Y'know, I always find it curious when my boss does something that we've been told not to do. I remember a few months ago, when we first got our new printers, and we were all explicitly told to never use colour as the ink is too expensive. Yet Julian always uses colour; I would have thought that a money pinching accountant would be the first person to complain about people costing the company money. Maybe he knows something that I don't know, and that the colour ink is actually cheaper? I bet that is what it is, because Julian is a smart guy!
I also love that he expects me to work the same motivating hours that he does. The Saturday he called me and told me to come in to the office was very exciting - I felt totally privileged! I mean, I had never had the honour of working on a Saturday with this company until then. And when I found that it was to fix a mistake that he had made... well, let's just say it made my day that much sweeter. Who gets those kinds of opportunities?
And then there are days he asks me to start early, and then gets frustrated when I go to leave at my usual finish time. Last week, I had the nerve to try and leave half an hour early, using my hour early start as an excuse - but he was strong, and told me no. I think he realises that I am very lazy, and is teaching me that I need to put in extra hours and work at least a full-time schedule (possibly more) if I want to earn my part-time wages.
Or maybe it is my incompetent work skills that are forcing him to keep me here longer; I mean, I, apparently, am not good enough to do half the work I was doing before he started here. Heck, I don't even know what actually goes on with the finance side of Blakely Pacific anymore! Apart from the tasks that he emails me, instructing me how to do them and so forth. I mean, entering data is such a scary thing to do, and I've only been using our software for a full year now - whereas he's been using it since February and probably has a much better understanding of the data I was maintaining before he even started here.
It is such a shame that Julian's contract with Blakely Pacific finishes in a little over a fortnight. The idea that this company could be back to utilising my time is very scary, and I truly hope we can cope without his expertise and leadership.
Thank you, Julian, for such an enjoyable 6 months.
Thursday, 23 August 2007
Wednesday, 22 August 2007
Who Broke Up The Beatles?
First off, let's get one thing clear: I was not a member of The Beatles. I was not part of the band, or did I even know any of them while the band was together. Heck, I wasn't even alive when they were a band! So whenever I make statements regarding The Beatles, they are based on information that I have been collecting in my music-geek brain over the last 27 years. There is a lot out there that is pure myth (like Ringo didn't play drums on the recordings - anyone who believes that is stupid), but there are some things you can easily research and find the truth on. And you always have to take into account one major factor; Paul McCartney has been alive 27 years after John Lennon died, and he'll be damned if he'll let anyone pretend he wasn't the greatest of the all The Beatles.
That, I'll say, is one of the toughest parts of reading about The Beatles; most are huge supporters of Paul McCartney and take whatever he says as being gospel. Why did the 3 remaining members never reform? Because Paul said "No" - despite George publicly saying that he would never put himself under Paul again. Paul said Let It Be... Naked was exactly how The Beatles always wanted it to sound, so it must be the case. Never mind the fact that both John and George stated the original was the best you could make of the crappy recordings they had made, or that Paul actually just suffered an ego blow that lasted 30 years because for one time he and George Martin didn't have final control over an album. And according to Paul, George walking out on the band was all John's fault. Interviews with George where he straight out says he was sick of Paul (and even wrote a song about him when he went home - Wah Wah. Damn awesome song, too) are not considered to be accurate.
So anyway, in my opinon, one of the biggest misunderstandings in The Beatles' History is how they split and the blame being firmly placed on the shoulders of one Yoko Ono. So in order for me to prove that she is not the one to blame (well, not in the way most blame her), let's go back in time...
Firstly, it is true that Yoko did come between John and Paul. Paul did not approve of John leaving his wife for another woman, and this he made no secret of. I mean, he even went over to Cynthia's house to play "Hey Jude" for her and Julian, to show them he was on their side. So to say she came between them is true.
On a side note, I guess Paul felt that his engagement being called off due to his unfaithfulness, and then meeting Linda Eastman, was a much more reasonable situation.
But that last point is what was the real beginning of the end for The Beatles; Paul met Linda Eastman
The Beatles were in need of new management; with Brian Epstein dead and The Beatles in charge of their own affairs, nothing was getting done properly and everyone was fighting. So John sought out the notorious Allan Kovac, while Paul recommended Eastman & Associates, a firm owned and operated by Linda's Father. Citing this would give Paul favourable treatment, the rest of the band refused to sign with Eastman and eventually The Beatles signed with Allan Kovac.
