Please. People buy shit from Qwest over the phone every single day. Some of them aren't happy with their purchases. Lots of others are. Some of them are thrilled when you inform them that you're calling about Internet service.
The whole 'shame on you for scamming people =(' thing is bull shit. Maybe you can pull that on the random snake-oil telemarketers that like to break the law, but not reputable companies. (I'm sure you probably think telemarketers can't be reputable, but consider it from a relative perspective for a minute.) Qwest is a pretty shady company on the whole, but when it comes to their telemarketing practices, they're completely legit. They have to be. They'll try to convince you to buy something, which is understandably annoying, but there is no 'scamming'. Nothing is misrepresented, they're not tricking anybody, everything is completely according to the law. And if you do happen to find the calls annoying, it is a matter of five simple words to stop them. Which is a lot more than i can say for spam and junk mail and pop-ups and bill boards.
They may be annoying, but you can't honestly sit there and act like it's morally reprehensible or something.
It was for no reason, because he accomplished nothing. His lack of comprehension of the law combined with his condescending eruption over the phone did not only cost him the 30 seconds or whatever for that phone call, but they're probably going to cost him another 30 seconds, and another 30 seconds, and another 30 seconds, until he eventually figures it out or the company finally removes him from the list. Qwest is going to call him back, whether i ever worked for them or not. It hasn't got anything to do with me.
Great, so if I tell Quest to take me off their call list, they'll do it? Oh FUCK no. Why? Simply because they don't have to.
More and more service providers (of all sorts) are creating a "retentions" department that's authorized to do all sorts of crazy things to keep you there.
You're talking about different things. If you tell a telemarketer to take you off their list, they have to. There is no 'retentions'. They can ask you if you're sure (if you're still on the phone to hear it), but there's no debating. If you say take me off your list, they have to do it. If they don't, and you're a relatively able-minded person, you can get them fined a lot of money.
Oh, and as far as being an ass to marketing guys, I have no problem with it. I'm an ass to guys like you on purpose. I'm not actually mad, but I strive to make you think i'm mad. Often, I'm on the verge of bursting into laughter at your stammering and stuttering when I lay into you. If it didn't bother you, you wouldn't have put up your post. Since it does bother you, I win and you lose. It's as simple as that. I'll keep "being an ass" to guys like you as long as it takes. My stress level isn't affected but yours is. Hell, you guys are theraputic for me. If I can release some work-generated stress into some recepticle on the other end of my phone, I come out ahead.
I never said that people being an ass to bothered me. I kinda liked it when people asked me ridiculous questions and called me names. I was terrible at my job, so any excuse to get out of actually working the leads was cool with me.
I just think people are stupid if they assume that being a jerk is going to get them taken off the list. Even if you think that the company should just realise that you don't want to be called. You guys obviously know that's not how the world works, so if you want to be taken off the list, just say so. Screw with telemarketers if you think it's fun, but don't act like you didn't have the chance to tell them to stop calling you.
(By the way, the first thing that they teach you in training is that the majority of people aren't going to buy anything until they say no at least a couple times. That is why they call you back even if it seems like you're not going to buy it. It's not as much of a waste of time as you might think, unless of course all your employees are like me and they just get out of the call the first time you say no.)
Uhh. Well, if you want to put it that way, yeah, i guess so? I got to listen to some stranger make a fool of himself for no reason, and i got paid to do it.
1) Until now I didn't actually think telemarketers were that colossally stupid. If *I* were a telemarketer I would use my amazingly advanced intellectual powers to deduce that people who screamed, threatened, yelled, and bitched at me probably didn't want to talk to me, and probably wanted to be removed from the list. I wouldn't actually require them to say "magic phrases"...
(a) Not everyone takes the time to say that they're the ones we should be talking to. A lot of the time it's just some teen-ager and you can hear his friends laughing in the background while he asks you stupid questions or calls you names. That isn't any reason to put somebody on the do-not-call list. You wanted to talk to his parents, you didn't get his parents, so you're gonna call back.
(b) I personally would have preferred to put people who were irate on the DNC list, even when they don't say the 'magic phrase', just because i don't want to take the chance of dealing with them again later. But they don't let you do that. You can get fired for that.
(c) I don't know where you come off talking about 'amazingly advanced intellectual powers'. Take me off your list. Five words. People who don't even speak English have managed to convey that message to me. Bitching to some 17-year-old getting paid $6 an hour about how you hate to be interrupted at dinner how would i like it if you did it to me blah blah blah takes SO MUCH more time and effort than just saying take me off your list.
