I have spoken many times about various aspects of Dungeons & Dragons, including one of my more recent posts on changing to the 4.0 rule set. A new friend recently made me aware that a company called Paizo has a license to use the older 3.5 set and make changes to it, called Pathfinder. Many in the DnD world refer to it as "3.75" or "3.51" due to its close use of the 3.5 rule set but changes for playability.
Paizo is currently offering a free download of the full rule set, so I did. Read through the majority of it today, and I have to say I am impressed. It is a huge leap forward for the 3.5 rule set without being a completely new game (like 4.0 is). One of the biggest issues with 4.0 is that our group is stuck with years of experience using 3.5 and those rules don't always apply or have been changed radically or done away with. The Pathfinder rules, however, are simple additions or alterations to the existing 3.5 rule set, so are much easier for one with all that 3.5 knowledge to grasp and understand without confusion.
Nearly ever class has a subtle or obvious change to make them more playable. For example, one 3.5 complaint from players is that any class without access to spells becomes useless compared to those who can cast spells (or, in essence, minions to those who cast). We saw this in our last group; the wizard, druid, and cleric became god-like in ability due to the spells they could cast, while the others were merely the cannon fodder and front wall to keep enemies off the spell casters. Even the DM got frustrated-- he would set up these interesting situations but the cleric would just ask his god for guidance, the druid would commune with nature and teleport the party to the location, and the wizard would destroy whatever the problem was.
Pathfinder has given classes like the Fighter interesting new abilities to counter that. Now, the Fighter gains weapon and armor bonuses during class advancement. These bonuses are in addition to the normal 3.5 rules for the Fighter. There are new and useful Feats to add to the fighter's capabilities. Certain combat options have been simplified and expanded so they are more useful. Skills have been combined, redefined, and more fully explained. And this is just one class and some examples; every class has had some sort of change or addition to make it more playable throughout the leveling process.
Paizo has managed to make interesting, unique, and worthwhile changes that make the game more fun, easier to understand, and more playable. It is roughly equivalent to the same amount of change from 3.0 to 3.5.
I'm very excited. A new DnD group I'm joining uses, in essence, these same rules, so I will get to put them in play. Hopefully, knowing this rule set won't further impede my ability to DM and learn the 4.0 rule set my other group enjoys!
January 9, 2009
January 7, 2009
Superman
Superman is the Christ figure of comics; the one with absolute power who is NOT corrupted absolutely. The one who could rule the world, but instead believes in everyone's inalienable rights to freedom and happiness. He was the first of a new breed of super-powered archetypes who is always humble and rarely overbearing.
Since his inception as simply a super-strong guy, Superman has evolved with the times and into what we need him to be to maintain his "first-among-equals" status. His greatest threat actually came in the '40s and '50s from Captain Marvel, then a Fawcett character, who, at the time, actually had more powers and abilities than Superman. DC Comics had Superman evolve and the character became "more powerful" than Captain Marvel (and DC Comics sued Fawcett, eventually buying them out and adding its characters to DC's lineup).
To today's jaded market, which has numerous titles, movies, TV shows, and cartoons of a multitude of comics properties to choose from, Superman and his 1950's style of ethics and mores seems outdated. His plethora of powers and their limitless strength hurt our modern sensibilities. It is easy to find on blogs, in chat groups, and in comic book shops, today's audiences arguing that Superman is "too powerful" and that very few threats are legitimate. When you add that he is typically a member of the Justice League, which boasts others in his power level, it makes it increasingly hard for today's audiences to find value and good, sustaining conflict in a Superman story.
Superman needs to remain the first and, arguably, the "best" superhero. However, he needs to have his powers more carefully explained and his power list modified to help add more conflict and 'vulnerability' back into his stories. Once this proliferates through other media (most notably into cartoons, TV shows, and, especially, into movies), the character's appeal will increase.
First and foremost, Superman is the physically strongest character in DC Comic's pantheon of heroes. This should not change. However, it should be better defined. He has, in various incarnations, been able to move planets easily around. He has been able to "supe" himself up to even greater feats of strength by flying into the sun for a supercharge of energy. As a character and as part of his mythology, Superman needs to perform vast, impossible feats of strength. However, hard caps should placed on, at his utmost limits, his ability to shift planetary-sized objects. He could maybe shift the moon and even the Earth slightly, but that would exhaust him utterly and would take days or even weeks to recharge his abilities after doing. His typical, "daily" usage should be in the lifting a luxury cruise liner or tanker ship out of the water scale.
Secondly, Superman is referred to as "invulnerable." This should be subtly but firmly changed to a phrase like "is resistant to high amounts of damage." Invulnerable means that you cannot be harmed and are proof against (any) attack. An invulnerable character is a boring character, as there is nothing that can defeat him. However, a person who is resistant to damage has a finite amount of resistance. Superman's may be incredibly high (and should be the highest of any DC Comics hero), but it needs limits. This allows him to have battles with someone who can overcome those limits and damage him. It will need to be defined carefully, though, so that writers in one story don't limit it one way and the writers in the next story go well past that same level.
Lightning bolts should knock him about, singe him, and harm him, but one strike would not kill him outright. It would take multiple lightning attacks to kill Superman, but it could be done. Small-yield nuclear blasts should be survivable but damaging, possibly giving him concussions, a bloody nose, ears, and/or eyes, headaches, even some of the same signs as a person who survives fallout would face, at least until he can recharge via the sun's light. High-yield, multi-ton bombs should be close-calls, with the largest weaponry hinted at possibly killing him, if not outright being able to. People in his own "weight class" of damage resistance and strength (Wonder Woman, Captain Marvel, Darkseid, Doomsday, et al) should be able to bruise and batter him at about the same level as two heavyweight contenders duking it out in a championship match. Broken bones, bruising, concussions, and, if the threat is great enough, death should be achievable.
Third, Superman flies and has super speed. This should not change. However, how fast and how far he can fly or run has varied greatly through the years. He has been known to fly fast enough to reach other planets and star systems, to be fast enough (flying or running) to breach the time barrier, and to be able to match the Flash when that character is running full speed. Superman is the generalist; he has powers and abilities that dip into a variety of areas; however, that does not mean he should be the best at each one of them. Characters who focus on flight and speed should be better at either than Superman, but what makes Superman the best is that he can do those feats AND a host of others. He's the Swiss Army Tool of superheroes; he may not be the best at any one thing, but he is very, very good at a lot of things. Now, audiences want and expect Superman to be "faster than a speeding bullet" so that is what he should be. Let the characters like the Flash be able to beat him in pure speed related feats regularly, if not easily.
What if Superman were able to fly and move at the equivalent of about Mach 5? That is hypersonic, and as fast as the fastest planes on the planet now travel. Within the confines of human perception, it would still allow Superman to perform feats like moving without the human brain comprehending he has moved, catching bullets, and he could still move fast enough to overtake nearly any speeding disaster (falling rocks, planes falling, lava flows, hurricanes, etc.). However, it also allows human beings to build things that go faster than he does, keeping them relevant (so, for example, the two rockets death trap at the end of the 1978 Superman movie would work-- he is fast enough to catch one, but not fast enough to necessarily catch up to the second one in time to save the explosion).
Fourth, Superman has a lot of extraneous powers that need to be looked at hard and determined if they are "core" concepts, can be worked into the mix based on his power source and background, or if they should be done away with.
This is a tough one, but it seems like using his Kryptonian heritage and a sun's radiation allows for the best definition and explanation for his powers: His Kryptonian heritage provides him with a body that acts like a solar cell, constantly absorbing and powering his many incredible powers. Like a battery, if deprived of its power source, it slowly loses its charge. If the 'engine' uses a large amount of the stored energy quickly, it shuts down some or all of its functions and the solar cells must recharge before it can function again.
To take the solar cell concept further, Superman's body should react in a consistent manner to all solar radiation. A red sun, for example, should not totally depower him; instead, he gets a much weaker amount of radiation to work with and his solar cells recharge more slowly. Once he works through his stored yellow sunlight resources, his power levels are about half of what they are with a yellow sun. This also explains why the Kryptonians didn't conquer the universe and why they weren't conquered either (they were still a strong and hearty race, but not enough so to become conquerors). If Superman is placed in a situation with younger, more energized solar radiation, say a white or blue star, then his solar cells recharge much faster, allowing him to run his engine longer without losing, or be refilling the tank, his reserves. This stronger radiation could also be a source of weakness for Superman; like putting alcohol into a standard engine, he could burn out and do some serious harm to his body if he uses it too much (which explains why he doesn't just move to a solar system with a younger sun).
Lastly, Superman's vulnerabilities need to be carefully considered, toned up or down as needed, and clearly defined. Kryptonite and magic are especially troublesome right now, and cause for a great deal of fan speculation. Kryptonite needs to have its effects, radius of effect, and terms of use clearly defined. Like how nuclear radiation affects human beings, Kryptonite should affect Superman from a distance depending on the source of radiation; a tiny piece of Kryptonite should have to be placed right on his skin or ingested in order to affect him, while a baseball-sized rock of it would affect him from, say, fifteen feet away. Also like nuclear radiation to human beings, it should be a slow but steady effect. He feels sick and nauseated almost immediately, as the radiation from the rock interferes with his body's ability to process and use solar radiation. As that radiation continues to impede his body's natural systems, his powers ebb; the most energy intensive powers first (like his vision powers), then the quick-burst energy powers next (flight, speed), and then his invulnerability and strength drain away last. All of this should take a prolonged period of time depending on the strength of the Kryptonite radiation. A large amount in close proximity will disable him very quickly and kill him in a matter of hours. A small amount or a larger distance reduces the speed with which it poisons Superman's systems.
Magic and its effects should be a directly related to his ability to resist damage. If you are using magic to physically attack him, slightly lower amounts of damage will bypass his resistance sooner than non-magical versions of the same sort of attack. For example, a natural lightning bolt will hurt him, singe him, and knock him about. A magical lightning bolt will burn him, bruise him, and knock him out of the sky. If Superman is hit enough times, either lightning will kill him, but a magical one will do so faster/sooner. Under normal circumstances, a non-magical sword blade would do no damage when striking his skin, unless wielded by someone in his heroic "weight-class." Even then, the effects would be lessened. If the blade is magical, however, it should act like a normal blade does to a normal human being; cutting him, possibly able to sever limbs, and even able to kill him.
