why are you all so dumb?
ed
serious. and the serious question is:
in all seriousness, why do so many of the mac users here have so many
problems with windows? i was on vacation in mexico the past week, and
stayed at a westin where they had several public access computers running
windows xp, as well as a wireless access point. each morning i'd pop in to
check my email after breakfast. while waiting for a free computer / using
one of the computers, i saw everyone from little 6 year old kids to 75 year
old grandparents pop in, use the computers for email, web surfing, instant
messaging (i.e. the tasks most home users are most interested in) without
skipping a beat, even though the os was in spanish, and the keyboard was
mexican(different keymappings). additionally, despite the fact that the
computers were LOGGED IN AS ADMIN (never seen that on a public scope
before), there didn't appear to be a problem with malware / spyware (they
did have spyware / virus checker installed). i only saw a couple folks
bring their laptops down, but they didn't have any problems connecting
either.
so, what's the difference between you and these users, and whoever setup
these machines? why do you have such a hard time, when so many others
don't?
Shardar
We don't have a hard time using windows machines, they are just as easy
to use as Macs. It's just we prefer to use Macs instead. The reason?
Well for me it was as a former Windows user I decided I really liked the
Macs I had used at friends, or in the shop when they let me have a
play.
I had used windows since 1995 to xp, and I had dabbled with other OS's
such as Linux etc, I was looking for something different, and the MacOS
was something that 'felt' different to me. I have no grudge against
Windows or its users, but I do find those who persist in attacking the
Mac a little strange. But I would say this to you, why not give the Mac
a try? You may like it.
Regards.
Shard...
Randy Howard
sha...@NOSPAMbtinternet.com says...
> ed wrote:
> > so, what's the difference between you and these users, and whoever setup
> > these machines? why do you have such a hard time, when so many others
> > don't?
>
> We don't have a hard time using windows machines, they are just as easy
> to use as Macs.
Stop the presses. News at 11. :-)
> It's just we prefer to use Macs instead.
Ahh, a straight answer. Refreshing.
> I had used windows since 1995 to xp, and I had dabbled with other OS's
> such as Linux etc, I was looking for something different, and the MacOS
> was something that 'felt' different to me. I have no grudge against
> Windows or its users, but I do find those who persist in attacking the
> Mac a little strange. But I would say this to you, why not give the Mac
> a try? You may like it.
Well said. If we could just figure out why some Maccies persist in
attacking the Linux and Windows people, that prefer to use them
instead of a Mac, we'd be getting somewhere.
--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"If the evidence doesn't seem to fit a particular conspiracy theory,
just create a bigger conspiracy theory." --Robert D. Hicks
ed
Shardar <sha...@NOSPAMbtinternet.com> typed:
> ed wrote:
>> ok, so the subject is meant to provoke, and is half joking, but also
>> half serious. and the serious question is:
>>
>> in all seriousness, why do so many of the mac users here have so many
>> problems with windows? i was on vacation in mexico the past week,
>> and stayed at a westin where they had several public access
>> computers running windows xp, as well as a wireless access point.
>> each morning i'd pop in to check my email after breakfast. while
>> waiting for a free computer / using one of the computers, i saw
>> everyone from little 6 year old kids to 75 year old grandparents pop
>> in, use the computers for email, web surfing, instant messaging
>> (i.e. the tasks most home users are most interested in) without
>> skipping a beat, even though the os was in spanish, and the keyboard
>> was mexican(different keymappings). additionally, despite the fact
>> that the computers were LOGGED IN AS ADMIN (never seen that on a
>> public scope before), there didn't appear to be a problem with
>> malware / spyware (they did have spyware / virus checker installed).
>> i only saw a couple folks bring their laptops down, but they didn't
>> have any problems connecting either.
>>
>> so, what's the difference between you and these users, and whoever
>> setup these machines? why do you have such a hard time, when so
>> many others don't?
>
> We don't have a hard time using windows machines, they are just as
> easy to use as Macs. It's just we prefer to use Macs instead.
well, this question wasn't particularly directed at you then. =D i'm sure
you've noticed some of the resident mac users and / or their loved ones /
acquaintances have definately had more than their share of problems.
> The reason?
> Well for me it was as a former Windows user I decided I really liked
> the Macs I had used at friends, or in the shop when they let me
> have a play. I had used windows since 1995 to xp, and I had dabbled
> with other OS's such as Linux etc, I was looking for something different,
> and the MacOS was something that 'felt' different to me. I have no grudge
> against Windows or its users, but I do find those who persist in attacking
the
> Mac a little strange. But I would say this to you, why not give the
> Mac a try? You may like it.
1- i sincerely doubt you'll find posts by me attacking the mac.
2- i have tried the mac
3- i do like the mac
imout...@mac.com
setup
>these machines? why do you have such a hard time, when so many others
>don't?
who says we're having a harder time than anyone else? You? What makes
YOU think your wonderful XP experiences are the norm?
I just managed to uncover why my XP box wasn't waking from sleep, turns
out XP is ignoring the BIOS setting:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;%5BLN%5D;841858
but other than that I haven't had any other problems with XP, other
than its general suckiness in various areas. Oh, some time ago my XP
box, aftering powering up, wouldn't recognize any mouse input until I
CMD-ALT-DEL, bringing up the windows admin tool, then the mouse would
work.
Unique problem?
http://www.infopackets.com/gazette/2002/20021126_mouse_is_frozen_sometimes_in_windows_xp_part_2.htm
"Since then, I've received a whole whack of suggestions from readers of
the Gazette. In fact, I couldn't believe how many people share the same
problem as Jack."
Says it isn't. Doing a clean reinstall fixed the problem, so it wasn't
hardware.
Oh, last week I wanted to DL a 2.2GB file, but none of the Dells (they
were all Dells, not PCs) in either the public library or the university
library had firewire connections (while every Mac built in the past 6
years has had this basic high-speed connection) so I had to get tricky
and swap ethernet drops to get my PBG4 online.
You can pretend XP is so reliable, but anyone with any experience with
it knows better, so I really wonder who you're trying to fool, since
even most diehard Mac users use XP enough to see how crappy it is.
imout...@mac.com
Linux
I respect people who use Linux. It's a difficult choice suffering with
that substandard crap for principle, and I hope the free/open source
community continues to improve the Linux UE and underlying
technologies like an accelerated window server so that it will someday
meet my needs and tastes in the future.
> and Windows people, that prefer to use them instead of a Mac, we'd be
getting somewhere.
Anybody who's tried OS X (on modern hw like a 512MB mini) for ~ two
weeks and still prefers Windows has no problem coming from me.
There are plenty of reasons to prefer Windows over Macs:
1) Cost, though for institutions TCO issues apply
2) BYO. I *love* building my own x86 boxes and consider this a prime
joy of pc use.
3) Price/performance (related to the above): Wintel offers the best
bang for the buck when upgrading, and stuff that is known to work with
macs is generally marginally more expensive, and Apple doesn't really
encourage upgrading, unfortunately
4) Games. Can't beat Windows as a game box
5) Game creation. The mod community lives on Windows. All the best game
tools are on Windows, or work best on Windows. DirectX generally kicks
ass.
6) Warez. If your friends or work has Windows, you're set. Being in a
minority makes it harder to pirate stuff.
7) Niche stuff like GPS or aircraft pilot aids: coverage on OS X is
really sparse
The Mac comes with definite tradeoffs, but I get around this by
maintianing both an XP box and a Mac box. The Mac sees 90%+ of my usage
tho, I use Wintel for the above (minus warez).
Randy Howard
imout...@mac.com says...
> Oh, last week I wanted to DL a 2.2GB file, but none of the Dells (they
> were all Dells, not PCs) in either the public library or the university
> library had firewire connections (while every Mac built in the past 6
> years has had this basic high-speed connection) so I had to get tricky
> and swap ethernet drops to get my PBG4 online.
Interesting. My Dell precision 650 has multiple 1394 ports on it, but
they are few and far between on basic desktop configs. You can buy
a 1394 adapter for about $20 to rectify this though. The reason is
that Intel hates 1394 (not invented here syndrome), hence USB. They
don't want anything to do with it, and try to keep it off motherboards.
You'll notice that it's a lot easier to find on AMD-based boards.
Snit
2mkce.3301$Gd7....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com on 4/28/05 11:19 PM:
> ok, so the subject is meant to provoke, and is half joking, but also half
> serious. and the serious question is:
>
> in all seriousness, why do so many of the mac users here have so many
> problems with windows?
What type problems do you mean? I have been very specific with the problems
I have with Windows... and the benefits I have found with it as well:
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/mac_win
and specific interface issues:
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/interface
and even pricing:
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/prices
Though the last is more just a rebuttal for the myth that Macs are generally
more expensive than Windows machines.
> i was on vacation in mexico the past week, and stayed at a westin where they
> had several public access computers running windows xp, as well as a wireless
> access point. each morning i'd pop in to check my email after breakfast.
> while waiting for a free computer / using one of the computers, i saw everyone
> from little 6 year old kids to 75 year old grandparents pop in, use the
> computers for email, web surfing, instant messaging (i.e. the tasks most home
> users are most interested in) without skipping a beat, even though the os was
> in spanish, and the keyboard was mexican(different keymappings).
> additionally, despite the fact that the computers were LOGGED IN AS ADMIN
> (never seen that on a public scope before), there didn't appear to be a
> problem with malware / spyware (they did have spyware / virus checker
> installed). i only saw a couple folks bring their laptops down, but they
> didn't have any problems connecting either.
>
> so, what's the difference between you and these users, and whoever setup
> these machines? why do you have such a hard time, when so many others
> don't?
I see many, many users who *do* have problems... problems with malware, with
UI issues, with fear of malware, even with using a two button mouse or
understanding that a floppy can prevent a computer from booting.
People can deny that such problems exist all they want, and even find some
counter examples (I do not claim *all* people have such problems with
Windows), but there is no doubt that many, many people *do* have these
problems with Windows. I have been in the industry long enough to know that
without a shadow of a doubt.
--
I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
Nasht0n
Ooooo, Firewire is missing from many PCs.
Big whoop.
Nicolas
Nasht0n
> ok, so the subject is meant to provoke, and is half joking, but also half
> serious. and the serious question is:
>
> in all seriousness, why do so many of the mac users here have so many
> problems with windows?
They do? I wonder how many of them actually use XP? Most of the time,
they get their info and references on XP troubleshooting forums, yet
admonish XP users that get references on Mac forums.
