure up for the man famous for firing peo — oh, apparently not.

I’ve Fallen, But I Can Totally Get Up and Mete Out Justice

What Happened: The Notorious RBG had a bad week, but the internet was there for her with offers of anything and everything she needed, from emotional support to literal body parts.

Where It Blew Up: Twitter, media reports

What Really Happened: Bad news for anyone who loves Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg arrived late this week:

RBG’s fall was obviously big news, with multiple outlets covering the story, and social media was equally excited about it. Maybe “excited” wasn’t the right word to use, though; some were people looking to reassure others that there was no reason to panic, after all.

Others were simply preparing for whatever it takes to keep Ginsburg in good health, if not all-out action:

And then there was the question of what actually happened to consider…

Of course, everyone here at While You Were Offline Towers sends all the best to the Notorious one, as well as good wishes for a speedy recovery. We need you out there, Justice Ginsburg. Have you seen what else is happening?

The Takeaway: But did anyone consider the possibility that RBG’s injuries were self-inflicted and done for a very particular reason?

More Great WIRED Stories

Apple finds quality problems in some iPhone X and MacBook models

The new Apple iPhone X are seen on display at the Apple Store in Manhattan, New York, U.S., September 21, 2018. REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton

(Reuters) – Apple Inc said on Friday it had found some issues affecting some of its iPhone X and 13-inch MacBook pro products and said the company would fix them free of charge.

The repair offers are the latest in a string of product quality problems over the past year even as Apple has raised prices for most of its laptops, tablets and phones to new heights. Its top-end iPhones now sell for as much as $1,449 and its best iPad goes for as much as $1,899.

Apple said displays on iPhone X, which came out in 2017 with a starting price of $999, may experience touch issues due to a component failure, adding it would replace those parts for free. The company said it only affects the original iPhone X, which has been superseded by the iPhone XS and XR released this autumn.

The screens on affected phones may not respond correctly to touch or it could react even without being touched, the Cupertino, California-based company said.

For the 13-inch MacBook Pro computers, it said an issue may result in data loss and failure of the storage drive. Apple said it would service those affected drives.

Only a limited number of 128GB and 256GB solid-state drives in 13-inch MacBook Pro units sold between June 2017 and June 2018 were affected, Apple said on its website.

Last year, Apple began a massive battery replacement program after it conceded that a software update intended to help some iPhone models deal with aging batteries slowed down the performance of the phones. The battery imbroglio resulted in inquires from U.S. lawmakers.

In June, Apple said it would offer free replacements for the keyboards in some MacBook and MacBook Pro models. The keyboards, which Apple introduced in laptops starting in 2015, had generated complaints on social media for how much noise they made while typing and for malfunctioning unexpectedly. Apple changed the design of the keyboard this year, adding a layer of silicone underneath the keys.

Reporting by Ismail Shakil in Bengaluru and Stephen Nellis in San Francisco

A New Study Ranked All 50 States By How Fat Their People Are, and the Results are Eye-Opening

A new study ranks all 50 states plus the District of Columbia by how fat their residents are. And there are some real surprises.

Across the United States, a staggering 70 percent of people are either overweight or obese. It’s part of what drives the $66 billion weight loss industry, which is always a good target for entrepreneurs.

But it also adds $200 billion a year to our nation’s health costs. 

So, this state ranking combines 25 different data points on each state’s population to help us figure out which states have the biggest problems. Each state was then assigned a combined score from 1 (best) to 100 (worst). The data included things like:

  • percentage of residents (adults and children) who are overweight or obese;
  • percentage of residents who are physically active (or not);
  • percentage of adults with high cholesterol;
  • percentage of adults with healthy diets (and who eat at least 1 serving of fruits and vegetables each day).

Obviously, the mere fact that someone lives in a supposedly fit or fat state doesn’t mean he or she personally is overweight or not. Heck, I live in the 11th fittest state according to this, and I’m well aware I could lose a few pounds.

But the ranking does challenge some of the stereotypes about where the healthiest people might live in the country. Here’s the list, which was put together by WalletHub. We’ll do this backwards, going from worst to first, and discussing the states briefly in tiers.

Tier V: The fattest states

All of the worst states on this list were in the South, and the absolute worst state in terms of fatness ranking was Mississippi, with a score of 72.97 out of a possible 100.

