18 posts tagged “wess”

It's Friday!  That means that Brian and I will be LIVE at 9pm EST tonight!  We're recording episode 3, and it's going to f*cking RULE!  Episodes 1 and 2 as well as the Pilot are available for direct download from the site and through iTunes.  Just search for Unpersons and you'll see us under 'Podcasts'.  The internet is vast and wide, tell everyone that you know about Unpersons.  Tell everyone that you know, "....you are not alone!"

That's right! We're so official it's not even funny!  Check the Unpersons' site for details.

Okay, now that I've gotten most of my politics out of my system, here's the news that most of you have been waiting for, UNPERSONS!

That's right!  Unpersons official go live is almost here!  I've figured out the studio's kinks and ironed them out.  Brian has done a wonderful job of getting our new infrastructure here at home in place and running.  I've finally landed some theme music (thanks BobbyCarbn).  The website theme is just waiting to be uploaded, installed, and configured.  I've figured out mix-minus and how to take Skype calls with out the person on the line hearing themselves.  WE'RE SO CLOSE!  Don't give up now, my friends.  Start spreading the word if you haven't already.

We're going to come at you raw!  I actually want the 'explicit' tag on iTunes!  The first words out of our mouths are probably going to be the 7 words you can't say on TV according the the great, late George Carlin. 

We're going to talk about video games, security, and comic books.  We're going to voice opinions on anything and everything.  Nothing is sacred. Nothing is holy.  All is fair game.  There is no remorse. 

We ARE the Unpersons.  The forgotten youth of the world.  The write-offs.  The forgotten.  We are those who most thought would do nothing but stare at green text on a black background, play our games, configure routers from scratch, or just generally do nothing with ourselves.

Look who's laughing now!  We're the bosses, decision makers, developers, keepers of the almighty dollar.  We create the trends.  We make our own fasions.  We do what we want, when we want, using whatever guise we see fit.

We are raceless, faceless, genderless.  We hold no pre-conceived notions.  We are the Unpersons.

For those that think you might be, we are are here to tell you, you are not alone.

John Michael Stitt,

I do believe that your asking for clarification on these topics is some kind of veiled attempt to engage in political debate with the intentions of swaying an opinion that has already been resoundingly shared across the US.  The Democratic party swept the US, dominating in both the popular and the electoral college vote.  Where I think the system needs work, it is our system, and it has spoken.  On to the topics that you asked for clarification….

1.    Q: When someone claims to be a Christian, but many of the views we do know about directly contradict the bible, as in not being against gay rights or abortion, I do not undertand this. Explain it to me. Explain why we would choose someone like this.

    A: You forget that we have a long running policy in American government of ‘separation of church and state’.  Just because the more classicalist, un-accepting, narrow-minded views of more ‘orthodox’ Christian denominations find these particular ideals appalling and unacceptable, they are not the American way.  The 1st Amendment secures our right to freedom of religion, press, expression, and speech.  No where in the Constitution is there a caveat for ‘oh, unless your gay.  If you’re gay, you’re hosed’.

2.    Q: When someone is for such strong gun control, or even supports outright gun bans, as Mr. Obama has, even though all this does is make it so that law-abiding citizens can't protect themselves, this doesn't make sense to me. Explain it to me.

    A: I’m not aware of any instance where President Elect Obama voted for a complete ban on weapons.  I believe that gun control is needed, but I, personally, do not support a total ban.  I do believe that there is no reason that a civilian should be allowed to own an assault rifle.  Please find the article from South Carolina where a little trick-or-treater was shot in the head through a front door by a nut-job with an AK-47 who unloaded his entire 30 round magazine through the door.  Once you read that, then tell me that its every American’s right to own weapons unrestrictedly.

3.    Q: When almost all the people who seem to have influenced a person's life are radical, extremist, America-hating, terrorists, etc., or any combination of the above, but the person claims to have not known about any of this, it doesn't make sense to me. Explain it to me.

