Slashdot Mirror
The Internet Not for Old People
Alien54 writes to tell us the Daily Mail is reporting that if you want an internet connection and you are over 70 you may be in for a surprise. From the article: "After walking the Great Wall of China and making plans for a trip to Russia, Shirley Greening-Jackson thought signing up for a new internet service would be a doddle. But the young man behind the counter had other ideas. He said she was barred - because she was too old."
But the Internet is a prerequisite for email, which in turn is only for old people. I'm confused.
I know I've spent too much time because whilst reading the article (another sign - I'm not actually meant to do that) I noticed something in a quote:
"Somebody has decided when you turn 70 you lose a lot of your mind. I find this is ridiculous."
This lady is obviously intelligent, she spelt rediculous correctly...
People should have to pass a test to get on the internet, it should consist of lots of to/too there/their/they're type questions and only if passed you get access (I would have years of my life back because I would fail it)
I wonder if it can be retroactively applied though and if it was, would slashdot have managed 1 million user accounts?
Having said all that, the guy who rejected her should get reprimanded for his actions, if a person is competent enough to go into a store and is prepared to go through the motions of ordering they should be supplied the product. Its not like she was an anonymous web packet arriving with credit card information and an order.
liqbase
FTA:
"Later a young lady said company policy is that anyone over 70 might not understand the contract. She said, 'If you would be prepared to go to the shop in town and take a younger member of your family we might give you a contract.'"
"She added that the discretionary rule had been introduced in response to complaints that staff had mis-sold products last year."
So apparently they want younger (and probably more technical) people to read the contract so the 70+ people know what they're getting. Stupid, but it's not a rule without a reason.
The amount of old-people porn on the Internet will dwindle rapidly if the old codgers are prevented from signing up for broadband!
FREE THE GERIATRICS! Bottles of Ensure and Cable Modems for ALL!
In North Korea, only old.... oh never mind.
Where were you when the voynix came?
Personally, I think you would have to pass an intelligence test before you should be allowed to have an Internet connection. You should show that you posses the basic common sense that ensures that you won't let your PC be turned into a zombie. Of course, that means that about 80% of the current population would be barred.
MAKING PLANS for a trip to Russia?! My, aren't we adventurous?!
Send email from the afterlife! Write your e-will at Dead Man's Switch.
Unusual case. Surely this strange store policy in the UK doesn't warrant the headline, "The Internet Not for Old People." I have no doubt that she eventually got her connection.
Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others. -Groucho Marx
Our society discriminates based on age at the younger end in all sorts of aspects.
The ISP was legally covering their asses, and last time I checked a free market economy allowed a company to decide with whom they'd like to do business (short of random anti-discriminatory acts the US has set, but I don't believe age is a protected factor).
Maybe she should just sign up with another company that's happy to have her business, rather than waste time being an attention whore over a minor issue.
We don't want to see her myspace profile.
Just noticed this was in the UK, where I have no knowledge of the laws.
Regardless, the company policy is probably a good one, and she needs to stop making such ado about nothing and just give her money to a competitor.
When the bulk of baby-boomers hit their 70's, I suspect we'll find that they tend not to retire, partly because they can't afford to, and partly because onone wants them to (including themselves). Then, I suspect we'll find all kinds of age-related discrimination and preconceptions will fade from our culture.
/.-ing? :-O
Where will you be at 70? Still
Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
Can this be true? I know of at least one example where an old person is an active Internet user. My granddad, now nearly 90, got his first PC for his 80th birthday. Pretty soon after this, he got an Internet connection too, and he is now on broadband and often spends most of his days in front of the computer. What he uses most is probably e-mail, actively engaging in several mailing lists. He may not be a geek or anything, but he knows enough for using Word and casual photo retouching and printing.
I wonder if this is just some clerk thinking "naw, that grandma will phone us a hundred times saying it doesn't work when she actually only needs to turn on her PC".
Bear in mind that many elderly people have trouble understanding the workings of computers and the Internet (insert Ted Stevens joke here). This is more of a cover-your-ass routine so that people with little prior understanding of technology don't buy something completely unsuitable then come back ranting and raving.
I'm sure it's an inconvenience to elderly people who do understand the Internet and computers, but then I'm sure speed limits are an inconvenience to people who can safely and skilfully drive at 100mph.
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
>
A preschooler maybe?
There's one company now you can sign up and you can get a movie delivered to your house daily by delivery service. Okay. And currently it comes to your house, it gets put in the mail box when you get home and you change your order but you pay for that, right.
But this service is now going to go through the internet* and what you do is you just go to a place on the internet and you order your movie and guess what you can order ten of them delivered to you and the delivery charge is free.
Ten of them streaming across that internet and what happens to your own personal internet?
I just the other day got, an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why?
Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the internet commercially.
So you want to talk about the consumer? Let's talk about you and me. We use this internet to communicate and we aren't using it for commercial purposes.
We aren't earning anything by going on that internet. Now I'm not saying you have to or you want to discrimnate against those people []
The regulatory approach is wrong. Your approach is regulatory in the sense that it says "No one can charge anyone for massively invading this world of the internet". No, I'm not finished. I want people to understand my position, I'm not going to take a lot of time. []
They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the internet. And again, the internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a truck.
It's a series of tubes.
And if you don't understand those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and its going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.
Now we have a separate Department of Defense internet now, did you know that?
Do you know why?
Because they have to have theirs delivered immediately. They can't afford getting delayed by other people.
[]
Now I think these people are arguing whether they should be able to dump all that stuff on the internet ought to consider if they should develop a system themselves.
Maybe there is a place for a commercial net but it's not using what consumers use every day.
It's not using the messaging service that is essential to small businesses, to our operation of families.
The whole concept is that we should not go into this until someone shows that there is something that has been done that really is a viloation of net neutraility that hits you and me.
They add mindless arguements, forums with no traffic, myspace suicide threats, and dont forget about youtube videos.
He's following company policy. He works there... it is not his problem, it's the companies.
Thats like getting mad at the cashier because your Big Mac went up 20 cents. I assure you he doesn;t set policy.
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
Like marcelo tosatti, or the young guy who worked for mozilla ?
Thanks a lot. I routinely edit wikipedia, making articles better, fixing mispellings and such, and always use proper grammar. Ending sentences with prepositions isn't something I will up with put.
You apparently haven't been to MySpace. Young people add a great deal of value to the Internet.
After all. Who wants them poking along on the Internet, slowing everybody down with the left blinker on?
Carphone Warehouse is normally packed with sales people in their early 20s working primarily for commissions (e.g. for selling extended warranty, and some manufactorers pay a commission for selling their new high end models). Their technical knowledge is normally about the same as the kid who doesn't shave yet working at Radio Shack, althought I've personally known a couple of knowledgeable sales people from Carphone Warehouse.
They most likely created the policy after too many complaints of pressuring older people into buying a fancy but complicated phone or expensive cell/mobile phone contract.
I can see the point of being more careful with older customers - for a cell phone contract for instance you want to make sure they understand ALL the monthly billing costs (taxes, regulatory fees yada yada) and the contracts cancellation or change of plan terms, and then make sure they can actually use the phone. Take a highlighter to the necessary sections on the contract - that helps.