Once Superman's damage resistance, Kryptonite exposure, and magic allergy is clearly defined, all vulnerabilities come into line pretty quickly with only a limited amount of work. Actually, everything starts to flow much more smoothly once his power source, upper ability limits, and extraneous bits are defined and/or thrown out.
What is left is a character who is still "first among equals," and very powerful, but who has clearly defined limits and levels. This allows the writers to find those limits, use them to tell compelling stories, and reintroduce conflict into a character who has not had it in some time. It allows for a smart human being (ala Lex Luthor from the cartoons, TV show, and movies) to actually create situations where Superman is in jeopardy. It allows DC Comics to reevaluate their stable of heroes and villains and make decisions on who is above, below, or equal to Superman in relation to his powers and abilities. This can even be taken cross-company to Marvel for those times when the companies do crossover events. Superman, in the above example, would start vastly superior to The Hulk in strength, and probably on par with Thor. Given time, the Hulk's ability to get stronger as he gets angrier might eclipse those levels.
The Superman debate is good; it allows fanboys and others to argue over their favorite characters. However, any argument involving Superman has to start with something like, "Okay, which Superman are we talking about? The one from the Golden, Silver, Bronze, or Modern age? Which powers are we allowing?" This is indicative of a problem with the character and a lack of definition. Providing definition to this character, contrary to most creator's initial belief, actually allows for MORE flexibility with the character, greater levels of conflict, and, ultimately, more compelling and interesting stories to be told.
Since his inception as simply a super-strong guy, Superman has evolved with the times and into what we need him to be to maintain his "first-among-equals" status. His greatest threat actually came in the '40s and '50s from Captain Marvel, then a Fawcett character, who, at the time, actually had more powers and abilities than Superman. DC Comics had Superman evolve and the character became "more powerful" than Captain Marvel (and DC Comics sued Fawcett, eventually buying them out and adding its characters to DC's lineup).
To today's jaded market, which has numerous titles, movies, TV shows, and cartoons of a multitude of comics properties to choose from, Superman and his 1950's style of ethics and mores seems outdated. His plethora of powers and their limitless strength hurt our modern sensibilities. It is easy to find on blogs, in chat groups, and in comic book shops, today's audiences arguing that Superman is "too powerful" and that very few threats are legitimate. When you add that he is typically a member of the Justice League, which boasts others in his power level, it makes it increasingly hard for today's audiences to find value and good, sustaining conflict in a Superman story.
Superman needs to remain the first and, arguably, the "best" superhero. However, he needs to have his powers more carefully explained and his power list modified to help add more conflict and 'vulnerability' back into his stories. Once this proliferates through other media (most notably into cartoons, TV shows, and, especially, into movies), the character's appeal will increase.
First and foremost, Superman is the physically strongest character in DC Comic's pantheon of heroes. This should not change. However, it should be better defined. He has, in various incarnations, been able to move planets easily around. He has been able to "supe" himself up to even greater feats of strength by flying into the sun for a supercharge of energy. As a character and as part of his mythology, Superman needs to perform vast, impossible feats of strength. However, hard caps should placed on, at his utmost limits, his ability to shift planetary-sized objects. He could maybe shift the moon and even the Earth slightly, but that would exhaust him utterly and would take days or even weeks to recharge his abilities after doing. His typical, "daily" usage should be in the lifting a luxury cruise liner or tanker ship out of the water scale.
Secondly, Superman is referred to as "invulnerable." This should be subtly but firmly changed to a phrase like "is resistant to high amounts of damage." Invulnerable means that you cannot be harmed and are proof against (any) attack. An invulnerable character is a boring character, as there is nothing that can defeat him. However, a person who is resistant to damage has a finite amount of resistance. Superman's may be incredibly high (and should be the highest of any DC Comics hero), but it needs limits. This allows him to have battles with someone who can overcome those limits and damage him. It will need to be defined carefully, though, so that writers in one story don't limit it one way and the writers in the next story go well past that same level.
Lightning bolts should knock him about, singe him, and harm him, but one strike would not kill him outright. It would take multiple lightning attacks to kill Superman, but it could be done. Small-yield nuclear blasts should be survivable but damaging, possibly giving him concussions, a bloody nose, ears, and/or eyes, headaches, even some of the same signs as a person who survives fallout would face, at least until he can recharge via the sun's light. High-yield, multi-ton bombs should be close-calls, with the largest weaponry hinted at possibly killing him, if not outright being able to. People in his own "weight class" of damage resistance and strength (Wonder Woman, Captain Marvel, Darkseid, Doomsday, et al) should be able to bruise and batter him at about the same level as two heavyweight contenders duking it out in a championship match. Broken bones, bruising, concussions, and, if the threat is great enough, death should be achievable.
Third, Superman flies and has super speed. This should not change. However, how fast and how far he can fly or run has varied greatly through the years. He has been known to fly fast enough to reach other planets and star systems, to be fast enough (flying or running) to breach the time barrier, and to be able to match the Flash when that character is running full speed. Superman is the generalist; he has powers and abilities that dip into a variety of areas; however, that does not mean he should be the best at each one of them. Characters who focus on flight and speed should be better at either than Superman, but what makes Superman the best is that he can do those feats AND a host of others. He's the Swiss Army Tool of superheroes; he may not be the best at any one thing, but he is very, very good at a lot of things. Now, audiences want and expect Superman to be "faster than a speeding bullet" so that is what he should be. Let the characters like the Flash be able to beat him in pure speed related feats regularly, if not easily.
What if Superman were able to fly and move at the equivalent of about Mach 5? That is hypersonic, and as fast as the fastest planes on the planet now travel. Within the confines of human perception, it would still allow Superman to perform feats like moving without the human brain comprehending he has moved, catching bullets, and he could still move fast enough to overtake nearly any speeding disaster (falling rocks, planes falling, lava flows, hurricanes, etc.). However, it also allows human beings to build things that go faster than he does, keeping them relevant (so, for example, the two rockets death trap at the end of the 1978 Superman movie would work-- he is fast enough to catch one, but not fast enough to necessarily catch up to the second one in time to save the explosion).
Fourth, Superman has a lot of extraneous powers that need to be looked at hard and determined if they are "core" concepts, can be worked into the mix based on his power source and background, or if they should be done away with.
- Heat vision. This is a staple power and ties in with his power source, so this should stay. However, the power has varied greatly and needs to be defined; can he really scorch the atmosphere and destroy all life on the Earth? Or is it more of a confined beam of heat in the 3,000 to 4,000 celsius range (enough to melt most metals, and many other objects, but not so powerful as to destroy the planet).
- X-ray vision. This is now a core concept. It is easily tied into his power source, so worth keeping. Plus, audiences expect this power.
- Micro/Macro vision. Not needed. Not easily tied into power source. Rarely used. Delete from power list.
- Super breath. Does Superman really need the ability to breathe frosty cold breath or hurricane-strength winds? He has other powers and abilities that he can use to achieve similar results. Delete.
- Super hearing. Does Superman really need the ability to hear people on the other side of the planet or into the hypersonic and subsonic ranges? This is, however, considered something of a core power by many fans. Consider deleting or at least toning down so that he is not listening to things from across the planet or from outer space.
- Eidetic memory and Super intelligence. Totally not needed for the character. While he can be a smart guy, there is no need to have him be a super genius with total recall. Deleting this "power" also allows for the smart people of the world to have a chance of defeating him using their intelligence. It adds conflict.
- Miscellaneous. Super ventriloquism, Super hypnosis, et al. Gone. No explanations needed-- it is just bad story writing. Superman already has the lotto winner's list of superpowers, there is no need to create new ones whenever the writer writes himself into a corner.
- Strictly his Kryptonian heritage (meaning that all Kryptonians have those abilities at roughly equivalent levels)
- A combination of his heritage and the the Earth's atmosphere and gravity in relation to Krypton's atmosphere and gravity (meaning that Kryptonians were not the least bit powerful on their own planet, but would be on Earth)
- The Sun and Earth's gravity in combination (Krypton the planet had nothing to do with it)
- The specific radiation of Earth's yellow Sun.
This is a tough one, but it seems like using his Kryptonian heritage and a sun's radiation allows for the best definition and explanation for his powers: His Kryptonian heritage provides him with a body that acts like a solar cell, constantly absorbing and powering his many incredible powers. Like a battery, if deprived of its power source, it slowly loses its charge. If the 'engine' uses a large amount of the stored energy quickly, it shuts down some or all of its functions and the solar cells must recharge before it can function again.
To take the solar cell concept further, Superman's body should react in a consistent manner to all solar radiation. A red sun, for example, should not totally depower him; instead, he gets a much weaker amount of radiation to work with and his solar cells recharge more slowly. Once he works through his stored yellow sunlight resources, his power levels are about half of what they are with a yellow sun. This also explains why the Kryptonians didn't conquer the universe and why they weren't conquered either (they were still a strong and hearty race, but not enough so to become conquerors). If Superman is placed in a situation with younger, more energized solar radiation, say a white or blue star, then his solar cells recharge much faster, allowing him to run his engine longer without losing, or be refilling the tank, his reserves. This stronger radiation could also be a source of weakness for Superman; like putting alcohol into a standard engine, he could burn out and do some serious harm to his body if he uses it too much (which explains why he doesn't just move to a solar system with a younger sun).
Lastly, Superman's vulnerabilities need to be carefully considered, toned up or down as needed, and clearly defined. Kryptonite and magic are especially troublesome right now, and cause for a great deal of fan speculation. Kryptonite needs to have its effects, radius of effect, and terms of use clearly defined. Like how nuclear radiation affects human beings, Kryptonite should affect Superman from a distance depending on the source of radiation; a tiny piece of Kryptonite should have to be placed right on his skin or ingested in order to affect him, while a baseball-sized rock of it would affect him from, say, fifteen feet away. Also like nuclear radiation to human beings, it should be a slow but steady effect. He feels sick and nauseated almost immediately, as the radiation from the rock interferes with his body's ability to process and use solar radiation. As that radiation continues to impede his body's natural systems, his powers ebb; the most energy intensive powers first (like his vision powers), then the quick-burst energy powers next (flight, speed), and then his invulnerability and strength drain away last. All of this should take a prolonged period of time depending on the strength of the Kryptonite radiation. A large amount in close proximity will disable him very quickly and kill him in a matter of hours. A small amount or a larger distance reduces the speed with which it poisons Superman's systems.
