My wife ordered a small storage building with home delivery from sears.com in mid October to replace one that was damaged in a thunderstorm.
Two weeks later she called to find out why the shed had not been delivered yet. She spoke with online services who dropped the call trying to transfer her to e-commerce. She called back and her call was dropped *again*. She was finally connected with e-commerce who attempted to pass her back to online services. Can you imagine her mood at this point? It gets worse.
She managed to keep the agent from transferring her and found out that the order had simply not been completed. When he tried to re-establish the request with delivery services he found there were no more available in the warehouses for them to deliver.
To his credit he managed to work a refund and reorder of the same product for home delivery but it encumbered over $600 of our liquid assets until the refund completed processing. I literally had to wait until the refund was deposited to go buy groceries.
She received notice that the shed was to be delivered Monday, November 7. Nobody showed, nobody called, we just didn't have our product. She called to check the status and was given a revised delivery date of Wednesday, November 9. Guess what? Nobody showed up to deliver our shed. Nobody called us. We received no email. We got nothin' just like before.
When my wife called delivery services to find out why our shed had not been delivered she was told the order had been cancelled. When she inquired why, she was told it was cancelled by online services and delivery services had no idea why. After being transferred to online services she was told, by a supervisor, they had no idea why it was cancelled and she needed to talk to delivery services.
This is a completely unacceptable way to do business. Not only are we both quite angry that our hard-earned money has been jockeyed around and we do not have the product we paid for - twice, we are extremely disgusted with the lack of customer service from a company as large as Sears. I thought we were ordering a product from a trustworthy source but that seems not to be the case.
Would I recommend sears.com to a friend, family or colleague? There's not a chance in hell that's going to happen. As a matter of fact, I doubt I will shop at Sears retail locations.
Showing posts with label Scams. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Scams. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 09, 2011
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
More Lawyer BS
Today, I received a second letter in the mail from the law firm of Brown | Jones & Associates, PLLC. The letter starts out like this:
Enclosed with the letter was a business card with a toll-free number on it. I called the number... and got a phone company error tone saying the call could not be completed. I tried again, same thing. Curious.
In the text of the letter was a standard phone number with a Tulsa area code (the law firm address is in Oklahoma City - curious again). I called the number and it just kept ringing until it finally disconnected and gave me the fast busy tone. No answering service. No voice mail.
Still determined to let them know how I feel about their wicked wicked ways I sat down to compose an email. I was going to lead them in with worry then slam it home but that's not how it turned out. It's there a little bit but I still want to back them in to a corner. This is what I wrote:
A few weeks ago, we notified you of a lien that had been filed against you for unpaid medical bills in Payne County.I decided I was going to see this one through. I was going to quiz them on who had filed the lien, how they found out about it, etc. and basically back them into a corner and give them enough rope to hang themselves with.
Enclosed with the letter was a business card with a toll-free number on it. I called the number... and got a phone company error tone saying the call could not be completed. I tried again, same thing. Curious.
In the text of the letter was a standard phone number with a Tulsa area code (the law firm address is in Oklahoma City - curious again). I called the number and it just kept ringing until it finally disconnected and gave me the fast busy tone. No answering service. No voice mail.
Still determined to let them know how I feel about their wicked wicked ways I sat down to compose an email. I was going to lead them in with worry then slam it home but that's not how it turned out. It's there a little bit but I still want to back them in to a corner. This is what I wrote:
I'll keep you updated on how it turns out.I just received a letter from you dated July 12, 2011 that has me deeply concerned. It states that there is a lien filed against me for unpaid medical bills in Payne County. Are you representing the party who has filed the lien? If not, how did you find out about it? I haven't been notified of any liens.Another thing that has me very concerned is that I am unable to contact you via phone. I tried calling 866-xxx-xxxx listed on your business card but all I got was one of those phone company error tones and a recorded message saying my call couldn't be completed. Then I tried 918-xxx-xxxx listed in your letter but nobody answered. I didn't even get a voice mail system. I also find it curious that the address on your card lists an Oklahoma City address but the 918 area code services Tulsa.Please reply to this message and let me know who has filed the lien. I would very much like to clear up this matter.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Sounds Fishy To Me
Prospective Hire,
Our Human Resource Department has briefly reviewed your information for possible employment. The job that is open with our corporation is an administrative vacancy enabling workers to work from their personal work place. This online position pays a base salary of $2,000 each month. Benefits are available following a 90 day probationary period (medical/dental). After being with the company for 12 months, employees will be available to advance to open staff positions.
Brief Tasks: The agent assists the organization by processing transactions from investors and clients alike. Agents will receive funds to their bank on behalf of the organization. The employee then proceeds by processing the transaction in accordance with the company's standard.
Qualifications: The employee must have a cell phone with SMS capabilities, computer with internet access, local transportation to process transactions, bank account, be 18 yrs or older, be a US citizen, and be able to follow directions.
Apply For Vacancy: Open slots are limited. You should respond promptly to ensure you are considered for this position. Respond to this email with your full name, full address, phone number, and a short description of why you would be good for this job. Our staff will follow up with you within the next few days. Please be sure to include all requested information. This will show that you do follow directions very well.
Our Human Resource Department has briefly reviewed your information for possible employment. The job that is open with our corporation is an administrative vacancy enabling workers to work from their personal work place. This online position pays a base salary of $2,000 each month. Benefits are available following a 90 day probationary period (medical/dental). After being with the company for 12 months, employees will be available to advance to open staff positions.
Brief Tasks: The agent assists the organization by processing transactions from investors and clients alike. Agents will receive funds to their bank on behalf of the organization. The employee then proceeds by processing the transaction in accordance with the company's standard.
Qualifications: The employee must have a cell phone with SMS capabilities, computer with internet access, local transportation to process transactions, bank account, be 18 yrs or older, be a US citizen, and be able to follow directions.
Apply For Vacancy: Open slots are limited. You should respond promptly to ensure you are considered for this position. Respond to this email with your full name, full address, phone number, and a short description of why you would be good for this job. Our staff will follow up with you within the next few days. Please be sure to include all requested information. This will show that you do follow directions very well.
Friday, June 04, 2010
I DON'T Have To Have That
My wife came up to visit me in my office at the end of the day today. She came by to tell me that she had just come from the bank and my debit card had been disabled. There were about $700 in charges made at gas stations and a Walgreens in and around Warren, MI. The two largest charges were at Walgreens for $306 and $311. What the hell can you buy at Walgreens that costs that much? I suppose it could be pharmaceuticals but wow.
The bank gave me paperwork I need to file a claim for each transaction. I have to do due diligence and contact the merchants, notify them that it is a fraudulent charge and ask if they will reverse the charge. I have to document what the merchants tell me and what action was taken, if any. What a pain.
My best guess is that my number was somehow captured from an online transaction. I don't use my card very much to begin with and don't shop online with great frequency (I'm too much into that instant gratification thing). When I do use it online, it is with familiar companies such as Amazon, Newegg, etc. I'm pretty sure I know where it happened.
I was cruising the deals.woot list last week and saw a USB cable that had 7 different ends, including iPod, mini and micro USB, Nokia, and Sony-Ericsson. Once I added shipping, the cable was about $7 so I ordered one. The site was called I Have to Have That (ihavetohavethat.com or ihtht.com). I had never ordered from them before but I saw a lot of their deals on the deals.woot list in the past. I didn't even think twice. In fact, I bought some dog biscuits from one of their partner sites a few days later.
My products arrived in a timely manner and I am satisfied with them for what I paid. But that is the only place I have shopped recently that I can even imagine would have skimmed my number. Oddly enough, the charge for the cable hasn't come through yet but the dog biscuits have. Of course, this is the last time I will ever shop I Have to Have That and, in the future, I will always use PayPal if that is an option.
Just because I'm mildly paranoid now, I also went through and changed all of my passwords for email, Facebook, etc. and scanned my systems for viruses.
The bank gave me paperwork I need to file a claim for each transaction. I have to do due diligence and contact the merchants, notify them that it is a fraudulent charge and ask if they will reverse the charge. I have to document what the merchants tell me and what action was taken, if any. What a pain.
My best guess is that my number was somehow captured from an online transaction. I don't use my card very much to begin with and don't shop online with great frequency (I'm too much into that instant gratification thing). When I do use it online, it is with familiar companies such as Amazon, Newegg, etc. I'm pretty sure I know where it happened.
I was cruising the deals.woot list last week and saw a USB cable that had 7 different ends, including iPod, mini and micro USB, Nokia, and Sony-Ericsson. Once I added shipping, the cable was about $7 so I ordered one. The site was called I Have to Have That (ihavetohavethat.com or ihtht.com). I had never ordered from them before but I saw a lot of their deals on the deals.woot list in the past. I didn't even think twice. In fact, I bought some dog biscuits from one of their partner sites a few days later.
