Working on homework. Still trying to get the database going right at work. I know how to do the subforms, but I must not have all the relationships work out because when I test it with one of my entries, I keep getting errors. I get rather sucked into the problem when trying to solve it...so this day seemed to pass by in a blur (and I even worked a bit later than usual, since I lost track of time.)

Pulled out my winter coat today, as it was bitterly cold this morning. I woke up a little early, 'cause they were doing some work on the addition - which is coming along. Be nice if I didn't have the sinking feeling I'll never get money back from that bond. I sent the paperwork off to the bond company and harassed my building department into faxing him the proper forms. Last week I just got his voicemail, but assumed he was on vacation or something. This week the phone number doesn't work at all, nor the claims officer's email address. I don't know what's going on with that....

I'm working on my paper, and came across a quote (which I luckily found online, so I didn't have to retype) -

"The average human brain finds its effective scope in handling from three to six other brains. If a man divides the whole of his work into two branches and delegates his responsibility, freely and properly, to two experienced heads of branches he will not have enough to do. The occasions when they would have to refer to him would be too few to keep him fully occupied. If he delegates to three heads he will be kept fairly busy, whilst six heads of branches will give most bosses a ten-hour day. . . .
Of all the ways of waste there is none so vicious as your clever politician trying to run a business concern without having any notion of self-organization. One of them who took over Munitions for a time had so little idea of organizing his own energy that he nearly died of overwork through holding up the work of others; i.e., by delegating responsibility coupled with direct access to himself to seventeen subchiefs. . . .
As to whether the groups are three, four, five or six it is useful to bear in mind a by-law; the smaller the responsibility of the group member, the
larger may be the number of the group — and vice versa. That is to say, one NCO in charge of three private soldiers would be too idle; one lieutenant in charge of six divisional generals would be too busy. The nearer we approach the supreme head of the whole organization, the more we ought to work towards groups of three; the closer we get to the foot of the whole organization, the more we work towards
groups of six."

That's by General Sir Ian Hamilton. Okay, I don't know if anyone else will find this as interesting I do. Its just that I've always heard/understood that the military has perforce learned the proper span of control, and that said span of control is ideally about three to five subordinates.

This was really long, and I think rather personal for the author...but important, nonetheless.

Also ties in with something I was thinking recently. Well, a couple of somethings. One was the bit about how a counselor always has to be careful, because at a certain point in their relationship with their patient the patient will think that they're falling in love with the counselor. Its not hard to understand, I think. The counselor knows you on a really deep, personal level. They make you feel like you're accepted, despite your personal history. They make you feel good about yourself.

But the danger, at that stage, is that your feeling good is all dependent on the counselor. You aren't really learning to accept and love yourself, but are allowing your personal happiness to depend on that other person.

Its okay to lean on each other from time to time...but as I keep saying, we all have good days and bad days. Here on a blog I have some measure of control over how I present myself. I may write about a dispute or something...but its generally after the fact. Its different. I do get irritable, may make a remark that is out of line, etc. But if you're relying on me for your own happiness...those remarks could be devastating. Unintentionally so. Instead of saying "oh, she's just in a bad mood"...the other person is more likely to say "oh God, she hates me!"

It also somewhat reminds me of the briefings we got when we were returning from Iraq. People had been away from their families for over a year. They'd generally build up some ideal image of what it would be like, to be back home. And all too often people return only to find themselves a bit disappointed. Its not like they imagined it. Their family changed while they were away. There's a distance that's arisen, and it only goes away with time and effort. Sure, you can have the great homecoming...but then you find out that the house has been rearranged, or your spouse and children seem to have adjusted to your absence and don't seem to need you all that much.

Its hard to sort out the things that are normal, the things you should take in stride as part of being in a relationship...vs the things that you can work on and improve. All part of that striving for a better relationship.

I think its that commitment to building a better relationship that's the key. Your happiness and my happiness matters, and we won't tolerate 'getting by' when we could do better. Except (as the article above shows) once you go down that path it can lead to some scary, strange, and uncomfortable places.

