Patti O'Shea's Blog, page 131
September 16, 2014
No Cookies
One of my huge pet peeves is websites that demand the user have cookies turned on for their site. No. I will not turn my cookies on for your site. This is especially annoying on retail sites that presumably would like me to buy something. But no, I'm not allowed to even browse their site because my cookies are turned off. If I want to order, I will turn my cookies on.
Even worse than retail sites who won't allow me to browse are the ones that insist I register for their stie before I can look around. What? How many people do you want to discourage from looking around? Do they not realize that causal lookers can become shoppers?
If I really want to see a site and it insists I register, I usually go to bugmenot.com and get the anyone can use it login. Most of the time, though, I don't bother. I just write that site off my list and never visit it again.
These two items sound like huge fails to me. I understand why they do it. Analytics, mailing lists, etc, but is it really worth the customers that feel disenfranchised? And really, allowing people like me in isn't that big a deal because most people don't bother to turn off their cookies. Besides, if I turn on my cookies, I'll probably get ad-stalked on Facebook. (I'm looking at you Overstock and Wayfair.) Is there anything creepier than seeing a product you looked at in your FB feed?
I can't really say I'm more apt to buy from a site that doesn't lock me out because of cookies, but I can guarantee that I'm not turning cookies on to browse a site. So yeah, I'll be buying what I'm looking for elsewhere.
Even worse than retail sites who won't allow me to browse are the ones that insist I register for their stie before I can look around. What? How many people do you want to discourage from looking around? Do they not realize that causal lookers can become shoppers?
If I really want to see a site and it insists I register, I usually go to bugmenot.com and get the anyone can use it login. Most of the time, though, I don't bother. I just write that site off my list and never visit it again.
These two items sound like huge fails to me. I understand why they do it. Analytics, mailing lists, etc, but is it really worth the customers that feel disenfranchised? And really, allowing people like me in isn't that big a deal because most people don't bother to turn off their cookies. Besides, if I turn on my cookies, I'll probably get ad-stalked on Facebook. (I'm looking at you Overstock and Wayfair.) Is there anything creepier than seeing a product you looked at in your FB feed?
I can't really say I'm more apt to buy from a site that doesn't lock me out because of cookies, but I can guarantee that I'm not turning cookies on to browse a site. So yeah, I'll be buying what I'm looking for elsewhere.
September 14, 2014
September 11, 2014
Are We Sims?
When I was a kid, I read a short Science Fiction story that was part of a collection. I don't remember the author or the title, but the story itself had a twist at the end that was so cool. The world was a video game and in the last bit of story, we see the boy who's controlling the world and the people in it leave the game to go do something else.
Wow, I thought. That was a surprise. My understanding is that this isn't the only story that's pulled this twist, but at twelve or thirteen, I'd never seen it before.
In the past few years, I've started hearing about physicists discussing whether or not our universe is a simulation. A game. Apparently they have the math to make this a viable hypothesis. The first few dozen times I heard this idea, it left me disturbed. I'm not a Sim, damn it.
But after hearing it enough times, I've starting going hmmm. What if we are part of a video game? Characters in a universe filled with bits and pixels.
I enjoy Sims 3 a lot, and I wonder what if they became sentient in some future release? Sims 149 where they become aware. Here these characters are, trying to live their lives and out of the blue they find themselves playing chess to increase their logic level even though they've never played chess before.
It's an interesting idea, a great what if for a writer. In case you're wondering, the physicists have come up with an experiment that should provide evidence to whether or not we're a simulation game. It will be very interesting to see what the results are to that.
Wow, I thought. That was a surprise. My understanding is that this isn't the only story that's pulled this twist, but at twelve or thirteen, I'd never seen it before.
In the past few years, I've started hearing about physicists discussing whether or not our universe is a simulation. A game. Apparently they have the math to make this a viable hypothesis. The first few dozen times I heard this idea, it left me disturbed. I'm not a Sim, damn it.
But after hearing it enough times, I've starting going hmmm. What if we are part of a video game? Characters in a universe filled with bits and pixels.
