Friday, July 9, 2010
Coming Soon....Again!
More new chapters from a new work coming soon! This one is called "dLife". It's about a company in California that created the first true digital consciousness for the military. When they lose control over this being and she takes over their facility, they call in a team of academics designed to reason with her and "put her on the couch".
Thursday, April 15, 2010
How To Piss Off A Customer...
Yet another example of how a company trying to protect itself from its own interested customers just ends up pissing people off. In this case, we have Comcast Sports Net, the cable channel on which many Cubs/Blackhawks/White Sox/Bulls games appear. I wanted to watch the game on my deck yesterday, since it was so nice out and since the game was such an important one (This one game decided whether or not the Bulls made the playoffs).
So I went to CSN's website, where you had to register to get access to the live stream of the game. It asked you many questions: name, email address, mailing address, etc. One of the questions it asked was who your cable TV provider was, since you had to have an active cable subscription to get the stream. Leaving aside for a moment why that is business stupid, I then got the following email from CSN's customer support:
"Dear Customer,
Your recent registration for the Chicago Bulls local internet streaming package was, under the terms of the offer, contingent on your having an up-to-date subscription to a television provider that distributes Comcast SportsNet Chicago and that has authorized Comcast SportsNet Chicago to enable you to watch Bulls games streamed to your computer.
This is to inform you that RCN, the television provider you selected, is unable to confirm that you are its customer in good standing. Accordingly, and as noted in the Purchase Policy http://csnchicagolive.rayv.com/Pages/TermsandConditions.aspx governing your order, we are hereby terminating your access to live streams of Bulls games through http://csnchicagolive.rayv.com
If you believe this conclusion has been reached in error we encourage you to contact your local television provider. If it turns out that an error has been made, your access will be re-instated forthwith. You may also contact us via Live Chat Support (found at http://csnchicagolive.rayv.com/Pages/ContactUs.aspx)
Sincerely,
The RayV Team and Comcast SportsNet
You guessed it. They tried to match my name to our cable subscription instead of our address. Awesome, except that our cable bill is in my girlfriend's name, not mine (she's lived there longer than I have). So now, despite the fact that I have RCN cable in our condo, my ability to stream the game is cut off. Now, I could go through the always pleasent process of sitting on hold with RCN and then CSN's customer support....but no thanks. I just won't watch next time I want to sit on the deck on a nice day.
Great way to boost ad revenue, hotshots!
So I went to CSN's website, where you had to register to get access to the live stream of the game. It asked you many questions: name, email address, mailing address, etc. One of the questions it asked was who your cable TV provider was, since you had to have an active cable subscription to get the stream. Leaving aside for a moment why that is business stupid, I then got the following email from CSN's customer support:
"Dear Customer,
Your recent registration for the Chicago Bulls local internet streaming package was, under the terms of the offer, contingent on your having an up-to-date subscription to a television provider that distributes Comcast SportsNet Chicago and that has authorized Comcast SportsNet Chicago to enable you to watch Bulls games streamed to your computer.
This is to inform you that RCN, the television provider you selected, is unable to confirm that you are its customer in good standing. Accordingly, and as noted in the Purchase Policy http://csnchicagolive.rayv.com/Pages/TermsandConditions.aspx governing your order, we are hereby terminating your access to live streams of Bulls games through http://csnchicagolive.rayv.com
If you believe this conclusion has been reached in error we encourage you to contact your local television provider. If it turns out that an error has been made, your access will be re-instated forthwith. You may also contact us via Live Chat Support (found at http://csnchicagolive.rayv.com/Pages/ContactUs.aspx)
Sincerely,
The RayV Team and Comcast SportsNet
You guessed it. They tried to match my name to our cable subscription instead of our address. Awesome, except that our cable bill is in my girlfriend's name, not mine (she's lived there longer than I have). So now, despite the fact that I have RCN cable in our condo, my ability to stream the game is cut off. Now, I could go through the always pleasent process of sitting on hold with RCN and then CSN's customer support....but no thanks. I just won't watch next time I want to sit on the deck on a nice day.
Great way to boost ad revenue, hotshots!
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Beware The Political Centrists...
There are words tossed around in politics today that are sacrosanct: moderate, middle ground, centrist. Usually those words are used to positively describe a politician that is reaching across the aisle, working with his more leaning compatriots. But you need to be careful with centrists, too. Often they can be an indication of someone with either no vested opinion of their own, or one that is willing to set their opinions aside. For what, you might ask? Why, money and privelage of course.
Take the new internet law passed in the UK, the Digital Economy Bill. Here you have an example of the much heard of Three Strikes policy. If you are accused of copyright infringement via illegal downloads over the internet three times, your internet connection is severed. Read that again. ACCUSED. Not convicted. Not tried. Not even arrested. Just accused. That means no form of due process.
