On January 26th, 1986, I watched my first Superbowl, that I was actually watching for the football, not just because of the party and the commercials.
My teams were playing.
I'm from Boston, and I've always loved the Patriots; but I've also always loved the Bears; and lord forgive me but that day I knew the Bears were going to win, and win they did trouncing the pats 46-10.
Ever since, I've been waiting for the rematch; though for most of that time it looked unlikely.
Well, 21 years later, and we're half way there.
Last week I said I trusted the Bears to make it through: that Drew Brees of the Saints was the better quarterback by far, but that the Saints were playing over their capabilities, and the Bears were just plain the better team.
Today I was proven right; in a far more convincing way than I expected.
As I write this, I've just watched the coin toss on the AFC championship game between the New England Patriots and the Indianapolis Colts, and I'm waiting for the kickoff.
Either way, history is going to be made today, but here I am, wanting my re-match; and knowing that the Pats and Colts have been here before, and every time the Pats have proven they want it more, and are willing to do more to get it.
This game is going to hurt; it's going to grind both teams down to a nub, but I believe the Pats are going to reach that one last foot, one last step, one last kick that will give me my rematch.
Lets do it boys.
UPDATE: 21-6 at the half for the Pats, and I feel vindicated in my low scoring prediction, because the score would have been 14-6 if it weren't for that interception. I'm still betting the under at 47.5, or at most one touchdown over it... unless we see more of those interceptions for touchdowns.
UPDATE 2: Wow.... I can't bliev this scond half. I've never sen the COlts step it up like this. Incredible come back; and back and forth. THe pats keep going up, and the colts keep catching it up. I gotta giveit to the Colts, their defense is holding amazingly given the big plays being made, and the Pats defense has just fallen apart (I think the flu has really hurt them). Less than 4 minutes to play, and I'm on the edge of my seat.
FUUUUUUUUUUUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Friday, January 19, 2007
Checking the line
So, before I checked the sportslines I had my own internal prediction goin on for this weekend.
Saints Bears, Bears by 3, OU at 47.5
Pats Colts, Pats by 3 OU at 42.5
So I check sportsbook, and whaddya know, they're right on with me, 'cept they've got the overs reveresd, the pats at 47.5 and the Bears at 42.5
I dunno guyus; I think the Bears game is going to open up more than the line seems to think; and that the pats Colts will smash each other up real good, and keep it tight.
Saints Bears, Bears by 3, OU at 47.5
Pats Colts, Pats by 3 OU at 42.5
So I check sportsbook, and whaddya know, they're right on with me, 'cept they've got the overs reveresd, the pats at 47.5 and the Bears at 42.5
I dunno guyus; I think the Bears game is going to open up more than the line seems to think; and that the pats Colts will smash each other up real good, and keep it tight.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
BTDT
| Would you survive in the wild? Your Result: Yesiree!.... You could live in the wild if you wanted to! You know what to eat, do, and stay away from! You could get shelter, food, water fast and easy-and the right treatments to injuries, snake bites etc...You know the outdoors like the back of your hand!! | |
| Most likely you'll survive.... | |
| Maybe........ | |
| Not to sure... | |
| Wouldn't last 2 minutes!..... | |
| Would you survive in the wild? Quizzes for MySpace | |
Comic fanboys rejoice and recoil
Well I have a curious mixture of joy and fear going on right now.
Browsing the trade sites, I just learned (yes I know, I'm late to the party), that Iron Man, is being made into a movie by John Favreau; and "Preacher is being made into a series by HBO..
Whoa...
Ok first, Iron man. Tony Stark Frikken Rocks OK? Now here's where the fear comes in... They cast Robert Downey jr. as Stark.
Ok, Ok, I get the fact that as a rich and brilliant addict, Downey will have a a greater insight into the character. I also know for a fact that both Favreau and Downey are fans of the book... but, but, Robert Downey Jr. is... wimpy I guess is the word. Tony stark is very much not wimpy. I can believe Downey as maybe Starman, or some other wry sardonic type... or hell he'd have made a better foggy then Favreau did, but Tony Stark? It just doesn't seem right.
If he had the acting ability, I'd suggest Oded Fehr for Stark, but really it's just the look and the strength that he's got. Maybe Eric Bana could pull it off. I know Hugh Jackman could, but he's already got one rubbersuit, and besides, his personality is wrong for stark. Hell, Russell Crowe could be great, or maybe Guy Pierce... and yes I know I just mentioned four ANZACs for the same role.
Ok, so Downey IS an incredible actor when he isn't too junked up; so for now I'm cautiously optimistic.
But it gets worse... the supporting cast... Pepper Potts is played by Gwenyth Paltrow... oh god no. Just no, wrong, uh uh. Drew Barrymore maybe, but very definitely not some brittified stick girl with no sense of humor. For anyone who thinks Paltrow wont suck here I have two words for you: Sky Captain.
Rhodey Rhoads (War Machine) is going to be Terrence Howard, which may work out because he's pretty good.
The Mandarin? Mike or Kevin O'Brien (The Guardsman), Obadiah Stain? All of them have been announced as being in the film, but no official casting announcements have been made.
Oh and the screenplay? Two writers who used to be sound guys and between them have only done one unknown movie. Then they fired them, and hired the guys who wrote "Children of Men".
The final straw? This quote from the wikipedia entry on the movie:
"Director Jon Favreau said that the film's plot would not deal with Tony Stark's personal problems, such as alcoholsim. Favreau noted that if there were sequels, Tony Stark's personal problems would be explored.[4]"Tonys personal problems are what makes Iron man a great book, and not just some supersuit.
Yeah, the fear is winning here guys.
Now, Preacher on HBO... wow.. just wow.
If you are not familiar with Preacher; let me just say it is, I believe, the best book to come out of the 90s. Garth Ennis, though he's from Belfast, captured that western movie feel, American spirit, and Irish fatalism all in one; with punk cynicism and alienation dripping from every panel.
Ennis was the second writer for Judge Dredd (in 2000ad), and also co-created the Vertigo character Hitman (another great one by the by); and he's guested and contributed on so much I couldn't list them all.
I think an HBO series is just about the perfect vehicle for preacher. They know how to do gritty dirty stuff, and not pull any punches; and they don't shy from the supernatural in stories, without letting it ruing the story.
The only problem is, the vision... They're tapping different directors for every episode, as is typical for episodic television; the producers are a committee, and I cant seem to find who's starring (The crucial roles are Jesse Custer, the eponymous preacher; Tulip, and Cassidy, Jesses "friends"; God, and The Saint of Killers.).
I just don't see how different directors can maintain a consistent vision for the series. The plotting, the visuals, the feel; it's all just too critical. They approached Kevin Smith to direct an episode, and he actually said about the same thing, he didn't think he could do it. Reportedly Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarrantino have also been approached.
Again, the fear is winning here guys.
I need to start trolling AICN for updates, but meanwhile, let's hear your "perfect" casts for Iron Man and Preacher.
UPDATE: In between the time I wrote this this morning, and 1:11 pm, the wikipedia entry was updated with this.
Other media adaptations
For several years, a film adaptation by View Askew Productions was in the works, with James Marsden attached to play the lead. The project never materialized, although production got so far as to begin make up tests for the Arseface character, gruesome pictures of which can be found online [1]. At one point, Samuel L. Jackson, a comic book fan, expressed interest in playing the Saint of Killers.
In May of 2006, rumors began circulating that the cable TV network HBO might produce an adaptation of Preacher. In late November, The Hollywood Reporter confirmed this, reporting that the network was developing a one-hour series with executive producers Mark Steven Johnson and Howard Deutch, the writing-directing team that brought us Grumpier Old Men. Johnson will also write the pilot.
