EppsNet

Rough Layouts Sell the Idea Better Than Polished Ones

by Paul Epps on 29 Nov 2012

This was written by an ad man but I can see it applying to other endeavors, like designing a software interface:

If you show a client a highly polished computer layout, he will probably reject it.

There is either too much to worry about or not enough to worry about. They are equally bad.

It is a fait accompli.

There is nothing for him to do. It’s not his work, it’s your work. He doesn’t feel involved.

If he doesn’t like the face of the girl in your rendering, or the style of the trousers on the man on the right, or the choice of the car he’s driving, he’s going to reject it.

He won’t see the big idea. He will look at the girl’s face and think, ‘I don’t like her, this doesn’t feel right.’

It is very difficult for him to imagine anything else if what you show him has such detail.

Show the client a scribble.

Explain it to him, talk him through it, let him use his imagination.

Get him involved.

Because you haven’t shown the exact way it’s going to be, there’s scope to interpret it and develop and change it as you progress.

Work with him rather than confronting him with your idea.

— Paul Arden, It’s Not How Good You Are, It’s How Good You Want to Be

Lightning and Me Toast the Holidays with Trader Joe’s 2012 Vintage Ale

by Paul Epps on 27 Nov 2012

I Don’t Understand What Warren Buffett is Talking About

by Paul Epps on 27 Nov 2012

Warren Buffett speaking to a group of students... — Warren Buffett

In an op-ed for the New York Times, Warren Buffett argues that higher taxes won’t keep the super-rich from trying to make money:

Suppose that an investor you admire and trust comes to you with an investment idea. “This is a good one,” he says enthusiastically. “I’m in it, and I think you should be, too.”

Would your reply possibly be this? “Well, it all depends on what my tax rate will be on the gain you’re saying we’re going to make. If the taxes are too high, I would rather leave the money in my savings account, earning a quarter of 1 percent.” Only in Grover Norquist’s imagination does such a response exist.

— A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy – NYTimes.com

Really, Warren? It’s an investment, right? It’s not a sure thing. It’s not a giveaway. I’m being asked to put money at risk. That’s the difference between an investment and a savings account.

So the number one thing that I want to understand before making the investment is what kind of a net return can I expect — worst case, best case, most likely case. Then I can decide if I’m being adequately compensated for the risk that I’m taking on.

And by net return, I mean after taxes, after commissions, after everything. How much money will I actually get to keep? And if I don’t think I’m being adequately compensated for the risk, then yeah, I’ll leave the money in my savings account.

Assuming a tax rate of, say, 35 percent, why does it not make sense to say, “I would take that risk for an expected return of $X, but not for an expected return of 35 percent less than $X?”

IT Recruiter of the Day

by Paul Epps on 27 Nov 2012

From an actual job ad:

Killer, Profitable, Stable and cutting edge technology company looking for genious!!!

It’s funny when someone misspells the word “genius”!

Why are random words like “Profitable” and “Stable” capitalized? Because the recruiter wanted to highlight the adjectives? Then why isn’t “cutting edge” capitalized?

Why isn’t “cutting edge” hyphenated?

Stick Throwing Leads to Tragedy

by Lightning Epps on 26 Nov 2012

EUREKA, Calif. (AP) — A couple died and their 16-year-old son went missing after being swept into sea in Northern California while trying to save their dog, authorities said Sunday.

The family was at Big Lagoon, a beach north of Eureka, Saturday afternoon when the dog chased after a thrown stick and got pulled into the ocean by eight to ten foot waves, said Dana Jones, a state Parks and Recreation district superintendent.

— Couple swept to sea in effort to save son, dog – Yahoo! News

Hi, everybody! It’s me, Lightning!

Folks: Don’t throw sticks into 10-foot waves. I’m not a stick-chasing kind of dog myself, but some dogs, like retrievers, are just born to fetch things. They can’t help it.

So it’s up to you, the owner, not to throw something where it’s not safe for the dog to be.

Another thing: the dog in this case actually made it out of the ocean by himself!

Dogs know how to swim — just keep your head up and paddle! Humans sometimes will panic or give up but a dog will keep trying and not give up.

— Lightning

Aside

Tim Ferriss: The Value of Aggression — Ode to Dan Gable

We Had Linguini for Dinner Tonight!

by Lightning Epps on 26 Nov 2012

Humans Evolving to Become Less Intelligent?

by Paul Epps on 25 Nov 2012

Gerald Crabtree, a geneticist at Stanford University, suggests that humans are evolving to become less intelligent. Crabtree asserts that the safer life gets for humans, the less important it is for us to have good judgment for survival and mating.

