End of the world is coming! Well, maybe not

So the LHC is going to be started in about 1 day or so (http://lhcountdown.com), and it has the slight possibility of creating a black hole. Now some say if it does create it, it'll disappear. Others say it'll eat the earth from the inside out. Some say we'll know it's happening, but it'll be instant (time dilation type of thing I'm guessing) -- but one thing I do know for certain: the countdown site will go down. Ever since the countdown site was listed, they've been flooded by so many hits that the site's down more than it's up.

No matter what happens that day, either the world will end or it won't. No one can say with 100% certainty. Just to be creative, I'll just place a bet that we'll have unusual volcanic, tectonic (earthquake) and weather/water based things going on when it's running. There -- now it's in print so everyone can reference it. But in all reality, whatever happens will probably be nothing of too much interest. It might advance our scientific knowledge which will them be used to create new ways to kill ourselves off. It might destroy the earth. It might just mess up the earth. But in the end, we probably won't notice anything really different. Of course we might not be here, but it'd happen so "quick" that no one would even realize it.

Fear the Water

Just a quick thing that's bee on my mind lately…. For some completely unknown reason, I've been fearing the water. I keep on seeing water destroying large areas of land whenever I try to get to sleep. Sometimes in large areas of land that collapse in a earthquake, then get filled in with water (either water table or rivers). Sometimes in tsunamis, worldwide flooding, or like impacts. Sometimes the water glows and fills in large areas (like a huge magma lake on the surface).

It's the strangest thing to be popping into my mind every single day and when I'm not paying attention to things -- especially when, other than a rive about 10 miles away, rare for water to be in my mind now.

Midwest Earthquakes

Today there were a number of earthquakes in the Midwest. Surprisingly I only felt one of the aftershocks (despite there apparently being a 5.4, and a 4.6 -- the 5.4 one woke me up briefly I think). Given the past few years of me monitoring the earthquakes in the region, it seems a tad bit out of place. Normally we only have a "bigger" one if there hadn't been one for a long while. Yet in this case we had a smaller one on Wednesday [2 days ago].

While it doesn't mark the end of the world (by itself), it is an interesting phenomenon. I've said for years that there's going to be a big earthquake in the Midwest again, one of the reasons why I monitor the small ones for trends. Today's was out of the ordinary. While I was out walking a thought hit me, "what if a volcano started to form". Now I'm sure it's highly unlikely for it to happen within the next few hundred thousand years, but it sure would make life here a lot more interesting. What's not as interesting is bridges and rivers in the area. Are they really designed to withstand earthquakes? And is it even possible for an earthquake in this area to alter a river's path?

Here's the thing, it's not if a big earthquake will hit in the Midwest, but when. Overdue? Not really, we're still within a "could happen anytime" zone right now. It is said some places that a 7.5 or greater could hit between 2012 and 2112 (look even slightly familiar?) But it does raise one question, what are the towns in the Midwest doing to make themselves ready for a massive earthquake? And what would happen to our food? Big earthquake, loss of power, multiple state damage, Memphis, St Louis, Chicago, Indianapolis (to name a few cities) could have massive building failures. Think New Orleans was bad? Imagine having to rebuild the equivalent of two states with potential side effects that could last 5-10 years. Midwest even produces OIL; it's not just corn, soybeans, etc! And it's all in the earthquake zone.

And guess what? Towns don't even have earthquake preparedness classes or anything! Things that should be provided free of charge to the community, and they're nowhere to be seen. I doubt very many (if any) bridges are built to withstand earthquakes, you know if there's a big one they'd all have to be inspected. Some might have to be torn down or fixed. Lose a lot of bridges and entire communities will be blocked off from the "outside world"! It's a disaster waiting to happen -- and one that no one seems to care to prepare for.

The customer isn't always right

That's right, the customer is always wrong. "Always" being the same as they're "always" right.

Customers are rarely right with things. Really, they aren't. Did they really buy this beaten up basketball last week at a store that only sells shoes because their friend said they got it there? Yet that's something a customer tries to pull. Even "you sell pop, therefore you should sell this pop, therefore I should have a refund on this pop that I bought 'here' (i.e. someplace else)". Again, something pulled by customers. Are they right? I'm sure a number of people out there think that no matter where you buy something you should be able to take it to anyplace (without a receipt, or with one that clearly says it's another place) and get a refund. Come on, do you people really think that every single business in the world's actually the same company? That's what these customers are acting like. Then they think of something like "well you get a refund from the distributer" -- maybe, for their cost, not their selling price (which is what is expected to be refunded).

Think of it another way. You have two friends that are selling speakers. You buy a set from friend A, and then take them to friend B for a refund. If friend B gives you one -- do you really think they broke even?