I'm sort of happy today. I've been trying to figure out a way to create a good database for one of our clients. The particular promotion we're doing right now has a time limit (they all do), but we work with these guys enough that I figure its worth taking the time to create something good.

Thing is, our client deals with cabinets. So we get a rebate form and a purchase order from the dealer (as well as some other stuff). The client tells us that dealers will sometimes put multiple sales on one purchase order...so the purchase order number may be used more than once. Each purchase order also has various line items, including an acronym for the cabinet style and an alphanumeric description of what kind of cabinet it is. Multiple purchases per entry, minimum of fifteen to get the rebate...but more than fifteen is certainly possible.

So I wanted to create a bunch of nested tables. One basic table for the rebate form, then a subdatasheet (which I've now figured out how to do..though I hope to turn it into a separate tab within the rebate form) with the purchase order information, with a subdatasheet inside THAT for all the line item cabinet data.

Most of which I've finally figured out, with some help. It kind of came together towards the end of the day. Just want to tweak a couple of things. Figure out how to turn one subdatasheet into a tab on the form, make sure I have a column in the cabinet field for purchase order number (so that if I go to the datasheet itself I can figure out which cabinets are part of which purchase order), etc. Plus start creating tables for later processing. Which entries passed, which failed, when checks were sent out...what check number, for how much...stuff like that. The difficult part was figuring out the subdatasheets, and getting them all related to each other properly.

Also knocked out the bare bones of our powerpoint presentation for the group project, due next week. We're meeting Saturday to try to finish it all up in time.

I still have more work to do on my paper, which I think I'll work on tomorrow. After I go to the gym, that is. (I've been somewhat good about getting to the gym over the holidays, though with Mom's health and Thanksgiving and the end of the semester I haven't gone quite as often as normal. I went to our school track Monday to get some running and sprints in, so tomorrow I'll probably do a long cardio on the elliptical.)

Despite all the things I still have to do, I feel like I accomplished a decent amount of work today.

We were discussing types of power. Power derived from your position, for example. Or expertise (doctors, lawyers, plumbers, electricians...). Or networking. I tried making a point about networking that I think I just didn't present very well. Mostly because I came down pretty hard on it. So before I go into that I should say up front - networking is not inherently bad. In some ways, it can be very effective.

Its just....

Its just that networking, taken too far (as the only way to get things done) can be problematic. Sure, its great if you're on the inside. If you know who's who, and have access to them. But if you take networking to the extreme, I think it ties in with patronage, nepotism, and power blocs. Things get done because of who you know...to an exaggerated degree. Sure, a certain amount of that can and will happen...

But there's a difference between using networking to get information you otherwise might not, or to get in touch with someone you need to...vs. networking as the only way to get things done. Its like...the NY Guard should not have a competition of networks to figure out who gets a building. That's a decision that can (and I think ought) to be made based on an objective look at who needs the building more, and what the alternatives are. No, not every decision can be made in an objective fashion...but its still an ideal worth aiming for.

Oh, and if you have to network to get necessary supplies, then its kind of an indication that your supply system is broken...so sometimes networking is a work-around that keeps people from addressing the underlying issues.

Networking also, if combined with power blocs and in-group power struggles, can tie in with who learns what, when. Who misses an important meeting because nobody told them about it. Who networks behind the scenes to build opposition to something they don't like...

If its used to supplement other structures, I think networking can be pretty beneficial. But I'm leery of it as the sole (or even main) way of getting things done.