Mississippi also had the worst ranking in the country in terms of obesity and overweight prevalence. And in another study, Mississippi workers also reportedly got the least exercise of anyone in the country. The full bottom tier looks like this:

51.    Mississippi    72.97 out of 100 (1 is best; 100 is worst)
50.    West Virginia    70.14    
49.    Arkansas    69.69
48.    Kentucky    67.71
47.    Tennessee    67.67
46.    Louisiana    66.89
45.    Alabama        64.56
44.    South Carolina    63.64
43.    Oklahoma    63.09
42.    Texas        62.45

Tier IV

The second to the bottom tier largely consists of states in the so-called Rust Belt.  

41.    Indiana        62.44
40.    Ohio        62.39
39.    Delaware    62.27
38.    Georgia        61.46
37.    Michigan    61.30
36.    Missouri    59.70
35.    North Carolina    59.17
34.    Iowa        58.77
33.    Maine        58.36
32.    Kansas        58.30

Tier III

It’s a little more difficult to say exactly what states like Rhode Island, Florida and Alaska have in common. However, these are largely states with a larger percentage of senior citizen residents, which could be a factor.

31.    Wisconsin    57.87
30.    Rhode Island    57.86
29.    Nebraska    57.24
28.    Maryland    57.12
27.    Pennsylvania    56.83
26     Wyoming        56.72
25.    North Dakota    56.46
24.    Illinois    56.15
23.    Florida        56.12
22.    Alaska        55.90

Tier II

If you were to look at the list of states where people get the most exercise at work, you’d see that the top 20 in each list are almost identical. (The order is different, but the grouping is very close.) Seems like that could be a big clue.
21.    Virginia    55.83
20.    New Mexico    55.49
19.    South Dakota    55.15
18.    Washington    55.10
17.    New Hampshire    55.10
16.    Arizona        54.68
15.    New York    53.75
14.    Minnesota    53.64
13.    Nevada        53.07
12.    Idaho        52.52

Tier I

Here are the top 10 states (plus D.C.), with the most fit residents. Interestingly, they’re also largely (but not exclusively) urban states, where you’d think people have limited outdoor space and are more likely to work long, stressful, sedentary jobs.

But, apparently the people in metro areas around places like New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C. are the ones who make time to exercise, eat right, and watch their weight.

And to the folks of Colorado, who topped both this list and the exercise at work list, keep up the good work. 

11.    New Jersey    52.40
10.    Oregon        52.13    
9.    Vermont        52.07
8.    Connecticut    51.80
7.    Montana        50.83
6.    California    49.97
5.    Washington, DC    49.49
4.    Massachusetts    48.09
3.    Hawaii        46.97
2.    Utah        44.41
1.    Colorado    44.35 

An A.I. Just Outperformed 20 Top Lawyers (and the Lawyers Were Happy)

The set up of the study was an old-fashioned head-to-head matchup. Twenty of the country’s top corporate lawyers were pitted against a specialized A.I. called the the LawGeex AI in a battle to see who could spot the flaws in five Non-Disclosure Agreements with the greatest speed and accuracy. The issues with the common documents were previously established by an independent team of expers, including law professors from Duke, UCLA, and a senior partner from a top corporate law firm.

So who won this epic (if nerdy) battle of man versus machine? Sorry human fans, it was the bots.

The LawGeex AI achieved “an average 94 percent accuracy rate, higher than the lawyers who achieved an average rate of 85 percent. It took the lawyers an average of 92 minutes to complete the NDA issue spotting, compared to 26 seconds for the LawGeex AI,” reports Hacker Noon.

That isn’t even close.

Should we all panic now?

At first glimpse these results (and other recent feats of successful robo-lawyering) sound like pretty terrible news for lawyers specifically and knowledge workers generally. The study seems to back up predictions from consultancy McKinsey that 22 percent of lawyers’ work will be taken over by robots in the coming years.

But when Hacker Noon reached out to the vanquished lawyers to get their feelings about their defeat, they responses they got back were surprisingly upbeat. In fact, some of the legal hot shots sounded downright thrilled to be bested by the bot. Here’s a sampling of their comments:

  • “[A.I.] can really help lawyers sift through these documents, and cut down on the sometimes-deliberate verbosity of these documents which can allow one party to mask core issues.” – Zakir Mir

  • “I think this would help clients in getting better pricing and allow lawyers to focus on more complex projects.” – Samantha Javier

  • “Participating in this experiment really opened my eyes to how ridiculous it is for attorneys to spend their time (as well as their clients’ money) creating or reviewing documents like NDAs which are so fundamentally similar to one another. Having a tool that could automate this process would free up skilled attorneys to spend their time on higher-level tasks.”  – Grant Gulovsen

