Hmm, yeah well

Now computer safety is a hot topic, especially since there those nice ads which imply or support certain believes concerning Mac and Windows PCs. Before I continue both Mac and Windows systems are PCs, Personal Computer is what PC stands which encompasses all computer systems that are such.
Now interestingly enough it was actually a Virus that attacked Macs that was the first Virus out there and that was because at that time in the market of the personal PCs the Mac OS was leading. A lead which Mac has lost for a long time, that is not because Windows is inherently better but because Windows had a better ad Campaign not to mention aimed at the right user group in the right manner. Mac has simply become more of a tool for a very specific purpose with which there is nothing wrong. But the Windows machine and most Linux machines can easily be upgraded while it is admittedly harder to find drivers that work well for some version of Linux. Also the Windows machine as the Linux machine are both more versatile for example you can custom build your own computer legally and install your old OS from the old machine on there and simply stop using the old set-up while a Mac has to be bought with the computer something that naturally makes it less attractive for the people that build computer systems. Then there are other past time activities for which Windows is most suitable such as gaming and the likes, now Macs are most useful for Graphic and Sound Design an area in which I might add Windows and Linux machines can not compete. But that means that the Mac is the most useful to people that simply want to do either of those things. In the other areas it is just as good as Windows or Linux, while Linux offers more flexibility to the advanced user but often is confusing to the beginner. Windows is fairly simple, offers versatility which allows it to be used for internet and other work related issues as good as the other two and also allows the user to play games which by now are a very important part of the industry. Macs simply are not better as a general statement but rather cater to the needs of a special group which needs something like that. But for other purposes that involve work All systems are equal now, a corporation is under those condition most likely to be the OS that comes it the cheapest and if the corporate IT people know that the best choice is an OS that allows upgrades to come from them because it will be cheaper then they only have Linux and Windows as choice and most people know Windows because it is on most computers sold why? Because they managed to become popular enough. Thus Windows is the logical choice. Now if Mac was the cheaper choice you can bet that Companies would start using Mac but as long as they have to buy entire systems with the OS it makes little or no sense to use Macs.
To the most contested issue of hacking/viruses and spam, Unix based systems (Linux and Mac) are known to be safer then Dos based (Windows), but it is also known that there is no such thing as a totally safe system Macs and Linux machines can be hacked but you have to remember that hackers and spammers go after the most common OS since that is what brings them the most information and Victims which either results in fun or money or even both. If say mac would have the greatest market share tomorrow within a month the internet would be swarming with Spam and Viruses for Mac and hackers would suddenly start taking an interest in Macs.
But since Macs are a small group they have remained fairly safe for the time being.
Thus saying Macs are safer because they are is not perse the entire answer but rather they are safer because they represent a minority and that means that Windows is actually protecting Macs by being the main target.

Blizzard let the cat out...

Now, before I begin I want to point out that the web went into a frenzy ever since Blizzard announced for the first time that they would make another game in the near future. Fans of the old-timers and long veterans Starcraft and Diablo of which both are still played and popular games hoped for either Starcraft 2 or Diablo 3 now Starcraft was the one with no successor and also the older one of the two games. Diablo 2 had been released in 2000 and was followed up with an expansion pack while Starcraft dates to 1998 Diablo 2 of course was already a successor to Diablo which had been released in 1996. Yet, Diablo 2 Lord of Destruction (the expansion pack to Diablo 2) was the last release that was Warcraft unrelated which means for essentially 7 years there was not an announced non-Warcraft. Now it looks as if Blizzard has already done some good work on kicking Starcraft 2 off but knowing Blizzard we can anticipate that the release will take another 2-3 years. The game is being announced with the tag line "Hell, its about time", this line has several
references one of them being the long Warcraft period through which Blizzard has just gone and hopefully it is a time that now has ended. Also it plays a role in the Cinematic video which by the way does justice once more to what Blizzard provides its fans with eye-candy and a great deal of in-game fun. Beyond that Blizzard does have the reputation to take always longer then they say they will for a game and of course for usually producing nearly or completely bug-free games as well as working closely with the players together. And of course also for great art work.

The official Starcraft2 resource website.

Education...

