New:

Popular:

Conversation:

Hand Picked:

TiVo the verb December 14th, 2004

After reading about TiVo‘s objection to the use of its brand as a verb I decided to find out why this might be. I wrote the following question at the media enquiries section of the site (hey, I’m media). It’s badly formatted and it took four attempts to submit it (glad I copy-pasted it from Word) due to the ridiculously short form entry field (450 characters) and its apparent refusal to accept standard punctuation (semi-colons and equal signs) – although it didn’t bother to tell me this bit.

I read (www.engadget.com/entry/1234000370023599) with interest your objection to TiVo being used as a verb. This surprises me. I associate ‘TiVo’ as a leading DVR, and I have likely used it as a verb (I don’t currently own any DVR). Corporate history shows successful front-runners become household names (Hoover – vacuum, Xerox – photocopy, Sellotape – sticky cellophane, etc) I’m interested to know why this is a problem to you.

I wonder what the reply will be.

Jobsworth December 13th, 2004

Oh the saga of Facilities continues.

On Friday I had a personal package delivered which apparently set off the scanning device as being something dangerous (how dangerous a 5-inch tall USB Christmas tree can be I am not sure). I was in a training course, but when I returned I wrote an apologetic email:

Apologies if my package today looked like a bomb – I haven’t opened it yet so not sure what would make it look like one, over any other electrical things I have had delivered here in the past. Sorry for any alarm. I will let you know if anything is due to be delivered in future.

I got a slightly snotty email from Mr Jobsworth Facilities (Deputy):

Andrew

according to the 3 different people who looked at your parcel through our mail scanner unit, it looked like some sort of device that had the potential to cause harm though not necessarily a bomb.

How often do you have packages delivered here?
I’m assuming that any packages you have delivered here are for work purposes? If they are not, can I ask you to have them delivered to your home address.

In future, please contact Facilities prior to anything turning up.

Your co-operation would be appreciated.

(I particularly like the How often do you… and the I’m assuming… lines.)

I probably shouldn’t have replied, but I get wound up by people who use this tone:

I occasionally have packages delivered here. I had one electrical item delivered here about 4 months ago, and I ordered a couple of books from Amazon a few months ago also. I apologise that I have wrongly assumed that the BHF is happy for people at work to have personal packages occasionally delivered to work premises because the need to be signed for or have someone present.

Please can you amend the House Rules to make this clear, as I do not recall reading anything to suggest that the occasional personal delivery is a problem.

I won’t have anything else delivered here in future (and there is nothing outstanding) – I will just have to take annual leave in order to allow deliveries to be made.

Regards

Andy Merrett

I thought this was fairly reasonable, given that many companies take deliveries for their employees when it’s difficult to receive them at home, and also given the other email that he sent out on Friday afternoon:

Good afternoon,

Some virtual greyhound racing, betting slips (Ladbrokes) have been delivered into the Foundation via a Royal Mail Special Delivery.

There is no contact name on the packaging, if these betting slips are yours, please contact me & I’ll hand them over.

If you do not want people to know that these betting slips are yours, I can be trusted to keep my trap shut! Apologies for that, it’s been a very long week.

Oh, so those are OK, are they, even though they are personal and also betting-related (which I thought was against Foundation policies…)

This morning I found this lovely reply – I will comment on it as it goes along:

why would we encourage staff to have items of a personal nature delivered to the office?
(I never said it was encouraged, I just didn’t see anywhere that is was discouraged. I am not expecting the Foundation to compel people to have personal packages delivered, just to accept without fuss the occasional one that can’t be delivered elsewhere)

The people charged with having to open post & scan packages each morning are busy enough as it is.
(One package, one package – there’s enough crap that arrives that is nothing to do with me)

Occasionally, staff do have credit cards etc, delivered to Head Office which we are happy to sign for providing they tell us in advance.
(Again, this isn’t mentioned in any House Rules, Facilities guides, or anything – that’s all I asked for – not a lecture!)

