Can you imagine how hard it would have been for the creators of Popeye if they hadn't been able to use *any* previous elements, even getting down to the basic structure of the story and the setup? (e.g. Two guys fighting over one girl; sorry, the Greeks have a copyright on that from 2000 years ago, etc.) And yes, IIRC, some people *were* wanting to copyright things down to that sort of level on modern creations.
Not to mention how difficult it would be to track down the IP owners to get the proper permission. Abandonware advocates often cite computer games from the 80's as problematic in tracking down the copyright owner. In the past 20 years, companies have been sold, split up, gone out of business, and had their IP assets raided. Trying to read through all the legal documents just to find out who owns a computer game from the 80's can make you cross-eyed.
Now extend that by a few centuries. Who owns the rights to Romeo and Juliet, A Mid-Summer Night's Dream, or Shakespeare's other works? How could we even begin to attempt to track that down?
The answer is that we can't. It's impossible. Which is one reason why copyrights should be "short" in length. The longer copyrights get, the harder it becomes to legally figure out who owns what.
Fine. Let's suppose you create a work today (book, song, whatever) that winds up being pretty successful. Thanks to copyright, you are motivated to create more works (maybe based off of the successful work, maybe not). Copyright law grants you copyright ownership over the idea for 70 years after your death, however. Assuming you happen to be 30 years old (since I don't know your real age) and that you will die at the respectable age of 80, this means that the copyright will expire in the year 2129. Assuming that every 30 years, a new generation comes into the world, this means that the copyright on your work will expire when your great-great-great-grandkids are born. Exactly how is copyright supposed to motive you to create new works when you're dead, your kids are dead, and your grandkids are likely dead also?
I definitely support copyright protections, but would like to see them significantly scaled back in length. I'd like to see them reverted back to what they were in the time of the Founders: 14 years initially with an optional one-time 14 year extension. I would probably support a 20+20 rule, but not much beyond that. There could be a phase in period for existing works starting with the oldest works and working forward. It would give artists plenty of time to make money off of the idea. Using the previous example, your work created today (when you are 30) would go into the public domain in the year 2037 when you are 58.
This would also solve the problem of abandoned works: They would either not be renewed after the first term or would naturally expire after the renewal term.
I wasn't attempting to pull a straw man. I'm not even going to get into your link or you calling me a child molester. YouTube is blocked here at work but even if it wasn't, I doubt I'd want to follow that link.
I was trying to find the boundaries of your "if it feels good then it's a sexual act" argument. You seem to think that nipples are only sexual objects and so if something a woman does involving her nipples feels good then it's sexual in nature. The reality of the situation is quite different, though. A woman can say that breastfeeding "feels great" and in no way mean anything sexual about it. She could be referring to the bonding between mother and child. She could be referring to happiness over being able to provide nourishment to her child. She could even be simply referring to the reduction of pressure from stored milk. All of these are reasons that a woman might "feel good" when she breastfeeds her child and none of them have anything to do with sexual gratification.
Unless the woman's breastmilk is squirting across the room into your face, breastfeeding is *not* the same as smoking. You have the option of not looking at a breastfeeding mom. What option do I have if you are smoking near me? Not breathing?
And the chemicals released in the brains of people running are the same as some drugs. Thus, running and doing drugs are the same thing! We must ban running and jail those caught with running paraphernalia like sneakers, bottles of water, or sweatbands!!!!
This double standard continues through many body part images. It would seem in today's morality, Men's breasts are totally acceptable, and can be published in photos and videos completely uncovered. Womens breasts however, are dirty and must be covered, even when feeding a child..
The double-standard is even weirder than that. Yes, a guy can pretty much take off his shirt where ever and not get arrested for indecent exposure. A woman can show pretty much all of her breast and get away with it. Witness those "barely there" bikinis that some women wear. Those might get some turned heads, but won't be banned. But show a nipple for a second and the Think Of The Children crowd grab their pitchforks and torches.
There are creeps who will find anything sexual. Should I not post any photos of my kids online (on my personal website) in the fears that someone, somewhere, might find them a sexual turn-on? (These are fully clothed shots, not nudes or even bathing suit shots.) Heck, there are people who find feet a huge sexual turn-on. Should photobucket restrict photos of feet? You can't restrict your actions because some 0.001% of the populace finds it sexual in nature.