A lot of elderly people get it , and its important to not insult their intelligence, but a good number do not and it does not hurt to be careful. Most appreciate you taking the time to explain things to them clearly. The salesperson here didn't even try - either covering their posterior or simply unwilling to think independently. This will get resolved and she will get her internet connection but this could have been easily avoided by actually hiring staff that are willing to think or even giving them som e training to handle elderly customers.
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.
Yes! Bring on the internet competency exam for the elderly. In actuality, a computer competency exam would be better. This ISP probably has had experiences much like mine in trying to support the elderly online. I can't tell you how many times I've been yelled at by someone elderly because "their internet doesn't work" to only after 45 minutes of questions get them to finally admit something like: - the computer is not working at all - the computer is not turned on - the monitor is unplugged - the internet is working just fine, they just don't know how to create a word doc - a single particular web site is broken I've had a few calls from people other than the elderly with similar issues, but the number of problems supporting the elderly has to be 10x higher. It's not worth having a customer when you're spending much more trying to support them each month than what they are paying you during that same period.
its all those damn tubes... too many tubes!!!
Appearently they'd sold service to a few people who didn't need it who also happened to be 1) old and 2) unable or unwilling to read and/or understand the fine print.
The solution is to
1) make the fine print bigger, say, newsprint-size.
2) make the fine print easier to understand, say, newspaper-reading-level.
3) go over the fine print with every customer to make sure they understand it.
After all, if companies can find a way to sell a 70-year-old a reverse morgtage without getting complaints, surely they can figure out a way to sell internet services.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Nice to dig that up.
To bad there was not someone there to question why, with no top level priority or level of service indicators on the internet, it is possible for MORPG's to function across the world with instant reactions for millions of gamers. Yet the government is unable to provide timely emails.
This is not a priority service thing, or net neutrality thing. This about doing the basic infrastructure right.
Ok. The MORPG's are huge and probably pay for fixed bandwidth pipes to HQ from multiple interfaces to the internet in general. But that means they know the load the put on the system and are doing the infrastructure right. If the government can't do their network infrastucture right, that is the governments internal problem, not a call for more laws.
I think you'll find the quotation is "Ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will not put". Your way doesn't make much sense...
I think to be allowed you shouldn't be able to say things like "basic common sense", when "basic sense" and "common sense" seem to do the trick all by themselves.
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
silver surfers ??? Did I miss something here ?
And while we're at it, maybe you should be able to rent a car if you are under 25 or get a hotel room at 18!
Yeah, ageism is atrocious when it is old people getting the shaft. Young people like myself are just told to accept that car insurance is going to be higher for us simply because we're young. I pay triple the car insurance my senile grandmother does despite the fact that I've never so much as gotten a parking ticket.
To me this seems like a perfectly reasonable policy. I mean, a lot of old people just don't get this internet stuff. Obviously the clerk in this particular case didn't know who he was dealing with and should have used more direction. This is definitely not a good idea for a blanket rule, but great for a rule of thumb.
This is really about the ISP wanting to be able to enforce its contract. If the terms were fair, it wouldn't be an issue. The terms probably aren't fair, so the ISP is worried that she'll cancel the service and claim ignorance of the contract's disclaimer of sevice warranty, authorization to throttle bandwidth, permission to share private information, multi-year commitment, punitive cancellation charge, multiple hidden monthly fees, restrictions on ports and services, and advance agreement to any additional unfair terms the ISP's evil lawyers can dream up.
Young people are probably even more casual than old people about signing such agreements, because young people haven't been burned by them yet, but the ISP doesn't care whether the customer actually agrees to the terms. The ISP cares only about being able to enforce the terms. If a customer was able to read and understand the terms, the terms will probably be enforced against her. The ISP has more trouble proving agreement to the terms by a senior citizen.
On the one hand it is clearly horrible for competent older individuals to be denied products.
On the other hand what do you do when you do know old people are far more likely to not understand or be able to use the product? It does seem like they are disproportionatly likely to use tecchnical serrvice or buy computer products wthout understanding their use. This is no real slight against old people but when you are young it is far easier to adjust to different situations and the very old are in a world that is incredibly different from the one they adjusted to at a young age. My grandpa was a phycicist and still a very smart man but he is way more likely to call tech support for computer help than most younger people I know.
Now you might think this is a situation like age discrimination in hiring. However, when hiring the employer has the opportunity to make an individualized deciscion. The employer can look at the resume and determine if this individual has the right skills regardless of whether they belong to a class which is statistically less likely to have those skills. When selling a product one doesn't necessarily have the resources to make an individualized deciscion. For instance we are comfortable letting insurance companies charge old people more for car insurance because they are more likely to get in accidents.
Don't get me wrong I think denying old people the chance to buy the software/service is wrong and this company acted irresponsibly. However, I don't know if I would feel the same way if they just charged old people extra money in return for their statistically increased usage of service calls and greater guidance in selecting a product. Is this more like increased insurance premiums or more like job descrimination?
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
Uh,... did I see that correctly? A slashdot post that actually mentioned the words, "MySpace," and, "value," in the same post?!?!
Descriminatory policies based on age are illegal. This lady has a terrific opporutnity to let the ISP fund her trip to Russia!
I'm over 65 and I find that most people who work at ISP's are in over their head. Many think that PC = Windows, and even then they cannot distinguish between an application and the OS or its utilities. The ISP techies I've encountered do not understand basic TCP/IP and assume that only "Windows" can be connected to their trunk. Like many of my co-workers they "learn" to use their computers by memorizing specific steps to do a specific job. When something happens that forces them out of that sequence of steps, something as trivial as beginning in the wrong directory, they call the help desk. It gives the help desk techies an inflated ego because they condsider themselves "smarter" than their users, but how smart do you have to be when your solution is "reboot", "rebuild" or "reinstall"?
How could they see the ignorant, barely literate fat American goat herder who gets winded just sitting there talking extoll the virtues of truth while butchering the English language? He did tell us how about the "lice...light and perception afforded by true faith in God"
except I didn't insert it; I passed it through a series of tubes.
Just sign up some 70+ grandpa or grandma and pay for their link. Then, download all the songs via their accound. Until the RIAA finds out about this and starts suing, it's likely that grandpa is already dead. And in an "abundance of sensitivity" they might then drop the case.
Quite sarcastic, but it's free music after all.
harhar
Am I the only one that noticed that a company rep said they instituted this policy when they caught flack for possibly misrepresenting products to customers? Obviously the people doing the selling need a little more training (or perhaps this particular salesperson was utterly inept), but this sounds like a damned if you do, damned if you don't.
I've worked in sales for a cell company and you know honestly, it was difficult getting some (not ALL) of the elderly customers to understand what exactly they were wanting to sign up for. The most difficult ones had that "In my day...!" attitude and just didn't seem to have adapted to modern society.
And don't get me started on the ones that were being duped into signing up by vicious grandkids. I found out after the fact a couple of times when the grandchild would come in later asking why the phone was off when they'd rung up a huge bill.
No sig for you!!
older people. i deal with people every day at at work ranging in age from 25 to 60+ and the ones who complain most about their files taking too long to reach another location are the people around 40. they're the ones pushing 200MB cad files over a wispy little frac t1 and demanding to know why things are so slow. the people i deal with who are a little older tend to also be a little more patient unless they are in management. in that case, they all believe that their data will move faster if they just yell at someone about it and age is no longer relevant. and you can explain to them until you are blue the math behind their slow file transfers and they don't care. and they also don't want to pay for more bandwith.
bah.
