Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Monday, April 02, 2007
Here at the Western World
*Sigh* It's Holy Week so naturally someone has to rabble rouse. This time around it's the Chocolate Jesus. You know, I've seen so many of these pathetic attempts to shock in my life that by now it's all I can do not to yawn. It should be clear by now that going after the Catholic Church - or Christians in general - in an effort to provoke shock and outrage is like reaching for low-hanging fruit; anyone can do it. It does not require talent and it's certainly not daring.
A chocolate Mohammed, preferably shown strapping a bomb vest on a young boy, now that might gin up some controversy. Of course, it also might get the artist killed - unlike Catholics, Islamic radicals tend to express their outrage in a more, um, concrete fashion, sort of like Wookies do when you beat them at chess. But think of the posterity!
Over at Protein Wisdom, Dan Collins correctly gauges the feminist reaction.
A chocolate Mohammed, preferably shown strapping a bomb vest on a young boy, now that might gin up some controversy. Of course, it also might get the artist killed - unlike Catholics, Islamic radicals tend to express their outrage in a more, um, concrete fashion, sort of like Wookies do when you beat them at chess. But think of the posterity!
Over at Protein Wisdom, Dan Collins correctly gauges the feminist reaction.
Sunday, April 01, 2007
Life is Unreal
Over at the Belmont Club, Wretchard illustrates the insanity of government regulations:
Everyone who owns a television set, set top box or a tuner card for a computer in Britain has to pay the BBC for the privilege. "A colour TV Licence costs £135.50 and a black and white licence costs £45.50." Per year.
Never let it be said that the British regulators aren't fair, however. There is a generous discount for the blind:
If you or someone you live with is blind, you qualify to receive a 50% concession on the cost of your TV Licence. If the person who is blind isn't the current licence holder for your address, you first need to transfer the licence into their name. To do this, call us on 0870 241 6468 and we'll talk you through what you need to do.
Now, when I was young and dumb and full of, er, dumbness, I fractured a few laws, as Axle Foley might say. One of those was to alter my cable box so that I could watch HBO without paying for it. No doubt this is just one more item on my resume which will ensure me a room in the Ninth Circle of Hell. Anyway, the reason I bring this up is because it occurs to me that a tax on owning a TV set might tempt some otherwise law-abiding Brits to cheat the system - I mean, how is anyone going to know whether or how many TV sets you have? And this is where the story gets completely bizarro. Apparently, the BBC uses "detector vans" to ensure compliance:
Our TV detector vans and enforcement officers are equipped with state-of-the-art detection equipment which can tell in as little as 20 seconds whether you are using a TV. We have a range of detection tools at our disposal in our vans. Some aspects of the equipment have been developed in such secrecy that engineers working on specific detection methods work in isolation - so not even they know how the other detection methods work. This gives us the best chance of catching licence evaders. We can use a hand-held scanning device. These measure both the direction and strength of a signal, making it easy for us to locate TVs - even in the hardest to reach places.
As Wretchard points out, there is some debate over whether the detector vans actually exist - but the idea is just mind-boggling, isn't it?
Someone please tell me this is just an April Fool's Joke.
Everyone who owns a television set, set top box or a tuner card for a computer in Britain has to pay the BBC for the privilege. "A colour TV Licence costs £135.50 and a black and white licence costs £45.50." Per year.
Never let it be said that the British regulators aren't fair, however. There is a generous discount for the blind:
If you or someone you live with is blind, you qualify to receive a 50% concession on the cost of your TV Licence. If the person who is blind isn't the current licence holder for your address, you first need to transfer the licence into their name. To do this, call us on 0870 241 6468 and we'll talk you through what you need to do.
