So, back in college we were given an assignment to create a day planner program for a company, a list of things it needed to be able to do, and then required to pitch it to the class as if they were the "customer". It was a rather boringly repetitive class as groups got up and went through the motions until one of the final groups got up and went balls to the wall presenting quite literally the swiss army knife of day planners; it had features on top of features on top of features. They'd clearly put a lot of work into it in an effort to shock and awe their way to an A. This strategy was going quite well until the question and answer section where the teacher had them take a question from each person in the class as if they were the client inquiring about their device and they got to me.
The reason for that is that I tend to be just a tad bit of an observant analytical asshole when left to my own devices and thus my question was quite simply this: "You seem to have spent a lot of development time on this product, and these features you've demonstrated seem useful, but… does it actually do any of the things we asked you to make it do?"
Yup, in their effort to come up with a whole bunch of useless perks they'd delivered a product that did everything but what it actually needed to do by design.
I'm bringing this wonderful memory up because I'm currently on loan to a project at work that involves dealing with a programmer who repeatedly takes the position that his program is better because it does something we don't need it to do and our demands that it work the way we actually need it to work are clearly wrongheaded… every… single… fucking… time…
There are a lot of things I could blame for that but ultimately it comes down to this: the programmer is running solo, treats this thing like it is his baby and can't take any criticism of his work at all. Every technical issue is someone else's fault; which it sometimes is but mostly isn't. Every request for change has some vital reason it can't be done until management intervenes and then it somehow happens. Every glitch or incorrect behaviour is working correctly within his view of how the tool should work until you write a twelve page novella on why it's actually extremely important that it doesn't do it that way. Oh, except for the times where you actually sit down, explain how to do something correctly multiple times, point out where the solution is, and then he still can't be arsed to do it until you finally intervene in the middle of a conference call and explicitly walk his ass through how to properly code the program so it works for the 4th god damned time.
That's right; here I thought I'd left the programming world behind forever yet now I'm stuck doing QA, psuedo-coding, and, ultimately, handing over the solution code to be inserted in real time in front of 10 other people all to spackle over the reality that someone who likely gets paid 3-4 times what I do is functionally incompetent at actually delivering solutions while working for an external IT contracting company that waives around the word "Solutions" in their branding all the fucking time.
Fuck my life.
Showing posts with label Rant. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rant. Show all posts
Friday, May 23, 2014
Monday, August 6, 2012
Rant: On Old Republic and F2P
The problem with Old Republic wasn't that it was a subscription game and the whole "Oh, this is a the era of F2P" talk is just that: talk.
This is not to say they won't improve their numbers by going F2P (and dropping the price of the game to $15, that won't hurt either folks); that's actually fairly likely. But, the bigger reasons why they're in this position are the same ones that every other "WoW Killer" has fucked up in the last half decade or so and the fact that none of them learnt from their collective mistakes - even more-so when you consider that Bioware is considered to be top tier - is kinda surprising. That said, since they seem to be unable to learn on their own, lets explain it to them:
Lesson The First:
Your game must be finished. Yes, yes, these games are never "finished", but the days when you could launch with a leveling experience and some dungeons and: "we'll tack a proper endgame on in 3-4 patches", are gone. Your benchmark now is a WoW Expansion because the simple reality is that people are going to level to 50 in 4 days regardless of how grindy you make it, kick around your dungeons a bit, and then go "well, nothing left to do here for 8 months", and then walk out the door taking their friends and negative word of mouth with them.
In case you haven't noticed, they don't come back in great numbers either because the next new shiny is right around the corner to pull their attention.
As such: Endgame. Level 1. Must. Be. Finished. At. Launch.
Old Republic made an attempt at this, but in making everything heavily story driven they were limited to one Operation and 5 bosses. That's a shortage of content that's going to be ground into dust in short order.
Likewise, while no software is ever bug free, you've gotta nail those game killers. Old Republic lost a friend of mine when they were doing the final quest for their class, got half way through one of the events, and then the whole thing bugged out; placing them in a position to start all over again.
I shall quote: "Fuck That".
And, out the door they went.
You've got your 60 days folks: get yourself off on the right foot or it's all for naught.
Lesson The Second:
You can have too many servers. The one thing we've learnt from all the "WoW Killing" (1 2 3) that's been attempted over the last few years is that there are at least 1 Million players you can count on to try something new. Old Republic was able to leverage their license to 2 Million. Then half left and most of the servers became ghost towns.
Sometimes I think developers get too excited when they see a whole pile of initial subscribers so I have a bit of advice for them. The trick to a new launch is now as follows: enough servers that people can play, not so many that when the inevitable happens and folks bail your MMO turns into a single player game most nights. Hell, sometimes people complaining about how hard it is to get in is a good thing if it results in a general feeling that people are playing the game en-masse. Even WoW is having to make concessions to the reality that not having people to play with provides a disincentive to continued play via cross-realm zoning; a change that could allow them to eliminate the concept of "server" altogether if they wanted to.
Side note: If you're a competitor working on the next-next WoW Killer, don't be surprised if Titan comes along and doesn't have "servers" at all. Cross Realm Zones is as close as you're going to get to an advanced warning.
So, if you want to avoid server merges on the principle that they make your game: "look like it's dying", don't have too many servers to begin with.
Lesson The Third:
I think the big lesson is that trying to "kill WoW" is pointless.
This is more a conceptual problem for fanboys, investors and media than the developers themselves; they've likely some idea at this point that this is unlikely. I'd suggest WoW's more likely to kill itself than be killed. It's approaching 10 years old, people's /played is getting up there, and general life changes for folks playing since vanilla and are now almost a decade older are going to move them along into other interests with no intervention required from anyone else.
To a certain degree, this is why Blizzard is working on making the game more accessible: the 24-28 year old with work, significant other, and potentially kids to wrangle is harder to lock down into the stock raid night login pattern than the 14-18 year old they were when they first logged into the world and this is even more true for those who are older than that. So, they need to find ways to keep those players involved and feel like they have a reason to log in with the limited free time they may have. In this way Blizzard keeps their community involved in the game, even if they're not digging heavily into the endgame, and it's that community of friends and links that keeps the game at high levels of subscription - even after the drop-offs - and helps to attract even more new people to the game by keeping it in the public eye.
The hardcore may bridle at it, but it's these concessions and new things to do on the side that are likely to keep the game alive.
This is not to say they won't improve their numbers by going F2P (and dropping the price of the game to $15, that won't hurt either folks); that's actually fairly likely. But, the bigger reasons why they're in this position are the same ones that every other "WoW Killer" has fucked up in the last half decade or so and the fact that none of them learnt from their collective mistakes - even more-so when you consider that Bioware is considered to be top tier - is kinda surprising. That said, since they seem to be unable to learn on their own, lets explain it to them:
Lesson The First:
Your game must be finished. Yes, yes, these games are never "finished", but the days when you could launch with a leveling experience and some dungeons and: "we'll tack a proper endgame on in 3-4 patches", are gone. Your benchmark now is a WoW Expansion because the simple reality is that people are going to level to 50 in 4 days regardless of how grindy you make it, kick around your dungeons a bit, and then go "well, nothing left to do here for 8 months", and then walk out the door taking their friends and negative word of mouth with them.
In case you haven't noticed, they don't come back in great numbers either because the next new shiny is right around the corner to pull their attention.
As such: Endgame. Level 1. Must. Be. Finished. At. Launch.
Old Republic made an attempt at this, but in making everything heavily story driven they were limited to one Operation and 5 bosses. That's a shortage of content that's going to be ground into dust in short order.
Likewise, while no software is ever bug free, you've gotta nail those game killers. Old Republic lost a friend of mine when they were doing the final quest for their class, got half way through one of the events, and then the whole thing bugged out; placing them in a position to start all over again.
I shall quote: "Fuck That".
And, out the door they went.
You've got your 60 days folks: get yourself off on the right foot or it's all for naught.
Lesson The Second:
You can have too many servers. The one thing we've learnt from all the "WoW Killing" (1 2 3) that's been attempted over the last few years is that there are at least 1 Million players you can count on to try something new. Old Republic was able to leverage their license to 2 Million. Then half left and most of the servers became ghost towns.