Who could be responsible for passing such a law?
Well, the much maligned Lord Peter Mandelson, President of the Lords Council, is the one that crafted the law immediately after taking a short vacation with some entertainment industry executives (no, I'm not making this up). But he couldn't have passed the law without help. So who else was in on it?
The notoriously centrist Labour Party, fairly well known for not being far on either side of the political spectrum on any major issue. From the DailyTech article, written by Jason Mick:
"The bill was hurriedly passed before the upcoming election, which is expected to hurt the current dominant party, the centrist Labour Party. Opponents from the left and the right both derided the bill and are trying to seize a portion of control of the island nation from the Labour Party."
Think about that for a moment. In Britain they have many parties. In America, we basically have two, Democrat and Republican. Can any of us Americans even FATHOM a scenario in which a bill passed through Congress when it was opposed by BOTH the far right and far left? How could that even happen? Think about the major issues that get reported on: Healthcare, Education, Abortion, War Funding. Which of them could you imagine the far left and far right AGREEING on, and then legislation goes the opposite way against both of them?
So what is the only possible motivation for a centrist party to go against what both sides of the political spectrum want? Again, from Jason Mick:
"[The Bill] enjoyed the hearty support, though, of the music and film industries which lobbied heavy for the bill pouring millions of pounds in support to help override the voice of the citizens."
Yup. Money. These politicians sold out to lobbiests. Now, granted, unless I'm mistaken, the House of Lords members are appointed, not elected, so theoretically they have no constituency to represent (even though they are supposed to). But, if that's the case, what the hell do they need that much lobbying money for? They aren't campaigning, are they?
Take the new internet law passed in the UK, the Digital Economy Bill. Here you have an example of the much heard of Three Strikes policy. If you are accused of copyright infringement via illegal downloads over the internet three times, your internet connection is severed. Read that again. ACCUSED. Not convicted. Not tried. Not even arrested. Just accused. That means no form of due process.
Who could be responsible for passing such a law?
Well, the much maligned Lord Peter Mandelson, President of the Lords Council, is the one that crafted the law immediately after taking a short vacation with some entertainment industry executives (no, I'm not making this up). But he couldn't have passed the law without help. So who else was in on it?
The notoriously centrist Labour Party, fairly well known for not being far on either side of the political spectrum on any major issue. From the DailyTech article, written by Jason Mick:
"The bill was hurriedly passed before the upcoming election, which is expected to hurt the current dominant party, the centrist Labour Party. Opponents from the left and the right both derided the bill and are trying to seize a portion of control of the island nation from the Labour Party."
Think about that for a moment. In Britain they have many parties. In America, we basically have two, Democrat and Republican. Can any of us Americans even FATHOM a scenario in which a bill passed through Congress when it was opposed by BOTH the far right and far left? How could that even happen? Think about the major issues that get reported on: Healthcare, Education, Abortion, War Funding. Which of them could you imagine the far left and far right AGREEING on, and then legislation goes the opposite way against both of them?
So what is the only possible motivation for a centrist party to go against what both sides of the political spectrum want? Again, from Jason Mick:
"[The Bill] enjoyed the hearty support, though, of the music and film industries which lobbied heavy for the bill pouring millions of pounds in support to help override the voice of the citizens."
Yup. Money. These politicians sold out to lobbiests. Now, granted, unless I'm mistaken, the House of Lords members are appointed, not elected, so theoretically they have no constituency to represent (even though they are supposed to). But, if that's the case, what the hell do they need that much lobbying money for? They aren't campaigning, are they?
Friday, March 26, 2010
Friday, February 19, 2010
Creating A Culture Of Fear...
Whether you trust our government or not, whether you believe everything you hear in the press, whether or not you are suspicious that there are greater workings at hand beyond the obvious, there is one thing that most of us can agree on: government is in the business of controlling thought.
There are examples both in the extreme and the mundane as to this fact. Press releases and control over the media are commonplace today. Talking points memos are dispersed throughout political parties to create thought recognition of words and concepts in the public mind. Or you can read your history on covert intelligence programs like MKULTRA and COINTELPRO, conceived to experiment with overt mind control programs and the methods to monitor thought and communication of the public at large.
But the new method of control is to instill fear. Think of a deer in headlights: what happens? It freezes, incapable of thought, focused solely on the one and only thing its mind can value at that point, the lethal danger bearing down on it. If you were able to ask that animal about anything else: where are you going to get food today, where is your family, what other predators are nearby? The deer would simply be repeating "headlights" over and over again, unable to move beyond the danger.
With thoughtful beings such as humans, of course, you have to be more subtle. You have to feature creep your way into a culture of paralyzing fear that allows your government to do absolutely distasteful things: delude civil liberties, encroach on your economic freedoms, move ever closer to the fascist government a select number of leaders has yearned for for so long.