  • “As a chess player and attorney I will take from Grandmaster Vishy Anand and say the future of law is ‘human and computer’… Either working alone is inferior to the combination of both. I view AI and technology as exciting new tools that would allow for such drudgework to be done faster and more efficiently.” – Justin Brown

  • “AI has huge potential in reducing time on standard contract reviews and making legal advice accessible and affordable for all.” – Hua Wang

In other words, McKinsey is right. Robots are poised to take significant parts of lawyers’ jobs off their plates. But the twist is, lawyers can’t wait to hand this work off to an A.I. 

The robots are coming for the worst parts of your job.

These responses highlight a problem with much of the commentary on A.I. disruption of existing jobs. Yes, robots are going to change things considerably in a lot of industries, and that will be a wrenching transition for some workers. Questions also remain about how to divvy up the spoils of the coming A.I. revolution. These are undeniably big challenges.

If a computer can accomplish the repetitive, soul-sucking parts of many professions that will free up human talent to work on more complex and creative problems. That might mean coasting through a mindless gig to make ends meet will be harder in the future, but if that’s not your aim, the rise of the robots very well may make your workday a lot more fulfilling and fun.

There Are 4 Innovation Personalities. Which One Are You?

Here is a personality test for leaders: those who create products, services, and businesses, those who manage teams big and small, and those who have to be agile thinkers to face complex challenges. Read through the four groups below–Revolutionary, Evolutionary, Traditional, and Reactionary–and see where you fit in as a leader. Then think about your team. And then your organization. Where do they fit in too? And how can you collectively achieve the change and innovation needed? 

I have personally a soft spot for Revolutionaries, because dedication to innovation is thrilling, makes you feel like you’re living at the cutting edge and serving a bigger purpose. I have also learned how quickly scales can change and top organizations and their leaders can get burnt out and retreat to the safety of incremental change. Inversely, Evolutionaries can become Revolutionaries; and Naysayers can become the best advocates for disruption once they see the value of being a Revolutionary. 

Being at the service of people, solving problems for others, making someone’s life better, more joyful or easier–which is what innovation is about–is not a talent that only a few can attain. Neither is it a static skill that, once acquired, stays with you. It is an organic set of skills, tools, and processes you decide to have, practice and keep. In other words, it is inclusive and accessible if you know where you are now and where you want to be in the future, which is where this quiz comes in handy. 

What is your current innovation personality? What personality do you aspire to be?


Different sources call you different things–A Reinventor, Disruptor, Provocateur, Innovator. You revolutionize the way something is done. You are a design thinker. In other words, you think like a designer. Positive, open-minded and curious, you are energized by new ideas. You see change as an opportunity, not as a challenge. You use design tools and an iterative process to solve problems. Getting close to your customer is fundamental to your thinking. Only then can you make sure you ask the right questions. To that end, you use co-design with customers.   Journey mapping helps you to uncover your hidden customer needs, and fast prototyping allows you to experiment with solutions. You are not afraid of constraints and know how to use them to your advantage.

“The Reinventors, making up 27 percent of the total, are the standouts. They report that they outperformed their peers in both revenue growth and profitability over the past three years, and led as well in innovation.” IBM Global CEO study on Digital Reinvention

Synonyms: Reinventor, Disruptor, Provocateur, Innovator.


You are a change agent of the cautious kind. You are comfortable with incremental change. You might be a recovering Revolutionary who got hit by market forces and lost some of your courage and daring to be the first. Or you have the ambition to become a Revolutionary and are gathering experience. As David Peterson, Director of Leadership Development & Executive Coaching at Google would say, you need to sub-optimize and be less perfect to experiment more and adapt to constant change with more agility. You want to think like a designer, but you may not have the right tools and process. You need to get out of your comfort zone and get up close and intimate with your customers. Experimenting more, and more quickly, breaking internal silos to create cross-functional teams and co-designing with your customers to include them in ideation will push you to the Revolutionary group.

According to Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, a healthy dose of prudence is not bad for innovation. “Contrary to what many people think, successful innovators are more organized, cautious, and risk-averse than the general population.”

Synonyms: Practitioner (coined by IBM). Pragmatic.


