In fact I found it amusing that BOTH sides accused the BBC of "bias" in turn
It's usually the case. It's trendy left-wing elite biased but pro-Brexit and supports the Establishment. Go figure.
42535 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
"They have to buy in programming from third parties because the Government says they have to"
Yes. And this is a Select Committee MPs asking about it. So they can recommend that the Govt change it. It's the sort of thing Select Committees are supposed to do if they find something wrong.
One is that increasingly the BBC "catalogue" doesn't actually belong to the BBC, because the BBC is obliged to buy a lot of programmes from third parties.
That raises the question of why this should continue if it isn't helping the Beeb. I suspect the reason is that it's helping Beeb execs. If they don't want to sully their brains with actually making programmes they can go out to expensive lunches with companies who want to sell them programmes. And if they do want to they can take nice jobs with the 3rd parties and sell back to their erstwhile colleagues at the said lunches.
They've already got out of running the actual transmitting network. Maybe they should be given the option of being freed of the 3rd party obligation and told to produce their own stuff or to get out of ... well, I suppose, employment altogether.
Rather silly convention if you ask me.
English has a perfectly usable gender pronoun, "it". In fact "they" is the plural of "it".
English personal pronouns and their accompanying tenses are rather more complicated than you think. For instance, why is the 2nd person always plural in modern English?.
"Completely disagree with your opinion on the printers themselves - for SOHO with low to moderate printing needs, brother printers are my first choice, both for reliability and for cost-effectiveness."
I have one and whilst it's a good printer it does seem to get lost from the network from time to time.
"I'd be hugely amused if Microsoft implemented a system whereby any customer of MS Federal Sales had to provide reams of documentation and evidence of eligibility in order to activate their software"
And also prove that neither their staff nor contractors were running cracked hookey versions at home.
"If your a small business, having to accept card payments - especially for smaller transactions - cuts into your profit."
OTOH it means the money goes into your account without having to wait to take it to the bank which, these days, is becoming a longer hike. I wonder how the two aspects balance each other out. The fact that some shops offer cashback suggests that cards win.
"Every fee-free ATM is unprofitable, and every business seeks to eliminate unprofitable activities."
Which was the point of my earlier post. The banks set up ATMs to save money, which they still do in comparison with the costs of counter staff (who, if they're anything like the last Lloyds' counter staff I encountered will also cost custom). It ill becomes them to then complain about the cost of saving money and it would serve them right if we went back to asking for cash at the counters.
" If you gloat you cannot get paid."
Gloating doesn't have to be public. You can gloat all the way to the bank.
The only thing to worry about is that your part in one breach gets outed because it's documented in stuff that subsequently comes out when your own solicitors get breached.
It looks as if we're getting about as far as the pendulum swings on this particular cycle. Then a few people realise that the lock-in has made it difficult to get anything done without consulting the resident Kubernetes or whatever wizards or break the hold the beancounters have on the AWS account and it would be a lot easier to sneak in a PC or two...
"That is the predicament ICANN are in. Their contract stipulates the registrars must provide contact details of the owner. EU law now forbids that."
They have, as I understand it, a contract with the US authorities that stipulates they impose conditions on registrars. Those conditions, when imposed on EU customers contradict the new EU law. So they can impose the terms on the registrars as per their contract but as the terms are contrary to EU law. At the point where the contract chain hits EU law the term becomes unenforceable.
I can understand that the US authorities with their concepts of global jurisdiction might not like this. However, if they want to keep the Privacy Figleaf in place they need to think very, very carefully about the wisdom of trying to enforce their own contract with ICANN. A graceful way round it would be for them to revise the ICANN contract with words to the effect of "where allowed by local law" slotted in.
At some point the US does need to get off its high horse. Ultimately ICANN's only power is that it runs the root DNS. Would it really be impossible for the ROTW to get together, clone that root and regard the clone as authoritative? And if they did so the US would simply have to follow.
"Secondly, you can't refuse the service if the checkbox isn't ticked."
Why not? There's plenty of businesses where if you don't sign their contract they won't do business with you, what's different in this case?
From the ICO's site:
Consent under the GDPR must be a freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous indication of the individual’s wishes. There must be some form of clear affirmative action – or in other words, a positive opt-in – consent cannot be inferred from silence, pre-ticked boxes or inactivity. Consent must also be separate from other terms and conditions, and you will need to provide simple ways for people to withdraw consent.
I doubt refusing to provide the service if consent isn't given constitutes "freely". Also not "separate from other T&Cs" - again you can sign the contract but refuse consent. I think anyone trying to make consent a condition for providing a service will find themselves answering to the ICO or equivalent in other jurisdictions.
"What we don't like"
Perhaps I should qualify "we" as GB. During the troubles in we got used in NI to having to provide ID at checkpoints. It came as a major culture shock to my parents when they visited and we got stopped at a VCP on a back road from Aldergove to Listburn.
I'm curious as to what's the attitude there now. Anybody?
"What worries me though is the potential single point of failure issues and also the possible function creep, if it's not tightly regulated. That's already happened with PPS numbers (equivalent or Social Security / National Insurance) where all of a sudden they're needed for everything from school registration to applying to University etc etc"
That seems to be a problem with the US SSN which is regularly part of the PII lost in data breaches.
"In the UK Sir Humphry would spend six months obscuring the problem."
It would, however, be Sir Humphrey, and not Jim Hacker, who'd be in favour of the ID card in the first place. Hacker would realise it could lose him an election. Sir H would, of course, not have to carry such a demeaning object himself; he'd excuse graduates of both Universities.
"You do have to identify yourself at times, soon so much easier with that passport of the right and only colour. driving perhaps with some identification too."
What we don't like is the idea of some jobs-worth coming up to us and demanding our identification. It doesn't sit well with our ideas of the assumption of innocence etc. The easiest way to stop that is to ensure that there is no such item that the jobs-worth could demand.
"Look how many people are *IRRITATED* by it"
I think the word you're looking for is "alarmed" because we feel it gives an insight into the mind of one of our great national leaders.
It's worth repeating something that comes very shortly after the previous quotation:
"One of the reasons for trying to maintain impenetrable secrecy around Government Ministers is that without it many would make themselves laughing stocks within days or -- at most -- weeks."
"The thing is, I've had that happen to me on Windows."
Much the same on Linux. If the battery's on its way out it doesn't fail gracefully. 90% to 12% to off can take seconds. It's one reason why I decided to replace SWMBO's ancient laptop rather than throw good money after bad on a new battery.
"So, better rip the bottom half inch off your cheques every time you write one then... and NEVER ask people to pay you by bank transfer."
No, I think he has a point.
It's one thing to have that information on a cheque, it's another to combine it with a lot of other personal information such as DoB & employers. Someone intercepting the letter without that might be able to fill in the blanks from other sources but why present the whole lot on a plate?
HSBC used to do something similar when I had a business account with them. They wanted the amount of a recent transaction for me to prove who I was!
I always told them I didn't believe they were who they said they were because I'd made it clear to my bank that I wouldn't accept such calls without a secure means of identifying themselves. If they were calling without such identification then they couldn't be my bank and I wouldn't even confirm if they'd guessed right. It was always followed up by a letter from them essentially saying how miffed they were that they hadn't been able to talk to me to sell me something.
I suppose I could have replied by giving them some random incorrect amount. Their recognition that it was incorrect would serve to identify them but I didn't particular want to take sales calls from them so why bother?