By your argument, when I feel good after exercising, it's because I performed a sexual act. When I feel good after a great meal, it's because I performed a sexual act. And I won't even get into the great feeling I get when my sons hug me. Or is it only when the "great feeling" is because of some action on a part of the body that you've declared to be a "sexual organ"? Because mouths can be used for some "sexual actions" so why don't define them as sex objects. Everyone should go around wearing masks to prevent other people from seeing their lips and thinking about what they could be used for! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!
Sticking the baby's head under their shirt isn't going to work unless you want to suffocate the baby or rip the shirt. However, I don't know of any breastfeeding mothers who take off their entire shirt to nurse their baby (and I know of quite a lot of breastfeeding mothers since my wife was quite active online in discussions like these). Most lift up part of their shirt just enough to reveal one side of their nursing bra. The cup on the nursing bra detaches (or, if wearing a regular bra, they pull it up off their breast). The baby then latches on and nursing begins. At this point, you can't see anything that wouldn't be seen by someone walking by in a bikini. The "lift and reveal" is also often done with a receiving blanket or other cover hiding the woman's breast. Sometimes the baby is nursed under the receiving blanket, but when it is really hot out that can be uncomfortable for the baby. In any event, most breastfeeding moms that I know of try to minimize their "exposure" and keep it private. They don't rip their shirts off, toss aside their bras and complain loudly about their milk supply. (Sorry to burst the fantasy bubble of any basement-geeks here.;-) )
Exactly. Our five year old sees my wife nursing our 19 month old all the time. (He doesn't nurse as often anymore, but he's still not completely weaned.) Our son doesn't think there's anything weird or gross about it. It's just a natural function of the female body. My wife doesn't breastfeed in public, but that's her choice. Were she to have been caught in a situation where one of our sons (while still an infant) needed feeding, she should have the opportunity to feed him where ever she is. She should not be asked to go to the ladies room to do it (Would *you* want to eat in a public restroom?) and she should not be kicked out of a building because someone's Puritan values confuse a baby feeding with some weird sexual act.
I've been involved in quite a few of these discussions and have heard some weird complaints about it. Including one guy who honestly thought that breastfeeding women were "getting their jollies" by feeding their kid. If you don't like the sight of a woman breastfeeding her child, then here's a simple solution: Look the other way!
And they're not positioned well in those areas also. Windows and Office "just work" for most people. However, the problem for Microsoft is that they "just work" too well. Why upgrade from Windows XP and Office 2000? What does Vista or Windows 76 truly offer Joe Average User that Windows XP doesn't? What does the newest version of Office offer that Office 2000 or Office XP doesn't that Joe Average User would take advantage of? Microsoft is not only competing with Apple, OpenOffice.org, and (to a lesser degree) Linux, but it is competing with the ghosts of their former releases. And those ghosts are going to be harder to compete against as the economy worsens and people find ways to make their old computers/software last longer (or look for free/low cost solutions).
We're already seeing this with people avoiding Vista. If Windows 7 doesn't turn things around, things could get very bad for Microsoft, very fast.
My wife decided to call Viacom and complain about their demanded 22-36% rate increase. The minute the woman heard her say "I'm a Time Warn...", my wife was switched to a recorded message blaming Time Warner for the whole mess and giving a Time Warner number to call to complain to. In other words, Viacom didn't want to hear any complaints and was trying to direct the ire of subscribers back to Time Warner.
Time Warner employees, however, saw my wife complaining on Twitter and gave her information on who to contact in Viacom. They also told her that it was unlikely that they would answer though as they had taken off until Monday morning. In fact, when Noggin and the rest didn't go black at 12:01am, we wondered if they were all just out of the office and forgot to leave someone there to shut the feed off.
Instead, it looks like Viacom asked for 22-36% and "settled for" 15%.
