Topica offers our employees GENEROUS benefits. Medical/Dental/Vision, Life Insurance, Long-term Disability, 401(k), Employee Stock Purchase Plan, Salary + commission commiserate to experience.
For some reason, I'm just not all that eager to apply here.
Tuesday, October 15, 2002
Monday, September 23, 2002
My dating checklist
My own personal checklist.
Meeting someone to date...
AT A BAR: Unlikely (for me) at best. Plus potentially yucky, due to beer goggles on either or both sides.
AT ONE'S COMPANY:
Like meeting a woman at a bar (potentially yucky), not to mention potentially stupid and dangerous, especially if/when things go sour. Dating someone on your work team... really REALLY stupid.
AT MY CURRENT COMPANY:
Well, I kinda do this anyway while I'm looking for someone better. NOTE: I am currently self-employed. VERDICT: Handy (groan) but definitely lacking in the romance department.
AT THE GYM:
After over a year of having a crush on one of my kickboxing instructors, we ended up going out on one quasi-date, and then she fled the state two weeks later. Okay, so maybe she got a huge job promotion and moved to Arizona. But still, it was depressing. Other efforts at starting something romantic with gym friends have been less dramatic but even less successful. VERDICT: Not very good place for asking someone out.
AT THE LAUNDROMAT:
I'm one of the few folks at my local laundromat who speaks English. 'nuff said.
AT SCHOOL:
I recently took some extra-curricular classes at my local junior college. Like the above category, few of my fellow students spoke English (making teamwork rather, uh, challenging). The others were typically around 10 years younger than I am. VERDICT: Uh, no way, Jos?.
VIA PARENTS:
"Adam, I know this daaaaarling girl who would be so perfect for you! She has a great job, and she's smart and..." (click) VERDICT: These are the same folks that bought me THOSE clothes to wear to school when I was younger. Uh huh.
VIA FRIENDS:
This really just transpired last week:
"Adam, I know this girl who'd be awesome for ya... she saw your site and wants to meet you... and she's really funny, cute, 5'8..."
"Uh, I'm 5'6". She go for shorter guys?"
"I'll ask her!"
....two days later...
"Oh, I'm sorry, Adam! It's a no go. You're really 5'6"? You seem much taller....!"
(if I had a nickel for every friend who said that last part...)
VERDICT: Friends are well meaning, but not very good matchmakers.
* * *
So, gee, it's not surprising that the Lindy Hop crowd is lookin' better and better, eh?
Especially since I'm attracted to women with similar interests to mine (wow, imagine that!) and Lindy Hop women generally:
- Share my love of swing music
- Love to dance (duh!)
- Are at least a bit social
- Tend to be active / athletic
- Appreciate/admire/want to make violent love with musicians
So, basically, what it comes down to is that the folks I really shouldn't date (people in my currently-favorite and oft-attended 'scene') are those I have the most compatibility with and probably best chance of dating.
These are, however, also the same women that I am reluctant to ask out for reasons that are probably obvious to most of us. I mean, when we see each other every week (or sometimes more often), it's a little transparent to ask a woman out to dinner or a movie or whatever.
Ironic, frustrating. Maybe I just need to start going to out-of-town dance exchanges :D
Meeting someone to date...
AT A BAR: Unlikely (for me) at best. Plus potentially yucky, due to beer goggles on either or both sides.
AT ONE'S COMPANY:
Like meeting a woman at a bar (potentially yucky), not to mention potentially stupid and dangerous, especially if/when things go sour. Dating someone on your work team... really REALLY stupid.
AT MY CURRENT COMPANY:
Well, I kinda do this anyway while I'm looking for someone better. NOTE: I am currently self-employed. VERDICT: Handy (groan) but definitely lacking in the romance department.
AT THE GYM:
After over a year of having a crush on one of my kickboxing instructors, we ended up going out on one quasi-date, and then she fled the state two weeks later. Okay, so maybe she got a huge job promotion and moved to Arizona. But still, it was depressing. Other efforts at starting something romantic with gym friends have been less dramatic but even less successful. VERDICT: Not very good place for asking someone out.
AT THE LAUNDROMAT:
I'm one of the few folks at my local laundromat who speaks English. 'nuff said.
AT SCHOOL:
I recently took some extra-curricular classes at my local junior college. Like the above category, few of my fellow students spoke English (making teamwork rather, uh, challenging). The others were typically around 10 years younger than I am. VERDICT: Uh, no way, Jos?.
VIA PARENTS:
"Adam, I know this daaaaarling girl who would be so perfect for you! She has a great job, and she's smart and..." (click) VERDICT: These are the same folks that bought me THOSE clothes to wear to school when I was younger. Uh huh.
