At best I would call that one phrase "snarky" at best. It triggered from Dave with a V a thousand-word rant, with lots of all-capital sentences, and calling him a "bitch" at the end.
The guy's clearly got some real psychological problems. He's plagiarizing and using stolen identities. Notice in the MSNBC interview he's still constantly using obscenities, "f***" and "s***" all over the place. And this theme:
"He has a lot of connections, ones I want too.... I know a lot of people who own clubs. I know some influential people, like the guy who runs the door at the convention center... When is it big enough that it hits the news? When it hits Penny Arcade, when it hits a guy who has the biggest affiliations in the industry."
I've never heard of such an uncontrollable obsession with "connections" (whether real or fake; and this runs through all the original emails, too). As a total amateur, I'd guess something like borderline personality or sociopathy or whatever.
"'The customer is always right' means that a company should look for ways to please the customer."
I think it's false that "the customer is always right". However, what I think it means is larger-company internal dogma, coming from the top, and targeted at the peons on the bottom. In your example, you benefited from it being your "own shop", so you had the wherewithal to draw a line somewhere (including "don't come back ever again"). If you'd done that in a sufficiently large company, you'd probably be ordered by your boss to make an apology, regardless of how outrageously the customer was behaving.
I agree that the customer in the PR story clearly went uncivil first, and I was aggravated with him first. But having made that cat-scratch, seeing Christoforo supernova in a display of stupidity, obscenity, plagiarized websites, stolen identities, and sociopathy, makes it a story on a different scale.
"Where the constitution seems vague by today's standards..."
I don't think the constitution seems vague at all. It's written in very clear language. It's only vague when all the later doublethink is applied to it.
"Breaking out the doom rays on a crowd of protestors is not going to happen lightly, and if it did happen, it would not be brushed off or ignored afterwards."
Bullshit.
In my lifetime, I have now simply seen too many "if X ever happens, then mass outcry Y would occur" statements -- and when X then actually happened, a reaction of not Y but whimpering submission (if that) -- to believe any such thing anymore.
From last week: Dwight displays a porcupine in his drawer and blames it on Jim. Jim calls animal control and relays questions:
JIM: Does it look rabid? DWIGHT: Yes. JIM: Did you get get stuck with a quill? DWIGHT: Yes. JIM: And what is it's name? DWIGHT: Henrietta. JIM. Aha. [snaps phone shut] DWIGHT: Dammit!
Re:so if we annihilate ourselves in nuclear holoca
on
Is the Earth Special?
·
· Score: 1
Greyhound buses now have not 1 but 2 extra tiers of "get in front of the line":
(1) Normal routine is to get in line and board on first-come-first-served basis. (2) Or, you can pay $5 extra for "Priority Boarding" where you line up in a second queue that is input before the regular line: http://www.greyhound.com/en/dealsanddiscounts/priorityboarding.aspx (3) Or, you can pay another $5 extra for "Reserved Seating" where you line up in a third queue that is input to designated seats before either of the above: http://www.greyhound.com/en/dealsanddiscounts/efares.aspx
Of course, if enough people are convinced to take method (2) or (3), then people in line (1) might in theory never board. (Buses aren't just overbooked, tickets by default aren't for any particular bus at all.) Which would be just what Greyhound wants, I suppose, assuming that a boycott of the latter is infeasible.
"Did companies always spend this much money? Does it work? Why don't more people block it?"
To my understanding -- Yes. No. Because most people only get what mass-media tell them to, and AdBlock is not itself pushed in advertising.
Added notes -- I remember reading an article during the first contraction of online banner advertising, wherein companies were shocked to learn what a small turnover rate they had (online being the first time anyone could actually track turnover rates or other attention metrics). Personally, I take any ads I see as a mental marker to avoid doing business with those companies -- the more ads, the worse the company. Organizations with really great products/service are kept semi-secret and don't need advertising.
Only on Slashdot do I ever see anyone say this, and it perplexes me to no end. You're asking for increased surveillance and personal data-mining by corporate entities; more personally-targeted advertising; and a greater ability to affect people emotionally into making purchases. If I ask anyone I know personally if they're jonesing for more intrusive targeted advertising, the answer is always "no". I would lay odds that a public, scientific poll would go distinctly in the same direction.
Slashdot Mirror
At best I would call that one phrase "snarky" at best. It triggered from Dave with a V a thousand-word rant, with lots of all-capital sentences, and calling him a "bitch" at the end.
Interesting anecdote, thanks for sharing that.
The guy's clearly got some real psychological problems. He's plagiarizing and using stolen identities. Notice in the MSNBC interview he's still constantly using obscenities, "f***" and "s***" all over the place. And this theme:
"He has a lot of connections, ones I want too.... I know a lot of people who own clubs. I know some influential people, like the guy who runs the door at the convention center... When is it big enough that it hits the news? When it hits Penny Arcade, when it hits a guy who has the biggest affiliations in the industry."
