Archive

Archive for November, 2011

Dubai based Millennium Finance Corporation investment bank: the inside story, Oct 2009

November 27, 2011 Leave a comment

Summary

These confidential bank documents from the investment bank MFC (Millennium Finance Corporation), suggest that the company is out of cash, among other matters. The documents give exact balance per division. This collection and background information form a follow up to our previous leak on the MFC.

According to our source:

1.As of august 10th, MFC wasn’t compliant with the regulatory capital requirement (as shown on the attached internal document). However the DFSA hasn’t removed the company’s licence as it would arm its shareholders reputation (Dubai Islamic Bank and KIPCO) which are linked to the Dubai Emirate’s ruling family.

2.Sajid Barkat, Head of Administration, came back on duty in September despite his suspension by the Interim Management Committee in May 2009 due to the role he played in the letsbuyit.com fraud.

3.Following his takeover in August, Keba Keinde fired an additional dozen from the 25 people staff remaining. Staff was reported to be in excess of 60 in January 2009.

4.In addition to that, several employees have been suspended regarding an investigation about the Wikileaks online leak.

5.In the meantime each member of the management team is still paid more than USD 250,000 yearly of base salary (+ bonus), the highest salary bracket of the firm if we exclude the CEO position. Next to that, most of the cost rationalization measures they took consisted in low-wage support staff layoffs -with minimal severance package. See “compensation per employee” file.

6.Zana Masle the Head of HR has been fired by MFC in Q1-09 following an internal investigation regarding a DIFC visa fraud (she issued a visa to an unauthorized person under the company’s sponsorship). Neither shareholders, the Regulator (DFSA) or her new employer have been informed by the CEO of these findings.

7.In March 2009, the management started a roadshow, which costs have been incurred to the company, to raise fresh funds in order to exit, Dubai Islamic Bank, one of the three major shareholders (see attached documents showing exit scenarios) and solve the out of cash situation. This action has been taken without informing the shareholders.

8.An investigation is being conducted by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s VEVAK agency regarding the advisory mandate given to MFC for the issuance of the 3rd mobile licence. Several bidders (including Etisalat and Zain) complained about irregularities during the process through their respective governments. The fee due to MFC is estimated to be over USD 30 million, which is far above the sector standards. It has been reported that MFC is responsible for the failure of the process, due to its internal issues and willingness to preserve the personal interests of the CEO and his AFA partners. The licence has been finally awarded to a local consortium while 5 international bidders were on track one year ago (link below).

9.The Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) of the US Department of the Treasury has been involved in the UAE Government’s investigation.

US Securities & Exchange Commission case against KIPCO:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2009-169

Washington, D.C., July 23, 2009 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged a trader located in Kuwait and three related foreign entities for engaging in an illicit scheme through which they reaped millions of dollars in profits when trading around hoax offers to acquire U.S. companies. The SEC has obtained an emergency court order to freeze more than $5 million in trading profits located in various U.S. accounts in their names.

The SEC filed its charges and obtained the asset freeze within days of the latest hoax offer. The SEC alleges that Hazem Khalid Al-Braikan and the related entities traded around false news of a purported tender offer by a Middle East investment group to acquire Harman International Industries. Aphony announcement publicizing the hoax offer was faxed to media outlets on Sunday, July 19, and subsequently reported on the Internet. Harman’s share price climbed more than 40 percent in pre-market trading on Monday, July 20.


Additional Materials


The SEC further alleges that two of the entities similarly traded around a hoax tender offer in April 2009, when a Kuwaiti newspaper reported that a consortium of Middle East companies were offering to purchase Textron Inc. This offer also turned out to be false. Al-Braikan and the entities amassed positions in securities of a company shortly before a bogus offer was publicized. They then sold their securities at prices inflated by the false information to reap their illicit profits.

“This case exemplifies the SEC’s swift and surgical investigative skills and our determination to follow the trail wherever it leads,” said Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.

The SEC’s complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleges that Al-Braikan traded in an account in his own name and has been associated with each of the three entities that also traded: United Gulf Bank (B.S.C.); KIPCO Asset Management Company (KAMCO); and Al-Raya Investment Company.

Upon the SEC’s request, the Honorable John G. Koeltl issued a temporary restraining order freezing the defendants’ assets. The order also grants expedited discovery and an order permitting alternative means of service.

The Commission alleges in its complaint that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws. The complaint seeks a permanent injunction, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest, and financial penalties.

The Commission appreciates the assistance of New York Stock Exchange Regulation and the Options Regulatory Surveillance Authority in this matter.

The Commission’s investigation is continuing.

 

 

Press articles related to the situation:

UPDATE 1-Iran consortium to get 3rd mobile phone license-paper

Oct 19 (Reuters) – A domestic consortium will be awarded Iran’s third mobile phone license, Etemad newspaper quoted Ramezan Ali Sadeghzadeh, deputy head of the development unit of Iran’s Industries Organisation, as saying.

He did not give any further details.

In July, another Iranian newspaper said Iran had pulled its third mobile licence from Kuwait’s Mobile Telecommunications Co (Zain) and would hold a fresh tender, saying Zain had not fulfilled its obligations.

Iran handed Zain the licence in May after stripping it from Emirates Telecommunications Corp (Etisalat).

Iran said at the time Etisalat and Iran’s Tamin Telecom, which won the tender in January, had not fulfilled the necessary collateral and payments of the licence fee at the appropriate time.

Etisalat, one of the largest Arab telecommunications companies by market value, had said it expected to invest up to $5 billion over five years in its Iran operations.

Iran has a mobile penetration rate of less than 60 percent in a market where about half of its 70 million population is under 25 years of age.

The current telecom operators in Iran are the state-owned Iran Telecommunication Company (TCI) and Irancell, which is 49 percent owned by MTN Group (MTNJ.J), sub-Saharan Africa’s biggest mobile phone company.

Iran’s nuclear row with the West has deterred many foreign companies from doing business in the country.

U.S. sanctions bar U.S. companies from operating in Iran and United Nations sanctions have made other firms wary of investing. However, analysts say the size of the market and its energy riches could still make it an attractive prospect.

Categories: Ethics

Space elevator

November 27, 2011 Leave a comment

A space elevator for Earth would consist of a cable anchored to the Earth’s equator, reaching into space. By attaching a counterweight at the end (or by further extending the cable upward for the same purpose), the center of massis kept well above the level of geostationary orbit. Inertia ensures that the cable remains stretched taut, countering the gravitational pull downward. Once above the geostationary level, climbers would have weight in the upward direction as the centrifugal force overpowers gravity. (The diagram is to scale. The height of the counterweight varies by design and a typical, workable height is shown.)

space elevator, also known as a geostationary orbital tether or a beanstalk, is a proposed non-rocket spacelaunch structure (a structure designed to transport material from a celestial body’s surface into space). Many elevator variants have been  suggested, all of which involve travelling along a fixed structure instead of using rocket-powered space launch, most often a cable that reaches from the surface of the Earth on or near the equator to geostationary orbit (GSO) and a counterweight outside of the geostationary orbit.

