A Not-to-Do List

I found this "not-to-do" list and thought it interesting enough to post about. In summary, the list of nine items is:

1. Don't answer calls from unrecognized numbers.
2. Don't email first thing or last thing in the day.
3. Don't agree to meetings with no agenda or end time.
4. Don't let others ramble.
5. Don't check email constantly.
6. Don't over-communicate with low-profit customers.
7. When overwhelmed, don't work more--prioritize.
8. Don't carry a cellphone or crackberry 24/7.
9. Don't expect work to make up for a sucky personal life.

Hmm. I am guilty of a few of these, most notably #2 and #5. I write emails any time I need to. I check my email (company email, that is), often. I have no choice with #1--not every corporate phone number shows up in caller ID. Most external numbers do show up. And I answer the phone. Likewise, I have no choice about #3 or #4. It's a corporate culture thing. We don't often get agendas; meetings are usually 1 hour. Exchanging pleasantries is a career expanding thing. I tried the other; it didn't work.

I am conspicuously not guilty of #7, #8 or #9. I am killer when it comes to focusing effort when things get busy. I like to say that nothing focuses your mind better than an impending deadline. Not everyone works better under pressure, however. And I can still become overwhelmed at times, particularly when I'm not sure what I should do. I rarely have to put in overtime.

I don't have a corporate cellphone--yet--and I don't like to take calls outside of regular hours. Others don't agree; I turn the damn thing off in retaliation. My home life is fine, and it's easily the most important thing I have going for me. So there.

More DnD stuff

As if anyone is interested.

I viewed the videos of the GenCon 2007 presentation the two Wizards guys gave. Find them on YouTube, here, here, here, and here. The teaser (actually funny, if you are a DnD geek) is found here.

The presentation, while informant, had all the panache and excitement of announcing a new drill at a dental convention. Charismatic presenters, these guys ain't. And they practiced beforehand, too!

I found the prototype computer-based version of the game, with all the 3D character building stuff, to be interesting, but ultimately lame. I play the game for the social aspects. Maybe I'm the only one on the planet who does, but I have very little interest of sitting around the table with a bunch of friends who are only looking at their laptop screens. I could do that at home, if I wanted. Of course, I could be wrong. We'll see.

I checked out the two scoop videos, as well. Poor guy. Chris Thomasson has a lisp that's almost the classical geek lisp. But where in hell did all the business-speak come from? What's up with being "tasked with X" or "in the Y space"? Surely there's a way to say this stuff in English. But beyond that, he really needs to get out of his basement, sometime.

They all do.

Fourth edition of DnD coming

I saw a post in Slashdot about this, then followed it to Jonathan Drain's D20 Source blog (good stuff for those who play DnD). I've been reading the 4e notes on EN World. Interesting stuff.

Despite being "old", I still play DnD. Well, I was playing DnD until recently. Back when the 3.5 edition came out, we all (my gaming pals) switched to it, and thought it was an improved rule set. I dunno, maybe not so improved. It seems the characters I develop and choose to play are rarely powerful enough. No, I don't blame the rules gurus who know every friggin' rule in every book--it shouldn't be that hard to come up with a compelling character that's both satisfying and playable. And by playable I mean not lame.

From the sound of it, the 4e rules for basic fantasy DnD should be an improvement. More options, fewer lock-ins as you advance your character. Less penalization just because you chose to make a Gnomish Bard, for example. Ah, but enough complaining. Perhaps I will find renewed interest in the game once the new rules come out.

Firefox blocked by websites?

From Techdirt via Slashdot: Some asshats out there want to block Firefox users (oh, and it's Firefox, not FireFox). They claim that folks using ad blocking software are stealing free content from ad-supported sites, so they want to deny all Firefox users from accessing their sites.

But here is the part that has me mystified:

Demographics have shown that not only are FireFox users a somewhat small percentage of the internet, they actually are even smaller in terms of online spending, therefore blocking FireFox seems to have only minimal financial drawbacks, whereas ending resource theft has tremendous financial rewards for honest, hard-working website owners and developers.

Let's examine what's wrong with this statement:

• Firefox is actually used by a lot of people, though it accounts for only 13% of hits on my website. It's a damn good browser. Incidentally, IE 7.0 accounts for only 2% of hits. Almost everything else is IE 6.0.
  
