Re: very quick to assume he is wrong
A technologist. wow. is that like some kind of braniac rocket scientist or what?
493 publicly visible posts • joined 22 Jun 2009
The surveillance was illegal
the evidence supporting the arrest warrent was minimal
the raid was totally over the top
the arresting agents lied
the extradition info supplied was insufficient
the bail conditions were idiotic
evidence was removed from the country illegally
anything else?
"Your bank must only refuse a refund for an unauthorised transaction if it can prove you authorised the transaction – though your bank cannot simply say that use of your password, card and PIN conclusively proves you authorised a payment"
You have forgotten a bit of history. This was introduced BECAUSE of the increasingly large number of disputed ATM transaction where the banks took the universal line of 'chip and PIN is secure so it must be your fault' and refused every claim.
Just how much rubbish can these people spout with a straight face.
" our kit isn't generating the interference, the mains wiring is"
So if i disconnect your kit, the mains will continue to generate interference all on its own will it? Funny but last time I had to have some of my kit tested for CE marking, we had to connect it up using representative wiring...as called for by the CE regulations? Why do you get a free pass, alone amongst the whole electronics industry?
" in many homes the wiring is sufficiently shielded that no interference is generated anyway".
Err. What country are you living in? Care to point me at the wiring regulations that call for shielded wiring as standard? Care to point me at a housing development that uses shielded wiring?
Taking their argument to its logical conclusion, PLT kit should be banned from being used in any house that does NOT have shielded wiring. Wonder how big that market is? Zero?
"UK Ofcom .. saying it can't do anything as the devices themselves aren't radio transmitters so fall outside their remit." What utter complete rubbish. Their remit is anything that causes interference. Whether you call it a 'transmitter' or not is deliberately playing with semantics to avoid the issue.
"Ronald Storrs agrees that PLT kit is generating unacceptable interference, but reckons that every day there isn't an applicable standard more unrestricted kit is getting into the marketplace" Again, that is not an issue with having a standard, but having existing standards that are not policed properly (or at all it seems). Issuing a new standard without policing it will not help one jot. Try prosecuting a few of the suppliers of these PLTs generating unacceptable interference and just see how fast they get withdrawn from sale.
"Today's equipment has no restrictions". Again, utter tosh. They all have to conform to CE standards to be legally allowed to sold in this country. The fact that suppliers seem to be able to skirt around the regulations points to the lack of effort in monitoring and policing the standards, not the lack of standards. Adding an extra standard, without policing it, is a complete waste of time.
"detect and avoid busy bands dynamically." does not help reduce the interference TO other users. It helps protect itself against interference FROM others. To somehow argue that this helps reduce interference to other users in the band is, at best, a mis-understanding of the technology and, at worst, a deliberate attempt to throw out a smoke-and-mirrors argument.
Smoke and mirrors seems to be the only consistent thing about this whole saga.
When making existing technology look pretty is what earn you billions, you can see how they get seduced into thinking that is worth so much more than the technology behind it. Unfortunately in a society where you can triple the price of a pair of jeans just by putting a label on it, there is some truth to that argument.
You mean there is a document that compared the two phones and pointed out the bits that the iphone did better....as in differently.
Think about that one that again, the document Apple is using as a smoking gun to prove they are the same is the one that points how how they are....ahem...not the same.
Room spinning. Head hurts. Must lie down.
Been a customer for 5 years and no real problems to speak of (apart from reallllllly slow broadband during the day).
Now we are moving house and want to stick with them cos "its really easy with Talktalk (TM)".
"Thanks" says Talktalk, "we will start charging you from today, but it will be 6 weeks before we can connect you. Oh and by the way, its a brand new 18 month contract, no you cannot stick with your old package, no you cannot have any of these special deals 'cos you are not a new customer, oh and you can only have one of these two packages on offer which cost more than your old package. You can be there on this day for the Engineer to visit can't you? Er no, it cannot be your wife, it has to be the account holder who has to be there in person".
So which particular bit of that wonderful offer actually makes a loyal customer want to stay with them?
Plusnet here I come.
From first hand experience...there is ALWAYS money to pay the Lawyers (because if there wasn't, it would have already folded).
The company i worked for went under some 10 years ago and I was a Creditor as they had not paid my expenses. The entire business was sold off within the year, but for about 8 years I regularly got a report telling me that they were still sorting out how much was owed and could therefore not tell me how much I was going to get as an unsecured creditor, but they had paid themselves out of what was left for that year. The letters stopped coming so I assume the money had run out.
Just how true is that.