Discussion of a space elevator dates back to 1895 when Konstantin Tsiolkovsky[1] proposed a free-standing “Tsiolkovsky Tower” reaching from the surface of Earth to geostationary orbit 35,786 km (22,236 mi) up. Like all buildings, Tsiolkovsky’s structure would be under compression, supporting its weight from below. Since 1959, most ideas for space elevators have focused on purely tensile structures, with the weight of the system held up from above. In the tensile concepts, a space tether reaches from a large mass (the counterweight) beyond geostationary orbit to the ground. This structure is held in tension between Earth and the counterweight like a guitar string held taut. Space elevators have also sometimes been referred to as beanstalksspace bridgesspace liftsspace laddersskyhooksorbital towers, or orbital elevators.

While some variants of the space elevator concept are technologically feasible, current technology is not capable of manufacturing tether materials that are sufficiently strong and light to build an Earth-based space elevator of the geostationary orbital tether type. Recent concepts for a space elevator are notable for their plans to use carbon nanotube or boron nitride nanotube based materials as the tensile element in the tether design, since the measured strength of carbon nanotubes appears great enough to make this possible.[2] Technology as of 1978 could produce elevators for locations in the solar system with weaker gravitational fields, such as the Moon or Mars.[3]

For human riders on an Earth-based elevator, adequate protection against radiation would likely need to be provided, depending on the transit time through the Van Allen belts. At the transit times expected for early systems, radiation due to the Van Allen belts would, if unshielded, give a dose well above permitted levels.[4]

21st century

After the development of carbon nanotubes in the 1990s, engineer David Smitherman of NASA/Marshall’s Advanced Projects Office realized that the high strength of these materials might make the concept of an orbital skyhook feasible, and put together a workshop at the Marshall Space Flight Center, inviting many scientists and engineers to discuss concepts and compile plans for an elevator to turn the concept into a reality.[11] The publication he edited, compiling information from the workshop, “Space Elevators: An Advanced Earth-Space Infrastructure for the New Millennium”,[12] provides an introduction to the state of the technology at the time, and summarizes the findings.

Another American scientist, Bradley C. Edwards, suggested creating a 100,000 km (62,000 mi) long paper-thin ribbon using a carbon nanotube composite material. He chose a ribbon type structure rather than a cable because that structure might stand a greater chance of surviving impacts by meteoroids. Supported by the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts, Edwards’ work was expanded to cover the deployment scenario, climber design, power delivery system, orbital debris avoidance, anchor system, surviving atomic oxygen, avoiding lightning and hurricanes by locating the anchor in the western equatorial Pacific, construction costs, construction schedule, and environmental hazards.[13][14] The largest holdup to Edwards’ proposed design is the technological limit of the tether material. His calculations call for a fiber composed of epoxy-bonded carbon nanotubes with a minimal tensile strength of 130 GPa (19 million psi) (including a safety factor of 2); however, tests in 2000 of individual single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs), which should be notably stronger than an epoxy-bonded rope, indicated the strongest measured as 52 GPa (7.5 million psi).[15] Multi-walled carbon nanotubes have been measured with tensile strengths up to 63 GPa (9 million psi).[16]

To speed space elevator development, proponents are planning several competitions, similar to the Ansari X Prize, for relevant technologies.[17][18] Among them are Elevator:2010, which will organize annual competitions for climbers, ribbons and power-beaming systems, the Robogames Space Elevator Ribbon Climbing competition,[19] as well as NASA’s Centennial Challenges program, which, in March 2005, announced a partnership with the Spaceward Foundation (the operator of Elevator:2010), raising the total value of prizes to US$400,000.[20][21]The first European Space Elevator Challenge (EuSEC) to establish a climber structure took place in August 2011.[22]

In 2005, “the LiftPort Group of space elevator companies announced that it will be building a carbon nanotube manufacturing plant in Millville, New Jersey, to supply various glass, plastic and metal companies with these strong materials. Although LiftPort hopes to eventually use carbon nanotubes in the construction of a 100,000 km (62,000 mi) space elevator, this move will allow it to make money in the short term and conduct research and development into new production methods. The goal was a space elevator launch in 2010.”[dated info][23] On February 13, 2006 the LiftPort Group announced that, earlier the same month, they had tested a mile of “space-elevator tether” made of carbon-fiber composite strings and fiberglass tape measuring 5 cm (2 in) wide and 1 mm (approx. 6 sheets of paper) thick, lifted with balloons.[24]

In 2007, Elevator:2010 held the 2007 Space Elevator games, which featured US$500,000 awards for each of the two competitions, (US$1,000,000 total) as well as an additional US$4,000,000 to be awarded over the next five years for space elevator related technologies.[25] No teams won the competition, but a team from MIT entered the first 2-gram (0.07 oz), 100% carbon nanotube entry into the competition.[26] Japan held an international conference in November 2008 to draw up a timetable for building the elevator.[27]

In 2008 the book “Leaving the Planet by Space Elevator”, by Dr. Brad Edwards and Philip Ragan, was published in Japanese and entered the Japanese best seller list.[28] This has led to a Japanese announcement of intent to build a Space Elevator at a projected price tag of a trillion yen (£5 billion/ $8 billion). In a report by Leo Lewis, Tokyo correspondent of The Times newspaper in England, plans by Shuichi Ono, chairman of the Japan Space Elevator Association, are unveiled. Lewis says: “Japan is increasingly confident that its sprawling academic and industrial base can solve those [construction] issues, and has even put the astonishingly low price tag of a trillion yen (£5 billion/ $8 billion) on building the elevator. Japan is renowned as a global leader in the precision engineering and high-quality material production without which the idea could never be possible.”[27] In 2011, Google was revealed to be working on plans for a space elevator at its secretive Google X Lab location. [29]

Structure

One concept for the space elevator has it tethered to a mobile seagoing platform.

There are a variety of space elevator designs. Almost every design includes a base station, a cable, climbers, and a counterweight. Earth’s rotation creates upward centrifugal force on the counterweight. The counterweight is held down by the cable while the cable is held up and taut by the counterweight. The base station anchors the whole system to the surface of the Earth. Climbers climb up and down the cable with cargo.

Base station

The base station designs typically fall into two categories—mobile and stationary. Mobile stations are typically large oceangoing vessels.[30]Stationary platforms would generally be located in high-altitude locations, such as on top of mountains, or even potentially on high towers.[6]

Mobile platforms have the advantage of being able to maneuver to avoid high winds, storms, and space debris. While stationary platforms don’t have these advantages, they typically would have access to cheaper and more reliable power sources, and require a shorter cable. While the decrease in cable length may seem minimal (no more than a few kilometers), the cable thickness could be reduced over its entire length, significantly reducing the total weight.

Cable

Carbon nanotubes are one of the candidates for a cable material

A space elevator cable must carry its own weight as well as the (smaller) weight of climbers. The required strength of the cable will vary along its length, since at various points it has to carry the weight of the cable below, or provide a centripetal force to retain the cable and counterweight above. In a 1998 report,[31] NASA researchers noted that “maximum stress [on a space elevator cable] is at geosynchronous altitude so the cable must be thickest there and taper exponentially as it approaches Earth. Any potential material may be characterized by the taper factor – the ratio between the cable’s radius at geosynchronous altitude and at the Earth’s surface.”

The cable must be made of a material with a large tensile strength/density ratio. For example, the Edwards space elevator design assumes a cable material with a specific strength of at least 100,000 kN/(kg/m).[32] This value takes into consideration the entire weight of the space elevator. A space elevator would need a material capable of sustaining a length of 4,960 kilometers (3,080 mi) of its own weight at sea level to reach a geostationary altitude of 35,786 km (22,236 mi) without tapering and without breaking.[33] Therefore, a material with very high strength and lightness is needed.