My products arrived in a timely manner and I am satisfied with them for what I paid. But that is the only place I have shopped recently that I can even imagine would have skimmed my number. Oddly enough, the charge for the cable hasn't come through yet but the dog biscuits have. Of course, this is the last time I will ever shop I Have to Have That and, in the future, I will always use PayPal if that is an option.
Just because I'm mildly paranoid now, I also went through and changed all of my passwords for email, Facebook, etc. and scanned my systems for viruses.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Bothered
I am in Kansas City for my nephew's graduation. When the day's activities were done we were heading back to our hotel and stopped for gas at a Quik Trip. I filled the tank and the wife went inside to get herself a bottle of milk. When I finished feuling the car, I pulled up into a parking space with the intention of going inside, meeting the wife and getting something for myself. She was waiting for me so I just got out with the intention of going inside on my own.
As I got out of the car a man standing next to his car asked me if I might help him. He didn't appear dangerous or anything so I stepped over. As I did so he raised his hood and started telling me his woes.
He started by saying that he was having trouble with his fuel pump. I thought he was going to ask if I knew anything about how to fix it but he was asking the wrong guy if he needed that. He continued telling me that he was trying to get home to Columbia but didn't know anybody in the area and couldn't get anyone at home on the phone and didn't have money for gas and... He seemed genuinely distressed but acted as if he was just going to keep rambling on. Finally, I asked, "What do you need?"
"Anything. Any help you can give me." and started going through his list again. He mentioned gas 2 or 3 times. I told him all I had was a couple of dollars but he was welcome to it and I handed it over. He thanked me and I went into the store.
As I was walking in, one of the clerks was standing with the door open and was on the phone. I heard her say, "he's in a red cap. Yes. Now he's getting into the car and leaving."
The gentleman I had been talking to (who was wearing a red cap), got into his car, had a bit of trouble starting it, then left. He just left. I got taken.
Now, it doesn't bother me that I got taken for a couple of bucks. It wouldn't have bothered me over $5 or $10. It's just money. I will err on the side of charity every time. What bothers me is that people feel the need to do that to make money. Is he a con man? Is he out of work? Is he really having difficulty but just doesn't want to get hassled by the cops? I just feel like I gave him my money under false pretenses and it just doesn't sit right. I just pray that whatever the reason he is doing this gets resolved and he can go on with life without having to do this.
As I got out of the car a man standing next to his car asked me if I might help him. He didn't appear dangerous or anything so I stepped over. As I did so he raised his hood and started telling me his woes.
He started by saying that he was having trouble with his fuel pump. I thought he was going to ask if I knew anything about how to fix it but he was asking the wrong guy if he needed that. He continued telling me that he was trying to get home to Columbia but didn't know anybody in the area and couldn't get anyone at home on the phone and didn't have money for gas and... He seemed genuinely distressed but acted as if he was just going to keep rambling on. Finally, I asked, "What do you need?"
"Anything. Any help you can give me." and started going through his list again. He mentioned gas 2 or 3 times. I told him all I had was a couple of dollars but he was welcome to it and I handed it over. He thanked me and I went into the store.
As I was walking in, one of the clerks was standing with the door open and was on the phone. I heard her say, "he's in a red cap. Yes. Now he's getting into the car and leaving."
The gentleman I had been talking to (who was wearing a red cap), got into his car, had a bit of trouble starting it, then left. He just left. I got taken.
Now, it doesn't bother me that I got taken for a couple of bucks. It wouldn't have bothered me over $5 or $10. It's just money. I will err on the side of charity every time. What bothers me is that people feel the need to do that to make money. Is he a con man? Is he out of work? Is he really having difficulty but just doesn't want to get hassled by the cops? I just feel like I gave him my money under false pretenses and it just doesn't sit right. I just pray that whatever the reason he is doing this gets resolved and he can go on with life without having to do this.
Friday, January 15, 2010
I Cannot Say This Enough
Digital Rights Management is pure, simple and total BULLSHIT. It doesn't stop anyone from copying any digital content, it punishes the honest and encourages honest people to be dishonest.
I got a copy of Terminator Salvation on Blu Ray for Christmas. It includes a digital copy. This evening I popped the disc in to activate/download the digital copy so I could transfer it to my Zune. There's an activation code and, according to the instructions sheet, it's easy as 1-2-3.
1. Insert the DVD into your computer. 2. When prompted, enter the authorization code. 3. Follow the instructions to get your digital copy.
Step one went as planned and it has just gone to hell from there.
First, I was prompted to choose between an iTunes or Windows Media Player version. A little research and I find that I can't use the WMP version because the Zune isn't a "Play's For Sure" device. (Side note: I've always found it ironic that a Microsoft device is unable to play files in a Microsoft format if it is protected with Microsoft DRM) I decided to choose the iTunes version because there is a chance the Zune will be able to play it and, if not, I'm about 99% sure the iPod can.
Installer: I'm sorry, you don't have iTunes installed.
Me: There's a reason for that. I don't really need it and, frankly, I don't really want it installed.
Installer: Well, if you want the iTunes version of this content you'll need to install iTunes.
I installed iTunes.
iTunes: I see you're trying to activate a digital copy of a movie (iTunes sounds suspiciously like clippy). May I have your activation code, please.
Me: Sure, it's 9N**********
iTunes: Great. Now, may I have your Apple ID so I can verify your code?
Me: I don't think I have an Apple ID.
iTunes: No problem. You can use your AOL screen name and password.
Me: You GOTTA be fracking kidding me. AOL? Really? Didn't they implode, like, ten years ago?
iTunes: Alright, well, you can create an account and you'll have an Apple ID.
Me: What if I don't WANT and Apple ID?
iTunes: Well, if you want the iTunes version of this content you'll need to provide an Apple ID or your AOL screen name.
iTunes: Oh, one more thing. Every time you want to play this file on your computer you will need to give me your ID and password.
Kevin, this one's for you: BULLSHIT! TOTAL BULLSHIT!
I got a copy of Terminator Salvation on Blu Ray for Christmas. It includes a digital copy. This evening I popped the disc in to activate/download the digital copy so I could transfer it to my Zune. There's an activation code and, according to the instructions sheet, it's easy as 1-2-3.
1. Insert the DVD into your computer. 2. When prompted, enter the authorization code. 3. Follow the instructions to get your digital copy.
Step one went as planned and it has just gone to hell from there.
First, I was prompted to choose between an iTunes or Windows Media Player version. A little research and I find that I can't use the WMP version because the Zune isn't a "Play's For Sure" device. (Side note: I've always found it ironic that a Microsoft device is unable to play files in a Microsoft format if it is protected with Microsoft DRM) I decided to choose the iTunes version because there is a chance the Zune will be able to play it and, if not, I'm about 99% sure the iPod can.
Installer: I'm sorry, you don't have iTunes installed.
Me: There's a reason for that. I don't really need it and, frankly, I don't really want it installed.
Installer: Well, if you want the iTunes version of this content you'll need to install iTunes.
I installed iTunes.
iTunes: I see you're trying to activate a digital copy of a movie (iTunes sounds suspiciously like clippy). May I have your activation code, please.
Me: Sure, it's 9N**********
iTunes: Great. Now, may I have your Apple ID so I can verify your code?
Me: I don't think I have an Apple ID.
iTunes: No problem. You can use your AOL screen name and password.
Me: You GOTTA be fracking kidding me. AOL? Really? Didn't they implode, like, ten years ago?
iTunes: Alright, well, you can create an account and you'll have an Apple ID.
Me: What if I don't WANT and Apple ID?
iTunes: Well, if you want the iTunes version of this content you'll need to provide an Apple ID or your AOL screen name.
iTunes: Oh, one more thing. Every time you want to play this file on your computer you will need to give me your ID and password.
Kevin, this one's for you: BULLSHIT! TOTAL BULLSHIT!
Sunday, December 20, 2009
A Picture Is Worth... A Lot, Apparently
We ventured to Oklahoma City yesterday to get our pictures taken at a studio I will not name (unless you email me - I'll tell you in private). I did not pick the studio nor did I make the decision to have our pictures taken. My mother in law decided she wanted pictures of my wife and I as well as her grandchildren, my nephew and nieces.
The photo shoot itself was not bad. Most of the pictures turned out well. The wife and I really liked one of ours, I liked another one (she didn't - something about her bangs) and the others we staged well but there were problems with expressions, position of glasses, etc. The pics of the grandkids were similar. The work was fine, the photographer was nice, but it was what happened after that really shocked us.