Magic and its effects should be a directly related to his ability to resist damage. If you are using magic to physically attack him, slightly lower amounts of damage will bypass his resistance sooner than non-magical versions of the same sort of attack. For example, a natural lightning bolt will hurt him, singe him, and knock him about. A magical lightning bolt will burn him, bruise him, and knock him out of the sky. If Superman is hit enough times, either lightning will kill him, but a magical one will do so faster/sooner. Under normal circumstances, a non-magical sword blade would do no damage when striking his skin, unless wielded by someone in his heroic "weight-class." Even then, the effects would be lessened. If the blade is magical, however, it should act like a normal blade does to a normal human being; cutting him, possibly able to sever limbs, and even able to kill him.
Once Superman's damage resistance, Kryptonite exposure, and magic allergy is clearly defined, all vulnerabilities come into line pretty quickly with only a limited amount of work. Actually, everything starts to flow much more smoothly once his power source, upper ability limits, and extraneous bits are defined and/or thrown out.
What is left is a character who is still "first among equals," and very powerful, but who has clearly defined limits and levels. This allows the writers to find those limits, use them to tell compelling stories, and reintroduce conflict into a character who has not had it in some time. It allows for a smart human being (ala Lex Luthor from the cartoons, TV show, and movies) to actually create situations where Superman is in jeopardy. It allows DC Comics to reevaluate their stable of heroes and villains and make decisions on who is above, below, or equal to Superman in relation to his powers and abilities. This can even be taken cross-company to Marvel for those times when the companies do crossover events. Superman, in the above example, would start vastly superior to The Hulk in strength, and probably on par with Thor. Given time, the Hulk's ability to get stronger as he gets angrier might eclipse those levels.
The Superman debate is good; it allows fanboys and others to argue over their favorite characters. However, any argument involving Superman has to start with something like, "Okay, which Superman are we talking about? The one from the Golden, Silver, Bronze, or Modern age? Which powers are we allowing?" This is indicative of a problem with the character and a lack of definition. Providing definition to this character, contrary to most creator's initial belief, actually allows for MORE flexibility with the character, greater levels of conflict, and, ultimately, more compelling and interesting stories to be told.
TV Conversion
We are getting close to the conversion from analog to all-digital TV signals in February. While the government, TV stations, and other resources have been trying to get the word out, many millions of people have not taken the steps necessary to continue receiving a TV signal after the conversion date.
Congress ordered the switch to digital signals, effective February 17, 2009, to free up public airwaves for other uses such as for police and fire departments. It will also allow stations and producers to offer cleaner, clearer TV signals and additional content through the digital signal.
Approximately 15% of US TV watchers still watch using analog-only, over-the-air signals. This translates to over 18 million government coupons for a TV converter box have been issued (you can request up to two coupons, so it is hard to say how many actual people/households this represents). You heard that right, 18 million.
Now, here's the real kicker-- there are over a million more requests on a waiting list for these coupons because the program has run out of money and cannot afford to send the chits out to those on the list. And there are estimates that many millions more still need to get converter boxes. The program is going back to Congress to try and get more funding quickly, but they estimate that those million or more people won't receive their chits until the end of March. The conversion occurs on February 17 (with some stations reportedly transitioning as early as February 1).
18 million times $40 per chit equals... $720 million. With at least $40 million more needed for the program (but more likely at least $120 million). The agency is now recommending that people go out and buy them themselves, as the converter boxes "only cost between $40-$90." This during harsh economic times for a conversion to digital that, really, is not needed at all. Not even a little bit. Couldn't the economy use an influx of around $1 billion plus (20 million times $50 per converter box as rough estimate) of forced spending from its people-- why do the chits at all?
Lastly, the one thing I haven't seen yet on the government site or on any government comment on this conversion from analog to digital is the fact that many analog antennas will not receive the digital signal at all. The digital signal is not as good at blanketing areas, especially those between tall mountains, as an analog signal. Many people may need larger, taller antennas or powered antennas in order to receive the new digital signal. So many millions will have their converter boxes and expect to continue watching TV, but their antenna will not get the new signal.
The government mandated a nearly completely superfluous change from analog to digital, failed to properly fund (or, much more likely, account for all of the existing funding) a subsidy program, grossly underestimated the need, and failed to provide all of the information needed to those affected. That's the American Government at work folks!
Congress ordered the switch to digital signals, effective February 17, 2009, to free up public airwaves for other uses such as for police and fire departments. It will also allow stations and producers to offer cleaner, clearer TV signals and additional content through the digital signal.
Approximately 15% of US TV watchers still watch using analog-only, over-the-air signals. This translates to over 18 million government coupons for a TV converter box have been issued (you can request up to two coupons, so it is hard to say how many actual people/households this represents). You heard that right, 18 million.
Now, here's the real kicker-- there are over a million more requests on a waiting list for these coupons because the program has run out of money and cannot afford to send the chits out to those on the list. And there are estimates that many millions more still need to get converter boxes. The program is going back to Congress to try and get more funding quickly, but they estimate that those million or more people won't receive their chits until the end of March. The conversion occurs on February 17 (with some stations reportedly transitioning as early as February 1).
18 million times $40 per chit equals... $720 million. With at least $40 million more needed for the program (but more likely at least $120 million). The agency is now recommending that people go out and buy them themselves, as the converter boxes "only cost between $40-$90." This during harsh economic times for a conversion to digital that, really, is not needed at all. Not even a little bit. Couldn't the economy use an influx of around $1 billion plus (20 million times $50 per converter box as rough estimate) of forced spending from its people-- why do the chits at all?
Lastly, the one thing I haven't seen yet on the government site or on any government comment on this conversion from analog to digital is the fact that many analog antennas will not receive the digital signal at all. The digital signal is not as good at blanketing areas, especially those between tall mountains, as an analog signal. Many people may need larger, taller antennas or powered antennas in order to receive the new digital signal. So many millions will have their converter boxes and expect to continue watching TV, but their antenna will not get the new signal.
The government mandated a nearly completely superfluous change from analog to digital, failed to properly fund (or, much more likely, account for all of the existing funding) a subsidy program, grossly underestimated the need, and failed to provide all of the information needed to those affected. That's the American Government at work folks!
January 5, 2009
It's All In How You Watch It
M and I have noticed that quite a few of our channels have cleared up and become easier to watch... but that we're not seeing the entire picture any more. By this I mean that the picture being transmitted is now a digital, Hi-Def picture in wide screen aspect and we're only seeing it in standard aspect, so parts of one side or the other are cut off from our view.
Similar to the problem where the two coasts of America are much more digitally advanced than the entire middle of America when it comes to computing, internet connection, and even hardware owned, the digital revolution is leaving the vast majority of people behind.
The switch to all-digital signal in February hasn't led to the conversion to Hi-Def, LCD TVs quite like the TV manufacturers were hoping. The vast majority of people in middle America have simply gotten their government chits for free converter boxes and plugged those in. Some have needed to upgrade their antennas, too, but there are still vast areas of land that cannot get digital cable and will not pay for digital satellite.
We own a very high-quality, 36" standard TV. We have little to no need to upgrade it to an LCD/Plasma or wide screen aspect TV because of its quality. We have some desire to do so, but no need. And we're on much more of the digital edge than most. If they cannot get people like us to buy new TVs, what hope do they have to get the farmers, trailer living folks, and others that make up the vast majority of middle America to upgrade their TVs? Why do they cater to the 20% minority who have upgraded to those aspect TVs rather than continuing to cater to the vast majority of owners?
I think that the digital conversion in February is going to still catch a bunch of people by surprise, and we'll have angry letters to the editors, emails to distribution companies, and comments on network news by people. This will then lead to people questioning why words on their screen are being cut off one side or the other, why nearly everything has "those black bars" on it, and a variety of other complaints.
While it is true that the simplest, easiest solution is to buy a new TV, the current financial climate isn't really promoting that as a possibility for a lot of people. While spending money is the only way out of a recession, if people don't have it to spend it, they cannot comply. If they do have it, they tend to want to spend it on less frivolous items (like a new TV when the one they have "works") and instead on more need-based items (like food, housing, transportation, and health care).
Similar to the problem where the two coasts of America are much more digitally advanced than the entire middle of America when it comes to computing, internet connection, and even hardware owned, the digital revolution is leaving the vast majority of people behind.
The switch to all-digital signal in February hasn't led to the conversion to Hi-Def, LCD TVs quite like the TV manufacturers were hoping. The vast majority of people in middle America have simply gotten their government chits for free converter boxes and plugged those in. Some have needed to upgrade their antennas, too, but there are still vast areas of land that cannot get digital cable and will not pay for digital satellite.
We own a very high-quality, 36" standard TV. We have little to no need to upgrade it to an LCD/Plasma or wide screen aspect TV because of its quality. We have some desire to do so, but no need. And we're on much more of the digital edge than most. If they cannot get people like us to buy new TVs, what hope do they have to get the farmers, trailer living folks, and others that make up the vast majority of middle America to upgrade their TVs? Why do they cater to the 20% minority who have upgraded to those aspect TVs rather than continuing to cater to the vast majority of owners?
I think that the digital conversion in February is going to still catch a bunch of people by surprise, and we'll have angry letters to the editors, emails to distribution companies, and comments on network news by people. This will then lead to people questioning why words on their screen are being cut off one side or the other, why nearly everything has "those black bars" on it, and a variety of other complaints.
While it is true that the simplest, easiest solution is to buy a new TV, the current financial climate isn't really promoting that as a possibility for a lot of people. While spending money is the only way out of a recession, if people don't have it to spend it, they cannot comply. If they do have it, they tend to want to spend it on less frivolous items (like a new TV when the one they have "works") and instead on more need-based items (like food, housing, transportation, and health care).
January 3, 2009
Head, Part Deux
Today is Saturday and my headache seems finally under control. My shoulders and neck are still stiff and sore, still having occasional dizziness issues, I've done some additional minor injuries to myself along the way, plus felt sick the last two days on top of everything else. This has not been the best way to open up 2009, but what can you do?