VIA FRIENDS:
This really just transpired last week:
"Adam, I know this girl who'd be awesome for ya... she saw your site and wants to meet you... and she's really funny, cute, 5'8..."
"Uh, I'm 5'6". She go for shorter guys?"
"I'll ask her!"
....two days later...
"Oh, I'm sorry, Adam! It's a no go. You're really 5'6"? You seem much taller....!"
(if I had a nickel for every friend who said that last part...)
VERDICT: Friends are well meaning, but not very good matchmakers.
* * *
So, gee, it's not surprising that the Lindy Hop crowd is lookin' better and better, eh?
Especially since I'm attracted to women with similar interests to mine (wow, imagine that!) and Lindy Hop women generally:
- Share my love of swing music
- Love to dance (duh!)
- Are at least a bit social
- Tend to be active / athletic
- Appreciate/admire/want to make violent love with musicians
So, basically, what it comes down to is that the folks I really shouldn't date (people in my currently-favorite and oft-attended 'scene') are those I have the most compatibility with and probably best chance of dating.
These are, however, also the same women that I am reluctant to ask out for reasons that are probably obvious to most of us. I mean, when we see each other every week (or sometimes more often), it's a little transparent to ask a woman out to dinner or a movie or whatever.
Ironic, frustrating. Maybe I just need to start going to out-of-town dance exchanges :D
Wednesday, September 18, 2002
WHY does anyone still use AOL?
I don't get it.
There was a time when accessing the Internet was, to quote Barbie, "So hard!" Years ago, if you wanted to point-and-click your way to the Internet, AOL was one of your few (albeit odious) choices.
But nowadays, why would anyone pay $21.95/month for access that's slow, littered with pop-up ads (even before you get to the Web), and run by one of the most incompetent yet (IMHO) evil conglomerates on the planet?
Here in San Francisco, even some of my theoretically tech savvy friends use AOL. "I got it with my computer," one of my friends admitted sheepishly, well aware of what a dolt I think she is, "And I don't want to tell ALL my friends that I have a new e-mail address!"
It doesn't matter to this woman, apparently, that she can get much faster and more reliable (and ad-free) Internet service locally for $9.95/month for unlimited use. Or that her money goes to support a company who has singlehandedly dumbed down both the Internet and American news probably more than any other entity in history.
Okay, okay, so this rant isn't necessarily uncovering anything wildly new or shocking. But it was spurred by a piece of junk I just got in my e-mail, which features two physically attractive women chatting with one another, and one saying:
"He asked for my AOL Screen Name, not my phone number. Luckily I Joined for Free Yesterday.)"
Aside from the embarrassingly weird capitalization and punctuation, this raises a burning question: Has anyone, ANYWHERE, gone up to a woman and cooed in her ear, "Hey, baby... how's about ya tell me your AOL Screen Name, eh?"
I mean, of course, I've traded e-mail addresses with folks before, but sheesh! At risk of sounding like a total snob, if a woman's got AOL, this knocks her down one peg in my book.
"But, but..." you may stammer, "I get multiple e-mail addresses with AOL! I can access it with many different numbers around the country!"
Uh, true. But it's the same with, for instance, Earthlink. And MSN. And probably many other Internet services as well.
And did you know that when you view the Web on AOL:
- You're not actually surfing the Web. Each time you request a Web page, you're actually talking to AOL's server, which then goes and either fetches the page for you or sends you an old (stale) version that it fetched earlier, and then sends it along to you. Why does this matter? Well, it's slowing down your Web experience, and you may not even be seeing the most recent version of a page. Not so good for news sites, eh?
- By default, you're seeing crappily compressed versions of pictures. AOL compresses regular graphics into ".art" form, which is sort of like you ordering pizza and having the delivery boy squish your entire large pizza into a lunchbox so he can save space. Great for the delivery boy, but not so good for your pizza... or your stomach. Then again, with the Web pictures... maybe you LIKE seeing blotchy and less-colorful pictures. Who knows?
So to those of you on AOL... I hope you seriously think twice about your choice to pay $21.95 a month for substandard service. If you have any questions about switching, please don't hesitate to drop me a line. I'm happy to help in the intelligent fight against mediocrity :-)
There was a time when accessing the Internet was, to quote Barbie, "So hard!" Years ago, if you wanted to point-and-click your way to the Internet, AOL was one of your few (albeit odious) choices.
But nowadays, why would anyone pay $21.95/month for access that's slow, littered with pop-up ads (even before you get to the Web), and run by one of the most incompetent yet (IMHO) evil conglomerates on the planet?
Here in San Francisco, even some of my theoretically tech savvy friends use AOL. "I got it with my computer," one of my friends admitted sheepishly, well aware of what a dolt I think she is, "And I don't want to tell ALL my friends that I have a new e-mail address!"
