Sabado, 11 AM: Cansado de que mi linea telefónica y de Internet solo funcione cuando no hay viento y/o lluvia, marco a Axtel frustrado para que arreglen mi problema. Despues de 10 minutos de espera (porsupuesto desde mi celular, proque mi linea NO FUNCIONABA) me contestan. Me piden mi numero telefonico (el cual ya había marcado, para obtener acceso al sistema. Pendejos) y se los proporciono de nuevo. Despues de 10 frustrantes minutos de "Desconecte su aparato.... a ver, conectelo de nuevo. Uy no. A ver, desconecte su aparato otra vez... a ver, conectelo de nuevo" (tambien conocido como la solucion Microsoft) mi linea regresa a la vida. Por supuesto, como tengo mas de diez neuronas le pregunto a la persona que si esta solución garantiza que ya no vaya a tener problemas de nuevo. Le expreso mi incredulidad pero ella me asegura que ya "restauro el sistema".
Sabado, 12 AM: Por supuesto que no sirvio para un pito desconectar y reconectar la antena. Mi telefono vuelve a fallar. Vuelvo a marcar a Axtel, digito mi numero telefonico, espero 10 minutos y me contesta otra persona. Que me vuelve a pedir el numero que acabo de digitar. Le informo que OTRA VEZ esta fallando el servicio. Al primer "Desconecte su aparato" les informo que eso ya lo hice varias veces y no funcionó. Me piden que lo haga una vez más. Despues de que no funciona les exijo una solucion al problema y me garantizan que para el lunes tendria yo una respuesta final. Me aseguran que estarán monitoreando mi linea para detectar el problema. Me piden mi numero de celular para comunicarse conmigo (numero que por supuesto ya tienen, dado que me han marcado ahi). Se los doy. De nuevo.
Lunes, 1 PM: Recibo una llamada a mi celular, donde un técnico de Axtel me informa que estan afuera de mi casa y que necesitan entrar a ver mi aparato. ¿Cuando chingados programé una cita de servicio técnico? Nunca. ¿Como chingados pensaban que iba a estar esperando a ver que dia se les antojaba pasar por galletitas? "Es que su archivo dice que puede recibirnos a toda hora y cualquier dia joven". Pendejos. OBVIO jamas he dicho tal estupidez, ya que como informé arriba y a pesar de mi ortografía, TENGO MAS DE DIEZ NEURONAS. O sea los retrasados mentales de AXTEL piensan que pueden llegar un domingo a las 3:45 de la mañana a hacer su trabajo? Pendejos. Le informo al retrasado del soporte técnico que porfavor cambie su archivo. El me explica que para darme una solucion necesitan ver el equipo. Le comento el compromiso del retrasado que me atendio en el telefono hace dos dias, confirmando que iban a monitorear via remota mi linea y le pregunto si lo han estado haciendo. A lo cual porsupuesto me dice que no. Que tienen que ver el aparato. Obvio, dado que yo soy el cliente, que paga, tengo que estar encerrado en mi casa 24 horas para ver a que chingada hora se les ocurre venir. Tengo que asistir a una junta, asi que les miento la madre y cuelgo.
Lunes, 3PM: Hablo a atencion al cliente para acordar la cita. Le menciono al retrasado que me atiende que se comprometieron a darme una respuesta el lunes a mas tardar. Dada esta situacion, los podia recibir el lunes a las 7 PM. El retrasado cree que me puede hacer pendejo y me dice que a ver si se puede. Le aclaro que ir no es opcional, que los espero a las 7. El retrasado me dice que en 10 minutos me confirma y colgamos.
