So I have to rant a little about Star Trek Discovery...
I will first admit, I don't hate the series. But I do have to nitpick on a few things that are just simply wrong about where they claim this series is placed in comparison to established Star Trek.
Tech
So we get to see the ships for Discovery... Nice, sleek... And contradicts the designs laid out in both Enterprise and The Original Series (TOS).
Nacelles are Post TOS design (IE: 1980s Enterprise/Enterprise A), not sticking with the established 'round' ones. Even for the 'older' ship, the Shenzon. Even Enterprise, they made the NX-01 have the rounded nacelles.
Holographic Communications - Never was part of Enterprise or in TOS in Starfleet. It was 'screen to screen'. Holographic communication did not get involved until Deep Space 9.
Shielded Bulkhead support - Was also not available until The Next Generation. The TOS based ships didn't do that until around Generations level.
Transporter Controls - Both Enterprise and TOS transporter controls were still 'manual' switches, not the digital touch pad they showed.
Cloaking - Mostly a Romulan thing, not a Klingon used idea until TOS, and not until the whole Romulan/Klingon alliance came up during TOS. At the time, Klingons were pretty 'up front' about most of their fighting in both Enterprise and TOS.
Speaking of Klingons...
The drastic change in the Klingons and the pretty much ret-conning of what was established with regards to the Klingons.
Remember, in Enterprise, while it wasn't the GREATEST explanation of the whole "Why do the Klingons look like humans?" part, it at least explained why Enterprise started out with Klingons looking like traditional Klingons, then looked like Humans which was even glossed over in DS9 when Worf was asked why Klingons didn't look like Klingons as they do later on.
But this change is even MORE drastic. The iconic Klingon battle armor/tunic of either Enterprise or TOS is now a cast off of Vlad the Impaler from Bram Stoker's Dracula movie props.
More so, the Klingons here look even 'vampiric', or 'strigoi' (Re: The Strain) looking than either Klingon look we have seen. In fact, bald Klingons... Literally lacking even distinction between the genders short of hearing their voice.
As a fan, I am sort of disappointed that they would have us believe that this is set 10 years prior to TOS. Even when they did Enterprise, even with the Temporal and Borg stuff put in, kept things within reason of the 'time period' given when Enterprise was created in relation to TOS.
I will say, I am not going to condemn the show outright, mostly cause I found, despite my nitpickiness about aspects of it, I found the two episodes interesting for their setting.
However, I strongly suggest that they do consider that this is not part of the 'Prime' timeline. Definitely not part of the JJ Abrahms revamp timeline either. At best, this would be another branch timeline.
Showing posts with label Rant. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rant. Show all posts
Monday, September 25, 2017
Saturday, June 18, 2016
The whole thing about AR-15, Gun Control and whatnot...
In this week alone, there has been a lot of hoopla about restricting the sale of AR-15s, the NY Journalist who said he got a bruised shoulder and temporary PTSD, Gun Control and the shooting in Orlando.
Sad thing of all of this, is the fact that so much crazed ranting from both sides, that we aren't all sitting down and understanding certain basic things.
Now, mind you... I'm not a gun owner. But I do like to fire off guns when given an opportunity.
I probably can't trust myself with a gun, knowing I am a fire cracker at times and I play violent games involving guns.
But suffice it to say, I am not a person who advocates 'disarming' or preventing people from owning guns.
Add to it, I am somewhat in favor of gun control at the level of what it means to procure a gun in the proper way.
So getting to the point here is simply this.
The sale of a rifle, semi-automatic or just single bolt is fine. Does everyone need an AR-15? Not really. The AR-15 is not a 'necessity' for personal defense unless you happen to live in the boonies or we are in a Zombie Apocalypse situation.
For Special Tactics squads like Police, Sheriffs or Specialized Private Security, I can understand it. For home defense, again, unless it is a Zombie Apocalypse or you are way out in the boonies where someone can't help you easily, perhaps.
Being able to have a shotgun or a hand gun should be a 'reasonable' weapon for self-defense in most urban areas. Rifles and Semi-automatics are best for non-urban self-defense reasons as you are dealing with ranged intruders more than close and personal.
Gun control being outlined is about making sure a gun is not procured in a way that can be detrimental to the rest of society. Some of the posts where people are ranting about how Gun Control is liken to things like what Hitler did in Germany or violating their second amendment rights leads me to believe people are fearing for the wrong reasons.
The gun control the US needs is the fact that getting a gun is difficult, not easy, to get. The second amendment is on the basis that we are not to be disarmed 'for our own sake' as what was the reasoning by the British back when the US was still a colony of Britain. Colonists were expected to not have any weapons, to allow the British government to hold sway over the colonies.
What has been harped is the belief that gun control means just that... We are being disarmed for our own sake. If this was the case, there has been no law or suggestion of a law to say that if you own a gun or a particular gun, you must give it to the government 'for your own sake'. What has been proposed is the limit to what can be purchased.
Of the current gun control restrictions I have seen so far, the ban on assault rifles and large magazines were to limit the destructive power a person can inflict with said weapons. It is rare to need an assault rifle for home protection or a need for a large magazine.
One thing I did cringe upon is the lack of informed understanding of a weapon. Such as the one politician who was arguing anti-gun:
If anything, I would say the State Senator is not familiar with guns and did not have someone assist him in understanding the gun in question or the terminology of what he cited in his discussion.
However, looking at SB 808, with regards to the Gun Control Bill... Only loosely looking at it, has nothing to do with preventing a person from purchasing a gun or to have a gun.
The bill itself puts several stipulations that are necessary to get a weapon, such as the weapon has to be purchased through a licensed dealer, it has to have identifying marks and serial number. Much of the information here points to what should be 'common sense' with regards to at weapon with regards to public safety as well as stipulations with regards to the purchaser as well.
