180 posts • joined 20 Jun 2009
This old article from NPR shows Comcast hasn't changed a bit, and is lying...
It's a VERY long article, and worth reading in its entirety....but if you haven't the time or patience, just read the beginning, i.e., the past stories about other Comcast customer service outrages, all of them ALSO, nationally and internationally broadcast and discussed on major networks and in major newspapers, seen and read by millions of people.
They obviously aren't embarrassed at all by negative publicity, no matter how pervasive. They don't care. Their executives are simply liars.
Mynocks, Morlocks and Molemen...
would be a great song title
Re: Giant Gofers
Alien Whack-A-Mole? Waiting for the next hole to appear....
Hi James 36...
Since I don't think anyone else has explained, to understand the joke behind "the romans they go the house", you have to be familiar with Monty Python's "Life of Brian" - where the centurian is correcting the Latin grammar of some graffiti.
Re: Or just the classic....
Duh - I should know better than to use Google's translation. Thanks for the correction (written while slapping self)
Or just the classic....
Pilas Ad Parietem
if simplicity is preferred
Ballockets Ad Parietem - or if it must be Latin only...
Aerostati Ad Parietem (literally "balloons to the wall")
or (the only usable attempt to create a Latin portmanteau word):
Pilacendii Ad Parietem
combining "pila" (ball - also a possible translation of balloon per several sources) with the plural of "incendium" (an incendiary missile).
Of course, while I intended pilacendii to be equivalent to ballocket, it probably is closer to "flaming flying balls", which might make even a brave Playmonaut pilot uncomfortable.
The most common translations of "balloon" were "aerostatum" (airship, hot-air balloon) and "vesica" (balloon or bladder, but not necessarily something intended to rise). I found no good translation of "rocket" except as salad. "Rucheta" appears related to architecture or surveying, and Google's "fusce" is apparently wrong, even according to Google when re-translated to English.
Someone who actually knows Latin could probably do better, and is likely snickering at my ignorance... 8-}
Re: Noting error messages....Let's be fair here...
The point is: end users AREN'T computer experts. Maybe you're dealing with "professionals" all the time. I'm not.
Do you really expect the average end user to learn multiple procedures for reporting an error? Copy the text, UNLESS it's "one of the many" dialogs that don't support copying, then do something else...then do something else... Yeah right. Bugger that.
In other words: I realize my job is to make things easier for THEM, not the other way around.
I have no problem with them e-mailing me, as an attachment, the JPG that results from the screenshot programs I have them use. Never had a problem with any of them.
Plumbers don't sneer at customers who can't fix their own sinks. Surgeons don't sneer at patients who can't remove their own appendix.
Only in the tech world, seemingly, is it for some reason considered acceptable to be consistently rude, insulting, and unprofessional toward those asking for professional help. How depressing.
Re: Noting error messages....Let's be fair here...
Some error messages DON'T stay on screen indefinitely, so are long gone before the user can read them to tech support.
OK, so you remind users over and over to "tell" you the error message...er, yes, but how do you suggest they do this? It's unbelievable that most tech support people I've worked with either complain the user "didn't remember" it (didn't instantly memorize a multi-character error code and the surrounding technical jargon?), or - worse - complain the user didn't "write it down."
I'm sorry....what century is this again?
First, if you're having to repeat things over and over, maybe the problem is you're not repeating anything useful. Maybe you should consider making a practical suggestion as to how a non-technical person go about reporting what is often a very, very technical error, accurately, and EASILY.
Everyone I support knows how to take a screenshot of an error message and e-mail it to me - including my 82-year-old father, who is by no means a technical genius. I make it as easy as possible by installing one of a couple of simple, free, screenshot programs that make the process a breeze - accessible via a keyboard shortcut or an icon in the System Tray.
Too many people would forget the Windows command..but once an icon was available, they remembered to do the screenshot every single time.
What if the computer is completely frozen? Well, that's less usual, considering most errors I hear about aren't the ones that take down the OS completely.
But on those occasions, if their only option is to write the error message down, NOW they actually DO. Once reporting error messages was made dead simple, they learned it was to their benefit, and so now they WANT to do it.
