Ugh, adding auth_db to my webserver has been a huge pain in the butt

I just beat Jade Empire for the X-Box, I quite enjoyed it, a bit short (24h 27m hrs to finish). I even did what seemed like a lot of the side quests (fought through the arena, helped that kid with his ghost problem, lots of stuff in Tien's Landing etc) so I'm surprised I came in on the low side for expected run-through times. It's also obvious however that there is a bunch in the game I missed (some mini games are still locked, I have inventory items I never needed), though to be honest, the game was good, but not good enough to poke around looking for more.

Edit: Oh yeah, the whole reason I made this post, if you've got the game, and you beat it. Stick around to listen to the credits, the 'there are four lights' line was great. You trekkies know what I mean.

I just caught the tail end of a report that mentioned how Hollywood's revenue is reversing. Traditionally the big bucks were made at the theatre, with some residual revenue from rentals and sales. This has changed, the big money is coming from rentals and DVD sales these days, Hollywood doesn't really care, the bottom line hasn't really changed too much, it's the theatre owners who are losing out. There are a few things I think theatre owners can do to reverse this trend:


- Cost - Buying a DVD is anywhere between $10-$25 these days, buying a ticket for the movies is generally between $9-$14. So for the cost of me and a date I could have had a DVD that lasted forever, rather than two hours.

- Cell phones – Unfortunately it seems that common curtesy is a thing of the past, people routinely carry on entire conversations during a feature film, theatre goers seem powerless to combat this, as any comments or complaints made to the offending parties seem to result in shouting matches.

- Commercials – I object strongly to paying $12 on a film, only to be forced to sit through several minutes of commercials after the posted film start time.

- Laser Pointers – It's a tense moment, everyone is on the edge of their seat, then suddenly a red dot, star, or female figure appears on the screen. Shouting from angered theater goers ensues.

- Concessions – I can buy champagne cheaper than I can buy coke at a movie theater. The secret is out, the world knows that fountain pop is dirt cheap, so is popcorn by the kernel.


I of course, being an opinionated young man have a few suggested solutions:

- Cost – I'm willing to pay a premium for the 'big screen & big sound' just convince me it's worth it. Cut me a bit of slack on a pair of tickets, maybe even throwing in a free pop & popcorn. We both know the cost is mere nickels. Solving the other problems would go a long way to convincing me of the worth of the tickets.

- Cell Phones – There has been a lot of development in the areas of blocking cell phone signals, put it to practice. Yes, there is a small percentage of the population that has a genuine need to be reachable day or night (I'm thinking doctors here, not drug dealers), let them hand in their pager/cell for a special one that only works in the theater (and only has a vibrate mode), should a call or page arrive, pass it on to the special theater model. The individual is forced to leave the theatre to get the message or speak on the phone, so other customers should remain un-disturbed.

- Commercials – Either stop showing them, or drop the price of the ticket for commercial encumbered films.

Laser Pointers – Leave staff in the theater. Give them appropriate training to deal with the types of situations they are going to encounter.

- Concessions – Pick one, either kill me on ticket price or on the concessions, not both.


In economics we learn about something called the laffer curve, which basically states as price is increased, so does revenue, to a point. At that point revenue begins to decrease. This makes sense, sell pop for $0.05 a glass, you will sell tones, and make little money. Double the price to $0.10, you will still sell tones, and make even more money. Once you pass a certain price sales will decrease proportionally more than the increase in price. So revenue has actually decreased. I would propose that movie theaters have placed themselves on the right hand side of the laffer curve (past the point at which an increase in price can increase revenue). So the best course of action would be to reduce price, start filling the theaters more often.


I would support this argument with the difference in movie going habits between the generations. My parents spoke of going to see the same move many many times, honestly, I think one of them said they saw the first star wars upwards of 10 times. This was the norm rather than the exception thereof. I never go see the same move more than once, it's just too expensive. Yes, I am aware that there are other factors (they didn't have high quality television and DVDs back then for example), but I definitely think this is a major contributor to the change in behavior.

Every time I spend or earn a dollar in this country, a portion of it goes to the government, this happens with the understanding that this will pay the salary of my members of parliament (& provincial parliament), as well as supporting Canada's social services (hospitals, roads, military, etc). For the second day in a row the Canadian Parliament (really, the block and conservative parties) has passed a motion to adjourn, essentially stopping work for the day.


