|
|
Monday, July 17th, 2006
| |
8:14 pm
|
One more piece of information on the Lycos deal:
I sent them an email explaining that their sponsors were crooks and they needed to get with a little bit more honest advertising, accompanied by a half page of google links which went into detail about how Winsoftware Inc are indeed crooks.
So they deleted all my email. Not the account, just the email. With no response to my complaint, naturally.
Fortunately, anything that I *really* want to keep I forward home (cuz I don't leave sensitive information ONLY in the hands of others) but it just goes to show you how cranky they get when you show them they're wrong using somebody else's search engine. =)
(it also explains why one company is still on the stock exchange and the other fell off)
|
|
(2 comments | comment on this)
|
| Thursday, July 13th, 2006
| |
6:09 am
|
|
By the way, I dumped the Lycos email address when my system caught one of their advertisers trying to dump malware on my machine... so it's Yahoo now.
|
|
(4 comments | comment on this)
|
| Friday, January 20th, 2006
| |
6:10 pm - In the news today...
|
Study: Most College Students Lack Skills
By BEN FELLER, AP Education Writer
Thu Jan 19, 10:56 PM
WASHINGTON - More than half of students at four-year colleges _ and at
least 75 percent at two-year colleges _ lack the literacy to handle
complex, real-life tasks such as understanding credit card offers, a
study found.
Ol' Ben Feller there needs to brush up on credit card agreements himself... the last one I got was something like 10 pages long in 2 point font. They're intentionally obfuscated, because people have short attention spans and would rather just sign than read 10 pages of sentences that no English major could diagram, because they're in Legal, not English (and yes, the two are two different languages... I invite you to read the federal tax code sometime, if you don't believe me). I'm gonna need some more convincing evidence than a credit card offer. Here, let me share with you an offer that I received today (this is one paragraph of a 4 page offer):
"We reserve the right to change the account terms (including APRs) at any time for any reason, in addition to APR increases that may occur for failure to comply with the terms of your account. For example, we may change the terms based on information in your credit report, such as the number of other credit card accounts you have and their balances. The APRs for this offer are not guaranteed; APRs may change to higher APRs, fixed APRs may change to variable APRs, or variable APRs may change to fixed APRs. Any changes will be in accordance with your account agreement."
Sound confusing? If you're one of those college graduates who doesn't have the literacy to handle a complex, real life task such as understanding a credit card offer, let me translate that from Legal to English: "The offer that you have just received doesn't have any real information in it whatsoever. Seriously. The whole letter doesn't mean a damn thing, even the big, boldface sales pitch on page 1 that we're hoping will snare your attention and have you signing before you read this bit. Matter of fact, if there's anything that you find attractive about the offer at all, we can change it at any time, including the time between you signing the offer and us actually sending you the credit card - see, we're going to check your credit report and if we don't like it (heh - if we don't like it - did you know that the quality of credit reports is not guaranteed? Yours can be a load of hogwash and the reporting company won't owe you a red cent for slander. Really, they won't even refund our money for sending us a load of crap instead of the actual payment information that we really want... so basically, we can hose up the numbers on the offer based on information that isn't even RELATED to you), the "offer" that we sent you becomes null and void and the paper you signed is actually for a different offer entirely, which we are not disclosing to you at this point. But not to worry - changes will only be made in accordance with your account agreement. Information on which isn't included with this offer, because, since you haven't signed anything, you don't have an account yet."
And college grads find difficulty understanding exactly what they're signing for. Amazing, considering that there's a paragraph at the bottom of each one that says "we aren't actually going to tell you what you're signing for". Sheesh.
|
|
(2 comments | comment on this)
|
| |
6:04 pm
|
|
You know, I need to understand this whole "against gay marriage" thing. I mean, if you are against gay marriage, take up charity work or something. No, really... as far as I can tell, most of us are too busy trying to pay the mortgage, keep the kids healthy, make sure the grades are up, fix up broken stuff in the house, find a job where we aren't miserable... you know... that sort of thing... anyway, we're too busy with that stuff to CARE who gets married more than 500 feet from the house. If you have time to care about this particular non-issue, it's because your life hasn't had enough hardship and struggle, which, by all accounts, build character. You need to seek some of that hardship to build your character. There are issues in this country which, when left unresolved, leave dead bodies, sometimes even dead kid bodies. Let's deal with those issues first, okay? The ones that kill people? Then we can deal with who is and who is not allowed to wear a ring on their left hand. Sheesh. Really. Not into charity? At least get into something constructive.
|
|
(5 comments | comment on this)
|
| Friday, July 22nd, 2005
| |
6:57 am - A GTA player weighs in on the "controversy"
|
OK, here's the deal with the "Oh my god, there's sex in that thar video game" controversy...
