> But when I go out, I really pay attention to how I dress.
I think that's where I was getting confused. I realized later that I could have summed up my entire last comment with one line "Who are you trying to impress?"
To me business casual is what you wear to the office. It's not so much about impressing one's coworkers and boss as it is about not tripping people's "This person is a lazy slob" meters (and yes it's shallow of people to think that jeans + t-shirt = lazy slob, but I seem to lack the power to stop that). It seemed odd to me to put so much money in on business casual clothing.
But even with dress clothes, if I am trying to impress my boss or a person whom I would like to be my boss, if I stick to reasonably classic cuts then last season's (or older) clothes will suffice, as long as they are well made. For most geeks our bosses aren't going to be careful readers and followers of the fashion scene.
So now what I can't figure out...does this mean you're going out five days a week? As 'business casual to evening' your list up there would work out great, I'd think. I find comfort is not the difficulty in business casual (and I don't think buying more expensive clothes would make the whole thing less comfortable) but it'd stress me out to wear such nice things to work. But I'm a unix admin, which is a job that is generally dustier, dirtier and more inclined to sharp metal parts than software engineer.
(Actually right now I've gone back to school. Whether I'm well dressed depends on whether, like many of my classmates, one believes that pyjamas are the height of fashion. I refuse to wear pyjamas to class, because I'm an old fuddy duddy)
On belts: I've watched belts being handmade. I know that I can buy, from someone who will make the belt in front of me if I wish to watch, a belt for less than $20, without a buckle. I'll have to ask about belts at the store, though. I've seen a lot of belts for more than $50, but rarely ones that seemed like there was reason to spend that much on it. But maybe they are keeping really nice ones in the back or something.
It's possible to have mail order pants tailored locally. I've done this with the nicer pants, with good effect.
A high quality watch is a really nice thing, though not for those of us with a tendency to lose the the things. I'd never buy a 'rulex' though -- there's a difference between 'inexpensively and honestly made' and 'cheap knockoff'
Alternatively: TJMaxx (or similar) will have pants and shirts for significantly less. The last batch of shirts I got there were all less than $10 each, all but one less than $5 each. Two were 100% silk, two were 100% linen, two were 100% cotton, one was a cotton/linen blend. All would have retailed for $40-$80, according to the tags. These were on end of season sale. Their typical shirt prices run closer to $20, but that still is better than $40-$80. Their pants prices are similar.
Ebay is also a good choice: I've never paid more than $15 (with shipping) on pants. The way to do this is to simply decide "This is how much I will pay", figure shipping, take the amount for shipping from the total you're willing to pay and then make that your largest bid. You'll lose a few, but that's okay. It takes far less time to search up pants on ebay and bid than it does to drive to the store and browse. I buy 100% cotton khakis for less than $10. It's the 100% wool or linen dress pants that 'break the bank' at $15. (I was willing to go to a whopping $20 for the wool pants, actually...)
(I'm a natural fiber snob. I admit it. Whether or not you do poly is your own business)
It's easier to do pants mail order, since there are only two sizes (waist and inseam) that matter. Cut also matters, but for most people not all that much. I avoid doing shirts mail order because sometimes they won't fit.
I'm totally with you on the flat front thing.
Thrift store: Most even sort by size and color, which I think is awfully nice of them. Makes it easy for me. Check for stains, rips or other damage. Often clothes are less than $5/piece this way.
At these prices, with the exception of wool pants, it all gets machine washed cold, tumbled and hung (preferably still a little damp. The linen gets ironed damp because otherwise there's no hope for such things)
On shirt color: those colors are good for some people and bad for others. I'm one of those who does blues, greens, browns, off whites. If someone isn't sure they should try a few colors on and get opinions. If it matters, it's obvious (I, for instance, cannot wear red worth anything and black/white/most greys aren't great ether)
For shoes: I spent $30 on a pair of tan laceups (oxfords? not sure..sketchers is the brand) that retail for $40. I spent $120 (or rather, my dad did since they were a gift) on a pair of brown redwing steel toed (these days I'd recommend either the synthetic steel toes or else non steel toes, the steel toes cause security problems sometimes...) boots several years ago. Another $20 went to black laceups for dress shoes (I believe they retailed for $50.) Another perhaps $10 a year goes to polish, saddle soap and boot grease to keep them looking good. If you need shoes, look around for sales at good shoe stores. I personally wouldn't wear loafers, but I imagine that similar deals could be found for them. $300 is too much to spend on two pairs of shoes in my world.