Thousands of years ago, human idiots were much more likely to be removed from the gene pool (i.e., die) as a result of their lack of intelligence and judgment. Nowadays, it’s rare for someone to die because they were unable to outwit a predator.

Modern Baptists

by Paul Epps on 23 Nov 2012

Mr. Pickens knew that once he got his preaching diploma, he would open a church for modern Baptists, Baptists who were sick to death of hell and sin being stuffed down their gullets every Sunday. There wasn’t going to be any of that old-fashioned ranting and raving in Mr. Pickens’s church. His Baptist church would be guided by reason and logic. Everyone could drink in moderation. Everyone could dance and pet as long as they were fifteen—well, maybe sixteen or seventeen. At thirty, if you still weren’t married, you could sleep with someone, and it wouldn’t be a sin—that is, as long as you loved that person. If you hit forty and were still single, you’d be eligible for adultery not being a sin, as long as no children’s feelings got hurt and it was kept very discreet. But you still had to love and respect the person; you couldn’t just do it for sex.

— James Wilcox, Modern Baptists

Ecclesiastes 1:1-7

by Paul Epps on 23 Nov 2012

The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem.

“Vanity of vanities,” says the Preacher;
“Vanity of vanities, all is vanity.”

What profit has a man from all his labor
In which he toils under the sun?
One generation passes away, and another generation comes;
But the earth abides forever.
The sun also rises, and the sun goes down,
And hastens to the place where it arose.
The wind goes toward the south,
And turns around to the north;
The wind whirls about continually,
And comes again on its circuit.
All the rivers run into the sea,
Yet the sea is not full;
To the place from which the rivers come,
There they return again.

— Ecclesiastes 1:1-7

Thomas Jefferson on the General Welfare Clause

by Paul Epps on 23 Nov 2012

[Thomas Jefferson] then considered the general phrase of the Constitution that identified the purpose of the taxing power as “to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.” Congress, he said, was to levy taxes only for these purposes, not for any purpose they pleased. “In like manner they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.” To interpret this provision in any other way would reduce the Constitution to “a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the U.S. and as they would be the sole judges of good or evil, it would also be a power to do whatever evil they pleased.”

— Noble E. Cunningham, Jr., In Pursuit of Reason: The Life of Thomas Jefferson

No Surprises in Berkeley

by Paul Epps on 23 Nov 2012

Third-party! Stein, Johnson, Anderson and Good... — (Photo credit: ironypoisoning)

Final election counts are in for Berkeley, CA, the most liberal city in America. Let’s start with the presidential election, where Mitt Romney was able to edge out Jill Stein for second place:

Barack Obama, Democrat – 90.3%
Mitt Romney, Republican – 4.6%
Jill Stein, Green Party – 3.2%

California ballot proposition results included:

Proposition 30, a measure to increase state income tax rates for the wealthy – 90.7% Yes (passed statewide at 54.6%)
Proposition 34, to abolish the death penalty in California – 86% Yes (lost statewide 52% to 48%)
Proposition 37, requiring labeling of genetically engineered food – 92.4% Yes (lost statewide 52% to 48%)

Thanksgiving Ingredient Network Leftovers

by Paul Epps on 21 Nov 2012

Via Lada Adamic, whose Coursera class on Social Network Analysis I just completed and enjoyed:

If you don’t have quite the right ingredients handy while cooking Thanksgiving dinner, here is a network of common substitutions as found in reviewers’ comments on a large recipe site (click to see a larger view):

Tedford Relieved of Duties, i.e., Fired

by Paul Epps on 20 Nov 2012

Cal head coach Jeff Tedford at the 2009 Cal Fa... — Cal head coach Jeff Tedford at the 2009 Cal Fan Appreciation Day at Memorial Stadium in Berkeley, California.

BERKELEY – Jeff Tedford, who has overseen the Golden Bear football program for the past 11 seasons, has been relieved of his duties as head football coach at the University of California, Director of Athletics Sandy Barbour announced Tuesday.

— The University of California Official Athletic Site

Tedford must have seen this coming back in August when he put his house on the market for a cool $5.35 million.

He was saddled with a doofus quarterback as a throw-in on the Keenan Allen deal and the team’s 3-9 record speaks for itself.

