A couple of years ago this story came out in ComputerWorld
Someone posted it in our Company IT Forum, and this is the response I gave which I think applies to this situation:
These categories are pretty good. But every single user you will work with is unique in their behavior when dealing with computer related problems. Interestingly enough, depending on how you handle these situations, you can use some of these personality types to your advantage in working with the problem.
For example:
Know-It-Alls - These people are more difficult to accomodate, as they're always asking for unusual requests, but the advantage is that if you go out of your way to help them, they usually don't need much follow-up help at all. Know-Nothings - Ironically, I think this type of user is easy to work with. I find that people who have little or no experience with computers hardly ever call for support. As long as they can get what they need done, they tend to follow the same patterns (check email, enter work orders, etc.). Also I tend to find a lot less junk installed on their PCs. Mr. Entitlement - Luckily this type of person is pretty rare. I think this person is more appropriately called "Mr High Expectations". I have users that expect a lot of hand holding, and feel neglected when you give them detailed instuctions. But again, like Know-it-alls, if you can bite your tongue and go a step out of your way, often they will be more flexible about working with you, sometimes waiting longer for you to make time for them, etc.
I could go on, but my point is that each user behaves differently, and it's not as important on how to categorize them as it is to understanding how to work as well as you can with them. I think the most important point of the article is that you have to maintain a working relationship with these people despite how you feel about them, or how difficult they make your job. Here's what works for me.
Be honest. - You have to honest about what you can and can not do for someone. If you let them know the limitations of what you can do for them, they are much more likely to meet you halfway to finding solutions. Also, you have to be honest about when you make mistakes. Admitting when you are wrong is pretty difficult sometimes, but most people are much more understanding and easy to work with when you do, rather than hiding behind your pride
Communicate - Let your users know what is going on. With so much to do as an admin/support technician, I think this is the hardest to do. But when a request goes too long before there are any answers, it causes the most stress that can easily turn to uncomfortable confrontations. Simply letting someone know that you are working on their problem relieves a lot of tension.
Empathize - Showing the people that you care about their problem helps tremendously. If you can get yourself "on their side", and that you are working together to solve their problem, it will make things easier for both of you. Also it will help you figure out the best way to help them, no matter what category of user personality types they fall into.
Respect - This is a double-edged sword. If you don't respect the user, and they don't respect you, the above three things are not going to be easy. But it is important that you stand up for yourself when someone is being disrespectful. In those cases, being honest, communicating, and empatthizing are even more important. If you don't handle those situations by being the better person, you'll make it impossible for anyone to support your side of the situation.
When it comes down to it, most people just want to do their jobs, not spend all day on the phone with you. Complaining about the users that turn your day sour makes you feel better, but at the end of the day, you still have to work with th
The Justice Dept went after Microsoft while under a different administration. When Bush came to power, the whole Microsoft anti-trust case pretty much ran out of gas.
Google's goal as a company is to index the world's information. I don't see how buying a competitor for their data is evil. They used no government coercion to do so. They played by market rules and bought them in a mutually cooperative deal. How is it any worse if Doubleclick has the data, or Google does?
If you don't like google, no one's forcing you to use their services.
Who is the government protecting in this case exactly? If you believe the Justice Department is involved due to benevolence instead of at the request of another corporation with a larger lobbying group, you are seriously being naive.
The government is intervening on behalf of microsoft for "the good of the people", no doubt about it.
From a lot of the comments I get the impression that most people really don't get it. AJAX is incredibly useful, but it's mostly a really clever hack. The need for dynamically updating elements on the web page is definitely there, and AJAX manages to fill that need somewhat. But Javascript/DOM + XML/HTML is a terrible set of tools to build GUI widgets with.
AJAX works by sweeping the nitty-gritty details under the rug, but scratch the surface, and you realize how filthy the whole thing is. The first time you try to use a cool feature of your favorite GUI widget, and expect it to work the way your favorite desktop widget does, the cool-factor quickly degrades into frustration. Even with some of the best libraries out there, they still don't seem to have the problem licked.
It's amazing how far we have gotten with the tools available, but there really is a threshold forming due to these weaknesses. I'm not smart enough to envision how to get there, but there really needs to be a fundamental change that better integrates these technologies. Otherwise we're gonna be in spaghetti-code hell for a quite some time to come.