For comparison, metals like titanium, steel or aluminium alloys have breaking lengths of only 20–30 km. Modern fibre materials such as kevlar,fibreglass and carbon/graphite fibre have breaking lengths of 100–400 km. Quartz fibers have an advantage that they can be drawn to a length of hundreds of kilometers[34] even with the present-day technology. Nanoengineered materials such as carbon nanotubes and, more recently discovered, graphene ribbons (perfect two-dimensional sheets of carbon) are expected to have breaking lengths of 5000–6000 km at sea level, and also are able to conduct electrical power.

Carbon is such a good candidate material (for high specific strength) because, as only the 6th element in the periodic table, it has very few of the nucleons which contribute most of the dead weight of any material (whereas most of the interatomic bonding forces are contributed by only the outer few electrons); the challenge now remains to extend to macroscopic sizes the production of such material that are still perfect on the microscopic scale (as microscopic defects are most responsible for material weakness). The current (2009) carbon nanotube technology allows growing tubes up to a few tens of centimeters

only.[35]

A seagoing anchor station would incidentally act as a deep-water seaport.

Climbers


A space elevator cannot be an elevator in the typical sense (with moving cables) due to the need for the cable to be significantly wider at the center than the tips. While various designs employing moving cables have been proposed, most cable designs call for the “elevator” to climb up a stationary cable.

A conceptual drawing of a space elevator climbing through the clouds.

Climbers cover a wide range of designs. On elevator designs whose cables are planar ribbons, most propose to use pairs of rollers to hold the cable with friction.

Climbers must be paced at optimal timings so as to minimize cable stress and oscillations and to maximize throughput. Lighter climbers can be sent up more often, with several going up at the same time. This increases throughput somewhat, but lowers the mass of each individual payload.[citation needed]

As the car climbs, the elevator takes on a 1 degree lean, due to the top of the elevator traveling faster than the bottom around the Earth (Coriolis force). This diagram is not to scale.

The horizontal speed of each part of the cable increases with altitude, proportional to distance from the center of the Earth, reaching orbital velocity at geostationary orbit. Therefore as a payload is lifted up a space elevator, it needs to gain not only altitude but angular momentum(horizontal speed) as well. This angular momentum is taken from the Earth’s own rotation. As the climber ascends it is initially moving slightly more slowly than the cable that it moves onto (Coriolis force) and thus the climber “drags” on the cable.

The overall effect of the centrifugal force acting on the cable causes it to constantly try to return to the energetically favourable vertical orientation, so after an object has been lifted on the cable the counterweight will swing back towards the vertical like an inverted pendulum. Space elevators and their loads will be designed so that the center of mass is always well-enough above the level of geostationary orbit to hold up the whole system. Lift and descent operations must be carefully planned so as to keep the pendulum-like motion of the counterweight around the tether point under control.

By the time the payload has reached GEO the angular momentum (horizontal speed) is enough that the payload is in orbit.

The opposite process would occur for payloads descending the elevator, tilting the cable eastwards and insignificantly increasing Earth’s rotation speed.

It has also been proposed to use a second cable attached to a platform to lift payload up the main cable, since the lifting device would not have to deal with its own weight against Earth’s gravity. Out of the many proposed theories, powering any lifting device also continues to present a challenge.

Another design constraint will be the ascending speed of the climber. As geosynchronous orbit is at 35,786 km (22,236 mi), assuming the climber can reach the speed of a very fast car or train of 300 km/h (180 mph) it will take 5 days to climb to geosynchronous orbit.

Powering climber

Both power and energy are significant issues for climbers—the climbers need to gain a large amount of potential energy as quickly as possible to clear the cable for the next payload.

Various methods have been proposed to get that energy to the climber:

  • Transfer the energy to the climber through wireless energy transfer while it is climbing.
  • Transfer the energy to the climber through some material structure while it is climbing.
  • Store the energy in the climber before it starts – requires an extremely high specific energy such as nuclear energy.
  • Solar power – power compared to the weight of panels limits the speed of climb.

Wireless energy transfer such as laser power beaming is currently considered the most likely method. Using megawatt powered free electron or solid state lasers in combination with adaptive mirrors approximately 10 m (33 ft) wide and a photovoltaic array on the climber tuned to the laser frequency for efficiency. For climber designs powered by power beaming, this efficiency is an important design goal. Unused energy must be re-radiated away with heat-dissipation systems, which add to weight.

Yoshio Aoki, a professor of precision machinery engineering at Nihon University and director of the Japan Space Elevator Association, suggested including a second cable and using the conductivity of carbon nanotubes to provide power.

Various mechanical means of applying power have also been proposed; such as moving, looped or vibrating cables.

Counterweight

Several solutions have been proposed to act as a counterweight:

  • a heavy, captured asteroid;]
  • a space dock, space station or spaceport positioned past geostationary orbit; or
  • a further upward extension of the cable itself so that the net upward pull is the same as an equivalent counterweight;
  • parked spent climbers that had been used to thicken the cable during construction, other junk, and material lifted up the cable for the purpose of increasing the counterweight.

Extending the cable has the advantage of some simplicity of the task and the fact that a payload that went to the end of the counterweight-cable would acquire considerable velocity relative to the Earth, allowing it to be launched into interplanetary space. Its disadvantage is the need to produce greater amounts of cable material as opposed to using anything that has mass.

Alternative concepts

The original concept envisioned by Tsiolkovsky was a compression structure, a concept similar to an aerial mast. While such structures might reach the agreed altitude for space(100 km—62 mi), they are unlikely to reach geostationary orbit. The concept of a Tsiolkovsky tower combined with a classic space elevator cable has been suggested.[6]

A mini version[40] of the Space Elevator to access near-space altitudes of 20 km (12 mi) has been proposed by Canadian researchers. The structure would be pneumatically supported and free standing with control systems guiding the structure’s center of mass. Proposed uses include tourism and commerce, communications, wind generation and low-cost space launch.[41]

Other alternatives to a space elevator include an orbital ring, a pneumatic space tower,[42] a space fountain, a launch loop, a Skyhook, a space tether, a space hoist and theSpaceShaft.[43]

Launching into deep space

An object attached to a space elevator at a radius of approximately 53,100 km will be at escape velocity when released. Transfer orbits to the L1 and L2 Lagrangian points can be attained by release at 50,630 and 51,240 km, respectively, and transfer to lunar orbit from 50,960 km.

The velocities that might be attained at the end of Pearson’s 144,000 km (89,000 mi) cable can be determined. The tangential velocity is 10.93 kilometers per second (6.79 mi/s), which is more than enough to escape Earth’s gravitational field and send probes at least as far out as Jupiter. Once at Jupiter, a gravitational assist maneuver permits solar escape velocity to be reached.

Extraterrestrial elevators

A space elevator could also be constructed on other planets, asteroids and moons.

A Martian tether could be much shorter than one on Earth. Mars’ surface gravity is 38% of Earth’s, while it rotates around its axis in about the same time as Earth.[46] Because of this, Martian areostationary orbit is much closer to the surface, and hence the elevator would be much shorter. Current materials are already sufficiently strong to construct such an elevator. However, building a Martian elevator would be complicated by the Martian moon Phobos, which is in a low orbit and intersects the Equator regularly (twice every orbital period of 11 h 6 min).

