So I just got an email from a customer that simply said, "THIS PROGRAM SUCKS". And it got me thinking, who are these people that send emails like this? Then I remember my favorite e-mail of all time. Below it is transcribed in its entirety. By the way, it contains the F word at least 8 times, so be aware.
"YOU AND YOUR WEB SITE SUCK BIG DICK. I HAVE WASTED TIME FUCKING AROUND WITH YOU SCREWED UP CAD DOWNLOAD BULLSHIT. DON'T FUCKING PLAY AROUND WITH THIS SHIT IF YOU DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO IT. YOU ARE JUST WASTING MY TIME YOU MOTHER FUCKING ASSHOLES. STICK TO MAKING YOUR MOLD STUFF AND LEAVE THE CAD DOWNLOADS TO PEOPLE WHO KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING. IF YOU WANT TO DO IT TOP LEVEL GO TO http://www.mcmaster.com/ . THOSE GUYS DO IT RIGHT. FIRE THE FUCKERS YOU HAVE NOW AND HIRE THE WEBMASTERS WHO DID THE MCMASTER SITE. I WILL NEVER PURCHASE FROM OR RECOMMEND DME BECAUSE YOU HAVE WASTED MY TIME. I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO LOGIN AND REMEMBER FUCKING CODES AND PASSWORDS JUST FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF PURCHASING YOUR FUCKING PRODUCTS. DO YOU THINK YOU ARE SOME SPECIAL FUCKING SECRET ORGANIZATION? IF YOU WANT ME TO USE YOUR PRODUCTS MAKE IT EASY FOR ME TO GET WHAT I NEED TO COMPLETE THE PURCHASE. YOUR FUCKING CAD DOWNLOAD THING IS WAY TO COMPLICATED AND DOESN'T DO ANYTHING. I JUST WANTED A 2D OF A LEADER PIN AND BUSHING. WHEN I CLICK ON ONE OF YOUR STUPID LITTLE ICONS TO DOWNLOAD, NOTHING HAPPENS. NO MESSAGE TO TELL ME WHATS WRONG. JUST THE SAME SCREEN APPEARS. FUCK YOU."
That was sent to me, or rather to our website help email address, by a customer from his work email account. Who the hell would send something like that?
What would happen to you at your job if you sent an email like that to someone? It blows me away that someone would actually send this email out, even to what appears to be an automated system.
I should also point out that last year, our sites served out over 3,000,000 CAD downloads, and every day, thousands of people download their 3D CAD models without issue.
I won't point out the name of the customer or his company, I'll just advise you against every doing business with Piramoon should the opportunity arise.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
My Name Is Earl
Lately, Leesa and I have been working our way through the TV series My Name Is Earl. We're about 1/3 of the way through the 2nd season now, and it's a really great show. The basic premise is that Earl is a criminal, and his life sucks. Finally, he thinks he gets a break when he wins $100,000 in the lotto, but while he is celebrating, he gets hit by a car and the ticket floats away. Laying in his hospital room, he sees Carson Daly on TV explaining that the reason his life is so great is good karma. Do good things, good things'll happen to you. Do bad things, and bad things happen to you. Earl makes a list of all the bad things he's ever done, and decides to make up for each and every one of them. Of course, as he starts his list, his luck turns around and good things start to happen to him.
But it got me thinking - is Earl really being altruistic in crossing things off his list, or is he just acting out of enlightened self interest? If you do good things so that good things happen to you, aren't you really just acting out of your own best interests? I mean, if you're only doing it for the reward, I think it's far from altruistic. You're not doing it because it's the right thing to do, you're just doing it to help yourself out. Now, typically Earl does not expect anything back from the people he is making amends with, it still seems like he is doing it so that HIS life is better, not theirs. Their lives are bettered, of course, but that seems like just a consequence of his bettering his own life.
Don't get me wrong, I love the show, and Earl seems like a good guy, but in the end, maybe he isn't the altruist we all thought.
But it got me thinking - is Earl really being altruistic in crossing things off his list, or is he just acting out of enlightened self interest? If you do good things so that good things happen to you, aren't you really just acting out of your own best interests? I mean, if you're only doing it for the reward, I think it's far from altruistic. You're not doing it because it's the right thing to do, you're just doing it to help yourself out. Now, typically Earl does not expect anything back from the people he is making amends with, it still seems like he is doing it so that HIS life is better, not theirs. Their lives are bettered, of course, but that seems like just a consequence of his bettering his own life.
Don't get me wrong, I love the show, and Earl seems like a good guy, but in the end, maybe he isn't the altruist we all thought.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Vidya Games
So, I would most certainly qualify as a "gamer", and I figure it's finally time to put pen to paper (or finger to keyboard, as it were), on the whole "violence in video games" thing. Now I highly doubt I will say anything that people haven't heard before, but there are a few talking points I've come up with from thinking on this topic a bit. I doubt that I'll solve all the problems of the world here, but whatever.
As it seems to stand now, both the media and politicians want to blame video games for all the of the problems of America's youth. Basically, they think that playing video games will automatically turn your 7th grade honor student into a gun-toting mushy-brained cop-killing psychopath. Unfortunately, statistics do not seem to back that up. A quick Google search will reveal that kids today are actually less violent than they were a generation ago( when they had no video games). Now, don't get me wrong, it's difficult to compare generations because times have changed so much. But if kids are less violent now, I think it means either a Barney brainwashing lasts a lifetime, or maybe that video games don't turn you into a brainless killer.