I run a computer support forum (PCQandA.com... yeah, I know, shameless plug). We have 13,500 registered users. Of those, only about 320 have stopped by in the past 3 months. That's a 97.6% inactive user rate. The inactive users are people who drifted in an out over the years possibly posting once, possibly registering and never posting, possibly posting many times and then leaving for whatever reason. I'm sure Wikipedia has its share of that phenomenon. People might sign up then never edit anything. Or they might sign up to add/edit one article and leave. Or they might be quite prolific, editing dozens or articles, until life steers them in a different direction and they stop posting. I don't see a 98% inactive rate - by itself - as a sign that something's wrong with Wikipedia. That could be just normal user flow.
Who is going to hold onto the passwords? What accountability will there be that this access won't be misused?
I could see the following situation happening:
Government Worker who wants to Protect The Children (GWWWTPTC): "Sex Offender 7 is going to be taken off the list? WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?!!!" GWWWTPTC looks up Sex Offender 7's passwords, logs into a few of his accounts and downloads some child porn. Then he anonymously reports that Sex Offender 7 has been dealing in child porn. Sex Offender 7 is arrested and put back on the list. GWWWTPTC sits back in his chair satisfied with a job well done Protecting The Children.
I would agree. Some people take the "child porn" definitions way out of bounds. I remember a case where a grandmother was arrested for child pornography for having naked photos of her grandkids. By that definition, my wife and I (and probably every parent in the country) are in possession of child porn for having bathtub shots of our kids. We don't share them online unless the private bits are obscured (washcloth, arm, angle of shot, photo editing, etc) but still you *could* define those photos as being child porn in which case we *could* be charged with possession of it. (And have our names put on sex offender lists... And have our kids taken away from us... And be demonized in the media as evil people... etc.)
Child Porn is - along with Terrorism - often a convenient way for the government to seize more power for itself or for people to get laws passed that wouldn't otherwise get any support.
If you're a holy roller bent on extinguishing any glimpse of human genitalia from public view, then maybe you might want to consider who designed the human body to excrete waste fluids and eliminate waste. Blame God, if you think it's so evil.
Ah, so you've read the Catholic alternative to Everyone Poops:
"You're A Naughty Child and That's Nothing But Pure Concentrated Evil Coming Out The Back of You"
Tale #1: Years ago, I owned a tape backup drive with a few extra tapes that I used to make periodic system backups. A friend of mine had a virus infection on his system. He was going to send it to a repair house that was famous for formatting and reinstalling Windows at the slightest hint of a problem. I offered to lend him my drive and a spare tape to backup his data. My father tried to stop me from doing that because, in his opinion, the virus would infect the tape drive hardware and then infect our system. No matter how many times I argued with him about how that was impossible, he insisted that it would happen and he knew better than me. (This from the guy who asked me how to copy files from one disk to another one. "Drag the files to a folder on your desktop. Now put in the second disk. Now drag the files to that disk." "You're a genius!!!")
Tale #2: We had launched a system allowing users to book appointments online. About 10 months after launch, everything was running smoothly when I got a call from a user claiming that our page wouldn't accept her e-mail address. I checked the obvious things (AOL user? Yes. Putting in "@aol.com"? Yes.) and was just firing up the code to check for some weird edge case triggered by her request when she asked: "Do I need to put my e-mail address in the box that says e-mail address?" No you don't. I employ Psychic Programming. Just look at your screen and think about your appointment and it'll book it for you. If it doesn't book, it's because you're not staring hard enough. *rolling eyes*
Tale #3: I got an e-mail from someone reporting a problem. I asked them to send me a screenshot. They replied that they would if I could just send them my e-mail address. Um... If you don't have my e-mail address... how did you JUST E-MAIL ME?!!!!!!! (She explained that she didn't know how to attach a file to a reply but knew how to attach one to a new message. I still don't get it, though, as the actions are completely identical.)
I'm just glad that Tech Support isn't my main job.
5) say the problem is super urgent, but then refuse to try anything you say.
Along those lines in the realm of web development, I had a colleague insist that I *HAD* to develop this web app and it was mission critical. I happened to be loaded up with work and said I could get it done in a month. That wasn't good enough for her so she went to my boss. He told her it'd be done at the end of 2 months! Two months later it is done and sent to her to review before going live. She reviewed it alright.... *EIGHT MONTHS LATER*!!!! Yeah, it was so mission critical that I had to drop everything *I* was doing to get the job completed, but it wasn't important enough for her to review right away. (She just had to look it over quickly and say "go live with this." I'd even have accepted "here are changes that need to be done" as that would at least have shown some attention paid to it.)