Sometimes I think developers get too excited when they see a whole pile of initial subscribers so I have a bit of advice for them. The trick to a new launch is now as follows: enough servers that people can play, not so many that when the inevitable happens and folks bail your MMO turns into a single player game most nights. Hell, sometimes people complaining about how hard it is to get in is a good thing if it results in a general feeling that people are playing the game en-masse. Even WoW is having to make concessions to the reality that not having people to play with provides a disincentive to continued play via cross-realm zoning; a change that could allow them to eliminate the concept of "server" altogether if they wanted to.
Side note: If you're a competitor working on the next-next WoW Killer, don't be surprised if Titan comes along and doesn't have "servers" at all. Cross Realm Zones is as close as you're going to get to an advanced warning.
So, if you want to avoid server merges on the principle that they make your game: "look like it's dying", don't have too many servers to begin with.
Lesson The Third:
I think the big lesson is that trying to "kill WoW" is pointless.
This is more a conceptual problem for fanboys, investors and media than the developers themselves; they've likely some idea at this point that this is unlikely. I'd suggest WoW's more likely to kill itself than be killed. It's approaching 10 years old, people's /played is getting up there, and general life changes for folks playing since vanilla and are now almost a decade older are going to move them along into other interests with no intervention required from anyone else.
To a certain degree, this is why Blizzard is working on making the game more accessible: the 24-28 year old with work, significant other, and potentially kids to wrangle is harder to lock down into the stock raid night login pattern than the 14-18 year old they were when they first logged into the world and this is even more true for those who are older than that. So, they need to find ways to keep those players involved and feel like they have a reason to log in with the limited free time they may have. In this way Blizzard keeps their community involved in the game, even if they're not digging heavily into the endgame, and it's that community of friends and links that keeps the game at high levels of subscription - even after the drop-offs - and helps to attract even more new people to the game by keeping it in the public eye.
The hardcore may bridle at it, but it's these concessions and new things to do on the side that are likely to keep the game alive.
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Rant: An Actual 5 ways to "Fix" the CBC.
First, tell Jeffrey Dvorkin and all his acolytes to go fuck themselves. The CBC is not a god damned private art house network and becoming one isn't going to make you "relevant" with the kids. If you want to know why you've been dying for the last 30 years, it's the fucks like him who find their way into the leadership seat and seem to think there's no necessity to air anything anyone actually gives a damn about on it that are problem one. It's time people remember that the purpose of media is to Entertain AND Inform. If you don't do enough of the former, your ability to do the later becomes limited as your customer base dwindles.
Second, establish and maintain shows that people want to watch. You don't fucking cancel Hockey Night in Canada or Dragon's Den: you use them to drive eyeballs to your other shows. Fundamental Law of Business: people can't purchase what they can't find. In this sense, throwing away flagship programs people actually watch just makes you more irrelevant, not less.
Third, and extending on the second: stop this "We can't air US TV Shows" BS. The CBC needs to remember that the primary purpose of TV is entertainment. So, buy entertainment that people want to watch and use it to drive them to your other shows so people will give them a chance. Follow that up by making your shows the best shows they can be and you might find that they actually stick around instead of die on a cross labeled "No one cares about your backwoods network anymore".
Fourth, while News is important the list of people who want to watch people sit around and talk about it all day is not long and not young either. Seeing to it that your news is quality and relevant is good: depending on it for your entire business model nationally is folly.
Finally, adopt the policy that anyone who complains about you kicking a "private" networks ass on their own turf can go die in a fire. You may be a public entity, but a public entity that makes money for the public is better positioned than one that draws money from the public. Start doing that, and you'll quickly find yourself with a blank check to do what you want with less political interference.
Second, establish and maintain shows that people want to watch. You don't fucking cancel Hockey Night in Canada or Dragon's Den: you use them to drive eyeballs to your other shows. Fundamental Law of Business: people can't purchase what they can't find. In this sense, throwing away flagship programs people actually watch just makes you more irrelevant, not less.
Third, and extending on the second: stop this "We can't air US TV Shows" BS. The CBC needs to remember that the primary purpose of TV is entertainment. So, buy entertainment that people want to watch and use it to drive them to your other shows so people will give them a chance. Follow that up by making your shows the best shows they can be and you might find that they actually stick around instead of die on a cross labeled "No one cares about your backwoods network anymore".
Fourth, while News is important the list of people who want to watch people sit around and talk about it all day is not long and not young either. Seeing to it that your news is quality and relevant is good: depending on it for your entire business model nationally is folly.
Finally, adopt the policy that anyone who complains about you kicking a "private" networks ass on their own turf can go die in a fire. You may be a public entity, but a public entity that makes money for the public is better positioned than one that draws money from the public. Start doing that, and you'll quickly find yourself with a blank check to do what you want with less political interference.
Friday, March 2, 2012
Rant: Subways in Toronto. This Bullshit has to Stop.
Toll roads are an option, he said, but rather than put tolls on the Gardiner Expressway and the Don Valley Parkway, Councillor Ford proposed new purpose-built freeways through the city.Excuse me. I need to go scream at the heavens for a bit...
“On a nickel a kilometre — it’ll bring in $200 million a year,” he said, noting it would cost “a good chunk” to build new highways, but then all revenues could flow to subway construction. He said he would happily pay $3 to whiz downtown from Etobicoke rather than be stuck in Gardiner gridlock.
ok....
No, still need to find my happy place... BRB...
...
Ok... heres the problem folks. The Fords want to build subways but no one wants to pay taxes or development fees to finance them, they also don't have the cajones to admit they screwed up when they canceled a revenue stream that could have paid for Subways when they bought votes with tax cuts, and so now we find then unable to bankroll their big platform idea.
Remember this key detail, because it's important: there's no money for their little project. Zero, zilch, nada. Not only that, but even the Chong plan has now been debunked by City Hall staff outside the "disloyal" TTC who found the revenue projections overly optimistic and the case still ~$1 Billion short at the end of the day before said projections crashed into the wall that was reality.
So, again, there is no money.
Having realized this Doug, who's supposedly the "smarter" brother, now suggests the solution is to build new freeways (because, again folks, no cajones to place tolls on existing freeways to be found here), and toll those because it seems that while there is no money for subways there is money in some dark recess of City Hall for that.
Sorry, but I call bullshit.
Here is what's going to be needed to get "new" freeways built in Toronto:
1) Environmental Assessment of Routes which means millions of dollars and years spent chasing our tails just to plot the trail.
2) Mass expropriation of land. Unless you want to tunnel the whole thing (hey, that's only a few hundred million a kilometre, if you're lucky. Just ask Boston), you're going to have to buy people out of the way because there is very little open space left within the city. With ramshackle huts in this town going for $500K a pop, this will amount to hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars. Oh, and court cases to tie the process up for a few more years.
3) OMB Reviews. Yes, even those folks who don't get their land expropriated are going to be pissy when you announce there's now going to be a freeway through their neighbourhood. Have fun sitting around the court table for another few years.
4) Yay! Maybe we can get to construction now! That'll just cost a few billion and, take 5 to 10 years as they split out the payouts to construction over multiple years, and play havoc on city traffic flow as we tear up existing streets, build overpasses, and off/on ramps. No problems there at all....
So, I'd say a safe, conservative estimate, is that about 15 to 25 years from now and Billions later you'll get freeways to pay for subways. Good thing Mr Mammoliti and "Finch Area Residents" are willing to wait 50 years to get them 'cause that would the the optimistic timeframe as I'm willing to bet cold hard cash that Tolls will have to pay all this back before they can be directed to feed subways.
One small little problem: if there's no fucking money to pay to build subways where's the money going to come for this???
The private sector? Well, lets stop, look, and listen for a second. Doug suggests a Toll of 5 cents a kilometre. The 407 ETR charges 19-25 cents/km depending on the time of day. Thus, if you're looking to the private sector I suggest you try again off your meds 'cause they're affecting your perception of reality: they're going to want far more than 5 cents.
Sooooo, without a much higher fare we're likely back to the public sector spending billions in the hope that someday they might be able to make money to build something else.