But the main reason why the customer isn't always right is a bit different.

1. By the customer being always right, your employees have to be always wrong (unless they agree with the customer). Which means that employees will know that no matter what the company policy is, no matter how they're trained, no matter how polite or helpful they are; they'll be stabbed in the back the second the customer goes to the manager to complain. Got a customer trying to return a five year old item that hasn't been stocked for four years -- without a receipt, when the store has a policy of a 30 day return policy? If you're the employee you might as well give up now. Might as well not even mention the policy -- because as soon as management comes they'll cave in, give the refund, and in some cases reprimand the employee for not providing good customer service. If the employee had of given the refund, guess what would happen? The employee would be reprimanded for going against company policy. Some work environment eh?
   
2. Abusive and threatening customers would be rewarded. Don't think so? What happens if a customer punches an employee for not giving a discount (yes, it's happened before), then demands special treatment by threatening in loud tones about everything wrong with the company ("the employee tried to rape me!" or anything that shocks and makes everyone turn to look -- you know, the things that would make people not shop there if true)? You guessed it! The managers would have to give the customer what they want to quiet them. Of course this has the side effect of other people thinking "if the comments weren't true, they wouldn't have caved in!", and others thinking "the more I yell, the better treatment I'll get!" And that's a good work environment there. Sell computers, TVs or just TV dinners and you'll know that the customers are ready to treat you like scum, abuse you, threaten you and whoever threatens you the most will get the best service -- and management will back the customers.
   
3. Customers that cause tons of problems every time they come in aren't customers. I know how can they not be right? As soon as you have a "customer" that comes in for a refund for something you've never stocked, and demands that you give them a refund, they're not a customer. They're not buying anything. If a "customer" walks in and does nothing but harass employees and management (taking them away from their duties and other customers), they're COSTING you more money than they'd ever spend! A person costing you money isn't a customer, they're a liability. Which is how there's two types of customers. Those that plan on buying something, and those that want something for nothing. The latter aren't customers, they're freeloaders. And since freeloaders aren't shopping with you, there's no reason to treat them with more respect, and give them more resources than those customers who are actually paying you.
   
4. When employee's come first, you have better customer service. Why? Well it's quite simple really. When your employees know that if a customer starts yelling and threatening they can have them removed from the store without being fired. They know that if they uphold company policies they'll be backed, not stabbed in the back. They know that if a customer tries to rip the company off, they don't have to bend over and take it, they can show the customer the door. When employees know that they actually have the same rights as any other human -- they'll treat the customers better. They won't be stressed out, upset, and just on the verge of wanting to hit someone because they have to take crap from customers that are in the wrong (but "right" based on an inaccurate policy). Employees will be quicker, more productive, and have fewer lines -- which will create a better experience for your actual customers. And don't get me wrong here, you'll have a few "customers" complain, but if the people really know how things go on, even your customers will back and defend you!
   
5. Some customers are so wrong, that they can't be right. If the customer is always right, a group of hate mongrels could walk into your store wearing a hate shirt, hat, or just start talking really loudly about some employee with racial slurs -- and you'd have to give them what they want to shut them up. Or you could say the customer isn't always right, and kick them out. If you had a customer that walked into the store and said "I want everything here for free now!" and started to make a scene, what then? If an employee comes in and starts shouting racial slurs towards your employees or item selections, what then? Could you ever really have a customer shoplift, since if they're always right…. Or as the joke would go, if the customer is always right, what if the customer says "I'm wrong."?
   

The main thing to think of is this: just because the customer isn't always right (which they never have been) doesn't mean you can't make them happy. If a customer can go to your place and receive quick and friendly service (even if paying a bit more), do you really think they'll go to your competitor where they have long lines, crappy customer service, and employees that run and hide for fear of getting in trouble? How many times have you gone to a store and noticed that they have employees that seem worn down, tired, grumpy, and almost hiding from customers -- but they were able to make decisions on the spot? How many places have you had friendly, upbeat employees that didn't force smiles to help you -- that could make decisions on the spot, or at the least had management that backed them?

We're the pets of the government (Population Control, Part 2)

It's always a wonderful day when you start thinking about population control for no apparent reason. It was on my mind so much that I couldn't get to sleep. Know why? Because we're just the pets of the government. Really, that's what we are! Especially in any country where population controls are in place.

You can say it's for a completely legitimate reason, I know there are many that will say that, but it's the same thing people say about their pets. Get your dog and cats spayed and neutered -- can't have those things running around getting knocked up can we? So we do what's best to control their populations. And governments decide that their pets are out of control, so they go and pass laws and such to keep them in line. We're just pets. The cute little furry things that they pet every so often so we know we're loved. And sometimes, if we're really obedient and don't hump their legs, we might get a few scraps tossed at us.

