Posts
With all the hoopla about how horrible a tragedy this situation is, I felt like airing some views on the subject. Again, it's my opinion. Of course that means that here, on this blog, I am right and you... well... ain't.
It's not a tragedy. Tragedy requires a conscious decision by an individual or individual group-entity that creates the disaster which then affects those around them. The earthquake was neither caused nor encouraged to happen by any individual. It is possible to argue that the inaction of the Haitian government to plan for such an occurrence is the tragedy; however, since the government is democratically elected that would mean its inaction caused hurt to itself - in other words the people did it to themselves.
The aid workers can only do so much. Yes, it's great to go in and help people who are a bit dazed by events they can hardly cope with. I see on the news that people are complaining about bodies lying around and why isn't someone doing something about it. Hello? Are the people really that stupid? Do they require a city to maintain stability? Where is the food grown? Isn't that in the countryside? Do they require motorized vehicles to get there? Do they not have feet? If the bodies have piled up then the people who are complaining about it should do something about it.
How soon will the food run low? How soon will the opportunists seize control of that food and what is the military going to do about it? Shoot civilians? On foreign soil? Over food? I highly doubt that. Once the scavengers have control of the food it just a short jump to control of the remaining populace. How do you suppose the warlords of the world have gained control over so many people? It isn't pretty words - that only works on well fed people with little cogitation ability (see Osama bin Laden). It is by controlling two resources: food and water. Anyone who doesn't do what you say doesn't get either. No need to kill them unless they attempt a coup because dehydration and starvation will do it for you. When the medicine does start arriving, the Haitian government will not be in control of it.
The opportunists have already struck here in the US with bogus charity scams. They've struck in Haiti by spreading danger rumors that panic the people and make them run so as to take what they leave behind. I don't doubt that the body looters started as soon as the shaking stopped.
We are dealing with a very large group of primates here. In large enough groups they stop thinking for themselves and look to anything that might lead them to the resources they crave unless they can somehow stumble upon those resources themselves. Whether it means following a river or following a nutcase, it won't matter so long as they get what they want. I give it about a week before the first armed confrontation for food happens. After that, it's anyone's guess.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Sunday, November 08, 2009
Nutrition in Schools? Preposterous!
The link leads to the California Department of Education's Food program page. What is of particular interest to me is the fact that, although one can find any combination of data analysis and training materials regarding transport, acquisition, distribution, and costs (in the form of grants or reimbursements) there is missing something very important to the actual use of the food itself (I'll cut-and-paste):
Nutrition Analysis of School Meals
School meal nutrition analysis report from National School Lunch Program reviews conducted by the California Department of Education (CDE).
* School Meal Nutrition Analysis Report: 1998-2005 (In Process)
Yes, that's right. the actual nutritional value of the food served in the public schools of Cal-ee-Foh-nee-a is not only 4 years past due, but hasn't been properly analyzed in 11 years. I checked the "nutrition information" page of my local school district and I found all sorts of information regarding the carbohydrate values of the food they serve. Where's the vitamins? The salt? The sugar (well HFCS [gag] anyway)? McDonald's has a more comprehensive nutritional list (almost kept a straight face there) than our public schools.
This is not good. I don't really care if the food improves or not. I don't even care that what they serve is truly a tragic approximation of food. Okay, the fruits are good as long as they haven't soaked everything in lemon juice. All I want is the information necessary to correct nutritional deficiencies arising from the ingestion of this meal. I need to know what vegetables to serve to give the right balance of vitamins and minerals. How, exactly, are parents supposed to compensate with such a lack of information?
Nutrition Analysis of School Meals
School meal nutrition analysis report from National School Lunch Program reviews conducted by the California Department of Education (CDE).
* School Meal Nutrition Analysis Report: 1998-2005 (In Process)
Yes, that's right. the actual nutritional value of the food served in the public schools of Cal-ee-Foh-nee-a is not only 4 years past due, but hasn't been properly analyzed in 11 years. I checked the "nutrition information" page of my local school district and I found all sorts of information regarding the carbohydrate values of the food they serve. Where's the vitamins? The salt? The sugar (well HFCS [gag] anyway)? McDonald's has a more comprehensive nutritional list (almost kept a straight face there) than our public schools.
This is not good. I don't really care if the food improves or not. I don't even care that what they serve is truly a tragic approximation of food. Okay, the fruits are good as long as they haven't soaked everything in lemon juice. All I want is the information necessary to correct nutritional deficiencies arising from the ingestion of this meal. I need to know what vegetables to serve to give the right balance of vitamins and minerals. How, exactly, are parents supposed to compensate with such a lack of information?
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
I'm sick of Mcafee no-Service
McAfee is absolute crap. I keep trying to find answers on their site and can't find them. the FAQ section is crap - you can only ever see the front page,which is only the first ten of the results (of usually hundreds). Clicking on "next" to see 11 - 20 takes you right back to the support home page. I've told this to their technicians, I've told it to the supposed technical support manager and you know what I was told? "It works fine from here."
No shit? Really? Guess what? You are not accessing it from my location. Every other site I go to works just peachy, but NOT YOURS!
Now I can can understand that the technicians are clueless lumps working from a set-script. Hell, I've written half those scripts (for other companies) so I know what kind of crap they are forced to spew. But to have a "manager" come across as totally lost in his own little world and not caring a whit about customer service? No, that don't cut it.