I remember loading Super Mario Brothers on my NES back in the day and being amazed by the "incredible" quality of the graphics. I had come from an Atari 5200 and my jaw dropped at the mere fact that Mario and Luigi looked like actual people and not like square representations of people. When Super Mario Brothers 2 came out, I was amazed that the corners of the ledges were rounded. Of course, little items like that pale in comparison to Super Mario Galaxy today, but back then it was a giant leap in graphics quality. Still, if it were just a graphics-quality-jump, we wouldn't be talking about Super Mario Brothers and Legend of Zelda over 20 years after they were released.
My wife and I face the same dilemma. If we text each other, we'll be charged twice. We can sign up for a texting package, but it costs $5 per month per phone. I can think of lots of other things to do with $120 per year than send a few text messages back and forth. We don't send nearly enough text messages to make it worthwhile. If we have something to say to each other, we call each other or (if by a computer) e-mail, IM, or Twitter each other.
We used to get our paper every day. Then I noticed that we were taking the paper in in the morning and putting it into the recycle bin unread at the end of the week. We were getting all of our news from TV and the Internet. We only really used the paper for the Sunday ads (finding sales and coupons). We looked into Sunday only delivery and determined that our paper's Saturday-Sunday rate was a better deal. (I would read the paper most times on Saturday.) After awhile, we got a notice from our paper that we were being switchded to Thursday-Sunday delivery for no additional cost. Now we're basically in nearly the same boat as before. Every recycling day, 2 papers (Thursday & Friday) go into the bin unread. Saturday's is read and Sunday's is read only for the ads. If we could get the circulars/coupons online for cheaper than the cost of the paper (this would need to include ink costs to print the coupons), we would cancel our subscription entirely.
Honestly, I only know what I was told about the subject from the tour guide during the half hour tour. She made it seem like the plantation thrived during slavery but couldn't turn a profit during the post-slavery "communal work" setup. It wasn't spoken outright, but heavily implied that having to pay their laborers wages was a strain on the plantation's resources. They were still quite proud that the Middletons were among the first to join the Confederate side also.
Slashdot Mirror
The price of office chairs has been rising. They need to cut somewhere to cover the expense of replacing them.
Everyone knows that dead artists don't produce new works for money. They produce new works for BRAAAAIIIINNNNSSS!!!!!
Not to mention how difficult it would be to track down the IP owners to get the proper permission. Abandonware advocates often cite computer games from the 80's as problematic in tracking down the copyright owner. In the past 20 years, companies have been sold, split up, gone out of business, and had their IP assets raided. Trying to read through all the legal documents just to find out who owns a computer game from the 80's can make you cross-eyed.
Now extend that by a few centuries. Who owns the rights to Romeo and Juliet, A Mid-Summer Night's Dream, or Shakespeare's other works? How could we even begin to attempt to track that down?
The answer is that we can't. It's impossible. Which is one reason why copyrights should be "short" in length. The longer copyrights get, the harder it becomes to legally figure out who owns what.
Fine. Let's suppose you create a work today (book, song, whatever) that winds up being pretty successful. Thanks to copyright, you are motivated to create more works (maybe based off of the successful work, maybe not). Copyright law grants you copyright ownership over the idea for 70 years after your death, however. Assuming you happen to be 30 years old (since I don't know your real age) and that you will die at the respectable age of 80, this means that the copyright will expire in the year 2129. Assuming that every 30 years, a new generation comes into the world, this means that the copyright on your work will expire when your great-great-great-grandkids are born. Exactly how is copyright supposed to motive you to create new works when you're dead, your kids are dead, and your grandkids are likely dead also?
I definitely support copyright protections, but would like to see them significantly scaled back in length. I'd like to see them reverted back to what they were in the time of the Founders: 14 years initially with an optional one-time 14 year extension. I would probably support a 20+20 rule, but not much beyond that. There could be a phase in period for existing works starting with the oldest works and working forward. It would give artists plenty of time to make money off of the idea. Using the previous example, your work created today (when you are 30) would go into the public domain in the year 2037 when you are 58.