This was a large blow to Paul's ego; it was like John, George and Ringo were all saying "you are not out leader - we don't have to do what you tell us to do!" and would become the basis of Paul's lawsuit against his former bandmates in 1970. And, again in my opinion, is what really began the break-up of The Beatles.
Until this, Paul had a measure of control over the band and was able assert himself. But as the others also gained more confidence in themselves, they were more willing to stand up to his demands, until eventually he decided that if he wasn't going to be the star of the group, then he was better off on his own, and in April 1970 announced he was leaving The Beatles. I've always loved how him quitting was the end, even though the others had already quit in the last 2 years; Ringo walked out while recording the 'white' album after Paul took over drumming duties for Back in the U.S.S.R, George left when Paul was telling him how to play guitar, and John quit 6 months earlier because he was basically sick of everything. I've always found it interesting that in each of these previous cases, they were talked in to returning to the group. Yet no one tried to persuade Paul to stay...
So there you have it - a rather brief glimpse into my view on why The Beatles' split. Of course, after this Paul went on to form Wings where he was able to lord his musical talent over a bunch of average musicians (including the below average abilities of Linda) and make rather average 70's pop music (though I admit some of it was pretty good), so I'm sure he made the right decision.
Unfortunately, it also took one awfully messy lawsuit against John, George and Ringo... but that's for another blog.
That, I'll say, is one of the toughest parts of reading about The Beatles; most are huge supporters of Paul McCartney and take whatever he says as being gospel. Why did the 3 remaining members never reform? Because Paul said "No" - despite George publicly saying that he would never put himself under Paul again. Paul said Let It Be... Naked was exactly how The Beatles always wanted it to sound, so it must be the case. Never mind the fact that both John and George stated the original was the best you could make of the crappy recordings they had made, or that Paul actually just suffered an ego blow that lasted 30 years because for one time he and George Martin didn't have final control over an album. And according to Paul, George walking out on the band was all John's fault. Interviews with George where he straight out says he was sick of Paul (and even wrote a song about him when he went home - Wah Wah. Damn awesome song, too) are not considered to be accurate.
So anyway, in my opinon, one of the biggest misunderstandings in The Beatles' History is how they split and the blame being firmly placed on the shoulders of one Yoko Ono. So in order for me to prove that she is not the one to blame (well, not in the way most blame her), let's go back in time...
Firstly, it is true that Yoko did come between John and Paul. Paul did not approve of John leaving his wife for another woman, and this he made no secret of. I mean, he even went over to Cynthia's house to play "Hey Jude" for her and Julian, to show them he was on their side. So to say she came between them is true.
On a side note, I guess Paul felt that his engagement being called off due to his unfaithfulness, and then meeting Linda Eastman, was a much more reasonable situation.
But that last point is what was the real beginning of the end for The Beatles; Paul met Linda Eastman
The Beatles were in need of new management; with Brian Epstein dead and The Beatles in charge of their own affairs, nothing was getting done properly and everyone was fighting. So John sought out the notorious Allan Kovac, while Paul recommended Eastman & Associates, a firm owned and operated by Linda's Father. Citing this would give Paul favourable treatment, the rest of the band refused to sign with Eastman and eventually The Beatles signed with Allan Kovac.
This was a large blow to Paul's ego; it was like John, George and Ringo were all saying "you are not out leader - we don't have to do what you tell us to do!" and would become the basis of Paul's lawsuit against his former bandmates in 1970. And, again in my opinion, is what really began the break-up of The Beatles.
Until this, Paul had a measure of control over the band and was able assert himself. But as the others also gained more confidence in themselves, they were more willing to stand up to his demands, until eventually he decided that if he wasn't going to be the star of the group, then he was better off on his own, and in April 1970 announced he was leaving The Beatles. I've always loved how him quitting was the end, even though the others had already quit in the last 2 years; Ringo walked out while recording the 'white' album after Paul took over drumming duties for Back in the U.S.S.R, George left when Paul was telling him how to play guitar, and John quit 6 months earlier because he was basically sick of everything. I've always found it interesting that in each of these previous cases, they were talked in to returning to the group. Yet no one tried to persuade Paul to stay...
