Ok, if you really want to stick it to the poor schlub doing that job, then go ahead and waste his time - 'cause you are making him lose money. That's fair enough, since they did actually call you, but realize who, exactly, you are getting your revenge on! I feel sorry for those dudes, so I just hang up (sometimes I even politely say "no thank you" in the middle of their jabbering, but sometimes not)
One guy I know just says hello then sets the phone down in front of the TV just to see how long they keep talking to nobody in particular.
A former boss of mine who is Korean thought he would outsmart them by only speaking Korean - of course they immediately switched him to a Korean-speaking telemarketer! (I think it was one of those long-distance companies, so maybe that's not so much of a surprise).
I've been using this technique for years now - nobody on the line when I pick up, hang up. Why don't more people do this? Or why don't people learn that it's OK to interrupt a telemarketer's spiel with a kind "thank you, not interested" then hang up? Or just hang up when you feel like it? I think we need to offer Senior Citizens "telephone rudeness" classes to counteract the years of polite telephone etiqutte they have been brought up with that makes them so susceptible to these telemarketers!
The only problem I've had with the no-answer technique is with people calling from overseas (well, people I want to talk to). Sometimes there is a slight delay at the beginning of the connection, but you can usually tell because there is a bit more line noise than from a telemarketer.
Now that I think about it, even more annoying than those delayed telemarketers are the calls from machines that actaully tell you "please hold for an important message". Jeez, ok, you called me and you expect me to wait on hold as soon as I pick up? Right.
People just don't believe me when I tell them it's a good movie. I think the marketing on this one really killed it - I don't think the studio spent enough on advertising (I know, just what we need, more annoying ads) and I don't think they were able to figure out a target audience.
That's the problem - the movie really could have appeallead to a wide audience but I don't think the previews and ad campaign made that clear. I went to see it because of all the good reviews, and was VERY impressed. Any studio thinking of making another (non-Disney type singing and dancing) animated film should watch Iron Giant and take notes.
Just to add to your points - besides the great writing, the movie just looked beautiful! It's kind of like Futurama in that I don't really think about "oh, here's the 3d part, and here's the 2d part". The integration (as you mentioned) is seamless enough to allow you to ignore it and just enjoy the visuals.
I think I'll pop on down and rent the DVD to see it again!
I think even the most bone-headed music industry executive knows that many people that download mp3s often buy CDs based on those downloads.
This is not what they are worried about. Right now, most people like the convenience and the guaranteed quality (sound quality, not always music quality) of buying a CD. It actually helps sales if people are allowed to sample the music! But what happens when, in the near future, Joe Consumer has an easy way to download a pirated album (or, even worse for the industry, download directly from the artist!) and make a high-quality copy onto whatever convenient format he wants.
Ok, I know a lot of you already do this, but I'm talking about something the general public could use, like those fabled "internet appliances". Something easy to use that would guarantee good sound quality on a format that people want. Most consumers don't want to have to listen to music on their computer. And seriously, it can be a lot of work to find and download the exact tracks you are looking for (well, more work than just buying the CD).
My point is that the industry is probably looking down the road and seeing something that could conceivably ruin them - artists selling music directly to average, everyday consumers! They want to nip it in the bud. I know everyone thinks the RIAA is just plain stupid or short-sighted, but it seems like they know what's going on - they don't want people to get used to the idea of quality music available on the net (unless they can control it).
I think some conspiracy-minded people read the specs on the cube (Rage 128 card), heard that ATI was announcing Radeon for the Mac at Macworld and that Apple was announcing this cool new "cube" at Macworld and somehow made a hopeful connection between the two and assumed that the only reason these new cubes didn't have the radeon card was because of the tiff between Jobs and ATI.
From what I can tell, these cubes were supposed to have Rage128 chipsets from the get-go, and that Radeon is only for the new G4s.
Umm, have you read the book? For one thing, he's talking about pizza delivery not pizza quality or pizza's nutritional value.
