Things I like

These are a few of my favorite things:

Stephen Hawking's writings, Carl Sagan's writings (except for his pontifications on religion!), some of the old Star Trek stuff, Albert Einstein, Daniella van Graas, grasp theory, C++, object orientation, UML, design patterns, computer programming, Stacey Williams, Traylor Howard, Monk and Psych, Kendra Todd's business savvy, James Herriot, Isaac Asimov, Ernest Hemingway, classical literature, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, electronics, mechanical design, physics, zoology, naturalism, Columbo, Marv Wolfman, George Perez.

Being sensitive to a gift giver

I've been telling people about a nasty incident that I had at a friend's birthday party. Here's what happened:

Just before the party, I gave her a florist-bought floral arrangement with her favorite flowers (roses, and she specified red), with carnations. I know that some people still view red roses as exclusively romantic, but she didn't seem to feel that way.

She thanked me warmly and gave me a hug. That was nice. A couple of hours later though, two dudes showed up with cheap grocery store bouquets that must have cost $4 each. She goes wild and enthuses, "Wow! That is so sweet! I love them! Thank you!"

She then cradles a bouquet in each arm, stands between the two guys and asks me to take a photo. In the meantime, I wasthinking, "Hmm. She didn't ask anyone to take a photo of her with my flowers." I felt that was a bit of a slap in the face to me.

After the party, I let her know that my feelings had been hurt. Some might disapprove, but I felt that as a friend, I had to let her know.She said, "Well, these are different people than you. Of course, I'll relate to them differently. Besides, they normally act like little boys, so I wasn't expecting to get flowers from them."

When I mentioned this on the 'net, I got a variety of responses. Some thought I was being absurd for taking offense. Others understood why this was hurtful though, as it amounts to some severely lopsided treatment. Here is a sampling of what they said:

"But, asking you to hold the camera and take a picture with the other two
unsophisticated boors and their stupid old flowers was definitely tactless,
hurtful and really kind of rude, especially if she didn't ask for a picture with
you. I'd be hurt."

"In my opinion, she should have given you the same attention for your gift as she did the other two guys. I think she's not as interested in gifts from you as she is for gifts from them. Which makes me think she's kind of a mean person (to not care about all her friend's feelings equally). But was it deliberate or was it just an oversight because of her lack of caring? My first reaction was that if she was thinking a little less about herself that night (and possibly flirting with these other two guys) then she would have shown you a bit more respect. I don't think she intentionally did it."

"It does sound to me like she didn't appreciate you. Some times you just have to let a friendship cool and not be as close to certain people as you once were."

"Yes, I would have felt slighted too........"

A job hunter's ordeal

I read this account from a fella who was struggling to find a job. It's kinda sad to read or hear these stories, and I know what it's like to be stressed out over finding a job.

It's good to know that he did find a job. I remember how stressed out I was during my job searches, especially when offers seemed to be dangled right in front of me, only to be yanked away at the last moment. It was always such a huge relief when a job offer finally came through, especially with my current employer.

I know that a lot of guys out there were stressing over employment worries a few years ago. The employment crisis isn't quite so bad nowadays, but I know that for many techies, it's still a problem. I feel for them, and I hope that I never have to go through that problem again.

Craig, Tana, and Kendra

The final three competitors in season three of The Apprentice were Tana, Kendra, and mealy-mouthed Craig. Tana and Craig were a team, but they clearly did not get along well with Kendra. For whatever reason, they simply had very different mindsets.

It's interesting to note, however, that earlier on in the series, they seemed to get along much better. Perhaps this simply shows how stress can bring out tensions between competitors.

It's also worth noting that when Trump first organized a corporate reshuffle -- that is, when he had teams Magna and Net Worth pick out people whom they would send to the other side, Net Worth's Chris Shelton chose to eject both Tana and Craig. I don't know what that means.