Lunes, 5PM: El retrasado se digna en llamarme y me dice algo como "Sr, como usted solicitó, el día de hoy a las 6PM estamos ahi en su casa". Pendejo. Le informo que le habia especificado que podia recibirlos a las 7 y que ademas sus 10 minutos los midió mientras viajaba cercano a la velocidad de la luz, dado que habian pasado dos horas. El retrasado me dice "Esta bien Sr. a las 7, disculpe usté"
Lunes, 8:30PM: Porsupuesto los retrasados de Soporte Técnico no se dieron a bien ni venir ni avisar. Marco a Atencion a Clientes, digito mi numero, espero 10 minutos, me contestan y me piden el # de telefono que acabo de marcar. Le explico la situacion a la retrasada que me contesto. Me "asegura" que esta vez si se presentan cuando les diga. Acordamos una visita a las 7 el miercoles. Le pido que me comunique a atencion a clientes y levanto una queja (por cierto, al parecer todas las llamadas y quejas que habia hecho no son "oficialmente quejas", solo comentarios del cliente que nadie realmente pela. La señorita (ella fue decente y la unica persona que hizo su trabajo. No me sorprende, ya que con la pendejez de esta compañia, deben tener un ejercito de personas recibiendo quejas, asi que agarran experiencia rapido). toma nota de mi queja y me da un numero de queja. Me asegura que el día miercoles a las 7 PM recibo la visita y que se descontarán los dias que no tuve el servicio adecuado.
Martes, 4 PM: Recibo una llamada del técnico. Esta afuera de mi casa y quiere que lo deje pasar a ver mi aparato.
AXTEL.
Absolute, X'treme Telephonic Estupid Letalds.
Masters of Retardation.
Contratenlos bajo su propio riesgo. You've been warned.
En cuanto termine el contrato de un año (porsupuesto te obligan a contratar al menos un año o si no pagas una multa y al parecer hay tabla) me cambio de compañia.
About Me
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Friday, September 18, 2009
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Death Star: Conspiracy Theory
We all knew it. Just like all other Conspiracies out there, it was way too obvious for the truth-finders.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Thursday, September 10, 2009
The Discourse of Absurdity: The dialectic paradigm of expression and cultural theory
1. Cultural theory and the subcultural paradigm of reality
In the works of Eco, a predominant concept is the distinction between within and without. Therefore, any number of appropriations concerning the subcultural paradigm of reality may be found. Derrida promotes the use of cultural theory to read and challenge reality.
“Class is meaningless,” says Lacan. However, in The Island of the Day Before, Eco affirms the subcultural paradigm of reality; in The Limits of Interpretation (Advances in Semiotics), although, he denies cultural theory. The subject is contextualised into a patriarchialist feminism that includes art as a totality.
It could be said that Hubbard[1] holds that we have to choose between the dialectic paradigm of expression and precultural theory. If cultural theory holds, the works of Eco are modernistic.
In a sense, the premise of the dialectic paradigm of expression states that reality may be used to reinforce class divisions. The subject is interpolated into a cultural theory that includes culture as a reality.
It could be said that in The Island of the Day Before, Eco examines the dialectic paradigm of expression; in The Name of the Rose, however, he reiterates cultural theory. A number of structuralisms concerning not theory, as Sontag would have it, but posttheory exist.
Therefore, the subject is contextualised into a semanticist rationalism that includes truth as a whole. Brophy[2] suggests that we have to choose between the subcultural paradigm of reality and prematerial textual theory.
2. Rushdie and cultural theory
“Consciousness is fundamentally used in the service of capitalism,” says Lacan; however, according to Porter[3] , it is not so much consciousness that is fundamentally used in the service of capitalism, but rather the rubicon, and some would say the stasis, of consciousness. It could be said that Sontag suggests the use of cultural neocapitalist theory to deconstruct the status quo. Foucault uses the term ‘the subcultural paradigm of reality’ to denote the meaninglessness of modernist sexual identity.
The primary theme of the works of Rushdie is not narrative, but postnarrative. Therefore, the subject is interpolated into a neodialectic paradigm of consensus that includes reality as a reality. The subcultural paradigm of reality implies that narrative is a product of the collective unconscious.
It could be said that if cultural theory holds, the works of Rushdie are an example of semiotic capitalism. Many discourses concerning the dialectic paradigm of expression may be discovered.
However, in Satanic Verses, Rushdie denies the subcultural paradigm of reality; in The Moor’s Last Sigh he affirms the dialectic paradigm of expression. Several sublimations concerning a mythopoetical paradox exist.
