Atul Gawande, a recent guest on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart was pushing a book on a medical checklist for surgeons to prevent mistakes and ultimately save lives. I was reminded of all the times I’ve had a checklist for complex tasks which made things much easier to remember. When packing for a mission, especially one expected to last several days in Iraq; it was good to have a checklist to ensure you didn’t forget to pack anything important. With so much going on and so much to pack, it’s very easy to forget something which may be crucial.

After watching the episode, I was hit with the idea for making an everyday checklist of ordinary tasks. I often have periods of downtime throughout the day and when I lie down for the night, I recall all the things I would have liked to accomplish which I didn’t. I had the time, I just didn’t remember.

I’ve compiled a very short and simple checklist for myself which I hope to expand and refine. I even added almost silly tasks like brushing my teeth which I hardly forget but it assists someone like me who just likes to check boxes off. It’s a rewarding feeling that helps build and sustain momentum.

Here’s the list in its current form. I have it written like a spreadsheet on an index card stuck on the inside of a Moleskin notepad which I keep on me at all times. Lines are drawn into boxes so I can check each task off.

• Stretch for 10 minutes twice
• Drink at least 8 glasses of water
• Publish one blog entry
• Write one Twitter post
• Ensure inbox is empty before bed
• Read for 2 hours minimum
• Brush teeth twice
• Accomplish one task on to-do list
• Eat one meal slowly and without distraction

My goal is to complete all tasks before bed each day and repeat infinitely. I plan to tweak the list as the days go on by adding new tasks that come to mind or removing tasks that I no longer feel are working out.

There's a heated debate on whether climate change or global warming is happening and if it is, whether it's caused by human action. I'm not here to debate either side. I'm here to say that it doesn't matter.

Scientists supporting climate change have said that it's so far long that we cannot significantly alter the effects. Once the ice caps start melting, there's very little we can do. It's highly arrogant that changing your light bulbs or driving a Prius is going to reverse decades of pollution across the planet.

There are plenty of other reasons to curb emissions however. If you've ever been to a large city with few regulations, you'll know how disgusting smog really is. Having traveled to parts of the third world, my lungs have inhaled plenty of thick black smoke lingering in the air. For these reasons alone, we should attempt to curb emissions.

In the long run, going green tends to be more cost effective. Why don't we use that argument to push for adoption of cleaner technologies? It seems much easier especially during a recession to get people behind cheap now than hotter temperatures sometime in the future.

The problem with climate change is that it requires a view of the entire planet over several decades to discover a trend. Even if the trend were indicating a man made increase in temperature, it's difficult to get people motivated because our minds have evolved to worry about local issues more than global ones.

While I understand science and that weather can vary while the overall climate may be trending in a particular direction, take the recent weather here in North West Colorado. Temperatures dropped to -23F or -30C. How can anyone with a spreadsheet convince someone here that the world is getting too hot?

There are many good reasons to curb pollution besides climate change but it gets center stage in the media as it gets people agitated which brings in the ratings. In the time we debate whether climate change is real or not, Monsanto has created another Superfund site or Exxon leaked some oil into the sea. There are real issues that can be worked on right now. Let's solve those and let climate change fall where it may.

If we focus on the present, the future will resolve itself.

Yet another attack over US soil and guess where it happened? A plane. It's not because terrorists aren't creative and can't think of anything else to attack but they attack planes for emblematic reasons.

If your goal is just a high body count, planes aren't the way to go. Some 747s can carry over 550 passengers when full. In NYC, a typical train is 10 cars long. The R143 and R160 cars used often during rush hour can carry over 240 passengers though anyone living in and around NYC knows that likely 300 are stuffed inside during peak times.

Even at 200 passengers per car and 8 cars, that's 1600 people on the train. Detonate a large explosive on a platform and you can injure/kill maybe 100 more.

OK, so the numbers are in favor of attacking a NYC subway train during rush hour. You'd think terrorists would jump at the chance for a target rich environment like that. Why haven't we seen many attacks like this?

I can pack a suitcase full of Semtex with a relative effectiveness of 1.66 and blow the entire train without going through one X-ray machine or checkpoint. I could send 3 guys out with suitcases on 3 different lines during rush hour and potentially kill over 3,000 people, similar in scope to 9/11.

