Jan 30, 2003

Star Trek Iraq

The Iraqi Ambassador to the UN has just finished giving a speech, and
walks out into the lobby where he meets President Bush.

They shake hands and, after a brief chat about world affairs, the Iraqi
says, "I have a question that I think perhaps you can answer."

President Bush says, "Well, I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer,
but I'll do my best."

The Iraqi ambassador continues, "My son watches this show 'StarTrek' and in it there are Russians, Blacks, and Asians, but never any Arabs. He is very upset. He doesn't understand why there are never any Arabs in Star Trek."

President Bush laughs, leans toward the Iraqi, and whispers,
"It's because it takes place in the future...."


Jan 24, 2003

Expedia Sucks

Thread is in reverse chronological sequence:

Dear Mark,

I do apologize if you feel that our agent did not address your concern properly. I do understand your concern. However, after reviewing your case, I was able to determine that you booked for Expedia Special Rate Hotel. These hotels have corresponding cancellation and change penalty fee that are advised to the clients before making the reservation. Because of these, we asked our customers to review first the details of their booking before completing their purchase online. We have placed this part on the Cost and Summary Page (just before we ask our customers to place their credit card information online to make the purchase) where the complete details of your hotel booking with the corresponding rules and regulations are given so that you may have the option to make the necessary changes if there is a need, to just complete the booking if everything that was presented are all right or to cancel the reservation if the booking requires total revision.

Expedia negotiates special arrangements with our partner hotels in this kind of reservation to guarantee the lowest prices available. Our pricing is based upon selling a certain number of room nights to each of our hotel partners. If a room gets cancelled within 24 hours prior the check-in date, the likelihood of reselling that room becomes very remote. This is the reason why we need to charge corresponding change or cancellation fee given to us by the hotel. These fees allow us to give our customers, the best possible hotel rates in your future travel. If we are unable to meet our commitment to the hotel, our rates will go up and this will affect all of our customers in the future.

Again, I apologize for any confusion this may have caused. We value your business and hope that in the future you will find the hotel prices on our site to be a great value.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to reply to this e-mail.

Thanks for choosing Expedia.com!


Meagan
Expedia.com Customer Support Team
Don't just travel. Travel Right.



-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Fetherolf
Sent: 1/23/2003 11:55:01 PM
To: Expedia Travel Support
Subject: Case ID: [REQ:6559758]

* please refer this case to your supervisor immediately *

Your answer is not acceptable. I'm not sure you understood my message. I
booked the hotel in the wrong city (cleveland), should have been pittsburg.

Dumb mistake on my part. I'm flying to Pittsburg and driving on to
cleveland.

Having realized I screwed up, I did not cancel the first reservation. I
simply booked a hotel in pittsburg through Expedia.

Then I emailed you explaining my mistake and asking you to:

1. cancel the cleveland reservation for me

2. waive the 100% penalty

Had I just cancelled, I would understand that you might waive the penalty.

Had I not notified you within 15 minutes I wouldn't even ask.

Please don't tell me that you CAN'T waive the penalty. I know darn well that
you can.

I TRAVEL A LOT, OFTEN MULTIPLE FLIGHTS, HOTELS, CARS ETC. PER MONTH, OFTEN
WITH MY WIFE AND DAUGHTER. IN THE PAST, I EXCLUSIVELY USED TRAVELOCITY. I
HAVE BEEN TRYING EXPEDIA FOR SOME TRIPS TO SEE HOW I LIKE IT. AND I LIKE THE
USER INTERFACES BETTER AND FIND I CAN GET THROUGH THE TRANSACTIONS MORE
QUICKLY.

BUT IF THIS IS THE BEST YOU CAN DO FOR CUSTOMER SERVICE, DON'T EXPECT ME
BACK ANYTIME SOON.

I'm a reasonable guy, really! Of course if I make a reservation and hold it
for awhile, making the hotel room unavailable and then cancel at the last
minute, I realize I am costing somebody money and I don't mind being
obligated to pay a cancellation fee.

I held the rooms for fifteen minutes before I notified you of the mistake.
Nobody lost money on the deal, including expedia - I booked the correct
reservation through expedia.

If the best you can do is regurgitate the contract language that I already
read on the website, why not just reply with a simple f*** you! I would give
you some credit for saying what you obviously really mean.

