Re: BYOD? No Thanks
Work computer for work things, my computer for my things. Never the twain shall meet ...
4162 publicly visible posts • joined 10 Jun 2009
It's true - I keep trying to get my wife to agree to us moving there,but she is glad to see the back of the corruption and Soviet-era inefficiency in all areas, not just bureaucracy, and concept of "service" is unknown (she nearly had a fit when we went to a place popular with Czech walkers and canoeists, and found that the cafe was shut despite there being many willing customers, and the owner clearly in the house at the back. Apparently, he has never opened on Sundays in September ...)
However, back on topic - I haven't had time to put my dodgy translation skills to the test on the Czech newspapers yet, but it is entirely possible that "being sensible" is only a side-effect of bribery by someone. It would not be unlikely that the prices were getting too high for [favoured company], and so the bidding process is going to be withdrawn and rejigged to benefit [favoured company]. This happens a lot, but Czech journos usually get to the bottom of it -true freedom of the press does still exist there, and they take full advantage of it.
Proper pseudonymisation would involve giving new identifier for each session. Very few organisations need to know who is visiting their site every time. Of course, true pseudonymisation is the same as anonymisation, because there is no way to aggregate data. That is what the EU should be aiming for - there should be a set of requirements that must be met before anonymisation can be routinely breached, and "because our business depends on it" would not be sufficient.
"... specially if it had the authentic sounds when someone rang you and you answered!" Perhaps I will regret posting this, but my phone (and the one I had before) does - I used the sound files from the Star Trek Sound Effects album.
Yes - I'm very sad. I'll be going now ...
Yep - that stood out so much that I thought I had been transported to a different, saner reality, and was about to check how the world had progressed without Thatcher and Reagan, and how many colonies we had on other planets ... then I read on, and found that it was all a lie, and that I am still stuck in this variation of reality.
Bastards ...
As Steve Knox says, all Google will do is make a version of their apps that comply with the law, and then give them away anyway. Merely using the apps will be enough to keep children wanting to use them because that is what they are used to - and it is exactly what Microsoft have been doing for years. That is why Microsoft are upset - there really is competition to their de facto monopoly of educational software at last.
I have tried vegetarian diet twice in my life, for about two years each time. Despite following all the guidelines to ensure no lack of key nutrients, both times I was lethargic, bad-tempered, unable to think properly, and constantly hungry despite cramming loads of food in (far more than I would on a meat diet). There was a noticeable improvement on the days I had e.g. a bacon buttie when going on a rally.
I know a datum of one isn't anything, but it does tend to suggest that your "all vegetarians are super-healthy and it is the only way forward for everyone" is - shall we say "hyperbolic"?
I understand what you are saying, but I really don't want Data Protection decided by the numpties who would tell everything for the chance to get entered into prize draw for the chance to win a £10 voucher for iTunes. I value my personal information highly, and I want my opinion to be valued higher than a teenager brought up on Facebook, thank you very much.
I noticed the difficulty the firefighters had removing the battery - "Firefighters reported that removing the battery was difficult because a metal kick shield installed in front of the battery prevented them from accessing the
battery’s quarter-turn quick disconnect knob. Also, the quick disconnect knob could not be turned because it was charred and melted."
Even if the knob hadn't melted, it was not "quick release" because some numpty had put put a sheet of metal in front of it! So, poor battery, and poor design of safety - what else is there waiting to be discovered?
The more this goes on, the more likely the Dreamliner is going to end up with the same fate as the DeHavilland Comet. Once trust is gone, it will not come back. Airbus 800 will become the airliner of choice, and Boeing will reprise DeHavilland's role as loser. Karma's a bitch ...
If the company is in such dire straits that they need to cut out good-will gestures with trivial financial value, then there is far more to worry about than the actual cutting. As someone else mentioned above, morale will take a nose-dive, which will reduce the overall effectiveness of the workers, and thus the company. One would hope that a company that does this really does see this as a very serious step, and takes a great deal of effort to keep the staff on-side. That doesn't seem to have happened here, so I'd say that management are running the company into the ground for some stupid reason (hopes of more government money on the basis of the NHS contract?), which won't work because the damage will already be done.
