I totally agree. I work in a software company that needs good quality technical support reps, I'd say that we have with a 98% resolve rate and we deal with some reasonably complex service desk software that deals with a number of technologies. I work closely with the developers and consultants and I'm very much valued in my role, with customers who are extremely happy with the support that we provide.
The days of technical support by monkeys is fast coming to a close (I hope!) and support roles are becoming more professional.
Hopefully the stigma will pass, in the meantime I'd have to say that in this case the monkeys are the ones interviewing the original poster!
Actually, you assume too much. I have moved unsourced material to the talk page, therefore it isn't actually removed entirely. If the material can be sourced, then people are free to put it back with the source - nothing should stop them. However, consider this: the definition of "trivia" is:
As you can see, I don't think the material that I am referring to actually relates to anything you talk about - clearly you don't think the material is unimportant, inconsequential, insignificant, obscure or petty! Therefore, I get annoyed when people feel that the information is not important, but should be in Wikipedia.
I should note that if information about a topic was cited from an external, reliable source, then I wouldn't have a problem with the material.
Actually, you assume too much. I have moved unsourced material to the talk page, therefore it isn't actually removed entirely. If the material can be sourced, then people are free to put it back with the source - nothing should stop them. However, consider this: the definition of "trivia" is:
As you can see, I don't think the material that I am referring to actually relates to anything you talk about - clearly you don't think the material is unimportant, inconsequential, insignificant, obscure or petty! Therefore, I get annoyed when people feel that the information is not important, but should be in Wikipedia.
I should note that if information about a topic was cited from an external, reliable source, then I wouldn't have a problem with the material.
Indeed. I have recently been working through merging so-called "trivia" into articles (much of it isn't actually trivia in the defined sense of the word) and I've been blown away by the sheer amount of unsourced material I've had to remove.
I'm amazed that people think they should be able to randomly add in material into what is meant to be an encyclopedia. Some of the material is ridiculous ("Bob ate grapes on Friday" sort of material), but much of it is interesting and would be great to incorporate into the article if it had a source. The other point I make is that the sheer laziness of adding in something onto a list is a bit disheartening, though I do understand if someone does it. What annoys me is when they get all high and mighty about their unsourced, speculative and often ridiculous trivia that is impossible to verify!
So yeah, let trivia and fancruft go into it's own Wiki. Please.
Goodness, this really is a pissing contest with a difference. Normally people try to outdo each other in how good their skills/belongings/etc are. You guys are actively trying to compete on whose OS is the worst!
Unless you can BOTH provide more information on what caused the problem, it's all very meaningless in my view. How do we know that the problems with Windows/Linux aren't hardware related? Proprietary driver related?
According to the article, Microsoft changed things considerably at a lower level over a period of time, making developing drivers a moving goal post and proper testing nigh on impossible.
Well, someone has to issue the DMCA notice - somebody is in charge somewhere. I know it may not seem like it some time, but someone will become accountable if you prod hard enough.
In fact, if they are careful, all those users who had their material taken down could cause so much trouble for Scientology they may never send another DMCA again. I mean, these video posters are dedicated enough to submit anti-Scientology videos, I'm sure if they have enough time and energy for this sort of thing they'll have enough time and energy to fight back!
Somewhat missing the point. The parent wrote "Walking around drunk with poor judgement isn't inherently dangerous to others." I was pointing out this isn't necessarily true.
And of course, there are no violent drunks. And of course, the poor judgement of the drunkard couldn't possibly given them a feeling of over confidence which leads them to drive while under the influence. Oh no, drunkenness just isn't dangerous at all!
Sure is, but it also tells me that they aren't able to adapt to competitors. You know, IBM had a highly profitable business model - mainframes - so where is this business model now? They basically did whatever it took to keep out the new breed, they lost, they nearly died and they were forced to adapt.
But hey, I'm an optimist. One can only hope this will happen to the fat, bloated and threatening music industry.
Maybe for dial-in or cable. But if corporations or campuses that provide Internet access had to maintain all MAC to IP addresses, this would get out of hand.
Seriously, I've been wondering how long it was going to take for a network admin to point out what the IT dept. of Tuft university has pointed out. ARP was never designed to be audited like this, and why they heck should it? And I've also been wondering when someone would twig that a computer can be used by more than one person. Sheesh.
If they screen-scraped, they would be have been blocked as this means that they didn't honor Wikipedia's Robots.txt file.
Basically, they have tried to be clever and they take the incoming request for an article, then they pass it to the Wikipedia servers, scrape back the content and repackage it in a form that allows ads.
Thus, because they don't want to fork out money for a database dump and setup Mediawiki, they have been blocked.
I guess it sucks to be cheap.
Oh, and before you say that they didn't realise it was a bad thing - I'd just like to point out that a whois of e-wikipedia.net returns a whoisguard entry. Positively guaranteed to be a dodgy site.
Maybe we need a whois phishing filter built into Firefox. If you register your DNS names with certain registrars, then the filter looks up the name via whois. If it's dodgy, warn the end user.
Slashdot Mirror
It might take a while to catch it, but it sure takes a while for editors to realise that this story was run last year:
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/20/0020213
I totally agree. I work in a software company that needs good quality technical support reps, I'd say that we have with a 98% resolve rate and we deal with some reasonably complex service desk software that deals with a number of technologies. I work closely with the developers and consultants and I'm very much valued in my role, with customers who are extremely happy with the support that we provide.
The days of technical support by monkeys is fast coming to a close (I hope!) and support roles are becoming more professional.