So there you have it - a rather brief glimpse into my view on why The Beatles' split. Of course, after this Paul went on to form Wings where he was able to lord his musical talent over a bunch of average musicians (including the below average abilities of Linda) and make rather average 70's pop music (though I admit some of it was pretty good), so I'm sure he made the right decision.
Unfortunately, it also took one awfully messy lawsuit against John, George and Ringo... but that's for another blog.
Tuesday, 21 August 2007
I Am Not a Violent Person
After watching the Rocky movies again in the weekend, I went home last night and a strange thought occurred to me; has anyone else noticed that my favourite things to watch are all based on violence? I mean, first you have The Rocky movies, then pro-wrestling – Miami Vice and The A-Team both have excessive use of weapons and firearms. Heck, even Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles suffered the wrath of caring parents when I was a kid for being too violent!
It isn’t really something I can explain, because for the most part I would dare to say that I love these shows for reasons other than the action/violence. In the case of TMNT and the A-Team, it is the humour that has always made me appreciate the shows, while Rocky and Miami Vice have strong stories and characters that I can really care about and get involved in. And as for pro-wrestling… I’m not sure - I think that is just the redneck in me.
But do we think this exposure to violence has affected me, like groups have always claimed it would? Well, my blogs usually are filled with references to hurting someone in some way… but does that make me a violent person?
Perhaps
But then, I’ve never actually engaged in any sort of ‘physical violence’ myself; at school, I managed to avoid any actual fights (somehow – like, seriously, just thinking about it now I’m amazed. I was such a smart arse and used to be a lot smaller than what I am now… and at the roughest school in Hamilton… how on Earth did I not get beat up?) And any time I have ever had any sort of ‘injury’ was through complete stupidity on my part (like falling over on to a chair and slicing the side of my face – that sort of thing). I’ve been watching pro-wrestling on and off for 20 years, and other than a sharpshooter for everyone I meet in this life, I don’t think I’ve tried many wrestling manoeuvres on people. I’ve been on the receiving end on many, but I’ve never actually slammed anyone. Maybe if I was bigger…
And as for The A-Team and Miami Vice, I don’t see me buying guns or building tanks out of washing machines.
But I do have to concede defeat on the TMNT side, as my friends and I all had serious desires to become ninjas when we were 10; we wouldn’t hit each other, more tried to make our own nunchukas and practiced using them. We were even planning a venture into the sewers one day via the manhole in my front yard. Luckily we decided it wouldn’t be worth it, as the TMNT lived in New York.
I loved being a kid.
What was I saying about violence? I think I was trying to say that it doesn’t have influence on children. I get really annoyed every time I see someone in the paper or on TV saying that young people commit crimes because of what they see in movies, on television or in video games. To me, it is a complete cop out and an excuse for lousy parents. It also gives society something new to complain about. But I think I have actually given some weight to their argument here… I do want to put everyone in a sharpshooter. I do want to perform a corkscrew plancha over my fence onto pedestrians. I do want to live in the sewers and fight evil forces that try and take over the Earth.
But do I want to go beat someone up? No. Do I enjoy watching someone get legitimately hurt? No. For me, any sort of violence has a limit; any time I see a wrestler injure themselves, I cringe and think “arrrgh”. Every time Tubbs & Crockett shoot someone, I laugh at the lack of blood (and how there really shouldn’t be any drug dealers left in Miami, as I’m sure they had killed them all by the 4th season). And despite being weapons specialists in the Vietnam War, no one in The A-Team ever shot anyone.
Bah I hate how ‘on the fence’ I’m sounding on this. I’m really not – like I said, I’ve watched so much violence in my life that if we are to believe some people, I should have committed numerous killing sprees by now, and left everyone else injured from multiple power bombs. Saying someone is going to be violent because they have seen it in media is like saying a rich white kid is gangster because he listens to 50 Cent.
What I’m dancing around is this:
‘Fake’ violence is funny
Real violence is not
It isn’t really something I can explain, because for the most part I would dare to say that I love these shows for reasons other than the action/violence. In the case of TMNT and the A-Team, it is the humour that has always made me appreciate the shows, while Rocky and Miami Vice have strong stories and characters that I can really care about and get involved in. And as for pro-wrestling… I’m not sure - I think that is just the redneck in me.
But do we think this exposure to violence has affected me, like groups have always claimed it would? Well, my blogs usually are filled with references to hurting someone in some way… but does that make me a violent person?
