That's a good point. I wasn't _trying_ to desensitize myself at all. In fact, I did my best to maintain my sensitivity and I guess I succeeded. Perhaps the goal in viewing such material has an effect on what the outcome is.
Your goal of becoming desensitized interests me. It reminds me of someone who wants to feel no pain, so they subject themselves to intense pain regularly. I have no idea if this would work, but I wouldn't be surprised. Perhaps that should be your next project?;)
When I finally saw the pictures of the burnt corpses getting poked with shovels, my first reaction was "what's the big deal".
I have avoided those pictures sofar. Even just hearing the story has made me sad. But I don't know if "what's the big deal" is a very healthy reaction. Do you likewise feel "what's the big deal" that we're now bombing Fallujah? Just more burnt corpses, you know. I'm guessing you don't feel that way?
But here's my point: just because I am (or would be) affected by the images doesn't mean I'm not rational about it. I see horror and I am horrified. Then I try to figure out how I/we can avoid such horror. In this specific case I figure we probably shouldn't be invading other countries to start with.
As far as having a rational over an emotional response: you make the mistake of many intelligent men I know. Emotions are not a liability. They are an important and useful tool. The key is to not be overpowered by them. I have an emotional reaction to such images, but that does not in any way prevent me from behaving rationally. My emotions allow me to empathize with and understand (to some degree) other people and their reactions. Then my rational side takes that information into account along with other pertient facts and only then do I react.
Now wait a second -- if this reply was intended for me specifically you are reading me all wrong. First off: I know all about man's inhumanity to man. I use "humanity" in a figurative sense -- this is a common idiom. Although I agree with you that it is almost an ironic term. Mankind has been absolutely brutal throughout history. I am _well_ aware of this.
As to the dead Iraqis being glossed over -- dont confuse me or anyone else with the government or the media. I am heartbroken over what is happening in Iraq. I do not think that some videotaped suicide is somehow worse than war. That is a ridiculouse idea.
Still -- I _do_ find it interesting that people _want_ to see the footage. Whether it's war or suicide or whatever: I have a hard time understanding why people would want to watch real life cruelty for entertainment. And yes, I saw "Gladiator";) But whether it's yesterday or today: I still don't get the motivation.
It's interesting how differently people react to seeing this kind of stuff. I used to work at LinkExchange as a banner/site checker. My job was to seek out objectionable material on sites before letting them in the network. During the year I did it, I saw a lot of nasty stuff. Gory photos from crime scenes, child pornography, rape clips, etc... in my judgement most of it was real.
I never got desensitized. Every time I came across a site that looked like it might contain such content, I'd break into a cold sweat. I'd search cautiously and if I found something I'd quickly squint my eyes and navigate to the "ban" button. And my day would thus be ruined. The image would stick in my head for hours (if not days) and make me sick to my stomach. To this day I get the same reaction to such content. I am still very sensitive to the sight of real violence. I avoid it whenever I can.
On the flip side, I have no problem at all with movie violence. I can watch loads of sensationalized gore. I can enjoy movies like Evil Dead 2 and Seven without batting an eyelash. In fact I even made a reasonably violent indie film of my own.
I am sometimes deeply affected by realistic, emotionally charged film violence, like that in Schindler's List -- though not to the degree that snuff affects me.
I have occasionally had friends email me pictures or movies to "check out! funny!" and then watched a guy have his leg broken in half. Ha ha.
I don't really understand how so many people can watch real violence/suffering and find it entertaining, even in a morbidly curious way. However, I admit that many fine people I know can watch it and not lose their humanity. I'm sure there are people here who can't understand how I can watch movie violence and maintain my humanity.
I don't have a point. Just reporting:) Cheers.
The best way to get your running shoes...
on
Running for Geeks
·
· Score: 4, Informative
...is to order them from Zappos.com:) Shameless plug, I know... but how else are you going to buy shoes from geeks?
The system runs on FreeBSD, Linux, Apache, MySQL and is written in perl. The warehouse of over half a million shoes is completely computer sorted by unique barcodes on each box and shelf. The whole system for which was designed and implemented inhouse by our small team (thee coders, at the time). We offer free shipping and free return shipping so there's no risk, and we respond faster than any other online retailer.