This would also solve the problem of abandoned works: They would either not be renewed after the first term or would naturally expire after the renewal term.
I wasn't attempting to pull a straw man. I'm not even going to get into your link or you calling me a child molester. YouTube is blocked here at work but even if it wasn't, I doubt I'd want to follow that link.
I was trying to find the boundaries of your "if it feels good then it's a sexual act" argument. You seem to think that nipples are only sexual objects and so if something a woman does involving her nipples feels good then it's sexual in nature. The reality of the situation is quite different, though. A woman can say that breastfeeding "feels great" and in no way mean anything sexual about it. She could be referring to the bonding between mother and child. She could be referring to happiness over being able to provide nourishment to her child. She could even be simply referring to the reduction of pressure from stored milk. All of these are reasons that a woman might "feel good" when she breastfeeds her child and none of them have anything to do with sexual gratification.
Unless the woman's breastmilk is squirting across the room into your face, breastfeeding is *not* the same as smoking. You have the option of not looking at a breastfeeding mom. What option do I have if you are smoking near me? Not breathing?
And the chemicals released in the brains of people running are the same as some drugs. Thus, running and doing drugs are the same thing! We must ban running and jail those caught with running paraphernalia like sneakers, bottles of water, or sweatbands!!!!
The double-standard is even weirder than that. Yes, a guy can pretty much take off his shirt where ever and not get arrested for indecent exposure. A woman can show pretty much all of her breast and get away with it. Witness those "barely there" bikinis that some women wear. Those might get some turned heads, but won't be banned. But show a nipple for a second and the Think Of The Children crowd grab their pitchforks and torches.
There are creeps who will find anything sexual. Should I not post any photos of my kids online (on my personal website) in the fears that someone, somewhere, might find them a sexual turn-on? (These are fully clothed shots, not nudes or even bathing suit shots.) Heck, there are people who find feet a huge sexual turn-on. Should photobucket restrict photos of feet? You can't restrict your actions because some 0.001% of the populace finds it sexual in nature.
By your argument, when I feel good after exercising, it's because I performed a sexual act. When I feel good after a great meal, it's because I performed a sexual act. And I won't even get into the great feeling I get when my sons hug me. Or is it only when the "great feeling" is because of some action on a part of the body that you've declared to be a "sexual organ"? Because mouths can be used for some "sexual actions" so why don't define them as sex objects. Everyone should go around wearing masks to prevent other people from seeing their lips and thinking about what they could be used for! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!
Sticking the baby's head under their shirt isn't going to work unless you want to suffocate the baby or rip the shirt. However, I don't know of any breastfeeding mothers who take off their entire shirt to nurse their baby (and I know of quite a lot of breastfeeding mothers since my wife was quite active online in discussions like these). Most lift up part of their shirt just enough to reveal one side of their nursing bra. The cup on the nursing bra detaches (or, if wearing a regular bra, they pull it up off their breast). The baby then latches on and nursing begins. At this point, you can't see anything that wouldn't be seen by someone walking by in a bikini. The "lift and reveal" is also often done with a receiving blanket or other cover hiding the woman's breast. Sometimes the baby is nursed under the receiving blanket, but when it is really hot out that can be uncomfortable for the baby. In any event, most breastfeeding moms that I know of try to minimize their "exposure" and keep it private. They don't rip their shirts off, toss aside their bras and complain loudly about their milk supply. (Sorry to burst the fantasy bubble of any basement-geeks here. ;-) )
Exactly. Our five year old sees my wife nursing our 19 month old all the time. (He doesn't nurse as often anymore, but he's still not completely weaned.) Our son doesn't think there's anything weird or gross about it. It's just a natural function of the female body. My wife doesn't breastfeed in public, but that's her choice. Were she to have been caught in a situation where one of our sons (while still an infant) needed feeding, she should have the opportunity to feed him where ever she is. She should not be asked to go to the ladies room to do it (Would *you* want to eat in a public restroom?) and she should not be kicked out of a building because someone's Puritan values confuse a baby feeding with some weird sexual act.