And if you are reading this and don't have the authority to fix it, please
forward it to YOU SUPERVISOR. If you don't, based on my considerable
knowledge of the cost of answering customer service emails and phone calls,
I assure you that I won't go away until I've cost you a lot more than you
cost me.

Also please be advised that I'll make sure to tell everyone I know about the
responsive customer service I received from Expedia, or lack thereof.

And if you really truly don't have the authority to waive the penalty and
you can't forward my message to someone who does, I respectfully suggest
that look for a new job. You will do much better in the long run working for
a company that cares enough to want to keep its customers. If you need
suggestions email me. I am a contact center productivity expert. I'll let
you know who's hiring in your area.



Best regards,

Mark



itinerary number 15831371452 booked by mistake (wrong city). New reservation
15831864118 replaces it. Please cancel the cleveland reservation. (Please do
not cancel the pittsburg reservation).




----- Original Message -----
From: "Expedia Travel Support"
To:
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 1:22 PM
Subject: Re: hotel questions or comments - Case ID: [REQ:6559758]


> Dear Expedia.com Customer,
>
> Thank you for contacting Expedia.com!
>
> Unfortunately, we are unable to waive the 100% cost of stay penalty if we
cancel your reservation on-line. Please be reminded that in item no.3 of the
rate details page, under "Review the rules and restrictions", it is clearly
stated that:
>
> "Cancellations or changes made within 1 day of the check in date are
subject to a 1 Night Room & Tax penalty."
>
> Furthermore, also on the same page under "Payment and deposit
information":
>
> "Credit card is charged for the total cost listed above at the time of
booking "
>
> For you to have proceeded with the booking you would have to have clicked
on the option under item no. 4:
>
> "Continue with booking. I have read and accept the rules and
restrictions."
>
> If you have any further questions, please feel free to reply to this
e-mail.
>
> Thanks for choosing Expedia.com!
>
>
> Sarah
> Expedia.com Customer Support Team
> Don't just travel. Travel Right.
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> Sent: 1/23/2003 9:20:22 AM
> To: travel@customercare.expedia.com
> Subject: hotel questions or comments - Case ID: [REQ:6559758]
>
>
>
> * TPID: 1
> * Name: Mark Fetherolf
> * TUID: 37088679
> * E-mail Address: mark@fetherolf.com
> * Phone Numbers:
>
> * Itinerary Number: ****************
> * Subject: Hotel questions or comments
>
> --------------------------------
> * Comment:
> itinerary number 15831371452 booked by mistake (wrong city). New
reservation 15831864118 replaces it. Please cancel the cleveland
reservation. (Please do not cancel the pittsburg reservation).
>
> Since I rebooked through expedia, I would appreciate your waiving the 100%
cancellation fee.
>
> thanks
>
> Mark Fetherolf
>

Black Gold, Texas Tea ...

Jan 23, 2003

Quote

The most likely way for the world to be destroyed, most experts agree, is by accident. That's where we come in; we're computer professionals. We cause accidents.
-- Nathaniel Borenstein
more quotes

Jan 20, 2003

Sunday Afternoon in Jupiter Florida

Jan 19, 2003

CORN-PONE OPINIONS

As long as I'm on a human-nature kick, this seems appropriate. I encoutered it first in Joyce Carol Oates' book, The Best American Essays of the Century.

"Corn-pone Opinions" was found in Mark Twain's papers after his death. It was first published in 1923 in Europe and Elsewhere, edited by Albert Bigelow Paine.

Fifty years ago, when I was a boy of fifteen and helping to inhabit a Missourian village on the banks of the Mississippi, I had a friend whose society was very dear to me because I was forbidden by my mother to partake of it. He was a gay and impudent and satirical and delightful young black man--a slave--who daily preached sermons from the top of his master's woodpile, with me for sole audience. He imitated the pulpit style of the several clergymen of the village, and did it well, and with fine passion and energy. To me he was a wonder. I believed he was the greatest orator in the United States and would some day be heard from. But it did not happen; in the distribution of rewards he was over-looked. It is the way, in this world.

