Here is how I was described in an email at work today: “Paul plays the vital role of test executer”.
I am not a tester, but I play one on TV.
Here is how I was described in an email at work today: “Paul plays the vital role of test executer”.
I am not a tester, but I play one on TV.
I read with interest an article on the documentary film “Super Size Me“. From the article:
“The ads and the McDonalds website feature Guy Russo, the firm’s Australian chief, accusing film-maker Morgan Spurlock of distorting the facts.
He says Spurlock ate as much McDonalds food in 30 days as nutritionists say should be eaten in eight years.”
Now remember, that’s from the McDonald’s chief in Australia (don’t worry, I read it as chef too. As if!)
From the film’s website we get the following rules:
1) No options: he could only eat what was available over the counter (water included!)
2) No supersizing unless offered
3) No excuses: he had to eat every item on the menu at least once
Let’s do the math. I’ll assume that, as part of trying to get through the menu, plus the supersizing, Spurlock ate twice as much each meal as he should have (that’s a pretty generous assumption for McDonald’s, but I’m a nice guy), and that he ate 3 meals per day. Over the course of 30 days, therefore, he ate 180 McDonald’s meals, which McDonald’s say is enough for 8 years. Firing up the calculator, that works out as a maximum of 1 meal every 16 days.
Let me repeat that. McDonald’s themselves say that if you eat at their establishments once every two weeks, THAT’S TOO MUCH.
I have three more gmail addresses to give out. Two of these go to Nick and Tom. If your name isn’t Nick or Tom, but you’d like the remaining invite, mail me or comment and if you pass the “I’ve heard of you” test you’re in.
The Supreme Court has declined to hear the case of Michael Newdow. Newdow felt that his daughter essentially being forced to pledge allegiance to the Christian God damaged his relationship with her, he being an atheist. The Supremes declined the case on the grounds that Newdow didn’t have custody rights to his daughter, and therefore didn’t pass one of the tests required to have his case heard.
I’m very pleased that the court dodged this bullet. I personally object to that part of the pledge, and should my kids be required to pledge I will work hard to ensure they don’t have to say the ‘under God’ bit. But I’m in a minority in the US, which despite (or perhaps because of) the constitutional separation of Church and State is a strongly religious nation (though it seems to get confused over the details of that religion, hence the hatred of homosexuals, the commonplace death penalty, etc.)
Imagine, then, the furore if the court had heard the case and ruled that the words are indeed unconstitutional. Millions of voting Christians would have flocked to the crusading banner of George W. just in time for the election. I have no doubt that, even modestly played, it would have been sufficient to swing the election to W. While I wish that the question would be resolved, sometimes no answer is the best answer.
I had a small crash this weekend. I was coxing a men’s eight (translation: I was steering a big rowing boat) with an experienced bow pair (translation: the people up at the other pointy end knew what they were doing) and 6 novices (translation: everyone else didn’t). As we came in to the dock I screwed up somewhat and we hit the corner. Somewhat understandable given that I’m sitting at the other end of a 60 foot long boat that’s 2 feet wide at most and all-up weighed as much as a car. On the other hand I should have known better, and given that it also costs as much as a reasonable car it was a little sobering. Fortunately we only bent a bolt and scratched the side a bit.