In my last place, in N. MN (The Frozen North) I ran a PVC pipe from a window enclosure to my refrigerator. During the colder months I had to cut the input from the pipe down; but the last winter I lived there, I saved about $70 in electricity running my refrigerator.
One thing I do here, now, is have a 4" dryer vent hose running from the computer desk enclosure to the bedroom:) Wish I'd thought of that up there. (bedroom being the coldest room in the house due to it's northern exposure, sigh - why on earth do people design houses that way? Put the friccin' kitchen on the cold side)
We get 100F plus temps out here during summer; I'm thinking of modifying the vent hose to introduce air into the computer enclosure from the A/C then. I hate to waste energy....
Well, some small bit of the energy translates to movement (ie, vibrational energy). Otherwise, yes.
Back when I lived in the frozen north, the computer room (second bedroom) was so much warmer than the rest of the place that I'd pretty much live in that room in Jan/February:)
Yeah. Let's immortalize Darl by making him the first person to "land" (hee) on Mars. I mean, it's not like he's already immortalizing himself *cough*Litigious Bastards*cough.:)
Launching him *into the sun* might be a nice way to reward him for his tireless work, tho:) It'd also be a nice shortcut, as he's going to *fry in Hell* anyway....
Man, don't bother. Emotion overrides intellect every time when it comes to this.
It's not an argument you can win (look at the attitude in the US since the TMI "accident" - which was safety systems doing exactly as they were designed to).
Meanwhile, we have had nuclear reactors running all over the world on our military craft, running in the US (I lived for 8 years near one, and had ONE power blackout. ONE.) - and we've never had a serious accident. Never.
That doesn't seem to discourage the fear-mongers. Sigh.
Booed here, too; very loudly. The theater was mostly filled with younger people (early twenties) but I found it interesting that the late middle aged couple a few seats down were booing as loudly as anyone else...
I was laughing so hard I almost forgot to boo:) I got some pretty strange looks...
(sorry, I should have said *reusable* hvy and lt lifters)
You're right, but that should really be a job for an (unmanned), reusable heavy or light lifter . Crew vehicle rendezvous with the lifter/satellite, load it, and send it on it's way.
If the crew vehicle had fewer missions it could be made safer and have a much better turnaround time, not to mention be cheaper to build and to operate. Not only that but so would the lifters. If you want to do science in space, put up a lab;)
The idea of a "space truck" is nice; but do construction crews travel to the job in the truck that delivers the materials? No. Why not? Because it's impractical:)
The shuttle is a kludge....and we haven't had heavy lift capability since Skylab. Also, doesn't the Air Force actually run the Titan programs? (Not sure on that)
Yup. There should have been a Crew Launch Vehicle, a Heavy Lifter, and a Light Lifter. For essentially (or close to) the same amount of money we could have a serious LEO capability.
but if we go to all the trouble of developing a robot tug to move Hubble, why are we moving it down?
Especially when it involves similar amounts of fuel to move it *up*.
I like the idea about moving it to a Lagrange point. Too bad someone in the upper end of the decision tree doesn't have as much imagination. What a *great* test of a ion propulsion system that would be.:)
What's the point of spending tons of money to scale Mt. Everest, or to explore the ocean deeps? Exploring volcanoes? Going to Antarctica?
What can humans do there that robotic stations or probes can't do?
Well, I can think of one answer. How do we know for sure, until we go? & if we *don't* go, we may just be kicking ourselves in the pants about it twenty years from now...
If you don't like that answer, how about this one: We'll go for the morale boost it'd give the citizens of our country (and, incidentally, the world - the first lunar landing had the *biggest* worldwide TV/media coverage *ever* at it's time.)
Besides, it's *there*.:)
That said, I think Bush's initiative is either going to fall flat on it's ass or will become another mess like ISS....sigh.
And my OPINION, is that the President's new space initiative is election year rhetoric.
Mine too. I posted much the same thing a while back (initial slashdot article, I think it was).
It's just too friccin' coincidental....plus, IMO, if Bush was *really* serious about this, he'd have announced it years ago.
Another part of me wonders what was plowed under in the media when he made this announcement (like the Saddam capture plowed under the partial resurrection of Patriot II). I'm still looking...
Back when when watching the first shuttle launch land in the school cafeteria, I remember my physics professor shaking his head sadly and saying "They should have built a spaceplane to carry just humans; we already have cargo boosters. It's a bad design decision to do both in the same craft."
