Burns Me Up

On my commute to work this morning while sitting at a red light I watched 3 workers on a highway crew using leaf blowers to blow debris from the top of a concrete island at a intersection back onto the highway.

Why are we blowing things around, doesn't it make more sense to actually pick things up?

Doesn't it make more sense simply to use a broom and a dust pan to pick up the debris?  Or in the case of leaves, actually use a rake?

To actually remove the trash using some "low tech" method, rather than simply blowing it around, you would actually be cleaning up, and not be wasting the power used to run the leaf blowers.  Not sure if the leaf blowers were gas powered or electric, but either way, they are using some form of fuel or energy.

Someone needs to help me understand this concept of leaf blowers. 

In a recent forum post regarding a major system upgrade I read the comment from one of the end users that the changes made were probably because of those "IT types that want something new to tinker with."

As someone who has been in the technology field for many years, I will tell you point blank, seasoned IT professionals do NOT want something new to tinker with when it comes to a production network or system, and will almost always err on the side of caution when it comes to adding something new or changing anything.  We understand that change, any kind of change that has an impact on end users, will create headaches.

It is really frustrating to see remarks like that.  For many IT Managers, there too many cooks in the kitchen telling you what kind of soup to cook. How would you like to be the responsible for cooking the soup, and not even being allowed to shop for your own ingredients?


The unfortunate thing in technology, and again I speak from many years of experience in the field, is that most technology decisions are made for reasons other than technology.  "IT types" usually have some say in how things are implement, but rarely have the ultimate say in what gets implemented and when.  In many cases choices are made by some form of committee, or at least influenced by other non technical departments.  As the old joke goes, if a camel were designed by a committee it would have 12 humps.

In this internet age of blogs and forums, everyone is giving advice. I believe in karma, and the concept of pay it forward.  I have learned many lessons in life, and have many experiences to share.  If there is a quick tip or trick on a given topic I can share, I try my best to communicate it. However, if someone asks me a question, and I don't know the answer, I don't feel obligated to make one up.

I read the following remark in a forum the other day, and I just wish I could find the person making the remark so I could deliver a whack up side their head...

I've never used product x,  but what I believe is ...

In the first half of the sentence they are stating they have no first hand experience in the matter, but in the second half of the sentence they are giving their opinion. What frustrates me even more is this was on a technology issue.  How can you claim to be a technology professional, and give an opinion on something you have no first hand experience?

For anyone who should stumble upon my humble blog, if nothing else I have ever said is ever remembered, I hope the next few sentences are remembered.

Talk is cheap, wisdom is priceless.

When asking questions, you want an answer based on experience, not speculation. When asking for directions, first ask if the person giving the directions has ever been there themselves. 

The second "burns me up" rant in a row. Not trying to be negative, but this is what's on my mind right now.

A few days back I was on Linkedin, reading through discussions groups and user profiles, and I just had the overwhelming urge to enter the following comment on my profile...   "Buzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz words make me tired."

I know in our world today, and especially in technology, acronyms and buzz words are sometimes hard to avoid.  But in discussion groups, and web site profiles, the bombardment to the brain of massive doses of this jargon makes me want to scream.

I have preached myself, early and often, the doctrine of "keep it simple stupid."  Most of my blog entries, and teaching over the years, while often about technology, is written with the hopes of being understood by any reasonably intelligent person.

I'm not sure what The Dalai Lama knows about technology, but he is a very wise man, who sure has a way of putting things into perspective: "simplicity is the key to happiness in the modern world." 

The premise of the 1960's television sitcom "Gilligan's Island" is a charter boat is on a "three-hour tour"  and runs into a tropical storm and gets shipwrecked on an uncharted island somewhere in the Pacific Ocean. What was meant to be a "three-hour tour"  turns into a life long adventure.

In the business world many companies suffer from "The Gilligan's Island Syndrome."  That is when a decision that should take three hours, turns into a life long adventure.  The "Gilligan's Island" television sitcom was a funny show, and was of course, fictional.  For many businesses, "The Gilligan's Island Syndrome" is very real, and very sad.

An mental affliction which sometimes develops in an individual after prolonged exposure to the "The Gilligan's Island Syndrome" is "Paralysis by Analysis."  This  affliction is characterized by the constant need for information in any and all decision making.  Sadly enough "Paralysis by Analysis" becomes the negative mechanism for justifying no action being taken, under the misguided philosophy that you can't make a wrong decision if you make no decision.

There's a big difference between going with the flow and being too paralyzed to go anywhere. It’s fine to gather information, but true leadership is about being decisive, coming up with a firm decision and sticking with it.  

"Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new."   — Albert Einstein

"If only the liberals had done this..."    "If only the right wingers had done that..."

Before we solve the problem, or address the issue, everyone has to first find fault, it is the American way.

The political bickering solves nothing, and is getting old.

Oil companies don't just support Republicans from Texas.  BP and its employees have given more than $3.5 million to federal candidates over the past 20 years, with the largest chunk of their money going to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

In 2008 alone, BP gave $37,000 to members of the House Energy Committee and $106,501 to members of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, which deals with security issues facing the nation's oil supply.

BP has also evolved in its corporate giving over the past decade, shifting more money to Democrats. In 2000, the company gave almost 39 percent more to Republicans than to Democrats. But by 2008, Democrats had nearly pulled even with Republicans on BP donations.

Moreover, the company has nearly tripled the amount of money it has spent on lobbying, from about $5.7 million in 1999 to $15.9 million last year, according to lobbying disclosures.

