District 77
What are numbers used for? 0 represents nothing. 1 represents unity, a single, alone object. 2 represents a pair, a duo, polarity. 3 is a triangle. And then we have 4, 5, and so forth. What do we use them for? We say that there are 3 apples on the chair. We say there are 4 apples on the table. So there are 3 + 4 or 7 apples in the room. We also talk about the fullback on the football team, Number 18, and the right tackle, Number 9. The quarterback is number 27, so does it mean anything when we say that if we add the right tackle to the fullback, we get the quarterback? No, that's not the intended meaning of these numbers. These numbers are more like labels, helping us to tell the players apart. We could have very well used letters, such as I, R, and Z for the players. We call these numbers nominal, as the expression 9 + 18 = 27 is meaningless for football jersey numbers, and even the expression 18 < 27 (the right tackle is less than the quarterback) is nonsense. The numbers are simply labels.
But maybe not always. Toastmasters District 48 comprises clubs in central and northern Alabama. District 29 is on the Gulf Coast: northern Florida, southern Alabama, and southern Mississippi. Toastmasters International for next year has combined these two districts into a single district. What are they going to call the new District? They are going to call it District 77. I note that 29 + 48 = 77. So, Toastmasters, can we add District numbers? It certainly is a neat way of remembering the new district number. Why not go all the way and get The Number of Toastmasters? Add all the district numbers together and get F + 3003. One of the districts is labeled "F". If we take F = 0 (it is the zeroth district, which makes it firster than the first district), then The Toastmaster Number is 3003. The slogan for this year should have been "3003 in 2003!" Of course it still does not make sense, even if 29 + 48 = 77. You see, 77 is the next number to give to a district: there are 77 districts, including F. That's why it was selected.
A Journey through Blogrealm
Blogtrek
Blogtrek
2003/06/16
Promoting from within
One of the frustrations I found out in my younger work life was places where the management promoted from within. That is, when a higher ranking position became open, they selected someone of the next lower rank in the same office to fill the position. This effectively shuts out outsiders; people who work outside the office unless they are willing to start all over at entry-level positions. I have seen that happen too.
However, promoting from within can be a blessing when it occurs in your own office. That is how I got promoted in the 1980s. However my present office apparently does not promote from within any more. Because of that, people are leaving. One announced that she was taking a higher-ranking position elsewhere because they would not promote from within in her office.
This brings up a paradox. If your own office won't promote from within, then you have to go elsewhere for your promotions. After some job-hunting, you find a suitable promotion somewhere else. But guess what? That new office is no different. Eventually you will have to move again to find a suitable promotion. It does not promote from within. No, when a high ranking position comes up, they choose an outsider. The evidence for that is you.
The paradox is that you are dissatisfied with your office because it does not promote from within, but this forces you to hunt for a position, which by force of logic also does not promote from within, so you have not satisfied your goal. It seems like you can never satisfy your goal. The only way out, it seems, is the hard way: find an entry-level position at a place which does promote from within and go there, taking a temporary cut in salary if need be. I know several people who have done that.
One of the frustrations I found out in my younger work life was places where the management promoted from within. That is, when a higher ranking position became open, they selected someone of the next lower rank in the same office to fill the position. This effectively shuts out outsiders; people who work outside the office unless they are willing to start all over at entry-level positions. I have seen that happen too.
However, promoting from within can be a blessing when it occurs in your own office. That is how I got promoted in the 1980s. However my present office apparently does not promote from within any more. Because of that, people are leaving. One announced that she was taking a higher-ranking position elsewhere because they would not promote from within in her office.
This brings up a paradox. If your own office won't promote from within, then you have to go elsewhere for your promotions. After some job-hunting, you find a suitable promotion somewhere else. But guess what? That new office is no different. Eventually you will have to move again to find a suitable promotion. It does not promote from within. No, when a high ranking position comes up, they choose an outsider. The evidence for that is you.
The paradox is that you are dissatisfied with your office because it does not promote from within, but this forces you to hunt for a position, which by force of logic also does not promote from within, so you have not satisfied your goal. It seems like you can never satisfy your goal. The only way out, it seems, is the hard way: find an entry-level position at a place which does promote from within and go there, taking a temporary cut in salary if need be. I know several people who have done that.
2003/06/15
CNN's strange idea of 0%
Today a question came up on http://www.cnn.com, asking whether states be allowed to regulate sex between consenting adults. I answered "no" to that. To me, consenting sex is a private affair in which the government should stay out. So I clicked the No radio button and hit "Vote". It said "This page can't be displayed". I tried it on Netscape. I got "This page can't be found on this server", or something like that. I clicked "view results". I got Yes, 100%, No, 0%. Huhh?? It cannot be zero because I just entered a "No" vote. Doesn't my vote count? From now on I am going to take the results of CNN polls with a grain of salt. It seems that CNN doesn't know what 0% is.