My father has owned his own ISP service for quite a while. Now the comment that their are only a few children responsible enough to have a drivers license applies to older people as well. The majority of older people don't know anything about technology. When it would normally take 15 minutes to get a person's internet working it takes an older person an hour. Also they call more often for help. This all costs the ISP money. If anyone is allowed to say the average 15 year old can't handle driving on their own a company should be able to say the average 70 year old can't handle technology.
LOL maybe they should plunk down a VCR in front of the customer with a small TV, plug both in, hand them the manuals to both and say "you have 10 minutes to get this VCR hooked up, and have the correct time set." If they pass they can sign up for the internet, if they don't well good luck.
I hope she did the right thing afterwards... and no, it's not sueing the shit out of the company for age-discrimination; I was talking about her just taking her business elsewhere, maybe even informing the company that they lost a (sane) customer,and tell her experience through to a lot of other potential customers...
Imo, that's the only right thing to do (that is, if there are any other providers in her area).
MMM ... Leigh Taylor-Young
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
... people over 70 are in no way lithe enough to surf through a series of tubes.
It's for their own good.
My grandmother is 88 years old and is an active and intelligent Internet user. She bought her first computer at the age of 77 and has upgraded it twice since then. She walks into the computer store and the salespeople try to steer her toward little useless beginner machines, until she straigtens them out and tells them the specs she needs.
She uses scanners and digital cameras, and does almost everything a normal Internet user does. Email is still the best way to reach her.
For people who pride themselves for being on the cutting edge, a lot of your opinions on this issue are retrograde to say the least. Welcome to the 1960s, everyone.
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face! It's just a goddamned piece of paper!" -- George W. Bush
Companies make dumb blanket rules all the time. It's wasteful, slow, bureaucratic, and the tragedy far exceeds the bit of ageism shown here. It is interesting to think about how this decision got made: did some mid-level manager discover that senior citizens cost the company more than they brought in? Did the legal staff see liability issues stemming from unchecked admission ("my client was visibly senile and you should have known they would be an easy target for internet fraud")? Was the policy put in place with the thought that it would be sparingly used to cull clients on a case-by-case method? Did somebody not consult <<department that would have shot it down>>?
Decisions have to be made all the time, and good decisions are hard to find. Most people look to blanket restrictions based on dumb criteria because it's quick, cheap, and (often enough) pretty effective. Did you notice all the comments (plus the special interest group mentioned in the article) responded by calling for new laws? So both the company and protestors are using similar decision-making strategies.
Am I defending the company? Not really: bureaucracies and corporations are engines of inhumanity. While we humans waste a lot of time getting frustrated, making accusations, and demanding a perfect world, I suspect that it would more effective to focus on understanding how bad things happen and striving to find careful solutions for them.
-1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
The internet is too young for you!
See, the intarweb is a series of tubes.
And clearly the number of tubes is limited. So our central planning bureau (that'd be the FCC I guess) allocates tubes first to those people who'll be able to use them for a long time.
Good night. England prevails. And God bless America.
well said. and who the F are these people to make such discriminatory judgements like this? they're basing their reasoning for it on crap employees who's cant be trusted to explain their products and services properly, not actual hard fact. this is like saying to a african-american guy he can't join the swim team.
While I think this is pretty bad practice for a company, think about this story. I have a friend that works at a call center selling phone, internet and cable packages to people. While working there the management strictly enforced that they push every possible upsale to everyone without prejudice. One day my friend was sitting down and one of the workers in the cubicle next to him was on the phone with an elderly woman. He kept telling her she needed HUGE phone contracts, hundreds of HD channels, etc... and she would reply "O.K. dear. You know what I need best." Finally the man cracked and told her that he was just being forced to upsell aggressively and she really didn't need thousands of dollars of service a month. For that he was fired. There are companies out there who make it a day to day business practice to rip off the elderly. While this company's 'over 70' rule rediculously blankets every sane and intelligent senior with the wackos, I do think something like this would protect the elderly. Assume one of the workers, who is getting heavy commission based pay, is pushing something to an intelligent elderly person. She tells him that she wants a certain model and the salesman aggressively pushes more expensive models. A definate portion of the elderly population would be scared and back into the sale. Only to have their children show up fuming at the management the next day with their new HD-TV set. A 'self-policed' policy, where employees decided if each customer was capable of buying, would NOT work because the entire purpouse of this policy is to protect the elderly against the employees, not the other way around. This policy is shocking at first, but once you think of where it protects the elderly clients and most importantly, the management in turn, it's not too bad.
I once worked for a cell phone company that put an "Over 65 barred rule" into effect due to the fact that phones were sold multiple times to people with Alzheimer's disease. This company was sued for even selling the phones to these elderly people by their families. Current companies today have to find some way to protect themselves, why doesn't anyone understand that. If someone could sue you and make money, they will, it's that simple now in days. That's why many companies are making new rules so that when they go to court, and they will, they can protect themselves.
...she took her story to a national newspaper.
What VP jobs are you talking about? The ones that will be taken over by the chinese? Go ahead, extrapolate the stats (look them up yourself so that you choose which ones to use). There won't BE any US jobs except serf/mercenary/prostitute within 20 years or so. You can only have service jobs if wealth is created to service. You can only manage wealth if you have it to manage (your "VP" job). You can only get your hands on that wealth if you produce it yourself or can buy it. You are maybe at the most five years away from china not needing the US market, as their internal market and export to the nations with raw materials to trade for manufactured goods will be market enough for them. More than enough. At that point the printing presses at the Fed will be running triple overtime but it won't matter. You cannot print money to replace productive wealth creation work. You cannot saturate an economy with wealth rearrangers and government bureaucrats and mercenaries. It can happen quick too, look at rhodesia to zimbabwe. 25 years from productive exporting nation to complete basket case, million zimbabwe bucks for a slice of bread now or some such figure. Literally-no joke- cheaper to use paper bills as toilet paper than to go buy toilet paper.. That's because they destroyed their ag and manufacturing sector (the only true wealth creation jobs)and tried to replace it with a "strong central government" full of useless bureaucrats and "security" (useless secret police and mercenary soldiers (wealth rearrangment and managing jobs in other words) and running their printing presses.
It doesn't work there, it didn't work in the weimar republic and it sure isn't going to work in the land of middle class manufacturing export jobs, which is the US. Look at every single wealth producing industry-all losing jobs by the *millions*. Even your precious IT is being exported. Eventually, even the management positions, then the ownership. Go ahead, run the numbers, go back 20 years, look at the stats. Look at today. Extrapolate forward. Eventually all these foreign nations repatriating all their suplus dollars will just slide away from that, once there's nothing worth getting with those dollars and once the dollars drop in worth to a nickle (which is about the only way they have left to even sell/export anything "made in the USA". And especially once the petrodollar turns into the petroeuro and petrodinar and petroyuan and petroruble..whatever, anything but a federal reserve credit IOU "note". The US economy, right now, this second, is based on exchanging short term IOUs for longer term IOUs. Real estate flipping creates wealth..how? Stock creation and pump and dump creates wealth...how?
Realistically, how long do you think that will last? One generation, two, three? I give it 1/2 more generation, tops, it's already slowed drastically, and the printing presses are running so hard back in march they stopped publishing most of the true stats on the money supply. This is a clue. We have a higher debt level than the great depression, and worse savings. Two more clues.
