Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Felger Sounds Off on Internet Insanity
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 96 (772282)
11-11-2015 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Percy
11-11-2015 11:20 AM


Re: Example of Another Technology Mess
Still, I like my workspace, and it does have a scanner. I'd like to be able to open envelopes, pull out checks, set them on the scanner, click buttons on the screen, and have them all deposited, all without getting out of the office chair.
I understand.
But I also understand from other discussions that you have quite a bit on your plate right now.
Despite it not being your preference, you can save the trip to the bank by using your iPad. Might save you some aggravation, time, and gas.
I'll bet you can get your scanner plan to work by fiddling around a bit with your settings and using some kind of template to get your checks lined up in the same place or places on the scanner. Getting it right will probably take some work, but maybe it will be worth the trouble if you have a bunch of checks to deal with.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Percy, posted 11-11-2015 11:20 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 47 of 96 (772297)
11-12-2015 3:08 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Percy
11-09-2015 8:40 AM


Percy, you seem to have lost your mind, projecting onto others the things that you are doing.
Hint: I don't really use OnStar. The stereo in my car doesn't have a full screen on it. The GPS from OnStar would put the directions into a heads-up display, but only with an arrow indicating turn right/turn left. There was no map. Plus, OnStar costs every month. Want to use the GPS? You can't just have a one-time payment like you do with any other GPS. You have to pay every month.
So when my trial of OnStar was up, I replaced the stereo in my car with one that had built-in GPS, a full screen, and the ability to show a map. That's how I know that if you have a good stereo installer, you can get them to turn off the "safety restrictions" such as you have to have the car at a stop before you can program the GPS.
You haven't made much sense this entire time. You made statements about things you knew nothing about and then, when you were shown you were wrong, decided to dig in and insist that no, everybody was lying to you.
Take, for example, your response:
My comment was that there has to be more dialog than that, right?
NO. IT WORKS EXACTLY LIKE THE COMMERCIAL SHOWS.
Why is that so hard for you to understand? Why are you so certain that they're lying to you? Why are you so certain that it can't possibly be true when I tell you that IT WORKS EXACTLY LIKE THE COMMERCIAL SHOWS? Do you think I'm lying? Misguided? Doing something completely different from what the commercial is showing? Why are you so certain that you're being sold a bill of goods?
As for your picture, that isn't the screen I see. Right across the top: The OnStar logo and then Services, Plans and Pricing, Get OnStar, My Account and then a Log In button, a Sign Up button, and then the links for Help & Support, to change your language, and the magnifying glass to do search.
Where on earth did you get that image? It isn't the OnStar home page. Ah, I see...you explain later: You're using a browser set to a low resolution and OnStar has readjusted the home screen to fit.
And somehow this is OnStar's fault that you were incapable of clicking on the "Menu" button?
My god, Percy, you're the reason I often get frustrated at my job. "This is so hard to use! I don't know how to switch my site!" You mean that great big yellow button in the middle of your screen that says, "Switch Unit Site" wasn't clear? It's somehow OnStar's fault that you couldn't think to look in the menu that was clearly labeled "Menu" that might provide you information about what it is you were looking for?
Now, I admit to being oblivious. A few years ago, some friends and I were in Old Town and we saw the gorgeous tree in the park, wondering what it was. So we went into the information center. The person behind the counter was busy with someone else so I waited off the side, leaning on the counter, waiting for her to finish. When she was, I asked if she knew what kind of tree that really big one was.
And she pointed to the map of the trees of the park spread out on the counter that my elbow was on. It's a ficus. If I had bothered to merely look down at what I was leaning on, I would have figured it out. And I was looking at the counter, reading all the other bits of information they had spread out there, oblivious to the map that I was literally touching.
But when someone points out the great big yellow button in the middle of the screen clearly labeled with the thing that I was looking for, I chalk it up to me not paying attention.
What's your excuse?
And it seems you didn't read my post before responding. Once again, you're acting like a creationist. I never said OnStar only cost $5/month and I challenge you to find anything that I wrote that even suggests such a thing. Instead, what I said was that it is $5/month minimum to add calling services. You don't have to (and I don't).
quote:
Excepting the part about rerouting, for which I don't yet have enough information
OTHER THAN THE PERSON WHO HAS IT TELLING YOU THAT YES, IT WORKS EXACTLY LIKE THAT!
Why do you think I'm lying to you? Why do you think that this is some sort of Vast Conspiracy to Suppress the Truth (C)? Why the hyperskepticism?
Why have you lost your mind on this subject, Percy?
quote:
I don't see how else I could have found out very much without asking skeptical questions, which seemed to bother you.
BWAHAHAHAHA!
Oh, that's just precious, Percy! The projection is strong in you. You asked skeptical questions and I told you that no, it really does work like that and I know because I have it.
You then proceeded to post two more posts insisting that it can't be that way.
Why does it bother you so much that IT WORKS EXACTLY LIKE THAT?
quote:
The main point I've been making in this thread is that the technology industry provides us products of poor design, low quality, and low reliability, and they misrepresent their products in their advertising.
So at what point do you say to yourself, "I made a poor choice of example," and let it go?
If someone is giving a talk about the way the black cards in a deck of cards came to be and yet they keep showing you Diamonds as the example, do you really think it's appropriate for him to get upset when people point out the error? Do you really think that if he insists that no, there's still some doubt about it, people lie all the time, it's all misrepresentation, he has a leg to stand on?
Is it really that difficult for you to say, "Oops. My mistake"? You're the one who brought up OnStar to try and make your point about hyped technology only to find out that no, it isn't hype. What's it going to take for you to let it go?
quote:
My browser width is set to 960 pixels (half of 1920, two portrait browser windows side-by-side), and OnStar.com is using a JavaScript library that automatically assumes you're on a mobil platform if your browser width is less than 1000. Brilliant.
Yes.
They have a lot of stuff in the top navigation. If your browser isn't wide enough to display it, rather than forcing you to scroll side-to-side, they redesign the page to display the information in a way that fits the screen you have.
That's why they have that big Menu button as the first thing on the screen.
But somehow, it's OnStar's fault that you won't press the button. And how dare they actually pay attention to the screen you have and display the content appropriately? Why do I get the feeling that if they didn't but forced you to scroll, you'd complain about that?
quote:
The GPS in my wife's car doesn't need a monthly fee to operate. I assume the same is true of the GPS in the Buick? That it doesn't need an OnStar subscription to operate?
Nope. That's why I don't use it. You want OnStar's navigation services, you have to pay every month above and beyond the basic OnStar services.
But you would have known that if you had clicked on the Menu button that was staring you in the face and then clicked on "Plans and Prices."
Why didn't you?
And why are you blaming them for your obliviousness?
Edited by Admin, : Fix utube video.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Percy, posted 11-09-2015 8:40 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Percy, posted 11-12-2015 9:13 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 48 of 96 (772305)
11-12-2015 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Rrhain
11-12-2015 3:08 AM


