Posts
Apparently, the sheep... I mean the twits... I mean the followers of ancient religious myths... I mean the Christian Right has won (for now) in California. The morons who ran the campaign for Proposition 8 there can't hide.
Here's their entry on Whois. Notice they have 5 other domains under just this name. They seem to be bouncing from IP to IP and server to server. Hmmmm... Zombie anyone? So why would a California "company" want the server in Chicago? If someone out there has an account with WhoIs, please post the rest of their nonsense in the comments. Thanks.
Also, the wonderfully interesting Christians apparently think it's okay to vandalize property, steal, and extort. This article explains what I'm talking about. They just don't get that their religion is just that - their religion. They still believe that morality begins and ends with them. Unfortunately they spout all this while living in opposition to their own precepts. Hypocritical much?
Well, they never were very good at living up to the standards they set for other people. From the Pope on down through all the vast permutations of Christianity, none of those groups have ever lived up to the "morality" they attempt, or as in this case do, force on the rest of the populace.
The Jews at least have the good sense to live their lives according to their precepts (mostly), but keep their religion in the temple. They don't try to cram laws down our throats.
I can think of only one law that the Muslims have enacted, and that only for the convenience of the practice of their religion: foot baths in public parks. Didn't the Christians believe in foot baths way back when?
The Buddhists are happy where they are. The Zoroastrians are not exactly silent, but are very quiet. The Pagans and Neo-pagans just can't believe any of these things are an issue. These three groups believe in the founding principle of many of our original 13 colonies: freedom of religion. In short, believe what you want even if I think you are wrong. It is unfortunate that the colonists actually meant, "freedom to practice our religion." What do you expect from Christians?
So, Christians, if the sanctity of marriage is to be truly upheld, then the tax breaks allowed those with "marriages" should be voided. Only those with a "domestic partnership," a secular title amounting to the same thing (almost), would be allowed those tax breaks. No one would be able to get a divorce except in cases of extreme violence. Even then, women would not be free to marry whom they wish, they would "belong" to the brother or nearest male relative of the original husband.
If you twits wanna live by the Bible, you better be damned sure you want to follow everything. You can't pick and choose. It's everything or nothing including all the laws you've tried to say are, "out of touch with modern times." Guess what? If some of those things are, "out of touch," then none of the rest makes any sense given the empty space left by taking them out. Ask yourself this: when was the last time you lived an entire day without breaking one of the Big 10? I can almost guarantee that none of you have. Those that claim they have have are, "Bearing false witness," (lying).
By the way, catholics - if there weren't any homosexuals out there, you'd have very few priests. Is that why you won't let them "marry?"
Edit: I just looked up other initiatives. Looks like the Fundies were busy this year. Just take a look at these and tell me that the Christians aren't legislating their religion...
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Monday, July 14, 2008
The hard, sad truth about HR departments and Technical Writers
I want to get something off my chest. It's something that has been bugging me since I started out as a Technical Writer way back in 1995.
HR department heads, head-hunters, recruiters, and potential employers listen carefully, 'cause I'm gonna say this once (which may not be enough for some of you):
If Programmers or Engineers were ever able to create a coherent sentence in English that someone other than a Programmer or Engineer could understand, then there would never have been a need to create the job of Technical Writer.
Programmers can't even document their own code reliably. Engineers try to "reinvent the wheel" every time they design something and also try to make it so complicated other Engineers can't decipher the concept and steal it. In spite of all of this, you expect them to write in a language they don't understand (whether born to it or not)? Get a grip.
Yes, there are those writers that can understand the principles of programming and some others that can even get a general sense of what the code they are reading might be expected to do (whether it actually does that thing or not). There are other writers who can take a schematic drawing and quickly see what the functions of the board should be. However, in neither case should a writer be expected to correct programming mistakes, write code from scratch, or redraw a schematic.
Programmers or Engineers who think, or have convinced others, they are writers should be examined professionally. Either they weren't good Programmers or Engineers to begin with and were trying desperately to keep working, or the person hiring (or, Heaven forfend, publishing) them had less skill in the language than that Programmer or Engineer.
A proper Technical Writer must first be a master of whatever language they will be required to write in. While someone might have some facility with Japanese because they learned quite a bit of it in college, they should never be required to translate works into Japanese or write a Japanese document from scratch. Likewise for the reverse. [For examples of poor Japanese to English translations, see www.engrish.com. For a complete definition of Engrish, see Cramster - Definition of Engrish] With the help of a counterpart in Japan who is likewise skilled in Japanese and partially skilled in English, a good translation is possible. This will be true for any language transition.
