Juveniles in their 20s and 30s

A female friend of mine was telling me about how horribly immature these two male friends of hers were. Frankly, I agree.

I went out with their group once, to ensure that they'd have a designated driver. We parked in a garage downtown, and as we made our way out, these two guys started kicking each other all over the place. I can imagine a couple of high school students doing that, but a pair of grown adults? I would have expected better.

We were joined by another one of their friends later. He was a bit more civil, but still not terribly mature. At the end of the night, two of these guys decided to ambush the third, take his shoes off, and thrown them into the street. What a bunch of idiots! It never occured to them that this would be an unsafe thing to do, especially at night. (Yes, they had been drinking. Still, unless you're stinkin' drunk, it should be immediately obvious to anyone that this is a terrible, mind-numbingly stupid idea. Besides, the two bozos who pulled this stunt were the least inebriated of the group, and had been drinking fairly modestly.)

To make matters worse, two of these idiots decided to wrestle on the sidewalk, right when were were downtown. Again, even if you've had something to drink, it should be obvious that that's an incredibly stupid thing to do. This cop drove by, and he agreed with that assessment; he told these bozos to knock it off. "But we're friends!" they protested. "I don't care," the cop said. "Knock it off."

What a bunch of idiots.

Mind you, I was in a hurry to get home... and what were these guys doing? They were jumping over the patio fences of nearby restaurants (which were thankfully closed), climbing up and down stairs, and so forth. Basically, they were goofing around and wasting time. I understand that they weren't in a hurry to get home, but really! More aggravating is the fact that these were just mindnumbingly stupid things for them to do. I'd expect a nine-year-old to think that was great fun, but not an adult.

How old were these guys? One was 28; the other was 35. I'm not sure how old the third fella was, but he was probably in that ballpark range. The first two guys were the worst offenders anyway, and they were a pair of morons. Grow up, kids!

Techno-whatsis?

So this company goes by the name 'M&S', and yet their website domain is unrelated to their name. In fact, their domain name seems quite unusual indeed. I wish I knew what the backstory was there.

Or maybe it's a cultural thing. The company is Japanese, after all... quite the successful Japanese company, by all indications. I dunno.

Speaking of Japanese culture, I just watch part of the Mazinkaiser saga. The anime feel to this show was quite distracting. Anime has its good points, but so much of the animation tends to be grotesque, overly dramatic, or jus wildly exaggerated. It's like the animation styles often incorporate plenty of detail for adult sensibilities, but add plenty of wild mugging as well, as though it were geared toward elementary school children. I don't get it, and sometimes, I think it's almost insulting to one's intelligence.

Not all of anime is like that, mind you... but a good amount of it is, for whatever reason. Ugh.

24's Chloe is back in form

Yes, she's back in form... and I'm not talking about Mary Lynn Rajskub's trim new look.

Chloe is finally getting more of the spotlight again in tonight's episode. she had been rather badly neglected earlier this season, especially for the last five episodes or so. Now she's finally getting some much-needed face time. She's not laying down as much snark as she used to, which is disappointing, but at least she's back in the game.

What's more, they're finally tying up some old plot lines, such as the deaths that Morris nearly caused. It's good to see that they haven't simply forgotten about all of his remorse.

And guess what? We finally got to see what happens when Chloe comes to her senses after attempting to support some of Jack's rogue operations. It's about bloody time. We all know that Chloe is generally willing to do some shady under-the-table work, almost without question, so seeing another side to her personality is refreshing.

Raving about a few things

I'm really enjoying the TV series Bones on Fox. Very clever and very funny, with some excellent acting. Emily Deschanel, in particular, is a real treasure.

I also started watching Tim Minear's show, Drive -- also on Fox. Very clever, and Nathan Fillion does an excellent job as always.

On a more scholarly note, I've been learning about Plato's classic work, The Republic. I certainly don't agree with everything that Plato seems to be saying, but I do enjoy learning about it. Learning about the pre-Socratic philosophers (Thales, Anaximenes, Anaximander, Democritus and company) has been quite illuminating, and inspiring as well.