A lunar space elevator can possibly be built with currently available technology about 50,000 kilometers (31,000 mi) long extending through the Earth-Moon L1 point from an anchor point near the center of the visible part of Earth’s moon. However, the lack of an atmosphere allows for other, perhaps better, alternatives to rockets, such as mass driver systems.

On the far side of the moon, a lunar space elevator would need to be very long (more than twice the length of an Earth elevator) but due to the low gravity of the Moon, can be made of existing engineering materials.

Rapidly spinning asteroids or moons could use cables to eject materials to convenient points, such as Earth orbits; or conversely, to eject materials to send the bulk of the mass of the asteroid or moon to Earth orbit or a Lagrangian point. Freeman Dyson, a physicist and mathematician, has suggested using such smaller systems as power generators at points distant from the Sun where solar power is uneconomical. For the purpose of mass ejection, it is not necessary to rely on the asteroid or moon to be rapidly spinning. Instead of attaching the tether to the equator of a rotating body, it can be attached to a rotating hub on the surface. This was suggested in 1980 as a “Rotary Rocket” by Pearson and described very succinctly on the Island One website as a “Tapered Sling”.

A space elevator using presently available engineering materials could be constructed between mutually tidally locked worlds, such as Pluto and Charon or the components of binary asteroid Antiope, with no terminus disconnect, according to Francis Graham of Kent State University. However, spooled variable lengths of cable must be used due to ellipticity of the orbits.

Construction

The construction of a space elevator is considered to be a large project. Like other historical large projects it entails technical risk: some advances in engineering, manufacturing and physical technology are required. Once a first space elevator is built, the second one and all others would have the use of the previous ones to assist in construction, making their costs considerably cheaper. Such follow-on space elevators would also benefit from the great reduction in technical risk achieved by the construction of the first space elevator.

Construction is conceived as the deployment of a long cable from a large spool. The spool is initially parked in a geostationary orbit above the planned anchor point. When a long cable is dropped “down” (toward Earth), it must be balanced by balancing mass being dropped “up” (away from Earth) for the whole system to remain on the geosynchronous orbit. Some designs imagine the balancing mass being another cable (with counterweight) extending upward, other designs elevate the spool itself as the main cable is paid out. When the lower end of the cable is so long as to reach the Earth, it can be anchored at some place. Once anchored, the center of mass is elevated upward more (by adding mass at the upper end or by paying out more cable). This adds more tension to the whole cable, which can then be used as an elevator cable.

Safety issues and construction challenges

Depending on transit times through the Van Allen radiation belts passengers will need to be protected from radiation by shielding, which adds mass to the climber and decreases payload. For early systems, transit times are expected to be long enough where, if unshielded, total exposure would be above levels considered safe.

A space elevator would present a navigational hazard, both to aircraft and spacecraft. Aircraft could be diverted by air-traffic control restrictions. All objects in stable orbits that haveperigee below the maximum altitude of the cable that are not synchronous with the cable will impact the cable eventually, unless avoiding action is taken. For spacecraft one potential solution proposed by Edwards is to use a movable anchor (a sea anchor) to allow the tether to “dodge” any space debris large enough to track.[30]

Impacts by space objects such as meteoroids, micrometeorites and orbiting man-made debris, pose another design constraint on the cable. A cable would need to be designed to maneuver out of the way of debris, or absorb impacts of small debris without breaking.

Economics

With a space elevator, materials might be sent into orbit at a fraction of the current cost. As of 2000, conventional rocket designs cost about US$11,000 per pound (US$25,000 perkilogram) for transfer to geostationary orbit. Current proposals envision payload prices starting as low as $100 per pound ($220 per kilogram), similar to the $5–$300/kg estimates of the Launch loop, but higher than the $310/ton to 500 km orbit quoted to Dr. Jerry Pournelle for an orbital airship system.

Philip Ragan, co-author of the book “Leaving the Planet by Space Elevator”, states that “The first country to deploy a space elevator will have a 95 percent cost advantage and could potentially control all space activities.”

Categories: science

Nilekani unique card project bill is Rs 3,000 crore

November 27, 2011 Leave a comment

Giving every Indian resident an identity number will cost Rs 3,000 crore. That’s the estimate made by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) led by the former Infosys CEO Nandan Nilekani. In a 40-page document on the unique ID project, leaked on the online portal wikileaks.org, the authority says enrolling each resident in the project will cost between Rs 20 and Rs 25, taking the cost of providing ID numbers to 1.2 billion people to over Rs 3,000 crore. Estimates in the media on the project have varied sharply between Rs 500 crore and Rs 1,50,000 crore.

Wikileaks calls itself the ‘uncensorable part of Wikipedia’, focusing on protecting internal dissidents, whistleblowers, journalists and bloggers. The UID document is the third Indian one this year on the site, which specialises in exposing documents marked secret or is beyond public purview.

Here’s everything you ever wanted to know about the project gleaned from the UIDAI document.

The Unique ID Number: The authority will create a unique ID number for each resident in the country, linked to a person’s demographic and biometric information. It will have a person’s name, date of birth, place of birth, gender, father’s name, father’s UID number (optional for adult residents), mother’s name, mother’s UID number (optional for adults), address (permanent and present), expiry date; photograph and fingerprints (all ten fingers). No other information will be collected. The law on UID will specifically prohibit collection of any information regarding religion, race, ethnicity, caste and similar matters. It’s called ‘unique’ because a duplicate for the same person cannot be issued. It will remain valid for life with regular updating. Any attempt to enroll for a second UID elsewhere with the aim to defraud will attract penal action.

Purpose of UID: It will only guarantee identity and will not confer any rights, benefits or entitlements. It does not confer citizenship. The residents would however be spared the hassle of repeatedly providing supporting identity documents each time they open a bank account or apply for passport or a driving licence or any other similar service. It will be accepted as identity proof across service providers.

The Cost: Residents will not be charged for enrolling for the UID numbers.

Is it mandatory? No. The authority believes that getting the UID number will be demand-driven, where the benefits and services linked to the number will ensure demand for it. Even schools will demand a child’s UID before admission.

ID card & registrars: The authority will not issue any cards. However, registrars, which include state governments, or central government entities such as oil ministry or Life Insurance Corporation of India which would enroll residents would have the option to issue UID cards for a certain charge. The authority will decide the charge. Registrars may also be private sector participants such as banks and insurance firms. Rural development and panchayati raj department and municipalities would be sub-registrars to the state government registrars.

Enrolling agencies: Registrars will also establish resident touch points through enrolling agencies. For example, a hospital where a baby is born would be an enrolling agency for the baby’s ID, reporting to municipality sub-registrar. A baby would necessarily have to be given a name before enrolling. Birth certificates will carry the UID number. Enrolling agencies will take in a person’s information and verify the supporting documents on the basis of ‘know your resident’ standards. Document norms for the poor or marginalised groups may be relaxed or different.

ID repository: The authority will be the regulatory body for managing the central ID data repository. Once the enrolling agencies send the demographic and biometric information to the repository, a Unique ID number, randomly generated, would be sent to the enrolling agencies and given to the resident with details, including a 2D barcode.

Ensuring uniqueness: Each resident’s data will be checked on key fields and the fingerprints against the database to ensure that there is no duplication.

Updating information: The UID number will remain the same for a lifetime, but biometric information would have to be updated every five years for children and ten years for adults. Demographic information like change of address and name (after marriage) would also be updated.

