* Sean O'Rourke <sorou...@cs.ucsd.edu> [2007-08-16 23:00]: > Here's an analogy. Say you want people to wear seatbelts. You > might: > > (1) Install a buzzer that go off for 10 seconds after a car > starts unless the driver's seatbelt is fastened; or > (2) Install a buzzer that never shuts off while the buckle > is undone; or > (3) Disable the ignition while the driver's seatbelt is > unfastened. > > IMAO (2) is no more effective than (1), but far more annoying, > and therefore hateful.
That's true, but what you are saying is is that #2 makes people not put on their seatbelts out of spite. How is that supposed to make sense? If it was that hateful, why didn't you stop using it? And if you didn't stop using it despite getting pissed off, why didn't you just buy it to spare yourself the bile? Maybe the incessant nagging reduces the number of people who are willing to pay. That might be a valid point. But if it's pissing off freeloaders at the same time, well then I can't quite fault the author for putting in a nag screen. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