I didn't understand how right he was for a while...
Seen in email: (sorry for the formatting, it was a PITA)
>>COW ECONOMICS, the way it really is!
Cow Economics; A realistic view.
>> >> >>DEMOCRAT >>You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. You feel guilty for being >>successful. Barbara Streisand sings for you.
You get a government grant to help your farm. It goes under because you're not ruthless enough to compete in the modern economy. Willie Nelson holds a concert on your farm, and you go broke cleaning up the beer cans. You end up working at Walmart as a greeter.
>>REPUBLICAN >>You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. So?
You vote Democratic because the Republicans supported the corporation that started the 1,000,000 cow operation down the road. You go out of business anyway. You end up as a greeter at Walmart, and die old and embittered, railing against the system. You're right, but that changes shit. Meanwhile, the cow you raised holds the genetic cure to cancer. 3 people get very rich. You're not one of them.
>>SOCIALIST >>You have two cows. The government takes one and gives it to your >>neighbor. You form a cooperative to tell him how to manage his cow.
SOCIALIST: Who? Lenin would be spinning in his grave. Cows? We don't need no stinkin' cows. Workers unite!
>>COMMUNIST >>You have two cows. The government seizes both and provides you with >>milk. You wait in line for hours to get it. It is expensive and sour.
The Americans ship beef to you to help feed your starving country. You accept, with the caveat that they can't change anything more. Your people get pissed at you for spending more on missiles than beef. Your country goes under and becomes essentially a coalition of Third World countries; but, you have nukes. You sell them on the world underground market.
>>CAPITALISM, AMERICAN STYLE >>You have two cows. You sell one, buy a bull, and build a herd of cows.
After a few years, you are getting big enough to get into the stock market. You do so, and relegate the actual work to others. Soon you sell the farm and go full time into the stock market. You lose your ass on Internet IPO's and end up as a greeter at Walmart. Your wife leaves you to take up with the young farm kid down the road. You lose your cat in the divorce.
>>DEMOCRACY, AMERICAN STYLE >>You sell both to support a man in a foreign country who has only one >>cow, which was >>a gift from your government.
He chops down a few thousand hectares of rainforest and turns your cows into a multi-million dollar operation, selling to McDonalds. He expands and eventually gets assasinated by the other drug lords when he tries to take over their turf. The cows escape, and the local villagers die from eating too much raw meat. They sue your heirs because one of the cows had Mad Cow Disease.
>>BUREAUCRACY, AMERICAN STYLE >>You have two cows. The government takes them both, shoots one, milks >>the other, pays you for the milk, and then pours the milk down the >>drain.
You're sued because the government found Mad Cow Disease in your cows.
>>AMERICAN CORPORATION >>You have two cows. You sell one, lease it back to yourself and do an IPO on the 2nd one. You force the two cows to produce the milk of four >> cows. >>You are surprised when one cow drops dead. You spin an announcement to >>the analysts stating you have down sized and are reducing expenses. Your >>stock goes up.
Your company eventually fails because you were spending your money on your mistress in the Bahamas. You quit the company in disgrace, get a huge retirement settlement, and die of Aids from mistress after doing hundreds of talk shows. The funeral turnout is huge and includes many prominent Republicans.
Which is why I told my teacher I wasn't a gentleman when she called for "that gentleman in the back". I don't wear tuxedos or suits.:p I think it threw her off.
Her face, I would have loved to see.:)
Success is a journey, not a destination. So stop running.
LOL. I hadn't seen that one before. My legs are ssoooooo tired:) Hm....'nite:)
The point was, his viewpoint is very deviant from any mainstream opinion, and isn't a good start to what anything means in modern society.
Or perhaps, given what "modern" (read modern American) society is becoming, it *is* a good start. Not an ending - there never is one to learning - but one to consider as part of a foundation...
Hell, you can't summarize the philosophy of any thinking person in a lifetime of writing:)
Well, pardon the troll remark. As a AC post, it came across that way. I don't post AC and I have little respect for those who do.
There is no *solid* definition. However, I'll offer a few thoughts:
Treat *everyone* as equals; even (and especially) your enemies.
Be firm in your beliefs, easy in your convictions, merciless to those who show no mercy to others, and merciful to those trapped within situations they don't control.
