Surprised
It didn't come back tasting of pee?
42414 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
"Let them prove that they have the right information on YOU Not the other way round. Oh wait that won't work."
Of course it will work but only if they're obliged to do it which at the moment they're not.
One test, of course, is to offer them incorrect information. If the call is genuine they'll know it's wrong.
I never was a Barclays customer but when I was an HSBC business customer I used to get calls purporting to be from them wanting identification information. I always asked them to prove who they were. They never offered any proof. If a cold caller can't prove who they are before asking for any information always assume they're faking it.
'The Register asked the Department for Education how confident it is that teachers are qualified in the curriculum, and what it is doing to ensure the right capabilities are in place.
A spokesman did not respond to the specific question, but said the government has provided £4.5m to "make sure teachers have the confidence and knowledge to teach this new curriculum and are engaging leading technology companies to support schools delivering it."'
Measuring inputs not outputs.
"What you have described is the old view of computing that computers are in control of people. The revolution of Silicon Valley, Doug Englebart and others was that people are in control of computers"
That's old hat. The new view is that the people who make the computers are in charge of the people who have them.
"Or washing machine. Who knows what all the buttons do? Now, look at your calculator app - see Scientific, Programmer et al. Put that on your phone instead. Have a nice, clean UI customised to you, plus save £10 on the White goods front panel."
Or put that interface directly on the washing machine instead of the crap that's there. Who wants a washing machine that needs a phone to operate it? SWMBO would put it the other way round - why should she have to buy a smartphone she doesn't want to operate the washing machine? And then there's the problem that the app for last year's washing machine isn't compatible with this year's smartphone. So you have your new shiny, last year's shiny to work the washing machine and the year before that's to work the dishwasher...
"Why is this not considered as theft ?"
Because it isn't. Theft is taking something away in such a way as to permanently deprive the owner. For instance taking a car & then dumping it elsewhere isn't theft because the owner can recover it - the offence is taking and driving away. Acquiring data doesn't deprive the owner of it. And giving something away, even if misguidedly, isn't theft so it would be difficult to argue that although privacy cannot be restored it hasn't been stolen. Even if a court would consider something as intangible as something that could be stolen.
It's a situation which is novel in terms of the traditional legal framework of theft & maybe also of fraud & needs its own legislation. Possibly the DPA (or equivalent in other jurisdictions) will cover it; maybe there might be something under legislation relating to children. If not something new might be needed.
"start complaining to manufacturers that their firmware is shit"
Manufacturers aren't going to be interested if the product is EOLed. And the manufacturers themselves may have been EOLed. Meanwhile, in the real world, the bean-counters aren't going to be impressed with arguments that a million quid piece of kit has to be replaced because Google, Mozilla & Microsoft stopped supporting RC4.
"IF he has to go to Sweden,THEN he goes to Sweden.
After that... back to the UK"
Not sure it'll work that way. The minute he shows outside the door he'll be arrested for bail offences and I can't see him being sent to Sweden until he's served any sentence for that. Of course he could argue that time spent in the Embassy counts towards any term of imprisonment in the same way that time on remand does.
"making a phone today is much easier than making a car. Anyone can make one....For Sony and HTC and others, there are big manufacturing costs and high marketing and corporate overheads, for products that are harder and harder to differentiate."
If anyone can make one then it's difficult to see how Sony, HTC etc can have higher manufacturing costs. It must come down to marketing and corporate.
"Broadband stuff is more complicated than that:"
And you can see how that would have gone. High density areas would have got done. But would there have been a big incentive to connect at that time? The whole thing would have stalled when the cost of passing premises and the preparedness of potential customers to pay for a new connection meant that there wasn't payback. BT would then have had to abandon roll-out or go asking for public money to finance free connections and as Warm Braw says, the Treasury wouldn't have forked out.
Yes, BT should have been allowed to compete with the cable TV companies but no, it wouldn't have resulted in a wider network than cable TV achieved, maybe less because competition would have lowered the return for any given network so the cherry picking would have been even more intense.
"This was massively helped by revolutions in communication. Suddenly the world moved into colour as colour printing became economic and colour TV started to gain traction - both leading to a massive explosion in marketing success.
...
This led to a 50s boom for cheaper UK regions, then a boom for lower wage regions of Europe and eventually, as transport improved, the growth moved away to lower cost regions of the world. End of boom."
I think you've got your chronology wrong.
" Whereas a Civil trial, the burden is on the defendant to prove that they are innocent beyond a reasonable doubt "
Actually, no. Civil cases are found on balance of probabilities. And I think even on that basis the plaintiff would have problems in proving that his loss stemmed from a particular site given that he would have visited many.
OTOH if the offence is to serve up - or participate in serving - malware then that would be provable by the sort of analysis in the article but without the need to prove which particular user was infected by which particular server. Several of the participants at the head of the chain could become liable to prosecution or, to put it another way, they would have good reason to put in place a vetting procedure. The chains which failed to apply vetting might have lower costs immediately but they might find themselves out of business a lttle later.
"Surely they should have anticipated problems (such as BACS f*cking up) and paid us earlier??"
Earlier than what? Last day of the month is Monday & they're paying you on the previous Friday. That's earlier. Or did you mean they should have paid a day earlier than that? And what happens if there'd been a problem on Thursday? Pay a day earlier?
Recursion: see recursion.
@Loyal Commenter
You seem to be taking a lot for granted there.
I don't know about Ole Juul's situation but I do know what mine was. And that the "reasonably well paid" & all that meant as far as I was concerned, that for years I arranged bank statements to be sent in the middle of the month so I could see how bad things were & what was left for the rest of the month. And very often the amount was negative by the end; maybe the only thing different back then was you seemed to be able to get away with that without penalty payments. I know it contributed a good deal to the stress I suffered at that time & from which I still suffer.
There seems to be an assumption by one generation that things were much easier for the previous one. I don't think it was.