March 2003 Archives
Has anyone else noticed how resistant some computer users are to change? God forbid they should have to learn a different way of doing something. And then there are the ones who just refuse to accept that the computer simply will not do some totally ridiculous thing that they believe it should do.
Case in point: I recently had the pleasure of speaking with a gentleman (and I use that word very, very loosely) who could not believe that Mac OS X will not log him out automatically if he should forget to do so. Mac OS 9, he informed me, did have this feature. Well that's just peachy. Guess what, douche bag? OS X is not OS 9. Ok, so I didn't actually say that. What I did was calmly and reasonably inform him that OS X does not provide this particular feature.
This can't be right, he told me. Mac OS X is supposed to be better. But how can it be better when it doesn't stop me from being a moron the way OS 9 did?
Observe the following snippet of this call, during which the ball of brilliance on the other end of the phone presented me with a scenario that was apparently supposed to prove his case.
Him: I have multiple users on my Mac, and if one person is using the computer and they leave and forget to logout, the screensaver will come up after a few minutes. If one of the other user comes along to use the Mac, they can't get to their account because when they move the mouse to take down the screensaver, it asks for the first user's password. So there's no way for this other person to use the computer, because the first user wasn't logged out automatically. Me: Well, you can configure it so the screensaver doesn't ask for a password. That way, if another user comes along, they can log you out and login to their own account. Him: Then other people could access all the stuff in my user account, right? Me: That's right. Him: Then there's no point in having multiple users. Me: Then you'll need to remember to logout.
And so on. A large part of the conversation consisted of him saying "Then what's the point of having multiple users?", as if the sheer repetition would somehow make his stance seem logical (And by the way, I don't believe for a second that security was really a major concern for this jackass. Most likely he just wants to keep his wife from finding his extensive porn collection).
Logging out when you're finished is one of the requirements of working on a multi-user system. Expecting the system to automatically log you out if you forget is just ridiculous. If you're working in an environment where security is a real concern, then you need to either logout when you leave the computer, or have the screensaver password-protected. If there are other users on the machine who will need to use it when you're not there, then you need to logout when you're finished working. That's all there is to it. And if you forget to logout, and someone messes with your account, then you have no one to blame but yourself, you dumb bastard.
So, back to my story. This turkey just would not accept that OS X is not going to read his mind and know that he intended to logout before leaving the computer. Finally he requested to speak to one of our fabled "product specialists", about whom he had been told during a previous call on this issue (yes, sadly enough, he had called with the very same question earlier that day, and had been given the very same answer). At this point I handed him over to the tier 2 tech support, so that yet another support agent could tell him the same thing I had just finished explaining. I should have stayed on the line for a while just to hear the tier 2 agent shoot this idiot down, but that might have been more fun than I could handle in one day.
As if inventing the Internet was not enough, Al Gore has now been elected to Apple's board of directors.
Just another day in the life of the man who's mother invented Perl, I suppose.
So Apple is finally doing away with the CRT iMacs. It's about time. I've never been a big fan of the all-in-one, non-upgradable idea. You know the deal: you can upgrade the software, but as far as hardware, about all you can do with the iMac is add more RAM. The idea is that the machine is only supposed to last a few years, and then you have to buy a new one. Brilliant strategy, isn't it?
Don't get me wrong, I like Macs, but I would never own an iMac or an eMac, for the reasons outlined above. Well, maybe that isn't totally true... if someone were to give me one of these machines for free, I would take it.
On the other hand, I would be willing to shell out the money for a PowerMac or a PowerBook (probably not an iBook though). Or an iPod, if I hadn't already gotten one for free.
I am now the owner of a 2000 Saturn LS 2. It's got all kinds of nice features: CD player and tape deck, six speakers and a subwoofer, power seats, heated mirrors (!), alloy wheels, sunroof, spoiler, ABS with traction control, and power locks and power windows, of course.
Note that if I had been buying a brand new car, I would not have paid extra for a sunroof and spoiler, but it's a used vehicle, and they were included, so why not? :-)
FYI, it is a good idea to regularly check the oil level in your car. If it gets too low, very, very bad things can (and probably will) happen.
