Tuesday, August 31, 2004
Personal Strengths/Career Needs
In Terms of Enterprising vs Support Role Possibilities
You would be described as extremely competitive, enterprising, assertive, aggressive, tough minded, determined and goal oriented- You may display new and creative ways to reach your personal and work objectives and you will be self-evaluative and sometimes critical of your own performance. Given an aim, objective or requirement, you would be able to develop your own plan, manage your time and focus your effort on a daily basis to reach your goals. Being a self-manager should come very naturally to you and these skills should be refined through formal training and/or on-the-job experience.
In Terms of Your Style & Strength of Various Motivations
You would be described as being motivated primarily by a genuine concern for the well being and needs of others. People would see you as quite calm, steady, unhurried, predictable, stable and cooperative. Given an opportunity to focus your efforts on the achievement of some meaningful and perhaps demanding, long term 'people-oriented' goals, you could become a very loyal, dependable and dedicated member of the team delivering the product or service. Generally your motivational pattern will produce the greatest personal satisfaction and your best performance in positions requiring ongoing commitment to goals that you feel have real merit in alleviating the distress or adding to the quality of life of the people who receive the results of your efforts.
In Terms of Your Independence vs Your Need to Be in the 'Team'
You would work best and with the greatest satisfaction in a group of people who are like you in their strong commitment to the 'team'. You would enjoy the kind of technical, intellectual and personal interactions that come with working in a close-knit team. You would accept supervision but would also like to co-direct the group on some projects or in some parts of the job.
In Terms of Your Orientation Towards the 'People' Side of Business
You would be described as extremely sociable, entertaining, cheerful, genial and outgoing. In addition to being a fluent talker, you would be comfortable with new people, value social interaction and make new friends easily. Generally, you would be a good company representative and have the ability to communicate with a wide variety of people in a number of different functions. Being extremely sociable could make you somewhat sensitive to rejection.
In Terms of Your Orientation Towards Technical & Practical Concerns
You are extremely logical, reflective, analytical, factual and very practical. You enjoy things that challenge your capacity to learn. For the sake of interest as well as necessity, you will become an expert in things that intrigue and challenge you. You like to be creative and conceptual. You would enjoy solving intellectual challenges by thoroughly investigating the facts and data associated with a particular problem. Others may interpret your introspective and self-controlled behavior sometimes as being aloof and preoccupied.
Last week I wrote their personality test. I get the feeling that they let just about anyone take the test. If you pass the test they call you in to interview/discuss the results. If you fail, they just send you the results.
I got called back, I talked to a guy who says just about everyone passes, he says he's passed everyone he's ever taken. His wife added, "And you don't even have a personality." He seemed to think that everyone passes, but it could be that he actually has the right personality and so of course he fits the requirements.
I'm going in, in an hour and a half. I'm kind of worried about it though.
I know I interview well. I can bs with the best of them in an interview. The thing is, I don't really know anything about the job. I'm worried about how I will find customers. I'm not really into selling (begging) to family and friends.
In any case, I have to get going or I will be late.
Saturday, August 28, 2004
The "Golden Girls" star, now 81, was flagged by a Transportation Security Administration agent, who discovered the knife - a strict no-no following 9/11.
"She started yelling that it wasn't hers and said 'The terrorists put it there,' " a fellow passenger said. "She kept yelling about the 'terrorists, the terrorists, the terrorists.' "
After the blade was confiscated, Arthur took a keyring from her bag and told the agent it belonged to the "terrorists," before throwing it at them.
After the local news reported the story, the reporter's commentary was something along the lines of "But, since we all know that jokes like that are illegal in the state of Massachusetts...", and left it unfinished.
The purpose of confiscating penknives, nail clippers, and other items that you really couldn't take over a plane with, is not to actually improve *technical* security. The purpose is to give the appearance of improving security. This is a useful end because it makes people less nervous about flying, which means that you continue to get butts in seats and folks will be less likely to go nuts if they see something a little suspicious, eg, some dude playing with a penknife as the flight attendant approaches.
In a sensible system, there would be a mechanism to "quarantine" such items on board the plane so you could get them back later. You know - security puts it in a big red envelope and you check it and get it back when you get off the plane again. Like luggage.
If I were a terrorist (hello FBI), I would carry a penknife with me, so that security guards felt good about taking that away, while I had something in my carryon that I could assemble into a weapon (I'd figure something out).