I've been involved in quite a few of these discussions and have heard some weird complaints about it. Including one guy who honestly thought that breastfeeding women were "getting their jollies" by feeding their kid. If you don't like the sight of a woman breastfeeding her child, then here's a simple solution: Look the other way!
And they're not positioned well in those areas also. Windows and Office "just work" for most people. However, the problem for Microsoft is that they "just work" too well. Why upgrade from Windows XP and Office 2000? What does Vista or Windows 76 truly offer Joe Average User that Windows XP doesn't? What does the newest version of Office offer that Office 2000 or Office XP doesn't that Joe Average User would take advantage of? Microsoft is not only competing with Apple, OpenOffice.org, and (to a lesser degree) Linux, but it is competing with the ghosts of their former releases. And those ghosts are going to be harder to compete against as the economy worsens and people find ways to make their old computers/software last longer (or look for free/low cost solutions).
We're already seeing this with people avoiding Vista. If Windows 7 doesn't turn things around, things could get very bad for Microsoft, very fast.
My wife decided to call Viacom and complain about their demanded 22-36% rate increase. The minute the woman heard her say "I'm a Time Warn...", my wife was switched to a recorded message blaming Time Warner for the whole mess and giving a Time Warner number to call to complain to. In other words, Viacom didn't want to hear any complaints and was trying to direct the ire of subscribers back to Time Warner.
Time Warner employees, however, saw my wife complaining on Twitter and gave her information on who to contact in Viacom. They also told her that it was unlikely that they would answer though as they had taken off until Monday morning. In fact, when Noggin and the rest didn't go black at 12:01am, we wondered if they were all just out of the office and forgot to leave someone there to shut the feed off.
Instead, it looks like Viacom asked for 22-36% and "settled for" 15%.
I run a computer support forum (PCQandA.com ... yeah, I know, shameless plug). We have 13,500 registered users. Of those, only about 320 have stopped by in the past 3 months. That's a 97.6% inactive user rate. The inactive users are people who drifted in an out over the years possibly posting once, possibly registering and never posting, possibly posting many times and then leaving for whatever reason. I'm sure Wikipedia has its share of that phenomenon. People might sign up then never edit anything. Or they might sign up to add/edit one article and leave. Or they might be quite prolific, editing dozens or articles, until life steers them in a different direction and they stop posting. I don't see a 98% inactive rate - by itself - as a sign that something's wrong with Wikipedia. That could be just normal user flow.
Don't you know? Protecting The Children or Terrorism make any action alright even if it would otherwise violate the Constitution.
(Yes, I type this in jest.)
While I'm thinking this might be modded Funny, IMO it really deserves a Scary mod (if there was one).
Who is going to hold onto the passwords? What accountability will there be that this access won't be misused?
I could see the following situation happening:
Government Worker who wants to Protect The Children (GWWWTPTC): "Sex Offender 7 is going to be taken off the list? WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?!!!"
GWWWTPTC looks up Sex Offender 7's passwords, logs into a few of his accounts and downloads some child porn. Then he anonymously reports that Sex Offender 7 has been dealing in child porn. Sex Offender 7 is arrested and put back on the list. GWWWTPTC sits back in his chair satisfied with a job well done Protecting The Children.
I would agree. Some people take the "child porn" definitions way out of bounds. I remember a case where a grandmother was arrested for child pornography for having naked photos of her grandkids. By that definition, my wife and I (and probably every parent in the country) are in possession of child porn for having bathtub shots of our kids. We don't share them online unless the private bits are obscured (washcloth, arm, angle of shot, photo editing, etc) but still you *could* define those photos as being child porn in which case we *could* be charged with possession of it. (And have our names put on sex offender lists... And have our kids taken away from us... And be demonized in the media as evil people... etc.)
Child Porn is - along with Terrorism - often a convenient way for the government to seize more power for itself or for people to get laws passed that wouldn't otherwise get any support.
