onionuttapam.com

After reading an article from Inc.com, I found myself wondering that almost every great leader that made history in the world had his or her own quirks, which helped propel themselves to the temporary and land-marking success they have. The article referred to Steve Jobs, and definitely, Apple’s biggest game-changing CEO was narcissistic as hell.

Okay, so let’s focus on Cleopatra.

Cleopatra was also a narcissist. She put her own needs before her servants and others’ needs. In this way, she became powerful because she inspired others that they can share in her glory. During those early times, well, some individuals were in league with the reputation of deities, so you will understand people believed anything especially if their self-will is very weak.

Then let’s focus on Julius Caesar.

Rome’s famous emperor had a knack for being a control freak, and a narcissist himself. He made monuments of himself inside the emperor’s palace he built for himself. However, his narcissism had inspired a great nation into beauty, which we still marvel in the present day. He made immortal the stories of those who died during his day and age. Of course I know that it is possible the victors wrote and glorified some of the opposition in the past.

Truly, I have to admit that the greatest leaders in history had made great changes. But the thing is, I couldn’t incline other leaders in the present day in the same way as these historic leaders worked things out for their people. I guess greed, a very dark trait, didn’t bring anything to people, well, possibly except a bit of dominance against others.

A typical man works this way; he cares for his wife and children, and the people he intends to help and has helped him in the past. All others are insignificant, unless they touch upon his, his family and his friends’ lives. Now, imagine that same man at the helm of power somewhere in your local community. For example, a local governor. He will definitely help those who funded his political campaign, even if it were some fastfood chain or some car manufacturer.

Favors have always taken out objectivity from the rest of humanity. It is this form of attachment that binds many people, and proves that mankind has not yet evolved from the “tribal” clusters that he or she is part. For all the favors done in the past, those truly deserving of something fail to get it.

Many movies in Hollywood or even independent films showcase how one person’s struggle means so great in a world of patterns where people exchange favors. The one person is the only person to show true care and compassion without wanting anything in return. It makes for a great flick, but the protagonist is an ideal, which means he or she, such a person, may not exist.

In this world, call it cynicism, but it has always been about greed and favors. But hey, sooner or later, you meet someone different, and it is important to not be disillusioned and give them a chance, for the thrill of it.

Text messaging is by far one of the best things ever to happen to the world. The very best thing that happened to communication was the internet. It allowed anonymity, self-regulation, and freedom to publish anything you want, even the most obscene, crazed and frayed things you could think of. Communication evolved into something different. Limited by time, some people tend to chat using incomplete words, or just characters even. “Who u?” while grammatically unacceptable, tends to make it easier and faster to read text messages.

Sure, it can annoy people who love writing and reading, but in that manner, technology is transforming the personalities of people. People can hide behind a desktop or laptop and spout bullying anywhere. When making business proposals online, it is difficult to find the sincerity of the facts, which is why research information is pulled up to prove that the figures are precise. Some people perceive a text or chat message without a smiley as snobby, when in reality, the person was only replying happily.

Let’s focus on that last sentence. While you are reading this post, how do you perceive I really speak? You do not really hear my voice, but you could be amused with the flow of words I use. From here you could judge my personality, but can you really be sure that the tone of this post is a discourse, or a casual conversation?

The internet, along with technology, is making us accept two truths at the same time. Our personalities are not our own. We may put a smiley in a text message to imply the idea that we are happy, but in reality, we typed it emotionlessly, and was only wanting to provoke an emotion on the other end of the conversation.

If this continues, the world can continue to become passive, and will be improving their façade through technology. Hence, hello and goodbye to the truth of everything.

The Syrian Crisis is a big problem; the Ukraine Crisis also is. But, in the end, there will always be a bigger problem, and we fail to recognize that large problem already looming over the horizon.

Countless times, environmental agencies have reported about the world’s carbon footprint already stepping into the sand deep enough to destroy ecosystems and the world’s natural temperature. A report from the IPCC shows the devastating effects of corporation and business-oriented environmental policies that only took greenhouse gas cuts with slight reductions, which never really benefitted anyone except for governments and the same corporations to have a more fragrant name worldwide.