He interrupted his preaching, now and then, to saw a stick of wood; but the sawing was a pretense-he did it with his mouth; exactly imitating the sound the bucksaw makes in shrieking its way through the wood. But it served its purpose; it kept his master from coming out to see how the work was getting along. I listened to the sermons from the open window of a lumber room at the back of the house. One of his texts was this:

"You tell me whar a man gits his corn-pone, en I'll tell you what his 'pinions is."
I can never forget it. It was deeply impressed upon me. By my mother. Not upon my memory, but elsewhere. She had slipped in upon me while I was absorbed and not watching. The black philosopher's idea was that a man is not independent, and cannot afford views which might interfere with his bread and butter. If he would prosper, he must train with the majority; in matters of large moment, like politics and religion, he must think and feel with the bulk of his neighbors, or suffer damage in his social standing and in his business prosperities. He must restrict himself to corn-pone opinions-at least on the surface. He must get his opinions from other people; he must reason out none for himself; he must have no first-hand views.

I think Jerry was right, in the main, but I think he did not go far enough.

It was his idea that a man conforms to the majority view of his locality by calculation and intention.

This happens, but I think it is not the rule.

2. It was his idea that there is such a thing as a first-hand opinion; an original opinion; an opinion which is coldly reasoned out in a man's head, by a searching analysis of the facts involved, with the heart unconsulted, and the jury room closed against outside influences. It may be that such an opinion has been born somewhere, at some time or other, but I suppose it got away before they could catch it and stuff it and put it in the museum.

I am persuaded that a coldly-thought-out and independent verdict upon a fashion in clothes, or manners, or literature, or politics, or religion, or any other matter that is projected into the field of our notice and interest, is a most rare thing- if it has indeed ever existed.

A new thing in costume appears--the flaring hoop skirt, for example--and the passersby are shocked, and the irreverent laugh. Six months later everybody is reconciled; the fashion has established itself; it is admired, now, and no one laughs. Public opinion resented it before, public opinion accepts it now, and is happy in it Why? Was the resentment reasoned out? Was the acceptance work? It is our nature to conform; it is a force which not many can successfully resist. What is its seat? The inborn requirement of self-approval. We all have to bow to that; there are no exceptions. Even the woman who refuses from first to last to wear the hoop skirt comes under the law and is its slave; she could not wear the skirt and have her own approval; and that she must have, she cannot help herself. But as a rule our self-approval has its source in but one place and not elsewhere-the approval of other people. A person of vast consequences can introduce any kind of novelty in dress and the general world will presently adopt it--moved to do it, in the first place, by the natural instinct to passively yield to that vague something recognized as authority, and in the second place by the human instinct to train with the multitude and have its approval. An empress introduced the hoop skirt, and we know the result. A nobody introduced the bloomer, and we know the result. If Eve should come again, in her ripe renown, and reintroduce her quaint styles--well, we know what would happen. And we should be cruelly embarrassed, along at first.

The hoop skirt runs its course and disappears. Nobody reasons about it. One woman abandons the fashions; her neighbor notices this and follows her lead; this influences the next woman; and so on and so on, and presently the skirt has vanished out of the world, no one knows how nor why; or cares for that matter. It will come again, by and by, and in due course will go again.

Twenty-five years ago, in England, six or eight wine glasses stood grouped by each person's plate at a dinner party, and they were used, not left idle and empty; today there are but three or four in the group, and the average guest sparingly uses about two of them. We have not adopted this new fashion yet, but we shall do it presently. We shall not think it out; we shall merely conform, and let it go at that. We get our notions and habits and opinions from outside influences; we do not have to study them out.

Our table manners, and company manners, and street manners change from time to time, but the changes are not reasoned out; we merely notice and conform. We are not reasoned out; we merely notice and conform. We are creatures of outside influences, as a rule we do not think, we only imitate. We cannot invent standards that will stick; what we mistake for standards are only fashions, and perishable. We may continue to admire them, but we drop the use of them; we notice this in literature. Shakespeare is a standard, and fifty years ago we used to write tragedies which we couldn't tell from somebody else’s; but we don't do it any more, now. Our prose standard, three-quarters of a changed it in the directions of compactness and simplicity, and conformity followed, without argument. The historical novel starts up suddenly, and sweeps the land. Everybody writes one, and the nation is glad. We had historical novels before; but nobody read them, and the rest of us conformed--without reasoning it out. We are conforming in the other way, now, because it is another case of everybody.

