Veo el mundo entre volutas

IconMi reflexión sobre el mundo a diario (o casi). Menos para el público y más para mí mismo.

Ya estoy de vuelta

Un día después de lo esperado pues volví hecho polvo de tanto patearme Roma; resfriado por los cambios de temperatura en una larga jornada de caminatas por la ciudad; con mi padre en urgencias, por un problema renal (que por suerte, parece ser menor) y, finalmente, porque tengo el PC estropeado en el sector de inicio, con lo cual, mientras lo arreglo, no tendré otro remedio que "colgar" lo que sea desde el PC del trabajo.

Aparte de éso, me digo "BIENVENIDO A CASA". En breve iré "colgando" detalles de mis experiencias "religiosas" en Roma.


Publicar un comentario 3 volutas:

Lunarroja dijo...

¿... con que viajecito a Italia, eh?
Salud para tu padre...

5:10 p. m.

Anónimo dijo...

People who work in the fields of science and engineering are not like other
people. This can be frustrating to the non-technical people who have to
deal with them. The secret to coping with technology-oriented people is to
understand their motivations. The following analysis will teach you
everything you need to know. Their customs and mannerisms were learnt by
observing them, much the same way Jane Goodall learnt about the great apes,
but without the hassles of grooming.



Science is so trendy these days that everyone wants to be one. the word
'scientist' is greatly overused. If there's somebody in your life who you
think is trying to pass as a scientist, give him/her this test to discern
the truth:

You walk into a room and notice that a picture is hanging crooked. You...

A. Straighten it.

B. Ignore it.

C. Buy a CAD system and spend the next six months designing a solar-powered,
self-adjusting picture frame while often stating aloud your belief that the
inventor of the nail was a total moron.

The correct answer is "C" but partial credit can be given to anybody who
writes "it depends" in the margin of the test or who simply blames the whole
stupid thing on "marketing".


Scientists have different objectives when it comes to social interaction.

"Normal" people expect to accomplish several unrealistic things from social

* Stimulating and thought provoking conversation;
* Important social contacts;
* A feeling of connectedness with other humans.

In contrast to "normal" people, scientists have rational objectives for
social interactions:

* Get it over with as soon as possible;
* Avoid getting invited to something unpleasant;
* Demonstrate mental superiority and mastery of all subjects.


To the scientist, all matter in the universe can be placed into one of two
catagories: (1) things that need to be fixed, and (2) things that will need
to be fixed after you've had a few minutes to play with them.

Scientists like to solve problems. If there are no problems handily
available, they will create their own. "Normal" people don't understand this
concept, they believe that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Scientists
believe that if it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough features yet.

No scientist looks at a TV remote control without wondering what it would
take to turn it into a stun gun. No scientist can take a shower without
wondering if some sort of Teflon coating would make showering unnecessary.

To the scientist, the world is a toy box full of sub-optimized and
feature-poor toys.


Clothes are the lowest priority for a scientist, assuming the basic
thresholds for temperature and decency have been satisfied. If no appendages
are freezing or sticking together, and no genitalia or mammary glands are
swinging around in plain view, then the objective of clothing has been met.


Scientists love all of the Star Trek TV shows and movies. It's a small
wonder, since the scientists on the USS Enterprise are portrayed as heroes,
occasionally even having sex with aliens. this is much more glamorous than
the life of a real scientist, which consists of hiding from the Universe and
having sex without the participation of any other life forms.


Dating is never easy for scientists. A "normal" person will employ various
indirect and duplicitous methods to create a false impression of
attractiveness. Scientists are incapable of placing appearance above function.

Fortunately, scientists have an ace in the hole. They are widely recognised
as superior marriage material: intelligent, dependable, employed, honest,
and handy around the house. While it's true that most "normal" people would
prefer note to date a scientist, most normal people harbour an intense
desire to mate with them, thus producing scientist-like children who will
have high-paying jobs long before losing their virginity.

