I thought the same too, but after looking through the list on wikipedia there are winners who are an institution and then a person won in the same year. I imagine the person is most likely a figure head of that institution, or someone really important who helped said institution.
The wording needs fixed to reflect how they actually bill you. It's very easy think that the two are the same if you aren't paying attention. I almost did at first until I thought about it. To the people you're speaking to over the phone, it may really seem like it's the same thing. Attributing malice to them most likely isn't correct. Now attributing malice to the higher up bean counters, sure, blame them.
This is also an issue with the phone using data without the person knowing about it or maybe it's AT&T fabricating data usage. It's hard to tell based on the scant details.
I don't get the attitude around here. When Microsoft's latest phone had unexplained data usage, no one blamed the carrier, they blamed the people who designed the phone -- Microsoft.
Now I'm not going to fully disagree with you here. I think the carrier should assume some responsibility, but to what extent it's their responsibility, I'm not sure.
Nothing in the article shows how it couldn't have been the phone itself doing it, not AT&T doing it. If the device is ON, but not being used, well, there's a lot of shit that goes on in the back-end of things, like update checking, etc...
I don't grammar Nazi far too often anymore. The only time when I do is when I am having an absolutely difficult time trying to decipher the gibberish that someone had written. Poo poo on "grammar Nazi's" all you want, but they do sometimes have a valid reason. Wouldn't it be better if people could actually convey their messages in a fashion that people can actually read?
On the other hand nit-picking about every little infraction is downright annoying. Minor punctuation and spelling mistakes here or there should not be a huge deal.
Ultimately, it's the manager who is in charge of their "worker bees". If their employees aren't up to par and you've tried to help them improve and they can't or wont, shit can them. It's quite simple really. If you aren't getting rid of the bad eggs for your team, guess where the problem lies? Hint, it's actually not the bad egg anymore, it's the person in charge.
I would suggest to not make it mandatory. You may get some to work 10's. You may get some to do 9's, and you'll have your usual group of 8's. Mandatory OT blows for salaried people, Those that don't have a lot going on in their lives or don't mind giving a little extra will do so without a lot of question. Your employees will stay happy. I also suggest your boss creating a realistic time line for profitability and perhaps sharing that with the rest of the employees.
I personally work over time every day, but I normally do not put in more than 45 to 47 hours a week. Sometimes my over time will just be an extra 15 minutes a day to finish up whatever I was working on. I've also put in 16 hour days where we had a lot going on and every little bit of extra help was gladly accepted. Every year I get a bonus that's larger than most of the other people at my level where I work. So perhaps some sort of incentive along with the over time would be helpful. It doesn't even have to be a cash incentive. Some people just like having a nice place to work at, so maybe a catered lunch would be preferred.
Telling people to do mandatory over time is an option. Seriously, ask for volunteers first. If a large majority helps out, those that don't will get shunned and move on elsewhere quickly. In my personal experience those who aren't willing to at the very least do a little extra sometimes are also the people who half ass their work and are malcontents. We all value our personal time, but really, how many of us have so much going on in our personal lives that we can't give 2 or 3 hours a week when it's asked? Those that are so gung-ho against it are those that never get anywhere in their careers. They miss those opportunities to show that they can do more and talk to the higher-ups who are still there working.
Just in my own personal experience, I've never seen Rapidshare used for legal means. I've never heard of anyone using it for legal means. I'm not saying that it can't happen or doesn't happen, but I really do wonder how much of their business is business done without breaking copyright laws. Furthermore, if they never open up the files put on their servers, how the hell would they know whether there's copyright infringement going on in the first place? You can't claim for absolute certainty that your core business doesn't rely on law breakers when you don't monitor what your customers are doing. You have to view data somewhere at some point to have a reasonable conclusion.
I'm not convinced that they were ever slacking in the first place. Their bosses and their bosses bosses were probably deciding how much of what to air to keep raking in the advertising dollars. It's almost like they just realize that good or bad, we like hearing the juicy details of the political world. I'm not sure why they ever thought differently. People like watching shows like, "Jersey Shore" and whatnot. While the caliber of intelligent discourse is potentially higher in politics, when you break down it, the drama is all the same.