Windows aggravations

Microsoft programs can be so aggravating. Windows is a prime example. All of it security failings are a grievous problem, and the persistent need for patches simply illustrates its shortcomings and vulnerabilities.

I also hate the way Windows allows an application window to simply pop up without warning. "Well, what's wrong with that?" one might ask. "After all, if you called up a web browser, then you've got to expect that it'll appear sometime." That's not the point, though; after all, when and where the window pops up is critical as well. If you're typing into a document window, for example, and another document window pops up elsewhere... well, if the focus gets diverted to that window, then it can be most aggravating. And if you're attempting to click on a button in one application just before another dialog window pops up, then the results can be disastrous.

And don't get me started on Word. Sometimes, it's most impressive, but at other times, it's just plain aggravating.

And the way Windows Explorer sometimes takes forever to pop up, simply because it's doing too much stupid, unnecessary stuff in the background.... that's just insanely stupid. It also hogs CPU resources in the process. In fact, my computer practically froze as I was typing the preceding sentences, simply because I was also attempting to start Explorer in the background. Apparently, Explorer feels the need to digest a whole lot of its subdirectory contents, regardless of whether the user ever expects to use that info. It's just mindnumbingly dumb.

Yes, Microsoft products stink.

Still more on singles profiles

Revisiting my last two postings...

When I brought up the subject of people saying "I'd like to start a conversation. Please read my profile," I fully expected that more people would have understood why I find it a bit distasteful. I wasn't prepared for some of the responses.

One fellow said (and I paraphrase), "Why are you being so negative toward women?" Even when I emphasized that my comments were gender-neutral and applied equally well to both sexes, he failed to get it. His response? "Do you really think that men and women need to behave the same?" How do you reason with someone like that? At no point do I deny that the genders need to behave in exactly the same way, but that doesn't mean that certain rules of conduct never apply to both sexes!

More than one person said, "Men need to make the first move! Women shouldn't take the initiative!" One lady even said, "I choose to be a southern lady." They were missing the obvious. If a woman asks a man to read her profile, then she has ALREADY taken the first move! You can't invite a man to read about you, then insist that he should be the aggressor. That ship has sailed, folks!

How hard is it to just start a conversation? The rules of conduct don't change simply because you're online.

More on singles site profiles

I just wanted to revisit my blog posting from yesterday. In that posting, I commented on how some people introduce themselves on singles sites by saying. "Hi. I'd like to get to know you. Please read my profile and tell me what you think." I realize that not everybody will agree with me on this point, but I think that such introductions are ill-advised. Indeed, I think they're kinda rude, as they basically place the recipient in the position of having to figure out what they can talk about.

When I discussed this matter online, one guy said, "I do it to save time. Why should I waste my time on a long response if the other person isn't interested?" I think that's not only foolish, it's also rude. It's foolish because one's introduction doesn't have to be very long -- a short paragraph should suffice. It's rude because the sender wants to save time, but also wants the recipient to put in the time necessary to read his/her profile and compose a response. That's kinda self-cented and inconsiderate.

One person responded to me by saying "I think u r taking this wayyyyyyyy to serious LOL if it bugs u that much, write her back and tell her, thats if..." -- well, you get the picture. I think this illustrates the problem. People who don't communicate well are less likely to understand the importance of actually starting a conversation, as opposed to offering some generic introduction. They fail to grasp why it's important to actually start some sort of discussion if you want to have a conversation.

People like this remind me of people who don't bother to proofread their resumes or supply a personalized cover letter when they apply for a job. They figure that they're just saving time, and that sounds reasonable. Ultimately though, I think it does indicate a tendency to do a minimal amount of work, or close to it. It's saying "Eh. Good enough." And when it comes to asking someone to "review [your] profile then get back to me," it's even more objectionable. Why? Because it's basically asking the other person to pour in work, whereas you opt to take the easy approach.