While the world concerns itself over power-plays, ethnic and religion-based conflicts, the world itself is fighting for its very survival at the hands of the same people who would die for their beliefs instead of helping the world fight its battle against the odd inventions of humanity designed to bring in great profits.

Us netizens also only concern ourselves of our freedom to express ourselves and the information brought to us by our computers interconnected through large optic cables under the sea. If the world’s sources of energy died or became exhausted, the world will pretty much be clouded in either a perpetual heat rave, or a cold, global holocaust.

It’s time we did our part to combat the bigger problem that is already looking down on us. One day, what we ignore is the one thing that can kill us all.

In the early days, civilization meant knowing the capability to hunt and survive on your own, or else you can die. Man only took what he needed, and that was it. He was fine with food on his stomach. When he figured out farming did not require him to work so hard, he went for it, the convenience of things. Everyone who wanted convenience followed his idea and thus the first group was born.

Anybody who wanted to know about farming needed the man to teach him or her how to do it properly. The man could only be reached if you knew the people in his group, but you will need to please the other guys first before you get to him.

When I think about it, this particular mentality I described still exists in the world today. If you want to get into showbiz, the noble way is to build your portfolio, then approach some producers and please them (in their own way) to get the things you need. Then, they can connect you to other people until you can finally reach your dream.

Politics makes it easier, but more complicated to understand. Countries could gain more benefits if they agree to provide something the other country wants. To gain advantage, you need to drain your own country first before you are given the opportunity to rise up again.

Wherever you go, you need connections. Even if you live in the internet as an introvert, you make impersonal and emotionless connections with people who have similar interests as yours. You will always need connections

But the thing is, these connections will always trample upon something, one way or another.

Currently, UK law personnel, including lawyers, solicitors and barristers, are protesting against the UK government’s plans to cut £220 million from the £2 billion annual legal aid contributions. The heavy taxpayer-backed legal aid makes it possible for any societal class of UK national to make a claim for any accident or injury. When they cut it, would it tarnish the UK’s compensation culture and budding “benefits tourism?”

I’ll give you a good insight. The compensation culture has its own ups and downs, specifically when people commit whiplash compensation claims. Whiplash injuries, as far as I know, induce nausea and disorientation due to a sharp pain in the neck. They can cost as much as £5000 in a single case. The trouble is that they have no physical mark in the body and their symptoms only appear a few days to a week.

If they cut legal aid budgets, people who like swindling insurance companies, who are defenceless against these claimants because it is more expensive to challenge the claim in court, would be reduced. It would be a great help because it reduces £2 billion from the insurer’s annual repayment for any form of whiplash.

It won’t be an insult to the UK compensation culture and no win no fee solicitors in my opinion, but just a good upstart to avoid legal abuse. Sure, the solicitors get paid less, they might claim the quality of legal services might get reduced, but the bottom line is that they still get paid and there might be possible balance to the UK’s compensation culture and legal system.

For the benefits tourism part, it only helps if anybody knows that you just don’t file a claim for something petty in the United Kingdom.

In light of Japan’s increasing want to gain international favour regarding improving its “peacekeeping” capabilities in Southeast Asia, I’m left to question what the world deems as “offensive” and “defensive weapons.

Based on the articles I read, Japan’s defense forces are made of its own soldiers, air, land and sea vessels. This is normal as I could see soldiers like people you trust your house with, and their vehicles as their security grid in your own home. But why do other countries have “offensive” weaponry? Things like long range-ballistic missiles, rockets, and artillery? I mean, we’re living in a time of peace right? Why are these weapons still existing?

When we read about Syria in the news, we read that people continue to die because of indiscriminate weaponry, yet the US could only slander the Syrian regime for committing atrocities. I mean, come on, a Barrel Bomb is an indiscriminate weapon, a direct message from the Regime that “we do not care who we hit as long as the rebels die.”

Then there’s the issue of chemical weapons. If Syria’s government didn’t own the chemical weapons, then there wouldn’t be any deaths in the world right? Supposedly.

If we’re living in a time of peace, why are there still countries or organisations developing “offensive” weaponry?

Maybe we’re just living in a world of lies, where every country is really at war with each other but all are denying it to ensure the war stays only within the comprehension of the people who need to see it that way.

