Detour

Everyone knows that the number of the beast (the devil) is 666.

However, not many are aware of google suggests (a site from google that uses java to finish searches for quicker results…I LOVE GOOGLE).

Being the curious type, I wondered what would happen when the commonly known is combined with the little known.

So when I typed Rush Limbaugh into Google Suggests, imagine my surprise when I had verifiable proof that Rush Limbaugh is, in fact, the devil.

666 thousand webpages…how convenient. What Google programmer thought that would be funny?

John Morrow over at econgrads.com is taking a survey.

If you were, are, or will be in an economics graduate program, please take the following survey at:

survey.econgrads.com

Your participation will help address the issue of solution manuals and graduate education in general. Please distribute the address to non-users of the site as I’m afraid the frequent users are a fairly biased sample. Thank you, and especially thank you to contributors who have made the site possible.

Torabisu

When registering for a class at San Francisco Community College this fall I was presented with this notice:

IMPORTANT NOTICE:

On Wednesday, August 11, 2004 Govenor Schwarzenegger signed Senate
Bill 1108, setting the California Community College enrollment fee at
$26.00 per semester unit. This increase is effective for the Fall 2004
School Term. California Community Colleges are required to charge the
increased enrollment fee, which applies to students who have
previously registrered for Fall 2004 School Term as well as to those
who register after this date. If you registred for Fall 2004 classes
you will be reassessed the increase of $8.00 per semester unit in
enrollment fees and notified by mail.

If you are having difficulty paying your student fees, please contact
the Financial Aid Office at (415)239-3576.

In other words… “Sorry about this fee hike but its not our fault.”

I’m paying $100 for a 3 unit class I’d pay $500 for. That suggests that they’re not charging what the market will handle. In the past I’ve paid well over $1200 for a single technical class for non-government subsidized education that is offered at community colleges for $150.

Additionally, at California public schools the price for learning to taste wine is the same as learning how to optimize complex database IO algorithms. Seems to me something isn’t right, and it has little to do with Arnold. What do you say we stop subsidizing education for those who can afford it, start charging market rates for classes, and stop whining about tuition fees?

Torabisu

About 50,000 years ago mankind came to a consensus that talking about certain subjects at our place of employment was to be avoided. Cavemen, living in close proximity and lacking modern anger management skills realized that beating the crap out of each other with mammoth thighbones was less productive to the clan then beating the crap out of mammoths.

How have we evolved? Currently I see the following pattern at work:

1. Majority speaker opens his mouth and spews forth an opinion that someone disagrees with.
2. God (or Lenin) help minority dude if he makes the mistake of offering an alternative point of view to the official dogma/party line.
3. Naturally, Once he has been spotted as an unconverted (or stupid) one, he is subjected to a relentless effort by intellectually (or spiritually) superior coworkers to subtly hint at the inferiority of his position to enlighten him.
4. Because minority man believes one thing… (e.g.: bonsai kittens are cool) it is a forgone conclusion that he must believe something else (e.g.: Alien anal probes are enlightening).
5. Coworkers that are opposed to alien anal probes (virtually everyone) are offended and now work relationships are adversely affected.

The conversion process is my favorite part, except when it happens to me.

This is how I think it’s supposed to work. Plan A:
1. The majority speaker keeps his mouth shut.

YEP! that’s it. Just don’t talk about inappropriate subjects in certain forums (work). but… what if someone inadvertently speaks about a subject? Plan B:

1. The speaker insensitively opens his mouth and talks about a taboo subject.
2. Everyone in the vicinity, just pauses creating an awkward silence.
3. Someone, preferably the most mature person in the room speaks about a totally different subject.
4. Everyone continues the conversation like Diarrhea Mouth didn’t screw up again.

This is not that complicated either. It has worked for centuries and it is so common that we have forgotten that it is a common form of reproach used by groups to enforce certain standards of behavior.

Don’t get me wrong, minority man should avoid feeding this black hole of political opinion in the first place. And if he does, see plan B above. (you see… it works for BOTH sides… Brilliant!!!)

Unfortunately, living in the Bay Area (perhaps it’s the same everywhere). These taboo subjects are broached because we perceive everyone else around us as having the same opinion. After all, isn’t that what 80% of the vote means? EVERYONE voted exactly as I did therefore I am around equals (AKA people who believe everything I do).

I attribute this attitude to accidental social conditioning where we are never exposed to people who have different opinions. I thought that’s why people went to college but I supposed diversity of opinion is not exactly what they strive for there.

Anyway, because of this diversity problem the Plan A & Plan B systems that have worked for centuries are not working at my job so I have developed a plan C:

1. The speaker insensitively opens his mouth and talks about something stupid.
2. Most people in the vicinity pause to create an awkward silence but it fails because someone responds either rebutting or supporting the original silly comment.
3. Walk away. Don’t stomp, pout, or say goodbye. Quietly remove yourself without an explanation.

I anticipate a few questions by my coworkers so I will list them here:

Q: “Why do you leave conversations when we start talking about [taboo topic]?”
A: “I find political opinions to be tiresome at work”

Q: “Aren’t you just leaving because you disagree with us?”
A: “I leave because I believe that religion and politics should not be discussed at work.”

Q: “Really though, aren’t you just avoiding having your opinions confronted?”
A: “I live in [location], and I have [political/religious] opinions that 80% of voters disagree with. Do you really think I don’t have my opinions confronted at every turn?”

I do not know if this will work for me, but I’ll keep you posted.