I know that some people -- perhaps may people -- wouldn't see it that way. They would say, "What's the harm? You want to read singles profiles anyway, right?" While this may sounds reasonable on the surface, I think it overlooks an important principle -- namely, that it's best to avoid needlessly imposing on other people. If you want someone to read your profile, then give them some incentive to do so. It's a lot better than just saying "Please read my profile and tell me what you think." Little niceties like this may seem trivial, but they have their place.

I have profiles on a few singles dating sites. I don't get a lot of responses to them; however, when I do, about half of them say something like the following:

"Hi! I"d like to start a conversation. Please read my profile and tell me what you think."

Now, I understand that these people mean well; however, I don't think I would ever respond to such a message. It indicates a certain level of rudeness and a great deal of laziness. It amounts to saying, "I want us to talk, but I want you to do the hard work of getting the ball rolling. So please read my profile and decide what we should talk about."

Is this making too much of nothing? I don't think so. Common sense and decorum dictate that if you want to start a conversation, you do so in a normal manner. Find something to talk about, instead of expecting the other person to do the work for you.

When I brought this up on a singles discussion board though, half a dozen people responded by saying, "There's nothing rude about it! It's just a way of saying hello!" I find that baffling. Is that how they say hello in the real world? "Hi. I'd like to talk. Why don't you find something that we can discuss?"

A few people said, "I don't want to type out a lengthy message, only to get shot down! It's much simpler to just ask people to read my profile instead." I understand that they don't want to waste time, but really... you don't need a lengthy message. Just get the conversation started, instead of asking the other person to do the work for you.

Yes, I was deeply surprised at these responses. Somehow I suspect that these people wouldn't be saying the same thing if somebody used those tactics in real life. I'm not talking offering a smile or a sly look. I'm talking about asking the other person to review your profile (or whatever passes for it in the real world) and then let you know if she/he is interested.

After all, one can always start by bringing up a topic of common interest. This isn't being aggressive; in fact, it's pretty neutral. People of the same sex do it all the time, even on sites like this, so it's hardly the mark of an overly aggressive woman.

As a few acquiantances of mine said on an Internet message board,

"I delete those messages off the bat. The least they could do is respond to something in my profile. A simple 'I like Regina Spektor too!' would suffice. It doesn't have to be a novel, but any kind of message indicating you've looked beyond my age and my ethnicity would be nice."

"The message should make it clear that they at least read your profile, and it's not a mass message."

"Sounds like a spammed response to anyone who has the genital requirements the sender seeks. I concur... lazy. If there's a hint that the sender actually read the ad and indicated in one sentence why they responded to you, it would be a massive improvement."

On an unrelated note, I was also reading about the shenanigans of scammer Eli Sharvit. Yoiks. What a crook. Elsewhere, I also read that he's continuing to deceive people -- that his company has merely changed names, but basically operates in the same scamming mode. If that's true, then it's a truly despicable situation.

Short men, overweight women

It's common knowledge that men tend to prefer women who are somewhat slender. Before anyone objects, I know that not all men feel that way. I also know that men have different notions of what slender is, and that men don't necessarily prefer the anorexic, waif-like look. We are talking about generalities here, so let's acknowledge that and move on.(And before anyone asks, I myself have been attracted to moderately overweight women before, especially those with pleasing personalities. So I'm not saying that I would never want to date an overweight woman myself; quite the contrary. I want to emphasize this right now, lets anyone put words in my mouth.)

It's also common knowledge that women prefer men who are tall. Again, I know that not all women feel that way, and that there are differing notions of how tall men should be. As a general principle though, this preference is widely acknowledged.

So why is it that society constantly laments the fact that men tend to prefer thinner women, and yet you seldom hear women being criticized for preferring taller men? In fact, I've seen many singles ads wherein women listed the minimum height requirements for the men that they would consider dating. I daresay that if a man were to list a minimum bodyfat requirement for the women he seeks, he would be considered shallow and overly concerned with appearance.