Male scientists reach their peak of sexual attractiveness later than most
"normal" men, becoming irresistable erotic dynamos in their mid-thirties to
late forties. Just look at these examples of sexually irresistable men in
technical professions:

* Bill Gates
* MacGyver

Female scientists become irresistable at the age of consent and remain that
way until about thirty minutes after their clinical death. Longer if it's a
warm day.


Scientists are always honest in matters of technology and human
relationships. That's why it's a good idea to keep scientists away from
customers, romantic interests and other people who can't handle the truth.

Scientists sometimes bend the truth to avoid work. They say things that
sound like lies but technically are not because nobody could be expected to
believe them. The complete list of scientist lies is stated below:

"I won't change anything without asking you first."
"I'll return your hard-to-find cable tomorrow."
"I have to have new equipment to do my job/research."
"I'm not jealous of your new computer."


Scientists are notoriously frugal. This is not because of cheapness or mean
spirit; it is simply because every spending situation is simply a problem
in optimization, that is, "How can I escape this situation while retaining
the greatest amount of cash?"


If there is one trait that best defines a scientist, it is the ability to
concentrate on one subject to the complete exclusion of everything else in
the environment.

This sometimes causes scientists to be pronounced dead prematurely. Some
funeral homes in high tech areas have started checking resumes before
processing the bodies. Anybody with a B.Sc. or experience in computer
programming is propped up in a lounge for a few days just to see if he or
she snaps out of it.

10. RISK

Scientists hate risk. They try to eliminate it whenever they can. This is
understandable, given that when a scientist makes a mistake, the media will
treat it like it's a big deal or something.

Examples of Bad Press for Scientists:

* Hindenburg
* Challenger
* SPANet (tm)
* Hubble Space Telescope
* Apollo 13
* Titanic
* Ford Pinto

The risk/reward calculation for scientists looks something like this:

RISK: Public humiliation and the death of thousands of innocent people.
REWARD: A certificate of appreciation in a handsome plastic frame.

Being practical people, scientists evaluate this balance of risks and
rewards and decide that risk is not a good thing. The best way to avoid
risk is by advising that any activity is technically impossible for reasons
that are far too complicated to explain.

If that approach is not sufficient to halt a project, then the scientist
will fall back to a second line of defense: "It's technically possible but
it will cost too much."

11. EGO

Ego-wise, two things are important to scientists:

* How smart they are;
* How many cool devices they own.

The fastest way to get a scientist to solve a problem is to declare that
the problem is unsolvable. No scientist can walk away from an unsolvable
problem until it's solved. No illness or distraction is sufficient to get
the scientist off the case. These types of challenges quickly become
personal - a battle between the scientist and the laws of nature.

Scientists will go without food and hygiene for days to solve a problem
(other times just because they forgot). And when they succeed in solving
the problem they will experience an ego rush that is better than sex - and
we're including the kind of sex where other people are involved.

othing is more threatening to the scientist than the suggestion that
somebody else has more technical skill. "Normal" people sometimes use that
knowledge as a lever to extract more work from the scientist.

When a scientist says that something can't be done (a code phrase that
means it's not fun to do), some clever "normal" people have learnt to
glance at the scientist with a look of compassion and pity, and say
something along these lines: "I'll ask Bob to figure it out. He knows how
to solve difficult problems."

At that point it is a good idea for the "normal" person to not stand
between the scientist and the problem. The scientist will set upon the
problem like a starved chihuahua on a pork chop.

5:24 p. m.

Pipero dijo...

Sí luna, sí. A Roma en concreto. Qué dolor de pies!! Mi padre se va recuperando, muchas gracias!

M.E., más que un científico estás hablando de un "Geek" o un "friki" tecnológico. Ya hemos hablado largo y tendido sobre este tema. Si quieres te recomiendo un test más completito... JEJE

6:35 p. m.

Publicar un comentario