Suggestion: if we have the billions to build new freeways we damned well have the billions to build the subways that make them irrelevant. Or we don't; remember point one folks. In the later case, council really needs to put an end to the Rob and Doug show so we can get back to legitimate discussion of how to get this done because the current spittle coming from their foaming little mouths is inarguably full of it and amounts to little but a continuation of pander beyond measure.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Rant: The Raid Finder
A lot of people seem to misconstrue the purpose of this addition for some reason; mostly because they have their own agenda of victimization to perpetuate. For the record, it's not about "catering to the casuals" i.e.: Bads". It's about trying to recreate the far more active raiding scene from Wrath that's largely died out with the launch of Cataclysm for various reasons - primarily the loss of gear prestige from 25 man raiding.
It was that gear differential the encouraged a lot of alt raiding amongst guilds who often couldn't field a second full 25 man roster to attack the raid that week. That lack of personnel "in house" created a whole lot of opportunities for the people with limited play time to simply log in and go hit a raid because Trade would be actively spammed during the evenings. Now, with 25 man raiding diminished and 10 man raiding on the rise there's a lot less action on Trade looking for groups - 'specially once you're off the high pop servers. In addition, a lot of those Trade groups are looking to fill 10 slots, with DPS often filling quick and Tanks/Healers being the only things in demand.
So, the people with no interest in guilding up or unable to meet raid times frequently find themselves locked out; left with little to do once they've Heroic Cap'd and few reasons to log on until the next patch. Raid Finder exists address that need and it's a benefit for everyone. People in your guild who can't make raids for some reason (say, a work schedule shift),now have an avenue to keep up somewhat on their spare time so they're not as far behind when they can come back to the roster. New players get to sample raiding and, perhaps, get an itch to try the full blown thing which brings in fresh blood. Time limited players get their Wrath raiding levels back so they don't walk away and lower your server pop/drive up the economy by stopping to gather things needed for raids.
Someone else can likely come up with more but those alone are reasons that make the RF worth having regardless of your personal stance on who's "wrecking the game".
It was that gear differential the encouraged a lot of alt raiding amongst guilds who often couldn't field a second full 25 man roster to attack the raid that week. That lack of personnel "in house" created a whole lot of opportunities for the people with limited play time to simply log in and go hit a raid because Trade would be actively spammed during the evenings. Now, with 25 man raiding diminished and 10 man raiding on the rise there's a lot less action on Trade looking for groups - 'specially once you're off the high pop servers. In addition, a lot of those Trade groups are looking to fill 10 slots, with DPS often filling quick and Tanks/Healers being the only things in demand.
So, the people with no interest in guilding up or unable to meet raid times frequently find themselves locked out; left with little to do once they've Heroic Cap'd and few reasons to log on until the next patch. Raid Finder exists address that need and it's a benefit for everyone. People in your guild who can't make raids for some reason (say, a work schedule shift),now have an avenue to keep up somewhat on their spare time so they're not as far behind when they can come back to the roster. New players get to sample raiding and, perhaps, get an itch to try the full blown thing which brings in fresh blood. Time limited players get their Wrath raiding levels back so they don't walk away and lower your server pop/drive up the economy by stopping to gather things needed for raids.
Someone else can likely come up with more but those alone are reasons that make the RF worth having regardless of your personal stance on who's "wrecking the game".
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Rant: Dear Toronto News Media...
... I do so love how you're looking at Karen Stintz's new transit plan and being positively gleeful about Rob Ford being "dealt another defeat". You even went out and got quotes and everything from "supporters" on council "hopeful" that the mayor will "come on side".
What you seem to be ignoring is a simple reality: Rob Ford is going to be quite happy to run his next campaign with a list of "those big bad councillors" who "prevented him from getting things done".
In other words: he doesn't give a shit if he loses; it's just more ammo for next time.
The longer you twits at the Toronto Star continue to shove your head up your ass gloating while ignoring the reality that the people who "support" Rob Ford aren't going to end up that list and, in fact, are likely running cover for what basically amounts to the Mayor's office becoming increasingly aware that the private sector isn't inclined to foot the bill for one metre of the Sheppard extension (as I pointed out would likely happen), the longer you're giving him press to point to to back up his claim. Now, because we're at the point where consensus is that there's little to no money for extending Sheppard coming from the private sector, this means anyone with an ounce of sense realizes we need to come up with money from somewhere to get a token station built. Token? Remember: even while saying he's having problems lining up money Gordon Chong, the man in charge of finding the fictional private sector money, has maintained an expectation that getting another station done on that line is the minimum goal to show that the "Mayor has done something".
So, going forward with knowledge of the actual purpose of this station, the worst part is that we need to come up with money to get a token station built at the wrong end of the fucking line.
Why do I say that? Well, consider the following: in 2015 the Spadina Subway extension will be opening so... how are we planning to move the people to be coming in from the 905 from the Spadina line to the Yonge Line? How about those from the Yonge Line looking to go north? Ahhhh, yes... busses. In other words, increased traffic on the already overcrowded Finch bus line and/or the continuation of the Express busses on Sheppard. In the later case, busses you'd otherwise be looking to take off the route once the subway runs to York University since that's the primary reason for their existence at the moment.
But, what happens if you run the Sheppard line West to Downsview instead of East one stop to Victoria Park/Consumers Road? You move all those people looking to move to/from the Yonge line off of busses and onto a 2-3 stop subway trip, that's what. This serves much more of a purpose than shaving 5 minutes off a bus trip along Sheppard to Don Mills station. Even more relevant, this stretch of Sheppard is also seeing significant redevelopment and a bit of a condo boom - especially closer to Downsview station.
Because of this, there's more sense going West than East in the grand scheme of things if your goal is to improve the interconnectivity of the transportation network. On the other hand, the only reason to goto Victoria Park is entirely political and going to be praised by the Mayor as a win even while he's lambasting his opponents for putting the far end of the Eglinton Crosstown above ground (along a stretch of road 7-8 lanes wide. i.e.: where there's room). The Toronto Star in particular could stand to be slapped out of their current "Looossssinnggg" Charlie Sheen-esque drug infused daydream in that regard.
What you seem to be ignoring is a simple reality: Rob Ford is going to be quite happy to run his next campaign with a list of "those big bad councillors" who "prevented him from getting things done".
In other words: he doesn't give a shit if he loses; it's just more ammo for next time.
The longer you twits at the Toronto Star continue to shove your head up your ass gloating while ignoring the reality that the people who "support" Rob Ford aren't going to end up that list and, in fact, are likely running cover for what basically amounts to the Mayor's office becoming increasingly aware that the private sector isn't inclined to foot the bill for one metre of the Sheppard extension (as I pointed out would likely happen), the longer you're giving him press to point to to back up his claim. Now, because we're at the point where consensus is that there's little to no money for extending Sheppard coming from the private sector, this means anyone with an ounce of sense realizes we need to come up with money from somewhere to get a token station built. Token? Remember: even while saying he's having problems lining up money Gordon Chong, the man in charge of finding the fictional private sector money, has maintained an expectation that getting another station done on that line is the minimum goal to show that the "Mayor has done something".
So, going forward with knowledge of the actual purpose of this station, the worst part is that we need to come up with money to get a token station built at the wrong end of the fucking line.
Why do I say that? Well, consider the following: in 2015 the Spadina Subway extension will be opening so... how are we planning to move the people to be coming in from the 905 from the Spadina line to the Yonge Line? How about those from the Yonge Line looking to go north? Ahhhh, yes... busses. In other words, increased traffic on the already overcrowded Finch bus line and/or the continuation of the Express busses on Sheppard. In the later case, busses you'd otherwise be looking to take off the route once the subway runs to York University since that's the primary reason for their existence at the moment.
But, what happens if you run the Sheppard line West to Downsview instead of East one stop to Victoria Park/Consumers Road? You move all those people looking to move to/from the Yonge line off of busses and onto a 2-3 stop subway trip, that's what. This serves much more of a purpose than shaving 5 minutes off a bus trip along Sheppard to Don Mills station. Even more relevant, this stretch of Sheppard is also seeing significant redevelopment and a bit of a condo boom - especially closer to Downsview station.