Mark Steven Johnson told SCI FI Wire that he plans to turn each issue of the comic into a single episode, which will be as close to the original source material as possible. "I gave [HBO] the comics, and I said, 'Every issue is an hour,'" Johnson said at a preview of his upcoming film Ghost Rider in Hollywood, Calif., on Nov. 30. "And it's exactly the book. ... I had my meeting yesterday, and Garth Ennis is on the phone, and we're all in the room, and Garth is like, 'You don't have to be so beholden to the comic.' And I'm like, 'No, no, no. It's got to be like the comic.' So that's what's so brilliant about it. It's just like, HBO, who else would do it but them? Nobody. ... HBO is just like, 'Bring it on.'" Johnson has also confirmed that this will include the various one-shots and mini-series.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Ooooh me likies
http://www.stiguns.com/guns/Escort/Escort.html
As y'all know, I'm a fan of the commander style of 1911; mostly because I like the balance and carryability better than a full 5" gun. Even the commander though restricts carry options somewhat because of its length. Colt (and other) have a solution for this, an even shorter version often called the "Officers model", with a 3" barrel and shorter butt.
Unfortunately, in general I don't like officers models; because their grip frames are too short for my big mitts.
The solution then is to have an officers model length slide, on a commander frame, or even a size frame in between commander and officer size (as kimber has with the ultra carry models). Colt has one (the defender), and various other manufacturers have brought mdoels in and out of production, but none of them have said "buy me" to me.
Well... I'm REALLY liking this STI here.
According to STI it's the lightest 1911 they've ever made; at 22.8oz it's even lighter than their polymer guns which is a hell of an achievement; because of its forged aluminum frame, and shortened slide.
It's got a double captured, buffered recoil setup as I prefer on shortened 1911s (wellll, I could do without the buffer, but I like the captured recoil spring), novak type low profile sights, a textured but not checkered front strap, ultralight trigger, ramped fully supported bull barrel... pretty much everything I want in a small 1911. Most importantly, it's got all of STIs quality and accuracy built in, as well as their excellent factory support.
Oh, and it's priced very competitively with Kimber and other high end factory 1911s with an MSRP of just over $1000... I wonder what it will street for. If ti's less than the Ultra CDP II I've been thinking about, I may change my mind (though the Kimber is a bit smaller and more concealable in the butt; even with the magwell that I need to add to it so I can get a good grip - the standard butt length of the Kimber Ultra series is too short for me without the magwell).
My only objection is that the Novak style low profile three dot sights, aren't tritiums. I wonder if they'll have them as a factory option....
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Happy birthday honey
It was our older girls fifth birthday yesterday, and this was her big present; her first big girl bike.
Oh she has another little girl bike at grandmas, it's about half the size and is really made for toddlers, something she most emphatically is not (she's taller than the first graders, and some of the second graders).
Happy birthday baby, we love you.
Next year though, one of these:
Monday, January 15, 2007
Martin Luther King Day
I live in Arizona, where this is not a holiday. I am workign today, even thoguh I work for a California company, and I think that's the way it ought to be.
I don't beleive in the celebration of a national holiday for Martin Luther King day; not because I don’t like black people, or Dr. King; but because it might as well be renamed “token black day”.
There are far more deserving historical figures to have national holidays named after: Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison et al… yes all dead white men. I don’t denigrate the achievements of King, or his importance as a symbol of the good of the civil rights movement; but MLK day in fact does not honor him, it reduces his legacy to a day off of work.
Martin Luther King day is a convenient way to tokenize the history of black achievement into an easily digestible and dismissable format. It is literally token black day, and they simply chose King as the name of the token.
That I think spits on the goals and ideals of Dr. King.
I don't beleive in the celebration of a national holiday for Martin Luther King day; not because I don’t like black people, or Dr. King; but because it might as well be renamed “token black day”.
There are far more deserving historical figures to have national holidays named after: Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison et al… yes all dead white men. I don’t denigrate the achievements of King, or his importance as a symbol of the good of the civil rights movement; but MLK day in fact does not honor him, it reduces his legacy to a day off of work.
Martin Luther King day is a convenient way to tokenize the history of black achievement into an easily digestible and dismissable format. It is literally token black day, and they simply chose King as the name of the token.
That I think spits on the goals and ideals of Dr. King.
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Playoff Update
Wow, what a day... two nailbiters, both coming down to a single field goal, both coming down to the last seconds (the Bears went into overtime)... just wow.
So heading into the championship round, it's the Bears against the Saints for the NFC, and the Patriots and Colts for the AFC.
AFC Fans, we've been here before a few times huh...
I just can't tell you how great these two games were. I don't think I've ever seen a better day of football.
The Saints - Chargers game was the hardest fought contest I can recall.
Ok, I'mna stop gushing now.
Anyway, I'm pretty psyched about this. I think the Pats can take the Colts if they do their job. It will be a hard game, but I think we can do it.
No offense to the miracle season Saints, but the Bears are the better team (though Brees is the better QB by a wide margin), and I think they're going to meet the Patriots in the superbowl.
What a season, what a sport huh.
So heading into the championship round, it's the Bears against the Saints for the NFC, and the Patriots and Colts for the AFC.
AFC Fans, we've been here before a few times huh...
I just can't tell you how great these two games were. I don't think I've ever seen a better day of football.
The Saints - Chargers game was the hardest fought contest I can recall.
Ok, I'mna stop gushing now.
Anyway, I'm pretty psyched about this. I think the Pats can take the Colts if they do their job. It will be a hard game, but I think we can do it.
No offense to the miracle season Saints, but the Bears are the better team (though Brees is the better QB by a wide margin), and I think they're going to meet the Patriots in the superbowl.
What a season, what a sport huh.
Friday, January 12, 2007
oooooooooooooooooooooo
oo$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$"$$ooo
oo$$$$$$$$$"""$$ "$$$""$o "$ $ "$$$o
o$$$$$$$$ "o"o "$o "$$o "o "oo "$ $ $$o
o$$$$$$$$$$$o $o$o $ o $$ "o $$$o$ $$ $$$$o
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$oo$$ $o$$$$ $o$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$o
$$$$$$$$$$"$"$"$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$"" $$$$$$$o
$$$$$$$"o"$o"$"$o"$"$$$$$$$$$$$$""""" $$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$"o" ""$$$$"" $$$o$$$
$$$$$$$"o "o $$$""$$
$$$$$$o"o "o $$$"$$
$$$$$$o"o o"o $$$"$$
$$$$$$o"o "o $$"$$$
"$$$$$o"o "o o$$$o$$
o$o"$$$o" o$$$$$$$$$o oo$$$$$$$$o"o "$$o$$$
$$$$oo$o"$" ooooo $$$o $$$$ooooo ""o" $$$$$$
$$$$ " o$$$ooooo"$$$$$ o$ "$"ooooo$"o o" $$$$$
$$$$ "$" "$o$"oo$$$$ " "" $o"$o$" "" " $$$$
"$$$o oooooo$"$" "$ o ""$o$ooo" " $$$$
$$"$ " " $$ $"o$
$ $$ o o$ " o$ $
"oo$ oo o $$$ o o o"$$"
""o "oo oo" $$$o o"oo$ "$"o o"o "
$o$$oo oo$" $$$$$o o$$$" "o"$ o $"$o "
$$oo$$"ooo$$$$$$$$$$$$" oooo$"$ooo"$ o"
"$$ "$ "$$$""""$$oooooo$""""$$"" $o$"
"$ $ $$$$oo ooo$" "o$"
$$ $$ "$"$$$$""""""""o$" $$$"
$o $o oo$$$"""""""""" $"$"
$o "o$$$" $o$"$o$oo$oo $$$
oo"""oo $o$$$$ o"$o"$"oo$o $ o"$"
o"oo$$ o$ o $$$$$"oo"$o"" " " " o$$"
$ "" o$$$$"$o$$"$o"$"o" o$o"
$$$$$ "o"$o$o" "$o$ o o o$o"
$$$$ $$$$" "$oo "o""o " o$$"
$$$oo$$$ """"""""""""
"$$$"
Fnord!
Robert Anton Wilson K.s.C. joined Eris today.
Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Baby Envy, Part II
I'm so deeply in the throes of baby envy, it's not even funny.
Baby envy: n. the distinct emotion engendered by the sight of any child under 4 or pregnant woman. Manifests as the uncontrollable urge to copulate and ovulate.
Normally engendered anyway. The trigger for me this time? Setting up play furniture for Shaila's baby dolls. Yes, I'm that badly off.