Now, I will point out that I think it is extremely inappropriate for an 8 year old to hop onto Grand Theft Auto and start beating hookers with a baseball bat. I don't have a problem with wanting to keep inappropriate games out of the hands of young people. And I think it's fair to restrict stores from selling M (mature, 17+) games to people under the age of 17. However, in the end, I feel the primary responsibility for regulating what a young person plays rests in the hands of the parents. I agree that video games, TV, and movies do a poor job of raising children. But it's not their job to raise kids, so I don't think they should be held responsible for not doing it well.
I think in the end, if some kid is running through a game blowing the heads off of nazis and pretending that he's murdering his classmates and teachers, he's probably pretty crazy in the first place. Normal people simply don't do that. I don't think that a video game is going to make that kid any crazier than he already is. Quite frankly, from my totally amateur point of view, I almost think that using the violent video game as an outlet may actually make the kid less likely to be a violent person. I think it's safe to say we'd all prefer that he vent his frustrations on virtual people as opposed to real. I know people will act like video games are like training simulators, but I have to disagree with that point as well.
Let me tell you, as a person who has shot several real guns as well as countless virtual guns, the smililarities are almost non-existant. And let's be honest - guns are not difficult to use. You point it at what you want to shoot and pull the trigger. The real difficulty of using any gun is the process of loading it and cocking it - both of which I have never seen accurately represented in a game. If a kid doesn't know how to use a gun, I don't think many games will teach him how. And I can guarantee you that no amount of shooting virtual shotguns will prepare you for the recoil of actually firing one.
And I also wonder about the rating of racing games. Few, if any, are rated M (17+). The vast majority are rated E for everyone, though a few of the more street-race type games are rated T (teen). But, not everyone is allowed to drive. Why aren't you required to have a driver's license to purchase a racing game? I am 25, and I have noticed that if I have been playing a lot of a racing game, it actually translates into faster driving in my real car. So if it makes me a faster driver at 25, why wouldn't we expect it to make a 16 year old a faster driver? Why wouldn't we expect it to teach people even younger some very bad driving habits? More teenagers die in auto accidents every year than in gun deaths. Why are we not up in arms over racing games? I've shot literally thousands of virtual people, but it has never inspired me to shoot a real person. I have, however, seen a racing video game influence my real life driving habits.
In the end, everyone is always looking to point the finger somewhere else, and unfortunately for video games, they seem to be the new "it" target for parents looking to pass the buck when it comes to reasons that their kid is a delinquint.
As it seems to stand now, both the media and politicians want to blame video games for all the of the problems of America's youth. Basically, they think that playing video games will automatically turn your 7th grade honor student into a gun-toting mushy-brained cop-killing psychopath. Unfortunately, statistics do not seem to back that up. A quick Google search will reveal that kids today are actually less violent than they were a generation ago( when they had no video games). Now, don't get me wrong, it's difficult to compare generations because times have changed so much. But if kids are less violent now, I think it means either a Barney brainwashing lasts a lifetime, or maybe that video games don't turn you into a brainless killer.
Now, I will point out that I think it is extremely inappropriate for an 8 year old to hop onto Grand Theft Auto and start beating hookers with a baseball bat. I don't have a problem with wanting to keep inappropriate games out of the hands of young people. And I think it's fair to restrict stores from selling M (mature, 17+) games to people under the age of 17. However, in the end, I feel the primary responsibility for regulating what a young person plays rests in the hands of the parents. I agree that video games, TV, and movies do a poor job of raising children. But it's not their job to raise kids, so I don't think they should be held responsible for not doing it well.
I think in the end, if some kid is running through a game blowing the heads off of nazis and pretending that he's murdering his classmates and teachers, he's probably pretty crazy in the first place. Normal people simply don't do that. I don't think that a video game is going to make that kid any crazier than he already is. Quite frankly, from my totally amateur point of view, I almost think that using the violent video game as an outlet may actually make the kid less likely to be a violent person. I think it's safe to say we'd all prefer that he vent his frustrations on virtual people as opposed to real. I know people will act like video games are like training simulators, but I have to disagree with that point as well.
Let me tell you, as a person who has shot several real guns as well as countless virtual guns, the smililarities are almost non-existant. And let's be honest - guns are not difficult to use. You point it at what you want to shoot and pull the trigger. The real difficulty of using any gun is the process of loading it and cocking it - both of which I have never seen accurately represented in a game. If a kid doesn't know how to use a gun, I don't think many games will teach him how. And I can guarantee you that no amount of shooting virtual shotguns will prepare you for the recoil of actually firing one.
And I also wonder about the rating of racing games. Few, if any, are rated M (17+). The vast majority are rated E for everyone, though a few of the more street-race type games are rated T (teen). But, not everyone is allowed to drive. Why aren't you required to have a driver's license to purchase a racing game? I am 25, and I have noticed that if I have been playing a lot of a racing game, it actually translates into faster driving in my real car. So if it makes me a faster driver at 25, why wouldn't we expect it to make a 16 year old a faster driver? Why wouldn't we expect it to teach people even younger some very bad driving habits? More teenagers die in auto accidents every year than in gun deaths. Why are we not up in arms over racing games? I've shot literally thousands of virtual people, but it has never inspired me to shoot a real person. I have, however, seen a racing video game influence my real life driving habits.
In the end, everyone is always looking to point the finger somewhere else, and unfortunately for video games, they seem to be the new "it" target for parents looking to pass the buck when it comes to reasons that their kid is a delinquint.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
