Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space

NASA's New 'Exploration' Insignia 171

Posted by CmdrTaco from the only-on-sunday-are-logos-news dept.
colonist writes "NASA has a new insignia for the program set by the Vision for Space Exploration. This UPI article describes it: "Three spheres--Earth, the moon and Mars--are arrayed in sequence, with the streak of a rocket passing through each. A Latin inscription on the emblem says 'Audentes Fortuna Juvat,' which, translated into English, says 'Fortune Favors the Bold.'" Compare it with other space mission insignia."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NASA's New 'Exploration' Insignia More

NASA's New 'Exploration' Insignia

Comments Filter:

  • I love these things. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Amiga Lover ( 708890 ) on Sunday May 23, 2004 @10:01AM (#9229755)
    I don't think there's many things that haven't changed much like nasa's insignias. To me they're all so delightfully kitsch 50s stuff.

    Nice to see something with continuity... even nicer that I like that base design.

  • Why Latin? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by vigilology ( 664683 )
    Why do all these insignias use Latin? More people know English. NASA's English-speaking.

    • Re:Why Latin? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 23, 2004 @10:09AM (#9229837)
      They should keep them in the original Klingon!
    • Because it makes it sound complex. :)

    • Re:Why Latin? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Probably becuase it's one of the oldest languages there is, and because space exploration is such an historically significant event...
      *shrugs*
      • Um. No. Not even close. Latin is predated by MANY languages. It's the language of the first major European power, but it's in no way one of the oldest. (Then again... you wanna try writing a slogan in Linear A?)

    • Re:Why Latin? (Score:5, Funny)

      by LittleBigLui ( 304739 ) on Sunday May 23, 2004 @10:19AM (#9229927) Homepage Journal
      Why do all these insignias use Latin?


      Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
      (Whatever is said in Latin, sounds profound.)

    • Re:Why Latin? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by CoconutFoobar ( 747981 )
      Why do all these insignias use Latin?

      If you look at this one, it has the phrase in Latin on one side, and English on the other side of the patch.
      That said, it should also be noted that Latin is a rather clear language. There is a reason that French and English are used in diplomacy, they can be interpreted in many different ways, there is alot of 'wiggle room' within them. Let's look at this short phrase. 'Fortune Favors the Bold'.
      Does this mean that people who write their name in bold will do better t

    • Re: (Score:1, Redundant)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:Why Latin? (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      It's historical.

      Coats of arms and heraldry started out when very few people could read. Those who could read generally tended to be versed in Latin, hence it appeared on coats of arms. This has been carried on in tradition until present day. Seriously, if you ever see an incredibly elaborate design for an emblem or coat of arms with English text on it, you'll instantly think "uugh, tacky!". Add to that the fact that Latin has a slight degree of ambiguity through translation, so you can get across concepts

    • Re:Why Latin? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by panurge ( 573432 ) on Sunday May 23, 2004 @10:26AM (#9229991)
      A good point. Latin inscriptions date from when everybody in Europe who could read, read Latin. That's a long time ago now, since rebels like Dante and Chaucer started doing serious literary stuff in local languages (OK, they were doing it in Provence in the 12th Century, but who reads Arnaut nowadays?)

      I guess the answer is that if it's in English, you see how unimpressive it really is. Because the alternative to "Fortune favours the bold" is that saying of Flight Class 101, "There are no old, bold pilots".

    • Re:Why Latin? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by CheshireCatCO ( 185193 ) on Sunday May 23, 2004 @10:26AM (#9229992) Homepage
      Because Latin sounds more impressive than everyday English. It's the same reason that the Romans of Caesar's day spoke Greek when they wanted to sound especially impressive. (Hence the line in Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar", "But for mine own part, it was Greek to me," in reference to Cicero's speech earlier.)

      Better question: why do you ask and why do you single out NASA? The US motto ("e pluribus unum") is in Latin, as are countless other mottos, slogans, and inscriptions around this country. And if you look, the Latin is translated into English on this NASA patch.