Actually, technically it wasn't the setting up of the toys that set me off. It was seeing the warning on the bottom of the Graco doll-sized playpen: "This toy is not intended to hold a child." Nah, really?
But that just led to the thought of an idiot using the toy for such, and the thought of a real live baby, and then the thought of a real live baby to hold... yes I'm that bad.
Not that right now would be an extremely bad time to get pregnant. After all, in 9 months both the kids will be in school and I would be left with plenty of time to have a healthy relaxed pregnancy.
However that's the only good point. The lack of health insurance on my part, the eternal suckage of being pregnant in Arizona during the summer, the fact that we aren't legally married (yet) and the fun up-in-the-air aspect of the custody dispute are all very good reasons why I continue to take my birth control each and every night. Logic and reasoning tells us this is a really BAD time to do any more major life changes because, frankly, we've got enough drama to last us about 10 years.
But...
I WANT A BABY GODDAMNIT.
NOW!!!!
However that's just not possible.
But you can be sure that as soon as the rest of this stuff gets resolved, I'm going off of my birth control within a week and I'll be pregnant within a month.
Some biological urges are just too strong to ignore, and I'm not ignoring this one a moment longer than I need to.
Mel
Just call me Mel, everyone else does.
Baby envy: n. the distinct emotion engendered by the sight of any child under 4 or pregnant woman. Manifests as the uncontrollable urge to copulate and ovulate.
Normally engendered anyway. The trigger for me this time? Setting up play furniture for Shaila's baby dolls. Yes, I'm that badly off.
Actually, technically it wasn't the setting up of the toys that set me off. It was seeing the warning on the bottom of the Graco doll-sized playpen: "This toy is not intended to hold a child." Nah, really?
But that just led to the thought of an idiot using the toy for such, and the thought of a real live baby, and then the thought of a real live baby to hold... yes I'm that bad.
Not that right now would be an extremely bad time to get pregnant. After all, in 9 months both the kids will be in school and I would be left with plenty of time to have a healthy relaxed pregnancy.
However that's the only good point. The lack of health insurance on my part, the eternal suckage of being pregnant in Arizona during the summer, the fact that we aren't legally married (yet) and the fun up-in-the-air aspect of the custody dispute are all very good reasons why I continue to take my birth control each and every night. Logic and reasoning tells us this is a really BAD time to do any more major life changes because, frankly, we've got enough drama to last us about 10 years.
But...
I WANT A BABY GODDAMNIT.
NOW!!!!
However that's just not possible.
But you can be sure that as soon as the rest of this stuff gets resolved, I'm going off of my birth control within a week and I'll be pregnant within a month.
Some biological urges are just too strong to ignore, and I'm not ignoring this one a moment longer than I need to.
Mel
Just call me Mel, everyone else does.
Album Cover Quiz
Ok rock junkies, try this Planet Rock Album Cover Quiz. As far as I can tell there aren't any repeats of artist, and I don't think there are any deliberate tricks like using alternate cover art or anything, but they crop the pics so it can be damn hard to recognize some of the covers.
I got 32 before I gave it up. I recognized several more but couldn't place them.
Anal guy that I am, I was irritated, went back, and got up to 35. I still recognize but cant place some of them
Again, anal guy that I am, I’mna list the ones I can’t place, by row and column
Row 1: 4
Row 2: 1 2 3
Row 3: 3 6
Row 4: 5
Row 5: (got them all)
Row 6: 5
Row 7: 2
Row 8: 4 5
Row 9: 1
Lord knows I hate a puzzle I can mostly solve but not quite. No spoilers in the comments yet; email me if you want to solve the ones I didn't get.
UPDATE: I managed to figure out another 7, bringing me up to 42, someone sent me one in email, then someone posted the complete list over at Kims forum; but I wont post that for a while. I've updated my "didn't know" list above. There were two bands and albums of the 54 that I didnt know at all, everythign else I was familiar with even if I didn't recognize the cover art.
I got 32 before I gave it up. I recognized several more but couldn't place them.
Anal guy that I am, I was irritated, went back, and got up to 35. I still recognize but cant place some of them
Again, anal guy that I am, I’mna list the ones I can’t place, by row and column
Row 1: 4
Row 2: 1 2 3
Row 3: 3 6
Row 4: 5
Row 5: (got them all)
Row 6: 5
Row 7: 2
Row 8: 4 5
Row 9: 1
Lord knows I hate a puzzle I can mostly solve but not quite. No spoilers in the comments yet; email me if you want to solve the ones I didn't get.
UPDATE: I managed to figure out another 7, bringing me up to 42, someone sent me one in email, then someone posted the complete list over at Kims forum; but I wont post that for a while. I've updated my "didn't know" list above. There were two bands and albums of the 54 that I didnt know at all, everythign else I was familiar with even if I didn't recognize the cover art.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Rest in Peace Jimmy
Jimmy Kelly, Boston city councilman for 23 years, died yesterday.
Jimmy was a family friend, and a man I grew up with. He was there at my paernts Wedding, my Christening, my first Communion, my Confirmation...
He and my dad got in a fist fight once, because my grandfather didn't want my father dating my mother, and Jimmy and my grandfather were good friends... they came up together in Boston politics, and in the streets of Boston (though Jimmy wwas a lot younger than my grandfather).
Jimmy, you were a corrupt, thieving, weaseling bastard sometimes; but you stood up for your friends, and you stood up for your neighborhood, and for that I can respect you. You stood next to me at my grandfathers funeral, and for that I can forgive you your sins. I'm sorry I can't be there today.
Rest in peace friend.
Jesus H. Fucking Christ On a Pogo Stick
This is one hell of a morning let me tell you...
First, blogger is still screwed up, and so are the haloscan comments.
Joy.
Second, as many of you know, I'm an independent security and information systems contractor. I'm currently on contract, and in May will be going on FTE; as one of three senior architects for the second largest organizational division of one of the largest financial intitutions in the world. There are a total of 18 architects at this level across the organization; and we report directly to a Senior VP, who reports to the CIO, who reports to the CEO.
All in all it's a pretty high level position; that I really enjoy even for all the corporate bullshit that goes with it, except for one problem: the company I contract to the financial institution through, are complete incompetents who have screwed up my life for the past 8 months.
Today is my direct deposit day. I am paid twice monthly, 10 days after the close of my previous pay period, on the 15th and last day of every month. My hours are calculated in full day increments only, five day work weeks, and I never have two work holidays in the same pay period except Christmas.
This means unless I take a day off (and I haven't in months), I have pay periods that may cover as few as 8 days of paid work, or as many as 12 days (as few as 20, as many as 23 days in a month... in fact this month actually).
Based on this rpedictable pay patterm, I have my bills setup on a twice monthly schedule for 3 days after my direct deposit for both pay periods.
So I'm waking up this morning, and Mel comes in and says "You better call and bitch someone out", she'd just looked at the bank account and my paycheck is over $3000 SHORT!!!!!!
What! The! Fuck?
It appears that I've only been paid for three or maybe four days (24 or 32 hours) out of a 9 day pay period (1 day short because of the day after christmas). Either that or all of a sudden the've decided to withold an extra $3,000 or so in taxes for no apparent reason. I'll know after the payrol adminsitrator calls me back.
Ok, so I've established before that my contracting company are complete fuckups who can't find their ass with both hands, but how do you take a 72 hours paycheck, the final pay period of the year, the pay period that people start paying off their christmas bills... AND FUCK IT UP THAT BAD?
Okay now normally this would be livable. We havent been living paycheck to paycheck for a few months now (after my gap in gigs from mid January til the end of May las year we were catching up for a few months). We have enough in the bank, combined with what I've been paid, and the fact that we've paid almost all the bills already, to get us through to next paycheck even after dealing with all the bills. Hell, normally we'd be jsut fine for a month without pay, except for the fact that it was jsut christmas, and we had to drop $7500 on a retainer for the custody case.
As it is, we had a gigantic legal payment jsut before christmas, then we had christmas, and now we have a $2500 payment thats due to our lawyer to maintain the retainer at a certain level.
Thankfully we called the lawyers office up and were able to defer the payment until my contracting agency fix their screwup; which won't be until next pay period.
