OK, so the title should read "I Want My $52.97, but I'll Take $53 Please." But it's not as catchy. Why should it read that? Because that is the amount that Dave & Buster's at 1030 N. Clark St in Chicago, IL (aka Goldcoast) owes me for purchasing a battery charger for a video camera. I needed to purchase this charger so that I could complete a video job for their annual (used to be semi-annual) All Store Meeting. I completed the project on the 21st of January and shipped the video to them on the 22nd. They received it on the 23rd.
A little background here. I used to work for D&B. When I moved to Chicago in 2001 I befriended someone that is a wiz in video editing, though it's not his profession. He agreed to help me with this introduction video a few times. He eventually moved away and I coincidentally got a new laptop and took up the task of doing the editing. I continued to work for D&B until February 2005.
At that time, I figured I had done my last video. So I was very happy and honored to be asked to do their video a few months later. Since I no longer worked for them I decided to do a trade with them for my services. Over the years it was a good relationship. I got to have some fun and get paid (in trade) for it.
When I moved down to San Antonio in June of last year (2008) I figured I had not only done my last D&B video, but also my last ESPN Zone video. Imagine my surprise at getting a text message saying in a somewhat matter-of-fact way that I was doing this year's video. I laughed at first and replied that they needed to send the camera, tape, and my trade payment along with a return label. I was told that would be no problem.
A week or so later the package arrives sans payment. And sans battery charger or power cord for the camera. A back and forth happens and eventually a week later I just go ahead and buy a battery charger. From Circuit City no less as they are the ONLY store in my city that carries this charger. No one else has it unless I want to order it online. I don't have that kind of time. It was agreed that I would be reimbursed monetarily too, not additional trade.
When I leave the store, things only get better. I walk out to find that I have a flat tire. Oh, and my spare is flat, of course. So another $80 or so spent, watch the inauguration at Firestone, then head home to finally import the entire footage. Around 4AM the next morning I finish the editing and I set the computer (the same computer I bought 5 years ago BTW) on the task of creating the movie file so I can watch it on the big screen TV. That afternoon it's all finished and two DVDs are burned. The next afternoon I go to FedEx to return everything.
A week goes by and I still haven't received my money (or trade). I inquire with my contact and am assured it will be sent. Another week, and the trade comes and more assurances the cash will be sent. A third week and I talk with the person that is actually in charge of getting the money and shipping it to me and assured it will be sent. ANOTHER WEEK and I am told, "you'll have it by Wednesday." That was yesterday, and today I'm writing a blog about it at 4:15AM. WTF? Cue Johnny:
Seriously. 4 weeks, and 20 newspapers later and I still haven't been paid. So it's time to take it to the next level. I am no longer Johnny the Paperboy from Better Off Dead. I am now Stewie from Family Guy. Cue Stewie:
Cue my hourly tweets to this blogpost via Twuffer. Cue my phone call to the GM when I wake up in the morning. And Cue me making private all of D&B Goldcoast's videos I (and my friend) have done over the years until I get paid. For an example of what they look like, feel free to go to my You Tube page and watch the ESPN Zone videos:
My You Tube Page
This is ridiculous. I mean, seriously. It's not like I'm destitute and am in dire need of $52.97. I'm not. The point is I shelled out my own money, spent time and gas, and had the fun time of sitting in a Firestone getting a new tire to complete a video that I was getting paid (in trade) about 1/10 of what a professional would get paid (plus the licensing fees for the music). All because I still know people there and do it as kind of a favor as they have no one else to do it. I also enjoy it tremendously.
So where's my money?
l8r,
Marz
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
Show Me the Money
So President Obama announced his salary cap for executives at companies receiving financial assistance from us, the taxpayers. $500,000. Of course, there is a loophole of sorts. Companies that already received money are grandfathered. While on first look most people will view this as a good thing, I don't. And I'll explain why it's not "fair" like Obama claims it is.