You still haven't answered the question: There has to be more to the dialog, right? If not, why not? The instruction "Reroute" all by itself seems ambiguous, for the reasons I've outlined twice now. If you'd really answered the question then I would be able to explain to someone else why "reroute" all by itself is sufficient, but I can't, so you haven't.
About the webpage, I don't know why I clicked on "Learn More" before "Menu", but once I did click on "Learn More" the "Menu" link was gone. The much more significant issue is why is the OnStar website switching to mobil mode on a PC.
Rrhain writes:
You're using a browser set to a low resolution and OnStar has readjusted the home screen to fit.
Changing the browser window size doesn't affect resolution, and OnStar *has* switched to mobil mode on a PC. OnStar isn't alone in this mistake, it's pretty common. Fortunately, what is becoming increasingly common is to have a separate app for mobil platforms, and then there's no need for making a single webpage try to serve both PC's and mobil platforms.
Dartmouth-Hitchcock does the same thing, only they switch to mobil mode at 900 pixels instead of 1000. They used to switch at 970, but I had a short email exchange with their software director last year and some months later it changed. I guess it must be very difficult to detect with assurance that your website is being displayed on a mobil platform, else that's what they would do, instead of checking browser width.
It seems to bother you when people criticize technology. You might as well relax, because since the technology as delivered to consumers is crap, the criticism isn't going to stop. The criticism is important, too. More and more intelligence that affects safety is being added to cars. Causing driver inattention is just one issue. A few years ago Prius had a software issue that affected anti-lock braking. Volkswagen's in the middle of a dust-up over computer controlled emissions. I think the more we make clear our concern about bad technology the more it will help. This means not buying it when it's something we can know about, like how the control panel works, and encouraging government oversight through regulations and testing for things not easily discovered, like anti-lock brakes and emissions.
I'm criticizing technology because I know how good it *could* be. I'm intimately aware of the process that results in delivering crap to customers because I've been part of it. Projects used to have many people per project, now it's more often the case of many projects per person. Once healthy delivery schedules are now anemic. Productivity improvements account for only a little of this change, drops in the quality the rest. Thirty years ago it was feared that as software became more complex that quality issues would overwhelm the industry, but what has instead happened is that we've inured the customer base (primarily people unfamiliar with technology) to poor quality, and they accept it now.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Rrhain, posted 11-12-2015 3:08 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Rrhain, posted 11-13-2015 8:12 PM Percy has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(2)
Message 49 of 96 (772314)
11-12-2015 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Percy
11-10-2015 4:35 PM


Re: Example of Another Technology Mess
Percy writes:
... saving me either a trip to the bank once or twice a month....
Poor baby. I have to leave the house almost every day.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Percy, posted 11-10-2015 4:35 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by AZPaul3, posted 11-12-2015 5:19 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(2)
Message 50 of 96 (772358)
11-12-2015 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by ringo
11-12-2015 11:16 AM


Re: Example of Another Technology Mess
But you live in one-room cabin with only a picture of Dudley Do-Right's horse on the wall compared to Percy's mansion with pool, billiards room, bowling alley, home theater and wine cellar. Can't blame the man for wanting to stay home. If I were you I'd want to get out daily too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by ringo, posted 11-12-2015 11:16 AM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 51 of 96 (772397)
11-13-2015 11:37 AM