A friend did the Prince 2 courses and now teaches Prince 2. He has never run a Project in his entire life. He knows it and his employers know it, but as long as he has that Certificate, Companies keep paying him to teach experienced PMs how to do it 'properly'.
As he says, if those Companies are stupid enough to keep paying me to teach people who, on a real project, would be teaching me, who am I to refuse them?
There is a simple reason for this.
A complex management structure meant different people were in charge of recruiting, interviewing, training and implementation, each with their own reporting structures and no-one was looking over the whole system.
Senior management relied on getting a traffic light and SWOT report landing on their desks once a month and issued dire threats if the reports didn't improve.
The temporary Middle Management listened to the threats and responded by massaging the figures and polishing their CVs for the next position.
Finally the poor schmucks at the bottom finally manged to scream loud enough for even senior management to hear that there was no way on this God's green earth that the figures are going to be met.
Suddenly its the 'reporting system' fault for not providing accurate information from the coalface. Not the middle management who have been massaging the figures nor the senior management inability to actually find out the truth. Oh No. The reporting system. That was it.
Tell me anyone who has suffered traffic light and SWAT reporting that this ain't true.
I have an extra high mast on top of my house and a masthead preamp, and still only get freeview most of the time (i.e. hint of high pressure and is all goes tong.) I also have a bunch of mobile masts about 50ft away. Good location for a new 4G service, no?
Just how much attenuation in the passband can be allowed before the freeview signals disappear (no filter is loss-less) and how much attenuation will be needed in the reject band so the nearby 4G transmitters don't overwhelm the preamp?
I am guessing I will be one of those who will need a filter the size of a shoebox or spend more cash for a freeview sat dish.
Sorry to say, 'patent the bleeding obvious' has been going on for some time. I remember getting an unsolicited bid to buy a patent (applied for) for the design of a controller for playing games on mobile phones.
It basically slapped the Nintendo pad layout (X and + buttons) on a mobile phone. I wrote to the guy and asked
1. for proof that he was not infringing on design rights that Nintendo may claim
2. to explain why the Nintendo controller design could not be considered prior art
3. to explain why putting an existing controller design on an existing phone design was not obvious.
The only answer I got was basically " because its on a mobile phone".
We didn't bite.
My faves include:
1. Government hires loads of 'experts', usually health and safety.
.......on cost plus, who cost the Government more that the entire value of your contract.
.......who provide advice expert advice without any technical understanding of the technology being sold, and thus have zero understanding of the risks associated with that technology.
.......whose advice is plain wrong, but until you write pages of justification showing why they are wrong will mean you don't get paid.
2. Talking to Government commercial officer who did not understand how by adding 'just 1 requirement' to the procurement spec could double the costs. He honestly thought you could take cost of project, divide by number of requirements and come up with an additional cost per requirement figure.
6 pages from RSGB pointing out regulatory flaws, and the entire response from OFCOM.....a single word response 'yes'.
Sill, they can claim they consulted extensively and responded to people's concerns (without actually doing anything), so they met the point of the consultation, didn't they?
'Only idiots and those who can't be bothered to find out through simple means don't know how much energy they're using'
Too right. I had a tenant who dried clothing indoors, with all the ventilation closed and the heating switched off and then complained that there was condensation. Well colour me surprised.
I even supplied a dehumidifier, which she refused to use as it 'costed too much money'.
I finally ended up being taken to the small claims court for being a nasty horrible Landlord. Best bit was when she repeated that it was too costly and I handed over calculations that showed that it would cost about 10p per day.
The Judge actually asked her whether she was serious about not being able to afford 10p per day, and followed it up by dismissing the claim.
Yes I can. I can copy a £10 note. In fact I have just been to the photocopier and made a copy. i am now going to use that copy in any way that I choose for my own purposes. I am to use it as a substitue for a bog roll. However whether the treasury allows me to do it is another matter.
What i an not allowed to do is use that copy as legal tender. i.e. in exchange for goods and services, nor can I copy it onto a bog roll and sell it.....or even give it away.
That is what fair use should be all about. Once i have bought the CD, i shopuld be able to use it in any way i want for my own purposes - even copying it to transform it into a new format. Just as long i do it for myself and don't sell it or give it away.
"Murdoch had said earlier that it was "grossly unfair" to his flagship redtop, The Sun, to be "lumped together" with the NotW."
You mean the Sun is a well respected, independent newspaper with a proud record of in-depth investigative reporting by journalists of impeccable character who gathered the news entirely within the law, and does not suffer from the celebrity led, gossiping, hyped –up, hysterical half truths normally associated with the gutter press……….and they don't have pictures of ladies with their tits out.
Who knew?
(talking of ladies with their tits out..)