Now, when I was young and dumb and full of, er, dumbness, I fractured a few laws, as Axle Foley might say. One of those was to alter my cable box so that I could watch HBO without paying for it. No doubt this is just one more item on my resume which will ensure me a room in the Ninth Circle of Hell. Anyway, the reason I bring this up is because it occurs to me that a tax on owning a TV set might tempt some otherwise law-abiding Brits to cheat the system - I mean, how is anyone going to know whether or how many TV sets you have? And this is where the story gets completely bizarro. Apparently, the BBC uses "detector vans" to ensure compliance:
Our TV detector vans and enforcement officers are equipped with state-of-the-art detection equipment which can tell in as little as 20 seconds whether you are using a TV. We have a range of detection tools at our disposal in our vans. Some aspects of the equipment have been developed in such secrecy that engineers working on specific detection methods work in isolation - so not even they know how the other detection methods work. This gives us the best chance of catching licence evaders. We can use a hand-held scanning device. These measure both the direction and strength of a signal, making it easy for us to locate TVs - even in the hardest to reach places.
As Wretchard points out, there is some debate over whether the detector vans actually exist - but the idea is just mind-boggling, isn't it?
Someone please tell me this is just an April Fool's Joke.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Book of Liars
In a talk at Duke University this week, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's former national security advisor, showed just how easy it is to revise history:
Brzezinski said there's no reason to think a bloodbath would necessarily follow a U.S. withdrawal.
"We expected that the U.S. leaving Vietnam would result in massive killings and genocide and so forth, and collapse of the dominoes in Southeast Asia," he said. "It didn't happen. How certain are we of the horror scenarios that have been mentioned in what will take place in Iraq?"
It.Didn't.Happen.
How is it possible that anyone, let alone the president's national security advisor, can make that statement? Even the Herald-Sun acknowledges the facts:
History does record that a bloodbath that claimed millions of lives occurred in neighboring Cambodia, the so-called "killing fields," and that millions more people left Vietnam as refugees after the two countries fell in 1975.
How did Brzezinski miss this little tidbit when it was reported on the news and in the front page of every newspaper in the world? Or do "massive killings" and genocide not count when they happen to people of different races thousands of miles away?
So how do we explain this? Is it a failing memory? A deliberate omission? Or is it a rewriting of history to fit the current liberal narrative in Iraq?
Robin Williams once said that anyone who remembered the sixties wasn't there. It appears Zbiggy took two sixties and went straight to the 90's.
Brzezinski said there's no reason to think a bloodbath would necessarily follow a U.S. withdrawal.
"We expected that the U.S. leaving Vietnam would result in massive killings and genocide and so forth, and collapse of the dominoes in Southeast Asia," he said. "It didn't happen. How certain are we of the horror scenarios that have been mentioned in what will take place in Iraq?"
It.Didn't.Happen.
How is it possible that anyone, let alone the president's national security advisor, can make that statement? Even the Herald-Sun acknowledges the facts:
History does record that a bloodbath that claimed millions of lives occurred in neighboring Cambodia, the so-called "killing fields," and that millions more people left Vietnam as refugees after the two countries fell in 1975.
How did Brzezinski miss this little tidbit when it was reported on the news and in the front page of every newspaper in the world? Or do "massive killings" and genocide not count when they happen to people of different races thousands of miles away?
So how do we explain this? Is it a failing memory? A deliberate omission? Or is it a rewriting of history to fit the current liberal narrative in Iraq?
Robin Williams once said that anyone who remembered the sixties wasn't there. It appears Zbiggy took two sixties and went straight to the 90's.
Friday, March 30, 2007
Thursday, March 29, 2007
West of Hollywood
Maybe I'm just getting in touch with my feminine side, but this has become one of my favorite sites lately.
Can I Get Fries With That?
You know, I've always wanted a job that gave me one of these. Maybe I've just been working with the wrong people.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Too Low For Zero
I'm not sure which disgusts me more, reading about the death threats against Kathy Sierra or this post about the news of Tony Snow's cancer over at the Huffington Post. Let's take them one at a time, shall we?
For those of you who don't know, Kathy Sierra's Creating Passionate Users site is hand's down one of the best on the web. Her entire focus is on how we - and by extension the companies we work for - can make ourselves and our products better. Her own area of expertise is programming (she used to work for Sun) but her ideas can be applied to just about any area of marketing and her enthusiasm is infectious. I can't tell you how many times I've gone looking for a bit of inspiration and found just the ticket at her site. For her to be targeted in this manner is appalling.