Authentication & privacy: The authority will offer online authentication where agencies can compare the demographic and biometric information with the record in the central database. When authenticating data on a particular resident, it will not part with information, but only give a ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ answer. Several levels of technology safeguards are being put in place to ensure that privacy of residents is maintained. Basic identity confirmation, say the UID number, name and one other parameter such as date of birth would be free. But address verification will cost Rs 5 and biometric confirmation on the photograph or fingerprint would be a charged at Rs 10. Biometric confirmation may largely be done by credit card and financial companies. The authority expects to earn Rs 288 crore a year from paid verification.

Two-language formula: All data entry by enrolling agencies will be done in English. However, this can be converted into the local language using transliteration software. The details sent to residents will have all demographic data in English and the local language.

Tracking enrolments: The authority will use a internet-based geographical information system (GIS) to visually track all enrolment trends and patterns down to the districts.

The Timeline: The authority will start issuing UIDs in 12-18 months and it aims to cover 600 million people within four years, and almost the whole population in another six.

Recording deaths: The UID system will not remove a record upon a person’s death; it will simply be marked as ‘deceased’ which will render it inactive for identification purposes.

The authority says eliminating duplication under various government schemes is expected to save the exchequer over Rs 20,000 crore a year. India is the first country to implement a biometric-based UID system on such a large scale.

Categories: Ethics

Secret Files on All Guantánamo Prisoners

November 27, 2011 Leave a comment

In thousands of pages of documents dating from 2002 to 2008 and never seen before by members of the public or the media, the cases of the majority of the prisoners held at Guantánamo — 765 out of 779 in total — are described in detail in memoranda from JTF-GTMO, the Joint Task Force at Guantánamo Bay, to US Southern Command in Miami, Florida.In its latest release of classified US documents, WikiLeaks is shining the light of truth on a notorious icon of the Bush administration’s “War on Terror” — the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, which opened on January 11, 2002, and remains open under President Obama, despite his promise to close the much-criticized facility within a year of taking office.

These memoranda, known as Detainee Assessment Briefs (DABs), contain JTF-GTMO’s recommendations about whether the prisoners in question should continue to be held, or should be released (transferred to their home governments, or to other governments). They consist of a wealth of important and previously undisclosed information, including health assessments, for example, and, in the cases of the majority of the 172 prisoners who are still held, photos (mostly for the first time ever).

They also include information on the first 201 prisoners released from the prison, between 2002 and 2004, which, unlike information on the rest of the prisoners (summaries of evidence and tribunal transcripts, released as the result of a lawsuit filed by media groups in 2006), has never been made public before. Most of these documents reveal accounts of incompetence familiar to those who have studied Guantánamo closely, with innocent men detained by mistake (or because the US was offering substantial bounties to its allies for al-Qaeda or Taliban suspects), and numerous insignificant Taliban conscripts from Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Beyond these previously unknown cases, the documents also reveal stories of the 399 other prisoners released from September 2004 to the present day, and of the seven men who have died at the prison.

The memos are signed by the commander of Guantánamo at the time, and describe whether the prisoners in question are regarded as low, medium or high risk. Although they were obviously not conclusive in and of themselves, as final decisions about the disposition of prisoners were taken at a higher level, they represent not only the opinions of JTF-GTMO, but also the Criminal Investigation Task Force, created by the Department of Defense to conduct interrogations in the “War on Terror,” and the BSCTs, the behavioral science teams consisting of psychologists who had a major say in the “exploitation” of prisoners in interrogation.

Crucially, the files also contain detailed explanations of the supposed intelligence used to justify the prisoners’ detention. For many readers, these will be the most fascinating sections of the documents, as they seem to offer an extraordinary insight into the workings of US intelligence, but although many of the documents appear to promise proof of prisoners’ association with al-Qaeda or other terrorist organizations, extreme caution is required.

The documents draw on the testimony of witnesses — in most cases, the prisoners’ fellow prisoners — whose words are unreliable, either because they were subjected to torture or other forms of coercion (sometimes not in Guantánamo, but in secret prisons run by the CIA), or because they provided false statements to secure better treatment in Guantánamo.

Regular appearances throughout these documents by witnesses whose words should be regarded as untrustworthy include the following “high-value detainees” or “ghost prisoners”. Please note that “ISN” and the numbers in brackets following the prisoners’ names refer to the short “Internment Serial Numbers” by which the prisoners are or were identified in US custody:

Abu Zubaydah (ISN 10016), the supposed “high-value detainee” seized in Pakistan in March 2002, who spent four and a half years in secret CIA prisons, including facilities in Thailand and Poland. Subjected to waterboarding, a form of controlled drowning, on 83 occasions in CIA custody August 2002, Abu Zubaydah was moved to Guantánamo with 13 other “high-value detainees” in September 2006.

Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi (ISN 212), the emir of a military training camp for which Abu Zubaydah was the gatekeeper, who, despite having his camp closed by the Taliban in 2000, because he refused to allow it to be taken over by al-Qaeda, is described in these documents as Osama bin Laden’s military commander in Tora Bora. Soon after his capture in December 2001, al-Libi was rendered by the CIA to Egypt, where, under torture, he falsely confessed that al-Qaeda operatives had been meeting with Saddam Hussein to discuss obtaining chemical and biological weapons. Al-Libi recanted this particular lie, but it was nevertheless used by the Bush administration to justify the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Al-Libi was never sent to Guantánamo, although at some point, probably in 2006, the CIA sent him back to Libya, where he was imprisoned, and where he died, allegedly by committing suicide, in May 2009.

Sharqawi Abdu Ali al-Hajj (ISN 1457), a Yemeni, also known as Riyadh the Facilitator, who was seized in a house raid in Pakistan in February 2002, and is described as “an al-Qaeda facilitator.” After his capture, he was transferred to a torture prison in Jordan run on behalf of the CIA, where he was held for nearly two years, and was then held for six months in US facilities in Afghanistan. He was flown to Guantánamo in September 2004.

Sanad Yislam al-Kazimi (ISN 1453), a Yemeni, who was seized in the UAE in January 2003, and then held in three secret prisons, including the “Dark Prison” near Kabul and a secret facility within the US prison at Bagram airbase. In February 2010, in the District Court in Washington D.C., Judge Henry H. Kennedy Jr. granted the habeas corpus petition of a Yemeni prisoner, Uthman Abdul Rahim Mohammed Uthman, largely because he refused to accept testimony produced by either Sharqawi al-Hajj or Sanad al-Kazimi. As he stated, “The Court will not rely on the statements of Hajj or Kazimi because there is unrebutted evidence in the record that, at the time of the interrogations at which they made the statements, both men had recently been tortured.”

Others include Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani (ISN 10012) and Walid bin Attash (ISN 10014), two more of the “high-value detainees” transferred into Guantánamo in September 2006, after being held in secret CIA prisons.

Other unreliable witnesses, held at Guantánamo throughout their detention, include:

Yasim Basardah (ISN 252), a Yemeni known as a notorious liar. As the Washington Post reported in February 2009, he was given preferential treatment in Guantánamo after becoming what some officials regarded as a significant informant, although there were many reasons to be doubtful. As the Post noted, “military officials … expressed reservations about the credibility of their star witness since 2004,” and in 2006, in an article for the National Journal, Corine Hegland described how, after a Combatant Status Review Tribunal at which a prisoner had taken exception to information provided by Basardah, placing him at a training camp before he had even arrived in Afghanistan, his personal representative (a military official assigned instead of a lawyer) investigated Basardah’s file, and found that he had made similar claims against 60 other prisoners in total. In January 2009, in the District Court in Washington D.C., Judge Richard Leon (an appointee of George W. Bush) excluded Basardah’s statements whilegranting the habeas corpus petition of Mohammed El-Gharani, a Chadian national who was just 14 years old when he was seized in a raid on a mosque in Pakistan. Judge Leon noted that the government had “specifically cautioned against relying on his statements without independent corroboration,” and in other habeas cases that followed, other judges relied on this precedent, discrediting the “star witness” still further.