Going with Gersh Kuntzman's "report" with regards to the AR-15... Again, while I have never fired an AR-15, a few things I have fired is a Calico M100 Semi-automatic Rifle (.22), a .22 Pistol and a .38 revolver.
Given the AR-15 is a .225 Semi-automatic rifle, it is almost similar to the M100 Calico, the round being slightly larger. The difference between the M100 and the AR-15 is that the M100 Calico uses a much shorter round than the AR-15, meaning it doesn't have nearly as much propellant, and I also believe the muzzle is shorter than the AR-15. The M100 also sports over 50 rounds in comparison to the 30 round magazine that the AR-15 regularly has.
With this said, I have fired numerous rounds from the M100, with no ear protection, hence my earlier belief that the AR-15's muzzle is shorter and the fact the AR-15 has more propellant due to the round size.
From experience firing the .38 revolver, yes, I was temporarily deafen by the sound, hence my understanding of the 'terrifying' sound and my earlier statement about the AR-15's muzzle and round. The .38 is a larger round and a shorter muzzle makes the sound much more pronounced at close range. Compared to the M100's .22 and muzzle, I hardly needed ear protection from the sound.
Which comes back to the report Gersh makes. He makes himself foolish by claiming its deafening and bruising his shoulder. This is an over exaggeration, as shown by a few people recanting his story with images of a children firing a gun and one man literally firing the gun from the tip of his nose.
From my own experience, again, firing the M100, even with its short round, there was literally no kickback in comparison to the .38. And even then, the .38 didn't wrench my wrist and at the time, I was about 19 years old in comparison to 51.
The only 'terrifying' part of a gun is, of course, being on the end that spews the bullets itself. A fear of a gun is not in holding or using it, it is being on the end of its fury with a user pointing it at you. The fear invoked by it is the fact that you can die from it and mishandling it is like trying to play catch with a sharp knife, tossing it around carelessly.
The 'PTSD' part of it only comes when you have been hurt by it. If you are easily started by loud noises, perhaps a little PTSD comes with it, but then, you would be afraid of fire crackers or car backfires as well.
The simplest example of anything is that most people don't realize what a gunshot sound is other than a loud bang sound. Many guns sound 'different' based on the muzzle and round type they use, and that is not counting the fact that there are silencers that can also alter or mute the sound as well. Not being the gun fanatic, even I come to the conclusion of this. What more, many of us mis-identify a gunshot as a backfire from a car, because we are USED to some of those sounds or even with fire crackers, because, strangely enough, they are used more often than gun sounds.
From Gersh's perspective... His report is flawed simply on the fact that he has not been exposed to the world at large. Even more so than me, and I am not that exposed to many things.
The thing of it all though is that we have too many people hyping their own agenda, trying to make everyone believe their current agenda, often times going over board on what they believe are 'facts'.
We need people to be less sensational about it and be more factual and accurate about what they are proposing. While emotions are high about certain situations, in the end, being 'correct and accurate' will go a lot further than 'sensationalism'.
Sad thing of all of this, is the fact that so much crazed ranting from both sides, that we aren't all sitting down and understanding certain basic things.
Now, mind you... I'm not a gun owner. But I do like to fire off guns when given an opportunity.
I probably can't trust myself with a gun, knowing I am a fire cracker at times and I play violent games involving guns.
But suffice it to say, I am not a person who advocates 'disarming' or preventing people from owning guns.
Add to it, I am somewhat in favor of gun control at the level of what it means to procure a gun in the proper way.
So getting to the point here is simply this.
The sale of a rifle, semi-automatic or just single bolt is fine. Does everyone need an AR-15? Not really. The AR-15 is not a 'necessity' for personal defense unless you happen to live in the boonies or we are in a Zombie Apocalypse situation.
For Special Tactics squads like Police, Sheriffs or Specialized Private Security, I can understand it. For home defense, again, unless it is a Zombie Apocalypse or you are way out in the boonies where someone can't help you easily, perhaps.
Being able to have a shotgun or a hand gun should be a 'reasonable' weapon for self-defense in most urban areas. Rifles and Semi-automatics are best for non-urban self-defense reasons as you are dealing with ranged intruders more than close and personal.
Gun control being outlined is about making sure a gun is not procured in a way that can be detrimental to the rest of society. Some of the posts where people are ranting about how Gun Control is liken to things like what Hitler did in Germany or violating their second amendment rights leads me to believe people are fearing for the wrong reasons.
The gun control the US needs is the fact that getting a gun is difficult, not easy, to get. The second amendment is on the basis that we are not to be disarmed 'for our own sake' as what was the reasoning by the British back when the US was still a colony of Britain. Colonists were expected to not have any weapons, to allow the British government to hold sway over the colonies.
What has been harped is the belief that gun control means just that... We are being disarmed for our own sake. If this was the case, there has been no law or suggestion of a law to say that if you own a gun or a particular gun, you must give it to the government 'for your own sake'. What has been proposed is the limit to what can be purchased.
Of the current gun control restrictions I have seen so far, the ban on assault rifles and large magazines were to limit the destructive power a person can inflict with said weapons. It is rare to need an assault rifle for home protection or a need for a large magazine.
One thing I did cringe upon is the lack of informed understanding of a weapon. Such as the one politician who was arguing anti-gun:
However, looking at SB 808, with regards to the Gun Control Bill... Only loosely looking at it, has nothing to do with preventing a person from purchasing a gun or to have a gun.
The bill itself puts several stipulations that are necessary to get a weapon, such as the weapon has to be purchased through a licensed dealer, it has to have identifying marks and serial number. Much of the information here points to what should be 'common sense' with regards to at weapon with regards to public safety as well as stipulations with regards to the purchaser as well.