Because of this, there's more sense going West than East in the grand scheme of things if your goal is to improve the interconnectivity of the transportation network. On the other hand, the only reason to goto Victoria Park is entirely political and going to be praised by the Mayor as a win even while he's lambasting his opponents for putting the far end of the Eglinton Crosstown above ground (along a stretch of road 7-8 lanes wide. i.e.: where there's room). The Toronto Star in particular could stand to be slapped out of their current "Looossssinnggg" Charlie Sheen-esque drug infused daydream in that regard.
Friday, January 6, 2012
Rant: Lion Scroll What???
So, get the computer back with two shiny new fans installed and decide now is as good a time as any to do a clean install and move to OS X.7 Lion. Get it in, goto play WoW and... wait a second.... why am I zooming in when I should be zooming out. Hmm... I can flop mouse up for mouse down in Keybinds and that fixes it but why is it doing this in the first place?
This is why:
"Move Content in..." + "Scroll Direction Natural" are linked; the later is what makes the page scroll down when you use the two finger up on the Trackpad and up when you two finger down. Unfortunately, because they're linked this also makes the mouse scroll wheel behave the same way and you can't set them individually so you can have them act in ways you're used to. It would be really nice if that were not the case because the wheel on the mouse is conceptually different in use from the trackpad and it's behaviour should not be tied to that device; especially when the settings are individual on the control panel.
This is why:
"Move Content in..." + "Scroll Direction Natural" are linked; the later is what makes the page scroll down when you use the two finger up on the Trackpad and up when you two finger down. Unfortunately, because they're linked this also makes the mouse scroll wheel behave the same way and you can't set them individually so you can have them act in ways you're used to. It would be really nice if that were not the case because the wheel on the mouse is conceptually different in use from the trackpad and it's behaviour should not be tied to that device; especially when the settings are individual on the control panel.
Monday, January 2, 2012
Rant: WTF is it Doing, Line Auditing the Code?
I've gotta take my laptop in 'cause there's a processor fan that definitely doesn't like being under load anymore and I'd really like to get at least 3-8 months more out of it. Soooooo, for giggles I'm like: "Lets see how WoW runs on this NetBook I've got in the meantime. Low res, AMD Graphics instead of Intel, who knows, maybe marginally playable...." Just to be safe, I'd started it running WindowsUpdate at about 23:15 local time.
It's now 1:37 and we're on patch 28 of 30 with the end nowhere in sight.
If I'm lucky, maybe it'll be done in the morning. Or it'll find more.
It's now 1:37 and we're on patch 28 of 30 with the end nowhere in sight.
If I'm lucky, maybe it'll be done in the morning. Or it'll find more.
Monday, November 14, 2011
Rant: Doctor Who Movie? Oh, This is not Likely to End Well....
"We’re going to spend two to three years to get it right. It needs quite a radical transformation to take it into the bigger arena.”David Yates on trying to take Doctor Who to the movie theatre.
My own personal disrespect for the mans movie making abilities notwithstanding, lets address where this is going to go wrong:
1) Throw everything current out and reboot the series for the theatres only. (ie: we want to be able to tell our own story!) Hey, outside the neighing and stewing of continuity nerds there's nothing inherently wrong with that but...
2) ... this idea that you need to "rework the concept" to make it work in the movies when they do two hour specials every fucking year just makes me /facepalm. The concept is solid and straightforward: "crazy" alien on the run with his stol... er... borrowed time machine picks up hot earth chick (+ her SO now and then), and takes her on adventures through time and space. Earth chick is our point of reference to the protagonist, protagonist gets through things based on wit and comes across as a bit scattered to anyone not working in his head. It's applicable to any medium and the only real thing you need to decide is which pieces of the existing story you want to adapt and when.
Furthermore, the idea that the movie theatre is a "bigger arena" for a show that airs worldwide to billions these days already is kinda laughable and plays to a certain elitist line of thought towards the medium. You don't need to be on the big screen to be "epic", sorry. You need to tell a tight fucking tale with moments of fucking "Woah!".
All this means you don't need to rework the concept. What you actually need to do is tell an awesome 2 hour story containing the character archetypes people have become familiar with and love without falling into the trap that many people trying to goto the big screen with an established franchise do...
3)... and that's that "Our Story" needs to be self contained because nothing, and I mean nothing, produces worse movies than the assumption that you're going to get sequels and we need to clutter up this story with hooks to the next 15.
If "Doctor Who" the first movie is anything more than: "Here's the Doctor, here's the hot chick, 'Hey, look, time travelling telephone box!', here's todays threat/adventure, wrap with them heading off for the next", then you've got too much story. Gallifrey? You can get to that. Any more than one, and I mean ONE, of the rogues gallery present? You can get to that. The Master? You can get to that. Regeneration? When the actor asks for a raise/wants out you can get to that.
Seriously, don't try and get everything into the first film just so you can say you've covered all your bases- it leads to a cluttered mess like Green Lantern.
Finally...
4) ... It will be interesting to see who this film is for. To some people, Doctor Who is Children's programming, to others family, and to others it's tight Sci-Fi regardless. The reason the series, and particularly the current rebooted incarnation, has been so successful is that it manages to straddle a whole lot of lines. This is going to cause the biggest hurdle in getting this produced because the elephant in the room is quickly going to be studio expectations for which of those markets they think the movie is going to appeal to and how. This has the potential to end in a lot of disappointment when the Doctor picks a couple spunky kids as the companions instead of a 20-25 year old pin-up girl because that's what the studio wants to "make it relatable to a younger audience" and risks resulting in the whole thing blowing up at the box office because the end product only services some, or none, of the niches or changes it in ways that the property no longer appeals.
For reference, see "The Last Airbender" for what happens when you get a bunch of people in the room who think they know what the audience wants better than the source material does.
All of this is why I really don't have any current expectation the "movie version" will be good or successful and I think I'm going to just stand aside from here on out until the reviews hit (if the project ever makes it out of development hell that is), before making a call.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Rant: Oooohhh, HMV....
As noted before, HMV Canada is in a bit of a pickle: they need to find some way to make themselves relevant to modern customers who are increasingly taking advantage of digital media before they're pronounced dead through attrition.
The good news is that they have a plan.
The bad news is that the plan seems to be to go running headlong into lines of business that failed.
Subscription music is the dumbest of the two things they're looking at. The primary problem with it is that they're trying to sell a music service that likely won't be portable because I sincerely doubt their service will be compatible with anything other than a computer screen. The reason this is a problem is that people don't tend to consume music sitting in front of their computer screen to the degree they consume it sitting in a car/bus/etc commuting or exercising or just generally out and about. The lack of hardware support - especially from the Gorilla in the room throwing Apples - is the main reason why these services haven't gained a lot of traction.
They could be hoping that Smart Phones +Tablets + "Apps" take this long standing limitation away but... why? Where's the compelling reason that their service is going to survive longer or be more successful than the others that have come and died before it? There isn't one and there really hasn't been since everyone started selling unencumbered MP3's: just buy the music you like and listen to it forever. The rest? Well, there's a shit ton of free streaming on the web (hi YouTube!, check the Link Storage or CBC R3 for other examples), that already work with those platforms, by and large, to scratch the itch for that song you kinda sorta like sometimes or find something new. So, why would you want to pay a fee to do that on a permanent basis just to be able to keep songs you like?
Next up: lets start renting movies now that Blockbuster's Shuttered all its stores!
/facepalm
Look, it's not necessarily a bad idea because, by all accounts, BB Canada was making money until the US Bankruptcy Courts noticed that they were put up as collateral against that division's debts and pulled the plug but... why would you want to step into a dying business model when your core problem is that you're already a dying business model?
They're clutching at straws here and unless they've hired an absolute fucking genius to enact these my gut says their best outcome would be to continue to tread water.
The good news is that they have a plan.
The bad news is that the plan seems to be to go running headlong into lines of business that failed.
Subscription music is the dumbest of the two things they're looking at. The primary problem with it is that they're trying to sell a music service that likely won't be portable because I sincerely doubt their service will be compatible with anything other than a computer screen. The reason this is a problem is that people don't tend to consume music sitting in front of their computer screen to the degree they consume it sitting in a car/bus/etc commuting or exercising or just generally out and about. The lack of hardware support - especially from the Gorilla in the room throwing Apples - is the main reason why these services haven't gained a lot of traction.