It's equally silly to think that enforcing scarcity and central control will work in our digital networked world.
I'm not even stating my opinion on whether any of the current happenings are right or wrong. Only that the future is going to be very different from the past and anyone trying to hold on to their old ways is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
It's just about trust. Google hasn't violated it yet. It may seem naive, but it's actually the most effective way to interact: give someone the benefit of the doubt until they screw you over, then screw them over in equal measure.
Yeah, and our mouths contain more bacteria than our genitals.
Germs shmerms.
I keep myself clean with mild soap and water and I don't worry so much about the world around me. I never use antibacterial anything (including antibiotics if possible). My immune system is strong and I very rarely get sick.
And no, I'm not a stinky Baja wearing hippy. I always smell good and look tidy. As does my workplace.
There seems to be a movement in the media to make everyone obsessive-compulsive over germs and everything else too. Our immune systems are the best at handling that job. Include some basic hygene and you're golden. Any more effort by us to intervene and things usually go downhill.
Sure, there may be some small tweaks that can make the brain run a little more efficiently, but I'm convinced that it's what we learn, when, and how that make us "smarter".
Think about the difference between a fresh untrained neural net that runs on a G4 vs. a G5. Big whoop. They're both useless. The G5 can be trained a little faster, but you probably wouldn't notice much difference until the speed differential was greater. Number of neurons is probably more critical, but again, only when huge differences are seen.
True enough... I was referring to the portion of the comment that claimed "Processing power is way beyond what the average person needs.". OS bloat (as in, size of installation) isn't a problem in that regard. OS bloat as in overhead is, though.
Who cares... disk is so cheap. Memory is so cheap. Processing power is way beyond what the average person needs.
I'm quite tired of this untrue meme. Yes, things are cheaper and faster than they were. My computer still feels slow.
The thing is that people expect more of their computers these days than when you formed your opinion of what was "enough". People who think that software can bloat because of Moore's Law (and it's derivitives) are ignoring the fact that people's demands and expectations from their computer also double every 18 months.
Personally, I can always outstrip the comuter I have. Right now I'm doing most of my work on a top of the line 17" Powerbook that's maxed out. It blows away every other computer I have used... and it still feels too slow sometimes. Like when I'm throwing around huge audio and video files. Or when it makes the slightest pause opening or closing a window... rendering a menu...
Even my mom, who is just a casual home user, says her 2Ghz tower sometimes feels slow. Sure, the computer spends 99.9% of it's time waiting for her, but when she clicks something it isn't instantly responsive -- like a lightswitch. And until it's instant like a lightswitch people want it faster. There are studies that indicate that interface lag on the scale of milliseconds hinders efficient work.
But even on todays computers I can wait whole seconds for common actions to take place, and minutes (or hours!) for others.
So please stop the "things are good enough" mantra.
Speaking of "sufficiently dire" consequences. It is funny how individuals can be imprisoned or killed but corporations really cannot. They just get fined. I wonder how people would feel if the worst criminals were just fined larger and larger sums for their crimes. Probably not very good.
What would be the equivelant punishment for a corporation? Disolving them? Imprisoning the board of directors?
I always thought that punitive damages, as they are now, make no sense. I mean, I think it's really important to dole out meaningful punishment to super-rich corporations when they've done somethng illegal -- so punitive limits don't seem like a good idea. But then it makes little sense to award someone more money based on how rich the perpetrator was.
I guess I think that the award should be limited, but the damages to the perpetrator don't need to be. The money collected should go into some court fund... perhaps to pay for DA's and stuff. Or maybe to an agency that works to prevent the crime at hand? I don't know. But I'd sure rather have the punitive damages go to someone other than some lucky plaintiff and their greedy lawyer, assuming they've already been fairly compensated.
Though I'm not the original poster, I'll answer this from my perspective:
How can you be opposed to increasing profit margins (squeezing pennies) and for making profits.
Easy: when you're making a profit, you keep making it instead of finding ways to make an even bigger profit.