Going with Gersh Kuntzman's "report" with regards to the AR-15... Again, while I have never fired an AR-15, a few things I have fired is a Calico M100 Semi-automatic Rifle (.22), a .22 Pistol and a .38 revolver.
Given the AR-15 is a .225 Semi-automatic rifle, it is almost similar to the M100 Calico, the round being slightly larger. The difference between the M100 and the AR-15 is that the M100 Calico uses a much shorter round than the AR-15, meaning it doesn't have nearly as much propellant, and I also believe the muzzle is shorter than the AR-15. The M100 also sports over 50 rounds in comparison to the 30 round magazine that the AR-15 regularly has.
With this said, I have fired numerous rounds from the M100, with no ear protection, hence my earlier belief that the AR-15's muzzle is shorter and the fact the AR-15 has more propellant due to the round size.
From experience firing the .38 revolver, yes, I was temporarily deafen by the sound, hence my understanding of the 'terrifying' sound and my earlier statement about the AR-15's muzzle and round. The .38 is a larger round and a shorter muzzle makes the sound much more pronounced at close range. Compared to the M100's .22 and muzzle, I hardly needed ear protection from the sound.
Which comes back to the report Gersh makes. He makes himself foolish by claiming its deafening and bruising his shoulder. This is an over exaggeration, as shown by a few people recanting his story with images of a children firing a gun and one man literally firing the gun from the tip of his nose.
From my own experience, again, firing the M100, even with its short round, there was literally no kickback in comparison to the .38. And even then, the .38 didn't wrench my wrist and at the time, I was about 19 years old in comparison to 51.
The only 'terrifying' part of a gun is, of course, being on the end that spews the bullets itself. A fear of a gun is not in holding or using it, it is being on the end of its fury with a user pointing it at you. The fear invoked by it is the fact that you can die from it and mishandling it is like trying to play catch with a sharp knife, tossing it around carelessly.
The 'PTSD' part of it only comes when you have been hurt by it. If you are easily started by loud noises, perhaps a little PTSD comes with it, but then, you would be afraid of fire crackers or car backfires as well.
The simplest example of anything is that most people don't realize what a gunshot sound is other than a loud bang sound. Many guns sound 'different' based on the muzzle and round type they use, and that is not counting the fact that there are silencers that can also alter or mute the sound as well. Not being the gun fanatic, even I come to the conclusion of this. What more, many of us mis-identify a gunshot as a backfire from a car, because we are USED to some of those sounds or even with fire crackers, because, strangely enough, they are used more often than gun sounds.
From Gersh's perspective... His report is flawed simply on the fact that he has not been exposed to the world at large. Even more so than me, and I am not that exposed to many things.
The thing of it all though is that we have too many people hyping their own agenda, trying to make everyone believe their current agenda, often times going over board on what they believe are 'facts'.
We need people to be less sensational about it and be more factual and accurate about what they are proposing. While emotions are high about certain situations, in the end, being 'correct and accurate' will go a lot further than 'sensationalism'.
Monday, May 30, 2016
About 'Batman v Superman'...
A while ago, I was about to write a few choice criticisms about the movie...
Jeremy Irons, who was in the movie as Alfred, actually sums up one of my criticisms about the movie here:
http://www.ew.com/article/2016/05/29/batman-v-superman-jeremy-irons-criticism
The movie, in and of itself, was actually a rush and literal mish-mosh of several plot lines in one movie, which was disappointing to say the least.
Some people actually hit on it, but let me go over some of the issues I had with it.
First... Lex Luthor.
The casting of Jesse Eisenberg, was, in my opinion, not a reasonable one for the movie. Not so much for his looks, but the acting or what he was directed to act for Lex Luthor in the movie.
Over all, Gene Hackman and Kevin Spacey's version of Lex Luthor was much more adequate for the person, even in the really bad Superman II and IV movies for Gene Hackman.
The Eisenberg version seemed more like he was trying to mix a little of The Joker with Lex Luthor. While his Lex Luthor was condescending genius, sort of way, his sociopath take on him read a bit too much like the Joker.
Even the Animated version of Superman, voice acted by Clancy Brown and the Justice League, the Lex Luthor in that series was much more composed, even near the end of that series where he is shown to be less than sane.
Next... Plot points...
Suffice it to say, the original intent of Batman versus Superman is a plot point from one comic, "The Dark Knight Returns" by Frank Miller... Where an old Bruce Wayne becomes Batman once again, to the point he has to face off against Superman... The movie also decided to throw a few too many other things to it to 'make it exciting'.
One of those plot points is 'Injustice - Gods among men'. A scene plays out where Superman is seen as an Overlord, dispensing Justice in a nightmare that Batman has. This is literally from not only "Injustice" but also one of the Justice League stories, where the Justice League becomes Justice Lords...
Another plot point shoved into our face is the formation of the Justice League, in this case, the joining of forces with Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman against a powerful foe.
Another plot point is the introduction of Doomsday and the death of Superman... Again, this is another plot point from one of the more significant events in the Superman storyline around the early 2000s.
Batman's Origin being another plot point sort of shoved in there, and tying the name of Martha Wayne to Martha Kent was a bit of a reach.
A reference to Crisis of the Infinite Earths is also included in there, where you see a brief showing of the Flash trying to tell Batman something, which made Batman almost dismiss it as being a hallucination.
Basically, too many different plot points crammed into one movie to make it exciting, but even in how it was structured, it was almost nonsensical to me, on some of the jumps in logic made on certain information.
Overall, the movie was rushed and tried too many things at once. The logic behind it all could only be masked by the action, but I think the action itself can't make the movie seem confusing and rather not as good as "Man of Steel".
