Archive for November 2007

Sick of waiting for the new gmail interface?

I was really frustrated this morning. I’ve seen the new Gmail interface, I like it, I love some of the new shortcuts ([ and ] rock my world)… but it still wasn’t enabled on my gmail account.

Just on the off-chance it was a problem, I checked my language setting. Yep, I had English (UK) selected – as soon as I switch to English (US), I’ve got the new interface version.

If you’re also frustrated, you might want to try twiddling your language as well.

Something to refresh the palette

Some light, fluffy, sweet, but lacking in substance is what we need.

Ah, I know:

My, how the world has changed.

A few years ago, all it took to shock us was a quick look at tubgirl or the Goatse man.

Today standards have changed – today, to shock us, it takes two girls and one cup. Today, it’s not enough just to be shocked, but we have to capture our responses and broadcast those as well.

WARNING: Only the last link is safe for work. The first two links are not safe for work. The last link is not safe for home – unless you have a video camera ready and are going to upload your reaction.

Definitions

dictionary.com:
sor·ry [sor-ee, sawr-ee] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation

–adjective, -ri·er, -ri·est.

6. (used interjectionally as a conventional apology or expression of regret): Sorry, you’re misinformed. Did I bump you? Sorry

John Howard:
(John Howard) said he was sorry the rise happened but was not apologising for it.

“I said I was sorry they occurred. I don’t think I used the word apology,”

Right. Sorry, but not apologising. Can anyone explain that to me?

Later in the article, J-Ho claims to be “proud” of the interest rate rises. Is that a bit the same as “the recession we had to have”?

Then there’s this gem:

The latest unemployment rate is a stunning figure, Prime Minister John Howard says.

Mr Howard said there had been sustained low unemployment for 20 months, and the human dividend of full employment was more important than anything else.

Full employment? Unemployment figures say nothing about “full employment”. If you work 65 minutes a week for $15/hour, you’re considered employed. If 100% of the population did that, we’d have 0% unemployment, but we’d be a long way form “full employment”.

People who are not employed, are seeking work, but not available to commence a job on the date the survey was taken *because they are sick with a minor cold that day, but could start tomorrow* are not considered unemployed. People temporarily stood down from their job because of insufficient work, even if they’re seeking other work to tide them over, are considered employed, even though they’re receiving no pay and would like to be employed more.

There’s a lot of information about the definitions of unemployed, long-term unemployed, and so on, at http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/featurearticlesbyCatalogue/C9268F9DB356D154CA256A950080B3E3?OpenDocument – including graphs and charts detailing how changes that were made to the definitions of “unemployed” and “long-term unemployed” in ’01 reduced the numbers in both categories, without actually finding anyone new work.

I aten't dead (yet)

just…. Absent. I’m in Mountain View, having the company brain slug fitted. I’ll be back in Aus in a while.

In the last day, I’ve stood in front of Facebook, seen company shuttle busses for Apple, NASA, Yahoo, Citrix, and of course my

own.

But, right now I’m tired and overdue for bed. G’night!

Ps. Can you guess what’s special about this post?