I think it would have been more relevant for M. Moore to have just done a comparison of people in US city's who don't lock their doors compared to Canadian city's. It would have been more expensive to do this, but it would have been more honest. Otherwise he should have never made that statement, and his editors should have made sure that wasn't included in the final cut. Yes it's just a documentary, but what a much better documentary it would have been.
BTW, I happen to agree with most of Moore's sentiments, I just wish he would present them better (without the non-sense). I do for example agree that Canada's health care system is better than the US, but from what I have seen so far from this topic, I'm avoiding saying anything about that just because it seems more likely to get into a flame war, and I don't want to have to spend hours searching for references just to back up my claims.
If Michael Moore was more objective and used less propaganda, he would probably be a lot more relevant.
I remember scene in Bowling for Columbine when he stated people in Toronto don't lock their doors. This is an exaggeration to put it mildly.
He has some interesting ideas, too bad I can't take them seriously because he just props up his own biases. Yes I will probably end up (eventually) watching his movie, but more for the reasons I would watch Plan 9 from Outer Space, than I would for a purely educational experience.
Since there seems to be an idea that my post was Flamebait (perhaps it is, but it was certainly not meant to be), I will simply state this:
Yes, I should have probably stated facts and references instead of just stating my opinions. Since I thought much of this information was fairly easily available and common knowledge, I didn't think I would get too much opposition. However, just doing a quick search on Google reveals more extremist Web sites on both sides of the issue rather than anything I would consider moderate.
There has been a lot more moderate and reasoned reporting on the Canadian Broadcast Corporation, as well as documentaries from the CBC, than on most Web sites I have found. You can check out Ideas http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/calendar/index.html (I don't have any specific references to any shows, but it's an excellent plug non-the-less). You can also check out http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Main_Page, which brings a more independent perspective compared to US news channels for example (critically judge everything of course, and keep and open mind). It should be stated though, that the late owner of Global News (another Canadian broadcaster) publicly stated that CBC is anti-semitic. Anybody who is familiar with the CBC would quickly realize that this is just political fear mongering.
Yes I am quite aware of the complexities of the issues of the Middle East and Israel. No I am not imminently afraid of going to jail for a hate crime. As I stated though, it is a _concern_, based on the political environment, that I could at least be accused of a hate crime, and possibly even have to go to court. I would definitely be more comfortable staying at least semi-anonymous rather than having some political organization call me anti-semitic or accuse me of a hate crime. It is a concern, however real it to be.
I assure you I have no love for the dictatorships in the Middle East or elsewhere, and that I fully support the US invasion of Afghanistan (although Iraq is another story).
I suppose we could get into the semantics of what I mean by "stealing" land. In reality, if some one came to my house and said I have to leave, then yes I would consider that stealing (to put it at its simplest).
I do have a VERY strong impression that a lot of posters here are just political zealots. I don't think anybody here could convince me that taking land from the Palestinians is good just because of political and religious history.
I do respect the moderation, and will be more careful and thoughtful with what I post. I may very well have been over-confident since this was so far my first "Flambait" posting (I've only been posting for about a month). I will take all opinions regarding this post into consideration. The more moderate and reasoned the opinions, the more they will have weight on me (and others).
Yes, but here at Slashdot, Israel is *always* in the wrong without question.
In reality (not just on Slashdot). Israel usually is wrong.
I don't think you can bash a whole community for the fact that:
1. Israel stole and continues to steal land from a very economically small and politically marginal community. 2. Israel is pretty much a defacto religious state that holds up the religious beliefs and values of their largest supporter: the USA. 3. It is no surprise to me that anybody would lose a lawsuit in the US for countering the pro-Israel lobby, much less in a small claims court where Judge Judy types have pretty much free reign to do what they want.
Where I live (in Canada), there are serious concerns about being charged with a hate crime and being accused of being a racist for publicly disagreeing with the apartheid-like state that is Isreal. Granted there is at least some political debate, but the pro-Israel lobby in Canada is much more right-wing than in the US, and for me at least, slashdot is a relatively safe place where I can post without fear of a libel suit or a hate crime suit by some right wing organization.
Well I guess you are wrong my stating that [global] warming reduces the size of deserts (Your quote: "Warming reduces the size of deserts and reduces storminess and extreme weather events."):
And you are wrong by stating that Vaclav Klaus is correct. It's amazing how people like you and Vaclav Klaus can twist and distort reality.
This FUD is at the least as bad if not worse that the RIAA and MPAA propaganda campaigns.