Jeremy Irons, who was in the movie as Alfred, actually sums up one of my criticisms about the movie here:
http://www.ew.com/article/2016/05/29/batman-v-superman-jeremy-irons-criticism
The movie, in and of itself, was actually a rush and literal mish-mosh of several plot lines in one movie, which was disappointing to say the least.
Some people actually hit on it, but let me go over some of the issues I had with it.
First... Lex Luthor.
The casting of Jesse Eisenberg, was, in my opinion, not a reasonable one for the movie. Not so much for his looks, but the acting or what he was directed to act for Lex Luthor in the movie.
Over all, Gene Hackman and Kevin Spacey's version of Lex Luthor was much more adequate for the person, even in the really bad Superman II and IV movies for Gene Hackman.
The Eisenberg version seemed more like he was trying to mix a little of The Joker with Lex Luthor. While his Lex Luthor was condescending genius, sort of way, his sociopath take on him read a bit too much like the Joker.
Even the Animated version of Superman, voice acted by Clancy Brown and the Justice League, the Lex Luthor in that series was much more composed, even near the end of that series where he is shown to be less than sane.
Next... Plot points...
Suffice it to say, the original intent of Batman versus Superman is a plot point from one comic, "The Dark Knight Returns" by Frank Miller... Where an old Bruce Wayne becomes Batman once again, to the point he has to face off against Superman... The movie also decided to throw a few too many other things to it to 'make it exciting'.
One of those plot points is 'Injustice - Gods among men'. A scene plays out where Superman is seen as an Overlord, dispensing Justice in a nightmare that Batman has. This is literally from not only "Injustice" but also one of the Justice League stories, where the Justice League becomes Justice Lords...
Another plot point shoved into our face is the formation of the Justice League, in this case, the joining of forces with Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman against a powerful foe.
Another plot point is the introduction of Doomsday and the death of Superman... Again, this is another plot point from one of the more significant events in the Superman storyline around the early 2000s.
Batman's Origin being another plot point sort of shoved in there, and tying the name of Martha Wayne to Martha Kent was a bit of a reach.
A reference to Crisis of the Infinite Earths is also included in there, where you see a brief showing of the Flash trying to tell Batman something, which made Batman almost dismiss it as being a hallucination.
Basically, too many different plot points crammed into one movie to make it exciting, but even in how it was structured, it was almost nonsensical to me, on some of the jumps in logic made on certain information.
Overall, the movie was rushed and tried too many things at once. The logic behind it all could only be masked by the action, but I think the action itself can't make the movie seem confusing and rather not as good as "Man of Steel".
Saturday, May 28, 2016
Obama's Hiroshima Apology and Social Media
So, someone posted the following:
http://www.youngcons.com/obama-says-dropping-bomb-on-hiroshima-was-evil-fiery-tweet-responds-we-owe-no-apology/
What sets me off is the fact that this is actually... INCORRECT.
The original text of Obama's speech is this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/28/world/asia/text-of-president-obamas-speech-in-hiroshima-japan.html
No where in there does Obama state that dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was evil.
What makes me even more annoyed... Is this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_apology_statements_issued_by_Japan
A country that is still apologizing to this day for what has happened 70+ years later, and quite possibly will still do so for years to come.
Another argument made was why should we apologize for a bomb that has killed over 100 thousand people killed between the two bombs alone in retaliation for an attack that got us into a war we were partially taking part in and killing 2,403 men, wounding 1,178. This argument grated at me where they ignored the fact that between the two nuclear bombs dropped, the number of dead is an 'equivalent' retaliation.
This is the problem with Social Media and also Social Engineering...
Social Media, and perhaps media itself, is a way to define a narrative without presenting facts.
That the use of a nuclear bomb on a city is justifiable retaliation for being attacked. That our retribution is justifiable at any cost. That we have no reason to be sorry to do what we want because our cause is right.
Sadly, this is what a terrorist or a jihadist would rationalize their belief. They should not feel sorry for doing whatever it takes, as it is retribution for hindering their agenda.
You say we don't have an agenda? You are sorely mistaken. We want our gas prices to be low, our involvement in Kuwait was part of our agenda to keep the oil from the Mid-east flowing to keep oil prices reasonable. We tolerate some of the social injustices in Saudi Arabia because it suits our agenda for Oil once again.
We still deal with China, a Communist country, and some of its social issues because said electronics you buy, are, made in China...
We all have agendas that is about our immediate comforts, but when it comes to Social Media, we all try to play out that we are 'high and mighty'. But in the end of it all, it is still following an agenda people want.
Young Conservatives hate Obama, so they spin up a Social Media snafu using people who cite information with only a one side of the coin, not the full side and misquoting a speech to suit their agenda...
In the end of it all, people should take the time to read the actual 'apology' to Japan about Hiroshima...
My take on this, while I don't believe an apology was fully necessary, is that Obama believes that we (Not just the Americans, but everyone in the world) need to remember Hiroshima for the one thing it does point to that some of us who lived our young and teenage years of the 80s feared as well as those who lived through the 50s, 60s and 70s, the fear of a nuclear war... The potential of a nuclear war is STILL there... And with other countries now developing Nuclear or Dirty Nuclear weapons, the horrors of what we have learned from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the only cities to be have been intentionally nuked by a country.
What has been repeatedly stated, time and time again, is if we do not learn from the use of Nuclear weapons on our two only know uses of a Nuclear Weapon on actual cities and the moral implications... How are we, as human race, be able to survive when we don't accept the consequences for our actions, regardless of the reason for those actions?
http://www.youngcons.com/obama-says-dropping-bomb-on-hiroshima-was-evil-fiery-tweet-responds-we-owe-no-apology/
What sets me off is the fact that this is actually... INCORRECT.
The original text of Obama's speech is this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/28/world/asia/text-of-president-obamas-speech-in-hiroshima-japan.html
No where in there does Obama state that dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was evil.