Wacky people. Look at Graves. All he could ever say about Windows is how
much he hates it and how color is managed at a system level on the Mac,
as if this affects the average user. Many Mac users display this cri de
coeur type of attitude,
i was on vacation in mexico the past week, and
> stayed at a westin where they had several public access computers running
> windows xp, as well as a wireless access point. each morning i'd pop in to
> check my email after breakfast. while waiting for a free computer / using
> one of the computers, i saw everyone from little 6 year old kids to 75 year
> old grandparents pop in, use the computers for email, web surfing, instant
> messaging (i.e. the tasks most home users are most interested in) without
> skipping a beat, even though the os was in spanish, and the keyboard was
> mexican(different keymappings). additionally, despite the fact that the
> computers were LOGGED IN AS ADMIN (never seen that on a public scope
> before), there didn't appear to be a problem with malware / spyware (they
> did have spyware / virus checker installed). i only saw a couple folks
> bring their laptops down, but they didn't have any problems connecting
> either.
This is typical Windows behavior.
>
> so, what's the difference between you and these users, and whoever setup
> these machines? why do you have such a hard time, when so many others
> don't?
Bias. Inherent conflict of interest, given that their raison d'etre on
Usenet is to advocate the Mac, they'd say/do anything to prove their point.
If you look at most of the posts in here, the ones from the Maccies are
mostly insults, personal attacks and assertions they couldn't back up if
you stuck a gun to their heads.
Nicolas
>
>
Rick
> ok, so the subject is meant to provoke, and is half joking, but also half
> serious. and the serious question is:
>
> in all seriousness, why do so many of the mac users here have so many
> problems with windows?
(story snip)
I have used window$ since 3.1. I now have XP on my work supplied notebook
and 2000 on the 6 boxes in my classroom and my office box. I have used
Macs since the Plus. A couple of weeks I got rid of my Beige G3 Mac and
for the first time in 1986 I don't have a Mac desktop. I have been using
Linux for 5-6 years.
I have to constantly fight to keep these window$ machines free from virii
and adware. Networked printers must be re-installed every day because I
get access denied errors when the shared printer, and/or client machines
are turned off. And I have sought help from our networking and PC support
department.
>
> so, what's the difference between you and these users, and whoever setup
> these machines? why do you have such a hard time, when so many others
> don't?
The question is, why do so many people have such a hard time setting up
and running window$.
... nice try. It was a decent troll.
--
Rick
Tom Randy
Lots of BS in that post, very bad job.
TravelinMan
"ed" <news...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
You're asking the wrong question.
Mac users appear to be representative of the computer industry as a
whole. After all, Windows support is a multibillion dollar industry.
It's well known that IBM, for example, makes far more on service and
support than on selling PC hardware.
Malware costs PC users tens of billions of dollars per year.
Mac users cite those facts - which are based on WINDOWS users'
experience.
It's only the loud-mouthed Wintrolls here who seem to have flawless
Windows systems that never have a problem and are immune to viruses.
Maybe you should ask them how they managed to get a system that works so
differently than the rest of the industry.
Tom Elam
Excellent observation. At the university where I work part time we
have literally hundreds of public computers in lounges and labs. All
of them are either Gateway or Dell, and they all run XP SP2. About 18
months ago (pre-SP2) we had a emailed Trojan that got behind the
firewall and really made a mess of things for some, but it spread
simply due to the fact that some bright person in IT decided to turn
off auto-update on Norton AV and push the updates down. Only problem
was that they stopped pushing the updates for about a month - somebody
just plain forgot, and we got slammed. So, you can have issues if you
don't use a little common sense. Since that episode we have not had
any malware issues that I know of.
That episode aside, I too marvel that these machines just seem to run.
The only ones that have issues are due to wear and tear on the
keyboards and mice. These machines get pounded hard too, most them
always have someone using them during the day. I have never seen a
tech working on any of them - they just work. Of course, they are
locked down, the user cannot fiddle with anything in the Control
Panel, nor can they install anything. Still, experience sure does fly
in the face of what Mac fans perceive as reality.
Tom
ed
yes, and the question is why do you think that is, if a couple mexican
computers w/ admin priviledges used by a wide variety of tourists don't
seem to have that problem? seriously.
> > so, what's the difference between you and these users, and whoever
setup
> > these machines? why do you have such a hard time, when so many
others
> > don't?
>
> The question is, why do so many people have such a hard time setting
up
> and running window$.
>
> ... nice try. It was a decent troll.
it actually wasn't a troll, but hey, take it that way if you want.
ed
the story is 100% true- what parts do you think are bs?
ed
imouttah...@mac.com wrote:
> >so, what's the difference between you and these users, and whoever
> setup
> >these machines? why do you have such a hard time, when so many
others
>
> >don't?
>
> who says we're having a harder time than anyone else? You?
no, not me. the users here that post their horror stories. you know,
the ones with windows machines unable to connect to access points,
crippled by malware, etc.
> What makes
> YOU think your wonderful XP experiences are the norm?
i don't use xp, but thanks for playing.
the question wasn't regarding your thoughts about the genral crappiness
level. =D
ed
Snit wrote:
> "ed" <news...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> stated in post
> 2mkce.3301$Gd7....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com on 4/28/05 11:19 PM:
>
> > ok, so the subject is meant to provoke, and is half joking, but
also half
> > serious. and the serious question is:
> >
> > in all seriousness, why do so many of the mac users here have so
many
> > problems with windows?
>
> What type problems do you mean?
> I see many, many users who *do* have problems... problems with
malware, with
> UI issues, with fear of malware, even with using a two button mouse
or
> understanding that a floppy can prevent a computer from booting.
thos problems.
> People can deny that such problems exist all they want, and even find
some
> counter examples (I do not claim *all* people have such problems with
> Windows), but there is no doubt that many, many people *do* have
these
> problems with Windows. I have been in the industry long enough to
know that
> without a shadow of a doubt.
i'm not denying some people have those problems- the question is, WHY
do you think those folks have those problems, when there are a wide
range of folks, from little kids to lil' ol grandparents, who can hop
onto a open box set up for a different locale, and not have those
problems? what's going on here? what's the big difference? i'm
asking in this specific case explicitly because of how extreme the case
is- foreign country, different language os, different keyboard, open
system, etc, and no apparent problems!
Snit
1114791682....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com on 4/29/05 9:21 AM:
>>> ok, so the subject is meant to provoke, and is half joking, but also half
>>> serious. and the serious question is:
>>>
>>> in all seriousness, why do so many of the mac users here have so many
>>> problems with windows?
>>>
>> What type problems do you mean?
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> I see many, many users who *do* have problems... problems with malware, with
>> UI issues, with fear of malware, even with using a two button mouse or
>> understanding that a floppy can prevent a computer from booting.
>>
>> People can deny that such problems exist all they want, and even find some
>> counter examples (I do not claim *all* people have such problems with
>> Windows), but there is no doubt that many, many people *do* have these
>> problems with Windows. I have been in the industry long enough to know that
>> without a shadow of a doubt.
>>
> i'm not denying some people have those problems- the question is, WHY
> do you think those folks have those problems, when there are a wide
> range of folks, from little kids to lil' ol grandparents, who can hop
> onto a open box set up for a different locale, and not have those
> problems?
There are a couple possible variables:
* how long have these people been using the computer?
* how has the computer been set up?
* aptitude of these folks - keep in mind this was a self-selected group
* your own perceptions - how many tried, failed, and just walked away?
> what's going on here? what's the big difference? i'm asking in this specific
> case explicitly because of how extreme the case is- foreign country, different
> language os, different keyboard, open system, etc, and no apparent problems!
_________________________________________
Tom Randy
All of it. You think we just fell off the small yellow bus?
ed
> On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 09:13:09 -0700, ed wrote:
> >
> > Tom Randy wrote:
> >> On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 06:19:42 +0000, ed wrote:
> >>
> >> Lots of BS in that post, very bad job.
> >
> > the story is 100% true- what parts do you think are bs?
>
> All of it. You think we just fell off the small yellow bus?
umm, ok, and if post a copy of my itinerary and pictures from mexico,
will you apologize, shut up, and go away?
ed
obviously not that long in the case of the kid that appeared to be 6
year old! =D
> * how has the computer been set up?
as i stated, they were logged in with admin priviledges, had spyware
and antivirus software on it. what other info are you looking for?
> * aptitude of these folks - keep in mind this was a self-selected
group
> * your own perceptions - how many tried, failed, and just walked
away?
i was there for 7 days total, and did a email check each morning, and a
couple evenings. most days there was a small line waiting for the
computer, so i saw a decent amount of folks hop on each day. i saw
exactly one person get frustrated and get up and leave (an older
gentleman having issues with the mexican keyboard ).
> > what's going on here? what's the big difference? i'm asking in
this
> > specific case explicitly because of how extreme the case is-
foreign
> > country, different language os, different keyboard, open system,
etc,
> > and no apparent problems!
<snip>
Snit
Sure, post a copy of the itinerary... I would love to see it.
--
I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.
ed
Snit wrote:
> "ed" <ne...@atwistedweb.com> stated in post
> 1114815902.7...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com on 4/29/05 4:05
PM:
>
> > Tom Randy wrote:
> >> On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 09:13:09 -0700, ed wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Tom Randy wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 06:19:42 +0000, ed wrote:
> > <snip>
> >>>>
> >>>> Lots of BS in that post, very bad job.
> >>>
> >>> the story is 100% true- what parts do you think are bs?
> >>
> >> All of it. You think we just fell off the small yellow bus?
> >
> > umm, ok, and if post a copy of my itinerary and pictures from
mexico,
> > will you apologize, shut up, and go away?
> >
> Sure, post a copy of the itinerary... I would love to see it.
sure, you're going to shut up and go away? really? promise? if not,
what are you saying "sure" to?
Snit
>>> i'm not denying some people have those problems- the question is, WHY do you
>>> think those folks have those problems, when there are a wide range of folks,
>>> from little kids to lil' ol grandparents, who can hop onto a open box set up
>>> for a different locale, and not have those problems?
>>>
>> There are a couple possible variables:
>>
>> * how long have these people been using the computer?
>
> obviously not that long in the case of the kid that appeared to be 6
> year old! =D
Ok, I see the smiley...
>
>> * how has the computer been set up?
>
> as i stated, they were logged in with admin priviledges, had spyware
> and antivirus software on it. what other info are you looking for?
What shortcuts were set up, how they were labeled, if the icons were made
extra large for ease of use, etc. Was it a pretty standard out-of-the-box
experience or was it pretty heavily customized?
>> * aptitude of these folks - keep in mind this was a self-selected
>> group
>> * your own perceptions - how many tried, failed, and just walked
>> away?