I have been to a photo studio semi-recently so I knew we were going to get a sales pitch, they were going to try to upsell us, and they would do some fancy talking such that we didn't realize how much money we were spending. I also knew that outside of a package, photos are sold by the "sheet" and the sheets are priced such that people like us think hard about just how many copies we need of each picture.
It didn't go exactly as I thought it would. The person who took our pictures was the one selling to us. She really needs more practice at it. What I expected was that she would sit down and go over the packages, starting with the largest (almost $400) and working her way down, limiting poses and reducing picture count along the way. She started by going through the pictures with us, showing all of the poses, including some with optional changes such as sepia tone, Christmas cards, frames, etc. What bothered me about that part was that she kept saying, "this is cute," or "I did this to it, which I think is cute." Sorry, I'll be the judge of what is or is not cute.
From there most of what she said was negative-speak, "we can't do that," "no, I'm sorry," "it doesn't work like that," etc. It really shocked me. My mother in law was obviously getting agitated at being told no at every turn and this girl just wouldn't stop. Here's a hint: If you're saying you can't do something, turn it around and offer something you can do before the customer has a chance to get agitated.
We convinced them to let us buy two promotional packages - one with the wife and I and one with the grandkids - that was limited to a single pose each. We had to get a little snippy and remind them that we had booked two appointments for just that reason and it shouldn't matter that all the pictures are in the same folder to get them to do that but they did. We had a coupon for one package at $7.99 and we bought the same package for the other picture at the regular price of $9.99 (despite the photographer trying to tell us that the regularly priced package was different that what was listed on the coupon - it wasn't). We chose a nice picture of my wife and I sitting on the floor with presents around us and a shot of the grandkids in sepia tone. My nephew doesn't usually let himself get in front of the camera so my mother in law also bought a single sheet of wallet prints of him alone for $19.99. This brought us up to $37.97.
Being a digital couple, my wife and I inquired about a studio CD that included digital versions of all of the shots from the session. We quickly declined when they said they wanted to charge us $200 for it. I kind-of understand that because, since they include a print/copyright release, anyone they sell this to is never coming back for more prints.
The photographer went to ring everything up and after about a minute came back to tell us she had forgotten to include the $5 subject fee per package for having more than one person in the shot so that brought us up to $47.97.
I wasn't keeping tabs on the total in my head so when all was said and done I asked my mother in law what the final total was. "It ended up being seventy-four something."
"How did we get to $74?"
"Apparently, there's an 'enhancement' fee [for the sepia print]."
Sheesh. I knew it was going to be hard keeping the price down but I didn't realize that we were going to get nickel-and-dimed to death. I don't go to studios for pictures much but the next time I do I don't think I'll be going back there.
The photo shoot itself was not bad. Most of the pictures turned out well. The wife and I really liked one of ours, I liked another one (she didn't - something about her bangs) and the others we staged well but there were problems with expressions, position of glasses, etc. The pics of the grandkids were similar. The work was fine, the photographer was nice, but it was what happened after that really shocked us.
I have been to a photo studio semi-recently so I knew we were going to get a sales pitch, they were going to try to upsell us, and they would do some fancy talking such that we didn't realize how much money we were spending. I also knew that outside of a package, photos are sold by the "sheet" and the sheets are priced such that people like us think hard about just how many copies we need of each picture.
It didn't go exactly as I thought it would. The person who took our pictures was the one selling to us. She really needs more practice at it. What I expected was that she would sit down and go over the packages, starting with the largest (almost $400) and working her way down, limiting poses and reducing picture count along the way. She started by going through the pictures with us, showing all of the poses, including some with optional changes such as sepia tone, Christmas cards, frames, etc. What bothered me about that part was that she kept saying, "this is cute," or "I did this to it, which I think is cute." Sorry, I'll be the judge of what is or is not cute.
From there most of what she said was negative-speak, "we can't do that," "no, I'm sorry," "it doesn't work like that," etc. It really shocked me. My mother in law was obviously getting agitated at being told no at every turn and this girl just wouldn't stop. Here's a hint: If you're saying you can't do something, turn it around and offer something you can do before the customer has a chance to get agitated.
We convinced them to let us buy two promotional packages - one with the wife and I and one with the grandkids - that was limited to a single pose each. We had to get a little snippy and remind them that we had booked two appointments for just that reason and it shouldn't matter that all the pictures are in the same folder to get them to do that but they did. We had a coupon for one package at $7.99 and we bought the same package for the other picture at the regular price of $9.99 (despite the photographer trying to tell us that the regularly priced package was different that what was listed on the coupon - it wasn't). We chose a nice picture of my wife and I sitting on the floor with presents around us and a shot of the grandkids in sepia tone. My nephew doesn't usually let himself get in front of the camera so my mother in law also bought a single sheet of wallet prints of him alone for $19.99. This brought us up to $37.97.
Being a digital couple, my wife and I inquired about a studio CD that included digital versions of all of the shots from the session. We quickly declined when they said they wanted to charge us $200 for it. I kind-of understand that because, since they include a print/copyright release, anyone they sell this to is never coming back for more prints.
The photographer went to ring everything up and after about a minute came back to tell us she had forgotten to include the $5 subject fee per package for having more than one person in the shot so that brought us up to $47.97.
I wasn't keeping tabs on the total in my head so when all was said and done I asked my mother in law what the final total was. "It ended up being seventy-four something."
"How did we get to $74?"
"Apparently, there's an 'enhancement' fee [for the sepia print]."
Sheesh. I knew it was going to be hard keeping the price down but I didn't realize that we were going to get nickel-and-dimed to death. I don't go to studios for pictures much but the next time I do I don't think I'll be going back there.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Just What I Need!
More bullshit propaganda in my email from a company I don't really want to hear from in the first place.
Assholes.
All I wanted to do was download a couple of ringtones from AT&T.
Assholes.All I wanted to do was download a couple of ringtones from AT&T.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Apparently, It Is Too Much To Ask
Many moons ago, Peter Norton created a product called "Ghost." What Ghost allowed you to do was to create a snapshot, bit-for-bit, of a computer hard drive and store it as what is called an image. The image can then be written back to a hard drive in the case of a catastrophic failure or virus infection and the machine is back to its old self in a matter of minutes instead of hours. The other advantage of this capability is the ability to deploy that image to several other computers.
Let's say you purchase ten computers for your company. For each of those computers, you need to install any updates that have been released since it left the factory as well as the programs your office typically uses such as time clock software, office productivity (spreadsheet, word processing, etc.), customer relationship management, enterprise resource planning, etc. With Ghost, you spend the three or four hours installing updates and software and tweaking the configuration on the first machine. You create your image file from the machine that is done, then deploy the image to the other nine (you can usually deploy to all nine at once). Once you have the first built, it can, potentially, take you less than an hour to have the other nine ready.
Over the years, there have been many other drive imaging solutions introduced (including open source - free - solutions) and products like Ghost have grown into total system management solutions monitoring system status, pushing incremental updates, and even handling disaster recovery with a simple reboot of the client machine. Like many other programs that did something and did it well, Ghost (and several others) has become a bloated bastardization of its old self.
All I need is a product I can have installed on one or more machines that will allow me to plug in a hard drive via USB and either capture or deploy an image. I don't need live system management. I don't even 'need' network deployment. I just need to be able to restore a machine in less than a day (or two).
I have tested some open-source solutions. While they fit the bill operationally, there have been some issues with reliability. Plus, they tend to be slow. I have located a couple of paid products but they seem to be a little big on themselves.
There is a company, Acronis, that provides several different disaster recovery and management tools. They have everything from server-based system management solutions to local drive-to-drive deployment products. For the system management solutions where there is a constant (or at least regular) communication between the host server and the individual workstations, I understand their licensing model. For the drive-to-drive solution, I don't. Basically, you have to purchase a license for each computer you have the software installed on and each computer to which you push an image.
Frankly, that's insane. There's nothing like nickel-and-diming your customers to death. It harkens back to the days when the cable company used to charge a monthly fee per active cable outlet you had in your house, regardless of whether there was a TV connected to it or not. It was a practice they abandoned years ago (I think because they were forced to).
Granted, the licenses for the product I need are not expensive but they add up. To include the ~500 computers we manage, that's over $12,000.00. I would rather pay $500 for the license to install on a host system and deploy as needed than $25 a pop. I'd even be willing to pay $100 for the host and $2.50 per machine imaged. Either way, management would be a nightmare. There's no sense including existing hardware we haven't imaged yet. New machines wouldn't be difficult to include. But then we'd have to keep track of which computers we'd imaged and which we hadn't. I just don't have time for that.