A friend of mine just got done with a date (she likes to have me text and/or call at a designated time, so if its going badly she can use my call as an excuse to end it. And if its going well, she'll ignore my text and keep on with her date. Then we generally talk afterwards about how it went. In case anyone out there is wondering...this is not abnormal, though not everyone does it all the time. I don't recall ever doing that, but in retrospect I rarely went out on clear 'dates' when starting a relationship. I met my first boyfriend through ultimate frisbee. Second one at a classmates' party, four of us left the party to go hang out somewhere else. I think maybe to shoot pool, but I could be getting that mixed up with the second week. My ability to hold my liquor was sort of an excuse for the second week..since I wound up being the designated driver our first night. That second week wasn't when we started dating either...but I find it hard to remember when. We just hung out and did stuff, you know? If you both like doing that, and choose to do it often enough, then soon enough you're calling each other up every day to see what's what, get together for dinner or a movie or something...then maybe sort of wind up living over at the other person's place. I say sort of, because I've always had my own apartment or living space to go to, so its not like I co-habitated. I can't recall if I ever brought over my own toothbrush, though I do remember bringing over a cast iron skillet. And getting a key to his place...which I used to get my skillet back, then left on the counter after we broke up.)

Ahem.

So, right. Dating. People have different ideas about what a good date is. Mostly you want something that gives you time to interact with each other. Talk. Focus on each other. Dinner and a movie is sort of classic...but you don't actually interact much when watching a movie. Dinner can make up for that, and if you do something after the movie then the movie can be a good conversation starter. (Which makes a movie, followed by dinner, a good choice if you're worried about the talking aspect. Alternatively, you can do dinner and a movie...and if things are going well then you can do an after-movie coffee or something.) Getting coffee can be a good starter, too. Low-key, no set time limit. You can stay as long or as short as you feel, based on whether you're enjoying yourself or not.

Going for a walk can be nice, though that can be weather dependent...and some people may like it more than others. Hmmm, walking might not be best for a first date.

Given that first dates can be pretty awkward, I think its good to do something that is light-hearted, maybe helps break the tension. Sure, you have to talk...but you don't necessarily have to say it all on the first night, you know? Interactive and/or competitive games like billiards or bowling can do that.

As you get a better feel for each other, you can tailor what you do to your mutual interests better. There's a lot more you could do, but its harder to say if they're good choices or not.

Finished my case study for class today. The final case study...for this class at least. I still have our final exam/case study for the other class. Plus my paper, group project, and a personal essay. Still, I think things are spaced out rather well this year. Our group project is due in a week, my paper is due the Friday after that, and our take home final/final case study is due the Wednesday after that. While I definitely have to keep working on things, I feel like they're progressing well enough for now.

In other news. Hmm. Do you ever feel like life would work better if everyone just agreed to go along with you? I know I sometimes get that way, especially if I feel like my reasoning is obvious and anyone could figure it out. Its an attitude I try to resist, because its the kind of thinking that leads you to close your mind and dismiss dissenting viewpoints without actually considering them. I, being a fallible human being who can only process so much, can still miss something important. Or fail to take into consideration different viewpoints.

Besides, I wouldn't want people to agree with me simply because I browbeat them into it, or they just got tired and gave in. I'd much rather persuade them to my point of view because they come to believe I'm onto something...though this takes longer. Sometimes. Depending.

Which means that sometimes I'm not sure whether to admire or get annoyed with someone for stubbornly sticking to a point of view that differs from my own. Its like...I have to admire you're willpower, and its nice to know that you don't agree with me just because you think that's what I want. Nice to know you're not a 'yes man'.

At the same time...couldn't you have come around to my point of view sooner? Its like...the reasons we attribute to other people often shape our perceptions, and thus our actions. If we automatically assume ill-intent, or duplicity...then we may dismiss their viewpoint without seriously considering it. Without understanding. We presume something that is not always there, and so we fail to ask ourselves "why would they think that's a good idea?"

This question is, I think, the key to seeing the argument from their point of view and (if you still disagree) figuring out how to frame your response in a way that may make sense to them. Automatically dismissing their POV because you think its a subterfuge for something else means that your own counterarguments may not address their underlying reality at all.

I was thinking about relationships, 'yes' and 'no'...and wanted to emphasize that silence does not equal a 'yes'. Granted, its not necessarily a 'no', either. And if you know the other person well enough, you can tell if their silence means that they agree and just don't want to admit it, or if their silence is really a 'no'.