Belts: $50 for a belt? For business casual? Do you work in the financial sector?
Solid leather, rather than pressed or fake leather, smooth rather than rough leather, solid (and not ornate or otherwise icky) belt buckle. Ability to change the belt buckle later is ideal, though hard to find these days. $20 is sufficient for a decent belt, though I suppose I'd pay $50 for a proper (replaceable belt buckle), solid leather, well dyed belt.
I also wouldn't bother with a $250 watch. For most of us a $50 watch is plenty. My current watch cost less than $20 (I have a history with losing watches....) and funnily enough looks exactly like my friend's $150 one (except for a different brand name, *exactly* alike. we have difficulty telling them apart sometimes). Certainly no one could tell the difference without sticking their nose on my wrist. It might not last as long, but odds are I'll lose it first anyway...
ITYM Capitalist party. Oh, wait, that's supposed to be both of them...
This is a Capitalist uniform. The Chairman Mao communist uniform looks alot like pyjamas to western eyes. It is also the uniform of the (roughly-)opposing team to these capitalistic business places, so it's approximately as recommended that you wear the Commie pyjamas there as that you wear a Yankees uniform in Boston.
There are other capitalist 'uniforms' -- including (though the wearers hate thinking about it) those uniforms that are changed every six months or so. I don't bother myself with those, primarily because it would more trouble for me than I'm inclined to go through.
I don't really care what you or anyone else wears. This is a system I worked out for myself that works reasonably well in USian offices. I have offered it as a hopefully useful piece of help to those who wish it. If you are happy with the system (or lack therof) that you have, it's not really an attempt to get you to dress like me/half the guys in offices in the U.S. I promise you I won't come after you like some twisted version of the unfashion-police if you don't dress this way.
It's also an observed system, rather than a created one. I didn't make the rules, I merely observed them and wrote them down. So if you want to change the dress code in some place that wears full business, I'm not a very useful person to you.
Some people have no common sense when it comes to clothing . I'm one of them. For instance: I don't understand why wearing a Yankees uniform in Boston can cause one to be on the receiving end of physical violence. One way of dealing with this is simply to dress fairly conservatively. People don't beat up people in khakis (at least, not in the U.S.) just because they are wearing khakis. And no one ever shot anyone for a pair of Redwings, that I know of...
And it's fairly rare to fail to get a job for wearing a suit. If you've done your homework then it will be fairly obvious who the non-suit wearing companies are. That homework should be done before interviews for reasons far beyond what to wear to the interview.
Some people manage to get well paying, creative jobs that they are happy at without ever going to college or even getting through high school. However, one would be unwise to advise an entire class of tenth graders to drop out of high school based on this. Some people have the combination of social skills and technical skills to pull this off sucessfully. Some people don't. I have good technical skills. My social skills are good but not natural (which is to say that they are completely learned, slightly slower than most people's and take a lot more energy) and on top of that I'm disabled. I've already got enough ticks against me, just walking in the door. Regardless of the ADA, people believe that disability will make you a less valuable worker and so a certain percentage of the people I interview with will automatically say no. Perhaps this is a similar percentage as the percentage of people you interview with who will refuse to hire you because you refuse to wear a suit. If I were to refuse to wear a suit too, then I'd have twice as many people saying no without even considering my qualifications.
(It's impossible to know how many people don't hire you because of your lack of suit, as it's impossible to know how many people don't hire me because of disability, but that both these things happen is fairly probable)
So when I interview I have a goal: Get a job I can live with. "I can live with" involves many variables, including social responsibility (hah! I really am a commie!), commute (or avoidance of, really), getting certain job responsibilities and avoiding the handful that disability makes ridiculous, etc. Part of your "I can live with" is latitude in clothing. It's not part of mine. I figure it's just as easy to put on one shirt as another.