Courtesy to others, at all times; even when insulted. Yet stand up for insults against others, up to and including the point of kicking ass:)
Share always the best knowledge or wisdom you have; if shown you are wrong, concede gracefully. If you think you're right, fight for your convictions.
Always buy the first drink. If you can't, buy the second.
Learn all you can, share more.
Hold no grudges, given that they mend their ways. If they don't, show no mercy. When attacked, respond at or below the level offered.
Those who are helpless don't deserve pity; they deserve help. Give it to them, if they will accept it. If not, treat them with polite courtesy despite their failings.
Those who would exploit others deserve mercy, but only after you've defeated them, and only if they're willing to accept it. If they're not willing, they probably deserve death.
Judgement: I hear a lot of crap about "Who are you to judge -topic-person-situation-". This is sheer bullshit. We each and all make judgements all our lives, often from second to second. It's why *insert deity here* gave us the capability. OIOW, it's why we developed intelligence in the first place.
Feel free to judge. Just try to judge wisely. If you fail, you fail. It happens. Humans are faulty. Try, or try not. (God? Bog? Who? Giving the Ultimate Judgement to God, the Authorities, or whomever is passing the buck. You're the person on the spot. Deal with it. )
The Best Rule, tho, is probably the Golden One. Treat others how you would want to be treated - with a caveat - if you were in their situation.
There is no black and white definition. I do, however, think that Heinlein came the closest. Nevermind those "old style" (wtf that is) definitions.:) - mind you, I grew up under "old style" courtesy, and I have my disagreements with some of it's tenants, too. I don't agree with everything Heinlein said, either. I make up my own mind.
I will say this, tho. I've met *very few* women in the last 35+ years who *did not* like having doors opened for them; I've also met few men who don't appreciate it. Those I've met who did, generally, IMO, have some sort of internal conflict with themselves. This attitude rarely steers me wrong; a simple "Thank You" from a stranger for a simple act of kindness is more precious than a thousand thank you's from any charity donation.
Read into it what you will. You have to find your own path. The important thing to remember is that you have the ability to make your own choices. It can steer you wrong, but if I read you right, you're on a good path already.
If a lot of this seems contradictory, it's because human beings are so. This is merely advice freely given for the asking. It has no more value than you read into it. *What* you read into it, and how you act on it, is your responsibility alone.:) Just remember: You asked;) I can't teach you *how* to be a "gentleman"; I can only tell you what I think one should be, and why. There's an important lesson in that.
I could add a lot more, but it's late and I have to sleep.:) This topic can, and has been debated to death. That's why I suggested you look into it on your own. Form your own opinions. Become a freethinker. It's an important step.
SB (Who is not a perfect gentleman, and who knows that striving to be one can lead me down the wrong path. I guess that's why I hate working retail sales so much:) -but- the path is the important part, not the destination.
I know what a gentleman was, but what is a gentleman supposed to be these days? Does it mean less yielding to women?
No.
I'm curious what the definition is now. I don't suppose it just means to be a generally nice guy.
Starts with Politeness and courtesy to all, regardless of gender, skin color, attitude, etc. A "gentleman" is also ready to kick ass and take names when necessary.:)
It still seems to have some connotations of attitude towards women in particular (because it's almost only ever mentioned up in situations regarding women).
I'll leave you to do your do your own research on that one. Heinlein would be a good start...
To some extent there's some truth in this. Women tend to be better shoppers, overall - more concerned with getting their money's worth.
Men just tend to go out and throw money at things. (Maybe in the tech field, among geeks, this isn't true; but spend time at grocery stores watching people, and the women *always* come out ahead - not saying that's the only area, either).
Damn, twenty years of retail has taught me *something* *grin*
Slashdot Mirror
Or to compile the specific functionality...
:) Bite me, windows users, hee hee!
;)
Ya compiles a kernel specific to your machine
(Just installed debian on an older laptop (P1 200mhz) and with a fresh 2.6.1 kernel I was *amazed* at how much faster it booten and runneth
*joke* - like all humor, partially serious.
SB
In my last place, in N. MN (The Frozen North) I ran a PVC pipe from a window enclosure to my refrigerator. During the colder months I had to cut the input from the pipe down; but the last winter I lived there, I saved about $70 in electricity running my refrigerator.
One thing I do here, now, is have a 4" dryer vent hose running from the computer desk enclosure to the bedroom
We get 100F plus temps out here during summer; I'm thinking of modifying the vent hose to introduce air into the computer enclosure from the A/C then. I hate to waste energy....