My original concern is that their software insists on trying to update itself as many as 5 times a day. I was told that this was normal. In whose fucking universe? Any software manager that actually thinks I want my computer bogged down by a useless update five times a day is an absolute twit. Not only should they be fired, but the person who hired them should be fired and both their mothers slapped twice for raising such incompetent boobs. They aren't unnecessary you say? Okay, where's the change notes? Oh, there aren't any? Anywhere? Really? You're going to push updates 5 times a day and you aren't even competent enough to put together a change list that appends to a file that the CUSTOMER can read to see what the changes are? Well, don't allow it to update if you don't want it to you say? Tried that - told it to let me know about the update 2 days from now and in less than 2 hours it was prompting me, again, to make an update.
Umm, Mr. security dude, if you're worried that the hackers might find out that you've figured out their thing and have blocked it... well... hate to break it to you, but they don't care. They wrote it, sent it out, and started a new project. They are NOT salivating waiting for you to fail or not fail to stop their toys. You are nothing to them, just some corporate entity that acts like "Big Daddy" patting customers on the head calling us poor, deluded, public persons who don't know what's in their best interest.
This is the result of allowing people in their twenties to write or enact corporate policy. You get boneheads working management, a huge customer turnover rate, and losing revenue.
Oh, wait, you make up for that by charging for semi-competent, semi-sentient customer support in the form of access to the download area. Oh, yeah, you can download that crap without the agreement by the way.. and it's easily opened and read and therefore hackable. If that ain't the absolute definition of incompetent, then the dictionary needs some revision.
Although my current subscription dates from 2005, I've been a customer since 1994. Not anymore. If everyone else had any sense they'd pull you off of their computers so fast it would make your investors heads explode. When my current subscription expires I will be using someone else's product.
No shit? Really? Guess what? You are not accessing it from my location. Every other site I go to works just peachy, but NOT YOURS!
Now I can can understand that the technicians are clueless lumps working from a set-script. Hell, I've written half those scripts (for other companies) so I know what kind of crap they are forced to spew. But to have a "manager" come across as totally lost in his own little world and not caring a whit about customer service? No, that don't cut it.
My original concern is that their software insists on trying to update itself as many as 5 times a day. I was told that this was normal. In whose fucking universe? Any software manager that actually thinks I want my computer bogged down by a useless update five times a day is an absolute twit. Not only should they be fired, but the person who hired them should be fired and both their mothers slapped twice for raising such incompetent boobs. They aren't unnecessary you say? Okay, where's the change notes? Oh, there aren't any? Anywhere? Really? You're going to push updates 5 times a day and you aren't even competent enough to put together a change list that appends to a file that the CUSTOMER can read to see what the changes are? Well, don't allow it to update if you don't want it to you say? Tried that - told it to let me know about the update 2 days from now and in less than 2 hours it was prompting me, again, to make an update.
Umm, Mr. security dude, if you're worried that the hackers might find out that you've figured out their thing and have blocked it... well... hate to break it to you, but they don't care. They wrote it, sent it out, and started a new project. They are NOT salivating waiting for you to fail or not fail to stop their toys. You are nothing to them, just some corporate entity that acts like "Big Daddy" patting customers on the head calling us poor, deluded, public persons who don't know what's in their best interest.
This is the result of allowing people in their twenties to write or enact corporate policy. You get boneheads working management, a huge customer turnover rate, and losing revenue.
Oh, wait, you make up for that by charging for semi-competent, semi-sentient customer support in the form of access to the download area. Oh, yeah, you can download that crap without the agreement by the way.. and it's easily opened and read and therefore hackable. If that ain't the absolute definition of incompetent, then the dictionary needs some revision.
Although my current subscription dates from 2005, I've been a customer since 1994. Not anymore. If everyone else had any sense they'd pull you off of their computers so fast it would make your investors heads explode. When my current subscription expires I will be using someone else's product.
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
Photos of War
I listened to Neal Conan on NPR while driving to lunch today. I understand why he needs to talk about it - the majority of the American populace is composed of craven lunatics with no sense of reality.
There is never a way to truly understand a person's sacrifice in war by simply looking at an amputated limb or a flag-draped box. I can feel sympathy for them, but I can never truly understand how much that person suffered. Not knowing how they suffered, I cannot know how reprehensible their death or permanent injury was. To never show such photographs is to completely dishonor their sacrifice. To have the parents of this man wish to so dishonor their son's sacrifice by not wanting the photograph shown is even more reprehensible.
These soldiers volunteered for service knowing that war existed and that they might die. Not once were they ever shown what a dead body looks like when hit by a grenade or a .50 caliber bullet. Those things leave holes in bodies, spray blood and body parts on the landscape, and expose interior body parts that most would prefer not to see. That preference has led to a misunderstanding by the general Americans populace that death is clean and quick. It is for the same reasons they don't want to know where their meat comes from - there's just too much blood. Americans revel in Gore movies (what we call Horror movies now - good grief). Those that claim that the scenes in movies and war are different have never seen the photographs. Those movies are made by people who have seen them and make them exactly because they make you squirm. It's about time the American people squirmed to real images of what war looks like. Un-doctored, unstaged (like the Civil War photographs were), raw, screaming, in your face reality. Not for kicks, but for edification.
Americans - it's no wonder the rest of the world hates us: we are apes that pick our butts and sniff and then claim we've never heard of butts.
To APR: well done. It's time for someone to tell the military to go to hell so that people can put a true face to the deaths that have occurred on both sides of these wars. The steps taken to elicit at least the comments of the most affected individuals warrants praise. These dead people are listed in military parlance as, "Non-operational assets." Does that sound like they give a shit? No, not really. So, again, Nice job.