The worst was having a sore throat (from the cold) which made it hurt to swallow-- but the externally painful neck and shoulders also made swallowing hurt. So no matter what I did, swallowing was something I did not want to do. But I was sick, so constantly thirsty and feeling a little dehydrated, so I was swallowing... a lot. *sigh
I did re-do our basement area and it is looking more room-like. I probably shouldn't have, because I wasn't feeling well and was still dizzy. I wound up hurting my right shoulder lifting and moving the treadmill by myself, so that sort of put a nail in that coffin. (M's dad got us a treadmill, which I needed to accommodate and I wanted a lot of floor space for DnD group days.)
Fig. 1. From stairs door into room. Walk, M, walk!
Fig. 2. From far corner opposite stairwell door, toward hallway to rest of basement.
Obviously, the room is still in a touch of disarray after changing things around. But there is my lovely wife using the treadmill (while watching Beverly Hills, 90210, first season... Blech!), which is part of the point of the rearrange. I, too, will be partaking of that device with the hope of countering some of the prednisone-inspired (and lack-of-exercise maintained) weight gain I've had the last few months.
I like the placement of the bookcases, too, because they form the area into a bit more of a "room" feel and you don't come down the stairs, enter the room, and immediately see four stacks of wood on the far side.
You can't really make it out in these pictures, but there is a lot of floor room available, so I should be able to put together the two tables and form the DnD setup easily. We also bought two more metal chairs, so we should be able to seat six around it without having to pull chairs from the dining table or office.
The only bad thing is that the nice coffee table that Stew made for M a while back is now being used for the TV in the basement. Not quite the use for which it was intended, but it is a good stop-gap until we figure something else out. Not sure if we are going to modify the legs and bring it back upstairs or what. But it has been used a lot over the last four years as intended, so hopefully it doesn't mind the repurposing for this.
The worst was having a sore throat (from the cold) which made it hurt to swallow-- but the externally painful neck and shoulders also made swallowing hurt. So no matter what I did, swallowing was something I did not want to do. But I was sick, so constantly thirsty and feeling a little dehydrated, so I was swallowing... a lot. *sigh
I did re-do our basement area and it is looking more room-like. I probably shouldn't have, because I wasn't feeling well and was still dizzy. I wound up hurting my right shoulder lifting and moving the treadmill by myself, so that sort of put a nail in that coffin. (M's dad got us a treadmill, which I needed to accommodate and I wanted a lot of floor space for DnD group days.)
Fig. 1. From stairs door into room. Walk, M, walk!
Fig. 2. From far corner opposite stairwell door, toward hallway to rest of basement.
Obviously, the room is still in a touch of disarray after changing things around. But there is my lovely wife using the treadmill (while watching Beverly Hills, 90210, first season... Blech!), which is part of the point of the rearrange. I, too, will be partaking of that device with the hope of countering some of the prednisone-inspired (and lack-of-exercise maintained) weight gain I've had the last few months.
I like the placement of the bookcases, too, because they form the area into a bit more of a "room" feel and you don't come down the stairs, enter the room, and immediately see four stacks of wood on the far side.
You can't really make it out in these pictures, but there is a lot of floor room available, so I should be able to put together the two tables and form the DnD setup easily. We also bought two more metal chairs, so we should be able to seat six around it without having to pull chairs from the dining table or office.
The only bad thing is that the nice coffee table that Stew made for M a while back is now being used for the TV in the basement. Not quite the use for which it was intended, but it is a good stop-gap until we figure something else out. Not sure if we are going to modify the legs and bring it back upstairs or what. But it has been used a lot over the last four years as intended, so hopefully it doesn't mind the repurposing for this.
January 1, 2009
Slip!
M and I went to a very nice, quiet, small-group New Year's party with close friends. A good time was had by all.
However, on trying to leave, the blizzard-like conditions had started and there was ice on the driveway of the house we were visiting. All my compatriots made it into the truck okay, but as I was walking around the back of the truck to the driver's door, I hit a patch of ice, slipped, and -- no hyperbole here -- fell on the back of my head. Not "I fell and hit my entire back and my head also hit the ground hard" -- I mean my HEAD was the FIRST thing to touch the ground! As Stew, who was sitting in the back seat behind me and looking out the side window, said, "I saw tennis shoes and wondered what happened."
This is my first major issue with ice since being here and it hurt like hell. I have had concussions before, and have had my bell rung a number of times, so I know all the necessary things to look for/self-diagnose. So I'm pretty sure I don't have a concussion this time around; however, I do have and will have a pretty nasty headache tonight and, most likely, into tomorrow.
What amazes me is the fact that I could go from standing upright to literally having the back of my head hit the pavement first in such a short moment. Had I seen me do this from a third person perspective, I'm certain it would have looked cartoonish and rather comical. However, the splitting headache I have now is not so funny. But, in the end, it will make for a funny story sometime down the road.
However, on trying to leave, the blizzard-like conditions had started and there was ice on the driveway of the house we were visiting. All my compatriots made it into the truck okay, but as I was walking around the back of the truck to the driver's door, I hit a patch of ice, slipped, and -- no hyperbole here -- fell on the back of my head. Not "I fell and hit my entire back and my head also hit the ground hard" -- I mean my HEAD was the FIRST thing to touch the ground! As Stew, who was sitting in the back seat behind me and looking out the side window, said, "I saw tennis shoes and wondered what happened."
This is my first major issue with ice since being here and it hurt like hell. I have had concussions before, and have had my bell rung a number of times, so I know all the necessary things to look for/self-diagnose. So I'm pretty sure I don't have a concussion this time around; however, I do have and will have a pretty nasty headache tonight and, most likely, into tomorrow.
What amazes me is the fact that I could go from standing upright to literally having the back of my head hit the pavement first in such a short moment. Had I seen me do this from a third person perspective, I'm certain it would have looked cartoonish and rather comical. However, the splitting headache I have now is not so funny. But, in the end, it will make for a funny story sometime down the road.
December 27, 2008
Skip It!
My sister got me the WALL-E DVD, which is one of my favorite movies of the year (and I'm still not sure if it beats, is tied with, or just loses to The Dark Knight as the year's best so far, but it is close).
Being that it is a Disney production, the DVD starts with a whole bunch of snippets and adverts that I cannot skip, fast forward, or otherwise get beyond to get to the menu. Disney is by far and away the worst at this practice, but nearly all of the DVD producers do something similar.
It irritates me to no end that I cannot skip these "features" and just get to the movie, the menu, or the special features. I already bought the product, don't beat me over the head with ... more product. These types of things should always be optional and I should always have the ability to press menu, at any time and from anywhere on the DVD, and get the freaking menu to display!
Being that it is a Disney production, the DVD starts with a whole bunch of snippets and adverts that I cannot skip, fast forward, or otherwise get beyond to get to the menu. Disney is by far and away the worst at this practice, but nearly all of the DVD producers do something similar.
It irritates me to no end that I cannot skip these "features" and just get to the movie, the menu, or the special features. I already bought the product, don't beat me over the head with ... more product. These types of things should always be optional and I should always have the ability to press menu, at any time and from anywhere on the DVD, and get the freaking menu to display!
December 25, 2008
Happy Christmas
Yes, you read that right... Christmas.
I'm feeling much more in the spirit today than usual. More than a little of that has to do with my Christmas-loving wife, of course. She has brightened the holiday with a tree, lights, and good cheer to help my usually curmudgeonly self out of my typical holiday funk.
So, happy Christmas. Be safe, be happy, be healthy this holiday, and don't take things too seriously. Relax and enjoy the day.
Now, back to our regularly scheduled rants and ravings....
I'm feeling much more in the spirit today than usual. More than a little of that has to do with my Christmas-loving wife, of course. She has brightened the holiday with a tree, lights, and good cheer to help my usually curmudgeonly self out of my typical holiday funk.
So, happy Christmas. Be safe, be happy, be healthy this holiday, and don't take things too seriously. Relax and enjoy the day.
Now, back to our regularly scheduled rants and ravings....
December 24, 2008
A Small Memory
I recently reread The Westing Game, by Ellen Raskin, because I thought it had in it a scene that I have had in my memory for some time now. It didn't, but this is a favorite from my teen years, so I enjoyed rereading it anyway.
Then I asked my sister, who has a great memory for things she reads. Unfortunately, my description of the scene was just too vague.
Basically, I told her, I remembered a scene where a girl is with a guy who likes to dress up in costumes and he was some sort of detective. The scene in particular is him wearing something on his face and standing behind her while she looks at him in a mirror. She realizes that the thing she thinks is on one side of the face is actually on the other, and this leads to solving the mystery. I also explained that I remember it being written in a similar style to Ellen Raskin's book, which is why I thought it was in The Westing Game.
My sister couldn't remember that scene, but had some suggestions for ways I could search for it and maybe at least narrow down the book list.
In the meantime, M ordered some more Raskin novels from the local library. One of them caught my eye and the moment I looked at the cover I knew-- that was the book!
I read The Tattooed Potato last night. Sure enough, starting on page 55 of the book is the exact scene I remembered; Garson is an artist who is helping the police with some detective work. Dickory is his new assistant. They are trying to solve the case that the Inspector has given them, and Garson paints a mole on his cheek and asks Dickory which side of his face it is on while she looks at him in a mirror. And the realization that she guesses the wrong side due to the reflection allows them to narrow down who the criminal is and gets the Inspector an arrest. And it was written in Raskin's style because Raskin wrote it!
Both are good books and I may add them to my wish list.
December 22, 2008
The Lion, et al
The story in The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe is primarily about the four main characters learning lessons and growing as individuals. There are moments in the book where this is really pointed out, like when Lucy tells Aslan to hold on a minute after administering the juice of the flower berry to Edmund and Aslan getting cross with her and asking if more should die for her brother. Each child learns to grow up (to a degree, as well as literally) and becomes a better, more caring, and more understanding person because of the lessons he or she learns during the course of the story.
(I grant that, if you want to look hard enough, there are religious allegories. However, I would argue that a) those are not the point of the first book and b) that most children, the aim of these stories, will not recognize or get those allegories with the exception of the obvious "Aslan allows himself to be killed for the sins of another and rises from the dead because of it" one.)