I know you are trying to make some (valid) points here, but you are straying far from the original concept to do so - he's talking about success not (necessarily) quality. I'm not going to argue about who make better movies or music or software. You would have to agree, though, that music, movies, and software from the U.S. sell more and are more pervasive than similar products from any other country (ok, maybe India makes more movies). As far as pizza delivery goes, well, that's in there to give the protagonist a cool job!
The IMG article also has brief mention of the limitations of the cube as far as add-on cards go. I don't know much about the cube, but does anyone know if a Radeon card would even fit? Or does it have the video chipset on the motherboard? If that's the case, as the above poster noted, I doubt they would be able to change this on a whim anyway. It seems more likely that the Radeon is to be used in the normal G4s.
Well, the IMG article claims that they met with ATI staff about this (I can't read the other slashdotted article). Do they mean the people that demo stuff in the ATI booth or did they meet with anybody who actually knows anything? Maybe ATI is just covering their ass for some technical problem that hasn't been resolved.
Also, the article indicates that this is a temporary thing. Maybe Jobs wanted to prevent ATI from making a big splash, but I doubt he would bar all Radeon cards from all current Macs! As was mentioned by another poster, if he really wanted to punish ATI he would scrap them altogether and go with another vendor. Apple's recent marketing strategy has been based on these surprise announcements at huge events, and if ATI really did leak the info, Apple would be right to be a little annoyed.
Just like the rumored/denied/confirmed cube, we have to wait a bit to find out what's really going on.
I saw this on MSNBC tv the other day and it just got me thinking about how irresponsible their reporting is on this issue, and how they are so proud of the fact that they are such an honest news organization that they can report fairly on problems caused by their own business partner.
Ok, so of course they are partners with Microsoft, but how can anyone take their "news" seriously if they fail to indicate that there are other ways to fix the problem other than installing countless patches. There was an NBC reporter talking to the MSNBC host about the issue, and the reporter said that his close contacts at Redmond assured him a fix was already on the way! Whew, now I'm safe. The host did make it clear that this only affected MICROSOFT OUTLOOK, and they did state clearly that Microsoft was their partner, but the reporter then went on to say in response to this that Outlook or OE were on 3/4 of the worlds computers, so really, the sw patches were the only way to go.
Couldn't he at least have mentioned the possibility of using a different e-mail program? Of course not! But for home users, this is probably the most efficient solution - why bother keeping up with all these problems and patches if you can just install Eudora and avoid the whole issue! Irresponsible of them not to mention this. Not surprising, of course, but irresponsible.
The recent commercial for Pepsi One (on the ferry) seems to instruct the viewer that Coke is an awesome beverage and that Pepsi One comes close (but not quite close enough) to the high standards of Coca-Cola.
Now, I don't know what they intended, but that's the way I understand the commercial. It makes me wonder; could Pepsi's advertising suck so bad for so long without Coca-Cola actually having infiltrated every ad agency Pepsi has ever used? It just seems that they intentionally do stupid, irrational, annoying ads(that little possessed by marlon brando/ray charles girl, anyone?). Whoa, maybe Coke actually owns Pepsi and is just keeping them around to make it look like there is competition...sorry, got a little carried away after reading about the x-files post a few stories back.
Anyway, one more thing about Pepsi - my sister's psych professor in college wanted to do a taste test (don't ask me why, not my school) between the two. Before having the students taste, the professor said he had to leave the coke sitting out in a glass for about 20 minutes. Hrmm. Why do this? Well, he claimed he had to "correct" for carbonation. Umm, that's one of the reasons people prefer Coke! It doesn't taste like someone left a 2-liter bottle open for a week in the fridge! Sheesh.
The most recent issue of Cinescape has an article that explains that he is abducted (by aliens, we are to assume), is gone for a while, then re-appears a changed man.
I didn't watch the season finale, but, as another poster mentioned, you probably could have written this plot line yourself based on that episode.
Ha! Just to annoy you more, an additional post, but one with more (useless) info:
I'm pretty sure USA or TNT or some similar programming-starved cable channel has been showing this recently - I know I saw it on a few days ago as I was flipping around the dial.
If you read the original post along with the latter comments PMS makes, she (well, let's just say "she" for convenience's sake) sounds like she is trying to make a point about moderation and the whole Slashdot system. What's the whole purpose of a Troll except to get people to mouth off and sound like idiots?