>
> i was there for 7 days total, and did a email check each morning, and a
> couple evenings. most days there was a small line waiting for the
> computer, so i saw a decent amount of folks hop on each day. i saw
> exactly one person get frustrated and get up and leave (an older
> gentleman having issues with the mexican keyboard ).
One who was frustrated enough to just leave it... Ok. And that is what you
noticed... I assume you were not prying into their activities that closely,
so is it safe to assume their likely were others? A couple questions:
- how many just that you saw were annoyed - but not enough to leave? And
how likely in that setting would they show the annoyance?
- did you offer to help the older man? Just curious... I likely would have,
but do not know all of the details of the situation.
kslaterl
literally *depends* on Windows. We have seven technicians that run the
gamut from MCSE to CCNA, including myself so I'm very familiar with the
Win OS. At home and on the road I use Macs, at the office a XP machine.
Based on my experience I would hypothesize that the Westin has good IT
people that regularly service those machines to keep them running that
well, it's just a fact of life with Windows and the Internet. To be
fair, we often tell our clients that a properly configured Windows
machine with *no* third party software shouldn't require much in the
way of service, but it is rarely the case that a machine running
Windows without a pretty complex Internet portal somewhere in the mix
would run without ever getting Malware or viruses.
We take hundreds of service calls every week for Windows problems large
and small and I just don't have the patience to do the diligence at
home to keep my computer running Windows (Adware stoppers, etc). In
terms of reliability, nothing compares with OS X. I just don't have
crashes at home (or viruses, popups, spyware, etc.)
>From a tech point of view, the most impressive part of the Mac is that
if something *does* go criticaly wrong. The entire OS can be replaced
in minutes without data destruction to take the machine back to "out of
the box" condition. If this is required on a PC, we have to backup the
data (which is difficult due to the cryptic nature of some of the
Windows files), format the disk, reload Windows, reinstall all the
software the user originally had on the machine, and then migrate all
the data back and hope everything works.
My company also supports Macs in networks (mostly education and graphic
arts. The ratio is just about the same as it is nationwide; around 5%
of our clients use Mac. With the exception of adding hardware or
performing software upgrades; we just don't hear from those clients.
Based on this, I honestly believe if the majority of the world used OS
X; I would be out of a job!
Beyond the reliability, I think the Mac OS is far more usable. The GUI
is extremely functional as well as graphically beautiful. Maybe it's
me, but it just seems to be mch more intuitive to grab a file and drag
it onto the hard drive and drill down to where I want it, than to
right-click...select cut or copy....open My Computer...drill
down...right click...choose paste.
That's my $0.02
ed
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> typed:
> "ed" <ne...@atwistedweb.com> stated in post
> 1114816550.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com on 4/29/05 4:15
> PM:
>
>>>> i'm not denying some people have those problems- the question is,
>>>> WHY do you think those folks have those problems, when there are a
>>>> wide range of folks, from little kids to lil' ol grandparents, who
>>>> can hop onto a open box set up for a different locale, and not
>>>> have those problems?
>>>>
>>> There are a couple possible variables:
>>>
>>> * how long have these people been using the computer?
>>
>> obviously not that long in the case of the kid that appeared to be 6
>> year old! =D
>
> Ok, I see the smiley...
so i guess you can cancel the optometrist appointment?
>>> * how has the computer been set up?
>>
>> as i stated, they were logged in with admin priviledges, had spyware
>> and antivirus software on it. what other info are you looking for?
>
> What shortcuts were set up, how they were labeled, if the icons were
> made extra large for ease of use, etc. Was it a pretty standard
> out-of-the-box experience or was it pretty heavily customized?
pretty out of the box. standard windows icons plus yahoo messenger and aim
icons on the desktop iirc. i don't remember what they were labeled, but i
imagine it was probably in spanish. normal icon size.
>>> * aptitude of these folks - keep in mind this was a self-selected
>>> group
>>> * your own perceptions - how many tried, failed, and just walked
>>> away?
>>
>> i was there for 7 days total, and did a email check each morning,
>> and a couple evenings. most days there was a small line waiting for
>> the computer, so i saw a decent amount of folks hop on each day.
>> i saw exactly one person get frustrated and get up and leave (an
>> older gentleman having issues with the mexican keyboard ).
>
> One who was frustrated enough to just leave it... Ok. And that is
> what you noticed... I assume you were not prying into their
> activities that closely,
> so is it safe to assume their likely were others?
not while i was there- there were only a few computers, a a couple couches
around to wait on. it's not like it was a huge computer lab; without prying
into their activities, it was quite obvious what folks were doing (you could
see if they were on yahoo or hotmail, aim, etc, with just a quick glance).
> A couple questions:
>
> - how many just that you saw were annoyed - but not enough to leave?
plenty of people annoyed by having to wait for the computers, but not by the
computers.
> And how likely in that setting would they show the annoyance?
it was quite obvious most folks just hopped on and used the computer w/out
much trouble. they may have been annoyed by the different keyboard or some
such, but not to any huge extent.
> - did you offer to help the older man? Just curious... I likely
> would have, but do not know all of the details of the situation.
no i did not, for a couple reasons:
1- he didn't ask, and didn't act like he was particularly wanting
assistance; some take it as an insult when help is offered without
solicitation
2- there were folks waiting for the computer, and tying it up further would
have been impolite
3- i had no particular desire to spend more time inside than required when
it was so nice out
4- it's not a big deal if he can't check email on vacation
ed
kslaterl <ksla...@yahoo.com> typed:
<snip>
> To be fair, we often tell our clients that a properly
> configured Windows machine with *no* third party software shouldn't
> require much in the way of service, but it is rarely the case that a
> machine running Windows without a pretty complex Internet portal
> somewhere in the mix would run without ever getting Malware or
> viruses.
hey now. my machine at home has no viruses or malware, and i don't have a
"complex internet portal" somewhere in the mix. exactly what do you think
such a "portal" consists of? what type of consulting do you actually do (i
used to do it consulting as well, for one of the big 5)
> We take hundreds of service calls every week for Windows problems
> large and small
you do consulting, or job shopping / call center work?
> and I just don't have the patience to do the
> diligence at home to keep my computer running Windows (Adware
> stoppers, etc).
i don't run any software to target adware / spyware / viruses at home, yet
seem no worse for it. funny that, no?
> In terms of reliability, nothing compares with OS X.
> I just don't have crashes at home (or viruses, popups, spyware, etc.)
neither do i on windows. but that's pretty meaningless in and of itself, as
we both know os x and windows are both pretty stable these days.
>> From a tech point of view, the most impressive part of the Mac is
>> that
> if something *does* go criticaly wrong. The entire OS can be replaced
> in minutes without data destruction to take the machine back to "out
> of the box" condition. If this is required on a PC, we have to backup
> the data (which is difficult due to the cryptic nature of some of the
> Windows files),
cryptic nature of what files?
<snip>
Snit
>>>>>> Lots of BS in that post, very bad job.
>>>>>>
>>>>> the story is 100% true- what parts do you think are bs?
>>>>>
>>>> All of it. You think we just fell off the small yellow bus?
>>>>
>>> umm, ok, and if post a copy of my itinerary and pictures from mexico, will
>>> you apologize, shut up, and go away?
>>>
>> Sure, post a copy of the itinerary... I would love to see it.
>>
> sure, you're going to shut up and go away? really? promise? if not, what
> are you saying "sure" to?
I am saying I surely would like you to post your itinerary... it will be
interesting to see if you are willing to back up your claims even to that
extent.
Snit
>>>>> i'm not denying some people have those problems- the question is,
>>>>> WHY do you think those folks have those problems, when there are a
>>>>> wide range of folks, from little kids to lil' ol grandparents, who
>>>>> can hop onto a open box set up for a different locale, and not
>>>>> have those problems?
>>>>>
>>>> There are a couple possible variables:
>>>>
>>>> * how long have these people been using the computer?
>>>
>>> obviously not that long in the case of the kid that appeared to be 6
>>> year old! =D
>>
>> Ok, I see the smiley...
>
> so i guess you can cancel the optometrist appointment?
What do you know... some day you may actually end up with a real sense of
humor... I am proud of you, ed. :)
>
>>>> * how has the computer been set up?
>>>
>>> as i stated, they were logged in with admin priviledges, had spyware
>>> and antivirus software on it. what other info are you looking for?
>>
>> What shortcuts were set up, how they were labeled, if the icons were
>> made extra large for ease of use, etc. Was it a pretty standard
>> out-of-the-box experience or was it pretty heavily customized?
>
> pretty out of the box. standard windows icons plus yahoo messenger and aim
> icons on the desktop iirc. i don't remember what they were labeled, but i
> imagine it was probably in spanish. normal icon size.
Ok... that answers the question.
>
>>>> * aptitude of these folks - keep in mind this was a self-selected
>>>> group
>>>> * your own perceptions - how many tried, failed, and just walked
>>>> away?
>>>
>>> i was there for 7 days total, and did a email check each morning,
>>> and a couple evenings. most days there was a small line waiting for
>>> the computer, so i saw a decent amount of folks hop on each day.
>>> i saw exactly one person get frustrated and get up and leave (an
>>> older gentleman having issues with the mexican keyboard ).
>>
>> One who was frustrated enough to just leave it... Ok. And that is what you
>> noticed... I assume you were not prying into their activities that closely,
>> so is it safe to assume their likely were others?
>
> not while i was there- there were only a few computers, a a couple couches
> around to wait on. it's not like it was a huge computer lab; without prying
> into their activities, it was quite obvious what folks were doing (you could
> see if they were on yahoo or hotmail, aim, etc, with just a quick glance).
Would you know if someone tried to, for example, view an attachment... and
failed?
>
>> A couple questions:
>>
>> - how many just that you saw were annoyed - but not enough to leave?
>
> plenty of people annoyed by having to wait for the computers, but not by the
> computers.
So there was one person who was annoyed, and he was so annoyed he left, but
nobody who stayed had any trouble with the computers at all... do I
understand you correctly?
>
>> And how likely in that setting would they show the annoyance?
>
> it was quite obvious most folks just hopped on and used the computer w/out
> much trouble. they may have been annoyed by the different keyboard or some
> such, but not to any huge extent.
>
>> - did you offer to help the older man? Just curious... I likely
>> would have, but do not know all of the details of the situation.