Another Hour I'll Never Get Back
It'd been at least a year since I last played with Apple Radio, so today after seeing a news item about Apple discontinuing Beats Radio I decided to give Apple Radio another try. I downloaded the latest version of iTunes and got down to business. Bottom line: it's gotten worse. It's so bad the details don't deserve mention. Stay away.
What was Apple thinking? Obviously, they weren't. The iTunes team, spread far too thin and probably thinned down as well, probably left the user interface for this feature to a single overloaded and insufficiently experienced individual. The goals were probably ill-defined and incompetently managed. Then it was insufficiently tested by a QA team spread far too thin and probably thinned down as well (sound familiar?). Commonplace in today's high tech industry.
This is typical of what happens to software cash cows as they age. Top talent isn't interested in the old and stodgy (that's what it is, no matter how much they try to put a modern face on it), so responsibility for the products bringing in the most cash trickles down to the less and less talented and experienced.
I know iTunes is widely disparaged in many circles, but I'll bet no one makes more money on music than Apple. Call it all the names you like, iTunes makes money. All the stuff people think is better? Prove it by making more money than Apple.
That said, I think iTunes is ripe for the taking. It's been too bad for too long.
I do still use iTunes, for backing up and restoring iPods and iPads, and for transferring audiobooks to my iPod. I don't use it for listening to music anymore, even though I have a ton of my own recorded music there. I switched to Pandora around five or six years ago.
--Percy

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 52 of 96 (772421)
11-13-2015 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Percy
11-12-2015 9:13 AM


Percy responds to me:
quote:
You still haven't answered the question: There has to be more to the dialog, right?
You still aren't reading posts you're responding to. Sixth paragraph. It's the first quoted text. Here it is again since you missed it last time:
My comment was that there has to be more dialog than that, right?
NO. IT WORKS EXACTLY LIKE THE COMMERCIAL SHOWS.
I even put it in all-caps so that you would have an easier time seeing it.
What's your excuse for missing it? Why did you not read the post you were responding to? I repeated that statement multiple times in the message (four, to be exact), capitalizing it every single time to make sure you'd be able to see it. And yet here you are, claiming that I didn't answer the question.
Why can't you let this go?
quote:
Changing the browser window size doesn't affect resolution
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you?
Are you truly saying that on an HD monitor, a browser window that only covers half the width of the screen has the same horizontal resolution as a browser window that covers the entire width? 960 = 1920? You're confusing the resolution of the monitor with the resolution of the window (and then there's the resolution of the content, to make it even more complex.) This is my day-to-day job, Percy.
Changing the width of the browser changes the number of pixels it can display without scrolling. They have programmed the page to detect the width of the window and adjust the display of the information to accommodate. The images change size to ensure that they don't bleed over the margins. The padding between them adjusts. The top navigation collapses into a menu or expands out. And if you make it really narrow, the graphics go away completely. This is good design: Pay attention to the device that is displaying your content and make adjustments to accommodate so that items aren't hidden. Having to scroll in two directions is bad. If you have to scroll at all, only choose one and up-and-down is better than side-to-side.
And somehow, this is bad because you couldn't figure out how to use a menu clearly labeled "Menu." Because in the end, Percy, this isn't about the technology of how they displayed the web site. This is about you not doing your homework. You made a claim about a piece of technology that you had no experience with. All you had was a commercial and an attitude of certainty that it was nothing but hype. And rather than going to their website to find out what was up, you simply shot your mouth off.
And when someone who has the tech in question came along to disabuse you of that notion, you dug in. You continued to refuse to do your homework until pointed out to you that you should. At which point, you decided to complain about the packaging (compounding the problem because that packaging is actually quite helpful) rather than recognize that the problem was you not doing your homework.
quote:
It seems to bother you when people criticize technology.
The projection is strong in you still. Consider that what is actually happening is that it seems to bother you to find out you're wrong.
I have no problems criticizing technology. Get me on a good rant about Apple sometime. I even have problems with OnStar (I have to pay $15/month for GPS? Are you kidding? But then again, that's not a technology problem, that's a business-model problem.) But let's not pretend that this is about me, Percy. This is about you making a claim, being shown directly that you were wrong, and rather than simply saying, "Oops. I made a mistake," you have dug in your heels and have started casting about to find something, anything that could possibly help you in some bizarre attempt to save face.
Why is this so important to you? Why are you so invested in the idea that the commercial for OnStar has to be a lie? Why are you so certain that I am not being honest with you when I say that no, it works exactly like it does in the commercial? To the point that you will deliberately ignore my multiple direct statements to you regarding that fact?
If you truly are "criticizing technology because I know how good it *could* be," then why are you continuing to use an example that doesn't live up to that? If you're talking about the black cards in the deck, why do you keep mentioning the Five of Diamonds?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Percy, posted 11-12-2015 9:13 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Percy, posted 11-14-2015 8:55 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 53 of 96 (772443)
11-14-2015 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Rrhain
11-13-2015 8:12 PM


Rrhain writes:
You still aren't reading posts you're responding to. Sixth paragraph. It's the first quoted text. Here it is again since you missed it last time:
My comment was that there has to be more dialog than that, right?
NO. IT WORKS EXACTLY LIKE THE COMMERCIAL SHOWS.
I even put it in all-caps so that you would have an easier time seeing it.
This just repeats your answer. Obviously I'm skeptical and have asked you to help me understand how that makes any sense, to no avail as yet.
quote:
Changing the browser window size doesn't affect resolution
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you?
Okay, I figured this out. I was only changing my browser width between 1000 and just barely below 1000 to observe the OnStar website's transition in and out of mobil mode. No change in resolution is apparent with such a small change in width. I just tried changing the browser width through a broader range and now I'm observing the change in resolution at the OnStar website that you're observing. Neat. That's done by Javascript in the background. Not being aware that you were referring to specific behavior of the OnStar website that I hadn't yet observed I was of course describing how browser windows actually behave when the size is changed. Javascript adjusting the size of document objects is an after-the-fact reaction to the change in window size.
I don't know why you go on the way you do in the rest of your post. You ignored my explanation about "Menu" and went off on an extended rant. There are just a couple simple issues we're discussing that don't merit your degree of agitation:
  • What does OnStar really do when you give the "reroute" command, for instance, when there a multiple route choices?
  • Isn't changing to mobil mode on a PC a kind of dumb thing to do?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Rrhain, posted 11-13-2015 8:12 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Rrhain, posted 11-15-2015 12:53 AM Percy has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 54 of 96 (772508)
11-15-2015 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Percy
11-14-2015 8:55 AM