Perhaps
But then, I’ve never actually engaged in any sort of ‘physical violence’ myself; at school, I managed to avoid any actual fights (somehow – like, seriously, just thinking about it now I’m amazed. I was such a smart arse and used to be a lot smaller than what I am now… and at the roughest school in Hamilton… how on Earth did I not get beat up?) And any time I have ever had any sort of ‘injury’ was through complete stupidity on my part (like falling over on to a chair and slicing the side of my face – that sort of thing). I’ve been watching pro-wrestling on and off for 20 years, and other than a sharpshooter for everyone I meet in this life, I don’t think I’ve tried many wrestling manoeuvres on people. I’ve been on the receiving end on many, but I’ve never actually slammed anyone. Maybe if I was bigger…
And as for The A-Team and Miami Vice, I don’t see me buying guns or building tanks out of washing machines.
But I do have to concede defeat on the TMNT side, as my friends and I all had serious desires to become ninjas when we were 10; we wouldn’t hit each other, more tried to make our own nunchukas and practiced using them. We were even planning a venture into the sewers one day via the manhole in my front yard. Luckily we decided it wouldn’t be worth it, as the TMNT lived in New York.
I loved being a kid.
What was I saying about violence? I think I was trying to say that it doesn’t have influence on children. I get really annoyed every time I see someone in the paper or on TV saying that young people commit crimes because of what they see in movies, on television or in video games. To me, it is a complete cop out and an excuse for lousy parents. It also gives society something new to complain about. But I think I have actually given some weight to their argument here… I do want to put everyone in a sharpshooter. I do want to perform a corkscrew plancha over my fence onto pedestrians. I do want to live in the sewers and fight evil forces that try and take over the Earth.
But do I want to go beat someone up? No. Do I enjoy watching someone get legitimately hurt? No. For me, any sort of violence has a limit; any time I see a wrestler injure themselves, I cringe and think “arrrgh”. Every time Tubbs & Crockett shoot someone, I laugh at the lack of blood (and how there really shouldn’t be any drug dealers left in Miami, as I’m sure they had killed them all by the 4th season). And despite being weapons specialists in the Vietnam War, no one in The A-Team ever shot anyone.
Bah I hate how ‘on the fence’ I’m sounding on this. I’m really not – like I said, I’ve watched so much violence in my life that if we are to believe some people, I should have committed numerous killing sprees by now, and left everyone else injured from multiple power bombs. Saying someone is going to be violent because they have seen it in media is like saying a rich white kid is gangster because he listens to 50 Cent.
What I’m dancing around is this:
‘Fake’ violence is funny
Real violence is not
Thursday, 16 August 2007
New Fan Mail
I received this lovely email from a fan named Todd and thought I would post it here out of interest:
"I'll never forget the time I was fishing with my brother Sammy and we were drinking lots of beer. We both got pretty drunk and Sammy said, "I'M THE MESSIAH! LOOK AT ME, I CAN WALK ON THE WATER!" Well, Sammy started walking off the shore, and fell straight in sinking way out of my sight. I was afraid to get in the water, so I just sat at the edge of the shore, petrified. This freaky looking big guy in a Skeleton Suit came running up the bank with this crazy ass strut. He pulled a big metal folding chair out and tied a rope to it. He then strummed it like a guitar for about 10 seconds then threw it in the lake. After doing the crazy strut a bit more, he pulled on the rope, and my brother Sammy came flying out of the water, landing right on the bank. Sammy wasn't breathing, so this guy started hitting his stomach with the chair. Water and fish flew out of Sammy's mouth as he started breathing again. I told this strange man, "Thanks!" and asked him what his name was. He handed me a card that simply read "La Parka". I told him thanks again, then Sammy did the same. Then, this man named La Parka hit us both on the head with his chair and strutted off into the sunset. I love La Parka. Long live La Parka!"
Long live La Parka indeed!
