I might have mentioned that I'm currently in the process of settling on my "Top 50 Films". It's one of those impossible tasks, as how can you really measure one film against another? Of course, it is one of those truly nicely subjective areas. What I like isn't what you will like, but this isn't a holy war and I don't have to convince you to my point of view. My favourites are what they are, nothing more.
The idea for these lists arose from a discussion I had with some work colleagues several years ago. We started off by arriving at our collective "Best singles of all time" (thus far of course) and amalgamated them into a single list. However, arriving at agreement on the Top Ten led to what we called the 'Meg Ryan Effect'. Essentially, the number one choice ends up being no one person's favourite, rather the single appearing most often in the set of lists wins. So rather than having a single that a few people are passionate about, you end up with what most people like, but don't love. It's like Meg Ryan ... you'll find (well, probably 'found' nowadays!) most people quite like her, but no-one sees her as their 'ideal'. Essentially mediocrity wins - in a crazy world where we end up calling Meg Ryan 'mediocre'. I did say it was a bit of fun after all, didn't I?
Well, the disputes over the MRE led to an hiatus in successors to this initial list, so we arrive, almost 10 years later, and the heat is on to tie down several other lists. We're currently working on both 'Top 50 Albums' and 'Top 50 Films'. For anyone who knows me, then they'll know that paring down films to a mere 50 is an horrendous task. I started off simply by listing films that I like then reducing those to ones that I felt really meant something to me. Those films that I can recall when I watched them, what was happening in my life at the time, and how they affected me. I tried not to be drawn into selecting only those films that others would deem as having merit ... it's a personal choice as I've said, and I'll like what I like for why I like them. So there.
So, after a long trawl I am down to my top 54 films! Yes. 54, and I can't find 4 to drop from that short-list. And those that didn't even make it, well, it's a crying shame when I look at that list too. But 50 is 50!
As an aside I've also asked for two supplementary shorter lists: your 'Top 10 Worst Films' and '10 Films that always make you cry'. For me a bad film isn't a "badly made film" or an awful b-movie. After all, I think there's a kind of honesty and merit in those movies that know they are pretty dreadful and revel in it. They know they aren't high art, nor have any pretences to be such. "Dinocroc vs Supergator" isn't a bad film. It's low-budget hokum and knows it. And there's nothing wrong with that. Not all films have Titanic's budget or Schindler's List's intentions. Films like that aren't 'bad'; they are what they are. The films I hate are those pointless, over-blown, cardboard character, plot-free, script-lacking, mindless, big budget dross too often littering our big screens. And yes, lots do seem to feature the name 'Roland Emmerich'.
Okay. Without further delay. My 'Top 200-ish Films that I really like, but aren't in my Top 54':
2001
2010
13th Warrior
Akira
American Beauty
American President
Annie Hall
Arlington Road
As good as it gets
Assault on Precinct 13
Bananas
Ben Hur
Before Sunset
Being John Malkovich
Best Friend's Wedding
Best Seller
Big
Big Blue
Big Fish
Big Trouble
Black Narcissus
Blazing Saddles
Blue Velvet
Boys
Breakfast Club
Bride of Frankenstein
Bridge over the River Kwai
Bridges of Madison County
Cabinet of Dr. Calligari
Chariots of Fire
City of God
Clear and Present Danger
Cool Hand Luke
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
Dambusters
Dances with Wolves
Dark Star
Dawn of the Dead
Day for Night
Day the earth caught fire
Day the earth stood still
Deadly Run
Deep Rising
Dial M for Murder
Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde
Donnie Darko
Duel
Dune
Edward Scissorhands
Elephant Man
End of Violence