Your one dominant characteristic is that you feel like your solution is fine just the way it is. When asked if your users are happy, you will say “yes” but deep down you know you’ve grown farther and farther away from your customer. The good news is there are many ways to build empathy and get closer to them. Once you move away from a product-centric mindset to an experience-centered one, improving people’s lives will give you the courage to develop your own unique vision. Your previous successes may hold you back, but what got you here is not helping you get there (if you haven’t, read Marshall Goldsmith’s best-selling book, What Got You Here, Won’t Get You There). Having the vision, strategy and tools to recognize and capture the right opportunities will move you to the Evolutionary group. 

Synonyms: Conventional. Aspirational (coined by IBM).


You resist change and have a strong tendency to block new ideas. It is the fear of unknown which makes it easier for you to come up with why something will not work. You are the skeptic. Yet you know that agility and experimentation are key to how organizations are evolving. You will become a great convert to thinking like a designer if you can see its value–making you more agile, customer-centered and comfortable with experimenting. 

“Saboteurs. The people and groups who can obstruct or derail the process of searching, evaluating, and purchasing a product or a service.” Alex Osterwalder, Value Proposition Design

Synonyms: Blockers, Resistants, Naysayers, Saboteurs (coined by Alex Osterwalder). 

How did you do? Remember knowing who you are and who you aspire to be on the innovation scale is half the battle. The other half is actually practicing it on a daily basis. 

This Famous Airline Thought It Would Offer Veterans Special Pre-Boarding. The Reaction Was Shocking

Absurdly Driven looks at the world of business with a skeptical eye and a firmly rooted tongue in cheek. 

Some things are, though, universal, aren’t they?

That must be what the bosses at Virgin Australia thought when they offered veterans priority boarding.

But Australia isn’t necessarily like, say, America.

Frankly, nowhere is. 

When you’ve lived in different countries on different continents — guilty as charged — you garner a wider perspective on how people think and, just as importantly, the nuances that go into their feeling processes.

So, instead of a gloriously positive reaction, some veterans rather thought Virgin should take its offer and shove it back in the cargo hold it was stored in.

Oh, and “faux American bollocks.”

Instead, she suggested: “Spend more on suicide prevention and health support.”

Neil James, the head of the Australian Defence Association also suggested there were better ways to help. 

“There’s a fine line between embarrassing them and thanking them and, in some cases, where they’re suffering a psychological illness, effusively thanking them in public might not necessarily help them,” he said of veterans.

On Twitter, many piped up with similar feeling.

Sample, from John H. Esq.: “Jeez! Do veterans really want this type of peurile [sic] Americanised faux recognition of their service?”

The airline seemed so stunned by the reaction that its CEO John Borghetti issued this statement: 

Over the coming months, we will be working consultatively with community groups and our own team members who have served in defense to determine the best way forward.

In America, there’s considerable — and, some might say, superficial — support for veterans.

Indeed, our nation has many curious, vaguely militaristic and nationalistic habits that other nations find curious. Flag unfurlings and national anthem renditions before every single sporting event, for example.

In Australia, though, perhaps veterans want tangible benefits, rather than being used for marketing purposes.

Interestingly, one of Virgin’s rival airlines, Qantas says it has no intention of offering veterans priority boarding.

It offered this statement: 

We carry a lot of exceptional people every day, including veterans, police, paramedics, nurses, firefighters and others, and so we find it difficult to single out a particular group as part of the boarding process.

Doesn’t that seem wise?

Clever Tech Keeps America's Disabled Farmers on the Job

In 1982, Ed Bell was 21 years old, owned 1,000 hogs, and was running his parent’s farm in Hagerstown, Indiana. He was just beginning to get serious with a girl named Debbie. But Debbie had a jealous ex-boyfriend, who had a .44 caliber revolver.

“I was shot, and paralyzed from under my arms all the way down,” he says. After three months in the hospital, Bell came home in a 28-pound stainless steel wheelchair that he could barely navigate through his family’s log cabin home. His dreams of hog farming fell apart. His parents nearly lost the farm.

It was technology, coupled with his tenacity, that got him back to work. Bell now has two electric wheelchairs, one with treads for off-roading through his fields and another that allows him to stand up. Mechanical lifts made by a company called Life Essentials get him in and out of his tractors, the controls of which have been modified so he can operate them solely by hand. The only reason he had time to talk to me in the middle of harvest was because a storm had rolled in.

Bell’s story is unusual. But its narrative arc—farmer gets hurt, technology helps farmer get back to work—is not. A recent study published in The Journal of Agriculture Safety and Health suggests as many as one in every five US farmers suffers from a disability that impacts their physical health, senses, or cognition. Offsetting that statistic and keeping Americans fed are technologies like four-wheel-drive golf carts, auto-locking tractor hitches, and even boring old smartphones.