You're missing the point. Any company has the right to decide to host whatever they want in the scenario you're providing. But your scenario is missing the reality of the situation, government pressure. The GP's post and his point remain, it is oppression BECAUSE of the governments involvement and influence.
The only time I've ever done so is when the on board sound goes kaput. The PC I took into work has that very issue. 6 years later everything in it is running fine. Me having that PC there was supposed to be temporary since they didn't want to shell out the money for a PC for me (even though I needed one), so I brought in an old one I didn't use much which was better than anything they would have bought.
There is a client people pay for that has all of the content. There's also a client people do not pay for which limits the amount of content they can consume. Even if you try the free one, you're still required to pay in full for it and then access to their servers if you want more.
Furthermore, why should it be an obligation to pay to play on their servers? People pay for $60 games that have little to no content to $60 games that have a shit fuck ton of content. In both of those type of games there's no subscription or obligations to keep forking over money. And yet expansions are still made for those games.
I fully agree with what you're thinking here. They know that once a player has beaten the game, no matter the difficulty, they may not care to keep playing it after that. They toss in a multiplayer to keep interest in the game so it can keep selling more copies.
A big part of the reason the Halo's and the COD's sell is not because of the single player elements. I've encountered numerous people who couldn't care less about single player. They play the games for the notoriously fun multiplayer. A gaming company should keep this in mind if they're going to put in multiplayer at all. If you do it, make sure it's fun and addictive. If you can't manage to get it right, don't bother putting it in. Because really, the resources could be saved, or even used on other areas to polish the game.
If gaming journalists didn't want half of the flames they get, maybe they could actually try doing their job a little better. Don't get me wrong, I know full well that sometimes committing your feelings and thoughts down to a piece of paper can be a daunting task. Yet, a lot of reviews we all see never jive with their arbitrary scoring system. Why is that if three-quarters of your review is negative, the game still gets an 8.0? An 8? 8 should be considered good. Not great, but well above part. Likewise you'll also see massive praise, but the game will score a 7. Come on. You can't find something negative to say? Something clearly wasn't working for you, so figure it out or up the score.
And then all the reviewers do is complain that people piss and moan about their articles. Well shit son, if I wrote like you did on a consistent basis, I'd deserve all the flames I was receiving too. Yet, when you point these very things out to them, it goes right over their head.
Really, are we readers possibly asking for too much when we want their arbitrary scoring system to coincide with what's written?
Maybe I'm just being obtuse here, but it wasn't clear to me if they read the same story on all of the platforms, or just had each person read the story once and the testers chose the platform for them.
This is pretty significant. If you're going to have me read the same 30 pages over and over again, I may slow down due to boredom, or I may skim the pages and the progression appears to have increased.
That depends on the woman. I've known woman to have irregular cycles and be complete and utter sex hating bitches where I'd rather kill myself than put up with their bullshit for another second while on hormonal BC. Fortunately most women aren't like this.
It's really no different than what women have to go through with their birth control methods. Each method is different, but if they miss it once they generally have to wait like... a month for it to work.
I get tired of people wanting things done for them without offering anything in return.
All bullshit aside, all they want is their game to work. 3 weeks in and they can't even play it. If you paid for something, wouldn't you expect it to work? They already offered their money for the game and the services that are required to play said game. What more do you feel is expected from the every day average joe user?
Your whole position seems to be shifting the blame entirely on the consumer here, why? Obviously it's the consumers fault for complaining about buying a product, expecting it to work, and then it not working as it was advertised to do so. The problem clearly isn't Ubisoft here. No. They did nothing wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought the same too, but after looking through the list on wikipedia there are winners who are an institution and then a person won in the same year. I imagine the person is most likely a figure head of that institution, or someone really important who helped said institution.
Oh no, we'll hear from him again, but there will be a drastic shift in his views and beliefs.