Cheers
SB
Well, some small bit of the energy translates to movement (ie, vibrational energy). Otherwise, yes.
Back when I lived in the frozen north, the computer room (second bedroom) was so much warmer than the rest of the place that I'd pretty much live in that room in Jan/February
SB
What does plate tectonics have to do with it? I was talking about asteroid impacts.
Go look up the composition of your typical carbonaceous or nickel-iron asteroid sometime. They're not just "lumps of iron"
SB
Yeah. Let's immortalize Darl by making him the first person to "land" (hee) on Mars. I mean, it's not like he's already immortalizing himself *cough*Litigious Bastards*cough. :)
:) It'd also be a nice shortcut, as he's going to *fry in Hell* anyway....
Launching him *into the sun* might be a nice way to reward him for his tireless work, tho
SB
Man, don't bother. Emotion overrides intellect every time when it comes to this.
It's not an argument you can win (look at the attitude in the US since the TMI "accident" - which was safety systems doing exactly as they were designed to).
Meanwhile, we have had nuclear reactors running all over the world on our military craft, running in the US (I lived for 8 years near one, and had ONE power blackout. ONE.) - and we've never had a serious accident. Never.
That doesn't seem to discourage the fear-mongers. Sigh.
Great posts.
SB
Booed here, too; very loudly. The theater was mostly filled with younger people (early twenties) but I found it interesting that the late middle aged couple a few seats down were booing as loudly as anyone else...
:) I got some pretty strange looks...
I was laughing so hard I almost forgot to boo
SB
Run it?
Try FIXING it
SB
There's likely to be mineral concentrations underneath the largest craters, tho. A mascon mapping of Mars could be useful for future colony efforts.
SB
(sorry, I should have said *reusable* hvy and lt lifters)
;)
:)
You're right, but that should really be a job for an (unmanned), reusable heavy or light lifter . Crew vehicle rendezvous with the lifter/satellite, load it, and send it on it's way.
If the crew vehicle had fewer missions it could be made safer and have a much better turnaround time, not to mention be cheaper to build and to operate. Not only that but so would the lifters. If you want to do science in space, put up a lab
The idea of a "space truck" is nice; but do construction crews travel to the job in the truck that delivers the materials? No. Why not? Because it's impractical
The shuttle is a kludge....and we haven't had heavy lift capability since Skylab. Also, doesn't the Air Force actually run the Titan programs? (Not sure on that)
SB
maybe let Kirk kill Wesley Crusher?
"The boy...has been destroyed. (Worf)". I still laugh out loud. (I like Wil, btw)
If you haven't seen that web funny yet, I think I have a copy of it around here somewhere....
SB
Yup. There should have been a Crew Launch Vehicle, a Heavy Lifter, and a Light Lifter. For essentially (or close to) the same amount of money we could have a serious LEO capability.
Sigh.
SB
but if we go to all the trouble of developing a robot tug to move Hubble, why are we moving it down?
:)
Especially when it involves similar amounts of fuel to move it *up*.
I like the idea about moving it to a Lagrange point. Too bad someone in the upper end of the decision tree doesn't have as much imagination. What a *great* test of a ion propulsion system that would be.
SB
What's the point of spending tons of money to scale Mt. Everest, or to explore the ocean deeps? Exploring volcanoes? Going to Antarctica?
:)
What can humans do there that robotic stations or probes can't do?
Well, I can think of one answer. How do we know for sure, until we go? & if we *don't* go, we may just be kicking ourselves in the pants about it twenty years from now...
If you don't like that answer, how about this one: We'll go for the morale boost it'd give the citizens of our country (and, incidentally, the world - the first lunar landing had the *biggest* worldwide TV/media coverage *ever* at it's time.)
Besides, it's *there*.
That said, I think Bush's initiative is either going to fall flat on it's ass or will become another mess like ISS....sigh.
SB
And my OPINION, is that the President's new space initiative is election year rhetoric.
Mine too. I posted much the same thing a while back (initial slashdot article, I think it was).
It's just too friccin' coincidental....plus, IMO, if Bush was *really* serious about this, he'd have announced it years ago.
Another part of me wonders what was plowed under in the media when he made this announcement (like the Saddam capture plowed under the partial resurrection of Patriot II). I'm still looking...