For nearly 30 years, a federally funded program called AgrAbility has been central to connecting disabled members of the ag community with whatever help fits their need. Yet its future is uncertain. President Trump has redlined it from both budget proposals he’s sent to Congress. Legislators from rural states added it back, but the program’s precarious fate makes clear that mishap is always on the horizon for farmers.

Spring Awakenings

Bell was at a farm show in Kentucky when he came across a booth for a new Purdue University program called Breaking New Ground. Its director, a physical therapist named Bill Field, was handing out ear plugs as conversation starters about disabilities and ag. Field got into this space in 1979, when a farmer, paralyzed after his truck rolled over, called Purdue University’s USDA Extension to see if they had any folks who could help him get back into his tractor. The university passed the message along to Field, who gathered up some engineering students. Together, they rigged up a mechanical wheelchair lift and modified the tractor’s cab so the farmer could operate the machine solely by hand.

Inspired by the success, Field established Breaking New Ground. At first, it was just one of many similar ad hoc state-level initiatives that had been around for decades. But Field was persistent, and the program built up steam. Bell rejected Field’s help at first—“My pride was in the way,” he says—but before long his was a regular face at the program’s many workshops and conferences. In 1990, Congress added a line item to the Farm Bill mandating the Department of Agriculture fund an “Assistive Technology Program for Farmers with Disabilities.” This became AgrAbility. Purdue’s Breaking New Ground was selected as the headquarters for the national program.

In his 2017 and 2018 budget proposals, President Trump eliminated AgrAbility from the USDA’s finances. It was up to members of Congress to ensure the program kept going.

Paul Jones

Despite its hands-on origins, AgrAbility today acts as a facilitator and, when needed, funder of technology, services, and other social resources for disabled members of the ag community. One of its premier resources is its Assistive Technology Database, an index of more than 1,400 vetted solutions for myriad problems. Each submenu is a cornucopia of mobility tech. Has arthritis put a cramp on your shop work? Check out the plethora of easy-grip hand tools. Blown out knees or creaky hips? Telescoping technology can help you tend your fruit trees. One submenu features a variety of lifts for tractors and other farm equipment—customized forklifts, modified cranes, homebuilt cherrypickers, commercial cranes and lifts.

“When I got hurt, the doctor told me: ‘It’s sad you got neck broken, but you couldn’t pick a better country and a better time in history to have it done,’” says Bell. His doctor wasn’t just referring to medical science, mobility tech, or even compassionate care. The US is one of the most progressive nations in history when it comes to legislation for disabled people. AgrAbility has been part of the annual Farm Bill (the current version of which is wallowing in the widening congressional gyre) since 1990. Barack Obama was the first president to include it in his budget, earmarking more than $4.5 million for the program. In his 2017 and 2018 budget proposals, however, President Trump eliminated AgrAbility from the USDA’s finances, “to direct funding to higher priority activities.” Once again, it was up to members of Congress to ensure the program kept going.

If AgrAbility does somehow wind up on this administration’s cutting room floor, it won’t be for lack of need. The ag industry is worth about $1.37 billion—a full percent of the US GDP. It’s hard to calculate how much of that is propped up through assistive care and technology. However, another trio of studies released this year confirms AgrAbility’s effectiveness for improving mental health, physical independence, and overall quality of life.

Disability doesn’t have to be as debilitating as paralysis to curtail a person’s ability to farm. Bad vision or hearing can be debilitating. And many in this profession struggle with mental illness—farming is a low-margin industry with lots of year-to-year uncertainty. “The largest percentage of our clients don’t suffer from injuries, they have what we would call chronic conditions, like arthritis and lower back impairments,” says Paul Jones, the project manager at the National AgrAbility Project in Indiana. “The average age for farmers now is 57, so there’s a lot of wear and tear on the body,” he says.

Ed Bell is now 57, and he can attest to that. “When I was younger, even in a wheelchair I had endless energy,” he says. “I don’t do anything fast anymore. I delegate. I hire help. I maybe don’t work as hard every day, but I still get it all done.”

More Great WIRED Stories

What Trick-or-Treaters Do Better Than Most Leaders

Halloween is one of my favorite holidays. I loved dressing up as a child and getting candy with my best friend. As I got older, I loved going to bars with friends in costumes. Now, as the father of a nearly teenage son, it’s different. Watching your kids get ready for Halloween can shed light on your own goals.