    A: I respond to your demand with my own.  Please explain to me where you have evidence that “almost all the people who seem to have influenced” President Elect Obama are American hating extremists.  Yes, there have been interactions with those who would be considered ‘extremist’, but I don’t see how 1 or 2 constitutes as “almost everyone”.  So, please explain that to me.

4.    Q: When people talk about a "black president" even though he isn't even fully black, it doesn't make sense to me. We could just as easily call him a white president, it just wouldn't sell as well. (Also, why does race even have to be an issue? Back to the real issues, people) Explain it to me.

    A: If you really think that race isn’t an issue, then why do you mention it?  On top of that, are you blind???  Barack Obama is black.  I really don’t think you could just as easily call him a “white candidate” with the amount of melanin in his skin.  At this point, I’m not even sure why I dignified this ‘point’ with a response.

5.    Q: When people complain about one candidate not having any experience (Sarah Palin), but then complain that "24 Years is enough" (Mitch McConnell) it doesn't make sense to me. Explain it.

    A: You don’t seen the difference between the to situations?  Sarah Palin has no experience in federal government.  Alaska pretty much hates her.  She ran the state into the ground while was governor.  She has no idea how to handle foreign policy, or what to do with our military.  The “24 years is enough” is people saying that they are tired of the same ideas representing them.  To have the same person in that seat for 24 years means that no new ideas are coming to the table.  In short, you’re comparing apples to oranges, making this point invalid.

6.    Q: I understand that people want a tax break. The fact that people believe others should have to pay more of the taxes than them, and call this fair doesn't make sense to me. Explain it.

    A: I can see this as a legitimate bone of contention.  A lot of people see this as a Robin Hood tactic.  A ‘rob from the rich and give to the poor’ style of politics.  I understand that, but what you fail to mention is that the increase in taxes will only be to the rate they were at under President Clinton.  Please recall that under President Clinton, our budget was balanced, and we actually had a cash reserve (read: surplus).  Us ‘working class’ people need the tax break.  We are the ones that have been hit hardest by the crash in the economy and the rise in price of basic needs.  Those that want for nothing and don’t bat an eye at filling up their Hummers and other gas guzzlers, they can afford to pay the taxes they paid 8 years ago.  I’m convinced that Bush cutting taxes for that wealthy 1% of the US is a huge contributor to our national deficit cascading farther and farther into the red.  I don’t know how much a representative or senator makes in a year on average, but I’d imagine that some of them will be apart of that bracket.  If they pass it, they obviously feel that it is their patriotic duty to contribute to the wealth of the country so we can better ourselves in unity.

7.     Q: When someone is for abortion, but not for killing adults, it doesn't make sense to me. Explain it.

    A: Hmm… is this an ‘all or nothing’ statement?  Kill’em all or kill no one?  I tell you what.  When you develop a uterus and can carry a child, I’ll entertain your views on abortion.  I, however, will abstain from such conversations because I’m a male, so a woman’s body is not something I should be making a decision on.  As far as capitol punishment, I say leave that that to the states.  Mine comes in second on the 

8.    Q: Even more so, when someone "Would never do abortion themselves" but is "pro-choice" it doesn't make sense to me. Explain it.

A: Okay, I’ll sound of on this one.  Just because President Elect Obama would never choose to commit to an abortion in his family, that doesn’t mean he can’t support the idea of there being a choice.  Once again, having the ability to choose is the American way.

9.    Q: When people think that genocide is wrong, but don't think we should try and stop it when it is within our power, I don't understand it. Explain it to me.

    A: Where the hell did this come from?  When making political points, remember to make them clear and understandable, especially when you want someone to explain it to you.

10.    Q: When people say we need alternative energy, but are opposed to nuclear energy, I don't understand it. Explain it to me.

    A: Where nuclear power doesn’t have a direct impact on the environment while producing energy, it has serious dangers involved.  Before jumping head first into thinking it’s our saving grace, please go back and re-read history in regards to 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl.  Compound that with storing of the spent fuel rods inside of a mountain in the Sierra-Nevada range and transportation to get it there, you have a possibility for an ecological crisis the likes of which are only seen in video games.

