Britons prisoned in Dubai

I just read "Britons get jail sentence for having sex on a public beach."  It sounds like too harsh a punishment, on the face of it.  But is it, really?  Let's briefly look at the details that have been published about the story in the past few months.  They got drunk, started making out on the beach, were warned to stop that behavior by a police officer twice, and then proceeded to have sex on the beach, anyway.  

There are laws against that behavior in that country.  These Britons don't have to agree with those laws, but they were "guests" in that country and "had" to play by their rules.

Oh, I know, I know.  "Individual freedom, freedom of expression, how can they dictate behavior, why can't they bring themselves to the 21st century, what's wrong with two consenting adults having sex,..."  and more such thinking...  We've all heard it all before.

I may not agree with all the laws of Dubai (well, the ones I've heard and read about, anyway), they are *their* laws, and as such every visitor has to obey them.  Furthermore, putting Dubai laws aside for a moment, why do these Britons think that a public beach is O.K. to have sex on?  Why would that be O.K., even in a place different than Dubai, let's say in the U.K.?  It shouldn't be!  And, being drunk is NOT an excuse.  If anything, it should increase the sentence they got as one more violation of their laws.  

Now look, I may sound harsh and inflexible, but I am getting tired of always making excuses for people's bad behavior, not allowing them (or forcing them) to take responsibility for their action, and always having to be "understanding".  Understanding, yes, how does all that babying and understanding help people realize when they have made a mistake and make them want not to make the same mistake again?  It doesn't.   If anything, it makes them feel that whatever bad behavior we are condoning, is O.K., which simply propagates the problem.

Let's tale a step back, lets make some simple rules, or better yet, let's just use common sense and apply rules and laws we already have. Let's respect other people's laws and generally accepted rules of behavior, when we are in their home/country.  And above all, Let's respect ourselves, because if we don't, nobody will respect us.  

No Bail-out for Wall street

Eventually, as we all know, the s*it hits the fan.  And it did!  Wall street came to a screeching halt, that totally messed up the UK and other European markets, banks stared to fold right and left, and just like a few weeks ago (which I think it might have been testing the waters), the government proposed to step in and save the day using someone else's money - yours and mine.  

So, you figure, well, sometimes governments need to do that, for the common good.  They step in, infuse all sorts of (*our*) capital, end up with all sorts of equity (on *our* behalf) and then, if things work out, they (and *we*) get something in return.  But no, the original version of this ingenious plan didn't call for any equity or any other ownership.  It would simply buy the *bad debt* from those failing institutions... and the what?  Oh, I forgot, in 5 years the government would re-evaluate the situation and see if there was any windfall to collect, and *at that time* come up with a plan for repayment.  Are you kidding me?

I think the American people are waking up to what is going on, which transcends political party affiliations...  They (politicians and big wigs on Wall street) are all interested in a free ride.  All willing to take the credit for something going well, and nobody willing to accept responsibility. Sounds all too familiar?  Well, it is.  It's happening every day.

I don;t want to bail out the investment banks.  I don't want to bail out a million people that got mortgages way higher than they could afford and are now having their homes foreclosed. Most of them knew they were getting into something they could afford.  And, if they didn't they should have.   Why is it that "ignorance of the law" is no excuse in any legal setting, but in this instance "claimed" ignorance needs to be excused?   Why should I and the next persion have to work harder to now bail them out.  

Here is the Oxymoron...  A bail-out plan is proposed by Bush and his administration, Democrats are all for it and are pushing for its passage and republicans vote it down.  Is this ironic, or what...

And, the day after that, the dollar goes up against the euro by the highest percentage since its inception.

This is a weird world we live in.

Pamela Anderson doesn't like Palin

So, Pamela Anderson was asked about Palin and she said she can't stand Palin and "she can suck it".  And, Matt Damon thinks that Palin becoming president, in case something happens to McCain, is "scary".  Oh, man, where do these people come off acting as if their notoriety makes qualified to comment on thiese issues?  Why were they even asked by the press in the first place?  I mean, give me a break, why would anyone care what Pamela Anderson thinks about anything, especially about politics or who should run this country?  

You've got to hand it to the Hollywood types (I don't think some of them should be called actors, since they can't really even act), who have such high opinions of themselves that believe we should value their take on serious issues.