First of all, I understand why we have this animosity towards executives at the Wall Street firms, banks, and auto makers for getting huge bonuses, going on junkets, sponsoring Superbowl "Fan Experiences", and flying to Congress in their private jets with "hat-in-hand." I get it. Some of these things are just boneheaded. However some of these cannot be changed due to the contractual obligations of the companies involved. And while many people feel taking the company jet being wasteful, it was more wasteful for those Big-3 Auto execs to drive themselves cross-country (in 3 different vehicles by the way), than to decide to jet pool. That travel time probably cost their companies more than taking a jet.
Anyway, the problem I have with this is it's changing the rules in the middle of the game. We gave these bozos $700mil dollars of our money with effectively no oversight. Thanks, Hank. So why are we upset that they decided to use it however they felt was appropriate for the survival of themselves, er, I mean their companies? The problem is we gave them the money in the first place, instead of playing hardball by telling them to slash their payrolls without laying off people. Take commercial flights. Cancel the junkets, parties, etc. Focus on cost-cutting, building your brand, advertising, and making products that people want to and can afford to buy.
But, no. We were sold a bill of goods. It was so bad that we were on the verge of collapse if we didn't pass this bill on that day day, at that hour. If we waited even just another week, we would see rioting in the streets. No offense to the Europeans already experiencing this. We let the same bunch of crooks that got us into the mess decide how much money was going to be doled out and to whom. They all know each other, worked for each other, and therefore will take care of each other. And now, we need to spend another $800mil - $1tril?
So back to this salary cap. It's on future help to companies. OK, fine. So when Acme, Inc. decides it needs help and Joe Executive makes $5mil, his VPs make $2mil ea, and some other execs make $750k, maybe if they just did their own cost-cutting of the highest paid guys they could weather some bad times? Of course, they don't and just do freezes on raises for everyone. That means the 50%+ employees making minimum wage or just above get screwed at trying to stay even, and Joe Executive still gets his money.
Of course, the more money you have, the more money you spend. In general. Joe Executive is no different than Six Pack Joe. Just that Joe E. buys more expensive beer. No Natty Light for him, only Samuel Adams Utopias will do. Joe E. doesn't live in a double-wide, he lives in one of several 10-room mansions. But I'm not faulting Joey E. It's his money, and he can spend it, or not spend it, any way he wants.
My issue with today's announcement is the government coming up with a maximum wage. Yeah, it's only tied to government aid. Buy why $500k? Why not, $250k, $1mil, $100k? We already have a minimum wage. We need a maximum? Didn't I warn about Obama taking us down the path of Socialism a couple months ago?
It starts with this, then government contractors who are financially stable, then large businesses, and finally little Joey E. who has that lemonade stand on the corner. They tie the maximum wage to a company's gross revenue. So little Joey E. has a hard time expanding and getting ahead in his personal life, because he doesn't sell enough lemonade for him to upgrade from a 3-speed to a 10-speed bicycle.
I feel that a person should be compensated for his or her work. If you want to add a bonus based upon some kind of score or performance level, fine. But it shouldn't be something that is automatic. The bonus (or commission) should be reasonable.
If Acme, Inc. decides that it's CEO is worth $22mil, then they should be able to pay him that. If the company underperforms and their CEO isn't performing, either fire him or cut his pay. But it should be the market doing this, not government.
Here is what should have happened with the bailout money. An oversight committee of some sort should have been created. Any company requesting assistance should have been audited to explore what cost-cutting measures (including payroll reductions, but avoid layoffs initially), should be implemented first. This allows the company to do everything it can to trim the fat short of firing employees.
If a company has already done that, give them the money. But let them know it comes with restrictions. You don't necessarily need to tell that company it's capped at $500k for its executives. Some smaller companies might not pay their CEO that much anyway. And those that pay their CEO tens of millions may not realistically be able to cut that CEO's salary to $500k. Use the model of those credit counseling companies. Make arrangements on how to reduce your debt and if you break that arrangement, then you're stuck with your debt.