Here is some of the FUD and propoganda that you and Vaclav Klaus are using: - "just like in totalitarian regimes" - "history is being rewritten" - "climate alarmists" - "scientific fraud" - "those dread people" - "You simply repeat what you are told by alarmists with an extreme political agenda." -
Just like Vaclav Klaus, you speak but you say nothing. You claim people don't give a reference, but you yourself give no references. All you are doing is using propoganda, rhetoric and logical fallacies to back up your claims with absolutely NO evidence.
The poles see the first and the worst effects of global warming. For me it won't be bad unless (or until) a runaway green house effect occurs. I personally wouldn't mind warmer winters where I live, as long as my taxes didn't go to paying for things like relocating people onto higher ground, or hurricane relief, etc.
Quick Comment: I feel almost tempted to spend a couple of hours searching for references, etc on all of the very obvious evidence there is of global warming, but I'm sure there would be people as dishonest as Vaclav Klaus who have agendas, and the plain ignorant who have agenda's, who really wouldn't give two shits what I have to say.
His labeling of rational and educated people as "politically correct" and "environmentalists" is one big piece of ad hominem.
Of course there are assumptions under my model. My idea is to focus the company's efforts on quality support rather than hiring androids reading off scripts, to put it simply.
A company could, for example, have refund policies for obvious problems like defects. From my experiences as a techie companies generally do offer refunds for tech calls, they just don't advertise it, and it is often up to the customer to complain or ask for a refund.
The emphasis in my opinion should be on integrity on the company's part, and not just focusing on a bottom line numerical statistic that managers have to achieve every month. These numerical goals generally don't have very much basis in reality. I am sure there would be a lot a management types who would argue with me on this point, but as a front line worker I am standing firm.
Also, let's say for example, that the consumer saved $60.00 on the PC because technical support was not figured into the cost of the computer. The customer really wouldn't be any worse otherwise.
I do realize there are a lot of assumptions involved, but over-all I think it is a better idea. I think customers would rather pay for good support up-front than get hours on hold, being transfered, etc. for poor support or perhaps totally useless support.
Companies should just say up-front that there is no free customer support. It should not be included in the price of the PC. They shouldn't IMHO lie to customers by saying they get free technical support when instead they will really only be dealing with a customer service representative who only has minimal support skills, product knowledge, and training.
Customers will be more satisfied to pay for support when they really need it, rather than getting the run-around and negative experiences from customer service representatives.
It is more a problem of companies giving pseudo-support, than blaming a naive customer that their cheap PC is not worth any type of quality support that can actually fix their problem.
In my experiences as a techie, the people I've seen get promoted and stay with the company are:
- People who get the customer off the phone the fastest without helping them: By transferring calls, telling customers to re-installing their OS, etc - People who go out to the local bar drinking with management (this is not an exaggeration) - People who just plain get over-friendly with management (I'd be too embarrassed myself to try such obvious ass-kissing) - People who just don't have the skills to find another job
The people I've seen not sticking with the company are always the more competent who can find higher paying jobs (no matter how marginal the pay rise would be).
I'd have to agree with the fact that your ideals don't match up to reality (at least with my many and varied experiences)in the call centre industry.
My experiences as a techie for some major Fortune 500 companies:
- MOST problems cannot be solved by following a script - Also, company knowledge bases (for the tech's) are usually outdated, inaccurate and poorly designed - People ARE willing to pay for tech support
- When I did support for M$, customers of brand name computers with OEM operating systems would call in and ask for support because they couldn't get their problems solved through the OEM call centres (M$ customer service will just charge them of course) - Customers are rarely angry unless you feed them with bullshit, keep transferring them, constantly put them on hold, etc. If you do like me and actually treat a customer like a decent human being instead of getting them off the phone as soon as possible, then you will probably not get promoted, but you will have a feeling of personal satisfaction that you actually bothered to help the customer solve their problem
Facts: - most call centres have time limits for tech calls, which means techs are pressured to get people off the phone as soon as possible instead of giving them any type of quality support
- training is often limited to 2 to 3 weeks for a specific product, with much of the training time dedicated to human resources type training, i.e. how to talk to the customer to make them feel like you are helping them, instead of actually giving the techs the technical knowledge to actually solve their problems
- techs often make things up. Yes I've experienced this as a customer and have seen other techs do this. If people don't know the answer, they will just make-up there own answer just so they don't have to deal with the problem (having the customer do something that takes a long time can help to get the customer of the phone, like doing a chkdsk)
- With one company that I was with (that I quit in disgust), a customer told me that he noticed what seemed to be a manufacturers defect in the specific brand of computer. I went to my supervisor and he said this is not true. I asked my supervisor how he knew this since I never even told him the model number. He said "good point, I'll check", about 30 seconds later he said he checked and said there was no default with the product.