When it comes to the recent oil crisis in the gulf, there is plenty of "fault" to go around.  Let's first focus on cleaning up the gulf, and once that is up and running, then perhaps we can start cleaning up the political process, especially when it comes to campaign contributions and lobbying.

Tiger Woods and Ben Roethlisberger are just two more names to add to the long list of pompous idiots who make way too much money, and thumb their noses to the folks like you and me that pay their salary.

Actors and athletes make millions of dollars a year. More money than the average American can ever hope to make. And what are we told everyday on the news, how these folks are cheating on their spouses, getting high and hooked on pain killers and booze, or doing something else stupid or illegal.

Has the media spent as much time researching the issues with health care reform as it has researching whatever actor or athlete is in some sort of rehab?

When people know more about athletes and actors then they do scientists and statesmen, what does that say?

What does it say about a society, when actors and athletes get paid way more than statesmen and scientists?

We live in a world that needs to get its values in order.

This has happened to me so many times!!! It makes me wonder why companies even bother to spend the time and money to set up a web site.

E-mail is the greatest tool invented. It allows me and you to communicate in a fairly quick manner, it also allows us to communicate at a time that is convenient to me and you. I answer most of my personal e-mails very late at night, or in some cases, very early in the morning, before I start my working day. My work e-mails, likewise, have some routine to them, as I start my day sorting through my thoughts and notes, sending out e-mails to follow up on loose ends.

Here is a sequence of events that illustrates something that seems to happen quite frequently.

I am responding to an e-mail from a hotel chain that I use. The link directs me a page that tells me if I use this link my room will cost "X". So I click on the link, try to book a room, and the cost comes up as "Y".

I fill out the web form on the page, and type in the exact information of the event, and ask why that happened. Here is the e-mail reply I get back...

"Due to the complexity of your request, we ask that you contact us by phone as we would be able to better assist you!"

WTF, the the complexity of your request??? I don't want to call you, that's why I was responding to your e-mail! That's why I was using your webform! It's your e-mail I am responding to! It's your website and webform I am using as you have it laid out, so why can't you give me a simple answer!

Too often I have responded to an e-mail, or filled out a web form, only to get a "please call us" reply. What is even more frustrating is when you reply back to an e-mail late at night, because you can't call during the day, and you get the "please call us back during normal working hours."

You would think that the business world would someday grasp the concept of using e-mail as a form of communications. Maybe they are just afraid of putting things in writing.

There are a few companies out there, that get it, that use e-mail, and online forums to service their customers. Then there are others who have taken the first step, by doing things like building a web site, and installing web forms, but really haven't thought the whole process through.

First, let me try to understand the basic concept here. Your old vehicle may be working perfectly fine right now, but the government wants to give you $4500 of taxpayer money so you can buy a new car that is more fuel efficient. And to show you how environmentally friendly our government is, we are going to take your vehicle and destroy it so no one else can use it.

Originally only $1 Billion was allocated for the cash for clunkers program. OK, where did that $1 Billion allocation come from? I don't remember any mention of this on the campaign trail.

The original $1 Billion allocation was quickly used up, so an additional $2 Billion was allocated. Again, someone explain to me how our government can use our tax dollars so quickly for a program like this? They grossly underestimated how popular the program would be, so they tripled the allocation to make up for the original underestimate. So where did that additional $2 Billion come from?

This program was touted as a help the environment program. Was it really a back door way to bail out the auto industry, as GM in particular was the biggest benefactor of this program.

There have been tax breaks for purchasing hybrid cars in place for years. If the government wanted to give consumers an incentive to buy more fuel efficient cars, why couldn't a tax break system, similar to the one for purchasing hybrid vehicles be used? Charge a tax for passenger cars or SUV's that get less than 20 mpg, give a tax break for a vehicle that gets more than 30 mpg. This could have been a more long term solution.

The other big question raised here, is what about that clunker that gets traded in. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 500,000 vehicles must now be destroyed. Doesn't it seem wasteful to destroy 500,000 vehicles? Does it make sense to destroy things years before the end of their useful life? So what's happening to the destroyed vehicles? Going to a landfill? Being melted down for a new statue in Washington?

Many of these "clunkers" are larger vehicles such as Ford Explorers and Jeep Cherokees. While they may be gas guzzlers, how many of these vehicles could have been used by non profit organizations to haul people and supplies? While it may have been wasteful for an individual to drive that Ford Explorer to work every day with only one passenger in it, that Ford Explorer can be used to haul half a dozen folks to the doctors office, or haul a load of groceries to the local soup kitchen.

Just trying to make sense of all of this???

Cleveland Browns wide receiver Donte' Stallworth did his time in the legal system, and then received a one year suspension from the NFL.

OK, no problem.

Former Atlanta Falcon, now Philly Eagle Mike Vick did his time in the legal system, and then received an indefinite suspension from the NFL. What does that mean? I have no idea when or if he will play this season.

While I am for people getting second chances in life, I think this needs to be put in perspective.

This was not one single incident where dogs were killed. For five years Mike Vick and friends operated a dog fighting business known as "Bad Newz Kennels." For five years Mike Vick and friends murdered dogs illegally, ran an illegal dog fighting venue and conducted illegal gambling.

Sounds like a whole lot of bad stuff, well documented by the Feds, so why can't the commish just define this indefinite suspension for Vick?

... And since I am ranting on sports definitions ,,,

So why can't Brett Favre just define what retirement means?

I am sick of hearing about Brett Favre and Mike Vick, I am ready for some football!