If anything goes, why aren't we just giving up on clothing entirely, or wearing our pyjamas to work (because then we'd all look like commies
You can make this for yourself, with fairly minimal work. I get my clothes from thrift stores and ebay (ebay, btw, is an excellent place to buy dress pants for much less money than most places, if one looks around carefully) and people occasionally even tell me that I'm a good dresser. This always surprises me, as my while we were growing up my younger sister often stated that she wished to disown me due to my complete lack of dressing accumen. The orange sweatsuit and lime green socks debacle comes to mind. Anyway...
I figured this out years ago. It's really not that difficult (for male geeks. don't ask me what females are supposed to do). The two basic parts: make sure your clothes are clean and not wrinkled, and acquire a wardrobe that is appropriate and put the clothes together right.
I should note that this isn't 'how to be a fashion plate', but 'how to dress so that your boss, customers and/or random others don't snicker at you or worse.'
As Wilde said, "Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months." Fortunately, men's business wear, except in certain professions (none of which would appeal to most geeks anyway) changes very slowly.
Second part first: this isn't an N-dimensional grid, but it's almost a flowchart. Choosing appropriate shirts to go with pants is easy: for both khakis and grey dress pants, if the shirt is of the appropriate type (i.e. dress or business casual) and if the shirt is not the same color as the pants (not just shade, but all shades of tan/lightish brown for the khakies or grey for the dress pants) then it goes. If it's the same color then someone with color sense needs to look at it, and if you don't have that then just skip it and stick with any other appropriate [see shirt sections below] color. Don't wear dressy shirts with kakhis (though this isn't so bad) or business casual shirts with dress pants (this is) and you'll be fine.
(BTW, the simplest way to figure out what sort of clothing is appropriate at your company is to watch what others wear. IMO, when in doubt wear the more dressy option. One has to seriously overdress to cause the same problems that one can find when one slightly underdresses)
(Also, the definitions of 'business' and 'casual' are not as clear cut as some think. Your company may call what I call 'business' 'business casual' or vice versa. Don't quibble over the words, just get dressed already;) )
Business Casual:
Khaki pants. These are easily acquired. Personally, I prefer 100% cotton, but a small amount (less than 10%) of polyester generally won't hurt and a small amount (less than 5%) of lycra might improve the fit a smidge. Beyond that, as long as they fit and aren't stained (if you find you can't judge fit appropriately, bring someone with you who can. a little help while shopping saves a lot of trouble trying to dress yourself later on - this note on fitting is appropriate to all clothing) it's pretty hard to go wrong.
Shirts: Men's collared shirts. Usually with khakis you don't want to get the really dressy shirts, the ones that are usually solid or pinstriped and come shrinkwrapped around cardboard. Avoid shirts with logos or prints other than stripes or plaids. The exception would obviously be an appropriate company logo. Generally bright colors should be avoided. In office light they tend to wash out anyone with lighter skin, and bright colors can seem unprofessional for people of any skin shade. Ditto pastels : some people can pull them off, but this is about 'safe' dressing. So if in any doubt, stick to muted colors: burgandies, blues, greens. Again, anything except light brown shades will go with the khakis.
collar: yes, it should have a collar
sleeve length: long is safest, but if everyone else in your office wears short sleeves then you can too
polo/knits: woven cloth shirts are safest, but if everyone wears polos then you can too. all rules about color/patterns/logos apply here too.
I was injured by a medical fuck up years ago, and when I tried to file a malpractice suit I discovered that I flat out didn't have the money to even file, much less pay a lawyer (hospital lawyers vs IANAL doesn't strike me as a fair fight). I suppose it does make it fairer to raise that bar even higher.
Since the larger institutions (companies, hospitals, whatever) with the deeper pockets and the larger (more expensive) teams of lawyers already have the advantage, something tells me involving the risk of having to pay that team of lawyers isn't going to help people who really have grievances that need to be dealt with in court.
Growing up, I did. It was great. No sales tax, food sold very close to cost, excellent prices on meat. My health care was paid for by the government. I even got my clothes at the government sponsored department store and after school I went to the government run youth center.
Nope, I'm not a pinko commie. My dad is in the U.S. Navy. These were all provided to me by the U.S. government.
I find it highly ironic that many in the armed forces are strongly 'anti-socialist', to the point of wanting to scrap social security and sometimes even public education, when they use perhaps the most socialist system available to U.S. citizens.
(drinking out of the same glass works too, so I hear)
Re:Is it any wonder I didn't get laid in Universit
on
Women Leaving I.T.