I agree with you in that companies are prone to offering you their limited services over what you can potentially do with the equipment that you purchased from them. I previously had a Nextel phone where you could upload your own ringtones. However, they discontinued offering the software that allowed you to do it for their pay-per-download service. But guess what? I don't have a Nextel phone anymore. If a particular feature of a product isn't provided for you, you have the option to patronize the competition.
Despite all the hyperbole of this pristine view Net-Neutrality advocates put forward, there are a multitude of different levels of access to the internet. Each one having particular quirks due to the nature of the connection medium, or the quality of service the ISP provides. The real beauty of it is there is a variety of competing technologies and services offering access to the net.
Putting legislation in place that tries to uphold this simplistic idea that "all packets are treated equally" is more likely to be overreaching and will actually do more to hinder service providers from finding better ways to utilize the net. Ways that allow them to hopefully bring out better products that we can take advantage of. Theres also a good chance they will come up with something as annoying as what you describe, but as long as there is open competition, these will eventually go by the wayside over time.
Not sure what your point is here. VHS dominated because JVC competed with Sony the open market, not because of government regulation. It succeded because it voluntarily opened the VHS format to gain a competitive advantage.
In theory, the same would hold true for other markets. If AT&T wants to charge more for internet access, that's fine, as a competitor would be willing to sacrifice profit margin in order to gain a larger market share. The problem is that when goverment (local, state and national) partner with a select few companies to provide a service, they are able to completely freeze out competition, and ultimately we the consumers/citizens suffer for it.
From a consumer perspective, people don't purchase randomly. They purchase for a number of reasons, mostly quality vs. cost. The beauty of an open market is that this relationship is very consistent, and it leads to the most efficient delivery of goods and services. Regulation is much more short-sighted, and incredibly difficult to undo once put into place.
Your point doesn't prove the advantage of regulation, in fact it supports a free market, libertarian view.
It's nice to see a refreshing perspective about this. After reading several Slashdot articles on the subject I was under the impression that BPL was an impossible undertaking. Lately in my neighborhood in Cincinnati, I've seen several marketing promotions about Current Technologies BPL service, and after doing a little checking at ARRL, I was suprised to see that in fact they were decently positive about the service.
FTFA: For several weeks, ARRL and Motorola have cooperated in a BPL test stand at W1AW that has operated successfully without significant interference to Amateur Radio. The League also cited BPL systems by Current Technologies, IBEC and Corridor Systems as being among those that meet the additional requirements it's proposing. Current Technologies' BPL deployment in the Cincinnati, Ohio, area, for example, does not make use of medium-voltage lines for transmission of HF signals and utilizes the HomePlug notching protocol. Limited testing, the ARRL said, indicates that, as a result, the interference potential "is minimal relative to Amateur Radio facilities."
I'm glad that there is some critical discussion about the topic, but it's too bad that there seems to be no follow up about the positive sides of the issue.
Ask anyone who has had an abortion, and the answer is undoubtably "yes". It is easier to terminate a pregnancy than to go through with it. If it were the other way around, hardly anyone would choose to have one.
The compelling argument is whether or not you are *ready* to have a child, either to raise on your own, or give up for adoption. I trust that the women who are pregnant are the best one's to make that decision either way. Not you or me, or the government.
The Constitution isn't a perfect document, but the bigger problem is actually getting our government to follow it. It was designed as a framework for *limiting* the powers of the federal government. But as you can see, there are constant attempts to reach beyond its original intent.
Is high speed internet access really a public necessity? Does it really bridge the "Digital Gap"?
I disagree on both counts. Plenty of people who can afford high speed, and have computers choose not to use it. Is it fair to force them to pay for something that they don't use?
To take advantage of it you have to have a computer. Should the government pay for shiny new Macs so that anyone can afford the convenience of a nice, modern PC?
It's just a fact of life that when you don't have the money to pay for certain services that you simply don't use them. In the case of high speed internet, if you don't want to or can't pay the higher cost, you can still connect using dialup. Several companies offer it practically free. If the trend continues, perhaps in a few years it will be the same for broadband.
