ISO 9000 is BS
It was bullshit in the chemical industry in the late 1980s and no doubt is bullshit now too. Thank fully we have nothing to do with the dross.
1026 publicly visible posts • joined 3 Dec 2009
I put my thunderbird address book into the thing the other day and coughed up a whole bunch of accounts of people that I may have had a couple of email exchanges with years ago. No doubt companies are sticking their client email lists into the darned thing too. Spammers are putting their auto-generated email list in too.
... but they need a good grounding in data structures, pointers, and the machine model. If that can be combined with a basic understanding of OO all the better. Sadly few coming out of UK universities have the skills, which is why we mostly recruit overseas.
Apple have always been on the side of stifling innovation. They did it back in the 80s when they hijacked xerox wimp interface and sued everyone for look and feel, they did it in the late 80s when they tried to stop people running mac emulators. How they ever got a fanboi following is a complete and utter mystery.
First many do not have access to robots.txt because they don't have access to the sites root. Or they do not have the expertise to cover all the bases. One shouldn't need to be an expert in web technologies in order to keep the fuckers at Google from profiting from your content.
From experience the least chink in the armour and even the well behaved bots are all over a site. Most of the buggers don't give a rats about robots anyway.
Just substitute your favourite politician for Haslerig
A preparative to an hue and cry
[Haslerig hath outstript the Earl of Strafford, in traiterously subverting the fundamentall liberties of England, ... and better and more justly deserves to die therefore, then ever the Earl of Strafford did ... by which tyrannicall actions the said Haslerig is become a polecat, a fox, and a wolf, ... and may and ought to be knockt on the head therefore]
http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/3604702?lookfor=author:%22Lilburne,%20John,%201614?-1657%22&offset=44&max=301
FF blocked the thing yesterday and I discovered there were almost 10 versions of "Java Console" skulking about in extensions list.
I note that there are 3 versions of Java 6 update in my installed programs list on this machine. Are they all needed. When it updates it wants to install an unwanted browser toolbar addon. The whole thing is sort of fucking disgrace that only Open Source Twonks could possible have devised.
I seem to recall that my sister wanted a 'binki' when she was 7 or 8 back in the late 1960s. I'm sure that if you went to any beach in the world any time in the last 40 years you'll see tots in two piece swimwear, though the top bit probably wasn't padded out to give the impression of breasts.
I've come across this before and the judiciaries interpretation of it. Normally the word is taken at its strictest sense. For example the old Rates Act (prior to the Community Charge/Council tax) had an exemption for agricultural use the Act "for the purposes of agricultural use only" case history should that if the landowner allowed any other activity on the land, for example point to point races on one weekend a year, then the exemption could not be claimed.
... what the law considered a proper attempt to locate the copyright owner.
There are 1,000,000s of photos on flickr where the person with the copyright hasn't been on flickr for years. They may even have lost access to their email and yahoo account details. And besides since when does one have to respond to some publishers usage request?
I've seen some of the cheeky bastards emails before 'We'd like to use X but have no money to pay you. If you don't respond by next week we'll take it as permission."
Last month I was asked if a photo could be used in an upcoming American medical textbook, last week for reuse in an American book on Evolution. In both cases had they not asked would I have known? Almost certainly not.
The chances of a copyright owner actually catching some one nicking their work is remote. Perhaps one in 100 will actually find out. If all you have to do when caught is pay up what you would have had to have paid if you'd been honest upfront you still get to pocket saving of the other 99 reuses where you didn't get caught. That is why the US system has a deterrent aspect for registered works which is generally much high than the cost of actually licensing. It provides an incentive to keep people honest. Something I believe the US is keen on being adopted in the EU too.
Lots of people take photos of family events, their kids, holiday views etc and post them on the internet. Occasionally, they take an image as good as any professional, but just because they haven't digitally watermarked it or aren't actively hawking it about for money, doesn't give anyone the right to use that image in some advert, book, poster, website selling hotel rooms, or for any other commercial exploitation.
... I thought I'd ordered flowers for a funeral from these turkeys a couple of years ago. Turns out that after you think you have ordered there is a final confirmation page which looks like a "Thank you for your order" please print this page, but actually needs to be clicked through before the order is finalized. At least that is only only reason I can give for the order still being in the shopping cart when I revisited the site after non-delivery.
Yesterday I discovered that a Google search for:
hardman tewkesbury
has as its links to take the geodata feed from flickr and pipe it directly into Google maps and Google earth overlay the images. Except that feed was only relevant for a sort period of time. Yesterday if you clicked the links it took you to Lisieux in France some 300 miles from Tewkesbury. What Google are doing is simple using the feed to draw people into their own apps.
I'm currently removing geodata from flickr (1200 entries yesterday). Which is annoying as I know of at least Local Government sites that were using the data legitimately and a couple of United Nations sites too. Also the flickr maps application is lessened as many of the images were of things at the locations you'll not find elsewhere on the web let alone on maps.
Also in order for you to obstruct them they have be "carrying out their duty" if they have stopped you on frivolous grounds they are not doing that. For breech of the peace on has to be acting in a manner likely to cause someone to bash you, the police are going have a hard time saying 'I arrested him cos otherwise I'd have blacked his eyes for giving me cheek".
Why do we HAVE to know what he did or is suspected to HAVE done.
He's behind bars the police are investigating, they'll bring him to court in due course if he has in fact done anything wrong.
Why the press feel its incumbent upon them to feed salacious stories to there peadophile readers is beyond me. Lock them all up.
Its about the use of works under copyright. baring 'fair-dealing' exemptions, those require a license from the copyright holder. A use license may be withheld for a number of reasons that have nothing to do with whether it is being sold or not, such as not having the work used by some hate group.
The proposal is for some agency to collect money for orphaned works should the owner turn up to claim. My point is that I don't want News International, the Daily 'hate' Mail, Fissons, or any other commercial organisation from using the works in the first place. Compensation after the event is irrelevant.
I release photos under a creative commons non-commercial license, these are used by universities, museums, and academic researchers across the world. However, they can't be used commercially, I don't want them used commercial so a collection agency is of no damn use to me. Quite simply commercial organisations should not be using them.