Breeched
You keep using that word....
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/breech
42535 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
"I won't be the only one looking to leave the bank over this bullshittery."
You're not but with branches closing all over where do you go?
I'd been waiting for YBS to roll out their Norfolk & Peterborough (or whatever) current accounts to the rest of their franchises but it looks as if they're trying to phase it out; I was told they're not accepting new customers.
"High street banks, able to deal with issues in-branch"
What are these branches of which he speaks? "High street" banks are scarcely worth the name, they're closing branches as fast as they can and their approach to the "customer experience" he refers to is about the same as the "user experience" that you can expect when the UX folk take over your preferred software. The whole shower exist solely on the basis that we need to deal with one of them; I don't know that any of them could get customers based on customer service.
But..but..but Haven't comments on previous stories assumed that Verizon was buying the whole shooting match, Alibaba holding included and calculated the value of the rest as $4.8 billion - $Alibaba and come up with a negative figure? Now it transpires that it's that negative valued rest that Verizon are paying positive amounts for (assuming it doesn't all fall through).
"My advice: save your collection now, because it will probably disappear with barely a warning."
Applies to pretty well anything cloud-based. Even if it doesn't disappear entirely it might suddenly be truncated because you're using it too much.
"the ability to know that its data has been stolen"
Hindsight is a very powerful route to knowledge. Presumably they knew it had gone AWOL because they couldn't find it when they wanted to use it. I'm not sure from the report that the disk wasn't simply reformatted & reused but they're not in a position to know that it was and had to take a worst case view.
The very notion that someone might be made liable for legal costs of an action that they did not start, and in which they are found blameless, flies so hard in the face of justice that "all right-thinking people" should recognize the iniquity that it embodies.
Indeed. Maybe that's why the Act says "the court must award costs against the defendant unless satisfied that ... it is just and equitable in all the circumstances of the case to make a different award of costs or make no award of costs."
"With the new rules, the journalists will pay the legal fees even if the suit is obviously frivolous."
Except they don't. Go and read what the legislation actually says; the article actually provides a link. If the circumstances are appropriate the court can make different awards or no awards at all. I can see nothing at all in there to stop the court awarding the defendant's costs against the plaintiff.
"If only this was about accuracy."
Indeed. In the interests of accuracy, go back to the article, follow the link to the relevant part of the Act and read 40.3(b).
Anyone thinking the Act allows them to start a frivolous lawsuit for free could end up with a nasty and expensive shock. If the court feels the circumstances are appropriate that provision enables them to dump the defendant's costs on the plaintiff.
"The legislation makes the assumption that fault will only ever be on the part of the publisher, and completely ignores the possibility that someone will try and silence a story they don't like."
Actually it doesn't.
From 40.3
the court must award costs against the defendant unless satisfied that—
...
(b)it is just and equitable in all the circumstances of the case to make a different award of costs or make no award of costs.
In other words, the court can take its own view if the circumstances make that appropriate.
Could the Act have been more open-ended about this? Maybe, but if it were the case of phuzz vs the Mail would you want it written any differently?
"It's simply infantile to say you're going to ignore contractual details."
It's infantile - or maybe some other word - to advertise "unlimited" without having first worked out what that might mean and whether you'll be able or prepared to deliver it.
If you don't mean it, don't advertise it.
"they are not a US company or have a US parent company ... I'm sure that despite Safe Harbour 2.0, they are making that a primary selling point when pitching to customers."
It depends on where and who those customers are. If they're in the EU or UK customers intending to hold data of EU data subjects it's not going to be good enough post May's reneging on ECHR.
"when did she realise her dreams were incompatible with supporting Remain....I'd guess a few days into the campaign someone smacked her with a clue stick."
I doubt it was as late as that nor that anyone had to alert her to it. I think she was a closet leaver all along but expected remain to win so nominally went along with that.
4) 3 + repeated attempts to grant US adequacy alternating with trips to the courts to thwart them.
Would it be too much to hope that 3 brings about a final realisation that Brexit really wasn't a good idea with the electorate punishing those politicians who supported it.
NB there's no requirement for an electorate to remain consistent, especially when it finally realises which side of its bread was buttered.
"Unfortunately this isnt a brexit problem but a politics problem."
The two are not independent. Brexit is a necessity for May's escaping international scrutiny on human rights by reneging on the ECHR. She is clearly prepared to chuck substantial swathes of the UK economy under the bus in order to achieve this dubious political end. The most charitable explanation I can think if is extremely blinkered vision.