·
· Score: 1
You're just not looking in the right places. There are studies about how not enough guys are getting into nursing. They just don't get posted to slashdot, since it's not 'news for nurses'.
(And while you might have to deal with more social stigma as a male nurse, you have to admit you've got the numbers on your side as far as odds of getting a date from one of your classmates goes. Being the 'strong sensitive' type won't hurt either. But nursing doesn't pay all that well, so it's a trade off.)
I read it as 'spinning'. Now, right after 9/11 they told us that spindles were potential weapons (personally, I think a yarn-garrot is more dangerous than anything I could do with the spindle itself) but arrests! Oh my!
Beep. Wrong. Someone posted the wikipedia entry upthread. How *much* Corporatism has to do with Fascism is up for debate, but to flat out deny it is inaccurate.
> This article has zero to do with Fascism OR > corporations.
I think that has to do a lot with how one feels about the current administration. To many, this shutting down of a publically funded information stream seems a lot like one more way to keep the populace under control. Is it? I think that's one of those things that reasonable people can disagree on, too.
Personally I'm inclined to point to the Bush's (and indeed, much of the republican party leadership's, though not most conservatives') idea of 'smaller government' which seems to be "Ask not what your government can do for you (as little as we can get away with!) but what your government can do to help me and my friends make money off of you and others"
But I'm a cynic
(and no, I don't think the democratic party is better, just different in how it wants to exploit the american populace)
It's hard to look at people because it literally overwhelmes my ability to process visually. People have lots of little visual details and move a lot. Many times I have to make a choice of looking at people or listening to people. Sometimes the right choice is to stare at the wall and listen to the person, rather than staring at the person and not hearing anything at all.
To those who think that only 'high functioning' autistics or aspies are against finding a 'cure', I highly recommend reading http://www.autistics.org
Autistics.org is run by several of the 'lower functioning' individuals that NT people seem to think they are helping with their 'find a cure' attitude. You're not helping, you're hurting us. Please educate yourself and stop hurting us.
(Yes, I am a 'higher functioning' individual, but I fail to understand why it's wrong for me to say 'stop hurting autistics' but it's right for people who are not autistic at all to continue hurting autistics)
> Case in point: Bush is trying to overhaul Social > Security and rescue it from the inevitable > financial ruin that Bill Clinton predicted in > 1998. What are Democrats saying in response? That > there is no financial crisis in Social Security, > that the problem can be fixed by simply raising > taxes.
Bullshit.
Not that there's no democrats saying that. But Bush's plan doesn't fix social security, it ruins it. If we let it run without changing it at all then sometime after 2040 we'll have to start cutting benefits to retirees. Bush's plan would have everyone investing in risky investments, instead. The real winners will be the brokers and, temporarily at least, the stock market. Oh, and the federal government who won't have to pay back all it's 'borrowed' from the social security funds.
Which is the plan anyway. Social security is 'welfare' in Bush and other 'financial conservatives' eyes, though it's really insurance (forced insurance, perhaps), and they want to see it gone.
So, leave it alone and come 2040 we'll have to cut benefits. Let Bush at it and in ten years it won't exist and if the economy crashes the money that would have gone into it will be lost. But at least then there won't be any 'inevitable financial ruin' in 2040.
I rarely click on ads at all, but when I do it's because I want to find out what the heck they are talking about. I buy very little (because I'm a poor student, really) and all of my purchases are carefully planned. Even if I find out about a product I want because of an ad, it will most likely be months before I buy it, if I ever do.
Well, matt groenig does both the simpsons and futurerama, and how long has the simpsons been running? Over ten years, for certain. Given the long-running quality of the simpsons, I'm inclined to hold out significant hope for futurerama.
Slashdot Mirror
> But when I go out, I really pay attention to how I dress.
I think that's where I was getting confused. I realized later that I could have summed up my entire last comment with one line "Who are you trying to impress?"
To me business casual is what you wear to the office. It's not so much about impressing one's coworkers and boss as it is about not tripping people's "This person is a lazy slob" meters (and yes it's shallow of people to think that jeans + t-shirt = lazy slob, but I seem to lack the power to stop that). It seemed odd to me to put so much money in on business casual clothing.