I did find a commercial product that fits my needs but I just don't get that polished vibe off of it. It seems barely better than the open source solutions we've looked at (and it's just about as slow).
Symantec (Norton) still makes a version of Ghost that fulfills my need but they don't sell it as a stand-alone product. It has to be purchased as part of a solution suite. But why would I want to pay for solutions I don't need? Besides, their licensing model is very similar to Acronis'.
Oh for the days when I could go down to the store, buy a CD for each host machine for $100 or so and have it just work.
Let's say you purchase ten computers for your company. For each of those computers, you need to install any updates that have been released since it left the factory as well as the programs your office typically uses such as time clock software, office productivity (spreadsheet, word processing, etc.), customer relationship management, enterprise resource planning, etc. With Ghost, you spend the three or four hours installing updates and software and tweaking the configuration on the first machine. You create your image file from the machine that is done, then deploy the image to the other nine (you can usually deploy to all nine at once). Once you have the first built, it can, potentially, take you less than an hour to have the other nine ready.
Over the years, there have been many other drive imaging solutions introduced (including open source - free - solutions) and products like Ghost have grown into total system management solutions monitoring system status, pushing incremental updates, and even handling disaster recovery with a simple reboot of the client machine. Like many other programs that did something and did it well, Ghost (and several others) has become a bloated bastardization of its old self.
All I need is a product I can have installed on one or more machines that will allow me to plug in a hard drive via USB and either capture or deploy an image. I don't need live system management. I don't even 'need' network deployment. I just need to be able to restore a machine in less than a day (or two).
I have tested some open-source solutions. While they fit the bill operationally, there have been some issues with reliability. Plus, they tend to be slow. I have located a couple of paid products but they seem to be a little big on themselves.
There is a company, Acronis, that provides several different disaster recovery and management tools. They have everything from server-based system management solutions to local drive-to-drive deployment products. For the system management solutions where there is a constant (or at least regular) communication between the host server and the individual workstations, I understand their licensing model. For the drive-to-drive solution, I don't. Basically, you have to purchase a license for each computer you have the software installed on and each computer to which you push an image.
Frankly, that's insane. There's nothing like nickel-and-diming your customers to death. It harkens back to the days when the cable company used to charge a monthly fee per active cable outlet you had in your house, regardless of whether there was a TV connected to it or not. It was a practice they abandoned years ago (I think because they were forced to).
Granted, the licenses for the product I need are not expensive but they add up. To include the ~500 computers we manage, that's over $12,000.00. I would rather pay $500 for the license to install on a host system and deploy as needed than $25 a pop. I'd even be willing to pay $100 for the host and $2.50 per machine imaged. Either way, management would be a nightmare. There's no sense including existing hardware we haven't imaged yet. New machines wouldn't be difficult to include. But then we'd have to keep track of which computers we'd imaged and which we hadn't. I just don't have time for that.
I did find a commercial product that fits my needs but I just don't get that polished vibe off of it. It seems barely better than the open source solutions we've looked at (and it's just about as slow).
Symantec (Norton) still makes a version of Ghost that fulfills my need but they don't sell it as a stand-alone product. It has to be purchased as part of a solution suite. But why would I want to pay for solutions I don't need? Besides, their licensing model is very similar to Acronis'.
Oh for the days when I could go down to the store, buy a CD for each host machine for $100 or so and have it just work.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
The Malicious Anti-Malicious
I have a hard drive from another system that has been infected with the fake virus alert virus/malware. You know, the one that says you have thirty-some infections and click here to download... then it asks you for $35 or something to remove all of these threats (classic protection scheme if you ask me). The system had other issues as well - including something blocking me from installing any anti virus/spyware/malware programs. I ended up connecting it to my computer and scanning it externally.
I recall reading an article several years ago about a test one of the magazines had done on antispyware software (SpyBot Search & Destroy and the like). What they found was that no single product caught all of the spyware they had purposefully infected a test machine with. Whereas multiple anti-virus programs will interfere with each other, they recommended having more than one anti-spyware program. With the level of infection this hard drive had, I decided to take that approach.
There are two tools I currently use and trust for anti-spyware. One is Malware Bytes and the other is the classic SpyBot Search & Destroy. SpyBot is free and always has been. Malwaare Bytes has a free and a paid version. The free version is fully functional as far as scanning and removal but it's locked into a manual mode. You have to manually download updates and manually run scans but it works pretty well. The paid version updates automatically and has a component that watches activity and automatically catches problems. Wanting to take the multiple-attack approach, I downloaded Malware Bytes and SpyBot and a couple of others including one that kept appearing in searches called Malware Removal Bot (MRB).
After an anti-virus scan, I installed and ran Malware Bytes followed by SpyBot. It looked like the drive had been pretty well cleaned by this point but I wanted to continue bombarding it so I launched the installer for MRB. SpyBot popped up and said 'you'd better not'. Knowing how programs of this type can think other programs of this type are trying to infect your system, I went ahead and Googled 'malware removal bot'.
The results were not what I expected. I saw links from scam-online.com with a description of "We Bought It And Tried It. Guess What We Found Out?" and scamreviewsinfo.com saying, "Don't Be Foolish! Learn The Facts About Malware Removal Bot." But when I clicked on them, that's when I got the real surprise. I was taken to the official MRB description and download page. What appears to have happened is that these sites shut down for one reason or another and MRB bought and redirected the domains/links (or they are somehow hijacking them).
I finally clicked on one that gave me the real skinny. According to pcthreat.com, MRB exhibits behavior exactly like the virus that got me started scanning the drive in the first place!
I recall reading an article several years ago about a test one of the magazines had done on antispyware software (SpyBot Search & Destroy and the like). What they found was that no single product caught all of the spyware they had purposefully infected a test machine with. Whereas multiple anti-virus programs will interfere with each other, they recommended having more than one anti-spyware program. With the level of infection this hard drive had, I decided to take that approach.
There are two tools I currently use and trust for anti-spyware. One is Malware Bytes and the other is the classic SpyBot Search & Destroy. SpyBot is free and always has been. Malwaare Bytes has a free and a paid version. The free version is fully functional as far as scanning and removal but it's locked into a manual mode. You have to manually download updates and manually run scans but it works pretty well. The paid version updates automatically and has a component that watches activity and automatically catches problems. Wanting to take the multiple-attack approach, I downloaded Malware Bytes and SpyBot and a couple of others including one that kept appearing in searches called Malware Removal Bot (MRB).
After an anti-virus scan, I installed and ran Malware Bytes followed by SpyBot. It looked like the drive had been pretty well cleaned by this point but I wanted to continue bombarding it so I launched the installer for MRB. SpyBot popped up and said 'you'd better not'. Knowing how programs of this type can think other programs of this type are trying to infect your system, I went ahead and Googled 'malware removal bot'.
The results were not what I expected. I saw links from scam-online.com with a description of "We Bought It And Tried It. Guess What We Found Out?" and scamreviewsinfo.com saying, "Don't Be Foolish! Learn The Facts About Malware Removal Bot." But when I clicked on them, that's when I got the real surprise. I was taken to the official MRB description and download page. What appears to have happened is that these sites shut down for one reason or another and MRB bought and redirected the domains/links (or they are somehow hijacking them).
I finally clicked on one that gave me the real skinny. According to pcthreat.com, MRB exhibits behavior exactly like the virus that got me started scanning the drive in the first place!
Malware Removal Bot (also known as Malware RemovalBot, MalwareRemovalBot, MalwareRemoval Bot) is a malicious anti-spyware software. Malware Removal Bot uses aggressive tactics to scare and trick user’s by displaying fake malware detection reports and fake warning messages so that the user will pay $49.99 to remove these imaginary threats. Malware Removal Bot can cause system crashes, hardware problems, system errors and even computer slowdowns. Malware Removal Bot can appear in the user’s computer system after a fake video codec installation, through email or via a Trojan (like Zlob) and malware. Malware Removal Bot should be deleted as soon as possible!The really scary thing was that there was a banner add immediately below this paragraph to download MRB! (this is why I didn't link directly to the warning) Thank goodness I ran SpyBot first. Watch out for this one, folks.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Pants On Fire
As I do every Thursday night, I was watching Survivor tonight. This season, one of the contestants is 'Coach'. Something has bothered me about Coach since the beginning but I haven't been able to put my finger on it. I thought it was just his arrogance but tonight I finally figured it out. Coach is a pathological liar. I don't mean in the John Lovits on SNL way, I mean in the clinical sense.