The key is, there should have been conditions to being able to get this money, and penalties for abusing the aid. But Paulson and his cronies figured that they could just give away the money and the public wouldn't get outraged. Now the Congress is red-faced in embarrassment and outrage for being duped. And so John Q. Public.
Get rid of this salary cap. It's a bad idea. It's only there to make us "feel good" about sticking it to these evil executives. We gave them the money with no stipulations. If they screw up, then let them. Let the companies that use the money wisely come out ahead, and the companies that don't fail or get bought out.
If not, then have all of us just make $500k/yr regardless of our job. If you want fairness, then everyone just gets paid the same amount of money. We don't own anything. The government gives us our homes. We get rations of food. Oh wait, didn't someone already try that a few times? Communism anyone?
First of all, I understand why we have this animosity towards executives at the Wall Street firms, banks, and auto makers for getting huge bonuses, going on junkets, sponsoring Superbowl "Fan Experiences", and flying to Congress in their private jets with "hat-in-hand." I get it. Some of these things are just boneheaded. However some of these cannot be changed due to the contractual obligations of the companies involved. And while many people feel taking the company jet being wasteful, it was more wasteful for those Big-3 Auto execs to drive themselves cross-country (in 3 different vehicles by the way), than to decide to jet pool. That travel time probably cost their companies more than taking a jet.
Anyway, the problem I have with this is it's changing the rules in the middle of the game. We gave these bozos $700mil dollars of our money with effectively no oversight. Thanks, Hank. So why are we upset that they decided to use it however they felt was appropriate for the survival of themselves, er, I mean their companies? The problem is we gave them the money in the first place, instead of playing hardball by telling them to slash their payrolls without laying off people. Take commercial flights. Cancel the junkets, parties, etc. Focus on cost-cutting, building your brand, advertising, and making products that people want to and can afford to buy.
But, no. We were sold a bill of goods. It was so bad that we were on the verge of collapse if we didn't pass this bill on that day day, at that hour. If we waited even just another week, we would see rioting in the streets. No offense to the Europeans already experiencing this. We let the same bunch of crooks that got us into the mess decide how much money was going to be doled out and to whom. They all know each other, worked for each other, and therefore will take care of each other. And now, we need to spend another $800mil - $1tril?
So back to this salary cap. It's on future help to companies. OK, fine. So when Acme, Inc. decides it needs help and Joe Executive makes $5mil, his VPs make $2mil ea, and some other execs make $750k, maybe if they just did their own cost-cutting of the highest paid guys they could weather some bad times? Of course, they don't and just do freezes on raises for everyone. That means the 50%+ employees making minimum wage or just above get screwed at trying to stay even, and Joe Executive still gets his money.
Of course, the more money you have, the more money you spend. In general. Joe Executive is no different than Six Pack Joe. Just that Joe E. buys more expensive beer. No Natty Light for him, only Samuel Adams Utopias will do. Joe E. doesn't live in a double-wide, he lives in one of several 10-room mansions. But I'm not faulting Joey E. It's his money, and he can spend it, or not spend it, any way he wants.
My issue with today's announcement is the government coming up with a maximum wage. Yeah, it's only tied to government aid. Buy why $500k? Why not, $250k, $1mil, $100k? We already have a minimum wage. We need a maximum? Didn't I warn about Obama taking us down the path of Socialism a couple months ago?
It starts with this, then government contractors who are financially stable, then large businesses, and finally little Joey E. who has that lemonade stand on the corner. They tie the maximum wage to a company's gross revenue. So little Joey E. has a hard time expanding and getting ahead in his personal life, because he doesn't sell enough lemonade for him to upgrade from a 3-speed to a 10-speed bicycle.
I feel that a person should be compensated for his or her work. If you want to add a bonus based upon some kind of score or performance level, fine. But it shouldn't be something that is automatic. The bonus (or commission) should be reasonable.
If Acme, Inc. decides that it's CEO is worth $22mil, then they should be able to pay him that. If the company underperforms and their CEO isn't performing, either fire him or cut his pay. But it should be the market doing this, not government.