You been sold down the river so that the top 1% globalists can steal all the real wealth in one generation- they are half way done now- then they'll be long gone, untouchable.. Keep enjoying your videogames and ipods and music and movies while it lasts, because it won't be long now.
Of course old people are too old, otherwise we wouldnt call them old. Amiright?
http://www.BinaryChaos.net/
If you sell contracts to old people that they don't understand - then people are going to complain you are taking advantage of old people.
If you don't sell contracts to old people who may not understand - then people are going to complain you are discriminating against old people.
Sorry, you can't have it both ways. You can't give certain members of the public special protection, without taking away some of their rights. You must either treat old people as total equals to young people, or you must treat them like children. If you want to "protect" seniors as a group under the assumption that they are more easily taken advantage of, there is no way you can treat them as fully responsible adults. The two are mutually exclusive.
I think we have reached the point in society where no-matter what you do, how you act, or how honestly you are trying to do the right thing, people are going to be perpetually outraged and trying to destroy you.
... rather than waste time being an attention whore over a minor issue
Ah yes, victims of discrimination are just a bunch of attention whores. The whole lot of them. Minor issues too. Jeez, what some old whores won't do for a little attention.
{/sarcasm}
The elder generation is increasingly using the internet to manage retirement accounts and other investments, to manage insurance policys and claims, and arranging for the delivery of medications etc. The internet is also rapidly becoming the preferred method for staying in communication with family and friends.
While it is generally true that the old folks of latter generations at this point in time will not be as adroit with the technology compared to younger generations typically, their needs and desires are no less compelling and it is not up to any ISP to stand in determination over who may be included or excluded from utilization of any such communication channel.
Two additional points: Seventy does not equal senility and the risk group when it comes to reading and understanding contracts, is teenagers and twenty somethings by orders of magnitude.
But old people are an excellent source of fiber which will keep our internet tubes free of clogs.
You should be glad that grammar and proper spelling are not mandatory
net skills or you could watch your modem disconnect this minute.
Second not everybody has McKaspersky-Norton's A-fee based Security
Symantesizer for the Internet for various reasons, mostly because they
don't want to buy into the obscene subscription scheme or have no clue what
to do once malware decapacitates it even they even notice what has happened.
Oh and there's no real way at the moment to dodge the malware issue no
matter how conscientious you have configured and armored your Windows
(or Mac, Linux, Solaris, AIX, VMS, HP-UX, zOS, zVM-CMS, TOPS-20, AOS,
or whatever you're running if that were the most common operating system
in the world)... you can get 0wn3d and hax0r3d by going to a website with
a jpg on the site and a vulnerability in your browsers jpeg library.
Hell... even I couldn't even tell if this box here is still secure or has
already been owned just by looking at it. I would have to get under the hood
and trace the traffic other a period of 24 hours or more to see that there
is not some piece of shitware which is calling home or has it's "Master"
accessing it. Tripwire doesn't cut it when they patch your kernel.
That was a joke, yes?
I know this because Tyler knows this.
I wish that had happened to my ex-gran-in-law who has slowed down to only taking three week-long hikes this summer into the Trinity Alps and Olympic Peninsula to record birdsong. She had to yield to family pressure after the pacemaker was installed and take a couple companions along, in fact that's where she is now, somewhere in western Washington with a parabolic mic and the new digital recorder she just got off Ebay. All of 82 and a 95 pounds soaking wet I'll bet she woulda walked out with a piece of that kids ass between her teeth(All 28 original).
This is all because AOL dropped dialup service. (Could you ever get it in the UK? There must have been an equivalent.)
My cousins conspired against me and gave my mother a computer last winter. Now she is calling me with questions like "how do I get the email into the computer?" and "Do I have to plug the computer in for it to work?" I TOLD her not to sign up for broadband but she did anyway and has had it for six months and never AFAIK seen a single web page or sent a single email.
If I had the time I would develop a Linux liveCD "GrandpaOS". (Knoppix and the ilk come close but still have too many bells and whistles.) Instead, I will give all my cousins' small children drum sets next Christmas.
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
Am I the only one who thinks that it is hysterical that a low-UID user cross-posted into a thread about old people being denied internet service? No offense, RichMan. All in good fun...
I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords
Old farts!
The Internet Not for Old People
Of course not. We all know that the internet is for porn.
Sure, but conversely my grandmother uses IRC to chat with other old people, can ssh into a *nix box to check her email in pine, knows how to publish web pages from the command line etc etc. She also uses computer aided sewing machines, draws in photoshop, and manages a mailing list. Now granted, every once in a while she'll send me a false virus email, or some stupid chain letter - but I get that same crap from people under 70 too. Perhaps, it's about intelligence - with people like Ted Stevens *clearly lacking* and people like my grandmother not?
I sPEELL jst fiyn!
OMG!!!1
TRHOnline - Staggering Towards Brilliance
Most subscribed user on a huge site.
Good for him, and I myself have enjoyed his stories.
The above post is an editorial, the poster cannot and will not be held responsible for all or in part for it's contents
The article mentioned two people (the original "young man" and the "young lady" later) who told the customer there was a blanket policy, and the spokeswoman who told the press that it was discretionary. I'm guessing that there was a blanket policy. PR people aren't above a bit of revisionist history in the name of damage control.
This strikes me as typical of big companies. They have a couple incidents where someone uses poor judgement or abuses his power [1]. They don't have the guts to confront him, so instead they put in place a blanket policy of mediocrity - it (hopefully) makes that particular incidence of abuse impossible but also prevents excellence. Unless some powerful outside group complains [2], these blanket policies never get removed, even after they're shown again and again to be a bad idea. Discretion erodes until everyone is mindlessly following stupid orders and nothing can get done anymore. Either they coast on their past accomplishments or, if they never had any, the company folds and everyone goes to work for a different, smaller companies. The cycle repeats.
[1] - "introduced in response to complaints that staff had mis-sold products last year."
[2] - Like the over-70 crowd; they're disproportionate voters, so they'll probably get their law against discriminating against older consumers. The company's apparently already backtracked on the policy, but it won't be enough to satisfy the seniors. Ironically, they'll create a blanket policy to counter another blanket policy, and it will probably make illegal the sort of good judgement that should have been made in the first place.
The answer you were looking for only has two letters, also notr that when keys are adjacent, an undetected typing error is of higher probability than a spelling mistake.
So apparently they want younger (and probably more technical) people to read the contract so the 70+ people know what they're getting. Stupid, but it's not a rule without a reason.
It should be the other way around. Every survey of reading skills ever done in Britain and the US in the last 20 years has shown the same thing: the generations brought up watching TV instead of reading have poorer reading skills than the last generation which grew up without TV.
My mom used to design electronic assemblies for military satellites, and was the "go to" CAD expert where she worked before she retired. :) She was learning her trade at Bell Labs when most mothers were baking cookies and trying to be June Cleaver. When I gave her one of my old Macs, five minutes of training got her up and running.
She also taught me everything I know about blackjack and craps.
Then, while waiting for the Skype to connect, she'd proceed to rip a backhanded strip off of his back.
She's actually not really internet savy, but I expect that she knows enough to make him feel silly.
This whole thing is really just a case of a stupid bureaucrat putting in a rule to stop some bad press -- A rule which is now generating bad press. They'll probably get this fixed in an iteration or two.
