• Just Another Bloke (unregistered) in reply to Jamie

    And then there's this thing about a power cord....

  • Simon (unregistered)

    Friend of mine worked for a local ISP and had a similar issue. Customer had a dodgy network card (phone support). She went through all the steps to diagnose the issue. tried plugging in different cables as well to get it working. But the lights were not coming on. Looked like a busted or wrong seated card.

    She asked the guy to remove the card from the machine to send back, at which point the guy explained that it was ok as the card was already sitting on his desk. It was never in the machine to begin with.

  • (cs) in reply to KenW
    KenW:
    jtl:
    There is no line between the router and the CPU. This is different from regular routers. This is why it's called wireless.

    There never is a line "between the router and the CPU" unless you've managed to connect your router to your Core 2 Duo or Pentium D processor. You might, however, have a line between the router and the network connection on your motherboard.

    Do us all a favor and stay away from computers, please, until you learn the difference between a network card and a CPU.

    Do us all a favor and stop jumping to conclusions about people you know nothing about. There are places where it is common habit to call the whole tower a CPU. And in fact it is not wrong in the literal meaning; after all IT IS the Central Processing Unit - ya know, the "big part of the computer that is not a monitor, it is where all the processing is made".

  • Greg, the tech-support guy (unregistered)

    I've worked at an ISPs call center for quite some time, and stories like this are common. I once was yelled at for quite some time by a man who had lost his internet connection. (He never had one, and was not a customer of ours). He had bought a "wireless" computer, and leeched his neighbours network (who was a customer of ours) until the neighbour contacted us because of a slow connection, and was helped through securing the network. It was our fault, because we had broken his computer, and he needed a new one.

  • StMarc (unregistered) in reply to Jamie

    Or, y'know, a power cord.

    M

  • StMarc (unregistered) in reply to Jamie
    Jamie:
    Matt S:
    Wait, why would she need to connect any wires to the wireLESS router??

    The wireless router needs to be connected to a phone/cable line maybe.

    Darn it, I blipped the quote. Sorry.

    This was what the "Or, y'know, a power cord" was meant to reply to.

    M

  • (cs) in reply to Jamie
    Jamie:
    Matt S:
    Wait, why would she need to connect any wires to the wireLESS router??

    The wireless router needs to be connected to a phone/cable line maybe.

    No, haven't you heard? There are new wireless routers which get Internet through the power of dreams. They use unicorn horns as antennae.

  • Timothy (unregistered) in reply to Jamie

    The wireless router still needs to be connected to the modem, not to mention you can still wire things to a wireless router if it's more convenient, the wireless is just an option.

  • Peter Munges (unregistered) in reply to Jamie

    wooooosh

  • (cs) in reply to Smash King
    Smash King:
    Do us all a favor and stop jumping to conclusions about people you know nothing about. There are places where it is common habit to call the whole tower a CPU. And in fact it is not wrong in the literal meaning; after all IT IS the Central Processing Unit - ya know, the "big part of the computer that is not a monitor, it is where all the processing is made".

    Because "there are places where it is common habit" doesn't make it any less wrong (or stupid), just like saying "I'm Smash King and I'm intelligent" doesn't make it so. If you're a big enough idiot to try and defend calling a computer case a "CPU", stay away from computers. You're the kind of dolt that makes so much more work for those of us who know what we're doing.

  • anotherITguy (unregistered) in reply to KenW
    KenW:
    Smash King:
    Do us all a favor and stop jumping to conclusions about people you know nothing about. There are places where it is common habit to call the whole tower a CPU. And in fact it is not wrong in the literal meaning; after all IT IS the Central Processing Unit - ya know, the "big part of the computer that is not a monitor, it is where all the processing is made".

    Because "there are places where it is common habit" doesn't make it any less wrong (or stupid), just like saying "I'm Smash King and I'm intelligent" doesn't make it so. If you're a big enough idiot to try and defend calling a computer case a "CPU", stay away from computers. You're the kind of dolt that makes so much more work for those of us who know what we're doing.

    It isn't wrong to use a term for what it is. The entire case can be called a CPU. You need to learn that words can have multiple meanings.

  • Aran (unregistered)

    The real WTF is that it took the neighbor two years to get fed up with her leeching off the wireless and securing it. :P

  • gno (unregistered) in reply to anotherITguy
    anotherITguy:
    KenW:
    Smash King:
    Do us all a favor and stop jumping to conclusions about people you know nothing about. There are places where it is common habit to call the whole tower a CPU. And in fact it is not wrong in the literal meaning; after all IT IS the Central Processing Unit - ya know, the "big part of the computer that is not a monitor, it is where all the processing is made".