The outside influences are always pouring in upon us, and we are always obeying their orders and accepting their verdicts. The Smiths like the new play; the Joneses go to see it, and they copy the Smith verdict. Morals, religions, politics, get their following from surrounding influences and atmospheres, almost entirely; not from study, not from thinking. A man must and will have his own approval first of all, in each and every moment and circumstance of his life-even if he must repent of a self-approval again: but, speaking in general terms, a man's self--approval in the large concerns of life has its source in the approval of the peoples about him, and not in a searching personal examination of the matter. Mohammedans are Mohammedans because they are born and reared among that sect, not because they have thought it out and can furnish sound reasons for being Mohammedans; we know why Catholics are Catholics; why Presbyterians are Presbyterians; why Baptists are Baptists; why Mormons are Mormons; why thieves are thieves; why monarchists are monarchists; why Republicans are Republicans and Democrats, Democrats. We know it is a matter of association and sympathy, not reasoning and examination; that hardly a man in the world has an opinion upon morals, politics, or religion which he got otherwise than through his associations and sympathies. Broadly speaking, there are none but corn-pone opinions. And broadly speaking, com-pone stands for self-approval. Self-approval is acquired mainly from the approval of other people. The result is conformity. Sometimes conformity has a sordid business interest--the bread-and-butter interest--but not in most cases, I think. I think that in the majority of cases it is unconscious and not calculated; that it is born of the human being's natural yearning to stand well with his fellows and have their inspiring approval and praise--a yearning which is commonly so strong and so insistent that it cannot be effectually resisted, and must have its way.

A political emergency brings out the corn-pone opinion in fine force in its two chief varieties--the pocketbook variety, which has its origin in self-interest, and the bigger variety, the sentimental variety--the one which can't bear to be outside the pale; can't bear to be in disfavor; can't endure the averted face and the cold shoulder; wants to stand well with his friends, wants to be smiled upon, wants to be welcome, wants to hear the precious words, "He's on the right track!" Uttered, perhaps by an ass, but still an ass of high degree, an ass whose approval is gold and diamonds to a smaller ass, and confers glory and honor and happiness, and membership in the herd. For these gauds many a man will dump his life-long principles into the street, and his conscience along with them. We have seen it happen. In some millions of instances.

Men think they think upon great political questions; and they do; but they think with their party, not independently; they read its literature, but not that of the other side; they arrive at convictions, but they are drawn from a partial view of the matter in hand and are of no particular value. They swarm with their party, they feel with their party, they are happy in their party’s approval; and where the party leads they will follow, whether for right and honor, or through blood and dirt and a mush of mutilated morals. In our late canvass, half of the nation passionately believed that in silver lay salvation, the other half as passionately believed that that way lay destruction. Do you believe that a tenth part of the people, on either side, had any rational excuse for having an opinion about the matter at all? I studied that mighty question to the bottom--came out empty. Half of our people passionately believe in high tariff, the other half believe otherwise. Does this mean study and examination, or only feeling? The latter, I think. I have deeply studied that question, too--and didn't arrive. We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking. And out of it we get an aggregation which we consider a boon. Its name is public opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles everything. Some think it the voice of God.

(from Mark Twain on the Damned Human Race pp. 21-26. New York: Noonday Press, 1962. edited by Janet Smith.)

* "A corn bread often made without milk or eggs and baked or fried. Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary-

The Modern Myth of Reason (Part I)

Spock: "Emotional, isn't she?"
Sarek: "She has always been so."
Spock "Indeed. Why did you marry her?"
Sarek: "It seemed the logical thing to do at the time."
-- Star Trek (Journey to Babel, original series)


While we in the modern world (at least where I live) ostensibly value reason and logic. It's hard to find anyone who would assert that thinking logically and reasonably is not the best way to set one's course. Even the uneducated generally hold to the idea of common sense, which would seem to be no more than deductive reasoning that is not overly complex. Yet, every day, we encounter behavior that is, at best, logically inexplicable, and often crosses the threshold into the absurd, ridiculous and incomprehensible. A nation the size of New Jersey attacks the United States. That makes as much sense as a rabbit charging a wolf pack. A thirteen-year-old is expelled from school for a year for playing with a 3" laser pointer because it is shaped like a gun. Thank goodness, now the school is safe. Nova Scotia bans perfume in public places. Peter Townsend is arrested for child pornography. Dilbert readers would agree that the comic strips are a fairly accurate representation of American business. No, not a parody, the real thing, except of course the evil human resource director and the consultant bent on world domination are not, at least on the surface, cats or dogs. Was Spock right about humans? Is our ridiculous behavior the result of our illogical emotional nature? Or is it something else?

