Have you ever thought about the fact that a great many people spend most of their working hours dreaming up new ways to use technology to infuriate us? No, you probably haven't expended much time on such thoughts, which is why you're productively earning a living while I'm writing this hogwash. It's a ridiculous job, but someone's got to do it. A few people even like what I do. Over the course of the more than two years that I've been writing these things, three or four people (you know who you are) emailed me to say they enjoy my rants. What's more, almost as many people bought BYTE-ing Satire. Then again, there might be some overlap in those groups.

On the other hand, there are those who think I squander the majority of my working hours devising ways to annoy people. That's not true. I spend less than half of my time writing these columns. It only seems longer.

Of course, most of the people laboring to annoy us don't realize that's what they are doing. It just works out that way. Then there are those who do know, but don't care, which brings me to my first gripe.

Some of the most aggravating people are spammers. I have three spam filters constantly working to block their junk, but a lot still gets through. It's an ever-escalating arms race. The filter vendors block spam, and the spammers redesign their effluent to pass through the filters. The filter vendors then tweak their products to block the new spam, and the spammers further tweak their garbage. And on it goes. What I want to know is what makes spammers think that when I employ three different filters, two of them chewing up processing power on my computer and one on my ISP's server, there's any chance whatsoever that I'm going to look favorably on and accept the dubious offers that manage to break through despite my best efforts to stop them.

It's ludicrous. The spammers go through all of this effort, burning up considerable creative energy in the process (energy they could surely put to better use) just so I'll see their breathless notice of the latest searing stock tip for a two-bit company with no tangible or intellectual assets, a company that, despite its current microscopic size, is already on the speed dials of security regulators and fraud investigators in dozens of countries. Gee, thanks. I'll give it some thought while my forefinger darts to the Delete key.

Turning from the bad guys to the not-so-bad guys who don't realize they're dedicating their lives to being bothersome, how is it that, even if I buy from a retailer, technology makers know exactly when I've bought one of their products? I don't know how they do that, but I know they do because otherwise how could they invariably announce a better, faster, cheaper model the day after I make my purchase? You can't tell me it's just coincidence.

While we're talking about technology vendors, would it be too much to ask them to agree on a standard keyboard layout? Sure, they maintain the QWERTY arrangement, but they scatter the other keys—such as Insert, Delete, PgUp, etc.—higgledy-piggledy across the keyboard. Whenever I get a new computer or use someone else's, I spend an inordinate amount of time hunting for those nomadic keys.

Thankfully, nobody has followed through on a suggestion that pops up sporadically, namely to change the QWERTY layout that was patented way back in 1868. Rumors to the contrary notwithstanding, that was before my time. QWERTY was designed to separate letters that are commonly typed together in order to reduce the frequency of typewriter key jams, but it did so at the expense of typing speed. Some of you may be too young to know what a typewriter was. It had a keyboard similar to a computer's except there was generally more separation between the keys and typewriters made do without most of the non-alphanumeric keys you find on a computer. What made this gadget amazing was that, as you typed, the letters immediately appeared directly on a piece of paper rather than on a screen. You didn't have to wait until you finished creating a document. You didn't have to press a Print key. Instead, the text automatically appeared on the paper as you typed. True, you couldn't easily edit your work, but, considering a few of the emails I've received, I suspect that a lack of editing capabilities wouldn't bother some people.

Key jamming is not a problem with computers. Consequently, every once in a while someone suggests switching to a more productive keyboard layout. If anyone is taking this proposal seriously, I have just one request: Please wait until after I die. I had the option of taking Spanish or typing in grade eight. I had already failed at trying to learn two other languages, French and Hebrew, and I wasn't doing all that well with my native tongue, English, so I chose to learn how to type "the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog" without looking at my fingers. Surprisingly, I've never used that sentence professionally until now, but since it includes all of the letters of the alphabet, I've been able to extrapolate the lesson into something useful. The point is that I'm a touch typist from way back, I write for a living, and I don't want to learn a new keyboard configuration; not now, not ever. So put the idea right out of your head. I'm not getting any less cranky as I get older. Don't make me come out there and hurt you.

Obviously, there are many more things that aggravate me about technologies, but I'll save most of them for another week because, as I've never been afraid to say, it's not easy to churn out this crap. However, I am going to mention two more irritations for a couple of reasons. First, these irritants seem to be disappearing, so I might not be able to complain about them in the future, and complaining is what I do. Second, MC Press pays me per word up to a certain maximum. I think I'm running a little short this week. If I don't write to the limit, I'll have to cut back on my Starbucks espressos, which would put the economy here and in several major coffee growing regions into a tailspin. We wouldn't want that, now would we?

Both of these complaints are Web-related. The first was, fortunately, never widespread and, as I said, I think it's diminishing, but it is exceptionally annoying where it exists. I'm talking about Web sites that play an audio track without first asking my permission. To those site owners, let me say that I work alone in my home, so, unlike in most offices, your irksome noise upsets only me, but the probability that we share the same taste in music is slim. Please don't subject me to your poor tastes. Besides, I always have the local jazz station on while I'm working. Your noise inevitably clashes with that.

The second Web nuisance I want to whine about is the splash screens that you have to suffer through before you get to the meat of some Web sites. Fortunately, you don't see them nearly as often as in the past, but I don't understand why anyone ever thought they would be a good idea. I go to Web sites to get information, carry out some task, or buy things. I don't want to sit through an interminable, information-starved, all-singing, all-dancing animation first. If I did, I'd visit www.uselessallsingingalldancing.com instead. Yes, I know splash screens often include a "skip intro" button. But it's usually small and hard to find or it just plain doesn't work. A word of free marketing advice to the companies that still use splash screens: Don't chase me away before I have a chance to check out and possibly buy your products and/or services. It's not a good business practice.

I'm certainly over my paid word limit now, so I'm going to reward myself with a walk to Starbucks. Until next time, remember that just a spoonful of Valium helps the technology go down...or words to that effect.

(Author's note: I made up www.uselessallsingingalldancing.com. As of the time of writing, that Web site did not exist. Who knows about the future?)

Joel Klebanoff is a consultant, a writer, and president of Klebanoff Associates, Inc., a Toronto, Canada-based marketing communications firm. He is also the author of BYTE-ing Satire, a compilation of a year's worth of his columns. Joel has 25 years experience working in IT, first as a programmer/analyst and then as a marketer. He holds a Bachelor of Science in computer science and an MBA, both from the University of Toronto. Contact Joel at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Starbucks did not pay a product placement fee for its inclusion here. However, if it wishes to do so, Joel will gladly accept its payment.