But even with dress clothes, if I am trying to impress my boss or a person whom I would like to be my boss, if I stick to reasonably classic cuts then last season's (or older) clothes will suffice, as long as they are well made. For most geeks our bosses aren't going to be careful readers and followers of the fashion scene.
So now what I can't figure out...does this mean you're going out five days a week? As 'business casual to evening' your list up there would work out great, I'd think. I find comfort is not the difficulty in business casual (and I don't think buying more expensive clothes would make the whole thing less comfortable) but it'd stress me out to wear such nice things to work. But I'm a unix admin, which is a job that is generally dustier, dirtier and more inclined to sharp metal parts than software engineer.
(Actually right now I've gone back to school. Whether I'm well dressed depends on whether, like many of my classmates, one believes that pyjamas are the height of fashion. I refuse to wear pyjamas to class, because I'm an old fuddy duddy)
On belts: I've watched belts being handmade. I know that I can buy, from someone who will make the belt in front of me if I wish to watch, a belt for less than $20, without a buckle. I'll have to ask about belts at the store, though. I've seen a lot of belts for more than $50, but rarely ones that seemed like there was reason to spend that much on it. But maybe they are keeping really nice ones in the back or something.
It's possible to have mail order pants tailored locally. I've done this with the nicer pants, with good effect.
A high quality watch is a really nice thing, though not for those of us with a tendency to lose the the things. I'd never buy a 'rulex' though -- there's a difference between 'inexpensively and honestly made' and 'cheap knockoff'
Alternatively: TJMaxx (or similar) will have pants and shirts for significantly less. The last batch of shirts I got there were all less than $10 each, all but one less than $5 each. Two were 100% silk, two were 100% linen, two were 100% cotton, one was a cotton/linen blend. All would have retailed for $40-$80, according to the tags. These were on end of season sale. Their typical shirt prices run closer to $20, but that still is better than $40-$80. Their pants prices are similar.
Ebay is also a good choice: I've never paid more than $15 (with shipping) on pants. The way to do this is to simply decide "This is how much I will pay", figure shipping, take the amount for shipping from the total you're willing to pay and then make that your largest bid. You'll lose a few, but that's okay. It takes far less time to search up pants on ebay and bid than it does to drive to the store and browse. I buy 100% cotton khakis for less than $10. It's the 100% wool or linen dress pants that 'break the bank' at $15. (I was willing to go to a whopping $20 for the wool pants, actually...)
(I'm a natural fiber snob. I admit it. Whether or not you do poly is your own business)
It's easier to do pants mail order, since there are only two sizes (waist and inseam) that matter. Cut also matters, but for most people not all that much. I avoid doing shirts mail order because sometimes they won't fit.
I'm totally with you on the flat front thing.
Thrift store: Most even sort by size and color, which I think is awfully nice of them. Makes it easy for me. Check for stains, rips or other damage. Often clothes are less than $5/piece this way.
At these prices, with the exception of wool pants, it all gets machine washed cold, tumbled and hung (preferably still a little damp. The linen gets ironed damp because otherwise there's no hope for such things)
On shirt color: those colors are good for some people and bad for others. I'm one of those who does blues, greens, browns, off whites. If someone isn't sure they should try a few colors on and get opinions. If it matters, it's obvious (I, for instance, cannot wear red worth anything and black/white/most greys aren't great ether)
For shoes: I spent $30 on a pair of tan laceups (oxfords? not sure..sketchers is the brand) that retail for $40. I spent $120 (or rather, my dad did since they were a gift) on a pair of brown redwing steel toed (these days I'd recommend either the synthetic steel toes or else non steel toes, the steel toes cause security problems sometimes...) boots several years ago. Another $20 went to black laceups for dress shoes (I believe they retailed for $50.) Another perhaps $10 a year goes to polish, saddle soap and boot grease to keep them looking good. If you need shoes, look around for sales at good shoe stores. I personally wouldn't wear loafers, but I imagine that similar deals could be found for them. $300 is too much to spend on two pairs of shoes in my world.
Belts: $50 for a belt? For business casual? Do you work in the financial sector?
Solid leather, rather than pressed or fake leather, smooth rather than rough leather, solid (and not ornate or otherwise icky) belt buckle. Ability to change the belt buckle later is ideal, though hard to find these days. $20 is sufficient for a decent belt, though I suppose I'd pay $50 for a proper (replaceable belt buckle), solid leather, well dyed belt.