What makes me even more annoyed... Is this:
Said group didn't look up the following:Hiroshima? Bataan Death March, Bangka Island Massacre, Sandakan Death March, The Rape of Nanking, Pearl Harbor. We owe no apology.— WeirdReport (@WeirdReport) May 26, 2016
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_apology_statements_issued_by_Japan
A country that is still apologizing to this day for what has happened 70+ years later, and quite possibly will still do so for years to come.
Another argument made was why should we apologize for a bomb that has killed over 100 thousand people killed between the two bombs alone in retaliation for an attack that got us into a war we were partially taking part in and killing 2,403 men, wounding 1,178. This argument grated at me where they ignored the fact that between the two nuclear bombs dropped, the number of dead is an 'equivalent' retaliation.
This is the problem with Social Media and also Social Engineering...
Social Media, and perhaps media itself, is a way to define a narrative without presenting facts.
That the use of a nuclear bomb on a city is justifiable retaliation for being attacked. That our retribution is justifiable at any cost. That we have no reason to be sorry to do what we want because our cause is right.
Sadly, this is what a terrorist or a jihadist would rationalize their belief. They should not feel sorry for doing whatever it takes, as it is retribution for hindering their agenda.
You say we don't have an agenda? You are sorely mistaken. We want our gas prices to be low, our involvement in Kuwait was part of our agenda to keep the oil from the Mid-east flowing to keep oil prices reasonable. We tolerate some of the social injustices in Saudi Arabia because it suits our agenda for Oil once again.
We still deal with China, a Communist country, and some of its social issues because said electronics you buy, are, made in China...
We all have agendas that is about our immediate comforts, but when it comes to Social Media, we all try to play out that we are 'high and mighty'. But in the end of it all, it is still following an agenda people want.
Young Conservatives hate Obama, so they spin up a Social Media snafu using people who cite information with only a one side of the coin, not the full side and misquoting a speech to suit their agenda...
In the end of it all, people should take the time to read the actual 'apology' to Japan about Hiroshima...
My take on this, while I don't believe an apology was fully necessary, is that Obama believes that we (Not just the Americans, but everyone in the world) need to remember Hiroshima for the one thing it does point to that some of us who lived our young and teenage years of the 80s feared as well as those who lived through the 50s, 60s and 70s, the fear of a nuclear war... The potential of a nuclear war is STILL there... And with other countries now developing Nuclear or Dirty Nuclear weapons, the horrors of what we have learned from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the only cities to be have been intentionally nuked by a country.
What has been repeatedly stated, time and time again, is if we do not learn from the use of Nuclear weapons on our two only know uses of a Nuclear Weapon on actual cities and the moral implications... How are we, as human race, be able to survive when we don't accept the consequences for our actions, regardless of the reason for those actions?
Friday, March 29, 2013
Continued debate of Adria Richards.
So I read a posting from the Washington Post with regards to Adria Richards...
I have to say, this is NOT like the fact of a rape victim being blamed for her own attack.
Unlike a rape victim, where the most common ploy to detract the act of rape is to make it look like the victim wanted or acted like they wanted the act... Adria's issue was that she made an event public that cause someone to get fired from their job, and made others react in a way that I would liken to the level of Lynch Mob retribution.
Let's put this in proper perspective here. I will admit I am a guy. I'm a tech to. But I don't believe lashing out at Adria for her mistake. I will say it was the worst idea she had, but threaten her? Attack her company to show my dissatisfaction? No.
She did something fatally bad that cost a person a job. She deserves proper, constructive criticism on the fact that how she handled it was not the best or proper way of handling a situation. She involved the internet in the situation without putting it in the proper, unbiased perspective and put it in such a way that the person she implicated got the short end of the stick.
Do I think she needed to be fired from Sendgrid for her mistake? Honestly, no. But it doesn't do the company any good either in her situation that she represents a company with her name and like how Paul Christoforo made it difficult for the Avenger Controller group with his bad behavior, it isn't really surprising how her situation was less than ideal either given the company was under fire from the irate people.
Now what all critics should agree with, the ultimate fault is with the internet itself. The people who follow people like Adria Richards and other people, who take on the 'lynch mob' mentality to attack people or react to a situation without all the information or handling the situation on their own... Create the problems that we should be 'better people' about, but like humanity has proven, time and time again, we do the wrong things for the 'right reasons'.
I have to say, this is NOT like the fact of a rape victim being blamed for her own attack.
Unlike a rape victim, where the most common ploy to detract the act of rape is to make it look like the victim wanted or acted like they wanted the act... Adria's issue was that she made an event public that cause someone to get fired from their job, and made others react in a way that I would liken to the level of Lynch Mob retribution.
Let's put this in proper perspective here. I will admit I am a guy. I'm a tech to. But I don't believe lashing out at Adria for her mistake. I will say it was the worst idea she had, but threaten her? Attack her company to show my dissatisfaction? No.
She did something fatally bad that cost a person a job. She deserves proper, constructive criticism on the fact that how she handled it was not the best or proper way of handling a situation. She involved the internet in the situation without putting it in the proper, unbiased perspective and put it in such a way that the person she implicated got the short end of the stick.
Do I think she needed to be fired from Sendgrid for her mistake? Honestly, no. But it doesn't do the company any good either in her situation that she represents a company with her name and like how Paul Christoforo made it difficult for the Avenger Controller group with his bad behavior, it isn't really surprising how her situation was less than ideal either given the company was under fire from the irate people.
Now what all critics should agree with, the ultimate fault is with the internet itself. The people who follow people like Adria Richards and other people, who take on the 'lynch mob' mentality to attack people or react to a situation without all the information or handling the situation on their own... Create the problems that we should be 'better people' about, but like humanity has proven, time and time again, we do the wrong things for the 'right reasons'.