You can go on about how "evil" all these big corporations are for opposing this trend, but the reality is that in most cases the government isn't going to run the high speed network. They're going to choose the lowest bidder (most likely an "evil" corporation), and hand them a big chunk of pubilc funds. The effect is that all providers big and small can't compete. No wonder a lot of the big corporations don't like it. They have little control over whether or not they'll be the one that is chosen.
The major parties won't make substantial changes as long as they are effective at preventing the third parties from getting fair public attention. By hijacking the debates, and promoting the idea that the third parties are stealing 'their' votes, they are eliminating heathly political discourse at our expense.
Completely opposite? If that was true, then why are their supporters left to choose on their subtleties rather than what they actually say they support? I've never met so many people that feel betrayed on both sides. Both parties have driven so far to the center, they've abandoned their traditional differences. The only signs they still have a side is the petty one-liners they spout out which is mostly regurgitation from their think-tanks and talk shows.
If the 2004 election shows anything, it's that there is no meaningful choice anymore. If you really want to stir things up, start demanding instant-runoff voting. That way you can choose your favorite candidate, followed by the lesser-evil one without any reluctance, or 'spoilers'.
I agree with you on the benefits of having internet access to poorer schools, but that still doesn't justify why the money should be coming from the FCC. Of course they wouldn't have net access without that program, because they structured their budgets knowing that funding was available. If the access is so beneficial, the state can set up its own program to fund it.
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing about Freud. The uncanny effect is brought out, as our brains find it harder to distinguish between objects that are animate, and those that are alive. Why that brings out feelings of erieness, I'm not entirely sure. But essentially our brain maintain a sense of comfort as it builds a map of familiar reality. When you start going off that map, the feeling of uncanniness increases.
Slashdot Mirror
A couple of years ago this story came out in ComputerWorld
Someone posted it in our Company IT Forum, and this is the response I gave which I think applies to this situation:
These categories are pretty good. But every single user you will work with is unique in their behavior when dealing with computer related problems. Interestingly enough, depending on how you handle these situations, you can use some of these personality types to your advantage in working with the problem.
For example:
Know-It-Alls - These people are more difficult to accomodate, as they're always asking for unusual requests, but the advantage is that if you go out of your way to help them, they usually don't need much follow-up help at all.
Know-Nothings - Ironically, I think this type of user is easy to work with. I find that people who have little or no experience with computers hardly ever call for support. As long as they can get what they need done, they tend to follow the same patterns (check email, enter work orders, etc.). Also I tend to find a lot less junk installed on their PCs.
Mr. Entitlement - Luckily this type of person is pretty rare. I think this person is more appropriately called "Mr High Expectations". I have users that expect a lot of hand holding, and feel neglected when you give them detailed instuctions. But again, like Know-it-alls, if you can bite your tongue and go a step out of your way, often they will be more flexible about working with you, sometimes waiting longer for you to make time for them, etc.
I could go on, but my point is that each user behaves differently, and it's not as important on how to categorize them as it is to understanding how to work as well as you can with them. I think the most important point of the article is that you have to maintain a working relationship with these people despite how you feel about them, or how difficult they make your job. Here's what works for me.
Be honest. - You have to honest about what you can and can not do for someone. If you let them know the limitations of what you can do for them, they are much more likely to meet you halfway to finding solutions. Also, you have to be honest about when you make mistakes. Admitting when you are wrong is pretty difficult sometimes, but most people are much more understanding and easy to work with when you do, rather than hiding behind your pride
Communicate - Let your users know what is going on. With so much to do as an admin/support technician, I think this is the hardest to do. But when a request goes too long before there are any answers, it causes the most stress that can easily turn to uncomfortable confrontations. Simply letting someone know that you are working on their problem relieves a lot of tension.
Empathize - Showing the people that you care about their problem helps tremendously. If you can get yourself "on their side", and that you are working together to solve their problem, it will make things easier for both of you. Also it will help you figure out the best way to help them, no matter what category of user personality types they fall into.
Respect - This is a double-edged sword. If you don't respect the user, and they don't respect you, the above three things are not going to be easy. But it is important that you stand up for yourself when someone is being disrespectful. In those cases, being honest, communicating, and empatthizing are even more important. If you don't handle those situations by being the better person, you'll make it impossible for anyone to support your side of the situation.