In the movie, the makers changed most of the story to be "more visual". As a general rule, I have no argument with that. However, this caused Edmund to be presented as a much more surly and argumentative child than he ever appears as in the book. On top of this, some of the lessons the children learned are glossed over (Peter's learning to be a leader and king/thinking about those beyond his family) or forgotten/left out altogether (Lucy's, mentioned above). Scenes are completely changed or added to, my guess is, give the movie more of a sense of urgency (the children following Edmund all the way to the point of seeing him enter the Witch's house, Edmund in prison with a woeful Mr. Tumnus, changing a battle that is mostly skipped over in the book (because it is not needed to be told-- you are following a different story) into a grand battle shown from multiple perspectives at the end.
In the play, due to the writer's need to condense the plot and "talk down" to the admitted children's audience, they combined much and skipped over even more. For example, Lucy and Edmund both reach Narnia at the same time, but head off in different direction so that Lucy can meet Tumnus and Edmund the White Witch. Susan and Peter come on shortly thereafter and they all meet up. In the story, it is an important point when Edmund has a talk with Aslan after being rescued but you never find out what is said; in the play, their conversation is a duet all about what is said. It is also an important point made by Susan that she and Lucy must never tell Edmund what Aslan does for him as "it would be too horrible." In the play, Edmund goes with them and watches Aslan being killed in his place and then Peter and the Beavers show up and there is a pretty, but forgettable, song about the glory of Aslan and his sacrifice. Lucy once again does not need to learn her lesson with the healing draught. Susan is much less likable for most of the play, and Edmund once more is way overdone in his surliness and bad behavior.
My point in saying this is the same point I continue to make with other source material (be they comic books being turned into movies or simply books being made into movies or TV shows); you are pulling from a certain source material for a reason-- you have a built-in audience with built-in expectations. When you change for change's sake, you threaten your foundation audience. If that audience gives you a bad review, you will not get much if any new audience on top of that foundation. We have seen this to be true on a number of occasions, but a couple stand out to me:
(I grant that, if you want to look hard enough, there are religious allegories. However, I would argue that a) those are not the point of the first book and b) that most children, the aim of these stories, will not recognize or get those allegories with the exception of the obvious "Aslan allows himself to be killed for the sins of another and rises from the dead because of it" one.)
In the movie, the makers changed most of the story to be "more visual". As a general rule, I have no argument with that. However, this caused Edmund to be presented as a much more surly and argumentative child than he ever appears as in the book. On top of this, some of the lessons the children learned are glossed over (Peter's learning to be a leader and king/thinking about those beyond his family) or forgotten/left out altogether (Lucy's, mentioned above). Scenes are completely changed or added to, my guess is, give the movie more of a sense of urgency (the children following Edmund all the way to the point of seeing him enter the Witch's house, Edmund in prison with a woeful Mr. Tumnus, changing a battle that is mostly skipped over in the book (because it is not needed to be told-- you are following a different story) into a grand battle shown from multiple perspectives at the end.
In the play, due to the writer's need to condense the plot and "talk down" to the admitted children's audience, they combined much and skipped over even more. For example, Lucy and Edmund both reach Narnia at the same time, but head off in different direction so that Lucy can meet Tumnus and Edmund the White Witch. Susan and Peter come on shortly thereafter and they all meet up. In the story, it is an important point when Edmund has a talk with Aslan after being rescued but you never find out what is said; in the play, their conversation is a duet all about what is said. It is also an important point made by Susan that she and Lucy must never tell Edmund what Aslan does for him as "it would be too horrible." In the play, Edmund goes with them and watches Aslan being killed in his place and then Peter and the Beavers show up and there is a pretty, but forgettable, song about the glory of Aslan and his sacrifice. Lucy once again does not need to learn her lesson with the healing draught. Susan is much less likable for most of the play, and Edmund once more is way overdone in his surliness and bad behavior.
My point in saying this is the same point I continue to make with other source material (be they comic books being turned into movies or simply books being made into movies or TV shows); you are pulling from a certain source material for a reason-- you have a built-in audience with built-in expectations. When you change for change's sake, you threaten your foundation audience. If that audience gives you a bad review, you will not get much if any new audience on top of that foundation. We have seen this to be true on a number of occasions, but a couple stand out to me:
- The recent horrible, horrible attempt called The Seeker: The Dark Is Rising. They changed so much as to make the much-loved and award-winning novel unrecognizable to the core audience. The word spread and the move absolutely tanked at the home and world-wide box office.
- Catwoman. Riding high on some hits, DC/Warner Bros decided to go for something with a strong female lead. However, again, they took 60 years+ of source material, threw it out the door, and started from scratch and made something unrecognizable to the core audience of comic book readers. Word got out, movie tanked.
- Even TV shows are not immune to this. The Starsky & Hutch movie went far from the source material (which was predominantly a lighter drama) and became a full-on comedy; it tanked at the BO.
- Batman Begins/The Dark Knight
- Jaws (the original)
- Harry Potter series
- Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants
- Da Vinci Code
- Spider-man 1 and 2
December 19, 2008
Narnia... Redux
So, this has been The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe month. First, my wife and I read the book to each other (don't laugh, try reading to your loved one in bed and see how he/she likes it). Next, we watched the recent live-action/CGI movie. Tonight we saw a musical "based" on the book.
I need time to fully process what I'm going to say, so expect a further post on this subject in the near future. But I think I can boil it down to this: you are making a musical and/or movie because of the source material. So why would you stray so far from the source to the point where the basic premise and reason for the source material is no longer there?
More later after I digest tonight's show.
I need time to fully process what I'm going to say, so expect a further post on this subject in the near future. But I think I can boil it down to this: you are making a musical and/or movie because of the source material. So why would you stray so far from the source to the point where the basic premise and reason for the source material is no longer there?
More later after I digest tonight's show.
It Hurt My Eye!
Being a desert rat through and through I am not accustomed to the temperatures of my new location. It is -12c with a wind chill making it close to -25c outside. We needed gas on the way home and I did the "manly" thing and offered to pump it. I was okay everywhere except my face, where the wind and the shear cold stung so bad it hurt my eye. I put up the hood on my coat, but to no avail; no matter what I did, the incredible cold continued to feel like a weight on my right eye.
My eye is now tender and I have a "headache" directly behind the outside corner where it stung. That is insane!
My eye is now tender and I have a "headache" directly behind the outside corner where it stung. That is insane!
December 16, 2008
Financial Customer Service Takes a Hit
I have been a member of American Express Blue for, well, a long time. At least 8 years. In all of that time, I have always either paid off the card in full, paid off a sum much more than the minimum amount, or paid the minimum. The few times there has been a dispute on the card, the company has admitted it was its fault and the extra charges or whatever were credited off.
In November, I looked online at my balance due, which was around $42. Now, granted, that was just the monthly payment amount as, with the expenses of everything involved in the lead up to, the moving, and certain expenses since moving, I'm carrying a much larger overall balance than usual. I reviewed my statement, then logged into my bank and sent AmEx $100. More than enough to cover the $42 I saw due and take another small bite out of the overall balance until I find work and can start making more serious payments. As a note, I keep the tab with the CC balance up for reference when I log into my bank account to make the payment, so I can decide how much and review both before clicking Send on anything.
On December 12 I again checked my AmEx statement online. I saw that the balance due was $183, that my payment had a due date of Dec. 28, logged onto my bank and sent the company $200, and thought that was it until my next check/payment cycle in mid-January.
Today, just a little bit ago, I received an email notice that my card was on hold until such time as they received the $183 in full. "What the hell?" I said out loud to no one in particular (M has gone to bed). I immediately logged on to my AmEx account and saw that it still showed $183 due and a due date of Dec. 28. Nothing else on it showed any reason to make me think that anything was wrong with the account.
I called support and finally got to Robert in Past Due Accounts. He told me that my payment of $100 in November was $42 short of the full amount. Which, on hindsight, makes sense with the balance I'm carrying right now. However, when it comes to money and these accounts in particular, I am very careful and I nearly always pay more than the minimum balance. Either my statement in November was incorrectly showing me something, or the company added a late fee, or something happened that caused what I saw online. Robert tried to be helpful but, with the credit crisis where it is, he (and AmEx) were no longer willing to be very helpful. I explained that I had paid the amount due and then some in November, and that I had already paid the full amount due for this month and then some. I wanted my card taken off hold. He expressly refused to do that, but apologized profusely for what he granted was some sort of error or miscommunication between me and his company.
What I am frustrated by is the fact that I told him to scan through my account and see how long I've been a member and if he could find any cases of me not paying at least the minimum every month. He agreed that he could not. He did find a whopping total of two instances where I was late in making a payment (but granted it was by a few days only, so the check was likely delayed in the mail or was too close to the payment due date when sent). He agreed that I was an outstanding customer and commented that he wished more customers had my history. Yet he still wouldn't budge on the issue. My history with the company, being in great standing in general, and his acknowledging that there must have been some sort of typographical or other error which caused me to pay less than the amount due last month made no difference in how I was treated.
I agreed with him that he is part of a business and that a business needs to make money. However, when he started saying, "If we did what you are asking for the millions of customers we have..." I cut him off. I said, "I don't want you to do this for millions of people; I want you to do it for me. Because of my great standing with your company, history of excellent payment, long time use of the card and membership." But he refused.
I understand that AmEx needs to clamp down in these times and that they have to make profits and keep their noses clean to weather the financial storm. However, what the company is choosing to do is lump a bunch of people with excellent credit histories in with the miscreants, thieves, and reprobates that may take advantage. I am now angry with my treatment, angry that the company no longer considers me a valuable resource, and is no longer willing to make me happy as a customer.
But, I think the anger primarily stems from having my good history, my good name, called into question by this company. As if my many years of excellence no longer matters and no longer counts for anything. That's what hurts the most. I have spent years accruing a good financial history in general, a credit score higher than 95% of Americans, and had that all questioned by Robert during our phone conversation. Yes, I know he didn't question it directly, but that was what he was (without his knowledge) attacking when he said there was nothing he could for me.
Then, I can't help but think, why should I bother keeping the good credit history? I already lived through SoCal and watching people who earned half what I did buying houses that were many times what I could afford. People changing cars more often than their hairstyles or underwear. I watched people run up huge credit card bills and then just walk away from them. I saw people use bankruptcy laws as just another part of their financial portfolio. All through it I kept myself clean and above-board and did my best to live within my means. And, today, because of the mess all those other people created (and the financial institutions that catered to them), my history and value as a member of American Express was called into question and I was lumped in with them.
