The biggest problem I run into with tech support is the huge amount of rules and regulations the call center people have to follow. Instead of me calling up Gateway and saying "Hey my modem is fried, I know what I'm doing with computers, send me a new one" I have to go through an hour of pointless troubleshooting. For a $5 part with $3 shipping they should just send me the part.
This reminds me of lately when I had a problem with my cable modem. I called the ISP on a friday telling them that my internet connection was not working, and they told me to power cycle my cable modem. After I did that my internet connection worked again. Two days after on sunday I had the same problem and called them again. I did the same thing, and told the supporter that I had the same problem two days before and that I suspected the cable modem had a defect and asked them to mail me another one so I could replace it. They refused and told me that they would send a technician the next day. Early monday morning the technician came and I told him that the cable modem was the problem and that I wanted a new one. He replied "You are going to get a new one anyway just in case, but I am also going to do some measurements on the equipment connected to it just to make sure that the defect isn't caused by something connected to the modem. The new cable modem could break again if the problem is due to something connected to it." So he measured the router attached to it and the line to the ISP. After finding no problems he replaced the cable modem that had failed twice but could be "repaired" in a few seconds by turning off the power.
This is really good service. I have to say that this was probably because I pay extra for a "professional" connection - about twice the amount I would have to pay if I had selected the cheapest ISP with the same bandwidth. For other customers having the same ISP but other internet subscriptions I have heard really horrible stories about support.
I guess this story shows that "what you get is what you pay for" is at least sometimes true.
Also the call center person has his/her hands tied when fixing the problem. Recently my cable internet service did not discontinue my service when I told them to. Even though it was obvious they needed to credit my account for the extra month they charged me for, the representative could not due to some rule. If he was trusted to just make the decision things would go much smoother.
Yeah, I have seen similar problems several times before. Both with ISPs and in other areas.
In the area of laptops it is really bad. It looks like all vendors have agreed to keep a low level of support. I wouldn't mind paying a bit extra for my laptop if I knew I could get better support and service for it.
Because sometimes the free market doesn't work speedily in the interests of the consumer and common good, you asshat.
Agreed, regulation can make sense in some areas, like the use of radio spectrum.
But this regulation is not on radio spectrum, but on the technical capabilities of television sets. Why impose a regulation that all TV sets must also be able to receive an oldfashioned and outdated low-quality analog signal? Why should people not be permitted to buy a TV set that only receives a digital signal?
It would make a lot more sense to me if the FCC regulated the radio spectrum instead. They could set a date after which the broadcasting of analog television signals would not be permitted. Then - to protect the consumer - a regulation that all analog-only TV sets sold must be clearly marked as not working after this date would make sense.
And btw, I and not an asshat, you insensitive clod;-)
It is economically unsound to invest into a project that does not have a well defined budget,
Not unsound, but very risky. At this early stage of a project an investor can gain an extremely high ROI, but also has an extremely high risk of the project eating up all finances without any ROI.
Governments should not run such risks, only venture capitalists willing to take a chance.
No, The space elevator only travels to an altitude of 22,300 miles.
The center of mass for the elevator has to be at this altitude, as the elevator basically works like a geostationary satellite.
From : This spurred Edwards to come up with a plan for a space elevator he called "The Wright Brother's version." In Edward's simplified plan, a robotic platform is boosted into space to the right height (22,300 miles) needed for the geosynchronous orbit. The platform would carry two spools of a CNT in the form of a ribbon 5 to 10 inches wide. The spools would then unwind, one going down to Earth 22,300 miles below, and the other one going upward to a height of around 62,000 miles. The extra ribbon above would ensure that the center-of-mass always stayed at 22,300 miles and eliminate the need for an asteroid counter-weight.
22,300/200 = 111.5 hours
how many times do i have to listen to Kraftwerk?
(111.5 hours) / (22 minutes 43 seconds) = 294.4974321349963 times
That is, if you can keep yourself awake for over four days...
There is massive evidence of huge climate changes before Homo Sapiens emerged, with temperature changes at least ten times as high as has been observed though the last hundred years.