With people you don't know very well, its harder to tell. Which is why I prefer the default to be 'no' (depending on the question, of course.) Plus there are some questions which are just too important to be answered with anything less than a firm 'yes'. Like relationships.

Oh, and I do tend to agree with the belief that actions speak louder than words. So if I invite someone to do things, and they turn me down...well, once or twice and it just might be that our schedules don't match. (Though if that were the case, and they were interested...then they ought to say so and offer up a time that's more convenient for them. If you persist at that, you generally will find at least some point in time when you can get together.) If its consistent...then that's pretty much saying "no". Same thing with not calling, Or not talking to each other. Or not inviting them to be a part of your life.

Its not that you have to. Its that these are the things you would be doing if you wanted to build a relationship. NOT doing it is a refusal. Its saying "No, I will not open up to you." It might be somewhat lukewarm. Sort of a "No...but you can keep putting effort into this."

Subtextually, its kind of like that scene in glee where the guidance counselor laid out her conditions if she were to marry the gym coach - she says she'll marry him only if he understands/agrees that they won't touch each other, will live in separate houses, she'll keep her last name, and they won't go public with it.

Her conditions turn this 'marriage' into something that doesn't resemble any of our normal definitions of marriage. At least she was open about it, and gave the coach the chance to say 'no'. (I'm not certain if that makes it okay, however. I mean it was openly discussed, and they are adults. If he was willing to accept those conditions I guess that's his say. But I find it hard to believe he's truly okay with that. Could be he thinks it will change later. Could be he's desperate, or desperately lonely. Or doesn't think much of himself, that he'd accept so little. Its hard to say.) Anyways. Like I said...at least it was openly discussed. Far too many people make similar offers, without actually admitting or discussing it. They say "we'll be in a relationship...but only so long as you don't insist on or demand that I do what's required in a relationship."

I figured that (in case I lost my data, though I've been e-mailing the list to myself so I shouldn't) I might as well put some of these books on an amazon wish list.

This turned out to be a bit of a project. Especially because they often give suggestions, based on the book you mention. All of which means I now have a tremendously long wish list. Most of which are history, public management, psychology, military, terrorism, and political science type books.

I put these things in here more for my own satisfaction than any belief or insistence that friends will use it. But if anyone is so inclined...;)

I caught the tail-end of this advertisement somewhere, and I rather admire it. My globalization class was kind of making this point...and some people foresee a future in which its impossible to really pinpoint what company made what product, especially since we buy and sell sub-components of the end-products from any number of different countries. Right now, of course, there's still serious concerns about national industries, trade disparities, etc.

It seems to me that if you care about someone, they're happiness should matter to you as well as your own. So if you're stuck in one of those situations where one person has to win or lose...you lose either way. You either lose because you lose, or you lose because the person you care about lost...and how can you be happy about something that will make them unhappy?

I think that's part of why love triangles can never last for long. In the short term, sure. People aren't always certain about what they want, and you may temporarily wind up having some sort of problem in this regard. But in the long term? In the long term, either someone is unable to make up their mind about what (or who) they really want - which is disrespectful and unloving towards both the people s/he may be interested in - or one of the three is just plain unwilling to accept that the person they care about didn't choose them. (Which goes straight into the lose/lose dynamic above. You only 'get' the person you want if you force them to lose what they want, and how can you be happy with anything that will make them so unhappy?)

That's pretty much why I end some of the relationships I do. If you're saying you want to be with me, and someone else doesn't accept or get that...that's one thing. But if you say you want to be with someone else, or by your actions/words/deeds demonstrate that you're willing to put in the time and effort to build something with someone else...then I have to move on with my life. (I had a dream kind of about that, once. A couple that got married out in the front yard of a house, and I remember dream thinking or saying "they look good together". I figured it was just my brain telling me that it was time to move on and let it go.)