I mean, you've got people here refuting point by point everything she says when some of those statements should make you suspect something is up! I mean, the whole thing about how driving for almost a year means she is a good driver, and what she said about not getting cancer in one year of cell phone use? Jeez, look at her writing style - no one who can write in such a coherent manner (see her later replies) would make such insane statements except on purpose! Another thing, the number of "16-yr old girl" phrases seem to drop off dramtically in the later posts.
Oops, she's got me doing it now! I just discussed two points from the origninal post! Man, I'm a sucker!
They obviously cause brain damage, otherwise how can you explain the idiots that leave their phones on at the movies (or Wimbledon, for that matter - every match has to have a "please turn off your cell phones" warning from the umpire), or even worse, the people that call other people from the movie theater to tell someone they are at the movies!
To sum up, brain damage must be the only explanation, I mean otherwise I would have to assume that ther are really that many insensitive and/or stupid people in this world...oh wait, forget I said that.
Look, I have a NOKIA phone (and I love it), but this is like reading the "facts" about cable modem service on the GTE DSL web page.
Or, to put it in a way that doesn't reflect something I was actually doing recently, it's like reading a statement about the health risks of smoking on the Philip Morris website. Sure, they might have some studies to back it up, but it's hard to take what they say at face value considering their interest in having the "facts" support their side of the story!
Um, I think the radiation might cause mutations, but the heat might just cause a few cells to die, although I'm not sure that would be enough heat to actually do anything.
Not to worry, it shouldn't take long to produce a few gazillion more.
Uhh, yeah, while you are using that headset keep the phone on and clipped to your belt; bring that active cell phone antenna closer to your reproductive organs and your soft underbelly area. Good idea. At least your brain has a shell of bone around it! Granted, it's not lead-lined bone (well, my skull isn't), but hey, you can't have everything, right?
Science and Technology allow you the choice to eat what you want and maintain a healthy diet (by science and technology I am including organized agriculture, bread making, plant breeding, etc).
However, that doesn't allow you to ignore the fact that our digestive system is (as best we know) designed to process a diet of about 20% meat and 80% other (plant products, insects, etc.). Don't jump all over me about those numbers - of course we don't know for sure, but that is Human Anthropolgy's best guesstimate.
I hardly think that such a small percentage of meat intake would be considered that unhealthy! Sure you can choose to avoid meat altogether, and that may even be healthier (considering we humans live longer now and have to worry more about long term effects of diet), but don't delude yourself into thinking your digestive system has "moved on" along with your philosophy.
People that choose to completely ignore the biological arguments are just as silly as those who use those same biological arguments to justify excessive meat consumption. Nobody is saying you have to do what our ancestors did, just don't ignore what our system is designed to process.
I think people are getting a little carried away with the biological rationale for eating meat.
As best we know (or as best as I remember from those anthro classes), our digestive system evolved over a long period of time eating about 80%non-meat (vegetables, fruits, nuts, insects) and 20%meat. I find it hard to believe that this would really be considered "unhealthy"! People take it too far, or course, when they use this to justify eating much more meat than our systems are designed to process.
My point is that our evolution is relevant to what we eat today, because our systems are still designed for that old-fashioned diet. On the other hand, we didn't live as long back then, so we didn't have to worry so much about cancer or cholesterol. Anyway - eat meat if you want, just don't overdo it! And eat some inects too (can strict vegans eat insects?).
Almost every windows user (as in Mr. Generic Customer) uses the browser that came with windows. There are a decreasing number of people that bother to download any other browser.
Why bother checking to make sure that your site works with any other browser when you know that a significant majority are going to be using IE?
I use Netscape, myself, so I don't like this practice, but that's the way some designers think.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, if you really want to stick it to the poor schlub doing that job, then go ahead and waste his time - 'cause you are making him lose money. That's fair enough, since they did actually call you, but realize who, exactly, you are getting your revenge on! I feel sorry for those dudes, so I just hang up (sometimes I even politely say "no thank you" in the middle of their jabbering, but sometimes not)
One guy I know just says hello then sets the phone down in front of the TV just to see how long they keep talking to nobody in particular.