So why aren't these attacks taking place? I believe terrorist organizations have the funds and expertise to pull off such an attack but they just don't want to. Terrorists are like snipers. They're not after body counts, they want to instill fear.

All the added security at airports give the illusion of security to the common passenger but time and time again in tests conducted by the TSA themselves, these security measures have failed. Shattering this illusion is what the terrorists want. It's as if to say "Spend billions of dollars and piss off legit travelers all you want but we'll still get you".

The TSA and government aren't stupid. They know added security doesn't do shit. It's to calm the general population enough so they keep traveling. It's like the National Guard guys that were posted in airports and subway stations a while back. I spoke with several guys who did that and they had no ammunition. They were just in uniform with M4 and 16s walking around to make people feel safer. But they had no real security benefit. The cops were more likely to stop something from happening as their training is more in line with catching suspicious persons where the military doesn't generally train soldiers in that fashion.

I propose we remove all security from airports. No metal detectors, X-rays, or checkpoints at all. It's a waste of money and a hassle for passengers with no real benefit. Even after 9/11 with $40 billing in extra funding to increase security, explosives are still getting through. We're bankrupting the country and airlines and only stopping legit passengers trying to take a 6 ounce bottle of lotion on board.

I know that'll never happen. Government puts CYA (cover your ass) above all else. The politician who signs off on removing security will be executed as soon as the smallest attack takes place. Because of this, restrictions are seldom relaxed but only increased. Everyone is too fearful that they'll lose their job and golden goose along with it.

A man was arrested in his own home for nudity. Some woman walking her child noticed a man in his house without any clothes on and called the police. Officers arrested the man and are questing his neighbors to find more people who may have seen him naked.

What's so terrible about nudity? I'm not a nudist nor do I enjoy being naked but I don't feel it right to force others to cover up. The bottom line is that nudity isn't detrimental to childhood development.

It's not the nudity that'll ruin the children's life, it's the confusing rules we have in place. For a young child, it must be confusing as to the problem with nudity. We're all born nude. Most of us shower nude. Our parents bath us when we're young, change our diaper, and if you're like me there's an embarrassing picture somewhere of you in the bathtub.

This is all acceptable by society as a whole though a child accidentally peering into a strangers house and catching a glimpse of a naked man can ruin a kid for life.

My biggest gripe with this incident is if the man actually gets convicted. A conviction would mean that he'll be listed on the sex offenders list. Finding jobs and places to live are going to become difficult at best. He also has 5 year old daughter of his own. There's a chance they'll take his child if convicted.

The woman who called police is the biggest idiot. She should have knocked on the man's door later that day and asked nicely if he could keep his blinds closed if he intends to walk around naked in his home. That would have solved the problem while saving tax dollars and police officer's time so they can go after real criminals.

Read more here

Having served in the military, I'm often expected to be patriotic which cannot be more wrong. Not only am I not patriotic, I am vehemently against the idea. In fact, I'm against taking pride in anything given at birth and not earned.

Having intrinsic love for ones country is a dangerous thing. It makes it difficult to look at your country's policies and leaders from a neutral standpoint. I enjoy many of the freedoms provided by my country and enjoy living in the United States. This being true, I still don't feel it's the "greatest country in the world". The truth is, every country has pros and cons and none should be considered greater than any other.

Society should take pride in their accomplishments, not their birth rights. Taking pride for being born in a particular geographic location is as illogical as taking pride in ones age or skin color.

I'm no billionaire or even a millionaire but I'm very wealthy and yet only 25. I didn't get wealthy with a super hot IPO or coming up with a brilliant idea. I became wealthy by changing my spending habits in relation to my income.

People don't actually want money. They want the things that it can buy. Most importantly, they want freedom. Sadly, making more money rarely buys this freedom. There's almost always a direct correlation to income and expenditures.

If you were to make $40,000 a year and drive a late model Honda, you would be reasonably comfortable. If I doubled your salary to $80,000, you may upgrade that Honda to a Volvo. Similarly, other aspects of your day to day may change. You might start buying premium brands instead of the generic stuff. Maybe you'll stop clipping so many coupons. Whatever the case, you'll probably end up living paycheck to paycheck even with the doubled salary.