When did this happen? When did humans get pushed aside as equals and made into the animals of the governments -- that are supposedly run by humans! What makes them better than us? Being elected? Well that makes about as much sense as saying that the rich have the right to poke the middle class and lower people with sticks because it makes them laugh. Although based on some of the so-called rich people's attitudes, it makes you wonder.

So as the new pets of the world, soon our owners will decide we like sex too much. Oh they'll try the "just don't do it!", or try to make condoms so expensive kids can't buy them. Then when STD's are on the rise they'll think of something else. Chances are they'd look at history and think, what a minute, we already tried that... And then they will be down to only a few choices. Kill people, force sterilization, or just dose everyone and "let god sort it out". As I sit here looking at the yellow-looking pop in my glass, it makes me wonder what's really in it.

Population Control

This is perhaps one of the most useless things in the history of mankind that violates everything that makes a person human. And yes, I do think the world could use a lot fewer people on it right now, given how humans live. We spread all over the earth, taking up miles and miles of space -- when only a few blocks would do. But that isn't the point here. Soon different countries will end up limiting the number of children a family can have. Oh they'll say it's to help keep the population under control, and by the time they implement it, everyone will seem happy about it. But it's evil. What happens if they say a couple can only have two kids? What happens if they get a divorce and marry someone else? If it's phrased "wrong" they'll be some women and men who will never be able to have children not because they already have them -- but their spouse does. Picture a person who has a child with their spouse. The spouse dies. That person already has the max number of children allowed -- so whoever they marry or date will not only not want their own kids, but want kids.

People need to realize that the only way to maintain population controls is to murder, force castration, force abortions, and basically force people to request permission to have a child (and possibly sex). Don't think it'd happen like that? Oh, just wait. You see if you have one kid, and then you have another one illegally what else will they do? Throw the baby in prison or put it up for adoption? But then other couples will have maxed out their children or be forced not to have children of their own. But the governments are smart that way, they know people won't stand having their family torn apart for no good reason -- so they'll just force abortions or castrations on people. But then people will start to realize that those methods are way too violent -- and someone might complain.

So what then? Quite simple really: Governments will sterilize the populations without them realizing it. How? Well let's just say it's a fairly safe bet that humans drink water. Slip a few chemicals into the water supply that will sterilize the population and no one will be the wiser. Oh don't get me wrong, it won't be 100% effective, they'll try for maybe 10-25% of the population. And the best part is no one will ever realize it. It's not something that people would go around telling others -- not at first anyway. As soon as people start to realize that a number of their friends are sterile and it starts to make the news, maybe even before, a huge release of "disease X has caused humans to be sterile!" or even "cure for disease X has a potential side effect of sterilization". And that will be one glorious day.

Because at this point where the government's attempt to sterilize their populations -- they'll make a mistake. Their 10-25% population numbers will be higher to 75%+. Governments will panic and immediately stop all sterilization drugs in water supplies. Since it only takes one person in a couple being sterile to prevent conception, close to all couples in the world won't be able to have children. Populations will decrease rapidly within twenty years, causing a fear of "humans extinct due to sterilization?!?" headlines. People will be tested and forced donations will be done to artificially produce offspring in test tubes to try and repopulate humankind. Then it'll hit people, or perhaps before depending on the extent, the animal-based food supply will be affected as well. Entire lines of animals will die out (from drinking the same water as people). This will cause a huge food shortage (or at the least, force more people into being vegetarians). Some of the few people left alive that aren't sterile will be given the food, with the remaining being handed out to the others.

In the end, humans will survive. Just nowhere near the current population or lifestyles that we're accustomed -- then again, maybe we'll all die out due to some unforeseen side effects of the drugs -- like all of our offspring being sterile. That'd be the real treat. Mankind will kill off our entire species, in the attempt to cut back our population without the people complaining.

Kind of makes one wonder: are they actually planning this without anyone knowing about it? We'll never know, until we've drank up our species deaths.

Hagglers welcome at stores…

"There was a New York Times article titled "Even at Megastores, Hagglers Find No Price Is Set in Stone"

I do understand that papers want to run articles of public interest. However the article "Even at Megastores, Hagglers Find No Price Is Set in Stone" (By Matt Richtel - Published: March 23, 2008) also runs the risk of hurting people. I know what you're thinking, how can it possibly hurt someone?

Now while I agree that many items in stores seem overpriced, there are many reasons for it such as overhead and shoplifting. There's a markup on everything so they can pay the store's bills and buy more goods to stock the shelves. If someone tries to haggle on a price and the store agrees ("less profit is better than none" belief), it doesn't generally matter for a few customers as they'd recoup the cost with other items, possibly that they themselves bought. However, every sale costs the company money. Even if the sale generates profit by itself, the company could have spent more money to sell it than they made (ex: 30 minutes of an employee who makes $10/hr to make a $5 profit on an item – they "broke even").