BTW, don't forget that people can at least control their waistlines to some extent. There's virtually nothing that men can do to change their height.

Mind you, I do agree that we need to be willing to look past the physical. I'm not saying we shouldn't. I'm just saying that there appears to be a double standard at play.

A few things I've enjoyed

Just wanted to ruminate about a few things that I've been enjoying.

I've taken up laser tag again. It's pretty good exercise, provided that you don't have obnoxiously long waits in between games. It does get expensive, though.

I've been enjoying the vocal talents of Ms. Michelle Nicastro as well. What a singer!

Speaking of singers, I'll soon be attending a Christmas concert by the delightful Ms. Jodi Benson. It looks like I might also have some equally delightful company. That'll be great.

I also discovered the vocal stylings of Zooey Deschanel recently. Wow. She is absolutely incredible. She could even give Jodi Benson a run for her money.

Should Ph.D.s be referred to as "doctor"?

In recent years, I've frequently heard people claim that individuals who hold PhDs are not "real" doctors. These people assert that only physicians can rightfully claim this title, and that it's inappropriate for PhD-holders to use this term.

Frankly, I'm surprised. I thought it was common knowledge that there are both medical and non-medical doctors, and that this is a legitimate term to use in both situations. Apparently though, common knowledge isn't always as common as one would hope. For this reason, I'd like to take a moment to dispel some of the myths behind this title. (For the sake of brevity, I shall henceforth focus on the PhD degree; however, the same arguments hold for comparable degrees such as the ScD and the ThD).

Can PhDs legitimately claim to be doctors? Absolutely! The term "doctor" is derived from the Latin verb docere, which means "to teach." Historically, it refers to a teacher or, by extension, a scholar. It did not specifically refer to a physician. This title was later co-opted by the medical community though, due to the respect and prestige that it imputes. In one of life's great ironies, many uninformed laypeople now percieve the medical degree to be more prestigious than the lowly PhD, declaring that people who have earned the latter are "not real doctors."

Some people say, "Well, most people only think of physicians as doctors. According to the rules of common usage then, PhD-holders shouldn't use this title." I understand the appeal of this argument, but frankly, I think it's fallacious. There are many individuals that are known to the public as "Doctor"--Dr. Martin Luther King, Dr. Joyce Brothers and Dr. Laura Schlessinger. None of these individuals has a medical degree, and yet they are commonly accorded this title.

Moreover, I think that this argument panders to ignorance, rather than fighting it. If a large portion of the population thinks that (or acts as though) only MD-holders truly merit the title of "doctor," should we bend over backwards and let their misperceptions rule? Would it not be better to educate people on the historical, established usage of this term--usage that persists to this day?

Some say, "If you refer to a PhD-holder as 'Doctor Smith,' then people will assume that he's a physician. So what happens if there's a medical emergency? Do you want people running to Smith for medical help?" Frankly, I think that this argument betrays a low opinion of the public's intelligence; it assumes that people are too dim-witted to learn, and that we may as well accept the inevitable. Personally,I would rather fight ignorance gently than assume such a lowly opinion of the common man's intellience. Would some people continue to think that only physicians merit this title? Probably so--but I suspect that the vast majority of individuals are intelligent enough to learn otherwise.

For some reason, many also think that the MD is much more difficult to attain than a PhD. I can understand why; after all, we've all heard horror stories about medical students working long hours and stayin up all through the night. However, people simply don't realize how laborious a PhD program can be. PhD students often have to engage in long hours of grueling studies and research if they wish to complete their studies in a timely fashion. I'd say that when it comes to years of study, PhD programs are more demanding as well; when starting from a bachelor's degree, a PhD typically takes from six to eight years to complete, as opposed to four years for the medical degree.

When someone declares that physicians are the only real doctors, he is simply mistaken. I'd say that PhDs have every right to this title--and I say that based on the title's etymology, the demands of their programs and the accepted, contemporary usage of this term, even outside of academic circles.