Marketing "gurus" should never be allowed to design or "suggest" drawings for technical documentation. For reasons why, see the Hall of Technical Documentation Weirdness. (Warning: some entry comments in the Hall are rather crude.) A Technical Writer should never be asked to submit marketing ideas or create detailed schematics. Proper schematics are the province of Engineers and white papers are the province of professional liars ...oops... Marketing agents. A Technical Writer may, perhaps, be employed to render such things into a form more easily understood (and viewable) or into proper English through an editing process. It might even be conceivable for a Writer to create simple, line-drawing type schematics for gross layouts of major systems (box to box flow) including undetailed representations of the pieces of hardware used.
In short, notwithstanding the recent advent of XML and SGML, and the odd need for an HTML page or two, real Technical Writers do not pretend to code, design integrated circuits, or create complicated integrated hardware systems. So, in fairness, real Programmers and real Engineers should not pretend to write sentences.
[update 08-02-08]
Hey, Google! I don't appreciate the extra span, and layer tags. Don't do it again.
HR department heads, head-hunters, recruiters, and potential employers listen carefully, 'cause I'm gonna say this once (which may not be enough for some of you):
If Programmers or Engineers were ever able to create a coherent sentence in English that someone other than a Programmer or Engineer could understand, then there would never have been a need to create the job of Technical Writer.
Programmers can't even document their own code reliably. Engineers try to "reinvent the wheel" every time they design something and also try to make it so complicated other Engineers can't decipher the concept and steal it. In spite of all of this, you expect them to write in a language they don't understand (whether born to it or not)? Get a grip.
Yes, there are those writers that can understand the principles of programming and some others that can even get a general sense of what the code they are reading might be expected to do (whether it actually does that thing or not). There are other writers who can take a schematic drawing and quickly see what the functions of the board should be. However, in neither case should a writer be expected to correct programming mistakes, write code from scratch, or redraw a schematic.
Programmers or Engineers who think, or have convinced others, they are writers should be examined professionally. Either they weren't good Programmers or Engineers to begin with and were trying desperately to keep working, or the person hiring (or, Heaven forfend, publishing) them had less skill in the language than that Programmer or Engineer.
A proper Technical Writer must first be a master of whatever language they will be required to write in. While someone might have some facility with Japanese because they learned quite a bit of it in college, they should never be required to translate works into Japanese or write a Japanese document from scratch. Likewise for the reverse. [For examples of poor Japanese to English translations, see www.engrish.com. For a complete definition of Engrish, see Cramster - Definition of Engrish] With the help of a counterpart in Japan who is likewise skilled in Japanese and partially skilled in English, a good translation is possible. This will be true for any language transition.
Marketing "gurus" should never be allowed to design or "suggest" drawings for technical documentation. For reasons why, see the Hall of Technical Documentation Weirdness. (Warning: some entry comments in the Hall are rather crude.) A Technical Writer should never be asked to submit marketing ideas or create detailed schematics. Proper schematics are the province of Engineers and white papers are the province of professional liars ...oops... Marketing agents. A Technical Writer may, perhaps, be employed to render such things into a form more easily understood (and viewable) or into proper English through an editing process. It might even be conceivable for a Writer to create simple, line-drawing type schematics for gross layouts of major systems (box to box flow) including undetailed representations of the pieces of hardware used.
In short, notwithstanding the recent advent of XML and SGML, and the odd need for an HTML page or two, real Technical Writers do not pretend to code, design integrated circuits, or create complicated integrated hardware systems. So, in fairness, real Programmers and real Engineers should not pretend to write sentences.
[update 08-02-08]
Hey, Google! I don't appreciate the extra span, and layer tags. Don't do it again.
Friday, May 02, 2008
Now it's Alaska
At about 5:32 pm local time on 4-30-08, about 48 miles Nouth of Kanaga Island, Alaska, a 5.1 earthquake occurred. Not out of the ordinary for the area.
23 hours later a 6.1 earthquake hit about 12 miles North of the same island, and about 12 miles West of the Bobrof volcano. Could be a coincidence.
From that time forward to now (10 pm local time of 5-1-08), there has been a series of earquakes ranging from 1 to 4 within a 10 mile wide North-South corridor stretching from 12 miles South to just under 20 miles North of Kanaga island to the West of Bobrof. Could be regular aftershocks from 6.1 quake.
Probably nothing of note here except an interesting quake-storm, especially since these quakes are fairly dispersed, are away from the volcano, and range in depth from about 90 km to surface. Considering that and adding onto it the fact that the quakes hit deep, then shallow then deep again, I seriously doubt there is any magma or any other hot rocks on the move.
I'll keep an eye on this area, too, just to see if anything interesting is happening. Maybe we'll find out if Bobrof is Holocene or not.
[update 08-02-08]
I haven't been watching this as closely as I should have been. It seems like it just keeps rumbling. Maybe this is normal for this particular area. I didn't think it was anything weird anyway - just pointing it out. Another reason not to fish the Bering Sea...
23 hours later a 6.1 earthquake hit about 12 miles North of the same island, and about 12 miles West of the Bobrof volcano. Could be a coincidence.