Really, the problem is that they've got stupid sales people who are taught to push as much as possible -- It's just that sliming a 70-year old is bad press (and many of them know how to generate the coverage), while sliming a 25 year old will just get a shrug. They just want to slime these people while hiding behind a rule that forces them to bring a younger relative who is probably just as stupid about the technology. That way, they have something to hide behind when the purchase goes bad.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
... if it were a physically disabled person being denied access to the service due to the risk of them also being mental retarded? As a severely disabled person myself, it's been a common issue for me to stumble across people that will immediate jump to the conclusion that you must disabled in the mental department if they see you don't walk normally.
Can you imagine the shitstorm this would have created had it been Stephen Hawking that was denied service because he *looked* retarded.
8==8 Bones 8==8
When you are dealing with something like a reverse mortgage, that's a major financial gain for you as a bank, thus it's worth your while to spend the time to help someone with all the detail to get them as a customer. The same is not true when you are talking about a $15/month service. In that case you have to take how much profit you make base per customer per month (so after you've factored in things like line costs, server costs, admin costs, etc) and then how much you expect to have to spend in terms of tech support.
You can't very well afford to spend 10+ hours a month with a customer on tech support and come out ahead. What you pay your techs is just enough such that the account is unprofitable.
We've actually seen this at work. I work for a university, so we aren't selling connections for profit, but anyhow. So an elderly professor was the first person on campus to try out a trial program where you could pay for a DSL line. Basically you paid the Qwest charge for the line and then like $10 to the university for transport. Meant you could get a smoking fast like for like $50/month. Only available to employees of course.
Well, because of this gentleman, that service isn't available to individuals anymore. Departments can buy lines for their staff on their budget, but they have to support it. This guy would call tech support CONSTANTLY bitching things weren't working. He'd cajole and threaten until they'd dispatch someone to his house (not something they were supposed to have to do). The problem was, of course, always with his equipment. Didn't matter, if anything was broken in regards to the Internet, he figured it was the university's problem and wanted them to fix it.
The university realised that he wasn't going to be the only one like this, and it would quickly overwhelm their staff to try and support this, so the service was canceled.
So, you face the same thing as a private company. What do you do when you get an account that is, or is likely to become demanding to the point that you are losing money? You don't really have a choice but to close/deny the account.
Something tells me we may not be getting the whole story here. I could see it being something along the lines of this lady exhibited extreme problems understanding what she was getting, the limits, etc. The sales rep felt that she was going to be a real burden, and thus decided not to sell her an account.
"The Internet Not for Old People" This story and more in my new weekly newsletter "Duh!"
The problem is that many of these types of stores employ hard sell tactics often.
These lead to bad press when someone's grandma is sold something by them that she doesn't need.
Bad press can often be quite bad. Also the sale of goods to old people that might not be with it can be a murky area of law in the UK, where this appears to have happened.
Quite simply it is the store protecting themselves from the cases where an old person's family will turn up and ask them to cancel the service that they sold to an old person previously.
Fact is - there are a lot of elderly people out there that are easily confused, and shouldn't be allowed to sign up for these things, because they might be taken advantage of - you need our top end package sir! and this addon, etc, etc. Usually once the person's family finds out, there's hassle. There's no hassle if someone in the family helps them to sign up. We've heard stories for years of 'evil' companies selling stuff to old people that the old person might not have wanted - yet when one company tries to do something about it, they get this. They can't win! Of course, the policy they adopted is probably not the best, but at least they were open about it.
I agree this is completely unfair, but this sort of crap starts happening when you're young. Reminds me of grade school when the whole class would loose half of their recess because a few kids were talking when they shouldn't have been. Right now I get punished every time I go to the airport. I'm sure there will be injustice when I get older too. I'm not saying we shouldn't fight them; just that I'm not supprised by this story.
Hobby Robotics
The parent post now stands at -1, Flamebait. I guess some people (probably youths) just cannot take a joke. :P
Uttering logically derived and empirically supported truths to the disciples of the orthodox establishment.
If it is felt that a customer (whether elderly, disabled, a complete n00b, whatever) will rack up more than their fair share in service costs, then the contracts should state in writing what the company IS willing to provide, and after that, it's on their dime. Many will choose to call in friends and relatives before turning to tech support once their free calls run out, and the company's problem is solved. Others will just pony up for the charges -- again, the company's problem is solved.
It is possible to accommodate the outliers in the distribution by setting the same policy for everyone, without fear of appearing discriminatory. I am not saying where that line should be drawn (though two standard deviations above the mean might be a good place to start) but it is possible to do this in a standard and impartial way. Insurance companies have neither the time nor the inclination to evaluate everyone's life history when they sign up, so they rate them on criteria they feel are relevant and quote them accordingly. I assume Talk Talk also does not have the time or resources to rate everyone individually, so they can lay out a policy that suits 95% of their customers just fine and cuts the losses on the other 5%.
You don't have to win 'em all, just win significantly more than you lose.
Mal-2
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
I'd like to suggest that the policy isn't all about protecting the old people from themselves, but the company from the old people. I'm approaching 50 and find I have far less patience for nonsense and am far more demanding of service. If a contract has "fine print" that clearly marks me as liable and I fall for it, I will still go out of my way to make trouble for the company that uses such fine print to punish or swindle is customers. I take this as a huge red flag the company has unsavory business practices to start with and doesn't want to be dogged by 70+ retirees that have nothing better to do than chase them down and get redress. Keep in mind that the labor and forms of dealing with such a customer are probably a HUGE cost.
Letter To Iran
The internet is for porn!
The Daily Mail is a Murdock-owned right wing rag, which continally spouts utter bullshit designed to anger it's readers. It's a bit like the Two Minutes Hate from 1984.
Here is a story designed to anger people. It's unlikely to be true.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I thought old people shouldn't use the internet because they were at risk of robots stealing their medications?
political_news.c: warning: comparison is always true due to limited range of data type
Are you saying that only elderly people can be technological lunkheads? I've run into plenty of people whose microwave oven clocks are still flashing 12:00. If you want to have a restriction aimed at keeping the ill-informed and "unsuited" away from the internet, then maybe the store should administer a technology test to every applicant. That would make way more sense than some arbitrary cutoff based on age. Which is still damning the idea with faint praise.
Although I can imagine the frustration and anger of the lady, I wonder if this is so much different from the age limits set for driving, drinking, or god forbid, watching erotics...
Those are also rules set on age, on the assumption that the average person should be wise enough to handle those things properly. Some kids are wise enough to drive at 14, some aren't wise enough at 21. If there appears to be some problem, and the provider chose to handle it this way I don't really see a difference to forementioned rules, apart for that they are not government regulated.
Manuals are your last resort only
It looks like Carphone Warehouse made 2 different claims as excuses for their actions. The first is that she might not be able to read the fine print and the second was that a number of salespeople had recently cheated elderly customers. Both of those are surely the company's fault, not the elderly customers.
Presumably, they also ban blind customers (who can't read any of the print) or those likely to be too trusting (clergy?).
Perhaps they should ban fine print and lying weasels on their sales staff instead.
If they're so deeply ashamed of the fine print that they can't even keep a larger print copy on hand for customers who can't read it, perhaps they need a new contract with less crap in it.
Can someone get this young man a job at the DMV please?!
If I were in my seventies, I certainly would NOT be getting legal advice from some random techie kid I know. That's what they're essentially what they're encouraging.
http://outcampaign.org/
My guess is that their experience is that old people have a hard time grasping the concept of the 'net, thus creating many (too many) support calls. They aren't shopping online, they are not buying ringtones, they don't follow the latest fad and hype, in other words: They cost money and create none.