At first blush this probably sounds naive, business ignorant, and perhaps even anti-American. But here's the problem as I see it:
A company cannot grow and increase profits forever. It's simply not possible. But this is what public companies are required to do in the current climate. Making a billion dollar profit is not good enough unless you can double it each year. Since that is simply impossible in the long term, the stock market price is just a gamble on when they'll fail. In my mind it is only a hairs bredth difference from any other Ponzi scheme, which are illegal.
Public companies have a gun to their head. They must maintain an endless upward growth or risk being sued. Once they've taken the low-hanging fruit like basic operational efficiency, they've got to turn to ever more and more nefarious means of securing next years growth. Not profits, mind you, but growth of profits.
It used to be that a company could at some point declare victory in their market, continue working hard with high profits (but little growth) and pay dividends on their stock. But most financial folk will say that dividends are a sign of failure these days.
Privately held companies are bit better off, as they can rake in oodles of money and feel good, as opposed to feeling scared that they have to beat today's number at all costs tomorrow.
If I'm having fun (in the real world or elsewhere) and someone makes a point of messing with me, it's harassment. Don't get hung up on how I have fun or whether you think it's fun or useful or not. I am free to pursue hapiness in whatever form I choose so long as I'm not interfering with others hapiness.
Of course, just as in the real world someone elses hapiness may depend on my being unhappy. But traditionally the line has been drawn there: the one overtly trying to mess with others loses.
So, to reiterate: virtual shmitual. You mess with people, you pay the price.
Only if one violates the licence. This is true of any software. It should always be dangerous to violate the license. In fact, SCO's whole gripe is that IBM violated their licence -- so this attack has nothing to do with OSS and everything to do with breaking the law.
Like I said -- if it looks used, no. But if you try it on around the house a few times, over the course of a year, then decide it's just not your style or something, then yes.
If it's defective or you have some other good story, we're willing to talk. In the end, if you're irate and otherwise insatiable we would probably give you a refund, apologize, and you could take your business elsewhere.
The basic point is, you do your best. Not allowing a customer to return a pristine computer because they swapped out the hard drive for him is not their best. They're just being lazy and putting short term convenience ahead of long term customer satisfaction (which result in profits).
you can see Apple's point. He gets it and doesn't like it, sends it back, and they have to pull out the RAM, extra HDs - a giant pain in the arse. Why should they?
Ha ha ha! That's pretty funny!
They should do it because it's their job to please their customers and it makes for good business. Anything less is basically stupid. That's right: stupid.
I work for a company that bends over backwards to please our customers. We just instated a 365 day return policy. And we offer free return shipping. Yes, it's a giant pain in the arse. It costs us extra money. But customers love it. They always thank us, tell us how rare good treatment is, and pledge their loyalty when we go the extra mile like that. In the end, we've spent a little extra to do these things and got back tenfold in repeat business and word of mouth.
Sure, there are cases where a customer is trying to rip you off. If the shoes are noticably worn when they're returned, we would balk at a full refund. But in most cases the customer is returning because they're honestly unhappy. Make them happy. That is your job as a business. You may lose a little money on this, and even get screwed occasionally by a complete jerk that you misidentified, but in the end you'll be better off because most people are respectable and fair and they appreciate being treated that way.
Cheers.
PS -- feel free to trash me for criticizing Apple. I'm a non-zealot Mac user so I'm used to it:)
Anyway, why would I want to play a game of this sort on my iPod?... If I wanted choose-your-adventure, I'd pick up one of those books
Well, if we assume that the iPod one is well written, you might choose it since that's the only medium it's available in. It's not like all the choose-your-own-adventures are interchangable:)
Just like I still boot up my crappy PC to play CounterStrike even though I'd much rather use my Mac:)
But you're right that it would be fairly clunky. I guess I'm thinking that choose-your-own-adventures are a somewhat immersive experience (relative to solitaire, breakout, etc), and having it on a tiny portable device might be kinda cool. That's all.
Wow -- you've obviously never read a choose-your-own-adventure book. Those are a blast. We're talking printed paper here: now that is simple and deterministic.
Also, I don't imagine that writing a good choose-your-own-adventure is easy. I don't know if this one is actually good, but for the sake of argument... it's like writing a book, but with the twist of exploring a wider set of plot possibilities.