I’m surrounded by friends and clients making their dreams come true. They’re making big moves in all parts of their lives. I see what it takes to get what they want most. I’m in the trenches with entrepreneurs and leaders achieving amazing things. We talk about their strategies, team development and mindset.

The most innovative and impactful leaders think differently. Last week, I saw trick-or-treaters using smart strategies to load their bags with candy. Three of their approaches apply to your business, too:

1. Break the rules.

I loved talking to my son about his strategy to get the most candy. He wanted to create a reversible costume, with a ninja on one side and a ghost on the other. He saw the benefit of hitting each house twice. We talked about it for weeks. Let me be clear: I thought this was a terrible idea. However, I played along to encourage his creativity.

When was the last time you really thought about a new way to achieve your goals? The most comfortable strategies are the ones you’ve already used. You don’t try new strategies until you get frustrated enough to ditch your old ways.

While interviewing Mike Landman, CEO of RippleIT, I noticed how he thinks differently than his peers. His IT services business has become highly focused on digital agencies–a “niche-ing” strategy that’s not common in service businesses. He chose this approach to create client specific solutions that created more efficient results. The tactic took the company to No. 3013 on this year’s Inc. 5000 list of fastest-growing companies in America.

A kid is willing to break rules to achieve his goals. I’m not suggesting you do anything illegal — I’m asking you to think about the rules you’ve accepted as fact. Much of our growth comes from being willing to look beyond the status quo.

2. Increase your focus.

It takes starting early and having a clear plan to haul in as much candy as my son did. He put in effort to collect what appears to be 11.2 pounds of candy.

I watched him construct and navigate his plan. He sharpened his focus as the night wore on. He started leaving his bag with me as he ran up driveways, jumping bushes to get to doors. I haven’t seen him put that much focus into anything before. He had one goal, and he was willing to do the work to achieve it.

As for you, you’re working hard — you’re probably swimming in work. I’m not here to tell you to work your face off in service of your company’s growth. I’m encouraging you to streamline your thinking to increase your focus.

Focus has become more important than intelligence. I find that my most impactful days start with a 90-minute session of work on the single most important project I have.

Many leaders just want to do more things, but the solution isn’t to do more. Look for ways to streamline your work to meet your primary goal for now.

3. Give up.

The morning after Halloween, I told my son that I wouldn’t eat any of his candy. I don’t say that because I respect his candy; I’m a firm believer in the “parent tax,” and if I wanted it, I would eat it.

I know my body, however, and eating crap makes me feel terrible. While I want the delicious taste of candy, I don’t want the feeling that follows — and that becomes my primary goal.

A significant aspect of a leader’s success is a willingness to give up what she wants right now to get what she wants most. We’re so emotionally connected to “easy” that we let the hard stuff scare us. 

I’ve had numerous clients give up checking email throughout the day. Giving up the need to check and respond at all moments of the day has created more intention toward their current work.

You can have most of the things you want, but you can’t have them all right now. You have to decide what’s most important and begin working on that. If you want something badly enough, you’re willing to give up what’s keeping you from getting there.

If you’re willing to commit to what you really want, giving up what’s keeping you stuck is easy. You don’t get what you deserve. You get what you work for — just like trick-or-treaters.

UK data watchdog chief says Facebook must change, calls for more regulation

FILE PHOTO: A 3D-printed Facebook logo is seen in front of displayed stock graph in this illustration photo, March 20, 2018. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/File Photo

LONDON (Reuters) – The head of Britain’s data watchdog said on Tuesday Facebook must significantly change how it does business and called for the social media giant to be subject to stricter regulation.

“Facebook needs to change, significantly change, their business model and their practices to maintain trust,” Elizabeth Denham, Information Commissioner, told lawmakers at a parliamentary committee meeting on Tuesday.

Britain’s Information Commissioner has been investigating how Facebook handled personal data after consultancy Cambridge Analytica was accused of improperly harvesting information from around 87 million users on the social network.

Denham said she had seem some improvement from the U.S.-based company but said more needed to be done and it must take greater responsibility and should be subject to more regulation.

“We have seen some evidence on the voluntary side of Facebook being more transparent, things like the provenance of political ads, but I think they need to do more and I think they should be subject to stricter regulation and oversight,” she said.

Reporting by Kylie MacLellan, writing by Sarah Young, editing by Michael Holden