And one lovely man took a picture of the error on his frozen computer... with his cell phone camera. He then texted the pic to me before he called to ask for help...which I hated, of course because I didn't think of it first. Of course, I stole the idea and now suggest that as an alternative where possible.
Oh, by the way, 75% of my home clients are over the age of 65, and frankly, they are much better students than the younger professionals I deal with at work.
But then, all my clients (and most of my work users) get a little cheat sheet of basic terminology. I go over it with them, to make certain they know which thingamabob is which, what button does what, that they're oriented with regard to standard toolbars, menus, control panels, and crucial keyboard shortcuts. And yes, it includes a few warnings as to what they should NEVER do.
This can be accomplished without making people feel like idiots. I've found even folks who claim they already know everything are happy to take the cheat sheet to "pass along" to someone who "really" needs it. (This rarely happens, interestingly. Most of the sheets end up posted somewhere near the computer...although several clients HAVE claimed it's only there because their spouse needs it...ahem.)
It's sad that the computer industry and tech support professionals alike have largely failed users, especially over the past decade, by acting as if the basics are somehow acquired via osmosis.
They've failed their clients and customers through arrogance and condescension, instead of being the vanguard for education of the new users coming into the market daily.
If WE won't help teach them, who will?
(Oh, and in closing: though normally I'm a big proponent of professionalism and good manners, it's nonetheless my opinion anyone who uses the word "intuitive" with regard to any aspect of computing should be taken out and slapped. Thank you.)
Then they need to LEARN where air lanes and airports are...
BEFORE they start flying anything around willy-nilly. For heavens sake: airspace maps are public and posted online in numerous locations. Or there are remote aircraft clubs that help educate users, and for the most part encourage responsibility, as well as choosing safe places to fly.
Drone users should do likewise. If they can't be bothered, or are too stupid to realize such things as restricted airspace even exist, then I've no sympathy if they have the book thrown at them by every relevant regulatory agency out there.
Bird strikes have more recently taken down large passenger jets...
The best known example being the "Miracle on the Hudson" five years ago, where US Airways Flight 1549 lost both engines to Canadian geese, and ditched in the Hudson River.
One study from 1999 estimated bird strikes cause $1.2 Billon (US) damage annually worldwide, to commercial jets alone (i.e., not including private, military, or other aircraft).
Deaths are rarer, but they happen, by FAA estimates at least 200 since 1988.
Airports can to some extent keep birds away. A number of methods have been successful in reducing large flocks around most major airfields.
But a drone, or a model airplane, will not be frightened away by those measures, and either is harder for a pilot to see than even a single flapping bird.
Anyone who flies ANY aircraft into commercial airspace without notice - remote controlled or otherwise, and regardless of size - is an irresponsible idiot.
Re: Never ascribe to malice…
It really doesn't matter whether the cause is malice or stupidity, or disregard of contract or law, etc. Amazon is not so big it is exempt from being held liable when its actions cause harm.
On the contrary: the larger the company, and the greater its resources, the less excuse there is for failure to respond quickly to correct egregious errors. With greater power comes greater responsibility, not lesser.
H2F should be commended for taking action against yet another example of corporate carelessness. This is why we have courts and a justice system: for those occasions when injustice has occurred.
Bravo, H2F. Bravo.
Not familiar with the icons, eh?
You're one of the investors, aren't you?
"We are working on the securities issues..."
Working on their IPO seems an odd response to a security breach...
Re: Here's what feminists do when men are encouraged to go into female-dominated fields
You're applying a single instance to all women in general. Not all women believe men should be discriminated against. Unfortunately, the sexist women who for some reason DO grab more media attention.
I'm female, by the way, and can tell you I've never met another woman who has a problem with men being nurses, dentists, doctors (since when are men discriminated against in medicine, by the way?), psychologists (historically a male-dominated profession, starting with Freud), or veterinarians
In fact, except for nurses, the professions you list historically have ALL been male-dominated. I'm not sure how anyone decided those fields were traditionally female dominated, considering women had to fight to be accepted as doctors, veterinarians (especially in large-animal medicine), psychologists, and dentists, and still face opposition in many medical schools.