A friend of mine wrote a wacky online choose-your-own-adventure that was quite popular back when the web was young. If you're a bit freaky the game is a real blast. I happen to know he spent months and months on it. There is no reason to think that 10 dollars for a well-thought-out game of this type would be a rip off.
And the idea that deterministic entertainment is inferior is kinda nuts -- nearly all entertainment (books, movies, music) is deterministic. You might want to give games like this a chance before trashing them.
Cheers.
(Sorry 'bout the double post, but Slashdot made me anonymous for some reason?)
I am completely baffled how a man who had his father taken away and "reeducated" by the communist government can be so cavalier about giving more power to those in power.
My only guess is that because communists overtook his country first, that he thinks that the overtaking is where the greatest danger lies. But it just doesn't wash to fear al-Queda will take over Washington. The danger is a policy of giving too much power to those in power. It doesn't matter if they're righties or lefties. Stalin and Hitler proved that as far as I'm concerned. Power is the problem.
Anyways... what do I know. My grandfather was kidnapped and tormented during the cold war for five years by the Polish secret police because they were sure he was a spy. This guy had a similar experience with his father. He wrote the PATRIOT act, I think it's the worst thing to happen to America in a long time.
Yup -- since you don't use need it, everyone else must be a fool to pay for it.
I guess the fact that I use my laptop as a portable recording studio isn't a reasonable justification? Even the top of the line 17" 1.33 Ghz can't always keep up with my realtime processing needs.
You're right in general about people buying more power than they know how to use, but there are also a lot of us who actually need that power. Personally, I am itching to get my hands on the next major powerbook revision. I doubt I'd spring for a measly 166Mhz bump, but I need all the power I can get. Definitely getting a G5 when they're available.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you didn't try hard enough.
;)
:)
That's a good point. I wasn't _trying_ to desensitize myself at all. In fact, I did my best to maintain my sensitivity and I guess I succeeded. Perhaps the goal in viewing such material has an effect on what the outcome is.
Your goal of becoming desensitized interests me. It reminds me of someone who wants to feel no pain, so they subject themselves to intense pain regularly. I have no idea if this would work, but I wouldn't be surprised. Perhaps that should be your next project?
When I finally saw the pictures of the burnt corpses getting poked with shovels, my first reaction was "what's the big deal".
I have avoided those pictures sofar. Even just hearing the story has made me sad. But I don't know if "what's the big deal" is a very healthy reaction. Do you likewise feel "what's the big deal" that we're now bombing Fallujah? Just more burnt corpses, you know. I'm guessing you don't feel that way?
But here's my point: just because I am (or would be) affected by the images doesn't mean I'm not rational about it. I see horror and I am horrified. Then I try to figure out how I/we can avoid such horror. In this specific case I figure we probably shouldn't be invading other countries to start with.
As far as having a rational over an emotional response: you make the mistake of many intelligent men I know. Emotions are not a liability. They are an important and useful tool. The key is to not be overpowered by them. I have an emotional reaction to such images, but that does not in any way prevent me from behaving rationally. My emotions allow me to empathize with and understand (to some degree) other people and their reactions. Then my rational side takes that information into account along with other pertient facts and only then do I react.
Just wanted to clear that up
Cheers.
Now wait a second -- if this reply was intended for me specifically you are reading me all wrong. First off: I know all about man's inhumanity to man. I use "humanity" in a figurative sense -- this is a common idiom. Although I agree with you that it is almost an ironic term. Mankind has been absolutely brutal throughout history. I am _well_ aware of this.
;) But whether it's yesterday or today: I still don't get the motivation.
As to the dead Iraqis being glossed over -- dont confuse me or anyone else with the government or the media. I am heartbroken over what is happening in Iraq. I do not think that some videotaped suicide is somehow worse than war. That is a ridiculouse idea.
Still -- I _do_ find it interesting that people _want_ to see the footage. Whether it's war or suicide or whatever: I have a hard time understanding why people would want to watch real life cruelty for entertainment. And yes, I saw "Gladiator"
Cheers.
It's interesting how differently people react to seeing this kind of stuff. I used to work at LinkExchange as a banner/site checker. My job was to seek out objectionable material on sites before letting them in the network. During the year I did it, I saw a lot of nasty stuff. Gory photos from crime scenes, child pornography, rape clips, etc... in my judgement most of it was real.