I have had the opportunity to know two pathological liars in my life. Both of them had several things in common. They were both very self-assured and arrogant. They had a bravado that they were better than everyone else and nobody could possibly argue that. If you did something well, they always did it better - whether or not they actually could. There was always something not quite right about their stories that was usually just far enough outside the realm of possibility. Not physical possibility but you just couldn't see them in that particular situation. They also told the stories as if they didn't quite believe it themselves.
Sometimes, the lies were outright transparent (like the one who had said he was a highly accomplished martial artist who had been trained by Jackie Chan). If they were called on one of their lies, they always had some excuse or another lie to explain why they couldn't provide any proof (like a severe back injury on another job they probably didn't have that now prevents them from practicing their craft). The thing about their lies, however, was there was often a kernel of truth.
Coach outed himself three times in tonight's episode. The first was the campfire story. The kernel of truth: he probably does kayak and white water rafting. The lies: He was kayaking down the Amazon having been dropped off by a military helicopter (that literally dropped him). He didn't pay anything to hitch a ride on a military transport because he 'pulled a few strings'. He was captured by "indigenous" tribesmen who were "four, four and a half feet tall" with their "bows and arrows drawn." The tribesmen tied him up and beat him severely several times but he managed to slip the bonds, escape and paddle his kayak "like hell" until his hands bled to escape.
Story number two: His morning exercises are an ancient form of martial arts that is only passed down by oral teachings and must be learned directly from the monks in their far Eastern monastery. The kernel of truth: That form of martial arts probably does exist and is probably only taught by monks in a secluded monastery. The lie: That what he was doing was that form of martial arts and that he ipso facto learned it from said monks. It just looked like some form of Tai Chi to me... and not a good one at that (but I didn't see the raw footage of it, just the edited version).
Story number three: The embelishment of the campfire story at Tribal Council. The kernel of truth: There was none. He had to add something for the new audience member (Jeff Probst). The lie: That the event was actually much more horrific than he originally told it and that the tribesment were "staring at [his] ass talking about eating [his] ass."
Do you see what I mean? I believe it is possible that someone could be captured and tortured by a jungle tribe but Coach was not one of them. He's too healthy and well adjusted (if you can call him well adjusted) for something like that to have happened.
And, by the way, Coach, if you just happen to read this, I challenge you to prove me wrong. Send me an email (the link is in the right sidebar), I'll email you my phone number, and you can give me all the sordid details. If you convince me, I'll happily and publicly retract every statement I've made about you in this post.
Addendum: A comment someone left reminded me of one point about pathological liars that I forgot to mention. They believe that what they are telling you is the God's honest truth. I couldn't say for sure but I'd be willing to bet it would pass a polygraph. Oh, yeah, and who wants to bet he's not actually a symphony conductor? (that's one's believable but in light of the other stuff, it is now thrown into serious doubt)
I have had the opportunity to know two pathological liars in my life. Both of them had several things in common. They were both very self-assured and arrogant. They had a bravado that they were better than everyone else and nobody could possibly argue that. If you did something well, they always did it better - whether or not they actually could. There was always something not quite right about their stories that was usually just far enough outside the realm of possibility. Not physical possibility but you just couldn't see them in that particular situation. They also told the stories as if they didn't quite believe it themselves.
Sometimes, the lies were outright transparent (like the one who had said he was a highly accomplished martial artist who had been trained by Jackie Chan). If they were called on one of their lies, they always had some excuse or another lie to explain why they couldn't provide any proof (like a severe back injury on another job they probably didn't have that now prevents them from practicing their craft). The thing about their lies, however, was there was often a kernel of truth.
Coach outed himself three times in tonight's episode. The first was the campfire story. The kernel of truth: he probably does kayak and white water rafting. The lies: He was kayaking down the Amazon having been dropped off by a military helicopter (that literally dropped him). He didn't pay anything to hitch a ride on a military transport because he 'pulled a few strings'. He was captured by "indigenous" tribesmen who were "four, four and a half feet tall" with their "bows and arrows drawn." The tribesmen tied him up and beat him severely several times but he managed to slip the bonds, escape and paddle his kayak "like hell" until his hands bled to escape.
Story number two: His morning exercises are an ancient form of martial arts that is only passed down by oral teachings and must be learned directly from the monks in their far Eastern monastery. The kernel of truth: That form of martial arts probably does exist and is probably only taught by monks in a secluded monastery. The lie: That what he was doing was that form of martial arts and that he ipso facto learned it from said monks. It just looked like some form of Tai Chi to me... and not a good one at that (but I didn't see the raw footage of it, just the edited version).
Story number three: The embelishment of the campfire story at Tribal Council. The kernel of truth: There was none. He had to add something for the new audience member (Jeff Probst). The lie: That the event was actually much more horrific than he originally told it and that the tribesment were "staring at [his] ass talking about eating [his] ass."
Do you see what I mean? I believe it is possible that someone could be captured and tortured by a jungle tribe but Coach was not one of them. He's too healthy and well adjusted (if you can call him well adjusted) for something like that to have happened.
And, by the way, Coach, if you just happen to read this, I challenge you to prove me wrong. Send me an email (the link is in the right sidebar), I'll email you my phone number, and you can give me all the sordid details. If you convince me, I'll happily and publicly retract every statement I've made about you in this post.
Addendum: A comment someone left reminded me of one point about pathological liars that I forgot to mention. They believe that what they are telling you is the God's honest truth. I couldn't say for sure but I'd be willing to bet it would pass a polygraph. Oh, yeah, and who wants to bet he's not actually a symphony conductor? (that's one's believable but in light of the other stuff, it is now thrown into serious doubt)
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Wal Mart - The Evil Empire
Apparently, Wal Mart will match any competitor's price, but not if the competitor is themselves.
Yesterday, my wife purchased a 4GB MicroSDHC flash memory card at our local Wal Mart for me to use in my phone. She paid $20.88 plus tax.
The price wasn't unreasonable but, knowing that she probably overpaid, I did a little poking around on the internet and, to my surprise, I found the same product for $14.84... at walmart.com.
I took the card back to our local store and requested a price adjustment. I was refused. I returned the card for a full refund. Apparently, Wal Mart's policy is that they would rather lose $20.88 instead of $6.04 and would also prefer to create ill will with its customers. The excuse that I was given was that, "the internet prices are separate from the store prices."
I was shocked. The page does not clearly state that the price is a web-only price. In fact, it noted that the item was available at my local store. I figure that any reasonable person would believe that the price advertised on the web would be the same as at the store or would at least be honored at the store. Wal Mart price matches, don't they? (I'm calling bullshit on that policy, by the way)
When I got home, I re-examined the page. It was only then that I saw at the bottom of the page past the big, bold, red price; past the notification that this item is in stock at my local store; past the suggestive sales in the "you might also like" section; past the item description and specifications; past the customer reviews; past the Q&A/FAQ section; past the second suggestive sales section under the "people who viewed this item also viewed" heading; past the gifting options; and finally past the payment options which include a suggestion to get the Wal Mart credit card as well as a "bill me later" option; this:
I have sent a comment to the corporate office. I had thought about filing a complaint with the FTC but thought I should give them a chance to respond first. I told them that if they don't respond to me by Wednesday, I will file the complaint... and I fully intend to do so.
My biggest problem with this is that they have a minor monopoly in my town because there are no other stores of their class or type (i.e. Target, K-Mart, etc.). A boycott would simply be unsustainable. There are too many products for which I rely on them to provide. This will, however, make me start looking for alternatives (going to Braum's for milk, for instance).
Yesterday, my wife purchased a 4GB MicroSDHC flash memory card at our local Wal Mart for me to use in my phone. She paid $20.88 plus tax.
The price wasn't unreasonable but, knowing that she probably overpaid, I did a little poking around on the internet and, to my surprise, I found the same product for $14.84... at walmart.com.
I took the card back to our local store and requested a price adjustment. I was refused. I returned the card for a full refund. Apparently, Wal Mart's policy is that they would rather lose $20.88 instead of $6.04 and would also prefer to create ill will with its customers. The excuse that I was given was that, "the internet prices are separate from the store prices."