So today, I saw this on my way downtown on the Chicago CTA:
We've taken a lost bag and turned it, by implication, into a suitcase bomb? C'mon, Dept. of Homeland Security (who was responsible for the notice), you can do better than that. In Chicago, we've experienced no terrorist threat at all. No one is dying here. There's little to no danger. But we're all supposed to focus on this ethereal threat of the red handbag of death.
Am I overreacting? Perhaps. But as you begin going through your days from now on, pay attention to how many people are warning you of how many dangers in your life, and then begin to think about how much danger you've actually physically encountered. Fear is a powerful motivating factor, as the saying goes. But what are they trying to motivate you to do?
Or not do?
There are examples both in the extreme and the mundane as to this fact. Press releases and control over the media are commonplace today. Talking points memos are dispersed throughout political parties to create thought recognition of words and concepts in the public mind. Or you can read your history on covert intelligence programs like MKULTRA and COINTELPRO, conceived to experiment with overt mind control programs and the methods to monitor thought and communication of the public at large.
But the new method of control is to instill fear. Think of a deer in headlights: what happens? It freezes, incapable of thought, focused solely on the one and only thing its mind can value at that point, the lethal danger bearing down on it. If you were able to ask that animal about anything else: where are you going to get food today, where is your family, what other predators are nearby? The deer would simply be repeating "headlights" over and over again, unable to move beyond the danger.
With thoughtful beings such as humans, of course, you have to be more subtle. You have to feature creep your way into a culture of paralyzing fear that allows your government to do absolutely distasteful things: delude civil liberties, encroach on your economic freedoms, move ever closer to the fascist government a select number of leaders has yearned for for so long.
So today, I saw this on my way downtown on the Chicago CTA:
We've taken a lost bag and turned it, by implication, into a suitcase bomb? C'mon, Dept. of Homeland Security (who was responsible for the notice), you can do better than that. In Chicago, we've experienced no terrorist threat at all. No one is dying here. There's little to no danger. But we're all supposed to focus on this ethereal threat of the red handbag of death.
Am I overreacting? Perhaps. But as you begin going through your days from now on, pay attention to how many people are warning you of how many dangers in your life, and then begin to think about how much danger you've actually physically encountered. Fear is a powerful motivating factor, as the saying goes. But what are they trying to motivate you to do?
Or not do?
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
The Importance of Words....
Part of the game in shaping public opinion hinges on controlling thought. We all think in the language of words, so shaping what words are incorporated into our thought process can go an unbelievably long way in shaping opinion. One case in point is the use of the word "piracy" to describe copyright infringement with regard to movies, music, television, and books.
It goes something like this:
1. Those who represent rights holders spit the word piracy at you over and over and over and over and over again for years.
2. As a result, those on both sides of the debate, whether they intend to or not, begin to use the word "piracy" when describing infringement, either vocally or in thought.
3. Our mind inherently associates piracy with, well, what true piracy is: theft, murder, rape, pillage. Hence, those without the necessary background and forethought tend to allow that association to influence their thought and opinions.
Two things that are instructive in examination:
First, whilst true piracy (as in, on the high seas) has little to nothing to do with monopolies, the very coining of the term for use in this alternative fashion is credited to the Stationer's Company, a British corporation that was granted a monopoly on publication. The use of the term "piracy" to describe those that violated their charter was first used in 1603, when the threat of true piracy was very real indeed. This is a clear attempt to link through words in the minds of the general public two unrelated problems, thereby damning the lesser of the issues by linking it to one that creates true fear and anger.
Second, given that historical context, the ridiculousness continues today. One of the sites I use to look up new stories regarding copyright infringement and media legal stories is www.buzztracker.com. If you search that site for the term "music piracy", you get a nice spread of stories covering both true piracy and copyright infringement. For instance, when I ran that term today, the stories that came back were:
1. Police Arrest Several In File-Sharing Swoop (copyright infringement)
2. If you cry, they want to kill you (Somalian Piracy)
3. Grandma Endures Wrongful ISP Piracy Suspension (copyright infringement)
4. EU mission alone cannot solve piracy problem, says admiral (True Piracy)
There is no conceivable reason why stories 1 & 3 should be anywhere near stories 2 & 4, either in our words and thoughts (as designed by those trying to shape public opinion), or in a search return (an unintended consequence of that shaping). To link the two is silly.
But to try and use such psychological trickery to shape the minds of the masses rather than deal with the problem proactively and honestly? That's just downright evil....
It goes something like this:
1. Those who represent rights holders spit the word piracy at you over and over and over and over and over again for years.
2. As a result, those on both sides of the debate, whether they intend to or not, begin to use the word "piracy" when describing infringement, either vocally or in thought.