But on the flip side, yes, any woman who objects to men entering them - or who believes they should be "female-dominated" fields- is obviously sexist , and I'm embarrassed by them, as are all the women I know. We believe in genuine equality, and hate male-bashers as much as we hate chauvinists. Neither are acceptable.
To state it even more plainly: ANYONE who objects to another human being pursuing the career of his or her choice, solely because of gender, is a sexist, and therefore a bigot. That includes women, who clearly can also be sexist.
Non-bigots don't care what gender you are. They only care how well you do the job.
It's not that they inherently WANT to work in lower paying jobs. They're still facing an uphill climb against the good-old-boy network in a lot of higher-paying industries.
I believe this will change, but to claim sexism is not an obstacle (including what seems to be increasing sexism coming from women themselves, depressingly) is to ignore mountains of evidence, lawsuits, and vicious media attacks on women to the contrary.
This potential lawsuit against LinkedIn might make some of you smile...
"Judge OKs Suit Against LinkedIn Over Marketing Emails...U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh said the professional networking site went too far by sending repeated emails that seemed to come from users..."
Interestingly, the mainstream US media are thus far almost completely silent on this :-)
Fairly decent article at:
Maybe YOUR government didn't make them join the army....
But here in the US we have something called the "draft".
And compulsory service in wartime (sometimes in peacetime) is not unique to the US.
(I'm not weighing in on either side of the charity or not argument. Just correcting an ignorant statement.)
It's not just men who do this, obviously. I'm female, and I'm frequently embarrassed and appalled by members of my own gender who are so clueless they don't even seem to realize they're engaging in exactly the same sort of stereotyping - "reverse chauvinism", so to speak - they deplore in men.
This is a part of a larger societal problem, i.e., continuing to claim there are "boy" things and "girl" things, starting at an early age. Children are too often discouraged - by bad parents, bad teachers, and an avalanche of bad examples in the media, TV, and movies - from pursuing activities or interests termed "unfeminine" or "unmanly".
In reality, neither term has any meaning. There is nothing inherently "unfeminine"about playing sports, studying science, enjoying first-person shooters....nothing inherently "unmanly" about cooking, studying literature, knitting, etc.
Cultures throughout history have managed to define the same activity as both "manly" and "unmanly", "feminine" and "unfeminine". The terms are arbitrary, inconsistent, and obvious nonsense - purely defined by the current whims of a particular society, group, culture, or country.
It's time we faced the truth squarely:
Gender stereotypes are a form of sexism, just as racial stereotypes are a form of racism.
Both sexism and racism are forms of prejudice or bigotry.
Jokes based on gender or racial stereotypes are prejudiced or bigoted jokes.
Sure, people are free to tell them, free to laugh at them (at least in their private life, with their friends, outside of work).
They have freedom of speech. They have the right to be bigots if they choose. They have the right to be prejudiced.
But attempting to camouflage bigotry as humor doesn't magically change it into non-bigotry.
Camouflaging sexism as humor doesn't magically render it non-sexist.
And vilifying as "humorless" anyone who objects to bigoted, stereotypical jokes is a form of bullying and defensiveness.It tries to claim people who object to sexism, or racism, or other -isms, simply "can't take a joke."
Nope - people who object to bigoted jokes are simply non-bigots. They have every right NOT to be bigots, not to be prejudiced, not to be sexists, not to be racists. They have every right to object to all those things if they wish.
And they have not just the right but the OBLIGATION to object to stereotypical humor in some cases. Because alleged "humor" based specifically on sexist, racist, or other stereotypes - HAS NO PLACE IN A PROFESSIONAL OR BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT.
In any business or professional context, there should be Zero Tolerance for ANY form of bigotry, prejudice, sexism, racism, or other -ism - whether phrased as a joke or not.
In business, freedom of speech does NOT apply, but policy and law DO.
Freedom of speech is not an absolute. It is contextual, and always has been.
Men AND Women have forgotten how to behave at work. Both genders - and the companies that employ them - obviously need to be re-educated in the basics of professional behavior.
The workplace is not a bar or your living room, folks. Stop treating it like one.
Re: @ imanidiot not according to actual studies, experiments, etc.