Mohammed al-Qahtani (ISN 063), a Saudi regarded as the planned 20th hijacker for the 9/11 attacks, wassubjected to a specific torture program at Guantánamo, approved by defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld. This consisted of 20-hour interrogations every day, over a period of several months, and various other “enhanced interrogation techniques,” which severely endangered his health. Variations of these techniques then migrated to other prisoners in Guantánamo (and to Abu Ghraib), and in January 2009, just before George W. Bush left office, Susan Crawford, a retired judge and a close friend of Dick Cheney and David Addington, who was appointed to oversee the military commissions at Guantánamo as the convening authority, told Bob Woodward that she had refused to press charges against al-Qahtani, because, as she said, “We tortured Qahtani. His treatment met the legal definition of torture.” As a result, his numerous statements about other prisoners must be regarded as worthless.

Abd al-Hakim Bukhari (ISN 493), a Saudi imprisoned by al-Qaeda as a spy, who was liberated by US forces from a Taliban jail before being sent, inexplicably, to Guantánamo (along with four other men liberated from the jail) is regarded in the files as a member of al-Qaeda, and a trustworthy witness.

Abd al-Rahim Janko (ISN 489), a Syrian Kurd, tortured by al-Qaeda as a spy and then imprisoned by the Taliban along with Abd al-Hakim Bukhari, above, is also used as a witness, even though he was mentally unstable. As his assessment in June 2008 stated, “Detainee is on a list of high-risk detainees from a health perspective … He has several chronic medical problems. He has a psychiatric history of substance abuse, depression, borderline personality disorder, and prior suicide attempt for which he is followed by behavioral health for treatment.”

These are just some of the most obvious cases, but alert readers will notice that they are cited repeatedly in what purports to be the government’s evidence, and it should, as a result, be difficult not to conclude that the entire edifice constructed by the government is fundamentally unsound, and that what the Guantánamo Files reveal, primarily, is that only a few dozen prisoners are genuinely accused of involvement in terrorism.

The rest, these documents reveal on close inspection, were either innocent men and boys, seized by mistake, or Taliban foot soldiers, unconnected to terrorism. Moreover, many of these prisoners were actually sold to US forces, who were offering bounty payments for al-Qaeda and Taliban suspects, by their Afghan and Pakistani allies — a policy that led ex-President Musharraf to state, in his 2006 memoir, In the Line of Fire, that, in return for handing over 369 terror suspects to the US, the Pakistani government “earned bounty payments totalling millions of dollars.”

Uncomfortable facts like these are not revealed in the deliberations of the Joint Task Force, but they are crucial to understanding why what can appear to be a collection of documents confirming the government’s scaremongering rhetoric about Guantánamo — the same rhetoric that has paralyzed President Obama, and revived the politics of fear in Congress — is actually the opposite: the anatomy of a colossal crime perpetrated by the US government on 779 prisoners who, for the most part, are not and never have been the terrorists the government would like us to believe they are.

(Andy Worthington)

How to Read WikiLeaks’ Guantánamo Files

The nearly 800 documents in WikiLeaks’ latest release of classified US documents are memoranda from Joint Task Force Guantánamo (JTF-GTMO), the combined force in charge of the US “War on Terror” prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to US Southern Command, in Miami, Florida, regarding the disposition of the prisoners.

Written between 2002 and 2008, the memoranda were all marked as “secret,” and their subject was whether to continue holding a prisoner, or whether to recommend his release (described as his “transfer” — to the custody of his own government, or that of some other government). They were obviously not conclusive in and of themselves, as final decisions about the disposition of prisoners were taken at a higher level, but they are very significant, as they represent not only the opinions of JTF-GTMO, but also the Criminal Investigation Task Force, created by the Department of Defense to conduct interrogations in the “War on Terror,” and the BSCTs, the behavioral science teams consisting of psychologists who had a major say in the “exploitation” of prisoners in interrogation.

Under the heading, “JTF-GTMO Detainee Assessment,” the memos generally contain nine sections, describing the prisoners as follows, although the earlier examples, especially those dealing with prisoners released — or recommended for release — between 2002 and 2004, may have less detailed analyses than the following:

1. Personal information

Each prisoner is identified by name, by aliases, which the US claims to have identified, by place and date of birth, by citizenship, and by Internment Serial Number (ISN). These long lists of numbers and letters — e.g. US9YM-000027DP — are used to identify the prisoners in Guantánamo, helping to dehumanize them, as intended, by doing away with their names. The most significant section is the number towards the end, which is generally shortened, so that the example above would be known as ISN 027. In the files, the prisoners are identified by nationality, with 47 countries in total listed alphabetically, from “az” for Afghanistan to “ym” for Yemen.

2. Health

This section describes whether or not the prisoner in question has mental health issues and/or physical health issues. Many are judged to be in good health, but there are some shocking examples of prisoners with severe mental and/or physical problems.

3. JTF-GTMO Assessment

a. Under “Recommendation,” the Task Force explains whether a prisoner should continue to be held, or should be released. b. Under “Executive Summary,” the Task Force briefly explains its reasoning, and, in more recent cases, also explains whether the prisoner is a low, medium or high risk as a threat to the US and its allies and as a threat in detention (i.e. based on their behavior in Guantánamo), and also whether they are regarded as of low, medium or high intelligence value. c. Under “Summary of Changes,” the Task Force explains whether there has been any change in the information provided since the last appraisal (generally, the prisoners are appraised on an annual basis).

4. Detainee’s Account of Events

Based on the prisoners’ own testimony, this section puts together an account of their history, and how they came to be seized, in Afghanistan, Pakistan or elsewhere, based on their own words.

5. Capture Information

This section explains how and where the prisoners were seized, and is followed by a description of their possessions at the time of capture, the date of their transfer to Guantánamo, and, spuriously, “Reasons for Transfer to JTF-GTMO,” which lists alleged reasons for the prisoners’ transfer, such as knowledge of certain topics for exploitation through interrogation. The reason that this is unconvincing is because, as former interrogator Chris Mackey (a pseudonym) explained in his book The Interrogators, the US high command, based in Camp Doha, Kuwait, stipulated that every prisoner who ended up in US custody had to be transferred to Guantánamo — and that there were no exceptions; in other words, the “Reasons for transfer” were grafted on afterwards, as an attempt to justify the largely random rounding-up of prisoners.

6. Evaluation of Detainee’s Account

In this section, the Task Force analyzes whether or not they find the prisoners’ accounts convincing.

7. Detainee Threat

This section is the most significant from the point of view of the supposed intelligence used to justify the detention of prisoners. After “Assessment,” which reiterates the conclusion at 3b, the main section, “Reasons for Continued Detention,” may, at first glance, look convincing, but it must be stressed that, for the most part, it consists of little more than unreliable statements made by the prisoners’ fellow prisoners — either in Guantánamo, or in secret prisons run by the CIA, where torture and other forms of coercion were widespread, or through more subtle means in Guantánamo, where compliant prisoners who were prepared to make statements about their fellow prisoners were rewarded with better treatment. Some examples are available on the homepage for the release of these documents: http://wikileaks.ch/gitmo/

With this in mind, it should be noted that there are good reasons why Obama administration officials, in the interagency Guantánamo Review Task Force established by the President to review the cases of the 241 prisoners still held in Guantánamo when he took office, concluded that only 36 could be prosecuted.