2) What about recorded solicitations. Making the customer listen to a 5 minute or longer spiel and then directing them to wait on the line or worse to call a toll free number... that's ridiculous. In that case hanging up should be accepted to mean "do-not-call back".
I was completely amazed at how people are so uninformed about the whole thing. I realise we were bothering them, but that doesn't change the law or how incredibly simple it is to get us to stop calling back.
I called on behalf of Qwest (the phone/Internet company). Qwest is kinda serious about the Do-Not-Call list. They don't call ANYBODY who isn't already a Qwest customer. Even if they're not on the Do-Not-Call list. And Qwest is, of course, allowed to call its own customers unless they've asked them specifically to be taken off the list (because they have an Existing Business Relationship).
So this kinda got annoying after a while:
me: 'Hi, i'm calling on behalf of Qwest, is so-and-so there?'
guy: 'LISTEN HERE WE'RE ON THE DO NOT CALL LIST I'M GOING TO REPORT YOU' click
It's just like... OK... that's cool that you're on the DNC list, but we're still legally allowed to call you. So since you have no idea what you're talking about and just hung up on us, we're just going to call you again. I hope acting like an ass hole was worth it.
People not understanding the DNC law was the biggest annoyance we got. You'd be amazed. Almost nobody understands what the hell it does. I just can't fathom why you would sign up for something without having any idea what the fuck you're signing up for.
Another thing that was annoying is the people who just hang up on you. And then they threaten you the next time you call, as if them hanging up last time was some kind of legal contract that you were supposed to adhere to. If you just hang up on a telemarketer, they're going to call you back. No doubt about it. They will do it. You never told them not to call back, for all they know maybe you just dropped the phone. Or maybe your 5-year-old answered. They don't know.
Messing with telemarketers does not get them to stop calling you. No matter how many times you call them a fag or ask them what they're wearing or hang up on them or ask them how they'd like it if you called them during dinner, they're still going to call back. JUST TELL THEM TO TAKE YOU OFF THEIR FUCKING LIST.
All you have to do is say 'put me on your do-not-call list'. That's it. THEY'LL NEVER BOTHER YOU AGAIN. If they do, you can call the FCC and get them fined $11'000 or whatever (and you get up to $500 out of it).
Shall we just sit and wait for the number of American deaths to exceed those of 9/11? Shall we turn the Iraq war into a grater disaster than 9/11, with more lives lost and over ten times the cost to taxpayers?
I'm not sure whether i agree with your conclusion or not, but your reasoning is kind of stupid.
More Americans died and more money was spent fighting World War II than at Pearl Harbor.
I read this article this morning, and i've been thinking about it all day, and it just now struck me.
Since everyone at JPL was raiding a freezer of ice cream at the time, Opportunity's controllers took their cue from their stomachs. That's why there is an area of round and chunky pebbles named Cookies N Cream and a lighter patch of soil named Vanilla.
I don't know, i think it's pretty funny that NASA scientists get iced-cream breaks.
It's not really relevant to his point, which i agree with, i was just noting that what amounts to the same thing does occur in many countries. If you own a television, you pay the tax. Whether you pay the tax on the television itself or separately, it still effectively amounts to getting 'a cut of TV sales', since you only have to pay the tax if you own a television.
And, actually, the answer to a lot of his (potential) questions is yes, now that i think about it. There's a PC tax in Germany (which was big news on Slashdot when it happened). And they pay a sort of tax on recordable media in Canada, which is probably closer to his point considering the tax goes to the industry rather than to the state. And i think they do the same in America too (with those so-called 'music' CD-Rs), at least that's the rumour i've heard. And don't they do it on MP3-players in Sweden or something?
Austria: In Austria, the television & radio licence varies in price depending on which state one lives in. All are in euros and are paid annually.
Denmark: The licence fee in Denmark is DKK 2 040 per annum for colour TV, DKK 1 310 for black and white TV and DKK 320 for radio.
Finland: The licence fee in Finland is 193.95 per annum for TV.
France: In 2004, the television licence fee in France (mainland & Corsica) is 116.50 and in the overseas departments (where viewers receive the Reseau France d'Outre Mer (RFO) rather than France 2-France 3-France 5-Arte) it is 74.31.
Germany: The licence fee in Germany is 193.80 per annum for TV and radio, and 66.24 for just radio. It is billed by month, but typically paid quarterly (yearly payments are possible). Unemployed and disabled people do not need to pay the licence fee.