:) Cheers.
I never got desensitized. Every time I came across a site that looked like it might contain such content, I'd break into a cold sweat. I'd search cautiously and if I found something I'd quickly squint my eyes and navigate to the "ban" button. And my day would thus be ruined. The image would stick in my head for hours (if not days) and make me sick to my stomach. To this day I get the same reaction to such content. I am still very sensitive to the sight of real violence. I avoid it whenever I can.
On the flip side, I have no problem at all with movie violence. I can watch loads of sensationalized gore. I can enjoy movies like Evil Dead 2 and Seven without batting an eyelash. In fact I even made a reasonably violent indie film of my own.
I am sometimes deeply affected by realistic, emotionally charged film violence, like that in Schindler's List -- though not to the degree that snuff affects me.
I have occasionally had friends email me pictures or movies to "check out! funny!" and then watched a guy have his leg broken in half. Ha ha.
I don't really understand how so many people can watch real violence/suffering and find it entertaining, even in a morbidly curious way. However, I admit that many fine people I know can watch it and not lose their humanity. I'm sure there are people here who can't understand how I can watch movie violence and maintain my humanity.
I don't have a point. Just reporting
...is to order them from Zappos.com :) Shameless plug, I know... but how else are you going to buy shoes from geeks?
:)
The system runs on FreeBSD, Linux, Apache, MySQL and is written in perl. The warehouse of over half a million shoes is completely computer sorted by unique barcodes on each box and shelf. The whole system for which was designed and implemented inhouse by our small team (thee coders, at the time). We offer free shipping and free return shipping so there's no risk, and we respond faster than any other online retailer.
Okay. I'll shut up now.
Sorry -- it seemed on topic and I love my job
It's equally silly to think that enforcing scarcity and central control will work in our digital networked world.
I'm not even stating my opinion on whether any of the current happenings are right or wrong. Only that the future is going to be very different from the past and anyone trying to hold on to their old ways is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
Cheers.
It's just about trust. Google hasn't violated it yet. It may seem naive, but it's actually the most effective way to interact: give someone the benefit of the doubt until they screw you over, then screw them over in equal measure.
Read up on TIT FOR TAT.
Cheers.
"we dont want to use Open Source as dumping ground for dead technology."
:)
Um... why not? Seems like a great use for both Open Source and "dead technology" to me.
I seem to remember hearing something about Unix being dead at some point in the past
Yeah, and our mouths contain more bacteria than our genitals.
Germs shmerms.
I keep myself clean with mild soap and water and I don't worry so much about the world around me. I never use antibacterial anything (including antibiotics if possible). My immune system is strong and I very rarely get sick.
And no, I'm not a stinky Baja wearing hippy. I always smell good and look tidy. As does my workplace.
There seems to be a movement in the media to make everyone obsessive-compulsive over germs and everything else too. Our immune systems are the best at handling that job. Include some basic hygene and you're golden. Any more effort by us to intervene and things usually go downhill.
Cheers.
Sure, there may be some small tweaks that can make the brain run a little more efficiently, but I'm convinced that it's what we learn, when, and how that make us "smarter".
:)
Think about the difference between a fresh untrained neural net that runs on a G4 vs. a G5. Big whoop. They're both useless. The G5 can be trained a little faster, but you probably wouldn't notice much difference until the speed differential was greater. Number of neurons is probably more critical, but again, only when huge differences are seen.
Well, that's my uneducated opinion anyways
Cheers.
True enough... I was referring to the portion of the comment that claimed "Processing power is way beyond what the average person needs.". OS bloat (as in, size of installation) isn't a problem in that regard. OS bloat as in overhead is, though.
Cheers.
Who cares... disk is so cheap. Memory is so cheap. Processing power is way beyond what the average person needs.
I'm quite tired of this untrue meme. Yes, things are cheaper and faster than they were. My computer still feels slow.
The thing is that people expect more of their computers these days than when you formed your opinion of what was "enough". People who think that software can bloat because of Moore's Law (and it's derivitives) are ignoring the fact that people's demands and expectations from their computer also double every 18 months.