I was shocked. The page does not clearly state that the price is a web-only price. In fact, it noted that the item was available at my local store. I figure that any reasonable person would believe that the price advertised on the web would be the same as at the store or would at least be honored at the store. Wal Mart price matches, don't they? (I'm calling bullshit on that policy, by the way)
When I got home, I re-examined the page. It was only then that I saw at the bottom of the page past the big, bold, red price; past the notification that this item is in stock at my local store; past the suggestive sales in the "you might also like" section; past the item description and specifications; past the customer reviews; past the Q&A/FAQ section; past the second suggestive sales section under the "people who viewed this item also viewed" heading; past the gifting options; and finally past the payment options which include a suggestion to get the Wal Mart credit card as well as a "bill me later" option; this:
Yeah. that's a reasonable placement. I always scroll all the way to the bottom of a web page to make double double sure that the price is correct and will be honored. Again, I point you to the argument of what a reasonable person would do.About Our PricesWe strive to provide you with the lowest prices possible on Walmart.com as well as in our stores. However, sometimes a price online does not match the price in a store. Walmart.com's prices may be either higher or lower than local store prices. Our local stores do not honor Walmart.com pricing or competitor advertisements from outside of a store's local trade territory.
I have sent a comment to the corporate office. I had thought about filing a complaint with the FTC but thought I should give them a chance to respond first. I told them that if they don't respond to me by Wednesday, I will file the complaint... and I fully intend to do so.
My biggest problem with this is that they have a minor monopoly in my town because there are no other stores of their class or type (i.e. Target, K-Mart, etc.). A boycott would simply be unsustainable. There are too many products for which I rely on them to provide. This will, however, make me start looking for alternatives (going to Braum's for milk, for instance).
Sunday, December 07, 2008
How Do You Win This Contest Again?
As you know, I've been posting several entries for the HP Magic giveaway. The rules vary by site as do the method of choosing a winner. Imagine that one of the entry methods is to create a how-to or What Is article about ANY subject. The winner is the one who gets the most comments. Sounds easy, right?
Those are the conditions placed on the contest by Chris Pirillo. The method of entry is to send him the article, he posts it, then you notify all your friends and have them notify their friends, etc. and get all that comment love going. But that's really difficult to do when the contest official won't post your article.
I submitted an entry for this contest the day it opened on his site, December 4th. As of this writing, more than 72 hours after submission, my article still has not been posted. Yo, Chris, what's up with that?
I sent him an email and all I got back was "I believe it's in the queue." I don't want to sound like a greedy bastard but I would like to know more about his process so that I have an idea when my article will get posted. I'm getting a little miffed. My chances of actually winning on any site to which I submit an entry are pretty slim but I would at least like to have a shot at it.
His contest closes on the 10th. I submitted early with the hope of maximizing my exposure. Looks like it's not going to happen.
I thought about complaining to HP but the fine print says they're not responsible for how any of the sites run their contests. About the only good it would do is that they might not include him in their next contest. I doubt that since he has such wide exposure. [/rant]
Those are the conditions placed on the contest by Chris Pirillo. The method of entry is to send him the article, he posts it, then you notify all your friends and have them notify their friends, etc. and get all that comment love going. But that's really difficult to do when the contest official won't post your article.
I submitted an entry for this contest the day it opened on his site, December 4th. As of this writing, more than 72 hours after submission, my article still has not been posted. Yo, Chris, what's up with that?
I sent him an email and all I got back was "I believe it's in the queue." I don't want to sound like a greedy bastard but I would like to know more about his process so that I have an idea when my article will get posted. I'm getting a little miffed. My chances of actually winning on any site to which I submit an entry are pretty slim but I would at least like to have a shot at it.
His contest closes on the 10th. I submitted early with the hope of maximizing my exposure. Looks like it's not going to happen.
I thought about complaining to HP but the fine print says they're not responsible for how any of the sites run their contests. About the only good it would do is that they might not include him in their next contest. I doubt that since he has such wide exposure. [/rant]
Monday, July 28, 2008
Ready to Drop Kick DirecTV
I have had cable, Dish Network and most recently DirecTV. Of the three, I have been least impressed with the service from DirecTV. They go offline due to weather or other conditions more often than Dish ever did and their customer service is mediocre at best. The only reason I'm still with them is they have the lowest priced package that includes the channels we most often watch.
That may change soon.
I have two ReplayTV DVR units. I have had them for about four years and never had a lick of trouble with them until recently.
Problem #1 - Somehow the channel guide data coming from DirecTV causes the ReplayTV units to reset (reboot) when you hit the right key combinations (like, the up key) while browsing the channel guide. This started about 3 months ago. I've managed to change my browsing habits to avoid this... but it doesn't always work.
Problem #2, which may be the proverbial 2-ton lead weight that broke the camel's back (yeah, it's that big of a deal), my ReplayTV may turn into a boat anchor on August 2nd.
What does that have to do with DirecTV? Well, if you go to replaytv.com, you're presented with a page saying ReplayTV is now part of DirecTV. The problem is that even though a recent payment has been made (7/25 in my case), the activation only reads good until 8/2. When the RTV unit tries to connect to the mother ship to update the activation, the mother ship doesn't answer - it has apparently left orbit.
Positive speculation is that it's a DNS issue or some delay related to the transfer of assets.
Negative speculation: "We're Boned!"
I'm gonna be REAL PISSED if my DVRs go belly up with no notice - especially since they just took my money.
-----------------------------------------------
UPDATE 7-29-2008 3:33pm - It appears that ReplayTV is answering the phone, is aware of the problem, and is working to fix it.
That may change soon.
I have two ReplayTV DVR units. I have had them for about four years and never had a lick of trouble with them until recently.
Problem #1 - Somehow the channel guide data coming from DirecTV causes the ReplayTV units to reset (reboot) when you hit the right key combinations (like, the up key) while browsing the channel guide. This started about 3 months ago. I've managed to change my browsing habits to avoid this... but it doesn't always work.
Problem #2, which may be the proverbial 2-ton lead weight that broke the camel's back (yeah, it's that big of a deal), my ReplayTV may turn into a boat anchor on August 2nd.
What does that have to do with DirecTV? Well, if you go to replaytv.com, you're presented with a page saying ReplayTV is now part of DirecTV. The problem is that even though a recent payment has been made (7/25 in my case), the activation only reads good until 8/2. When the RTV unit tries to connect to the mother ship to update the activation, the mother ship doesn't answer - it has apparently left orbit.
Positive speculation is that it's a DNS issue or some delay related to the transfer of assets.
Negative speculation: "We're Boned!"
I'm gonna be REAL PISSED if my DVRs go belly up with no notice - especially since they just took my money.
-----------------------------------------------
UPDATE 7-29-2008 3:33pm - It appears that ReplayTV is answering the phone, is aware of the problem, and is working to fix it.
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
We Don't Go To Ravenholm Taco Bell Anymore
Taco Bell is the most anti-customer service corporation it has ever been my displeasure to visit. Consistency requires effort and Taco Bell must place high emphasis on delivering terrible customer service. At first, I thought my difficulty was limited to the restaurant located in Stillwater, OK but tonight I discovered that the negative experience is apparently a corporate mandate.
Let me take you back a few years. It's lunchtime and we decide to visit Taco Bell in Stillwater. We walk in and we're third in line. Curiously, nobody was manning the front counter. This did not surprise me as there are several reasons someone might step away from the counter to assist a customer. The only problem was that all of us were standing there for several minutes before the attendant returned to take the order of the person at the head of the line. Once the order was placed, the attendant disappeared for several more minutes with no explanation.
After another couple of minutes, the line had grown by two or three more groups and I had grown impatient. Loud enough for the employees to hear me, I wondered why no one was attending the front counter at lunch time and when we might expect to have someone take our order. I was met with a rather angry reply from behind the counter that the system would not allow them to process more than a few orders at a time or it would crash. I observed that the drive through seemed to be operating smoothly and was informed that they were different systems. At which time I suggested that our orders be handled at the drive through register. This was met with another excuse and our group, as well as a couple of others, decided to make our exit. I have returned to the Taco Bell in Stillwater only once in the six years since this incident.
Tonight, we decided on Taco Bell for dinner so we visited the location on Broadway Avenue in Boise, ID. I entered the drive-through and sat for five minutes before the line moved forward. I then sat for another five minutes before the vehicle at the window drove off. Curiously, the vehicle in front of me at the menu board did not move. I watched for another three minutes while the vehicle sat at the menu board but did not appear to have ordered. Eventually, she moved forward to the window and I pulled up to the speaker... there was silence. I continued my observation of the vehicle in front of me which eventually drove away.
I waited at the speaker another minute or so with no acknowledgment, then pulled to the window as the previous vehicle had done. When no one acknowledged my presence, I honked the horn... and was met with blank stares. I continued to honk but no one came to the window. I finally drove around, parked and entered the restaurant.
When someone finally came to the register, I asked if she was the manager. She answered in the affirmative so I asked, calmly, if she could explain why I waited in the drive through line for twenty minutes without being acknowledged? She mentioned something about changing out cash drawers, a $50 order at the front, and some other nonsense that I frankly didn't care about because there is no excuse for ignoring customers.
