Vixens

Arum Lily, Calla Lily, Pig lily, Kleinvarkoor

Guglielmo Marconi

Ulaanbaatar

Emu

Pouch

Aorta, pulmonary artery, left coronary artery

Agra, Uttar Pradesh

Ganga

Italy

How to Sell Any Product

Salespeople from different industries tend to use different sales techniques. After all, if you're selling
high-end financial products to giant corporations you'll need to approach your prospects in an
entirely different way from someone who sells books at a neighborhood bookstore. Still, the
fundamental rules of how to sell remain the same regardless of your product type and customer
base.

Sales Rule #1: Know The Product

If you don't understand what you're selling, you are going to lose a lot of sales.

You won't know the best customer fit for your product, so you won't be able to do a good job of
qualifying prospects. You won't know all the product's benefits, which means you'll be constantly
missing chances to woo prospective customers. And if a prospect asks you a technical question, you
won't know the answer... which takes away your option of presenting yourself as an expert or a
consultant. Selling without product knowledge is like running a marathon with one leg tied behind
your back.

Sales Rule #2: Honor Your Prospects

If you feel contempt for your prospects, they'll know it no matter how hard you try to hide it. You
need to put yourself into a respectful, helpful mindset before you so much as pick up the phone.
Most people think of salespeople as selfish and out to help themselves, which is why the
consultative approach is so effective it turns that stereotype on its head. But if you actually are
putting yourself first, your prospects will be hostile and unhappy even if you manage to pressure
them into buying.

Which means they'll almost inevitably tell their friends, family, and co-workers how much they
dislike you. This is not the word of mouth reputation you want to create!
Sales Rule #3: Be Truthful

Another salesperson stereotype that you'll have to overcome is the untrustworthy trickster. The
salesperson who sells products that break down in a week or cons prospects into buying a lot of
unnecessary extras.

Like the previous stereotype, the way to overcome this unfortunate feeling is to do just the
opposite. By being completely straightforward and honest with your prospects, you'll create a
positive impression that will keep them coming back for more (and hopefully send their friends to
you as well).

Sales Rule #4: Be Likeable

In many ways, success in sales comes down to personality. Ask a hundred star salespeople what
approach they take and you'll get a hundred and one answers but what they'll all have in common
is likeability. Almost all resistance to buying boils down to fear on the prospect's part. If they don't
like the person who's trying to sell them something, they're unlikely to buy no matter how great the
product itself is. But if they like and feel comfortable with a salesperson, they're much more likely to
take the plunge.

Sales Rule #5: Never Stop Growing

The fundamentals of sales are always the same, but the tools and techniques that you can use to
apply them are constantly changing. Like doctors and lawyers, salespeople need to stay on top of
these changes. This includes internal company changes, such as policy shifts and product updates,
and external changes, such as the rise of social media or new state and federal regulations for your
industry.

Salespeople can never stop learning and growing. But that's not really a drawback because if you're
constantly learning and developing your skills, you're not likely to become bored with your job.
Instead of giving the same pitch to the same prospects day after day, you can explore new tactics,
talk to new people and keep stretching yourself in new ways.
Human vs Machine

Everyone knows that humans and machines are different. Machines are the creation of humans, and
they were created to make their work easier. Humans depend more and more on machines for their
day-to-day things. Machines have created a revolution, and no human can think of a life without
machines.

A machine is only a device consisting of different parts, and is used for performing different
functions. They do not have life, as they are mechanical. On the other hand, humans are made of
flesh and blood; life is just not mechanical for humans.

Humans have feelings and emotions, and they can express these emotions; happiness and sorrow
are part of ones life. On the other hand, machines have no feelings and emotions. They just work as
per the details fed into their mechanical brain. Humans have the capability to understand situations,
and behave accordingly. On the contrary, Machines do not have this capability.

While humans behave according to their consciousness, machines perform as they are taught.
Humans perform activities as per their own intelligence. On the contrary, machines only have an
artificial intelligence. It is a man-made intelligence that the machines have. The brilliance of the
intelligence of a machine depends on the intelligence of the humans that created it.

Another striking difference that can be seen is that humans can do anything original, and machines
cannot. Machines have limitations to their performance because they need humans to guide them.

Though machines are very sophisticated, they cannot perform anything original. Machines do not
have original thoughts. Another thing that has to be noted is that machines are not superior to
humans.

Summary:

1. Machines do not have life, as they are mechanical. On the other hand, humans are made of flesh
and blood; life is not mechanical for humans.

2. Humans have feelings and emotions, and they can express these emotions. Machines have no
feelings and emotions. They just work as per the details fed into their mechanical brain.

3. Humans can do anything original, and machines cannot.

4. Humans have the capability to understand situations, and behave accordingly. On the contrary,
machines do not have this capability.

5. While humans behave as per their consciousness, machines just perform as they are taught.

6. Humans perform activities as per their own intelligence. On the contrary, machines only have an
artificial intelligence
Technology Vs. Human - Who Is Going To Win?

I remember meeting Gerd Leonhard [Futurist, Author and a raft of other titles] for the first time in a
particularly crowded Benugo in Covent Garden. The meeting came after several near misses and
during one of his gigs in London and we decided just to wing it. The fries were unmemorable but the
conversation probably set me on the path I find myself travelling today. Several years (and books)
on and his outlook and work still fascinates me. I have quizzed him on his latest book "Technology
Vs. Humanity" [Amazon] in which he poses some interesting questions about the future of the
human race and technology but essentially asks; "Are you on team human, or not...? We are at a
pivot point in human history [and you need to choose]."

Paul: You say humanity will change more in the next 20 years than it has in the last 300. Why do you
think this is true when most technological advances seem to have had little to do with humans
themselves and rather the effect they have or problems they have created for themselves?