Tedford did a lot of good things at Cal. He took over a 1-10 team in 2002 and won seven games his first season. In 2004, Cal went 10-2, finished ninth in the final AP poll, and in 2006, the Golden Bears went 10-3.

Tedford was getting NFL offers during that time and turning them down. He was loyal to Cal. Rumor has it that Pete Carroll was recommending Tedford for NFL jobs, hoping to get him out of the Pac-10 Conference.

Bleacher Report has a list of the top 5 candidates to replace Tedford. The San Jose Mercury News has a longer list.

More People I’m Sick Unto Death Of: Paul Krugman

by Hostile Witness on 19 Nov 2012

America in the 1950s made the rich pay their fair share; it gave workers the power to bargain for decent wages and benefits; yet contrary to right-wing propaganda then and now, it prospered. And we can do that again.

— Paul Krugman

I hardly know where to begin with this . . .

First of all, what is the relevance of the 1950s as opposed to any other period of American history? America prior to 1913 had no permanent income tax and contrary to left-wing propaganda, it prospered. Why can’t we do that again?

Of course we’re all in favor of fairness — right? — but why is it only important that “the rich” pay their “fair share”? I don’t remember ever hearing anyone, certainly not Krugman, use the phrase “pay their fair share” in reference to any group except “the rich.”

If you’re concerned about fairness, isn’t it also important that the middle class “pay their fair share”? Isn’t it important that the poor “pay their fair share”? Shouldn’t we all have some skin in the game?

Why not say that everyone should “pay their fair share” instead of making a class warfare issue out of it?

As George Harrison used to say:

Should five percent appear too small
Be thankful I don’t take it all

America in the 1950s had a top tax bracket of 91 percent for incomes greater than $200,000. For every dollar you made in excess of $200,000, the federal government took 91 cents as its “fair share.” You got to keep nine cents as your “fair share.”

Out of those nine cents, you also had to pay Social Security taxes, state taxes, local taxes, sales taxes, property taxes and excise taxes. Am I forgetting anything? It doesn’t seem unlikely to me that nine cents on the dollar wouldn’t be enough to cover all those taxes, in which case you’d actually lose money on every dollar.

If I’d been a business owner in the 1950s, with the knowledge that once I made 200 grand, I’d be operating at a loss, I would have just shut the place down at that point and sent everyone home till the next year. I don’t care if it was November or August or January.

Finally, when Krugman talks about workers having “the power to bargain,” he’s talking about unions, as though the two things are inseparable. I’ve never been in a union but I’ve bargained for wages and benefits at every job I’ve ever had. Anyone with marketable skills can bargain for wages and benefits.

P.S. Maybe I’m reading too much into it, but “workers” is a telling choice of words, isn’t it? Why not “employees” or just “people”? “Workers” calls to mind communist rallying cries and the Wobblies.

If Everything Goes as Intended . . .

by Paul Epps on 19 Nov 2012

If [Affordable Care Act] implementation goes as intended and widespread utilization and automation are achieved, providers could save about $11 billion per year.

— Reducing Administrative Costs and Improving the Health Care System — New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM)

You really can’t dispute something as vague as that but it does raise a number of questions:

What does it mean for thousands of pages of legislation affecting the entire healthcare industry as well as every man, woman and child in America to go “as intended”? It’s a circular argument. If it goes as intended, we save $11 billion. If we don’t save $11 billion, it didn’t go as intended.
Is “widespread utilization and automation” part of going “as intended” or is that a separate thing?
Assuming that implementation does go as intended and widespread utilization and automation are achieved, the best we can say is that providers “could” save “about” $11 billion per year? Could they save more? Less? Break even? Could they lose $11 billion? It’s meaningless speculation.
Can anyone remind me of a large-scale government program that went “as intended” and saved everyone a lot of money?
Why, despite all evidence to the contrary, do people continue to believe that government can successfully engineer social aspirations?

In other news, if my plan to grow wings on pigs goes as intended, it could revolutionize the way we export bacon.

These things never go as intended. They can’t possibly go as intended. There are always unintended consequences. I can’t implement a policy in my own house and have it go as intended and there’s just two people and a dog.

I asked the friend who called the NEJM article to my attention what going “as intended” means in the context of the ACA and he said, “I think it means legislators don’t muck with it too much.” What does “muck” mean? What does “too much” mean? We could go on and on . . .