I've given links to a lot of data elsewhere - but, basically, it's not an "apples vs oranges comparison". It's a very accurate, apt, relevant comparison.
Try educating yourself on a subject before firing off comments, and you'll be less likely to make a bunch of ignorant, inaccurate ones.
A truly scientific mind is not too lazy to do research before arriving at a conclusion.
And a logical mind does not purport no evidence exists simply because its owner has not happened to stumble across it.
Try, for example:
A study which involved the FAA, experts in aviation medicine, and an Air Force research lab
Or the case of Dana Christian Welch, sentenced to 30 months in 2009 for pointing a laser at large, commercial aircraft, resulting partly in the actual delay of a critical landing maneuver by an Alaska Airlines jet.
This was not an instance of anecdotal reporting by some hysterical, "unreliable" (to use your word) single pilot, but involved multiple, official reports by airport officials, air traffic controllers, law enforcement, regulatory agencies, aviation investigators, and MULTIPLE pilots - reporting in detail on an extended incident that could have caused a crash during the most crucial part of two separate commercial, passenger flights.
Or note that crashes have been caused by OTHER sudden bursts of bright light, where the pilots involved were not incompetent, or novices. Flashblindness, loss of spatial orientation, temporary disorientation, etc., are cited as contributing to fatal and non-fatal accidents in case after documented case.
This is not based on "anecdotal" evidence, but competent, professional, detailed review by, e.g., the NTSB, which I presume you would consider a reliable and scientific source, if in fact you bother to read their actual reports, which are excellent.
A number of studies have collated and/or summarized this data - I cite only one for brevity, a review of NTSB and FAA accident reports, which states, in part:
"There were 58 reported mishaps that identified vision problems at night resulting from exposure to sources of bright light as a contribut- ing factor in the accident (n=30) or incident (n=28). The majority of accidents (n=17) occurred during the approach and landing phase of flight. Incidents occurred most frequently while taxiing (n=15) and during approach and landing (n=10)."
These are, in the main, NOT laser-related - nonetheless, the majority occur when aircraft are flying very low, or on the ground, precisely where a laser pointer will be at greatest strength and where an aircraft is at its most vulnerable, i.e., having the least amount of time to recover from even a brief distraction.
Included is extensive discussion of why this is a genuine PHYSIOLOGICAL issue, NOT a reflection of the pilot's competence or lack thereof. See:
If you are interested in truly "scientific" inquiry, you might look into the military's research into dangers of night flying and primary causes of crashes, in both training and combat missions. Distraction is always a danger, regardless of the source. Distractions at crucial moments, when there is insufficient time to recover, can trip up the most expert pilots.
Or you might try a PubMed search, which will turn up several papers discussing macular damage from green laser pointers - which I point out less in response to you, by the way, and more in response to some truly idiotic commenters, who tried to claim you could stare directly into a laser pointer for short periods without harm.
This might have been true with lower powered red lasers, and indeed, several studies determined standard, correctly manufactured red laser pointers were unlikely to cause permanent harm.
But doing this with a green laser has resulted in several cases of permanent, irreversible macular damage.
(too many citations to post here, but happy to oblige in another post if requested).
And last: I have not even begun to cite studies done in countries other than the United States.
I leave that research to your fine, logical, scientific mind, which should therefore include a spirit of genuine enquiry and a desire for knowledge.
Re: not convinvced
You MIGHT have a point....Except for the actual data, which contradicts your self-focused and unfortunately uninformed opinion.
Such as FAA documentation of 35 pilots in 2013 alone who sought medical attention after being lasered.
Also courtesy of the FAA, and citing numerous studies and statistics, a full report on laser problems and pilot/aircraft safety.
Please note particularly the green vs. red laser issue.
And more particularly, reports by PILOTS and airports of:
"...disorientation resulting in another pilot assuming control, aborted landings, loss of depth perception, and shutting down of runways due to multiple laser strikes."