    Because "there are places where it is common habit" doesn't make it any less wrong (or stupid), just like saying "I'm Smash King and I'm intelligent" doesn't make it so. If you're a big enough idiot to try and defend calling a computer case a "CPU", stay away from computers. You're the kind of dolt that makes so much more work for those of us who know what we're doing.

    It isn't wrong to use a term for what it is. The entire case can be called a CPU. You need to learn that words can have multiple meanings.

    Except that CPU isn't a word, and it has a very specific meaning that Merriam-Webster and every reasonable reference you'll find can point out to you. Even Wikipedia doesn't stoop to the level of mentioning the usage of "CPU" to refer to the entire computer.

  • blunder (unregistered) in reply to jtl

    wooosh

    (from the future)

  • Amedee (unregistered) in reply to Powerlord

    I challenge your battery powered wireless router and raise with a solar powered wireless router. Google it, those already exist!

    Captcha: luptatum Sounds like something from Harry Potter.

  • Amedee (unregistered) in reply to Garth
    Garth:
    Vollhorst:
    I was able to connect to a neighbour's network and none of his computers was protected. So I leached some new movies from him and looked at his family photos. Oh, his fat daughter (real ugly monster) had quite a diary. And the mails she had send (and received from) to a strange guy in Switzerland was quite disturbing. But quite funny when you compared her photos with her description of herself she has sent to him. And all the cybersex... via mail?! Strange folk.

    But they protected their wireless some hours after I used their printer to print some nice pages like "Woooohoooo, I am the ghost in the machine! You will die today!". The usual stuff. ;)

    hmm, I doubt your story but funny anyway. Why waste the printout with a ghost scare when you could have embarrassed the daughter by printing out her "cybersex" correspondence?

    I do not doubt it. In my case it wasn't wireless but nmapping the /24 subnet. It's surprising how many windows boxen I found with shared drives as read/write, and no password. most of them were residential users, but also two local computer shops. In one shop I leeched the MP3 collection off their demo pc, and snooped around in their administration. The next day, I stopped by the shop and told them that their local network wasn't secure. They didn't believe me until I gave them a directory listing of their demo pc. They immediatly offered me a job, but I declined.

    captcha: plaga

  • Amedee (unregistered) in reply to Code Dependent
    Code Dependent:
    lokey:
    Code Dependent:
    Common sense must be applied.
    I call bullshit on this - common sense is not required (by law) in the US, or we would not be inundated with "warning labels" like "caution hot beverage" on a cup of coffee. What, you are a moron and can't figure that out? My favorite warning label (if it is possible to have one) says:

    "WARNING - NO WARNING LABEL"

    common sense is not common...

    I stand corrected. Very well, then: uncommon sense must be applied. And this post had better have its own warning.

    CAUTION: reading this post may cause actual thought.

    Actually most IT people and most legal people have similar mindsets but applied in opposite directions. Both classes of people are usually experts in dissecting a problem and describing it in great detail.

    The biggest difference between IT people and legal people is when dealing with variables that aren't explicitly set. IT people: assume defaults, apply principle of least surprise legal people: ERROR - no precedent found. Make new case to be used as precedent for future occurences of same variable

    catcha: caecus

  • Amedee (unregistered) in reply to donniel
    donniel:
    Please don't start with the house/open-doors analogy. It doesn't apply because the victim doesn't even realize that they have an unsecured network, because they are not technologically competent enough - which, you may not realize, is not a crime.
    It should be a crime! </rant>
  • Amedee (unregistered) in reply to Code Dependent
    Code Dependent:
    Vollhorst:
    I wouldn't have done the whole thing if they were neightbours I knew. They were just some random people living there which I never met personally.
    Yeah, depersonalizing them is important in dulling the conscience. I believe the same logic was used by German citizens during WWII to explain their tolerance of genocide.

    Godwin!

  • Amedee (unregistered) in reply to Tourist
    Tourist:
    Saaid:
    Ivan Milosavljevic:
    SSID was Norris? OMG, her neighbour must have been Chuck Norris!
    I pity the fool that would leach off Chuck's FEWER wires DSL connection

    leach? geez get a dictionary dude!

    It is a common misspelling for someone who is not a native English speeker (sic). When spoken, /ee/ and /ea/ can sound very similar , and a lot of people learn English from subtitled Hollywood flicks.