>
> no i did not, for a couple reasons:
> 1- he didn't ask, and didn't act like he was particularly wanting
> assistance; some take it as an insult when help is offered without
> solicitation
> 2- there were folks waiting for the computer, and tying it up further would
> have been impolite
> 3- i had no particular desire to spend more time inside than required when
> it was so nice out
> 4- it's not a big deal if he can't check email on vacation
Fair enough... as I said, I tend to offer to help, but it definitely depends
on the particulars of the situation.
ed
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> typed:
> "ed" <ne...@atwistedweb.com> stated in post
> 1114816961....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com on 4/29/05 4:22
> PM:
>
>>>>>>> Lots of BS in that post, very bad job.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> the story is 100% true- what parts do you think are bs?
>>>>>>
>>>>> All of it. You think we just fell off the small yellow bus?
>>>>>
>>>> umm, ok, and if post a copy of my itinerary and pictures from
>>>> mexico, will you apologize, shut up, and go away?
>>>>
>>> Sure, post a copy of the itinerary... I would love to see it.
>>>
>> sure, you're going to shut up and go away? really? promise? if
>> not, what are you saying "sure" to?
>
> I am saying I surely would like you to post your itinerary... it will
> be interesting to see if you are willing to back up your claims even
> to that extent.
so when you said "sure", i knew it was too good to be true. but you
comments about backing up claims sure are funny coming from you after the
whole vegas fiasco where you wouldn't post any details!
but here ya go, a nice pretty picture of my itinerary:
http://www.atwistedweb.com/images/itinerary.jpg
ed
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> typed:
> "ed" <news...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> stated in post
> JOzce.3566$Gd7....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com on 4/29/05 4:54 PM:
>>>>> * aptitude of these folks - keep in mind this was a self-selected
>>>>> group
>>>>> * your own perceptions - how many tried, failed, and just walked
>>>>> away?
>>>>
>>>> i was there for 7 days total, and did a email check each morning,
>>>> and a couple evenings. most days there was a small line waiting
>>>> for
>>>> the computer, so i saw a decent amount of folks hop on each day.
>>>> i saw exactly one person get frustrated and get up and leave (an
>>>> older gentleman having issues with the mexican keyboard ).
>>>
>>> One who was frustrated enough to just leave it... Ok. And that is
>>> what you noticed... I assume you were not prying into their
>>> activities that closely, so is it safe to assume their likely were
>>> others?
>>
>> not while i was there- there were only a few computers, a a couple
>> couches around to wait on. it's not like it was a huge computer
>> lab; without prying into their activities, it was quite obvious what
>> folks were doing (you could see if they were on yahoo or hotmail,
>> aim, etc, with just a quick glance).
>
> Would you know if someone tried to, for example, view an
> attachment... and failed?
probably not, but i'm not sure that's particularly relevant to my question,
since an attachment failing would pretty much depend on either the
attachment being corrupt, or there not bein an available program to handle
it- issues which are pretty platform independant...
>>> A couple questions:
>>>
>>> - how many just that you saw were annoyed - but not enough to leave?
>>
>> plenty of people annoyed by having to wait for the computers, but
>> not by the computers.
>
> So there was one person who was annoyed, and he was so annoyed he
> left, but nobody who stayed had any trouble with the computers at
> all... do I understand you correctly?
that's surely the way it appeared.
Snit
How do we know it is real? I could just as easily make one that looked like
that... for that matter, your name is not on it (looks like there was a last
name, but it was erased!); you could have just found it in the trash or
something - notice how wrinkled it is. Oh, and other ID numbers have been
blanked out... there is no proof this relates to you at all!
Please note: I am not claiming it does not... it very well may. But I hope
you see the silliness of expecting such a jpg to be considered proof of
*anything* (other than that you can post a jpg).
Snit
>>>> One who was frustrated enough to just leave it... Ok. And that is
>>>> what you noticed... I assume you were not prying into their
>>>> activities that closely, so is it safe to assume their likely were
>>>> others?
>>>
>>> not while i was there- there were only a few computers, a a couple
>>> couches around to wait on. it's not like it was a huge computer
>>> lab; without prying into their activities, it was quite obvious what
>>> folks were doing (you could see if they were on yahoo or hotmail,
>>> aim, etc, with just a quick glance).
>>
>> Would you know if someone tried to, for example, view an
>> attachment... and failed?
>
> probably not, but i'm not sure that's particularly relevant to my question,
> since an attachment failing would pretty much depend on either the
> attachment being corrupt, or there not bein an available program to handle
> it- issues which are pretty platform independant...
Or a user not knowing how to work with the attachment... that is fairly
common.
>
>>>> A couple questions:
>>>>
>>>> - how many just that you saw were annoyed - but not enough to leave?
>>>
>>> plenty of people annoyed by having to wait for the computers, but
>>> not by the computers.
>>
>> So there was one person who was annoyed, and he was so annoyed he
>> left, but nobody who stayed had any trouble with the computers at
>> all... do I understand you correctly?
>
> that's surely the way it appeared.
Ok, at least I understand your claim.
Seems unlikely that this is the case, but, of course, I have no direct way
to verify if you are being accurate (or even honest). Seems we would need
to know more about the users in question and their standard computing
habits.
As a contrary experience: Just today, when I was doing some tech work at a
school that has switched to Macs, that one of the teachers was talking to
someone about how he was opposed to moving to Macs but now finds that he and
his students can get far more done and do so much easier. It is also much
cheaper for the school, which is something the principal truly appreciates.
Your description of your experience does seem contrary than the common
experiences described with Windows... do you have an explanation? You asked
the question, and do not seem to have a full answer, but clearly you have
put some thought into it. What do you think?
ed
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> typed:
jsoo... you think i went ahead and rigged that up in a matter of minutes?
you think you can do that? go ahead and make one with your name on it, and
post it withing, say, 10 minutes; i'll send you $5 if it's convincing.
> for that matter, your name is not on it (looks
> like there was a last name, but it was erased!);
well, no sh@t.
> you could have just
> found it in the trash or something
yeah, that's probably it. i went out into the trash, and conveniently found
an itinerary going to the country i said i went to, during the week i said i
was going, from the area i've said i'm from, with a first name that makes
sense for the "handle" i use. all in 10 minutes. yeah, i probably just
found it in the trash.
> - notice how wrinkled it is.
which makes it all the harder to fake.
> Oh,
> and other ID numbers have been blanked out... there is no proof this
> relates to you at all!
and you think my frequent flyer number on there would make it more
believatle?
> Please note: I am not claiming it does not...
i certainly hope not- it would be make you look quite foolish!
> it very well may. But
> I hope you see the silliness of expecting such a jpg to be considered
> proof of *anything* (other than that you can post a jpg).
what exactly did you want to see then, when you said you wanted to see a
copy of my itinerary?
ed
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> typed:
hey, at least i was willing to offer a level of support for my claimes (your
words).
> Seems we would need to know more about the users in question and
> their standard computing habits.
>
> As a contrary experience: Just today, when I was doing some tech work
> at a school that has switched to Macs
let's see if YOU are willing to offer even an ultra low level of support for
your claims- simply answer what school you were doing this tech work at
today?
<snip>
> Your description of your experience does seem contrary than the common
> experiences described with Windows... do you have an explanation?
i think many mac advocates here are full of it.
> You asked the question, and do not seem to have a full answer,
if i did, would i have asked?
> but
> clearly you have put some thought into it. What do you think?
i think both platforms have issues, and neither platform are as good as the
advocates claim, nor as bad as the detractors claim. i believe many of the
stories posted in this group (including yours) are often made up.
Snit
>>>> I am saying I surely would like you to post your itinerary... it will be
>>>> interesting to see if you are willing to back up your claims even to that
>>>> extent.
>>>
>>> so when you said "sure", i knew it was too good to be true. but you
>>> comments about backing up claims sure are funny coming from you
>>> after the whole vegas fiasco where you wouldn't post any details!
>>>
>>> but here ya go, a nice pretty picture of my itinerary:
>>> http://www.atwistedweb.com/images/itinerary.jpg
>>
>> How do we know it is real? I could just as easily make one that
>> looked like that...
>
> jsoo... you think i went ahead and rigged that up in a matter of minutes?
You have been talking about your trip for more than a few minutes. You are
the one who offered the itinerary. You could have had it pre-made. For
that matter, how hard would it be to make a doc that looked like that?
> you think you can do that? go ahead and make one with your name on it, and
> post it withing, say, 10 minutes; i'll send you $5 if it's convincing.
Heading off to dinner now... when do you want the "game" to start? And why
give me only 10 minutes when you had so much longer.
I am not saying you did fake it - but you could have.
>
>> for that matter, your name is not on it (looks
>> like there was a last name, but it was erased!);
>
> well, no sh@t.
>
>> you could have just
>> found it in the trash or something
>
> yeah, that's probably it.
I doubt it.
> i went out into the trash, and conveniently found an itinerary going to the
> country i said i went to, during the week i said i was going, from the area
> i've said i'm from, with a first name that makes sense for the "handle" i use.
You could have found it before then.
> all in 10 minutes. yeah, i probably just found it in the trash.
Why the silly 10 minute claim? You could have done this at any time.
>
>> - notice how wrinkled it is.
>
> which makes it all the harder to fake.
What makes it hard to fake wrinkles? I can scan a wrinkled printout - no
matter where it came from.
>
>> Oh,
>> and other ID numbers have been blanked out... there is no proof this
>> relates to you at all!
>
> and you think my frequent flyer number on there would make it more
> believatle?
Would make it more traceable to you.
>
>> Please note: I am not claiming it does not...
>
> i certainly hope not- it would be make you look quite foolish!
It would be your word against mine... there would be no proof either way.
Of course, I would have to state how I discovered your lie... if I were to
say you were definitely lying.
>
>> it very well may. But
>> I hope you see the silliness of expecting such a jpg to be considered
>> proof of *anything* (other than that you can post a jpg).
>
> what exactly did you want to see then, when you said you wanted to see a
> copy of my itinerary?
I wanted you to understand how your post is not really proof of anything
important. I am not sure you have reached that level of understanding.
Snit
>>>>>> A couple questions:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - how many just that you saw were annoyed - but not enough to
>>>>>> leave?
>>>>>
>>>>> plenty of people annoyed by having to wait for the computers, but
>>>>> not by the computers.
>>>>
>>>> So there was one person who was annoyed, and he was so annoyed he
>>>> left, but nobody who stayed had any trouble with the computers at
>>>> all... do I understand you correctly?
>>>
>>> that's surely the way it appeared.
>>
>> Ok, at least I understand your claim.
>>
>> Seems unlikely that this is the case, but, of course, I have no
>> direct way to verify if you are being accurate (or even honest).
>
> hey, at least i was willing to offer a level of support for my claimes (your
> words).
I am not claiming you are lying. You may very well even be accurate. I
just have no direct way of knowing.
>
>> Seems we would need to know more about the users in question and
>> their standard computing habits.