Ireland: In 2005, the television licence in Ireland is 155. It is free to anyone over the age of 70 and to some over 66. The licence fee is the primary source of revenue for RTÉ, the state broadcaster; however, its radio and TV stations also broadcast advertising to supplement this income.
Italy: In 2005, the licence fee in Italy is 99,60 per household with a TV set. It is the primary source of income for RAI, though it also broadcasts advertising.
Norway: The licence fee in Norway is NOK 1 969 per annum (2005). The fee is mandatory for any owner of a TV set, and is the primary source of income for Norsk Rikskringkasting (NRK).
Sweden: The licence fee in Sweden is SEK 1 920 per annum. It is collected on behalf of the public broadcasters by Radiotjänst.
Switzerland: The licence fee in Switzerland is CHF 450.35 per annum for TV and radio.
United Kingdom: In the United Kingdom, these fees are set by Parliament and go directly to the funding of the BBC, enabling it to run without the need for market competition. The licence fee, initially for radio sets (exempt since 1971), was mandated by the 1904 Wireless Telegraphy Act. The fee was originally 10 shillings (£0.50) and in 2005 was £126.50 for colour TV and £42 for monochrome TV. There are concessions for the elderly (free for over 75s) and blind people (50% off). Only one licence is required per household.
In most cases it's not directly on the television itself and it only goes towards state broadcasters (as opposed to a whole industry like the parent was talking about), but it amounts to the same thing.
It used to be amn't (or an't). It changed to ain't later, probably because of the way they talked.:shrug: Anyway, the meaning would depend on who you talk to. Some people will say it's completely wrong no matter what, some will say it's fine for 'am not', and others will say it can mean any of those things (am not, is not, does not, do not, whatever). I guess most people do fall into the latter, but most people probably suck.:/
Technically, 'he ain't got it' is just as wrong as 'he doesn't has it', considering that 'ain't' means 'am not'. The only difference between your examples is that one error (he ain't) is widely accepted in every-day speech and one (doesn't has) isn't.
Uh. While the guy you replied to might very well be completely wrong, what you quoted doesn't say anything. It says 28'000 are 'likely' to be 'real' problems. I'm no computer scientist, but i believe that leaves at least 37'000 more bugs that could potentially be 'spacing issues in dialog boxes'.
If you want to be more successfully condescending, you could try pasting a quote that actually backs up your attitude.
I'm not positive, but i think they have a sort of sea-level equivalent worked out for Mars. Maybe several competing ones, i don't know. I remember reading that they did have some reference point (or two or three), though, maybe based on some kind of average, which is how they measure those mountains.
Hurt is the only song by NIN that i like (although he ruins it with that retarded loud noise at the end). Most of the rest of his music is just ambient filler. Therefore, i wouldn't say that i 'listen' to NIN, and i wouldn't buy any of his CDs.
Although in this case i wouldn't say Trent Reznor is shitty and untalented, i would say most of his songs convey those things, so it works out the same way.
Out of all the arguements i can make against the music industry today, the 'i only like one song on the whole CD' thing is not one of them. Never applies. Maybe there are occasionally two or three songs on an album that i actually don't like, but i have never bought an album where i only liked one or two songs.
Maybe if you guys didn't listen to such shitty untalented artists you would like more of their songs.
Let's see, you said that "horrible" interfaces keep you from using a lot of programs. You mentioned Mozilla, so I assume it is one of the programs whose "horrible" interface keeps you from using it.
I don't use Mozilla because i hate it. I would rather use Opera, Firefox, or Internet Explorer (in that order) over it. Not because of the interface, but because of other things. But i'm not talking about other things, so whatever. The programs that i refuse to use because of their interface are the serious offenders. Mozilla has a horrible interface, but it's not as horrible as, say, the GIMP, or MySQL for Windows. The GIMP is an example of a program that i refuse to use solely because of the interface. Not just because it looks lame, but because it works lame.
The comment "Baby, meet bathwater" refers to the saying about throwing out the baby with the bathwater. If you don't get it, google it.
I know what it means, thanks.
The point is that you are an idiot for not using a tool just because the interface is, IYO, "horrible", and you cite something like Mozilla as an example.
Mozilla is a horrible tool because it is a horrible tool. It does not do what i want it to do, it has nothing to do with the interface. I never said that i don't use Mozilla just because of the interface. But it still has a horrible interface.
The point is you're one of those insufferable pricks who rips on Free Software because it has a "horrible" interface/theme/widget set.