Language Poetry and Aleatory Poetry

by Paul Epps on 16 Nov 2012

The last couple of weeks in ModPo, we’ve been reading “Language Poetry” and aleatory poetry, including the work of Ron Silliman, Lyn Hejinian, Bob Perelman, Charles Bernstein, Jackson Mac Low, Jena Osman and Joan Retallack.

I have to admit it all seemed lazy to me. The reader has to do all the work. (See below for a differing opinion.) I didn’t like any of the poems enough to share one, so here instead are the lyrics to Randy Newman‘s “Marie”:

Randy Newman at the New Orleans Jazz & Heritag... — Randy Newman at the New Orleans Jazz & Heritage Festival (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

You looked like a princess the night we met
With your hair piled up high
I will never forget
I’m drunk right now baby
But I’ve got to be
Or I never could tell you
What you meant to me

I loved you the first time I saw you
And I always will love you Marie
I loved you the first time I saw you
And I always will love you Marie

You’re the song that the trees sing when the wind blows
You’re a flower, you’re a river, you’re a rainbow

Sometimes I’m crazy
But I guess you know
And I’m weak and I’m lazy
And I’ve hurt you so
And I don’t listen to a word you say
When you’re in trouble I just turn away
But I love you

I loved you the first time I saw you
And I always will love you Marie
I loved you the first time I saw you
And I always will love you Marie

If that isn’t poetry, I don’t know what is.

Here’s what ModPo professor Al Filreis says about aleatory poetry:

So this kind of writing, I want to emphasize, has rigor and it has intention at the level of design. It’s not easy, it’s not facile and it’s not to be confused with improvisation and indeterminacy and even random or arbitrary are the wrong words to describe it. Many, as I’ve said, resist it. Many find no beauty in it. . . . Why should I waste my time, it doesn’t mean anything. Well, I have so many things to say in response to that and gosh, I’m not even sure where to start, but I’ll give it a try.

Well, here’s one thing: when I think about how much of my time I spend, my own time, how much time I spend and waste really, watching and listening to things that make a whole lot of conventional sense but ultimately don’t mean anything. Where normally meant statements are empty and useless and unbeautiful, I figure that I owe it to those who seek a significant alternative, the time of day. Maybe they’re telling me to relax. Maybe they’re telling me let down my guard. I’m always, I seem to be always on guard for meaning in meaninglessness. Maybe I should let down that guard and maybe I should hear the music in the apparent dissonance and discordance of my world. And maybe the discovery of sense in language that was not intended at the level of the sentence or of the phrase makes that sense all the more powerful. And maybe when words formed through quasi non-intentional chance operations produce something “accidentally” lovely (I’ve got air quotes around the word accidentally), when that loveliness is accidental, I’ll be all the more astonished at the beauty that’s just out there, that’s ambient in our language and just waiting to be rearranged.

The Audacity of 51%

by Paul Epps on 15 Nov 2012

“Maybe peace would have broken out with a different kind of White House, one less committed to waging a perpetual campaign–a White House that would see a 51-48 victory as a call to humility and compromise rather than an irrefutable mandate.”

Yeah, well, shut up, you Republican losers. Obama won, which means a majority of Americans support his policies. Stop being obstructionist and get with the program.

Oh wait, sorry. That quote wasn’t from a Republican but from a recently elected Democrat. It was referring not to Obama but to George W. Bush after the 2004 election. The author: Barack Obama, junior senator from Illinois. The book: The Audacity of Hope.

— James Taranto, Best of the Web Today

Why is There No Progress in Exercise Science?

by Paul Epps on 12 Nov 2012

Why can’t someone invent a workout you can do, say, once a year and still see excellent results? There is no progress in exercise science.

We can put a man on the moon, a rover on Mars, but we can’t develop a once-a-year, high intensity workout?

Very disappointing.

Boost Your Word Power with EppsNet!

by Paul Epps on 12 Nov 2012

Here’s a pet peeve of mine . . .

“Unique” means “one of a kind.” So it’s not correct to describe something as being “very unique,” “quite unique,” “rather unique” . . . it’s either unique or it isn’t.

Yeah, I know everyone does it but it’s still wrong. Instead, try using “unusual” or “uncommon” or “out of the ordinary” or “atypical” or “rare.”

Thank you . . .

Related Posts

Related Posts

Related Links

Related Posts

Related Posts

Related Posts

Aside

Related Posts

Related Posts

Related Posts

Related Posts

Related Posts

Related Posts

Related Posts

Related Posts

Related Posts

Related Posts

Related Posts

Related Posts

Related Posts

Related Posts