[the hog]

Can someone please translate and also supply him with an "e" key for his keyboard?

[helene_t]

The_Hog, on Mar 26 2009, 02:09 PM, said:

Can someone please translate and also supply him with an "e" key for his keyboard?

Just received an SMS:
"On board thr you can finss th qun of spads".

The director ruled that the message was unintelligible so there was no UI.

[H_KARLUK]

helene_t, on Mar 26 2009, 03:14 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Mar 26 2009, 02:09 PM, said:

Can someone please translate and also supply him with an "e" key for his keyboard?

Just received an SMS:
"On board thr you can finss th qun of spads".

The director ruled that the message was unintelligible so there was no UI.

How careless I am. Why i do that ?

all k xcept this "th".. wuzzup or wassup? wuteveeer !

[barmar]

hrothgar, on Mar 25 2009, 07:36 AM, said:

I know plenty of IT professionals whose contracts require that they are "on call" on nights and weekend.

The same goes for lots of folks in top tier technical support positions. This requirement is written directly into their job descriptions.

Many medical professionals are in the same boat.

I'm not sure how things work for folks in the military. Blackshoe is probably in a better position to comment.

So these people never go on vacation?

Unless you're attending an NABC local to your home, I don't see how most of these cases are relevant. If you're a surgeon, there's not much you can do to help someone if you have to get on a plane first to fly home.

Any organization with an "indispensible" person is poorly managed. What do they do when he gets sick? What if he's hit by a bus? Or worse: one of the founders of my company (http://en.wikipedia....Daniel_M._Lewin) was on board one of the 9/11 jets that hit the WTC. Although he was undoubtedly considered critical to the company, we continued on without him and have been quite successful.

We have people who are on-call to manage incidents, but the duty rotates every week among a handful of managers and other senior employees, and there's both a primary and backup. If you're going away during your assigned week, you find someone to swap with. Individual contributors like myself are also expected to be reachable most of the time, but there's a list of people responsible for each service, and if you're not available, or don't have an Internet connection, when something comes up, they go to the next person on the list.

Even the President isn't indispensible, except perhaps in a nuclear emergency. Bush was widely criticized for continuing to read a story to school children while the 9/11 attacks were going on. While it's true that this publicity stunt shouldn't take precedence over a national emergency, would it really have made a difference if he'd gone into action? Almost any decision he might be expected to make could also have been made by the VP, appropriate Cabinet members, or military leaders.

[jdonn]

The_Hog, on Mar 26 2009, 08:09 AM, said:

Can someone please translate and also supply him with an "e" key for his keyboard?

I'd rathr rmov th othr 25 lttrs.

[H_KARLUK]

barmar, on Mar 26 2009, 05:12 PM, said:

Any organization with an "indispensible" person is poorly managed. 

Alert : (a subject) which is under debate

[gwnn]

Yep, the BB Forums are notorious for using completely made-up slang words and everyone is unfair to you.

[JoAnneM]

barmar, on Mar 26 2009, 03:12 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Mar 25 2009, 07:36 AM, said:

I know plenty of IT professionals whose contracts require that they are "on call" on nights and weekend.

The same goes for lots of folks in top tier technical support positions.  This requirement is written directly into their job descriptions.

Many medical professionals are in the same boat.

I'm not sure how things work for folks in the military.  Blackshoe is probably in a better position to comment.

So these people never go on vacation?

Unless you're attending an NABC local to your home, I don't see how most of these cases are relevant. If you're a surgeon, there's not much you can do to help someone if you have to get on a plane first to fly home.

Any organization with an "indispensible" person is poorly managed. What do they do when he gets sick? What if he's hit by a bus? Or worse: one of the founders of my company (http://en.wikipedia....Daniel_M._Lewin) was on board one of the 9/11 jets that hit the WTC. Although he was undoubtedly considered critical to the company, we continued on without him and have been quite successful.

We have people who are on-call to manage incidents, but the duty rotates every week among a handful of managers and other senior employees, and there's both a primary and backup. If you're going away during your assigned week, you find someone to swap with. Individual contributors like myself are also expected to be reachable most of the time, but there's a list of people responsible for each service, and if you're not available, or don't have an Internet connection, when something comes up, they go to the next person on the list.

Even the President isn't indispensible, except perhaps in a nuclear emergency. Bush was widely criticized for continuing to read a story to school children while the 9/11 attacks were going on. While it's true that this publicity stunt shouldn't take precedence over a national emergency, would it really have made a difference if he'd gone into action? Almost any decision he might be expected to make could also have been made by the VP, appropriate Cabinet members, or military leaders.

Your argument is irelevant because, in fact, there are people who are expected to return pages and calls 24/7 whether you agree or not.

[awm]

The typical situation is that you have someone who is an expert in a particular area. This person will not always be available to directly fix all problems that occur, but needs to be available via phone so that other (less expert) employees can contact him or her to ask questions in an emergency.

Most of the time, this expert is working regular hours and gets a normal amount of vacation time. But if there is a serious situation they need to be "on call." Such calls are very rare but they do occur. Do we need to ban these people from bridge tournaments?