<sarcasm>Yeah, no hard evidence needed; it is obvious if we use common sense. And almost everybody says so, so it must be true even if never proven true.
</sarcasm>
Seriously, when people are expressing scepticism, other people try to muzzle the sceptics. What has happened to the academic freedom of expression and development of science through critique and open debate? When it comes to the global environment it seems that critique is muzzled instead of being refuted with arguments in an open scientific debate.
For an example of this here on/. just see the post you replied to. This person was expressing his scepticism, and the post is modded down as flamebait. Looks to me like some moderators don't want an open debate on this topic.
For an example of this in the scientific world, just look at what happened when the accredited scientist specializing in game theory and environmental statistics Bjørn Lomborg published a book that (among other things) pointed out that the United Nations Environmental Programme (who published TFA) had abused statistics to paint a more devastating picture of the global environment than could be concluded if statistics were used correctly.
Nah, MS-DOS 1.0 was the best operating system they ever made. Since then it just got worse and worse;-)
Just look at the security: I don't see any outstanding security bulletins on MS-DOS 1.0. How many MS-DOS 1.0 PCs have viruses, and how many are 0wned by zombie networks?
I'm not down with this P2P stuff, why can't they just get the file and find the IP address, thus demonstrating the file wasn't just "available", but was actually distributed?
I don't think this would work. If the copyright holder initiates the download, this distribution is done with the consent of the copyright holder, and is thus probably not illegal.
They have to find proof that other people did a download.
I know of court rulings in Denmark that have stated that it is not legal to send personal data to the US to avoid the restrictions of the local personal data protection law. The UK laws on personal data protection are almost the same as in Denmark.
If I was you and wanted to pursue this, I would - after having tried to settle this amicably with Napster.co.uk - complain to the UK Information Commissioner.
What keeps it going is the human brain + human body, along with all that food you shovel three times a day.
I have never seen a laptop go looking for a plug by itself when the battery runs low. But the human is willing to do just about everything to avoid running out of energy.
The immune system and the self-repair capability of most living beings also help a lot.
As I said, it all depends on the technology. And in most of the ways that really matter, the evolved technology of life still surpasses the designed technology of computers.
Except for about 30,000 sleep phases where the human brain is not really inactive, the human brain runs for about a hundred years without crashing. This surpasses even the most reliable computers.
Still I think this is very interesting news. This is very early research. The speed will probably be improved, and the smaller dimensions of single-molecyle transistors can give space for more hardware to compensate for the speed.
Since 1991 Linus Torvalds has copyright.
Since 29.12.95 Stephen Tweedie has copyright.
Since 7.1.96 sct has copyright.
Since 2.4.97 Rik van Riel has copyright.
All authors of a source file holds copyright on the source file.
Slashdot Mirror
What I really wanted for the heading was: If it just was possible to pay for better support, I would do it.
This is really good service. I have to say that this was probably because I pay extra for a "professional" connection - about twice the amount I would have to pay if I had selected the cheapest ISP with the same bandwidth. For other customers having the same ISP but other internet subscriptions I have heard really horrible stories about support.
I guess this story shows that "what you get is what you pay for" is at least sometimes true.
Yeah, I have seen similar problems several times before. Both with ISPs and in other areas.In the area of laptops it is really bad. It looks like all vendors have agreed to keep a low level of support. I wouldn't mind paying a bit extra for my laptop if I knew I could get better support and service for it.
But this regulation is not on radio spectrum, but on the technical capabilities of television sets. Why impose a regulation that all TV sets must also be able to receive an oldfashioned and outdated low-quality analog signal? Why should people not be permitted to buy a TV set that only receives a digital signal?
It would make a lot more sense to me if the FCC regulated the radio spectrum instead. They could set a date after which the broadcasting of analog television signals would not be permitted. Then - to protect the consumer - a regulation that all analog-only TV sets sold must be clearly marked as not working after this date would make sense.
And btw, I and not an asshat, you insensitive clod ;-)
Instead of trying to impose regulations, why not just let the free market decide?