The full report is worth reading, but here is a quite useful bit:
"The latest reports indicate that aircraft illuminations by handheld lasers are primarily green (91%) in color, as opposed to red (6.3%), which was more common a few years ago. This is significant because the wavelength of most green lasers (532 nm) is close to the eye’s peak sensitivity when they are dark-adapted. A green laser may appear as much as 35 times brighter than a red laser of equal power output. Due to this heightened visibility and increased likelihood of adverse visual effects, illumination by green lasers may result in more events being reported.
Illumination reports often describe several types of adverse effects. These include visual effects (8.2%), pain and/or possible injury (1.6%), and operational problems (3.2%). Operational problems include momentary distraction, disorientation resulting in another pilot assuming control, aborted landings, loss of depth perception, and shutting down of runways due to multiple laser strikes. While only 16.5% of all cockpit illuminations occurred below 2,000 feet (Laser-Free Zone), these incidents accounted for 31% of all visual effects, 42% of all pain or injuries, and 42% of all operational problems reported. Low-attitude illuminations, therefore, result in a greater risk to aviation safety."
Re: 14 years?
Not necessarily excessive for deliberately doing something that could have caused two helicopters to crash - i.e., multiple people to die.
Part of a sentence involves premeditation and intent, as well as potential for grievous harm. A shorter sentence for some cases of manslaughter is based obviously partly on lack of premeditation, and other extenuating circumstances, judged on a case-by-case basis. Whereas, had the laser idiot succeeded in causing a crash, he could possibly have been charged with actual murder, and multiple counts thereof.
That said: it's also obvious a message is being sent (given the potential disastrous consequences). As well, this is the US prison system - meaning the guy is likely to be out in much less time. It's quite unlikely he'll serve the entire 14 years.
Another mysterious nameless "It"...
Re: "Xwatch sounds a bit badass..."
Pronounced "ekswatch"? or "zwatch"?
This is GREAT news for anyone who bets on sports....
Just put your money on any team playing the Clippers. It's a sure thing :-D
Re: As far as I am concerned - Copyright is not the primary issue here...
The graduates in question obviously POSED for the photographer - they didn't just happen to wander in front of a backdrop with a bear on it, then get hypnotized into freezing and smiling while someone with a camera snapped a formal photograph.
When a graduate chooses to pose for a formal photo such as this, the graduate is informed, PRIOR to the photo being taken, that the photos will be available for PURCHASE, if desired.
Everyone seems to be assuming copyright is the primary issue here. It's not.
The issue is breach of contract and theft of services.
The student agreed to the conditions under which the photo was taken, meaning acceptance of the photographer's terms for acquiring a copy.
Therefore the student breached the contract by attempting to acquire the results of the agreed-upon service without paying, i.e, through theft.
Students are not required to buy the photos, but they agree explicitly they will pay for any copies acquired. Students are NOT, by the way, usually required to pose. However, even if they are, the student is not required to purchase the results, which they may or may not like. School photos work the same way - no up-front cost, payment only for desired numbers of copies. The only difference is photographers now provide "digital contact sheets".
Again: this is out-and-out theft and breaking of a legal and binding promise. The subject of these photos is not in any way the copyright holder, and has no right to any copies whatsoever without payment.
Per the El Reg offer, have a pint...
"El Reg would like to commend Joyent for its transparency about the outage and has made one virtual Sorry You Borked A Bit Barn pint available to the operator that caused the error. Interested parties can provide additional pints by selecting the beer icon in the comments below."
A pint for the poor operator, who will be needing to drown his sorrows
And a pint to Cantrill for what may be the only comprehensive, transparent, honest corporate explanation for a screw-up I've read in years. Should be required reading for all clueless executives and companies (eBay, yes, I DO mean you).
Obviously time to turn the tables, then...
i.e., start bulk gathering of every bit of information about every member of Congress, then publish it publicly and redundantly worldwide. Strip away their privacy completely, and assuming they aren't all in jail as a result, they'll definitely vote for genuine restraints on the NSA and other mass surveillance.
Of course, it's no longer about serving the people, but about their own interests and comfort. Why is it, when elected representatives repeatedly violate their oath of office, they are not charged with treason?
Odd happenstance upon login....
I just logged into my eBay account - instead of taking me to the main landing page, it took me to a screen with the words, "Message from eBay"....and no message. Underneath that was a button labeled "Continue to your Destination"
A blank message seems somehow to epitomize eBay's overall approach to security and communication, i.e., non-existent.