To the editor of whatever newspaper that claimed that their nine-year old might see the paper and be horrified: That would be a good thing. Death such as what occurs in war should be viewed as horrible. Does that mean that you should also tell that same nine-year old that wars should never be fought? I bet you wouldn't do that. Oh, you'd tell us that you would so you could make all the politicians and pansy-asses out there happy, but there is no way you ever got to be a news editor of any stripe without exulting in blood and mess - whether or not you think it's a good or a bad thing. "If it bleeds, it leads," is an axiom that has never been truer than in today's media. Yes, even on NPR. How dare you take the right of your readership to teach their children away from them by withholding the photograph.
To the man who said that these dead people are fighting for our freedom: guess what? these wars were never about our freedom. It was for someone else's freedom and our safety. I always disagreed with the stated reasons we went there, but never disagreed that we need to go there. However, I believe we've been there too long. We fought there, gained their freedom, and have since tried to turn their cultures into America Light. Is the American military so incompetent that they can't teach military tactics to military personnel from other countries that we need to be there years after the original governments have been destroyed? (I know one person who was able, with about 40 others, to train the Contras in about 14 months.) The answer to that is obviously, yes. If you believe otherwise means that you believe in American Imperialism. Yes - colonialism by proxy. The only people who've threatened my freedom since 2001 are those within the United States government. Remember the Patriot Act? Do you know the differences between liberty, freedom, and safety? No? Hmm...thought the Marines only recruited smart people. My fault for assuming.
To the people who equate these photographs as being against war just as pictures of car crash victims are against drunk drivers: I seem to remember a film in high-school that depicted just such a thing as part of the Driver's Education course (yeah, California actually cared back then). I've completely forgotten the name of the film, but I bet it's still being shown in the now private courses. Besides, as one comedian said it, "20% of all accidents involve alcohol. Well, damn it, get all those sober people off the road and let us drunks drive in peace!" You may not like that comment, and I do not endorse drunk driving, but it is illustrative of how little the analogy fits this situation. Those films were never meant to deter drunk driving, they were meant to encourage safety. Publishing the photographs accomplish the same thing.
There is never a way to truly understand a person's sacrifice in war by simply looking at an amputated limb or a flag-draped box. I can feel sympathy for them, but I can never truly understand how much that person suffered. Not knowing how they suffered, I cannot know how reprehensible their death or permanent injury was. To never show such photographs is to completely dishonor their sacrifice. To have the parents of this man wish to so dishonor their son's sacrifice by not wanting the photograph shown is even more reprehensible.
These soldiers volunteered for service knowing that war existed and that they might die. Not once were they ever shown what a dead body looks like when hit by a grenade or a .50 caliber bullet. Those things leave holes in bodies, spray blood and body parts on the landscape, and expose interior body parts that most would prefer not to see. That preference has led to a misunderstanding by the general Americans populace that death is clean and quick. It is for the same reasons they don't want to know where their meat comes from - there's just too much blood. Americans revel in Gore movies (what we call Horror movies now - good grief). Those that claim that the scenes in movies and war are different have never seen the photographs. Those movies are made by people who have seen them and make them exactly because they make you squirm. It's about time the American people squirmed to real images of what war looks like. Un-doctored, unstaged (like the Civil War photographs were), raw, screaming, in your face reality. Not for kicks, but for edification.
Americans - it's no wonder the rest of the world hates us: we are apes that pick our butts and sniff and then claim we've never heard of butts.
To APR: well done. It's time for someone to tell the military to go to hell so that people can put a true face to the deaths that have occurred on both sides of these wars. The steps taken to elicit at least the comments of the most affected individuals warrants praise. These dead people are listed in military parlance as, "Non-operational assets." Does that sound like they give a shit? No, not really. So, again, Nice job.
To the editor of whatever newspaper that claimed that their nine-year old might see the paper and be horrified: That would be a good thing. Death such as what occurs in war should be viewed as horrible. Does that mean that you should also tell that same nine-year old that wars should never be fought? I bet you wouldn't do that. Oh, you'd tell us that you would so you could make all the politicians and pansy-asses out there happy, but there is no way you ever got to be a news editor of any stripe without exulting in blood and mess - whether or not you think it's a good or a bad thing. "If it bleeds, it leads," is an axiom that has never been truer than in today's media. Yes, even on NPR. How dare you take the right of your readership to teach their children away from them by withholding the photograph.
To the man who said that these dead people are fighting for our freedom: guess what? these wars were never about our freedom. It was for someone else's freedom and our safety. I always disagreed with the stated reasons we went there, but never disagreed that we need to go there. However, I believe we've been there too long. We fought there, gained their freedom, and have since tried to turn their cultures into America Light. Is the American military so incompetent that they can't teach military tactics to military personnel from other countries that we need to be there years after the original governments have been destroyed? (I know one person who was able, with about 40 others, to train the Contras in about 14 months.) The answer to that is obviously, yes. If you believe otherwise means that you believe in American Imperialism. Yes - colonialism by proxy. The only people who've threatened my freedom since 2001 are those within the United States government. Remember the Patriot Act? Do you know the differences between liberty, freedom, and safety? No? Hmm...thought the Marines only recruited smart people. My fault for assuming.
To the people who equate these photographs as being against war just as pictures of car crash victims are against drunk drivers: I seem to remember a film in high-school that depicted just such a thing as part of the Driver's Education course (yeah, California actually cared back then). I've completely forgotten the name of the film, but I bet it's still being shown in the now private courses. Besides, as one comedian said it, "20% of all accidents involve alcohol. Well, damn it, get all those sober people off the road and let us drunks drive in peace!" You may not like that comment, and I do not endorse drunk driving, but it is illustrative of how little the analogy fits this situation. Those films were never meant to deter drunk driving, they were meant to encourage safety. Publishing the photographs accomplish the same thing.
