How the heck is that a horrible job? If you're stressed by talking on the phone all day and playing minesweeper you've got big problems. It seems these people compare themselves to the callers and greatly overestimate their own computer skills. Since the people who call aren't the computer gurus that they are (they never took the 10 day training course, after all), these cubicle monkeys inflate their egos more and more and do nothing but complain. Send all their jobs to India? Why don't we send THEM to India?
Imagine being fed calls from people who have been sitting on hold for an hour and are so hopelessly irritated that their computer doesn't work to begin with that they would be considered 'irate' with NO wait time at all. Now imagine that you only have five minutes to calm these people down and eek enough information out of them to diagnose the problem AND THEN actually get them to cooperate enough to fix it by telling them what to do. Have you ever even attempted to talk someone through fixing a computer over the phone? Surely you have not attempted this while he is annoyed, pissed off, confused, and completely frustrated. Have you ever heard the phrase "My thingie doesnt do the thing anymore.", or received the responce "Nothing" after asking what the customer sees on his screen? Now imagine that these calls come in as fast as you can take them with not even a second to catch your breath in between calls. It's one after another; you get a break only for lunch and maybe a short smoke break if the queue isn't too backed up. Do you have any idea what kind of stamina it takes to do this for hours on end, day in and day out? As for your reference to the skills of these people, you are mistaken. For the most part, tech support engineers are very capable. The problem is that they only have five minutes to do their job. This is usually not enough time to do anything productive. Tech support engineers are regularly told to use phrases like "Cold reboot" to get people off the phone. (As in "okay, now you'll need to turn the computer off and wait a full minute before turning it on again. No, ma'am, I'm sorry, I cannot wait on the phone with you. Have a nice evening.") Finally, immagine getting paid less than $20k to do this.
It's shocking how so many of you are actually rationalizing what these 'programmers' do. Not only are these practices unethical, but they give real programmers and the entire industry a bad name. They cause our government to enact laws which are destroying the freedom that is the essence of the Internet.
In a finantial bind? Get a McJob if you have to. It's pretty hard to say you don't have any other choice: there are plenty of better jobs than building software/systems for scammers and spammers. Resorting to this behavior makes you just as bad as them.
The whole thing makes me want to [insert rash action here]. Ironically, it is my own morals stopping me from doing such things.
"Tell me, if I buy a car and crash it because I don't know how to use it..."
But I'm not going to argue a point to someone who is willing to stoop as low as twisting someone's words around just for the sake of winning a debate. Clearly you aren't interested in having a real discussion here.
When some techie tells them they need to learn more or buy some add-on or configure some piece of software they didn't know existed, all they hear is a bunch of excuses from a lazy industry that doesn't care about people.
The only lazy people here are the consumers who are too lazy to 'discover' the security features they "didn't know existed" in the manual of the product they bought.
The analogy to speeding or driving recklessly is inappropriate.
I didn't make an analogy to speeding or to driving recklessly. Maybe you should read my post again.
Thats just it. The products ARE secure. The products DO work properly. Your brake analogy doesn't even come close. It's not like the security of these products doesn't work in some situations. Just TURN IT ON!!!
Please try to understand, these products are secure...even if you can't bring yourself to read the manual and turn on the security features.
Perception is everything. If someone buys a wireless router, they perceive they are buying a technical product. If it "leaks" their private data to anyone who happens to be driving by, then they have every right to consider that as a failure of the tech industry.
Tell me, if I buy a car and crash it because I don't know how to use it, is it the manufacturer's fault?
Just as they would feel that incompetent or crooked mechanics represent a failure of the auto industry.
This is not accurate at all. The crooked mechanics aren't making the cars. Just the same, the techies don't make the products, so it's not our responsibility to secure them.
If the auto industry turned out cars with doorlocks that would open with any random activation device, then car buyers would have every right to blame the auto industry for selling insecure cars, and to be incensed when memebers of the industry harped at them about being responsible for their own security.
The difference is that the security that comes with the hardware/software the average consumer buys is NOT malfunctioning! The problem is that the buyer doesn't know how to use it. The situation in the computer industry right now is akin to the automobile industry turning out cars with their doors unlocked by default because people don't know how to use a key, and then having people bitch when their cars get broken into.