A former boss of mine who is Korean thought he would outsmart them by only speaking Korean - of course they immediately switched him to a Korean-speaking telemarketer! (I think it was one of those long-distance companies, so maybe that's not so much of a surprise).
-------
I've been using this technique for years now - nobody on the line when I pick up, hang up. Why don't more people do this? Or why don't people learn that it's OK to interrupt a telemarketer's spiel with a kind "thank you, not interested" then hang up? Or just hang up when you feel like it? I think we need to offer Senior Citizens "telephone rudeness" classes to counteract the years of polite telephone etiqutte they have been brought up with that makes them so susceptible to these telemarketers!
The only problem I've had with the no-answer technique is with people calling from overseas (well, people I want to talk to). Sometimes there is a slight delay at the beginning of the connection, but you can usually tell because there is a bit more line noise than from a telemarketer.
Now that I think about it, even more annoying than those delayed telemarketers are the calls from machines that actaully tell you "please hold for an important message". Jeez, ok, you called me and you expect me to wait on hold as soon as I pick up? Right.
-------
People just don't believe me when I tell them it's a good movie. I think the marketing on this one really killed it - I don't think the studio spent enough on advertising (I know, just what we need, more annoying ads) and I don't think they were able to figure out a target audience.
That's the problem - the movie really could have appeallead to a wide audience but I don't think the previews and ad campaign made that clear. I went to see it because of all the good reviews, and was VERY impressed. Any studio thinking of making another (non-Disney type singing and dancing) animated film should watch Iron Giant and take notes.
Just to add to your points - besides the great writing, the movie just looked beautiful! It's kind of like Futurama in that I don't really think about "oh, here's the 3d part, and here's the 2d part". The integration (as you mentioned) is seamless enough to allow you to ignore it and just enjoy the visuals.
I think I'll pop on down and rent the DVD to see it again!
-------
I think even the most bone-headed music industry executive knows that many people that download mp3s often buy CDs based on those downloads.
This is not what they are worried about. Right now, most people like the convenience and the guaranteed quality (sound quality, not always music quality) of buying a CD. It actually helps sales if people are allowed to sample the music! But what happens when, in the near future, Joe Consumer has an easy way to download a pirated album (or, even worse for the industry, download directly from the artist!) and make a high-quality copy onto whatever convenient format he wants.
Ok, I know a lot of you already do this, but I'm talking about something the general public could use, like those fabled "internet appliances". Something easy to use that would guarantee good sound quality on a format that people want. Most consumers don't want to have to listen to music on their computer. And seriously, it can be a lot of work to find and download the exact tracks you are looking for (well, more work than just buying the CD).
My point is that the industry is probably looking down the road and seeing something that could conceivably ruin them - artists selling music directly to average, everyday consumers! They want to nip it in the bud. I know everyone thinks the RIAA is just plain stupid or short-sighted, but it seems like they know what's going on - they don't want people to get used to the idea of quality music available on the net (unless they can control it).
-------
I think some conspiracy-minded people read the specs on the cube (Rage 128 card), heard that ATI was announcing Radeon for the Mac at Macworld and that Apple was announcing this cool new "cube" at Macworld and somehow made a hopeful connection between the two and assumed that the only reason these new cubes didn't have the radeon card was because of the tiff between Jobs and ATI.
From what I can tell, these cubes were supposed to have Rage128 chipsets from the get-go, and that Radeon is only for the new G4s.
-------
Umm, have you read the book? For one thing, he's talking about pizza delivery not pizza quality or pizza's nutritional value.
I know you are trying to make some (valid) points here, but you are straying far from the original concept to do so - he's talking about success not (necessarily) quality. I'm not going to argue about who make better movies or music or software. You would have to agree, though, that music, movies, and software from the U.S. sell more and are more pervasive than similar products from any other country (ok, maybe India makes more movies). As far as pizza delivery goes, well, that's in there to give the protagonist a cool job!
-------
Well, they certainly didn't spend that cash on the website design!
I know, it's just a press release, but still, shouldn't they have something more impressive for a venture of this nature?