Friday, March 13, 2009
I'm done
I quit. I ain't looking for work because all I get are bogus headhunting bullshit. I quit because every time I try to do something it doesn't work - even when I use the same tools and methods as someone else I've seen do that thing.
I quit because no one gives me any respect whatsoever. They treat me like some kind of child. I'm tired, I'm sick. I Quit.
When someone I know actually gives me respect instead of seeming to simply tolerate my existence, I might come back. Until then, though shit. I'm gone
I quit because no one gives me any respect whatsoever. They treat me like some kind of child. I'm tired, I'm sick. I Quit.
When someone I know actually gives me respect instead of seeming to simply tolerate my existence, I might come back. Until then, though shit. I'm gone
Monday, February 09, 2009
PharmaCom scare tactics and you
I was recently researching Seargeant's Natural Guardian flea repellent. I noticed a poster by the name of "Warren" that ran horrific blurb that was a waste of (mediocre) marketing skills. Warren's comments are word-for-word and format-for-format the same at this blog (look for Warren's post left on March 24, 2008) which was less than 24 hours after posting to this blog.
I'm all for free speech, but there is such a thing as ethics involved with allowing a free-market economy. You don't bash a competitor simply because they have a product that seems to be working. Figure out how they do it and try to do it better. Isn't that what corporate espionage is all about? Or are the CEO's being paid so much that companies can't afford that anymore...
Disclaimer
I do not and have not ever worked for any Pharmaceutical corporation of any kind nor any of said companies' subsidiaries. I have likewise never worked for Seargeant's or any of its subsidiaries. I am not a doctor of any sort (J.D., Ph.D., M.D.).
Review
I've used this product on one 9-year-old cat. The only effect the first time was that the he hated the smell and let me touch him for a day or two. The second application went better I think due to him having used it before and just knowing he'd have to deal with it. Anyway, the fleas were gone, as evidenced by zero scratching for about three or 3.5 weeks. Does it last a whole month on a regular basis? I wouldn't think even essential oils will last that long.
Al-in-all, I'd use this product again with no qualms.
Now to the absurd
These are a couple of answers to the most severe questions arising out of the scare tactic comments, like Warren's. These are usually posed by some unsuspecting user interested in natural alternatives.
Is it gonna kill my cat? There may be some skin irritation from the peppermint especially if applied directly to the skin instead of the fur. However, if your cat is allergic to peppermint there could be some really serious reactions most of which will fall into normal histamine categories - one of which is respiratory failure. As with any product you might use on your pet, use your head first. Test a small amount and wait a day. If there is no reaction other than a slight redness, you're good-to-go. Anything other than a slight redness and you need to find another product.
Why is my cat angry at me? The smell is a bit strong which makes me wonder about the amounts used. The smell is what the cats are attempting to escape. Because they can't get away, eventually they hide and are usually snappish. They get better.
My cat is foaming at the mouth or drooling, is this a sign that the cat is sick? The reports of foaming are probably due to the close relationship between peppermint and catnip - same family, therefore it's the same type of, if not the same quality of, reaction. If a cat stays on the catnip-infused scratching board too long they will drool and foam a bit. Lethargic reactions to the peppermint means they are probably high (hence the inability to find a proper toilet or the inaction regarding food). Since they can't get away from what is making them that way, they may stay high for a while. You should ease up on the dose or find another product.
When you read reviews online about products that are an alternative to some large corporation's heavy chemical solutions, be aware that most of the negative posts are not from users of the product. Since the FTC doesn't do a great job in print or on TV, and cannot regulate claims made by the "public" in any forum especially online, any of the reviews you read (and most likely many of them) could be fake. Search several review sites and compare the posts. Eliminating the similar posts will give you a better idea on the product.
I'm all for free speech, but there is such a thing as ethics involved with allowing a free-market economy. You don't bash a competitor simply because they have a product that seems to be working. Figure out how they do it and try to do it better. Isn't that what corporate espionage is all about? Or are the CEO's being paid so much that companies can't afford that anymore...
Disclaimer
I do not and have not ever worked for any Pharmaceutical corporation of any kind nor any of said companies' subsidiaries. I have likewise never worked for Seargeant's or any of its subsidiaries. I am not a doctor of any sort (J.D., Ph.D., M.D.).
Review
I've used this product on one 9-year-old cat. The only effect the first time was that the he hated the smell and let me touch him for a day or two. The second application went better I think due to him having used it before and just knowing he'd have to deal with it. Anyway, the fleas were gone, as evidenced by zero scratching for about three or 3.5 weeks. Does it last a whole month on a regular basis? I wouldn't think even essential oils will last that long.
Al-in-all, I'd use this product again with no qualms.
Now to the absurd
These are a couple of answers to the most severe questions arising out of the scare tactic comments, like Warren's. These are usually posed by some unsuspecting user interested in natural alternatives.
Is it gonna kill my cat? There may be some skin irritation from the peppermint especially if applied directly to the skin instead of the fur. However, if your cat is allergic to peppermint there could be some really serious reactions most of which will fall into normal histamine categories - one of which is respiratory failure. As with any product you might use on your pet, use your head first. Test a small amount and wait a day. If there is no reaction other than a slight redness, you're good-to-go. Anything other than a slight redness and you need to find another product.
Why is my cat angry at me? The smell is a bit strong which makes me wonder about the amounts used. The smell is what the cats are attempting to escape. Because they can't get away, eventually they hide and are usually snappish. They get better.
My cat is foaming at the mouth or drooling, is this a sign that the cat is sick? The reports of foaming are probably due to the close relationship between peppermint and catnip - same family, therefore it's the same type of, if not the same quality of, reaction. If a cat stays on the catnip-infused scratching board too long they will drool and foam a bit. Lethargic reactions to the peppermint means they are probably high (hence the inability to find a proper toilet or the inaction regarding food). Since they can't get away from what is making them that way, they may stay high for a while. You should ease up on the dose or find another product.