11.    Q: When you talk about running out of oil, but we have many, many years worth ON OUR OWN SOIL that you won't let us drill, I don't understand it. Explain it to me.

    A: President Elect Obama never said he was opposed to drilling in the US.  If you were to actually read his plan, you would see that he does want to drill, but the impact on the environment dictates where we will and will not drill.  Would you say that it’s okay to drill in an area that depends on salmon fishing when it’s a decent likely hood that building a rig there would have adverse effects on that eco-system and possibly irrevocably influence the ability to fish?  On top of that, it would take over 10 years for the country to see any kind of positive benefit from drilling locally.  We need a stop-gap solution now just to get us out of the fuel crisis we’re in, but we need a long term so that we can wean ourselves off of oil, not just foreign oil, completely.

Regardless of how many times you’ve been told ‘how smart’ you are, if you don’t do the research and come up with open-minded, educated, informed decisions on your own, you will never grasp the concepts on which both party’s platforms where built.  A friend of mine was a McCain supporter until he got under the hood and actually looked at the plans and did the research.  He then discovered that Obama’s plan had a much higher likely hood of getting us out of our economic flat-spin, and restoring the wealth and reputation of the country.  McCain’s plan was almost certain to just continue the downward spiral, and we’d be even more hosed than we are now.

Where I do believe in God, I don’t think trying to intermingle strict religious beliefs with political topics works.  The best thing one can do is to take the base of all religion, which is a reasonable code of ethics, and apply them to making decisions.  We all have an idea of what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’.  The world is not binary; it’s an infinite number of shades of grey.  

On a final religious note, there are only two rules in Christianity that we need to remember.  Rule one is the same as first commandment.  The second rule takes the other 9 commandments and sums it up as the Golden Rule – “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”  So, I know of no place in those two statements that has issues with gays, or whatever other sociological groups you think should not have rights equal to the rest of us red-blooded Americans.

You let, what I perceive to be, narrow-minded, church influenced, arcane, draconian ideas influence you beyond that of objective reasoning.  The whole idea of America was to be a place that people of all races, beliefs, ideals, orientations, etc. could come and act as one unified group.  Anyone that tries to segregate the union (the reference to northern Virginia not being ‘real’ Virginia just to name one) has lost the concept of unity.  You can’t divide the country and then say, “Now, play nice,” afterwards.  Unity is something that is worked on from the beginning.

If it takes you thinking that everything unfolded according to God’s divine plan to be a part of the union as whole, I’m all for it.  The fact that you can say that you can respect President Elect Obama and Vice President Elect Biden for unifying the country and winning the election says a lot about your character.  What you can do now to continue to make your voice heard is to speak to your senators and representatives as bills come to be voted on.  Just because the presidential race is over doesn’t mean that we, as the people of the United States, are now silenced.  I only ask that you approach the topics objectively and make sure that you have assimilated all the information possible in regards to the topic.  An ill-informed vote is worse, in my opinion, than no vote at all.

Ahh... I love the interwebs!  This little slice of internet meme/viral video history certainly ranks in my top 5 favorite machinema videos of all time.  This Baldur's Gate/D&D parody is absolutely classic!  Before I ever saw it, I had a similar concept of how D&D was played, this just reinforces it!

Actually, I'm sure there are a very very VERY select few that have actually attained this level of retardation and social ineptitude to play a game like D&D in this manner.  However, I still find it really amusing to think that this is how it goes down everytime!

Where did I put my Mountain Dew and Cheetoes.............

I received a really interesting article in a newsletter just a little while ago.  It referenced using social networking as a tool for researching prospective employees.  More specifically, it dealt with trying to research someone who had NO presence on the net.  No forum posts, no profiles on any social networking sites, absolutely nothing.  I had no choice to actually respond.  The author encouraged it, who am I to deny?? ;)  Below is my reply:

Stephen,
I’ll preface this message by saying that I do not hold a position that requires me give interviews.  Generally, I am the one that is being interviewed.  I’m a consultant in the SAP industry.  I also have a very high internet presence having been a part of the video podcast Hak5.  I hold several profiles on several social networking sites.  Twitter, Facebook, and Pownce are just a few. 

