Re: "Losing" $6 Billion in Five Years
Not $6 billion....$60 billion.
35 publicly visible posts • joined 26 Mar 2010
He doesn't sit on the money - most of it is in the form of Amazon. He just sells some of Amazon (thereby forgoing any future profits on that bit) and someone else takes the profit instead - this is how investments work. Anyhow, him spending money on a yacht just means some of the world's resources have been spent on a yacht, rather than being spent on whatever the person who invested in Amazon shares would have spent it on. The only people better off are yacht manufacturers - the industries where the investor would have otherwise spent their money are worse off by the same amount.
A more extreme example would be someone throwing rocks at your windows. Window manufacturers will be better off, but other businesses where you would otherwise spend your money are worse off.
TLDR: Trickle down economics is a fiction.
They only contribute 2% of the income tax - they also consume somewhat more of the national output. Next you'll be arguing fly tipping is good for the economy as it keeps people employed in cleaning up the mess, whilst cutting red tape for the companies dumping the rubbish and making them more competitive internationally.
Oh noes - Apple have failed to acquire a worthless customer because of the possibility that they might do something differently in the future (I assume you are implying that you will never buy any music again as you already have 14 GB of it - correct me if I'm wrong).
Who was the lucky company that you paid to get all of that music as I'd like to check them out - to see if they are any better than Apple.
You are right - but the problem is with the banks giving out the loans not giving you that choice - not with the credit reference agency. However, loans would be more expensive without any sort of credit check as they would be far more risky for the lender because they'd only have their own records to go on.
Imagine if you were the bank manager and someone walks into your branch and says "I'd like to borrow £250,000 to buy a house" - would you lend them the cash? What if they have only just opened an account with you last week and you know nothing about them? How long should you make them wait? 6 months? a year? more?
Look, I'm not saying that the current system is perfect but no-one has yet come up with a better one. If you have ideas for a better system - let us know how it would work.
Sigh - you have just made my point for me - the information that you haven't given away (from your 35 year old credit agreement) doesn't show up on your report as you didn't sign a contract saying that they can have your data. The information that you have given away does. If you don't want to give your details to the credit reference agencies then don't - just don't expect anyone to lend you money. If you think that lending money to unknown people on the internet is a good idea (which is what the banks would be doing if they didn't use the credit reference agencies) then I've got a bridge I'd like to sell to you.
The direct debit system is a bill payment system - nothing to do with credit except that you can use it to pay back what you have borrowed.
Experian make no money from selling the £2 report that they have to make available by law (if you could do all the admin/fraud prevention checks for less than £2 then I know someone at Experian who would be very interested in talking to you). Yes, they do sell a monitoring service but it is up to you if you think it is good value or not.
Yeah, but if you sign up to the mailing preference service you'll be flagged as such on their database and then your details won't be included when they sell a mailing list. You'd be surpised how strictly the data sharing is policed even between individual departments at Experian (I used to work there). Even different banks get different credit reports depending on what data they are allowed to see.
You already have the ability to correct/annotate your data (via a notice of correction), it's just that most people don't use it. You can also get your report for the princely sum of £2 (which is way below what it costs to process - given the number of anti-fraud checks needed before sending out such a report). This report also includes details of who has looked at your data, when they looked and why (with the exception of enquiries by the police for obvious reasons). I can see a good case for making this service free, but you can bet that the agencies would make it much harder to access this service if this were the case. Also, all of the credit reference data on UK people is held in the UK and can't be transferred abroad due to the data protection laws we have in this country. Getting the status of a credit reference agency in this country is hard and it can easily be taken away.
Google on the other hand has no such restrictions/obligations. If you think that they are the same then you are wrong.
They only have access to the full electoral roll for anti-fraud purposes. They use the same cut down down version for all of their marketing services as everyone else. And if you think they are as unregulated as wheel clamping companies you really need to do some research.
Your tree will only be infringing if it starts to manufacture and sell electronic goods (or jewellery or some other stuff) and brands them with a leaf design like the one in the trademark application...
You do realise that Nike have trademarked a tick, the post office (along with many other companies) have trademarked a colour and some fashion label has a trademark of a crocodile? You do realise that a trademark is not a patent?
Geeze, as someone else pointed out - the level of stupid around here is rising.
Well lets see if it gets thrown out then shall we...
And why should "stupidity" have no right to sue? Do you think that fraud is ok? Wait until someone scams you out of some cash and see how you feel then. Or does your ego make you think that you are too clever to be scammed? (admittedly the bar was quite low on this one but that isn't the point)
It is a ruse. You'll also notice that it only takes them a few minutes to crack "military-grade" encryption.
i.e. message to all criminal types - don't bother with encryption as the police can crack it in about five minutes. It's ok to phone the police and taunt them from your mobile as long as you hang up before thirty seconds has elapsed - they'll never be able to find you if you do this...
...but only for certain values of rubbish. It's hard to get right (or expensive to have set up properly) but it is very bandwidth friendly - mainly due to it's pre-internet heritage.
Also, I'd be interested to see your really simple address definition.
Things like this appear easy until you get into the gory details (rural addresses, different international address standards, BFPO addresses, etc). Just writing a routine to reliably interpret addresses is non-trivial.
I was only born here and have lived here all my life... quite well educated too.
Most of those questions are bizarre and have no relevance to living in the UK. Who the f*ck cares what other names the Church of England can go by, and why would I care how many hours children are allowed to work - if I ever have any children or wish to employ any, I'll find out. Maybe I should have followed my last job when it was outsourced to India - apparently I'm not fit to live here...
You mean like when you gave them permission by signing up to the terms and conditions of the Google application store?
It should also be pointed out that If you didn't agree with their terms and conditions then you don't have permission to access their store and so it would be YOU who would be in breach of the computer misuse act.