I cannot stand Deal or No Deal, though. There's no real intelligence behind this show. One could use a simple formula to produce the most logical decision, which is why they wrap the show in so much useless theatrics and emotionality. Not good.

Rajskub on 24

I noticed that Mary Lynn Rajskub has been given second billing on the hit TV show, 24. For some reason though, they're making very little use of her this season, though. What a shame, as her character is immensely popular amongst fans -- especially among male computer geeks, I daresay.

Ms. Rajskub plays techie whiz Chloe O'Brien, a computer geek with only the most rudimentary of social skills. She does wield a mean M4 carbine assualt rifle though, and she's pretty handy with a taser.

She's kinda pretty this season too, thanks to her new hair color and a more flattering outfit. If only they'd use her more, darn it! She's good for the occasional bit of drama, and she's always good for comic relief.

Publishing papers

An acquaintance of mine was telling me about a certain paper that she found interesting. This got me thinking... I'd really like to publish more papers soon. Various obligations though -- mostly work-related -- have been preventing me from doing so.

It doesn't help that I now have to assume some new marketing-related duties. Ugh. I don't mind doing this, but it's not the sort of work that really helps me in my primary career path. It certainly doesn't help me look like a star.

I do way too much writing nowadays, and way too much documentation work. It's necessary, though -- necessary if I want to help this company succeed and become more regularly profitable. We've had some lean times lately, and I'd like to help us become more stable.

It's gotta be done. It's necessary. It's also frustrating.

If only I didn't have to work so hard at trimming down, or at educating myself on various subjects (philosophy, science, literature, etc). That'd make life so much easier. If I were naturally trim, fit and attractive, then that'd certainly give me a lot more leisure time.

Rats. Double rats.

Jodi Benson -- I want more!

I had read that Jodi Benson performed some voice work, early in her career, for the anime film, Nausicaä of the Valley of the Winds. I was disappointed to find out, however, that she only had a few lines, and that she didn't even get to sing.

Jodi is, of course, the voice of Disney's Princess Ariel, and my favorite singer of all time. I relish every opportunity to hear her sing. She also has an excellent speaking voice though, so I enjoy all of her voice work. I would gladly pay money just to hear her read the telephone book, for pity's sake.

What a talent and a treasure.

Disguised e-mail addresses on singles site profiles

I belong to a few different Christian dating service websites. These sites typically provide both paid membership accounts and free membership services with restricted rights. For example, the free membership agreements typically do not allow their users to send e-mail addresses or other contact info. (The systems automatically block e-mail addresses in such profiles. Dishonest members are thereby forced to use creative techniques for disguising their addresses.)

I noticed that there are a great many profiles that contain these disguised e-mail addresses. This bothers me greatly; after all, Christians are supposed to exemplify honesty and integrity. If Christians choose to deliberately cheat the system, thereby avoiding the need to pay a membership fee, then what does that say about our Christian character?

Just this week, I contacted a woman who seemed like a promising prospect. She immediately wrote back and said, "I'm on an unpaid membership. You can contact me at <>."

My response? "I'm sorry, but I'm really not comfortable with using disguised contact information. I think that as Christians, we need to honor and respect the rules on these sites. I believe that is what Jesus would want us to do."

She wrote back, "I did it because of finances and the lack of great matches. Proceed as you wish." That was her explanation. There was no expression of repentance or regret -- no acknowledgement that she had attempted to cheat the system, and that this was wrong.
I said, "Believe me, I'm sympathetic to your situation. I've gone through some lean times myself. At the same time though, I'm become convinced that I need to honor these rules, as a matter of Christian testimony. I would rather seek ways to exchange contact information legitimately. For example, in this situation, I would have been happy to give you MY e-mail address instead; after all, I'm a paying member, so I have that freedom."

I don't think I'll be contacting her again. It's not simply that she chose to cheat the system, unfortunate as that may be. Rather, the bigger problem was the lack of remorse in her explanation. There was no admission that her actions were dishonest, or that there were other ways that we could have exchanged contact info. Rather, she simply emphasized that it was a financial decision on her part, as though that settled everything.

What a terrible shame.

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.