-------
The IMG article also has brief mention of the limitations of the cube as far as add-on cards go. I don't know much about the cube, but does anyone know if a Radeon card would even fit? Or does it have the video chipset on the motherboard? If that's the case, as the above poster noted, I doubt they would be able to change this on a whim anyway. It seems more likely that the Radeon is to be used in the normal G4s.
-------
Well, the IMG article claims that they met with ATI staff about this (I can't read the other slashdotted article). Do they mean the people that demo stuff in the ATI booth or did they meet with anybody who actually knows anything? Maybe ATI is just covering their ass for some technical problem that hasn't been resolved.
Also, the article indicates that this is a temporary thing. Maybe Jobs wanted to prevent ATI from making a big splash, but I doubt he would bar all Radeon cards from all current Macs! As was mentioned by another poster, if he really wanted to punish ATI he would scrap them altogether and go with another vendor. Apple's recent marketing strategy has been based on these surprise announcements at huge events, and if ATI really did leak the info, Apple would be right to be a little annoyed.
Just like the rumored/denied/confirmed cube, we have to wait a bit to find out what's really going on.
-------
at least he didn't post it in the wrong story
-------
I saw this on MSNBC tv the other day and it just got me thinking about how irresponsible their reporting is on this issue, and how they are so proud of the fact that they are such an honest news organization that they can report fairly on problems caused by their own business partner.
Ok, so of course they are partners with Microsoft, but how can anyone take their "news" seriously if they fail to indicate that there are other ways to fix the problem other than installing countless patches. There was an NBC reporter talking to the MSNBC host about the issue, and the reporter said that his close contacts at Redmond assured him a fix was already on the way! Whew, now I'm safe. The host did make it clear that this only affected MICROSOFT OUTLOOK, and they did state clearly that Microsoft was their partner, but the reporter then went on to say in response to this that Outlook or OE were on 3/4 of the worlds computers, so really, the sw patches were the only way to go.
Couldn't he at least have mentioned the possibility of using a different e-mail program? Of course not! But for home users, this is probably the most efficient solution - why bother keeping up with all these problems and patches if you can just install Eudora and avoid the whole issue! Irresponsible of them not to mention this. Not surprising, of course, but irresponsible.
-------
The recent commercial for Pepsi One (on the ferry) seems to instruct the viewer that Coke is an awesome beverage and that Pepsi One comes close (but not quite close enough) to the high standards of Coca-Cola.
Now, I don't know what they intended, but that's the way I understand the commercial. It makes me wonder; could Pepsi's advertising suck so bad for so long without Coca-Cola actually having infiltrated every ad agency Pepsi has ever used? It just seems that they intentionally do stupid, irrational, annoying ads(that little possessed by marlon brando/ray charles girl, anyone?). Whoa, maybe Coke actually owns Pepsi and is just keeping them around to make it look like there is competition...sorry, got a little carried away after reading about the x-files post a few stories back.
Anyway, one more thing about Pepsi - my sister's psych professor in college wanted to do a taste test (don't ask me why, not my school) between the two. Before having the students taste, the professor said he had to leave the coke sitting out in a glass for about 20 minutes. Hrmm. Why do this? Well, he claimed he had to "correct" for carbonation. Umm, that's one of the reasons people prefer Coke! It doesn't taste like someone left a 2-liter bottle open for a week in the fridge! Sheesh.
-------
The most recent issue of Cinescape has an article that explains that he is abducted (by aliens, we are to assume), is gone for a while, then re-appears a changed man.
I didn't watch the season finale, but, as another poster mentioned, you probably could have written this plot line yourself based on that episode.
-------
Ha! Just to annoy you more, an additional post, but one with more (useless) info:
I'm pretty sure USA or TNT or some similar programming-starved cable channel has been showing this recently - I know I saw it on a few days ago as I was flipping around the dial.
-------
If you read the original post along with the latter comments PMS makes, she (well, let's just say "she" for convenience's sake) sounds like she is trying to make a point about moderation and the whole Slashdot system. What's the whole purpose of a Troll except to get people to mouth off and sound like idiots?