Here is what should have happened with the bailout money. An oversight committee of some sort should have been created. Any company requesting assistance should have been audited to explore what cost-cutting measures (including payroll reductions, but avoid layoffs initially), should be implemented first. This allows the company to do everything it can to trim the fat short of firing employees.
If a company has already done that, give them the money. But let them know it comes with restrictions. You don't necessarily need to tell that company it's capped at $500k for its executives. Some smaller companies might not pay their CEO that much anyway. And those that pay their CEO tens of millions may not realistically be able to cut that CEO's salary to $500k. Use the model of those credit counseling companies. Make arrangements on how to reduce your debt and if you break that arrangement, then you're stuck with your debt.
The key is, there should have been conditions to being able to get this money, and penalties for abusing the aid. But Paulson and his cronies figured that they could just give away the money and the public wouldn't get outraged. Now the Congress is red-faced in embarrassment and outrage for being duped. And so John Q. Public.
Get rid of this salary cap. It's a bad idea. It's only there to make us "feel good" about sticking it to these evil executives. We gave them the money with no stipulations. If they screw up, then let them. Let the companies that use the money wisely come out ahead, and the companies that don't fail or get bought out.
If not, then have all of us just make $500k/yr regardless of our job. If you want fairness, then everyone just gets paid the same amount of money. We don't own anything. The government gives us our homes. We get rations of food. Oh wait, didn't someone already try that a few times? Communism anyone?
Monday, January 26, 2009
OS X meet Trojans, Trojans meet OS X
While trojans or virii aren't really a new thing to OS X technically, the proliferation of them has been very limited. One of the things I've used to lure people to the Mac platform is that fact that OS X really doesn't suffer from getting infected. There are exploits to the system, but that's mainly websites or vulnerabilities in something like QuickTime.
Windows users are more familiar with these things than OS X users. For the OS X user, you could download software or mp3s to your heart's content and never worry about some piece of malicious code being installed. You could open e-mails with wild abandon knowing that if that PowerPoint attachment was really a trojan, nothing would happen to you since it's an .exe file and won't run on OS X. Surf the darkest corners of the Internet and come out unscathed (meaning the OS, not you necessarily).
Well, those days have been slowly coming to a close. The fact that exploits have to be written so that OS X can run it still means you can mostly do all of the above with no problem. The vast majority of this stuff is for Windows. So even if you do go to a bad website, most likely the exploit they have there can't harm you. That PowerPoint file will just not run. The mp3 will not play. And the software will probably run just fine since you were downloading the OS X version.
Below is an article detailing two new trojans that are in pirated versions of iWork '09 and Adobe's CS4. To me, this is the true beginning of OS X finally showing up on the radar as being viable to target. Here is the article:
New OS X Trojans
As I discussed with one of my Twitter friends, the tech savvy will probably not be affected to much by this. And the non-tech savvy will probably be affected a little bit. iWork is pretty cheap and I don't see that many people downloading this. However CS 4 is pretty expensive, but has a relatively small user base. Especially those that will pirate it. Even so, there will be people who will download these pirated copies that are infected. And they probably will get infected since many people don't use an Anti-virus on OS X.
So do I use an Anti-virus program myself? No. A lot of that is because it really hasn't been needed for OS X. However, I also consider myself as someone that "knows better." Even with the fact that there really hasn't been anything bad for OS X, every year I get more cautious with being exposed to those bad things mentioned above. I'm just smart about it.
Having an AV is a good thing in general, but it also runs the risk of giving people a false sense of security that their AV will protect them. You really do need to think of an AV like birth control. Nothing is 100%. Some are better than others, and if used improperly, won't protect you from pregnancy or an STD. Not using an AV can be very risky if you don't know what to look for. I'm not saying that the sex-savvy can just go around having unprotected sex though ;)
Anyway, these two trojans really won't affect me too much. I already have safe practices in how I use my computer. Plus I have no plans on downloading these two programs. I plan on buying iWork when I get a new computer, and I have no use for CS4.