- Turnover rate is high in this business. So keeping experienced techs isn't so much an issue as keeping within the short term quarterly profit margin targets
Believe me I could write a whole book about my experiences, but I think you get my point. The only thing that seems to be saving any one company from bankruptcy through customer abandonment is that all companies seem to be colluding with the lie (or exaggeration at least) that they are providing technical support.
Let's face it, if a customer had a choice of saving their computer data or just getting their computer to work properly, they will pay. Often companies with out-of-warranty customers charge $2.00 per minute, often for the same poor technical support. It is a rip-off and a cash grab for the companies involved.
Instead of projecting mental conditions onto physical entities and behaviors like gaming, people should spend more time just trying to understand addiction and obsessive compulsive behavior in general.
Just studying addictive personalities however is not as sensational or politically expedient as the more sensational avenue of linking games to violence and anti-social behavior. I'm sure a researcher can get more money by studying the latter.
A constant background culture of violence, materialism and porn
Please leave porn out of this. Please!
Seriously though, advertising only really works if you are selling something that people want (pleasure, happiness, wealth, etc). I can't see a direct analogy between the influence of advertising and the implied, indirect influence on somebody getting expelled from school and going out of his way to get a handgun and kill 17 people.
I have had the unfortunate experience of knowing people with psychotic personalities, and I can pretty much tell you that video games had no effect on there behavior. In my experience; upbringing, bullying, and genetic factors like schizophrenia play a very major role. The availability of guns can also be a problem (though guns themselves do not cause people to be violent).
"Trigger" is a synonym for "cause". Read post #19502231:
Everything has an influence on everything else; look up the Butterfly Effect. Your argument is convenient in that it only applies to minors. I could make the same analogy as to why their should be bans and limits to exposing children to religion, but I just don't see any political will or enthusiasm. More people have died from the influences of religion than from video games.
I can't read your mind, so I don't know whether you are trying to be Funny, a Troll, or if you are in fact serious. My first guess would be Funny. I suppose Trolling could be a trigger for rape and murder as well.
Everything has an influence on everything else; look up the Butterfly Effect. Your argument is convenient in that it only applies to minors. I could make the same analogy as to why their should be bans and limits to exposing children to religion, but I just don't see any political will or enthusiasm. More people have died from the influences of religion than from video games.
Two reasons why politicians want to scape-goat violent videos games for the perceived demise of society:
1) Boost their popularity by portraying themselves as crime fighters who are protecting the children 2) An excuse to get rid of (or at least limit) things they just don't like or want
It's interesting: - that this crime was committed by a 19 year old, which would be considered a legal adult in most countries (except for the US where you have to be 21 to enjoy full legal status, i.e. the alcohol laws) - they don't blame guns - they haven't looked into the social life and influences of this person other than he played a video game(s)
Point in fact: - rape and murder are not caused by pornography, video games, rock and roll, Drugs, or any of the other usual suspects. False analogies are just that - false. It's too hard for them to find the real answers to social problems like spending money for after school programs, and providing people with proper social housing, medical and social support for psychiatric programs, etc... the list goes on. Simplifying the cause of a murder to a video game is so ludicrous it would be laughable if it were not true.
When I was a kid I wondered why adults are so stupid. As an adult I still wonder.
First things first. Let's make this clear: I am not, nor have I ever said I was "pro-drug" I am not, nor have I ever said I was "anti-drug" I am not, nor have I ever claimed to be an expert. Anybody here can be said to be an armchair critic, including yourself.
KKlaus, I assure you that I do not take offense at your analysis of my observations of the prejudices and injustices I see in the world as being "pro-drug crap".
Let's have a little background: My first "essay"/write-up of the issue of Drugs was at the tender age of twelve, when there were a lot of scary TV shows and documentaries about people doing drugs and jumping off of buildings, and people seeing snakes slithering across their bodies. It was fascinating to me, and so my interest in Drugs began. My first bit of scholarly research was actually at the elementary school library. It was a naive bit of scholarship that mainly involved talking about all the negative things Drugs will do to you. When I was 13/14 years old I moved onto reading pamphlets from the science organization in the city that dealt with the research of Drugs and addiction. These were much more objective and science based. When I was 14 I began reading more books about Drugs from my local high school library, and later at the Public library. I read everything I could find about the psychological, neurological, physiological, social, historical and legal aspect of Drugs. When I went onto university I discovered the medical library. I was in awe.