As for Charles Karel Bouley, it's hard to know where to start. How in the world can anyone say that working for President Bush or Fox News is a reason for getting cancer and in the next breath say that Eizabeth Edward's cancer is just "bad things happen to good people"? It would make just as much sense if I said that her cancer came about because of her belief in husband's vision of "Two America's". Which is to say, it makes no sense at all.
Granted, the web makes it easy to do such things. I doubt seriously if Mr. Bouley would say anything like that in Tony Snow's presence, just as I don't think the anonymous hate-mongers would go after Kathy Sierra if they felt there was any possibility they would be held accountable.
People who anonymously threaten others deserve their own special roasting corner in Hell. And Charles Bouley deserves some brutal honesty of his own.
For those of you who don't know, Kathy Sierra's Creating Passionate Users site is hand's down one of the best on the web. Her entire focus is on how we - and by extension the companies we work for - can make ourselves and our products better. Her own area of expertise is programming (she used to work for Sun) but her ideas can be applied to just about any area of marketing and her enthusiasm is infectious. I can't tell you how many times I've gone looking for a bit of inspiration and found just the ticket at her site. For her to be targeted in this manner is appalling.
As for Charles Karel Bouley, it's hard to know where to start. How in the world can anyone say that working for President Bush or Fox News is a reason for getting cancer and in the next breath say that Eizabeth Edward's cancer is just "bad things happen to good people"? It would make just as much sense if I said that her cancer came about because of her belief in husband's vision of "Two America's". Which is to say, it makes no sense at all.
Granted, the web makes it easy to do such things. I doubt seriously if Mr. Bouley would say anything like that in Tony Snow's presence, just as I don't think the anonymous hate-mongers would go after Kathy Sierra if they felt there was any possibility they would be held accountable.
People who anonymously threaten others deserve their own special roasting corner in Hell. And Charles Bouley deserves some brutal honesty of his own.
She's Alive!
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Some Impromptu Saturday Morning Poetry
Easter is coming
The bunny's acting odd
Please to add a penny to
The old man's wad
If you haven't got a penny
A ha'penny will do
And if you know what a ha'penny is
Then you're old, too.
The bunny's acting odd
Please to add a penny to
The old man's wad
If you haven't got a penny
A ha'penny will do
And if you know what a ha'penny is
Then you're old, too.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Time Out of Mind
Am I the only one still a little weirded out by the early time change? Not that I'm complaining, mind you. I love the extra sunlight - although I'm not a huge fan of getting up in the dark - and it definitely feels a little more springlike. Maybe it's because winter here in the Northeast has been so strange.
It didn't really get cold til mid-January (I vividly remember the second Saturday of the month being sunny and in the 60's) and since then it's felt like living in a meatlocker with someone occasionally opening the door and dumping in bags of ice-cold rocksalt. Right now outside my window I can see mounds of snow at least 3 feet high with small patches of lawn starting to peek through - a sure sign of spring. Still, I'm having a hard time remembering what month it is.
It's light enough to be March, cold enough to be January (yesterday morning the low was -5) and the snow is a sure sign of February. Is it any wonder I'm tempted to crawl back under the covers and hibernate for another couple of months?
It didn't really get cold til mid-January (I vividly remember the second Saturday of the month being sunny and in the 60's) and since then it's felt like living in a meatlocker with someone occasionally opening the door and dumping in bags of ice-cold rocksalt. Right now outside my window I can see mounds of snow at least 3 feet high with small patches of lawn starting to peek through - a sure sign of spring. Still, I'm having a hard time remembering what month it is.
It's light enough to be March, cold enough to be January (yesterday morning the low was -5) and the snow is a sure sign of February. Is it any wonder I'm tempted to crawl back under the covers and hibernate for another couple of months?
Sunday, October 01, 2006
Which Way Did It Go?
September, I mean. It seems like just yesterday I was posting about the Dog Team Tavern burning and suddenly - poof! - it's October 1st.