Eternal Sunshine of the spotless Mind
Eyes of fire
Fallen
Final Countdown
Fistful of Dollars
Forbidden Panet
Forest Gump
Frankenstein
Funny Face
Ghost in the Shell
Grapes of Wrath
Greyfriar's Bob
Grosse Point Blank
Groundhog Day
Happiness
Heathers
Henry V
Hero
Horror of Dracula
House of Games
House on Haunted Hill
I walked with a Zombie
Ice Cold in Alex
Ice Palace
In the Company of Men
Isle of the Dead
It's a Wonderful Life
It could happened to you
Jerry Maguire
Kick-Ass
Killer Elite
Kingpin
L'apartement
La Jetee
Last Boy Scout
Le Bossu
Leaving Las Vegas
Life is Beautiful
Little Big Man
Little Children
Little Miss Sunshine
Little Voice
Lonely are the Brave
Lord of The Rings - Fellowship of the Ring
Lucky Man
Magnificent Seven
Magnolia
Maltese Falcon
Man On Fire
Manhatten
Matchstick Men
Mathilda
Metropolis
Murder by Decree
Night of the Sunflowers
Nil by Mouth
No Way Out
Once Upon a time in America
Once Upon a time in the West
One flew over the Cuckoo's Nest
On The Town
Patton
Pappilon
Paris, Texas
Peking Opera Blues
Philedelphia
Pitch Black
Play it again Sam
Play Misty for Me
Poltergeist
Presumed Innocent
Princess Bride
Quick and the Dead
Reservoir Dogs
Robin Hood, Adventures of
Roman Holiday
Rope
Roxanne
Ryan's Daughter
Saturn 3
Schindlers List
School for Scoundrels
Secret Life of Walter Mitty
Serpico
Seven
Seven Brides for Seven Brothers
Silkwood
Silverado
Sixth Sense
Sleeper
Sleuth
Some like it Hot
Something about Mary
Something Evil
Sophie's Choice
Splash
Stand by me
Starman
Star Wars
Stranger Than Fiction
Straw Dogs
Subway
Suspiria
Sweet and Lowdown
Sweet Hostage
Sweethearts
Ten Commandments
The Battle of Britain
The Big Chill
The Birds
The Conversation
The Dark Knight
The Devils Backbone
The Dreamlife of Angels
The English Patient
The Fisher King
The final countdown
The Fountain
The Godfather
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
The Great Escape
The Hidden
The Hills have eyes
The Horseman on the Roof
The Jacket
The Jerk
The Jokers
The Keep
The Legend of Hell House
The man who knew too much
The man who shot Liberty Valance
The man with two brains
The Prophet
The Raven
The Seven Little Foys
The Shootist
The Sound of Music
The Swimmer
The Three Godfathers
The Untouchables
The Verdict
The Village
The Year of living Dangerously
This Island Earth
Three Colours White
Time after Time
Tombstone
Transformers
True Grit
Twelve Angry Men
Twelve Monkeys
Two days in Paris
Usual Suspects
Videodrome
War of the Worlds
Watchers
Watchmen
Waxworks
Welcome Home Roxy Carmichael
When the Bough Breaks
When the wind blows
White Heat
Wizard of Oz
Wonderman
Young Frankenstein
Zardoz
Zulu
(as you can see, I don't mind 'trashy' or 'dumb entertainment'; and I grew up watching horror movies and westerns!)
What do you think? Could you do the same? If not, how about your 'Top 10 worst films' or '10 films that always make you cry' (several of these might come from my top 50!) ? I'm still finalising those two, shorter, lists. Watch this space.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Customer Services (cont.)
(back into full ranting)
As you might know, one of my pet peeves is poor customer services. It seems like one of those things that ought to easy to get right, but rarely seems in evidence. Here's my latest example.
I used to have my energy supplied by Scottish Power. In fact I still do, just in the process of changing to EDF Energy. Not because I can, supposedly, save about £150 a year, but due to the poor service. What happened was I received an email on 25th January telling me that my energy prices had increased. They were sorry they had to do this, and so on and so on, but they had to increase them. In fact, they *had* increased them on 25th November. Two months earlier. And were telling me. Now.
Okay, so I decided that that wasn't great. I was expecting a price rise, but thought I ought to be informed before it happened, rather than 2 months after. So I replied to this email, asking why there was a 2 month delay in informing the customer. I sent my reply on 26th January, and waited. And waited.