Revisiting the predator complaint

Earlier, I talked about an opportunistic jerk who moved in on a friend of mine right after she broke off her engagement. He was thinking about himself -- his own desires -- with no regard for the hurts in her life.

Some people agreed with my assessment -- most notably, women I've known who had broken off their engagements or who underwent divorce. A few selfish souls, however, said "Yeah, but if he waited, then someone might have beaten him to her." As I said, a selfish approach. A true gentleman would wait.

A couple of people said, "So what? It's her decision to make." That is unbelievably naive. Of course, it's her decision to make. That doesn't mean that we can afford to take advantage of people who are hurting in this fashion. It's just not right. We can choose to exploit their vulnerabilities, but that doesn't mean that it's justified. We can't excuse this by saying, "Well, it was her choice."

Ridiculous.

Being an opportunistic male predator

Last July, one of female friends broke off her engagement, just one week before her wedding. I was relieved to hear this, since I really didn't approve of the guy she was dating. To cut a long story short, I'm pretty sure that he was putting up a false front -- conveniently adopting her religious beliefs so that they could get married. I doubted the sincerity of his conversion and his convictions, as did several others.

So she broke the engagement off. Good for her. With nary a delay, this one fella -- his name is Chris -- moved right in. He made his interest blindingly obvious, even though she was tremendously vulnerable and her wounds were still sore.

He was no gentleman. He knew full well that she was still hurting badly. Instead of letting her wound heal for a while, he moved right in like a cat on the prowl. I don't like it when my friends are treated that way.

I know, some people would disagree with me. Still, I think it's a pretty sleazy thing for a man to do. When a woman has just broken off her engagement -- a few days before the wedding, no less -- then she's in no position to pursue a dating relationship. There has to be a lot of healing involved, first. You might win her heart, but you wouldn't be respectful. You would be acting with your personal desires in mind, rather than thinking about what's best for her.

There's a reason why divorcess are advised to wait at least a year before dating. When that type of commitment is broken, it takes a long time to heal. During that period, you're not in a position to make sound judgments. Certain men like to swoop right in during that time, but that merely shows that they're acting selfishly.

BTW, as I'm typing this, Microsoft Windows keeps stalling on me for a second or two -- sometimes more. It's bloody annoying. I tried opening up Windows Explorer, and the process brought the computer to practically a halt. No good reason why, mind you. Microsoft produces unbelievable bloatware, thanks to their idiotic design philosophy.

Antigravity nonsense

I will never forget Sal, this Mechanical Engineering grad student that I knew way back when. He was a real pain and a bit of a nut.

He was ranting about how he wanted to build an antigravity system and how physicists laughed at him. Me, I wasn't about to laugh, but I did know that he had descended into quackery.

That's what happens when engineers think exclusively as engineers, plugging and chugging their physics equations, without properly understanding the physics principles themselves.

Labor Day was so boring

Yesterday was Labor Day, and it was boring as heck. Boring, lonely and depressing. I basically spent the entire day alone.

Went to the gym, got some household chores done, and got some work-related stuff accomplished. Also watched Carrie on DVD. On the whole though, it was a pretty boring day, and at times, painfully lonely.

Nuts. Drat. Drat. Nuts. Nuts.

Nothing sticks to it!

I have, on occasion, talked about my ex-roommate Mark, and what a difficult individual he was. One of his many problems was that he was incapable of recognizing the limitations of his own knowledge. That is, he frequently assumed himself to be right, even on matters in which he had little expertise.

Case in point: He once asserted that there are no such things as physical "chaotic systems"--that is, physical systems in which the final outcome varies tremendously based on infinitesimal variations in the starting parameters. "Everything runs down!" he said. The guy clearly did not know what chaos theory meant, and yet he deigned to assumed that thousands of chaos theorists across the globe were studying a non-existent phenomenon.