It is not all about about making grandmas submit to controls. It is about looking for middle eastern men who might want to do bad things. The authorities are fobidden to target people by ethnicity. So everybody, EVERYBODY, gets the same treatment. If a terrorist can possibly smuggle a weapon on board a plane, we have to search everybody, even though we know the profile of the people we want to search.
Someday, people will realize that this false security is more akin to bullying by security gaurds and the government and not stand for it. People will be offended by some kid at the amusement park wanting to search your camera bag, or diaper bag because it is possible that you have a weapon in there.
Friday, August 27, 2004
The DHS's threat warnings have been vague, indeterminate, and unspecific. The threat index goes from yellow to orange and back again, although no one is entirely sure what either level means. We've been warned that the terrorists might use helicopters, scuba gear, even cheap prescription drugs from Canada. New York and Washington, D.C., were put on high alert one day, and the next day told that the alert was based on information years old. The careful wording of these alerts allows them not to require any sound, confirmed, accurate intelligence information, while at the same time guaranteeing hysterical media coverage. This headline-grabbing stuff might make for good movie plots, but it doesn't make us safer.
This kind of behavior is all that's needed to generate widespread fear and uncertainty. It keeps the public worried about terrorism, while at the same time reminding them that they're helpless without the government to defend them.
I guess I'm not the only one that wants to ask, "What does that even mean?" when the media trots out the terrorism mood ring. It seems to me, as a Canadian and a person without cable tv, that people seem to be catching on. That people are starting to realize that what is happening is not what they want to happen. That strip searching an 90 year-old grandma in a wheel chair is not only stupid, it is actually harmful to society. That arresting someone for taking pictures of a bridge in New York is not only rediculous, but useless because across the street from where they are taking the picture postcards of the exact same picture can be purchased for $0.25.
It's like the book I read awhile ago, "Defying Hitler", it seems as if the German people just sort of realized that Hitler was a loon, and that not everyone actually supported him as much as they wanted to avoid appearing as if they didn't support him. As time passed real and halfhearted support died off and the war ended.
Time is going on now, and although people seem to have been polarized quite a bit, hopefully people will be able to do the things they need to (vote?) that will all everyone to retain day-to-day freedoms. Freedoms that are useful to Grandma and Grandpa when they are traveling via an airplane to visit the grandkids, and not just drug-dealer's right to privacy or terrorist's right not to be racially profiled.
It's time to wake up. The game is starting. Time to play ball. Shoot hoops and all that.
I guess losing 89-81 isn't exactly having your ass handed to you, but come on. There isn't a single one of you getting paid less than a million dollars a year. Maybe that's it, NBA players are too selfish to want to play in Olympics, or maybe genererous to a fault and they want to give other players a chance at a bronze medal.
In any case, all NBA players should be ashamed of themselves. Especially players voted to be in the all star game.
My final statement to the team HA-HA!
Thursday, August 26, 2004
When it comes right down to it, it was on the boring side of kind of slow. I don't know if I can really recommend this movie to people who aren't in to Art or art movies.
In other news, I have volunteered my services to a non-profit organization called, Highbanks-Independent Living for Parenting Youth Society.
The mission of Highbanks is to provide individual family unit accomodation and support services for young mothers (16 - 24 years) and their children. The society promotes education and self-development while fostering peer support and a sense of community.
They want me to design them a website, as well as make a database to track various groups that interact with the organization. I'm pretty excited. I think that it will work out quite well for them as well as myself. They will get a professionally designed website, as well as a top of the line database.
Apparently it is quite hard for NPO's to get tech savvy volunteers. I think that it is simply a matter of knowing where to look. I'm sure that the MGIS club at the university could supply a ton of volunteers.
Wednesday, August 25, 2004
The bad language didn't match the tone of the movie. It seemed like a light hearted comedy but there were so many "F-Bombs" I couldn't believe it. It's not as if it was a Mobster movie, or even a blackspolitation movie. It was a family comedy staring Tom Hanks.
Maybe they though the language was funny, but I sure didn't.
Another problem with the movie was that one of the character's had irritable bowl syndrom. I can understand using a poop joke to get a cheap laugh, but they just wouldn't let the poop joke die.
The last problem that I am going to mention is the fact that although we all wanted to cheer for Tom Hanks, he is not apparently the protagonist of the movie. Why make a movie where the protagonist gets his cumuppance? It just leaves a bad taste in the audience's collective mouth.
I can understand why it wasn't in theaters for very long. Don't rent this movie.
Monday, August 23, 2004
"I'm pretty sure I could have done a better painting when I was in the fifth grade, on my first try."