• No, I would not say we spend less online than other people, and we use Firefox. In fact, we spend a lot online. Of course, I am speaking only for my household.
• Sure, pissing off your customers (potential and otherwise) has always worked as a good strategy for growing your business. Not.
• Exactly how is blocking those who don't spend money online going to increase your rewards? It only makes you feel better (superior?), and ensures fewer people buy from you.

I read some of the Techdirt comments, and some fools seem to think that not wanting to see ads on websites really is "theft". Wow. That blows me away. You put up a website on the free and open Internet. To make some money, you put ads on the site, hoping folks who see the ads will visit your advertisers and send some revenue your way. Now you think your visitors should be required to view the ads or they're stealing from you?

Yeah, go piss off all your most technical early adopters, that will surely work. Jebus, I am surrounded by asshats!

Time Warp, Indeed

What Does Freedom Mean To You?

Here is what freedom means to Rudi Giuliani:

"Freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."

I wonder how many folks would agree with that statement? I wonder how many of our own Founding Fathers would have agreed? Methinks very few. Very, very few.

Just thought you'd want to know what (some) of our "leaders" think.

Misunderstood: The Promethean Circuits of the Prefrontal Cortex

I found this article via BoingBoing. The experiment mentioned in the article brings up some interesting points about human behavior and the relative imbalance we seem to have between satisfying our animalistic urges, i.e., immediate gratification, and obeying our rational, disciplined selves. It seems the animal urges win out more often than is ... optimal.

My own theory has been that there are two basic kinds of people. (Of course there are!) One kind leads with their heart (that would be my wife), and the other kind leads with their head. That would be me. There's nothing inherently wrong with either approach, it's just that you need to match the bias to the situation.

Don't marry someone just because you think they will satisfy your emotional needs. Of course, that happens rather too frequently, to much regret and gnashing of teeth, later on. For this particular situation, both your heart and your head absolutely must be in agreement. It's all right to use your heart when choosing a movie for the evening. Or a wine to share with someone you love. But when it comes to decisions with lasting implications, it may be best to leave your heart off the list at the big people's table.

I want to make an observation, however. Life sucks. And the general level of suckage is increasing. And that's not just because I'm getting older, either. So, given that there's an ever dwindling level of "feel good" in our lives, can you really blame us for wanting to take the easy way out? Here's my point. I am considering trading in my 15 year mortgage on a 30 year loan just so I can put more disposable income in my pocket now. While I can spend it and not be hobbling around--or worse. Sure, I am well on my way to full home ownership in about 10 years, but I'm also thinking how much less I am going to like not having a mortgage payment when I'm 60-ish. Of course it doesn't quite make sense, but that points us to my final point: It's very hard to judge the level of "betterness" we might have in the future, against the much more tangible level of betterness we could almost certainly have in the present. We could die tomorrow. Then where would we be?

Gather ye rosebuds while ye may. Indeed.

Obama, Tancredo, and the Insanity of Destruction

I have been following the "flap" over comments Barack Obama has made regarding the use (or non-use) of nuclear weapons in the search for bin Laden. You can google it yourself, if you care.

Obama said, and I paraphrase, that he would not authorize use of nuclear weapons in the hunt for bin Laden, and he was roundly criticized for that position. Say what? Just how nuts do you have to be to believe that any use of nuclear weapons anywhere is sound policy? Personally, I don't want a president who would risk the kinds of retaliation that would result--let alone sanction the kinds of indiscriminate destruction that these weapons would bring. I am not soft in the head--thinking that you can solve problems by blowing up other parts of the planet is just insane. Thinking that only we have that power is truly naive, because we aren't the only ones with bombs.

Then we have congresscritter Tom Tancredo (R-etarded), who is proposing the US bomb Muslim holy places as a means of punishing our enemies for an attack on US soil. What good could possibly come of angering the remaining 90%+ of Muslims who aren't already bent on our destruction? We should defend those places, instead. Here's a quote: "If it's up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites..." Good thing it isn't up to him, I guess.

Mr. Learsy properly labels Rep. Tancredo's position as "grandiloquent dementia", to which I would add: of the highest order. We really cannot risk a totally insane path of mutual destruction. Not this time. Our enemies are not a government. They aren't rational; it's a holy war for them. Let me make this clear: they are fully prepared to die for their beliefs. I truly believe we (the US) are not ready to make that kind of sacrifice, because we should be aware that such irrational actions could lead to the destruction of the planet for everyone. Violence only begets more violence; bombs only beget bombs.