Yes, I then went onto university. No I never studied Drugs formerly at university, but I did get a lot of education in the Social Sciences that better helped me to analyze the world around me in a logical and systematic manner (and yes, I did keep up my interest in Drugs, but to a lesser extent.) I quickly realized that most people really didn't give a shit about my opinion no matter how much research I did. After-all, if it is commonly known that folklores are true, then disputing folklores just makes you a deviant. I assure you that I never take offense at anybody who implies or categorically states that I am full of crap.
I know that none of this research makes me an expert, and I assure you that all of the hours and years of research I did just for the sheer love and interest of learning, and the opinions that I have made based on this research, is not going to cause me to be offended, just because you think my researched opinion is "pro-drug crap".
A look at your arguments I did look at your arguments, and I thank you for your feedback. My "pro-drug crap" opinions are listed below. They will mainly be in point form and without reference. I can't really see the point of doing a 30 page write-up after all. People need to research and critically evaluate on there own how real these opinions are for them.
Point 1: "most people are simply not of the quality it would take to live in an environment with fully legalized drugs along the lines of coke, meth, etc."
Response: I would not even attempt to formulate a hypothesis as to whether people are capable of making their own decisions. It is irrelevant and a moot point. People WILL make decisions regardless of legality. Of course you can legally try to stop people from doing what they want to do, but where there is a will, there is a way. Whether it be about meth, downloading warez, or sky diving; you can't effectively control what people do, but you can punish people for what they do. Laws have always been ineffectual at stopping people from being criminals. Laws are only really good at punishing people, and to a lesser extent "rehabilitating" people if they aren't too far out of the normal range of deviance.
Point 2: The problem is that with heroin at your local CVS, you're going to have a hard time convincing people that drug use is morally wrong, and you can't scare them anymore with jail time, etc.
A) "heroin at your local CVS" Response: Oh my we're stretching things a litt
BTW, the Surgeon General in the US stated that tobacco is more addictive than heroine. Call it FUD or call it informative. This is the information the US people are being told.
For the uninformed: morphine is a by-product of heroine metabolism in the human body.
Now to begin: First off... you are wrong when you state morphine and codeine are not addictive; refer to my original post.
Second, you are wrong when you state morphine and codeine are totally safe; refer to my original post.
What I did say is that heroine is not more harmful than alcohol. This is true. There are many physical, psychological, and social problems associated with the legal use of alcohol, that are just plain absent with the use of legal and regulated use heroine.
Your FUD and flamebait are amazingly naive. Going into a coma with a government regulated dose of heroine is highly spurious.
Again, I have to post here just to stop the folklore of myths out there. Heroin is NOT more harmful than alcohol. It is more addictive than alcohol, yes. Like a previous AC poster stated, people can live their entire lives addicted to heroin and be very healthy and productive citizens. The problem arises when heroin is made illigal:
- Prices are artificially inflated, and cause those who are addicted to commit crime to support their addiction - Diseases like AIDS and hepatitis are spread to the general population because people often cannot get clean needles - Jails are overburdened with people that have mental problems - Police resources are wasted - Taxes are wasted
The ignorance of the general population to legislate things that they don't bother educating themselves about is astounding. If we could get the police out of our school system telling us how bad Drugs are and actually have (unbiased) scientists and psychologists telling us the truth instead of the FUD, then there may very well be some hope for the drug problem that the government has largely created.
The fact is, legalization does NOT increase drug use. It merely legitimizes it. (I've read scientific studies on this from the past, when Reagen intrigued me with his "War on Drugs" bullshit). I can guarantee you that people who do not want to do drugs today, will not want to do drugs tomorrow just because they are legal.
Legalization will just get rid of the criminals (thugs, murderers, etc), and stop criminalizing the victims (those prone to addiction, etc).
Why we would want to spend thousands of dollars a year per person (for sometimes many, many years) putting people in jail because they have a psychological problem defies any sense of logic (to me).
Although saying it is government's responsibility to protect citizens may be true, it is an over-broad generalization, and the vagueness of the term "protect" can be easily defined to mean almost anything.
Gambling is not addictive, just like guns do not kill people. There are addictive personalities however. I believe there are already laws that protect people with addictive personalities from being exploited by casino's. These laws can also be used with online casino's (if they are not already). Granted no laws or regulations are foolproof, as no law will ever be.
If you take an addiction prone individuals vice away, then that person will just use another vice, or even worse, go underground where he will be less likely to be controlled or monitored, and where there will be absolutely no laws or regulations protecting that person at all.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it would have been more relevant for M. Moore to have just done a comparison of people in US city's who don't lock their doors compared to Canadian city's. It would have been more expensive to do this, but it would have been more honest. Otherwise he should have never made that statement, and his editors should have made sure that wasn't included in the final cut. Yes it's just a documentary, but what a much better documentary it would have been.