Finally, on 14th February, no, not a Valentine's message, but a response to my query from Scottish Power -
So, they were complying with the law by waiting 2 months. That was their legal right. Hang on? Isn't that a bit like going to a restaurant, receiving dreadful service from the waiter, then if you complain being told, "Well, I haven't stabbed you, have I?" I understand what the law might say, but I'd think that customer service, let alone good customer service, should aim for more than simple 'legal compliance'. Hey, here's an idea - what about serving the customer. Satisfying the customer. Hell - let's go crazy - even consider *delighting* them.
So, in my world, I was expecting a price rise. I knew I could probably do better financially by switching, but had no real reason to. Satisfying my expectation would have been being notified of a price raise when it happened. Delighting me would have been switching me automatically to one of their better tariffs (the reality is, I can actually get a cheaper deal by stopping with Scottish Power than I am going to get from EDF Energy, but I am the customer and I've not received good service. There are consequences).
To make this simple:
Poor service ought to cost. We need to make it so(!)
Okay, there are those who will be thinking, 'no, the big picture for the company is that they might lost 5% of customers this way, but they will gain some. Overall they are probably up on the deal'. To those I will cite my favourite (or should that be 'east favourite') management incident.
I used to work for a large company where, as is typical, we used pens. They were cheap pens. Probably 5 pence each. We asked for slightly better pens, costing perhaps 15 pence each. These nicer pens did not last three times as long as the cheaper ones - probably just as long in fact. But they wrote better, and were much nicer to use. The management at the time turned done the request for those expensive pens. Truly, they did. Well, they bought probably two thousand pens a year so that's £200 at risk if they'd have gone crazy and listened to their workers.
If you don't see what's completely wrong and self-defeating about such a policy, then you'll not see what's wrong with Scottish Power's policy either. You might possibly be a manager of some sort.
Not a good one though.
As you might know, one of my pet peeves is poor customer services. It seems like one of those things that ought to easy to get right, but rarely seems in evidence. Here's my latest example.
I used to have my energy supplied by Scottish Power. In fact I still do, just in the process of changing to EDF Energy. Not because I can, supposedly, save about £150 a year, but due to the poor service. What happened was I received an email on 25th January telling me that my energy prices had increased. They were sorry they had to do this, and so on and so on, but they had to increase them. In fact, they *had* increased them on 25th November. Two months earlier. And were telling me. Now.
Okay, so I decided that that wasn't great. I was expecting a price rise, but thought I ought to be informed before it happened, rather than 2 months after. So I replied to this email, asking why there was a 2 month delay in informing the customer. I sent my reply on 26th January, and waited. And waited.
Finally, on 14th February, no, not a Valentine's message, but a response to my query from Scottish Power -
With a price rise we have an allowance of 65 days to notify our customers. This has been cleared with the regulator, please click the following link for more information:(I include the second paragraph only for its oblique obscurity and the use of 'aslong' - nice)
http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Pages/MoreInformation.aspx?file=65%20day%20rule%20info%20note.pdf&refer=Media/PressRel
If as a result of the recent price increase you wish to change supplier, we offer a service known as the Right to Cancel. This means that we can honour your original prices up until the date your supplies would transfer aslong as we are notified within 20 days.
So, they were complying with the law by waiting 2 months. That was their legal right. Hang on? Isn't that a bit like going to a restaurant, receiving dreadful service from the waiter, then if you complain being told, "Well, I haven't stabbed you, have I?" I understand what the law might say, but I'd think that customer service, let alone good customer service, should aim for more than simple 'legal compliance'. Hey, here's an idea - what about serving the customer. Satisfying the customer. Hell - let's go crazy - even consider *delighting* them.
So, in my world, I was expecting a price rise. I knew I could probably do better financially by switching, but had no real reason to. Satisfying my expectation would have been being notified of a price raise when it happened. Delighting me would have been switching me automatically to one of their better tariffs (the reality is, I can actually get a cheaper deal by stopping with Scottish Power than I am going to get from EDF Energy, but I am the customer and I've not received good service. There are consequences).