It doesn't matter to this woman, apparently, that she can get much faster and more reliable (and ad-free) Internet service locally for $9.95/month for unlimited use. Or that her money goes to support a company who has singlehandedly dumbed down both the Internet and American news probably more than any other entity in history.
Okay, okay, so this rant isn't necessarily uncovering anything wildly new or shocking. But it was spurred by a piece of junk I just got in my e-mail, which features two physically attractive women chatting with one another, and one saying:
"He asked for my AOL Screen Name, not my phone number. Luckily I Joined for Free Yesterday.)"
Aside from the embarrassingly weird capitalization and punctuation, this raises a burning question: Has anyone, ANYWHERE, gone up to a woman and cooed in her ear, "Hey, baby... how's about ya tell me your AOL Screen Name, eh?"
I mean, of course, I've traded e-mail addresses with folks before, but sheesh! At risk of sounding like a total snob, if a woman's got AOL, this knocks her down one peg in my book.
"But, but..." you may stammer, "I get multiple e-mail addresses with AOL! I can access it with many different numbers around the country!"
Uh, true. But it's the same with, for instance, Earthlink. And MSN. And probably many other Internet services as well.
And did you know that when you view the Web on AOL:
- You're not actually surfing the Web. Each time you request a Web page, you're actually talking to AOL's server, which then goes and either fetches the page for you or sends you an old (stale) version that it fetched earlier, and then sends it along to you. Why does this matter? Well, it's slowing down your Web experience, and you may not even be seeing the most recent version of a page. Not so good for news sites, eh?
- By default, you're seeing crappily compressed versions of pictures. AOL compresses regular graphics into ".art" form, which is sort of like you ordering pizza and having the delivery boy squish your entire large pizza into a lunchbox so he can save space. Great for the delivery boy, but not so good for your pizza... or your stomach. Then again, with the Web pictures... maybe you LIKE seeing blotchy and less-colorful pictures. Who knows?
So to those of you on AOL... I hope you seriously think twice about your choice to pay $21.95 a month for substandard service. If you have any questions about switching, please don't hesitate to drop me a line. I'm happy to help in the intelligent fight against mediocrity :-)
Sunday, September 15, 2002
Pledge allegiance under God... but no breasts!!!
So once again, our brilliant U.S. federal government (with, sadly, probably the support of a majority of boneheaded citizens and ineffectual parents) strongarmed our students into the world of the Moral Majority.
Our kids are already forced to give up rights of search and seizure. Choir kids are forced to pee into cups for mandatory drug testing. And for years, student newspapers have enjoyed practically no first amendment protections.
Adding insult to injuries, now students' research efforts are being routinely hampered because the federal government has basically forced all but the wealthiest U.S. schools to install ridiculously bug-ridden Internet filters.
If you're student and trying to research breast cancer, forget it. And of course, anything dealing with information on contraception, sexually transmitted diseases, or -- probably in some cases -- even "sex discrimination" is undoubtedly more than the typical lame filters will allow. It's hard to know for sure, however, since the filter companies insist that info on what they block is strictly "proprietary." So heck, yeah, they say, we'll decide what your kids can and cannot access and study, but we're not going to let you, the parents, know any details!
But it's okay. Because Lord knows that if some of our children encountered a naked breast or saw the word "condom," they'd be scarred for life. And we all know that even sixteen-year-old students -- and for that matter, their local teachers and administrators -- simply can't be trusted to weigh the risks and benefits of filtering anyway.
Forgive my mock surprise here, but gee, you don't hear about Sweden or other European countries installing such filters. And unless I'm mistaken, their kids seem to turn out pretty well. They might even have a leg up on our children when it comes to studying Bucky Balls.
And boy, I guess THIS blog entry isn't gonna reach any American schoolkids, is it?
Our kids are already forced to give up rights of search and seizure. Choir kids are forced to pee into cups for mandatory drug testing. And for years, student newspapers have enjoyed practically no first amendment protections.
Adding insult to injuries, now students' research efforts are being routinely hampered because the federal government has basically forced all but the wealthiest U.S. schools to install ridiculously bug-ridden Internet filters.
If you're student and trying to research breast cancer, forget it. And of course, anything dealing with information on contraception, sexually transmitted diseases, or -- probably in some cases -- even "sex discrimination" is undoubtedly more than the typical lame filters will allow. It's hard to know for sure, however, since the filter companies insist that info on what they block is strictly "proprietary." So heck, yeah, they say, we'll decide what your kids can and cannot access and study, but we're not going to let you, the parents, know any details!
But it's okay. Because Lord knows that if some of our children encountered a naked breast or saw the word "condom," they'd be scarred for life. And we all know that even sixteen-year-old students -- and for that matter, their local teachers and administrators -- simply can't be trusted to weigh the risks and benefits of filtering anyway.