I enjoy Sims 3 a lot, and I wonder what if they became sentient in some future release? Sims 149 where they become aware. Here these characters are, trying to live their lives and out of the blue they find themselves playing chess to increase their logic level even though they've never played chess before.
It's an interesting idea, a great what if for a writer. In case you're wondering, the physicists have come up with an experiment that should provide evidence to whether or not we're a simulation game. It will be very interesting to see what the results are to that.
September 9, 2014
No Through Traffic
One of the things that I really appreciate about my new house and the neighborhood it's in is that I don't have to deal with through traffic. At my Minnesota house, there was so much traffic that I had an apron added to the driveway so I could pull out nose first. This was especially helpful in the winter when the snow mounds at the ends of the drive were high enough that it was hard to see over them.
I didn't really realize, though, that every street wasn't like that. I figured that unless I lived on a cul-de-sac, that I'd just have to deal. When I moved into my new house last year, I even tried to figure out where I'd add the apron, but because of the steep hill, there was really no good way to turn around.
As it turns out, I don't need the apron of concrete. I can actually back out of my driveway onto the street, without any worries. You see, my new street doesn't act like a conduit for other neighborhoods to cut through to get from point A to point B. The only people who drive down the street actually live on it. OMG, this is so blissful, and because I lived toward the end of the street, I have even fewer vehicles to worry about.
This makes me really happy.
I didn't really realize, though, that every street wasn't like that. I figured that unless I lived on a cul-de-sac, that I'd just have to deal. When I moved into my new house last year, I even tried to figure out where I'd add the apron, but because of the steep hill, there was really no good way to turn around.
As it turns out, I don't need the apron of concrete. I can actually back out of my driveway onto the street, without any worries. You see, my new street doesn't act like a conduit for other neighborhoods to cut through to get from point A to point B. The only people who drive down the street actually live on it. OMG, this is so blissful, and because I lived toward the end of the street, I have even fewer vehicles to worry about.
This makes me really happy.
September 7, 2014
September 4, 2014
The First Time I've Kickstarted
I've been over to visit Kickstarter a few times, mostly when other writers tweeted about projects for books or magazine issues. I've thought about investing, but never felt compelled. Until recently.
I backed The Stupendous Splendiferous ButterUp.
A group of Australian guys invented a knife that will actually spread butter without ripping up your bread--if the video is accurate. I'm making an effort to get back to more natural foods, but I've hesitated on butter because it's such a PITA to spread.
Since their goal of $38,000 Australian Dollars was surpassed by nearly 10x, it appears that I'm not the only one who hates spreading butter.
My Stupendous Splendiferous ButterUp is supposed to arrive in December. I'll try to remember to write a review after I've had a chance to use it.
I backed The Stupendous Splendiferous ButterUp.
A group of Australian guys invented a knife that will actually spread butter without ripping up your bread--if the video is accurate. I'm making an effort to get back to more natural foods, but I've hesitated on butter because it's such a PITA to spread.
Since their goal of $38,000 Australian Dollars was surpassed by nearly 10x, it appears that I'm not the only one who hates spreading butter.
My Stupendous Splendiferous ButterUp is supposed to arrive in December. I'll try to remember to write a review after I've had a chance to use it.
September 2, 2014
To Update or Not To Update
There's a discussion happening right now on one of my writers loops that I'm finding interesting. Should backlist books be updated or released as is?
Some say yes, that technology and attitudes have changed. (Some of these authors involved in the discussion have books from the 1980s and 1990s.) They say that readers will be jerked out of the story if someone is looking for a pay phone for example.
I totally understand wanting to do this. There's an unfortunate reference to MySpace in one of my books that was written before it was obvious it was in its death throes. I'd love to erase that, but this is a book to which I do not have my rights returned.
Other authors on the loop say, no, just put the year it was published at the front of the book so that readers realize when it takes place. They ask an interesting question: If a book is updated now, will it need to be updated again in another ten years because of technology changes?
There's also a debate about early books not being as well written versus early books having a certain something to them that comes from that inexperience.
What's the most interesting to me, though, is this is a debate I had with myself a few years back when I got the rights back to four books and a novella. The earliest was only written in 2002, so it was less than ten years old at that point, but my writing had improved and I write much tighter now than I did in my early work.