Let me repeat that... THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR IGNORING CUSTOMERS!
At this point, I asked her if she had a comment card or a customer service number that I could call. She walked away, as if dismissing me, and hollered toward the back, "Donna (not her real name), would you come deal with this guy?"
As I waited for "Donna," I noticed that right on the front of the registers was a customer service number. What would have been so hard about pointing that out to me? Anyway, the general manager finally appeared and gave me a similar story about what had happened but offered little in the way of an apology. I told her that she should, perhaps, re-examine the processes they follow in order to ensure that this doesn't happen again. She informed me that she is unable to change how the exchange of cash drawers is handled because the process is a function of software in the register. She missed my point and we had a two minute discussion on how the cash drawer switch requires "only a couple of minutes" to complete. It was then that I started going through her excuses point-by-point. Finally, she acquiesced that someone should have at least acknowledged me (and the other person who drove off) and she would find out why that happened. At no point during the conversation did she inquire as to whether or not I still wanted to place an order.
Don't ask me to go to Taco Bell with you. My answer is no.
Let me take you back a few years. It's lunchtime and we decide to visit Taco Bell in Stillwater. We walk in and we're third in line. Curiously, nobody was manning the front counter. This did not surprise me as there are several reasons someone might step away from the counter to assist a customer. The only problem was that all of us were standing there for several minutes before the attendant returned to take the order of the person at the head of the line. Once the order was placed, the attendant disappeared for several more minutes with no explanation.
After another couple of minutes, the line had grown by two or three more groups and I had grown impatient. Loud enough for the employees to hear me, I wondered why no one was attending the front counter at lunch time and when we might expect to have someone take our order. I was met with a rather angry reply from behind the counter that the system would not allow them to process more than a few orders at a time or it would crash. I observed that the drive through seemed to be operating smoothly and was informed that they were different systems. At which time I suggested that our orders be handled at the drive through register. This was met with another excuse and our group, as well as a couple of others, decided to make our exit. I have returned to the Taco Bell in Stillwater only once in the six years since this incident.
Tonight, we decided on Taco Bell for dinner so we visited the location on Broadway Avenue in Boise, ID. I entered the drive-through and sat for five minutes before the line moved forward. I then sat for another five minutes before the vehicle at the window drove off. Curiously, the vehicle in front of me at the menu board did not move. I watched for another three minutes while the vehicle sat at the menu board but did not appear to have ordered. Eventually, she moved forward to the window and I pulled up to the speaker... there was silence. I continued my observation of the vehicle in front of me which eventually drove away.
I waited at the speaker another minute or so with no acknowledgment, then pulled to the window as the previous vehicle had done. When no one acknowledged my presence, I honked the horn... and was met with blank stares. I continued to honk but no one came to the window. I finally drove around, parked and entered the restaurant.
When someone finally came to the register, I asked if she was the manager. She answered in the affirmative so I asked, calmly, if she could explain why I waited in the drive through line for twenty minutes without being acknowledged? She mentioned something about changing out cash drawers, a $50 order at the front, and some other nonsense that I frankly didn't care about because there is no excuse for ignoring customers.
Let me repeat that... THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR IGNORING CUSTOMERS!
At this point, I asked her if she had a comment card or a customer service number that I could call. She walked away, as if dismissing me, and hollered toward the back, "Donna (not her real name), would you come deal with this guy?"
As I waited for "Donna," I noticed that right on the front of the registers was a customer service number. What would have been so hard about pointing that out to me? Anyway, the general manager finally appeared and gave me a similar story about what had happened but offered little in the way of an apology. I told her that she should, perhaps, re-examine the processes they follow in order to ensure that this doesn't happen again. She informed me that she is unable to change how the exchange of cash drawers is handled because the process is a function of software in the register. She missed my point and we had a two minute discussion on how the cash drawer switch requires "only a couple of minutes" to complete. It was then that I started going through her excuses point-by-point. Finally, she acquiesced that someone should have at least acknowledged me (and the other person who drove off) and she would find out why that happened. At no point during the conversation did she inquire as to whether or not I still wanted to place an order.
Don't ask me to go to Taco Bell with you. My answer is no.
Friday, July 13, 2007
The RIAA Will Kill The Music Industry
A long time ago, seemingly in a galaxy far away, a man named Marconi discovered that you could detect invisible electronic impulses floating around in the air and, if you modulated the amplitude (and later the frequency) of these impulses, they made sound. It was called radio. Thanks to a man named Edison, who had figured out how to capture sound on a wax (and later vinyl) disc, there was something to share using this new invention.
As it grew, one of the primary uses of radio was to sell records. Artists, managers and record companies knew that if you weren't on the radio, the records didn't sell. They also knew that if you were on the radio a lot and the DJ told all of his listeners over and over that the music was good, the records sold very very well (today, we call this the boy-band effect). This led to its own set of problems but the basic truth was that if the general public heard the music, they would buy the music.
Today, the recording industry has changed as have the delivery methods for recorded media. But that basic truth still stands: If you play it, they will buy.
Recently, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), a trade group consisting of a large number of private corporate entities such as record labels and distributors, who create and distribute about 90% of recorded music sold in the US*, went after internet radio. "[A] new royalty structure was enacted by the Copyright Review Board in March" under which "webcasters will have to pay a flat fee per song streamed on a per-user basis, along with a $500-per-channel annual administrative fee. In addition, the royalties are retroactive to January 2006 and are scheduled to double by 2011."**
Let's add that up. Let's assume you have a listener base of 200 people at any given time and the fee is 8 cents per song per user. For every song you play, you have to pay the artists $16.00 (.08 * 200). This is on top of the licensing fee you're already paying to the composers - the same (and only) fee traditional radio stations pay. Now, let's assume you play 10 songs per hour. That's $160.00 per hour you pay in royalty fees. The system is completely automated so you're on 24 hours a day which comes out to $3,840.00 per day which translates into $1,401,600.00 per year. The fees are due October 20 and are retroactive to 1998. It's no wonder that several radio stations that used to stream their content have stopped doing so and several small and public stations have shut down altogether.
Remember the rule? Airplay = Profits. By imposing this fee structure - which I have to wonder about the ethical, legal and moral implications of letting a trade group dictate public policy - the RIAA and the Copyright Royalty Board are reducing the number of outlets where people can listen to music.
Now, it appears that the RIAA is going after satellite radio.
When does it end? When does the RIAA finally stop ignoring the constitutionality of due process and the legal copyright issues of fair use and home recording? When will this trade group be told they are no longer allowed to create laws - only Congress can do that? When do the McCarthyistic tactics of the RIAA, whether attacking private or commercial interests, finally cause enough of an outcry that the world finally says to them, "Have you no sense of decency? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
-------------------------------------
* Source: Wikipedia
** Source: ars technica
As it grew, one of the primary uses of radio was to sell records. Artists, managers and record companies knew that if you weren't on the radio, the records didn't sell. They also knew that if you were on the radio a lot and the DJ told all of his listeners over and over that the music was good, the records sold very very well (today, we call this the boy-band effect). This led to its own set of problems but the basic truth was that if the general public heard the music, they would buy the music.
Today, the recording industry has changed as have the delivery methods for recorded media. But that basic truth still stands: If you play it, they will buy.
Recently, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), a trade group consisting of a large number of private corporate entities such as record labels and distributors, who create and distribute about 90% of recorded music sold in the US*, went after internet radio. "[A] new royalty structure was enacted by the Copyright Review Board in March" under which "webcasters will have to pay a flat fee per song streamed on a per-user basis, along with a $500-per-channel annual administrative fee. In addition, the royalties are retroactive to January 2006 and are scheduled to double by 2011."**
Let's add that up. Let's assume you have a listener base of 200 people at any given time and the fee is 8 cents per song per user. For every song you play, you have to pay the artists $16.00 (.08 * 200). This is on top of the licensing fee you're already paying to the composers - the same (and only) fee traditional radio stations pay. Now, let's assume you play 10 songs per hour. That's $160.00 per hour you pay in royalty fees. The system is completely automated so you're on 24 hours a day which comes out to $3,840.00 per day which translates into $1,401,600.00 per year. The fees are due October 20 and are retroactive to 1998. It's no wonder that several radio stations that used to stream their content have stopped doing so and several small and public stations have shut down altogether.
Remember the rule? Airplay = Profits. By imposing this fee structure - which I have to wonder about the ethical, legal and moral implications of letting a trade group dictate public policy - the RIAA and the Copyright Royalty Board are reducing the number of outlets where people can listen to music.