I find that I circle back to ideas and concepts, some of them just about every year or so. Here's one I've mentioned a couple of times already (as I've been writing in this blog for five or six years now, that does average more than a year each...though I can't remember exactly when I posted it.)

Anyways, here it is.

( A Bike Ride With God )

As my brother (and philosophers and scientists) know...the brain is a pattern-recognizing machine. Which can be great most of the time. But we're prone to two fallacies...we either see patterns that aren't really there, or fail to recognize a pattern when it does exist.

I bring that up because it seems to me we often try to force our lives into the pattern we want it to be in. Want to make it sound like a good story, perhaps. Ensure we have a happy ending. I don't think you necessarily have to believe in God to appreciate the story above, because its as much about not forcing your life into the pattern you want as it is about anything else.

Wanting to control your life is entirely natural, and very human. But when you try too hard to force life into what you want it to be, you can sometimes miss out on some of the strangeness, wonder, and fullness of life.

I haven't posted about the hacked e-mails mostly because I wanted to see how it developed. The first few reports seemed a bit iffy (i.e. was it a hoax? Or for real?) but it increasingly seems like the e-mails are real. In which case, climate-change scientists have a real credibility problem right now.

Most of what I saw didn't seem like a huge conspiracy, so much as people demonstrating the all-too common human biases and logical errors that occur even with the people we expect to be the most fact-based and objective - scientists.

But I figured I'd link to Dr. Curry's comments here, because I thought she has the best approach. Greater transparency and openness, especially.

I keep going back to the 'classic' dating stuff. Its a delicate dance, where both parties get a chance to indicate their interest, control the speed (to a certain extent. You can always slow things down, but trying to speed things up if the other party is unwilling will land you in hot water), and sort of explore how far you both are willing to take things. You get to know each other, see how much you like each other's company, explore shared interests and interesting differences, stuff like that.

And it all starts with somebody asking the other person out. If they're interested. With the other person accepting the offer if they're interested back. You have something to start with, know that you both are at least willing to find out more, go a little bit further. You don't know if its quite enough to become something serious, to become significant others for a time, or perhaps even marry. Or perhaps you'll just find a new friend. Warm yourself by the small fire of mutual affection, for a time. You can't and won't know which it will be unless you take the time to figure that out. All of which takes listening, talking, and spending time together.

Adding more to my paper. I came across this bit in one of my references that talked about some of the issues I've covered here on this blog. It says:

"According to political scientist Robert Axelrod, who examined the evolution of cooperation in societies, the most effective way for an authority to encourage cooperation among members of an organization is to structure relationships so as to provide frequent and durable interactions among individuals.
Institutions are humanly devised constraints that shape and reduce the uncertainties involved in human interaction, enabling individuals to behave in a more cooperative manner. Institutional constraints prohibit and permit certain activities and conditions. Institutions structure incentives that motivate human exchange, whether political, legal, social, or economic. They provide the 'rules of the game' in a society analogous to the rules of the game in a competitive team sport. Such rules include both formal written rules as well as unwritten codes of conduct that underlie and supplement the formal rules. Using the sports analogy, both formal and informal rules exist to prohibit deliberate injury of a player on an opposing team, for example. Taken together, these formal and informal rules, as well as the type and effectiveness of enforcement, influence the character of the game."

Yeah, that just about sums it all up. I'm not one for unnecessary or stupid rules...or rules designed to assert your authority when you've clearly failed to establish yourself properly (sort of undermines the social contract that way)...but used well they definitely have their time and place. I think you have to sort of meta-analyze things, though, to consider which rules would help make the game worth playing...and which rules undermine and destroy the whole point of the game in the first place.

The easiest and most obvious example is terrorism. If you have to win by blowing up children and non-combatants, by manipulating people with Down's syndrome into becoming suicide bombers, and by disrespecting individual free will and choice by choosing to make them martyrs for your cause (with no consent beforehand) then you're playing by a set of rules that makes winning the game rather pointless.

