How to Be on Time

By -
If you always plan on being on time, you will almost always be late.

The only way to be on time consistently is to always plan on being early.

A lesson I learned only recently, when I started working with Sandy Ikeda.

Old, decrepit dogs occasionally do learn new tricks!

Comments

  1. Anonymous2:03 PM

    As they say in the Navy, "if you're on time, you're late. If you're early, you're on time". Everything in the Navy is done 15 minutes ahead of time. Of course, I've been out of the military for quite a while, so I don't necessarily follow this advice anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jonathan Finegold Catalán4:47 PM

    The way I remember the military is that you'd get asap, and then they'd make you wait forever.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous6:59 PM

      Yes, "hurry up and wait" was a common occurrence.

      Delete
    2. Watoosh8:40 AM

      That was my experience as well. It got especially bad with large-scale drills, as both the anticipation and the waiting compounded with every additional platoon/company/battalion that had to be meticulously inspected and commanded from the top down, just to see that nobody had wrinkles in their pants.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more