Re: It's a shame, really
Fairly sure current US business school consists of 3 classes, how to gain market share rapidly, how and when to squeeze customers and how to maximise returns for shareholders.
228 publicly visible posts • joined 21 Jan 2010
To get caps removed, the water companies would say they will invest more and also can be trusted to do so without any form of legal requirement to, and immediately aftwards would suddenly find lots of cash for dividends and invest a bare minimum in infrastructure.
Because that's what companies with shareholders do when not requred to do otherwise.
Good question. I'd have thought any company that poses a risk to either would know they were in that position, by virtue of their operations being of a national security or public safety issue, and therefore have been granted such a dispensation in advance.
Of course, that would never be abused to delay a filing if the intrusion didnt involve a different, unrelated, part of the operations, would it..
It's not just convenience in terms of easy to use, it's also a cost thing.
Before things like Alexa, home automation systems were quite pricey, even if you did it yourself, but at least then it was offline and you were in control, power outages and bugs aside.
So by relying on someting you have no control over, whilst thinking you own the right to use Alexa forever, he's a fool.
"Those large entities have curled up in a fear of failure and government that wants to extract fines."
Under such rules, useless business idiots like Trump would have been struck off so many times, their childrens children wouldnt be able to run a company.
Its one of those times where a middle balance is better, but the 2 regimes have moved to almost reckless and carefully fearful, neither of which is good for everyone.
"The whole "Health and Safety" pogram has devolved into the stupidest requirements that I've ever seen. It's nearly to a point where if there is even a rumor that work might be happening within a 5 mile radius, everybody must don a hard hat, boots and Hi-Vis vest."
This has often been demonstrated to be nothing to do with H&S or the HSE rules, its the nominated H&S employee that is unwilling to take responsibility for saying "yes" in case something goes wrong.
It's that they seem to keep getting it backwards.
"Masks are now a personal choice, we trust the public will do the right thing", loads of people stop wearing masks immediately, even when places ask them politely to keep doing so.
"If we don't spy on everyone, they will all immediately do <insert vile act here>", yet almost no one will do it, because they just won't.
One of the problems with PD, as people have discovered, is that the power supply needs to match the devices requests, there is quite a combination of supported voltages and currents.
So a brick providing 9V @ 3A, 27W, won't provide 15V @ 1.8A, also 27W, nor provide 5V @ 3A, 15W, unless its been designed to. Yet, you could buy a "27W" labelled power supply, which only works with one of the first 2, or worse, it only gives you 5V @ 900mA, the USB 3 spec output.
Something tells me, every time I read these sort of Government ideas, that they are convinced that most businesses in the UK don't do anything outside the UK.
It's the only thing that seems to make a reasonable excuse for it.
And, that being the case, only a small number are being expected to have to end up following 2 sets of rules, just a shame that past evidence suggests otherwise.
Depends, actually investigating a crime, or looking for a crime to investigate based on a hysterical loonie or incorrect understanding of the law?
Probably just pedantry, as it just depends at what point it becomes "investigating a crime".
For the latter, i'd offer up all those times a plod has "demanded" to see, and sometimes wanted to delete, photographs someone has taken in public places that were not otherwise dubious.
I'm sure the difference between old and new systems is that the old systems had vastly less flexibility in development and, as a result, a lot less interference by "know nothings" with "grand ideas", so people took what they were given and liked it, usually because it did the job it was supposed to.
I wish Margaret Hodge would understand this.
EVERY time theres some, usually Amazon, tax article, she dribbles the same crap about how they're being, basically, "dishonest" and not paying the taxes they should, as if it's entirely Amazons fault, rather than how tax law works in the UK. I bet she wouldn't voluntarily pay extra tax, just because she earns more than minimum wage.
Maybe she should start campaining for the Government, doesn't matter which one, to tax money leaving the country instead, that would catch everyone "sneaking" cash away.
My grandmother used to really hate his accent, saying that it wasnt very realistic, she was from NI.
All the more amusing given that the chap in question, Charles Lawson, is from Northern Ireland, and I can only assume they asked him to do some other accent that sounded like a non-native trying to put on an inaccurate impersonation of an accent.
And as all their mail admins will be reduced to pointing and drooling, they'll find that getting and retaining highly technical staff will get worse - we like doing interesting stuff.
Makes it tricky to hire useful staff, and even more challenging to explain to recruitment agencies that "C or C++ is mandatory", but at least they seem to have heard of those, so the disappointment in their voices is nice to hear.
I've seen a fair few email sigs that contain, what looks like, a nice little 1in square portrait or company logo.
Fair enough, you think, until you discover that the bane of all life on earth, the HTML email client, has carefully and thoughtfully just set the element to that size, and the image is, in reality, some massive 4000 square pixels.