But it's important to understand that customers want the tech industry to fix these problems. They don't want the tech industry to lecture at them about good security practices while it continues to sell insecure products.
The products are NOT insecure or faulty. They are simply shipped with the security off because most people don't know and don't want to spend the extra time to figure out how to use the security features. The obvious response to this comment would be "well then make a product that is easier to use", but digital security is fundamentally a far harder idea to use/implement than physical security. There is no way to make it easy AND secure: by making it easy, the strength of the security is lost, and by making it secure, ease of use is lost.
The difference is that the products in question DO work properly from the moment they are bought. If they didn't work properly, then why is it possible for me to secure my WLAN?
The point is NOT that the "techies" are making a faulty product: the point is that if the default configuration of the products had any decent security in mind, the products would be considered faulty because Joe Sixpack wouldn't be able to figure out how to use it. The obvious response to this comment would be "well then make a product that is easier to use", but digital security is fundamentally a far harder idea to use/implement than physical security. There is no way to make it easy AND secure: by making it easy, the strength of the security is lost, and by making it secure, ease of use is lost.
Bottom line: the hardware/software in question works (for the most part) just as it is supposed to work; the problem lies in the fact that the average user is not capable of using the hardware/software properly.
Consider that if a homeowner leaves his front door opened and Bob the Criminal comes in and steals something, the homeowner is widely considered to be at fault (at least partially) for leaving his home in such a state. On the other hand, if a homeowner keeps his door closed and locked and Bob the Criminal breaks in and steals something, the homeowner is not at fault because he took reasonable measures to secure his home. This is a pretty good analogy for a home WLAN: learn to secure your WLAN (lock your doors) or stop your bitching when Bob the Criminal comes in for a peek.
Typically, post here are full of smarmy comments from geeks and techs and poseurs who may understand machines but don't have a clue about how their own species operates.
Here's the scoop: If someone's Internet connection is insecure, they will blame you -- the techies -- for not making it secure. Everytime someone starts to preach about "stupid users" getting what they deserve because they aren't running the right firewall or using some software du jour, those "stupid users" are hearing techies recommend cumbersome technical remedies for problems caused by techie failures in the first place.
People want this stuff to be secure when they plug it in. If it isn't, it's your fault, 'cause you make the stuff.
Wireless is insecure. That's not the users' fault. It's your fault. First one to make it secure makes a billion dollars.
The vast majority of us geeks have absolutely nothing to do with the consumer products in question. The manufacterer of these products determines a default configuration that they think will sell the most. If they shipped their products with a default configuration that is "secure", their product would get a reputation for being difficult to use. Hense, no sales. So you could say its the manufactuerers' fault that things are not set up properly, or even make a stretch and say its the consumers' fault for not being educated, but you can't say it's the "techies'" fault.
I also deeply resent the idea that "techies" are charged with the responsibility of properly configuring everyone's setup. I mean, sure Joe Sixpack might not be able to fix his car, but does he blame the mechanic when it doesn't work properly? No, not unless the mechanic just got done working on it.
Why are computers any different from anything else in your life? With anything else, people can at least take enough responsibility to take it to someone capable of servicing it. Joe Sixpack may not be able to work on his car, but he doesn't just say 'screw it, I'll just leave it how it is' and then blame the mechanic when it doesn' work properly. Joe Sixpack knows that he needs to ask someone in the know for help fixing his car. Why is it any different with computers?
Furthermore, the band used by WiFi networks is designated by the FCC as an open, unregulated band. I would think that this warrents doing what you want with a signal assuming A) you are on your property or are authorized to be there, or B) you are in a public place, which is by definition/everyone's/ property, and C) you arent breaking laws regarding tresspassing on someone elses network. Seeing as the network in question was a public one, C obviously doesn't apply. I just don't see how the officer could claim that there is actually a law making it illegal to connect to a Public WiFi operating on a public radio band while sitting in a public place.