Correction: Obama was rewarded the peace prize in 2009.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_Peace_Prize_laureates
How do they plan on enforcing this? I just don't see how they could.
The wording needs fixed to reflect how they actually bill you. It's very easy think that the two are the same if you aren't paying attention. I almost did at first until I thought about it. To the people you're speaking to over the phone, it may really seem like it's the same thing. Attributing malice to them most likely isn't correct. Now attributing malice to the higher up bean counters, sure, blame them.
This is also an issue with the phone using data without the person knowing about it or maybe it's AT&T fabricating data usage. It's hard to tell based on the scant details.
I don't get the attitude around here. When Microsoft's latest phone had unexplained data usage, no one blamed the carrier, they blamed the people who designed the phone -- Microsoft. Now I'm not going to fully disagree with you here. I think the carrier should assume some responsibility, but to what extent it's their responsibility, I'm not sure.
Nothing in the article shows how it couldn't have been the phone itself doing it, not AT&T doing it. If the device is ON, but not being used, well, there's a lot of shit that goes on in the back-end of things, like update checking, etc...
Or maybe they're just saying they're glad to be a sentence fragment!
I don't grammar Nazi far too often anymore. The only time when I do is when I am having an absolutely difficult time trying to decipher the gibberish that someone had written. Poo poo on "grammar Nazi's" all you want, but they do sometimes have a valid reason. Wouldn't it be better if people could actually convey their messages in a fashion that people can actually read?
On the other hand nit-picking about every little infraction is downright annoying. Minor punctuation and spelling mistakes here or there should not be a huge deal.
Ultimately, it's the manager who is in charge of their "worker bees". If their employees aren't up to par and you've tried to help them improve and they can't or wont, shit can them. It's quite simple really. If you aren't getting rid of the bad eggs for your team, guess where the problem lies? Hint, it's actually not the bad egg anymore, it's the person in charge.
I would suggest to not make it mandatory. You may get some to work 10's. You may get some to do 9's, and you'll have your usual group of 8's. Mandatory OT blows for salaried people, Those that don't have a lot going on in their lives or don't mind giving a little extra will do so without a lot of question. Your employees will stay happy. I also suggest your boss creating a realistic time line for profitability and perhaps sharing that with the rest of the employees.
I personally work over time every day, but I normally do not put in more than 45 to 47 hours a week. Sometimes my over time will just be an extra 15 minutes a day to finish up whatever I was working on. I've also put in 16 hour days where we had a lot going on and every little bit of extra help was gladly accepted. Every year I get a bonus that's larger than most of the other people at my level where I work. So perhaps some sort of incentive along with the over time would be helpful. It doesn't even have to be a cash incentive. Some people just like having a nice place to work at, so maybe a catered lunch would be preferred.
Telling people to do mandatory over time is an option. Seriously, ask for volunteers first. If a large majority helps out, those that don't will get shunned and move on elsewhere quickly. In my personal experience those who aren't willing to at the very least do a little extra sometimes are also the people who half ass their work and are malcontents. We all value our personal time, but really, how many of us have so much going on in our personal lives that we can't give 2 or 3 hours a week when it's asked? Those that are so gung-ho against it are those that never get anywhere in their careers. They miss those opportunities to show that they can do more and talk to the higher-ups who are still there working.
Just in my own personal experience, I've never seen Rapidshare used for legal means. I've never heard of anyone using it for legal means. I'm not saying that it can't happen or doesn't happen, but I really do wonder how much of their business is business done without breaking copyright laws. Furthermore, if they never open up the files put on their servers, how the hell would they know whether there's copyright infringement going on in the first place? You can't claim for absolute certainty that your core business doesn't rely on law breakers when you don't monitor what your customers are doing. You have to view data somewhere at some point to have a reasonable conclusion.