The final part of this section, “Detainee’s Conduct,” analyzes in detail how the prisoners have behaved during their imprisonment, with exact figures cited for examples of “Disciplinary Infraction.”

8. Detainee Intelligence Value Assessment

After reiterating the intelligence assessment at 3b and recapping on the prisoners’ alleged status, this section primarily assesses which areas of intelligence remain to be “exploited,” according to the Task Force.

9. EC Status

The final section notes whether or not the prisoner in question is still regarded as an “enemy combatant,” based on the findings of the Combatant Status Review Tribunals, held in 2004-05 to ascertain whether, on capture, the prisoners had been correctly labeled as “enemy combatants.” Out of 558 cases, just 38 prisoners were assessed as being “no longer enemy combatants,” and in some cases, when the result went in the prisoners’ favor, the military convened new panels until it got the desired result.

Categories: Ethics

The best goal is no goal

November 27, 2011 Leave a comment

“With the past, I have nothing to do; nor with the future. I live now.” ~Ralph Waldo Emerson

The idea of having concrete, achievable goals seem to be deeply ingrained in our culture. I know I lived with goals for many years, and in fact a big part of my writings here on Zen Habits are about how to set and achieve goals.

These days, however, I live without goals, for the most part. It’s absolutely liberating, and contrary to what you might have been taught, it absolutely doesn’t mean you stop achieving things.

It means you stop letting yourself be limited by goals.

Consider this common belief: “You’ll never get anywhere unless you know where you’re going.” This seems so common sensical, and yet it’s obviously not true if you stop to think about it. Conduct a simple experiment: go outside and walk in a random direction, and feel free to change directions randomly. After 20 minutes, an hour … you’ll be somewhere! It’s just that you didn’t know you were going to end up there.

And there’s the rub: you have to open your mind to going places you never expected to go. If you live without goals, you’ll explore new territory. You’ll learn some unexpected things. You’ll end up in surprising places. That’s the beauty of this philosophy, but it’s also a difficult transition.

Today, I live mostly without goals. Now and then I start coming up with a goal, but I’m letting them go. Living without goals hasn’t ever been an actual goal of mine … it’s just something I’m learning that I enjoy more, that is incredibly freeing, that works with the lifestyle of following my passion that I’ve developed.

The problem with goals

In the past, I’d set a goal or three for the year, and then sub-goals for each month. Then I’d figure out what action steps to take each week and each day, and try to focus my day on those steps.

Unfortunately, it never, ever works out this neatly. You all know this. You know you need to work on an action step, and you try to keep the end goal in mind to motivate yourself. But this action step might be something you dread, and so you procrastinate. You do other work, or you check email or Facebook, or you goof off.

And so your weekly goals and monthly goals get pushed back or side-tracked, and you get discouraged because you have no discipline. And goals are too hard to achieve. So now what? Well, you review your goals and reset them. You create a new set of sub-goals and action plans. You know where you’re going, because you have goals!

Of course, you don’t actually end up getting there. Sometimes you achieve the goal and then you feel amazing. But most of the time you don’t achieve them and you blame it on yourself.

Here’s the secret: the problem isn’t you, it’s the system! Goals as a system are set up for failure.

Even when you do things exactly right, it’s not ideal. Here’s why: you are extremely limited in your actions. When you don’t feel like doing something, you have to force yourself to do it. Your path is chosen, so you don’t have room to explore new territory. You have to follow the plan, even when you’re passionate about something else.

Some goal systems are more flexible, but nothing is as flexible as having no goals.

How it works

So what does a life without goals look like? In practice, it’s very different than one with goals.

You don’t set a goal for the year, nor for the month, nor for the week or day. You don’t obsess about tracking, or actionable steps. You don’t even need a to-do list, though it doesn’t hurt to write down reminders if you like.

What do you do, then? Lay around on the couch all day, sleeping and watching TV and eating Ho-Hos? No, you simply do. You find something you’re passionate about, and do it. Just because you don’t have goals doesn’t mean you do nothing — you can create, you can produce, you can follow your passion.

And in practice, this is a wonderful thing: you wake up and do what you’re passionate about. For me, that’s usually blogging, but it can be writing a novel or an ebook or my next book or creating a course to help others or connecting with incredible people or spending time with my wife or playing with my kids. There’s no limit, because I’m free.

In the end, I usually end up achieving more than if I had goals, because I’m always doing something I’m excited about. But whether I achieve or not isn’t the point at all: all that matters is that I’m doing what I love, always.

I end up in places that are wonderful, surprising, great. I just didn’t know I would get there when I started.

Quick questions

Question from a reader: Isn’t having no goals a goal?

Quick answer: It can be a goal, or you can learn to do it along the journey, by exploring new methods. I’m always learning new things (like having no goals) without setting out to learn them in the first place.

Another question from a reader: So how do you make a living?

Answer: Passionately! Again, not having goals doesn’t mean you stop doing things. In fact, I do many things, all the time, but I do them because I love doing them.

Tips for living without goals

I am not going to give you a how-to manual for living without goals — that would be absurd. I can’t teach you what to do — you need to find your own path.

But I can share some things I’ve learned, in hopes that it will help you:

  • Start small. You don’t need to drastically overhaul your life in order to learn to live without goals. Just go a few hours without predetermined goals or actions. Follow your passion for those hours. Even an hour will do.
  • Grow. As you get better at this, start allowing yourself to be free for longer periods — half a day or a whole day or several days. Eventually you’ll feel confident enough to give up on certain goals and just do what you love.
  • Not just work. Giving up goals works in any area of your life. Take health and fitness: I used to have specific fitness goals, from losing weight or bodyfat to running a marathon to increasing my squat. Not anymore: now I just do it because I love it, and I have no idea where that will take me. It works brilliantly, because I always enjoy myself.
  • Let go of plans. Plans are not really different than goals. They set you on a predetermined path. But it’s incredibly difficult to let go of living with plans, especially if you’re a meticulous planner like I am. So allow yourself to plan, when you feel you need to, but slowly feel free to let go of this habit.
  • Don’t worry about mistakes. If you start setting goals, that’s OK. There are no mistakes on this journey — it’s just a learning experience. If you live without goals and end up failing, ask yourself if it’s really a failure. You only fail if you don’t get to where you wanted to go — but if you don’t have a destination in mind, there’s no failure.
  • It’s all good. No matter what path you find, no matter where you end up, it’s beautiful. There is no bad path, no bad destination. It’s only different, and different is wonderful. Don’t judge, but experience.

And finally

Always remember: the journey is all. The destination is beside the point.

‘A good traveller has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving.’ ~Lao Tzu

Categories: Perfection

Create Time to Change Your Life

November 26, 2011 Leave a comment

When I decided to change my life a little over 5 years ago, I had a very common problem: I didn’t have the time.

I wanted to exercise and find time for my family and eat healthier (instead of the fast-food junk I’d been eating) and read more and write and be more productive and increase my income.