Ah, so you've read the Catholic alternative to Everyone Poops:
"You're A Naughty Child and That's Nothing But Pure Concentrated Evil Coming Out The Back of You"
Tale #1: Years ago, I owned a tape backup drive with a few extra tapes that I used to make periodic system backups. A friend of mine had a virus infection on his system. He was going to send it to a repair house that was famous for formatting and reinstalling Windows at the slightest hint of a problem. I offered to lend him my drive and a spare tape to backup his data. My father tried to stop me from doing that because, in his opinion, the virus would infect the tape drive hardware and then infect our system. No matter how many times I argued with him about how that was impossible, he insisted that it would happen and he knew better than me. (This from the guy who asked me how to copy files from one disk to another one. "Drag the files to a folder on your desktop. Now put in the second disk. Now drag the files to that disk." "You're a genius!!!")
Tale #2: We had launched a system allowing users to book appointments online. About 10 months after launch, everything was running smoothly when I got a call from a user claiming that our page wouldn't accept her e-mail address. I checked the obvious things (AOL user? Yes. Putting in "@aol.com"? Yes.) and was just firing up the code to check for some weird edge case triggered by her request when she asked: "Do I need to put my e-mail address in the box that says e-mail address?" No you don't. I employ Psychic Programming. Just look at your screen and think about your appointment and it'll book it for you. If it doesn't book, it's because you're not staring hard enough. *rolling eyes*
Tale #3: I got an e-mail from someone reporting a problem. I asked them to send me a screenshot. They replied that they would if I could just send them my e-mail address. Um... If you don't have my e-mail address... how did you JUST E-MAIL ME?!!!!!!! (She explained that she didn't know how to attach a file to a reply but knew how to attach one to a new message. I still don't get it, though, as the actions are completely identical.)
I'm just glad that Tech Support isn't my main job.
Along those lines in the realm of web development, I had a colleague insist that I *HAD* to develop this web app and it was mission critical. I happened to be loaded up with work and said I could get it done in a month. That wasn't good enough for her so she went to my boss. He told her it'd be done at the end of 2 months! Two months later it is done and sent to her to review before going live. She reviewed it alright.... *EIGHT MONTHS LATER*!!!! Yeah, it was so mission critical that I had to drop everything *I* was doing to get the job completed, but it wasn't important enough for her to review right away. (She just had to look it over quickly and say "go live with this." I'd even have accepted "here are changes that need to be done" as that would at least have shown some attention paid to it.)
I remember loading Super Mario Brothers on my NES back in the day and being amazed by the "incredible" quality of the graphics. I had come from an Atari 5200 and my jaw dropped at the mere fact that Mario and Luigi looked like actual people and not like square representations of people. When Super Mario Brothers 2 came out, I was amazed that the corners of the ledges were rounded. Of course, little items like that pale in comparison to Super Mario Galaxy today, but back then it was a giant leap in graphics quality. Still, if it were just a graphics-quality-jump, we wouldn't be talking about Super Mario Brothers and Legend of Zelda over 20 years after they were released.
My wife and I face the same dilemma. If we text each other, we'll be charged twice. We can sign up for a texting package, but it costs $5 per month per phone. I can think of lots of other things to do with $120 per year than send a few text messages back and forth. We don't send nearly enough text messages to make it worthwhile. If we have something to say to each other, we call each other or (if by a computer) e-mail, IM, or Twitter each other.
We used to get our paper every day. Then I noticed that we were taking the paper in in the morning and putting it into the recycle bin unread at the end of the week. We were getting all of our news from TV and the Internet. We only really used the paper for the Sunday ads (finding sales and coupons). We looked into Sunday only delivery and determined that our paper's Saturday-Sunday rate was a better deal. (I would read the paper most times on Saturday.) After awhile, we got a notice from our paper that we were being switchded to Thursday-Sunday delivery for no additional cost. Now we're basically in nearly the same boat as before. Every recycling day, 2 papers (Thursday & Friday) go into the bin unread. Saturday's is read and Sunday's is read only for the ads. If we could get the circulars/coupons online for cheaper than the cost of the paper (this would need to include ink costs to print the coupons), we would cancel our subscription entirely.
Honestly, I only know what I was told about the subject from the tour guide during the half hour tour. She made it seem like the plantation thrived during slavery but couldn't turn a profit during the post-slavery "communal work" setup. It wasn't spoken outright, but heavily implied that having to pay their laborers wages was a strain on the plantation's resources. They were still quite proud that the Middletons were among the first to join the Confederate side also.