BTW, I happen to agree with most of Moore's sentiments, I just wish he would present them better (without the non-sense). I do for example agree that Canada's health care system is better than the US, but from what I have seen so far from this topic, I'm avoiding saying anything about that just because it seems more likely to get into a flame war, and I don't want to have to spend hours searching for references just to back up my claims.
You forced me to do a Google. I was pretty sure my memory was correct. It's the type of thing I wouldn't forget since I live in Toronto:
i ng-for-columbine-script-transcript.html
http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/b/bowl
Quote:
"Even here, in Toronto, a city of millions, people just didn't lock their doors."
Think Tanks are largely created for political reasons. There might be some truth to what comes out of them, but realize the biases involved.
If Michael Moore was more objective and used less propaganda, he would probably be a lot more relevant.
I remember scene in Bowling for Columbine when he stated people in Toronto don't lock their doors. This is an exaggeration to put it mildly.
He has some interesting ideas, too bad I can't take them seriously because he just props up his own biases. Yes I will probably end up (eventually) watching his movie, but more for the reasons I would watch Plan 9 from Outer Space, than I would for a purely educational experience.
Since there seems to be an idea that my post was Flamebait (perhaps it is, but it was certainly not meant to be), I will simply state this:
Yes, I should have probably stated facts and references instead of just stating my opinions. Since I thought much of this information was fairly easily available and common knowledge, I didn't think I would get too much opposition. However, just doing a quick search on Google reveals more extremist Web sites on both sides of the issue rather than anything I would consider moderate.
There has been a lot more moderate and reasoned reporting on the Canadian Broadcast Corporation, as well as documentaries from the CBC, than on most Web sites I have found. You can check out Ideas http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/calendar/index.html (I don't have any specific references to any shows, but it's an excellent plug non-the-less). You can also check out http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Main_Page, which brings a more independent perspective compared to US news channels for example (critically judge everything of course, and keep and open mind). It should be stated though, that the late owner of Global News (another Canadian broadcaster) publicly stated that CBC is anti-semitic. Anybody who is familiar with the CBC would quickly realize that this is just political fear mongering.
Yes I am quite aware of the complexities of the issues of the Middle East and Israel. No I am not imminently afraid of going to jail for a hate crime. As I stated though, it is a _concern_, based on the political environment, that I could at least be accused of a hate crime, and possibly even have to go to court. I would definitely be more comfortable staying at least semi-anonymous rather than having some political organization call me anti-semitic or accuse me of a hate crime. It is a concern, however real it to be.
I assure you I have no love for the dictatorships in the Middle East or elsewhere, and that I fully support the US invasion of Afghanistan (although Iraq is another story).
I suppose we could get into the semantics of what I mean by "stealing" land. In reality, if some one came to my house and said I have to leave, then yes I would consider that stealing (to put it at its simplest).
I do have a VERY strong impression that a lot of posters here are just political zealots. I don't think anybody here could convince me that taking land from the Palestinians is good just because of political and religious history.
I do respect the moderation, and will be more careful and thoughtful with what I post. I may very well have been over-confident since this was so far my first "Flambait" posting (I've only been posting for about a month). I will take all opinions regarding this post into consideration. The more moderate and reasoned the opinions, the more they will have weight on me (and others).
In reality (not just on Slashdot). Israel usually is wrong.
I don't think you can bash a whole community for the fact that:
1. Israel stole and continues to steal land from a very economically small and politically marginal community.
2. Israel is pretty much a defacto religious state that holds up the religious beliefs and values of their largest supporter: the USA.
3. It is no surprise to me that anybody would lose a lawsuit in the US for countering the pro-Israel lobby, much less in a small claims court where Judge Judy types have pretty much free reign to do what they want.
Where I live (in Canada), there are serious concerns about being charged with a hate crime and being accused of being a racist for publicly disagreeing with the apartheid-like state that is Isreal. Granted there is at least some political debate, but the pro-Israel lobby in Canada is much more right-wing than in the US, and for me at least, slashdot is a relatively safe place where I can post without fear of a libel suit or a hate crime suit by some right wing organization.
Well I guess you are wrong my stating that [global] warming reduces the size of deserts
. htm
(Your quote: "Warming reduces the size of deserts and reduces storminess and extreme weather events."):
http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/2006/Update61
And you are wrong by stating that Vaclav Klaus is correct.
It's amazing how people like you and Vaclav Klaus can twist and distort reality.