Now, it appears that the RIAA is going after satellite radio.
When does it end? When does the RIAA finally stop ignoring the constitutionality of due process and the legal copyright issues of fair use and home recording? When will this trade group be told they are no longer allowed to create laws - only Congress can do that? When do the McCarthyistic tactics of the RIAA, whether attacking private or commercial interests, finally cause enough of an outcry that the world finally says to them, "Have you no sense of decency? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
-------------------------------------
* Source: Wikipedia
** Source: ars technica
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
They're Getting Braver
I received one of those bogus "update your account information" phishing emails, ostensibly from PayPal. I knew it was a fake because it started out with "Dear valued PayPal member." If it's legitimate, the email will start with your name.
Usually when you view these things, the text of the link looks like it is a valid paypal.com page. When you hover over the link, however, the URL that appears in the status bar at the bottom is anything but a paypal.com page. This last one takes the cake. They're not even trying to hide that it's not a valid PayPal page. Take a look (it's just a screenshot and not clickable).
I guess the identity thieves just don't care to hide so much anymore.
Usually when you view these things, the text of the link looks like it is a valid paypal.com page. When you hover over the link, however, the URL that appears in the status bar at the bottom is anything but a paypal.com page. This last one takes the cake. They're not even trying to hide that it's not a valid PayPal page. Take a look (it's just a screenshot and not clickable).
I guess the identity thieves just don't care to hide so much anymore.
Monday, July 09, 2007
TANSTAAFL*
In my search for permanent full-time employment, I was enticed by an add on Careerbuilder.com entitled "Microsoft/Cisco Internships - $30,000 to $72,000." The advertisement basically stated that they would pay to train you, then place you in an internship paying $30,000 to $72,000 per year.
I received a call today that I had been conditionally accepted and an application packet was being sent via email. The call ended with, "be sure to read the disclaimer." Oh, I read it alright.
The first thing they hit you with is the internship will "give you the technical skills, certification and work experience to fast track your career to mid to senior level positions making $60,000 to over $100,000 per year...." Then they boast that, "If you are accepted, we will invest over $15,000 in...training."
Translation: You can make a lot of money and we're going to invest a lot of money in training... just because you're such a good guy!
Then, you find out that "your compensation and position will be determined by your performance during your remote training and the 1 week LAN/WAN engineer camp." All but the top individual (1 person) will receive $2,500/month during the first nine months of the internship. Top dog gets $3,000/month. Bottom half jumps up to $4,000/month for the last three months, top half jumps to $5,000/month and top dog gets $6,000/month. That doesn't sound so bad until you think that, as top of your class with ten certifications under your belt, over the course of twelve months, you gross $45,000 (that's a far cry from $72,000). If you're in the bottom half of the class, that plummets to $34,500.
Keep in mind, also, two things here. First, chances are you will be contractually obligated to complete a year of servitude to this company. You become VERY cheap labor. Second, when the internship has completed and you have served your twelve months, they are under no further obligation to you. The assumption is that you will be highly certified and have a year of experience, which makes you a highly desirable candidate, but that does not guarantee that you'll be offered a job. You could still end up flipping burgers. Not that there's anything wrong with that but chances are you won't be grossing $60K-$100K+ performing the duties of that job.
Continuing with the pitch, they outline the training program. You will be given six weeks of remote training, followed by 12 weeks more of remote training, (both of which are self-paced, self-study??) then a one week "intensive, full immersion LAN/WAN engineer camp." Now, that's nineteen weeks of training you will be put through and won't be paid a dime for. Yes, that's approximately five months with zero income from the program.
Next, just in case you've figured that out before flipping the page, they reinforce you with greed by telling you about career opportunities and job growth statistics. I skipped that section.
So, how's this really going to work? Well, first, you have to fill out an application and fax it back to us with your credit card information so we can process the $95 application fee. They do say the fee is "fully refundable if you are not accepted." Of course you're going to be accepted...there's more to this journey.
"Candidates initially accepted will receive 6 weeks of network administrator remote training valued at $3,995 for FREE." Hmmmm...that looks like a four letter word to me. Oh, look. After the initial six weeks, I can cancel the relationship with no additional obligation. So, if I'm satisfied with training that gets me certified as an MCP, MCSA 2003, MCSA Messaging and a CMNA, I can just walk away...The $3,995 worth of training is mine to keep as their FREE gift.
Wait, there's fine print... "Please note that you will be responsible for the following hard costs: Registration and setup fee of $295, shipping and handling fee of $49, Microsoft certification exam fees of $125 per exam for 4 exams and the CMNA hands-on exam at $250." Wow, that's $1,189 (including the $95 application fee) for my "FREE" training. ... Interesting, when I go back a read that sentence, it does not say that I am responsible for those costs only if I cancel. I wonder if everyone has to pay for their FREE training?
So, what happens next? "Within 2-24 weeks of...completion of the...camp and full certification, you will be assigned to a...partner...in your region." 2 to 24 weeks!? If I factor in the 19 weeks of training, that's potentially approximately eleven months with no income from the program.
That's a hell of an expensive "paid" internship.
------------------------------------------------------------
*There Aint No Such Thing As A Free Lunch (Robert A. Heinlein)
I received a call today that I had been conditionally accepted and an application packet was being sent via email. The call ended with, "be sure to read the disclaimer." Oh, I read it alright.
The first thing they hit you with is the internship will "give you the technical skills, certification and work experience to fast track your career to mid to senior level positions making $60,000 to over $100,000 per year...." Then they boast that, "If you are accepted, we will invest over $15,000 in...training."
Translation: You can make a lot of money and we're going to invest a lot of money in training... just because you're such a good guy!
Then, you find out that "your compensation and position will be determined by your performance during your remote training and the 1 week LAN/WAN engineer camp." All but the top individual (1 person) will receive $2,500/month during the first nine months of the internship. Top dog gets $3,000/month. Bottom half jumps up to $4,000/month for the last three months, top half jumps to $5,000/month and top dog gets $6,000/month. That doesn't sound so bad until you think that, as top of your class with ten certifications under your belt, over the course of twelve months, you gross $45,000 (that's a far cry from $72,000). If you're in the bottom half of the class, that plummets to $34,500.
Keep in mind, also, two things here. First, chances are you will be contractually obligated to complete a year of servitude to this company. You become VERY cheap labor. Second, when the internship has completed and you have served your twelve months, they are under no further obligation to you. The assumption is that you will be highly certified and have a year of experience, which makes you a highly desirable candidate, but that does not guarantee that you'll be offered a job. You could still end up flipping burgers. Not that there's anything wrong with that but chances are you won't be grossing $60K-$100K+ performing the duties of that job.
Continuing with the pitch, they outline the training program. You will be given six weeks of remote training, followed by 12 weeks more of remote training, (both of which are self-paced, self-study??) then a one week "intensive, full immersion LAN/WAN engineer camp." Now, that's nineteen weeks of training you will be put through and won't be paid a dime for. Yes, that's approximately five months with zero income from the program.
Next, just in case you've figured that out before flipping the page, they reinforce you with greed by telling you about career opportunities and job growth statistics. I skipped that section.
So, how's this really going to work? Well, first, you have to fill out an application and fax it back to us with your credit card information so we can process the $95 application fee. They do say the fee is "fully refundable if you are not accepted." Of course you're going to be accepted...there's more to this journey.
"Candidates initially accepted will receive 6 weeks of network administrator remote training valued at $3,995 for FREE." Hmmmm...that looks like a four letter word to me. Oh, look. After the initial six weeks, I can cancel the relationship with no additional obligation. So, if I'm satisfied with training that gets me certified as an MCP, MCSA 2003, MCSA Messaging and a CMNA, I can just walk away...The $3,995 worth of training is mine to keep as their FREE gift.
Wait, there's fine print... "Please note that you will be responsible for the following hard costs: Registration and setup fee of $295, shipping and handling fee of $49, Microsoft certification exam fees of $125 per exam for 4 exams and the CMNA hands-on exam at $250." Wow, that's $1,189 (including the $95 application fee) for my "FREE" training. ... Interesting, when I go back a read that sentence, it does not say that I am responsible for those costs only if I cancel. I wonder if everyone has to pay for their FREE training?
So, what happens next? "Within 2-24 weeks of...completion of the...camp and full certification, you will be assigned to a...partner...in your region." 2 to 24 weeks!? If I factor in the 19 weeks of training, that's potentially approximately eleven months with no income from the program.
That's a hell of an expensive "paid" internship.
------------------------------------------------------------
*There Aint No Such Thing As A Free Lunch (Robert A. Heinlein)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