Long story made not too much longer, my bank says they sent the check on Saturday. Which means AmEx should have it Tuesday or Wednesday at the latest, if all works out as it usually does. And my card will be freed immediately.
My faith in AmEx will not be so easily repaired.
Update 12/16/08
Today I received the email that AmEx received my payment for $200 and all is right with my account again. So, on the surface, it seems like much ado about nothing. However, my point is still valid; I am not to blame for the credit/financial crisis in America and I don't appreciate being treated like someone who is to blame. I have a great credit history with that company in particular and in general and should be treated accordingly.
In November, I looked online at my balance due, which was around $42. Now, granted, that was just the monthly payment amount as, with the expenses of everything involved in the lead up to, the moving, and certain expenses since moving, I'm carrying a much larger overall balance than usual. I reviewed my statement, then logged into my bank and sent AmEx $100. More than enough to cover the $42 I saw due and take another small bite out of the overall balance until I find work and can start making more serious payments. As a note, I keep the tab with the CC balance up for reference when I log into my bank account to make the payment, so I can decide how much and review both before clicking Send on anything.
On December 12 I again checked my AmEx statement online. I saw that the balance due was $183, that my payment had a due date of Dec. 28, logged onto my bank and sent the company $200, and thought that was it until my next check/payment cycle in mid-January.
Today, just a little bit ago, I received an email notice that my card was on hold until such time as they received the $183 in full. "What the hell?" I said out loud to no one in particular (M has gone to bed). I immediately logged on to my AmEx account and saw that it still showed $183 due and a due date of Dec. 28. Nothing else on it showed any reason to make me think that anything was wrong with the account.
I called support and finally got to Robert in Past Due Accounts. He told me that my payment of $100 in November was $42 short of the full amount. Which, on hindsight, makes sense with the balance I'm carrying right now. However, when it comes to money and these accounts in particular, I am very careful and I nearly always pay more than the minimum balance. Either my statement in November was incorrectly showing me something, or the company added a late fee, or something happened that caused what I saw online. Robert tried to be helpful but, with the credit crisis where it is, he (and AmEx) were no longer willing to be very helpful. I explained that I had paid the amount due and then some in November, and that I had already paid the full amount due for this month and then some. I wanted my card taken off hold. He expressly refused to do that, but apologized profusely for what he granted was some sort of error or miscommunication between me and his company.
What I am frustrated by is the fact that I told him to scan through my account and see how long I've been a member and if he could find any cases of me not paying at least the minimum every month. He agreed that he could not. He did find a whopping total of two instances where I was late in making a payment (but granted it was by a few days only, so the check was likely delayed in the mail or was too close to the payment due date when sent). He agreed that I was an outstanding customer and commented that he wished more customers had my history. Yet he still wouldn't budge on the issue. My history with the company, being in great standing in general, and his acknowledging that there must have been some sort of typographical or other error which caused me to pay less than the amount due last month made no difference in how I was treated.
I agreed with him that he is part of a business and that a business needs to make money. However, when he started saying, "If we did what you are asking for the millions of customers we have..." I cut him off. I said, "I don't want you to do this for millions of people; I want you to do it for me. Because of my great standing with your company, history of excellent payment, long time use of the card and membership." But he refused.
I understand that AmEx needs to clamp down in these times and that they have to make profits and keep their noses clean to weather the financial storm. However, what the company is choosing to do is lump a bunch of people with excellent credit histories in with the miscreants, thieves, and reprobates that may take advantage. I am now angry with my treatment, angry that the company no longer considers me a valuable resource, and is no longer willing to make me happy as a customer.
But, I think the anger primarily stems from having my good history, my good name, called into question by this company. As if my many years of excellence no longer matters and no longer counts for anything. That's what hurts the most. I have spent years accruing a good financial history in general, a credit score higher than 95% of Americans, and had that all questioned by Robert during our phone conversation. Yes, I know he didn't question it directly, but that was what he was (without his knowledge) attacking when he said there was nothing he could for me.
Then, I can't help but think, why should I bother keeping the good credit history? I already lived through SoCal and watching people who earned half what I did buying houses that were many times what I could afford. People changing cars more often than their hairstyles or underwear. I watched people run up huge credit card bills and then just walk away from them. I saw people use bankruptcy laws as just another part of their financial portfolio. All through it I kept myself clean and above-board and did my best to live within my means. And, today, because of the mess all those other people created (and the financial institutions that catered to them), my history and value as a member of American Express was called into question and I was lumped in with them.
Long story made not too much longer, my bank says they sent the check on Saturday. Which means AmEx should have it Tuesday or Wednesday at the latest, if all works out as it usually does. And my card will be freed immediately.
My faith in AmEx will not be so easily repaired.
Update 12/16/08
Today I received the email that AmEx received my payment for $200 and all is right with my account again. So, on the surface, it seems like much ado about nothing. However, my point is still valid; I am not to blame for the credit/financial crisis in America and I don't appreciate being treated like someone who is to blame. I have a great credit history with that company in particular and in general and should be treated accordingly.
December 10, 2008
I'm Shocked, Shocked I Say!
This is my result of this particular quiz.
Your results:
You are Superman
You are mild-mannered, good, strong and you love to help others.
Click here to take the Superhero Personality Quiz
Your results:
You are Superman
You are mild-mannered, good, strong and you love to help others.
| Superman | 75% | |
| Supergirl | 60% | |
| Hulk | 60% | |
| Robin | 57% | |
| Spider-Man | 55% | |
| Wonder Woman | 55% | |
| Green Lantern | 55% | |
| Batman | 40% | |
| The Flash | 40% | |
| Catwoman | 30% | |
| Iron Man | 30% |
Click here to take the Superhero Personality Quiz
December 7, 2008
Challah Bread
M and I watch a show called Anna and Kristina's Grocery Bags. In this show, the two hosts, Anna and Kristina, take an existing, popular cook book, try out some recipes from it, and then make some recipes on-camera and serve them to a chef who is expert in that genre of food.
During one of the shows, they tried French Toast made with Challah bread. The expert really enjoyed it and said that he won't make French Toast without that type of bread. I told M that I had eaten challah bread before, and that it was a sweeter bread and quite good. M really likes French Toast, so, when she spotted some challah at a store, picked up a loaf with the express intent of me making her French Toast.
Yesterday (and this morning), I set about doing so. Used my usual mixture of two eggs, a bit of milk for thickening, a splash of vanilla for flavor, and a small pinch of cinnamon. Cut three thick slices of the challah (a good solid inch), soaked liberally in the sauce, and put it on a frying pan set to a medium low (about 4.5 on the dial). Cooked them until they weren't wet anymore, but not so much the egg had fried to being "eggy."
M loved it. It was the first time I had used the cinnamon with her (she's not a big fan, and doesn't want it to be overpowering, which I didn't make it). She has since said that challah is the only way to go with French Toast from now on.
I highly recommend it if you like French Toast. Find and use some Challah bread, keep the cinnamon down (only enough to enhance the vanilla, not enough to make it cinnamony), and cook it over medium low heat for a bit longer. It was good enough that even I enjoyed it, and I'm not a huge fan of French Toast.
Give it a try.
During one of the shows, they tried French Toast made with Challah bread. The expert really enjoyed it and said that he won't make French Toast without that type of bread. I told M that I had eaten challah bread before, and that it was a sweeter bread and quite good. M really likes French Toast, so, when she spotted some challah at a store, picked up a loaf with the express intent of me making her French Toast.
Yesterday (and this morning), I set about doing so. Used my usual mixture of two eggs, a bit of milk for thickening, a splash of vanilla for flavor, and a small pinch of cinnamon. Cut three thick slices of the challah (a good solid inch), soaked liberally in the sauce, and put it on a frying pan set to a medium low (about 4.5 on the dial). Cooked them until they weren't wet anymore, but not so much the egg had fried to being "eggy."
M loved it. It was the first time I had used the cinnamon with her (she's not a big fan, and doesn't want it to be overpowering, which I didn't make it). She has since said that challah is the only way to go with French Toast from now on.
I highly recommend it if you like French Toast. Find and use some Challah bread, keep the cinnamon down (only enough to enhance the vanilla, not enough to make it cinnamony), and cook it over medium low heat for a bit longer. It was good enough that even I enjoyed it, and I'm not a huge fan of French Toast.
Give it a try.
November 29, 2008
Extra Lines?
I started noting recently that friends and family who used Blogger were posting items that had extra line feeds. I then found my own posts starting to include extra line feeds.
Somewhere along the way, the people from Google behind Blogger have modified their auto-generated HTML coding to include the "div" and "/div" codes in each paragraph. However, they did not program the auto-generator to create the code correctly or insert it correctly, thus leading to extra line feeds.
What is extra fun is that the Preview button doesn't express the extra line feeds, so it looks the way you want it until you click Publish Post. At this time, the incorrectly placed div codes come into play and your published entry has the extra line feeds.
I have taken to clicking the "Edit Html" tab and scanning through my posts and editing out all of these codes, and then making the page look the way I want it (whether by manually adding standard spacing or deleting extra spacing), prior to clicking the Publish Post button.
While I appreciate the free nature of the blogging tool provided by Blogger, I am disappointed that they would modify the coding in such a way to add irrelevant and incorrectly used HTML code that causes me to have to do extra effort to present a clean post. It makes for extra work that I do not want and makes me consider moving to a different service or hosting my own.
Somewhere along the way, the people from Google behind Blogger have modified their auto-generated HTML coding to include the "div" and "/div" codes in each paragraph. However, they did not program the auto-generator to create the code correctly or insert it correctly, thus leading to extra line feeds.
What is extra fun is that the Preview button doesn't express the extra line feeds, so it looks the way you want it until you click Publish Post. At this time, the incorrectly placed div codes come into play and your published entry has the extra line feeds.
I have taken to clicking the "Edit Html" tab and scanning through my posts and editing out all of these codes, and then making the page look the way I want it (whether by manually adding standard spacing or deleting extra spacing), prior to clicking the Publish Post button.
While I appreciate the free nature of the blogging tool provided by Blogger, I am disappointed that they would modify the coding in such a way to add irrelevant and incorrectly used HTML code that causes me to have to do extra effort to present a clean post. It makes for extra work that I do not want and makes me consider moving to a different service or hosting my own.