They could be hoping that Smart Phones +Tablets + "Apps" take this long standing limitation away but... why? Where's the compelling reason that their service is going to survive longer or be more successful than the others that have come and died before it? There isn't one and there really hasn't been since everyone started selling unencumbered MP3's: just buy the music you like and listen to it forever. The rest? Well, there's a shit ton of free streaming on the web (hi YouTube!, check the Link Storage or CBC R3 for other examples), that already work with those platforms, by and large, to scratch the itch for that song you kinda sorta like sometimes or find something new. So, why would you want to pay a fee to do that on a permanent basis just to be able to keep songs you like?
Next up: lets start renting movies now that Blockbuster's Shuttered all its stores!
/facepalm
Look, it's not necessarily a bad idea because, by all accounts, BB Canada was making money until the US Bankruptcy Courts noticed that they were put up as collateral against that division's debts and pulled the plug but... why would you want to step into a dying business model when your core problem is that you're already a dying business model?
They're clutching at straws here and unless they've hired an absolute fucking genius to enact these my gut says their best outcome would be to continue to tread water.
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Rant: Diablo III ONLINE.
DRM.
Client/Server Program.
Interesting Fact: Diablo III is the later and all you're doing when you sit there and bitch about the "always online DRM" is demonstrate your lack of knowledge of how things work and why.
The reason for the "Always Online" requirement is that all your character information is now going to be stored remotely on the Battlenet servers instead of locally on your computer and without access to create or load your character info, the game will be really hard to play*. Why is this being done? Because when they allowed local storage Joe Jackass would hack the fuck out of his characters and make online play miserable for everyone else. Take away local storage, problem solved (likely).
So, while I can understand that folks are annoyed that their "single player game" is now... not, in a sense, sitting there and going apeshit about "DRM!!!!!!!" is so far up the misguided tree you've run out of branches and are now swinging from the clouds 60's Spiderman style. Limit your complaints to the fact that you don't want to have to be online to play the game and I'll have much more sympathy for your position instead of thinking you're a posturing idiot throwing out fanboy curse words in an effort to drown out legitimate discussion over the pro's and con's of this change.
* I especially love the people sitting there going: "I'm going to wait until pirates hack out the always online DRM!!!!". While this is not impossible - the existence of private servers for WoW demonstrates that - I often wonder if they do realize that said hack will require installing an entire back end database application on their computer to replicate the D3 server functions that's going to be provided from... shall we say... questionable sources...
Client/Server Program.
Interesting Fact: Diablo III is the later and all you're doing when you sit there and bitch about the "always online DRM" is demonstrate your lack of knowledge of how things work and why.
The reason for the "Always Online" requirement is that all your character information is now going to be stored remotely on the Battlenet servers instead of locally on your computer and without access to create or load your character info, the game will be really hard to play*. Why is this being done? Because when they allowed local storage Joe Jackass would hack the fuck out of his characters and make online play miserable for everyone else. Take away local storage, problem solved (likely).
So, while I can understand that folks are annoyed that their "single player game" is now... not, in a sense, sitting there and going apeshit about "DRM!!!!!!!" is so far up the misguided tree you've run out of branches and are now swinging from the clouds 60's Spiderman style. Limit your complaints to the fact that you don't want to have to be online to play the game and I'll have much more sympathy for your position instead of thinking you're a posturing idiot throwing out fanboy curse words in an effort to drown out legitimate discussion over the pro's and con's of this change.
* I especially love the people sitting there going: "I'm going to wait until pirates hack out the always online DRM!!!!". While this is not impossible - the existence of private servers for WoW demonstrates that - I often wonder if they do realize that said hack will require installing an entire back end database application on their computer to replicate the D3 server functions that's going to be provided from... shall we say... questionable sources...
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Rant: Whoa... That's Gotta Hurt the Ego...
HMV Canada... a retail chain that did $320 Million in National sales last year... with 121 locations and their contents... sold to a "restructuring firm" for $3.2 Million.
Gotta say, I'm surprised it didn't happen sooner. Always... and I mean always... undercut by its foes Best Buy, Future Shop, Walmart, even local indy stores and the now defunct Music World & Sams in both video and music it really should've died a long time ago. Yet, for some reason, despite getting shafted, people shopped there with regularity.
Until iTunes came along.
Now its scrambling - having sacrificed a third of its space to the gods of bargain clothing fare in an effort to pay the rent, its downtown Toronto "flagship" store on Yonge just north of the Eaton Centre is now down to only the core wing - because people aren't buying music on media anymore... or Movies... or TV Shows...
They've tried to deal with this by diversifying into Games and Books... just in time to see distribution there start to increasingly go digital as well...
Plan B is to try and take the company's website - which has meandered from in house... to an Amazon store... and, apparently, back in house again - and make it relevant.
Too late. The players are pretty solidly baked now. This is where HMV needs to pull it's head from its arse and very quickly identify what they can offer that no one else can. The problem for them is that, historically, that hasn't been price and the people who are interested in niche music can't carry a whole chain of stores (why you don't see big classical and jazz sections, for example, outside the core location).
So, it's pretty likely that the price this company got it for was exactly right because the most foreseeable outcome here is extinction.
If I'm at HMV, I'd be shaking the dust off my resume and those high enough on the food chain ought best to be cashing out their company pensions -> personal RRSP's before it all disappears to England and the Government's kind enough to tell you just how boned you now are.
Gotta say, I'm surprised it didn't happen sooner. Always... and I mean always... undercut by its foes Best Buy, Future Shop, Walmart, even local indy stores and the now defunct Music World & Sams in both video and music it really should've died a long time ago. Yet, for some reason, despite getting shafted, people shopped there with regularity.
Until iTunes came along.
Now its scrambling - having sacrificed a third of its space to the gods of bargain clothing fare in an effort to pay the rent, its downtown Toronto "flagship" store on Yonge just north of the Eaton Centre is now down to only the core wing - because people aren't buying music on media anymore... or Movies... or TV Shows...
They've tried to deal with this by diversifying into Games and Books... just in time to see distribution there start to increasingly go digital as well...
Plan B is to try and take the company's website - which has meandered from in house... to an Amazon store... and, apparently, back in house again - and make it relevant.
Too late. The players are pretty solidly baked now. This is where HMV needs to pull it's head from its arse and very quickly identify what they can offer that no one else can. The problem for them is that, historically, that hasn't been price and the people who are interested in niche music can't carry a whole chain of stores (why you don't see big classical and jazz sections, for example, outside the core location).
So, it's pretty likely that the price this company got it for was exactly right because the most foreseeable outcome here is extinction.
If I'm at HMV, I'd be shaking the dust off my resume and those high enough on the food chain ought best to be cashing out their company pensions -> personal RRSP's before it all disappears to England and the Government's kind enough to tell you just how boned you now are.
Monday, June 13, 2011
Rant: Patent Stupidity...
... or, if you can't beat them, patent their business model.
IBM's patent application attempting to gain title that would cover any business that stores and manages IP/Patents on computer is basically a shot across the bows of Non Practicing Entity (NPE) - companies which have accumulated patents but make no products themselves - businesses or, as they're better known, Patent Trolls in the ever more insane war between the two realms in the area of software. I say this because their entire business model involves storing and attempting to monetize IP.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that Software patents are bullshit but... eliminating them is problematic twofold:
To fix this you need to revamp the patent system itself to make it less easy to achieve, placing greater burden of proof on the patenting party that the patent is actually for something original, but... there seems to be little interest in doing this at the political level. So, we're stuck with companies wasting resources fighting to prove that Online Shopping existed prior to someone deciding to file a patent on the thing.
Which just goes to show that if you can throw enough bafflegab into your application paper you probably can patent stupidity... especially if it's an AI routine.
