Do you think it's a good idea to have two, 42-inch plasma TV's within ten feet of your desk? The company mandates that the weather channel be displayed when there are "visitors" (which is such a waste of a plasma TV but only occurs one a week or so) but, otherwise, people are free to put on whatever they want.
(I have an extrememly hard time NOT watching TV's if they're on (especially when thery are so close). It's my preference to keep them off while I'm trying to get work done.)
Well, I happened to be in the President's office (yes, he also has a 42" Plasma TV) to discuss setting up an internal video stream (for business functions) when he says to the CFO "You like your TV, right?" (yes, he got one too). The CFO says, "yeah, I've got financial news ticking by all day long." The President says, "Some of the TV's downstairs aren't even on all the time, can you believe that?" to which the CFO says "well, if they don't want them, I could use another one in my office". The President counters with "I could use another plasma TV at my house!" and they both laughed to each other.
Sure, it sounds like a bad sequel to Office Space but I'm afraid these people were mostly serious. Maybe it'll be different when I get that internal video stream setup for their line-of-business application. Until then, I better get used to watching two TV's while trying to focus enough to get some work done.
I just don't get some words. For example, textiles.
There's no text involved.
There are no tiles either.
I'd like "textiles" dropped from today's lexicon. Anyone oppose?
Forget that anyone ever coined the term "politically correct".
Now, go see Clerks II.
If you could vacation anywhere in the world from May until September, where would it be? Why?
Remember when everything went "Blue" a couple years ago? Stores, restaurants, sales promotions, credit cards, toys, fashion, etc. seemed to follow blindly (and typically without ONE good reason) to naming conventions based on the new "it" color.
Well, the landscape is changing (literally) and I'm prepared to go out on a limb and pronounce that Green is the new Blue.
Myriad articles have been written about the environment since Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast and oil prices peaked upwards of $75 a barrel but none have caught my attention like the COVER story of Newsweek entitled Going Green. It appears as though America might finally get it. Could two of my larger environmental pet peeves be on their way out?
First, an immediate, knee-jerk reaction to run for the hills whenever someone mentions doing something to preserve the environment. The word "recycle" makes people cringe or plead ignorance to avoid the extra 30 seconds a day involved in making a difference. Giving up an SUV that has never seen a drop of rain let alone an inch of snow or mud is like asking the owner to give up a lung. The notion of preserving green space is tantamount to taking food off of people's plates and these reactions run ad naseum across any and all environmental issues.
Too quickly do people dismiss environmental initiatives and the people behind them as "tree hugging hippies". Granted, the actual tree hugging hippies didn't do our generation any favors and have created some unfortunate stereotypes but Going Green reports that these perceptions might finally be changing.
Second, the largest barrier to becoming "greener" as a nation, company, household has always been the almighty dollar.
Homeowner: Sorry, I can't change my house over to more efficient lightbulbs because it would take 7 years to pay off and I'm not sure I'll have the house that long. I don't care that if my entire neighborhood switched to more efficient lighting and appliances that we would conserve enough energy to save an entire forest from destruction.
Business Owner: My apologies but I simply cannot switch from plastic packing peanuts to bio-degradeable packing materials because it's costs three cents more per package. Forget the fact that my kids will someday have to play in fields of packing peanuts instead of grass.
President: I must respectfully decline to reduce carbon emissions and oil consumption while decreasing the country's dependence on foreign resources because there will be expenses involved that will hurt the economy. No one cares that this could actually lead to a more prosperous economy in the long run that moves the United States away from foreign dependencies and towards being more self-sufficient.
For the longest time, Americans were waiting for technology to make environmentalism less expensive than standard consumerism. Going Green gives me hope that America (one of the most prosperous countries in the world) is finally willing to pay MORE to be environmentally conscious. I can see this trend sparking commerce and eventually leading to a marketplace where eco-friendly alternatives are comparable if not less expensive than standard items.
People are starting to see the big picture. They're starting to take responsibility for their own affect on the world around them from an environmental perspective. This is truly refreshing news if it is really indicative of a population-wide awakening.
I had heard of an American Express "Black" card years ago in conversation at Lehigh (University) and then again when I started working for a client that caters to some very big spenders.
Today, someone called me and told me all about how he hung out with a guy the previous night that actually had an Amex Black card and even took it out and let everyone around him hold it. This got me thinking about that fabled card and the mystery surrounding it.
Wikipedia to the rescue - Amex Black
Okay, ask anyone which two cities have the largest populations in Pennsylvania and I'm betting that no one will struggle to blurt out Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.
Now, I'll preface this by saying that I haven't really stumbled on anything that I found interesting enough to post in the past several weeks (my apologies) but this really surprised me.
The two most populous cities in Pennslyvania, each with at least three major sports franchises (Pittsburgh - baseball, football and hockey; Philadelphia - baseball, football, hockey and basketball) and TONS of history (Pittsburgh being more industrial revolution while Philadelphia is more THE revolution) are no where near each other in population size.
I knew that Pittsburgh was smaller ... and I seem to recall it being quite a bit smaller but not a scant 22% of Philadelphia's population! While Philadelphia boasts a population of 1.45 million people, Pittsburgh is only about 325,000 ... that's only about three times the size of Allentown.
Am I the only one that didn't realize how much smaller Pittsburgh is compared to Philadelphia?
If you didn't get goosebumps when they showed Superman for the first time with the John Williams Superman theme playing in the background, you might be dead.