Monday, June 4, 2012
Damn Gold Spammers.
So my new rant is about gold spammers.
For those of you who have never played an MMORPG or the more recent issue, Diablo 3... Gold spammers are basically companies that offer to sell you in-Game gold for $xx.xx.
Now some of you are going to go, "Why the hell would you want pay money to get virtual money?" Well, for gamers, money == better gear. Better gear means 'more fun'. Which, I think, is a bad idea. These companies also are not necessarily... Honest. Some of them will want account information, which means, access to your game account, which can lead to you losing your in game work because some of that gold is generated by... Hacking accounts and selling off stuff the character as and transfering the virtual money to another account.
In the past, it has been discouraged, but doesn't stop the companies from getting a bunch of the free accounts, creating characters and then spamming various channels to sell their illgotten gains.
Personally, I've gotten annoyed with it in Diablo 3, mostly cause I am trying to just have fun in the game and then watching several lines of "Buy gold from ...... Safe, honest..." And what makes it worse, is that Diablo 3 does have a 'real currency exchange' auction house, which means, people can, literally make money off of playing the game and selling virtual stuff to other players. While Blizzard gets a small percentage of the sale, the thing I just don't like is the simple fact that it just encourages these gold spammers to constantly make the damn spamming bots to the point that playing for an hour, I send at least 15 minutes blocking the spam bots and reporting them cause I want a chat channel that isn't full of crap.
While some of the people in the channel might not be mature... To be honest, it is EASIER to deal with immature idiots than watching like 5 to 10 lines of selling crap on a game I already paid a right to play in. Even in-game 'ads' like those used in Planetside, I can tune out, but when I do want to read a chat section, and all I see is ad crap I can't tune out without block and reporting it several times, it becomes a real nuisance.
Monday, January 9, 2012
About the saying "The customer is always right..."
So in my checking to see how someone can dig himself deeper in his own stupidity, this being Mr. Christoforo, I ran across this comment that made me stop for a second...
WTF is wrong with this guy? He doesn't think he is deserving of the backlash and all the hate that came from HIS inability to realize that the customer is always right. Never mind the fact that the customer is either handicapped or is buying the controller for someone who is.This is a comment referencing the fail that Christoforo has done. But one thing I have to say, the customer isn't necessarily always right. I never really 100% agreed with this statement, since there are dozens, if not hundreds of times where the customer uses this as their soapbox to rant and rave about something they don't know in the face of people with the knowledge. Now in Christoforo's case... He was never right on his side. The customer may not have all the facts, but the way he treated the customer was well past the line of 'good common sense'. But enough of focusing on the failure of Paul Christoforo... That's a dead horse beating there. One thing to note is that there will be a fair share of the time the customer is NOT right. It is, however, important to help the customer as best you can. At the same time, this is a good time to help educate the customer in some things they may be misunderstanding. While I rant about how I find the customer being foolish or much stronger words, the thing is, I try also not to let the customer know that they are such unless we are on really good terms or literally facing me. The reason for this is so both of us can see what is going on and also gauge the frustration level. The problem with phone support is that often times, you can't really 'see' the person and judge beyond their voice. The other thing is, that sometimes people will speak in a tone that will often be confused as something else. For Example: I know of a couple of Chinese people, worked with them a few times, however, when you just 'hear' them, at first, you think they are very abrasive. The thing is, that is not the case, it is how they learned to speak in english as well as their dialect of Chinese tends to sound abrasive, when in fact, that is just normal. You would not know they were joking until you saw their face, the expression showing whether or not they are angry or just joking with you because you can't get that from just the tone. Now while some will cite the same thing with e-mails, this is true... Text shows no means of expression short of the typed emoticons like :) or ^_^ type stuff. But it is also important, regardless of being a customer or a service rep to not take the message personally, but try to reach a compromise. A customer should never always 'take take take'... You have to relent a little because not everything works exactly as you expect it.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Digging a deeper hole...
Yes, back to the same rant about Mr. Christoforo again... Just listened to his 'interview' with Gametrailers from Spike TV. One thing I have to say about the interview, is that Mr. Christoforo still proves that sometimes, even telling his side still proves he shouldn't be employed.
Let me give you some tidbits that makes the case:
The interview, obviously focuses on the event that got him into trouble. His statement, "I got a little a bit out of line..." It wasn't just 'a little bit'.
He also stated this: "I had no idea who (Mike from Penny Arcade) was. I didn't even know what Penny Arcade was, to be honest with ya."
Yet, in his e-mail to Mike, he said he loved Penny Arcade. So he is lying on the air or lying to Mike, being a condescending person. He further comments how it was not a well put together site.
The sad thing is... Not all sites are not going to look 'flashy'. There are several comic websites people follow that are NOT flashy at all, some are down right 'plain', yet have popular followings. Again, a man who is suppose to be in Marketing, making comments about a website from his own view that is from a limited perspective and he is the PRESIDENT of his own Marketing company.
But it gets better...
When he is quoted something from his own e-mail... You see on his face, "Oops..." But then you hear him say this:
"Like I said, I don't even know some of the stuff that came out when I said it, I wasn't even thinking about it..."
For the love of god... You are creating an e-mail... Hell, I am creating a blog posting that will probably be read by the public. I take a moment to replay that section over and over again to make sure I have the words, in context, properly, to be reasonably fair, even with my biased attitude to the situation. I even stopped a few times before posting this, looking over what I am about to post, editing my own message to make sure it comes across carefully. While I may not be under pressure, even at work, I try to send DRAFTS of what will be an official communication to the place of work, to make sure it comes off reasonable and people can understand the message. The failure here, is Mr. Christoforo not doing his job properly once again.