      In any event, it wasn't exactly a vital safety message, it's just a slogan. If you haven't studied Latin, you're not really missing something important.
    • At what point did Latin get seperate characters for I/J? (Or is this neo-classical Latin?)

    • Re:Why Latin? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Chatmag ( 646500 ) <editor@chatmag.com> on Sunday May 23, 2004 @10:31AM (#9230024) Homepage Journal
      Here is a link with tons of Latin Phrases [yuni.com] and the English translation. Latin is the root of many western languages. Latin was required in the European Universities, such as Heidelberg, which was commissioned as a University by Pope Urban VI in 1385 (note the obvious Latin connection).

    • Re:Why Latin? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Avihson ( 689950 ) on Sunday May 23, 2004 @10:41AM (#9230100)
      Because it was originally written in Latin by Claudius in his epistles. It is an ancient truism, said well before there was a NASA, before there was an English language, well before the Earth was known to be round. Claudius lived from 10BCE to 54CE, and was emperor of Rome from 41CE until his death.

      More people in the western world know Latin than know English, for the "romance languages" were founded from Latin.

      Why are there Valedictorians, Baccalautate degrees, Cum Laude, Magna Cum Laude, Summa Cum Laude? I went to a Community College Graduation this week, and Latin was everywhere.
      Tradition!

      Lastly, Tradition states that a pithy motto be in latin, since it is a "dead" language, and therefore less likely to be misinterpreted.

      • Because it was originally written in Latin by Claudius in his epistles. It is an ancient truism, said well before there was a NASA, before there was an English language, well before the Earth was known to be round.

        Greek astronomers had figured out that the Earth was round several centuries before Cladius. They drew on several lines of evidence: the shape of the Earth's shadow during lunar eclipses, the change in constellations visible at different latitudes, and the fact that the masts of ships sailin

        • Greek astronomers had figured out that the Earth was round several centuries before Cladius

          Eratosthenes [st-and.ac.uk] for example is often credited with measuring the earth with a stick [rice.edu], a pretty accurate measure of it's circumference. For him to do this B.C. he would have already got the idea the earth was a sphere earlier, or atleast want to use what he knew about geometry to prove the theory.

          Now there were much in the way of educated Greeks, in fact I believe one of the earlier versions of the christian bibles wa
      • > Lastly, Tradition states that a pithy motto be in latin, since it
        > is a "dead" language, and therefore less likely to be misinterpreted.

        Now why didn't our Founding Fathers think of this and write our Constitution in Latin! Of course I doubt that would have actually kept the Supremes from reimagining it whenever the urge hits them. I mean the English they used was pretty unambigious; phrases like "Congress shall make no law...", "...shall not be infringed" and "for limited times."
      • Good post :D

        However: that the earth is a sphere was suspected since Pythagoras, he died just around 500 B.C. Philolaus, his student, proclaimed that earth is revolving around the sun, as well as all other planets.

        Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) finally 'ptoved' more or less that the moon is a sphere and concluded that earth itself is as well a sphere.

        Eratosthenes and Aristarchus, and later Hipparchus and Ptolemy (around 150 B.C.) derived several ideas how the solar system might look.

        Anyway, google for "greek e
      • Informative post - burned all my mod points so I'll just have to contribute.

        Actually "pithy mottos" are epigrams [m-w.com].

        Here are some epigrams I have to hand:
        When the cats fall asleep, the mouse rejoices and leaps from his hole. (When the cat's away the mice will play)
        Dum felis dormit, mus gaudet et exsilit antro
        What a woman says to her fond lover sohuld be written on air or the swift water.
        Mulier cupido quod dicit amanti, in vento et rapida scribere oportet aqua -Catullus
        There's nothing more contempt
    • which they prefer to gravity.
    • Latin was the original language of learning throughout Europe. Thus, an institution dedicated to the pursuit of knowlege has a latin motto.

    • Re:Why Latin? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Deadstick ( 535032 )
      Why do all these insignias use Latin? More people know English.

      The fact that insignia is commonly accepted as a singular today makes that glaringly obvious.

      rj

      • > The fact that insignia is commonly accepted as a
        > singular today makes that glaringly obvious.