Lately, they slapped an "adults only" rating on a game that you either have to modify or search for some sort of obscure code to see a pixelated, fully clothed "sex act".
I play this game. Haven't seen the sex act (I've only read descriptions, so I can't say for certain that it's fully clothed) but I think that perspective is important... with no cheat codes, almost no modding skill, and mediocre game playing abilities, I reached a mission where the goal is to steal a car, hunt down a cop (who supposedly framed you, but I'll get to that in a moment), and kill him.
Should parents be very careful before exposing their children to this game? Of COURSE they should. Is it because of the sex?
Uh, no. You can see more than that when Jennifer Garner is down to her skivvies in Alias. You can see more than that in the Lana Lang lingerie-in-the-pool scene in Smallville (which was a pretty hot scene, by the way). You can see more than that when you're using web search engines to find "cheat codes so I can see sex on tv" (believe me, when your kid searches for THAT, I'm sure they'll get what they ask for... especially considering that if the child in question has enough unsupervised internet time to search for that, it's probable that your default search engine has already been innocuously changed to one more friendly to searches for sex, anyway... what I'm saying is, if you have a 15 year old who plays Grand Theft Auto, run Ad Aware and an antivirus. Really. Please.)
Here's the thing. The game is a sequel. The entire series has contained a lot of morally ambiguous violence the whole time. If you can't explain to your child the reason that life is important, gang dynamics, how these horrible things happen, themes based on revenge, retribution, and valuing profit more than human life, then your child is too young for ANY game in this series.
This isn't a controversy. Suggesting that the hidden explicit content is over the edge and that parents can't control for hidden content (while true) is a cop out - it's true that parents can't be responsible for everything, but they SHOULD be on the look out for the really really obvious, slam dunk, hole in one stuff... for instance, games with names like "Hitman" or "Grand Theft Auto".
|
|
(7 comments | comment on this)
|
| Friday, August 20th, 2004
| |
2:24 pm
|
|
| Thursday, August 12th, 2004
| |
8:56 am
|
|
One more wedding, and then I think I'll finally have some free time again.
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Monday, January 26th, 2004
| |
8:29 pm - I can see it now...
|
|
| Thursday, December 25th, 2003
| |
9:29 pm
|
|
| Wednesday, December 17th, 2003
| |
10:29 pm
|
|
| Tuesday, December 9th, 2003
| |
6:49 pm
|
George W Bush is an ass.
Why SHOULDN'T Taiwan be independent? Is the entire population composed of people who aren't old enough to vote? Should China rule there by divine right, perhaps? Are people who don't happen to be rich white texans somehow not fit to govern their own lives?
George... (Or can I call you asshole? Thanks!) Please tell me if any of these words ring a bell with your (apparently) undereducated ass:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
How about these ones?
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
What is it that pisses you off about Taiwan, George? Is it their drive to be Democratic and Free? Is it the lack of crushing-students-with-tanks incidents in their history? Is it their good relationship with the United States (well, maybe LAST administration, anyway)?
I never really had any hope for George... but his attitude toward Taiwan - in the beginning - was heartening. This hypocrisy is just pathetic and sad.
I was told once by a co-worker that when bandying about the words of the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, that I should bear in mind the context in which those documents were written, that the point may not be what I think it was. My response now is the same as it was then:
Fuck off. The ONLY legitimate lease on the power of ANY government is, as was stated in the Declaration, the consent of the governed. Anything else is tyranny.
Well, congratulations to the United States. Your president made war on Iraq to remove a tyrant from the head of a government covering 22 million or so (est. in '97, anyway) and support one at the head of a government covering 1.26 billion. And that's not even counting Taiwan or Tibet.