Whether you could have done it on your first try or not, remains to be seen. I have no doubt that you could have done something equally good after a few months of practice. The quality of the work, however, doesn't have as much to do with the multi-million price tag as you would imagine.
Beyond the physical artwork, there is the motivation behind creating it, the method of creation, and the ability to spawn discussion are all much more important than the work itself as far as price goes.
Celebrity name goes a long way into selling art works as well. Take Jeff Bridges star of Seabiscuit. He is a photographer. I haven't seen many of his photos, but in a Photo.net disscussion, some people seem to like his photos while others not so much. The point is that as a movie star, it is much easier for him to get a deal to publish a book, than it would be for you or I. It doesn't matter how technially profficient we are or how beautiful the photos are. We don't generate the buzz that a movie star does.
The point I am trying to make, is that the quality of the work is not so important as people seem to believe. In many cases they are right when they say they could do just as good on their first try. What they can't do is generate discussion, explain why they made the work, or be famous enough for people to care about it.
This weekend, we went to Cardston to visit Tracie's Grandparents. We had a great visit. On Saturday, we headed out to Waterton Park. Waterton is way nicer than Banff. The view is better, the town isn't one big Gap, and there are way less people.
I for one, think Banff is nice, but I like Waterton better. By preventing all the giant hotels that Banff has, Waterton has dodged the internatational spotlight, and millions of tourists.
Thursday, August 19, 2004
Update: Apparently Jackie had a baby boy. Although they were a little worried because the heart rate dipped, everything went ok. Now all they need to do is choose a name that won't cause the poor boy a life time of ridicule.
I'm thinking of sending them a recorder so they can tape all the noises the baby makes. That way when he learns to talk, they can ask him what he meant.
I for one, welcome the boy into the world.
Wednesday, August 18, 2004
Trees are a valuable commodity in anybody's country. But the guys that cut them down have to be paid enough to return later and buy lumber to build a house. This is the way it's supposed to work. For some reason it isn't working in third world countries. Find out why, please, and then tell me.
The third world isn't the only place where this isn't working. It isn't working anywhere.
The guy who cuts the trees down adds one unit of value to a tree that he cuts down. A tree that is cut down is worth more as a product than one that is not.
The guy who drives the tree to the mill adds one unit of value to the tree. A tree is more valuable at the mill ready to be cut in to lumber than a log in the forest.
The guy who operates the mill adds one unit of value to the lumber. Trees that have been cut into lumber are worth more than logs sitting at the mill.
The guy who drives the lumber to the train adds one unit of value to the lumber. Lumber at the train station ready to be transported is worth more than lumber sitting at the mill.
The guy who drives the train into the next province adds one unit of value to the lumber. Lumber in Sask, is worth more than lumber in BC.
The guy who drives the lumber from the station to the lumber yard adds one unit of value to the lumber. Lumber ready for sale at a lumber yard is worth more than lumber at the train station.
The guy who sells the lumber at the lumber yard adds one unit of value to the lumber. Lumber you own is worth more than lumber you don't.
The guy who builds the house adds one unit of value to the lumber. Lumber nailed together in the shape of a house is worth more than lumber in a pile.
The guy who sells the house adds one unit of value to the house. A house you own is more than a house you don't.
Than means that the lumber from one tree in the form of a house that you own is worth 9 units of value. That means if you want a house you have to cut down enough trees to build a house 9 times over just for the lumber that goes into the house. I'm probably forgetting lots of the people in the chain from forest to house, but you get the idea.
Finished goods are worth more than raw materials. When it comes down to it, finished goods now are worth more than finished goods later. Kind of like the time value of money.
Take the Superbowl for example. Budweiser seems to advertise during the Superbowl every year, and every year they have a crapload of different adds. For eample this year they had eight different ads. For one three hour game, not over 16 days!
If Budweiser can do eight different ads for a three hour game, McDonalds, the Milk federation, and the Royal Bank, should be able to do one different ad for every day of the Olympics. Seriously, we're supposed to watch an animated cow weight lifting for a cumulative time greater than the cumulative time of the weight lifting events? Give me a break. Fire your ad department and find someone with a little creativity.
You have 4 years to prepare something mildy not stupid to advertise your company.
The only standout so far has to be the Royal Bank. Their ads aren't too annoying. They do seem to really want us to know how much money they give to athletes. What a wonderful company. It seems to me that it would be easier to make people think you aren't a heartless company, simply by not foreclosing on widows and orphans, but maybe that's just me.
Here's a note to the CBC, stop accepting sole sponsers so that we can have a variety of commercials to watch. In the meantime, here is a site with the superbowl ads for the last six years.