        FWIW, it's not only accepted by common folk. It's acceptable to use "insignias" as a plural by both the American Heritage Dictionary and Merriam-Webster.

        --
        -JC

  • Cpt Sisko (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 23, 2004 @10:02AM (#9229761)

    Fortune Favors the Bold

    Didn't Sisko say this in DS9?

  • <RANT> (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tekiegreg ( 674773 ) * <tekieg1-slashdot@yahoo.com> on Sunday May 23, 2004 @10:03AM (#9229773) Homepage Journal
    Is it just me, or is NASA more of a marketing organization these days? Quit with the speeches and gimmicks and start working towards actually going somewhere interesting (aka Mars, Moon, etc.). I'd rather my taxpayer dollars do that than hype up going to one of these places :-/

    </RANT>
    • They hold the purse strings. Without the support of congress, NASA couldn't go.
    • I am sure they are working to make this new vision of exploration come true, that's not the problem. Lack of political support could be a problem though. Also, I think they had insignias and badges and logos since they started. That's not anything all their scientists and engineers are doing, taking up all their time.
    • Why is that it's always the person who works at 7-11 who's concerned about where his tax dollars are going?
      • Because the less money you have after tax, the more you worry about where the chunk the government took is going.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jmorris42 ( 1458 ) *
        > Why is that it's always the person who works at 7-11 who's concerned
        > about where his tax dollars are going?

        Because percentage wise, the guy managing a 7-11 is paying more than His Billness at MSFT. (Especially when you figure the whole 15% FICA load as tax, which anyone being honest must.) Because the couple of K$ that guy at 7-11 is contributing to the Welfare State HURTS more than the insane in dollars but not hurting figure Warren Buffet pays.

        That lack of pain is why Warren Buffet is calling

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Minna Kirai ( 624281 )
      Is it just me, or is NASA more of a marketing organization these days?

      Just these days? As I recall, the focus of NASA back in it's heyday was scoring propaganda victories in the Cold War.

      The single most practical reason for the moon landing was to show up the Soviets.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jmorris42 ( 1458 ) *
        > The single most practical reason for the moon landing was to show
        > up the Soviets.

        Exactly. Which is why I don't look to NASA for the next steps in space. Although it must be admitted that the Cold War motives for Apollo were legit and contributed about as much to winning the War as Reagan's key insight that declaring the Emperor to be naked would work wonders.

        Yes I know all of the physics reasons why the X-Prize is meaningless, that getting to 100KM isn't anything like the greater effort to have
        • John Kerry's ilk

          Why do you single out Kerry? Considering George W Bush's viewpoints on terrorism, civil liberties, and missile defense- do you think he'll be any more likely to allow private individuals to build huge long-range guided rockets inside the USA?

          He'll assign an ABL [boeing.com] to zap you on the boost phase!

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by jmorris42 ( 1458 ) *
            > Why do you single out Kerry?

            1. He is the current standard bearer for the Democratic Party.

            2. He is a closet socialist. Just a personal belief, he is smart enough to have never actually SAID it. But just as a first clue, consider that most of the hardcore Blame America First crowd responsible for the loss of the Vietnam War and subsequent massacres of millions were pro Viet Cong and pro Soviet. John Kerry was as hardcore in that movement as you get.

            3. He believes in the UN. Does ANY doubt this?
            • 4. He is a Democrat.

              So you hate Democrats, and thus decide to inject them into discussions where a representative politican of either party will behave in exactly the same way.

              You might have the syndrome of "I agree with these guys on many positions, so I assume they'll agree with me on everything". That's common amoung optimistic voters who think that a major victory of their party will actually change something. But the fact is that 99% of all politicians want everything that matters to stay just as

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by jmorris42 ( 1458 ) *
                > where a representative politican of either party

                Product of the public schools I see. It should have been evident that I was asserting that the party did matter. Republicans in general do not care for the UN and it's orders. Name ONE Democrat on the national stage who doesn't fervently believe in the UN and it's moral authority.

