Hey, have you been talking to my father again ???

"That's not what I want to hear, so go over it again
until you can tell it the way I want to hear it ..."
(he also can not understand who "owns" the internet
and why they just don't make virius' and spam
illegal and be done with it)

mikey

"Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message
news:eoV$meCDGHA.272@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Hehe, what can we say?
>
> Had a database on a small network and after some testing called
contract
> manager to suggest he try and log on.
>
> DOS prompt days by the way
>
> Type your name
> Type your password
>
> "It does nothing"
> "Huh?"
> "It won't take that"
>
> After 10 minutes of trying his login on several terminals I visit the
> office.
>
> Type your name YOUR NAME
> Type your password YOUR PASSWORD
>
> "Harry, what's your name?"
> "Harry Wood."
> "It's not 'Your name' then? and you remember the password you gave me
to
> use?"
> "Oh yes."
>
> Type your name "HARRY WOOD"
> Type your password YOUR PASSWORD"
>
> "No Harry, not my password, it's your password it wants."
> "Ah, I see."
>
> Type your name HARRY WOOD
> Type your password MY PASSWORD
>
> "No Harry, it wants your password, the actual word you gave me."
> "Why?"
> "Well, because you're supposed to be the only one that knows it."
> "But what use is that, nobody else will be able to use it".
> "Nobody else around here is called Harry Wood, that's the idea, so
nobody
> else can pretend to be you."
> "Ah, I see, why can't we all use the same name?"
> "Because then the computer wouldn't know which set of menus to give
us?"
> "Why not, that doesn't seem right to me."
> "Okay, when you sit down at Dave's computer how would it know you were
not
> Dave?"
> "Because I'm not Dave..."
> "But it has no eyes or ears - how would it know someone else had sat
down?"
> "Because it's supposed to be a computer."
>
> Needless to say it wasn't just the password ended up on a stick up
note
> attached to the monitor - I had to write down the name he was supposed
to
> type as well
>
> Since that took place in, oh 1993 or 94 I guess you still beat me?
Hehe
>
> Charlie
>
>
>
> "RJK" <notatospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23qXomwnCGHA.3684@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > I've got one, (customer), that I believe beats all of yours ! He's
been
> > trying to send an email for over 15 years. ...let me elaborate !
> > ... ...{Richard mumbles}...where will I begin ? ...
> > ...with at least ten years of hindisght I could describe him most
> > succinctly I supppose as "stubborn." He has seemingly spent over
ten
> > years trying to reduce his PC to a typewriter, and also keeps trying
to
> > convert his PC based hardware into an old fashioned fax machine and
> > photocopier - at least that's how it seems to me. During the past
few
> > years he often complains that he's losing work because people
refuse to
> > fax things to him, they offer to email them to him, and indeed he
has
> > actually stated that, "people don't seem to know what a fax machine
is,
> > anymore..." ...he is in my view simply being stubborn in addition
to
> > intentionally avoiding learning basic PC and PC software concepts.
Having
> > said that he owns a desktop PC and a laptop and seems willing but,
NEVER
> > seems to get very far with them with them. Very annoying from my
point of
> > view, he is the only person with whom I've experienced consistent
tuition
> > problems, he's ALWAYS more determined to tell me what went wrong,
what he
> > thought went wrong, and is ALWAYS determined to give me a detailed
account
> > of what he'd done and what happened during PC sessions where I
wasn't in
> > attendance.
> > ...so for the umpteenth time I reactivate his suspended ISP account,
stand
> > behind him and lead him through "dialling up," starting OE and
drawing his
> > attention to the fleeting 'sending' and 'receiving' on OE's status
bar
> > etc. He has spent a considerable number of hours "waiting" for the
> > computer to do something, when in fact the computer is waiting for
input
> > and interraction from him ! i.e. during a recent "ear bending"
telephone
> > call he explained that he'd visited the DVLC (UK driver vehicle and
> > licensing centre), and attempted to download a "form." All their
forms
> > are offered in *.pdf format, and apparantly, after he'd clicked a
> > hyperlink to a *.pdf document, (and obviously after IE had fired up
Adobe
> > Acrobat Reader as a plug-in and loaded the document), which had a
large
> > circular logo top left, he got frustrated with trying to "click" on
the
> > logo in the document and nothing happened ..so he left his laptop
for two
> > hours, then returned and again repeatedly kept clicking on the logo
in the
> > *.pdf document. ...after listening, (for AGES about what he
thought had
> > gone wrong - interspersed with at at least 50 "wot I fink
'appened..."
> > 's ), to all this I tried to explain what had been happening, and
that he
> > had actually "loaded" the "form" he was after, and could have
"zoomed" it
> > to a smaller size / saved it to disk / printed it out etc.
> > He also keeps padding out Word ducuments with spaces ! ....I won't
go
> > into that one !!!!
> >
> > What would you do with one (customer) like this ?
> >
> > regards, Richard
> >
> >
> > "cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org>
wrote in
> > message news:crc0r1pvo3r9207aolbv8fgu1kpg1gr7cm@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 10:18:30 -0600, "Charlie Tame" wrote:
> >>>"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" wrote
> >>>> On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 06:36:01 -0600, "Charlie Tame"
> >>>>>"RJK" wrote
> >>
> >>>> If the tech's so shallow that "just re-install" is the stock
result to
> >>>> everything - implying that nothing further is done to manage
risks,
> >>>> leaving everything set as duhfault - then better results can't
really
> >>>> be expected. This system will rot on the baseline, forever.
> >>
> >>>In *the case I quoted I had set up the same security settings I use
(and
> >>>I
> >>>visit some risky places deliberately) which are not 100% but are
aimed at
> >>>limiting the "Annoyance" so that the user will not be tempted to
undo
> >>>them
> >>>in order to see some "Exciting" website or email that a (similarly
> >>>stupid)
> >>>friend has sent her. Unfortunately, instead of asking me they ask
the
> >>>friend
> >>>(who is already infected with everything and it's dog) and adjust
their
> >>>settings to take every possible advantage of all the infections and
> >>>more...
> >>>it is as if there is a competition going on.
> >>
> >> There are two aspects to "just rebuild"; the one is whether the
> >> settings etc. you want to apply can be automated, and the other is
how
> >> to preserve the user's settings and so on. That's assuming the
tech
> >> has any respect for the user's settings and preferences, etc.
> >>
> >> On the first, I'm still finding automation (on XP Home) falls short
of
> >> removing the effort to re-apply the settings etc. that I want. The
> >> problem is finding the .REG etc. that correspond to the manual
> >> settings one applies interactively. This would help...
> >>
> >> http://cquirke.mvps.org/savereg.htm
> >>
> >> ...if MS ever had the clue to design that into the OS, but mostly
they
> >> take the line that the user is to be force-fed settings by "the
> >> administrator", which in the home consumer world translates to
malware
> >> dominating the user's experience through the same automation, but
the
> >> user having no way to automate what they do interactively.
> >>
> >> Until MS takes the home market seriously, i.e. beyond expecting us
to
> >> pretend to be a corporation with per-user job descriptions and a
> >> notional CEO-appointed sysadmin to bully everyone, this won't
change.
> >>
> >>>There is really no point in trying to "Lock" better settings
because they
> >>>simply ask the advice of someone they know will tell them what they
want
> >>>to
> >>>hear and that will be "He's made it so bad you'll have to
reinstall" and
> >>>they will do that and we are back to square one again
> >>
> >> Maybe we should discuss exactly what settings are involved here?
It's
> >> always a judgement call, and finding a balance isn't always easy,
so
> >> it can help to compare notes on this topic.
> >>
> >> My first objective is preventing the system doing stupid things
> >> automatically. MS acknowledges the need for this when it's due to
> >> code defect, but it's up to us to manage design defects.
> >>
> >> Next, is to get the system to present essential information to the
> >> user, so the user can make better-informed decisions. Ideally, one
> >> would want the system to abide by those decisions, but
unfortunately
> >> where the system is so dumb as to allow greater risks to be spoofed
> >> (e.g. running raw .EXE code in a file named as a DOS .PIF
shortcut),
> >> the defect is so deeply hard-coded that there's no easy cure.
> >>
> >> Once the user's presented with risk info and decides to go ahead,
then
> >> you've done what you can and the user takes responsibility what
> >> happens next. If it takes tech effort to undo the damage, then the
> >> user will be expected to pay for that.
> >>
> >> There are two obstacles to risk management.
> >>
> >> The first is where an app is so badly designed that you are forced
to
> >> throw the baby away with the bath water. For example, if you
wanted
> >> to completely suppress HTML scripts and active content in OE mail,
you
> >> have to throw away all the formatting, images etc. of HTML mail as
> >> well, as there's nothing more fine-tuned than "HTML" vs. "plain
text".
> >>
> >> The second is the nag problem, i.e. where the user's subjected to
so
> >> many nags that click fatigue sets in. Because so many crappy web
> >> sites routinely use scripting for no good reason at all, it's no
> >> longer practical to set IE to prompt whenever scripts want to run -
> >> you are pressurized into the bad practice of assigning these
> >> programming rights to all arbitrary web sites you want to "read".
> >>
> >>>By contrast I find that most people are happy to modify their
behavior
> >>>and
> >>>suggest the same to their friends as a result of simple explanation
of
> >>>risk,
> >>>the changes to the computer settings then become a "Backup" safety
device
> >>>for many risks and revisits become maintenance and tidy up rather
than
> >>>extinguish the fire and rebuild
> >>
> >> Yup. If I had such useless users as you seem to be stuck with, I'd
> >> push them out of the nest through rudeness, delayed response, and
> >> punitive billing. Whether they stay or go, it's win-win; I either
> >> pull large income with a minimum of rush, or I lose the aggrevation
> >> and free up resources to help more worthwhile cases.
> >>
> >> If you hit hard-core intransigence, don't feel obliged to be
merciful.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
> >> Rudeness is human nature's way of curbing demand
> >>>------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
> >
> >
>
>