A couple of years back, like you (Oh, like me, was she? Except female? Or are you just rubbing in the fact that I broke your jobsworth rules?), a former (Hmmm, sorry, is that a threat? Or a hope?) member of staff neglected to tell us that she was expecting a parcel to be delivered into the Foundation. The parcel contained a carriage clock & when scanned this also looked like a device (What are these devices exactly?). In the interest of safety we were forced to evacuate the building & call the bomb squad. In total the building had to be evacuated for 2 hours.

Additionally, the bomb squad were not best pleased that their valuable time & resources had been wasted. (By Facilities)
Perhaps you can now see why we might not encourage staff to have personal packages delivered here.
(I didn’t ASK for you to ENCOURAGE people to send their personal packages here!!! And in any case, why would only personal packages be a potential threat – do work-related things never scan like ‘devices’)

I also have parcels delivered to my home when I’m not there. I find that if they cannot deliver they nearly always leave a card explaining how It can be collected or redelivered.
(Yeah, actually the web site stipulates that someone must be available to sign for the package – I tend to go by what the delivery company says, not Mr Jobsworth’s experiences. Nearly always does not equal always)

Rather than take a days holiday, I arrange to pick it up at a weekend or have it delivered to a neighbour or relation, making sure that they know to expect it of course.
(Keep on rubbing it in won’t you? I don’t have any relations nearby, and all my neighbours work.)

I hope this explains why the Foundation is reluctant to encourage staff to have packages of a personal nature delivered here.(Not really, it just makes you look a total Jobsworth.)

I’ve witheld the Jobsworth’s name for my own sanity, rather than because of the risk of getting into trouble.

Update:

The Jobsworth just has to reiterate things ad nauseum. Today at work there’s a special raffle which is not worth detailing, but it involved sending £1 to someone. After the initial email, the recipient sent this succinct email:

Postroom Man has asked that nobody sends this money through the internal post.

Thanks

Recipient

That’s fine. Jobsworth then sends this email:

Following on from originator‘s earlier e-mail where he asked for all money to be given to recipient.

Can I ask anyone purchasing raffle tickets to personally deliver the money to recipient.
Already, some people have been leaving cash in envelopes in internal post trays around the building.
While Postroom Man would normally be happy to assist in helping toward such a worthy cause, it is always strongly advisable not to send cash through the post, be it internal or external.

Thank you for your co-operation.

Oh please – did we need the verbosity? Recipient‘s email was far better.

Electronic Arts: The human story December 9th, 2004

Posted in sympathy, empathy and solidarity (though thank God I am not in this situation) – this is just plain wrong.

Original Post: 10 November 2004

My significant other works for Electronic Arts, and I’m what you might call a disgruntled spouse.

EA’s bright and shiny new corporate trademark is “Challenge Everything.” Where this applies is not exactly clear. Churning out one licensed football game after another doesn’t sound like challenging much of anything to me; it sounds like a money farm. To any EA executive that happens to read this, I have a good challenge for you: how about safe and sane labor practices for the people on whose backs you walk for your millions?

I am retaining some anonymity here because I have no illusions about what the consequences would be for my family if I was explicit. However, I also feel no impetus to shy away from sharing our story, because I know that it is too common to stick out among those of the thousands of engineers, artists, and designers that EA employs.

Our adventures with Electronic Arts began less than a year ago. The small game studio that my partner worked for collapsed as a result of foul play on the part of a big publisher — another common story. Electronic Arts offered a job, the salary was right and the benefits were good, so my SO took it. I remember that they asked him in one of the interviews: “how do you feel about working long hours?” It’s just a part of the game industry — few studios can avoid a crunch as deadlines loom, so we thought nothing of it. When asked for specifics about what “working long hours” meant, the interviewers coughed and glossed on to the next question; now we know why.