                Those old Soviet Era UN treaties are going to prove a major obstable to the commercial development of space unless we have a strong Republican president who will simply reno
    • Ummm...how many times have you asked your congresscritter to join in writing the check? If the answer is zero, NASA is doing more to make it happen than you are.

      rj

  • In 2,300 years... (Score:5, Funny)

    by quinkin ( 601839 ) on Sunday May 23, 2004 @10:03AM (#9229784)
    NASA announces new plan to wait for next Earth, Moon, Mars alignment and build a great big slippery slide...

    Q.

    • How dare you release our plans to the rest of the world. Your identity will be erased and we will be seeing you shortly. If you already have a tinfoil hat I suggest you wear it as you make your body suit.
    • NASA announces new plan to wait for next Earth, Moon, Mars alignment and build a great big slippery slide...

      More like wait for a inter-planetary collision, or rather a celestial OREO cookie and literally jump between the planets.

  • GeekMan Spacesuits (Score:3, Funny)

    by ryanmfw ( 774163 ) on Sunday May 23, 2004 @10:04AM (#9229787)
    Darn, now I need someone to sew one of these onto my cool GeekMan(TM) action figure battle spacesuits!
  • 'Audentes Fortuna Juvat,' which, translated into English, says 'Fortune Favors the Bold.'

    To boldy go where no man has gone before.
    Woman, having previously been there last year.

  • Nice to see (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tandoori Haggis ( 662404 ) on Sunday May 23, 2004 @10:10AM (#9229852)
    that the new insignia hints at the future without explicitly including specific targets outside of our moon and Mars.

    Visual representations like this can help reinforce what the mission is all about.

    I think its cool.
    • The insignia seems to be about "getting it up to the stars".
    • You must work in marketing ;)
    • I like the big star at the end of the road.

    • Re:Nice to see (Score:3, Insightful)

      by demachina ( 71715 )
      Enjoy. This insignia is about as close as NASA will get to the Moon or Mars.

      It will be interesting to see what happens to this program after the election. The cynic in me sees Karl Rove sitting in his office at the white office toting up electoral college votes. Florida, of course, comes out at the top of lists in play he has to win. Its likely it will close in 2004. If you want to swing a few hundred thousand votes in Florida your way, look to the space coast around Cocoa Beach and Melbourne which is
      • You raise some interesting and valid points. Reality always seems to be a spoiler. Projects take much longer than planned or get quietly dropped whereas disasters seem to happen too fast.

        International co-operation would seem to be the way to achieve space goals quicker and more cheaply - if only politics and religion wouldn't stand in the way. I do find the post space race apathy intensly disappointing, but then it does come after a remakable period of competition. Also, IMHO, global conflict is such a was

  • It's slightly better than the last slogan (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 23, 2004 @10:11AM (#9229858)
    Safe, sensible, and on the ground.

  • Nice logo NASA (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 23, 2004 @10:22AM (#9229962)
    Three spheres--Earth, the moon and Mars--are arrayed in sequence, with the streak of a rocket missing all three and flying straight into the sun

    One badge team must have been working in metric, the other in imperial.
    • Three spheres--Earth, the moon and Mars--are arrayed in sequence, with the streak of a rocket missing all three and flying straight into the sun

      One badge team must have been working in metric, the other in imperial.

      For Earth, Moon, Mars (in that order) an object behind them cannot be the sun. It has to be another star. It is the "and beyond" part of the new vision, probably.

      Tor
  • ... all our money is spend.
    So, no astronaut, you don't get to go.
    In fact, due to budget restraints:
    You are fired

  • Bold... or Risk-Averse (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Azghoul ( 25786 ) on Sunday May 23, 2004 @10:29AM (#9230016) Homepage
    "Fortune Favors the Bold".

    Too bad it doesn't seem to be true these days. Seems to me that the U.S. is so risk-averse that any attempt at space travel will be terribly expensive and will take decades. Not because the technology isn't there (remember, we DID go to the moon 35 years ago), but because there might be a .001% chance of something going wrong, and we just can't have that!!