The Entitlement Generation

No, that's not a term that I made up, it's been used lately to describe today's 20's generation.  Other descriptions have been arrogant, lazy, ego-centric, etc.  

One has to wonder why all this name-calling, and how true it is.  Well, name-calling is not good and doesn't help, but sometimes you have to call things the way you see them, however painful that may be.

What brought the subject to mind was a report that there are 25% less jobs available than college graduates looking for jobs.  And, how college graduates are disappointed, some of them have to still live at home with their parents, etc.

This is the generation that has grown up being congratulated and given accolades for things like learning how to read, or passing a class in college.  Mind you, we are not talking about excelling in a class, just passing it.  Something that they are *expected* to do, if they are in college.  That's like congratulating someone for telling the truth!  *You are supposed to tell the truth!*, why do you need to be congratulated for doing what you are supposed to do?  I don't get it.

This is the same generation that grew up playing youth baseball and youth soccer in games where they didn't keep track of the score, so us not to upset the losing team.  Come on, if there are no winners and losers, what is the reason for a kid to try to excel?  And how does that prepare them for life, later on?  So, an employer should give everyone the same raises, so as no to upset those who don't pull their eight?  Isn't that punishing those who really work hard?  And how does all this pampering and cajoling help kids prepare for what to expect, and what they are expected to do, in real life?

We can't, however, put all the blame on the young generation.  Parents are also to blame for bringing up their kids teaching them that they are indeed *entitled* to things.  No, I don't know why, I don't know how it started, but I know it's happening.  I see it every day.  In addition to that, you have parents that has spent $100,000+ (sometimes closer to $200,000) for their kid's education, and they expect them to have a job, a good paying one at that, with a degree from such a high cost institution.  There goes the entitlement, again... "expect them to have...".  This rubs off on the kid who now goes to the interview with the attitude... "I spent 4 years and $150,000 to get a degree from Harvard, what can you do for me?"

People, you got it all wrong.  The prospective employers do not have to do anything for you.  They don't owe you anything. Snap out of it!  If they think you are good and you can help their company and *their* goals, they may offer you a job.  And then, you have to show that you are worth that job to keep it.  They shouldn't hire you *simply* to help someone out of school.  Nine times out of them, if that's the reason they hired someone, they will sorely regret it. You should be hired on merit, attitude and future promise.

I think that major mistake most youngsters make is they set a college degree as their final goal.  Wrong, the college degree should not be a final goal, it should be the starting point of one's career, which one has to work at hard, in order to realize it.

Give failing students an "F", tell the losing team of youngsters the score they lost by, don't give everyone a part in he Christmas school play - use the kids that have some talent and more important, show an interest to work on producing a good play, don't reward youngsters for things "they are supposed" to do - no "atta boys" for barely passing a college class.  May be this way the next generation will not feel as entitled. 

Elections - Personal Wars?

It's so confusing... Everyone thinks they have the right answer and they want you to believe them, not the other side, the ignorant liers. Yes, I am talking about the elections. Obama picks Biden to make up for the shortcoming that even Dems agreed he had, experience, and the Democratic party get a new wind in its sails.   McCain picks Palin and the Conservative republicans are elated, because of her stance in abortion, family values, etc. And then, all of a suddent the mud-slinging starts. No, I don't care who started it, or who escalated it. It's here and it bugs me.

What's really interesting, however, is how each party is spinning each event differently, and how some, nominees and pundits alike, are making fools of themselves. Isn't anyone advising them?

In particular, in this case, I am amazed at the democrats. How dense can they be?

- Dems (indirectly) leak information that Palin's last child is not really hers, but her teenager daughters. They back it up with all sorts of information, primarily with a family picture, claiming the daughter is pregnant in the picture. Well, it turns out the picture is taken in 2006, and the child is born in 2008. That is a very *long* pregnancy. Give me a break.

- Palis goes public with the info that her 17 year old is 5 months pregnant and will have the child and marry the father, and Dems don't like that either. What else is she hiding, they are wondering. They don't stop to think that Obama's mother got pregnant at 17, unwed, and had him when she was only 18. And, look at how bad *he* turned out ;-)

- The Dems (indirectly again, through their sanctioned bloggers) release nude pictures of Palin, allegedly taken a few years back. It turns out that those are fake and they are pictures of Julia Louis Dreyfus.