When you read reviews online about products that are an alternative to some large corporation's heavy chemical solutions, be aware that most of the negative posts are not from users of the product. Since the FTC doesn't do a great job in print or on TV, and cannot regulate claims made by the "public" in any forum especially online, any of the reviews you read (and most likely many of them) could be fake. Search several review sites and compare the posts. Eliminating the similar posts will give you a better idea on the product.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
More Rampant Stupidity
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...
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...
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?
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Thursday, December 20, 2007
YouTube
I would have liked including a window for watching videos from YouTube with content related to my blog, but their smallest window is 400 pixels wide and more than that tall. I just don't have the time to figure out how to constrain the size of embedded script. If they get one smaller that will fit my page without dominating the content of it, I'll put it back up.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Excuse me, but your language is slipping.
It's no wonder the rest of the world can't figure us out. Look at our idiomatic expressions, most of which have nothing to do with anything grammatical.
I'm not going to list them out, but here are a couple of pet peeves of mine. The use of any of these in my presence is likely to get you at least a glare. If they are used in my direction, the conversation is over. If it's by a politician, you've just lost my vote forever (and I don't care if that means I need to vote the Perot ticket again or not). If it's in a book, I do not put the book aside lightly, I do, in fact, throw it away from me with great force (unless I'm supposed to review it because then i haven't a choice, do I?).
"Taken cared of" - The only person I have allowed to use this in my presence is my wife, for obvious reasons. If you mean something completed in the past say, "It has been taken care of." Yes, jerk, there is a 'be' verb in there. Anyone claiming, "It ends in a preposition!" can keep their Latin grammar to themselves. If you don't know what I mean, then you don't know the history of your own language.
"a myriad of" or "myriads of" - That is so CRAPTASTIC! No one should be allowed to get away with this and live. It's an adjective, which means:
This next one, my friends, is the one that set me off tonight.
"horribly underfunded" - did this politician want top say, "underfunded," "greatly underfunded," or did she really mean that the people funding this project failed to underfund it adequately?
Loose lips may sink ships, but sloppy language destroys the means by which we convey ideas to one another. Screw with it, and it'll screw you.
I'm not going to list them out, but here are a couple of pet peeves of mine. The use of any of these in my presence is likely to get you at least a glare. If they are used in my direction, the conversation is over. If it's by a politician, you've just lost my vote forever (and I don't care if that means I need to vote the Perot ticket again or not). If it's in a book, I do not put the book aside lightly, I do, in fact, throw it away from me with great force (unless I'm supposed to review it because then i haven't a choice, do I?).
"Taken cared of" - The only person I have allowed to use this in my presence is my wife, for obvious reasons. If you mean something completed in the past say, "It has been taken care of." Yes, jerk, there is a 'be' verb in there. Anyone claiming, "It ends in a preposition!" can keep their Latin grammar to themselves. If you don't know what I mean, then you don't know the history of your own language.
"a myriad of" or "myriads of" - That is so CRAPTASTIC! No one should be allowed to get away with this and live. It's an adjective, which means:
- It does not take a plural or possessive because it ain't a noun
- It cannot be used in a preposition in primary position because it is an adjective of numbers and can therefore only modify other adjectives or nouns to indicate how much of those exist
This next one, my friends, is the one that set me off tonight.
"horribly underfunded" - did this politician want top say, "underfunded," "greatly underfunded," or did she really mean that the people funding this project failed to underfund it adequately?
Loose lips may sink ships, but sloppy language destroys the means by which we convey ideas to one another. Screw with it, and it'll screw you.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Business and Faith
I posted this in answer to a question posed on how faith might affect actions in business situations. The person asking added that there should be a personal aspect to how it might affect the answerer.
---------------
I've not yet encountered a business situation where faith has ever been an overt consideration. However, I can see where the psychology of faith (and belief) can play into negotiations and inter-office social networks.
Consider the propensity for individuals to congregate and make distinctions of belonging based on certain aspects of personal behavior. These aspects could be favorite singer, favorite food, nationality, ethnicity, gender, religion, or (to the point of the question), faith.
I have made a distinction between faith and religion. A further distinction could be made between faith and belief. the distinctions are analogous to the distinction between ethics and morality. These distinctions are difficult for most people to discern and quantify, so that most do not try.
Given this inability to unconsciously separate faith from belief, as apposed to the conscious act of thinking about the distinction, most who ascribe to a particular religion are more likely to favor dealings with those of the same religion. As an example, I would point out the website you provide in clarification.
People will trend toward dealing more with those within their perceived group. While people may deal with those outside these groups, they will be more likely to impose greater restrictions during negotiations with those others. It is an unconscious, not easily controlled compulsion usually ingrained from early development in childhood in what some might call, "indoctrination." I, however, see this more as, "tribal education." Each faith group is a subculture requiring its members to be educated in proper action toward others in that subculture. Humans are social creatures and must feel that they belong to a group. Religion is a fast and easy way to belong.
Although I was not raised under any particular faith, I was surrounded more by those who were Christian than those of any other religion. While I do not subscribe to their tenets of faith, because of my early development I do understand them and their actions toward one another more than I do any other religious group.
While these group interactions will be subverted under he daily activity of the business as a whole, I would be able to enjoy a normal working relationship with most people, personality clashes not-withstanding. I think that if there ever were an overt display of religion, or even an implied requirement to be of that religion in order to enjoy a normal working relationship with the majority of people in the office, I would be packing up quickly and going away. I do not include Christmas or Hanuka displays as there really is no way to avoid either in most nations and especially in the USA. I also do not include charity drives even when run by a religious group, as I do not believe that morality or ethics live within any religion - they are just a good place to start - so the act of charity belongs to all.