3. Our mind inherently associates piracy with, well, what true piracy is: theft, murder, rape, pillage. Hence, those without the necessary background and forethought tend to allow that association to influence their thought and opinions.
Two things that are instructive in examination:
First, whilst true piracy (as in, on the high seas) has little to nothing to do with monopolies, the very coining of the term for use in this alternative fashion is credited to the Stationer's Company, a British corporation that was granted a monopoly on publication. The use of the term "piracy" to describe those that violated their charter was first used in 1603, when the threat of true piracy was very real indeed. This is a clear attempt to link through words in the minds of the general public two unrelated problems, thereby damning the lesser of the issues by linking it to one that creates true fear and anger.
Second, given that historical context, the ridiculousness continues today. One of the sites I use to look up new stories regarding copyright infringement and media legal stories is www.buzztracker.com. If you search that site for the term "music piracy", you get a nice spread of stories covering both true piracy and copyright infringement. For instance, when I ran that term today, the stories that came back were:
1. Police Arrest Several In File-Sharing Swoop (copyright infringement)
2. If you cry, they want to kill you (Somalian Piracy)
3. Grandma Endures Wrongful ISP Piracy Suspension (copyright infringement)
4. EU mission alone cannot solve piracy problem, says admiral (True Piracy)
There is no conceivable reason why stories 1 & 3 should be anywhere near stories 2 & 4, either in our words and thoughts (as designed by those trying to shape public opinion), or in a search return (an unintended consequence of that shaping). To link the two is silly.
But to try and use such psychological trickery to shape the minds of the masses rather than deal with the problem proactively and honestly? That's just downright evil....
Friday, January 29, 2010
The Push And Pull Of Drama
First things first: I'm sorry. To myself, yes, but more to anyone who actually took the time to check this blog over the past month and half. Frankly, I didn't realize there was anyone who actually checked back all that often. In any case, I will continue to post thoughts and chapters I've written or am working on and, as always, criticism and comments are most appreciated.
But this isn't a chapter. It isn't one of my rants. It isn't another sad attempt at humorous observations about my home, the city I love, and the setting of most of my fiction: Chicago. No, this is a quick thought on a technique I've used to instill drama into my writing.
I've long been an avid sports fan. Some sports more than others, but really I enjoy them all. But I never really understood why I become so immersed in what a bunch of larger, more athletic men are doing on my TV screen. But one morning when I was draining my cup of coffee and working myself into a writing lather, I had Sports Center on in the background. They were detailing last year's Bulls/Celtics playoff series. If you're even a pedestrian basketball fan, you know how it went. 7 games, 4 of them in which they played overtime periods, last second shots, tight finishes, heartache, drama, the whole bit. But this segment of the show particularly took note of how many times the lead had changed hands throughout the series, some ridiculous number.
That is what builds tension, and at its heart, drama is all about tension. As a fan of either team, you never felt comfortable. Even when you had the lead, you were worried. You felt as if, should you turn your eye of from the screen for even a moment, the opposing team would snatch the game away from yours as punishment.
I now think of this segment whenever I'm writing a particularly dramatic scene, regardless of the content. Love scenes are like that: they get close to coming together, then one of them says something ignorant, but she forgives him, but he resents her forgiveness, this makes her cry, which breaks the anger within him, and so on.
I'm curious, if there are any creators of drama reading this, or even avid readers/watchers/listeners that have another example on which to base drama....
But this isn't a chapter. It isn't one of my rants. It isn't another sad attempt at humorous observations about my home, the city I love, and the setting of most of my fiction: Chicago. No, this is a quick thought on a technique I've used to instill drama into my writing.
I've long been an avid sports fan. Some sports more than others, but really I enjoy them all. But I never really understood why I become so immersed in what a bunch of larger, more athletic men are doing on my TV screen. But one morning when I was draining my cup of coffee and working myself into a writing lather, I had Sports Center on in the background. They were detailing last year's Bulls/Celtics playoff series. If you're even a pedestrian basketball fan, you know how it went. 7 games, 4 of them in which they played overtime periods, last second shots, tight finishes, heartache, drama, the whole bit. But this segment of the show particularly took note of how many times the lead had changed hands throughout the series, some ridiculous number.
That is what builds tension, and at its heart, drama is all about tension. As a fan of either team, you never felt comfortable. Even when you had the lead, you were worried. You felt as if, should you turn your eye of from the screen for even a moment, the opposing team would snatch the game away from yours as punishment.
I now think of this segment whenever I'm writing a particularly dramatic scene, regardless of the content. Love scenes are like that: they get close to coming together, then one of them says something ignorant, but she forgives him, but he resents her forgiveness, this makes her cry, which breaks the anger within him, and so on.
I'm curious, if there are any creators of drama reading this, or even avid readers/watchers/listeners that have another example on which to base drama....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)