To make this simple:
- Had I received satisfactory service, Scottish Power would be getting about £1000/year from me;
- Had I received delightful service, they would be getting about £850/year from me;
- By giving poor service they get £0/year from me.
Poor service ought to cost. We need to make it so(!)
Okay, there are those who will be thinking, 'no, the big picture for the company is that they might lost 5% of customers this way, but they will gain some. Overall they are probably up on the deal'. To those I will cite my favourite (or should that be 'east favourite') management incident.
I used to work for a large company where, as is typical, we used pens. They were cheap pens. Probably 5 pence each. We asked for slightly better pens, costing perhaps 15 pence each. These nicer pens did not last three times as long as the cheaper ones - probably just as long in fact. But they wrote better, and were much nicer to use. The management at the time turned done the request for those expensive pens. Truly, they did. Well, they bought probably two thousand pens a year so that's £200 at risk if they'd have gone crazy and listened to their workers.
If you don't see what's completely wrong and self-defeating about such a policy, then you'll not see what's wrong with Scottish Power's policy either. You might possibly be a manager of some sort.
Not a good one though.
The Internet isn't Real Life (honest)
I've never been a fan of 'modern technology' and resisted getting a mobile phone for a long time. I'm still fairly convinced that no-one's life has been greatly improved by them, and having a smart-phone might be even worse. Reasons? Well, maybe for another time ... at the moment I'm thinking more about 'social network' communication.
I do have profiles on lots of those whacky(!) social network sites, but am rarely there (how our language has made these 'places' real!) but I do have a Twitter account, although I don't court followers - I have very little of interest to say. Not really a reason not to have followers, for those of you familiar with Twitter. We're not planning a revolution soon I feel. Twitter is nice and easy to use, simple, short messages, and nicely integrated ... I use Yoono on my browser to coordinate across most of my social network profiles.
One of the people I follow is Victoria Coren. For those of you who don't know her, she's a TV presenter ('Only Connect'), poker player, and journalist - writing for The Observer. She seems a pleasant enough person, and I like a lot of what she writes (of course, this is 'like' in the peripheral sense of the internet ... not even a "thumbs up, xxxxx likes this comment"!), and she appears quite grounded and normal. However, as you might know, she's recently had a tweet-spat with Michael Winner and has discussed this in her latest column.
There appears to be some indignation on either side of this 'argument' (I'm sorry for all of these apostrophes, but I'm trying to draw a distinction - and reflect my feeling - that these internet exchanges are in no way a reflection of real ones), but overall it's been of little consequence and I'm more surprised by how much vitriol has been expressed in comments about the spat, rather than the exchange itself. And that's what I find more worrying.
You see, the internet - and specifically Twitter - is a very public forum. That's one of its central tenets; that all are equal. So tweeting is a bit like everyone having their own spot down at Speaker's Corner and shouting out whatever they fancy. Okay, you can to some extent direct your comments but that's only the difference between shouting, "I hate blonde women" and shouting, "Oi! You over there. I hate blonde women". And in that sort of environment you're bound to hear a lot of things you don't like, or disagree with. Now, you can engage in discourse on the matter, but most people (and especially those expressing a public opinion) aren't going to be dissuaded from their course by your words. Not when you have only your own spot to shout from, and only 140 characters to shout with. So, if you hear something you don't like, best to leave well alone. If it's that defamatory then there are other ways and means to seek redress. By responding you only add to the publicity that's often sought by these people. In fact, there is a recent tweet at Derren Brown, calling him a variety of names and saying his act was a sham. I only know of this because Derren re-tweeted it. I've a feeling the tweeter in question was merely engaged in a game with some friends to insult and outrage as many celebs as possible. Something they are free to do of course, but something that is best left as unpublicised as possible. But then again Derren makes his living from obfuscation, so I'm a little wary in this instance ...