---------------
I've not yet encountered a business situation where faith has ever been an overt consideration. However, I can see where the psychology of faith (and belief) can play into negotiations and inter-office social networks.
Consider the propensity for individuals to congregate and make distinctions of belonging based on certain aspects of personal behavior. These aspects could be favorite singer, favorite food, nationality, ethnicity, gender, religion, or (to the point of the question), faith.
I have made a distinction between faith and religion. A further distinction could be made between faith and belief. the distinctions are analogous to the distinction between ethics and morality. These distinctions are difficult for most people to discern and quantify, so that most do not try.
Given this inability to unconsciously separate faith from belief, as apposed to the conscious act of thinking about the distinction, most who ascribe to a particular religion are more likely to favor dealings with those of the same religion. As an example, I would point out the website you provide in clarification.
People will trend toward dealing more with those within their perceived group. While people may deal with those outside these groups, they will be more likely to impose greater restrictions during negotiations with those others. It is an unconscious, not easily controlled compulsion usually ingrained from early development in childhood in what some might call, "indoctrination." I, however, see this more as, "tribal education." Each faith group is a subculture requiring its members to be educated in proper action toward others in that subculture. Humans are social creatures and must feel that they belong to a group. Religion is a fast and easy way to belong.
Although I was not raised under any particular faith, I was surrounded more by those who were Christian than those of any other religion. While I do not subscribe to their tenets of faith, because of my early development I do understand them and their actions toward one another more than I do any other religious group.
While these group interactions will be subverted under he daily activity of the business as a whole, I would be able to enjoy a normal working relationship with most people, personality clashes not-withstanding. I think that if there ever were an overt display of religion, or even an implied requirement to be of that religion in order to enjoy a normal working relationship with the majority of people in the office, I would be packing up quickly and going away. I do not include Christmas or Hanuka displays as there really is no way to avoid either in most nations and especially in the USA. I also do not include charity drives even when run by a religious group, as I do not believe that morality or ethics live within any religion - they are just a good place to start - so the act of charity belongs to all.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
MASSIVE Drool!
I have no conceivable use for this, but the "I wanna play with it" factor is incredibly high.
Added some stuff
Don't speak my language? Got something up top that'll do for ya. Mostly. Some languages make the translator gag. I didn't write it (don't think I could) and they don't claim it's 100% either. Also, it is a tad slow, so be patient.
Want to join with some nutballs? Wanna be on of the few, the proud, the truly underappreciated - and become a soccer referee? Well, then click on one of the two logos. Top one takes you to the National site, bottom one takes you to the Northern California site. From the National, I believe you can navigate to the International. Or just search on FIFA.
BTW, although I can,I don't like to code. The less HTML editing I need to do, for anything other than work, the better. I don't script for New Tab or New Window for the links on my blog. Two reasons (3 if you count the above statement):
[12/18/2007] Fine, you tarts! It's done. Click away.
Want to join with some nutballs? Wanna be on of the few, the proud, the truly underappreciated - and become a soccer referee? Well, then click on one of the two logos. Top one takes you to the National site, bottom one takes you to the Northern California site. From the National, I believe you can navigate to the International. Or just search on FIFA.
BTW, although I can,I don't like to code. The less HTML editing I need to do, for anything other than work, the better. I don't script for New Tab or New Window for the links on my blog. Two reasons (3 if you count the above statement):
- I hate it when some site keeps opening new tabs, new windows, or extra pop-ups. Pop-up blockers would prevent that.
- I want people to reach the links I take the time to put in. So I leave it up to the reader to choose how they get there.
To that end, I've put in a little note reminding some (and maybe educating others) that there is a way to open tabs or windows and see those thngs without having to leave my wonderful little slice of paradise.
[12/18/2007] Fine, you tarts! It's done. Click away.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
So, how long's it been? 20! holy....
Okay. So I'm not just now realizing that my 20th high school reunion thingy is coming up in 6 months, but that doesn't mean I can't be surprised by it anyway. Especially when you consider that I just finished up a BA.
Yeah, I procrastinate. In fact, I've procrastinated my procrastination. I'm good at that. It's hard work, procrastination. It's not laziness at all. It is an active decision not to do something that I probably should be doing, but no one will die if I don't, so I won't. See? Lot's of brain power there. Took 1.5 seconds to think it and 30 seconds to type it out without errors......
Anyway, back at the Ranch......
My high-school graduating class had one other reunion, the 11th. Seems that the class officers have fallen off the face of the earth (especially the pres [and we thought she'd be the first inna White House]) so other people, mostly the ROTC people, got it going. It's funny how that works out. It was the same people that a few years later organized an "Every Year" ROTC reunion to honor the instructors (which surprised the hell out of them). We all had fun.
So now I wait for someone to organize an "Every Year" reunion for the band so I can get my double geek goin'. Get Fanfare for the Common Man and Rhapsody in Blue goin'. Some of us wheezers might even be able to swing some Birdland. You can keep the marches, thank you.
So now I've plopped my 80 bucks down and wait, nearly patiently, for the day to arrive when I find out that practically no one (except the 4 VPs that I know about) are doing any better than me. If they remember me, and unless you count the fact they got their degrees first.....
Yeah, I procrastinate. In fact, I've procrastinated my procrastination. I'm good at that. It's hard work, procrastination. It's not laziness at all. It is an active decision not to do something that I probably should be doing, but no one will die if I don't, so I won't. See? Lot's of brain power there. Took 1.5 seconds to think it and 30 seconds to type it out without errors......