"I'll never forget the time I was fishing with my brother Sammy and we were drinking lots of beer. We both got pretty drunk and Sammy said, "I'M THE MESSIAH! LOOK AT ME, I CAN WALK ON THE WATER!" Well, Sammy started walking off the shore, and fell straight in sinking way out of my sight. I was afraid to get in the water, so I just sat at the edge of the shore, petrified. This freaky looking big guy in a Skeleton Suit came running up the bank with this crazy ass strut. He pulled a big metal folding chair out and tied a rope to it. He then strummed it like a guitar for about 10 seconds then threw it in the lake. After doing the crazy strut a bit more, he pulled on the rope, and my brother Sammy came flying out of the water, landing right on the bank. Sammy wasn't breathing, so this guy started hitting his stomach with the chair. Water and fish flew out of Sammy's mouth as he started breathing again. I told this strange man, "Thanks!" and asked him what his name was. He handed me a card that simply read "La Parka". I told him thanks again, then Sammy did the same. Then, this man named La Parka hit us both on the head with his chair and strutted off into the sunset. I love La Parka. Long live La Parka!"
Long live La Parka indeed!
Txting Etiquette
Over the last few months, I have had numerous txts from people for ridiculous reasons. Whether it has been Miriam asking the same question for 7th time that day, or someone just asking me about lunch at 7am, they have all served in the greater purpose of making LOGMAN hate having a cellphone. So with that in mind, I thought it would be great to share some simple rules for people planning on txting me who don't me to reply with a cellphone up their nose.
Please note these rules apply to everyone in the universe, with the exceptions of Sam, Warwick and Louise. These 3 make their own rules, and I live by them. Their drunken txts in the middle of the night are what I live for.
1. If you have more than 2 questions, don't bother txting.
I know this sounds harsh, but putting questions into a txt requires me to answer you. And most of the time I can't be bothered. While moving my thumbs across the keypad, I could miss La Parka doing a corkscrew plancha onto Super Calo. And then I would have to give you a corkscrew plancha to make up for it. And I'm just not as good as La Parka.
2. If you are going to insult me, don't bother txting.
Not that I'm against insulting people - it is one of my strongest giftings, after all - but again it means that I have to retaliate. And chances are reading your nasty txt has interrupted me, and that means my rebuttal won't be so friendly. And really, the difference between a txt and a verbal argument means I have time to think of 500 ways I'm going to kill you before you can even txt me intelligent responses like "u r a dik". Don't waste mine or vodafone's time.
3. If it is after 10pm, don't bother txting.
Now this one is a prickly situation. I know most nights I'm not usually in bed until around 2am. But there are the occasional times when I am tricked into thinking sleep is good, and I go to bed at a time that would put my Grandparents to shame. But they won't have to live with that shame because they are all dead. Anyway, it seems that on these mystical evenings most people want to converse with me via txt message at midnight. And usually about the most pointless things. So before you txt me in the middle of the night, ask yourself: LOGMAN wouldn't even be slightly interested in your latest escapades on World of Warcraft during the day, so is waking him up to tell him you've just married a magical fire elf really worth the fun of a magical Sharpshooter?
4. If you are asking the same question you have been asking numerous times, don't bother txting.
Now this really bothers me. If you asked me something yesterday and I gave a response, where is the point in txting me about it again? Chances are, if you haven't heard from me about it nothing has changed. Let's look at my friend Sam Seay: I txt'd him a few times asking for my Nightmare game back, and after getting no responses I stopped txting him. Why? Because he has no plans on giving it back and me txting him is not going to change his mind. It's only going to make him sit at home and go "Stop txting me, maggott! I AM... THE GATE-KEEPER!!!". I know I would. But like I said, if I say I will txt you when a situation changes, unless you hear from me you should assume it hasn't. Otherwise the situation will change... the situation of you having thumbs to txt with!
5. If it is before 8am, don't bother txting.
This is much like the 3rd rule. Someone once bitched at me about how my cellphone has an off button, and that my alarm will still work when my phone is off, so it is my fault if someone wakes me up. Well that's nice in your perfect little fairy world, but I have learnt first-hand that my phone needs to be on 24/7 in case of emergencies. So with that in mind, remember that LOGMAN is not a morning person and asking him anything before he has had a chance to switch his brain out of neutral will result in you receiving incomprehensible mutterings and severe whiplash.
6. If you are going to write "LOL", don't bother txting.
Seriously, it isn't a word. Don't pretend it is - you will only make yourself look stupid. If I was a teacher and a student used that in an essay, I would get La Parka to smack the student with their own chair. Seriously, I sometimes wonder if this is really what Hitler was fighting against; maybe his view of a "master race" was one that never used crack-inspired abbreviations like "LOL" or "BRB" or "LMAO". Maybe he had a good idea with those concentration camps. Maybe I'm about to get some hate mail. Send it here.