Re: German Boffin?
"Do you buy a Titzling or do you buy a Brassiere?"
Re: Not sure this is cloud
The primary reason is greed (though "customer contempt" is, yes, a subset thereof).
re: I only read the summary
I only read the Condensed summary.
or a similar infinite-number-of-monkeys "service"?
Re: Yahoo shmahoo YES THIS
I'd like to make sure this point gets hammered home: A LOT of people who have AT&T as their ISP, or who originally signed up with one of the "baby bells" for Internet service, were assigned an address ending in yahoo.com This goes back at least 7 years, since I have notes about a customer in this very situation around that time, who started out with sbcglobal.net.
The people in this situation don't, by the way, necessarily use the yahoo web interface. I have dozens of customers who had their e-mail client set up by the same person who installed their AT&T DSL, and are completely unaware the server settings are pop.att.yahoo.com
By the way, att.yahoo.com STILL takes you to the AT&T email login, which is why what yahoo is doing is both particularly boneheaded, and likely also related to AT&T's usual stupidity, control-freakishness, and general untrustworthiness. Once a monopoly, always a monopoly, with monopolistic processes and complete blindness to the effects of their actions on others. Not to mention arrogant unconcern, which pretty much sums up Yahoo's attitude as well, not only toward their customers, but also toward their employees, as I recall.
So folks like jake who in their ignorance think certain domains should be discriminated against really rub me the wrong way. Come to think of it, bigots use a similar argument ("inferior people should have fewer rights than we superior ones"). And come to think again, bigotry is also a function of ignorance.
Er....what about acronyms that include swearing? Or is RTFM appropriate because it's not spelled out? Or are Reg comments not a public venue?
OK, OK, I'm SMILING, really. I'm not the comments police. Nonetheless, there's no avoiding the fact RTFM is not exactly entirely unlike swearing and perhaps undercuts your point eeeeeeever so slightly?
Re: Logic doesn't enter into it
I wish I could give this a hundred upvotes. And unless you have any objection, I'm going to e-mail a copy to Microsoft :-)
Re: Never 6ft away from pliers
"You are never 6ft away from a set of pliers...Unless you really need a set of pliers.
I have discovered a truly marvellous proof of this, which the comment box is too narrow to contain.
Re: Minor correction
Think of Target as equivalent to Walmart - except with a smaller selection of the same cheap merchandise, and most of it priced 30% to 60% higher than Walmart. Amazing what a slick advertising campaign can do.
Sounds more like a class action suit trigger...
By buyers of Dell computers against Dell for violation of antitrust law. Not sure if UK law is similar, but if this were to occur in the US, there might be a good argument to be made that PC buyers must be given the option of choosing a default browser - i.e., choosing an alternate browser to Internet Explorer - at no charge. Anti-monopolistic choice, whether of OS or non-optional software, is presumably mandatory thus must be free, not a source of profit for the manufacturer.
OK, yes, partly being snarky . . . but charging for providing a choice of web browsers simply doesn't seem kosher from any angle.
Re: Sounds about right
This deserves a lot more upvotes . . . from doctors, for whom the final paragraph is an excellent model for the answer to be given to individuals asking for free medical advice, especially in the middle of some social function.
He and his wife were both allowed to know the details, but not his daughter....
Unfortunately, he admitted he knew he was not supposed to discuss the settlement with his daughter, but decided he "needed" to do so regardless, because she was a student at the school, and had allegedly experienced some retaliatory psychological trauma owing to his lawsuit....
However, while I agree completely the court cannot prevent spouses from sharing settlement information (they are the same legal entity for many purposes, after all), parents really need to get clear that there is NO requirement, or need, to share all adult matters with their children. Plenty of settlements - and jobs - prohibit communicating confidential data to family members. This is not cruel or unjust, nor do children have any inherent right - or genuine need - to know all details of their parents' financial or personal lives.
