Screenconnect, Connectwise, Logmein Rescue, Teamviewer11, ShowMyPC, Microsoft Registartion Files

AndyPix

peterbaker wrote: »

Waffle

Thought so ....


And thus ends the thread

peterbaker

wongataa wrote: »

Indeed but that wasn't the question.

Indeed and what you asserted was blatantly clear was ... ehm ... plain wrong?

That is an answer to the question. Why couldn't you just say that in the first place instead of waffling on about issues with eBay? It is quicker and what was requested in the first place.

Quick isn't always good What was requested in the first place may not always be best

As you seem to want all these warnings don't you think that people will just get so used to them they won't read them and just click past them?

It is not just me that seems to see the need. Ebay themselves saw the need, didn't they? Some browser software providers see the need. ShowmyPC sees the need. They all could do better.

Yes the quality of the communication in the warnings has to be very good. My guess is that you did not know that eBay.com have acted to acknowledge advance fee fraud on the motor section of the US website and to offer some protection ? The quality of my communication means you may have learned something today?

Sorry it wasn't a quickie, but did you enjoy it?

Clearly AndyPix is somewhat lost now for a decent response and is taking his ball home.

Yes warnings are needed, and so ends my contribution to this entire topic. Been a lot of views so lessons may have been learned we hope

almillar

Most of the people who are likely to get scammed haven't the first idea what they would ever use Excel for and would probably not buy it. However, if by some chance they ended up with it alongside MSWord as part of an MSOffice installation or a "friend" had installed some more recent version of it, then if they actually did open an Excel file from an email or on the internet, yes they'd get some warnings especially if it contained code in the form of Macros/VBA scripts. If those warnings were ignored, who knows what the scripts might load and how fast it might lead to losing £8,000 from a bank account. Methinks that loading remote control softwares might lead faster to losing £8,000.

'They would get a warning, and ignore it'

Just like they would yours, no matter how flashy you want to make it. Has this not sunk in?

As for the extra remote control software you have introduced

No need. It's a category of software, there are loads of titles. There's one with a warning on their website, that's all.

I did however notify the sender that it had fallen foul of my antivirus which probably was not the news they wanted

OK, you're a well meaning joker, but you're utterly clueless. If you reply to these emails, you're just confirming your email address to the scammer as a valid one they should keep sending to, if they read it at all. I hope your vulnerable neighbour isn't replying to all her junk mail!

You keep asking car makers for MORE AIRBAGS, when we're trying to prevent crashes. Sorry for yet another analogy but I'm trying hard to get through.

Been a lot of views so lessons may have been learned we hope

I fear we didn't manage it.

RumRat

peterbaker wrote: »

GPWS warnings must never be ignored. However, the pilot's response may be limited to that appropriate for a caution only if the aeroplane is being operated by day in clear visual conditions, and it is immediately obvious to the pilot that the aircraft is in no danger in respect of its configuration, proximity to terrain or current flight path.

So RumRat, PULL UP! PULL UP! PULL UP! or crash and burn. Your choice.

Well copied from the internet.....However you missed out a large chunk, which shows your limitations....

peterbaker wrote: »

so ends my contribution to this entire topic.[/B

We can only hope.

John_Gray

monomania (noun):

Exaggerated or obsessive enthusiasm for or preoccupation with one thing.

George_Michael

peterbaker wrote: »

I told you I know a little about a lot.

You state that as if it's something to be proud of.
To me, it simply means that you are admitting to being a Jack of all trades, master of none and I would much rather take advice about a particular subject from someone who stated that they knew a lot about that subject.

that

peterbaker wrote: »

GPWS warnings must never be ignored. However, the pilot's response may be limited to that appropriate for a caution only if the aeroplane is being operated by day in clear visual conditions, and it is immediately obvious to the pilot that the aircraft is in no danger in respect of its configuration, proximity to terrain or current flight path.

So RumRat, PULL UP! PULL UP! PULL UP! or crash and burn. Your choice.

Please, please kill this thread. it is possibly the most useless and worst trolling topic on MSE ever. Don't feel the troll

Regarding the above quote, hardly original as it is from below. peterbaker is correct when he says, "I told you I know a little about a lot." .. he know a little on how to search google, and get a lot of results back.

https://www.icao.int/APAC/Meetings/2013_APRAST3/WP-06%20AI_3%20-%20CFIT-1%20-%20v7-130502%20final%20-%20SIN.pdf

peterbaker

The Epilogue
========
Did I say that ICAO paragraph (originating at CAAS I think) was mine? So our friend that can actually Google :T:T:T Bravo bravo! Twinkle twinkle ... What a little star detective you are :rotfl:

I Googled to find it ... two words ... GPWS ignored. That'll get you started.

RumRat is the sort of pilot I would never agree to fly with. He doesn't know his GPWS from his ego.