  • tinman (unregistered) in reply to Aran

    I consider myself fairly tech savvy and I used a router without a connection password for several weeks as I had set the admin password and didn't realise there were two separate passwords

    sometimes it pays to RTFM

  • tinman (unregistered) in reply to Amedee
    Amedee:
    Garth:
    Vollhorst:
    I was able to connect to a neighbour's network and none of his computers was protected. So I leached some new movies from him and looked at his family photos. Oh, his fat daughter (real ugly monster) had quite a diary. And the mails she had send (and received from) to a strange guy in Switzerland was quite disturbing. But quite funny when you compared her photos with her description of herself she has sent to him. And all the cybersex... via mail?! Strange folk.

    But they protected their wireless some hours after I used their printer to print some nice pages like "Woooohoooo, I am the ghost in the machine! You will die today!". The usual stuff. ;)

    hmm, I doubt your story but funny anyway. Why waste the printout with a ghost scare when you could have embarrassed the daughter by printing out her "cybersex" correspondence?

    I do not doubt it. In my case it wasn't wireless but nmapping the /24 subnet. It's surprising how many windows boxen I found with shared drives as read/write, and no password. most of them were residential users, but also two local computer shops. In one shop I leeched the MP3 collection off their demo pc, and snooped around in their administration. The next day, I stopped by the shop and told them that their local network wasn't secure. They didn't believe me until I gave them a directory listing of their demo pc. They immediatly offered me a job, but I declined.

    captcha: plaga

    an in-law told me about an incident they had with a video sender several years back. They used it to rebroadcast from their downstairs vcr to the TV upstairs so they could watch videos in bed. One evening tuning about they found that they were watching a view of a living room similar to but not identical to their own. After watching it for a while they realised that it was that of their reclusive neighbours next door who normally kept the curtains shut. From the height and angle it seemed to be from a home video camera rather than a security camera. Disappointingly they didn't see any hot action but they did wonder just what the neighbours were taping and why they were broadcasting it?

  • This thread is funny (unregistered) in reply to Mike
    Because routers don't just pluck internet from the air...

    They dont? - Odd, I had a ISP account with a company called iBurst, you get a "wireless" router which connects to your computer via USB, and you get a power cable. The router has an antennae on it which receives an internet connection through the air (wireless) from a base station several kilometers away.

    It is considered true Wireless Broadband because the actual internet connection is streamed via Wireless from the base station (of course the Base Station most likely has a hardline for the internet but the actual connection from the base station to my home is wireless).

    So yes, this particular router did "pluck" the internet out of the air :P

    But it didn't magically create an internet connection out of nothing (thin air). If that is what u meant then ignore this post :P

    Ahh I laughed at some of these comments lol

  • This thread is funny (unregistered) in reply to This thread is funny

    Oh, and yes it was Broadband - for what passes as Broadband in this country anyway :/

  • NotVeryImportant (unregistered) in reply to Muuttaa

    We get that kind of thing all the time here, 'here' being a place where the public comes in to use our computers. Some folks think WE run the Internet, or WE store their Yahoo, etc emails, or WE are somehow responsible for X, Y, and/or Z. Amazing. They get the basic idea of how to use the computer, but it's still all magic to them. Makes me feel like I should be wearing robes and speaking in tongues. Oh, wait, I speak Geek, so I do speak in tongues to them, the unwashed.

  • Izzy (unregistered) in reply to gno
    gno:
    anotherITguy:
    KenW:
    Smash King:
    Do us all a favor and stop jumping to conclusions about people you know nothing about. There are places where it is common habit to call the whole tower a CPU. And in fact it is not wrong in the literal meaning; after all IT IS the Central Processing Unit - ya know, the "big part of the computer that is not a monitor, it is where all the processing is made".

    Because "there are places where it is common habit" doesn't make it any less wrong (or stupid), just like saying "I'm Smash King and I'm intelligent" doesn't make it so. If you're a big enough idiot to try and defend calling a computer case a "CPU", stay away from computers. You're the kind of dolt that makes so much more work for those of us who know what we're doing.

    It isn't wrong to use a term for what it is. The entire case can be called a CPU. You need to learn that words can have multiple meanings.

    Except that CPU isn't a word, and it has a very specific meaning that Merriam-Webster and every reasonable reference you'll find can point out to you. Even Wikipedia doesn't stoop to the level of mentioning the usage of "CPU" to refer to the entire computer.

    Okay, so I know it's been over 2 years, but this I have to respond to: gno and KenW, you are wrong. "Tower" is a recent term for that part of a computer - before, when they were laid horizontal, that box was commonly referred to as the CPU.

Leave a comment on “The Dream Customer”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

« Return to Article