I may add more as time goes on, but for now I think this is a good start. Be sure to follow these rules, and you can be sure you may live a long and fruitful life.
Please note these rules apply to everyone in the universe, with the exceptions of Sam, Warwick and Louise. These 3 make their own rules, and I live by them. Their drunken txts in the middle of the night are what I live for.
1. If you have more than 2 questions, don't bother txting.
I know this sounds harsh, but putting questions into a txt requires me to answer you. And most of the time I can't be bothered. While moving my thumbs across the keypad, I could miss La Parka doing a corkscrew plancha onto Super Calo. And then I would have to give you a corkscrew plancha to make up for it. And I'm just not as good as La Parka.
2. If you are going to insult me, don't bother txting.
Not that I'm against insulting people - it is one of my strongest giftings, after all - but again it means that I have to retaliate. And chances are reading your nasty txt has interrupted me, and that means my rebuttal won't be so friendly. And really, the difference between a txt and a verbal argument means I have time to think of 500 ways I'm going to kill you before you can even txt me intelligent responses like "u r a dik". Don't waste mine or vodafone's time.
3. If it is after 10pm, don't bother txting.
Now this one is a prickly situation. I know most nights I'm not usually in bed until around 2am. But there are the occasional times when I am tricked into thinking sleep is good, and I go to bed at a time that would put my Grandparents to shame. But they won't have to live with that shame because they are all dead. Anyway, it seems that on these mystical evenings most people want to converse with me via txt message at midnight. And usually about the most pointless things. So before you txt me in the middle of the night, ask yourself: LOGMAN wouldn't even be slightly interested in your latest escapades on World of Warcraft during the day, so is waking him up to tell him you've just married a magical fire elf really worth the fun of a magical Sharpshooter?
4. If you are asking the same question you have been asking numerous times, don't bother txting.
Now this really bothers me. If you asked me something yesterday and I gave a response, where is the point in txting me about it again? Chances are, if you haven't heard from me about it nothing has changed. Let's look at my friend Sam Seay: I txt'd him a few times asking for my Nightmare game back, and after getting no responses I stopped txting him. Why? Because he has no plans on giving it back and me txting him is not going to change his mind. It's only going to make him sit at home and go "Stop txting me, maggott! I AM... THE GATE-KEEPER!!!". I know I would. But like I said, if I say I will txt you when a situation changes, unless you hear from me you should assume it hasn't. Otherwise the situation will change... the situation of you having thumbs to txt with!
5. If it is before 8am, don't bother txting.
This is much like the 3rd rule. Someone once bitched at me about how my cellphone has an off button, and that my alarm will still work when my phone is off, so it is my fault if someone wakes me up. Well that's nice in your perfect little fairy world, but I have learnt first-hand that my phone needs to be on 24/7 in case of emergencies. So with that in mind, remember that LOGMAN is not a morning person and asking him anything before he has had a chance to switch his brain out of neutral will result in you receiving incomprehensible mutterings and severe whiplash.
6. If you are going to write "LOL", don't bother txting.
Seriously, it isn't a word. Don't pretend it is - you will only make yourself look stupid. If I was a teacher and a student used that in an essay, I would get La Parka to smack the student with their own chair. Seriously, I sometimes wonder if this is really what Hitler was fighting against; maybe his view of a "master race" was one that never used crack-inspired abbreviations like "LOL" or "BRB" or "LMAO". Maybe he had a good idea with those concentration camps. Maybe I'm about to get some hate mail. Send it here.
I may add more as time goes on, but for now I think this is a good start. Be sure to follow these rules, and you can be sure you may live a long and fruitful life.
Saturday, 11 August 2007
Why Do I Have To Remember?
At work I have 3 seperate passwords for 3 seperate programs: my computer login, CT3 (our US log tracking software) and PC Banking.
It wasn't a problem when first setting up my computer, as I just used the same password for each program. But then came a problem... not sure if I should blame my employers or Windows, but someone needs the blame. You see, the passwords expire at different times - my login seems to expire every so often, CT3 requests I change not quite as often, and PC Banking just has a completely different set of rules that I choose not to care about.