[barmar]

JoAnneM, on Mar 26 2009, 12:40 PM, said:

Your argument is irelevant because, in fact, there are people who are expected to return pages and calls 24/7 whether you agree or not.

Life sucks for you if you're on call 24x365.

How many people are there like this, and how many of them are bridge players who enter national events? Should the rules really accomodate such extremes?

Could the meltdown of Bear-Stearns have been avoided if Jimmy Cayne had been able to receive calls during the Spingold?

[babalu1997]

[quote name='TimG' date='Mar 25 2009, 10:34 AM'] [quote name='H_KARLUK' date='Mar 25 2009, 09:41 AM']Simply, is a dog "catcher" also licensed specialist to control elephant/s, snake/s, monkey/s, lion/s, tiger/s, bear/s etc. accidentally escaped cage/s in Zoo running uncontrolled in streets & gardens? [/quote]
The lions and tigers do not worry me as much.

The lions and tigers do not worry me as much, but the elephants, oh the elephants, they recognize people and that one elephant can trample a lot of bridge players in tournament.

[barmar]

And I have to repeat myself, since this point seems to be forgotten: if you can't go 4 hours without being available by phone, you can't play in any bridge tournament. Even in events that allow you to have a cell phone on your person, you're required to turn it off during the game.

[TimG]

barmar, on Mar 26 2009, 02:16 PM, said:

And I have to repeat myself, since this point seems to be forgotten: if you can't go 4 hours without being available by phone, you can't play in any bridge tournament. Even in events that allow you to have a cell phone on your person, you're required to turn it off during the game.

You also cannot fly to some bridge tournaments. At least the last time I was on a commercial flight they asked that cellphones be off during the flight.

[mycroft]

I don't get it - I am on leash this week, and remember yet again why I don't have a cell phone. But I'm an old fogey (have two weeks left in my thirties), in IT support (so it IS a **** leash), and a "recovering introvert". Yes, it would be nice for the 10 minutes a month I'd use it to check the bus schedules, and I should be available in emergencies, but those are problems I choose to live with; because there's no way, short of answering the bloody thing, to find out if it is an emergency, or if my "everything's a crisis and has to be dealt with now" friend just wanted to ask me if I wanted Mexican or Chinese for Games day next week - again.

So I don't understand the withdrawal symptoms I see with people and cell phones. However, I drag my laptop to bridge tournaments, because I worry about what will happen when I get home after the game if I don't have it...so I'm willing to accept what I cannot understand.

[awm]

There is a difference between: "Please turn your phone off for the next four hours, it might annoy other people if it rings" and "You are required to give your phone to some untrusted individual. If you are lucky you might get it back in four hours; if you are unlucky you will probably see it again in eleven hours, but then again it might be stolen or lost or handed to the wrong person. In addition, you are required to pay this individual to take care of your phone."

[qwery_hi]

awm, on Mar 26 2009, 01:05 PM, said:

There is a difference between: "Please turn your phone off for the next four hours, it might annoy other people if it rings" and "You are required to give your phone to some untrusted individual. If you are lucky you might get it back in four hours; if you are unlucky you will probably see it again in eleven hours, but then again it might be stolen or lost or handed to the wrong person. In addition, you are required to pay this individual to take care of your phone."

There is no issue with turning off the cell phone for the 4 hours that I am in the playing hall. Even this is disallowed - why is it that I cannot have a turned off cell phone in the playing area?

[H_KARLUK]

babalu1997, on Mar 26 2009, 08:09 PM, said:

The lions and tigers do not worry me as much, but the elephants, oh the elephants, they recognize people and that one elephant can trample a lot of bridge players in tournament.

Hey, what is BABALU ?

[TimG]

awm, on Mar 26 2009, 04:05 PM, said:

There is a difference between: "Please turn your phone off for the next four hours, it might annoy other people if it rings" and "You are required to give your phone to some untrusted individual. If you are lucky you might get it back in four hours; if you are unlucky you will probably see it again in eleven hours, but then again it might be stolen or lost or handed to the wrong person. In addition, you are required to pay this individual to take care of your phone."

I was under the impression that the cell phone ban on airplanes was an FAA imposed regulation upon the use of personal cell phones on commercial aircraft. Not merely a matter of courtesy.

Are you saying that if there was a free and reliable checking service you would no longer object based upon the perceived accusation of cheating?

[the hog]

jdonn, on Mar 26 2009, 10:42 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Mar 26 2009, 08:09 AM, said:

Can someone please translate and also supply him with an "e" key for his keyboard?

I'd rathr rmov th othr 25 lttrs.

roflmao

[jdonn]

TimG, on Mar 26 2009, 02:32 PM, said:

barmar, on Mar 26 2009, 02:16 PM, said:

And I have to repeat myself, since this point seems to be forgotten: if you can't go 4 hours without being available by phone, you can't play in any bridge tournament.  Even in events that allow you to have a cell phone on your person, you're required to turn it off during the game.

You also cannot fly to some bridge tournaments. At least the last time I was on a commercial flight they asked that cellphones be off during the flight.

There are certainly people on call during daylight hours who could fly at night.