Quite simply, if you are company that has made an issue out of recognising and rewarding excellence, you cannot lightly go back on it.
Oh, and HR was mentioned - they would have done better getting rid of anyone claiming to "work" in HR and related "activities". Morale would go up, and they'd save a fortune in wages, efficiency, and worn-out chairs.
I don't understand the reference - I have never had any trouble with Maplin (not "Maplins" - that's a holiday camp in an old, crap TV comedy), and I've used them all over the country. The staff are always friendly, knowledgeable and low-pressure. Stuff is rarely out of stock, and their prices are no more than I would expect for the "bricks-and-mortar" surcharge.
Disclaimer: I have no connection to Maplin other than being a satisfied customer.
This is definitely a misuse of the closed-hearing. It is not something that should be done in a country claiming to value the rule of law. This is a case of alleged copyright infringement, not one involving the risk of people's lives, the outing of intelligence agents, or military secrets. I really cannot work out WTF the NZ court is playing at ... is someone worried Hollywood won't film any more Tolkein adaptations there if they don't toe the US line?
Extradition absolutely should require all the evidence available. To remove someone from one country to another for trial is far from trivial. Whilst KD is familiar with the US system of law (note: I didn't say "justice"), many extraditions, or for people who have never even been to the US.
All extradition hearing should follow these basic rules:
a) evidence must be shown that satisfies the courts in the accused's country of domicile that a crime has been committed that would carry a sentence of imprisonment of more than 5 years according to that country's sentencing guidelines
and
b) that there are exceptional reasons why the case can not be tried in the accused's country of domicile.
c) if the alleged crime isn't on the books of the county of domicile, then there is no case to answer anyway.
Even if the treaty doesn't specify this, judges should work to these rules in order to protect individuals. OK, it might give some people "stay out of jail" card fro the small(!) price of moving to a different country, and it probably favours the rich, but that's the way the law works.
I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to decide what to do with charges brought by the International Criminal Court.
Yes - I worry that manufacturers might see Flash drives as a way of putting effectively time-limited storage into devices, and this making them consumables that need to be replaced, and therefore generate revenue. In my many years of computing, I have never had a hard-drive fail on me, and one that is at least 15 years old still resides in my desktop, functioning happily.
(Of course, now I've gone and put the jinx on things, and every HD I own will pack up in 5 ... 4 ... 3...
I got that impression watching the new "Die Hard" movie. No-one seemed to remotely upset by the civilian carnage caused by an unfeasibly damage-resistant truck and Mercedes G-wagon. I decided it must be common-place there.
What ... are you telling me that movie was not realistic? There isn't really a radiation neutralising spray?? Oh, damn ...
Upvote on red-light cameras in general. I wait for reds even when there is clearly no safety need (such as the temporary lights on the road near me - clear visibility for a safe distance either way, but always stop and wait, even though the timer was set badly, and the light-sensor did not work correctly). I work on the basis that if I don't stop when it isn't necessary, might I lose the automatic impulse to stop when one comes on.
However, there have been many cases in American states when the amber-light phase was shortened by the local councils who stood to make money, to a point where safely stopping during that phase was impossible if doing the speed-limit. Drivers were faced with sliding to a halt in across the junction and getting a ticket anyway (if they survived), not stopping at all, or ending up with the car behind them in the cabin with them. Options one and two definitely ended up with the local council making money, option three might well do if the car was punted forward of the line.
I recently moved up Scotland, and I'm spending a lot of time doing the decent thing - pulling over as soon as possible to let the obvious locals past. To do otherwise is just to be an utter bastard.
It is a shame that the driving standards in general are so piss-poor: indicators as an optional extra, never letting anyone out into traffic, waiting for a written invitation before pulling out onto a roundabout yet pulling out of T-junctions like a bat out of hell then slowing down to 10mph below the safe speed/speed limit on a totally straight road. I'm starting to wonder if the old saw about Scots and alcohol consumption is true.