I know how easy it is to fall into this trap as I've done the same thing myself before having an epiphany and downgrading my lifestyle. My vehicle is not bad. It's a 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee with 60K miles. What I like best is that it's paid for in full. My credit score is excellent and I can afford the payment of a much nicer car but then I'd just be enslaving myself to a payment every month and higher insurance costs.

Wealth: having an abundant supply of money or possessions of value.

I don't have an abundant supply of money but I have one possession with immeasurable value and that's time. Because I'm living below my means, I'm able to work in a position that provides me ample spare time. If I were to increase my spending, I'd need to take a higher paying and more time consuming position. I'd have better objects but they have little value when compared to time.

In my spare time I read, develop software, I've started two companies, write for three different blogs, and I've made time to travel to different parts of the world. I wouldn't have the time or energy for most of these things if I were working hard 40+ hours every week.

The best part of a downgraded life is the stress relief. Without having any debt or credit card balances, I feel very relaxed. Losing my income tomorrow would not be ideal but I'd be able recover quickly and debt would not pile up while I searched for a new source of revenue.

A recent news articles backs up what I've been saying for a while now which is that we'd see a lot less violence in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, and even here in the United States if we just raise the standard of living.

It turns out that the Italian intelligence service was bribing Taleban leaders to keep the peace. French troops not knowing this walked into an area being bribed without making a payment and were attacked. 10 French troops lost their lives.

It's rare that well to do individuals turn to violent crime as they have more to lose. Taleban and Al-Qaeda leaders understand this and poach new members from the poorest of areas to do the grunt work.

It's well understood that the majority of suicide bombings are for cash payouts meant for the bombers family. I've seen percentages range from 70 to 90 percent though it's unclear how accurate those reports were. Regardless, I'm certain that the majority of bombings are for financial gain more so than religious fanaticism.

To stop or impede terrorism, we should be building up these countries economically. The ideology won't go away but the leaders will have far fewer soldiers for their war.

I really dislike studying and not in the high school / college student way. I don't find traditional study any good at actually learning. People learn through playing, not forcing yourself to read text and take notes. It's fucking boring and I can't see how it'll ever make the content stick. Studying may be great for passing standardized tests but rarely outside of school do you encounter a standardized test.

It's best to play at your leisure and it'll just come. If it's not fun, then you're not really going to learn. If nothing makes it fun, then maybe you should change careers / majors. Top notch programmers, scientists, etc, don't become top notch by forcing themselves to toil over books. They become great because they love their work and get sucked in by the joy of working.

A recent glitch with T-Mobile and Microsoft caused users of the Sidekick device to lose data such as contacts, photos, and lyrics. Now some customers are getting together to sue and I bet they end up winning something.

But sue for what? Because they hosted valuable data in the cloud and the cloud failed? We blame Microsoft for not having backups but why didn't the customers have backups of their own? Microsoft and T-Mobile messed up but get over it. People make mistakes and you don't have to sue over it.

The long term effect is that prices for goods and services must be increased as a result of these suits. Companies like Microsoft are used to getting sued and have teams of lawyers working full time just for this sort of thing. Those lawyers aren't free or cheap. That hurts revenue and prices must go up to compensate.

Stop being greedy America.

Read more at PCWorld

Privacy on the internet has been a hot topic for some time especially on social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace. These sites are given a bad rap because they provide friends, family, and strangers with too much information. While it’s true that someone may stalk you via your social networking profile, they can only view what you’ve posted there.

Don’t want your phone number known? Don’t post it. Worried that a potential employer or a parent will see you binge drinking or doing drugs? Don’t post pictures of yourself doing these activities. This is another case of people blaming technology for their own issues.

Anything posted online should be considered public regardless of the privacy controls set. Technology fails and someone may be able to circumvent those privacy controls at some point. Additionally, as everything moves into the cloud the support teams at these providers will undoubtably have full access to your data without having to exploit anything. If you’re famous or someone in any position of prominence, this will open you up to potential blackmail vectors.