Personally, I can always outstrip the comuter I have. Right now I'm doing most of my work on a top of the line 17" Powerbook that's maxed out. It blows away every other computer I have used... and it still feels too slow sometimes. Like when I'm throwing around huge audio and video files. Or when it makes the slightest pause opening or closing a window... rendering a menu...
Even my mom, who is just a casual home user, says her 2Ghz tower sometimes feels slow. Sure, the computer spends 99.9% of it's time waiting for her, but when she clicks something it isn't instantly responsive -- like a lightswitch. And until it's instant like a lightswitch people want it faster. There are studies that indicate that interface lag on the scale of milliseconds hinders efficient work.
But even on todays computers I can wait whole seconds for common actions to take place, and minutes (or hours!) for others.
So please stop the "things are good enough" mantra.
Cheers.
Speaking of "sufficiently dire" consequences. It is funny how individuals can be imprisoned or killed but corporations really cannot. They just get fined. I wonder how people would feel if the worst criminals were just fined larger and larger sums for their crimes. Probably not very good.
What would be the equivelant punishment for a corporation? Disolving them? Imprisoning the board of directors?
Just a curious inequality...
I always thought that punitive damages, as they are now, make no sense. I mean, I think it's really important to dole out meaningful punishment to super-rich corporations when they've done somethng illegal -- so punitive limits don't seem like a good idea. But then it makes little sense to award someone more money based on how rich the perpetrator was.
I guess I think that the award should be limited, but the damages to the perpetrator don't need to be. The money collected should go into some court fund... perhaps to pay for DA's and stuff. Or maybe to an agency that works to prevent the crime at hand? I don't know. But I'd sure rather have the punitive damages go to someone other than some lucky plaintiff and their greedy lawyer, assuming they've already been fairly compensated.
Cheers.
Though I'm not the original poster, I'll answer this from my perspective:
How can you be opposed to increasing profit margins (squeezing pennies) and for making profits.
Easy: when you're making a profit, you keep making it instead of finding ways to make an even bigger profit.
At first blush this probably sounds naive, business ignorant, and perhaps even anti-American. But here's the problem as I see it:
A company cannot grow and increase profits forever. It's simply not possible. But this is what public companies are required to do in the current climate. Making a billion dollar profit is not good enough unless you can double it each year. Since that is simply impossible in the long term, the stock market price is just a gamble on when they'll fail. In my mind it is only a hairs bredth difference from any other Ponzi scheme, which are illegal.
Public companies have a gun to their head. They must maintain an endless upward growth or risk being sued. Once they've taken the low-hanging fruit like basic operational efficiency, they've got to turn to ever more and more nefarious means of securing next years growth. Not profits, mind you, but growth of profits.
It used to be that a company could at some point declare victory in their market, continue working hard with high profits (but little growth) and pay dividends on their stock. But most financial folk will say that dividends are a sign of failure these days.
Privately held companies are bit better off, as they can rake in oodles of money and feel good, as opposed to feeling scared that they have to beat today's number at all costs tomorrow.
Cheers.
If I'm having fun (in the real world or elsewhere) and someone makes a point of messing with me, it's harassment. Don't get hung up on how I have fun or whether you think it's fun or useful or not. I am free to pursue hapiness in whatever form I choose so long as I'm not interfering with others hapiness.
Of course, just as in the real world someone elses hapiness may depend on my being unhappy. But traditionally the line has been drawn there: the one overtly trying to mess with others loses.
So, to reiterate: virtual shmitual. You mess with people, you pay the price.
Cheers.
Only if one violates the licence. This is true of any software. It should always be dangerous to violate the license. In fact, SCO's whole gripe is that IBM violated their licence -- so this attack has nothing to do with OSS and everything to do with breaking the law.
Cheers.
Like I said -- if it looks used, no. But if you try it on around the house a few times, over the course of a year, then decide it's just not your style or something, then yes.
If it's defective or you have some other good story, we're willing to talk. In the end, if you're irate and otherwise insatiable we would probably give you a refund, apologize, and you could take your business elsewhere.
The basic point is, you do your best. Not allowing a customer to return a pristine computer because they swapped out the hard drive for him is not their best. They're just being lazy and putting short term convenience ahead of long term customer satisfaction (which result in profits).