IBM's patent application attempting to gain title that would cover any business that stores and manages IP/Patents on computer is basically a shot across the bows of Non Practicing Entity (NPE) - companies which have accumulated patents but make no products themselves - businesses or, as they're better known, Patent Trolls in the ever more insane war between the two realms in the area of software. I say this because their entire business model involves storing and attempting to monetize IP.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that Software patents are bullshit but... eliminating them is problematic twofold:
- Software companies that make hardware are now disadvantaged against Hardware companies with vast technical portfolio's
- Those Trolls are making substantial coin, and are going to fight tooth and nail to keep their jobs.
To fix this you need to revamp the patent system itself to make it less easy to achieve, placing greater burden of proof on the patenting party that the patent is actually for something original, but... there seems to be little interest in doing this at the political level. So, we're stuck with companies wasting resources fighting to prove that Online Shopping existed prior to someone deciding to file a patent on the thing.
Which just goes to show that if you can throw enough bafflegab into your application paper you probably can patent stupidity... especially if it's an AI routine.
Monday, May 30, 2011
Rant: Steve Ballmer
There are people out there who like to blame this man for Microsoft's ills. Here's the problem with that: everything that's wrong with Microsoft pre-exists Ballmer's leadership and goes all the way back to Bill.
When people sit there and go: "Well, he missed tablets... and phones... and... " well.. they'd like to forget that Microsoft almost never leads markets - which is odd given how much money the company spends on R&D - but instead gets dragged into them once someone notices they risk the core business model. Just look at recent history: The Internet... not important, until someone realized it was... Consoles... not important, until Sony started talking about using them to control the living room and home computing experience then... Hey Sega... oh... that didn't catch... err, quick get that in house... Music Players... wait... Apple's making how much money... tying up industry partners... and people are liking them enough that they're doing what????
Someone could likely do a more complete list, but those are the big ones from the tail end of Bill's reign to remind us that Microsoft's history is largely not one of market leadership, it's of being led by the nose as the tugs get hefty enough to get their attention. Especially outside it's core competency of servicing business needs.
There are reasons for that. Some folks like to blame "protecting Windows" or "protecting Office" but it's more broad than that and you've also got to give that protectionist nature its fair share of credit for actually getting MS moving sometimes. A far bigger problem is having to balance everything against retail partner needs: if Dell and HP aren't asking for Tablet OS's, you're likely not making Tablet OS's unless you're willing to go into the tablet business for yourself. Apple doesn't have that problem, nor Google to the same extent 'cause Google is basically looking where you aren't and aiming right into the market where MS barely had a foothold to begin with. There's also the reality that, despite the mass investment in R&D, there seems to be less time invested in foreseeing mass consumer customer needs and wants; placing the companies that do spend a lot of time on that on far more solid ground within their original launch windows and feeding a lot of "me-too!" initiatives (see: half a dozen incompatible short lived tacks at "killing" or, hell, just trying to "compete" with the iPod). Hence, the long established jibe that MS always catches up... about three product revisions later.
The problem now is that catching up in three isn't good enough because these days, by the time you ship those revisions, you've both built up a reputation of making things that aren't quite good enough/are shit and the market's moved on to the next thing as tech trends are moving an order of magnitude faster than they were in the 80's/90's. The best example of that is Zune where, by all accounts, the software/hardware combo finally got good enough just in time for the entire world to go: "Fuck Media Players, gimme my iPhone/Android that does it all!"... and the paradigm shifts again rendering your "refined" product irrelevant while pointing to the glaring reality that you've got nothing to slot immediately into that which replaced it.
Solving that when the corporate culture of "stay the course until the iceberg is this >< close" is so firmly ingrained amongst the workforce requires more radical transformation than just replacing the CEO. You'd need to weed the place from the top down into management as a whole. That's just not likely to happen because the same shareholders that are calling for Balmer's head aren't likely to tolerate project delays or too many bad quarters while someone puts things "back into order". People like to look at Apple and go: "Look at how Steve Jobs leads that company!"... but they gloss over the reality that Steve's built a pretty solid team of people under him and "groomed" them over years in his ideas of design and product focus until they are able to bring him things that are already 90%+ baked to be tweaked to precision; that's just as important.
The alternative is to do what the DoJ tried to force them to do after Netscape and break the company up so that it's divisions can better focus on their core markets without being bound by rules of engagement that prevent them from risking any other product. That's not happening either.
Maybe we just have to accept that MS's place in the industry is to be its 500 car steam train with an old cranky radio: it's a bit slow to get messages off the telegraph, and takes a while to stop and change direction, but it's going to build a great deal of momentum once it gets going the right way again. Replacing the engineer won't change much of that reality unless you're prepared to live with the necessity to shed some cars and/or cargo to reduce mass too. But, if we're going to make that acceptance then the bigger question becomes how long you're going to let successive engineers run the train as is lest they eventually learn of a paradigm shift too late to stop it from going off into the gorge...
When people sit there and go: "Well, he missed tablets... and phones... and... " well.. they'd like to forget that Microsoft almost never leads markets - which is odd given how much money the company spends on R&D - but instead gets dragged into them once someone notices they risk the core business model. Just look at recent history: The Internet... not important, until someone realized it was... Consoles... not important, until Sony started talking about using them to control the living room and home computing experience then... Hey Sega... oh... that didn't catch... err, quick get that in house... Music Players... wait... Apple's making how much money... tying up industry partners... and people are liking them enough that they're doing what????
Someone could likely do a more complete list, but those are the big ones from the tail end of Bill's reign to remind us that Microsoft's history is largely not one of market leadership, it's of being led by the nose as the tugs get hefty enough to get their attention. Especially outside it's core competency of servicing business needs.
There are reasons for that. Some folks like to blame "protecting Windows" or "protecting Office" but it's more broad than that and you've also got to give that protectionist nature its fair share of credit for actually getting MS moving sometimes. A far bigger problem is having to balance everything against retail partner needs: if Dell and HP aren't asking for Tablet OS's, you're likely not making Tablet OS's unless you're willing to go into the tablet business for yourself. Apple doesn't have that problem, nor Google to the same extent 'cause Google is basically looking where you aren't and aiming right into the market where MS barely had a foothold to begin with. There's also the reality that, despite the mass investment in R&D, there seems to be less time invested in foreseeing mass consumer customer needs and wants; placing the companies that do spend a lot of time on that on far more solid ground within their original launch windows and feeding a lot of "me-too!" initiatives (see: half a dozen incompatible short lived tacks at "killing" or, hell, just trying to "compete" with the iPod). Hence, the long established jibe that MS always catches up... about three product revisions later.
The problem now is that catching up in three isn't good enough because these days, by the time you ship those revisions, you've both built up a reputation of making things that aren't quite good enough/are shit and the market's moved on to the next thing as tech trends are moving an order of magnitude faster than they were in the 80's/90's. The best example of that is Zune where, by all accounts, the software/hardware combo finally got good enough just in time for the entire world to go: "Fuck Media Players, gimme my iPhone/Android that does it all!"... and the paradigm shifts again rendering your "refined" product irrelevant while pointing to the glaring reality that you've got nothing to slot immediately into that which replaced it.
Solving that when the corporate culture of "stay the course until the iceberg is this >< close" is so firmly ingrained amongst the workforce requires more radical transformation than just replacing the CEO. You'd need to weed the place from the top down into management as a whole. That's just not likely to happen because the same shareholders that are calling for Balmer's head aren't likely to tolerate project delays or too many bad quarters while someone puts things "back into order". People like to look at Apple and go: "Look at how Steve Jobs leads that company!"... but they gloss over the reality that Steve's built a pretty solid team of people under him and "groomed" them over years in his ideas of design and product focus until they are able to bring him things that are already 90%+ baked to be tweaked to precision; that's just as important.
The alternative is to do what the DoJ tried to force them to do after Netscape and break the company up so that it's divisions can better focus on their core markets without being bound by rules of engagement that prevent them from risking any other product. That's not happening either.
Maybe we just have to accept that MS's place in the industry is to be its 500 car steam train with an old cranky radio: it's a bit slow to get messages off the telegraph, and takes a while to stop and change direction, but it's going to build a great deal of momentum once it gets going the right way again. Replacing the engineer won't change much of that reality unless you're prepared to live with the necessity to shed some cars and/or cargo to reduce mass too. But, if we're going to make that acceptance then the bigger question becomes how long you're going to let successive engineers run the train as is lest they eventually learn of a paradigm shift too late to stop it from going off into the gorge...
