Gearin' Up

Stampede is over a week old, but you can tell that things are starting to ramp up. Stephen Avenue is rife with music acts and tables of shoddy merchandise ready to be sold. Does anyone know of any other city that is so into its local Fair than Calgary?

First thing to do is get a breakfast and lunch schedule. Now, I recall a super huge one at the Petro-Can tower, there's another at the Sun-Life building, but not sure of the days. If anyone knows of an online schedule, I beg of you to post it in the comments. Of all the places that I've worked, its always a generally accepted fact that its expected that the Firm will lose man hours due to Stampede Breakfasts and Lunches.

Next is to set aside time for the company party. Now, as you know, I work for the government, so any partying that involves the consumption of beer must be done OFF HOURS. So be it. We'll leave the noon-hour boozin' to the executives in the private sector.

After this, its time to think about the Stampede Grounds: where to get the ride passes for the kids. They have to ride the rides on the Midway, don't they? So, I recall that they're being sold at Mac's this year, not Safeway. Must remember this. We also have to think about which day to take off to go to the Grounds, which involves quite a bit of strategy. You want to pick a day favourable in terms of weather, while choosing a day that is not especially busy.

Next on the list is to check the Stampede Gear. Boots? Shirts? Jeans? Got to make sure this is all in order. You don't want to look like a dork wearing khakis and a golf shirt.

Sometimes you can also luck out with some extra entertainment with the protesters. You get the usual crowd all year, but sometimes the Stampede can bring out some bonus entertainment. Last year, the Animal Rights group was especially entertaining, some folks dressed in funeral gear pretending to cry while holding up pictures of dead animals. Pretty sure those seals weren't killed at the Stampede, ma'am.

Anyway, back to that online Stampede Breakfast and Lunch guide. The search continues...

5 Retired NHL Players My Kids Will Never See

I've been following alot of NHL Draft coverage on the days leading up to the 2007 NHL Entry Draft in Columbus. When you cover these things, the Hockey Press always drags out a bunch of history of famous busts, or diamonds in the rough.

For some reason it got me thinking of past players, players that my boys will never see play live, only in the archives. Here are 5 NHL players my boys will never see play live that I'm most disappointed about. Players I've seen in person.

(1) Wayne Gretzky - The natural true regret. The fact that my hockey-mad boys will never see Gretzky play live just doesn't make life seem fair. I saw him with the Oilers and Kings, and each time I watched him out there, I always reminded myself that this was a sight to behold, something to tell the kids and grandkids about. Seeing Gretzky play live makes you realize just how much he makes his team-mates look good. I'm telling you that if I played on Gretzky's wing, I would score 20. Not only was he a wizard with play-making and passing, he is the all-time leading goal-scorer. He is just the all-time ultimate hockey player, the one you wished most you could take your kids out to see.

(2) Mario Lemieux - The guy just oozed talent out of every pore. I swear he played with a 8 foot long stick, he made defensemen look contortionists. If he had the puck on his forehand and you tried for the puck, you were dead. In a blink, it was on his backhand and he was away. Like a cat toying with a half-dead mouse. It was ridiculous, almost unfair when he was playing. And he wasn't even all that fast, or physical, just deadly.

(3) Scott Stevens - I don't recall there ever being a player that had you saying "is he on the ice?" as much as when this guy played against your team. If he was patrolling the blue line, you could sense the opposing forwards playing the puck carefully, like with a "dump and chase". I imagine it being like a mailman trying to deliver to the door with a pit bull in your yard.

(4) Al McInnis - Seeing him play live is a totally different experience than seeing him on TV for one reason: that freakish slap-shot. Seeing, rather hearing, a McInnis cannon from the point left you silently praying that he didn't kill anyone. I remember going to games just pleading to the heavens that the other team would take a penalty so the Flames could go on the Power Play.

(5) Patrick Roy - Aside from being a great goalie, he had all these weird superstitions that were funny to see in person. He'd do his little "goose chin" move with his mask, he never stepped on a line when skating to his crease from the bench, right before a face off he'd bang the holy hell out of the goal posts, not to mention other quirky things. He wasn't particularly fast, or big, or acrobatic, but he just plain kept the puck out of the net. Period.

But, all is not lost. There's a crop of new talent out there playing right now that might have my boys saying the exact same thing to their kids. You never know.

Cite It, or Bite It!

When reading a professional article, or attending a presentation from corporate peers, certain things are assumed. For instance, the presenter will be attired correctly. You don't expect your expert to be clad in a tank top with shorts and a pair of flip-flops. Also, you expect a professional tone with the language. One shouldn't hear things like "Dude, Service Oriented Architectures ROCK! Your a f**king moron if you write too much sh*tty code, man!". You also expect correct grammar and spelling. These are pretty safe assumptions, I'm sure.

Well, esteemed readers, I hereby would like to propose another de facto standard with professional articles, presentations, and the like. I propose a taboo with using the words "studies show", or use of the word "percent", unless you provide the source you are quoting. I'm sure most of the time, people throw around these words quite innocently, with good intentions. But there are those who float around these words for the purpose of evil. I remember a presentation from a software vendor that stated "85% of IT projects do not get done on time", and then went on to say that this number would go down to 6% if you "buy our product". His sources were not cited. In my opinion, this is a deliberate attempt to mislead, a vested interest in omitting or forgetting the source.

I recognize that some intentions are noble. For example, in researching articles, I have in front of me an article by Jason Cohen for Better Software Magazine (April 2007, p39) who says, "Studies show that the average inspection takes nine man-hours per 200 lines of code...". Perfect! Just the information I'd like to reference in some of my project documents. But who did this study? When? An inspection of LISP, SmallTalk, C# code? I can't use this! He's probably correct, but where in the hell did he get these precise numbers?

So, here's a challenge for you. The next time you are at a presentation, and hear the word "percent", consider it a personal insult if its not qualified. Hearing "studies show" without citing the study is the same as hearing "you're too stupid to know where I got this from, just agree, dummy". Be insulted. If its an article, imagine replacing it with a picture of a big ol' middle finger cast in your direction. Be offended. I heartily recommend retaliating by simply asking "Excuse me, just wondering where these numbers come from? Sounds intriguing, so I'd like to follow up with that source, if possible?" Be prepared for the standard, "I don't have that information with me. I'll get it to you." You'll get a date with Jessica Alba sooner than you'll get the info from this guy on his study.

It should be a simple thing. If the idea, or the numbers, don't come from you, then cite it! Cite it, or bite it! Catchy slogan, I should trademark that.


"Doctors say he's got a 50/50 chance of making it, though there's only a 25% chance of that!"- Capt. Ed Hocken, "The Naked Gun"