Gerd: Technology is always created by humans and in turn re-defining what we can and will do.
Every single technological change is now impacting humanity in a much deeper way than ever before
because technology will soon impact our own biology, primarily via the rise of genome editing and
artificial intelligence. Technology is no longer just a tool we use to achieve something - we are
actually (as McLuhan predicted) becoming tools (ie. technology) ourselves. Some of my futurist
colleagues call this transhumanism - something I personally think we should examine with great
caution. Yet, exponential technological development in sectors such as computing and deep
learning, nano-science, material sciences, energy (batteries!) etc means that beyond a doubt we are
quickly heading towards that point where computers / robots / AI will have the same processing
power as the human brain (10 quadrillion CPS - connections per second), the so-called singularity, in
probably less than 10 years. When this happens we will need to decide of we want to 'merge' with
the machines or not, and the stance I am taking in this book is clear on that discussion: we should
embrace technology but not become it, because technology is not what we seek, it's how we seek!

Paul: What is "future shock" and why do you think man and machine will clash? Can't we all just get
along?

Gerd: I am very much hoping that humanity can indeed be steered to just sit 'on top' of machines
(even if we won't understand them anymore), and right now we still have pretty good cards for that.
What we need is human stewardship that masters the transition into this new machine age.
However, it is already pretty obvious that trillions of dollars are spent on making the world
technologically 'smarter' (smart cities, smart farming, smart energy...) but very little is spent on
getting humans ready for that future - in fact, while machines get smarter we may actually become
dumber (see the glass cockpit problem where pilots literally forget how to fly because of the
exceeding instances of automation ). And yes, it will be shocking to many of us to be confronted with
a reality where machines have taking over many if not most tasks that used to be human such as
getting directions, making appointments, finding mates and soon even medical diagnosis (Future
Shock, of course, refers to Alvin Toffler's book, though). A clash may well result NOT because
machines make 'go rogue' or will take over and eradicate us but because some of us humans may
increasingly become like machines (i.e. augment themselves) in order to compete with them - this
will obviously cause major unrest in society, and opens up huge ethical conundrums. technology is
morally neutral until we apply it (William Gibson) -- think of this challenge x1000 and you have the
next 20 years.
Paul: "Man and machine will converge" - how far are we from really wet-wiring ourselves together
or will this never really happen?

Gerd: Today we are using smartphones to connect to the cloud aka 'the global brain'. They are brain
extenders, basically. Wearables are next, plus augmented and virtual reality which will become so
powerful that many people will never want to be without it - seeing the world differently is a very
powerful thing! Voice control will quickly become the new normal; in less than 5 years typing will be
replaced by just speaking to whatever device we are using. Brain-Computer Interfaces are already
here but again... once we have computers that match our own brain capacity (and then... with an IQ
of say 50.000?), and better connectivity and better batteries... it could also become the 'new
normal'. Implants would follow (and already are being investigated) to make that interface even
more seamless. The final step - the 2nd neocortex (Kurzweil) - is still pretty far away, though - in
overall terms maybe less than 50 years, though. We will need to decide, very soon, where humans
end and machines start, and vice-versa- and this is an ethical question NOT a technological
challenge. In my view, significant technological upgrades to humans are really more like downgrades
because we would lose so many human-specific abilities and idiosyncrasies in return.

Paul: "Exponentiality" is a much-debated subject right now - some believe limits of computing are
about to be ended

Gerd: I tend to agree as many exponential technologies are also combinatorial i.e. one amplifies the
other [see image below]. The reality is that if you ask the question IF technology can do something
or not, the answer will almost always be 'yes', already - there is pretty much no limit to what
technology can do in the very near future. The WHY question will replace the HOW question.

Paul: How do we get to digital or physical Utopia in a world controlled and manipulated by Capitalist
systems?

Gerd: technology makes things abundant because with good tech the price drops dramatically (see
digital music or Netflix NFLX -0.27% etc) - and exponential tech will make things exponential
abundant. Media, information, travel, financial services, medical services, food, water, energy... in
that order (see image below). In less than 20 years we may get to the point where we have
abundant energy, water and food, while most of the work is being done by machines or software
which means we only 'work' for a few hours every day while enjoying the same standard of living,
and income. This will mean that consumption and growth can no longer be the defining principles of
economics - a kind of post-capitalism will develop. GDP as a metric will be completely gone by then -
and maybe we will find a way to pursue more GNH (gross national happiness):)

Paul: You've said; "Technology doesn't have ethics, we need to spend just as much time on the
norms, the values and the context than we spent on the technology itself". Why aren't people
thinking ethics first? Asimov's rules aside, what else should we be doing?
Gerd: Like sustainability, ethics is often thought of as a nice to have, a thing to consider when you
have time, a luxury, non-monetizable. But now it is becoming clear that those distinctly human
things that are not measurable (I call them the "androrithms" - as opposed to algorithms) such as
emotions, intuition, beliefs and ethics are what sets us apart from machines. The challenge is, of
course, that turning the world into a giant machine (i.e. disembodied, automated, de-souled) will
make oodles of money, while ensuring humanness is much less of a business opportunity. Right now,
it would certainly be a unique moment when a technology company would choose not to proceed
because of ethical concerns. What we need to be doing is a) to hold those providing the tools and
platforms responsible for consequences, unintended or not, and to have them include these
'externalities' in their business planning, and b) to construct a binding global framework of digital
ethics (similar to the current NPTs), and invest heavily into what I call 'exponential humanism' i.e. to
put real money behind human flourishing (and yes, on top of technology), safeguarding our
humanness much like we safeguard nature already. There are things we probably should not do,
even if we can.