Re: Too greedy
The SFA doesn't run any league.
781 publicly visible posts • joined 4 Jul 2014
This has nothing to do with how the modern world works. This is how teenagers work, and have done since forever. And idiots like Hunt have always been trying, and failing, to change this.
Quite simply the government cannot legislate the removal of hormones from teenagers. Just like you cannot tell them that their body is illegal, they do not own their phone's camera, and they cannot be doing anything with either without the government's permission.
Apart from that, I can think of a good half dozen ways that this could be easily circumvented. Even if the tech was foolproof, which it isn't.
I once dealt with a user who INSISTED that I install AOL crap onto her new computer, because the CD came with the computer, so that meant it was supposed to be installed. Didn't matter if I explained that she had absolutely no need for it, being on a network with an internet connection.
I ended up installing it, but told her if she ever ran it I would not be back to fix things in a hurry.
"People shouldn't have to carry a Costa, Starbucks and Avios card – they need some consolidation to carry less, and then the rewards could be to earn points and use them anywhere you'd like," Kumar says,"
"Points" that you can "earn" and use anywhere you like... hmm.. why does this concept sound familiar?
This simply sounds like money, except the shops can track who has it, and where it's getting spent. What exactly is the customer's incentive? Either just give me money, or make the items cheaper.
Well there's the rub.
Rather than having a national comms infrastructure, in the UK we created a massive near monopoly in a privatised BT, and then deliberately prevented it creating a national infrastructure because it would disadvantage all the other companies wanting in on the action.
Frankly I'm amazed anyone is surprised by Microsoft's approach here.
They had three options here;
1/ a total re-write of SQL Server, changing it to allow it to sit on either Windows or Linux architecture
2/ Production of a whole new Linux variant of SQL Server, with support and future development obligations
3/ Just adding a Windows kernel to the bottom of the existing version.
Seems like a very obvious decision to me. It's not as if they are expecting a mass switch to SQL Server by Linux users, and the profits to come rolling in. So of course they're going to do it the easiest way possible.
I've spent my entire career in IT doing my own backups. Reasons are fourfold;
1/ I don't trust an organisation-wide backup to restore something in both good order and good time.
2/ When I mess up, I can fix it myself without having to go bothering others.
3/ Having to redo a week's worth of odd-jobs, if you can remember them all, is the stuff of nightmares.
4/ If you want a job done right, do it yourself.
My immediate thought too.
"...is contained on over 700 million phones worldwide, including phones available in the United States."
"worldwide"? Meh. That's too bad. Good job the US is not part of the wide world.
"including phones in the United States"? Now wait a minute!! Are you kidding me?? A line has been crossed!
So really, this add-on relies on the unreliable feedback of anyone on the internet? And with the size of the internet being what it is, the feedback on a website may actually only amount to the opinion of one single person?
Crowdsourcing can be very useful, but it unfortunately can also be used to censor anything that's not mainstream or is unpopular. So while the opinion of the great unwashed might be of interest, I certainly wouldn't trust it to determine whether I should access a website.
""This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide.""
The majority of what came through my letterbox on leaflets about the referendum was lies, misinformation and scaremongering. I see no need to believe a word of any of them.
Thank god, but government policy isn't, and shouldn't, be determined by what leaflets say.
I believe the anon coward was suggesting that the "uber drivers" were also in fact taxi drivers from other taxi businesses, who clearly have an interest in Uber getting brought into line with every other taxi company.
Personally, I'm fine with that. It's funny how Uber have been, for a while now, the darling of the IT industry. Simply because they use an app. But that shouldn't give them a free pass to ignoring all the regulations that go with being an operating taxi firm in the UK, with employed drivers. The only good that's come of their transparent attempt to roll back employment law is that it's given the rest of the industry a kick up the behind in getting themselves up to date with available technology.
"if kiddie fondling was legalised, Sir Jimmy would be pardoned? It's a dangerous road to go down."