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Rant: Subways Update
It will likely take new road tolls and congestion charges and other revenue tools to help deliver “the biggest transit deal in North America, or perhaps the world,” says the man hired to pave the path toward the $4 billion Sheppard Subway.Grab the popcorn, pull up a seat, and get ready for a good show 'cause the Toronto Political Games are about to begin in earnest later this year.
Personally, I'm on record as expecting this whole thing to get flushed this fall but, hey, I can't wait to see this city's response if council starts talking about creating toll roads... At least someone's not dumb enough to expect the private sector's going to be all that interested in footing the entire bill for the Ford's pet Subway.
Monday, May 23, 2011
Rant: "Of Course They're Moral, Upstanding People!"
Me: So, when are you two going to skip out of here for a night of wild drunken sex?For the record: this was at a post project party so it's not like they were at hand.
GF of Project Co-Worker: I'm the Children's Librarian, I can't do that!
Me: Hey, as long as you don't invite your customers, I'm not going to say anything...
Anyways, there's this strange expectation in society that you can take a normal human being, give them a certain job title, and all of a sudden they start, nay, need to be a paragon of society: infallible, perfect, lacking in all human fault or sexual interests. This is, of course, completely wrongheaded but it's the lie we like to tell ourselves so we can go to sleep at night with that warm fuzzy feeling that none of the people we trust to do certain tasks are going to damage us or those we care about.
The reality is that every one of these "Sacred" positions - the priesthood, military, teaching, politics, policing, fire fighter... I could go on for pages... - are staffed by people and therefore potentially subject to every single vice or failing that every other person on the planet is subject to. Trying to maintain the illusion that they're not is when bad things happen because that's when we start burying bodies with backhoes:
"Priest's don't molest kids... this must never be known! Shift him elsewhere and quiet the family! Oh, and don't tell the next parish head about it either...",All these decisions and more have been tossed out in the past as sops to maintaining the illusion of professional "morality" and, meanwhile, the trouble gets shuffled along and the victim count rises.
"Cops don't beat people... whitewash this and assign him a desk for a few weeks until it blows over..."
"Teachers don't sleep with their students... resign... everyone will sign NDA's... and this all goes away quiet..."
Whenever something questionable comes up, or just morality is raised as an issue, there's always one person who likes to think there's some sort of "morality" test that being applied to prevent these kinds of issues. But, reality hinders this twofold: firstly, true psychopaths are scarily effective at reading what you want to hear from them in response to calm your fears and, secondly, whether or not someone will take advantage of a situation is a factor that's least likely to show up when they know they're being tested. So, instead we rely on "feelings", be they right or wrong, because as long as our own "feeling" of "security" about someone is on a the positive side, we can get through the day (Bruce Schneier has a great TED on this "mirage", you should watch that).
Now, this is not to say that all people in these professions are secretly raving maniacs just waiting to implode: what I am saying is that they're all people and expecting any of them to not act as such at any point in their life often causes more problems than it prevents. Especially in the case of politicians: we don't treat the winners of Idol like they're the world's greatest musician or that they haven't lived before they stepped up on stage so why do we sit back and worship people selected through the exact same process - right down to the gleeful pandering for votes - as if they're the worlds greatest leaders and always working in my best interest? Doubly so if they're from the party I voted for. When we adopt this position - that moment at which we start turning a blind eye to what's happening and, instead, turn politics into the Great Sporting Event at which anyone who talks badly of "my team" is wrong, despite all evidence to the contrary, and should be beaten with my giant foam finger - is when we end up with bad governance as the people have given up their role of ensuring it by holding their representative(s) accountable.
Finally, the problem with expecting your definition of "morality" from people is that morality is entirely subjective. While there is likely to be overlap, what you find "moral" is not necessarily what the guy next door finds "moral". (Also note: there's a difference between moral and criminal and just because you don't like it doesn't mean it should be, or is, illegal.) Even more importantly, while I've provided some of the top end examples of "moral failure", a good percentage of traditionally "immoral" acts are so common in reality (take premarital sex from my opener as an closer to baseline example or, my personal recent favourite, the sports writers who found a picture of 19 y/o Brett Lawrie downing a Molson's on his Facebook Page and tried to spin him into sport's upcoming bad boy), that whether or not someone follows your arcane rules is often of less importance than whether or not they're actually good at their job.
As long as the "immorality" is not an impediment nor risk to the profession at hand that's what we should really be more concerned with.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Rant: "Oh, NO!!!! Seth MacFarlane is Doing the Flintstones!!!!!!!"
... yeah.
See, here's the thing; if you actually watch the shows Seth does you'd already know that he actually loves the show - generally you have to have enjoyed and understood the original material to spoof it so accurately and scathingly - so worrying that he's going to go all "Family Guy" on it seems wrong headed. Also note that, despite the two follow-up series that were basically cash-ins on Family Guy's audience, at least one key writer in that house went on to create and produce one of the most beloved, and funny, kids shows of the last decade so the place is not just full of perverted ADD sufferers.
The bigger question is whether or not what made The Flintstones originally successful can even be converted to current audiences and, as Jaime Weinman points out about Bugs Bunny, whether or not the TV Executives will even allow what made the show work in the first place get on the air or declare it "unacceptable" for "modern" audiences. While the issue that he points to as making Bugs hard to recapture is less true for The Flintstones, the reality remains that both these creations are huge merchandising and marketing empires - The Flintstones had branded "family" product right down to cereals and Vitamins well into the 80's and early 90's that was largely driven by perpetual reruns - that are beloved memories to people. There's going to be pressure to recapture that broad based family friendly appeal and that means that going all Family Guy on it - at least in the sense of pushing the "taste" envelope - is fairly unlikely. So, while I could see some quick cuts I suspect any "adult" humour is going to be on the more subtle level of what you'd see back here.
With Phineas and Ferb long since past the episode count where Disney usually takes a show out of production and strips it into oblivion, maybe they should look into luring Dan Povenmire back to run the writer's room. One can dream, right?
Speaking of Disney... seeking to trademark "Seal Team 6"... really? Beyond the opportunism involved, how is that filing even possible? At a minimum, shouldn't the Navy already hold the rights to that and require licensing? At the furthest, how would the law allow one to acquire a trademark on a title that's seen use in media and content long before they gained their extra notoriety lately?
See, here's the thing; if you actually watch the shows Seth does you'd already know that he actually loves the show - generally you have to have enjoyed and understood the original material to spoof it so accurately and scathingly - so worrying that he's going to go all "Family Guy" on it seems wrong headed. Also note that, despite the two follow-up series that were basically cash-ins on Family Guy's audience, at least one key writer in that house went on to create and produce one of the most beloved, and funny, kids shows of the last decade so the place is not just full of perverted ADD sufferers.
The bigger question is whether or not what made The Flintstones originally successful can even be converted to current audiences and, as Jaime Weinman points out about Bugs Bunny, whether or not the TV Executives will even allow what made the show work in the first place get on the air or declare it "unacceptable" for "modern" audiences. While the issue that he points to as making Bugs hard to recapture is less true for The Flintstones, the reality remains that both these creations are huge merchandising and marketing empires - The Flintstones had branded "family" product right down to cereals and Vitamins well into the 80's and early 90's that was largely driven by perpetual reruns - that are beloved memories to people. There's going to be pressure to recapture that broad based family friendly appeal and that means that going all Family Guy on it - at least in the sense of pushing the "taste" envelope - is fairly unlikely. So, while I could see some quick cuts I suspect any "adult" humour is going to be on the more subtle level of what you'd see back here.
With Phineas and Ferb long since past the episode count where Disney usually takes a show out of production and strips it into oblivion, maybe they should look into luring Dan Povenmire back to run the writer's room. One can dream, right?
Speaking of Disney... seeking to trademark "Seal Team 6"... really? Beyond the opportunism involved, how is that filing even possible? At a minimum, shouldn't the Navy already hold the rights to that and require licensing? At the furthest, how would the law allow one to acquire a trademark on a title that's seen use in media and content long before they gained their extra notoriety lately?