From that time forward to now (10 pm local time of 5-1-08), there has been a series of earquakes ranging from 1 to 4 within a 10 mile wide North-South corridor stretching from 12 miles South to just under 20 miles North of Kanaga island to the West of Bobrof. Could be regular aftershocks from 6.1 quake.
Probably nothing of note here except an interesting quake-storm, especially since these quakes are fairly dispersed, are away from the volcano, and range in depth from about 90 km to surface. Considering that and adding onto it the fact that the quakes hit deep, then shallow then deep again, I seriously doubt there is any magma or any other hot rocks on the move.
I'll keep an eye on this area, too, just to see if anything interesting is happening. Maybe we'll find out if Bobrof is Holocene or not.
[update 08-02-08]
I haven't been watching this as closely as I should have been. It seems like it just keeps rumbling. Maybe this is normal for this particular area. I didn't think it was anything weird anyway - just pointing it out. Another reason not to fish the Bering Sea...
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Nevada Quake Storm
I know this may sound like alarmist journalism, but just hear me out.
I was looking at the animation of the activity around Mogul, Nevada using Google Earth. I noticed something odd. For every single earthquake there was an answering 1 or 2 magnitude earthquake centered in a new development just SE of the golf course there (roughly 39º31'48" N by 119º54'43" W).
I'm not sure if that is an inaccuracy on the part of the plotting mechanism employed or if it truly is the location of so many aftershocks. If there is someone at USGS that would like to comment on the accuracy of that particular plot-point (and if you're silly enough to read this blog), please leave a comment. Thanks.
(This is my layman's opinion) If it is the true location, then there is going to be a problem at that location. There are so many earthquakes cracking so much rock in such a specific area at various depths that the entire column of rock is becoming unstable. This is true whether the fracturing there is vertical or horizontal. In essence, the area within 25 to 50 feet of this location might settle enough to collapse. A sinkhole of about 10 to 12 feet in depth. If it's much bigger than that, I'd be surprised.
[I'm just gonna plug this on the blog now and fact check point accuracy and fault zones. I just want this prediction up with a time stamp on it and will definitely post corrections to this after this blurb]
Okay. After reading up on all the ways errors can accumulate for lower magnitude earthquakes as regards the location of of the epicenter and depth, I've discovered that all these quakes could, indeed, be located in very different locations. However, why lump them into one spot so consistently? Reference points are usually the city hall of the nearest populated area. I would suppose that that would be a better location to lump inaccurate "guesses" instead of some unfinished development. The inaccuracies can be as much as 5km in any direction and as much as 2 km in depth. That's way bad. With this in play, USGS still maintains that the epicenter accuracy rate is near 90% without any qualification. Can any of the epicenter locations be trusted? Apparently, if it's larger than 3.0 magnitude. Smaller and they throw a dart, raise their collective hands, shrug their collective shoulders, and make a funny noise at us (IUhOh).
But why does that dart seem to be landing there? Every time? Did somebody at USGS buy a house there and they are trying to show off? Nah. Too obvious. Besides, there were two reviewed earthquakes no less than half a mile from that location. The smaller earthquakes aren't even reviewed and the reviewed events don't list a location uncertainty. Wait a minute, neither do the reviewed events. Hmmmm.....
Stop! I'm not advocating conspiracy here. Just voicing a concern about incomplete data.
The last surface rupture in that fault region (according to the KML [Google Earth] maps the USGS has on the site) happened sometime between 750 thousand and 1.5 million years ago. This particular area is seismically active, but this particular activity in this one location can't be "normal."
Make of it what you will.
[update 4-29-08]
Getting a close-up view of the weird site mentioned above (something I neglected to do other than to see what was on the site) shows that it is already in a slight depression between two small hills. This does not indicate a previous sinking of that ground. It is the result of the original uplift. I'm wondering if this is an indication of further uplift, an uplift of the spot indicated, or what I had previously stated. Hard to tell now.
[update 5-1-08]
I just noticed three other spots that have extreme multiple hits, plus three spots with three to five hits. I'm changing the location of my predicted, very slight "elevation change." Look to approximately 39º31'46" N 119º55'32" W. "Very slight," equals somewhere between 3 to 12 feet over the next 6 months or so. That's right. Nothing drastic and nothing quick. A surveyor team would need to measure it. Did you think I was claiming the ground was gonna fall out from underneath these people?
[update 8-2-08]
Holy Carp! Did I say feet? Man-o-man... that should have been inches. Yeah inches is small potatoes, but it should be over that entire hill. Then again, no one is likely to check, so who cares, right? Poor golf course.....
I was looking at the animation of the activity around Mogul, Nevada using Google Earth. I noticed something odd. For every single earthquake there was an answering 1 or 2 magnitude earthquake centered in a new development just SE of the golf course there (roughly 39º31'48" N by 119º54'43" W).