If murder was legalised, Shipman would be pardoned? If zombies existed, would brains be served at McDonalds? If Santa existed, would breaking and entry through the chimney be legal? If death by stupid internet suppositions was possible, would this question be criminal?
I imagine having to explain every single line of code written, as it was written, to someone hovering at your shoulder would be intensely irritating. Particularly when you are "in the zone". You really don't want to have to keep breaking your train of thought to vocalise your thinking.
And conversely, sitting at someone's shoulder without access to the keyboard, while they write code that doesn't look quite right and they assure you they'll "get back to explain as soon as I've finished it", would also be incredibly frustrating.
I'm all for peer reviewing, but pair programming sounds like the coding equivalent of design by committee. Hellish.
I don't care for taking pleasure in other's misfortune, or business failure. But Yahoo really have managed to shoot themselves in the foot head, twice, in the last year. And this move is clearly designed to avoid talking about it. And I don't blame them for not wanting to talk about it.
I can't see any future for their email service. So what do they have left? Why would anyone visit their website?
Mercedes are taking a very obvious line here and the decision is perfectly predictable. I'm sure every car manufacturer trial autonomous cars will reach the same decision.
No-one, but no-one, is going to buy a car if they know that it may consciously prefer to kill them over someone else. They're going to buy the car that's advertised with "we'll protect you and your family above all else"
I don't think any one is cherry picking jobs for equality. They are cherry-picking the jobs that they personally want to do. But doesn't everyone has the right to do that?
You'd be as well saying that until you see a 50 year old DevOp working down a coal pit, you refuse to take complaints of age discrimination within the IT sector seriously. Fact is that most 50 year old DevOps don't fancy working down a pit. It's dirty, back-breaking and dangerous. So you are unlikely to find many campaigning for that right, or indeed working there.
I once worked with a developer who plugged his ethernet connection into his monitor port. I can't remember what adaptors were in use, but this was a while back so they must have been pretty funky.
Unsurprisingly the entire network went down immediately. It took a while before someone realised that his complaining about his monitor not working, and everyone else complaining about the network not working, were directly related.
I can't see the enthusiasm for this product. Those with fond memories of the Spectrum will buy one, play it for a week, and then the nostalgia rush will swiftly wear off and it all just starts to look a bit rubbish in comparison with the modern day equivalents. Just like it did the last time you got your real Spectrum out of the attic, or the last time you ran one of the many emulators available.
Video games have move on somewhat since the 1980s. Chances are so have you. You can't turn back the clock, so why not leave it all the way it should be; happy memories?
I don't know about you, but I always base my choice of credit cards on random unsolicited SMS texts from companies I've previously had no dealings with. I find it the most secure and reassuring method of handling my finances. This is why I am among the 99.96% of people who were bloody delighted to receive Ocean Finance's spam. Why must the moaning 0.04% spoil it for everyone?
That's right, I do live in the same crazy fantasy world that Ocean Finance's marketing director lives in.
But.. but... it's Linux! It's a Linux Live CD! The gold standard of security! That's bomb-proof, bullet-proof, virus-proof, social-engineering-proof, tiger-proof, velociraptor-proof, everything proof! Isn't it? It's the computing equivalent of walking the city streets, in the middle of the night, in January, wearing only a t-shirt, with your pitbull. Because you're that hard and scared of nothing.
But in all seriousness. These USB sticks are probably tiny and cost pennies. Big enough to deliver a load of viruses, but scarcely worth the effort/time/risk of re-formatting.
Years ago I once asked Microsoft to determine if our licensing plans would be all above board, and they pointedly and repeatedly would not be drawn into providing a definitive answer. Their approach was ; "Here is our byzantine licensing rules, pages of it. It's up to you to determine what you qualify for and how. We won't assist you in any specifics ... it'll be your fault if we audit you later and find you wanting."
If you are buying a licence with the laptop, and again with a corporate licensing scheme, then it is you who are at fault, not Microsoft. It's not Microsoft who are "double-dipping", it's you who are "double-buying".
Either don't license the laptop with a corporate licence, or don't buy laptops that are bundled with a licence. If your laptop supplier cannot sell you a laptop without a Microsoft licence, then shop elsewhere.