SB
Back when when watching the first shuttle launch land in the school cafeteria, I remember my physics professor shaking his head sadly and saying "They should have built a spaceplane to carry just humans; we already have cargo boosters. It's a bad design decision to do both in the same craft."
I didn't understand how right he was for a while...
SB
Seen in email: (sorry for the formatting, it was a PITA)
>>COW ECONOMICS, the way it really is!
Cow Economics; A realistic view.
>>
>>
>>DEMOCRAT
>>You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. You feel guilty for being
>>successful. Barbara Streisand sings for you.
You get a government grant to help your farm. It goes under because you're not ruthless enough to compete in the modern economy.
Willie Nelson holds a concert on your farm, and you go broke cleaning up the beer cans. You end up working at Walmart as a greeter.
>>REPUBLICAN
>>You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. So?
You vote Democratic because the Republicans supported the corporation that started the 1,000,000 cow operation down the road. You go out of business anyway. You end up as a greeter at Walmart, and die old and embittered, railing against the system. You're right, but that
changes shit. Meanwhile, the cow you raised holds the genetic cure to cancer. 3 people get very rich. You're not one of them.
>>SOCIALIST
>>You have two cows. The government takes one and gives it to your
>>neighbor. You form a cooperative to tell him how to manage his cow.
SOCIALIST: Who? Lenin would be spinning in his grave. Cows? We don't need no stinkin' cows. Workers unite!
>>COMMUNIST
>>You have two cows. The government seizes both and provides you with
>>milk. You wait in line for hours to get it. It is expensive and sour.
The Americans ship beef to you to help feed your starving country. You accept, with the caveat that they can't change anything more. Your people get pissed at you for spending more on missiles than beef. Your country goes under and becomes essentially a coalition of Third World
countries; but, you have nukes. You sell them on the world underground market.
>>CAPITALISM, AMERICAN STYLE
>>You have two cows. You sell one, buy a bull, and build a herd of cows.
After a few years, you are getting big enough to get into the stock market. You do so, and relegate the actual work to others. Soon you sell the farm and go full time into the stock market. You lose your ass on Internet IPO's and end up as a greeter at Walmart. Your wife leaves you
to take up with the young farm kid down the road. You lose your cat in the divorce.
>>DEMOCRACY, AMERICAN STYLE
>>You sell both to support a man in a foreign country who has only one
>>cow, which was
>>a gift from your government.
He chops down a few thousand hectares of rainforest and turns your cows into a multi-million dollar operation, selling to McDonalds. He expands and eventually gets assasinated by the other drug lords when he tries to take over their turf. The cows escape, and the local villagers die from
eating too much raw meat. They sue your heirs because one of the cows had Mad Cow Disease.
>>BUREAUCRACY, AMERICAN STYLE
>>You have two cows. The government takes them both, shoots one, milks >>the other, pays you for the milk, and then pours the milk down the >>drain.
You're sued because the government found Mad Cow Disease in your cows.
>>AMERICAN CORPORATION
>>You have two cows. You sell one, lease it back to yourself and do an IPO on the 2nd one. You force the two cows to produce the milk of four >> cows.
>>You are surprised when one cow drops dead. You spin an announcement to
>>the analysts stating you have down sized and are reducing expenses. Your
>>stock goes up.
Your company eventually fails because you were spending your money on your mistress in the Bahamas. You quit the company in disgrace, get a huge retirement settlement, and die of Aids from mistress after doing hundreds of talk shows. The funeral turnout is huge and includes many prominent Republicans.
>>FRENCH CORPORATION
>>You
Which is why I told my teacher I wasn't a gentleman when she called for "that gentleman in the back". I don't wear tuxedos or suits. :p I think it threw her off.
:)
:) Hm....'nite :)
Her face, I would have loved to see.
Success is a journey, not a destination. So stop running.
LOL. I hadn't seen that one before. My legs are ssoooooo tired
SB
The point was, his viewpoint is very deviant from any mainstream opinion, and isn't a good start to what anything means in modern society.
:)
Or perhaps, given what "modern" (read modern American) society is becoming, it *is* a good start. Not an ending - there never is one to learning - but one to consider as part of a foundation...
Hell, you can't summarize the philosophy of any thinking person in a lifetime of writing
SB
Well, pardon the troll remark. As a AC post, it came across that way. I don't post AC and I have little respect for those who do.