I use tons of free software, ass hole, and i 'rip' on all kinds of commercial software for having 'horrible' interfaces. Why does everything have to be some kind of holy ideology battle with you guys? Jesus Christ, get the fuck over yourselves.
The point is that you might as well be a Mac fanboy, because you will fit in perfectly with that crowd. Come on, come out of the closet!
Maybe you should Google 'fanboy' since you don't seem to know what it means, guy. I apply interface-design rules to everything. Microsoft's Office software has a lame interface. Apple doesn't follow their own HID guide lines half of the time, it seems. The Linux community is so splintered that i can't even begin to make a statement about it. I will say that the GNOME people seem to be pretty serious about their interface rules. Unfortunately i can't live off GNOME. This, i think, disqualifies me from being a fanatic of anything, unless you can be a fanatic of interface design (in which case, whatever).
In early versions of Firefox, it was obvious that they were just imitating Windows. Scroll bars didn't look right, buttons didn't look right, menus didn't look right. They were sorta close (if you were using the Classic theme), but obviously not the same. Now, though, Firefox is mostly compatible with all of Windows's visual styles. I can pick any random third-party VS and the scroll bars will look exactly the way they should. There are still a few problems (i don't use Firefox, so i don't know for sure, but i think the menus are still wrong), but they're really close.
I don't know about Windows's Classic theme, because i haven't used it in ages, but i'm using a visual style on XP. (Not Luna, but a third-party one.) So... that's where my observations come from. On Windows, i think the visual style should decide what all the components look like. On most well-written programs, it does. The people who write Mozilla apparently don't agree with that (or they just don't care).
I don't even use a Mac, you fucking idiot, and i'm certainly not a 'fanboy'.
And i never made any assertions as to the functionality of Mozilla (aside from saying that it's slow to load up and it used up more RAM on a Mac than the classic OS itself did). Back when i did have a Mac (which was years ago), i was forced to use Mozilla because there was nothing better, and i used it almost exclusively.
So why don't you get off my back about it? I don't use Mozilla anymore, and i probably never will use it ever again, so this doesn't really affect me. Opera was pretty shitty as far as interface for a long time, but they finally got it mostly right (although their preferences window is kind of lame), so i'm content with that. But that fact, in addition to all the many nice things i'm sure you can say about Mozilla's functionality, don't at all change what i said.
So, you know, if you want to talk about babies, you can start with your debate tactics.
i) That's still someone's opinion. You may choose to call that person a guru, but I don't.
Yeah OK. It's also just someone's opinion that it's wrong to litter and that it's wrong to steal and that it's wrong to set fire to a person's house and that it's wrong to cut people's throats. I mean i don't know if you want to consider these people gurus or anything....
ii) "If it looks the same it works the same" is not the same thing as "Everything interface should look the same". Ever wonder why a helicopter doesn't have a steering wheel?
Oh, you got me on that one. Because the difference between a car and a helicopter is clearly equivalent to the difference between two pieces of software running under the same environment on the same computer, not to mention, of course, that a helicopter works exactly the same as a car, so i mean, logically, it does follow that it should employ the same means of guidance (oh wait)
I'm not talking so much about the logic of the design. I'm talking about the aesthetics (and i know your first reaction is probably 'who cares about the aesthetics', but i'm just obsessive like that).
Things shouldn't be 'themable'. Themable is BAD. Let the fucking desk-top environment decide what programs look like. I don't know about Linux, but those little panel buttons with all the dots on them do not exist in the standard Windows or Macintosh interfaces. Why are they there? Why has Mozilla decided to invent an interface component that no other piece of software in the history of computing has ever used? That is an obvious example.
I downloaded SeaMonkey just now and this is what i see. Some of the buttons aren't real Windows buttons. The menus aren't real Windows menus. The status bar is probably 10 pixels too tall (Why the hell?). The tool bars aren't tall enough. The side bar is completely random, it doesn't look like Windows at all.
And so on. I guess it's secondary to the features and junk, but like i said i'm obsessive about stuff like that, and it's not like it's hard to fix, especially given a whole decade.
Slashdot Mirror
Please. People buy shit from Qwest over the phone every single day. Some of them aren't happy with their purchases. Lots of others are. Some of them are thrilled when you inform them that you're calling about Internet service.