So, and this is my point, the internet isn't real life. In real life I communicate with people that I know, in a manner which I modify based upon what I know about this person, and what my relationship is with them. It's 'personal' after all. But in this non-real world, we tend to know very little about people we're communicating with, and all too often treat these people in the same manner we do those that we do know. And I think this is where a lot of miscommunication arises, in that our familiarity of communication, which is easily welcomed by our friends, is more prey to misinterpretation when there is no history of face-to-face communication. Add to that a for-shortened, disembodied method of communication, and there's bound to be problems. So the next time you take umbrage at something take a moment or two to consider that there's some misunderstanding taking place. And if there really isn't then best move on. Be the better man.
One final point. It's crazy to expect that everyone we meet in life will share our opinions and values, nor that they will change their opinions because of ours. That's the diversity that binds us and makes us strong. As an adult you come to realise that. But irrespective of how much I might disagree with you and your opinions, I'm not going to wish you physical ill and violence because of it. I am troubled when people seem to have such hatred and appear to want to incite violence based upon what they think they know about an individual. I find that more troubling than a harsh exchange of words; that people so readily want to drop the discourse and recommend violence.
I do have profiles on lots of those whacky(!) social network sites, but am rarely there (how our language has made these 'places' real!) but I do have a Twitter account, although I don't court followers - I have very little of interest to say. Not really a reason not to have followers, for those of you familiar with Twitter. We're not planning a revolution soon I feel. Twitter is nice and easy to use, simple, short messages, and nicely integrated ... I use Yoono on my browser to coordinate across most of my social network profiles.
One of the people I follow is Victoria Coren. For those of you who don't know her, she's a TV presenter ('Only Connect'), poker player, and journalist - writing for The Observer. She seems a pleasant enough person, and I like a lot of what she writes (of course, this is 'like' in the peripheral sense of the internet ... not even a "thumbs up, xxxxx likes this comment"!), and she appears quite grounded and normal. However, as you might know, she's recently had a tweet-spat with Michael Winner and has discussed this in her latest column.
There appears to be some indignation on either side of this 'argument' (I'm sorry for all of these apostrophes, but I'm trying to draw a distinction - and reflect my feeling - that these internet exchanges are in no way a reflection of real ones), but overall it's been of little consequence and I'm more surprised by how much vitriol has been expressed in comments about the spat, rather than the exchange itself. And that's what I find more worrying.
You see, the internet - and specifically Twitter - is a very public forum. That's one of its central tenets; that all are equal. So tweeting is a bit like everyone having their own spot down at Speaker's Corner and shouting out whatever they fancy. Okay, you can to some extent direct your comments but that's only the difference between shouting, "I hate blonde women" and shouting, "Oi! You over there. I hate blonde women". And in that sort of environment you're bound to hear a lot of things you don't like, or disagree with. Now, you can engage in discourse on the matter, but most people (and especially those expressing a public opinion) aren't going to be dissuaded from their course by your words. Not when you have only your own spot to shout from, and only 140 characters to shout with. So, if you hear something you don't like, best to leave well alone. If it's that defamatory then there are other ways and means to seek redress. By responding you only add to the publicity that's often sought by these people. In fact, there is a recent tweet at Derren Brown, calling him a variety of names and saying his act was a sham. I only know of this because Derren re-tweeted it. I've a feeling the tweeter in question was merely engaged in a game with some friends to insult and outrage as many celebs as possible. Something they are free to do of course, but something that is best left as unpublicised as possible. But then again Derren makes his living from obfuscation, so I'm a little wary in this instance ...
So, and this is my point, the internet isn't real life. In real life I communicate with people that I know, in a manner which I modify based upon what I know about this person, and what my relationship is with them. It's 'personal' after all. But in this non-real world, we tend to know very little about people we're communicating with, and all too often treat these people in the same manner we do those that we do know. And I think this is where a lot of miscommunication arises, in that our familiarity of communication, which is easily welcomed by our friends, is more prey to misinterpretation when there is no history of face-to-face communication. Add to that a for-shortened, disembodied method of communication, and there's bound to be problems. So the next time you take umbrage at something take a moment or two to consider that there's some misunderstanding taking place. And if there really isn't then best move on. Be the better man.