With the popularity of Hak5 and being in the industry that I’m in, I have become acquainted with many people.  Some have an internet presence that is just as high, if not higher, than mine.  I have also met people that have little to no presence.  Both are just as intelligent and capable as the other.  It’s a matter of personal preference as to how much one makes themselves researchable on the net. 

I’ve never really believed that using social networking as a way to weed out people based off of information or events posted on whatever profiles they have is exactly fair.  Before ‘web 2.0’ and social networking, employers didn’t have that kind of information at hand and could easily hire someone then that they wouldn’t now based off of what they do in their personal time or who they associate with. 

I applaud anyone that can keep that small of a footprint.  In today’s age, it takes effort to make yourself that anonymous.  This doesn’t make them paranoid or afraid to use information at hand.  They just chose to not leave a mark on the net.  They are most likely good problem solvers.  They can find answers based off of what others have already experienced.  Cognitive thought, and the ability to assimilate information from two different situations to solve a third is what we all thrive on.  Technical knowledge and some creative thinking carries a long way in the realm of technology as a whole, not just DBA, SAP, or even in a Microsoft environment.

I supposed I’m really arguing two different points at the same time.  Just because a person isn’t “googlealbe” doesn’t make them a good or a bad candidate for a position.  It just means the interviewer is going to have to be old school and go off of body language, communication skills, and general gut feeling about the interviewee. 

The second point is that I don’t believe that social networking sites should be used as a tool to judge a person’s character.  I’m sure that there are pictures of myself out there at less than my finest.  Due to the fact that there is photographic evidence that I enjoy drinking beer, smoking, or being surrounded by friends, does that mean that I would be excluded from a position?  Looking into a person’s life outside of work can, and will, create prejudices before they even have a chance to prove themselves.  That’s what references are for.  Calling those who they left as references will give you (not you specifically, the general ‘you’ of all interviewers and prospective employers) insight to their abilities and work ethics, which should be all possible employment should be based off of.

Candidate A has a myspace page with Patsy Cline in an embedded player.  Candidate B has Slayer or some other kind of (death) metal.  Candidate C has almost no presence anywhere.  All have similar credentials, levels of education, and work experience.  A is a homebody and doesn’t do much of anything.  B likes to party on the weekends, but showed up to the interview clean and pressed.  No one knows anything about C.  With prejudices that may have entered due to personal tastes and habits, B has already been excluded.  The interviewer doesn’t like the fact that they drink Natural Light and head-bang on the weekends.  So it’s down to A and C.  The interviewer knows that A is a homebody, or do they?  A could be some kind of crazy drug addict, but they just don’t make it public knowledge.  That leaves us with C.  All we know about C is that we don’t know anything.  C has to be judged by what information they provided.  It’s human nature to assume the worst when we don’t know anything.  A has left us a little something to mentally gnaw on, while C did not.  We have no choice to but to assume that A is telling the truth.  We take the information for face value, so we make our decision, A it is.

Two people were just hosed because of personal preferences.  Prejudices, or dare I say “discrimination”, is something that all must strive to overcome. 

I have rambled enough.  I appreciate your time in reading this.

Best Regards,
Wesley Tobler

I know I tend to ramble a bit, however, I do think that I made a valid point.  A person's personal life should have little to no influence on getting a job.  Let their actions at work speak for themselves.  Thoughts, comments, editorials on how much of a raging douche I am can either be left in the comments, or e-mail me at dankiswess (at) gee-mail (dot) com.

"In the world of SAP, googling 'shit be broke' just doesn't cut it"

-me

Other google searches that return less then desireable results:

"My shit is broken"

"Shit ain't workin'"

"My shits busted"

"OMFG! My shit be broke"

Remember, when trying to find an answer to a problem, it's important to know what the question is.  Google is a powerful search engine, but it doesn't intrinsically know what you want.  Please, for the love of all that is good and holy, understand the 'WHAT' before you try to find the 'HOW'.