Tuesday, August 17, 2004
There are 29 sports, but almost all of those sports have several different categories. Aquatics for example has: Swimming - Diving - Synchronized Swimming - Water polo. Diving has both individual and syncronised.
My main complaint is that the CBC seems to be showing 99% advertisements and the rest repeats of the worst sports ever. The worst is the events where the judges decide who wins. At least handball, has a scoring system.
To make the olympics better, get rid of the events that are scored on artistic merit. That way we could keep the amazing feats of strenth in gymnastics but loose the dancing parts.
Get rid of the current announcers. Have only one exathlete announcer per sport, and have actual announcers do most of the announcing. I realize that some sports (especially the ones that don't involve being the strongest, fastest or jump higherest, are completely incomprhensible to most people (see syncronised diving), but, ex-athletes are not good announcers. There just isn't a big enough pool of ex-athletes to be able to find good announers in every sport.
Last but not least, quit making such a big deal about playing through the pain. Hundreds, if not thousands of people do it everyday. Sure the guy fell of the highbar, yesterday. I'm sure that's probably not the first time he fell off the bar. It won't be the last time he falls of the bar, and it happen yesterday. He's fine really.
I recomend to all olympic athletes to let it slip to the announcers that you are seriously injured. They'll make a really big deal about you on TV back home. Ian Thorpe, tell someone you have a broken arm, but can wear a cast because it would come off in the water.
"Thorpe is just the most amazing athlete ever. He has a broken arm and he is still leading every event that he enters. Just spectacular!"
An unaccredited and unidentified
Canadian diver sends love message to his wife.
I can't understand why they aren't showing this clip repeatedly on the CBC. I'm going to try to find video of it on the Internet.
Sunday, August 15, 2004
The show has a simple premise. It follows one man's goal of not eating anything except for things that can be purchased at McDonalds for 30 days. It's has humorous moments, and it doesn't seem to use statistics too dishonestly.
There is an interview with the lawyer of the two girls who sued McDonalds for "making them fat". When asked why they were suing, the lawyer said, "You mean other than money?"
The protagonist gains 10lbs in the first 10 days, then another 15 over the next 20 days. He ate three meals a day, but he wouldn't super size anything unless they asked him if he wanted to. Over the course of 30 days, he was only asked to super size nine times. The first time he super sized his meal, he vomitted from eating too much food. I vomitted from eating too much once, and almost again on another occasion. Let me tell you, it's not nice vomitting because you have eaten too much. You do feel a lot better afterwards though.
Mainly the movie consisted of interesting facts about the food, and the things that it was doing to his body. For example the only things with no sugar at all on the entire menu were, fries, diet coke, and McNuggets.
They interviewed a guy that had eaten over 19000 Big Macs. That's alotta Big Macs.
Thursday, August 12, 2004
There is however a downside. Somethings have become so small that it has begun to affect the usablity of the item. Two examples being cell phones and digital cameras.
I went with Ralph and Gail to a celphone store yesterday. All but two or three of the phones were too small for me to use. While I would be able to place a call with the small phones, I would have to spend a lot of effort to do so. The buttons are so small, I would have to use both hands to dial the number. I could hold a slightly larger phone in one hand and dial with my thumb. Not so with the smaller phones. It is getting to the point where I will need a pointy stick to dial a cell phone.
Digital cameras are also becoming too small. The main problem with this is that they become more and more suseptible to camera shake. I, for one, need a camera with a little more weight to it to be able to hold it steady. Something with a little more inertia to help ward off the tiny vibrations.
Manufacturers, please concentrate on making things the right size rather than just smaller. I mean, feel free to make the micro chips smaller, but leave the case they come in the propper size. A phone should be big enough to dial the numbers using only one hand to both hold the phone and dial the number, but small enough to fit in your pocket. A camera should be big enough that you can hold it steady. A laptop should have a big enough screen and keyboard, but should be very light.
Really, with most things, you could make them thinner with out comprimizing the important aspect of their size. Only two of the dimentions need to be big with many gadgets, length and widths. Go ahead and make slimmer phones and laptops. Leave the keypads large, but make the batteries and chipsets smaller.
Wednesday, August 11, 2004
The hotdogs were good, but apparently I have completely forgotten how to cook a marshmallow. I dropped the first two on the ground. I said, "Oh Hell" after the second one hit the ground and I get the feeling that Tracie's mom wasn't pleased with my choice of words, but she pretended not to notice which was nice of her.
She reads this blog, so I'm not to sure how she will react to this post. I get the feeling that she won't be mad though.
