Friday, July 07, 2006
Business Cards
An interesting view of business cards:
6) Break the rules, particularly corporate ones (but don’t get fired). I had two cards that weren’t approved by the corporate branding department. They always got conversations started (one had a drawing done by Hugh Macleod — I made those specifically for speaking at Google’s Zeitgeist conference. The cards matched my slides I used at that talk. The business cards were so popular that people came and asked for them cause someone else showed them mine).
7) Be different. One of my favorite cards? Matt Mullenweg’s. It says simply “1. Go to google.com. 2. Type in “Matt.” 3. Press “I’m feeling lucky.” (It also has his phone number on it). Or, Kelly Goto’s card looks like a BART ticket (subway in San Francisco).
(via)
I have found this to be completely true. When I got to Microsoft, I had a number of "controversal" cards made up (until the facists in corporate stopped me). One said "Rocket Scientist" and another said "Evil Genius". All in good fun. Then, HR got a hold of me and gave me the following rules:
Allowed:
Name
Standard Microsoft Title as listed in the GAL (Global Address List)
Prefix Dr. or suffix Ph.D. (but not both)
Phone Number
Cell Phone Number
Corporate FAX Number
Corporate Address as listed in the GAL
I am allowed to have cards made in Braille
Not Allowed:
Anything with the words CEO, CFO, Gates, Ballmer, Mad, Evil, Chief, Love, McLove, Mc Sassy, Pope, Sieg Heil, President, Nastiest, Horse, Savage, Bottom, Top, Go-Go-Gaget, Super, Super Science, Super Duper, Father, Reverend, King, Queen, Czar, Master, Commander or Most Brutal
Me, I still think this leaves a *lot* of room. Unfortunately, all my cards orders need to be co-signed by my HR representative.
Sigh....
6) Break the rules, particularly corporate ones (but don’t get fired). I had two cards that weren’t approved by the corporate branding department. They always got conversations started (one had a drawing done by Hugh Macleod — I made those specifically for speaking at Google’s Zeitgeist conference. The cards matched my slides I used at that talk. The business cards were so popular that people came and asked for them cause someone else showed them mine).
7) Be different. One of my favorite cards? Matt Mullenweg’s. It says simply “1. Go to google.com. 2. Type in “Matt.” 3. Press “I’m feeling lucky.” (It also has his phone number on it). Or, Kelly Goto’s card looks like a BART ticket (subway in San Francisco).
(via)
I have found this to be completely true. When I got to Microsoft, I had a number of "controversal" cards made up (until the facists in corporate stopped me). One said "Rocket Scientist" and another said "Evil Genius". All in good fun. Then, HR got a hold of me and gave me the following rules:
Allowed:
Name
Standard Microsoft Title as listed in the GAL (Global Address List)
Prefix Dr. or suffix Ph.D. (but not both)
Phone Number
Cell Phone Number
Corporate FAX Number
Corporate Address as listed in the GAL
I am allowed to have cards made in Braille
Not Allowed:
Anything with the words CEO, CFO, Gates, Ballmer, Mad, Evil, Chief, Love, McLove, Mc Sassy, Pope, Sieg Heil, President, Nastiest, Horse, Savage, Bottom, Top, Go-Go-Gaget, Super, Super Science, Super Duper, Father, Reverend, King, Queen, Czar, Master, Commander or Most Brutal
Me, I still think this leaves a *lot* of room. Unfortunately, all my cards orders need to be co-signed by my HR representative.
Sigh....
Thursday, July 06, 2006
Blogger Graphics
This is pretty cool, a real time connection mapper for your website.
Here
Here is my art site, TirionGFX
and here is this site
TirionGFX blog
Very cool and useful in webs site design
Here
Here is my art site, TirionGFX
and here is this site
TirionGFX blog
Very cool and useful in webs site design
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
Time Cube!