Here's another example. He once claimed that Teflon cannot be used as a structural material. "It's only good for coatings!" he exclaimed. I said, "Mark, it is typically used as a coating. That doesn't mean that it can't be used as a solid block of material."

"But I've never heard of it being used that way!" he objected. "Mark," I said, "Don't assume that it's impossible just because you haven't heard of it being used that way. Teflon is expensive stuff, which is why people prefer to use it as a coating. For structural applications, one can typically get away with using acetal or other low-friction plastics. That doesn't mean that they can't use Teflon; it simply means that the less expensive option is often sufficient."

Besides, Teflon is sometimes used in bearings, due to its low frictional coefficient. Mark didn't know about this, but that should be no surprise. He's an electrical engineer, after all, not a mechanical engineer or materials scientist. Of course, that didn't stop this jerk from making hard and fast pronouncements on matters that he knew little about.

Juanin Clay

Time to sigh over Juanin Clay, a luminously lovely and terribly underrated actress. More of Juanin can be seen here and here.

TV stuff

I've been watching a DVD from the old short-lived Buck Rogers in the 25th Century show. Boy, it was cheesy. It did have some pretty good actors among its guest stars, though. And of course, a great many young lads loved to watch Erin Grey.

On a related matter, this site lists two understatedly lovely TV actresses—Melinda Culea and Nicole DeBoer. It also mentioned Courtney Thorne-Smith, but she gets a lot more mileage out of her looks. I would also mention Allison Bartlett (from Sesame Street), a certain small-time weathergal, and a certain children's TV show producer/actress. Oh, and Jennifer Dempster of BodyShaping, and Robin from The Apprentice. Then there's the obscure (and sadly deceased) actress, Juanin Clay.

Speaking of which, I started reading Bill Rancic's book yesterday. It seems like fairly interesting reading, although I think I like Amy Henry's book more. I wish that Nick Warnock had written something as well, since I would have liked to take a look inside his mind. Sadly, I don't think there's anyone from season two whose writings would be in demand, except maybe for Kelly Perdew. I certainly wouldn't want to ready anything by Jenn Massey, unless I was really, really bored. I'd give very little credence to any book that she'd write.

There are a whole lot of books here that I'm trying to get through, with little success. I've managed to make some headway, but thanks to my exercise program, it's been tough going—and I do think that my exercise program will have to take precedence. Rats.

Hiringspeak -- Getting the software job done

I've interviewed for a variety of computer programming jobs, or engineering jobs that required extensive programming expertise. It occurs to me that very few of those companies asked for code samples, or inquired about my programming style. Many of them did ask about technical details, or how I would implement a particular algorith, but that's another matter altogether.

These companies were being short-sighted indeed. They focused on certain technical details, and ignored the question of programming style. That is, they didn't bother to find out if a programmer can write software that can be readily understood, and would not require massive reverse-engineering years down the road. (This article addresses that particular issue in suitable detail.)

I remember this robotics company in one of the mountain states. Their core software was a horrible mess, due to their lack of skilled programmers who understood the artistry of programming style. They had plenty of people who could "get the job done," but the people who laid the foundation for their product were sloppy coders. Many nightmares ensued as a result of this chaos.

I could name many other examples, but you get the point.

Lost and 24

Last night's episode of "Lost" was pretty darned good. We got to saw some of the backstory surrounding Boone and his odd relationship with his sibling Shannon. Wow.

"24", on the other hand, has gotten off to an uneven start. Suffice to say that Jack Bauer is acting rather extremely, and going overboard. The plot stretches credibility sometimes, especially with regard to the computer technobabble, but it's still an enjoyable show.

"Veronica Mars" was pretty darned good, too.

I'm watching a "Buck Rogers in the 25th Century" DVD as well. This is decidedly cheesier, and the quality of writing is hardly outstanding. It's still a fun watch, though. I'm tempted to get the entire DVD set, but that would be a waste.