When it comes down to it, most people just want to do their jobs, not spend all day on the phone with you. Complaining about the users that turn your day sour makes you feel better, but at the end of the day, you still have to work with th
The Justice Dept went after Microsoft while under a different administration. When Bush came to power, the whole Microsoft anti-trust case pretty much ran out of gas.
Google's goal as a company is to index the world's information. I don't see how buying a competitor for their data is evil. They used no government coercion to do so. They played by market rules and bought them in a mutually cooperative deal. How is it any worse if Doubleclick has the data, or Google does?
If you don't like google, no one's forcing you to use their services.
The CIA? Are you serious?
Who is the government protecting in this case exactly? If you believe the Justice Department is involved due to benevolence instead of at the request of another corporation with a larger lobbying group, you are seriously being naive.
The government is intervening on behalf of microsoft for "the good of the people", no doubt about it.
You just can't say it any better than that.
From a lot of the comments I get the impression that most people really don't get it. AJAX is incredibly useful, but it's mostly a really clever hack. The need for dynamically updating elements on the web page is definitely there, and AJAX manages to fill that need somewhat. But Javascript/DOM + XML/HTML is a terrible set of tools to build GUI widgets with.
AJAX works by sweeping the nitty-gritty details under the rug, but scratch the surface, and you realize how filthy the whole thing is. The first time you try to use a cool feature of your favorite GUI widget, and expect it to work the way your favorite desktop widget does, the cool-factor quickly degrades into frustration. Even with some of the best libraries out there, they still don't seem to have the problem licked.
It's amazing how far we have gotten with the tools available, but there really is a threshold forming due to these weaknesses. I'm not smart enough to envision how to get there, but there really needs to be a fundamental change that better integrates these technologies. Otherwise we're gonna be in spaghetti-code hell for a quite some time to come.
I agree with you in that companies are prone to offering you their limited services over what you can potentially do with the equipment that you purchased from them. I previously had a Nextel phone where you could upload your own ringtones. However, they discontinued offering the software that allowed you to do it for their pay-per-download service. But guess what? I don't have a Nextel phone anymore. If a particular feature of a product isn't provided for you, you have the option to patronize the competition.
Despite all the hyperbole of this pristine view Net-Neutrality advocates put forward, there are a multitude of different levels of access to the internet. Each one having particular quirks due to the nature of the connection medium, or the quality of service the ISP provides. The real beauty of it is there is a variety of competing technologies and services offering access to the net.
Putting legislation in place that tries to uphold this simplistic idea that "all packets are treated equally" is more likely to be overreaching and will actually do more to hinder service providers from finding better ways to utilize the net. Ways that allow them to hopefully bring out better products that we can take advantage of. Theres also a good chance they will come up with something as annoying as what you describe, but as long as there is open competition, these will eventually go by the wayside over time.
Not sure what your point is here. VHS dominated because JVC competed with Sony the open market, not because of government regulation. It succeded because it voluntarily opened the VHS format to gain a competitive advantage.
In theory, the same would hold true for other markets. If AT&T wants to charge more for internet access, that's fine, as a competitor would be willing to sacrifice profit margin in order to gain a larger market share. The problem is that when goverment (local, state and national) partner with a select few companies to provide a service, they are able to completely freeze out competition, and ultimately we the consumers/citizens suffer for it.
From a consumer perspective, people don't purchase randomly. They purchase for a number of reasons, mostly quality vs. cost. The beauty of an open market is that this relationship is very consistent, and it leads to the most efficient delivery of goods and services. Regulation is much more short-sighted, and incredibly difficult to undo once put into place.
Your point doesn't prove the advantage of regulation, in fact it supports a free market, libertarian view.
It's nice to see a refreshing perspective about this. After reading several Slashdot articles on the subject I was under the impression that BPL was an impossible undertaking. Lately in my neighborhood in Cincinnati, I've seen several marketing promotions about Current Technologies BPL service, and after doing a little checking at ARRL, I was suprised to see that in fact they were decently positive about the service.