I also wouldn't bother with a $250 watch. For most of us a $50 watch is plenty. My current watch cost less than $20 (I have a history with losing watches....) and funnily enough looks exactly like my friend's $150 one (except for a different brand name, *exactly* alike. we have difficulty telling them apart sometimes). Certainly no one could tell the difference without sticking their nose on my wrist. It might not last as long, but odds are I'll lose it first anyway...
One word: Library
(As in the brick-and-motar building, not glib or something)
ITYM Capitalist party. Oh, wait, that's supposed to be both of them...
This is a Capitalist uniform. The Chairman Mao communist uniform looks alot like pyjamas to western eyes. It is also the uniform of the (roughly-)opposing team to these capitalistic business places, so it's approximately as recommended that you wear the Commie pyjamas there as that you wear a Yankees uniform in Boston.
There are other capitalist 'uniforms' -- including (though the wearers hate thinking about it) those uniforms that are changed every six months or so. I don't bother myself with those, primarily because it would more trouble for me than I'm inclined to go through.
I don't really care what you or anyone else wears. This is a system I worked out for myself that works reasonably well in USian offices. I have offered it as a hopefully useful piece of help to those who wish it. If you are happy with the system (or lack therof) that you have, it's not really an attempt to get you to dress like me/half the guys in offices in the U.S. I promise you I won't come after you like some twisted version of the unfashion-police if you don't dress this way.
It's also an observed system, rather than a created one. I didn't make the rules, I merely observed them and wrote them down. So if you want to change the dress code in some place that wears full business, I'm not a very useful person to you.
Some people have no common sense when it comes to clothing . I'm one of them. For instance: I don't understand why wearing a Yankees uniform in Boston can cause one to be on the receiving end of physical violence. One way of dealing with this is simply to dress fairly conservatively. People don't beat up people in khakis (at least, not in the U.S.) just because they are wearing khakis. And no one ever shot anyone for a pair of Redwings, that I know of...
And it's fairly rare to fail to get a job for wearing a suit. If you've done your homework then it will be fairly obvious who the non-suit wearing companies are. That homework should be done before interviews for reasons far beyond what to wear to the interview.
Some people manage to get well paying, creative jobs that they are happy at without ever going to college or even getting through high school. However, one would be unwise to advise an entire class of tenth graders to drop out of high school based on this. Some people have the combination of social skills and technical skills to pull this off sucessfully. Some people don't. I have good technical skills. My social skills are good but not natural (which is to say that they are completely learned, slightly slower than most people's and take a lot more energy) and on top of that I'm disabled. I've already got enough ticks against me, just walking in the door. Regardless of the ADA, people believe that disability will make you a less valuable worker and so a certain percentage of the people I interview with will automatically say no. Perhaps this is a similar percentage as the percentage of people you interview with who will refuse to hire you because you refuse to wear a suit. If I were to refuse to wear a suit too, then I'd have twice as many people saying no without even considering my qualifications.
(It's impossible to know how many people don't hire you because of your lack of suit, as it's impossible to know how many people don't hire me because of disability, but that both these things happen is fairly probable)
So when I interview I have a goal: Get a job I can live with. "I can live with" involves many variables, including social responsibility (hah! I really am a commie!), commute (or avoidance of, really), getting certain job responsibilities and avoiding the handful that disability makes ridiculous, etc. Part of your "I can live with" is latitude in clothing. It's not part of mine. I figure it's just as easy to put on one shirt as another.
If anything goes, why aren't we just giving up on clothing entirely, or wearing our pyjamas to work (because then we'd all look like commies
You can make this for yourself, with fairly minimal work. I get my clothes from thrift stores and ebay (ebay, btw, is an excellent place to buy dress pants for much less money than most places, if one looks around carefully) and people occasionally even tell me that I'm a good dresser. This always surprises me, as my while we were growing up my younger sister often stated that she wished to disown me due to my complete lack of dressing accumen. The orange sweatsuit and lime green socks debacle comes to mind. Anyway...
;) )
I figured this out years ago. It's really not that difficult (for male geeks. don't ask me what females are supposed to do). The two basic parts: make sure your clothes are clean and not wrinkled, and acquire a wardrobe that is appropriate and put the clothes together right.