People should have to go on a course to be allowed to use anything but plain text emails, with annual refreshers so they don't forget how not to email.
Unless she sold the shares immediately afterwards, which makes her an imbecile, she hasnt actually lost any money, yet.
Probably find it isnt her money, and its either invested for a group of "friends" or she "borrowed" it from somewhere she shouldnt have in the hope of making a quick profit.
"The problem there becomes that I can start patenting a great many things and doing little to bring them into reality, and then sit back and wait for the future to enrich my descendants. Imagine if Gene Roddenberry had patented much of the Start Trek ideas - no tablet computing without paying the Start Trek tax, no real time ML language translations, etc etc"
Which is why, as far as I know, sensible patent regimes give a patent a limited life, during which time you are expected to develop, manufacture, bring to market or just sell the idea.
Once the patent expires, anyone can follow your guide to make their own copy.
It isn't Disney "copyright", but for fast changing technology, it might as well be sometimes.
Makes you wonder why politicians are always so reluctant to have any sort of record of who lobbies them...
I mean, it doesn't take a huge leap of imagination to equate fancy dinners or other "gifts" in return for listening to a lobbyist, with finding out said politician is doing something that benefits the lobbyists client.
If you read the actual tweet chain, the interviewer goes on to explain that, back in the Good Times, people weren't "website designers", they wrote things by hand in a text editor, hardly "design".
A good or bad explanation, maybe, but it is valid.
I feel your pain on the last point. It's like people never heard of "mitigating factors" or "it's entirely unnecessary", they just see a "red mark" on some automated scanner and start frothing.
More often than not they have also over paid someone to run the report, and who is conveniently offering to offer paid advice on it.
There has long been a misconception over what "free speech" entitles you to.
A fair few people believe it means "what ever, where ever, when ever", without limits or restrictions.
Which is fine, and mostly true, in public owned places or when directed at Governments.
In private places, which includes publically accessible, the private owner is entitled to set limits, including denying you the ability to speak.
"Why bother to sue when you can use the UDRP which is a lot cheaper (about $1,500 per claim and can include multiple domains) and it's a lot quicker too (takes about a month from start to finish)?"
Because they gain nothing financially nor is it as intimidating, it costs the defender a lot less too, so they might actually be able to fight it and not run at the mention of litigation.
But isn't the normal list of proceedures as follows?
- Hosting provider take down request
- UDRP request
But you can sell stock you own at any price you like, off market.
I can give you stock I own for nothing, if I so wished, or even in exchange for other services worth more or less than the current stock market value.
Market price is just what open trading thinks its worth to someone else willing to pay for it.
Funny that, it seems to be the way many groups do it these days.
Why improve and reform when they can find ways to dodge the problem?
Consider the US police departments that have union leaders, and probably members, complaining about how they are being stopped from doing their job or being made to look like the "bad guys", would it not be easier for them to change their behaviour rather than try and defend it?
Trump then offers grants to police forces that do certain things, and you can almost guarantee that some of the people who will be involved in that are immediately thinking of ways to make it look like they are taking the steps, whilst actively not.
They have already found ways to be able to retaliate against "beligerant suspects" by provoking them or otherwise causing them to "bump" an officer.
Legitimising bad or poor practices does not make them good practices.
Most places, that I can recall, at least request you provide the CVV number.
Before long, we will be having to deal with online shops just like banks, where an automated system phones/texts to confirm it really is us adding a new address, using a pre-approved phone number that requires access to the existing number to change.
This is the same problem I had.
I opened a Cahoot account, now defunct, because it offered a virtual card, which eventually got withdrawn.
I then found Neteller, who also eventually stopped providing virtual card services.
Other banks have "promised" them over the years, but its never come to anything signficant enough for me to notice.
That's one of the things I've always found confusing over the "gig economy" and the contractor vs employee "debate". This is mostly rhetorical, and I could have entirely misunderstood something about it.
To me, the two roles are different, and, probably incorrectly, clearly defined in my mind.
Contractors : Take jobs as they see fit, have to cover themselves in terms of medical coverage etc, can accept or decline jobs on a whim, hence flexible.
Employees : Get assigned jobs they can not refuse, under normal circumstances, without consequence, employer pays for medical coverage etc, required to work as directed by employer, hence rigid.
So, where someone wants to do a few hours here and there, why would they not want to be contractors?
Conversely, those that want to do it as a full time job, why wouldn't they want to be employees?
And, importantly, why do officials, and possibly the companies, not want to offer both?
This is my "argument" with counterfeit goods.
If its fake and says "Apple" or "Rolex", thats one thing, generally because people are stupid and don't question why they're paying so little for something, "its a bargain!!"
If its fake and says "Bpple" or "Bolex", then, as long as someone isnt trying to claim its a 'mistake at the factory', you know its a fake and the price reflects that.