I ultimately decided not to rewrite, but to correct a few minor things that either were introduced in edits or that had always bothered me. There were many reasons why I opted to do it this way.
First, if I rewrote--especially my first story--what I released would bear almost no resemblance to the originally published version. It would (in essence) be a brand new book and there were too many readers who wanted an ebook version to spring a completely different story on them.
Second, the time factor. I'm a slow writer and I'm even slower now that my day job hours and commute time in Georgia have stolen two hours from each weekday that I used to have when I lived in Minnesota. I wanted to spend the time I did have to write on new stories.
Third, all four books and the novella were set in the future and all of them were written in the 2000s. I simply didn't have the kinds of issues to deal with that authors who wrote contemporary romance in the 1980s have to consider for a re-release.
Some say yes, that technology and attitudes have changed. (Some of these authors involved in the discussion have books from the 1980s and 1990s.) They say that readers will be jerked out of the story if someone is looking for a pay phone for example.
I totally understand wanting to do this. There's an unfortunate reference to MySpace in one of my books that was written before it was obvious it was in its death throes. I'd love to erase that, but this is a book to which I do not have my rights returned.
Other authors on the loop say, no, just put the year it was published at the front of the book so that readers realize when it takes place. They ask an interesting question: If a book is updated now, will it need to be updated again in another ten years because of technology changes?
There's also a debate about early books not being as well written versus early books having a certain something to them that comes from that inexperience.
What's the most interesting to me, though, is this is a debate I had with myself a few years back when I got the rights back to four books and a novella. The earliest was only written in 2002, so it was less than ten years old at that point, but my writing had improved and I write much tighter now than I did in my early work.
I ultimately decided not to rewrite, but to correct a few minor things that either were introduced in edits or that had always bothered me. There were many reasons why I opted to do it this way.
First, if I rewrote--especially my first story--what I released would bear almost no resemblance to the originally published version. It would (in essence) be a brand new book and there were too many readers who wanted an ebook version to spring a completely different story on them.
Second, the time factor. I'm a slow writer and I'm even slower now that my day job hours and commute time in Georgia have stolen two hours from each weekday that I used to have when I lived in Minnesota. I wanted to spend the time I did have to write on new stories.
Third, all four books and the novella were set in the future and all of them were written in the 2000s. I simply didn't have the kinds of issues to deal with that authors who wrote contemporary romance in the 1980s have to consider for a re-release.
August 31, 2014
Salute
I wish I'd seen this earlier because it would have been more appropriate for the 4th of July, but I'm sharing it now anyway. I'll confess that this made me tear up. It's also a reminder that there can still be good commercials made.
August 28, 2014
Vacuum Sealed
Or my most exciting recent purchase. ;-)
I'd been thinking about getting one of those vacuum sealers for food because I like to buy in bulk and I can't go through things fast enough. I hate throwing food away, but I've done it many times because it sits too long. I had a conversation with someone who already had one, read some reviews and bought one.
I didn't have anything fresh to use it on since I hadn't grocery shopped in a while, but I decided to break up some packages of meat in the freezer. This way I wouldn't have to thaw out everything to get one steak or hamburger.
The directions on how to use it weren't that good, but I decided to wing it. As it turned out, it was so easy that instructions were unnecessary.
I quickly ran through the starter bags included in the box. Luckily, there are instructions for making your own bags from a roll of plastic. That worked easily too and I continued to bag and seal.
I've only used it once so far, but I can see this being a good purchase for me. The unfortunate thing is that vegetables have to be blanched before they can be vacuum packed. Like I'm ever going to do that. Overall, though, I can see this as something I use often, so money well spent.
I'd been thinking about getting one of those vacuum sealers for food because I like to buy in bulk and I can't go through things fast enough. I hate throwing food away, but I've done it many times because it sits too long. I had a conversation with someone who already had one, read some reviews and bought one.
I didn't have anything fresh to use it on since I hadn't grocery shopped in a while, but I decided to break up some packages of meat in the freezer. This way I wouldn't have to thaw out everything to get one steak or hamburger.
