I Hate Rebates

I picked up a small switch last week to expand our network and accomodate more test machines. I had a choice between two functionally similar products, both from reputable manufacturers, although one was $20 cheaper than the other (after a $30 rebate). Trying to be fiscally responsible, I bought the one that was a better value "in the long run". As I went to fill out the rebate today, I noticed that the $30 was actually a combination of 2 rebates--from the same manufacturer--that each required the original UPC and could not be combined with any other offer. To top it off, they both need to be sent to different addresses, so it's not like I can lump them both together in the same envelope and let the rebate center sort it out.

Has anyone run across this? Is there some clever way I can screw "the man" back? The top suggestion will receive $40!*

 

 

 

 

*-checks will not be honored (heads-up, this is an *audio* link)

5/7/2005 4:42:02 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)      Comments [1]  

Welcome Ezju (aka Edward Kranz) To The Blogosphere

Ezju, SharpLogic's graphic and design guru, has begun blogging at http://www.sharplogic.com/blogs/ezju. Among other things, he's been rebuilding our Web site, which will be up shortly. If you go to http://www.sharplogic.com and it still sucks, then his work hasn't been published yet.

Also check out his personal site at http://www.nosuchanimal.net where his paintings are available for sale. His coffee-based painting are truly unique--he uses coffee as the paint for the pictures (yes, I know I'm not doing the sophisticated process justice).

5/7/2005 11:27:20 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)      Comments [1]  

Why I'm Against Some Discrimination Laws

I just came across http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7762073/ and saw that Microsoft's management has decided to unilaterally use the company's influence to support the bill, which will probably be useful to its proponents. There was a lot of controversy over this a few weeks ago (http://www.sharplogic.com/blogs/ed/PermaLink,guid,84ba33c2-8bb2-4ec8-8f3e-706bddb27295.aspx) and it's very interesting to see the company take a side now. Sadly, this derails a lot of credibility from Steve Ballmer's memo from a few weeks ago since this action directly contradicts the reasoning behind not taking a side. My guess is that Microsoft's management was blindsided by how big of an issue this would be and did research that determined the negativity from supporters of the bill greatly outweighed the negativity of those who did not support the bill, so changing the stance would result in a net positive. The saddest part of this is that some individuals will take credit for the "victory" (Robert!) because they know Microsoft will never divulge the actual reason for the flip flop.

I have very mixed feelings towards the bill. To begin with, I feel that if you're going to outlaw discrimination based on gender, race, creed, etc, then you must also include sexual orientation. Since there is enough clout in the state government to support those anti-discrimination laws, people with different sexual preferences should be protected as anyone else. There are obviously degrees to which sexual preference is still considered unacceptable regarding age and species, but that's not my focus here.

The part of HB1515 I strongly disagree with is actually not in HB1515, it's in some of the laws HB1515 is looking to amend. I am personally against state laws barring business discrimination. While I oppose discrimination myself and will never practice it, I believe that each business should be given the right to discriminate if it so chooses--for any reason. I hate the idea that I am not allowed to not hire the people I don't want to hire for any reason I want. For example, I may feel that an individual is highly qualified for a job after our interview. However, that person may belong to a religion that strongly opposes the idea of computer programmers, and is hell-bent on making their lives miserable. Unfortunately, as a business owner, my hands are tied! I *have* to hire that person because I'm not allowed to discriminate against qualified applicants purely based on religion.

While I am fully against business discrimination laws, I do feel that it would be appropriate for businesses and the government to require certain policies from their vendors. For example, my company does a lot of work for Microsoft, so having to provide proof that we are an equal opportunity employer would be a reasonable requirement. In the end, companies who choose to discriminate for the wrong reasons would be hurting themselves and would eventually die out to competitors who hire the best people for the job. Also, if a company is only hiring you because they're not allowed not to, then do you really want that job?

Just to reiterate--and avoid a misplaced flame war--I am completely against discrimination and agree with the essence of the bill. I just don't agree that the government should be unnaturally forcing something like this on businesses. The ironic thing is that I'm so against a law that I would actively obey even if it didn't exist.

5/6/2005 1:00:00 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)      Comments [10]  

.NET Framework 2.0 Beta 2 Install Note

If you're installing the .NET Framework 2.0 Beta 2 on an NT-based machine (NT, Win2K, XP, Windows Server 2003) then you'll need to have MSI 3.0 installed.

If you're installing the .NET Framework 2.0 Beta 2 on an 9x-based machine (98, 98SE, ME) then you'll need to have MSI 2.0 installed. This is necessary since MSI 3.0 only supports NT-based platforms.

You can figure out which one is installed by looking at the major number from [HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\CLSID\{000C101D-0000-0000-C000-000000000046}\DllVersion].