I can't recall ever seeing a bot in the English Wikipedia doing a grammar or spelling edits. These are context sensitive changes that are rarely authorised for a bot, because it's too likely that it'll get things wrong.
It's not just a case of running a spelling/grammar checker over a document. Grammar is often a matter of taste/tone and varies regionally, and, if quoting, can be deliberately "wrong". Spelling relies on the bot understanding the context to identify the correct word. That isn't always easy, particularly in highly specialised niche subjects.
Bots are much better used at syntax fixes. Places where there is an undisputed right way of doing things, or a very clearly defined change.
"However even the Brother laser cartridges work out about 1/4 price per page of running inkjet. Unless you need "photo" quality, I think now that ink jet is too slow and expensive."
We used to use a HP inkjet at home, but it quickly became obvious that the cartridge costs were astronomical, the need for colour in most print jobs was negligible, and for anything over a couple of pages it was just too slow.
Now we use a 15 year old Brother personal monochrome laser printer. Perfectly adequate for most tasks. The last toner replacement cost me £9, and that will be good for at least six months.
The suggestion that raw material cost = final market price is, of course, utter nonsense.
The developers of this hack are free to price their service at whatever level they think people will pay for it. The costs in research, development time, specialist knowledge and raw material is only your starting point, not your final price.
Raw materials - $100
Knowing what to do - $199,900
Being the only ones who won't mess it up - $300,000
Profit mark up just because we know you'll pay it - $500,000
" IANAL but it might give Comodo a chance to demand a licence on equivalent terms"
An organisation can pick and choose who it does business with. They can't be forced to licence something to a company if they don't want to, and certainly don't have to grant equivalent terms to different companies. And they don't even have to justify their decision.
I suppose there might be exceptions in cases of monopolies, but that's not the case here.
I also doubt that Comodo would be interested in doing this anyway.
"equally onerous but entirely different."
Well they don't have to be onerous, they just have to be different to be an additional burden to industry and barrier to trade from both sides.
But of course, this was exactly what the Brexiteers promised. A land of hope and glory, free from all that terrible foreign EU red-tape, holding back our superior industries. Now we can be free, make up our own regulations, and pretend the rest of Europe doesn't exist and doesn't matter! We can start trading with the colonies again in inches and shillings and the British Empire will once again rule the waves! Hurrah!
Or not.
The difference you can't see is staring you in the face.
Users do not need informed that they have a choice of other makes of laptop. They know that. If they do not like the options and configuration of laptop that Sony offers, there are plenty of other companies happy to offer alternatives.
"I'm at a loss... who'd buy a TV to watch YouTube Videos?"
This is about as silly a question as "who'd buy a computer to check the date?" The YouTube app is just one part of the functionality of the TV.
If I want to search for/look at a YouTube video when seated at the TV, I'd rather do it on the TV than go fire up some other device. So I'm rather annoyed at this development.
I suppose someone somewhere must have got a shed load of sexy iPads, and the bragging rights of having a swish Apple office on their turf. Cos that's worth far more than tax Euros, isn't it?
The people who really have cause to complain about this deal is Irish citizens, and every other company in Ireland that pays its taxes at the usual rate. This deal is basically the Irish government telling the citizens that they don't have any need for Apple's money, and giving all other Irish companies the finger.
I'm afraid the Government can't win here. If they did nothing to convince people to drink less there would be complaints about nothing being done to discourage binge-drinking wassocks, wasting emergency service's time and money every Friday night. But if they suggest that maybe we could drink less, they're intrusive nanny state spoil-sports. People will always find something to complain about.
The only thing that works in these situations is cultural change and social pressure. Only once it becomes frowned upon to get smashed on a night out, to brag about your alcohol-induced amnesia, to insist you need a full bottle of wine every night before bed, will people's behaviour gradually change. Part of bringing that about is the Government providing some kind of lead.
If anyone has a problem with that advice; well no-one is forcing them to heed it. They can go back to their pints.