Anyway, back at the Ranch......
My high-school graduating class had one other reunion, the 11th. Seems that the class officers have fallen off the face of the earth (especially the pres [and we thought she'd be the first inna White House]) so other people, mostly the ROTC people, got it going. It's funny how that works out. It was the same people that a few years later organized an "Every Year" ROTC reunion to honor the instructors (which surprised the hell out of them). We all had fun.
So now I wait for someone to organize an "Every Year" reunion for the band so I can get my double geek goin'. Get Fanfare for the Common Man and Rhapsody in Blue goin'. Some of us wheezers might even be able to swing some Birdland. You can keep the marches, thank you.
So now I've plopped my 80 bucks down and wait, nearly patiently, for the day to arrive when I find out that practically no one (except the 4 VPs that I know about) are doing any better than me. If they remember me, and unless you count the fact they got their degrees first.....
Friday, December 07, 2007
Rampant Stupidity
Not so recently, I bought tickets through TicketMaster. I had a whole rant that I was going to post, but I've decided that I'm just going to post the BBB process complaint and then post my thoughts and what I plan to do afterward and why.
"" = equals some modicum of privacy for me (although it ain't hard to figure out who I am) and the person from whom I received the company's boiler-plate response, or some dumb mistake which I feel would embarass the BBB.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Complaint Description
IAC, doing bus as Ticketmaster, which operates www.ticketmaster.com, is not properly disclosing all costs associated with ticket purchases before such purchases are made. I had ordered 3 tickets. The Purchase page showed seat locations, the delivery options & costs of the tickets. There was no mention of any other fees associated with the purchase. Agreeing to the price & selecting the delivery method (Regular Mail) I clicked Purchase. The next page was for payment info. There was still no mention of the fees. I also didn't notice that my delivery method had changed from Regular Mail to TicketFast ($2.50 fee). After purchase, the price quoted on the Purchase Page for 3 tickets had increased by 26% of the $49.50 ticket price by the addition of delivery fee + a $10.50, 'Convenience Charge,' per ticket. There was also an order processing fee of $4.15 not previously mentioned or noticed. I've understood that they do have the right to charge these fess, but such fees must be disclosed & enumerated on the purchase order, before the trans is concluded or the service is performed. Attempted suits have been made, & lost, regarding their practice of charging such fees & the possibility of lowering them (Band Pearl Jam vs. Ticketmaster [or equiv).They should, be held accountable for disclosing them, openly & on the purchase price page, before the purchase is fait accompli. I'm waiving the processing fee, as service was provided. Had it been properly disclosed, I wouldn't have objected.
Company's Response
Tickets purchased on Ticketmaster.com are typically subject to a per ticket convenience charge and a non-refundable per order processing fee. In many cases, delivery prices will also be owed." [From their ToU policy]
There is no disclosure of the percentage or fixed amount charged. Whether agreed to or not, there is no way to determine the cost of those charges prior to purchase without the disclosure on the purchase page.
Complaint is directed at parent company (IAC), not TicketMaster.
Company's Final Response
Final Response - Posted
We are in receipt of your complaint. We understand that your complaint was directed to IAC, but the charges in question are set in place by Ticketmaster. As previously stated you are requesting that Ticketmaster refund a purchase that you placed on our website. During the Internet ordering process, all information is re-confirmed. By proceeding with your order, you acknowledged that you would abide by our terms. Since you agreed to those terms we respectfully decline to grant your request for a refund as we do not believe that Ticketmaster was at fault in this instance. We trust this explanation will be satisfactory to fully resolve this matter. Sincerely, "" -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was never interested in receiving the entire purchase price, just the price of the undisclosed amount.
Their practice is the equivalent of a moving company saying, "There will be a transportation fee of an amount that we cannot disclose because we don't know how much it will be." After you've already signed the work order saying that you'll pay it, they have your stuff. Then they charge you extortionist fees in order to get your stuff back.
That kind of practice has been determined in court (for moving companies, at least) to be tantamount to fraud because they did not disclose the fixed amount, percentage amount, or amount to be charged per mile on the contract before signing. TicketMaster also does not disclose a percentage amount or fixed rate for their fee.
I'm very close to pursuing a class action lawsuit not only for the amount of my fees, but for the total amount of fees charges by TicketMaster since the inception of their online ticket purchasing outlet for tickets purchased through that outlet. Why would I start there? Because, when buying a ticket through previous outlets (i.e. at the venue, licensed outlets like the Wherehouse, etc.) there was always a disclosure of the amount to the customer before the customer had payed for the tickets. Up until they made the purchase, the customer had the right to cancel the transaction due to knowing the amount of the fee. In the case of the online purchases, there is no monetary disclosure until after the purchase is complete.
How much is this likely to hurt them? Well, my fees were around $10.25 per ticket. Multiply that by millions of ticket since the inception of the online venue. The lawyer is likely to be happy with 3% of that as a fee, but against such a large company it might be as high as 10%. As first party, I'll be happy with 1.4%, but might get by with 2%.
Now think of the money they could have saved by giving me my 40 bucks.........
Of course, that's only if I go through with it. Maybe someone else will beat me to the punch. I wouldn't mind much as long as I got my 40 bucks.