The problem comes is with the article, more people are going to assume that they can haggle for prices anywhere. And that's a problem since they can't. More customers demanding lower prices mean more time taken out to negotiate. This means you are either understaffed (resulting in complaints and demands for discounts for the inconvenience), or more employees being hired which will cause prices to increase drastically. Why? Well for one they have to increase prices to give themselves more "haggle room" and two so that when the price is haggled down to the original selling price, they can pay for all the new employees that were hired to do the haggling! This leads to another problem. You walk into a store and find something noticeably more expensive than a competitor. What do you do? Either you leave and go to the competitor, or you haggle. Which means prices can't be increased a lot, so no new employees – so longer wait times. Assuming everything goes smoothly, you'll have a longer checkout time – five people in line, all prices have to be manually edited. A simple 20 minute visit could take you an hour.

Now let's say a store has two customers that are both buying the same TV. They enter electronics at different times for the haggle – but hit the checkouts at the same time. "Frank" gets $500 off the TV. "Charlie" only gets $450 off (you know, since haggling doesn't yield the same price off for everyone – unless it's a "fake haggle" where the store has a set price, and a second set price that's the actual price they want). Now when at the register, Charlie realizes that Frank got a better deal, so he demands another $50 off, and files a complaint against the employee (since you know, the employee probably said it was as low as they could go). Cashier is authorized to make the change (since the computer says so), and they're both happy. Frank goes home and discovers the TV's damaged so he returns it – and requests another discount because he had to make two trips for it. This would mean that the TV was marked up not just $500, but closer to $750-1000 over their cost – so they could haggle if needed. But it doesn't seem too bad.

But let's take this same situation from the employee's point of view.

Frank walks into electronics and sees a 27" widescreen LCD for $2500. He knows he saw the "exact same thing" at the store a few weeks ago for only $1200. And here the problem starts. Now I'll assume that the employee isn't busy with another customer and everything goes smoothly overall, which isn't always the case.

Frank: "Excuse me. I need to talk to someone about this TV."
Employee: "How can I help you?"
Frank: "I saw this exact same TV in here a few weeks ago and it was only $1200! So that's what I want to pay."
Employee: "We just got this TV in last week. It's a new model that (lists new features). We don't have the old one anymore."

(At this point Frank would complain, assuming employee is lying, accuse the employee of such, etc)

Frank: "Then just give me a thousand off this one."

(Employee checks computer, it's marked up $750 – i.e. only $750 can be taken off without a loss)

Employee: "We can take off $250."
Frank: "That's unacceptable! The other model was only $1200, and I should be able to get this newer one for just a bit more!"

(Insert a few minutes of complaints and explanations)

Employee (assuming a manager didn't have to step in): "We can take off $750."
Frank: "Fine." (leaves with TV in a huff).

Now, after the employee just got ripped a new one by one customer, she gets to get to deal with a few hundred more. If they heard that you could haggle – guess what they'd want to do? And guess what happens to the wait times? Figure out what will happen next? Demands for free or greater-discounted stuff for the long wait. All the while the employees are the target of the customer's rage. And they're not paid enough for it.

Most customers are generally kind to employees. But there's a percentage that aren't. Now that people have discovered that haggling can be done at some stores, they'll just assume it can be done anywhere ("But company X does it! If you don't do it I'll go there!"). They'll start being mean to employees, anything they can think of to make sure they get a discount. People complain now that it's hard to find employees to help you – imagine how hard it'd be if almost everyone needs an employee every time they visit the store. It'd reach a point that anything shy of one employee per customer and you'll have complaints (demanding more discounts!). Brick and mortar stores will have huge operating costs that they won't be able to pass on to customers, since the customers will just demand it be removed or "they'll go somewhere else". They wouldn't hire more people since they couldn't cover the costs. It'd just make more hassle and an overall hostile work environment.

While biased since it's an "employee customer horror story" site, you may want to visit http://www.customerssuck.com/board/ -- you'll get some ideas as to what employees deal with everyday, or every week for the lucky ones.


And that leads to the point of how that article will hurt people in one sentence: Many companies won't allow haggling for the reasons I put in here – and the customers will take it out on the employees.

I know that article was just trying to let people know of a "hidden secret" of sorts. But all it's going to do is hurt people. And like I said, a few people wanting to haggle is no big deal. But if your entire clientele realizes it – you've got some major problems. And from me visiting those stores listed in the article I can say I had a hard enough time getting help as it was with no one haggling. Now I don't know if I even want to visit them.