-Bob

IHS says that in 2025, the world will be sold the first batch of self-driving vehicles. These vehicles, coming straight out of a sci-fi movie, are certainly thrilling news. Imagine just appointing your destination and taking a nap or sightsee while your car drives itself. Then there are those internet services in your vehicle. Connected car technologies and existing collision artificial intelligence in new vehicle will ensure minimal accidents in the vehicle.

Your self-driving car will certainly have a camera.

Let’s go to your appliances. In the near future, many appliances will be in touchscreen. You could also respond to correspondences online using these appliances. It will also be self-regulating as per your settings. When you get a new appliance from the same brand, cloud technology will enable your settings yet again on the new appliance without any hassle.

Again, your appliances will have their own cameras to identify you.

Today, we have iPads, iPhones, smartphones, laptops, anything with cameras and an internet connection. TV sets even have cameras and internet connection for better viewing. It feels good that all your home comforts could think for you to give you what you want to watch without having to bat an eyelash.

Well, the companies already know you and your preferences. Well, they know because you told them. They also know about your credit card spending, about the place you live, your looks, and your probable criminal record, if any. They even know you spent your honeymoon last night or drank out with your guy or girl friends during the weekend. You know, Facebook.

It’s clearly inevitable that the world is reaching the critical mass of total surveillance, disguised as entertainment and individual freedom to express one’s self. But hey, sharing your photo on social networks and finding it convenient to find that perfect recipe from the comfort of your tabletop touchscreen is worth more than your privacy right?

-Bob

What we heard in the news today and in 2012 is still the same; netizens are still angry at governments. I am angry as well. However, the Occupy protests of the previous year actually failed to net something that everyone wanted, which was change and proper transparency.

Tech comp

Speaking of transparency, international organisations are still grilling the NSA and GCHQ for their surveillance activities. Dotcom companies Google and others, along with some technology companies including the rest of Silicon Valley’s big names, have written a letter addressed to US President Barack Obama to revise the surveillance laws in the US to ensure it.

However, we all know nothing will still be done even if there is trillions of dollars involved.

Dollars, they make the world go around.

Now how about Bitcoin?

bitcoin

Bitcoin is an interesting thing. It enables users to “mine” for money and exchange the money for actual money, meaning in dollars and other currencies. Government financial watchers and observers are fearful because bitcoin is decentralized, yet it is capped by the network to only produce 11,000 pieces for the rest of the world

Did I say each bitcoin actually costs around $500 today?

It once reached $5,000 too during its heyday.

It is dying nowadays after China had closed down on the market because of the uncertainty. China has the largest market of bitcoin exchange in the world.

However, what if someone didn’t want to put on the cap? What if the world risked using their personal currencies and shifted to the potentially democratic, decentralized and self-managed currency?

Governments are fearful that increased use of bitcoin could destroy the entire financial system because the power of any currency is only determined by the belief people put in them.

Now what if bitcoin increased in belief and people lost faith in the dollar?

Now that’s something to think about. Merry Christmas!

-Bob

The Financial Ombudsman is the last stop for consumers unsatisfied by the decision of their banks or lenders regarding their PPI claim. However, in some instances, the FOS might also be unable to help you reclaim your PPI refunds. Here are a few of them.

1. Illegitimate Policy
As with any claim, having all your billing statements on hand with a rough estimate of the total price you paid for PPI will guarantee you get back all your PPI repayments. However, if your insurance policy’s unique number or product serial does not exist with the bank or lender, the FOS is powerless to do anything for your insurance claim.

2. Beyond Regulation
The FOS’ powers only came to effect after the Financial Services Act of 1988 came into place. Other provisions on mortgages only came into effect around 2009. If your insurance policy is beyond regulation dates, the FOS can’t help you. For example, if your insurance policy is dated beyond 20 years, there is no way the FOS could have regulated the financial institution.

3. Unlisted
A financial company or insurance company unlisted with the Financial Ombudsman is highly likely untouchable by the organisation. For these kinds of companies, click here – mis sold PPI claims managers and experts could help you in getting back your refunds without aid from the FOS.