Damn, you're right. These weird non-metric scales should be killed ;-)
Governments should not run such risks, only venture capitalists willing to take a chance.
http://www.unmuseum.org/spaceelevator.htm
The center of mass for the elevator has to be at this altitude, as the elevator basically works like a geostationary satellite.
From :
This spurred Edwards to come up with a plan for a space elevator he called "The Wright Brother's version." In Edward's simplified plan, a robotic platform is boosted into space to the right height (22,300 miles) needed for the geosynchronous orbit. The platform would carry two spools of a CNT in the form of a ribbon 5 to 10 inches wide. The spools would then unwind, one going down to Earth 22,300 miles below, and the other one going upward to a height of around 62,000 miles. The extra ribbon above would ensure that the center-of-mass always stayed at 22,300 miles and eliminate the need for an asteroid counter-weight.
22,300/200 = 111.5 hours
(111.5 hours) / (22 minutes 43 seconds) = 294.4974321349963 timesThat is, if you can keep yourself awake for over four days...
Seriously, no nation should be able to claim an entire planet as their territory just because they were the first to land a person on that planet.
There is massive evidence of huge climate changes before Homo Sapiens emerged, with temperature changes at least ten times as high as has been observed though the last hundred years.
But life itself has changed our planet. Before life became established on Earth, and even for some one or two billion years afterwards, the air contained no free oxygen, but life changed this as photosynthesis produces oxygen as a waste product. Ironically, oxygen was poisonous to life at that time, but life evolved to cope with this poisonous gas.
Seriously, when people are expressing scepticism, other people try to muzzle the sceptics. What has happened to the academic freedom of expression and development of science through critique and open debate? When it comes to the global environment it seems that critique is muzzled instead of being refuted with arguments in an open scientific debate.
For an example of this here on /. just see the post you replied to. This person was expressing his scepticism, and the post is modded down as flamebait. Looks to me like some moderators don't want an open debate on this topic.
For an example of this in the scientific world, just look at what happened when the accredited scientist specializing in game theory and environmental statistics Bjørn Lomborg published a book that (among other things) pointed out that the United Nations Environmental Programme (who published TFA) had abused statistics to paint a more devastating picture of the global environment than could be concluded if statistics were used correctly.
Well, Micro$oft sees a reason that you upgrade. They live on the money you pay them.
Just look at the security: I don't see any outstanding security bulletins on MS-DOS 1.0. How many MS-DOS 1.0 PCs have viruses, and how many are 0wned by zombie networks?
I think RIAA is trying to sue them for some kind of secondary or tertiary contributory copyright infringement.
They have to find proof that other people did a download.
I know of court rulings in Denmark that have stated that it is not legal to send personal data to the US to avoid the restrictions of the local personal data protection law. The UK laws on personal data protection are almost the same as in Denmark.
If I was you and wanted to pursue this, I would - after having tried to settle this amicably with Napster.co.uk - complain to the UK Information Commissioner.
If readers in other european countries have similar problems, please check the list of national data protection offices.
Phoenix Technologies could send threaths of a trademark case against Mozilla as they had a browser product, causing this name change.
But I don't think they have a Mars lander product.
No, http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com/ is number 79 in the list.
The immune system and the self-repair capability of most living beings also help a lot.
As I said, it all depends on the technology. And in most of the ways that really matter, the evolved technology of life still surpasses the designed technology of computers.
Except for about 30,000 sleep phases where the human brain is not really inactive, the human brain runs for about a hundred years without crashing. This surpasses even the most reliable computers.
Don't click on the link if you have javascript enabled.
This despite the fact that the human brain is biodegradable.
How long did the last PC you owned last?
Still I think this is very interesting news. This is very early research. The speed will probably be improved, and the smaller dimensions of single-molecyle transistors can give space for more hardware to compensate for the speed.
Or have a look at the home page of the researcher.
Since 1991 Linus Torvalds has copyright.
Since 29.12.95 Stephen Tweedie has copyright.
Since 7.1.96 sct has copyright.
Since 2.4.97 Rik van Riel has copyright.
All authors of a source file holds copyright on the source file.