The whole 'shame on you for scamming people =(' thing is bull shit. Maybe you can pull that on the random snake-oil telemarketers that like to break the law, but not reputable companies. (I'm sure you probably think telemarketers can't be reputable, but consider it from a relative perspective for a minute.) Qwest is a pretty shady company on the whole, but when it comes to their telemarketing practices, they're completely legit. They have to be. They'll try to convince you to buy something, which is understandably annoying, but there is no 'scamming'. Nothing is misrepresented, they're not tricking anybody, everything is completely according to the law. And if you do happen to find the calls annoying, it is a matter of five simple words to stop them. Which is a lot more than i can say for spam and junk mail and pop-ups and bill boards.
They may be annoying, but you can't honestly sit there and act like it's morally reprehensible or something.
It was for no reason, because he accomplished nothing. His lack of comprehension of the law combined with his condescending eruption over the phone did not only cost him the 30 seconds or whatever for that phone call, but they're probably going to cost him another 30 seconds, and another 30 seconds, and another 30 seconds, until he eventually figures it out or the company finally removes him from the list. Qwest is going to call him back, whether i ever worked for them or not. It hasn't got anything to do with me.
Understand?
Great, so if I tell Quest to take me off their call list, they'll do it? Oh FUCK no. Why? Simply because they don't have to. More and more service providers (of all sorts) are creating a "retentions" department that's authorized to do all sorts of crazy things to keep you there.
You're talking about different things. If you tell a telemarketer to take you off their list, they have to. There is no 'retentions'. They can ask you if you're sure (if you're still on the phone to hear it), but there's no debating. If you say take me off your list, they have to do it. If they don't, and you're a relatively able-minded person, you can get them fined a lot of money.
Oh, and as far as being an ass to marketing guys, I have no problem with it. I'm an ass to guys like you on purpose. I'm not actually mad, but I strive to make you think i'm mad. Often, I'm on the verge of bursting into laughter at your stammering and stuttering when I lay into you. If it didn't bother you, you wouldn't have put up your post. Since it does bother you, I win and you lose. It's as simple as that. I'll keep "being an ass" to guys like you as long as it takes. My stress level isn't affected but yours is. Hell, you guys are theraputic for me. If I can release some work-generated stress into some recepticle on the other end of my phone, I come out ahead.
I never said that people being an ass to bothered me. I kinda liked it when people asked me ridiculous questions and called me names. I was terrible at my job, so any excuse to get out of actually working the leads was cool with me.
I just think people are stupid if they assume that being a jerk is going to get them taken off the list. Even if you think that the company should just realise that you don't want to be called. You guys obviously know that's not how the world works, so if you want to be taken off the list, just say so. Screw with telemarketers if you think it's fun, but don't act like you didn't have the chance to tell them to stop calling you.
(By the way, the first thing that they teach you in training is that the majority of people aren't going to buy anything until they say no at least a couple times. That is why they call you back even if it seems like you're not going to buy it. It's not as much of a waste of time as you might think, unless of course all your employees are like me and they just get out of the call the first time you say no.)
Uhh. Well, if you want to put it that way, yeah, i guess so? I got to listen to some stranger make a fool of himself for no reason, and i got paid to do it.
1) Until now I didn't actually think telemarketers were that colossally stupid. If *I* were a telemarketer I would use my amazingly advanced intellectual powers to deduce that people who screamed, threatened, yelled, and bitched at me probably didn't want to talk to me, and probably wanted to be removed from the list. I wouldn't actually require them to say "magic phrases"...
(a) Not everyone takes the time to say that they're the ones we should be talking to. A lot of the time it's just some teen-ager and you can hear his friends laughing in the background while he asks you stupid questions or calls you names. That isn't any reason to put somebody on the do-not-call list. You wanted to talk to his parents, you didn't get his parents, so you're gonna call back.
(b) I personally would have preferred to put people who were irate on the DNC list, even when they don't say the 'magic phrase', just because i don't want to take the chance of dealing with them again later. But they don't let you do that. You can get fired for that.
(c) I don't know where you come off talking about 'amazingly advanced intellectual powers'. Take me off your list. Five words. People who don't even speak English have managed to convey that message to me. Bitching to some 17-year-old getting paid $6 an hour about how you hate to be interrupted at dinner how would i like it if you did it to me blah blah blah takes SO MUCH more time and effort than just saying take me off your list.
2) What about recorded solicitations. Making the customer listen to a 5 minute or longer spiel and then directing them to wait on the line or worse to call a toll free number... that's ridiculous. In that case hanging up should be accepted to mean "do-not-call back".
I can't defend those. Those are stupid.