Now that MS has incorporated popup blocking into IE, popups are largely a thing of the past. This, along with increased awareness of spam and better filtering techniques will probably lead to The Next Big Problem. The next big problem will be spim (see second definition). Although this has been a fairly small annoyance thus far, it is sure to explode as the preferred way to spam. As of now there are very few ways of protecting against spim short of blocking everyone who is not on your list.
After investing in a new mobo, a case with 8 fans, a water cooling kit, and some cables that are supposed to cool the whole thing down, I now have the Beast operating at 2.7 GHz stable and a much cooler workspace.
If you are using water cooling now and eight fans, and running the cpu even harder than before, then it's reasonable to assume that the cooling system is dissipating as much as or (more likely) more heat than before. So why would your workspace be cooler? Conservation of energy dictates that assuming you haven't changed anything else, your workspace should be warmer than before.
Re:v6 could help solve some net problems
on
IPv6 is Here
·
· Score: 0
Lets look at some numbers here....
6.4 E+09 - the number of humans on this planet
7 x 10E+27 - the number of atoms in a 70kg human body
4.48 x 10E+39 - the number of atoms in all of the
humans in the world combined
--- and finally ---
4.46 x 10 E+88 - the number of IPv6 addresses that can be allocated to each atom in each man, woman, and child currently living on this planet. (approx.)
Slashdot Mirror
Complaining about people complaining before they even complain...
preemtively metacomplaining
My term, I coined it!
HA!
Imagine being fed calls from people who have been sitting on hold for an hour and are so hopelessly irritated that their computer doesn't work to begin with that they would be considered 'irate' with NO wait time at all. Now imagine that you only have five minutes to calm these people down and eek enough information out of them to diagnose the problem AND THEN actually get them to cooperate enough to fix it by telling them what to do. Have you ever even attempted to talk someone through fixing a computer over the phone? Surely you have not attempted this while he is annoyed, pissed off, confused, and completely frustrated. Have you ever heard the phrase "My thingie doesnt do the thing anymore.", or received the responce "Nothing" after asking what the customer sees on his screen? Now imagine that these calls come in as fast as you can take them with not even a second to catch your breath in between calls. It's one after another; you get a break only for lunch and maybe a short smoke break if the queue isn't too backed up. Do you have any idea what kind of stamina it takes to do this for hours on end, day in and day out? As for your reference to the skills of these people, you are mistaken. For the most part, tech support engineers are very capable. The problem is that they only have five minutes to do their job. This is usually not enough time to do anything productive. Tech support engineers are regularly told to use phrases like "Cold reboot" to get people off the phone. (As in "okay, now you'll need to turn the computer off and wait a full minute before turning it on again. No, ma'am, I'm sorry, I cannot wait on the phone with you. Have a nice evening.") Finally, immagine getting paid less than $20k to do this.
Yes, help-desk is definately a bad job.
-kM
Has anyone noticed that the author says LinuxWorld Boston in January? The LinuxWorld Expo in Boston will be taking place February 14th-17th.
Of course, I'm assuming this is what the autor is actually referring to.
-kM
It's shocking how so many of you are actually rationalizing what these 'programmers' do. Not only are these practices unethical, but they give real programmers and the entire industry a bad name. They cause our government to enact laws which are destroying the freedom that is the essence of the Internet.
In a finantial bind? Get a McJob if you have to. It's pretty hard to say you don't have any other choice: there are plenty of better jobs than building software/systems for scammers and spammers. Resorting to this behavior makes you just as bad as them.
The whole thing makes me want to [insert rash action here]. Ironically, it is my own morals stopping me from doing such things.
Good day, sir.
-kM
Thats just it. The products ARE secure. The products DO work properly. Your brake analogy doesn't even come close. It's not like the security of these products doesn't work in some situations. Just TURN IT ON!!!
Please try to understand, these products are secure...even if you can't bring yourself to read the manual and turn on the security features.
-kM
The difference is that the security that comes with the hardware/software the average consumer buys is NOT malfunctioning! The problem is that the buyer doesn't know how to use it. The situation in the computer industry right now is akin to the automobile industry turning out cars with their doors unlocked by default because people don't know how to use a key, and then having people bitch when their cars get broken into.