This FUD is at the least as bad if not worse that the RIAA and MPAA propaganda campaigns.
Here is some of the FUD and propoganda that you and Vaclav Klaus are using:
- "just like in totalitarian regimes"
- "history is being rewritten"
- "climate alarmists"
- "scientific fraud"
- "those dread people"
- "You simply repeat what you are told by alarmists with an extreme political agenda."
-
Just like Vaclav Klaus, you speak but you say nothing. You claim people don't give a reference, but you yourself give no references. All you are doing is using propoganda, rhetoric and logical fallacies to back up your claims with absolutely NO evidence.
For the Inuit think global warming is a problem:
% 20comes%20to%20baffin%20island/107920
"For the Inuit, global warming is not a scientific theory"
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/world/kyoto
The poles see the first and the worst effects of global warming. For me it won't be bad unless (or until) a runaway green house effect occurs. I personally wouldn't mind warmer winters where I live, as long as my taxes didn't go to paying for things like relocating people onto higher ground, or hurricane relief, etc.
Quick Comment:
I feel almost tempted to spend a couple of hours searching for references, etc on all of the very obvious evidence there is of global warming, but I'm sure there would be people as dishonest as Vaclav Klaus who have agendas, and the plain ignorant who have agenda's, who really wouldn't give two shits what I have to say.
His labeling of rational and educated people as "politically correct" and "environmentalists" is one big piece of ad hominem.
Yes life is complicated :)
Of course there are assumptions under my model. My idea is to focus the company's efforts on quality support rather than hiring androids reading off scripts, to put it simply.
A company could, for example, have refund policies for obvious problems like defects. From my experiences as a techie companies generally do offer refunds for tech calls, they just don't advertise it, and it is often up to the customer to complain or ask for a refund.
The emphasis in my opinion should be on integrity on the company's part, and not just focusing on a bottom line numerical statistic that managers have to achieve every month. These numerical goals generally don't have very much basis in reality. I am sure there would be a lot a management types who would argue with me on this point, but as a front line worker I am standing firm.
Also, let's say for example, that the consumer saved $60.00 on the PC because technical support was not figured into the cost of the computer. The customer really wouldn't be any worse otherwise.
I do realize there are a lot of assumptions involved, but over-all I think it is a better idea. I think customers would rather pay for good support up-front than get hours on hold, being transfered, etc. for poor support or perhaps totally useless support.
I really wasn't sure. Thanks for clarifying that.
Companies should just say up-front that there is no free customer support. It should not be included in the price of the PC. They shouldn't IMHO lie to customers by saying they get free technical support when instead they will really only be dealing with a customer service representative who only has minimal support skills, product knowledge, and training.
Customers will be more satisfied to pay for support when they really need it, rather than getting the run-around and negative experiences from customer service representatives.
It is more a problem of companies giving pseudo-support, than blaming a naive customer that their cheap PC is not worth any type of quality support that can actually fix their problem.
In my experiences as a techie, the people I've seen get promoted and stay with the company are:
- People who get the customer off the phone the fastest without helping them:
By transferring calls, telling customers to re-installing their OS, etc
- People who go out to the local bar drinking with management (this is not an exaggeration)
- People who just plain get over-friendly with management (I'd be too embarrassed myself to try such obvious ass-kissing)
- People who just don't have the skills to find another job
The people I've seen not sticking with the company are always the more competent who can find higher paying jobs (no matter how marginal the pay rise would be).
I'd have to agree with the fact that your ideals don't match up to reality (at least with my many and varied experiences)in the call centre industry.
My experiences as a techie for some major Fortune 500 companies:
- MOST problems cannot be solved by following a script
- Also, company knowledge bases (for the tech's) are usually outdated, inaccurate and poorly designed
- People ARE willing to pay for tech support
- When I did support for M$, customers of brand name computers with OEM operating systems would call in and ask for support because they couldn't get their problems solved through the OEM call centres (M$ customer service will just charge them of course)
- Customers are rarely angry unless you feed them with bullshit, keep transferring them, constantly put them on hold, etc. If you do like me and actually treat a customer like a decent human being instead of getting them off the phone as soon as possible, then you will probably not get promoted, but you will have a feeling of personal satisfaction that you actually bothered to help the customer solve their problem
Facts:
- most call centres have time limits for tech calls, which means techs are pressured to get people off the phone as soon as possible instead of giving them any type of quality support
- training is often limited to 2 to 3 weeks for a specific product, with much of the training time dedicated to human resources type training, i.e. how to talk to the customer to make them feel like you are helping them, instead of actually giving the techs the technical knowledge to actually solve their problems
- techs often make things up. Yes I've experienced this as a customer and have seen other techs do this. If people don't know the answer, they will just make-up there own answer just so they don't have to deal with the problem (having the customer do something that takes a long time can help to get the customer of the phone, like doing a chkdsk)
- With one company that I was with (that I quit in disgust), a customer told me that he noticed what seemed to be a manufacturers defect in the specific brand of computer. I went to my supervisor and he said this is not true. I asked my supervisor how he knew this since I never even told him the model number. He said "good point, I'll check", about 30 seconds later he said he checked and said there was no default with the product.