One final point. It's crazy to expect that everyone we meet in life will share our opinions and values, nor that they will change their opinions because of ours. That's the diversity that binds us and makes us strong. As an adult you come to realise that. But irrespective of how much I might disagree with you and your opinions, I'm not going to wish you physical ill and violence because of it. I am troubled when people seem to have such hatred and appear to want to incite violence based upon what they think they know about an individual. I find that more troubling than a harsh exchange of words; that people so readily want to drop the discourse and recommend violence.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Transferred Post : Why Potholes Reappear
(see? it'll mainly be ranting like this)
Why Potholes Reappear
(or "This is the Modern World")
I have potholes outside my house. Several. They are always appearing. Always being filled. Always coming back.
The man from the council explained recently on the news "oh, we've stopped putting tar around the repairs now".
Hmm ... that's a bit odd. See, you fill a pothole with some 'instant tarmac', but it doesn't bond that well with the surrounding road surface. That's why you used to see that black line around them ... some tar poured around the edge of the patch, to help the two bits stick to each other. You see it when they re-surface one side of a road before another. That smoother, darker line. It's tar to 'glue' the two sides together.
But they've stopped doing that.
Of course, this means that water gets down the edges of the repair easier. Which means the repair doesn't last as long. So you get the pothole back sooner. About a year; that's how long it'll last.
At first, it seems crazy not to glue the repair in properly, but of course it makes perfect "sense". You see, councils have to reduce their costs, and repairing roads costs ... I mean let's say each repair costs £100. And you have 1000 to do each year. That's £100,000! But, save £10 by not tarring ... and you save £10,000. And councils have been told to cut costs. So this one simple things saves them lots of money - they hit their targets, and don't have to lay off so many people. Everyone wins.
So long as "a year" is as far as you look ahead. If you'd spent the extra £10 on the repair it would last 5 years. So, over 5 years you'd pay £100,000 - not the 5 x £90,000 we DO pay. Over 5 years you waste £350,000. But no-one looks that far ahead these days. Besides, we have that annual saving to make. Our hands are tied. And who really cares about 5 years anyway - that other lot will be in power then, and it'll be their problem. We can blame them for the poor road surfaces then. Hee hee.
Just so long as we don't care about having those potholes all over the roads of course. The accidents they might cause. The damage to property; to cars; to people. Just so long as we don't really care.
This is the modern world.
I have potholes outside my house. Several. They are always appearing. Always being filled. Always coming back.
The man from the council explained recently on the news "oh, we've stopped putting tar around the repairs now".
Hmm ... that's a bit odd. See, you fill a pothole with some 'instant tarmac', but it doesn't bond that well with the surrounding road surface. That's why you used to see that black line around them ... some tar poured around the edge of the patch, to help the two bits stick to each other. You see it when they re-surface one side of a road before another. That smoother, darker line. It's tar to 'glue' the two sides together.
But they've stopped doing that.
Of course, this means that water gets down the edges of the repair easier. Which means the repair doesn't last as long. So you get the pothole back sooner. About a year; that's how long it'll last.
At first, it seems crazy not to glue the repair in properly, but of course it makes perfect "sense". You see, councils have to reduce their costs, and repairing roads costs ... I mean let's say each repair costs £100. And you have 1000 to do each year. That's £100,000! But, save £10 by not tarring ... and you save £10,000. And councils have been told to cut costs. So this one simple things saves them lots of money - they hit their targets, and don't have to lay off so many people. Everyone wins.
So long as "a year" is as far as you look ahead. If you'd spent the extra £10 on the repair it would last 5 years. So, over 5 years you'd pay £100,000 - not the 5 x £90,000 we DO pay. Over 5 years you waste £350,000. But no-one looks that far ahead these days. Besides, we have that annual saving to make. Our hands are tied. And who really cares about 5 years anyway - that other lot will be in power then, and it'll be their problem. We can blame them for the poor road surfaces then. Hee hee.
Just so long as we don't care about having those potholes all over the roads of course. The accidents they might cause. The damage to property; to cars; to people. Just so long as we don't really care.
This is the modern world.
Personal Posting
...so, I've had enough of the private rants on IT and need to vent further. Second blog acquired. I ought to move all of those odds and end blogs into here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)