Any time my own mother or Tracie's mom get mad at me in the future, I think I will threaten to move far away and have a baby. A fate worse than death in both of their minds. I know that if conversation ever turns to us thinking about going somewhere for Tracie to do travel nursing, the first thing either mother says is, "I don't want my grandkids to live so far away." As if there are grandkids that I have but don't actually know about. Or as if I'll have them in the next 3 months, which is the amount of time we would be gone. If there is a kid in the next 3 months it will be a big surprise to me, that's for sure.
Anyway, I read an article about how devious little kids are yesterday. It basically related an account of how a kid asked his uncle if he could play with a certain toy. The uncle said yes. The kid then wanted the uncle to take the toy away from another kid so that the first kid could play with it. The comments about the story boiled down to about three different groups. First people too selfish to have kids, second people suffering buyers remorse who try to justify having kids to everyone, and third people who genuinely love having kids.
Fortunately for the grandmothers, right now I view myself as being a future member of group three.
PS- what part of the alphabet would look like without the letters Q and R.
Tuesday, August 10, 2004
When I got my bandage off, I expected to see four tiny tine holes, but apparently the corner of the fork hit me and there was only one little hole. It didn't stick in my head, or I would have gotten a picture.
Anyway if you see Tracie and she has a fork, watch out, even if you are not doing anything to bother her. She just might go plumb loco and throw it at you.
Thursday, August 05, 2004
When I got home, I tried to ascertain who the phone belonged to. There were 5 missed calls, so I tried to call them back, but the service had already been blocked. When I got home I tried calling from there. I eventually got hold of the guy and he came over and picked it up. As he was about to leave, he offered me a reward, and I accepted it. I want to make it perfectly clear, that he already had the phone, and that I never once even mentioned the idea of a reward. The reward was $20. I would have been happy simply doing a good deed for the kid, but I was made even happier by the kid's reward.
Tracie says she is disappointed that I accepted the reward. She says that I shouldn't have accepted it. I'm beginning to wish that I had just kept the phone.
What do you think, friends, family, and loyal readers? Should have I refused the reward?
ps. I didn't want to offend him by not taking it.
Everyone on the show is TV ugly. Most are real life ugly. They don't so much speak English as chew it up and spit it out.
It seems to me that only old people watch this show. It is my hope that those people will soon die and they will have to cancel the show because even fewer people are watching it.
Today, I went to the 7/11 to buy a big gulp and a bag of chips. I decided to buy a scratch and win ticket and won $50,000.00!
I don't really know what I am going to buy yet, but here is the first thing that I am thinking about:
I'm sure that Tracie will want to pay down the student loans, but I think that we should go to Pakistan on a trip. Tracie would rather go to Saudia Arabia back packing.
On my way back from the 7/11, I stubbed my toe. Talk about an unlucky/lucky day.
Wednesday, August 04, 2004
I find that typing with fight is easier than to speaking my thoughts, because typing gives me enough time to think about what I want to refer sailor right. One of the province of speech recognition software for me is backed by tens use sounds that indicate an thinking but should not be translated into tax. So when that we had words but don't seem to have any place there. He spent the longtime training software to understand my voice. I don't think that bid is a 90 percent perfect yet.
I do have affiliate pulled a piece of software doing the ways recognition. Maybe only version would be better than this. It can't seem to understand what I say. It does for quite well that it's not good enough to give up typing
Tuesday, August 03, 2004
I recommend that you read it. My Dad has always said that there are enough interesting true stories to make reading fiction a waste of time. This is one of those interesting true stories.
There is a little bit of overlap of the German opinion of the war between this book and Defying Hitler, but Rooney doesn't seem to be able to answer the question of how the Nazi's were possible. He does indirectly indicate that not all the Germans fighting in the war were doing it whole heartedly.
Monday, August 02, 2004
That being said, Napoleon Dynamite is the one of the funniest movies I have ever seen. We went to see it the other day. I was laughing so hard that I had tears in my eyes. I laughed the whole way back to the car, and we had to park six blocks away.
The movie is about a kid named Napoleon Dynamite. Imagine every nerdy, misfit, weird kid you know, and roll them into one.
At one point, Napolean tries his hand at the ladies. He sits down in the cafeteria across from a girl and works his charm saying "I see you're drinking 1% milk. Is that because you think you're fat? Because you're not. You could probably be drinking whole milk."
In anycase, you should see this movie. When it comes out on video rent it if your town it too small to have realatively obscure movies come to the theater there.
-Gary Milner, Still Laughing