Worse. I'm reasonably certain based on their past incompetence that because my next check will be so huge, that they are going to screw up my tax witholding yet again, and take out far more taxes than they should (as they have done on several checks this past year).
You want to know how bad it is?
Well, I've been with this contracting company 8 months now. I have predictable pay periods as I said, from between 8 and 12 workign days; and a standard pay period is 10 or 11 days. In the 15 pay periods that I've been with them, I haven't recieved the same amount of pay for the same amount of work twice; or in fact even within $30 dollars. Sometimes the discrepencies have been as large as $600. They also constantly screw up the number of hrous they aer paying me for. I file the same timesheets every 15 days, with a very clear total, that is ALWAYS DIVISIBLE BY 8; so how can they pay me for 75 hours?
I'm actually offended that this company grosses $45 an hour off me (the difference between what I'm paid, and what they charge my assignment), because they certainly don't do a damn thing for it. The only value they are adding is processing my taxes and witholding, running the invoices, and covering the "employers share" of payroll taxes.
The problem is that I can't terminate my contract with them, without giving up my position; and I'm on contract to hire going permanent on my assignment in a couple months so I can't do that. The company I'm actually working with has a policy that they can't rehire me for 18 months if I leave the contracting company.
AAAAARGH!!!!
UPDATE: Well, the company made good. I finally got the payroll adminsitrator on the phone; and she couldn't gfigure why things got screwed up, but for some reason I was only paid for 24 hours instead of 72. They cut a check last night and overnighted it to me; and it is now safe in the arms of my bank account.. where it will soon travel from to the arms of my lawyers bank account, but hey.
Oh and yes, they screwed up the withholding, but it was underwitheld nistead of overwithheld; because they calculated it based on the smaller number. Not that I mind anyway.
First, blogger is still screwed up, and so are the haloscan comments.
Joy.
Second, as many of you know, I'm an independent security and information systems contractor. I'm currently on contract, and in May will be going on FTE; as one of three senior architects for the second largest organizational division of one of the largest financial intitutions in the world. There are a total of 18 architects at this level across the organization; and we report directly to a Senior VP, who reports to the CIO, who reports to the CEO.
All in all it's a pretty high level position; that I really enjoy even for all the corporate bullshit that goes with it, except for one problem: the company I contract to the financial institution through, are complete incompetents who have screwed up my life for the past 8 months.
Today is my direct deposit day. I am paid twice monthly, 10 days after the close of my previous pay period, on the 15th and last day of every month. My hours are calculated in full day increments only, five day work weeks, and I never have two work holidays in the same pay period except Christmas.
This means unless I take a day off (and I haven't in months), I have pay periods that may cover as few as 8 days of paid work, or as many as 12 days (as few as 20, as many as 23 days in a month... in fact this month actually).
Based on this rpedictable pay patterm, I have my bills setup on a twice monthly schedule for 3 days after my direct deposit for both pay periods.
So I'm waking up this morning, and Mel comes in and says "You better call and bitch someone out", she'd just looked at the bank account and my paycheck is over $3000 SHORT!!!!!!
What! The! Fuck?
It appears that I've only been paid for three or maybe four days (24 or 32 hours) out of a 9 day pay period (1 day short because of the day after christmas). Either that or all of a sudden the've decided to withold an extra $3,000 or so in taxes for no apparent reason. I'll know after the payrol adminsitrator calls me back.
Ok, so I've established before that my contracting company are complete fuckups who can't find their ass with both hands, but how do you take a 72 hours paycheck, the final pay period of the year, the pay period that people start paying off their christmas bills... AND FUCK IT UP THAT BAD?
Okay now normally this would be livable. We havent been living paycheck to paycheck for a few months now (after my gap in gigs from mid January til the end of May las year we were catching up for a few months). We have enough in the bank, combined with what I've been paid, and the fact that we've paid almost all the bills already, to get us through to next paycheck even after dealing with all the bills. Hell, normally we'd be jsut fine for a month without pay, except for the fact that it was jsut christmas, and we had to drop $7500 on a retainer for the custody case.
As it is, we had a gigantic legal payment jsut before christmas, then we had christmas, and now we have a $2500 payment thats due to our lawyer to maintain the retainer at a certain level.
Thankfully we called the lawyers office up and were able to defer the payment until my contracting agency fix their screwup; which won't be until next pay period.
Worse. I'm reasonably certain based on their past incompetence that because my next check will be so huge, that they are going to screw up my tax witholding yet again, and take out far more taxes than they should (as they have done on several checks this past year).
You want to know how bad it is?
Well, I've been with this contracting company 8 months now. I have predictable pay periods as I said, from between 8 and 12 workign days; and a standard pay period is 10 or 11 days. In the 15 pay periods that I've been with them, I haven't recieved the same amount of pay for the same amount of work twice; or in fact even within $30 dollars. Sometimes the discrepencies have been as large as $600. They also constantly screw up the number of hrous they aer paying me for. I file the same timesheets every 15 days, with a very clear total, that is ALWAYS DIVISIBLE BY 8; so how can they pay me for 75 hours?
I'm actually offended that this company grosses $45 an hour off me (the difference between what I'm paid, and what they charge my assignment), because they certainly don't do a damn thing for it. The only value they are adding is processing my taxes and witholding, running the invoices, and covering the "employers share" of payroll taxes.
The problem is that I can't terminate my contract with them, without giving up my position; and I'm on contract to hire going permanent on my assignment in a couple months so I can't do that. The company I'm actually working with has a policy that they can't rehire me for 18 months if I leave the contracting company.
AAAAARGH!!!!
UPDATE: Well, the company made good. I finally got the payroll adminsitrator on the phone; and she couldn't gfigure why things got screwed up, but for some reason I was only paid for 24 hours instead of 72. They cut a check last night and overnighted it to me; and it is now safe in the arms of my bank account.. where it will soon travel from to the arms of my lawyers bank account, but hey.
Oh and yes, they screwed up the withholding, but it was underwitheld nistead of overwithheld; because they calculated it based on the smaller number. Not that I mind anyway.
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Site is hosed up a bit
All,
for some reason the site has been screwing up off and on all day, and aprt of yesterday; so I havent been able to post. Comments and sitemeter are also hosed.
I dont see any notices about it in any of the support forums; so I think I'm being spamdossed.
Unfortunately since I use blogger, theres nothign I can do but wait for them to fix it. Here's hoping this post goes up.
for some reason the site has been screwing up off and on all day, and aprt of yesterday; so I havent been able to post. Comments and sitemeter are also hosed.
I dont see any notices about it in any of the support forums; so I think I'm being spamdossed.
Unfortunately since I use blogger, theres nothign I can do but wait for them to fix it. Here's hoping this post goes up.
Saturday, January 06, 2007
The Playoff Picture
| THIS WEEK'S SCHEDULE - WILD CARD WEEKEND | |||||
| Saturday, Jan. 6 | |||||
| GAME | TIME | ||||
| Kansas City at Indianapolis | 4:30 pm | ||||
| Dallas at Seattle | 8:00 pm | ||||
| Sunday, Jan. 7 | |||||
| GAME | TIME | ||||
| N.Y. Jets at New England | 1:00 pm | ||||
| N.Y. Giants at Philadelphia | 4:30 pm | ||||
Wow, this season was a weird one. Funny enough, most of my thoughts about the season from the first few weeks, ended up panning out; but the WAY they panned out I don't think anyone expected.
So, the AFC division winners were for the most part not a big surprise; except San Diego who really came out of nowhere in the second half of the season to put the Chiefs and Broncos in the back seat. New England, Baltimore, and Indianapolis though were all predicatable from the first few weeks (and in fact I did so, though I thought Pittsburgh might have pulled it out.. instead they dropped like a rock). Knasas city and the Jets took the wild cards, which again was no big surprise, though I was sure Denver was going to take it up until a few weeks back.
The NFC picture was as screwed up as I thought it would be, with only Chicago standing out for the year as a particularly good team. Philly managed to sneak past Dallas and the Giants, but looked ugly doing it (and they are both the wildcards), and Seattle just barely managed 9-7; which was still good enough to win them the division ahead of St. Louis at 8-8, and two of the worst teams in football, San Francisco and Arizona at 7-9 and 5-11 respectively.
