Re: I'm confused
So did the Jarndyces, and so did Jennens vs Jennens, which lasted 117 years.
249 publicly visible posts • joined 21 Jan 2010
"When I can legally get into the back of the car drunk as a skunk and have it take me home"
And the manufacturer is legally liable for anything that happens whilst you are most definitely NOT in the drivers seat.
Pretty sure being legally permitted to let it drive you will come before the proper assignment of legal responsibility.
This is up there with something i've often pondered, when checking in for a flight, i have been asked "are you carrying anything that could be used as a weapon", which makes me wonder what they are considering, given how many things could be weapons on the right hands, including hands if you're trained that way.
I mean, they dont like you having tiny knives or anything overly pointy, like pens.
The risks, he said, depend on how the application is written, and the bad outcomes are not likely "unless your application code is doing something odd and skips a bunch of checks it ought to be making on every request."
Ah yes, checks you ought to be making, but arent required to, and it worked anyway, and we planned to add them later, but never did....
..and infosec personnel are working under the "do your job or be fired", shouldn't the same threat apply upwards in the chain?
If something was requeated to mitigate, minimise or prevent an incident, yet was denied by managers, accountants or even the board, the oft applied "the expense doesn't justify it" excuse, aren't they responsible too?
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.
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.