- Omaba declares he has more experience than Palin. Duh, so he is comparing himself to the VP candidate (nor the presidential candidate) of the other party. Is he telling us that he would make a good VP, but is not necessarily experienced enough to be the President?

- Thompson is getting ready to speak and declare that the Dems are panicking, that's why the personal attacks. I think he is reaching, but it'll be interesting to see the Dems reaction.

- Baltimore columnist Susan Reimer is upset because she thinks McCain is using Palin as a substitute for Hillary, to attract the disenchanted women democrats to the other side in Movember. Come on, it was Obama and his choices that disenchanted her, not McCain. May be Thompson is right.

It will be interesting to see how this whole thing plays out in the next week or so. I am sure that the level of attacks on Palin will increase. I also think you'll start seeing personal attacks from the Republican side as well. I predict, however, that after one or two weeks, when some of the smoke settles, McCain will be ahead of Obama by 6-8 points and the Dems will be backpedalling trying to save face and put a "good" spin on the way *they* have personalized this war.

That doesn't mean they are going to win the elections in November, but in a couple of weeks, *they will* appear to be the losers.

The Hillary-Obama Convention

It will be interesting to see how the US will vote in the 2008 elections. I realize that many people see this very simplistically as a Democrat -vs- Republican issue, but these elections, in my opinion, may be shaping the next 20+ years of what will be happening in the USA, in terms of election politics.

Of particular interest will be the behavior of Democrats who were originally for Clinton and now have to decide whether to stay the party course or react to what is perceived by many of them as the unjust treatment of Hillary because she is a female. Many Democrats are talking about unity, and conformity, and all behind Obama, but *many* does not mean *all*. In my small sampling world, which I submit may not be a typical representation of the USA-at-large, opinions are split. There are still many Democrat Clinton supporters that feel slighted by the Obama camp, and by the democratic party, in general. As if losing the main primary contest to Obama, who was a virtual unknown was not enough, he didn't even pick Hillary as his VP. In fairness, Hillary may have been asked and refused the part - in preparation for another run in 2012, but her "on the ground" supporters don't know and don't really care about that. I am certain that some of them will vote against Obama for that reason, while others will vote against him because the Democratic party, a party that did not really support Hillary, tells them to vote for him - they will not conform!

Although, part of what happens may depend on Hillary's speech at the convention, tonight, in particular with reports that the Obama group is trying to have the touted roll-call, with Hillary's name in the hat, in secret, and out of the mail convention. That is bound to make Hillary supporters even more miffed at the Obama camp, and may backfire on Obama. Attempts to hide the roll-call and their public support for Hillary may eliminate their last chance to save face and may drive them to vote for McCain. And, we haven't even talked about Bill Clinton, who will be talking tomorrow and is already at great odds with the Obama campaign. It will be interesting to see if the "below-the-scene" shenanigans to hide the roll-call makes its way into his speech tomorrow.

Let's take a quick inventory of what is happening to Obama and the convention.

- Hillary Clinton supporters expected to have a public roll-call for nominees and save face by showing the party's support for their candidate. Then, they would vote for Obama. The Omaba camp is attempting to derail those efforts, which may push some Hillary supporters to McCain.

- These attempts for a secret roll-call may also affect Hillary's support and her speech at the convention.

- McCain is capitalizing on the "bad blood" between Hillary and Obama, and fielded his first ads of Hillary voters, going to the McCain camp.

- Bill Clinton has been upset with the Obama campaign all along, because they never gave him any credit for the 8 years he run this country. Many have tried to tell Obama that it would take *very little* effort to acknowledge that and bring Bill on-board 100%, but he hasn't listened, so it's anybody's guess how supportive Bill Clinton will be of Obama.

- Obama picks Biden (good choice), but it's not clear if that will give him enough on the "experience" front. Sure, Biden is a very experienced and achieved politician, and a good VP candidate, but Obama can't just "borrow" someone else's experience.

- Obama pisses off some in the gay community by being against gay marriage. A major gay media czar, Paul Colichman, publicly tears up his support check for Obama. That can't help Obama.

- Reports of Obama as a 60's radical by linking him to William Ayers are staring to surface, and Obama is publicly defending himself, but defense is very "energy" expensive and many times does not undo the damage done by first impressions of such reports.

