Posts by Doctor Syntax 42530 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
"Remember all the products that were NTSC only because it just wasn’t feasible to make a PAL offering based on market size?"
Isn't the European market actually bigger than Never Twice Same Colour land? More likely marketing execs in the US don't even realise there are other countries out there let alone know what their standards are.
"Oddly, if you look at our history BEFORE we joined the EEC, it was a lot better."
You're looking at a time just after WWII - and really seeing a continuation of the inventiveness that engendered (radar etc.). After that the arts & PPE graduates took over and they didn't like these little men in brown coats with pens and screwdrivers in their top pockets.
"It's not how much the data is actually worth, it's how much the advertisers think it's worth. And you're talking about marketing people here."
Got it in one.
As I keep saying here, the only thing the advertising industry sells is advertising. "Targeting" data is part of that product and they keep finding mugs to buy it.
"the anti-Microsoft brigade trumpetted about the virtues of Android being open source"
The problem with Android isn't the open source core, it's the large closed source lump that Google runs on top of it before allowing Play store apps to be used. Yes, we know about that one. It's been mentioned here many times. It's why the OP gave those recommendations and why we don't trust Google. Also partly the reason why my. mobile is an ancient Symbian Nokia (the other reason is it does all I need so I don't see any reason to spend on a replacement).
"corporate marketing"
It might be worse than that. The report on the Beeb suggests it could be the work of an activist investor who now has a seat on the board. Maybe the board decided the best way to deal with him was let him have his head and then when everyone was pointing and laughing at the result, give them a chance to fire him without comeback. (Ringing the BOFH for carpet & quicklime would finish the job nicely.)
"In around 10 - 20 or so years the UK will be wanting to rejoin, lots of hard exit people died off and young wanting to be in EU people out numbering the ones left."
My guess is that it'll be almost impossible to find anyone claiming admitting to vote Brexit in a far less time period than that. And I'm sure joining the Euro will be part of the price for that. I'm with Codejunky and the rest on the Euro not being a good thing but it's what they'll have brought on us.
"- We can deport undesirables (hate speech preachers, for example) without the ECJ telling us that we have to keep them because deportation would spoil their family life."
And fourthly we can't deport any of those who are home grown. (A pity, however, that prosecutions for treason have become unpopular.)
"I'm an optimist so I offered a few possibilities"
The first part of your post was based on "A lot depends on whether you think the EU and Eurozone will survive the next few years. I suspect the Eurozone will go first," which is essentially pessimistic in nature. This is your Project Fear.
"EU recycling targets can be scrapped so the many colours of bins to send waste to China who is now giving up on sorting and recycling it (costs too much) making our lives more productive."
What do you think happens if we scrap recycling targets? We dump more stuff in landfill, that's what happens. See squatting on our own shit heaps.
China's stopping taking stuff is certainly a problem that needs to besolved but you're conflating two separate issues.
"It's always hard to come up with concrete predictions for the future"
And yet the whole Brexit argument is based on alleged predictions which, on your own admission, must be non-concrete.
There a few real gems in your list:
"We don't have to send billions a year to be spent by someone else on what they think is good for us."
This is what governments do. e.g. we, as UK taxpayers, send billions a year to the NHS to be spent by someone else, NHS trusts, on what they think good for us.
"We can avoid bureaucratic red tape that is deliberately written in an overcomplex way so as to avoid offending 28 countries that all have a diferent take on things."
Did you read the article at all. It deals with the new bureaucratic red tape that has to be introduced as replacement for the existing lack of bureaucratic red tape involved in transactions with what is currently our home market.
And I'll leave you to reflect on the leverage we'll be able to exert in setting up these trade deals that will benefit us with some selfless but unidentified countries that won't be wanting trade deals to benefit themselves.
"Why would we put tarrifs on things we want to buy?"
I think you're missing the OP's point; you're certainly missing the article's. Just handling the bureaucracy on imports, tarrifs or no, is going to impose direct costs. The time taken to get stuff through the procedures is going to impose delays and very likely lead to shortages. With shortages you get price rises.
"Why does it matter whether he's a member or not? It's personal data that they have collected about him.
From a technical aspect, if he's a member it should make it easier for them to extract and collate the relevant data."
I'm just thinking it terms of how this can play out. If he doesn't have an account FB can present a defence along the lines of "we don't know who he is". If he has an account this defence is less likely to succeed and if the case then exposes the amount of data collected off-platform it makes it less easy for them to defend against a subsequent claim by a non-account holder.
Yes. All it says is off Facebook.
Let's back up two paragraphs before what we both wrote about: "The crux of the issue is the data the firm slurps up via its Facebook Pixel, the widely used tracking code on multiple websites"
Note that these multiple websites extend far beyond those Facebook runs.
Now look at the next paragraph; it makes the point that the tools Facebook provides are "to access the data collected on the platform [i.e. Facebook's own platform] – for instance, ad preferences" and not those collected off it, i.e. those collected by the means described in the preceding paragraph.
And that's what "off Facebook" means. It gives no indication as to whether he has an account with them or not because he's not asking about data collected on the platform.
"Probably the best way to avoid corporate tax avoidance is to reduce corporation tax to a very low level and raise income taxes, dividend taxes and maybe property/and taxes."