I'm also going to paste my comment I posted to the above article. It was the reason for me actually wanting to do a blog post. It addresses some of the comments from other posters:
Just to address a few things.
1. Why do people steal software? Many reasons:
One, because they can. Some people just like to collect software. Even if they will never use it.
Two, money. While most of us feel that $80 isn't a lot of money to spend on iWork, others may feel it's too much but still feel they must have it instead of saving up the $80.
Three, they are trying to "hook up" a friend. Even if they actually bought it for themselves, they may give a copy to a friend or download it for them.
Four, OS X's relative security till now. Up until now, there really hasn't been any credible threat to someone's system if they did download something. Even mp3s. My guess is that as this story gets more circulation, many would be pirates will decide it's not worth it anymore. Or they'll install anti-virus software in the hopes of it protecting them.
2. MD 5 hash.
Someone mentioned to check the MD 5 hash. Someone else said it was easy to fake. Yes and No. MD5 is no longer as trusted as it once was. This much is true. However, it's not easy to fake. I mean if getting 200 PS3 to do the crack is easy to you, go right ahead. Re: http://www.itproportal.com/articles/2009/01/05/md5-algorithm-cracked-using-gaming-consoles/
3. It's OK to steal CS4, but not iWork.
One poster mentioned the difference in price and how he could see someone stealing CS4. Another poster replied to him asking why it's OK to steal it. I don't think the original poster was saying it was OK to steal CS4, just understanding why someone would since it is very expensive. They also (I think it was the same person) added justification (to them) by claiming Adobe is out to screw people. Be that as it may, one reason software companies charge so much (and it's not the only reason) is to make up for theft. Common practice in Retail. If someone steals an item out of the store, the price of that item is partially set to help recover the cost of someone stealing it.
4. Anti-Virus software won't protect you.
Another Yes and No answer. First of all, no one AV program will be able to completely protect you. And even multiple ones aren't 100% effective. Mainly because of their virus definitions database. An AV is only as good as its DB. A virus or trojan that is new probably won't be in any AV's database for awhile, so you could get infected. Also, depending on how the AV is set, it's possible for the virus or trojan to get installed even if it is in the AV's database. However, an AV could prevent the installation of a virus or trojan if it has scanned the file prior to it being executed, or the e-mail prior to the person reading it. So, Intego's claim that their AV could protect someone would be valid.
5. Intego telling people it's OK to steal if you have their software.
I don't read it as that entirely. I read it as they say don't do it. However, to protect yourself from these two trojans it wouldn't hurt to have their AV. It's not like these two trojans couldn't be used in something else. I'm getting outside of my knowledge here on this one, but I would say it's possible for either trojan to be put into an e-mail and distributed. I might be wrong on this one. But I can see how one could read their statement as saying "Don't steal, but if you want to, use us to protect you."
Guess that's it for me on this. Just my $0.02 x 100 ;)
Windows users are more familiar with these things than OS X users. For the OS X user, you could download software or mp3s to your heart's content and never worry about some piece of malicious code being installed. You could open e-mails with wild abandon knowing that if that PowerPoint attachment was really a trojan, nothing would happen to you since it's an .exe file and won't run on OS X. Surf the darkest corners of the Internet and come out unscathed (meaning the OS, not you necessarily).
Well, those days have been slowly coming to a close. The fact that exploits have to be written so that OS X can run it still means you can mostly do all of the above with no problem. The vast majority of this stuff is for Windows. So even if you do go to a bad website, most likely the exploit they have there can't harm you. That PowerPoint file will just not run. The mp3 will not play. And the software will probably run just fine since you were downloading the OS X version.
Below is an article detailing two new trojans that are in pirated versions of iWork '09 and Adobe's CS4. To me, this is the true beginning of OS X finally showing up on the radar as being viable to target. Here is the article:
New OS X Trojans
As I discussed with one of my Twitter friends, the tech savvy will probably not be affected to much by this. And the non-tech savvy will probably be affected a little bit. iWork is pretty cheap and I don't see that many people downloading this. However CS 4 is pretty expensive, but has a relatively small user base. Especially those that will pirate it. Even so, there will be people who will download these pirated copies that are infected. And they probably will get infected since many people don't use an Anti-virus on OS X.