I mean, you've got people here refuting point by point everything she says when some of those statements should make you suspect something is up! I mean, the whole thing about how driving for almost a year means she is a good driver, and what she said about not getting cancer in one year of cell phone use? Jeez, look at her writing style - no one who can write in such a coherent manner (see her later replies) would make such insane statements except on purpose! Another thing, the number of "16-yr old girl" phrases seem to drop off dramtically in the later posts.
Oops, she's got me doing it now! I just discussed two points from the origninal post! Man, I'm a sucker!
-------
They obviously cause brain damage, otherwise how can you explain the idiots that leave their phones on at the movies (or Wimbledon, for that matter - every match has to have a "please turn off your cell phones" warning from the umpire), or even worse, the people that call other people from the movie theater to tell someone they are at the movies!
To sum up, brain damage must be the only explanation, I mean otherwise I would have to assume that ther are really that many insensitive and/or stupid people in this world...oh wait, forget I said that.
-------
Look, I have a NOKIA phone (and I love it), but this is like reading the "facts" about cable modem service on the GTE DSL web page.
Or, to put it in a way that doesn't reflect something I was actually doing recently, it's like reading a statement about the health risks of smoking on the Philip Morris website. Sure, they might have some studies to back it up, but it's hard to take what they say at face value considering their interest in having the "facts" support their side of the story!
-------
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
-------
Um, I think the radiation might cause mutations, but the heat might just cause a few cells to die, although I'm not sure that would be enough heat to actually do anything.
Not to worry, it shouldn't take long to produce a few gazillion more.
-------
Uhh, yeah, while you are using that headset keep the phone on and clipped to your belt; bring that active cell phone antenna closer to your reproductive organs and your soft underbelly area. Good idea. At least your brain has a shell of bone around it! Granted, it's not lead-lined bone (well, my skull isn't), but hey, you can't have everything, right?
-------
I know it's a pain, but when I highlight the text (using Communicator 4.7) it gives me a nice white text on blue background. Ahh, just how I like it.
As a previous poster noted, this is something us Netscape users have to do on occasion just to read the page.
-------
Science and Technology allow you the choice to eat what you want and maintain a healthy diet (by science and technology I am including organized agriculture, bread making, plant breeding, etc).
However, that doesn't allow you to ignore the fact that our digestive system is (as best we know) designed to process a diet of about 20% meat and 80% other (plant products, insects, etc.). Don't jump all over me about those numbers - of course we don't know for sure, but that is Human Anthropolgy's best guesstimate.
I hardly think that such a small percentage of meat intake would be considered that unhealthy! Sure you can choose to avoid meat altogether, and that may even be healthier (considering we humans live longer now and have to worry more about long term effects of diet), but don't delude yourself into thinking your digestive system has "moved on" along with your philosophy.
People that choose to completely ignore the biological arguments are just as silly as those who use those same biological arguments to justify excessive meat consumption. Nobody is saying you have to do what our ancestors did, just don't ignore what our system is designed to process.
-------
Some good points.
I think people are getting a little carried away with the biological rationale for eating meat.
As best we know (or as best as I remember from those anthro classes), our digestive system evolved over a long period of time eating about 80%non-meat (vegetables, fruits, nuts, insects) and 20%meat. I find it hard to believe that this would really be considered "unhealthy"! People take it too far, or course, when they use this to justify eating much more meat than our systems are designed to process.
My point is that our evolution is relevant to what we eat today, because our systems are still designed for that old-fashioned diet. On the other hand, we didn't live as long back then, so we didn't have to worry so much about cancer or cholesterol. Anyway - eat meat if you want, just don't overdo it! And eat some inects too (can strict vegans eat insects?).
-------
Almost every windows user (as in Mr. Generic Customer) uses the browser that came with windows. There are a decreasing number of people that bother to download any other browser.
Why bother checking to make sure that your site works with any other browser when you know that a significant majority are going to be using IE?
I use Netscape, myself, so I don't like this practice, but that's the way some designers think.
-------
Well, I'm glad I at least did not say that the situation was obviously ironic or anything.
Ah, another fun slashdot game.
-------