- Turnover rate is high in this business. So keeping experienced techs isn't so much an issue as keeping within the short term quarterly profit margin targets
Believe me I could write a whole book about my experiences, but I think you get my point. The only thing that seems to be saving any one company from bankruptcy through customer abandonment is that all companies seem to be colluding with the lie (or exaggeration at least) that they are providing technical support.
Let's face it, if a customer had a choice of saving their computer data or just getting their computer to work properly, they will pay. Often companies with out-of-warranty customers charge $2.00 per minute, often for the same poor technical support. It is a rip-off and a cash grab for the companies involved.
Instead of projecting mental conditions onto physical entities and behaviors like gaming, people should spend more time just trying to understand addiction and obsessive compulsive behavior in general.
Just studying addictive personalities however is not as sensational or politically expedient as the more sensational avenue of linking games to violence and anti-social behavior. I'm sure a researcher can get more money by studying the latter.
Please leave porn out of this. Please!
Seriously though, advertising only really works if you are selling something that people want (pleasure, happiness, wealth, etc). I can't see a direct analogy between the influence of advertising and the implied, indirect influence on somebody getting expelled from school and going out of his way to get a handgun and kill 17 people.
I have had the unfortunate experience of knowing people with psychotic personalities, and I can pretty much tell you that video games had no effect on there behavior. In my experience; upbringing, bullying, and genetic factors like schizophrenia play a very major role. The availability of guns can also be a problem (though guns themselves do not cause people to be violent).
I can't read your mind, so I don't know whether you are trying to be Funny, a Troll, or if you are in fact serious. My first guess would be Funny. I suppose Trolling could be a trigger for rape and murder as well.
Everything has an influence on everything else; look up the Butterfly Effect. Your argument is convenient in that it only applies to minors. I could make the same analogy as to why their should be bans and limits to exposing children to religion, but I just don't see any political will or enthusiasm. More people have died from the influences of religion than from video games.
Two reasons why politicians want to scape-goat violent videos games for the perceived demise of society:
1) Boost their popularity by portraying themselves as crime fighters who are protecting the children
2) An excuse to get rid of (or at least limit) things they just don't like or want
It's interesting:
- that this crime was committed by a 19 year old, which would be considered a legal adult in most countries (except for the US where you have to be 21 to enjoy full legal status, i.e. the alcohol laws)
- they don't blame guns
- they haven't looked into the social life and influences of this person other than he played a video game(s)
Point in fact:
- rape and murder are not caused by pornography, video games, rock and roll, Drugs, or any of the other usual suspects. False analogies are just that - false. It's too hard for them to find the real answers to social problems like spending money for after school programs, and providing people with proper social housing, medical and social support for psychiatric programs, etc... the list goes on. Simplifying the cause of a murder to a video game is so ludicrous it would be laughable if it were not true.
When I was a kid I wondered why adults are so stupid. As an adult I still wonder.
First things first. Let's make this clear:
I am not, nor have I ever said I was "pro-drug"
I am not, nor have I ever said I was "anti-drug"
I am not, nor have I ever claimed to be an expert.
Anybody here can be said to be an armchair critic, including yourself.
KKlaus, I assure you that I do not take offense at your analysis of my observations of the prejudices and injustices I see in the world as being "pro-drug crap".
Let's have a little background:
My first "essay"/write-up of the issue of Drugs was at the tender age of twelve, when there were a lot of scary TV shows and documentaries about people doing drugs and jumping off of buildings, and people seeing snakes slithering across their bodies. It was fascinating to me, and so my interest in Drugs began. My first bit of scholarly research was actually at the elementary school library. It was a naive bit of scholarship that mainly involved talking about all the negative things Drugs will do to you. When I was 13/14 years old I moved onto reading pamphlets from the science organization in the city that dealt with the research of Drugs and addiction. These were much more objective and science based. When I was 14 I began reading more books about Drugs from my local high school library, and later at the Public library. I read everything I could find about the psychological, neurological, physiological, social, historical and legal aspect of Drugs. When I went onto university I discovered the medical library. I was in awe.