Hopefully the stigma will pass, in the meantime I'd have to say that in this case the monkeys are the ones interviewing the original poster!
Actually, you assume too much. I have moved unsourced material to the talk page, therefore it isn't actually removed entirely. If the material can be sourced, then people are free to put it back with the source - nothing should stop them. However, consider this: the definition of "trivia" is:
As you can see, I don't think the material that I am referring to actually relates to anything you talk about - clearly you don't think the material is unimportant, inconsequential, insignificant, obscure or petty! Therefore, I get annoyed when people feel that the information is not important, but should be in Wikipedia.
I should note that if information about a topic was cited from an external, reliable source, then I wouldn't have a problem with the material.
Actually, you assume too much. I have moved unsourced material to the talk page, therefore it isn't actually removed entirely. If the material can be sourced, then people are free to put it back with the source - nothing should stop them. However, consider this: the definition of "trivia" is:
As you can see, I don't think the material that I am referring to actually relates to anything you talk about - clearly you don't think the material is unimportant, inconsequential, insignificant, obscure or petty! Therefore, I get annoyed when people feel that the information is not important, but should be in Wikipedia.
I should note that if information about a topic was cited from an external, reliable source, then I wouldn't have a problem with the material.
Indeed. I have recently been working through merging so-called "trivia" into articles (much of it isn't actually trivia in the defined sense of the word) and I've been blown away by the sheer amount of unsourced material I've had to remove.
I'm amazed that people think they should be able to randomly add in material into what is meant to be an encyclopedia. Some of the material is ridiculous ("Bob ate grapes on Friday" sort of material), but much of it is interesting and would be great to incorporate into the article if it had a source. The other point I make is that the sheer laziness of adding in something onto a list is a bit disheartening, though I do understand if someone does it. What annoys me is when they get all high and mighty about their unsourced, speculative and often ridiculous trivia that is impossible to verify!
So yeah, let trivia and fancruft go into it's own Wiki. Please.
Well, it's certainly clear you don't consume it yourself.
Goodness, this really is a pissing contest with a difference. Normally people try to outdo each other in how good their skills/belongings/etc are. You guys are actively trying to compete on whose OS is the worst!
Unless you can BOTH provide more information on what caused the problem, it's all very meaningless in my view. How do we know that the problems with Windows/Linux aren't hardware related? Proprietary driver related?
According to the article, Microsoft changed things considerably at a lower level over a period of time, making developing drivers a moving goal post and proper testing nigh on impossible.
Whose issue was it again?
"YouTube is required by law to heed these takedown notices, no matter whether they're justified or not".
I thought there were laws against denial of service attacks?
This is marked 50% "Insightful"? Whoosh!
Someone else mark this funny, please!
Hmmmm... so if every one of those who had a DMCA order taken against them wrote to their Congressman, nothing would be done?
I'd like to think the U.S. is a stronger democracy than that, but I dunno as I'm an Aussie.
Well, someone has to issue the DMCA notice - somebody is in charge somewhere. I know it may not seem like it some time, but someone will become accountable if you prod hard enough.
In fact, if they are careful, all those users who had their material taken down could cause so much trouble for Scientology they may never send another DMCA again. I mean, these video posters are dedicated enough to submit anti-Scientology videos, I'm sure if they have enough time and energy for this sort of thing they'll have enough time and energy to fight back!
Try emailing that to them. They might publish you.
Somewhat missing the point. The parent wrote "Walking around drunk with poor judgement isn't inherently dangerous to others." I was pointing out this isn't necessarily true.
Trying to prove there is no god I see.
Love it.
In that case, it will be another good reason not to buy a Mac.
Cool, so where am I going to go for a single source of info on what hardware works on ?
And of course, there are no violent drunks. And of course, the poor judgement of the drunkard couldn't possibly given them a feeling of over confidence which leads them to drive while under the influence. Oh no, drunkenness just isn't dangerous at all!
Well, he must have been modded by a student doing a degree in Arts - specializing in post-modern theory - because that post is now at +2 Insightful.
My hovercraft is full of eels, indeed.
Sure is, but it also tells me that they aren't able to adapt to competitors. You know, IBM had a highly profitable business model - mainframes - so where is this business model now? They basically did whatever it took to keep out the new breed, they lost, they nearly died and they were forced to adapt.
But hey, I'm an optimist. One can only hope this will happen to the fat, bloated and threatening music industry.
Someone mod this comment to above a 1 - PLEASE!
Yes, your posting is somewhat unusual.
Maybe for dial-in or cable. But if corporations or campuses that provide Internet access had to maintain all MAC to IP addresses, this would get out of hand.
Seriously, I've been wondering how long it was going to take for a network admin to point out what the IT dept. of Tuft university has pointed out. ARP was never designed to be audited like this, and why they heck should it? And I've also been wondering when someone would twig that a computer can be used by more than one person. Sheesh.
If they screen-scraped, they would be have been blocked as this means that they didn't honor Wikipedia's Robots.txt file.
Basically, they have tried to be clever and they take the incoming request for an article, then they pass it to the Wikipedia servers, scrape back the content and repackage it in a form that allows ads.
Thus, because they don't want to fork out money for a database dump and setup Mediawiki, they have been blocked.
I guess it sucks to be cheap.
Oh, and before you say that they didn't realise it was a bad thing - I'd just like to point out that a whois of e-wikipedia.net returns a whoisguard entry. Positively guaranteed to be a dodgy site.
Maybe we need a whois phishing filter built into Firefox. If you register your DNS names with certain registrars, then the filter looks up the name via whois. If it's dodgy, warn the end user.