Friday, April 29, 2011
Rant: Fucking Canada Post
Yeah, so yesterday I'm waiting on my modem for hooking the Internet back up on Sunday because I know, as of the prior night, that I should be expecting it then...
and waiting...
and waiting...
About 1 I'm like, whatever, and head out to get some things done. Getting downtown, I pop onto the free WiFi at the EC Indigo and pull up the tracking info to see... they tried to deliver it at 8:35 in the morning. While I was home. I know this with absolute certainly because I was still sleeping and the alarm got me at 9.
Here's what the fuckers like to do, especially early in the morning when there're lots of people heading in and out: someone will let them go straight in, they'll wander up to my fairly hefty fire door, and then they tap on it like they're hideously inconveniencing me by making any noise. Note: I sleep through the girl who struts past the door slamming her entire body weight down onto her high heels on the way out every day, only noticing her when she comes home at night, so I'm not going to wake for someone being "polite". When they, for fairly obvious reasons, don't get a response, they just wander out on the pure assumption no one's there.
Interesting fact: I've got this nifty new invention called a "phone" that's hooked up to this even newer invention called a "door buzzer". When you punch in the right code on the later, the former rings really loud, wakes me up, and lets me know you're there so I can get my parcel. It works really well. If you fucking use it.
They've pulled this little tap and run stunt on 4/5 of the last parcels I've had delivered here and I only found out about it because I was wandering to the bathroom (which is kitty corner to the door in question in the entrance hall), one time at the same time they "knocked". It's bloody annoying because it wastes my time on a rather large scale and, even more fun this time, I've got no idea what Flighty McTapsalot did with the white sheet for me to pick up the parcel because it's not on my door, under my door, in my mailbox, or on the building door. So, the modem better damned well be at the post office the tracker says it's at today because I'm going to be really pissed if I'm out $75+tax + any penalties when I've got to resched my install because there's no modem here for no other reason than that the delivery guy can't execute the common courtesy of calling up from the foyer to let me know he's here.
Why don't they do this? Well, from my experiences working at a certain telecom mega-corp that shall remain nameless, I'll wager it's because they're on a schedule and someone's told them it's faster to just go up and knock and then toss it in the bin heading for the depot when you can than to "waste time" looking up door codes and fall behind. It's always about the shortcuts to meet quota and not the delivery of results at these places these days. Now you know why people dealing with these monoliths tend to feel that they get shitty service.
and waiting...
and waiting...
About 1 I'm like, whatever, and head out to get some things done. Getting downtown, I pop onto the free WiFi at the EC Indigo and pull up the tracking info to see... they tried to deliver it at 8:35 in the morning. While I was home. I know this with absolute certainly because I was still sleeping and the alarm got me at 9.
Here's what the fuckers like to do, especially early in the morning when there're lots of people heading in and out: someone will let them go straight in, they'll wander up to my fairly hefty fire door, and then they tap on it like they're hideously inconveniencing me by making any noise. Note: I sleep through the girl who struts past the door slamming her entire body weight down onto her high heels on the way out every day, only noticing her when she comes home at night, so I'm not going to wake for someone being "polite". When they, for fairly obvious reasons, don't get a response, they just wander out on the pure assumption no one's there.
Interesting fact: I've got this nifty new invention called a "phone" that's hooked up to this even newer invention called a "door buzzer". When you punch in the right code on the later, the former rings really loud, wakes me up, and lets me know you're there so I can get my parcel. It works really well. If you fucking use it.
They've pulled this little tap and run stunt on 4/5 of the last parcels I've had delivered here and I only found out about it because I was wandering to the bathroom (which is kitty corner to the door in question in the entrance hall), one time at the same time they "knocked". It's bloody annoying because it wastes my time on a rather large scale and, even more fun this time, I've got no idea what Flighty McTapsalot did with the white sheet for me to pick up the parcel because it's not on my door, under my door, in my mailbox, or on the building door. So, the modem better damned well be at the post office the tracker says it's at today because I'm going to be really pissed if I'm out $75+tax + any penalties when I've got to resched my install because there's no modem here for no other reason than that the delivery guy can't execute the common courtesy of calling up from the foyer to let me know he's here.
Why don't they do this? Well, from my experiences working at a certain telecom mega-corp that shall remain nameless, I'll wager it's because they're on a schedule and someone's told them it's faster to just go up and knock and then toss it in the bin heading for the depot when you can than to "waste time" looking up door codes and fall behind. It's always about the shortcuts to meet quota and not the delivery of results at these places these days. Now you know why people dealing with these monoliths tend to feel that they get shitty service.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Rant: Who'da Thunk It
I've got a cell phone. Now, who should I sext first...
On a more serious note, $25 a month for a year for unlimited anytime calling, to anywhere in Canada? Vs $55 a month for a landline and 120 minutes of LD after 6pm?
Yeah... I'll make that trade off any day. Buh-bye Bell...
On a more serious note, $25 a month for a year for unlimited anytime calling, to anywhere in Canada? Vs $55 a month for a landline and 120 minutes of LD after 6pm?
Yeah... I'll make that trade off any day. Buh-bye Bell...
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Rant: Hey, Lets Address that Prostitution Ruling...
... by licensing/building brothels/casinos on Toronto Island.
*sigh*
You know, I'd really like for society to sit down and have some rational discussion on the issues of the sex trade but... this...
*sigh*
Look, this is what's called a False Dilemma or Limited Options Fallacy. At best case, it's essentially setting up what has been, largely, a family park for years as the destination for something no one wants in their neighbourhood such that, when opposition mounts, you can fall back and go: "Well, I tried and if we can't put it there, well, we can't put it in our other neighbourhoods either!", knowing full well that your position never stood a chance to begin with.
Saying: "well, there's a nude beach out there now!", in a corner... generally out of sight of anyone who doesn't go looking for it... as justification is just wrongheaded as well because there's a pretty substantial line between the societal costs and risks of nudism vs. prostitution.
But the wrongness goes entirely past the social issues here. The Toronto Islands also stand out as a largely undeveloped tract of parkland:
View Larger Map
and what's really being proposed here is that we open up the park property, being quite valuable lakefront property, to massive redevelopment. That, for many people who've been fighting to keep the islands "pristine", or at least as much so as they can be with a small airport at one end, is the worst case scenario: that the Casino/Red Light district is just a means to that end. Because, once you've got zoning and political clearance to go ahead with plan A, it's quite easy to "give in" to public pressure and replace those brothels with Hotels, condos and other facilities. They're going to fight the development aspects of this suggestion tooth and nail and if they have to scream "SKANKS IN OUR STREETS!!!" to win they will.
Meanwhile, actual issues facing participants in the sex trade remain unaddressed.
*sigh*
You know, I'd really like for society to sit down and have some rational discussion on the issues of the sex trade but... this...
*sigh*
Look, this is what's called a False Dilemma or Limited Options Fallacy. At best case, it's essentially setting up what has been, largely, a family park for years as the destination for something no one wants in their neighbourhood such that, when opposition mounts, you can fall back and go: "Well, I tried and if we can't put it there, well, we can't put it in our other neighbourhoods either!", knowing full well that your position never stood a chance to begin with.
Saying: "well, there's a nude beach out there now!", in a corner... generally out of sight of anyone who doesn't go looking for it... as justification is just wrongheaded as well because there's a pretty substantial line between the societal costs and risks of nudism vs. prostitution.
But the wrongness goes entirely past the social issues here. The Toronto Islands also stand out as a largely undeveloped tract of parkland:
View Larger Map
and what's really being proposed here is that we open up the park property, being quite valuable lakefront property, to massive redevelopment. That, for many people who've been fighting to keep the islands "pristine", or at least as much so as they can be with a small airport at one end, is the worst case scenario: that the Casino/Red Light district is just a means to that end. Because, once you've got zoning and political clearance to go ahead with plan A, it's quite easy to "give in" to public pressure and replace those brothels with Hotels, condos and other facilities. They're going to fight the development aspects of this suggestion tooth and nail and if they have to scream "SKANKS IN OUR STREETS!!!" to win they will.
Meanwhile, actual issues facing participants in the sex trade remain unaddressed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)