The next couple of days will be very interesting for the Democrats. There is a good chance that the party will come undone at the seams. Many democrat leaders also realize that and are trying to what whatever they can to keep it together. Will they succeed? It's not an easy task, but we'll see.

Not that the Republicans can/will do any better. Their chance to mess it all up will come shortly, and at that time, I'll posting about them, too.

Shortage of Scientists and Engineers

Based on a recent article in the New York Times, Japan is facing a shortage in engineers and scientists. Well, welcome to the club! Based on reports over the past few years, the US has been facing such a shortage for the last 20 years, or so. Although undergraduate enrollment in the science and engineering fields increased slightly between 2000 and 2003, overall such enrollment has been sliding down since the 1980s.

Who's to blame, you ask. Well, there is apparently plenty of blame to go around, it just depends on who you ask. The most often cited reason you hear is, "...of course, in today's lazy society it's easier to get a degree in social studies, rather than go into science and engineering which requires a lot of work and commitment". That's an easy answer, it sounds good, only it attempts to simplify the problem way too much. We wish that answers to such serious socio-economical issues were that simple - they are not.

Although a general laziness, impatience, and need for immediate results, of newer generations is likely *a* reason, it seems to me that there are many factors that have contributed to bringing us to where we are today.

One of the factors was the general thinking, a few decades ago, that college students needed to graduate with a more balanced education. The belief was that graduates of science and engineering were not taking enough "social studies" courses and were not in touch reality, and the social issues that surrounded them. This necessitated the increased funding and enforcement of social studies departments, which in turn resulted in higher student requitments by those departments, which now needed additional funding to function properly, which started a self-sustained exponential growth cycle for such departments and their influence on colleges and universities in general.

Another factor was that many engineers and scientists spent 4,6 or more years of very demanding university work, to get a job, making a descent salary, working for a business manager with the same level of education making 4 or 5 times as much. Save for the satisfaction of one doing what one likes, very disheartening!

Also, in the 70's, who hadn't heard the stories about young people with PhD degrees from Harvard, driving cabs because they couldn't get a job?

These are some of the reasons that there may be a shortage. On the other hand, part of the announced shortages could be well orchestrated propaganda, to lower the criteria for allowing scientists and engineers to immigrate to this country.

But, I'm sure you had already thought of that, as well...

Obama-vs-Clinton

Was that really the master plan of the DNC? Were the real controllers of the party actually machinating the "best-ever" primary campaigning, when they decided that Obama and Clinton would fight it out to the end?

Think about it. For the last few months, all you see in the papers, the news channels, on-line, and pretty much in every medium is the fight between Obama and Clinton. I bet if you polled the general public, few would know that this is only the primary and even fewer would know that there is another candidate, from another party running, McCain.

It really is starting to make sense. The DNC makes such a race out of the primary that subconsciously, Americans feel that the race for President is really between their two candidates, thus marginalizing the republican candidate. It's the ultimate plan! By the time November comes around, there are only two names, as far as the voting public knows, Obama and Clinton. After all, that's all they have been hearing about for the last few months. Who could blame them.

An ingenious plan, and I think it's working. Who knows who McCain is, what his plans are, etc.? Very few voters, indeed.

USA Worker Base

"We're having trouble finding the numbers that we need with the skills that are required to do these jobs," AT&T Chief Executive Randall Stephenson told a business group in San Antonio"

Having been in management for years, I hear similar statements from colleagues at various gatherings. And, it's nor restricted to high-tech fields, either.

So, what is happening? Is the US workforce base really deteriorating, or are these managers making excuses, so they can ship jobs abroad?

I am not an expert on these issues, but it sure sounds to me that this may be the old "what came first, the chicken or the egg" question. A very simplified ed version is this. Labor base deteriorates, companies ship jobs abroad (or import workers), potential employees become discouraged and stop trying to acquire expertise, job pool becomes even thinner, so employers have to look elsewhere, and so on...

We, need, however, to ask ourselves, what really started this downhill run, and is there anything that can be done to stop it, or better reverse it?

Again not claiming and sort of guru expertise, my observations seem to tell me that the two issues that have driven us to where we are today, are education and feeling of entitlement.