Today a question came up on http://www.cnn.com, asking whether states be allowed to regulate sex between consenting adults. I answered "no" to that. To me, consenting sex is a private affair in which the government should stay out. So I clicked the No radio button and hit "Vote". It said "This page can't be displayed". I tried it on Netscape. I got "This page can't be found on this server", or something like that. I clicked "view results". I got Yes, 100%, No, 0%. Huhh?? It cannot be zero because I just entered a "No" vote. Doesn't my vote count? From now on I am going to take the results of CNN polls with a grain of salt. It seems that CNN doesn't know what 0% is.
Some real spam
I got an unsolicited email this morning from Mike Evans who has written a book called Beyond Iraq and is apparently trying to use email to hawk it. In so doing, I believe he's spamming. This is because I found this notice at the end of the email:
You are subscribed to the Pastor Update list, keeping you up-to date on items of interest to Churches and Pastors. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply use this link: http://www.nmailer.com/unsub/index.html?e=aa_42-5214
Huhh?? I never subscribed to any pastor list. Where does he get the idea that I am a pastor of some sort? He says I can stop the messages by clicking that link; I think he got part of that email address of his by doing a takeoff or spoof on author Norman Mailer. I am not going to click on that link since I have been warned that this will merely confirm to spammers that this is a valid address. I tried to reply directly and got a "can't deliver" squawk from the postmaster.
In any case, this isn't any book that I would be interested in. Its full title is: Beyond Iraq: The Next Move: Ancient Prophecy and Modern Day Conspiracy Collide. The words "ancient prophecy" indicates to me that the author uses religion and the Bible to make assertions about our present world instead of the scientific method. There is no way that the Bible is the immutable work of God; it is a collection of human writings from an era that may have little relevance to the present world. I agree with the one-star rating on Amazon.com (where the book has the incredible rank of 10) that says that any book with "ancient prophecy" in its title is not worthy of serious consideration. I wouldn't say "any", but rather "almost any", but I agree with the rater and agree that it deserves the lowest rating. I did read some pages of the book and they seem to be a rehash of Planeattack and other recent events; nothing new. A better book to read, in my opinion, is the one I referred to earlier by Clyde Prestowitz, Rogue Nation.
In any case, I regard the message as spam and hope that I don't get any more messages like this. Further, anybody hawking a book to me by sending me a spam message telling me that I have subscribed to a list that I never subscribed to may very well find a one-star review of his book in Amazon.com.
I got an unsolicited email this morning from Mike Evans who has written a book called Beyond Iraq and is apparently trying to use email to hawk it. In so doing, I believe he's spamming. This is because I found this notice at the end of the email:
You are subscribed to the Pastor Update list, keeping you up-to date on items of interest to Churches and Pastors. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply use this link: http://www.nmailer.com/unsub/index.html?e=aa_42-5214
Huhh?? I never subscribed to any pastor list. Where does he get the idea that I am a pastor of some sort? He says I can stop the messages by clicking that link; I think he got part of that email address of his by doing a takeoff or spoof on author Norman Mailer. I am not going to click on that link since I have been warned that this will merely confirm to spammers that this is a valid address. I tried to reply directly and got a "can't deliver" squawk from the postmaster.
In any case, this isn't any book that I would be interested in. Its full title is: Beyond Iraq: The Next Move: Ancient Prophecy and Modern Day Conspiracy Collide. The words "ancient prophecy" indicates to me that the author uses religion and the Bible to make assertions about our present world instead of the scientific method. There is no way that the Bible is the immutable work of God; it is a collection of human writings from an era that may have little relevance to the present world. I agree with the one-star rating on Amazon.com (where the book has the incredible rank of 10) that says that any book with "ancient prophecy" in its title is not worthy of serious consideration. I wouldn't say "any", but rather "almost any", but I agree with the rater and agree that it deserves the lowest rating. I did read some pages of the book and they seem to be a rehash of Planeattack and other recent events; nothing new. A better book to read, in my opinion, is the one I referred to earlier by Clyde Prestowitz, Rogue Nation.
In any case, I regard the message as spam and hope that I don't get any more messages like this. Further, anybody hawking a book to me by sending me a spam message telling me that I have subscribed to a list that I never subscribed to may very well find a one-star review of his book in Amazon.com.
Wesley Clark for President?
Here is now another possible candidate for President in 2004. He is former Gen. Wesley Clark, former NATO chief. Would he make a good candidate? Could he win? And how would his candidacy affect the election?