Forgive my mock surprise here, but gee, you don't hear about Sweden or other European countries installing such filters. And unless I'm mistaken, their kids seem to turn out pretty well. They might even have a leg up on our children when it comes to studying Bucky Balls.
And boy, I guess THIS blog entry isn't gonna reach any American schoolkids, is it?
So when's it okay to lie?
A very attractive acquaintance of mine, who once had beautiful flowing long hair, got her tresses cut, well, awful short :(
So short, in fact, that I wasn't sure it was her when she was in my arms tonight while dancing. "Hi, I'm Adam" I hesitatingly introduced myself, to which she replied with mock exasperation, "Uh, I'm [so-and-so], remember?"
She realized, of course, that I didn't recognize her because of her major crop job. And certainly, my expected response would have been "You look great."
But I didn't think that was true, so I just smiled and apologized for my doofish inability to recognize her.
She smiled back, but I'm wondering whether she was hurt that I didn't compliment her on her new doo.
I might even have considered saying something nice, but I'm a lousy liar.
This, indeed, also explains why I never became a lawyer.
So short, in fact, that I wasn't sure it was her when she was in my arms tonight while dancing. "Hi, I'm Adam" I hesitatingly introduced myself, to which she replied with mock exasperation, "Uh, I'm [so-and-so], remember?"
She realized, of course, that I didn't recognize her because of her major crop job. And certainly, my expected response would have been "You look great."
But I didn't think that was true, so I just smiled and apologized for my doofish inability to recognize her.
She smiled back, but I'm wondering whether she was hurt that I didn't compliment her on her new doo.
I might even have considered saying something nice, but I'm a lousy liar.
This, indeed, also explains why I never became a lawyer.
Wednesday, September 11, 2002
Flowers in Manhattan
Click to see a larger version of this photo, taken in October 2000 from a random a florist shop street offering. It was scenes like this that made me frequently stop and appreciate the surprising beauty of the crowded Manhattan on-the-way-to-work hustle and bustle during my week-long business trip.
Monday, September 9, 2002
More thoughts on 9/11
I'm faced with a balancing act here.
I have strong feelings about 9/11... about our government's reactions... and about individual responses. However, I also want to be sensitive to others who may feel that excessive questioning or cynicism about patriotism and similar issues are inappropriate at this time.
Let me just say, though, that I find it highly ironic that there's seemingly a nationwide push now for companies to go 'dark' on 9/11. Most recently, I read about how many telemarketing companies have pledged not to interrupt us on this Wednesday.
How strange. Wasn't it our very own president who suggested that there was nothing better we could do than SHOP after 9/11? Remember all those American-flag-as-shopping-bag stickers all around the place that proudly trumpted "America -- Open for Business"?
Okay, so most folks would agree that the telemarketing scum aren't self-imposing this moratorium out of the goodness of their hearts; they simply don't want the bad PR from selling Florida timeshare units and getting screamed at by indignant Americans.
But wouldn't it have made more sense to have the telemarketers not just go home and loaf around, but instead make telemarketing calls on behalf of bonafide charitable organizations for free?
Imagine this... you get a phone call from someone asking for donations to the Red Cross or for -- this'd be wild but sweet justice -- aid for International Terrorism victims (not just US folks!).
While I hate all telemarketing in general, at least this'd be for a good cause... and might even actually even raise MORE money than usual with people in a somber or reflective or giving mood!
What do you think?
I have strong feelings about 9/11... about our government's reactions... and about individual responses. However, I also want to be sensitive to others who may feel that excessive questioning or cynicism about patriotism and similar issues are inappropriate at this time.
Let me just say, though, that I find it highly ironic that there's seemingly a nationwide push now for companies to go 'dark' on 9/11. Most recently, I read about how many telemarketing companies have pledged not to interrupt us on this Wednesday.
How strange. Wasn't it our very own president who suggested that there was nothing better we could do than SHOP after 9/11? Remember all those American-flag-as-shopping-bag stickers all around the place that proudly trumpted "America -- Open for Business"?
Okay, so most folks would agree that the telemarketing scum aren't self-imposing this moratorium out of the goodness of their hearts; they simply don't want the bad PR from selling Florida timeshare units and getting screamed at by indignant Americans.
But wouldn't it have made more sense to have the telemarketers not just go home and loaf around, but instead make telemarketing calls on behalf of bonafide charitable organizations for free?
Imagine this... you get a phone call from someone asking for donations to the Red Cross or for -- this'd be wild but sweet justice -- aid for International Terrorism victims (not just US folks!).
While I hate all telemarketing in general, at least this'd be for a good cause... and might even actually even raise MORE money than usual with people in a somber or reflective or giving mood!
What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)