Percy responds to me:
quote:
Obviously I'm skeptical and have asked you to help me understand how that makes any sense, to no avail as yet.
Because you refuse to read the posts to which you reply. And when you do, you think you're being lied to.
What part of "It works exactly like the commercial shows" are you having trouble with? The commercial doesn't show much. He gets directions. He makes a phone call. Exactly what is it you think is the problem?
quote:
I don't know why you go on the way you do in the rest of your post.
Because you are engaging in hyperskepticism. You are refusing to take any answer as legitimate. You have no experience with the product in question, have refused to do your homework, and despite being presented with someone who actually has the product, you are refusing to consider his description to be legitimate.
Exactly how did you expect to be received, Percy?
quote:
What does OnStar really do when you give the "reroute" command, for instance, when there a multiple route choices?
Asked and answered. Why did you not read my previous post where I talked directly about this very thing?
But since you didn't do your homework then, you get to do it now: What does any GPS do? What did you expect?
quote:
Isn't changing to mobil mode on a PC a kind of dumb thing to do?
No.
Question: What do you mean by "mobile"? What, specifically, does that mean?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Percy, posted 11-14-2015 8:55 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Percy, posted 11-15-2015 8:30 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 55 of 96 (772513)
11-15-2015 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Rrhain
11-15-2015 12:53 AM


Rrhain writes:
quote:
Obviously I'm skeptical and have asked you to help me understand how that makes any sense, to no avail as yet.
Because you refuse to read the posts to which you reply. And when you do, you think you're being lied to.
Saying that in the absence of more information (for which I was asking) your answer makes no sense to me is not me thinking you're lying to me. On my end I think there's a misunderstanding somewhere.
Your feelings are quite obvious. You think you've shown me wrong and that now I'm just going to the nth annoying degree to avoid admitting it. Apparently believing your judgment impeccable, you've continued the criticisms, and I'm just becoming further and further remiss by refusing to own up to them.
quote:
What does OnStar really do when you give the "reroute" command, for instance, when there a multiple route choices?
Asked and answered. Why did you not read my previous post where I talked directly about this very thing?
Well, I thought I did read your previous post. Let me go back and read it again...
Nope, sorry, the answer is not there that I could see, unless you mean this:
Rrhain in Message 52 writes:
My comment was that there has to be more dialog than that, right?
NO. IT WORKS EXACTLY LIKE THE COMMERCIAL SHOWS.
I even put it in all-caps so that you would have an easier time seeing it.
What's your excuse for missing it? Why did you not read the post you were responding to? I repeated that statement multiple times in the message (four, to be exact), capitalizing it every single time to make sure you'd be able to see it. And yet here you are, claiming that I didn't answer the question.
This isn't an answer. Maybe the question isn't clear, so let me try stating it again. In almost all circumstances there are multiple route options. How can it be that the sole instruction to "reroute" is sufficient all by itself?
quote:
Isn't changing to mobil mode on a PC a kind of dumb thing to do?
No.
Question: What do you mean by "mobile"? What, specifically, does that mean?
Mobil mode means a display mode specifically for cell phones and tablets. I don't think the intent was for mobil mode to include laptops, but I'm not certain.
I don't understand why you think sending a webpage displayed on a PC into mobil mode isn't dumb. Particularly for a webpage that scales (changes the resolution) as the webpage width changes. Can you explain? And reacting to a related criticism you made earlier, I don't understand why, when confronted with a webpage for the first time, that you think clicking on the "Learn More" link instead of "Menu" makes one an idiot.
You're making this discussion most unpleasant. If it's something in my manner that is causing this just let me know what it is and I'll stop.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Rrhain, posted 11-15-2015 12:53 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Rrhain, posted 11-15-2015 11:11 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 56 of 96 (772542)
11-15-2015 3:07 PM