>>
>> As a contrary experience: Just today, when I was doing some tech work
>> at a school that has switched to Macs
>
> let's see if YOU are willing to offer even an ultra low level of support for
> your claims- simply answer what school you were doing this tech work at
> today?
Do you release the names of your clients in a public forum?
>
> <snip>
>> Your description of your experience does seem contrary than the common
>> experiences described with Windows... do you have an explanation?
>
> i think many mac advocates here are full of it.
I was not talking only about CSMA.
>
>> You asked the question, and do not seem to have a full answer,
>
> if i did, would i have asked?
You might.
>
>> but
>> clearly you have put some thought into it. What do you think?
>
> i think both platforms have issues, and neither platform are as good as the
> advocates claim, nor as bad as the detractors claim. i believe many of the
> stories posted in this group (including yours) are often made up.
You believe my stories are made up, but you want me to believe your story.
Do you see your hypocrisy?
--
Picture of a tuna milkshake: http://snipurl.com/bh6q
Feel free to ask for the recipe.
ed
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> typed:
> "ed" <news...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> stated in post
> vAAce.3594$Gd7....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com on 4/29/05 5:47 PM:
>
>>>>> I am saying I surely would like you to post your itinerary... it
>>>>> will be interesting to see if you are willing to back up your
>>>>> claims even to that extent.
>>>>
>>>> so when you said "sure", i knew it was too good to be true. but
>>>> you comments about backing up claims sure are funny coming from you
>>>> after the whole vegas fiasco where you wouldn't post any details!
>>>>
>>>> but here ya go, a nice pretty picture of my itinerary:
>>>> http://www.atwistedweb.com/images/itinerary.jpg
>>>
>>> How do we know it is real? I could just as easily make one that
>>> looked like that...
>>
>> jsoo... you think i went ahead and rigged that up in a matter of
>> minutes?
>
> You have been talking about your trip for more than a few minutes.
> You are the one who offered the itinerary. You could have had
> it pre-made.
not all of us are so usenet obsessed that we spend our time forging
documents to win arguments! +D
> For that matter, how hard would it be to make a doc that looked like that?
pretty hard i would think...
>> you think you can do that? go ahead and make one with your name on
>> it, and post it withing, say, 10 minutes; i'll send you $5 if it's
>> convincing.
>
> Heading off to dinner now... when do you want the "game" to start?
> And why give me only 10 minutes when you had so much longer.
haha, yeah, sure, dinner. you want to give yourself extra time to fake it,
eh? sure, go to it. i'll give you 2 hours to come up with something
convincing- til 8 pm pacific time.
> I am not saying you did fake it - but you could have.
seeing as how i'm in a position of knowing absolutely, i say, no, i could
NOT have as it's not a forgery. if you're willing to put a small monetary
wager up on your end (say, $20), i'll be glad to post up a copy w/ the last
name and aadvantage number unblanked. and i'll take a picture of the
itinerary, say in front of the computer monitor w/ whatever webpage you want
displayed, so you can tell that it's og.
>>> for that matter, your name is not on it (looks
>>> like there was a last name, but it was erased!);
>>
>> well, no sh@t.
>>
>>> you could have just
>>> found it in the trash or something
>>
>> yeah, that's probably it.
>
> I doubt it.
>
>> i went out into the trash, and conveniently found an itinerary going
>> to the country i said i went to, during the week i said i was going,
>> from the area i've said i'm from, with a first name that makes sense
>> for the "handle" i use.
>
> You could have found it before then.
how convenient. =D
>> all in 10 minutes. yeah, i probably just found it in the trash.
>
> Why the silly 10 minute claim? You could have done this at any time.
because that's when it first came up. it didn't occur to me that you would
think i was as obsessive as some of our beloved csma trolls that spend their
freetime faking documents.
>>> - notice how wrinkled it is.
>>
>> which makes it all the harder to fake.
>
> What makes it hard to fake wrinkles?
if you're going to make modifications to it digitally.
> I can scan a wrinkled printout
> - no matter where it came from.
>
>>> Oh,
>>> and other ID numbers have been blanked out... there is no proof this
>>> relates to you at all!
>>
>> and you think my frequent flyer number on there would make it more
>> believatle?
>
> Would make it more traceable to you.
how so, since you don't know my frequent flyer number, and have no way (that
i know of) of getting it?
>>> Please note: I am not claiming it does not...
>>
>> i certainly hope not- it would be make you look quite foolish!
>
> It would be your word against mine... there would be no proof either
> way. Of course, I would have to state how I discovered your lie... if I
> were to say you were definitely lying.
>>
>>> it very well may. But
>>> I hope you see the silliness of expecting such a jpg to be
>>> considered
>>> proof of *anything* (other than that you can post a jpg).
>>
>> what exactly did you want to see then, when you said you wanted to
>> see a
>> copy of my itinerary?
>
> I wanted you to understand how your post is not really proof of
> anything important. I am not sure you have reached that level of
> understanding.
it's certainly strong evidence. if you wanted absolute proof, send me $30
and i'll fed-ex it to you, along with a copy of the visa stamp in my
passport. see snit, some of us actually, really, do not find the need to
lie on usenet, and are willing to make reasonable accomadations (such as
posting pics of their itinerary) to make a point, or make unreasonable
accomodations (such as fedexing documents) for a small profit. =D
ed
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> typed:
you could have simply said, no, you are not willing to offer an ultra low
level of support.
>> <snip>
>>> Your description of your experience does seem contrary than the
>>> common experiences described with Windows... do you have an
>>> explanation?
>>
>> i think many mac advocates here are full of it.
>
> I was not talking only about CSMA.
then i reject your contention that the "common experiences" you describe
with windows are all that common (relative to the market share of course)
>>> You asked the question, and do not seem to have a full answer,
>>
>> if i did, would i have asked?
>
> You might.
it was rhetorical; no, i would not have asked.
>>> but
>>> clearly you have put some thought into it. What do you think?
>>
>> i think both platforms have issues, and neither platform are as good
>> as the advocates claim, nor as bad as the detractors claim. i
>> believe many of the stories posted in this group (including yours)
>> are often made up.
>
> You believe my stories are made up, but you want me to believe your
> story.
>
> Do you see your hypocrisy?
no, i do not see any hypocraxy, because you have a demonstrable history of
being a liar, while i do not.
Tim Smith
"ed" <news...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
> in all seriousness, why do so many of the mac users here have so many
> stayed at a westin where they had several public access computers running
> windows xp, as well as a wireless access point. each morning i'd pop in to
> check my email after breakfast. while waiting for a free computer / using
> one of the computers, i saw everyone from little 6 year old kids to 75 year
> old grandparents pop in, use the computers for email, web surfing, instant
> messaging (i.e. the tasks most home users are most interested in) without
> skipping a beat, even though the os was in spanish, and the keyboard was
> mexican(different keymappings). additionally, despite the fact that the
Several things about that setup are very different from what "most home
users" do.
(1) What were they using to check email? A large number of Windows
problems come from Outlook Express. If they were using a browser that
was configured reasonably to check webmail, rather than using Outlook
Express, that would help a heck of a lot.
(2) Did the computers have P2P software installed?
(3) Do the users download and install software?
(4) Do the users surf to a lot of porn sites on those public computers?
--
--Tim Smith
ed
Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> typed:
> In article <2mkce.3301$Gd7....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
> "ed" <news...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>> in all seriousness, why do so many of the mac users here have so many
>> problems with windows? i was on vacation in mexico the past week,
>> and stayed at a westin where they had several public access
>> computers running windows xp, as well as a wireless access point.
>> each morning i'd pop in to check my email after breakfast. while
>> waiting for a free computer / using one of the computers, i saw
>> everyone from little 6 year old kids to 75 year old grandparents pop
>> in, use the computers for email, web surfing, instant messaging
>> (i.e. the tasks most home users are most interested in) without
>> skipping a beat, even though the os was in spanish, and the keyboard
>> was mexican(different keymappings). additionally, despite the fact
>> that the
>
> Several things about that setup are very different from what "most
> home users" do.
>
> (1) What were they using to check email? A large number of Windows
> problems come from Outlook Express. If they were using a browser that
> was configured reasonably to check webmail, rather than using Outlook
> Express, that would help a heck of a lot.
yup, web mail. but that seems to be the preferred way for a lot of home
users anyways- isn't aol mostly web mail these days? msn is. many
companies, such as sbc, partner w/ sbc, and the preferred way to access mail
is via the web interface.
> (2) Did the computers have P2P software installed?
not that i saw.
> (3) Do the users download and install software?
actually, someone had downloaded and installed firefox on one box, and
google bar for ie on another. =D
> (4) Do the users surf to a lot of porn sites on those public
> computers?
not when i was there. ;)
Snit
>>>>>> I am saying I surely would like you to post your itinerary... it
>>>>>> will be interesting to see if you are willing to back up your
>>>>>> claims even to that extent.
>>>>>
>>>>> so when you said "sure", i knew it was too good to be true. but
>>>>> you comments about backing up claims sure are funny coming from you
>>>>> after the whole vegas fiasco where you wouldn't post any details!
>>>>>
>>>>> but here ya go, a nice pretty picture of my itinerary:
>>>>> http://www.atwistedweb.com/images/itinerary.jpg
>>>>
>>>> How do we know it is real? I could just as easily make one that
>>>> looked like that...
>>>
>>> jsoo... you think i went ahead and rigged that up in a matter of
>>> minutes?
>>
>> You have been talking about your trip for more than a few minutes.
>> You are the one who offered the itinerary. You could have had
>> it pre-made.
>
> not all of us are so usenet obsessed that we spend our time forging
> documents to win arguments! +D
You do know, though, that you have not shown you did not do that...
>
>> For that matter, how hard would it be to make a doc that looked like that?
>
> pretty hard i would think...
Hard to wrinkle a piece of paper and scan it? Your tech skills are likely
up to the task...
>
>>> you think you can do that? go ahead and make one with your name on
>>> it, and post it withing, say, 10 minutes; i'll send you $5 if it's
>>> convincing.
>>
>> Heading off to dinner now... when do you want the "game" to start?
>> And why give me only 10 minutes when you had so much longer.
>
> haha, yeah, sure, dinner. you want to give yourself extra time to fake it,
> eh? sure, go to it. i'll give you 2 hours to come up with something
> convincing- til 8 pm pacific time.
Who judges how convincing it is? In any case, took maybe 10 minutes, though
I did not time myself:
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/tmp/itinerary.jpg
>
>> I am not saying you did fake it - but you could have.