    When we DO finally get space travel sorted out, my suggestion is to put the lawyers and insurance CEOs on the first flight and aim it at the sun (Hey, it's Pauly Shore! And Rosie! Ding ding ding goes the trolley!).
    • The full slogan is actually "fortune favors the bold robotic vehicle"
    • True. I want space exploration to be as safe as possible, but not so safe that we can't afford it, or that our technology wont develop because we will never fly. Failures will always happen, we've been flying around in our atmosphere for about a hundred years and accidents still happen. We can't expect something like spaceflight to be 100% safe. The only way to make it safer is to try and try again. Also competition in the private market will help.
    • Well, when something DOES go wrong EVERYONE knows about it. When something goes right, no one cares, it's not usually reported when a new sattalite is launched without a problem. It seems there is sort of a negative feeling attached to space travel.

    • Re:Bold... or Risk-Averse (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cgenman ( 325138 ) on Sunday May 23, 2004 @11:09AM (#9230357) Homepage
      Not because the technology isn't there (remember, we DID go to the moon 35 years ago), but because there might be a .001% chance of something going wrong, and we just can't have that!!

      Actually, the shuttle has a roughly %2 failure rate [strategypage.com]. By comparison, SARS killed about %4 of the people it infected. And the shuttle is about as stable and mature a space launcher as you will find. So in other words, the technology is still gambling with the lives of astronauts, though it is more vegas roulette than russian roulette.

      As for being terribly expensive and taking lots of time... You're building a space ship. A space ship. How long would it take you to build a plane from scratch? How long would it take you to build a plane from scratch that people could live in? How long would it take you to build a plane from scratch that can work without oxygen, fly above our atmosphere, and let passengers out in the middle of a vaccuum? Did I mention protect the occupants from solar radiation, withstand several thousand degrees of heat, and recycle all body excretia into drinkable water?

      The space plane program is taking forever because the technology isn't there. The kinds of weight-to-thrust ratio to take off without boosters isn't possible without a lot more development of our engine technologies. Remember, our trip to the moon DID cost roughly 200 billion dollars, or 5% of the GDP for several years.

      • Actually, we DO have the technology. We have people living in space for months at a time already.

        You ask a series of silly questions about how long it would take for 'me' to build such a thing. That's just it: It already exists! We went to the moon, and turned around and came back!

        Considering the age of the tech used to do that... 35 years on we can't do any better, for much much much cheaper? I don't buy it, except to note that we're over-engineering everything these days (take a look at the JSF nois
      • The space plane program is taking forever because the technology isn't there. The kinds of weight-to-thrust ratio to take off without boosters isn't possible without a lot more development of our engine technologies.

        Well, there's always Skylon [reactionengines.co.uk]. The technology seems to be basically there; it's mostly just R&D needed. And money, lots and lots of money ($10 billion- not too bad as space goes actually).

    • My suggestion for a much better insignia: two spheres, arranged side by side, while a rocket streaked between them ... to symbolize the ass-fucking that NASA has given the American taxpayer since the 1970s. We could have been mining asteroids and comets by now, with solar power satellites beaming gigawatts to Earth and with O'Neill colonies in the preparation stages ... but -- OH NO! -- that made too much economic sense, so we instead had NASA stand for the National Aerospace-industry and Shuttle Administ
    • but because there might be a .001% chance of something going wrong, and we just can't have that!!

      If that were indeed the case, there would be a lot more happening in terms of space. The reality of the situation is, the shuttle has a failure rate of approximately 2%. With that in mind, the shuttle program has turned out dramatically different than originally planned, and as it was originally sold to the public.

      The original plan sold to the public in the 70's called for a re-useable vehicle that was

  • The insignia shows that Mars is only one in a chain. Quite appropriate, me thinks!

  • Fortune? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Tablizer ( 95088 )
    translated into English, says 'Fortune Favors the Bold.'

    Fortune? How Ferrengi of us. As American Indians are rumored to have said, "Moon people, watch you land! These guys will try to take it."

    (One thing about slashdot is that you can mispell just about any word, and nobody complains. But, mispell a Trek word and you are vaporized by the masses.)

  • Sounds Familiar.... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by WryCoder ( 18961 )
    Reminds me of some software projects. First the logo, then the web site, then the coffee cups, and finally start arguing about what is to be accomplished.