I also worked as a telemarketer for a year.
I was completely amazed at how people are so uninformed about the whole thing. I realise we were bothering them, but that doesn't change the law or how incredibly simple it is to get us to stop calling back.
I called on behalf of Qwest (the phone/Internet company). Qwest is kinda serious about the Do-Not-Call list. They don't call ANYBODY who isn't already a Qwest customer. Even if they're not on the Do-Not-Call list. And Qwest is, of course, allowed to call its own customers unless they've asked them specifically to be taken off the list (because they have an Existing Business Relationship).
So this kinda got annoying after a while:
me: 'Hi, i'm calling on behalf of Qwest, is so-and-so there?'
guy: 'LISTEN HERE WE'RE ON THE DO NOT CALL LIST I'M GOING TO REPORT YOU' click
It's just like... OK... that's cool that you're on the DNC list, but we're still legally allowed to call you. So since you have no idea what you're talking about and just hung up on us, we're just going to call you again. I hope acting like an ass hole was worth it.
People not understanding the DNC law was the biggest annoyance we got. You'd be amazed. Almost nobody understands what the hell it does. I just can't fathom why you would sign up for something without having any idea what the fuck you're signing up for.
Another thing that was annoying is the people who just hang up on you. And then they threaten you the next time you call, as if them hanging up last time was some kind of legal contract that you were supposed to adhere to. If you just hang up on a telemarketer, they're going to call you back. No doubt about it. They will do it. You never told them not to call back, for all they know maybe you just dropped the phone. Or maybe your 5-year-old answered. They don't know.
Messing with telemarketers does not get them to stop calling you. No matter how many times you call them a fag or ask them what they're wearing or hang up on them or ask them how they'd like it if you called them during dinner, they're still going to call back. JUST TELL THEM TO TAKE YOU OFF THEIR FUCKING LIST.
All you have to do is say 'put me on your do-not-call list'. That's it. THEY'LL NEVER BOTHER YOU AGAIN. If they do, you can call the FCC and get them fined $11'000 or whatever (and you get up to $500 out of it).
If W. had been President in 1941, he would have declared war on sneak-attackism, and then invaded Mexico.
AND THEY WOULD HAVE DESERVED IT
If you've ever tried to breathe through a garden hose from the bottom of a swimming pool
lol. Who really does that?
Shall we just sit and wait for the number of American deaths to exceed those of 9/11? Shall we turn the Iraq war into a grater disaster than 9/11, with more lives lost and over ten times the cost to taxpayers?
I'm not sure whether i agree with your conclusion or not, but your reasoning is kind of stupid.
More Americans died and more money was spent fighting World War II than at Pearl Harbor.
I read this article this morning, and i've been thinking about it all day, and it just now struck me.
Since everyone at JPL was raiding a freezer of ice cream at the time, Opportunity's controllers took their cue from their stomachs. That's why there is an area of round and chunky pebbles named Cookies N Cream and a lighter patch of soil named Vanilla.
I don't know, i think it's pretty funny that NASA scientists get iced-cream breaks.
It's not really relevant to his point, which i agree with, i was just noting that what amounts to the same thing does occur in many countries. If you own a television, you pay the tax. Whether you pay the tax on the television itself or separately, it still effectively amounts to getting 'a cut of TV sales', since you only have to pay the tax if you own a television.
And, actually, the answer to a lot of his (potential) questions is yes, now that i think about it. There's a PC tax in Germany (which was big news on Slashdot when it happened). And they pay a sort of tax on recordable media in Canada, which is probably closer to his point considering the tax goes to the industry rather than to the state. And i think they do the same in America too (with those so-called 'music' CD-Rs), at least that's the rumour i've heard. And don't they do it on MP3-players in Sweden or something?
I don't know. Just saying.
Austria: In Austria, the television & radio licence varies in price depending on which state one lives in. All are in euros and are paid annually.
Denmark: The licence fee in Denmark is DKK 2 040 per annum for colour TV, DKK 1 310 for black and white TV and DKK 320 for radio.
Finland: The licence fee in Finland is 193.95 per annum for TV.
France: In 2004, the television licence fee in France (mainland & Corsica) is 116.50 and in the overseas departments (where viewers receive the Reseau France d'Outre Mer (RFO) rather than France 2-France 3-France 5-Arte) it is 74.31.
Germany: The licence fee in Germany is 193.80 per annum for TV and radio, and 66.24 for just radio. It is billed by month, but typically paid quarterly (yearly payments are possible). Unemployed and disabled people do not need to pay the licence fee.