Or George and the United States.
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Wednesday, November 12th, 2003
| |
6:21 pm
|
|
| Monday, November 3rd, 2003
| |
6:46 pm
|
Halloween is done and gone. I went down south and spent the holiday with ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) paulscat, wearing my uber-nifty "lonely bachelor approaching 35" costume, which nobody really commented on for some reason. And, we watched the Rob Zombie movie and 28 Days Later, cuz halloween ain't halloween without scary movies. Unfortunately, neither movie was that scary - House of 1000 Corpses was pretty much overdone and not so good, 28 Days Later - while not a bad movie - was more freaky than scary.
Apart from that, I'm just trying to carry on.
|
|
(7 comments | comment on this)
|
| Thursday, October 16th, 2003
| |
9:35 pm - Saw a liddle somthin somthin in the news to-day...
|
Bush, Schwarzenegger Meet, Talk Economy
37 minutes ago
By TOM RAUM, Associated Press Writer
SAN BERNARDINO, Calif. - President Bush and California Gov.-elect
Arnold Schwarzenegger met privately Thursday then praised each other in
a joint appearance. The movie actor called Bush "the greatest ally this
golden state has in Washington."
(courtesy of... nobody, cuz I didn't really ask)
Anyway, can't help but wonder how that "conversation on the economy" went.
"You know, Mistah President, I sure do have lots of money, even in dis economy."
"Heh... you know, so do I. Ain't economomics great?"
"It sure is. You are da greatest ally dis golden state has in Washington."
"Ya know, son, to believe that, the people of Californinornia would have to ferget how much of the damage done to the economy of your state was a result of the energy deregularization championed by my buddies at Enron as well as myself, and the crimes they later committed while I was takin' their corporate jet to get to my speaking engagements."
"Ha! Dey would have to be real idiots to forget about dat."
"They did vote fer you, ya know."
"Ha ha! Dis is funny because it is true, Mistah President. It is funny because it is true."
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Tuesday, September 30th, 2003
| |
8:14 pm
|
|
LJ has been being bad, lately... been having trouble posting, been having trouble commenting. It's like an annual event. Or even more often than that.
|
|
(1 comment | comment on this)
|
| Friday, September 26th, 2003
| |
7:28 pm
|
See, here's the thing with judges blocking the no-call list. He blocked it as an attack on their right of free speech... and really, this whole thing is an issue of rights. It's an issue of property rights.
The phone in my house is mine. The copper under my house is mine (or Qwest wouldn't charge me for their nifty "line backer" service, right?) I'm not abridging the right of the telemarketers to say their sales pitch. They're welcome to do it. They can go on a street corner and yell it. They can buy a big building and paint it on the side so it's visible from the freeway. All I'm saying is that they can't say it over my phone, over my copper, and on my time that I pay Qwest money for.
And, don't bother comparing it to junk mail - with junk mail, the advertiser bears the cost for the advertisement AND for the delivery. Telemarketing (and spam, really) are greedy, selfish, and corrupt ways of trying to make the recipient pay the money for the delivery. Even if it's not a lot of money, it's still wrong. The principle remains.
|
|
(3 comments | comment on this)
|
| Thursday, September 25th, 2003
| |
10:45 pm
|
Well, look at that... they didn't volunteer it, but there's a directory for judges out there, through www.uscourts.gov... I haven't seen much in the way of home numbers (ain't that funny) on it, but I can call them in the office.
Even though that's not the same...
|
|
(3 comments | comment on this)
|
| |
8:13 pm
|
|
| |
6:21 pm
|
|
I notice that none of the judges that are knocking down the national do not call list are posting their phone numbers on the internet so we can call them during dinner and tell them what we think of their decision...
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Monday, September 22nd, 2003
| |
7:58 pm
|
|
So, I noticed in The National Enquirer or The Sun or The Weekly World News or some other rag sheet that the space aliens have endorsed Arnold Schwartzenegger for governor of California. Now, if I remember right, they helped Bill Clinton get elected in the 90's. I'm begining to think, with all this democrat/republican flip flopping, that the space aliens aren't paying any attention to human politics at all.
|
|
(1 comment | comment on this)
|
|
|
|
|