I'm not sure if that is an inaccuracy on the part of the plotting mechanism employed or if it truly is the location of so many aftershocks. If there is someone at USGS that would like to comment on the accuracy of that particular plot-point (and if you're silly enough to read this blog), please leave a comment. Thanks.
(This is my layman's opinion) If it is the true location, then there is going to be a problem at that location. There are so many earthquakes cracking so much rock in such a specific area at various depths that the entire column of rock is becoming unstable. This is true whether the fracturing there is vertical or horizontal. In essence, the area within 25 to 50 feet of this location might settle enough to collapse. A sinkhole of about 10 to 12 feet in depth. If it's much bigger than that, I'd be surprised.
[I'm just gonna plug this on the blog now and fact check point accuracy and fault zones. I just want this prediction up with a time stamp on it and will definitely post corrections to this after this blurb]
Okay. After reading up on all the ways errors can accumulate for lower magnitude earthquakes as regards the location of of the epicenter and depth, I've discovered that all these quakes could, indeed, be located in very different locations. However, why lump them into one spot so consistently? Reference points are usually the city hall of the nearest populated area. I would suppose that that would be a better location to lump inaccurate "guesses" instead of some unfinished development. The inaccuracies can be as much as 5km in any direction and as much as 2 km in depth. That's way bad. With this in play, USGS still maintains that the epicenter accuracy rate is near 90% without any qualification. Can any of the epicenter locations be trusted? Apparently, if it's larger than 3.0 magnitude. Smaller and they throw a dart, raise their collective hands, shrug their collective shoulders, and make a funny noise at us (IUhOh).
But why does that dart seem to be landing there? Every time? Did somebody at USGS buy a house there and they are trying to show off? Nah. Too obvious. Besides, there were two reviewed earthquakes no less than half a mile from that location. The smaller earthquakes aren't even reviewed and the reviewed events don't list a location uncertainty. Wait a minute, neither do the reviewed events. Hmmmm.....
Stop! I'm not advocating conspiracy here. Just voicing a concern about incomplete data.
The last surface rupture in that fault region (according to the KML [Google Earth] maps the USGS has on the site) happened sometime between 750 thousand and 1.5 million years ago. This particular area is seismically active, but this particular activity in this one location can't be "normal."
Make of it what you will.
[update 4-29-08]
Getting a close-up view of the weird site mentioned above (something I neglected to do other than to see what was on the site) shows that it is already in a slight depression between two small hills. This does not indicate a previous sinking of that ground. It is the result of the original uplift. I'm wondering if this is an indication of further uplift, an uplift of the spot indicated, or what I had previously stated. Hard to tell now.
[update 5-1-08]
I just noticed three other spots that have extreme multiple hits, plus three spots with three to five hits. I'm changing the location of my predicted, very slight "elevation change." Look to approximately 39º31'46" N 119º55'32" W. "Very slight," equals somewhere between 3 to 12 feet over the next 6 months or so. That's right. Nothing drastic and nothing quick. A surveyor team would need to measure it. Did you think I was claiming the ground was gonna fall out from underneath these people?
[update 8-2-08]
Holy Carp! Did I say feet? Man-o-man... that should have been inches. Yeah inches is small potatoes, but it should be over that entire hill. Then again, no one is likely to check, so who cares, right? Poor golf course.....
Saturday, April 05, 2008
So, did they get his gun yet?
I'm a bit of a jerk. I know that. I'm also 50 minutes late on this (at the time of this writing), so no scoop for me (not that I was trying).
A great actor, humanitarian (of sorts), and fairly nice guy (if you didn't quote movies at him), has left us. Charlton Heston died today. While it is sad to know that he died of complications due to Alheimer's disease, I must assume that he would appreciate the humor here.
While he may be remembered as all the things that I mention above, plus many other things that many other people will eventually vomit onto the blogosphere, there is one event which I fear will be played over and over again. I surely hope that it is not the only thing he is remembered for.
As president of the NRA, at one of their meetings, he used a cliche accompanied with a visual prop of a rifle during a speech. Holding the rifle up, he declared, "From my cold, dead hands!"
What I really want to know is: who got his gun?
A great actor, humanitarian (of sorts), and fairly nice guy (if you didn't quote movies at him), has left us. Charlton Heston died today. While it is sad to know that he died of complications due to Alheimer's disease, I must assume that he would appreciate the humor here.
While he may be remembered as all the things that I mention above, plus many other things that many other people will eventually vomit onto the blogosphere, there is one event which I fear will be played over and over again. I surely hope that it is not the only thing he is remembered for.
As president of the NRA, at one of their meetings, he used a cliche accompanied with a visual prop of a rifle during a speech. Holding the rifle up, he declared, "From my cold, dead hands!"
What I really want to know is: who got his gun?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)