"" = equals some modicum of privacy for me (although it ain't hard to figure out who I am) and the person from whom I received the company's boiler-plate response, or some dumb mistake which I feel would embarass the BBB.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Complaint Description
IAC, doing bus as Ticketmaster, which operates www.ticketmaster.com, is not properly disclosing all costs associated with ticket purchases before such purchases are made. I had ordered 3 tickets. The Purchase page showed seat locations, the delivery options & costs of the tickets. There was no mention of any other fees associated with the purchase. Agreeing to the price & selecting the delivery method (Regular Mail) I clicked Purchase. The next page was for payment info. There was still no mention of the fees. I also didn't notice that my delivery method had changed from Regular Mail to TicketFast ($2.50 fee). After purchase, the price quoted on the Purchase Page for 3 tickets had increased by 26% of the $49.50 ticket price by the addition of delivery fee + a $10.50, 'Convenience Charge,' per ticket. There was also an order processing fee of $4.15 not previously mentioned or noticed. I've understood that they do have the right to charge these fess, but such fees must be disclosed & enumerated on the purchase order, before the trans is concluded or the service is performed. Attempted suits have been made, & lost, regarding their practice of charging such fees & the possibility of lowering them (Band Pearl Jam vs. Ticketmaster [or equiv).They should, be held accountable for disclosing them, openly & on the purchase price page, before the purchase is fait accompli. I'm waiving the processing fee, as service was provided. Had it been properly disclosed, I wouldn't have objected.
Complaint Summary
IAC, doing bus as Ticketmaster, which operates www.ticketmaster.com, is not properly disclosing all costs associated with ticket purchases.
Resolution Sought
Refund of undisclosed fees.
| Additional Information | |
| Date Problem First Occurred: | 11-17-2007 |
| Product or Service: | computerized ticketing sales |
| Model Name or Number: | "" |
| Date Purchased: | 11-17-2007 |
| Order Number: | |
| Amount Paid: | |
Company's Response
Dear Mr. "":
We are in receipt of your request for a refund. Thank you for your patience while we researched the facts relevant to your transaction. As you may recall, you are requesting that Ticketmaster refund a purchase that you placed on our website. Ticketmaster strives to provide excellent customer service and sincerely regrets that an error apparently occurred in connection with your transaction. We welcome this opportunity to explain why your refund request is being denied. During the Internet ordering process, all information is re-confirmed. This confirmation includes venue, day, date, time, and number of tickets, itemized and total charges. Before a consumer can complete their transaction, the consumer must agree to our Terms of Use. By proceeding with your order, you acknowledged that you would abide by those terms. Further, under our Purchase Policy, subcategory Refunds and Exchanges, it clearly states that before purchasing tickets, carefully review your event and seat selection. Policies set forth by our clients, including venues, teams and theaters; prohibit Ticketmaster from issuing exchanges or refunds after a ticket has been purchased or for lost, stolen, damaged or destroyed tickets. I sincerely regret to learn that you were disappointed with your experience utilizing Ticketmaster. However, since you agreed to our Terms of Use prior to completion of the transaction, we respectfully decline to grant your request for a refund as we do not believe that Ticketmaster was at fault in this instance. Thank you for the opportunity to respond and formally address your concerns. We trust this explanation will be satisfactory to fully resolve this matter. Sincerely, "" Consumer Support Specialist
Initial Response Summary
Thank you for your patience while we researched the facts relevant to your transaction.
Rebuttal - Posted 11-28-2007
Tickets purchased on Ticketmaster.com are typically subject to a per ticket convenience charge and a non-refundable per order processing fee. In many cases, delivery prices will also be owed." [From their ToU policy]
There is no disclosure of the percentage or fixed amount charged. Whether agreed to or not, there is no way to determine the cost of those charges prior to purchase without the disclosure on the purchase page.
Complaint is directed at parent company (IAC), not TicketMaster.
Company's Final Response
Final Response - Posted
We are in receipt of your complaint. We understand that your complaint was directed to IAC, but the charges in question are set in place by Ticketmaster. As previously stated you are requesting that Ticketmaster refund a purchase that you placed on our website. During the Internet ordering process, all information is re-confirmed. By proceeding with your order, you acknowledged that you would abide by our terms. Since you agreed to those terms we respectfully decline to grant your request for a refund as we do not believe that Ticketmaster was at fault in this instance. We trust this explanation will be satisfactory to fully resolve this matter. Sincerely, "" -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was never interested in receiving the entire purchase price, just the price of the undisclosed amount.
Their practice is the equivalent of a moving company saying, "There will be a transportation fee of an amount that we cannot disclose because we don't know how much it will be." After you've already signed the work order saying that you'll pay it, they have your stuff. Then they charge you extortionist fees in order to get your stuff back.
That kind of practice has been determined in court (for moving companies, at least) to be tantamount to fraud because they did not disclose the fixed amount, percentage amount, or amount to be charged per mile on the contract before signing. TicketMaster also does not disclose a percentage amount or fixed rate for their fee.
I'm very close to pursuing a class action lawsuit not only for the amount of my fees, but for the total amount of fees charges by TicketMaster since the inception of their online ticket purchasing outlet for tickets purchased through that outlet. Why would I start there? Because, when buying a ticket through previous outlets (i.e. at the venue, licensed outlets like the Wherehouse, etc.) there was always a disclosure of the amount to the customer before the customer had payed for the tickets. Up until they made the purchase, the customer had the right to cancel the transaction due to knowing the amount of the fee. In the case of the online purchases, there is no monetary disclosure until after the purchase is complete.
How much is this likely to hurt them? Well, my fees were around $10.25 per ticket. Multiply that by millions of ticket since the inception of the online venue. The lawyer is likely to be happy with 3% of that as a fee, but against such a large company it might be as high as 10%. As first party, I'll be happy with 1.4%, but might get by with 2%.
Now think of the money they could have saved by giving me my 40 bucks.........
Of course, that's only if I go through with it. Maybe someone else will beat me to the punch. I wouldn't mind much as long as I got my 40 bucks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)