I'm not convinced that they were ever slacking in the first place. Their bosses and their bosses bosses were probably deciding how much of what to air to keep raking in the advertising dollars. It's almost like they just realize that good or bad, we like hearing the juicy details of the political world. I'm not sure why they ever thought differently. People like watching shows like, "Jersey Shore" and whatnot. While the caliber of intelligent discourse is potentially higher in politics, when you break down it, the drama is all the same.
You're missing the point. Any company has the right to decide to host whatever they want in the scenario you're providing. But your scenario is missing the reality of the situation, government pressure. The GP's post and his point remain, it is oppression BECAUSE of the governments involvement and influence.
The only time I've ever done so is when the on board sound goes kaput. The PC I took into work has that very issue. 6 years later everything in it is running fine. Me having that PC there was supposed to be temporary since they didn't want to shell out the money for a PC for me (even though I needed one), so I brought in an old one I didn't use much which was better than anything they would have bought.
Then why are people constantly paying $60 for the new content that's released every few years? If it's all free...
But it's not. The free client is already restricted by content alone and what you can do with the content.
There is a client people pay for that has all of the content. There's also a client people do not pay for which limits the amount of content they can consume. Even if you try the free one, you're still required to pay in full for it and then access to their servers if you want more.
Furthermore, why should it be an obligation to pay to play on their servers? People pay for $60 games that have little to no content to $60 games that have a shit fuck ton of content. In both of those type of games there's no subscription or obligations to keep forking over money. And yet expansions are still made for those games.
I fully agree with what you're thinking here. They know that once a player has beaten the game, no matter the difficulty, they may not care to keep playing it after that. They toss in a multiplayer to keep interest in the game so it can keep selling more copies.
A big part of the reason the Halo's and the COD's sell is not because of the single player elements. I've encountered numerous people who couldn't care less about single player. They play the games for the notoriously fun multiplayer. A gaming company should keep this in mind if they're going to put in multiplayer at all. If you do it, make sure it's fun and addictive. If you can't manage to get it right, don't bother putting it in. Because really, the resources could be saved, or even used on other areas to polish the game.
If gaming journalists didn't want half of the flames they get, maybe they could actually try doing their job a little better. Don't get me wrong, I know full well that sometimes committing your feelings and thoughts down to a piece of paper can be a daunting task. Yet, a lot of reviews we all see never jive with their arbitrary scoring system. Why is that if three-quarters of your review is negative, the game still gets an 8.0? An 8? 8 should be considered good. Not great, but well above part. Likewise you'll also see massive praise, but the game will score a 7. Come on. You can't find something negative to say? Something clearly wasn't working for you, so figure it out or up the score.
And then all the reviewers do is complain that people piss and moan about their articles. Well shit son, if I wrote like you did on a consistent basis, I'd deserve all the flames I was receiving too. Yet, when you point these very things out to them, it goes right over their head.
Really, are we readers possibly asking for too much when we want their arbitrary scoring system to coincide with what's written?
Maybe I'm just being obtuse here, but it wasn't clear to me if they read the same story on all of the platforms, or just had each person read the story once and the testers chose the platform for them.
This is pretty significant. If you're going to have me read the same 30 pages over and over again, I may slow down due to boredom, or I may skim the pages and the progression appears to have increased.
That depends on the woman. I've known woman to have irregular cycles and be complete and utter sex hating bitches where I'd rather kill myself than put up with their bullshit for another second while on hormonal BC. Fortunately most women aren't like this.
It's really no different than what women have to go through with their birth control methods. Each method is different, but if they miss it once they generally have to wait like... a month for it to work.
I get tired of people wanting things done for them without offering anything in return.
All bullshit aside, all they want is their game to work. 3 weeks in and they can't even play it. If you paid for something, wouldn't you expect it to work? They already offered their money for the game and the services that are required to play said game. What more do you feel is expected from the every day average joe user?
Your whole position seems to be shifting the blame entirely on the consumer here, why? Obviously it's the consumers fault for complaining about buying a product, expecting it to work, and then it not working as it was advertised to do so. The problem clearly isn't Ubisoft here. No. They did nothing wrong.