Seriously, I started a new job on September 7th and that, combined with the start of school and some family obligations, has made it almost impossible for me to keep up with blogging. I've barely had time to keep up with my blog reading, let alone doing any posting. Anyway, it's a new month and a little saner schedule so, hopefully, blogging will resume.
Seriously, I started a new job on September 7th and that, combined with the start of school and some family obligations, has made it almost impossible for me to keep up with blogging. I've barely had time to keep up with my blog reading, let alone doing any posting. Anyway, it's a new month and a little saner schedule so, hopefully, blogging will resume.
Sunday, September 03, 2006
Up in Smoke
The Dog Team Tavern is gone:
NEW HAVEN -- Police suspect Dog Team Tavern owner Christopher Hesslink, 42, was killed when the landmark restaurant burned early Friday morning in a fire police are calling suspicious.
The fire destroyed the 60-year-old restaurant located on quiet Dog Team Road and known for its sticky buns, ample portions and spinning relish wheel.
NEW HAVEN -- Police suspect Dog Team Tavern owner Christopher Hesslink, 42, was killed when the landmark restaurant burned early Friday morning in a fire police are calling suspicious.
The fire destroyed the 60-year-old restaurant located on quiet Dog Team Road and known for its sticky buns, ample portions and spinning relish wheel.
The Correct Answer
Okay, so I'm doing my usual Sunday Search for inspiration and/or enlightenment and I come across this post. About halfway down the page, there's this paragraph:
"...ask yourself this question: When I’m on my deathbed, what will I regret most about my life? I doubt anyone on their deathbed ever said, “I wish I would have worked more hours. I wish I would have gotten that last sale. I wish I had even more money in my bank account.” Elizabeth Kubler Ross, author of the book On Death and Dying, asked people on their deathbeds this very question. What was their response? The number one response was: I wish I would have taken more chances. I feel like I lived my life playing it too safe. The number two response was: I wish I would have taken more time to reflect. I never stopped and smelled the roses in life. How would you answer this question?"
To me, deathbed questions are always kind of skeezy because, well, look at where you are - you're on your deathbed, for crying out loud. Who wants to deal with a bunch of people asking them questions when they're dying? What's more, look at the kind of questions they ask. What will I regret most about my life?
Geez, how much time do I have?
And the answers listed above are just wrong, wrong, wrong. What does it mean when someone who can't take chances anymore says they wished they'd taken more chances in their life? Nothing, that's what it means. If you had a magic wand and waved it in front of them and said "Okay, you're healed. Now go out and take some chances", do you know what they'd say?
"Are you kidding? Take chances? That's how people get killed!"
It reminds me of my Catholic upbringing and being taught about the sacrament of Extreme Unction, or Last Rites. Basically, what happens is the priest gives you absolution for your earthly sins. The catch is you have to be contrite or truly and honestly sorry that you committed them. I remember asking one of the nuns "Sister, now really. What's the catch?" Because, if you're on your deathbed and this means getting into heaven, who isn't going to be truly and honestly sorry for any sins they committed? If it will help, I'll confess to a few I didn't commit. And believe me, I won't be kidding when I do because, after all, He'll know.
The number two answer is only marginally better than the first because, when you think about it, reflection is really just a way of looking at what's wrong with your life and how many of us want to spend time doing that? For me, true reflection comes when I drain the last of my scotch and realize I forgot to buy more. And what is the thing with roses, anyway? Give me the aroma of a nice, juicy steak anytime.
No, if someone asks me on my deathbed what I regret most about my life, there is only one correct answer:
I regret that I'm on my deathbed. Idiot.
"...ask yourself this question: When I’m on my deathbed, what will I regret most about my life? I doubt anyone on their deathbed ever said, “I wish I would have worked more hours. I wish I would have gotten that last sale. I wish I had even more money in my bank account.” Elizabeth Kubler Ross, author of the book On Death and Dying, asked people on their deathbeds this very question. What was their response? The number one response was: I wish I would have taken more chances. I feel like I lived my life playing it too safe. The number two response was: I wish I would have taken more time to reflect. I never stopped and smelled the roses in life. How would you answer this question?"
