One to Many relationship in liftweb

Most of the other examples don't follow all the way through, leaving you at the "Oh gee, the mapping is done, now how do I get to select the many". My example is not to show the One to Many where the Many are dependant on the one, but rather choices that the one can belong to the one. So for instance you have a Party which has a many to many relationship with PartyType. However, a Party can have different types at different times, so you need a one to many from the party to some intermediate class (we'll call it PartyClassification), and then from PartyClassification to Party Type.
Something this: Party[1]->[N]PartyClassification[N]<-[1]PartyType.
The Party[1]->[N]PartyClassification part is fairly easy to do, and I'll cover it later. However the PartyClassification[N]<-[1]PartyType is more interesting. You can't create a PartyClassification without a PartyType, and you have to present the user with a selection of PartyTypes that the PartyClassification can have.
Now, for the example I'm going to use One[1]->[N]Many as the actual names. I could use PartyClassification and PartyType, however whenever I follow examples with "real" names, I sometimes forget which is the many, and which is the one. I'll assume the same happens to you, and keep it simple.
So we start with a fresh mvn archetype install.

Selling a customer experience not a product or service

http://www.venturecompany.com/opinions/files/serviceforce_is_a_big_deal.html

Business Plans

http://www.pehub.com/36689/study-finds-business-plans-a-waste-of-time/
I've heard this before, from some of the VC blogs I follow. They use the plan as a filter for people they don't know. Same for angel investors. I think they understand that the plan is only good until you open your doors, and then you have to adjust as you go, making the plan fairly obsolete fairly quickly.
In Art of the Start, Guy Kawasaki says there are 5 things you MUST accomplish as an entrepeneur:
1) Make Meaning
If you're ogarnization never existed, the world would be worse off because _________________________________
2) Make Mantra - as opposed to a mission statement
In 10 words or less write your organizations mantra:
3) Get Going
Just go do it. Now please :)
4) Define your Busines Model

1. Calculate your monthly costs to operate your organization
2. Calculate the gross profit of each unit of your product
3. Divide step 1 by the results of step 2
4. Ask a few women if you have a chance of selling that many units. If you don't , no business model

5) Weave a MAT - Milestones, Assumptions and Tasks
Okay, this is a big section.. buy the book!

Standout in a crowd

Watch this link
Okay, so the guy is a bit.. aggressive but is he wrong? No, I don't think so .
Coll Business Card Designs
Super hero Cards
Show Off Cards

Thoughts on regulations and laws.

Here's an interesting article from Slashdot
Click to read. Note Slashdot is a technically oriented site, more interested in technology then politics.
So if a huge rental fee is charged, enough to leave the wireless bands to the major players in the space to rent we stand a good chance of killing innovation. While I don't subscribe to the "All innovation comes from small company" theory, with the state of things now, it's very cheap and easy to start a business and get it running on the internet. Wireless internet, and the devices like iPhone, Storm, Android and others on the way; we could be chilling new company's from getting started.
Let me give you an example: Click to read article
Did the Federal Alcohol Administration Act of 1935 mean to squash competition? No, I don't think they did. Did they mean to effectively make Budweiser the national beer of the U.S? No, I don' think so.
Nor do I think Jimmy Carter intended to allow 1,463 breweries, including 975 brewpubs to spring up across the country. I think his intention was to de-criminalize a hobby. I would tend to doubt that he even thought something like this would happen. I don't think anyone did. They just lifted the regulation, and Capitalism took over. As it always does.
I'll give you another example. There is something called The Ugly C Code Contest (okay, if you Google for that you wont find it, try The International Obfuscated C Code Contest). C is a programming language. The contest is to use and abuse the language to create the ugliest working program you possibly can. Every year, at least 1 new rule is added, because someone obeyed the rules in a new and unique way, that really shouldn't have been done. These are celebrated, although not allowed to win, as being particularly clever. However, despite the ever increasing number of rules, the contest is very freewheeling and encouraging of new ideas and strategies. It is it's view of the rules, and encouragement of innovation that keeps it going for 24+ years. Missing only 1 or 2 years in that entire time.
That's pretty much sums up how most conservatives (that I know) view business regulations. There is a fine line between killing innovation, killing the economy, and keeping people from killing the ideas and concepts that are the United States. I can look at what the financial industry put together and appreciate the cleverness of what they did. I also support eliminating derivatives, and mark-to-market accounting. Those two things alone would have at least made the crash easier. A third thing might be to give up trying to control the economy all together.
This may very well mean getting rid of the Fed. You can make a very strong argument that one of the keys to the real estate collapse was cheap money.