Ireland: In 2005, the television licence in Ireland is 155. It is free to anyone over the age of 70 and to some over 66. The licence fee is the primary source of revenue for RTÉ, the state broadcaster; however, its radio and TV stations also broadcast advertising to supplement this income.
Italy: In 2005, the licence fee in Italy is 99,60 per household with a TV set. It is the primary source of income for RAI, though it also broadcasts advertising.
Norway: The licence fee in Norway is NOK 1 969 per annum (2005). The fee is mandatory for any owner of a TV set, and is the primary source of income for Norsk Rikskringkasting (NRK).
Sweden: The licence fee in Sweden is SEK 1 920 per annum. It is collected on behalf of the public broadcasters by Radiotjänst.
Switzerland: The licence fee in Switzerland is CHF 450.35 per annum for TV and radio.
United Kingdom: In the United Kingdom, these fees are set by Parliament and go directly to the funding of the BBC, enabling it to run without the need for market competition. The licence fee, initially for radio sets (exempt since 1971), was mandated by the 1904 Wireless Telegraphy Act. The fee was originally 10 shillings (£0.50) and in 2005 was £126.50 for colour TV and £42 for monochrome TV. There are concessions for the elderly (free for over 75s) and blind people (50% off). Only one licence is required per household.
In most cases it's not directly on the television itself and it only goes towards state broadcasters (as opposed to a whole industry like the parent was talking about), but it amounts to the same thing.
Do TV studios get a cut of TV sales?
They do in a lot of countries. (Britain, Germany, i think the Netherlands and Italy and France....)
It used to be amn't (or an't). It changed to ain't later, probably because of the way they talked. :shrug: Anyway, the meaning would depend on who you talk to. Some people will say it's completely wrong no matter what, some will say it's fine for 'am not', and others will say it can mean any of those things (am not, is not, does not, do not, whatever). I guess most people do fall into the latter, but most people probably suck. :/
Technically, 'he ain't got it' is just as wrong as 'he doesn't has it', considering that 'ain't' means 'am not'. The only difference between your examples is that one error (he ain't) is widely accepted in every-day speech and one (doesn't has) isn't.
Uh. While the guy you replied to might very well be completely wrong, what you quoted doesn't say anything. It says 28'000 are 'likely' to be 'real' problems. I'm no computer scientist, but i believe that leaves at least 37'000 more bugs that could potentially be 'spacing issues in dialog boxes'.
If you want to be more successfully condescending, you could try pasting a quote that actually backs up your attitude.
I'm not positive, but i think they have a sort of sea-level equivalent worked out for Mars. Maybe several competing ones, i don't know. I remember reading that they did have some reference point (or two or three), though, maybe based on some kind of average, which is how they measure those mountains.
Hurt is the only song by NIN that i like (although he ruins it with that retarded loud noise at the end). Most of the rest of his music is just ambient filler. Therefore, i wouldn't say that i 'listen' to NIN, and i wouldn't buy any of his CDs.
Although in this case i wouldn't say Trent Reznor is shitty and untalented, i would say most of his songs convey those things, so it works out the same way.
Not to just post 'me too', but... me too.
Out of all the arguements i can make against the music industry today, the 'i only like one song on the whole CD' thing is not one of them. Never applies. Maybe there are occasionally two or three songs on an album that i actually don't like, but i have never bought an album where i only liked one or two songs.
Maybe if you guys didn't listen to such shitty untalented artists you would like more of their songs.
Let's see, you said that "horrible" interfaces keep you from using a lot of programs. You mentioned Mozilla, so I assume it is one of the programs whose "horrible" interface keeps you from using it.
I don't use Mozilla because i hate it. I would rather use Opera, Firefox, or Internet Explorer (in that order) over it. Not because of the interface, but because of other things. But i'm not talking about other things, so whatever. The programs that i refuse to use because of their interface are the serious offenders. Mozilla has a horrible interface, but it's not as horrible as, say, the GIMP, or MySQL for Windows. The GIMP is an example of a program that i refuse to use solely because of the interface. Not just because it looks lame, but because it works lame.
The comment "Baby, meet bathwater" refers to the saying about throwing out the baby with the bathwater. If you don't get it, google it.
I know what it means, thanks.
The point is that you are an idiot for not using a tool just because the interface is, IYO, "horrible", and you cite something like Mozilla as an example.