Picking on a Different Website
While watching a football game today an ad was run in the score banner at the bottom of the screen that said, "Live in an apartment or current college student? You can stream NFL Sunday Ticket games with no satellite required...To learn more - go to nfl.com/nflsundaytickettv". This sounded like it's possible to receive DirecTV over the Internet without a satellite dish, so I did. All that page has is a "Check Eligibility" link, and it told me I'm not eligible. That's all it told me, nothing more. I figured that score banner ad meant pretty much what it said, that one had to live in an apartment where DirecTV wasn't available or be a college student, but I wanted a little bit more detail.
So I went to the DirecTV website. I couldn't find any information about this at all there, but I happened to let the mouse slide across the "Equipment & Features" menu, and I was surprised to see that satellite dishes are not one of the items listed under "Equipment". I not only couldn't find any images of their different satellite dish options, I couldn't find much mention of satellite dishes at all, except under support, in the discussion forums, and in some PDF files. Someone unfamiliar with DirecTV couldn't be blamed for coming away from a visit to their website with no awareness that a satellite dish must be bolted to their house.
I find this incredible - a dish company that says almost nothing about satellite dishes. It feels dishonest. I wonder if it ever happens that someone schedules a DirecTV installation expecting only a box to be connected to something, only to have a technician arrive who starts climbing on their roof.
This is a marketing of technology issue and so not strictly a technology issue, but the details of how a technology works is something Rrhain and I have been discussing, and this is pretty similar. The OnStar site should have webpages where the kinds of questions I have are addressed, but it doesn't. The DirecTV website should have information about the satellite dishes it sells and installs, but it doesn't. This kind of thing manifests itself in a multitude of ways at a multitude of websites, and we shouldn't have to put up with this.
Oh, and if anyone knows any details about DirecTV over the Internet, I'd be interested in hearing about them.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Rrhain, posted 11-15-2015 11:40 PM Percy has replied
 Message 60 by Percy, posted 11-16-2015 8:34 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 57 of 96 (772558)
11-15-2015 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Percy
11-15-2015 8:30 AM