Within weeks production had accelerated into a ‘mild’ crunch: eight hours six days a week. Not bad. Months remained until any real crunch would start, and the team was told that this “pre-crunch” was to prevent a big crunch toward the end; at this point any other need for a crunch seemed unlikely, as the project was dead on schedule. I don’t know how many of the developers bought EA’s explanation for the extended hours; we were new and naive so we did. The producers even set a deadline; they gave a specific date for the end of the crunch, which was still months away from the title’s shipping date, so it seemed safe. That date came and went. And went, and went. When the next news came it was not about a reprieve; it was another acceleration: twelve hours six days a week, 9am to 10pm.

Weeks passed. Again the producers had given a termination date on this crunch that again they failed. Throughout this period the project remained on schedule. The long hours started to take its toll on the team; people grew irritable and some started to get ill. People dropped out in droves for a couple of days at a time, but then the team seemed to reach equilibrium again and they plowed ahead. The managers stopped even talking about a day when the hours would go back to normal.

Now, it seems, is the “real” crunch, the one that the producers of this title so wisely prepared their team for by running them into the ground ahead of time. The current mandatory hours are 9am to 10pm — seven days a week — with the occasional Saturday evening off for good behavior (at 6:30pm). This averages out to an eighty-five hour work week. Complaints that these once more extended hours combined with the team’s existing fatigue would result in a greater number of mistakes made and an even greater amount of wasted energy were ignored.

The stress is taking its toll. After a certain number of hours spent working the eyes start to lose focus; after a certain number of weeks with only one day off fatigue starts to accrue and accumulate exponentially. There is a reason why there are two days in a weekend — bad things happen to one’s physical, emotional, and mental health if these days are cut short. The team is rapidly beginning to introduce as many flaws as they are removing.

And the kicker: for the honor of this treatment EA salaried employees receive a) no overtime; b) no compensation time! (‘comp’ time is the equalization of time off for overtime — any hours spent during a crunch accrue into days off after the product has shipped); c) no additional sick or vacation leave. The time just goes away. Additionally, EA recently announced that, although in the past they have offered essentially a type of comp time in the form of a few weeks off at the end of a project, they no longer wish to do this, and employees shouldn’t expect it. Further, since the production of various games is scattered, there was a concern on the part of the employees that developers would leave one crunch only to join another. EA’s response was that they would attempt to minimize this, but would make no guarantees. This is unthinkable; they are pushing the team to individual physical health limits, and literally giving them nothing for it. Comp time is a staple in this industry, but EA as a corporation wishes to “minimize” this reprieve. One would think that the proper way to minimize comp time is to avoid crunch, but this brutal crunch has been on for months, and nary a whisper about any compensation leave, nor indeed of any end of this treatment.

This crunch also differs from crunch time in a smaller studio in that it was not an emergency effort to save a project from failure. Every step of the way, the project remained on schedule. Crunching neither accelerated this nor slowed it down; its effect on the actual product was not measurable. The extended hours were deliberate and planned; the management knew what they were doing as they did it. The love of my life comes home late at night complaining of a headache that will not go away and a chronically upset stomach, and my happy supportive smile is running out.

No one works in the game industry unless they love what they do. No one on that team is interested in producing an inferior product. My heart bleeds for this team precisely BECAUSE they are brilliant, talented individuals out to create something great. They are and were more than willing to work hard for the success of the title. But that good will has only been met with abuse. Amazingly, Electronic Arts was listed #91 on Fortune magazine’s “100 Best Companies to Work For” in 2003.

EA’s attitude toward this — which is actually a part of company policy, it now appears — has been (in an anonymous quotation that I’ve heard repeated by multiple managers), “If they don’t like it, they can work someplace else.” Put up or shut up and leave: this is the core of EA’s Human Resources policy. The concept of ethics or compassion or even intelligence with regard to getting the most out of one’s workforce never enters the equation: if they don’t want to sacrifice their lives and their health and their talent so that a multibillion dollar corporation can continue its Godzilla-stomp through the game industry, they can work someplace else.

But can they?