Mozilla is a horrible tool because it is a horrible tool. It does not do what i want it to do, it has nothing to do with the interface. I never said that i don't use Mozilla just because of the interface. But it still has a horrible interface.
The point is you're one of those insufferable pricks who rips on Free Software because it has a "horrible" interface/theme/widget set.
I use tons of free software, ass hole, and i 'rip' on all kinds of commercial software for having 'horrible' interfaces. Why does everything have to be some kind of holy ideology battle with you guys? Jesus Christ, get the fuck over yourselves.
The point is that you might as well be a Mac fanboy, because you will fit in perfectly with that crowd. Come on, come out of the closet!
Maybe you should Google 'fanboy' since you don't seem to know what it means, guy. I apply interface-design rules to everything. Microsoft's Office software has a lame interface. Apple doesn't follow their own HID guide lines half of the time, it seems. The Linux community is so splintered that i can't even begin to make a statement about it. I will say that the GNOME people seem to be pretty serious about their interface rules. Unfortunately i can't live off GNOME. This, i think, disqualifies me from being a fanatic of anything, unless you can be a fanatic of interface design (in which case, whatever).
In early versions of Firefox, it was obvious that they were just imitating Windows. Scroll bars didn't look right, buttons didn't look right, menus didn't look right. They were sorta close (if you were using the Classic theme), but obviously not the same. Now, though, Firefox is mostly compatible with all of Windows's visual styles. I can pick any random third-party VS and the scroll bars will look exactly the way they should. There are still a few problems (i don't use Firefox, so i don't know for sure, but i think the menus are still wrong), but they're really close.
I don't know about Windows's Classic theme, because i haven't used it in ages, but i'm using a visual style on XP. (Not Luna, but a third-party one.) So... that's where my observations come from. On Windows, i think the visual style should decide what all the components look like. On most well-written programs, it does. The people who write Mozilla apparently don't agree with that (or they just don't care).
I don't even use a Mac, you fucking idiot, and i'm certainly not a 'fanboy'.
And i never made any assertions as to the functionality of Mozilla (aside from saying that it's slow to load up and it used up more RAM on a Mac than the classic OS itself did). Back when i did have a Mac (which was years ago), i was forced to use Mozilla because there was nothing better, and i used it almost exclusively.
So why don't you get off my back about it? I don't use Mozilla anymore, and i probably never will use it ever again, so this doesn't really affect me. Opera was pretty shitty as far as interface for a long time, but they finally got it mostly right (although their preferences window is kind of lame), so i'm content with that. But that fact, in addition to all the many nice things i'm sure you can say about Mozilla's functionality, don't at all change what i said.
So, you know, if you want to talk about babies, you can start with your debate tactics.
Dude.
i) That's still someone's opinion. You may choose to call that person a guru, but I don't.
Yeah OK. It's also just someone's opinion that it's wrong to litter and that it's wrong to steal and that it's wrong to set fire to a person's house and that it's wrong to cut people's throats. I mean i don't know if you want to consider these people gurus or anything....
ii) "If it looks the same it works the same" is not the same thing as "Everything interface should look the same". Ever wonder why a helicopter doesn't have a steering wheel?
Oh, you got me on that one. Because the difference between a car and a helicopter is clearly equivalent to the difference between two pieces of software running under the same environment on the same computer, not to mention, of course, that a helicopter works exactly the same as a car, so i mean, logically, it does follow that it should employ the same means of guidance (oh wait)
Uh. It is a law, asshat. There's this thing called human interface design. First rule says IF IT LOOKS THE SAME, IT WORKS THE SAME.
I'm not talking so much about the logic of the design. I'm talking about the aesthetics (and i know your first reaction is probably 'who cares about the aesthetics', but i'm just obsessive like that).
Things shouldn't be 'themable'. Themable is BAD. Let the fucking desk-top environment decide what programs look like. I don't know about Linux, but those little panel buttons with all the dots on them do not exist in the standard Windows or Macintosh interfaces. Why are they there? Why has Mozilla decided to invent an interface component that no other piece of software in the history of computing has ever used? That is an obvious example.
I downloaded SeaMonkey just now and this is what i see. Some of the buttons aren't real Windows buttons. The menus aren't real Windows menus. The status bar is probably 10 pixels too tall (Why the hell?). The tool bars aren't tall enough. The side bar is completely random, it doesn't look like Windows at all.
And so on. I guess it's secondary to the features and junk, but like i said i'm obsessive about stuff like that, and it's not like it's hard to fix, especially given a whole decade.