Percy responds to me:
quote:
quote:
Because you refuse to read the posts to which you reply. And when you do, you think you're being lied to.
Saying that in the absence of more information (for which I was asking) your answer makes no sense to me is not me thinking you're lying to me.
Refusing to accept a direct answer to your question that specifically states that your interpretation of events is incorrect, especially when it results in you repeating the same accusation that a false impression is being presented in the advertisement, is you thinking you're being lied to.
How many times do we have to go through this, Percy? IT WORKS EXACTLY THE WAY IT DOES IN THE COMMERCIAL. How many times do I have to reiterate this before you accept this?
If you don't think it works like it does in the commercial, why? What is it you think you aren't being told? Why are you waiting for another shoe to drop when you've been told that there aren't any?
Why do you think you're being lied to?
quote:
Your feelings are quite obvious.
Oh really? What are they. When you read my mind, is it like tuning in a radio station where all you hear is me or is it like being at a cocktail party where you hear a cacophony of voices and you have to strain to pick out mine? Because I dare say that you have very little understanding of what my "feelings" are.
Remember, Percy: I don't know you. I have no emotional investment in you. I don't have any "feelings" for you. Don't project your internal monologue onto anybody else but you.
quote:
You think you've shown me wrong and that now I'm just going to the nth annoying degree to avoid admitting it.
That's not a "feeling." That's a fact. You made a claim. I contradicted you based on direct experience. You have then spent all of your posts trying to find something, anything that will allow you to save face regarding this matter rather than simply say, "Oops...perhaps this OnStar commercial wasn't the best example" and let it go.
If you think otherwise, then prove me wrong.
Let's go over the history of this, shall we? [My god, this is like the gay bashing incident all over again.]
Message 30
This was the post you made where you brought up the OnStar commercial. You claimed:
If they're not *way* exaggerating how well their voice interactive feature works, then I'm stunned. Anyone out there have a Buick with this feature?
So I responded in Message 33:
I have OnStar.
Yes, it works like that.
That, however, wasn't good enough for you. You repeated your incredulity that it could possibly work like it shows in Message 35:
OnStar sounds neat, useful, and not overhyped, but I'm still skeptical. To pay all the money for Peyton Manning and the production crew and the air time and then tell the exact truth, too? Well, that's a lot to absorb all at one time.
Note the portion in bold. You're still hedging your bets. The hyperskepticism (which had started back in Message 18 regarding the ability of a smart phone to take a note and remind you of something) is rearing its head. Despite you admitting that you don't have the product ("Anyone out there have a Buick with this feature?"), you are going to take your own skepticism over the information being told to you by someone who does actually have the product.
Is it because it's me telling you? You and I don't exactly get along (that's part of the reason that I don't have any "feelings" for you), so is it that underlying negative impression that is coloring your ability to simply accept what I am telling you?
But back to the analysis of the posts. Your hyperskepticism engaged, you start wandering away from the point of the commercial to start nit-picking tiny details. Again, Message 35:
The car is not rerouting around barrels. And the command "reroute" all by itself is insufficient. There has to be more to the conversation. This is an example of misleading the consumer about what the product can do.
But no, that's not the case, as I directly tell you in my response, Message 38:
No, it works just like that. Yes, "orange barrels" means nothing, but "reroute" does: Get me off the road that I am on and find me an alternative destination.
And thus, we start to see a pattern: You say, "It can't be like it shows." I respond that yes, it is exactly like that. You then say, "But there has to be more!" I point out that no, there isn't. It works exactly like it shows in the commercial. But you continue on with the hyperskepticism. You asked a bunch of questions such as listening to someone other than the driver, working while moving, etc., and I answer all of them directly. But still, you aren't satisfied and the hyperskepticism exerts itself again in Message 39:
But it looks like we were talking about two different things, because I *did* think Manning was talking about a new destination.
This is such a bone-headed statement that it's hard to take you seriously. Who, upon going over the river and through the woods to grandmother's house via GPS, upon seeing that the main bridge is washed out, decides to scrap the whole thing rather than look for another way over the river? Sorry, kids, but we're not going to grandmother's house anymore. If you are trying to drive to work and you find that there's construction along your usual route, do you routinely just decide not to go?
So for you to claim that when Manning said to reroute, then you thought he was going to some brand new destination rather than simply getting a detour around the construction is disingenuous at best.
But this is par for the course because every attempt to demonstrate to you that no, you're wrong, the technology works exactly as described has been met with the most bizarre responses from you. Because you continue on:
In the commercial Manning says to reroute before he actually leaves the selected route. That would require further dialog, right?
I respond in Message 40 to tell you no, you don't need further dialog:
Huh? If I'm telling you that I need a new route to my destination rather than the one that I'm on, why would it need more information? Do you not know how GPS works? You set up defaults about how the system is going to get you to your destination: Fastest route? Shortest distance? Avoid the freeways? Use toll roads? If you're manually programming the destination, you can often override those defaults but if you don't, then the system uses your default method for getting from here to there.
So if you tell the system to find another route, it's going to use another method. If you told it to use the fastest route, telling it to reroute will have it find the next fastest route given where you are (and presuming that you need to deviate from the route immediately rather than having the deviation be right next to the destination which is likely not to be of any help). If you had set it to use the shortest route, it will find the next shortest route (again, presuming that you need to deviate from the route immediately).
It's why if your GPS has automatic traffic updates, you'll sometimes hear it say something like, "Traffic disruptions on the route. The route has been updated." If you told it to use the fastest method and it knows about traffic, it will take that into account. As more traffic information comes in, it will adjust your route accordingly.
Note the highlighted portions. It's explaining why you don't need more dialogue. You've already told the system how to manage routes. You set up a default that when you tell the system to find a route from here to there, look for the route that meets such-and-such criteria (fastest/shortest, use/avoid freeways, use/avoid toll roads, etc.) "Reroute" has a defined meaning and you don't need to tell the system more.
But you didn't read that because the hyperskepticism is still in play because in Message 41, you try to save face:
My comment was that there has to be more dialog than that, right? Without more dialog, how does OnStar know whether Manning wants to get right back on the highway (perhaps avoiding construction that happens to be limited to just the overpass), or reroute using back roads (possibly needing to override the "freeways" preference if it was set), or travel to the next exchange and get back on the highway?
That was just answered: You have defaults set up. GPS, in calculating a route, comes up with multiple alternatives and then provides the one that most closely matches the defaults you have set. By asking for a reroute, it then goes to the next best solution. You will note, for example, then it doesn't alter the route close to the destination but rather close to the origin. Why? Because the people who made the GPS algorithm in the first place are of the opinion that you don't ask for a reroute because of a problem 20 miles away. You ask for a reroute because of a problem right here. So by asking for a reroute, it's looking for a good solution (given the defaults you've made) but which don't include you being on the road you are currently on.
But that's the nature of GPS...which is why I asked if you understood how GPS worked.
But still, you were trying to find something to help you save face:
Excepting the part about rerouting, for which I don't yet have enough information, the OnStar commercial seems accurate, and entertaining, too.
Note the hedging. It's important because your very next sentence shows it going full-blown:
Short of buying my own Buick, I don't see how else I could have found out very much without asking skeptical questions, which seemed to bother you.
Suddenly, you make this about me. Unable to simply accept that the commercial does exactly what it was that it said, you start casting about for something, anything to allow you pretend that you were behaving rationally and thus, you decide to make this about me.
Remember, you're the one who started in on this: "You seem to have gone off the rails a bit." So certain that you were right that there was some other shoe to drop, you blame me for your mistake. Somehow, I'm the emotional one. Somehow, I'm the one "going off the rails."
Not once did you examine your own behavior.
Again, I have to ask: Is it because it's me? Because you then decided to wander completely away from the original issue (the commercial is accurate) to complain about the flipping web site.
And then you rewrote history in Message 48:
You still haven't answered the question: There has to be more to the dialog, right?
You tell me, Percy: Didn't I answer your question in Message 33 where I said that it functions exactly like shown in the commercial? Didn't I answer your question in Message 38 where I repeated myself that it functions exactly like shown in the commercial? Didn't I answer your question in Message 40 where I directly state that it doesn't need more information? Didn't I answer your question in Message 47 where I put the answer in all caps four times?
So for you to then come along and say in this message:
Nope, sorry, the answer is not there that I could see
And:
This isn't an answer.
Then you aren't exactly being honest, now are you? I don't pretend to understand why you're being so hyperskeptical, but it isn't because I haven't answered your questions.
The problem is that you don't like the answers.
quote:
Mobil mode means a display mode specifically for cell phones and tablets.
And what does that mean? All you've done is describe an undefined term using other, undefined terms. Given the power of smart phones and tablets these days, what does "specifically for cell phones and tablets" mean? There's usually two traits: Smaller screen and no Flash. The processing power of cell phones these days allows them to view full web sites. In fact, for many web sites that detect you using what it thinks is a mobile device, there will be a link (often at the bottom) to view the full web site. Our own site at work does this: If we detect (through the browser itself, not the resolution), we show you a stripped down version of the web site because the purpose of our website, in general, is for viewing information. But, you can go to the full website through a link if there is functionality that you need that isn't available on the mobile skin. Why? Because what you'd need to do using the full website usually involves data entry which would likely require a full keyboard which you don't have on mobile (no soft keyboard is good for data entry.)
The latest Lumia from Microsoft is pretty much a full computer. You can connect it to a dock and get an external monitor, keyboard, and mouse and run full applications using Windows Continuum which displays as a traditional desktop (since you now have a full screen, keyboard, and mouse to use).
So, depending upon what you're trying to achieve with your website, it might make sense to merely look at the window size (if your desktop experience where you have things like a keyboard and Flash isn't any different than if you don't have them) while other sites might be more inclined to pay attention to the physical device (by checking the browser itself) and change accordingly.
quote:
I don't understand why you think sending a webpage displayed on a PC into mobil mode isn't dumb.
Asked and answered previously and expanded upon here.
If all your website does is display information and doesn't use the dreaded Flash, then "mobile" merely means "I'm on a small screen." And thus, all the benefits you get for reorganizing content for a small screen are identical if you're on a desktop computer but have shrunk your browser window to smartphone-size. In OnStar's case (and it appears that you have already forgotten how this has been explained to you), that's the situation they're in: There isn't really much to their site with regard to functionality, so they rework the display of the information based upon the size of the browser window...and if you have a narrow screen, it becomes "mobile."
quote:
Particularly for a webpage that scales (changes the resolution) as the webpage width changes. Can you explain?
You just did: If the width of the browser is so narrow that it is what you might expect on mobile phones (and remember that smart phones these days have pixel resolutions rivaling that of some monitors...when I go to the OnStar site on my Xperia Z3, it displays one way when I hold it in portrait mode and another way when I hold it in landscape. Why? Because it's full HD and thus, you have more space horizontally when in landscape mode than in portrait mode), then why wouldn't you adjust the display of the site to accommodate so that your user doesn't have to scroll side to side? Most people on the desktop don't have mice with scroll wheels that work left and right, only up and down. So if my user has reduced their screen size (they've snapped it to half the screen width like you can do in Windows), why wouldn't I try to make their experience nicer by adjusting my site accordingly? And if I want to call that "mobile," what's the big deal?
quote:
And reacting to a related criticism you made earlier, I don't understand why, when confronted with a webpage for the first time, that you think clicking on the "Learn More" link instead of "Menu" makes one an idiot.
Because just as you haven't been reading my posts, you didn't read the web page. And this was already explained to you in Message 40, but you didn't read that so I'm not surprised that you're still asking a question that was already answered.
There were three "Learn More" buttons on that page. Each under a very different picture and at the bottom of the page. Did you really think they were all going to the same place? That a "Learn More" button under a section for "AtYourService" would go to the same place as a "Learn More" button under a section titled "Understanding Ignition Recall"? And that they'd both go to the same place as a third "Learn More" button under a section labeled "Get 3 Months Free"?
Are you really that nave?
Or did you go into it with a negative attitude and for whatever reason ignored the very obvious visual cues that each of those buttons went to a different location and would only have information about the specific subject described in the picture/text that was right above the button?
It's like someone getting upset that the box won't open and blaming the box because they couldn't be bothered to read where it said, in big letters: "OPEN OTHER END."
quote:
You're making this discussion most unpleasant.
Physician, heal thyself! You've been most unpleasant from the get go. Take a look at the very first post and tell me if that sounds like someone who wants to listen to other people. "I'm with Felger and you can screw your smart devices." Do you really think someone who starts like that is going to be amenable to saying, "Actually, they can do some of the things you want them to do and here's how"?
When I first responded to you, I didn't say you were stupid. I simply said that the technology does exist, but you do have to do some accommodation due to the difficulty of the problem: "Make a list" only means something if you have an association for what "list" means. That would require a "list" app and at least for Android, there is no such app. It can, however, do reminders and can do so not only by time but also by location so that it can, as you had requested, "reminding me to stop at the supermarket before I drive by, then telling me what to buy."
You immediately dismissed me, Message 18:
I usually answer claims like this by requesting a demo. Invariably it comes up short, involves a lot of touching and clicking, takes a long time, or all three.
Message 22:
You're being a technology apologist.
And once again, I remind you that you come from a position of having absolutely no experience with the product at hand ("I have no smart phone"), did absolutely no homework regarding the product at hand, and rather than listen to the person who actually has the product and is telling you how it works, you dismissed everything he had to say.
Because if you want, I can go through all those posts, too, and show you how you immediately rejected all evidence put before you simply because you didn't like it. Here's me:
Message 28:
I've been using it myself: "OK, Google. Remind me to buy soap." It then asks me if I want to be reminded at a certain time or when I get to a certain place. "When I get to Ralph's." And presto, there's a reminder in my phone to "Buy soap" that automatically buzzes me when I drive to Ralphs.
Here's your response:
Message 30:
I don't have a smart phone and can't test this, but for the sake of discussion let's say this really works as you describe.
Why would you doubt me? Why would you think I'm lying to you? Once again, I have to ask: Is it because it's me?
Percy, this entire discussion has been unpleasant because you have been unwilling to listen to anybody who dares to contradict you. You have attributed ulterior motives from the get go (note, I said "ulterior," not "nefarious") and have only begrudgingly accepting things might not be the way you thought they were (and even then, I'm not sure that you have.)
quote:
If it's something in my manner that is causing this just let me know what it is and I'll stop.
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you?
Percy, I've been telling you what the problem is for days now. How many times do I have to repeat the point? You're coming from a position of having no experience with the technology you are complaining about. You then don't do your homework regarding that technology. And then when someone who does have the tech tells you how it works, you dismiss them.
What more do you need?
You will note that I am not saying that these things can do anything and everything. You'll recall that there is, indeed, a problem with the idea of a "list" with regard to smartphones. You can set a reminder, but a "list" is something different. There's nothing stopping you from creating a reminder that says to buy the following five things when you make it to the store, but it's just a plain text string. A "list" would imply that you might be able to check off what you've done. Well, with no "list" functionality, the only way you could do that would be to create multiple reminders...a bad thing if you have many of them, especially all at the same place.
So yeah, there are still things that can be done with smart phones. The very first thing I did was note the difficulty of some of what you were asking for and how tech can't do that.
But the example you gave ("remembering what I'm supposed to buy at the supermarket, then reminding me to stop at the supermarket before I drive by, then telling me what to buy") is something that can be done.
As I've told you at least twice previously: The words you are looking for are, "Oops. Perhaps that wasn't the best example."
Why is that so difficult for you? For crying out loud, Percy: Look at this reply to you. I had to completely rehash a dozen posts all because you can't consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, you were wrong.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Percy, posted 11-15-2015 8:30 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 58 of 96 (772560)
11-15-2015 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Percy
11-15-2015 3:07 PM