The EA Mambo, paired with other giants such as Vivendi, Sony, and Microsoft, is rapidly either crushing or absorbing the vast majority of the business in game development. A few standalone studios that made their fortunes in previous eras — Blizzard, Bioware, and Id come to mind — manage to still survive, but 2004 saw the collapse of dozens of small game studios, no longer able to acquire contracts in the face of rapid and massive consolidation of game publishing companies. This is an epidemic hardly unfamiliar to anyone working in the industry. Though, of course, it is always the option of talent to go outside the industry, perhaps venturing into the booming commercial software development arena. (Read my tired attempt at sarcasm.)

To put some of this in perspective, I myself consider some figures. If EA truly believes that it needs to push its employees this hard — I actually believe that they don’t, and that it is a skewed operations perspective alone that results in the severity of their crunching, coupled with a certain expected amount of the inefficiency involved in running an enterprise as large as theirs — the solution therefore should be to hire more engineers, or artists, or designers, as the case may be. Never should it be an option to punish one’s workforce with ninety hour weeks; in any other industry the company in question would find itself sued out of business so fast its stock wouldn’t even have time to tank. In its first weekend, Madden 2005 grossed $65 million. EA’s annual revenue is approximately $2.5 billion. This company is not strapped for cash; their labor practices are inexcusable.

The interesting thing about this is an assumption that most of the employees seem to be operating under. Whenever the subject of hours come up, inevitably, it seems, someone mentions ‘exemption’. They refer to a California law that supposedly exempts businesses from having to pay overtime to certain ‘specialty’ employees, including software programmers. This is Senate Bill 88. However, Senate Bill 88 specifically does not apply to the entertainment industry — television, motion picture, and theater industries are specifically mentioned. Further, even in software, there is a pay minimum on the exemption: those exempt must be paid at least $90,000 annually. I can assure you that the majority of EA employees are in fact not in this pay bracket; ergo, these practices are not only unethical, they are illegal.

I look at our situation and I ask ‘us’: why do you stay? And the answer is that in all likelihood we won’t; and in all likelihood if we had known that this would be the result of working for EA, we would have stayed far away in the first place. But all along the way there were deceptions, there were promises, there were assurances — there was a big fancy office building with an expensive fish tank — all of which in the end look like an elaborate scheme to keep a crop of employees on the project just long enough to get it shipped. And then if they need to, they hire in a new batch, fresh and ready to hear more promises that will not be kept; EA’s turnover rate in engineering is approximately 50%. This is how EA works. So now we know, now we can move on, right? That seems to be what happens to everyone else. But it’s not enough. Because in the end, regardless of what happens with our particular situation, this kind of “business” isn’t right, and people need to know about it, which is why I write this today.

If I could get EA CEO Larry Probst on the phone, there are a few things I would ask him. “What’s your salary?” would be merely a point of curiosity. The main thing I want to know is, Larry: you do realize what you’re doing to your people, right? And you do realize that they ARE people, with physical limits, emotional lives, and families, right? Voices and talents and senses of humor and all that? That when you keep our husbands and wives and children in the office for ninety hours a week, sending them home exhausted and numb and frustrated with their lives, it’s not just them you’re hurting, but everyone around them, everyone who loves them? When you make your profit calculations and your cost analyses, you know that a great measure of that cost is being paid in raw human dignity, right?

Right?

This article is offered under the Creative Commons deed. Please feel free to redistribute/link.

Website why? December 8th, 2004

Sometimes I go to a domain name, like rytec.co.uk, and I just ask “why?”.

But then I am sure people do that to my site too.

England or Britain? December 8th, 2004

Just overheard people discussing fundraising ideas for St George’s Day. One was heard to say “Britain, England, oh it doesn’t really matter”. Hmm, try using that line with someone from Scotland or Wales. Geri Haliwell in her Union Jack outfit? I don’t think so…

Homosexuality: Responding with love not statistics December 6th, 2004

I don’t like to criticise other Christian ministries, when I hope that the heart behind the statements is love, but I get really annoyed by inciting language. It is little wonder that Christians (or churches, at least) are often rejected by society who see them as being ‘anti-gay’ and little else, as this issue seems to come up, and cause so much heated aggression, time and time again.