What I find interesting is when the interviewer talks about PR and marketing, the very thing that Ocean Marketing is 'suppose' to be about... Here is the response we hear from Mr. Christoforo:
"Let's be clear about one thing... I'm not in PR and Marketing..."
Wait...
He's NOT a PR and Marketing... THEN WHY THE HELL ARE YOU RESPONDING TO PUBLIC RELATION BASED EMAILS? WHY WERE YOU IMITATING OTHER PEOPLE USING A COMPANY'S DOMAIN? Obviously, the answer that this response gives is, grifting the public. I've talked to some of the REAL marketing people or people who do what Paul is SUPPOSE to be doing. I even showed them this failure of a person's foolishness and most of them shook their head.
What does he do with Ocean Marketing?
"Sales... That's what I do... From cars to real estate..."
Again... Why is a person who is doing sales, responding to customer service e-mails? He shouldn't be.
What really gets me riled is this, the interviewer asks, "If this hadn't gotten viral, would you have changed your tactics?"
His answer: "No, no I think that ultimately, that if this stayed between me and Dave... We would have worked it out..."
He commented that he would have gone back and re-read his e-mails and asked himself, "Why did you do that dude?"
When the third person walked into the whole thing... It should have pinged right away that it was handled wrong. The sad thing is... This is NOT the first time he has handled the customer inappropriately, with already one noted entry. http://www.natesnetwork.com/Poor-customer-service
What more, Nate pointed out that this didn't change until AFTER he posted his issue as well. The problem I see here, is that I do not believe that, ultimately, he would have worked it out. The way it was handled, and the fact that he used the 'bad day' excuse for Dave... Is the same problem he used back in JUNE with Nate.
What more, the time in which this went out of control... He should have realized his 'habits' about this situation and not proceeded the way he did with his responses in general.
When they talk about the memes... Even Christoforo didn't recognize his situation at the time. Again, Mr. Christoforo didn't take the time to look at anything, like the source of it or even looking back in his OWN emails. Didn't take the time to actually follow Mike's suggestion to GOOGLE him. His comments on Twitter, as posted before, about taking a swing at an undeclared mixed martial artist in a bar (His own analogy)... The problem I see here, is a man who is not a 'people' person. At best, a schister. Or in most cases, the stereotypical used car sales man trying to pull the wool over your eyes.
What makes me twitch even more is he states he doesn't remember any of the things he wrote. While I admit, there are many things I would not commit to memory, he has HOTMAIL, GMAIL accounts... Accounts that have 'sent items' and the fact it is reposted by people, verbatim, back onto the internet. When people single you out, they will point to what was written, just as this interview, I replay sections over again to get it down RIGHT.
Now when he goes on about how it isn't fair to him to be hated... Here's something you have to consider.
The reason why there is so much hate for Christoforo, at least, why I hate him, is that I know roughly where he comes from. There are times I feel the customer isn't right. Hell, I wrote this blog and I enjoy reading the 'The Customer is Not Always Right' website for that reason. But at the same time, when I engage with techs, or deal with customer service reps, I try to be nice to them, and even when I am frustrated, I try not to take out my anger with them, because I know that they deal with some unreasonable customers. Dave, in this case, wasn't being unreasonable at the beginning, but got pissed off because of the dismissive attitude towards him about the situation and vague responses. And the times that I dealt with the Customer Service reps, showing my irritation and almost getting to the level of using stronger language with them, in majority of the times I have been dealt with, they tried their best to appease me, but in all accounts, they were NEVER condescending or insulting. I find myself agreeing with Mike that while Mike may have become a bigger bully to Christoforo in some eyes, the simple fact of it is, Christoforo should be genuinely sorry about how he handled anything regardless of who he is dealing with. Not just Mike, but the simple fact that his name dropping and brow beating responses in e-mail will always come back to haunt them.
There is a reason why companies are very hesitant to put out information and Paul Christoforo is a prime example of what happens when a person goes off on the customer.
In the end... My ranting about Paul Christoforo is basically to etch just another mark for when someone does a Google Search on him. Eventually, it shows up that people are talking about him and at the same time, understand parts of the reasons why some of us rant about him. I have to say, his 'ethics' and 'work' are questionable when it comes to Social Media... His 'sales' are questionable as well. His reputation is definitely not something I would trust, and with the way he tried to handle his termination from N-Control and how they have to keep paying for it in the long run... I would not trust him with much beyond manual labor under major supervision.
Friday, April 9, 2010
The 'Customer'...
One of my bosses referred people we help in IT as the 'customer'... And IT is sort of Customer Service.
The sad thing of it all, the motto of "The customer is always right..." is always touted so many times when it comes to Customer Service. Sometimes, it is ranted about by the very customers in the face of the Customer Service Rep who is doing their job.
Now, I will tell you, I am no 'shining' or 'happy' type of person at times. It always makes me want to hang up on some people who think that yelling at me would make me be 'more effective'.
Now, let's point out some examples of 'customers' that make me wonder just how they could be 'right' in any sense of the word.
1) The Angry Customer
Now these are the usual, red in the face "I'm PISSED and you are going to give me what I want or I will just yell at you!" type of people. You've all seen it, some of you have actually acted it out with the customer service agent when they don't give you what you want and thinking that yelling at them will make them cower and bow down before you.
Seriously... Take a moment to consider what you are doing. The whole angry routine just stresses out the agent. He or she wants to help you, but treating them with hostility isn't really winning you points. Sure, it might get their manager to come over and see what they can do, but the thing you all have to understand is, there are some things just throwing a fit at won't really solve.