Thanxgiving
M and I prepared a 13 pound turkey, stuffing, a couple of different kinds of veggies, mashed and sweet potatoes, home-baked bread, crescent rolls, and apple pie for Thanksgiving.
We had a good time cooking together. Sandra came over and gave M a pie lesson (and it turned out beautifully), and she again helped us with gravy mixing when the time came.
The turkey was an odd cooking experience. We went with the 20 minutes per pound theory, but also put it in a cooking bag. After barely over 2 hours of cooking, both the pop-up thermometer and our good electronic thermometer said the bird was done... which was about an hour and a half minimum before we were expecting it to be. Figuing that something was not kosher with the thermometer, we started eyeballing it from there. We wound up taking it out about a half hour before we thought it should be done, which was a good thing, because the turkey was definitely done and was starting to get a bit dry (not bad, just starting).
I carved that up while I put in the crescent rolls, and microwaved the two green veggies in microwave steamer bags (these things work great!), and M worked on finishing the two potato dishes and got the stuffing ready. We then put everything on the table for out two guests (Sandra and our friend Jenn), and I popped the pie in to bake while we ate.
Everything was scrum-dilly-icious! Everyone ate way too much, which is the way it should be.
The one detraction to the day was the poor performance by the Lions on their annual Thanxgiving NFL game. Usually, even if they are having a bad year, they perform well-enough to make the game exciting, even if they lose. Not so, this game. It took them all of two plays to start sucking. And then it was all downhill from there, culminating in a 47-10 blow out loss. *sigh
We had a good time cooking together. Sandra came over and gave M a pie lesson (and it turned out beautifully), and she again helped us with gravy mixing when the time came.
The turkey was an odd cooking experience. We went with the 20 minutes per pound theory, but also put it in a cooking bag. After barely over 2 hours of cooking, both the pop-up thermometer and our good electronic thermometer said the bird was done... which was about an hour and a half minimum before we were expecting it to be. Figuing that something was not kosher with the thermometer, we started eyeballing it from there. We wound up taking it out about a half hour before we thought it should be done, which was a good thing, because the turkey was definitely done and was starting to get a bit dry (not bad, just starting).
I carved that up while I put in the crescent rolls, and microwaved the two green veggies in microwave steamer bags (these things work great!), and M worked on finishing the two potato dishes and got the stuffing ready. We then put everything on the table for out two guests (Sandra and our friend Jenn), and I popped the pie in to bake while we ate.
Everything was scrum-dilly-icious! Everyone ate way too much, which is the way it should be.
The one detraction to the day was the poor performance by the Lions on their annual Thanxgiving NFL game. Usually, even if they are having a bad year, they perform well-enough to make the game exciting, even if they lose. Not so, this game. It took them all of two plays to start sucking. And then it was all downhill from there, culminating in a 47-10 blow out loss. *sigh
November 24, 2008
Tidbits
It was fun to wake up Saturday morning to the first snowfall of the season. Seeing everything covered in a gentle blanket of white was pleasing. Since then, we have had temperatures hit -10c (-20c with wind chill), which I do not find anywhere near as nice. These temperatures sneak up on me because I look outside and I see a sunny, cloudless sky and my brain automatically thinks "Nice day." While that may be true, it has not built up a knowledge base that, while pretty or nice, the day may be cold as hell. Needless to say, my hands got pretty cold before I remembered to put on my gloves. I need to get better about that, but I think only experience and time will teach me that lesson.
Saturday morning we decided to try for Calais for mail and some Thanxgiving shopping. However, even after getting an all-wheel drive vehicle from Alex, we only made it about five miles out of town before we decided to turn around. The better part of valor said that, with the slow speeds we would have to average on the trip, the later start we got due to weather considerations, and the time limit we had on reaching an open Calais post office to pick up our packages, it just wasn't in the dice.
Saturday night we went to watch Chicago at the SJ Theater. Even though I helped my mother with nearly every one of her productions, and had friends in many of them, I find it strange to see many of my new friends up on a very professional stage singing, dancing, acting. Our friend T-L absolutely belted her songs as Mama Morton. She didn't really need the microphone at all and I could tell she had to reign it in a bit when she had the duet with the woman playing Velma; Velma had a good voice, but nowhere near the power or clarity of our friend! Another surprise (to me, as I don't know everyone well yet and do not know where their strengths lie) was our friend Matt. While the role of Amos doesn't require a lot of singing or dancing, I was pleasantly surprised by the job Matt did in covering both aspects. And our friend Jenn did the choreography for the entire show. I asked and she confirmed that it is exceptionally difficult to come up with choreography that is engaging to the audience, showcases each individual's talents, and accommodates those in the cast who have no training and little skill at dancing. That's one headache I leave in her capable hands. Neither of us liked the minimilist stage presentation, but my guess is that the crew wanted to cut down on the size of the stage and keep the focus on the singing and dancing. In those regardless, the minimilist approach worked.
Today I drove down on my own to Calais and got everything. The trip today was easy, I averaged great mileage for the tank down and back (1/4 tank for the whole trip), and had my first experience paying duty on items brought over the border ($18.50). There was virtually no wait on either side (to America there were about 8 cars ahead of me turning onto the bridge (plus a full bridge), but moved fast. Coming back, I was behind two cars when they opened the second window and all of us cruised through. If I hadn't needed to pay duty, I almost could have blinked and missed it!
The trip would not have been as good had I not used the portal XM we own. I put it on the 90s channel and cruised the entire way. For someone who hates talking (talk radio, DJs talking, phone requests, even commercials that talk) as much as I do, you would think I would have succumbed to the XM/Sirius use long before moving in with my wife. I do love it now, though.
Back to the trip: during one stretch of almost 30 minutes I quite literally did not see a car on the same side of the road I was driving. During that same stretch, I only saw 11 cars on the other side. It was fun to see the big-rigs filled with Christmas trees leaving Canada one after another; I'm sure at least some of those trees are bound for Southern California.
I think we're set for Thanxgiving now. We have a turkey, we have some home-baked bread to bake that day, and the rest of the ingredients we'll get here. I'm looking forward, with some horror and trepidation, to seeing the Lions play on TV. This is the only scheduled game of the season on TV, but they are an aweful 0-11 and have little chance of winning a game this year. Which is too bad, as Marinelli is a good coach and had turned things around so much last season. Just goes to show you that pre-season doesn't count for much (the Lions were 4-0).
Saturday morning we decided to try for Calais for mail and some Thanxgiving shopping. However, even after getting an all-wheel drive vehicle from Alex, we only made it about five miles out of town before we decided to turn around. The better part of valor said that, with the slow speeds we would have to average on the trip, the later start we got due to weather considerations, and the time limit we had on reaching an open Calais post office to pick up our packages, it just wasn't in the dice.
Saturday night we went to watch Chicago at the SJ Theater. Even though I helped my mother with nearly every one of her productions, and had friends in many of them, I find it strange to see many of my new friends up on a very professional stage singing, dancing, acting. Our friend T-L absolutely belted her songs as Mama Morton. She didn't really need the microphone at all and I could tell she had to reign it in a bit when she had the duet with the woman playing Velma; Velma had a good voice, but nowhere near the power or clarity of our friend! Another surprise (to me, as I don't know everyone well yet and do not know where their strengths lie) was our friend Matt. While the role of Amos doesn't require a lot of singing or dancing, I was pleasantly surprised by the job Matt did in covering both aspects. And our friend Jenn did the choreography for the entire show. I asked and she confirmed that it is exceptionally difficult to come up with choreography that is engaging to the audience, showcases each individual's talents, and accommodates those in the cast who have no training and little skill at dancing. That's one headache I leave in her capable hands. Neither of us liked the minimilist stage presentation, but my guess is that the crew wanted to cut down on the size of the stage and keep the focus on the singing and dancing. In those regardless, the minimilist approach worked.
Today I drove down on my own to Calais and got everything. The trip today was easy, I averaged great mileage for the tank down and back (1/4 tank for the whole trip), and had my first experience paying duty on items brought over the border ($18.50). There was virtually no wait on either side (to America there were about 8 cars ahead of me turning onto the bridge (plus a full bridge), but moved fast. Coming back, I was behind two cars when they opened the second window and all of us cruised through. If I hadn't needed to pay duty, I almost could have blinked and missed it!
The trip would not have been as good had I not used the portal XM we own. I put it on the 90s channel and cruised the entire way. For someone who hates talking (talk radio, DJs talking, phone requests, even commercials that talk) as much as I do, you would think I would have succumbed to the XM/Sirius use long before moving in with my wife. I do love it now, though.
Back to the trip: during one stretch of almost 30 minutes I quite literally did not see a car on the same side of the road I was driving. During that same stretch, I only saw 11 cars on the other side. It was fun to see the big-rigs filled with Christmas trees leaving Canada one after another; I'm sure at least some of those trees are bound for Southern California.
I think we're set for Thanxgiving now. We have a turkey, we have some home-baked bread to bake that day, and the rest of the ingredients we'll get here. I'm looking forward, with some horror and trepidation, to seeing the Lions play on TV. This is the only scheduled game of the season on TV, but they are an aweful 0-11 and have little chance of winning a game this year. Which is too bad, as Marinelli is a good coach and had turned things around so much last season. Just goes to show you that pre-season doesn't count for much (the Lions were 4-0).
November 15, 2008
Quantum of Solace
While there is not anything fundamentally wrong with this movie, I cannot grade it above a B for one reason-- shaky-cam. When will directors learn that, if you are directing an action sequence that is inherently filled with danger and suspense, you don't need to make your audience sick by adding a shaky-cam. Unless the use of shaky-cam is integral to the plot (for example, Blair Witch or Cloverfield), buy a fucking steady-cam harness and film it right!
Now that that is out of my system I feel better.
The acting by Craig and Dench is superb again. They both hit home runs with their portrayals of Bond and M. Wright, as Felix Leiter, seemed to think looking constipated equaled angst. Amalric was okay as the main villain, but really wasn't given much to work with. While Arterton was beautiful and did what she could with her role, the role really should have been written out of the movie and all her scenes should have been given to the other Bond girl, Kurylenko.
