The non-separation of the LDS church and Utah state.

Jan 9, 2014 | | 0 comments |

Look - I understand that mormons think gays are somehow evil, subhumans. I understand that the LDS won't tolerate gays, doesn't like them and thus won't marry them. But for local government to overturn a supreme court ruling about gay marriage is taking it too far. This is religious persecution on a par with the dark ages. The church doesn't like gays, so it leans on its members in government to do everything possible to prevent them from having the basic rights afforded other couples who want to marry. In other words, the LDS church is forcing it's (wrong) opinion about the LGBT community on everyone, via state and local laws that it has had passed and enforced on its behalf. Why should non-religious people be forced to abide by the opinion of a religious cult that they have no affiliation with? Apart from anything else, the uber-conservatives in this state are always the first ones to bitch when something even slightly unconstitutional happens, yet here they are ripping the constitution to shreds. I guess it's OK for them to take a crap all over the founding fathers then?
The gay community isn't doing anything to harm mormons so why are they so homophobic? And why is the Eagle Forum even allowed to appear publicly? Those idiots are so pathetically backwards, so intolerant and so outspoken that they just come across as batshit crazy. One woman was on TV last night crying with joy at the "victory" of having gay marriage overturned. She said it was a triumphant step towards squashing immorality. Maybe in her (wrong) opinion, but the views of the church should not be forced on everyone simply because they live in Utah. Not only has Utah overturned the gay marriage ruling, but as a first for this country, has made it so that people who had been legally married under the law, are now no longer considered legally married because the local government has chosen not to "recognise" gay marriage certificates. Meaning they're now pulling back from affording these couples basic rights like shared healthcare, joint tax status etc. I'm not kidding - I know it sounds like a joke but it's not - Utah is deadly serious about the church running the government here, and doesn't see any issues at all with persecution and discrimination.
Which is pretty rich given that historically, the mormons were on the receiving end of persection and discrimination so badly that they had to move west.
And my mormon friends wonder why I dislike their church so much.

Employees don't want much

Dec 3, 2013 | | 0 comments |

I'm sitting looking at my company's internal 'learning' system this morning - hundreds of online courses that are available to all employees, some of which we're mandated to take. I'm not sure why the rest of them exist. We certainly don't have time to do any of the courses, and for the average employee, they hold no relevance to what we do, or want to do in our day-to-day jobs. I for one just want to be assigned tasks, and then be left alone. I don't need to do hazardous material training - my job doesn't involve hazardous materials. I don't need micromanagement. I don't need all the various efficiency and ethics courses that are available because I have common sense. I don't need to be instructed how to use the email system, nor how 'just in time' manufacturing is good for the company (it has no bearing on our division). Ok I understand all of this is corporate C-Y-A but so many of these things are just inconsequential to us. On top of everything else, we get stuck in a management logic gap when doing training courses. We're told to only book time to programs when we're working on them, which is obvious. But then when we leave time entries blank because we spent an hour watching an online training course, we're told we can't leave the time entries blank. The logic gap then ensues : we can't charge to a program, there's no assigned code for training courses, and we can't leave timesheets blank. So we're happy to have hundreds, if not thousands of online training courses, but not one of them actually addresses how you're supposed to do the online courses.
It's a bit mental.

EA's failed SimCity launch

Mar 12, 2013 | | 0 comments |

If you're not much into gaming, you'll have likely missed this, but EA launched the latest in the SimCity franchise last week, and to say it was a disaster is understating the issue.
For the uninitiated, here was Electronic Art's business plan last week: Take $60 from a couple of million gamers, deliver a game that needs to be online all the time to play (even in single-player mode), and only have 6 servers on launch day, meaning almost nobody can play the game they've paid for. Ensure no refunds are given, and ensure that people who for refunds (via bank or credit card chargebacks) get their EA accounts banned.
EA already had a bad reputation in videogame circles, but last week cemented their place in gaming history as the worst gaming company in the world.
What makes things worse is that when they held their public beta test, they had the same issues of people not being able to play, servers kicking people off, and huge latency making the game unplayable. That was with a couple of thousand players. Rather than learn from that, they left the same infrastructure in place for launch day, meaning that within a couple of minutes of midnight Pacific time, their entire server farm (all 6 of them) were on their knees. As more players woke up, downloaded and installed their games, the worse it got until about lunchtime on launch day, nobody could play. By the next morning, Amazon had received over 5,000 1-star and 0-star reviews for the game and pulled it from sale. It took until sunday - 6 days after launch - before I could play reliably and even then it took five or six efforts to connect. The internet was ablaze with criticism and complaints and EA seemed genuinely surprised.
What really happened of course, is what's happened in the company I work for : corporate bullshit and procedure won out over practical advice and engineering. Rather than listen to their engineers and programmers (the Maxis programmers have since come out and said they only put the always-on DRM into the game because EA forced them to, then they had to somehow justify it with a game mechanic), EA instead chose to follow some process of spreadsheets, documents and upper management meetings that indicated that everything would be OK because the spreadsheets said it would OK.
The results were what you'd expect when managers get together and make engineering decisions : a total disaster. EA's PR machine has been in overdrive for a week now running damage-limitation, to the point where they're going to have to start giving free games away by form of recompense. (Of course the free game will probably be some no-name title that nobody wants.) Amazon did the right thing by refunding their customer's purchases and have since billed EA for over $1.2M in returns. And all because of what? Because EA are so paranoid about piracy that they tried to hold everyone to ransom with their always-online DRM system. Honest gamers who wanted to play, who wanted to give EA their money, couldn't.
What will happen next is obvious: rampant piracy. There's plenty of people out their currently figuring out how to uncouple the always-on element from the game and as soon as that patch becomes available, EA will have lost the battle again. Only this time, it will be a self-inflicted death. They could have learned from Blizzard's botched Diablo III launch last year. They could have learned from Ubisoft's failed always-online DRM system (that they've long-since abandoned). But instead, EA chose to press on and launch the Challenger and were somehow surprised when it blew up in their faces.