Ask yourselves, why do you think I quoted that particular paragraph word for word? So some of you might realise it was an official wording , and some might even have traced it to its original source and had a good read instead of rushing back here to tell on teacher.

Of course it is on an ICAO website you silly people. All aviation rules and procedures are carefully written down. ICAO publications aren't the law, but they compliment Air Law and ICAO recommendations should not be ignored.

Commercial Pilots stopped flying by the seats of their pants decades ago. Obviously IT Support workers didn't. The exact paragraph I quoted does not appear many places else other than at ICAO's website in a couple of documents I think. Commercial Pilot students study such paragraphs and concepts and are examined on the exact understanding.


A typical CPL multiple choice exam question might be:

A GPWS warning can be ignored
(a) never
(b) during official daylight
(c) if it is immediately obvious to the pilot that the aircraft is in no danger in respect of its configuration, proximity to terrain or current flight path.
(d) if RugRot says so ?

In fact it might make a very good question, and one where the proper answer is one which no commercial pilot should ever question because if an warning is sounded, an immediate decision is required and cannot be ignored.

That is the sole reason I mentioned "PULL UP! PULL UP! PULL UP!" as analogous to the sorts of warnings we need on our PCs. Such warnings are conspicuous by their absence, and badly need carefully designing and introducing. They must be of a type which command attention, and where simply dismissing the warning is not possible. They should then never be ignored.

Do we all know who ICAO are, people? Do we wish to rewrite or paraphrase or add to their self-contained paragraph of wisdom? No we bloody well do not, and we especially do not wish to replace it with any half-baked cr*p which RumRat the Cessna driver passes off as wisdom.

If you have at all been taken in by RumRat's Microsoft FlightSim approach to aviation, and if you fly as a passenger behind a possibly 'stupid commercial pilot' of his acquaintance from time to time, please read and understand the ICAO quote and then understand who the stupid ego-centric party really is.

GPWS warnings must never be ignored. The ICAO paragraph says so very clearly. Sentence number 1. does not say you can ignore GPWS warnings if that ever so clever RugRat says so. No, ICAO have never heard of RumRot, but they have heard of many incidents of Controlled Flight Into Terrain where the pilot thought he knew best.

RumRat even posted "Actually, you will find 'stupid' commercial pilots.
Yes, there are circumstances where pilots would ignore the 'Pull Up' warning. Obviously they need the knowledge for when to ignore it."
No pilot I have ever known makes such loose comments about fellow pilots, especially commercial pilot licence holders when it is understood what effort and study and testing and recurrency training goes into keeping commercial pilots at the top of their game.
No, RumRat is no pilot of the sort I ever wish to share a cockpit with, if he is a pilot at all.

Some people do not have broad educations, lead extremely narrow lives with extremely narrow careers, possess very narrow outlooks and experience little outside their narrow fields. This thread highlights the problem beautifully. It would seem there are more posters here on this thread fitting that particular bill of questionable health than any other. You can live a perfectly ok life that way, but it does not entitle you to be an arrogant jerk.

This thread is not a plea to help arrogant jerks who think they are indispensable to mere computer users - there is no helping them.

This thread is a plea for more real-time warnings of the presence of inordinately powerful (dangerous) remote control softwares which some people install because they or their employer decide it is needed, but most home users do not need. I had no idea how powerful it was until I made a point of installing TeamViewer on my PC and on my iPhone to test i last weekend. It is absolutely staggering what power can be exerted via a simple and very rapid installation which vulnerable people simply do not know how to question.

Look how many posters on this thread say they use it daily to "help" friends and family (never mind the corporate installations.

If you have it on your home machine already, installed by a "friend", get rid of it and find someone closer whom you can look in the eye as they fix your computer. No-one needs a helper who feels they need to hide what they are doing on your home computer from you while they do it.

Your work computer maybe - if your employer requires it.

Your home computer - why?

Does your "helper" value interactions with you personally so little? The majority of those who want you to use remote control software are on a power trip of some kind, as opposed to being bothered to get on their bike or in their car and come and see you. Check out the responses in this thread to see what sort of characteristics might typify them - they ridicule normal computer users and would rather suggest you are too daft to be in charge of a computer than admit that all remote control softwares, browsers, antivirus / firewall apps, ebanking and operating systems should warn and protect you much better than they do. These same people do not want warnings and blocks, because they value their time more than yours and do not want you asking damned fool questions about warnings you've noticed or heard about.

What a bunch of blinkered self-serving back-slapping fools can be found in some corners of MSE, eh?

THE END (would be nigh if they controlled anything important)

RumRat

As I said, you have shown little actual knowledge about the subject. A trawl around Google is about all you are up to. You certainly haven't ever read any Operations manuals.
I knew you couldn't end your contribution to the thread, your self inflated ego wouldn't allow that.
:rotfl:

agrinnall

peterbaker wrote: »

...and so ends my contribution to this entire topic.

What a pity you have proved that you can't be taken at your word.