There is question that our education system has been deteriorating. As Betsy Brown Ruzzi presented in her study, "International Education Tests: An Overview 2005", the US did not even rank in the top 12 in either reading, mathematics, or science in testing 8-th graders and above. There is something wrong! We want to claim the title of the most technologically advanced country, yet our students are being outperformed even in basic skills! Guess, what, if that's the case, then the only way to *retain* that title would be by bringing some of those out-performing us, so the can help us. It makes sense. Of course, the better, but tougher, solution would be to fix our educational system, so that our students, who become our eventual workers, once again become competitive, but who wants to hear that, really. Everyone is looking for the *quick fix* - send the jobs abroad, or bring others to this country to help us. Well, if that keeps happening, we are going to run into another problem, we are going to run out of jobs at McDonald's and Wendy's, to absorb all the student graduating with a very limited set of skills. Now, don't get me wrong. There is *nothing* wrong with working at McDonald's and Wendy's. Those employees serve as important a function in our economy and society as anyone else. But, as mentioned earlier, not everyone can work there.

And before feathers get ruffled, let me make sure I state, when I am talking about the "educational system deteriorating", I am *NOT* criticizing the teachers! This is truly a systemic problem. If anything, given today's climate, I admire anyone who decides to become a teacher. May be that's where we should start. Let's start giving teachers the recognition of the important role they play in society. Yes, teachers are the ones that form the character of the next generation, the next CEOs, the next president of the United States. Being a teacher was something to be proud of. Let's get back to that. Let's give them the recognition and authority they deserve. Parents, you can keep an eye on what is going on, but stay out of the way and let teachers do their job!

I kind-of lost my train of thought... Oh, yeah, the second issue, feeling of entitlement. Well, in today's society, there is a feeling that once someone finishes school, and decides to look for a job, they are entitled to it. They don't think that a company is "giving them a chance" to do something with their life, albeit not necessarily for altruistic reasons. No, they are entitled to a job, and benefits, and vacation, and holidays, and... I have seen it with my own eyes, while interviewing candidates for entry-level jobs. Many (not all) came to the interview with the attitude, "well, I'll listen to you, see what you have to offer me, and if I feel like I am getting what I want, I'll take the job". That attitude, coupled with the fact that their education and preparedness for the job is sub-par, results in, you guessed it, "Next candidate, please...". Again, I am not saying that employees should settled for whatever they can get, or be taken advantage of, or anything like that. But, they are *NOT* entitled to a job, just because they finished school! They have to show that they need the job, they want the job! They have to show that they are interested in participating in the growth of the company/business that wants to hire them, which in turn guarantees their own growth. But, they'll argue, what guarantee do they have that company growth will not mean their job being outsourced and their being out to pasture. Which brings me back to "the chicken and the egg" problem.

We've come full circle.

Ultimate Fighting for Kids

Ultimate Fighting has been touted as the fastest growing sport, ever. It has also been dubbed "human cockfighting". Adults, pummeling each other, trying to inflict real harm, while a whole bunch of other adults are cheering them on. Or so it used to be until recently.

According to an AP article, in a recent fighting event in Montana, kids as young as 6 put on the protective gear and got into the fight, both boys and girls. Some parents that were interviewed said that they'd rather have their kids learning how to defend themselves, rather than running out in the streets, getting in trouble.

That sounds to me like they may be trying to convince themselves that what they are doing is the right thing. Let's face it, they are training their kids for dogfights. And, I'm surprised that the law steps in to protect dogs from being abused, i.e., being trained for and participating in dog fights, but will not do the same for these young children!

Oh, the parents' response, "... you can't tell me what to do with my children..." Give me a break. Children are not a piece of property that you own and can do whatever you want with them. When you dress 9-yr olds in fighting gear and send them to the mat, you are abusing them, regardless of how much they tell you they enjoy it. They are just kids, but *you* should know better!

I hope the law steps in and puts an end to this abuse.

Olympic Flame and Protests

The lighting of the Olympic torch took place in Olympia, Greece today. The lighting is a process that takes place before the start of each Summer Olympic games and the torch carries the light from there to the host country, for the opening ceremonies.

Today, the event was marred by a few protesters from "Reporters without Borders" that held black flags with the Olympic rings pictures as handcuffs, protesting China's treatment of Tibet.

It got me thinking about the whole concept of the Olympics, and whether this was a good venue for such demonstrations.