The products are NOT insecure or faulty. They are simply shipped with the security off because most people don't know and don't want to spend the extra time to figure out how to use the security features. The obvious response to this comment would be "well then make a product that is easier to use", but digital security is fundamentally a far harder idea to use/implement than physical security. There is no way to make it easy AND secure: by making it easy, the strength of the security is lost, and by making it secure, ease of use is lost.
-kM
The difference is that the products in question DO work properly from the moment they are bought. If they didn't work properly, then why is it possible for me to secure my WLAN?
The point is NOT that the "techies" are making a faulty product: the point is that if the default configuration of the products had any decent security in mind, the products would be considered faulty because Joe Sixpack wouldn't be able to figure out how to use it. The obvious response to this comment would be "well then make a product that is easier to use", but digital security is fundamentally a far harder idea to use/implement than physical security. There is no way to make it easy AND secure: by making it easy, the strength of the security is lost, and by making it secure, ease of use is lost.
Bottom line: the hardware/software in question works (for the most part) just as it is supposed to work; the problem lies in the fact that the average user is not capable of using the hardware/software properly.
Consider that if a homeowner leaves his front door opened and Bob the Criminal comes in and steals something, the homeowner is widely considered to be at fault (at least partially) for leaving his home in such a state. On the other hand, if a homeowner keeps his door closed and locked and Bob the Criminal breaks in and steals something, the homeowner is not at fault because he took reasonable measures to secure his home. This is a pretty good analogy for a home WLAN: learn to secure your WLAN (lock your doors) or stop your bitching when Bob the Criminal comes in for a peek.
The vast majority of us geeks have absolutely nothing to do with the consumer products in question. The manufacterer of these products determines a default configuration that they think will sell the most. If they shipped their products with a default configuration that is "secure", their product would get a reputation for being difficult to use. Hense, no sales. So you could say its the manufactuerers' fault that things are not set up properly, or even make a stretch and say its the consumers' fault for not being educated, but you can't say it's the "techies'" fault.
I also deeply resent the idea that "techies" are charged with the responsibility of properly configuring everyone's setup. I mean, sure Joe Sixpack might not be able to fix his car, but does he blame the mechanic when it doesn't work properly? No, not unless the mechanic just got done working on it.
Why are computers any different from anything else in your life? With anything else, people can at least take enough responsibility to take it to someone capable of servicing it. Joe Sixpack may not be able to work on his car, but he doesn't just say 'screw it, I'll just leave it how it is' and then blame the mechanic when it doesn' work properly. Joe Sixpack knows that he needs to ask someone in the know for help fixing his car. Why is it any different with computers?
-kM
Furthermore, the band used by WiFi networks is designated by the FCC as an open, unregulated band. I would think that this warrents doing what you want with a signal assuming A) you are on your property or are authorized to be there, or B) you are in a public place, which is by definition /everyone's/ property, and C) you arent breaking laws regarding tresspassing on someone elses network. Seeing as the network in question was a public one, C obviously doesn't apply. I just don't see how the officer could claim that there is actually a law making it illegal to connect to a Public WiFi operating on a public radio band while sitting in a public place.
Now that MS has incorporated popup blocking into IE, popups are largely a thing of the past. This, along with increased awareness of spam and better filtering techniques will probably lead to The Next Big Problem. The next big problem will be spim (see second definition). Although this has been a fairly small annoyance thus far, it is sure to explode as the preferred way to spam. As of now there are very few ways of protecting against spim short of blocking everyone who is not on your list.
If you are using water cooling now and eight fans, and running the cpu even harder than before, then it's reasonable to assume that the cooling system is dissipating as much as or (more likely) more heat than before. So why would your workspace be cooler? Conservation of energy dictates that assuming you haven't changed anything else, your workspace should be warmer than before.
Lets look at some numbers here....
...someone check my math....
6.4 E+09 - the number of humans on this planet
7 x 10E+27 - the number of atoms in a 70kg human body
4.48 x 10E+39 - the number of atoms in all of the humans in the world combined
--- and finally ---
4.46 x 10 E+88 - the number of IPv6 addresses that can be allocated to each atom in each man, woman, and child currently living on this planet. (approx.)
I sent in this story like two days ago. Why wasn't mine posted?