>
> seeing as how i'm in a position of knowing absolutely, i say, no, i could
> NOT have as it's not a forgery. if you're willing to put a small monetary
> wager up on your end (say, $20), i'll be glad to post up a copy w/ the last
> name and aadvantage number unblanked. and i'll take a picture of the
> itinerary, say in front of the computer monitor w/ whatever webpage you want
> displayed, so you can tell that it's og.
At least you have agreed that what you have provided is not adequate proof
and that more would be required for you to prove your claim. That is *my*
point - your current jpg does not prove your claim.
I can get a picture of me with a piece of paper, too... that would not prove
the paper was not forged.
>
>>>> for that matter, your name is not on it (looks
>>>> like there was a last name, but it was erased!);
>>>
>>> well, no sh@t.
>>>
>>>> you could have just
>>>> found it in the trash or something
>>>
>>> yeah, that's probably it.
>>
>> I doubt it.
>>
>>> i went out into the trash, and conveniently found an itinerary going
>>> to the country i said i went to, during the week i said i was going,
>>> from the area i've said i'm from, with a first name that makes sense
>>> for the "handle" i use.
>>
>> You could have found it before then.
>
> how convenient. =D
Yes...
>
>>> all in 10 minutes. yeah, i probably just found it in the trash.
>>
>> Why the silly 10 minute claim? You could have done this at any time.
>
> because that's when it first came up. it didn't occur to me that you would
> think i was as obsessive as some of our beloved csma trolls that spend their
> freetime faking documents.
Yet you have asked me to fake a document for you - at least you are willing
to pay me $5... I look forward to getting the money.
>
>>>> - notice how wrinkled it is.
>>>
>>> which makes it all the harder to fake.
>>
>> What makes it hard to fake wrinkles?
>
> if you're going to make modifications to it digitally.
Who says you would have to do it digitally... print it, wrinkle it, scan it.
Could you really not come up with that on your own?
>
>> I can scan a wrinkled printout
>> - no matter where it came from.
>>
>>>> Oh,
>>>> and other ID numbers have been blanked out... there is no proof this
>>>> relates to you at all!
>>>
>>> and you think my frequent flyer number on there would make it more
>>> believatle?
>>
>> Would make it more traceable to you.
>
> how so, since you don't know my frequent flyer number, and have no way (that
> i know of) of getting it?
So why hide it?
>
>>>> Please note: I am not claiming it does not...
>>>
>>> i certainly hope not- it would be make you look quite foolish!
>>
>> It would be your word against mine... there would be no proof either
>> way. Of course, I would have to state how I discovered your lie... if I
>> were to say you were definitely lying.
>>>
>>>> it very well may. But
>>>> I hope you see the silliness of expecting such a jpg to be
>>>> considered
>>>> proof of *anything* (other than that you can post a jpg).
>>>
>>> what exactly did you want to see then, when you said you wanted to
>>> see a
>>> copy of my itinerary?
>>
>> I wanted you to understand how your post is not really proof of
>> anything important. I am not sure you have reached that level of
>> understanding.
>
> it's certainly strong evidence.
So strong you agree it would take $30 for you to fed-ex it to me... and a
*copy* of your visa stamp... that would be easy to fake, too. So you want
me to pay $30 for some evidence that could be faked... and then you want me
to believe the evidence you have *already* provided is strong... no, Ed, I
do not by that.
> if you wanted absolute proof, send me $30
> and i'll fed-ex it to you, along with a copy of the visa stamp in my
> passport. see snit, some of us actually, really, do not find the need to
> lie on usenet, and are willing to make reasonable accomadations (such as
> posting pics of their itinerary) to make a point, or make unreasonable
> accomodations (such as fedexing documents) for a small profit. =D
You want me to believe you, but only will give proof if I pay you... not
very reasonable of you.
Again, Ed, I am not saying you are lying... just there is no proof you are
not.
In any case, what do you need to send me my $5?
Snit
>>>> Seems we would need to know more about the users in question and
>>>> their standard computing habits.
>>>>
>>>> As a contrary experience: Just today, when I was doing some tech work at a
>>>> school that has switched to Macs
>>>>
>>> let's see if YOU are willing to offer even an ultra low level of support for
>>> your claims- simply answer what school you were doing this tech work at
>>> today?
>>>
>> Do you release the names of your clients in a public forum?
>>
> you could have simply said, no, you are not willing to offer an ultra low
> level of support.
I am not willing to release the names of my clients. I could post an image
of my calendar, with the name of the client edited out. Would that satisfy
you?
>
>>> <snip>
>>>> Your description of your experience does seem contrary than the
>>>> common experiences described with Windows... do you have an
>>>> explanation?
>>>
>>> i think many mac advocates here are full of it.
>>
>> I was not talking only about CSMA.
>
> then i reject your contention that the "common experiences" you describe
> with windows are all that common (relative to the market share of course)
Do you deny that people frequently talk about how they have had troubles
with their computers running Windows?
>
>>>> You asked the question, and do not seem to have a full answer,
>>>
>>> if i did, would i have asked?
>>
>> You might.
>
> it was rhetorical; no, i would not have asked.
But you might have. Often people ask questions they have one answer to in
order to see what others believe or to get other perspectives.
>
>>>> but
>>>> clearly you have put some thought into it. What do you think?
>>>
>>> i think both platforms have issues, and neither platform are as good
>>> as the advocates claim, nor as bad as the detractors claim. i
>>> believe many of the stories posted in this group (including yours)
>>> are often made up.
>>
>> You believe my stories are made up, but you want me to believe your
>> story.
>>
>> Do you see your hypocrisy?
>
> no, i do not see any hypocraxy, because you have a demonstrable history of
> being a liar, while i do not.
Incorrect - being that I have pointed out demonstrable lies of yours in the
past.
It comes down to you having a double standard - you want me to believe your
claims about your computer experiences but you deny mine when you have no
objective reason to do so. I, on the other hand, openly admit that I have
no reason to claim you are lying *on this*... you may very well be telling
the truth... even though you have no explanation for why your experiences
would be so out of the ordinary.
Just curious - what stories about my customers do you not believe? Do you
simply not believe, which is fine... or do you make the leap to claim I am
lying about those claims... and do so with no support?
ed
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> typed:
> "ed" <news...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> stated in post
> E_Ace.3624$Gd7....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com on 4/29/05 6:15 PM:
>
>>>>>>> I am saying I surely would like you to post your itinerary... it
>>>>>>> will be interesting to see if you are willing to back up your
>>>>>>> claims even to that extent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> so when you said "sure", i knew it was too good to be true. but
>>>>>> you comments about backing up claims sure are funny coming from
>>>>>> you after the whole vegas fiasco where you wouldn't post any
>>>>>> details!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> but here ya go, a nice pretty picture of my itinerary:
>>>>>> http://www.atwistedweb.com/images/itinerary.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>> How do we know it is real? I could just as easily make one that
>>>>> looked like that...
>>>>
>>>> jsoo... you think i went ahead and rigged that up in a matter of
>>>> minutes?
>>>
>>> You have been talking about your trip for more than a few minutes.
>>> You are the one who offered the itinerary. You could have had
>>> it pre-made.
>>
>> not all of us are so usenet obsessed that we spend our time forging
>> documents to win arguments! +D
>
> You do know, though, that you have not shown you did not do that...
since there is no absolute way to show it, that is irrelevant, no? and as i
stated, some of us are more interested in forging docs to win arguments than
others.
>>> For that matter, how hard would it be to make a doc that looked
>>> like that?
>>
>> pretty hard i would think...
>
> Hard to wrinkle a piece of paper and scan it? Your tech skills are
> likely up to the task...
the forging a wrinkled document part is hard, not the wrinkling part.
<rolls eyes>
>>>> you think you can do that? go ahead and make one with your name on
>>>> it, and post it withing, say, 10 minutes; i'll send you $5 if it's
>>>> convincing.
>>>
>>> Heading off to dinner now... when do you want the "game" to start?
>>> And why give me only 10 minutes when you had so much longer.
>>
>> haha, yeah, sure, dinner. you want to give yourself extra time to
>> fake it, eh? sure, go to it. i'll give you 2 hours to come up with
>> something convincing- til 8 pm pacific time.
>
> Who judges how convincing it is?
me of course!
> In any case, took maybe 10 minutes,
> though I did not time myself:
>
> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/tmp/itinerary.jpg
that is hardly convincing- it has no details whatsoever. i've flown
southwest occasionally, and i know it's not nearly as plain as that. if
you've ever flown american, you'll know the itineraries look exactly as i
posted (alaska is a partner airline of american)
>>> I am not saying you did fake it - but you could have.
>>
>> seeing as how i'm in a position of knowing absolutely, i say, no, i
>> could NOT have as it's not a forgery. if you're willing to put a
>> small monetary wager up on your end (say, $20), i'll be glad to post
>> up a copy w/ the last name and aadvantage number unblanked. and
>> i'll take a picture of the itinerary, say in front of the computer
>> monitor w/ whatever webpage you want displayed, so you can tell that
>> it's og.
>
> At least you have agreed that what you have provided is not adequate
> proof and that more would be required for you to prove your claim.
> That is *my* point - your current jpg does not prove your claim.
>
> I can get a picture of me with a piece of paper, too... that would
> not prove the paper was not forged.
get over it; it's not forged.
>>>>> for that matter, your name is not on it (looks
>>>>> like there was a last name, but it was erased!);
>>>>
>>>> well, no sh@t.
>>>>
>>>>> you could have just
>>>>> found it in the trash or something
>>>>
>>>> yeah, that's probably it.
>>>
>>> I doubt it.
>>>
>>>> i went out into the trash, and conveniently found an itinerary
>>>> going
>>>> to the country i said i went to, during the week i said i was
>>>> going,
>>>> from the area i've said i'm from, with a first name that makes
>>>> sense
>>>> for the "handle" i use.
>>>
>>> You could have found it before then.
>>
>> how convenient. =D
>
> Yes...
>
>>>> all in 10 minutes. yeah, i probably just found it in the trash.
>>>
>>> Why the silly 10 minute claim? You could have done this at any
>>> time.
>>
>> because that's when it first came up. it didn't occur to me that
>> you would think i was as obsessive as some of our beloved csma
>> trolls that spend their freetime faking documents.
>
> Yet you have asked me to fake a document for you
that's obviously because your one of the trolls that have spend their free
time faking a document! =D
> - at least you are
> willing to pay me $5... I look forward to getting the money.
yeah, we'll see if you can jimmy up something good. =D
>>>>> - notice how wrinkled it is.
>>>>
>>>> which makes it all the harder to fake.
>>>
>>> What makes it hard to fake wrinkles?
>>
>> if you're going to make modifications to it digitally.