  • short-term thinking? (Score:4, Funny)

    by WillWare ( 11935 ) on Sunday May 23, 2004 @11:29AM (#9230505) Homepage Journal
    The Moon-Mars thing is only the next five or ten years, isn't it? NASA would presumably want an insignia that extends beyond the immediate goal. At least I would, if I were NASA. Otherwise I'd worry about whether I should be getting my resume cleaned up.

    "Fortune favors the bold", huh? So what favors the feeble? Whatever that is, NASA should be shopping for some of that.

    • The Moon-Mars thing is only the next five or ten years, isn't it? NASA would presumably want an insignia that extends beyond the immediate goal.

      The swoosh extends a bit beyond Mars if you look closely, and sort of points to a bright star.

      Swoosh? "Too boldly go where Nike has been."
    • NASA would presumably want an insignia that extends beyond the immediate goal...

      Possibly. But long-term insignia costs more---and they've already probably spend half ot heir budget coming up with this short-term one.
  • Isn't that rocket going directly into the heart of the sun? That's bad, right?
  • hahah fortune favors the bold.. reminds me of DS9 :)
  • Its triplanetary! Curse those filthy Boskonians....
  • For a man more concerned with stationary design than space station design, not to mention speech-making and apologizing for NASA's very existence.

    His next plan is to bring "Faster, Better, Cheaper" to the B.U. School of Medicine. What a great concept for providing health care... Let's hope it works better than it did for NASA under his watch.

  • NASA PR (Score:4, Funny)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Sunday May 23, 2004 @12:12PM (#9230945) Homepage
    NASA has a great PR operation. They should realize that's their core business area and dump the space operations.
  • No idea really, but I looked at the design and the slogan, and it made me think of Starship Troopers, and I shuddered.

    Hmmm
  • Did anybody else look at that logo and immediately think of a Red Dwarf episode [simon-turner.co.uk]?

  • Good, a logo (Score:3, Funny)

    by kahei ( 466208 ) on Sunday May 23, 2004 @01:21PM (#9231426) Homepage

    Now all they need is funding, a plan, and some sort of stab at a space vehicle.

  • We are going to here lots of wild stuff...the most obvious that comes to mind is the alignment of earth, moon and mars with a new star and the destructions it will bring to earth.

  • Prediction... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mpaque ( 655244 ) on Sunday May 23, 2004 @01:59PM (#9231780)
    This patch and a vast collection of 'white papers' is all that we'll ever see from this NASA initiative.

    The papers will be the result of spending several billion dollars on studies with NASA aerospace industry contractors.

    No hardware beyond conceptual models will be produced.

    Sorry folks, but if you want to actually GO somewhere, NASA is no longer the most effective way to spend money to get there. In a few more years, NASA won't be able to get people to LEO any more. That makes getting to the moon or Mars difficult.

    Delta Clipper series - 3 successful scale model flights of DC-X, project terminated for DC-XA after crash on 4th landing. It worked, though. Defunded in 1996 for the X-33 and following projects.

    X-33 started 1996, ended 2001. Concrete was poured for a launch facility. Lots of parts moved in (and out) of an assembly hanger. NASA discovers that when in contact with liquid hydrogen, lots of materials turn brittle and fail under load. (This bit actually develops some good materials science.) Two completed aerospike rocket engines were built and operated in a test stand for 1.12 seconds.

    X-37 orbital flight demonstrator. X40A scale model for free flight built in 1998. Fabrication of first X-37 started in 2001, with an orbital test planned for 2003. AIr Force withdrew support in 2002. Project defunded in 2003.

    CEV - Announced 2003. NASA Request for Information sent to contractors in April 2004. "Spiral development" plan call for launching a stripped down prototype in 2008, containing only about 30 percent of the systems of a fully developed craft, unpiloted test flights in 2011, and a manned mission in 2014.
  • "Fortune Favors the Bold"

    how do you say in latin: "i.e. not us."?

Slashdot Top Deals

Don't tell me how hard you work. Tell me how much you get done. -- James J. Ling

Close