So now I'm using 3 different passwords. Not that it's too confusing, but still. The real problem when comes when I have to keep changing them, because once a password has been used I'm not allowed to use it again on that program. And that is where the real problem lies.
I am a pretty imaginative guy, and thinking of passwords isn't the problem. However, remembering these passwords is not my strong point. I have a core group of 3 passwords I use in my life, so anything after that just becomes a mash of letters and numbers that I couldn't remember if it was stapled to my hand in neon lighting. I had a month off between December and January - do you think I could remember my passwords when I returned? Do you think an elephant would remember the passwords if they were away that long?
Anyway, I was thinking about this as all week my login has been stating that my password is about to expire, and I'm really in no hurry to change it. I was really grasping at straws for my last CT3 password (and I'm amazed I have not forgotten it, even though it is longer than the Russian alphabet), and I'm just not sure I have anything memorable left in me.
So instead I'm going to suggest a new login system for Windows (Yo Bill Gates - take note!) that involves a series of pictures that must be matched with various statements via multiple choice, such as show below:
1 - The Traveling Wilburys
2 - Open Mic Night at The Cathedral
3 - Iron Maiden World Tour 2000
1 - The Goblin King
2 - Peter Pan
3 - Cher
1 - Popeye
2 - The Head Chef at Medieval World
3 - Please Don't Tell Scott Steiner I Was Making Fun of Him - If He Asks, Tell Him I Said He Is A Nice Guy And A True Role Model To Society
1 - The Latest Hallensteins Mailer
2 - Chillin' Out, Miami Vice Style
3 - A Scene From 'The Lion King'
I think this way we could cut out the use of passwords and make a much more secure process to use our computers
It wasn't a problem when first setting up my computer, as I just used the same password for each program. But then came a problem... not sure if I should blame my employers or Windows, but someone needs the blame. You see, the passwords expire at different times - my login seems to expire every so often, CT3 requests I change not quite as often, and PC Banking just has a completely different set of rules that I choose not to care about.
So now I'm using 3 different passwords. Not that it's too confusing, but still. The real problem when comes when I have to keep changing them, because once a password has been used I'm not allowed to use it again on that program. And that is where the real problem lies.
I am a pretty imaginative guy, and thinking of passwords isn't the problem. However, remembering these passwords is not my strong point. I have a core group of 3 passwords I use in my life, so anything after that just becomes a mash of letters and numbers that I couldn't remember if it was stapled to my hand in neon lighting. I had a month off between December and January - do you think I could remember my passwords when I returned? Do you think an elephant would remember the passwords if they were away that long?
Anyway, I was thinking about this as all week my login has been stating that my password is about to expire, and I'm really in no hurry to change it. I was really grasping at straws for my last CT3 password (and I'm amazed I have not forgotten it, even though it is longer than the Russian alphabet), and I'm just not sure I have anything memorable left in me.
So instead I'm going to suggest a new login system for Windows (Yo Bill Gates - take note!) that involves a series of pictures that must be matched with various statements via multiple choice, such as show below:
1 - The Traveling Wilburys
2 - Open Mic Night at The Cathedral
3 - Iron Maiden World Tour 2000
1 - The Goblin King
2 - Peter Pan
3 - Cher
1 - Popeye
2 - The Head Chef at Medieval World
3 - Please Don't Tell Scott Steiner I Was Making Fun of Him - If He Asks, Tell Him I Said He Is A Nice Guy And A True Role Model To Society
1 - The Latest Hallensteins Mailer
2 - Chillin' Out, Miami Vice Style
3 - A Scene From 'The Lion King'
I think this way we could cut out the use of passwords and make a much more secure process to use our computers
Thursday, 9 August 2007
Serving God Ain't Hard With a Credit Card
I know I'm going to get blasted by a lot of people, but I had to share this short video. It may be old, but it is one of the funniest things I have seen in a while.
And yes, it is funny because it is true
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6MbinakS7I
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
31 March 1996 Arrowhead Pond Anaheim, California - USA Attendance: 18,853 Commentators: Vince McMahon & Gorilla Monsoon My thou... -
3 April 2005 Staples Center Los Angeles, California - USA Attendance: 20,193 Commentators: Jim Ross, Jerry 'the King' Lawler,... -
Sunbathing time in the Kiss house... This album sounds like it was recorded in a garage at the back of a cabin in the middle of Greymo...