Yes, I then went onto university. No I never studied Drugs formerly at university, but I did get a lot of education in the Social Sciences that better helped me to analyze the world around me in a logical and systematic manner (and yes, I did keep up my interest in Drugs, but to a lesser extent.) I quickly realized that most people really didn't give a shit about my opinion no matter how much research I did. After-all, if it is commonly known that folklores are true, then disputing folklores just makes you a deviant. I assure you that I never take offense at anybody who implies or categorically states that I am full of crap.
I know that none of this research makes me an expert, and I assure you that all of the hours and years of research I did just for the sheer love and interest of learning, and the opinions that I have made based on this research, is not going to cause me to be offended, just because you think my researched opinion is "pro-drug crap".
A look at your arguments
I did look at your arguments, and I thank you for your feedback. My "pro-drug crap" opinions are listed below. They will mainly be in point form and without reference. I can't really see the point of doing a 30 page write-up after all. People need to research and critically evaluate on there own how real these opinions are for them.
Point 1:
"most people are simply not of the quality it would take to live in an environment with fully legalized drugs along the lines of coke, meth, etc."
Response:
I would not even attempt to formulate a hypothesis as to whether people are capable of making their own decisions.
It is irrelevant and a moot point. People WILL make decisions regardless of legality. Of course you can legally try to stop people from doing what they want to do, but where there is a will, there is a way. Whether it be about meth, downloading warez, or sky diving; you can't effectively control what people do, but you can punish people for what they do. Laws have always been ineffectual at stopping people from being criminals. Laws are only really good at punishing people, and to a lesser extent "rehabilitating" people if they aren't too far out of the normal range of deviance.
Point 2:
The problem is that with heroin at your local CVS, you're going to have a hard time convincing people that drug use is morally wrong, and you can't scare them anymore with jail time, etc.
A)
"heroin at your local CVS"
Response:
Oh my we're stretching things a litt
BTW, the Surgeon General in the US stated that tobacco is more addictive than heroine. Call it FUD or call it informative. This is the information the US people are being told.
For the uninformed: morphine is a by-product of heroine metabolism in the human body.
Now to begin:
First off... you are wrong when you state morphine and codeine are not addictive; refer to my original post.
Second, you are wrong when you state morphine and codeine are totally safe; refer to my original post.
What I did say is that heroine is not more harmful than alcohol. This is true. There are many physical, psychological, and social problems associated with the legal use of alcohol, that are just plain absent with the use of legal and regulated use heroine.
Your FUD and flamebait are amazingly naive. Going into a coma with a government regulated dose of heroine is highly spurious.
Again, I have to post here just to stop the folklore of myths out there. Heroin is NOT more harmful than alcohol. It is more addictive than alcohol, yes. Like a previous AC poster stated, people can live their entire lives addicted to heroin and be very healthy and productive citizens. The problem arises when heroin is made illigal:
- Prices are artificially inflated, and cause those who are addicted to commit crime to support their addiction
- Diseases like AIDS and hepatitis are spread to the general population because people often cannot get clean needles
- Jails are overburdened with people that have mental problems
- Police resources are wasted
- Taxes are wasted
The ignorance of the general population to legislate things that they don't bother educating themselves about is astounding. If we could get the police out of our school system telling us how bad Drugs are and actually have (unbiased) scientists and psychologists telling us the truth instead of the FUD, then there may very well be some hope for the drug problem that the government has largely created.
The fact is, legalization does NOT increase drug use. It merely legitimizes it. (I've read scientific studies on this from the past, when Reagen intrigued me with his "War on Drugs" bullshit). I can guarantee you that people who do not want to do drugs today, will not want to do drugs tomorrow just because they are legal.
Legalization will just get rid of the criminals (thugs, murderers, etc), and stop criminalizing the victims (those prone to addiction, etc).
Why we would want to spend thousands of dollars a year per person (for sometimes many, many years) putting people in jail because they have a psychological problem defies any sense of logic (to me).
Although saying it is government's responsibility to protect citizens may be true, it is an over-broad generalization, and the vagueness of the term "protect" can be easily defined to mean almost anything.
Gambling is not addictive, just like guns do not kill people. There are addictive personalities however. I believe there are already laws that protect people with addictive personalities from being exploited by casino's. These laws can also be used with online casino's (if they are not already). Granted no laws or regulations are foolproof, as no law will ever be.
If you take an addiction prone individuals vice away, then that person will just use another vice, or even worse, go underground where he will be less likely to be controlled or monitored, and where there will be absolutely no laws or regulations protecting that person at all.