Honestly, they NFC just stank up the joint this year. In fact the Bears really great season will be forever colored by the fact that their competition was so bad this year. No team in the NFC other than the Bears managed better than 10-6, and all of them except Dallas had even or losing records against AFC teams.. in fact msot of them had even or losing records period.
Now, as to the Patriots finishing 12-4... Man I know I shouldn't be complaining, especially since I rpedicted 12-4 at the beginning of the season, but WTF? In the middle of a major winning streak which started with a shutout of Green Bay, the entire team pretty much forgets how to play and we get shut out by Miami? We lose embarrasingly to horrible teams, and yet we devestate decent ones? How about the last few games where we had more penalty yards lost than we had rushing yards gained?
This should have been, and really could have been a 13-3 or 14-2 season. We lost games we had no business losing; we had easy games turn ugly on us, Tom Brady had his worst year ever... but still, we're at 12-4, we won the division, and I think we're about 50/50 to meet Indy or San Diego in the AFC championship game; since I don't think either the Jets or the Chiefs have a shot this weekend... though as I said with how crazy this year as been who knows.
Why do I say Indy or San Diego? Simple: New England seeded lower than Indy, therefore if we win, and indy wins this weekend, we'll get Baltimore and they'll get San Diego; and I'm pretty sure we'll beat Baltimore. I just don't think Baltimore is really that good; they've been lucky and had weak competition.
The Colts have been playing inexplicably poorly for the second half of the season, but I think they'll rebound in the playoffs; unfortunately San Diego hasn't lost since week six, and doesn't plan to start right now, so I give Indy a 30/70 shot in that game.
On the NFC side, I'm guessing Dallas and Philly will pull out of this weekend; but I'm really not sure of that. I would expect the Saints to fall apart, in only their second playoff appearance; and Chicago to be able to take all comers. They are by far the best team of the playoff crop here.
So, my shot in the dark superbowl prediction? San Diego and Chicago; but I'm pulling for a repeat of the SB XX matchup... only with a different result this time.
UPDATE: ok, so no surprise with Indy, but JESUS H. CHRIST ROMO HANG ON TO THE DAMN BALL!!!
UPDATE 2 : Well hell... I screwed up the seeding procedure. The patriots rather throroughly trounced the jets (though the jets were in there all the way til the fourth quarter), not exactly surprising. Unfortunately, I screwed up the matchup procedure, and Indy will have Baltimre, while the Pats get San Diego next week.
I'll be honest, I don't expect to beat San Diego. I was pretty sure we could beat baltimore; and I'm pretty suer that INdy can too... so my guess is now that the AFC championship game will be Chargers Colts.
That doesnt' change my Superbowl prediction by the by, I still think it will be Chargers Bears.
Catching up on traffic...
Well, we're jsut about a month shy of my two year blogiversary; and since Kim was reviewing his traffic today I figured I'd take a look at mine.
I know some folks look at their traffic stats all the time... heck, I did for the first few months; but I never really bother these days. I actually missed my 500,000 mark because I wasn't paying attention... and I'm not even sure where I am in the ecosystem anymore.
Anyway, as it happens, in about three days presuming I maintain average, I'll be at 500,000 unique visits since I converted over to a blogspot blog. About two days after that I'll hit the 650,000 total unique visits since I started tracking hits on my web site, some 10 years ago. A few weeks after that, I'll hit the 1 million page views mark.
10 years of occaisonal writing on my web site, and writing on other peoples sites and mailing lists; and I averaged about 15,000 hits a year; most of those on my resume. Two years of writing just about every day on my blog, and now I get that many hits in two weeks.
Oh, and in that two years, how many days that werent vacations, holidays, or weekends (when I don't generally post) did I miss? As of this week I believe it's eight; but I'd have to double check to make sure.
Next month for my two year blogiversary I'll be putting up another "Best of Anarchangel" post; where I go through everythign I've written on the blog for the last two year, and link them all up in one huge post; I'm not going to bother doing a "best of 2006" like so many folks are doing right now.
Anyway, thanks y'all for reading.
I know some folks look at their traffic stats all the time... heck, I did for the first few months; but I never really bother these days. I actually missed my 500,000 mark because I wasn't paying attention... and I'm not even sure where I am in the ecosystem anymore.
Anyway, as it happens, in about three days presuming I maintain average, I'll be at 500,000 unique visits since I converted over to a blogspot blog. About two days after that I'll hit the 650,000 total unique visits since I started tracking hits on my web site, some 10 years ago. A few weeks after that, I'll hit the 1 million page views mark.
10 years of occaisonal writing on my web site, and writing on other peoples sites and mailing lists; and I averaged about 15,000 hits a year; most of those on my resume. Two years of writing just about every day on my blog, and now I get that many hits in two weeks.
Oh, and in that two years, how many days that werent vacations, holidays, or weekends (when I don't generally post) did I miss? As of this week I believe it's eight; but I'd have to double check to make sure.
Next month for my two year blogiversary I'll be putting up another "Best of Anarchangel" post; where I go through everythign I've written on the blog for the last two year, and link them all up in one huge post; I'm not going to bother doing a "best of 2006" like so many folks are doing right now.
Anyway, thanks y'all for reading.
Friday, January 05, 2007
Engineering
What makes a good, or great engineer?
I'm an engineer; at heart, by education, by training, by experience, and by profession.
I have degrees in aerospace, and computer engineering; I have a large amount of direct materials, mechanical, electrical, and information systems engineering experience and training; but those things are not what made me an engineer.
I'm an engineer, because it's what I am, mind body and soul. It's wired into me at the very base level of my intelligence and personality. Sure I could have chosen to do something else, some other profession; and I've certainly held jobs that had little (on the surface) to do with engineering; but an engineer is what I am, no matter what I do. Even serving in the Air Force, and doing security work; I've always had an engineering mindset and method, because it's simply who I am...
Of course most people don't really understand what an engineer is, or does, or what that mindset means; they make an assumption based on their surface perceptions, that has little to do with what makes an engineer.
A competent engineer can be trained, or develop through experience; but a great engineer has to be born that way, AND develop through training, education, and experience.
All three are critical to good or great engineering.
Without experience, very little that you do will be useful, efficient, or just plain work right. Experience teaches you how to screw up less, how to do things easier, and how to recover from errors.
It's hard to get experience without at least some training (including self training); or at least it's hard to get useful and instructive experience. Training gives you the basic familiarity with systems, components, and methodologies that allows you to gain useful understanding, and do things efficiently.
It's hard to make anything new without education (including self education); and if you aren't building new things, or coming up with new ways of doing old things; you aren't an engineer, you're a technician. Education helps you to understand the theories and science and reasoning and motivation behind the training and experience you have accumulate; and helps you to understand those lessons, and how they apply to new and different components, systems, and methodologies.
Ok, but what is a good engineer? What is engineering?
Engineering is the art of HOW. How things work, how things are built, how things interact and react, how problems are solved.
Engineering is the fusion of the theoretical and empirical. Scientist understand WHY things work, technicians know THAT things work if they do certain things... but engineers understand HOW things work (and to do so must understand much of the other two), and this understanding allows them to do and build, and fix new things.
A great engineer is a great engineer, no matter what their discipline; no, not all knowledge and experience transfers, but if someone makes great mechanical engineer, they most likely could make a great aerospace engineer, or nuclear engineer with the proper motivation, training, and experience; because great engineering requires three fnudamental drives or abilities in edition to training, education, and experience:
If you can do these things, you will be a good engineer; even if you are a poor scientist or technician. If you cannot do these things, you may be a competent engineer; but you'll never be great, or even good. If you can only do one or two of these things, you may end up a good scientist or technician, but you'll never be a great engineer.
When I interview engineers for a job, I ask them all the usual questions, and then a throw one out there from left field: "Tell me what devices or pieces of technology you have in your house. Ok, now tell me how they all work".
If they are a real engineer, they'll be able to do it for just about everything; because they couldn't stand to have something around them that they didn't understand the workings of. Then they'll be able t take the knowledge of how those systems work, and apply them to microwave transcievers, or production line control systems, or large dataset search routines.
