Truly scary

This is not a costume. This is not a wig.

This was not even taken on Halloween.

Clearly, it is scary nonetheless.

(Yes, this is me)

(No, this is not Normal Me)

Comparative risks, statistics, and ignorance, damn ignorance

People -- Americans in particular -- are not good at assessing risks, benefits, and statistics regarding them.

Thousands, perhaps millions of people refused to fly even months after 9/11, despite the fact that even if -- God forbid -- a jetliner was blown to smithereens every day, people would still be safer in the skies than in their cars.

I respect and sympathize with those who refused and perhaps still refuse to fly due to emotional scars and irrepressible deepset fears of flying, perhaps some of which existed prior to 9/11.

What I can neither understand nor respect, however, is the amazed indignation I received when I opted to get on a plane a few months after 9/11 and admitted that I had no fear whatsoever about flying. "Can you seriously tell me," a friend incredulously queried, "that you think it's SAFE to be in a plane right now?" Sigh.

Some might argue that, when given relevant facts and statistics, people act in a more rational manner. However, even when when we ARE given statistics, they're often horribly skewed and self-serving. Take, for example, an alarming hypothetical note that "Missing child alerts have DOUBLED in our city in the last year!"

Parents reading this might go into a state of panicked alert. What "Don't Eat Candy from Strangers" video should they buy? Do they need to talk to Little Sally when she's 2.5 years old or 3? Should they buy new locks for their front door?

They are not as likely to really THINK, however about what the statistics mean.
- Were the missing children abducted, or did they wander off at the local state fair?
- Has the public been more vigilant in reporting missing children? Have the police been keeping better records?
- And perhaps most importantly, what's the actual SIZE of the increase? If there were 2 'missing kid' reports in 2000 and 4 in 2001, does this change -- although significant from a "percentage" perspective -- really warrant any concern at all?

Worse yet, sometimes our irrational fears and/or poor grasp of risks leads us to make unfortunate choices, as highlighted by scientist and blogger David Harris:

For example, I have heard some "experts" recommend that people should fill their car fuel tanks at places away from major roads. Doing so may reduce your risk - we don't really know by how much - but it will almost certainly increase other risks, such as the risk of being killed in a car accident because you spent longer on the road.

Read more of what David has to say on the Sniper and Statistics here.

And in the meantime, pause for a moment or two whenever you're frightened or concerned by a situation or even statistic, and ask yourself -- in the grand scheme of things, what does it really mean?

Ja! I'm going to Deutschland!

I finally got my ticket ($249 roundtrip San Francisco<-->Frankfurt with a very special special!), and I'll once again be spending Christmastime with wonderful friends in Germany.

Of course, I can be a little cranky, and moan about the icky cold I'll be facing, the insane hassles of peak-time holiday air travel (in coach, no less), and so on. But aside from getting to spend time with great people, I'll also come back, once again, with a suitcase full of chocolate goodies.

Disadvantage: This makes me (literally) fat every year.
Advantage: This makes my friends fat, too, but they love me anyway.

And on a slightly deeper level, my twice-yearly trips to Europe remind me how much I miss about Europe (universally decent public transit, awesomely long and lingering meals...) and also how appreciative I am for the silly little niceties of America (like drinking fountains, non-smoking clubs, and so on).

Ah, if only there were a way to make an AdamCountry, taking the best of all the places I've visited and rolling it all up into one place that's warm but still with snow at Christmas, with delicious but non-fattening food, with people who are kind but also helpfully blunt when you have spinach in your teeth, and so on.

Yes, Christmastime is a time for dreaming, no matter what your faith, I think. :-)

Military joke

A general noticed one of his soldiers behaving oddly. The soldier would pick up any piece of paper he found, frown and say, "That's not it" and put it down again.

This went on for some time, until the general arranged to have the soldier psychologically tested. The psychologist concluded that the soldier was deranged, and wrote out his discharge from the army.

The soldier picked it up, smiled and said, "That's it."

Truth in HR advertising?

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.

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

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 :-)