Or the Irish method. Attract large multinational corporations to head-quarter in your country so that you can set corporation taxes low but still, due to the now enormous size of your tax base, bring in a tax-take entirely disproportionate to the size of your country's real economy. You have the additional advantage that that your local businesses also benefit from the low corporation tax. It has the disadvantage that you become very unpopular with your neighbours by taking what they regard as their taxation but can do nothing about as they've agreed international tax treaties that permit it.
"Implementing Leveson (including Leveson 2) in full is already Labour policy."
There are lots of things which are in the policy of opposition parties but cease to be as soon as that party gets into power. This applies to all parties. Most party supporters realise it. Unfortunately LibDem supporters seem to be an exception here so we've lost the ameliorating influence that that party brought to the 2010-2015 coalition.
"I don't drive a car but I still help pay for the roads"
I do drive a car and do pay for the privilege but very little of it goes to pay for the roads or anything else road-related.
You know what would happen to the Corbyn tax. HMRC would label it hypothecated and, on the basis that they don't like hypothecated taxes, would just roll it into the general taxation pot and the intended beneficiaries would get little or nothing out of it. I would just become one more of those taxes that future chancellors would keep increasing and hoping nobody would notice.
"Like I said I've got other things to worry about out here in the real world."
Go and read the W10 privacy clause. As you're obviously not used to reading this sort of thing I'll give you big hint. Pay attention to what's missing, what they don't exclude themselves from taking.
"The data we collect can include the following:"
Notice it says "include". It doesn't say it's the complete list.
"Credentials. Passwords, password hints and similar security information used for authentication and account access. "
"Payment data. Data to process payments, such as your payment instrument number (such as a credit card number) and the security code associated with your payment instrument."
Compare that with something a little further down the list::
"Interactions. Data about your use of Microsoft products."
Do you notice something different between the first two and the third? The third has a restriction to Microsoft products. Do you see such restrictions in the first two?
Your real world includes Windows. Does your country's laws actually prevent Microsoft's "telemetry" from seeing stuff you might not want it to see and that you weren't "bloggered" to read about?
Frankly, I doubt you have much idea about the real world.
"Most people don't care because we have actual things to worry about based outside in the real world."
As far as I'm concerned the real world includes all sorts of legal issues. Perhaps that's because a good chunk of my career was concerned with the courts. I had to be able to stand over, in the witness box, what I wrote and signed. Another substantial part was as a freelancer so again, contract terms were important to me. You might have lead a more sheltered life which has hidden these aspects of reality from you.
"In figures filed at the UK’s Companies House, BSS reported turnover of £277m for the year ended 28 February 2018, up 28.4 per cent on the prior fiscal. Did someone say software reselling was dead?"
As soon as I read that I thought a likely explanation was that they'd bought in business by taking over another company.
Oh look, that's what they did: "Cash in the business dropped by £20.6m, principally to fund the new group acquisition. In 2017, BSS snapped up rival reseller Phoenix Software for £35.9m."
So how much of that 28.4% was actual growth and how much was acquired?
"Manufacturers tell healthcare pros the equipment should be always connected to some backend, contrary to the advice of security clearing house ICS-CERT and others."
This is where procurement should push back. Make it clear that if equipment has to be connected to a backend without that being a functional requirement then it won't even make it to the long-list. If spurious recommendations that it be connected aren't removed from the bumph it won't make it to the short-list.
"While metadata in SMTP is in the open, contents of the messages can be OpenPGP or S/MIME and thus protected."
The problem with this is that we're far from a tipping point being reached. Most people don't use PGP in email because they don't know anyone who uses it. The people they know who don't use it don't use it because they don't know anyone who uses it. It's nothing more than an optional addon that rarely gets added on. with the effect that anyone sending encrypted emails stands out as being of possible interest to the TLAs even if they're only saying "Don't forget aunt Emma's birthday" and actually meaning "Don't forget aunt Emma's birthday".
This will remain the situation until encryption is built into the protocols used by mail as the default mode of operation.
"It's still a problem because it means they'll be able to retroactively decrypt today's messages."
The essence of encryption is that it needs to take longer to crack than the information remains significant. If it can be cracked in 20 seconds it doesn't matter provided the message is an instruction to do something in 10 seconds time. If retroactive decryption at some point in the future is a worry you need to concentrate on avoiding interception, not avoiding decryption.
""We're sorry to hear about..." is another of those phrases like "we take.....very seriously". It's just rolled out without thinking and almost certainly without intending it to mean anything.
Nevertheless it strikes the ear as indicating that the query was the first they'd heard about the problem but this belies the present tense in "we're doing all we can" which implies ongoing action. If they've only just heard the only thing they can be doing at the time is looking at what action they can take.
It would make more sense if they said they were aware of it and were doing all they could or if they said they were sorry to hear about it and will examine the problem (preferably urgently). As it is this bit of boilerplate is about as unreassuring as they could be short of simply coming out and saying what they really mean which is probably along the lines of "So what do you expect us to do about it?".
"For any organization to say "no" to MS subscription would essentially mean having to be ready, in short order, to remove their dependency on MS, something that would likely cost a lot more than whatever the licensing costs are."
Hmmm. At any one time, maybe. Over a longer period of time those subs add up as a comment a little way up the thread points out. The real problem that prevents a proper consideration is short-termism. For once Trump seems to have the right idea.
"And PDF is supposed to be a standard format."
I'v been taking a few PDFs prepared for printers and reformating them for putting on a web site, with a bit of editing of the copy in one case. I'm starting to realise that while PDF is a standard container format what's hidden inside can be as mad as a box of frogs.