Don Jefe, you must be a legal positivist - one of the most unthinking forms of humanity. The rules are simply guidance, and there are ALWAYS exceptions. In this case, it has shown that the rules are manifestly unfair, and has proved, as I have said for some time now, that the system of "military justice" (an oxymoron) needs to be ended now, and *all* citizens dealt with by the same laws. Telling soldiers that they protect a system that they do not benefit from is perverse, and leads to exactly this sort of problem.
For me the formula is quite simple - no external storage, no sale. I don't carry lots (my phone doesn't even have any music on it), but I want to separate my data from the machine just in case of failure. (Yes, everything is backed up, but I'm old-fashioned enough to want to be able to remove my data from the machine easily).
Whilst I don't have any problems with the Note 1 (I can easily reach across the screen, but don't - if I used it one-handed it would be damaged or lost by now!), I do like the idea of a phone small enough to go on a belt-holster without too much overhang that can be docked with a 7" or 10" screen for other use. I'm keeping an eye on this format for the replacement of the Note when it becomes necessary.
I'm contemplating building a house of straw at the moment, though I wouldn't use lime-wash - too fiddly. I'm also finding that it might be difficult to insure because of the non-standard building material which seems to shout "Fire" to anyone I've spoken to.
Sorry, Boltar - your only excuse here is if English is not your first language. There is no real ambiguity in the statement as originally posted, because the two things being referred to are of the same type (both insulation), and so the modifier "foil-backed" applies to both. Perfectly natural use of English language, unlike "I'll go by the 12.30 train or car", which I have never seen written, and if I did see such a thing in something I was marking, there would be a down-mark and correction note. If spoken, however, there would be non-verbal cues that the modifier "12.30" doesn't apply.
Basically, you seem to want an argument, but you are in the wrong room - all you will get here is contradiction.
The Galaxy Note 2 is "cheap, cheerful and horribly dated"? What do you count as an expensive, serious and up-to-date phone??
Anyway, to the point of the article - this has nothing to do with browsing, but with calls - it is the voice bit that UMA/the reinvented one in the article hands off between the two types, not data. However, yes, it does seem at first glance that if data can do it, voice can't - but I'm sure there is a reason.
The Orange/EE situation is odd. I hadn't heard of this before, so I toddled off to look for a download of the Signal Boost (Orange's name for UMA) app. It turns out it is only on certain phones (usually at the cheap end), and, having done some research, it turns out that there isn't a way to install it to any other phone - even o a rooted phone.
Very odd.
... whether the ostensible target of this atrocity might have done something which might some way make someone think that killing him was acceptable, but there is no excuse for doing it in a way that puts bystanders at risk.
My thoughts go out to the driver and passenger of the taxi, and my utter contempt goes out to anyone that thinks grudges should be settled by death.
Most RRs seem to be driven by the sort of chav who probably plays hiphop on the stereo. Let's face it, RRs these days come out of the factory looking like they were finished off in a backstreet chopshop, with inappropriate wheels, body-kits, lowered suspension, windows so dark they might as well be body-panels.
RRs used to be nice - wouldn't touch one with a barge-pole these days, and I've had my fair share of Landrover products over the years.
Adam Sandler is one of those phenomena I just do not understand. He seems to make popular films, but I have never seen one that is actually *alright*, let alone good. He isn't funny, has no comedy timing, tends towards the mawkish - nothing good at all.
I've come to the conclusion he has bribery material on key players in Hollywood, and then people go to see his movies because "he's made a lot of them - he must be good".
However, I don't think Ben Affleck or Matt Damon are close to good either, so who am I to judge?
I was just going to make a similar observation - I have seen every Star Wars film at the cinema, despite knowing that there was only one good one made ("The Empire Strikes Back"), but I just keep hoping that there will be another good one. I just *know* I'll go to see the last three as well, despite the fact they will almost certainly be equally dire and I'll have contributed to the "bums on seats" profits and also to the low rating on IMDB.