Back in graduate school, I was the department librarian. It was a mildly boring chore, but I also got to be the recipient of a lot of "self-published" papers folks felt needed to be seen by the scientific community. Most of these were harmless, a handful wacky and one or two... well... one or two your really had to think about for an hour or two to find the crackpottery. Or at least I did.
PZ Meyers, Science blogger extraordinaire, is getting some interesting mail in the crackpot range:
EVOLUTION IS ENTIRELY FALLACIOUS.
MEIOSIS CASTRATES EVOLUTION.KARYOTYPES DISPROVE EVOLUTION.THE BASIC MECHANISMS SAID TO BE DRIVING EVOLUTION ARE ENTIRELY INADEQUATE,UTTERLY INCAPABLE OF PRODUCING NOVEL KARYOTYPES,NOVEL FEATURES,NOVEL FUNCTIONS.
1)EVOLUTION'S PHYLOGENIES ARE TOTALLY INCOMPATIBLE WITH KARYOTYPES;
2)THERE IS NO MECHANISM TO GENERATE NOVEL KARYOTYPES THAT ARE FERTILE(meiosis,homology,synapsis,centromeres etc.);MEIOSIS CASTRATES EVOLUTION BY FAILING TO PROCEED IF ANY CHROMOSOMES FAIL TO PAIR UP WITH HOMOLOGOUS PARTNERS.SEXUALLY REPRODUCIBLE KARYOTYPES THEREBY FIXED!EVOLUTIONARY PROGRESSION OF CHROMOSOME NUMBERS IS TOTALLY INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE MECHANISMS OF MEIOSIS.
ORIGIN OF KARYOTYPES WILL NEVER BE EXPLAINED BY EVOLUTION.
3)KARYOTYPES CANNOT TOLERATE ADDITION OR REMOVAL OF NOVEL OR NATIVE CHROMOSOMES;KARYOTYPES ARE TOTALLY INCOMPATIBLE WITH EVOLUTION.
4)FULLY INTEGRATED,EXQUISITELY ORCHESTRATED,INTRICATELY INTERLINKED FUNCTIONS OF CHROMOSOMES REQUIRE INHERITANCE OF COMPLETE AND ORIGINAL KARYOTYPES-TOTALLY INCOMPATIBLE WITH EVOLUTION;
5)SHEER SIZES OF CHROMOSOMES DEFY EVOLUTIONARY CONJECTURE
6)EVOLUTION CANNOT PRODUCE NOVEL FEATURES OR FUNCTIONS(too many separate but simultaneous and synergistic mutations would be required-see below)
meiosis renders evolution infertile
meiosis will not reproduce unmatched chromosomes etc.etc.etc.
If follows the standard format for eyecharts, big text getting smaller and smaller as it goes down (with some interesting color variations I've never seen before). You know, just like the papers in PhysRevD. Full text here
One of the readers points out the similarity to a famous piece of internet foolishness:
Judging by his formatting and typographical preferences, I'm surprised he didn't claim that evolution is also impossible because of Time Cube.
Posted by: Sean Foley July 4, 2006 02:57 PM
Okay, so here's what I am thinking: I should start a blog catalog of these type of obscuria nonsensica. Categorized them not by subject matter, but by insanity style:
Category 1: logical conclusion reached by ignoring incontinent facts
Category 2: illogical conclusion reached by false assumptions
Category 3: logical conclusion reached with a pure state of self consistent but wrong assumptions
Category 3a: Must propose new physics/laws of nature/mathematics
Category 3b: 3a + must also be rejected by journals/PhD committee
Category 4: illogical conclusion reached through dogma
Category 4a: Must have interesting fonts/capitalization
Category 4b: Cat 4a + Must contain supervillian-esque rant about the scientific community
Category4c: Cat 4b + Must contain "why won't you respond are you too afraid/stupid/closeminded/offyour meds" rant
Category 5: illogical conclusion reached by setting an epileptic chimp in front of a keyboard and posting the result as "proof"
So, on the Horvath scale, FoxNews weighs in at a mere Cat2 , PZs writer scores a full 4C, and the current administration's war policy comes in at ... well... I think that's kind of obvious.