Now, take what I've just said makes a great engineer; and stop thinking about mechanical systems like cars, and computers.
Engineers are not just mechanics, or machinists, or programmers; they understand SYSTEMS, and by that I don't mean computer systems, or tooling systems or anything else normal people think of when they hear the word system.
A system, is a set of inter-related and interacting components, actions, decisions, behaviors, results, inputs, outputs, and feedback; be it a machine, or a busy intersection, or a city, or a society, or a person; they're all systems.
Normal people look at the world and they see people and places and things going about their business; engineers see something entirely different. We see systems interacting at every level; every action, reaction, result, behavior... they're all interconnected.
This is one reason why engineers are so ... well... absolute about absolutes, and so fuzzy about those things that are not absolutes.
To illustrate, let me use an example I've used before in this blog: the Steven DenBeste canonical example of the difference between how engineers look at energy production, and how the non-engineer looks at it.
Any good engineer can tell you: no amount of engineering will produce an energy source that is more reliable, cheaper, more available, safer, more environmentally friendly, and as energetic, as fossil fuels. That is what it would take to completely replace them in our world, and it simply cannot be done; so it isn't going to happen; at least not until fossil fuels are so expensive that other alternatives make more sense, in which case the maket will dicate those other alternatives are developed... which of course will make fossil fuesl cheaper becasue demand will be reduced, which will mean less incentive to devlop alternative technologies until the cycle repeats itself a few times.
The primary energy source for the human race was wood from pre-history until the developement of technologies for cheaply extracting coal in the late 18th century. We first discovered oil was a useful fuel for lamps, and for destructive devices, back in classical greek times. It took us til the 1860s to really start working with petroleum as anything other than a nuisance. It was the 1890s before we started using it much as a fuel, and then it was mostly used for heat and light. It wasn't until the 1920s and the widespread rise of the automobile and the airplane before oil became our societies primary source of fuel; and we are STILL using coal for something like half of all our electircal power generation around the world. The technological cycle is accelerating, but it doesnt work overnight.
When a good engineer says something is impossible, they mean that for all practical purposes it cannot be done; not that it's very hard, or that "we don't know how to do it", which is what most people mean when they say something is impossible. If a good engineer thinks something is possible, but very very hard, they'll tell you.
Some people see, to think that every scientific or technical problem can eventually be solved if we jsut get enough smart people, working hard enough, with enough money and resources. Unfortunately, that just isn't true. Great enringeering can do amazing things... even do what is seemingly impossible, by doing things in ways that circumvent limitations. This ability to do amazing things with engineering has created the expectation I mention above in may people who should really know better. The thing is, no amount of engineering, no matter how brilliant, no matter how technically advanced, no matter how innovative; can change, or get around the laws of physics. In order to "do the impossible", the very laws of the universe have to change, or at least our understanding of them does.
It is impossible for solar technologies to economically replace fossil fuels; and even uneconomically the environmental impact would be far higher than that of the fuels they are replacing.
The exact same could be said about wind power, tidal power, geothermal power... really almost all of the so called "alternative energy" sources. It is impossible to entirely, or even substantially replace fossil fuels with the so called "alternative" energy sources being promoted as environmentally friendly; without either destroying our society through the massive increase in the cost of energy, or hurting the planet far worse than fossil fuels ever could.
Note I do not say "we don't know how to", or "it would be very hard to"; it is for all PRACTICAL purposes, impossible; because to do so would require a fundamental change in the way physics and the universe work as we know it. There is an infinitessimal chance that such a change would occure, therefore when going into detail I say "for all practical purposes".
Again, that one hedge, doesn't mean what non-engineers mean when they say it. A normal person say"for all practical purposes", and they mean "it would be very hard and expensive to do so"; when an engineer says it he's saying that it would require a change in the fundamental laws of the universe to work.
This isn't to say that some of these technologies are not useful, and desirable as supplemental to fossil fuels; just that we can't replace fossil fuels with them, either entirely, or even mostly.
There is one currently working technology, and two very promising future technologies to replace fossil fuels. The first is mature, stable, and useful technically; and will become more so as engineering develops the systems to take advantage of it. The other two, we don't really know how to do right yet, or in the case of the second, even if it will be possible to do so.
If you're an engineer, you already know what three technologies I'm speaking of: nuclear fission, large scale use of hydrogen as a fuel, and nuclear fusion.
Nuclear fission is a well understood technology. It is still an immature field and market; largely because of political considerations; but it's safe, it works, and given proper economies of scale and a favorable regulatory environment, it's relatively inexpensive.
Of course the primary problem there is political; in that the envriowhacko movement has made large scale nuclear power all but impossible for now, in most places. Secondarily, we haven't developed the technologies necessary to parochially replace our use of fossil fuels with electricity.
As to the first issue, as time goes on I believe that nuclear fission will become the dominant means of electrical power generation in the industrialized world; because we need more and more power to keep that world industrialized, and the generation of power through fossil fuels is dirty, and expensive; and will continue to become more so.
As to the second, well there's no certainty we'll ever be able to replace fossil fuels with electricity... in fact there's a near certainty we wont be able to entirely, but that we'll be able to replace enough, that fossil fuels will become a very small concern, or could be replaced with other alternatives.
Fusion, is a lot like fission on the practical technical side, in that we don't have the systems necessary to use electric power as a fossil fuel replacement yet; but in the case of fusion the problem is more fundamental. We THINK we can figure out how to make fusion useful, controllable, safe, practical, and efficient... but we don't KNOW yet. We BELIEVE that the physics of the question are understood, and do not prevent us from engineering the solution as time goes on.
The problem is, we've been working on it for fifty years now, and we're still crawling like babies. It's going to take a hell of a lot more work just to make sure it can actually be done; and then a hell of a lot more work to actually engineer the solutions to doing it.
In the mean time, we should be doing as much as possible to engineer the changeover to an electrical energy world; using nuclear fission as the power source.
The final technology I mention as being potentially useful, is hydrogen fuel. Hydrogen is great, because it's energy dense (by weight anyway), it's the most common substance in the universe, and the only byproducts from its use in an oxygen atmosphere are heat and water. There are two primary potential uses for hydrogen as an energy source: In fuel cells to generate electricity, and as a direct fuel for turbine, and compression engines (like gasoline or diesel motors for example).
The first requires that we once again come up with ways to replace fossil fuels with electricity... which of course means that we should be engineering more and better ways of doing that; after all, ALL of our promising technologies for replacing fossil fuels require it.
The second usage requires us to engineer engines that use hydrogen as their fuel; something that is very much doable; and in fact something that has been in nascent stages for over 100 years; but because of the cheap availability and usefulness of fossil fuels was never developed very much.
Of course the practical problems with hydrogen are substantial. First, how do you extract the hydrogen from its base sources (primarily water and natural gas using current technologies)? Second, how do you safely transport it and distribute it? Third, what do you do with all the water vapor and waste heat being created when the hydrogen is being used as a primary fuel source? Fourth, how do you solve all of these problems economically?
The good news is that these are all well understood technical issues from a scientific standpoint; what remains is to engineer the solutions, and then build the infrastructure; and THAT is a political and social problem not a technical one.
So what do I think is going to happen? Well I would guess that as I said, nuclear fission power will become the dominant source of electrical power; and we will slowly shift as much as possible away from fossil fuels and into electric power. As we do so, hydrogen power will develop very slowly, because with less demand, fossil fuels will become far less expensive, and less of an environmental problem. From there, the market will determine the solution; but unless someone comes up with a massive engineering and economic upside to hydrogen, we'll probably keep using fossil fuels for the foreseeable future.
Long digression there with a lot of maybes and could bes and caveats right? Like I said, if it's not an absolute, we're pretty fuzzy about it. Normal people will say "Yes we can do this if we work hard enough" or "No we can't do this"; engineers will say "We can do this if... and its going to be hard if... but maybe... let me try this..."
Of course this method of looking at the world, for all it's advantages and abilities, has a problem. When you look at everything as interconnected systems, you tend to expect that systems and behaviors will be at least marginally predictable or reasonable, or rational.