In a sense, the premise of the subcultural paradigm of reality states that the media is capable of intention. A number of deconstructions concerning cultural theory may be revealed.
Therefore, Bataille promotes the use of the dialectic paradigm of expression to modify society. Several theories concerning the role of the observer as participant exist.
1. Hubbard, Y. ed. (1978) Cultural theory in the works of Eco. O’Reilly & Associates
2. Brophy, V. Z. E. (1987) The Burning Door: The dialectic paradigm of expression in the works of Rushdie. Schlangekraft
3. Porter, Q. ed. (1994) Marxism, the subconceptualist paradigm of context and cultural theory. Loompanics
If you agree, click here
If you disagree, click here
In the works of Eco, a predominant concept is the distinction between within and without. Therefore, any number of appropriations concerning the subcultural paradigm of reality may be found. Derrida promotes the use of cultural theory to read and challenge reality.
“Class is meaningless,” says Lacan. However, in The Island of the Day Before, Eco affirms the subcultural paradigm of reality; in The Limits of Interpretation (Advances in Semiotics), although, he denies cultural theory. The subject is contextualised into a patriarchialist feminism that includes art as a totality.
It could be said that Hubbard[1] holds that we have to choose between the dialectic paradigm of expression and precultural theory. If cultural theory holds, the works of Eco are modernistic.
In a sense, the premise of the dialectic paradigm of expression states that reality may be used to reinforce class divisions. The subject is interpolated into a cultural theory that includes culture as a reality.
It could be said that in The Island of the Day Before, Eco examines the dialectic paradigm of expression; in The Name of the Rose, however, he reiterates cultural theory. A number of structuralisms concerning not theory, as Sontag would have it, but posttheory exist.
Therefore, the subject is contextualised into a semanticist rationalism that includes truth as a whole. Brophy[2] suggests that we have to choose between the subcultural paradigm of reality and prematerial textual theory.
2. Rushdie and cultural theory
“Consciousness is fundamentally used in the service of capitalism,” says Lacan; however, according to Porter[3] , it is not so much consciousness that is fundamentally used in the service of capitalism, but rather the rubicon, and some would say the stasis, of consciousness. It could be said that Sontag suggests the use of cultural neocapitalist theory to deconstruct the status quo. Foucault uses the term ‘the subcultural paradigm of reality’ to denote the meaninglessness of modernist sexual identity.
The primary theme of the works of Rushdie is not narrative, but postnarrative. Therefore, the subject is interpolated into a neodialectic paradigm of consensus that includes reality as a reality. The subcultural paradigm of reality implies that narrative is a product of the collective unconscious.
It could be said that if cultural theory holds, the works of Rushdie are an example of semiotic capitalism. Many discourses concerning the dialectic paradigm of expression may be discovered.
However, in Satanic Verses, Rushdie denies the subcultural paradigm of reality; in The Moor’s Last Sigh he affirms the dialectic paradigm of expression. Several sublimations concerning a mythopoetical paradox exist.
In a sense, the premise of the subcultural paradigm of reality states that the media is capable of intention. A number of deconstructions concerning cultural theory may be revealed.
Therefore, Bataille promotes the use of the dialectic paradigm of expression to modify society. Several theories concerning the role of the observer as participant exist.
1. Hubbard, Y. ed. (1978) Cultural theory in the works of Eco. O’Reilly & Associates
2. Brophy, V. Z. E. (1987) The Burning Door: The dialectic paradigm of expression in the works of Rushdie. Schlangekraft
3. Porter, Q. ed. (1994) Marxism, the subconceptualist paradigm of context and cultural theory. Loompanics
If you agree, click here
If you disagree, click here
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
Monday, August 10, 2009
Choque colosal
Les dejo este video. Es una animación de un choque que ocurrió hace 100 años, entre un objeto de el tamaño de la Luna, con un objeto del tamaño de Mercurio. Me parece fascinante que podamos observar nuestro Universo desde nuestro pequeño planeta y detectar este tipo de cosas e incluso llegar al punto de poder simularlas en un ambiente de computadora
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