Unfortunately there are only 24 hours in a day, and we sleep for about 8 of them. Subtract the hours we spend eating (3), showering and dressing and fixing up (1), cleaning and running errands (1), driving (2), working (8) … and you’re left with an hour or two at most. Often less.

Eventually I figured out how to do all the things I wanted to do. I’veachieved all of that and more, and in fact I have more leisure time now than ever. But first I had to figure out the fundamental problem: how could I find the time to change my life?

I know many of you face the same problem — you’ve told me as much. So I thought I’d share some of what I did in the beginning, in hopes that it’ll help.

The First Step

You must make a commitment. You have to decide that you really want to make a change, and that it’s more important than almost anything else.

For me, only my family was more important — and in fact I was making these change for my family as well as for myself. So these changes I was making were really my top priority in life.

It has to be that urgent for you. Think of this not as “improving your life” but saving it. The changes I made saved my life — I am so much healthier, my marriage is better, my relationships with my kids have improved, I am happier rather than depressed.

If you don’t feel you’re saving your life then you won’t make the tough changes needed.

Next Steps

Once I made the mental commitment, I took small steps to give myself a little wiggle room to breathe and move:

  • Cut out TV. I watched less TV than ever before (eventually I watched none, though now I watch a few shows a week over the Internet). For many people this one change will free up a couple hours or more.
  • Read less junk. I used to read a lot of things on the Internet that were just entertainment. Same with magazines. I cut that stuff out early so I could focus on what was more important.
  • Go out less. I used to go to a lot of movies and to dinner and drinking. I cut that out (mostly) for awhile, to make time.
  • Wake earlier. Not everyone is going to do this but it was a good step for me. I found that I had more time exercising and working in the morning before anyone woke up — the world was quiet and at peace and without interruptions. (Read more.)

In general, find the things that eat up your time that are less important than the changes you want to make. That’s almost everything except the things you need to live — work and eating and stuff like that. Cut back on them where you can.

Simplify Commitments

I had a lot of commitments in my life — I coached soccer, was on the PTA board, served on a lot of committees at work, had social commitments as well, worked on a number of projects.

Slowly I cut them out. They seemed important but in truth none of them were as important as the life I wanted to create, the changes I wanted to make. Lots of things are important — but which are the absolute most important? Make a decision.

If you are having trouble making a decision, try an experiment. Cut out a commitment just for a little while. See whether you suffer from cutting it out, or whether you like the extra time.

If you’re worried about offending people, don’t. Send an email or make a phone call and explain that you’d love to keep doing the commitment but you just don’t have the time and don’t want to half-ass it. The person might try to talk you into staying but be firm — respect yourself and your time and the changes you’re trying to make.

Here’s a secret: the people and organizations you’ve been helping or working with will live. They will go on doing what they were doing without you, and (omg!) they will survive without you. Your departure will not cause the world to collapse. Let go of the guilt.

Streamline Your Life

Eventually I made many other changes, including:

  • Making bills and savings and debt payments automatic. I set everything up online so that I wouldn’t have to run errands or spend time making payments. This put my debt reduction on automatic, and I got out of debt. (Read more.)
  • Streamlining errands. I tried to cut as many errands out of my life as possible. Often that meant changing my life in some way but I adjusted and things became simpler. I cleaned as I went so I didn’t have a lot of cleaning to do on weekends. I did the few errands I had all at once to save running around.
  • Work less. I would set limits to how much I could work, forcing myself to pick the important tasks and to get those tasks done on time. I learned which tasks needed to be done and which could be dropped. I became much more effective and worked less.
  • Say no. When people asked me to do stuff that was important to them but not to me, I learned to politely decline. Instead I focused on what was important to me.

Slowly I learned to simplify. I simplified my daily routines, my work, my social life, my possessions, my chores, my wardrobe. It took time but it has been more than worth the effort: life is so much better now that I’ve created the time to do what I want to do.

Categories: Perfection

How to Start

November 26, 2011 Leave a comment

‘There are two mistakes one can make along the road to truth…not going all the way, and not starting.’ ~Buddha

How do you start something new?

Whether it’s beginning an exercise program, getting going with a task you want to complete, or creating a new business or product from scratch — how do you get started?

It’s one of the most intimidating things. It’s the lack of starting that kills most tasks and projects.

Procrastination is putting off the start. Your new venture gets put off because the start is too hard.

How I Started

When I started Zen Habits, I had no idea how to start. I looked at other blogs and it was intimidating what they’d accomplished: not only thousands of readers but hundreds of articles, a killer blog design, their own domain name, all kinds of services and ebooks and T-shirts and other things going on.

I couldn’t do all that — I had a job (two actually) and a family with six kids. So I skipped it all and did one thing: I chose a random name that felt right, and created a free account on blogger.

That was incredibly easy, and I felt great.

Then I did one more thing: I did a short post reflecting on some things I’d been doing. Basically just a journal entry. I was out in the world for the first time!

This was my start. It wasn’t hard — in fact, so easy I couldn’t refuse to start. Eventually I did all the things everyone else did, but that came later. At the start, I did just one thing, and then another.

Start a Task

If you read my Un-Procrastination ebook, you know how easy it was to read. Short chapters, easy reading, you could be done in a short amount of time. I purposely made it easy, so you wouldn’t procrastinate.

But then someone said, “It’s easier to read the book than implement it!”

Too true. Unless you make it even easier to get started.

How do you start on a task when you’re procrastinating because it’s too hard? You make it super easy.

First, pick a task. Is that too hard? Randomly choose one, to make it easy on yourself.

If you’ve picked a task and it seems too hard to get started, make it even easier: just do one minute. If that’s too hard, just do 20 seconds. That’s so easy you can’t say no.

Whatever the task, if you’re procrastinating, make it easier. The key is to just get started. If you want to go beyond the 20 seconds, keep going. If not, do another 20 seconds after you’ve taken a break and wiped the hard-earned sweat off your brow.

Start a Habit

How do you start a habit? Some people have no trouble starting — it’s the sticking-to-it that’s hard. But others have been wanting to do something for years and just can’t get into it.

Either way, you want to start as easy as possible.

Starting is the key to a habit. If you don’t start, you won’t ever make it a habit. So make it as easy as possible. Want to exercise? Just lace up your shoes and get out the door. Even just 5 minutes is all you need.

What if you want to do much more, because you’re excited? Don’t. Start as simply as possible. Why? Because the sticking-to-it is made much, much easier if you are doing a tiny habit. Try forming the habit of running for 30 minutes a day, and then try the habit of 5 minutes of running a day. Which do you stick with longer? I can already tell you the answer: the easy one.

If you want a habit to stick, start so incredibly simply that you can’t fail. Later, you can iterate on the habit until it’s at the level you really want. But start easy.

Start a New Venture

You’re finally ready to channel your powerful creative energy into a new project. Not just an ordinary work project, but one that will be a new venture for you — one that will start a new business, a new life, and make your mark upon this dense earth.

But you’re putting it off. There’s too much to be done, and you’re already busy. It’s intimidating to get started.

Start as simply as humanly possible. How simple can you make this new business? How simple can you make the product? Make it even simpler.

Let your new business or product do just one thing. And then make it do less of that one thing. Sure, later you can iterate and add a feature or two, but as you get started, do as little as possible.

You won’t be able to fail to start, and in the start is everything. It is where new worlds are created, new journeys begun, new lives born.

‘There are two kinds of people, those who finish what they start and so on.’ ~Robert Byrne

Categories: Perfection