Are things really as goofy as they seem? Perhaps goofiness stands out from its surroundings like brightly colored parrots in a flock of pigeons. Or maybe perceived goofiness is the result of hindsight. Perhaps if we look deeper, there really is a logical explanation (it seemed like a good idea at the time, given the information available). Although there is probably some truth in both of these assertions, I suspect that they do not get to the root cause. Rather, the answer is inherent in the way that we apply logic to problems. All that logic really does is manipulate facts to derive other facts. Facts are supposed to represent truth, but of course what we call facts are really assertions. To say that Fact 1 implies Fact 2, is really to say that if Assertion 1 is true then Assertion 2 is true, but only within the boundaries of the logical system being applied, which is really only an imperfect model of the real world. Homer Simpson said (and I paraphrase here), "Facts! Don't talk to me about facts. You can prove anything with facts." The real problem isn't flawed logic, but rather the application of correct logic to incorrect assertions combined with a few other factors including Murphy's Law and insidious self-interest. The processes and disciplines of science are designed to drive out these factors. The everyday notion of common sense leaves the door wide open for them. Decision-making in business seems to require them.

The notion of "the big lie" suggests that people expect small lies (hyperbole, exaggeration, coloring the truth) but not the big lie and are therefore vulnerable to it. I had a boss once who, at the beginning of a negotiation, started the discussion with the statement, "Before we start, I want to make one thing clear. We do not have you by the balls!" But of course we did. Nonetheless, nobody challenged his assertion and it became an assumption. Logic prevailed and we were the hands down winners.

I suspect that humans, even those who are not firmly seated in the socket, are pretty good at recognizing fallacious deductive reasoning, but not at all adept at recognizing flawed assumptions. I think this is because people often don’t understand or stop to think about the difference between beliefs and facts. Furthermore, I don’t think this is necessarily a fundamental flaw in the mechanisms of the human mind. I believe it is a cultural phenomenon, born of the necessity of deception for the purpose of maintaining the institutions we value. First of all, there is the notion of faith, which depending on one’s personal beliefs may have a place in spiritual life. But culturally, the notion of faith extends far beyond the realm of the spiritual. Faith in God extends naturally to faith in the Church and its leaders, who are after all, historically, the predecessors of political leaders, teachers, government and all sorts of authority figures. Even those who rail against authority are generally not anarchists, but rather simply reject one authority in favor of another. We are taught to apply deductive reasoning within the constraints of the assumptions that we are given by those in authority.

Copyright 2003, Mark Fetherolf

Jan 13, 2003

Code

B3 d++ t k s- u f i+ o x- e l c+

Jan 6, 2003

Eat Here! Try the Dumplings, Aged Beef, Asian Ceasar, Wasabi Mashed Potatos and Donuts

Buddakan, modern asian cuisine: CitySearch

Jan 5, 2003

New Year's Resolutions

It's already January 5th and I've been considering options, first and foremost, to stop procrastinating, but I don't want to rush into that as it closes the door on too many other interesting options. I watched the arrival of 2003 on MTV. Snoop Dog was on a few minutes past midnight, live and rhyming his brains out. Really impressive. So I'm thinking of trying to rhyme more if I can find a way to do it inconspicuously. So far my efforts have sounded forced. Once I got onto the subject of language, I considered eliminating the antecedentless "it" from my speech altogether. This could be a little tricky, but easier. I'm moving slower 'cause the temperature is lower.  Soon snow will be falling, but still I'm stalling. Procrastination again. But if I put off X and do Y instead, wouldn't I be putting of Y if I did X? Is X really more important? Who says? For example, if X is finishing my status report and Y is writing this blither, the conventional wisdom would be that doing Y first would amount to procrastination, but isn't that a value judgement? Is it only procrastination if one delays important things to perform less important things? This would seem to be the common usage. I'll bet Frances Ford Coppola didn't do his status reports on time during the filming of Apocalypse Now. Was he procrastinating. If he had resolved to stop procrastinating, would he still be in the jungle writing status reports? But wait! I could resolve to quit doing status reports. Wouldn't pure pig-headed refusal to do stuff be better than procrastination. Liberation from the work and the guilt! Wow! I think I might be on to something here. I need to stop for now and think about this. I'll report my progress at some time in the future - unless I decide not to.

Jan 2, 2003

Stupidity