I've never heard of such an uncontrollable obsession with "connections" (whether real or fake; and this runs through all the original emails, too). As a total amateur, I'd guess something like borderline personality or sociopathy or whatever.
"'The customer is always right' means that a company should look for ways to please the customer."
I think it's false that "the customer is always right". However, what I think it means is larger-company internal dogma, coming from the top, and targeted at the peons on the bottom. In your example, you benefited from it being your "own shop", so you had the wherewithal to draw a line somewhere (including "don't come back ever again"). If you'd done that in a sufficiently large company, you'd probably be ordered by your boss to make an apology, regardless of how outrageously the customer was behaving.
I agree that the customer in the PR story clearly went uncivil first, and I was aggravated with him first. But having made that cat-scratch, seeing Christoforo supernova in a display of stupidity, obscenity, plagiarized websites, stolen identities, and sociopathy, makes it a story on a different scale.
Fascinating post, hope this gets modded up.
No one uses Time Cube is what I meant to say. see here: http://www.timecube.com/
Hell, even the Americans rejected it and it was a American invention.
It's the only amendment with a lead-in indicating intent of use: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."
I can tell that you didn't actually look up those words in a dictionary or anything.
"...determining if we are performing above or below what is considered optimal."
optimal, adj.: most favorable or desirable; best; optimum [Webster's New World Dictionary]
How can you possibly perform above optimal?
(a) It doesn't. (b) It doesn't. I'd call that pretty clear.
"Where the constitution seems vague by today's standards..."
I don't think the constitution seems vague at all. It's written in very clear language. It's only vague when all the later doublethink is applied to it.
A lead engineer sets priorities.
"Breaking out the doom rays on a crowd of protestors is not going to happen lightly, and if it did happen, it would not be brushed off or ignored afterwards."
Bullshit.
In my lifetime, I have now simply seen too many "if X ever happens, then mass outcry Y would occur" statements -- and when X then actually happened, a reaction of not Y but whimpering submission (if that) -- to believe any such thing anymore.
"What next an EULA that prevents me from posting a bad review or the companies product?"
Already done for health care, maybe more: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/05/all-your-reviews-are-belong-to-us-medical-justice-vs-patient-free-speech.ars/
"E-ZPass Makes It Easy to Catch Cheaters" -- ABC News 8/13/2007
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3472823#.TuT-BVZqDgc
From last week: Dwight displays a porcupine in his drawer and blames it on Jim. Jim calls animal control and relays questions:
JIM: Does it look rabid?
DWIGHT: Yes.
JIM: Did you get get stuck with a quill?
DWIGHT: Yes.
JIM: And what is it's name?
DWIGHT: Henrietta.
JIM. Aha. [snaps phone shut]
DWIGHT: Dammit!
Hell yeah, Book of Revelation FTW.
This is about the best post I've seen in the thread. Thank you.
Says the guy from the capitalist society.
The margin is surveillance/tracking info, of course.
Greyhound buses now have not 1 but 2 extra tiers of "get in front of the line":
(1) Normal routine is to get in line and board on first-come-first-served basis.
(2) Or, you can pay $5 extra for "Priority Boarding" where you line up in a second queue that is input before the regular line:
http://www.greyhound.com/en/dealsanddiscounts/priorityboarding.aspx
(3) Or, you can pay another $5 extra for "Reserved Seating" where you line up in a third queue that is input to designated seats before either of the above:
http://www.greyhound.com/en/dealsanddiscounts/efares.aspx
Of course, if enough people are convinced to take method (2) or (3), then people in line (1) might in theory never board. (Buses aren't just overbooked, tickets by default aren't for any particular bus at all.) Which would be just what Greyhound wants, I suppose, assuming that a boycott of the latter is infeasible.
"Did companies always spend this much money? Does it work? Why don't more people block it?"
To my understanding -- Yes. No. Because most people only get what mass-media tell them to, and AdBlock is not itself pushed in advertising.
Added notes -- I remember reading an article during the first contraction of online banner advertising, wherein companies were shocked to learn what a small turnover rate they had (online being the first time anyone could actually track turnover rates or other attention metrics). Personally, I take any ads I see as a mental marker to avoid doing business with those companies -- the more ads, the worse the company. Organizations with really great products/service are kept semi-secret and don't need advertising.
Only on Slashdot do I ever see anyone say this, and it perplexes me to no end. You're asking for increased surveillance and personal data-mining by corporate entities; more personally-targeted advertising; and a greater ability to affect people emotionally into making purchases. If I ask anyone I know personally if they're jonesing for more intrusive targeted advertising, the answer is always "no". I would lay odds that a public, scientific poll would go distinctly in the same direction.
"What the marketers don't understand is that the more annoying they get, the less eyeballs they receive"
Skeptical: Citation needed.
Official link: http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/press_relations/credentials.shtml
There have been some disputes in the past on how this is adjudicated (esp. to online writers): http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/nypd-is-sued-over-denial-of-press-credentials/