I should note that this isn't 'how to be a fashion plate', but 'how to dress so that your boss, customers and/or random others don't snicker at you or worse.'
As Wilde said, "Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months." Fortunately, men's business wear, except in certain professions (none of which would appeal to most geeks anyway) changes very slowly.
Second part first: this isn't an N-dimensional grid, but it's almost a flowchart. Choosing appropriate shirts to go with pants is easy: for both khakis and grey dress pants, if the shirt is of the appropriate type (i.e. dress or business casual) and if the shirt is not the same color as the pants (not just shade, but all shades of tan/lightish brown for the khakies or grey for the dress pants) then it goes. If it's the same color then someone with color sense needs to look at it, and if you don't have that then just skip it and stick with any other appropriate [see shirt sections below] color. Don't wear dressy shirts with kakhis (though this isn't so bad) or business casual shirts with dress pants (this is) and you'll be fine.
(BTW, the simplest way to figure out what sort of clothing is appropriate at your company is to watch what others wear. IMO, when in doubt wear the more dressy option. One has to seriously overdress to cause the same problems that one can find when one slightly underdresses)
(Also, the definitions of 'business' and 'casual' are not as clear cut as some think. Your company may call what I call 'business' 'business casual' or vice versa. Don't quibble over the words, just get dressed already
Business Casual:
Khaki pants. These are easily acquired. Personally, I prefer 100% cotton, but a small amount (less than 10%) of polyester generally won't hurt and a small amount (less than 5%) of lycra might improve the fit a smidge. Beyond that, as long as they fit and aren't stained (if you find you can't judge fit appropriately, bring someone with you who can. a little help while shopping saves a lot of trouble trying to dress yourself later on - this note on fitting is appropriate to all clothing) it's pretty hard to go wrong.
Shirts: Men's collared shirts. Usually with khakis you don't want to get the really dressy shirts, the ones that are usually solid or pinstriped and come shrinkwrapped around cardboard. Avoid shirts with logos or prints other than stripes or plaids. The exception would obviously be an appropriate company logo. Generally bright colors should be avoided. In office light they tend to wash out anyone with lighter skin, and bright colors can seem unprofessional for people of any skin shade. Ditto pastels : some people can pull them off, but this is about 'safe' dressing. So if in any doubt, stick to muted colors: burgandies, blues, greens. Again, anything except light brown shades will go with the khakis.
collar: yes, it should have a collar
sleeve length: long is safest, but if everyone else in your office wears short sleeves then you can too
polo/knits: woven cloth shirts are safest, but if everyone wears polos then you can too. all rules about color/patterns/logos apply here too.
Sweater : Optional,
Lawyers already take cases on contingency. Just because the system didn't work for me doesn't mean it's wise to break it further.
Damn.
I was injured by a medical fuck up years ago, and when I tried to file a malpractice suit I discovered that I flat out didn't have the money to even file, much less pay a lawyer (hospital lawyers vs IANAL doesn't strike me as a fair fight). I suppose it does make it fairer to raise that bar even higher.
Since the larger institutions (companies, hospitals, whatever) with the deeper pockets and the larger (more expensive) teams of lawyers already have the advantage, something tells me involving the risk of having to pay that team of lawyers isn't going to help people who really have grievances that need to be dealt with in court.
Growing up, I did. It was great. No sales tax, food sold very close to cost, excellent prices on meat. My health care was paid for by the government. I even got my clothes at the government sponsored department store and after school I went to the government run youth center.
Nope, I'm not a pinko commie. My dad is in the U.S. Navy. These were all provided to me by the U.S. government.
I find it highly ironic that many in the armed forces are strongly 'anti-socialist', to the point of wanting to scrap social security and sometimes even public education, when they use perhaps the most socialist system available to U.S. citizens.
Kiss someone with mono, duh.
(drinking out of the same glass works too, so I hear)
You're just not looking in the right places. There are studies about how not enough guys are getting into nursing. They just don't get posted to slashdot, since it's not 'news for nurses'.
(And while you might have to deal with more social stigma as a male nurse, you have to admit you've got the numbers on your side as far as odds of getting a date from one of your classmates goes. Being the 'strong sensitive' type won't hurt either. But nursing doesn't pay all that well, so it's a trade off.)