That's what this is about, in a nutshell.
There is a load of clueless morons on the 'net, also causing support calls (and, trust me, the most inane you can imagine), but they at least swallow the whole online crap (because they're too ignorant and unwilling to figure out how to toy with it 'til you get it for free (and legally so)). They cost, but they also make you money. So that's "acceptable".
They are, though, the real problem of the 'net. Not old people. Old people don't download spyware loaded screensavers, they don't start any junk sent to them just 'cause it's labeled "free pr0n", they are usually very cautious and few of them actually cause a real problem to the 'net as a whole. Only to their provider with their calls.
Unfortunately, that's who they need to connect.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The ISP was legally covering their asses,
From what? The over-70 folks are still legally competent until declared otherwise by a court of law.
and last time I checked a free market economy allowed a company to decide with whom they'd like to do business
You are very much mistaken. Not only is discrimination based on age specifically illegal in many countries (including the US), who can do business with whom is indeed subject to many legal regulations. A free market economy is not the same as anarchy.
He should be forced to spend some time being 70. Fortunately he'll have a hard time avoiding this punishment (And the alternative would probably be worse...)
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
there are anti-discrimination laws in the US, and yes, age IS one of the protected factors
The law itself discriminates based on age. Specifically, it only protects people 40 and above, so if you're younger, you can be discriminated against. In fact, this law used to protect only people 40-65 years old (meaning you could discriminate against retirees, but not people well along in their careers), but this was changed in 1986.
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
Maybe they could make the contract easier to understand or fairer (so that there would be no need to comlpain over the contract). Maybe they should be humane instead of genetically human.
But maybe that's the Victor Meldrew in me...
Which one?
You *do* know that nothing they publish is actually true, right? That their entire output is only for whipping the rabid right-wing types up into a frenzy?
If a younger person can be somehow punished/charged, regardless of their personal actions/abilities/etc., for the actions of others in their demographic, then an older person can as well. At 23, with an almost perfect driving record, I cannot rent a car - why? Because I'm younger than 25. Obviously the company isn't concerned about me killing someone - that's what driver's lisenses are for -- but rather their own profits and changes of making/losing money by renting to someone in my demographic. It's very similar to this story, but a policy it seems most people believe is justly made.
I think an ISP that catered to a step above uncaring noobs might be a good idea. Instead of just taking anyone with the cash, if you knew in advance you were going to get service from a professionally run company that really DID care about their customers, and did have some way to verify that they knew at least about phishing and proper netiquette and email scams and keeping a clean box, etc, it just might be a good thing.Probably be chaeper to run the business anyway, much less lame tech support calls or less zombies on your net.
There's something sorta similar in meatspace. I used to be a lifeguard at some big condos, and we had a rule, adult or not, you couldn't go into the deep end until we knew you and you had passed a three lap swimming test. No exceptions, it didn't matter if your rent was paid or not or how ripped you looked in your trunks or *anything*, you had to prove you could swim, period.. Now some guys were macho jerks about it, would say "FU, you think I can't swim?" etc, but we stuck to it and didn't have many problems with people after the few jerks were weeded out. So ya, a simple but effective test to get on the net, at least as pertains to normal functionality and the ability to use email without getting hosed and emphasizing the importance of trying to stay as malware free as possible.. I wouldn't have a prob with it really, I might sign with such an ISP voluntarily.
Old people think the internet is a series of tubes.
Yes, we used to get AOL coasters in the UK too.
An example: If I were to go to a hardware store, and attempt to purchase a chainsaw, but had the store clerk decides that I don't 'look like I know what I'm doing' and refuses to sell it to me, the first action I would take is to loudly complain to management. If that didn't work, not only would I leave the store angry, I would never shop there again. I would also tell all my friends and family to not shop there, either. Finally, I would go to a competing store that *would* sell me the chainsaw.
Of course the appropriate response, to demonstrate your chani saw expertise, is to proclaim in a loud voice: "Of course I know how to use a chain saw! I've seen the Texas Chain Saw Massacre at least 47 times!"
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Everyone that thinks this would be a good idea would set the level of the test to be slightly below their own knowledge level.
I find it so odd that a company would have the option to refuse to sell to a 70 year old in the EU!
In the US the might and the fury of the AARP, ACLU, and the federal government would come down on them like a ton of bricks.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
lemon party
I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
but it is the Daily Mail
Hah! Brilliant! Serves her right for letting all her friends turn doddering and fill tech support phone number queues!
MySpace adds value to the Internet in the same way that TV viewers add value to advertisers.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
The women in the story is presented as savvy, experienced etc. yet she receives horrible service, and she doesn't know what to do other than complain to the media?
Of course not, she wouldn't waste another second in that store full of idiots, she would find another ISP pronto.
Story smacks of BS to me.
sigs are for losers (except to point out that sigs are for losers)
There's a signature out there that goes something like...
In the beginning, the internet was a bunch of smart people with dumb terminals. Now....
Signatures are a waste of bandwi (buffering...)
If she can handle walking the Great Wall of China, she can handle walking the Great Hall to the Manager's Office. Salespeople crying ageism need a quick lesson in job security. My grandmother agrees; I just IMed her.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
It was called "Find a computer, modem, connector cable, and communications software that worked with all three, find a BBS, fidonet node, or ISP with a local phone number, dial it, sign up, and then learn how to use it over a 2400 baud terminal connection." It was a good test, and it worked for quite a few years.
Right and Wrong are no longer based on WHAT you do, but WHO (what demographic) you are.
I think we should start a new internet....with blackjack, and hookers!
I like my coffee the way I like my women - roasted and ground up into little tiny pieces.
...Korea. Or at least, that's where she belongs.
Breakfast served all day!
Why is the contract so deceptive that people--of any age--are likely to sign up for something they don't understand?
Why, in other words, should I have to read any of that shit? Doesn't the product or service works as advertised?
If I were granny, I would thank my lucky stars I got out away from those thieves with all my personal belongings.
Now in his 80s the internet is indispensable. Online purchasing, downloading software, email, checking out music... Of course his choice of music may not be the same as younger folk, but still he on the net as much as any of them.
I do telemarketing at a well known and legitimate call center agency. My department signs people up for one of any number of services, and generally speaking the individuals in question who actually do sign up for the service are quite old. However, they're also the least likely to get screwed because they have a) the time and inclination to cancel or raise hell b) the incentive of a more limited budget.
It's likely that the company in question is making some questionable upsells with their service, or doing something rather nasty in the terms and conditions. It's probably more along the lines of avoiding a lawsuit than being genuinely concerned about the elderly.
What I find more annoying about this article is the way that they refer to 'The Internet' as something you can 'get'. You can 'get' a connection to the Internet, but you can't 'get' the whole Internet as far as I know...
While I am having a rant...other phrases people use when referring to the Internet that bug me are...
'I have the Internet at home'
'I have the Internet on my computer'
or the question 'Do you have the Internet at home?'
I always feel like saying, 'Yes! I do. It took a long time but I finished downloading the whole thing last night'.