First of all, which party would he run as? He has not said yet. But I would recommend that he not run as a Democrat. He does not have charisma, and that is the only way a Democrat can materially affect the election, according to the Lichtman keys. If he were to run as a Democrat, then what was going to happen will happen; probably Bush's reelection. I therefore would recommend that he run as a Republican or as an independent. In either of these ways he could topple keys against the President. If he ran as a Republican opposing Bush for the nomination, he could prevent Bush from getting 2/3 of the vote on the first ballot, costing him the challenge for the nomination key (Key 2). If he ran as an independent, he would be a third prarty candidate. If he got 5% of the vote or more, that would cost Bush Key 4. Or he could run on the Republican line, fail by a close margin to upset Bush, then run as an independent against him and topple both Keys 2 and 4. If this were the case, and the Democrats select Hillary, that would be six keys against Bush, and Hillary would be our next President.
How likely is all this? Not very at this point, but things could change. The fact remains though that I want Gen. Clark to run either as a Republican or as an independent.
Here is now another possible candidate for President in 2004. He is former Gen. Wesley Clark, former NATO chief. Would he make a good candidate? Could he win? And how would his candidacy affect the election?
First of all, which party would he run as? He has not said yet. But I would recommend that he not run as a Democrat. He does not have charisma, and that is the only way a Democrat can materially affect the election, according to the Lichtman keys. If he were to run as a Democrat, then what was going to happen will happen; probably Bush's reelection. I therefore would recommend that he run as a Republican or as an independent. In either of these ways he could topple keys against the President. If he ran as a Republican opposing Bush for the nomination, he could prevent Bush from getting 2/3 of the vote on the first ballot, costing him the challenge for the nomination key (Key 2). If he ran as an independent, he would be a third prarty candidate. If he got 5% of the vote or more, that would cost Bush Key 4. Or he could run on the Republican line, fail by a close margin to upset Bush, then run as an independent against him and topple both Keys 2 and 4. If this were the case, and the Democrats select Hillary, that would be six keys against Bush, and Hillary would be our next President.
How likely is all this? Not very at this point, but things could change. The fact remains though that I want Gen. Clark to run either as a Republican or as an independent.
Discovery Channel spams?
I found a disconcerting thing when I went to CNN this morning. Immediately a large black square threw up in my face, and I heard a loud boom. I do not expect that when I visit a news site. I expect the news. This booming black square was caused by the Discovery Channel throwing a popup ad in my face. I have seen lots of popup ads on the Web; sites insist on putting these in user's faces instead of using space on the web site itself. One can use Norton Internet Security to block ads in general on the Web, and AnalogX's Pow! and Panicware's Popup Stopper can be used to get rid of popup ads, (although Pow! on occasion pows a legitimate page). Most of these popup ads come from telemarketers or spammers; in fact, popup ads, in my opinion, are a form of spam. Therefore, when the Discovery Channel does it, it spams.
That is disturbing behavior, coming from a place as highly respected as the Discovery Channel. Still, spam is spam, we need to get rid of spam, and Discovery's popup ads, like all popup ads are spam. Therefore I have emailed the Discovery Channel about this ad and am going to boycott the channel as long as they throw this booming ad in my face; further, I shall urge my friends and associates not to watch the Discovery Channel. There are other educational channels I can turn to: PBS, Arts and Entertainment, and Animal Planet, to name a few. When the popup ads stop, I will consider watching Discovery Channel again.
I found a disconcerting thing when I went to CNN this morning. Immediately a large black square threw up in my face, and I heard a loud boom. I do not expect that when I visit a news site. I expect the news. This booming black square was caused by the Discovery Channel throwing a popup ad in my face. I have seen lots of popup ads on the Web; sites insist on putting these in user's faces instead of using space on the web site itself. One can use Norton Internet Security to block ads in general on the Web, and AnalogX's Pow! and Panicware's Popup Stopper can be used to get rid of popup ads, (although Pow! on occasion pows a legitimate page). Most of these popup ads come from telemarketers or spammers; in fact, popup ads, in my opinion, are a form of spam. Therefore, when the Discovery Channel does it, it spams.
That is disturbing behavior, coming from a place as highly respected as the Discovery Channel. Still, spam is spam, we need to get rid of spam, and Discovery's popup ads, like all popup ads are spam. Therefore I have emailed the Discovery Channel about this ad and am going to boycott the channel as long as they throw this booming ad in my face; further, I shall urge my friends and associates not to watch the Discovery Channel. There are other educational channels I can turn to: PBS, Arts and Entertainment, and Animal Planet, to name a few. When the popup ads stop, I will consider watching Discovery Channel again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)