To me, deathbed questions are always kind of skeezy because, well, look at where you are - you're on your deathbed, for crying out loud. Who wants to deal with a bunch of people asking them questions when they're dying? What's more, look at the kind of questions they ask. What will I regret most about my life?
Geez, how much time do I have?
And the answers listed above are just wrong, wrong, wrong. What does it mean when someone who can't take chances anymore says they wished they'd taken more chances in their life? Nothing, that's what it means. If you had a magic wand and waved it in front of them and said "Okay, you're healed. Now go out and take some chances", do you know what they'd say?
"Are you kidding? Take chances? That's how people get killed!"
It reminds me of my Catholic upbringing and being taught about the sacrament of Extreme Unction, or Last Rites. Basically, what happens is the priest gives you absolution for your earthly sins. The catch is you have to be contrite or truly and honestly sorry that you committed them. I remember asking one of the nuns "Sister, now really. What's the catch?" Because, if you're on your deathbed and this means getting into heaven, who isn't going to be truly and honestly sorry for any sins they committed? If it will help, I'll confess to a few I didn't commit. And believe me, I won't be kidding when I do because, after all, He'll know.
The number two answer is only marginally better than the first because, when you think about it, reflection is really just a way of looking at what's wrong with your life and how many of us want to spend time doing that? For me, true reflection comes when I drain the last of my scotch and realize I forgot to buy more. And what is the thing with roses, anyway? Give me the aroma of a nice, juicy steak anytime.
No, if someone asks me on my deathbed what I regret most about my life, there is only one correct answer:
I regret that I'm on my deathbed. Idiot.
Friday, September 01, 2006
After the Love has Gone
Perhaps you’ve heard this story:
A man pursues a woman, wooing her with flowers and trinkets, taking her on dates for romantic dinners and dancing. He tells her he loves her. The woman, knowing a little something about men, accepts his words and gifts cautiously, enjoying the attention, wanting to believe but having been burned before, she holds back on relinquishing the ultimate prize: sex.
This goes on for some time with no lessening of the man’s ardor. Finally, she accepts his affections as genuine and agrees to sleep with him. The two of them have an evening/weekend of glorious sex.
Or bad sex, it really doesn’t matter, because afterwards she never hears from him again. The man goes on his merry way, having gotten at last what he wanted, and the woman, dispirited and tearful, vows to never again let anyone take advantage of her.
Now, it may seem like this is some apocryphal story about relationships but it really isn’t. Because what I’ve just described is the prototypical manner in which most businesses deal with their customers. They woo you. They fuck you. And then they never want to hear from you again. Many of them don’t even have the good manners to kiss you when they’re done. Until, of course, they come up with some other little doodad they want to sell you and the wooing starts all over again.
And we fall for it darn near every time.
Some of you reading this – especially small business owners – may object. We’re very serious about customer service, you say. We love our customers. Where would we be without our customers? And that may very well be true, as far as it goes. There are, no doubt, some companies out there that put a great deal of time and effort into customer service (and not, as George Carlin would say, servicing their customers). Just because I haven’t worked for or dealt with any of them doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
But all companies, good or bad, suffer from the same mindset: once the transaction is done, they don’t treat the customer the same way. Or, in relationship speak, they stop treating the customer like a lover and start treating them like a spouse.
An excellent example of this is provided by Kathy Sierra:
Why do so many companies treat potential users so much better than existing users? Think about it. The brochure is a thing of beauty, while the user manual is a thing of boredom. The brochure gets the big budget while the manual gets the big index. What if we stopped making the docs we give away for free SO much nicer than the ones the user paid for? What if instead of seducing potential users to buy, we seduced existing users to learn?
Have you looked at a user manual lately? Of course you haven’t. Why would you? User manuals, as Kathy points out, are drab, colorless, lifeless tomes printed on (if you’re lucky) recycled paper. Most of them are written in the gobbledy language of technical engineers with an extra helping of coveryourass talk thrown in for good measure. There is a good reason why people hate to read user manuals – and it’s not just stupid men who think they don’t need them. It’s because they aren’t helpful.