...that old people aren't given as much credit as they should be. My dad is 54. He bought a computer off HSN or something like that where it's incredibly overpriced for what you actually get. Anyways, I was showing him how to use it, and told him to double click his browser icon. He gave me this look like I'd asked him to floss his nose with a cat. However, though his lack of knowledge does cause him to ask me questions from time to time about the simple stuff, it sure as hell didn't stop him from finding more porn than I've ever found on the internet. And that's saying something.
While that's an "in" or "elitist" joke which others will find amusing who also think they are "in" or "elitist", the truth is MySpace's biggest problem right now is that it has too many fake people on it. MySpace, and community-based sites like LiveJournal, do provide a great deal of value to those who use it. Regardless of whether or not you value the same thing.
;P
Just because you're too old to realize it doesn't mean it's not real. (That was my old person joke in response to your young person joke.)
I have found when dealing with internet inquiries from a broad cross section of the population, ability to understand the Internet has nothing to do with age, sex or background.
The sad fact is, some people *get* it, some people don't, and never will. I have had 60 year old housewives who've never touched a computer before pick up the concepts and understanding required extremely quickly after just giving them a little nudge in the right direction. Conversely, I have had young, up and coming businessmen who will never understand what is required of them even if I repeat it over and over.
That said, Literacy plays a large part in getting around on a PC and using the Internet. I find a lot of people who won't read out what is on the screen because they don't know the long unfamiliar words...
I'm with another poster on the idea that people should have to pass a test first. Half the people who buy Internet from my company don't even know what the internet *is*
kill elrond
take elrond
put elrond in cupboard
This is all because AOL dropped dialup service. (Could you ever get it in the UK? There must have been an equivalent.)
? promo=228937&promoCode=228937
AOL has always offered dialup in the uk and still does but unlike most providers they didn't (at least under the AOL name) go into the subscription free make the money from the phone calls buisness.
they still offer an unlimited dialup (no phone call charges) package here in the uk but its more expensive than thier basic broadband package. http://info.aol.co.uk/dial-up/anytime-dial-up.adp
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
She should do what other old people on the internet do.
Claim to be Tina,14/f/cali!
Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
That's just one less bot on IRC
End of Line.
First off, let me say that I disagree with the policy of discrimination against old people. However, I think the company finds themselves in a rather difficult situation in terms of contract enforcement. Most people, regardless of their age, don't read the fine print when the sign a contract. This is probably not a good thing, but despite what paranoid slashdotters seem to think, most contracts aren't like Sony's EULAs: they're simply very detailed descriptions of exactly what services are being provided and what a company's limitations and liabilities are.
Most companies cover their asses in contracts, and contracts are often one-sided: for example, an ISP might state that they reserve the right to discontinue service at any time for any reason, but enforce punitive fees on a customer that prematurely ends the relationship with the ISP. These contracts aren't fair, but we all know that that's how they're written.
The problem, in a nutshell, is positive-descrimination in favor of old people in the courts when it comes to contract enforcement. If an old person decides he's fed up with his ISP because they aren't taking his support calls anymore (because he's exceeded his contractually agreed upon support call quota) or because they're not coming to his house to fix his internet connection (a service not stipulated in the contract) he can just cancel his contract prematurely, and refuse to pay the contractually-agreed upon penalty for doing so.
Why can he do this? Because if the ISP takes him to court for breaking his contract, 9 times out of 10 the ISP will lose. The old person in question (who may in fact have all of his faculties well about him) can claim ignorance of the contract's terms and the court will generally side with him, because (get this) he's old, and the assumption is that old people are senile and stupid and unable to understand contracts.
A young person on the other hand -- by which of course I mean anyone under 60 -- could not get away with this. The court would ask him, simply, whether the signature on the dotted line under "I understand and agree to the terms outlined herein" is his or not, and upon receiving affirmation that it is indeed his, the case would be thrown out of court. It's as simple as that.
There are a lot of posts from older members of the Slashdot community, as well as from people who have extremely lucid 80+ year old grandmas and grandpas, crying foul for this obviously ageist policy. While I agree that the policy is ageist, and that it shouldn't have been adopted, I think that the company is in a serious bind because with old people they cannot be sure that their contract will be upheld in court. Everyone has a grandma or a friend in their 80s that have been taken by scammers who convince them to sign contracts they don't understand -- it's such a common phenomenon that the courts take it into account everytime an old person has a contractual dispute with someone.
I do not believe that this really has anything to do with old people generating more support calls or being less internet savvy than young people, as many Slashdotters have suggested. As anyone who has ever worked tech support knows, 99% of people, regardless of age, are prone to confusing the monitor and the computer and couldn't be counted on to install Windows by themselves. This has nothing really to do with old people per se -- it has to do with stereotypes that we as a society believe about the elderly, and that the elderly have in the past used to their own advantage.
"Your honor, I don't know much about this internet thing, I didn't realize there was a fee for cancellation... please your honor, I'm on a fixed income," says 85-year old Mrs. Monroe, who had previously had disagreements with her ISP over the data throttling they had been doing on her connection to mitigate the substantial bandwidth sink caused by her DecNet over TCP/IP routing experiment, where she used the Alpha cluster in her basement to do dynamic load balancing for her OpenVMS port of Bittorrent.
"Don't worry Mrs. Monroe, we'll waive the fine."
You know that's how it would go down.
..I think anyone over 70Kg should be banned too because when they are using webcams to send themselves across the internet they use up more bandwidth than skinny people.
the internet connection applies for YOU
wow....
:(
I huess that means one cannoy escape discrimination,
even on the net.
I hope the ISP in question roasted the balls of that worker.
Understanding is much like a 3-edged-sword. in this: there are always 2 sides and the truth.
Charging for parking comes with an unspoken-yet-obvious assumption, which may not be true: that simply walking into your store and looking around, is worth money.
Personally, I don't go to stores that charge for parking, unless I know exactly what I want, and I know I can only buy it from that store (and I'm under too much of a time crunch to order it online). And even then, I'm almost always left with a sour taste in my throat, like I just got conned somehow.
It is not worth $1 (much less $2!) to simply walk into most stores; they're not doing any favor to me by simply letting me bask in the warm glow of their overhead fluorescent lighting and smell the faint odor of plastic and floor wax. The only stores I would consider paying for parking at, are the ones where simply being in them is some sort of valued experience in itself -- and that's a rarity these days.
If you think you have so many potential customers beating at your door that you can afford to demand payment for something that's generally assumed to be valueless or free, by all means do so. (Heck, why stop at parking? How about 10 cents per minute they spend standing around, cluttering up your floor?) But realize that by doing so, you're putting yourself at risk of having a competitor, whether next door or in the next town over, or even further away (or virtual), who takes a less arrogant attitude, take your customers and your business. At the end of it all, they'll have a store, and you'll have a parking lot. (If it still makes money as a parking lot, then perhaps you were in the wrong business to begin with?)
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
I got this attachment a couple of years ago and saved it because I thought it was funny.. It claimed to have been published in the NYT editorials.
Pretty funny; here's the text:
Dear Sir:
I am writing to thank you for bouncing my check with which I endeavored to
pay my plumber last month. By my calculations, three nanoseconds must have
elapsed between his presenting the check and the arrival in my account of the funds
needed to honor it. I refer, of course, to the automatic monthly deposit of
my entire salary, an arrangement which, I admit, has been in place for only
eight years.
You are to be commended for seizing that brief window of opportunity, and
also for debiting my account $30 by way of penalty for the inconvenience caused
to your bank. My thankfulness springs from the manner in which this incident
has caused me to rethink my errant financial ways.