I'm torn. Part of me thinks that if one believes that some human rights are being violated (as these protesters claims is done by China towards Tibet), then they have a social responsibility to voice that concern in any forum they can access.

Another part, however, thinks that the Olympic events should be immune from all that. Even during the ancient Olympics, all political fighting and wars, were paused for the events. Olympics were were supposed to be void of any politics. One of the reasons they were started was indeed to pause ALL hostilities!

The more I think about it, the more I think that the Olympics should only be about athletes getting together and competing. All other issues should be kept out of them. There are many venues that can be used by protesters. to try and make their statements. Let's have at least one that doesn't become the soapbox for everyone with an ax to grind.

And, I am not passing judgment as to whether the protesters are right or wrong. They may be very right in chastising China for their human rights abuse record. All I'm saying leave their plight ot of the Olympics. It's about the only institution that remains!

William F. Buckley

Critics were abound, when it came to chastising Buckley for using words that were not in daily use, or understood by many Americans. However, he didn't let that dissuade him, because he really believed that people need to be challenged, in order to better themselves, even if that was only simply mastering their own language.

As he once noted, restricting a writer from using certain words, simply because they are not often spoken every day, is like telling a composer that they could not use diminished cords in their their next composition.

Although I found myself looking up words that he used in his writings, I agree with his way of thinking. If we do not use certain words, because they are not often used, we are simply ensuring that our vocabulary, and the English language, in general, will slowly become "limited". Not enough words would be available or known that would allow one to express a whole spectrum of feelings, emotions, conditions, etc. it'd be just black-or-white.

I may not have agreed with many of his views, but we need more writers like him, to preserve the language.

Technical Support

Just like most users of technology out there, I have spent my share of time on the phone talking to some tech support person that either didn't know what they were talking about, or talked to me like *I* didn't. It's very frustrating indeed. That, when coupled with being put on hold every two minutes, so the tech support representative can consult with their supervisor, or look up something, etc. can drive you up the wall.

However, after each such experience, when I have a chance to calm down and think about the whole "tech support" concept, I remember a stint I did as a tech support person, and I start feeling compassion for the person at the other end of the line. I can really feel for them having to put up with disgruntled users that just don't take the time to look at the documentation, or the help file, or others who quite simply should not be allowed to use computers.

It could be that I feel this way because of the time I spent a few years ago as a tech support person for a software product. Now, I have to also admit that this was a while ago when not many of the users calling had grown totally immersed in the computer "era", like most youngsters today. On the other hand, I don't want to make excuses for them. It's one thing not be intimately familiar with computers and their use, and another not to have any common sense. The best way that I could demonstrate what I'm saying may be by a couple of "real" life examples of what I'm talking about. A typical real tech support call I received at the time, presented here as it took place (with may be some additional dispersed commentary from me).

[Providing Technical Support for a Spreadsheet program]
** Answering the Phone... **
Me: XYZ Corporation, can I help you?
Caller: Yeah, I got this program from you and it doesn't work.
Me: I'll be more than happy to try and help sir, which program are we talking about? (the company I worked for made over a dozen different products)
Caller: I don't know, the one you make, I mean I got it *from you*.
Me:Yes sir. Our company makes a lot of different products. Could you tell me which one you are using?
Caller:I don't know, where would I find that information?
Me:Well, that's usually displayed in the Caption of the program's window, at the vry top.
Caller:There is nothing there. Is there another way to find out?
Me: Yes sir. If you could select Help, About, the name of the program should also be displayed there.
Caller: O.K., I checked on Help About and all I get is some information About the Windows Version.
Me: Sir, is the program running?
Caller:No, I told you it doesn't work.
Me:I see, sorry about that sir. You mean when you double-click on the program's shortcut, nothing happens?
Caller: I don't have any shortcuts.
Me: (scratching my head). So, how do you normally try to start the program?
Caller: I click on it.
Me:Click on what?
Caller: Click on the program.
Me: (Again, scratching my head). So, you start it by clicking on "Start" and then "All Programs" and you find the program that way?
Caller:No, it's right there, and I just click it.
Me:Right there, where, sir?
Caller:On my screen. I see it every time I start my computer.
Me:I see. Well that icon that you see on your screen (desktop) is the shortcut I was referring to earlier. So, you click on that and the program doesn't run?
Caller:Don't treat me like I'm ignorant, OK! I click on the little icon, and the program opens up, but then nothing happens, it just doesn't work.
Me: Well, did you try to enter some data and it didn't work? Or, did you try to open a spreadsheet file and it didn't open? Did you enter a formula and it didn't work as expected? I don't understand.
Caller:Look, I've been in high tech for many years, don't talk to me like I'm an idiot. I click the icon, the program opens and all I see is a bunch of rows and columns. The program just sits there and doesn't do anything.
Me: What did you expect the program to do sir?
Caller: I bought it because I wanted to use it to track my inventory. But how how can I do that if the program just sits there and doesn't do anything?
Me:Well, sir. This is just a spreadsheet program, and it doesn't do anything by itself. You'd have to enter your inventory and any other information and formulas you may need.
Caller:If I have to do all that, I don't want this program. Just tell me what I have to do to return it.
Me:(I really wanted to tell him he needed to return his computer - he shouldn't be allowed to use a computer, but I would have gotten fired) O.K., sir, here is the telephone number you need to call to get a Return Merchandise Authorization # (RMA). Thank you for trying our product.