TIME CUBE!
PZ Meyers, Science blogger extraordinaire, is getting some interesting mail in the crackpot range:
EVOLUTION IS ENTIRELY FALLACIOUS.
MEIOSIS CASTRATES EVOLUTION.KARYOTYPES DISPROVE EVOLUTION.THE BASIC MECHANISMS SAID TO BE DRIVING EVOLUTION ARE ENTIRELY INADEQUATE,UTTERLY INCAPABLE OF PRODUCING NOVEL KARYOTYPES,NOVEL FEATURES,NOVEL FUNCTIONS.
1)EVOLUTION'S PHYLOGENIES ARE TOTALLY INCOMPATIBLE WITH KARYOTYPES;
2)THERE IS NO MECHANISM TO GENERATE NOVEL KARYOTYPES THAT ARE FERTILE(meiosis,homology,synapsis,centromeres etc.);MEIOSIS CASTRATES EVOLUTION BY FAILING TO PROCEED IF ANY CHROMOSOMES FAIL TO PAIR UP WITH HOMOLOGOUS PARTNERS.SEXUALLY REPRODUCIBLE KARYOTYPES THEREBY FIXED!EVOLUTIONARY PROGRESSION OF CHROMOSOME NUMBERS IS TOTALLY INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE MECHANISMS OF MEIOSIS.
ORIGIN OF KARYOTYPES WILL NEVER BE EXPLAINED BY EVOLUTION.
3)KARYOTYPES CANNOT TOLERATE ADDITION OR REMOVAL OF NOVEL OR NATIVE CHROMOSOMES;KARYOTYPES ARE TOTALLY INCOMPATIBLE WITH EVOLUTION.
4)FULLY INTEGRATED,EXQUISITELY ORCHESTRATED,INTRICATELY INTERLINKED FUNCTIONS OF CHROMOSOMES REQUIRE INHERITANCE OF COMPLETE AND ORIGINAL KARYOTYPES-TOTALLY INCOMPATIBLE WITH EVOLUTION;
5)SHEER SIZES OF CHROMOSOMES DEFY EVOLUTIONARY CONJECTURE
6)EVOLUTION CANNOT PRODUCE NOVEL FEATURES OR FUNCTIONS(too many separate but simultaneous and synergistic mutations would be required-see below)
meiosis renders evolution infertile
meiosis will not reproduce unmatched chromosomes etc.etc.etc.
If follows the standard format for eyecharts, big text getting smaller and smaller as it goes down (with some interesting color variations I've never seen before). You know, just like the papers in PhysRevD. Full text here
One of the readers points out the similarity to a famous piece of internet foolishness:
Judging by his formatting and typographical preferences, I'm surprised he didn't claim that evolution is also impossible because of Time Cube.
Posted by: Sean Foley July 4, 2006 02:57 PM
Okay, so here's what I am thinking: I should start a blog catalog of these type of obscuria nonsensica. Categorized them not by subject matter, but by insanity style:
Category 1: logical conclusion reached by ignoring incontinent facts
Category 2: illogical conclusion reached by false assumptions
Category 3: logical conclusion reached with a pure state of self consistent but wrong assumptions
Category 3a: Must propose new physics/laws of nature/mathematics
Category 3b: 3a + must also be rejected by journals/PhD committee
Category 4: illogical conclusion reached through dogma
Category 4a: Must have interesting fonts/capitalization
Category 4b: Cat 4a + Must contain supervillian-esque rant about the scientific community
Category4c: Cat 4b + Must contain "why won't you respond are you too afraid/stupid/closeminded/offyour meds" rant
Category 5: illogical conclusion reached by setting an epileptic chimp in front of a keyboard and posting the result as "proof"
So, on the Horvath scale, FoxNews weighs in at a mere Cat2 , PZs writer scores a full 4C, and the current administration's war policy comes in at ... well... I think that's kind of obvious.
TIME CUBE!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)