And as I generally tie these things to interpersonal as well as large scale things...it also helps explain why we have rules (of sorts) to dating. I like the bit above, about how these formal and informal rules prevent deliberate injury of a player on an opposing team. I don't really want to play the dating game with someone that operates under a different set of rules, especially if they think that sort of behavior is okay. You don't have to play the dating game with me, and you don't have to agree with everything I say or do...but we have to have some sort of basic agreement on the rules of the game.

I thought this was a decent article. Though in a way it reminds me an opposite problem, one regarding the left.

I've seen some commentary regarding the Ft. Hood shootings, and how too many people seem to be trying to write it off as another Columbine or VA Tech incident. Crazy person, for some strange reason, decides that killing a lot of people and then dying in a blazing gun battle is something worth doing (never mind that the people they shoot didn't have a say in the matter.) But we know that Hasan attended the same mosque as some of the 9/11 hikackers. He reportedly shouted "Allah Akbar", that he seemed to feel that he was a Muslim first, and that Americans were attacking his fellow Muslims, and that his fellow soldiers were therefore the enemy.

People have raised the question about whether Hasan's leaders were aware of his beliefs, but didn't want to single him out for fear of being politically incorrect. Of people believing they were profiling Muslims. About whether we are unwilling to even consider whether some of our Muslim citizens and/or service members are potential threats, not because of an objective analysis of their beliefs and views...but because we're afraid to target specific groups purely on the basis of their religion.

Obviously, not every Muslim would agree with or support what Hasan did. His family has called the shooting "despicable and deplorable". I don't think its right to automatically exclude them purely because they might be a risk...but that doesn't mean that we should close our eyes and pretend that none of them are. I think what gets me here is that there are reports that Hasan gave a medical lecture in which he stated that non-believers would be sent to hell, decapitated, set on fire, and have burning oil poured down their throats. The AP said that his lecture also justified suicide bombings. (A Muslim psychiatrist in the audience raised his hand, and said he was also a Muslim and did not believe Hasan's claims.)

So here we have a guy who has demonstrated that he is not just a Muslim, but a Muslim who believes in the same brand of Islam that justifies terrorist attacks. At what point should we admit he might be a risk, and that its okay to look into things further?

My computer would start to boot up, but stop. zosimos came over to take a look at it, said it might be a hardware problem and/or related to the power supply. We managed to get it to boot up right, and just in case have given my computer its own surge protector/extension cord (don't want to plug it directly into the wall, since the surge protector does give that added protection.)

So I've got some homework to do...our third and final case study for one of my classes. I also need to work on some other stuff, in the process. But I figured I'd do a post on a different topic, before I forget.

( More on Avoiding Accidents )

And so on, and so on.

Got to the gym, hung out with jpi, read The Left Hand of Darkness. All in all a nice relaxing day. Though jpi and I had hoped to catch a movie, only to be disappointed with most of the selections. Pirate Radio is already out of the theaters. I wouldn't mind seeing Blind Side, but she's not the best person to go see that movie with, I think.

Tomorrow I need to get back to doing some homework, but it was nice to basically goof off all day. My computer is acting funny (borrowed sguth1982's comp for this) which is rather annoying. I'll try to get it fixed tomorrow.

A bit late in the day, but I've been a bit busy. The green bean casserole was pretty yummy...I have to remember how to do the mushroom/cream part, 'cause I think it has the great beginning of a mushroom soup. Maybe even a chicken or turkey and mushroom soup, but I haven't decided yet.

Ate lots and lots at lunch, played cards, had a bit more for dinner in the evening, then we went to see Men Who Stare At Goats...which was good. Mostly. I thought the ending kind of worked well as a story, but pushed a little too much at my BS-meter (LSD and guns seems like a really, really, really bad combination to me.)

We're helping divvy up the leftovers, which will probably be lunch or dinner in the next couple of days. I don't think we'll have to eat turkey for a week,at least. It was kind of nice to do something just the fam, even though I've enjoyed the extended family Thanksgivings as well.