The directions on how to use it weren't that good, but I decided to wing it. As it turned out, it was so easy that instructions were unnecessary.
I quickly ran through the starter bags included in the box. Luckily, there are instructions for making your own bags from a roll of plastic. That worked easily too and I continued to bag and seal.
I've only used it once so far, but I can see this being a good purchase for me. The unfortunate thing is that vegetables have to be blanched before they can be vacuum packed. Like I'm ever going to do that. Overall, though, I can see this as something I use often, so money well spent.
August 26, 2014
When Did You Lose Your Compassion?
There's a thing that's been going on for a while online that bothers me. A lot. Sites like The People of Walmart and others like them--and the people who share these pictures on Facebook, Twitter, etc--make me want to cry for humanity.
You see, when I see someone who's wearing a pair of underwear cut up to make a shirt, I don't think OMG, that's so funny. Instead, I think, that poor woman is so broke, that she's struggling to keep herself and her family clothed.
When I see someone post a picture of a naked overweight woman outside in a clear plastic rain slicker, I don't think, Oh, gross. I think that poor woman is mentally ill and needs help.
I addressed this back in my 2010 release, In the Darkest Night. Farran is working at a discount store when some college-aged girl takes a picture of her with a scar on her face. The purpose was to laugh at Farran--cruelly laugh--and to get other people to laugh at the disfigurement, too. It devastated my heroine, and if these people have seen the mean-spirited and hateful comments on their photos, they're probably devastated, too.
I see this online time and again and it makes me angry at the people who think it's okay to laugh at someone else's misfortune--whether it be mental illness or fashion faux pas--or laughing at another person for looking different, for example like the stereotype of a nerd.
It also makes me hugely sad. When did we lose our compassion for our fellow human beings? People who've done nothing to us, but who appeared in public wearing something that others found worth mocking. So many of those pictures clearly show the person is probably mentally ill or so poor that they can't afford to buy better clothes. Don't even get me started about laughing at someone simply because of how they look.
I stopped going to places like Fail Blog because they became meaner and meaner and meaner about people. I even sent a comment to the site saying that I hated what they were becoming. When nothing changed, I stopped visiting.
Life is hard for a lot of people--why do some people think it's okay to laugh at the expense of others? Do they have to tear someone else down to feel okay about themselves? Because that's a pretty sad reason.
My wish for the world is that more people practice compassion and empathy for their fellow human beings. Life is about helping others, not mocking them.
You see, when I see someone who's wearing a pair of underwear cut up to make a shirt, I don't think OMG, that's so funny. Instead, I think, that poor woman is so broke, that she's struggling to keep herself and her family clothed.
When I see someone post a picture of a naked overweight woman outside in a clear plastic rain slicker, I don't think, Oh, gross. I think that poor woman is mentally ill and needs help.
I addressed this back in my 2010 release, In the Darkest Night. Farran is working at a discount store when some college-aged girl takes a picture of her with a scar on her face. The purpose was to laugh at Farran--cruelly laugh--and to get other people to laugh at the disfigurement, too. It devastated my heroine, and if these people have seen the mean-spirited and hateful comments on their photos, they're probably devastated, too.
I see this online time and again and it makes me angry at the people who think it's okay to laugh at someone else's misfortune--whether it be mental illness or fashion faux pas--or laughing at another person for looking different, for example like the stereotype of a nerd.
It also makes me hugely sad. When did we lose our compassion for our fellow human beings? People who've done nothing to us, but who appeared in public wearing something that others found worth mocking. So many of those pictures clearly show the person is probably mentally ill or so poor that they can't afford to buy better clothes. Don't even get me started about laughing at someone simply because of how they look.
I stopped going to places like Fail Blog because they became meaner and meaner and meaner about people. I even sent a comment to the site saying that I hated what they were becoming. When nothing changed, I stopped visiting.
Life is hard for a lot of people--why do some people think it's okay to laugh at the expense of others? Do they have to tear someone else down to feel okay about themselves? Because that's a pretty sad reason.
My wish for the world is that more people practice compassion and empathy for their fellow human beings. Life is about helping others, not mocking them.