Now, this is basically the continuation of a response I gave to an article.
My point was how many of todays students actually want/need University/College education. I' am not saying need education for a job, what I mean is education that is logically needed to perform a job. Now we don't need the garbage man or cab driver with anything beyond a High School degree. It is not as if you wanted to argue with your garbage man, or with your cab driver.
We can admit that most people do not need so many degrees nor do we need for some professions degrees.
We now face an enormous inflation of educational degrees, an inflation that is caused by people thinking that they need degrees when they often are simply not necessary.
Now if say the people would do what they wanted and head straight there they would easily be able to do so in many cases without needing to go through University or College, it is not as if the education provided there does not offer something useful but in many cases it is also very harmful to the mind and of course to the wallet which often does not have the strength to support that strain forcing students to go into a specific profession into a profession they may only chose for the money and its compatibility with their degree. That is where problems then start people that then find that they are not happy in the chosen profession do not change for many reasons and this sadness will then be carried into their family lives this (if they have children) is likely to cause certain pain to children and of course that is entirely unnecessary for the simple reason that sometimes people want to do something specific like driving a boat, now more accurate would be saying captaining it. That does require certain specialized training but it does not require a degree of a university in some abstruse area the same counts for pilots or other specialized professions that require a BA or MA by job description but which are really unnecessary because that person wants to do something quite specific and if that person would then be trained in that specific direction which in this case would be shipping, ship design maybe, etc. things which a captain should know. Which make a captain a interdisciplinary but also insure that his/her knowledge is quite specific to the duties a captain has. The problem today is the over valuing of the university degree which quite honestly is not that great and in most cases not needed for many professions.

Those curious little things...

Now, many often say that I tend to be a bit judgmental or at least use nationalistic ideals very often to provoke. The reason I' am saying this is to warn you before you read on in this post since this could be considered a rant once more inspired by...what else could it be? Talking...
Now there are many little things that make Canada a curious country especially so since Canadians for some reason only compare themselves with the US. Not other countries the reason for that is that the US is the closest country to Canada and the loudest country. Of course that can be understood, now Canada is country which is besides another country that manages to use even more resources wastefully of course if that is your measuring stick then you are most of the time in a good light and if only in your own eyes that is enough since when other countries then tell you that you should change your ways you simply point south and have so pointed at the country that wastes even more then the your country does. Of course that is a very regional way of thinking a way which I may add is somewhat...well outdated. Since we have to consider that you can travel around the world within less then a day...presuming you have the money to do so of course. Now there seem to be some very interesting differences between European countries these days and North American countries. Now for example a little things would be the fact that the wire antenna on the car is still legal in North America while it has become illegal in most of Europe. Now of course the next thing would be the efficient engines which are completely computer controlled and for some reason the engines build in most cars in North America are not quite as efficient as the cars in Europe. Of course you can't perse blame the people exclusively in North America since Europeans did not do it any better until it got bad and until Europe was out of resources, land and air. Now of course you could suggest that other countries could learn from the mistakes made in Europe and that that way it would be possible to with some problems before they occur; problems that are known. Of course there is the limitations that government and certain other forces have imposed upon the advancement of energy efficiency in North America as well as some odd believes concerning certain ways of power production such as wind-power seems to be considered primitive by some people while it really one one of the most efficient ways off producing electrical power. Of course there is also the thinking or lack of information that stands in the way of more efficient means of producing energy and also conserving energy. Such as good heat insulation and many other things that are not used to the full extend in North America. Yet, of course there is then the contrast of certain other areas in which North America is one of the leading areas of expertise. It is not that North Americans are dumb or unable but rather that North Americans do not always see or if they see often do not realize that resources are actually limited and that eventually they will have to conserve of course North Americans also do not look at Europe for lessons concerning this specific issue since the Europeans have had to deal with these problems and had rivers which were entirely dead thanks to the industry waste that was being pumped into it. From that point on the Europeans had to learn and had to adjust but North Americans do not seem to wish nor think that they need advice on those issues, of course it is not a bad thing to turn to a someone with more experience.

The question...

Now I have been asked a question, in a conversation recently, I was asked...well actually all the guys in the guys at the table were asked "Why, we (guys) do not understand a simple but gentle rejection but rather need something overly direct that would be to brutal in some peoples eyes?"
Now why do we not understand those 'soft' 'friendly' rejections do not work is simple really they might be 'gentle' but while that is the case they do often cause a problem such as that the 'soft' rejection often causes the issue of the guy not sure of what is going in the girls mind. Now of course I would like to add that that most often holds true for women in general. Now back to the main issue when a woman tells a guy the 'soft' or 'gentle' rejection that means for the guy that he does not quite now what she means after having been bombarded with the media telling him that a girl means this or that by saying that or this. Now this combined with the fact that a guy most often has no clue or only a very limited understanding of what a girl wants, never mind means. Leads to the true confusion at which point the guy knows barely anything that would help him decode any of those secrets or understand what a 'soft' rejection means. Thus when he is being rejected in such a confusing manner he can only be confused. Thus I would suggest to avoid those confusing problems that women should simply use clear and not confusing language. Allowing the poor confused man to understand at least some of what woman are trying to tell them. Now of course you have to understand that this article is based on my own observations and not on research done in a clear and controlled environment. Thus it means that I can only write my own personal opinion and not anything else.