The plot was a bit confused and this was mainly because of the main girl, Camille. Bond was partly motivated by revenge and partly his duty to go after those who killed Vesper in Casino Royale. Camille's interference and need for revenge watered down his plot. And then there was the somewhat underdeveloped main plot of Greene buying worthless desert under which there was a ton of water that he was somehow holding ransom and using to topple governments. This was not presented in a way that allowed the audience to get on board and seemed to almost get in the way of Bond's need for revenge, as the focus of the movie shifted to him helping Camille get her's instead.
Most of the action and fight scenes were superb, except for the use of shaky-cam. Would have been considered great, actually, except for this fact. By themselves, Craig and Dench almost make me grade up against the grade down for the use of the shaky-cam, but they can't quite push it that far (tells you how irritated I am that people continue to use the device).
I have little idea how it ends because our sound kept cutting in and out and the final resolution of the story was the worst section. About 15 people complained and wanted passes or their money back. I normally would be leading the charge, but this is the fourth or fifth time, so I'm instead going to complain to corporate about this cinema, since I know the local manager could give a rat's ass.
All-in-all a good outing, exciting, and I was entertained. Not as good as Casino Royale, but as good or better than many of the Bond movies.
Now that that is out of my system I feel better.
The acting by Craig and Dench is superb again. They both hit home runs with their portrayals of Bond and M. Wright, as Felix Leiter, seemed to think looking constipated equaled angst. Amalric was okay as the main villain, but really wasn't given much to work with. While Arterton was beautiful and did what she could with her role, the role really should have been written out of the movie and all her scenes should have been given to the other Bond girl, Kurylenko.
The plot was a bit confused and this was mainly because of the main girl, Camille. Bond was partly motivated by revenge and partly his duty to go after those who killed Vesper in Casino Royale. Camille's interference and need for revenge watered down his plot. And then there was the somewhat underdeveloped main plot of Greene buying worthless desert under which there was a ton of water that he was somehow holding ransom and using to topple governments. This was not presented in a way that allowed the audience to get on board and seemed to almost get in the way of Bond's need for revenge, as the focus of the movie shifted to him helping Camille get her's instead.
Most of the action and fight scenes were superb, except for the use of shaky-cam. Would have been considered great, actually, except for this fact. By themselves, Craig and Dench almost make me grade up against the grade down for the use of the shaky-cam, but they can't quite push it that far (tells you how irritated I am that people continue to use the device).
I have little idea how it ends because our sound kept cutting in and out and the final resolution of the story was the worst section. About 15 people complained and wanted passes or their money back. I normally would be leading the charge, but this is the fourth or fifth time, so I'm instead going to complain to corporate about this cinema, since I know the local manager could give a rat's ass.
All-in-all a good outing, exciting, and I was entertained. Not as good as Casino Royale, but as good or better than many of the Bond movies.
November 11, 2008
A Little Ego Boost
M asked me to review some documents one of her coworkers put together for her company. Not knowing the audience, intent, or how much latitude I would have in editing them, I jumped in intending to do the basics; make sure the document was parallel, check for consistency, review grammar and punctuation, etc. Nothing major. When I was done, I was pleased with the result but had a lot of questions. However, as this was not my project nor did I know the audience, I simply passed the document back to M and let her review my changes.
During the review, the changes I made caused her to ask me a ton of questions -- all questions I had thought of but chose not to ask as this was someone else's project -- and started her on the path of editing my edits as she realized that the document did not go into the depths she was hoping for.
In the end, after her umpteenth question to me and my umpteenth 'item to consider,' she said to me, "Tech writing is hard."
Most companies think having writers on staff is a luxury. Writers are often the first to be let go during layoffs and the last to be rehired. Many companies actually insist that technical writers have experience in programming before hiring them. For example, Microsoft used to insist that all their technical writers have five years of programming experience. Yet, most people point to Microsoft as a primary example of poor manuals and even worse help files.
Technical writers are bridges between the application (be it a program, or some other item, action, or process that needs to be explained) and the lay-people who will use the application. While having knowledge of programming (and any other technical aspect involved in the application, whatever it is) is a good trait to have, too much knowledge can lead to bad technical writing. This is because the technical knowledge gets in the way of the writer's ability to "speak" to the audience. In most cases, the audience is a person with little technical savvy and who just wants to use the application and have it work.
In grade school or junior high, many teachers use the exercise of having their students write out all the steps involved in telling someone who is not from this planet (but, inextricably, knows the language) how to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Most children write something like "Step 1, open the peanut butter jar, Step 2, spread on bread, Step 3, open jelly jar, Step 4, spread on bread, Step 5, eat." However, this skips many, many steps that someone who has never experienced this activity would have to take. For example, what are you spreading it with? How do you open the jar(s)? What does "spread" mean? Where did you get the bread? What kind of bread is it and does it have multiple sides onto which the spreading may occur? Maybe one child out of 100 writes more than about 10-15 steps for this assignment, and that one kid is the one who may have what it takes to be a technical writer.
Assumptions are the killers of good manuals and help files. Each time a technical writer makes an assumption for the audience, it increases the likelihood that someone will not "get it," will become lost or confused, and will not be helped by the information provided. Each time a person reaches this point, one of two things happens: either the person contacts customer support or their opinion of the help provided decreases until they stop using it altogether and they figure out some way of moving on without the knowledge they need (and often resulting in bad data, poor use of the application, and/or errors of various magnitude).
In my last job, I often said the help files and manuals were the user's first interaction with the company at a time when that user was confused and possibly angry. If what we wrote helped them answer their question or solve their problem, the entire company looks good as a result. If it doesn't, then the company looks bad and, if the user chooses to get assistance from support, they are already on their way toward being upset. The best technical writer can, and should, put support out of a job.
A great way to tell the quality of the technical writing involved in a project or application is to check the Index. If the index is one page or less for a standard book-sized manual, you probably will find the manual less than helpful. An index is a microcosm of the technical writer's ability to think about every way in which a user may try to look up or find the information they need within the manual. If the index only tells you the term as that application uses it, the user may not be comfortable or knowledgeable enough to know that term or to know to look up the activity they want to do by that term. So you should always have a more common term or phrase to describe the activity that is a likely way in which a user may name what they want to do. For example, one application I use terms all bullets of any sort as a List. And "List" is the only term by which the index refers to this process. Since I wanted a simple bullet, it took me quite a while before I found this action in the help file I was reviewing. The technical writer who put the help file together should have included terms like "bullets," "numbered lists," and maybe even "special characters" in the index, so people used to terms from other applications could find the same action in this application.
In the end, I got a big kick and a bit of an ego boost out of my wife's assertion that technical writing is hard. Yes, it is! Not everyone can divorce themselves from the technical aspects of what the application does to tell a person the actions they need to take to use it. And, while having technical knowledge is beneficial, it is important not to let that get in the way of making sure that someone without that same knowledge can get the job done.
During the review, the changes I made caused her to ask me a ton of questions -- all questions I had thought of but chose not to ask as this was someone else's project -- and started her on the path of editing my edits as she realized that the document did not go into the depths she was hoping for.
In the end, after her umpteenth question to me and my umpteenth 'item to consider,' she said to me, "Tech writing is hard."
Most companies think having writers on staff is a luxury. Writers are often the first to be let go during layoffs and the last to be rehired. Many companies actually insist that technical writers have experience in programming before hiring them. For example, Microsoft used to insist that all their technical writers have five years of programming experience. Yet, most people point to Microsoft as a primary example of poor manuals and even worse help files.
Technical writers are bridges between the application (be it a program, or some other item, action, or process that needs to be explained) and the lay-people who will use the application. While having knowledge of programming (and any other technical aspect involved in the application, whatever it is) is a good trait to have, too much knowledge can lead to bad technical writing. This is because the technical knowledge gets in the way of the writer's ability to "speak" to the audience. In most cases, the audience is a person with little technical savvy and who just wants to use the application and have it work.
In grade school or junior high, many teachers use the exercise of having their students write out all the steps involved in telling someone who is not from this planet (but, inextricably, knows the language) how to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Most children write something like "Step 1, open the peanut butter jar, Step 2, spread on bread, Step 3, open jelly jar, Step 4, spread on bread, Step 5, eat." However, this skips many, many steps that someone who has never experienced this activity would have to take. For example, what are you spreading it with? How do you open the jar(s)? What does "spread" mean? Where did you get the bread? What kind of bread is it and does it have multiple sides onto which the spreading may occur? Maybe one child out of 100 writes more than about 10-15 steps for this assignment, and that one kid is the one who may have what it takes to be a technical writer.
Assumptions are the killers of good manuals and help files. Each time a technical writer makes an assumption for the audience, it increases the likelihood that someone will not "get it," will become lost or confused, and will not be helped by the information provided. Each time a person reaches this point, one of two things happens: either the person contacts customer support or their opinion of the help provided decreases until they stop using it altogether and they figure out some way of moving on without the knowledge they need (and often resulting in bad data, poor use of the application, and/or errors of various magnitude).
In my last job, I often said the help files and manuals were the user's first interaction with the company at a time when that user was confused and possibly angry. If what we wrote helped them answer their question or solve their problem, the entire company looks good as a result. If it doesn't, then the company looks bad and, if the user chooses to get assistance from support, they are already on their way toward being upset. The best technical writer can, and should, put support out of a job.
A great way to tell the quality of the technical writing involved in a project or application is to check the Index. If the index is one page or less for a standard book-sized manual, you probably will find the manual less than helpful. An index is a microcosm of the technical writer's ability to think about every way in which a user may try to look up or find the information they need within the manual. If the index only tells you the term as that application uses it, the user may not be comfortable or knowledgeable enough to know that term or to know to look up the activity they want to do by that term. So you should always have a more common term or phrase to describe the activity that is a likely way in which a user may name what they want to do. For example, one application I use terms all bullets of any sort as a List. And "List" is the only term by which the index refers to this process. Since I wanted a simple bullet, it took me quite a while before I found this action in the help file I was reviewing. The technical writer who put the help file together should have included terms like "bullets," "numbered lists," and maybe even "special characters" in the index, so people used to terms from other applications could find the same action in this application.
In the end, I got a big kick and a bit of an ego boost out of my wife's assertion that technical writing is hard. Yes, it is! Not everyone can divorce themselves from the technical aspects of what the application does to tell a person the actions they need to take to use it. And, while having technical knowledge is beneficial, it is important not to let that get in the way of making sure that someone without that same knowledge can get the job done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)