Granted, brochures aren’t exactly helpful either, but that’s not the point. Brochures aren’t meant to be helpful. They’re meant to be sexy and alluring, to entice you to give up your money in exchange for the product they depict. The user manual is the booby prize you win for believing the brochure was anything more than a pleasant fiction. Wouldn’t it be nice if the user manual followed through on the promise of the brochure?
Or, to combine Kathy Sierra and George Carlin for a moment, wouldn’t it be nice if the user manual made you feel like you could kick ass instead of feeling like you’d just taken it up the ass?
The user manual, as I mentioned above, is just one example but it’s a telling one. The relationship between consumers and businesses is a lot like a courtship that leads to marriage. Once the romance is gone, the business moves on and all the consumer can do is vow it won’t happen again. And take out the garbage.
Because, you know, somebody has to.
A man pursues a woman, wooing her with flowers and trinkets, taking her on dates for romantic dinners and dancing. He tells her he loves her. The woman, knowing a little something about men, accepts his words and gifts cautiously, enjoying the attention, wanting to believe but having been burned before, she holds back on relinquishing the ultimate prize: sex.
This goes on for some time with no lessening of the man’s ardor. Finally, she accepts his affections as genuine and agrees to sleep with him. The two of them have an evening/weekend of glorious sex.
Or bad sex, it really doesn’t matter, because afterwards she never hears from him again. The man goes on his merry way, having gotten at last what he wanted, and the woman, dispirited and tearful, vows to never again let anyone take advantage of her.
Now, it may seem like this is some apocryphal story about relationships but it really isn’t. Because what I’ve just described is the prototypical manner in which most businesses deal with their customers. They woo you. They fuck you. And then they never want to hear from you again. Many of them don’t even have the good manners to kiss you when they’re done. Until, of course, they come up with some other little doodad they want to sell you and the wooing starts all over again.
And we fall for it darn near every time.
Some of you reading this – especially small business owners – may object. We’re very serious about customer service, you say. We love our customers. Where would we be without our customers? And that may very well be true, as far as it goes. There are, no doubt, some companies out there that put a great deal of time and effort into customer service (and not, as George Carlin would say, servicing their customers). Just because I haven’t worked for or dealt with any of them doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
But all companies, good or bad, suffer from the same mindset: once the transaction is done, they don’t treat the customer the same way. Or, in relationship speak, they stop treating the customer like a lover and start treating them like a spouse.
An excellent example of this is provided by Kathy Sierra:
Why do so many companies treat potential users so much better than existing users? Think about it. The brochure is a thing of beauty, while the user manual is a thing of boredom. The brochure gets the big budget while the manual gets the big index. What if we stopped making the docs we give away for free SO much nicer than the ones the user paid for? What if instead of seducing potential users to buy, we seduced existing users to learn?
Have you looked at a user manual lately? Of course you haven’t. Why would you? User manuals, as Kathy points out, are drab, colorless, lifeless tomes printed on (if you’re lucky) recycled paper. Most of them are written in the gobbledy language of technical engineers with an extra helping of coveryourass talk thrown in for good measure. There is a good reason why people hate to read user manuals – and it’s not just stupid men who think they don’t need them. It’s because they aren’t helpful.
Granted, brochures aren’t exactly helpful either, but that’s not the point. Brochures aren’t meant to be helpful. They’re meant to be sexy and alluring, to entice you to give up your money in exchange for the product they depict. The user manual is the booby prize you win for believing the brochure was anything more than a pleasant fiction. Wouldn’t it be nice if the user manual followed through on the promise of the brochure?
Or, to combine Kathy Sierra and George Carlin for a moment, wouldn’t it be nice if the user manual made you feel like you could kick ass instead of feeling like you’d just taken it up the ass?
The user manual, as I mentioned above, is just one example but it’s a telling one. The relationship between consumers and businesses is a lot like a courtship that leads to marriage. Once the romance is gone, the business moves on and all the consumer can do is vow it won’t happen again. And take out the garbage.
Because, you know, somebody has to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