One problem with that, human beings aren't. People are very complex systems, and they don't have consistent rules or behaviors. They ahve motivations, and passions, and understandings, and misunderstandings, and chaos, and fear, and inspiration... but the one thing they don't have is consistenly understandable or predictable rules or behaviors.
The universe is perverse. Complex systems are simply not rational or predictable, except at the macro level (and sometimes not even then); because of chaos theory, because of the law of unintended consequences, hell even because of the second law of thermodynamics.
The truly great engineers of this world know and understand this, at as deep a level as their understanding of systems; and thus they can function in the world without isolating themselves, or destroying themselves; or their relationships with those around them.
In fact, through this understanding, they can produce and express true brilliance; and if they're lucky they can achieve that which so few do: happiness
Unfortunately, there're a hell of a lot of otherwise good engineers who persist and insist on treating complex systems, and complex people; as if they were predictable, and rational. Those people don't generally end up very happy at all.
I'm an engineer; at heart, by education, by training, by experience, and by profession.
I have degrees in aerospace, and computer engineering; I have a large amount of direct materials, mechanical, electrical, and information systems engineering experience and training; but those things are not what made me an engineer.
I'm an engineer, because it's what I am, mind body and soul. It's wired into me at the very base level of my intelligence and personality. Sure I could have chosen to do something else, some other profession; and I've certainly held jobs that had little (on the surface) to do with engineering; but an engineer is what I am, no matter what I do. Even serving in the Air Force, and doing security work; I've always had an engineering mindset and method, because it's simply who I am...
Of course most people don't really understand what an engineer is, or does, or what that mindset means; they make an assumption based on their surface perceptions, that has little to do with what makes an engineer.
A competent engineer can be trained, or develop through experience; but a great engineer has to be born that way, AND develop through training, education, and experience.
All three are critical to good or great engineering.
Without experience, very little that you do will be useful, efficient, or just plain work right. Experience teaches you how to screw up less, how to do things easier, and how to recover from errors.
It's hard to get experience without at least some training (including self training); or at least it's hard to get useful and instructive experience. Training gives you the basic familiarity with systems, components, and methodologies that allows you to gain useful understanding, and do things efficiently.
It's hard to make anything new without education (including self education); and if you aren't building new things, or coming up with new ways of doing old things; you aren't an engineer, you're a technician. Education helps you to understand the theories and science and reasoning and motivation behind the training and experience you have accumulate; and helps you to understand those lessons, and how they apply to new and different components, systems, and methodologies.
Ok, but what is a good engineer? What is engineering?
Engineering is the art of HOW. How things work, how things are built, how things interact and react, how problems are solved.
Engineering is the fusion of the theoretical and empirical. Scientist understand WHY things work, technicians know THAT things work if they do certain things... but engineers understand HOW things work (and to do so must understand much of the other two), and this understanding allows them to do and build, and fix new things.
A great engineer is a great engineer, no matter what their discipline; no, not all knowledge and experience transfers, but if someone makes great mechanical engineer, they most likely could make a great aerospace engineer, or nuclear engineer with the proper motivation, training, and experience; because great engineering requires three fnudamental drives or abilities in edition to training, education, and experience:
1. The innate understanding of how components, systems, and methodologies interact with each other; and the ability to distinguish and determine causation, correlation, and effect.W call the synthesis of these things, ingenuity; and it's what makes engineers something other than technicians or scientists.
2. The absolute drive to figure out the "how" of everything around them.
3. The ability to generalize knowledge, experience, and insight gained on one system, component. or methodology; to other systems, components, and methodologies; similar or dissimilar.
If you can do these things, you will be a good engineer; even if you are a poor scientist or technician. If you cannot do these things, you may be a competent engineer; but you'll never be great, or even good. If you can only do one or two of these things, you may end up a good scientist or technician, but you'll never be a great engineer.
When I interview engineers for a job, I ask them all the usual questions, and then a throw one out there from left field: "Tell me what devices or pieces of technology you have in your house. Ok, now tell me how they all work".
If they are a real engineer, they'll be able to do it for just about everything; because they couldn't stand to have something around them that they didn't understand the workings of. Then they'll be able t take the knowledge of how those systems work, and apply them to microwave transcievers, or production line control systems, or large dataset search routines.
Now, take what I've just said makes a great engineer; and stop thinking about mechanical systems like cars, and computers.
Engineers are not just mechanics, or machinists, or programmers; they understand SYSTEMS, and by that I don't mean computer systems, or tooling systems or anything else normal people think of when they hear the word system.
A system, is a set of inter-related and interacting components, actions, decisions, behaviors, results, inputs, outputs, and feedback; be it a machine, or a busy intersection, or a city, or a society, or a person; they're all systems.
Normal people look at the world and they see people and places and things going about their business; engineers see something entirely different. We see systems interacting at every level; every action, reaction, result, behavior... they're all interconnected.
This is one reason why engineers are so ... well... absolute about absolutes, and so fuzzy about those things that are not absolutes.
To illustrate, let me use an example I've used before in this blog: the Steven DenBeste canonical example of the difference between how engineers look at energy production, and how the non-engineer looks at it.
Any good engineer can tell you: no amount of engineering will produce an energy source that is more reliable, cheaper, more available, safer, more environmentally friendly, and as energetic, as fossil fuels. That is what it would take to completely replace them in our world, and it simply cannot be done; so it isn't going to happen; at least not until fossil fuels are so expensive that other alternatives make more sense, in which case the maket will dicate those other alternatives are developed... which of course will make fossil fuesl cheaper becasue demand will be reduced, which will mean less incentive to devlop alternative technologies until the cycle repeats itself a few times.
The primary energy source for the human race was wood from pre-history until the developement of technologies for cheaply extracting coal in the late 18th century. We first discovered oil was a useful fuel for lamps, and for destructive devices, back in classical greek times. It took us til the 1860s to really start working with petroleum as anything other than a nuisance. It was the 1890s before we started using it much as a fuel, and then it was mostly used for heat and light. It wasn't until the 1920s and the widespread rise of the automobile and the airplane before oil became our societies primary source of fuel; and we are STILL using coal for something like half of all our electircal power generation around the world. The technological cycle is accelerating, but it doesnt work overnight.
When a good engineer says something is impossible, they mean that for all practical purposes it cannot be done; not that it's very hard, or that "we don't know how to do it", which is what most people mean when they say something is impossible. If a good engineer thinks something is possible, but very very hard, they'll tell you.
Some people see, to think that every scientific or technical problem can eventually be solved if we jsut get enough smart people, working hard enough, with enough money and resources. Unfortunately, that just isn't true. Great enringeering can do amazing things... even do what is seemingly impossible, by doing things in ways that circumvent limitations. This ability to do amazing things with engineering has created the expectation I mention above in may people who should really know better. The thing is, no amount of engineering, no matter how brilliant, no matter how technically advanced, no matter how innovative; can change, or get around the laws of physics. In order to "do the impossible", the very laws of the universe have to change, or at least our understanding of them does.
It is impossible for solar technologies to economically replace fossil fuels; and even uneconomically the environmental impact would be far higher than that of the fuels they are replacing.
The exact same could be said about wind power, tidal power, geothermal power... really almost all of the so called "alternative energy" sources. It is impossible to entirely, or even substantially replace fossil fuels with the so called "alternative" energy sources being promoted as environmentally friendly; without either destroying our society through the massive increase in the cost of energy, or hurting the planet far worse than fossil fuels ever could.
Note I do not say "we don't know how to", or "it would be very hard to"; it is for all PRACTICAL purposes, impossible; because to do so would require a fundamental change in the way physics and the universe work as we know it. There is an infinitessimal chance that such a change would occure, therefore when going into detail I say "for all practical purposes".
Again, that one hedge, doesn't mean what non-engineers mean when they say it. A normal person say"for all practical purposes", and they mean "it would be very hard and expensive to do so"; when an engineer says it he's saying that it would require a change in the fundamental laws of the universe to work.
This isn't to say that some of these technologies are not useful, and desirable as supplemental to fossil fuels; just that we can't replace fossil fuels with them, either entirely, or even mostly.