2) Playing the 'Title' Card
I have had this pulled on me a few times. One where I literally had a VP ask me if it would help if they called a vendor and use their name and title to help 'grease' the wheels. Sometimes it works, but often times, a title doesn't mean anything unless you happen to be Mr. Moneybags who can move mountains of cash and can afford to throw money like you were exhaling gold.
On the flip side, I had to take a call from someone, he was actually using his company to get tech support on something of a personal nature, and given I was contracted only for company support, I couldn't help him. Now he tried to pull the whole "I'm one of the principles of this company..." with me, but I was told that given the nature of his call wasn't company related, I couldn't help him.
So something has to be said about this. Be realistic. There are limitations to what a title can seriously do. In the first case, the problem was there was a procedure, one that couldn't be expedited any further than the situation, but given the answer wasn't good enough, time to throw the title around. Same with the second part, given I had to tell him I couldn't help him with a personal problem with his company's account, he tried to use his title to justify that we HAD to help him.
In both cases, the customer was simply in the wrong.
3) The stupid customer...
Now this is a story someone mentioned:
'I graduated in 2009. How can I get my student e-mail account back?'
'You'd have to re-enroll as a student.'
'Okay, transfer me to Admissions.'
'okey dokey'
Now, just to be clear... Someone graduated from this College/University... And they want their student e-mail account back... So, the person is going to re-enroll to get their student account. *boggle*
Now, sure, I can understand people wanting to keep certain things, but there is also some things you can't keep. Unless this person wanted a copy of their old e-mail, which would be kind of amazing if it was still there after several months of not being in the system anymore.
It does make you wonder about how people like this could be 'right' in any way. As I posted before, there are some people who make these lame ass arguments from no real experience other than their ASSUMED belief. And as the old saying goes for 'ASSUME'...
4) The Arrogant Customer
This type of customer is right next to the angry ones in 'numbers'. They are sort of a mixture of 'stupid' or 'title' types as well, but they tend to push their ego in enough to try and beat people in doing what they want, ignoring the whole 'reality' thing all together.
It doesn't matter that in the existence of Reality, what they believe is utterly wrong and completely insane... It is simply not something they will accept and will just put forth that something can be done simply because they said so.
These types tend to make you want to back hand them, but of course, being the customer service person, you have to make them happy.
These few types I put up are just ones I can think of that bug me the most. It bugs me because they prove that there are people who aren't grounded by being rational or willing to be rational, simply because it does not 'fit' their view of things.
The sad thing of it all, the motto of "The customer is always right..." is always touted so many times when it comes to Customer Service. Sometimes, it is ranted about by the very customers in the face of the Customer Service Rep who is doing their job.
Now, I will tell you, I am no 'shining' or 'happy' type of person at times. It always makes me want to hang up on some people who think that yelling at me would make me be 'more effective'.
Now, let's point out some examples of 'customers' that make me wonder just how they could be 'right' in any sense of the word.
1) The Angry Customer
Now these are the usual, red in the face "I'm PISSED and you are going to give me what I want or I will just yell at you!" type of people. You've all seen it, some of you have actually acted it out with the customer service agent when they don't give you what you want and thinking that yelling at them will make them cower and bow down before you.
Seriously... Take a moment to consider what you are doing. The whole angry routine just stresses out the agent. He or she wants to help you, but treating them with hostility isn't really winning you points. Sure, it might get their manager to come over and see what they can do, but the thing you all have to understand is, there are some things just throwing a fit at won't really solve.
2) Playing the 'Title' Card
I have had this pulled on me a few times. One where I literally had a VP ask me if it would help if they called a vendor and use their name and title to help 'grease' the wheels. Sometimes it works, but often times, a title doesn't mean anything unless you happen to be Mr. Moneybags who can move mountains of cash and can afford to throw money like you were exhaling gold.
On the flip side, I had to take a call from someone, he was actually using his company to get tech support on something of a personal nature, and given I was contracted only for company support, I couldn't help him. Now he tried to pull the whole "I'm one of the principles of this company..." with me, but I was told that given the nature of his call wasn't company related, I couldn't help him.
So something has to be said about this. Be realistic. There are limitations to what a title can seriously do. In the first case, the problem was there was a procedure, one that couldn't be expedited any further than the situation, but given the answer wasn't good enough, time to throw the title around. Same with the second part, given I had to tell him I couldn't help him with a personal problem with his company's account, he tried to use his title to justify that we HAD to help him.
In both cases, the customer was simply in the wrong.
3) The stupid customer...
Now this is a story someone mentioned:
'I graduated in 2009. How can I get my student e-mail account back?'
'You'd have to re-enroll as a student.'
'Okay, transfer me to Admissions.'
'okey dokey'
Now, just to be clear... Someone graduated from this College/University... And they want their student e-mail account back... So, the person is going to re-enroll to get their student account. *boggle*
Now, sure, I can understand people wanting to keep certain things, but there is also some things you can't keep. Unless this person wanted a copy of their old e-mail, which would be kind of amazing if it was still there after several months of not being in the system anymore.
It does make you wonder about how people like this could be 'right' in any way. As I posted before, there are some people who make these lame ass arguments from no real experience other than their ASSUMED belief. And as the old saying goes for 'ASSUME'...
4) The Arrogant Customer
This type of customer is right next to the angry ones in 'numbers'. They are sort of a mixture of 'stupid' or 'title' types as well, but they tend to push their ego in enough to try and beat people in doing what they want, ignoring the whole 'reality' thing all together.
It doesn't matter that in the existence of Reality, what they believe is utterly wrong and completely insane... It is simply not something they will accept and will just put forth that something can be done simply because they said so.
These types tend to make you want to back hand them, but of course, being the customer service person, you have to make them happy.
These few types I put up are just ones I can think of that bug me the most. It bugs me because they prove that there are people who aren't grounded by being rational or willing to be rational, simply because it does not 'fit' their view of things.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)