:)
:) - mind you, I grew up under "old style" courtesy, and I have my disagreements with some of it's tenants, too. I don't agree with everything Heinlein said, either. I make up my own mind.
:) Just remember: You asked ;) I can't teach you *how* to be a "gentleman"; I can only tell you what I think one should be, and why. There's an important lesson in that.
:) This topic can, and has been debated to death. That's why I suggested you look into it on your own. Form your own opinions. Become a freethinker. It's an important step.
:) -but- the path is the important part, not the destination.
There is no *solid* definition. However, I'll offer a few thoughts:
Treat *everyone* as equals; even (and especially) your enemies.
Be firm in your beliefs, easy in your convictions, merciless to those who show no mercy to others, and merciful to those trapped within situations they don't control.
Courtesy to others, at all times; even when insulted. Yet stand up for insults against others, up to and including the point of kicking ass
Share always the best knowledge or wisdom you have; if shown you are wrong, concede gracefully. If you think you're right, fight for your convictions.
Always buy the first drink. If you can't, buy the second.
Learn all you can, share more.
Hold no grudges, given that they mend their ways. If they don't, show no mercy. When attacked, respond at or below the level offered.
Those who are helpless don't deserve pity; they deserve help. Give it to them, if they will accept it. If not, treat them with polite courtesy despite their failings.
Those who would exploit others deserve mercy, but only after you've defeated them, and only if they're willing to accept it. If they're not willing, they probably deserve death.
Judgement: I hear a lot of crap about "Who are you to judge -topic-person-situation-". This is sheer bullshit. We each and all make judgements all our lives, often from second to second. It's why *insert deity here* gave us the capability. OIOW, it's why we developed intelligence in the first place.
Feel free to judge. Just try to judge wisely. If you fail, you fail. It happens. Humans are faulty. Try, or try not. (God? Bog? Who? Giving the Ultimate Judgement to God, the Authorities, or whomever is passing the buck. You're the person on the spot. Deal with it. )
The Best Rule, tho, is probably the Golden One. Treat others how you would want to be treated - with a caveat - if you were in their situation.
There is no black and white definition. I do, however, think that Heinlein came the closest. Nevermind those "old style" (wtf that is) definitions.
I will say this, tho. I've met *very few* women in the last 35+ years who *did not* like having doors opened for them; I've also met few men who don't appreciate it. Those I've met who did, generally, IMO, have some sort of internal conflict with themselves. This attitude rarely steers me wrong; a simple "Thank You" from a stranger for a simple act of kindness is more precious than a thousand thank you's from any charity donation.
Read into it what you will. You have to find your own path. The important thing to remember is that you have the ability to make your own choices. It can steer you wrong, but if I read you right, you're on a good path already.
If a lot of this seems contradictory, it's because human beings are so. This is merely advice freely given for the asking. It has no more value than you read into it. *What* you read into it, and how you act on it, is your responsibility alone.
I could add a lot more, but it's late and I have to sleep.
SB
(Who is not a perfect gentleman, and who knows that striving to be one can lead me down the wrong path. I guess that's why I hate working retail sales so much
A good start, not a Definitive Guide
I don't think you've read that much Heinlein, neither do you understand what he was trying to say....well, it's not my problem.
SB
It's a wonder you're still alive.
SB
I know this is probably a troll, but:
:)
I know what a gentleman was, but what is a gentleman supposed to be these days? Does it mean less yielding to women?
No.
I'm curious what the definition is now. I don't suppose it just means to be a generally nice guy.
Starts with Politeness and courtesy to all, regardless of gender, skin color, attitude, etc. A "gentleman" is also ready to kick ass and take names when necessary.
It still seems to have some connotations of attitude towards women in particular (because it's almost only ever mentioned up in situations regarding women).
I'll leave you to do your do your own research on that one. Heinlein would be a good start...
SB
To some extent there's some truth in this. Women tend to be better shoppers, overall - more concerned with getting their money's worth.
Men just tend to go out and throw money at things. (Maybe in the tech field, among geeks, this isn't true; but spend time at grocery stores watching people, and the women *always* come out ahead - not saying that's the only area, either).
Damn, twenty years of retail has taught me *something* *grin*
SB
It has *everything* to do with good customer service;
:)
It's rude, ignorant, inexcusable behavior from someone who has not the slightest concept of what being a gentleman is. I blame TV
I've fired people for that sort of crap.
My advice is to take your business elsewhere.
SB