The *next* thought I had was that someone finally got *really* pissed at a DJ for copyright infringement...
damn my dyslexic eyes.
I read it as 'spinning'. Now, right after 9/11 they told us that spindles were potential weapons (personally, I think a yarn-garrot is more dangerous than anything I could do with the spindle itself) but arrests! Oh my!
I love your sig.
> Fascism has zero to do with corporations.
Beep. Wrong. Someone posted the wikipedia entry upthread. How *much* Corporatism has to do with Fascism is up for debate, but to flat out deny it is inaccurate.
> This article has zero to do with Fascism OR
> corporations.
I think that has to do a lot with how one feels about the current administration. To many, this shutting down of a publically funded information stream seems a lot like one more way to keep the populace under control. Is it? I think that's one of those things that reasonable people can disagree on, too.
Personally I'm inclined to point to the Bush's (and indeed, much of the republican party leadership's, though not most conservatives') idea of 'smaller government' which seems to be "Ask not what your government can do for you (as little as we can get away with!) but what your government can do to help me and my friends make money off of you and others"
But I'm a cynic
(and no, I don't think the democratic party is better, just different in how it wants to exploit the american populace)
Agreed. Thank you for posting this.
It's hard to look at people because it literally overwhelmes my ability to process visually. People have lots of little visual details and move a lot. Many times I have to make a choice of looking at people or listening to people. Sometimes the right choice is to stare at the wall and listen to the person, rather than staring at the person and not hearing anything at all.
To those who think that only 'high functioning' autistics or aspies are against finding a 'cure', I highly recommend reading http://www.autistics.org
Autistics.org is run by several of the 'lower functioning' individuals that NT people seem to think they are helping with their 'find a cure' attitude. You're not helping, you're hurting us. Please educate yourself and stop hurting us.
(Yes, I am a 'higher functioning' individual, but I fail to understand why it's wrong for me to say 'stop hurting autistics' but it's right for people who are not autistic at all to continue hurting autistics)
Nah. We just have to find other places besides this planet to live. We should really be doing that anyway.
Lack of space in tiny apartments. Not enough room for underwear clad french chefs.
> Case in point: Bush is trying to overhaul Social
> Security and rescue it from the inevitable
> financial ruin that Bill Clinton predicted in
> 1998. What are Democrats saying in response? That
> there is no financial crisis in Social Security,
> that the problem can be fixed by simply raising
> taxes.
Bullshit.
Not that there's no democrats saying that. But Bush's plan doesn't fix social security, it ruins it. If we let it run without changing it at all then sometime after 2040 we'll have to start cutting benefits to retirees. Bush's plan would have everyone investing in risky investments, instead. The real winners will be the brokers and, temporarily at least, the stock market. Oh, and the federal government who won't have to pay back all it's 'borrowed' from the social security funds.
Which is the plan anyway. Social security is 'welfare' in Bush and other 'financial conservatives' eyes, though it's really insurance (forced insurance, perhaps), and they want to see it gone.
So, leave it alone and come 2040 we'll have to cut benefits. Let Bush at it and in ten years it won't exist and if the economy crashes the money that would have gone into it will be lost. But at least then there won't be any 'inevitable financial ruin' in 2040.
You'll be charged with patent infringement just like everyone else.
Weird thing called the second amendment.
Private aid is all well and good but our government is too stingy to help out U.S. Citizens who are/were there!
interplanetary war to be declared at 11
Clean?
Clearly, you don't have cats. Particularly ones that don't know what the litterbox is for!
they are cutting 5-10% of 3000kcal/day, in other words, they are putting them on (at worst) at 2700kcal/day diet. That's hardly forced rationing.
What if I view ads but never buy anything?
I rarely click on ads at all, but when I do it's because I want to find out what the heck they are talking about. I buy very little (because I'm a poor student, really) and all of my purchases are carefully planned. Even if I find out about a product I want because of an ad, it will most likely be months before I buy it, if I ever do.
Should I just stop reading everything altogether?
Well, matt groenig does both the simpsons and futurerama, and how long has the simpsons been running? Over ten years, for certain. Given the long-running quality of the simpsons, I'm inclined to hold out significant hope for futurerama.