Cheers.
you can see Apple's point. He gets it and doesn't like it, sends it back, and they have to pull out the RAM, extra HDs - a giant pain in the arse. Why should they?
:)
Ha ha ha! That's pretty funny!
They should do it because it's their job to please their customers and it makes for good business. Anything less is basically stupid. That's right: stupid.
I work for a company that bends over backwards to please our customers. We just instated a 365 day return policy. And we offer free return shipping. Yes, it's a giant pain in the arse. It costs us extra money. But customers love it. They always thank us, tell us how rare good treatment is, and pledge their loyalty when we go the extra mile like that. In the end, we've spent a little extra to do these things and got back tenfold in repeat business and word of mouth.
Sure, there are cases where a customer is trying to rip you off. If the shoes are noticably worn when they're returned, we would balk at a full refund. But in most cases the customer is returning because they're honestly unhappy. Make them happy. That is your job as a business. You may lose a little money on this, and even get screwed occasionally by a complete jerk that you misidentified, but in the end you'll be better off because most people are respectable and fair and they appreciate being treated that way.
Cheers.
PS -- feel free to trash me for criticizing Apple. I'm a non-zealot Mac user so I'm used to it
Anyway, why would I want to play a game of this sort on my iPod? ... If I wanted choose-your-adventure, I'd pick up one of those books
:)
:)
Well, if we assume that the iPod one is well written, you might choose it since that's the only medium it's available in. It's not like all the choose-your-own-adventures are interchangable
Just like I still boot up my crappy PC to play CounterStrike even though I'd much rather use my Mac
But you're right that it would be fairly clunky. I guess I'm thinking that choose-your-own-adventures are a somewhat immersive experience (relative to solitaire, breakout, etc), and having it on a tiny portable device might be kinda cool. That's all.
Cheers.
Wow -- you've obviously never read a choose-your-own-adventure book. Those are a blast. We're talking printed paper here: now that is simple and deterministic.
Also, I don't imagine that writing a good choose-your-own-adventure is easy. I don't know if this one is actually good, but for the sake of argument... it's like writing a book, but with the twist of exploring a wider set of plot possibilities.
A friend of mine wrote a wacky online choose-your-own-adventure that was quite popular back when the web was young. If you're a bit freaky the game is a real blast. I happen to know he spent months and months on it. There is no reason to think that 10 dollars for a well-thought-out game of this type would be a rip off.
And the idea that deterministic entertainment is inferior is kinda nuts -- nearly all entertainment (books, movies, music) is deterministic. You might want to give games like this a chance before trashing them.
Cheers.
(Sorry 'bout the double post, but Slashdot made me anonymous for some reason?)
Interesting points. Pretty odd that such a fellow was chosen to write the act.
I am completely baffled how a man who had his father taken away and "reeducated" by the communist government can be so cavalier about giving more power to those in power.
My only guess is that because communists overtook his country first, that he thinks that the overtaking is where the greatest danger lies. But it just doesn't wash to fear al-Queda will take over Washington. The danger is a policy of giving too much power to those in power. It doesn't matter if they're righties or lefties. Stalin and Hitler proved that as far as I'm concerned. Power is the problem.
Anyways... what do I know. My grandfather was kidnapped and tormented during the cold war for five years by the Polish secret police because they were sure he was a spy. This guy had a similar experience with his father. He wrote the PATRIOT act, I think it's the worst thing to happen to America in a long time.
Sigh.
Yup -- since you don't use need it, everyone else must be a fool to pay for it.
I guess the fact that I use my laptop as a portable recording studio isn't a reasonable justification? Even the top of the line 17" 1.33 Ghz can't always keep up with my realtime processing needs.
You're right in general about people buying more power than they know how to use, but there are also a lot of us who actually need that power.
Personally, I am itching to get my hands on the next major powerbook revision. I doubt I'd spring for a measly 166Mhz bump, but I need all the power I can get. Definitely getting a G5 when they're available.
Cheers.
I know. Sorry. I was trying to be funny. Guess I wasn't.
Huh... so would three spam filters be 100 times as accurate? I never thought of running them in series before. Cool! :)