I learned this the hard way yesterday when my engine "broke" on the way to work. The car was shaking and rattling, and all kinds of white smoke was puring out of it. In my judgement, this was a bad sign, and I was right. When the tow truck driver arrived, he found a piece of my engine on the ground under my car. Also a bad sign.
To make a short story shorter, turns out that I need a new engine. Since this would cost me $4,000, and my car is nine years old, I'm seriously considering a new car. Probably another Saturn.
Whatever happens, I will certainly be more attentive about keeping the oil in my car at an acceptable level.
I know that I've covered this ground before, but it just can't be emphasized enough. If one is going to call tech support about an Internet connection problem, is it not logical to start by call one's Internet service provider? Especially if nothing has changed on the computer, and all of a sudden one is unable to connect to the Internet.
Strangely, there are those who's first impulse in this situation is to call the tech support line for their computer. The logic behind this is far beyond my comprehension, but it does happen.
Today, for example, I took a call from a customer who was unable to get online with his DSL modem. After about ten minutes of trouble shooting, it was revealed to me that the lights on the modem were not on. Observe:
Me: Can you power the modem on?
Him(tries to turn on the modem): Nothing's happening.
Me: Is it plugged in to a power outlet?
Him: Yes.
Me: Ok, there's obviously something wrong with your modem. You'll need to call your Internet service provider to get this taken care of.
This is my favorite part:
Him: Ok then, I guess I'll have to call you back about this after I get the modem straightened out.
Me: Ummm... sure. Ok.
He was going to call us back about his Internet connection problem after he got the modem issue resolved by his ISP. At this point I was obligated to explain to him that in all likelihood, the lack of power to the modem was the cause of his Internet connectivity issue, and there should be no need for him to call us back.
Admittedly, I could have ended the call much sooner had I asked right away whether or not the modem was turned on. How naive of me to believe that one of our customers would have the sense to make sure his modem is functioning properly before calling us for help. You'd think I would know better by now.
Took a new screen shot of my Linux desktop. I realize it's not terribly exciting, but I just started using a new theme, so I figured it was time for a new screen shot.
If anyone's interested, IceWM is my window manager, and I'm currently using the Sort Of Aqua theme.
Ok, has anyone not heard about this yet?
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/03/05/offbeat.peace.arrest.reut/index.html
A man is asked by security guards to leave a shopping mall, because he is wearing a t-shirt with the words "Give Peace A Chance" printed on it. A t-shirt which he purchased in that very same mall. He refuses to leave, the police are called, and he is arrested for trespassing. The phrase "What the fuck?" has never been more appropriate.
Was this man causing a disturbance? Nope. The security guards just didn't like the slogan on his t-shirt. Admittedly, mall security guards probably are not the best and brightest of law enforcement. But one would think that actual police officers would have more sense than to go along with this and arrest the guy. One would think. In this case, however, one would be wrong.
What the hell is this, Russia?
If I hadn't already lost my faith in humanity, this incident would strip away a significant chunk of it.
This post should serve as proof that people think up some strange things when they're home sick. I've been trying to think of names that could belong to either a male or female, but with a couple restrictions:
- The name has to be spelled the same for both genders. So, for example, Frances/Francis would not be counted, nor would Leigh/Lee.
- It cannot be a nickname. So Chris and Pat would be out, because they're short for Christine/Christopher, and Patricia/Patrick.
With those rules in mind, here are the names I've come up with so far, in no particular order:
- Kelly
- Robin
- Morgan
- Jules
- Taylor
- Leslie
- Carrie
- Kerry
- Tracy
- Ashley
- Stacy
- Michael
- Jamie
- Lee
- Shannon
Admittedly, Michael is generally not an ambiguous name, but a quick name search on the IMDb revealed quite a few actresses of that name. For example, Michael Michele of Homicide and ER fame (Thanks Dave).
Feel free to comment this entry if you have any additions for my list.
Update: I added Lee to the list; apparently I was incorrect in thinking the feminine version of this name is always spelled Leigh. It seems there are some women who spell it Lee.