I'm paying you for something, get to work. Pick up trash if you have to, just earn my money.


I will be honest, I want the results of the Gomery enquiry before an election, the Liberals have been the target of large number of negative comments over the past few months. Perhaps this is called for, perhaps not. By and large the information I have been receiving directly from the Gomery enquiry hasn't matched the attacks supposedly based on it. I want to hear what the Gomery enquiry says in its final report, perhaps these attacks are well based, perhaps not. Perhaps the sponsorship scandal is a symptom of a systemic lack of ethical grounding in the Liberal party, perhaps is merely the result of the actions of a few mislead individuals, I want to know before I go to the polls.


I think overall, this whole thing is helping the NDP far more than any amount of campaigning ever could. When it was announced on news stations coast to coast that the NDP would 'rescue' the liberal budget, it was said with the a few requirements of the NDP's assistance: money for low cost housing, money for education, money for the environment, and protect pensions. These are all very important things. I think having the party's position boiled down to such a condensed news bite will serve them well in the coming election.

I was just watching A&E, and it was a documentary type of thing, it was scary. The scenario is this: police officers pull over a car, or approach someone in an airport, search their person and possessions (car). The person is not charged with any crime, isn't booked, or even taken into the station, but their money is seized. This is done under the pretext of fighting drug crime. The individual is then forced to obtain legal representation at their own expense to get their money back. Taking the government to court isn't cheap, the lawyer on the program estimated one should expect $20,000 in legal fees to go to court, obviously a large percentage of targeted individuals don't bother going to court and just write off the loss. The police cruiser tapes from a particular county in Florida were reviewed, %75 of the individuals from whom money was seized were either African American, or Hispanic, while these individuals make up only %15 of the people driving through that county. All of this without ever charging someone with a crime.


If you want to seize something, because you feel it is being used to commit a crime, that's fine. Just accept the burden of proof, and charge the individual with a crime. Give them their chance in court, in front of a judge or a jury of their peers.

My publisher (well, I guess technically, my editor) has been talking to me recently about getting involved in another book, this is a big deal for me, and I'm quite excited. Upon informing my mother of this development resulted in a quick little exchange:


Mom: MORE BOOK CONTRACTS - well of course I am very proud and pleased for you but will you ever get to go outside?

Me: What is this Outside you speak of? Is it something I should download for my computer?

Mom: Outside is where you take the garbage, your car is there.



I dunno, having parents with a similar sense of humor is great sometimes.

(or, really: Why I abandon shopping carts, but that's a less snappy title)


Here is a quote from E Commerce Times:
Online consumers are no longer rushing to click the shopping cart button on Web sites. Instead, they spend days digitally window-shopping before buying, abandoning shopping carts with an ease that frustrates and often confuses online retailers.



This doesn't surprise me, I abandon shopping carts all the time, and it's generally not because I was only window shopping, it's because the merchant has ticked me off. Here are the top X reasons I abandon shopping carts:

• You won't tell me how much it costs!
  
  
  Many merchants seem to think that customers love surprises, particularly in the shipping and handling department. I've seen many many many websites that don't tell you how much it will cost to ship the product until the customer has already entered their shipping, billing, and payment information. Then and only then are we given a glimpse at how much we will be paying for shipping.
  
  
• I donÂ’t want to register; I just want to give you money!
  
  
  Many of those same merchants have entered into a love affair with customers registering for an account. We don't want more accounts, more passwords to remember, and more secret questions. We want the product we put in our shopping cart, and we want to pay you for it.
  
  
• I don't know who you are, is it safe to give you my money?
  
  
  There are hundreds if not thousands of no-name merchants out there, with the constant stream of 'in depth'/'exclusive'/'investigative' television reports on credit card fraud and identity theft, it is a good thing that customers are thinking twice about giving some unknown merchant their credit card number, address, and full name. If you're a bit player, consider accepting PayPal, yes they do take a % off the top, but I, and many other customers rest more comfortably if we don't have to give you our credit card numbers.
  
  
• I want to give you my money, not someone else!
  
  
  In a slight contrast to the previous point, I hate sites that force you to use some unknown payment processor, particularly ones that dump you off on some other domain without letting you know what's going on. I find myself asking 'I thought I was buying a product from xyz.com, not super-cool-pay.com, what happened', then close the browser window.
  