I recently read a statistic that homosexual men make up 44% of all new HIV and AIDS cases. Apparently this statistic proves:

“If homosexuality was normal and natural, you would not have a disease that spreads as ravenously as this does,” Tim Wilkins, head of Cross Ministry, Inc

Using this statistic alone is ludicrous. By this, we can also assume that heterosexual relationships are not normal or natural (the myth of homosexuality being the only spreader of HIV/AIDS rears its head again) – or lesbian relationships (which presumably have a lower disease rate).

Yes, it is true that the Christian (traditionally, generally) believes that the only God-created, God-given, God-approved relationship which is physically-sexually expressed is a monogamous male-female one – but this excludes many other types of relationship as being “the best”.

“For years, studies have shown that homosexual men are prone to promiscuity.” University of Chicago study released in 2003

And yet the media predominantly appeals to the heterosexual promiscuity market. Promiscuity is promiscuity, whatever flavour.

I’m not a great fan of WWJD? (What Would Jesus Do?) – but it is worth considering. I have my beliefs and ‘ideals’ but I fall far short of those, as does every human being. What frightens me is that men sit in judgment over others, when only God can do that. We should become better at perfecting neighbourly agape love, than fooling ourselves that we can judge another man fairly whilst ignoring our own shortcomings. We need to look to Jesus’ examples – how He dealt with people – and if we claim to be Christian, to follow that as closely as we can.

iTunes singles only 79p December 6th, 2004

Complaints are afoot that Apple’s iTunes music service is charging too much for singles, in comparison to France and Germany. In the UK consumers pay 79p; on the continent users pay 99 cents, which is approximately 68p.

Eleven pence difference? Stop whinging and get over it! How cheap do you need your music singles to be?

Nice headline from Channel 4 News, though – Apple iTunes in dock over UK prices – shows you know your OS X terminology :)

Referer Risk Toppled December 4th, 2004


Referer Risk victory is mine!

Did I cheat? Well, I bent the rules a little – but this is war – rules are broken in real-life so why not here. You really don’t expect people to click on 8848 different pixels do you?

With the implementation in its present state, even a pretty low-grade attack on the systems can lead to world-domination. Here’s how I did it (in general detail):

  1. Download the image of the map from the original site and place on own server.
  2. Write code to interrogate map, pick a section of land to attack, and send a request to the origin site
  3. Update map picture frequently to ensure up-to-date results
  4. Disable cookies on your browser – this (for now, at least) is how the timing and ‘bot check’ routines operate
  5. Set up self-refreshing web page to run script. Duplicate web page.
  6. Perform occasional manual checks to ensure systems are running.
  7. Wait for world domination

Thus, it is possible to send multiple requests (even breaking the ’1-second-click rule’) from the same IP address). This could be further propogated across multiple IP addresses.

Fun to hack – bored now :)

The All-Digital Life December 3rd, 2004

Read about Mary Hodder (see Napsterization) who is fast approaching “The All-Digital Life”.

Press Release: There's a Day on the Way December 3rd, 2004

A new focus day for Christian churches is scheduled for 24 April 2005.

The growth of the Internet over the last ten years has been incredible. There will soon be 1 billion Web users around the world.

There are thousands of Christian websites, but the vast majority of these are written only for Christians. Very few are designed to reach out effectively to non-Christians. Yet the potential is enormous.

With this need in mind, the Internet Evangelism Coalition has initiated and endorsed an international focus day on Sunday 24 April 2005. The Internet Evangelism Day will enable churches and other groups to build this emphasis into their programs for that day.

“The Internet is one of the most key tools that God has given us in the church today,” says George Verwer, founder of Operation Mobilization.

Patrick Johnstone, author of Operation World, comments: “Cyberspace is an amazing medium for communicating information. What better information is there than sharing about the real meaning of life and solid hope for the future. May this Internet Evangelism Day mobilize a new wave of online evangelists.”

IE Day is endorsed internationally by a wide range of organizations. For more news of Internet Evangelism Day, visit www.InternetEvangelismDay.com

« Previous Entries   Next Entries »