>
> Who says you would have to do it digitally... print it, wrinkle it,
> scan it.
you originally stated that it was wrinkled- as if it came out of the trash.
in that situation, you would need to digitally modify a wrinkled scan-
that's what i was stating was hard to do. if it's an fake from the
beginning, what's the point of wrinkling it? your logic escapes me.
> Could you really not come up with that on your own?
i don't see the point of the chain of events you are suggesting.
>>> I can scan a wrinkled printout
>>> - no matter where it came from.
>>>
>>>>> Oh,
>>>>> and other ID numbers have been blanked out... there is no proof
>>>>> this relates to you at all!
>>>>
>>>> and you think my frequent flyer number on there would make it more
>>>> believatle?
>>>
>>> Would make it more traceable to you.
>>
>> how so, since you don't know my frequent flyer number, and have no
>> way (that i know of) of getting it?
>
> So why hide it?
1- w/out someone doing something illegal, it's not more traceable to me, so
there's no point in giving it
2- if someone wanted to do something illegal, with the number, it'd be much
easier to break into my frequent flyer account. w/ american, all you need
is a number, a name (and you know my full name), a zip code (i've previously
posted the area i live, so it'd be easy to get a zip w/ a name), and to
answer 2 multiple choice questions. i have quite a few miles in my account
that i would like to keep, as well as having credit card info stored for
purchasing tickets.
note that you wouldn't even provide a confirmation number for you "trip" to
vegas previously, which would not have revealed any of that information, so
i find it strange you would question me keeping personal some info that
actually makes it easier to steal from me.
>>>>> Please note: I am not claiming it does not...
>>>>
>>>> i certainly hope not- it would be make you look quite foolish!
>>>
>>> It would be your word against mine... there would be no proof either
>>> way. Of course, I would have to state how I discovered your lie...
>>> if I were to say you were definitely lying.
>>>>
>>>>> it very well may. But
>>>>> I hope you see the silliness of expecting such a jpg to be
>>>>> considered
>>>>> proof of *anything* (other than that you can post a jpg).
>>>>
>>>> what exactly did you want to see then, when you said you wanted to
>>>> see a
>>>> copy of my itinerary?
>>>
>>> I wanted you to understand how your post is not really proof of
>>> anything important. I am not sure you have reached that level of
>>> understanding.
>>
>> it's certainly strong evidence.
>
> So strong you agree it would take $30 for you to fed-ex it to me...
> and a *copy* of your visa stamp... that would be easy to fake, too.
um, again, i don't think so. the stamp is somewhat detailed...
> So you want me to pay $30 for some evidence that could be faked...
> and then you
> want me to believe the evidence you have *already* provided is
> strong... no, Ed, I
> do not by that.
>
>> if you wanted absolute proof, send me $30
>> and i'll fed-ex it to you, along with a copy of the visa stamp in my
>> passport. see snit, some of us actually, really, do not find the
>> need to lie on usenet, and are willing to make reasonable
>> accomadations (such as posting pics of their itinerary) to make a
>> point, or make unreasonable accomodations (such as fedexing
>> documents) for a small profit. =D
>
> You want me to believe you, but only will give proof if I pay you...
> not very reasonable of you.
>
> Again, Ed, I am not saying you are lying... just there is no proof
> you are not.
>
> In any case, what do you need to send me my $5?
something that actually looks like an itinerary from southwest would be a
good start...
ed
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> typed:
> "ed" <news...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> stated in post
> k2Bce.3626$Gd7....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com on 4/29/05 6:19 PM:
>> no, i do not see any hypocraxy, because you have a demonstrable
>> history of being a liar, while i do not.
>
> Incorrect - being that I have pointed out demonstrable lies of yours
> in the past.
you absolutely have not; you have pointed out things you appear to believe
were lies, but offered no evidence of such. and no, you don't need to post
the link again- it won't change the fact that they're not lies. in fact, i
really have a hard time believing you think those are lies.
i notice you don't even to begin to deny your lies- we can both agree you
lie, right?
> It comes down to you having a double standard - you want me to
> believe your claims about your computer experiences but you deny mine
> when you have no objective reason to do so. I, on the other hand,
> openly admit that I have no reason to claim you are lying *on this*...
> you may very well be telling the truth... even though you have no
explanation
> for why your experiences
> would be so out of the ordinary.
you assert they are out of the ordinary. unacceptable given your propensity
for lying. =D
> Just curious - what stories about my customers do you not believe?
> Do you simply not believe, which is fine... or do you make the leap
> to claim I am lying about those claims... and do so with no support?
i know you are a liar, and based on that, i don't give you the benefit of
the doubt on some of your stories that seem less grounded in reality. quite
a fair way to view you i should say.
Snit
> In news:BE983BFC.15629%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> typed:
>> "ed" <news...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> stated in post
>> k2Bce.3626$Gd7....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com on 4/29/05 6:19 PM:
> <snip>
>>> no, i do not see any hypocraxy, because you have a demonstrable
>>> history of being a liar, while i do not.
>>
>> Incorrect - being that I have pointed out demonstrable lies of yours
>> in the past.
>
> you absolutely have not
You are lying. I will be happy to respond to your questions below once you
stop lying.
I would be happy to point to the evidence... no wrinkled and potentially
forged jpg needed.
> ; you have pointed out things you appear to believe
> were lies, but offered no evidence of such. and no, you don't need to post
> the link again- it won't change the fact that they're not lies. in fact, i
> really have a hard time believing you think those are lies.
>
> i notice you don't even to begin to deny your lies- we can both agree you
> lie, right?
>
>> It comes down to you having a double standard - you want me to
>> believe your claims about your computer experiences but you deny mine
>> when you have no objective reason to do so. I, on the other hand,
>> openly admit that I have no reason to claim you are lying *on this*...
>> you may very well be telling the truth... even though you have no
> explanation
>> for why your experiences
>> would be so out of the ordinary.
>
> you assert they are out of the ordinary. unacceptable given your propensity
> for lying. =D
>
>> Just curious - what stories about my customers do you not believe?
>> Do you simply not believe, which is fine... or do you make the leap
>> to claim I am lying about those claims... and do so with no support?
>
> i know you are a liar, and based on that, i don't give you the benefit of
> the doubt on some of your stories that seem less grounded in reality. quite
> a fair way to view you i should say.
>
>
_________________________________________
ed
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> typed:
> "ed" <news...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> stated in post
> TzCce.3652$Gd7....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com on 4/29/05 8:03 PM:
>
>> In news:BE983BFC.15629%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> typed:
>>> "ed" <news...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> stated in post
>>> k2Bce.3626$Gd7....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com on 4/29/05 6:19 PM:
>> <snip>
>>>> no, i do not see any hypocraxy, because you have a demonstrable
>>>> history of being a liar, while i do not.
>>>
>>> Incorrect - being that I have pointed out demonstrable lies of yours
>>> in the past.
>>
>> you absolutely have not
>
> You are lying.
nope, sorry, i'm not.
> I will be happy to respond to your questions below
> once you stop lying.
>
> I would be happy to point to the evidence... no wrinkled and
> potentially forged jpg needed.
snit, you continually amaze me with how much of a liar and loser you are.
you may notice a semi-regular pattern with me where i stop responding to
your posts for stretches at a time, then start up responding as if you were
a normal person. i suppose it's tough for the magnitude of your 'loserdom'
to stick, so it loses some of it's sharpness when i stop responding to you.
you almost always start responding back in a semi-normal way, but inevitably
degenerate. it's once again that time. i can only ask that you pass my
condolences to your wife and unborn child for having to put up with such a
dishonest fool as yourself. (well, if your wife is a loser as well, just
pass those condolences to the rug-rat to be; if not, double condolences to
her).
<snip>
Snit
Good to see you admit to it - funny thing is I had not even accused you.
Since your forgery did not help you win anything, why did you do so?
>
>>>> For that matter, how hard would it be to make a doc that looked
>>>> like that?
>>>
>>> pretty hard i would think...
>>
>> Hard to wrinkle a piece of paper and scan it? Your tech skills are
>> likely up to the task...
>
> the forging a wrinkled document part is hard, not the wrinkling part.
> <rolls eyes>
Why would wrinkling a forged document be any harder than doing so with a
real one?
>
>>>>> you think you can do that? go ahead and make one with your name on
>>>>> it, and post it withing, say, 10 minutes; i'll send you $5 if it's
>>>>> convincing.
>>>>
>>>> Heading off to dinner now... when do you want the "game" to start?
>>>> And why give me only 10 minutes when you had so much longer.
>>>
>>> haha, yeah, sure, dinner. you want to give yourself extra time to
>>> fake it, eh? sure, go to it. i'll give you 2 hours to come up with
>>> something convincing- til 8 pm pacific time.
>>
>> Who judges how convincing it is?
>
> me of course!
Oh.. so there is no way for me to win, being that you get to decide who
wins. Clearly your challenge was rigged.
>
>> In any case, took maybe 10 minutes,
>> though I did not time myself:
>>
>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/tmp/itinerary.jpg
>
> that is hardly convincing- it has no details whatsoever. i've flown
> southwest occasionally, and i know it's not nearly as plain as that. if
> you've ever flown american, you'll know the itineraries look exactly as i
> posted (alaska is a partner airline of american)
Look at the online itinerary... mine is very much like the ones you print
out.
>
>>>> I am not saying you did fake it - but you could have.
>>>
>>> seeing as how i'm in a position of knowing absolutely, i say, no, i
>>> could NOT have as it's not a forgery. if you're willing to put a
>>> small monetary wager up on your end (say, $20), i'll be glad to post
>>> up a copy w/ the last name and aadvantage number unblanked. and
>>> i'll take a picture of the itinerary, say in front of the computer
>>> monitor w/ whatever webpage you want displayed, so you can tell that
>>> it's og.
>>
>> At least you have agreed that what you have provided is not adequate
>> proof and that more would be required for you to prove your claim.
>> That is *my* point - your current jpg does not prove your claim.
>>
>> I can get a picture of me with a piece of paper, too... that would
>> not prove the paper was not forged.
>
> get over it; it's not forged.
Above you admit otherwise.
As have you... you already admitted:
some of us are more interested in forging docs to win arguments than
others.
>
>> - at least you are
>> willing to pay me $5... I look forward to getting the money.
>
> yeah, we'll see if you can jimmy up something good. =D
Well, now you have admitted that the whole thing is rigged... I can not win.
Not very honest of you.
>
>>>>>> - notice how wrinkled it is.
>>>>>
>>>>> which makes it all the harder to fake.
>>>>
>>>> What makes it hard to fake wrinkles?