Re: Picking on a Different Website
Percy writes:
quote:
Oh, and if anyone knows any details about DirecTV over the Internet, I'd be interested in hearing about them.
You mean the great big button labeled "Help Center" next to the icon of a question mark in a blue circle wasn't cutting it for you? On the right side, underneath the main banner, right above the section where you check for eligibility.
Is your browser set to a tiny width again? This time, their page doesn't seem to recognize if it's too narrow and if it is, it doesn't redraw the content to fit. You'd have to scroll. I'll admit that when I look at it on my phone, the button isn't labeled "Help Center," but it still has the big question mark in a blue circle, very obviously being the place I'd go to for help if only I would click on it.
And when you clicked on it (which you didn't), you didn't see the link: "How do I find out if I am eligible to purchase NFLSUNDAYTICKET.TV?"
And when you clicked on that (which you didn't), you didn't see the explanation?
At this time, NFLSUNDAYTICKET.TV is only available to:
  • People who live in multi-unit buildings not serviced by DIRECTV (apartments, condos, high-rise buildings, etc.)
  • People who live in select areas within various metropolitan cities
  • Students currently enrolled in one of our participating four-year universities in the U.S.
  • People who live in a residence that has been verified as unable to receive DIRECTV satellite TV service due to obstructions blocking access to satellite signals or other housing restrictions
It would seem that the reason you aren't eligible is because you don't live at a location they have verified as being incapable of getting DirectTV.
quote:
The OnStar site should have webpages where the kinds of questions I have are addressed, but it doesn't.
Incorrect. It does.
You just didn't deign to pay attention.
Now, I couldn't get it to say no to me despite me using multiple addresses I know can get DirectTV, so I don't know if there is any other link on the rejection page that you were obtusely overlooking that would have done precisely what you asked if only had clicked on the obvious button. But your claim that they don't provide information is trivially shown to be false.
Once again, you're simply not looking.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Percy, posted 11-15-2015 3:07 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Percy, posted 11-16-2015 7:41 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 59 of 96 (772567)
11-16-2015 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Rrhain
11-15-2015 11:40 PM