It's one thing to argue that May's policies would make compliance impossible. It's another to assume that she (or someone else) won't have to change them. The economic realities of not being able to comply (not to mention the impact on the Good Friday agreement of abandoning the ECHR) is going to make her stance increasingly impractical.
We would, in future, be well advised to avoid promoting Home Secs to PM; the experience seems to warp their judgement.
Clearly someone doesn't know what a presumptive test is.
It's a test which is quick and easy and responds positively to what you're looking for plus possibly quite a few other things. e.g. there are several presumptive tests for blood which are actually tests for peroxidase* activity, blood being one of several substances, including fruit juices, which have this property. So although a stain might give a positive result one would have to follow it up with a more specific test for blood. In my day it would have been an immunoelectrophoretic test which would have confirmed whether it was blood but also blood of the species (usually human) that you were testing for.
The key thing is that all it does is tell you to look further. It is not of evidential value.
*We discarded one of these as a component of the kit was known to be carcinogenic. I wasn't happy when years later I discovered from my daughter that it was still being used with enzyme-linked antibodies as a microscopy stain.
"Widespread evidence shows that these tests routinely produce false positives. Why are police departments and prosecutors still using them?"
It's not using them that's the problem, it's relying on them. They would appear to be presumptive tests, an indication that they should be followed up with something more time-consuming, elaborate and, most importantly, reliable.
If I see a big, expensive advert I think "Why should I pay for that?" Same with a big, flashy shop.
Yes, but we're not in the business of selling big, expensive adverts or big, flashy shops. At least I'm not and I don't suppose you are. But being in such a business requires you to take a different attitude - and try to get your clients to share it. I say again, the advertising industry sells adverts to advertisers, that's all. What effect it has on the advertisers' bottom line isn't their problem providing they get paid.
I entered my home number into my car phone. The first time I used voice command to call home it told me it didn't have an entry. I got it to read out the entries and it pronounced it "hume", i.e. the pronunciation used by the former Prime Minister. Presumably the makers think more of their customers know someone called Home than have homes to go to.
They need to sort this out before self-driving cars come onto the market. Come out of the pub, get into the car and get driven to a suburb of Manchester.
"It's actually voluntary for employees to provide it."
Presumably the employer (a) asks the employees to volunteer it and (b) makes provision to record it.
This must pose a problem in relation to people employed by US companies in Europe. In the UK, for instance, the information would fall foul of the data protection principles (see https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/data-protection-principles/ ), especially 3 and hence of the DPA and the equivalent legislation in other EU countries.
I can see how they'd probably twist the principle's wording to try to get away with it assuming the exemptions in Schedules 2 & 3 extend to obligations in the US. As stricter EU regulations come into force and Max Schrems or others get more judgements at the ECJ that might get more difficult.
But I repeat a comment I made earlier: it's different attitudes about such things that make Europeans distrust the US with personal data.
And I trust that the man who fell to earth, amongst others, has never been in charge of anything where European data protection law applies.
"If you're really from the Department for Education then the should already have our proper contact email details,"
She put the phone down.
For occasions like this, keep a list of addresses of the more recent SEO etc spammers from your junk folder. They're all in the same line of work, no reason why they shouldn't occasionally be introduced to each other.
"Not all of us are happy with shit like the ribbon, we want to slap the stupid out of you for that, so the ability to choose our own themes would be a big boone."
From MS's point of view ribbon was far from stupid. Between that and supporting education (getting schools to train MS Office users) they've now got a cohort of users who don't grok what you and I would call a sane interface, and hence any S/W that uses it. It's lock-in 21st century style.
Not to worry, LibreOffice is fighting back with multiple interface options.
"So reality is... they don't need to put them away or try them to ruin the alleged crim."
"Alleged" is a key word here. No conviction so in the eyes of the law he's innocent. I think we can expect the lawsuit to follow PDQ.
Investigation of crimes should be properly conducted so that the prosecution are able and willing to stand over their evidence.
"How is the guy being 'a registered sex offender' relevant?
Why was it mentioned?"
It's just possible that the register also had his address, just in case they needed to check that the bank's records weren't out of date. It also indicates prior convictions which might affect sentence. Just a couple of obvious answers, I'll leave you to work out if there are more.