>>>
>>> if you're going to make modifications to it digitally.
>>
>> Who says you would have to do it digitally... print it, wrinkle it,
>> scan it.
>
> you originally stated that it was wrinkled- as if it came out of the trash.
It may not have been wrinkled in the trash. That is an assumption you made.
> in that situation, you would need to digitally modify a wrinkled scan-
> that's what i was stating was hard to do. if it's an fake from the
> beginning, what's the point of wrinkling it? your logic escapes me.
I do not doubt that logic escapes you - likely from your assumptions.
>
>> Could you really not come up with that on your own?
>
> i don't see the point of the chain of events you are suggesting.
You could have found the document, altered it in any way you wanted...
either digitally or via scanning or anything you wanted... claimed you were
going on the trip so you could spew your story, then, when asked for proof,
you were ready with the forged doc.
Not too hard to figure out this is *possible*
>
>>>> I can scan a wrinkled printout
>>>> - no matter where it came from.
>>>>
>>>>>> Oh,
>>>>>> and other ID numbers have been blanked out... there is no proof
>>>>>> this relates to you at all!
>>>>>
>>>>> and you think my frequent flyer number on there would make it more
>>>>> believatle?
>>>>
>>>> Would make it more traceable to you.
>>>
>>> how so, since you don't know my frequent flyer number, and have no
>>> way (that i know of) of getting it?
>>
>> So why hide it?
>
> 1- w/out someone doing something illegal, it's not more traceable to me, so
> there's no point in giving it
What was the point in giving any of it... if was really yours, you had to go
through extra work to remove it.
> 2- if someone wanted to do something illegal, with the number, it'd be much
> easier to break into my frequent flyer account. w/ american, all you need
> is a number, a name (and you know my full name), a zip code (i've previously
> posted the area i live, so it'd be easy to get a zip w/ a name), and to
> answer 2 multiple choice questions. i have quite a few miles in my account
> that i would like to keep, as well as having credit card info stored for
> purchasing tickets.
Prove it. Post the CC#. :)
>
> note that you wouldn't even provide a confirmation number for you "trip" to
> vegas previously, which would not have revealed any of that information, so
> i find it strange you would question me keeping personal some info that
> actually makes it easier to steal from me.
is there a confirmation number on your jpg?
I am merely pointing out that even had I offered confirmation numbers, that
would not have been proof of anything - just like your jpg proves nothing.
>
>>>>>> Please note: I am not claiming it does not...
>>>>>
>>>>> i certainly hope not- it would be make you look quite foolish!
>>>>
>>>> It would be your word against mine... there would be no proof either
>>>> way. Of course, I would have to state how I discovered your lie...
>>>> if I were to say you were definitely lying.
>>>>>
>>>>>> it very well may. But
>>>>>> I hope you see the silliness of expecting such a jpg to be
>>>>>> considered
>>>>>> proof of *anything* (other than that you can post a jpg).
>>>>>
>>>>> what exactly did you want to see then, when you said you wanted to
>>>>> see a
>>>>> copy of my itinerary?
>>>>
>>>> I wanted you to understand how your post is not really proof of
>>>> anything important. I am not sure you have reached that level of
>>>> understanding.
>>>
>>> it's certainly strong evidence.
>>
>> So strong you agree it would take $30 for you to fed-ex it to me...
>> and a *copy* of your visa stamp... that would be easy to fake, too.
>
> um, again, i don't think so. the stamp is somewhat detailed...
But how would I know it was yours? Maybe you have a neighbor that went.
For that matter - you can likely find it on the web. If not, how would I
verify it anyway?
>
>> So you want me to pay $30 for some evidence that could be faked...
>> and then you
>> want me to believe the evidence you have *already* provided is
>> strong... no, Ed, I
>> do not by that.
>>
>>> if you wanted absolute proof, send me $30
>>> and i'll fed-ex it to you, along with a copy of the visa stamp in my
>>> passport. see snit, some of us actually, really, do not find the
>>> need to lie on usenet, and are willing to make reasonable
>>> accomadations (such as posting pics of their itinerary) to make a
>>> point, or make unreasonable accomodations (such as fedexing
>>> documents) for a small profit. =D
>>
>> You want me to believe you, but only will give proof if I pay you...
>> not very reasonable of you.
>>
>> Again, Ed, I am not saying you are lying... just there is no proof
>> you are not.
>>
>> In any case, what do you need to send me my $5?
>
> something that actually looks like an itinerary from southwest would be a
> good start...
It looks very much like their online itinerary... check out their site. :)
If you want to keep your word, you will send my $5. Somehow I doubt you
will do so...
Snit
> In news:BE984531.15677%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> typed:
>> "ed" <news...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> stated in post
>> TzCce.3652$Gd7....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com on 4/29/05 8:03 PM:
>>
>>> In news:BE983BFC.15629%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
>>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> typed:
>>>> "ed" <news...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> stated in post
>>>> k2Bce.3626$Gd7....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com on 4/29/05 6:19 PM:
>>> <snip>
>>>>> no, i do not see any hypocraxy, because you have a demonstrable
>>>>> history of being a liar, while i do not.
>>>>
>>>> Incorrect - being that I have pointed out demonstrable lies of yours
>>>> in the past.
>>>
>>> you absolutely have not
>>
>> You are lying.
>
> nope, sorry, i'm not.
We can go back and forth on this one, but the posts where I point out your
clear dishonesty would not be hard to find. Even then, though, you would
simply deny your dishonesty, as though your doing so would make it go away.
Does not work that way, ed - you can not change the fact that you were
caught red handed being dishonest.
Below you sink to being a sniveling, whining, trolling, lying idiot. You
are above that, ed... or at least have the potential. I hope you rise up to
it soon.
Keep in mind that in this thread I merely was pointing out that your story -
where you told of some rather unbelievable events - was not something you
could prove was accurate. I did not suggest you were lying and made that
clear many times. You decided to offer "proof" of your trip to at least
show a *part* of your story, and then, when I pointed out that your "proof"
was anything but, told me I would have to spend $30 to get something that
would be, maybe, better support, but *still* not proof!
My point is that you cannot prove your claims... and you can not. If I were
to accuse you of lying about your claims, though, as you have done with me,
then *I* would be being as dishonest as you are in those cases.
Please note I did not sink to your level... I only concluded that your image
was forged when you admitted that:
some of us are more interested in forging docs to win arguments than
others.
I am sad to see you sink to that level, ed... as I said, you always struck
me as someone who had better potential.
>
>> I will be happy to respond to your questions below
>> once you stop lying.
>>
>> I would be happy to point to the evidence... no wrinkled and
>> potentially forged jpg needed.
>
> snit, you continually amaze me with how much of a liar and loser you are.
> you may notice a semi-regular pattern with me where i stop responding to
> your posts for stretches at a time, then start up responding as if you were
> a normal person. i suppose it's tough for the magnitude of your 'loserdom'
> to stick, so it loses some of it's sharpness when i stop responding to you.
> you almost always start responding back in a semi-normal way, but inevitably
> degenerate. it's once again that time. i can only ask that you pass my
> condolences to your wife and unborn child for having to put up with such a
> dishonest fool as yourself. (well, if your wife is a loser as well, just
> pass those condolences to the rug-rat to be; if not, double condolences to
> her).
>
> <snip>
>
>
_________________________________________
KSL
> In news:1114818813.1...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,
> kslaterl <ksla...@yahoo.com> typed:
> <snip>
>> To be fair, we often tell our clients that a properly
>> configured Windows machine with *no* third party software shouldn't
>> require much in the way of service, but it is rarely the case that a
>> machine running Windows without a pretty complex Internet portal
>> somewhere in the mix would run without ever getting Malware or
>> viruses.
>
> hey now. my machine at home has no viruses or malware, and i don't have a
> "complex internet portal" somewhere in the mix. exactly what do you think
> such a "portal" consists of? what type of consulting do you actually do (i
> used to do it consulting as well, for one of the big 5)
I was refering to a proxy server or Internet portal to limit web
access and downloads. When we install "public access" Internet services
(such as hotels and Wi-Fi hotspots), we normally accomplish this with a
Cisco content mod and ACNS software.
>
>> We take hundreds of service calls every week for Windows problems
>> large and small
>
> you do consulting, or job shopping / call center work?
My function is to analyze work flow and design networks for business
and institutions with 10-500 users. The company I work for primarily
manages small-business networks as a proactive service, but we do have
many customers that use us for "break and fix" service as well and
that's what I was refering to on the support calls.
>
>> and I just don't have the patience to do the
>> diligence at home to keep my computer running Windows (Adware
>> stoppers, etc).
>
> i don't run any software to target adware / spyware / viruses at home, yet
> seem no worse for it. funny that, no?
You know, to be fair I do believe this issue has been dramaticaly
improved with XP SP2, is this what you are running at home?
>
>
>>> From a tech point of view, the most impressive part of the Mac is
>>> that
>> if something *does* go criticaly wrong. The entire OS can be replaced
>> in minutes without data destruction to take the machine back to "out
>> of the box" condition. If this is required on a PC, we have to backup
>> the data (which is difficult due to the cryptic nature of some of the
>> Windows files),
>
> cryptic nature of what files?
In the OS X world, applications are normally installed by "dragging
and dropping" a single file (it's actually a 'package' of files, but
that is transparant to users). There are other files created when the
software is used, but these only contain preferences/settings and are
not critical for reinstallation if a backup is restored. The user will
just have to set up the preferences again. For example, if I have Word
installed on my Mac, and I flummox the OS. I can install a new OS
folder, delete the old one and Word will still launch; although I will
most likely have to re-enter the registration information. In Windows,
the Office installation disk will have to be run. This is a difference
of hours in terms of getting back up. In a Windows restore, it's not
just a file for the program, and file for the data...it's dozens of
registry keys, DLLs, etc. All must be restored to the proper place
within the Windows structure before the data is accessible again.
Once again, let me reitterate. I tell people everyday to spend a lot
of money on Windows technology, and I feel like this is the best
solution available for thier business. As much as I love the Mac OS,
there are rare occasions when it is the right solution in a business
network. But for home users, it's virtually bullet-proof.
I have a iMac G5 as my home desktop and having been using it approx.
10 hours a day for the last 3 weeks (home recovering from back
surgery). I use it to work on my office machine using Microsoft Remote
Desktop while simutaniously running several apps locally. In the last
three weeks I have only had to reboot twice; and both of those were
yesterday when I installed OS 10.4 Tiger.)
I'm glad your Windows box works so well, and if there is one thing I
have learned dealing with both platforms for almost two decades: "If it
ain't broke, don't fix it."