I noticed that whereas I personally attend to your telephone calls and
letters, when I try to contact you, I am confronted by the impersonal, overcharging,
pre-recorded, faceless entity which your bank has become.
From now on, I, like you, choose only to deal with a flesh-and-blood person.
My mortgage and loan payments will therefore and hereafter no longer be
automatic, but will arrive at your bank, by check, addressed personally and
confidentially to an employee at your bank whom you must nominate.
Be aware that it is an offense under the Postal Act for any other person to
open such an envelope. Please find attached an Application Contact Status which
I require your chosen employee to complete. I am sorry it runs to eight
pages, but in order that I know as much about him or her as your bank knows about
me, there is no alternative. Please note that all copies of his or her medical
history must be countersigned by a Notary Public, and the mandatory details of
his/her financial situation (income, debts, assets and liabilities) must be
accompanied by documented proof.
In due course, I will issue your employee a PIN number which he/she must
quote in dealings with me. I regret that it cannot be shorter than 28 digits but,
again, I have modeled it on the number of button presses required of me to
access my account balance on your phone bank service. As they say, imitation is
the sincerest form of flattery.
Let me level the playing field even further. When you call me, press buttons
as follows:
1. To make an appointment to see me.
2. To query a missing payment.
3. To transfer the call to my living room in case I am there.
4. To transfer the call to my bedroom in case I am sleeping.
5. To transfer the call to my toilet in case I am attending to nature.
6. To transfer the call to my mobile phone if I am not at home.
7. To leave a message on my computer, a password to access my computer is
required. Password will be communicated to you at a later date to the Authorized
Contact.
8. To return to the main menu and to listen to options 1 through 7.
9. To make a general complaint or inquiry.
The contact will then be put on hold, pending the attention of my automated
answering service. While this may, on occasion, involve a lengthy wait,
uplifting music will play for the duration of the call. Regrettably, but again
following your example, I must also levy an establishment fee to cover the setting
up of this new arrangement
Forget this. In memorial.
Downloading pr0n
Downloading MP3s
Downloading Movies
???
Profit
Maybe, the person in question had heard Three Dead Trolls in a Baggies's
"Keep your Parents off the Net!"
Check out the Flash Animation of it here:
(Warning not work safe! No pron content, but it's bound to make you laugh so hard, your boss will come over to see what's wrong!)
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/netparents
ttyl
Farrell
CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
The fact is that older people lose their mental facilities. This practice is just as legitimate as the practice of not allowing persons under 18 to vote or enter into legally binding contracts. If a person is not rational they cannot be said to have the capacity to give their consent to anything. In most legal systems, many people (those under 18, those mentally incapacitated, etc.) are identified as not being rational enough to give consent.
Now, some phone company has no legal right to determine whether someone is fit to give consent. Since the state clearly still identified this person of being in control of their faculties, some random phone salesman has no legal right to question his fitness of judgement. However, while he had no right to do what he did, I can see why he did it. In our day to day lives, we run into many people who, for various reasons. are clearly not rational yet whom we are legally required to treat as if they were. It's clear to me that the state needs a better mechanism to, on a case by case basis, clearly identify people who can be treated as rational agents, and receive the rights and respect that a rational agent deserves.
The flipside of that is that people who clearly lack the capacity for critical thought should have diminished rights, i.e. no right to enter into contracts, no right to vote, probably a few others I can't think of. I suspect that is a bit more controversial thing to say.
I think it is an excellent proposition to require the elderly to "take a test" to determine if they know "what the Internet is"... provided of course that the phone company mandating it also take a test to determine if they know "what customer support is".
Old people should be able to download porn, just like the rest of us!
The Daily Mail is well known for spouting utter rubbish. While there may be a tiny core of truth hidden somewhere in the story, I'll bet you a gallon of beer that they've put their own sensationalist spin on it to such an extent as to make the story a fantasy.
Oh dear God. Someone was actually stupid enough to do this? Man, I wish I was there, but not as another employee, to witness this whole thing go down. I'll bet the young employee who refused to let her sighn the contract won't be getting that $100.00 check from Grandma and Grandpa this Christmas. If I were one of his grandparents, I'd just give him socks for his birthdays and Christmas's for the rest of his life.
-----
Scientologists are among some of the dumbest people on Earth. They believe in a "religion" THAT WAS CREATED BY A SCIENCE FICTION WRITER! HOW MUCH MORE OBVIOUS DOES IT NEED TO BE?!?!?!
*MY* body thetans can beat up your body thetans.....
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
That British ISP is afraid of someone going 1kbps in the fast lane, with their left 'ping -t' on. Yeah, I'd be afraid of that too.
Windows has detected an undetectable error.
Taken at face value this is ridiculous ageism. However I currently work in customer service for a major telephony provider and have dealt with a huge number of people calling on behalf of their parents claiming they have been missold an expensive package and demanding they are released from the contract. I can fully understand why they are hesitant to sign up people who are statistically very likely to enter a contract, having it fully expained to them, and then a week later demand to be released from it saying they weren't made aware of terms.
Incidentally the excuse used by a lot of the sons and daughters who phone is is "she's 84, she had no idea what she was entering into"
Ok, don't ban people based on their age, but at least check they know what they're doing - whatever their age. I know of a lady who signed up for an account with an ISP, not realising that to 'get the Internet' she also needed a computer.
Attention:
I read the comment about 'the Internet is not for old people And I don't know in what context it was originally used.
But I am compelled to ask a few questions!
* What is the purpose of the Internet?
* What criteria (if any), is there for using it?
* Is there an age specification to use the Internet?
* And what age group is required in order to qualify to use it?
* And if there is an age barrier, who created it?
I would appreciate an answer to these questions from the writer of the article, or someone who knows what they are talking about!
Derryck.
New York City.
Yahoo IM: derryck_sylvester
AOL IM: Ecmimbari
Never, ever, ever be rude to ANYONE who handles any food you plan to eat! Place the unwanted pickles at the side of your wrapper. Never demand extra Special Jack Sauce (TM)!
Goddamned kids! Get off my lawn!
After tonight I dont think people who are old & computer novices should be allowed on the Internet. For one thing they do not want to be taught on what's what and what's not. They just assplode when you teach them how to do things and insist on there way.
Targetting one's anger to somebody that has absolutely no power to address the reasons you may be angry is completely improductive (no, idiotic, but I am very polite and will not say that to you).
Even if that person wanted to help, he is legaly bound not to do so, he is paid to do a job and to upheld his companie's policies which he can't change on the fly.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
... but if I have a policy that says you will not get a service for x,y or z reasons you simply will not be provided the service.
I don't understand why such a simple concept is so difficult to understand.
You don't like it? Then move your custom elsewhere or request to be put in touch with somebody that actually can address your concerns...
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
People are employed by companies to do a work in accordance with the needs of those companies.
As long as it is nothing ilegal the employee is legaly bound to do that work.
What you are advocating is a kind of vigilantism that punishes people by close association based in your narrow view of the world, pretty much in the same vein as extrimist antiabortionists or extreme folks against testing of products in animals.
If you don't agree with the behaviour of a company the correct action is to take your costum elsewhere and if you are really angry, then spread your truth as you see it. But targetting employees that the only thing they are doing is a legal jog, is frankly as immoral and unethic as anything you can ascribe to the corporations you are obviously not vey fond of.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.