My opinion (admittedly based only on the news stories to date, as I have no personal interaction with these people) is the daughter is somewhat spoiled, and the parents responsible for this to a large extent owing possibly to their own sense of entitlement or feelings of social superiority. Readers might want to check out the Wikipedia article on the school, and review some of the controversy surrounding changes during Mr. Snay's tenure as Principal. It raises the question of whether his dismissal solely involved age discrimination, or whether there might have been other issues surrounding the school's desire to end his employment. Again, only an observation, as there is no real way to know, the details of the lawsuit (except for the daughter's immature indiscretions) still being mostly confidential.
Re: in a free market there's no such thing as a skills shortage
. . .the third digit of the account code results in special processing ever third tuesday is lodged firmly in the heads of the support staff and nowhere else.
This is, indeed, the biggest problem I've encountered in a 30-year career. Worse, no matter how many times someone fails or forgets to tell a new IT hire some crucial detail, almost never is that detail added to internal documentation or training materials (assuming either even exists).
In my admittedly very personal opinion, and recognizing there are numerous exceptions:
It's a scathing indictment of the IT industry that with all the amazing developments on the "T" side, we fail so miserably at communicating the most basic "I", both to each other and the end users we support.
We can not blame non-IT management or budget cuts alone for IT professionals' continued problems communicating effectively with each other, nor repeated failures to document critical processes and procedures, then actually follow them.
I hesitate even to comment on the extent to which egos and territorialism have contributed to these problems. However, there is no doubt certain "historical" attitudes continue to bedevil us, and negatively affect others' overall impression of IT and those who labor in the field. Sadly, in far too many cases, IT staff have only themselves to blame for the lack of cooperation and support they receive from the non-IT side.
Certainly there are times when a business must change to meet the needs of an increasingly technological world. However, IT must move away from the attitude that the "latest and greatest" is always the best, or that business "should" or "must" alter itself to fit that technology. The emphasis of IT should always be the safety, integrity, and usability of Information, without which there would be no need at all for most of our shiny Technology.
Re: I'm waiting...
Your American "friends" (look that word up, by the way, and learn what it means) are not so generally stupid they defend harassment and threats as "free speech."
We are doing our best to fight bullies here, too. We have laws against assault, which includes verbal threats. We prosecute those who make threats of bodily harm electronically as well as face to face.
We understand the distinction between the First Amendment right to, say, criticize our government without being charged with a felony, and the crime of inciting others to assassinate a politician, or threatening to do so ourselves.
A minority may not. But then, you are also, in a minority. You are prejudiced. You judge an entire country based on the words of a few, and insult an entire citizenry based on a false supposition rather than explicit actions or actual comments.
Wait elsewhere, won't you? Perhaps under that rock with the other bullies...
Realizing some may think I'm overreacting....I'm simply so tired of the kind of comment to which I'm responding. In my experience, those who accuse others of being ABOUT to do something are usually abusers. Anyone who has dealt with bullies or abusers on a regular basis recognizes pre-accusation, often based on a single past mistake, as a common weapon in the arsenal of chronic harm. To an abuser, the victim is always guilty, partly because the victim cannot ever prove perpetual innocence.
Unfortunately, those who like making videos of themselves...
Are likely the worst candidates for a trip of this kind. The extroverts who thrive on social interaction, and the narcissists who make up the bulk of those who appear on reality shows, are particularly ill suited to long periods of isolation and solitude, much less the discipline required to complete the same - often tedious - essential tasks every single day.
Fortunately, this appears to be more of a money-making entertainment stunt. Any "winners" would probably run away, screaming, if a genuine mission ever materialized. In the meantime, they still get the 15 minutes they so desperately desire, without having to do the actual work. Pity.
Paris, because her video would no doubt be extremely....er....well, extremely.
Four magnetic poles...
So we'll have to change it to "the Eight Corners of the Earth", then?
- NASA boffin: RIDDLE of odd BULGE FOUND on MOON is SOLVED
- SOULLESS machine-intelligence ROBOT cars to hit Blighty in 2015
- BuzzGasm! Thirteen Astonishing True Facts You Never Knew About SCREWS
- Worstall on Wednesday YES, iPhones ARE getting slower with each new release of iOS
- Tor attack nodes RIPPED MASKS off users for 6 MONTHS