5/5/2005 11:22:21 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)      Comments [0]  

Best Documentation Ever

Check out the Remarks section of the MSDN docs for "CryptProtectData" on Windows CE (http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/wcesecurity5/html/wce50lrfcryptprotectdata.asp):

"Under some circumstances, Microsoft cryptographic service providers may not allow encryption when used in France, in which case this function fails with the error code NTE_PERM."

I think this may be my favorite documentation sentence of all time.

5/4/2005 12:24:12 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)      Comments [0]  

Welcome Richard Davis To The Blogosphere
Richard Davis, one of the software design engineers over here at SharpLogic, has begun blogging. Check out his site at http://www.sharplogic.com/blogs/rdavis, say hello, and subscribe to the feed. He's working on some very cool stuff that will be public very soon, so stay tuned!
4/30/2005 1:21:11 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)      Comments [0]  

Error 2908 Happens To Be PEBCAK More Often Than Not

I was working on testing some bootstrapping code today and ran across error 2908 when my test machine tried to install DirectX's managed components. If you happen to be looking for help with this particular error and don't care about the rest of my story, check out http://blogs.msdn.com/astebner/archive/2004/11/10/255346.aspx.

Anyway, we're in a time crunch to get this particular project out the door, so I disabled a bunch of the prerequisite installs (including the .NET Framework 1.1) in order to save time. However, every time I hit the MDX install it would fail violently with error 2908. After doing a little research, it turns out that it's a GAC-related issue. My first thought was a la Homer Simpson: "stupid computer, you don't even have a GAC!" This, of course was the problem--you can't install MDX without the .NET Framework. As a result, this bug was truly due to the fact that a Problem Exists Between Chair And Keyboard (http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/P/PEBCAK.html).

4/26/2005 10:03:12 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)      Comments [3]  

Admirable Spam Persistence

I started a consulting firm nearly 6 years ago (also named "SharpLogic Software", ironically) and signed up for a TGI Fridays card so I could earn points towards...whatever. As part of the signup process I gave them my email address and unintentionally became signed up for their monthly email. When I closed shop to join Microsoft 4 years ago, I took the domain offline and my ISP set up a bouncer to indicate all email to that domain was no longer valid. Now that the domain is back up, I'm getting the emails every month, which shows that they never stopped sending them over the 4 year period it was rejecting the messages. I wonder what effect anti-spam laws will have when well-intentioned companies aren't doing their part to minimize the email they send. Sure, I'm just as much to blame for not going up to their site and unsubscribing, but it's surprising that someone didn't catch the mail exceptions and remove them from the list after a few months worth of bounces. Maybe it's too much work for something that costs practically nothing. I wonder if anyone does that?

4/26/2005 4:40:11 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)      Comments [1]  

HB1515 And The Publicized Internal Scrutiny Of Microsoft

There has been a huge amount of debate over Microsoft's decision not to take a stance for or against HB1515 (at http://www.leg.wa.gov/wsladm/billinfo1/dspBillSummary.cfm?billnumber=1515), a Washington state bill intended to amend a series of existing non-discrimination laws to protect people of all sexual orientations in the same way they currently protect people of race, creed, and so on. Microsoft decided not to take a public stance on this bill and CEO Steve Ballmer has written a broad company memo (published at http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002251461_webmemo24.html) explaining how his personal feelings support the bill, but that the company cannot take a position for various reasons, including the fact that the company is largely made up of people on both sides of the debate. As a side note, I think this email was one of the most finely written emails I have ever seen. I also personally feel that discrimination for any reason is wrong in the IT industry (the only industry I know well enough to make a claim about) and will do my best to follow practices that reflect that feeling. But I digress…

Over the past few days, a number of Microsoft employees have publicly blasted the company for not coming out in favor of this bill. The general sentiment from these individuals is that if Microsoft claims to be supportive of the concepts included then the company should come out in favor of it, regardless of the fact that a significant portion of the company, its shareholders, and its customers may feel against it. They feel that the moral thing to do is for Microsoft's management to act unilaterally in favor of what they feel is right, and that Microsoft only decided not to support it because it was in Microsoft's best interest to stay neutral.

In other words, these individuals feel that Microsoft lacks integrity for not doing what they themselves feel is right. They feel so passionately that they publicly lambaste the company for following its own best interests. They're the kind of people who scorn those who continue to work for a company they feel acts immorally (or doesn't support the morals they hold dear) just because they enjoy the paycheck or “love the technology”. It's these hypocrites that are bad for the process, but hopefully those who have spoken out are truly sincere.

It will be interesting to see how many of these rants end up in resignations and how many were just angry at the time. I certainly don't expect these individuals to resign their highly paying, highly rewarding positions because it's not in their best interests, but I have great respect for those with the passion and willingness to leave their jobs over what they feel is right.

4/24/2005 7:19:38 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)      Comments [0]