See a damn doctor!

[mouser.livejournal.com]

You have a fifteenseventeen inch monitor. It's a flat-screen so it IS clear! By default, it's at 1024x786 (I set them all that way).

There is NO reason to set it to 800x600. If you can't see the little letters, GO TO AN OPTOMITRIST! IT'S COVERED UNDER OUR MEDICAL PLAN!

If you can't read the screen that EVERYONE else can, maybe it's not the computer's fault!

EDIT:

Origionally said fifteen, I meant to say seventeen. My bad on that.

Resolution take two

[mouser.livejournal.com]

Refering to THIS post:

I posted 15", I did mean 17"

Next week I turn 42. For stuff I can't see, I actually *use* my glasses.

Seriously - these are people (yes, PLURAL!) WITH glasses that just don't want to bother putting them on! I have exactly ONE person who has non-correctable vision problems. HIM I make accomidations for, including finding out how to make his office cell phone text as large as possible. (I even offered to get large type keyboard, etc.)


For those that think a 15+ monitor is small, I invite you to perform an experiment:

Take standard piece of paper (A or A4) and figure out how that compares to the monitor. Now, print something out, size 12 Times New Roman (the default in programs like Word, YMMV) in landscape mode. Compare it to what you see at 800x600.

If you're wondering why I complain about it, it's because these aren't single user machines, and we've got software that doesn't take low resolution well. For which I get calls...

Arrogance Makes Me Mad.

[red-scully.livejournal.com]

Me:  Bottom-of-the-pile user account administrator and all-round slave.
Luser:  Jumped up little prat who thinks his opinion is more important than anyone else's, just because he runs his own little office in the middle of nowhere.

It's nearly the end of the month, which means tons of people's temporary user accounts are starting to expire.  When accounts get close to being disabled, the victim user receives emails asking them to complete an Amend form and return to IS so we can give them access to the network for a bit longer.

A form came in yesterday for a user.  In the section asking how long to extend the account for, Luser had written 2015.

WTF?  Yeah, like I'm gonna extend your account for EIGHT FREAKING YEARS.  These are temporary accounts, so we have no way of tracing when the lusers leave the organisation because they're not through the payroll department.  This is why we give them temporary accounts.  This is why we disable the accounts after a given amount of time.  EIGHT YEARS?  How can anyone be so arrogant as to assume that their staff will still be working for them in 8 years?!

I sent Luser an email, explaining I'd extended the account until the end of tax year, which is as far as I'm allowed to go, and then actually took the time to explain the security policy to him.  Then I went to lunch.

When I got back, Luser had:

1/ left me a ranting voicemail so long that he got cut off by the machine before he'd finished
2/ sent me an email saying "xx has worked with us for 20 years.  What possible security risk could she present?!  You need to rethink this policy. "

*rolls eyes dramatically*  Yeah.  Like I wrote the policy.  And I did it specifically to piss you off.

I fancied getting into a sparring match with Luser, but forced myself to take the high road - by escalating directly to my manager, head of Security, who sent a very succint email explaining that this wasn't personal and could Luser please get off his high horse and understand we have to follow policies in order to avoid complete network anarchy?

I'm just so appalled that anyone thinks their personal trust in a member of staff is to be favoured over good practice and security measures.  What a tosser.