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/10/18/101/
FTFA: For several weeks, ARRL and Motorola have cooperated in a BPL test stand at W1AW that has operated successfully without significant interference to Amateur Radio. The League also cited BPL systems by Current Technologies, IBEC and Corridor Systems as being among those that meet the additional requirements it's proposing. Current Technologies' BPL deployment in the Cincinnati, Ohio, area, for example, does not make use of medium-voltage lines for transmission of HF signals and utilizes the HomePlug notching protocol. Limited testing, the ARRL said, indicates that, as a result, the interference potential "is minimal relative to Amateur Radio facilities."
I'm glad that there is some critical discussion about the topic, but it's too bad that there seems to be no follow up about the positive sides of the issue.
FYI, Hamas has christian party members as well:
B 9A-4C8C-9C5C-D2F5795720BA.htm
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/ACC5E814-D
The conflicts in the middle east have a lot more to do with other factors than religion.
Enjoy.
x _running_on_an_intel_imac.html
http://www.makezine.com/blog/archive/2006/02/linu
Does it go up to 11?
As an American, I am truly deeply offended. But after I got to the end of your first sentence, I stopped paying attention...
Ask anyone who has had an abortion, and the answer is undoubtably "yes". It is easier to terminate a pregnancy than to go through with it. If it were the other way around, hardly anyone would choose to have one.
The compelling argument is whether or not you are *ready* to have a child, either to raise on your own, or give up for adoption. I trust that the women who are pregnant are the best one's to make that decision either way. Not you or me, or the government.
The Constitution isn't a perfect document, but the bigger problem is actually getting our government to follow it. It was designed as a framework for *limiting* the powers of the federal government. But as you can see, there are constant attempts to reach beyond its original intent.
Is high speed internet access really a public necessity? Does it really bridge the "Digital Gap"?
I disagree on both counts. Plenty of people who can afford high speed, and have computers choose not to use it. Is it fair to force them to pay for something that they don't use?
To take advantage of it you have to have a computer. Should the government pay for shiny new Macs so that anyone can afford the convenience of a nice, modern PC?
It's just a fact of life that when you don't have the money to pay for certain services that you simply don't use them. In the case of high speed internet, if you don't want to or can't pay the higher cost, you can still connect using dialup. Several companies offer it practically free. If the trend continues, perhaps in a few years it will be the same for broadband.
You can go on about how "evil" all these big corporations are for opposing this trend, but the reality is that in most cases the government isn't going to run the high speed network. They're going to choose the lowest bidder (most likely an "evil" corporation), and hand them a big chunk of pubilc funds. The effect is that all providers big and small can't compete. No wonder a lot of the big corporations don't like it. They have little control over whether or not they'll be the one that is chosen.
The major parties won't make substantial changes as long as they are effective at preventing the third parties from getting fair public attention. By hijacking the debates, and promoting the idea that the third parties are stealing 'their' votes, they are eliminating heathly political discourse at our expense.
Completely opposite? If that was true, then why are their supporters left to choose on their subtleties rather than what they actually say they support? I've never met so many people that feel betrayed on both sides. Both parties have driven so far to the center, they've abandoned their traditional differences. The only signs they still have a side is the petty one-liners they spout out which is mostly regurgitation from their think-tanks and talk shows.
If the 2004 election shows anything, it's that there is no meaningful choice anymore. If you really want to stir things up, start demanding instant-runoff voting. That way you can choose your favorite candidate, followed by the lesser-evil one without any reluctance, or 'spoilers'.
I agree with you on the benefits of having internet access to poorer schools, but that still doesn't justify why the money should be coming from the FCC. Of course they wouldn't have net access without that program, because they structured their budgets knowing that funding was available. If the access is so beneficial, the state can set up its own program to fund it.
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing about Freud. The uncanny effect is brought out, as our brains find it harder to distinguish between objects that are animate, and those that are alive. Why that brings out feelings of erieness, I'm not entirely sure. But essentially our brain maintain a sense of comfort as it builds a map of familiar reality. When you start going off that map, the feeling of uncanniness increases.
n .htm
Here's a good link to Freud's writing about it: http://social.chass.ncsu.edu/wyrick/debclass/unca
The Cubans beat them to it.