This reminds me of a joke I saw on-line a couple of years ago...

General Motors doesn't have a 'help line' for people who don't know how to drive, because people don't buy cars like they buy computers -- but imagine if they did . . .

HELPLINE: 'General Motors Help Line, how can I help you?'
CUSTOMER: 'Hi! I just bought my first car, and I chose your car because it has automatic transmission, cruise control power steering, power brakes, and power door locks.'
HELPLINE: 'Thanks for buying our car. How can I help you?'
CUSTOMER: 'How do I work it?'
HELPLINE: 'Do you know how to drive?'
CUSTOMER: 'Do I know how to what?'
HELPLINE: 'Do you know how to drive?'
CUSTOMER: 'I'm not a technical person! I just want to go places in my car!'

Chemicals in Drinking Water...

I read yesterday that a new study was just released that shows dozens of unwanted chemicals present in the drinking water of about 41 million Americans. Very alarming, indeed. Then, towards the end of the report I saw that these elements were found in concentrations of one part per billion or even trillion. Well, that starts to put things in perspective, I think.

Now, I am not one to want *bad* chemicals in my drinking water, but it would be nice if someone really explained what "one-part-per-trillion" concentration of some chemical water would do to me, before I start freaking out and stop drinking water.

I recall, about 20 years ago, when there was a report that some major brand muffin mix (don;t want to mention names) was found to contain a bad toxin. Front page news in most newspapers for a week, or so. Panic stricken consumers started calling supermarkets, which in turn proceeded to promptly remove all muffin mixes of that brand from their shelves. People were worried about muffin mix they had already consumed. Parents were distraught about having unknowingly fed their young children such muffins.

I happened to be in a position to secure a copy of the actual results of the study done by a lab in Washington, sanctioned by the EPA. I gave it to some co-workers that had expertise in those types of analyses, and asked him to spend some time carefully reviewing it. It turned out that all the experiments were done on mice, and then extrapolated to humans. No problem so far, that's done all the time (after all you don't want to run experiments with humans, possibly risking human life!). Looking at the numbers closer, it turned out that laboratory mice were fed 1/1000-th of their body weight of the toxin every day for 3 months, and their chance of cancer was increased by 22 % over that of the control group. It also turned out that the toxin concentration in the offending muffin mix was about 1 in 10o,000 parts. Doing the math quickly, it turned out that a person of average weight of 150 lbs, would have to consume 0.15 lbs of toxin, i.e., 15,000 lbs of muffin mix, i.e. 120,000 muffins a day (conservatively assuming 2 oz of muffing mix per muffin), every day for three months, i.e. a total of 3,600,000 muffins in order to possibly increase their risk of cancer by 22%. Looking at the further extrapolation calculations in the report (for long term exposure), it turned out that the same 150 lb consumer would have to eat 329 muffins a day, seven days a week, for 30 years to increase their chance of cancer by 22%. Give me a break!!!

So now I wonder. Is this "chemicals in drinking water" the same type of "alarmist" report? Don't get me wrong, as I said before I don't want any bad chemicals in my drinking water, but please, someone tell us what the AP report findings really means. Do we have to drink 100 gallons of water a day, every day for 50 years to increase our chance of cancer two-fold, or something?

I wonder...