So do I use an Anti-virus program myself? No. A lot of that is because it really hasn't been needed for OS X. However, I also consider myself as someone that "knows better." Even with the fact that there really hasn't been anything bad for OS X, every year I get more cautious with being exposed to those bad things mentioned above. I'm just smart about it.
Having an AV is a good thing in general, but it also runs the risk of giving people a false sense of security that their AV will protect them. You really do need to think of an AV like birth control. Nothing is 100%. Some are better than others, and if used improperly, won't protect you from pregnancy or an STD. Not using an AV can be very risky if you don't know what to look for. I'm not saying that the sex-savvy can just go around having unprotected sex though ;)
Anyway, these two trojans really won't affect me too much. I already have safe practices in how I use my computer. Plus I have no plans on downloading these two programs. I plan on buying iWork when I get a new computer, and I have no use for CS4.
I'm also going to paste my comment I posted to the above article. It was the reason for me actually wanting to do a blog post. It addresses some of the comments from other posters:
Just to address a few things.
1. Why do people steal software? Many reasons:
One, because they can. Some people just like to collect software. Even if they will never use it.
Two, money. While most of us feel that $80 isn't a lot of money to spend on iWork, others may feel it's too much but still feel they must have it instead of saving up the $80.
Three, they are trying to "hook up" a friend. Even if they actually bought it for themselves, they may give a copy to a friend or download it for them.
Four, OS X's relative security till now. Up until now, there really hasn't been any credible threat to someone's system if they did download something. Even mp3s. My guess is that as this story gets more circulation, many would be pirates will decide it's not worth it anymore. Or they'll install anti-virus software in the hopes of it protecting them.
2. MD 5 hash.
Someone mentioned to check the MD 5 hash. Someone else said it was easy to fake. Yes and No. MD5 is no longer as trusted as it once was. This much is true. However, it's not easy to fake. I mean if getting 200 PS3 to do the crack is easy to you, go right ahead. Re: http://www.itproportal.com/articles/2009/01/05/md5-algorithm-cracked-using-gaming-consoles/
3. It's OK to steal CS4, but not iWork.
One poster mentioned the difference in price and how he could see someone stealing CS4. Another poster replied to him asking why it's OK to steal it. I don't think the original poster was saying it was OK to steal CS4, just understanding why someone would since it is very expensive. They also (I think it was the same person) added justification (to them) by claiming Adobe is out to screw people. Be that as it may, one reason software companies charge so much (and it's not the only reason) is to make up for theft. Common practice in Retail. If someone steals an item out of the store, the price of that item is partially set to help recover the cost of someone stealing it.
4. Anti-Virus software won't protect you.
Another Yes and No answer. First of all, no one AV program will be able to completely protect you. And even multiple ones aren't 100% effective. Mainly because of their virus definitions database. An AV is only as good as its DB. A virus or trojan that is new probably won't be in any AV's database for awhile, so you could get infected. Also, depending on how the AV is set, it's possible for the virus or trojan to get installed even if it is in the AV's database. However, an AV could prevent the installation of a virus or trojan if it has scanned the file prior to it being executed, or the e-mail prior to the person reading it. So, Intego's claim that their AV could protect someone would be valid.
5. Intego telling people it's OK to steal if you have their software.
I don't read it as that entirely. I read it as they say don't do it. However, to protect yourself from these two trojans it wouldn't hurt to have their AV. It's not like these two trojans couldn't be used in something else. I'm getting outside of my knowledge here on this one, but I would say it's possible for either trojan to be put into an e-mail and distributed. I might be wrong on this one. But I can see how one could read their statement as saying "Don't steal, but if you want to, use us to protect you."
Guess that's it for me on this. Just my $0.02 x 100 ;)
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Monday, December 08, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
facebook friend
twitter friend
viddler friend
myspace friend