  
• What do you mean you don't have a 1-800 number?
  
  
  My ten second litmus test for any new online merchant is, Can I find their 1-800 number in, you guessed it, under 10 seconds. I want a phone number, not an online form or an email address. Preferably they should be advertising that the number works 24x7. Having a 1-800 number shows that this a serious business (or is at least willing to spend some money to have that appearance), and will likely work with me to resolve any problems I may have.
  
  
• Ahh what's happening?!!!?
  
  
  Someone (probably a highly paid consulting company) decided that customers liked it when a pop-up appeared showing a picture of a customer service rep, and a chat window, where a (presumably) real person asked if they needed help. They were wrong. Web users are used to things happening at their request: click on a link -> page changes, click the back button -> go back a page, etc. By randomly popping up a window where someone starts typing at the user, you have taken the 'power' away from the user. They didn't make that window appear (by clicking on something), and the traditional method of making things go back the way they were (the back button) doesn't work. The user is left powerless, and depending on their level of technical familiarity, possibly scared.
  

What makes you abandon a shopping cart?

...Those who assume they can do something they have never done before, and those who assume they can not...

Which makes for a better programmer?


I am definitely placed in the first category, a little bit of an ego there I guess, but generally I assume that I can accomplish a task if I want to. I've never done anything more to my car than assist in giving it an oil change (well, with my old car (the ghetto-mobile) I taught myself how to re-insert sparkplugs that it randomly shot out while driving, but that's another story), but I feel I would be capable of replacing the break pad on the front right side which has begun to make some noises when breaking lightly. The break pads come with a manual (I've checked (okay, I saw a commercial)), I'm literate, I have some tools, I'm willing to spend a day doing it, that's all I need.


A lot of people I know would take exactly the opposite stand, not only do they assume they can't do something they haven't done before, they generally want to go through several repetitions with an instructor (I use the term in it's most basic sense: someone who instructs) before they would feel comfortable doing it on their own.


Now, the question is, which group makes for a better programmer? Is the first group more likely to rush into a problem without adequate research? Or are they more willing to see the problem as a series of small problems that they already know how to solve? Continuing to use my car example, I may not know how to replace a brake pad, but I do know how to jack up my car, loosen a lug nut, unscrew bolts, turn things, hit things with a hammer, etc. Is the second group going to back down almost immediately, explaining that they have never done that before, you need someone else? Again with the car example, they would explain that there is a whole series of brand new tasks involved, and it is a rather critical part of the car to experiment with. Or are they going to spend some time researching the problem fully, and then approach the decision hopefully with more information?



Which group are you?


Which group makes for a better programmer?


I'll post my answer in a day or three.

This post was originally going to be a lot longer, and entitled 'Why Google Should Buy ICQ', explaining how Google's philosophies of 'Never settle for the best' and 'You can make money without being evil' would do well in the Instant Messaging (IM) market. Then I remembered that AOL bought ICQ some years ago, so it's pretty much a lost cause for ICQ these days. I'm not really sure what ICQ did to kill itself, perhaps (if memory serves) the fact that they were the first to introduce in-client advertising was a big nail in their coffin. Back in high school everyone used ICQ, only some weirdoes (and some of the cute girls) used anything else, everyone used ICQ. These days ICQ contacts make up less than a quarter of my Trillian contact list, and with only a few exceptions, I have access to all of those contacts via another IM mediumÂ… But I digress.


AOL owns ICQ, or the company that owns ICQ, or some AOL subsidy owns the parent company that owns ICQ or something. Anyways, AOL owns ICQ, and has for a while, yet you can still download and install ICQ or AOL Instant Messenger (AIM) from the respective websites. Why? Why werenÂ’t these two programs folded into each other long long ago, and all of the development energies of both groups concentrated into creating the best IM program their AOL overlords would let them create? Yes there would have been some fallout at the inevitable problems or tweaks required to merge such disparate infrastructures and communities, but it would have worked, and it would be over, and we would have one quite useful client to play with.


You can't really make the 'competition is good' argument here, as they are both owned by the same company. That's like saying 'It's good we have Windows 95 and Windows NT because competition is a good thing!', which doesn't really work.



Stop the insanity, merge the clients, merge the development teams, and double the time developers can spend innovating!