Re: Picking on a Different Website
I will not respond in kind or at all.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Rrhain, posted 11-15-2015 11:40 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 60 of 96 (772568)
11-16-2015 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Percy
11-15-2015 3:07 PM


Re: Picking on a Different Website
Here's a little more information about the NFL SUNDAY TICKET - 2022 NFL Season - DIRECTV Satellite TV webpage, this time about poor quality.
First using Chrome, if when you first visit the webpage you first click on "Check Eligibility", the link works correctly and brings up an overlay where you can fill in your address. But if you instead click on "Help Center" first (which does nothing, no matter the order of clicking) and then click on "Check Eligibility", the "Check Eligibility" link does nothing. The "Sign in" links also do nothing.
On Firefox, clicking on "Help Center" blanks most of the screen, but clicking on "Sign in" works, bringing up an overlay in which to enter sign-in info. The "Check Eligibility" link works fine.
Internet Explorer is more helpful. When I click on "Help Center" it tells me:
quote:
[Info icon] This content cannot be displayed in a frame
To help protect the security of information you enter into this website, the publisher of this content does not allow it to be displayed in a frame.
What you can try:
  • Open this content in a new window
  • And returning to Chrome and Firefox, holding down the shift key and clicking on "Help Center" brings up the page. Hey, Internet Explorer wins a round.
    On Safari the page is blank, except for the page header.
    So evidently the NFL website has run afoul of some recent security concerns. Possibly this webpage would have worked fine a year or two ago.
    Interesting note about the OnStar website: On Internet Explorer there's no Menu link, no matter the browser width. This is IE version 11.
    The central issue is more than the poor quality, poor organization, poor behavior and insufficient and unclear information at most websites. The issue is the reason behind it. This continues because we put up with it.
    Though I should add that reporting issues/problems about websites/webpages is incredibly difficult. If you get any response at all it's usually to misinterpret what you said into an existing problem that they have a boilerplate response for. Companies today use webpages and help centers and call centers staffed with people who follow scripts and don't know anything. This insulates them from their bothersome customers and perpetuates the problem.
    --Percy

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 56 by Percy, posted 11-15-2015 3:07 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024