There is one currently working technology, and two very promising future technologies to replace fossil fuels. The first is mature, stable, and useful technically; and will become more so as engineering develops the systems to take advantage of it. The other two, we don't really know how to do right yet, or in the case of the second, even if it will be possible to do so.
If you're an engineer, you already know what three technologies I'm speaking of: nuclear fission, large scale use of hydrogen as a fuel, and nuclear fusion.
Nuclear fission is a well understood technology. It is still an immature field and market; largely because of political considerations; but it's safe, it works, and given proper economies of scale and a favorable regulatory environment, it's relatively inexpensive.
Of course the primary problem there is political; in that the envriowhacko movement has made large scale nuclear power all but impossible for now, in most places. Secondarily, we haven't developed the technologies necessary to parochially replace our use of fossil fuels with electricity.
As to the first issue, as time goes on I believe that nuclear fission will become the dominant means of electrical power generation in the industrialized world; because we need more and more power to keep that world industrialized, and the generation of power through fossil fuels is dirty, and expensive; and will continue to become more so.
As to the second, well there's no certainty we'll ever be able to replace fossil fuels with electricity... in fact there's a near certainty we wont be able to entirely, but that we'll be able to replace enough, that fossil fuels will become a very small concern, or could be replaced with other alternatives.
Fusion, is a lot like fission on the practical technical side, in that we don't have the systems necessary to use electric power as a fossil fuel replacement yet; but in the case of fusion the problem is more fundamental. We THINK we can figure out how to make fusion useful, controllable, safe, practical, and efficient... but we don't KNOW yet. We BELIEVE that the physics of the question are understood, and do not prevent us from engineering the solution as time goes on.
The problem is, we've been working on it for fifty years now, and we're still crawling like babies. It's going to take a hell of a lot more work just to make sure it can actually be done; and then a hell of a lot more work to actually engineer the solutions to doing it.
In the mean time, we should be doing as much as possible to engineer the changeover to an electrical energy world; using nuclear fission as the power source.
The final technology I mention as being potentially useful, is hydrogen fuel. Hydrogen is great, because it's energy dense (by weight anyway), it's the most common substance in the universe, and the only byproducts from its use in an oxygen atmosphere are heat and water. There are two primary potential uses for hydrogen as an energy source: In fuel cells to generate electricity, and as a direct fuel for turbine, and compression engines (like gasoline or diesel motors for example).
The first requires that we once again come up with ways to replace fossil fuels with electricity... which of course means that we should be engineering more and better ways of doing that; after all, ALL of our promising technologies for replacing fossil fuels require it.
The second usage requires us to engineer engines that use hydrogen as their fuel; something that is very much doable; and in fact something that has been in nascent stages for over 100 years; but because of the cheap availability and usefulness of fossil fuels was never developed very much.
Of course the practical problems with hydrogen are substantial. First, how do you extract the hydrogen from its base sources (primarily water and natural gas using current technologies)? Second, how do you safely transport it and distribute it? Third, what do you do with all the water vapor and waste heat being created when the hydrogen is being used as a primary fuel source? Fourth, how do you solve all of these problems economically?
The good news is that these are all well understood technical issues from a scientific standpoint; what remains is to engineer the solutions, and then build the infrastructure; and THAT is a political and social problem not a technical one.
So what do I think is going to happen? Well I would guess that as I said, nuclear fission power will become the dominant source of electrical power; and we will slowly shift as much as possible away from fossil fuels and into electric power. As we do so, hydrogen power will develop very slowly, because with less demand, fossil fuels will become far less expensive, and less of an environmental problem. From there, the market will determine the solution; but unless someone comes up with a massive engineering and economic upside to hydrogen, we'll probably keep using fossil fuels for the foreseeable future.
Long digression there with a lot of maybes and could bes and caveats right? Like I said, if it's not an absolute, we're pretty fuzzy about it. Normal people will say "Yes we can do this if we work hard enough" or "No we can't do this"; engineers will say "We can do this if... and its going to be hard if... but maybe... let me try this..."
Of course this method of looking at the world, for all it's advantages and abilities, has a problem. When you look at everything as interconnected systems, you tend to expect that systems and behaviors will be at least marginally predictable or reasonable, or rational.
One problem with that, human beings aren't. People are very complex systems, and they don't have consistent rules or behaviors. They ahve motivations, and passions, and understandings, and misunderstandings, and chaos, and fear, and inspiration... but the one thing they don't have is consistenly understandable or predictable rules or behaviors.
The universe is perverse. Complex systems are simply not rational or predictable, except at the macro level (and sometimes not even then); because of chaos theory, because of the law of unintended consequences, hell even because of the second law of thermodynamics.
The truly great engineers of this world know and understand this, at as deep a level as their understanding of systems; and thus they can function in the world without isolating themselves, or destroying themselves; or their relationships with those around them.
In fact, through this understanding, they can produce and express true brilliance; and if they're lucky they can achieve that which so few do: happiness
Unfortunately, there're a hell of a lot of otherwise good engineers who persist and insist on treating complex systems, and complex people; as if they were predictable, and rational. Those people don't generally end up very happy at all.
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Weight Loss Regress Report
Well, I can't very well call it a progress report now can I...
When we last caught up with our intrepid hero, he had managed to lose 60lbs between September 11th, and December 11th of 2006.
No mean feat let me tell you.
Well, combine knee injury, a month of near idleness due to sinus and upper respiratory infection, and the holiday diet hiatus, and I've managed to put 20lbs back on in the last month.
Now, I was planning on this. That's why we called a diet hiatus. Too many folks try to rigidly stick to their diets through the holidays and fail miserably which makes them give up in frustration. Not us; we just said "screw it, we're going to enjoy our holidays", and so we declared a hiatus for thanksgiving weekend, and another one from December 15th through January first.
I mean seriously folks; did you think I would go through Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Years without enjoying the 26lb Turkey, 22lb ham, 6lb prime rib roast, cream sauce, gravy, creme brulee, and the dozens of cakes and cookies (actually, hundreds of cookies in fact) that went along with it?
As of today though, it's back on the diet; and as soon as the final dregs of my sinus clear up, back to the workout schedule (do NOT try to work out with a sinus infection; it will do nasty things to you).
Am I upset by the 20lb re-gain? Hell no. It's normal and expected. Heck, it jsut shows I had a good time. Besides 20lbs may sound like a lot to you, but for a guy like me, 20lbs is like a woman putting on 5lbs over the holidays. No big deal.
Amazingly enough, Mel has managed to not gain any weight at all this month, and has in fact continued (though just barely), to lose weight. Her total is now floating between 17-19 lbs. with another 45-50 to go.
And yes, the food was worth it.. sooo so worth it.
When we last caught up with our intrepid hero, he had managed to lose 60lbs between September 11th, and December 11th of 2006.
No mean feat let me tell you.
Well, combine knee injury, a month of near idleness due to sinus and upper respiratory infection, and the holiday diet hiatus, and I've managed to put 20lbs back on in the last month.
Now, I was planning on this. That's why we called a diet hiatus. Too many folks try to rigidly stick to their diets through the holidays and fail miserably which makes them give up in frustration. Not us; we just said "screw it, we're going to enjoy our holidays", and so we declared a hiatus for thanksgiving weekend, and another one from December 15th through January first.
I mean seriously folks; did you think I would go through Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Years without enjoying the 26lb Turkey, 22lb ham, 6lb prime rib roast, cream sauce, gravy, creme brulee, and the dozens of cakes and cookies (actually, hundreds of cookies in fact) that went along with it?
As of today though, it's back on the diet; and as soon as the final dregs of my sinus clear up, back to the workout schedule (do NOT try to work out with a sinus infection; it will do nasty things to you).
Am I upset by the 20lb re-gain? Hell no. It's normal and expected. Heck, it jsut shows I had a good time. Besides 20lbs may sound like a lot to you, but for a guy like me, 20lbs is like a woman putting on 5lbs over the holidays. No big deal.
Amazingly enough, Mel has managed to not gain any weight at all this month, and has in fact continued (though just barely), to lose weight. Her total is now floating between 17-19 lbs. with another 45-50 to go.
And yes, the food was worth it.. sooo so worth it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)