Fake news, created by Holocaust deniers...
251 posts • joined 26 Apr 2019
Ooh look, a black cab driver...
"traditional, employee based, taxi [...] services."
That's just not true. Can drivers are self employed.
Then again, neither is the rest of your little rant.
Reality is that Uber cabs are several orders of magnitude safer, considerably cheaper, and pay the drivers better.
It's also pretty rich when black cab drivers, notorious for not declaring cash in outright tax evasion, accuse Uber of tax avoidance. (I mean, you alleged tax evasion, but it must have been a typo.)
Why would you tell them something that isn't true? Chrome only keeps as many tabs actually running as your machine can handle - at a maximum, because ones that haven't been touched for a while will be suspended regardless.
If for some reason it offends you, show them how to use a tab-saver.
Sorry, how are the people at fault who clad the building with panels the building code said were safe?
This is almost entirely a problem with the system for assessing the safety of building materials. That is a very hard problem to fix because we were already doing our best, and the system didn't work.
It's also partly about inadequate fire safety training, which I mention only because that's something easy to fix.
It isn't clear at this point how much responsibility Fujitsu actually carry. Some, at least, clearly, but it appears it was the PO who were driving it all, and that they simply wouldn't listen to anything Fujitsu might have tried to tell them.
As I understand it, the root cause of the whole debacle was that a PO manager looked at the manual reconciliations being carried out and thought they were costing the amounts corrected, so put a stop to them. It appears no-one with even half a brain ever looked into it after that.
The expression is 'a few bad apples _ruins the whole barrel_'.
Police worldwide mostly share two traits: they're lazy and stupid. Not every single one, of course - some are driven, hardworking, evil powermad bastards.
Expecting police to do work they're not absolutely forced to do is unrealistic. Expecting them to do it when it'll affect their coffee-cooler mates who they 'know' are innocent is exponentially more so.
I used to work for 'IT relocation specialists', as they described themselves. One of the bigger companies in London, with a reputation for being better at the job than most.
The only differences between what you describe and getting professional movers to do the job are that you had to schlep the stuff yourselves, and that it all got to the right place, unbroken.
There seems to be a special brand of incompetence you get when you mix removals and IT. One time I had to stop them ordering thousands of sticky labels for a job - the ones which said DRHP IT (for Disaster Recovery High Priority, IT) were just about ok, but I had to change the Ordinary Priority ones to Normal Priority, because slapping DROP IT all over stuff you're moving isn't a great look.
That's why there are several different factors to take into account. If substitution is permitted, that may be enough by itself, but it's not the only factor.
FWIW, your hypothetical architect is probably neither an employee or a contractor of the client: they'll be working through an architectural practice, which may be a partnership, or may employ them. If they were really independent, maybe they'd have a personal services company.
In general, what matters is whether something is a genuine difference or just a form of words. If you set up a PSC to avoid the unlimited personal liability that comes with being self employed, then there's a real transfer of risk, and the two positions are distinguishable as a result. If your self employment didn't have any risk attached, you'd find it much harder to justify using a PSC.
The 'bad faith' part of the Ackroyd case was that she and the BBC were claiming she was two different things*, and each claimed the other needed to pay taxes but neither paid. It was reasonably presumed to be obvious to her, or her advisers, that this could not be legal.
*The BBC characterised it as a PSC, which employed her and had to pay employer's taxes, NI, etc, while Ackroyd claimed to be working for the PSC as a self employed contractor. Frankly, it's astonishing she was advised to fight it, because this one's an open and shut case. The PSC was fine, but she was obviously employed by it - that's the meaning of personal services.
Tbqh, Ackroyd and her accountants were lucky to escape criminal prosecution, because this isn't a loophole, or a grey area, or pushing the line, it's plain, straightforward tax evasion.
There is no real problem with IR35, though. Just a lot of whinging from fake contractors who have been royally taking the piss, like this case.
Seven years as a 'contractor' in the same role?! That's never going to fly.
I've worked with lots of people who had temporary employment, or more than one part time job, and called it contracting, but it never was. IR35 isn't really a change in the rules, just in whether they're policed.
Every claim you make there is just a flat out lie. A Nazi lie, to be specific. Are you a Nazi, or just one of their useful idiots?
Hint: if someone writes about 'the international super-rich', they're using a not very subtle codeword for this book - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_International_Jew
"what has really happened is that the ultra-rich have used their wealth and power to influence legal process"
And that's literally a conspiracy theory - one straight out of the above book, with the only difference being a substitution of 'ultra-rich' for 'Jews'.
You're the rich, not the poor. Which is why you can't see stuff getting cheaper for you - you could already afford it.
Clothing and food have got massively cheaper in recent decades, as have consumer electronics etc. which despite the name are actually often tools for living like vacuum cleaners.
"Plus, while the average standard of living has increased steadily since the industrial revolution, that is true only up to the end of the last century. For the past 20 years or so the average standard of living has been steadily decreasing in the UK except fot the richest 1%, who have enjoyed a faster increase in wealth."
Fortunately, that's just neo-Nazi propaganda, and not actually true.
You know the middle ground you like so much is actually economic libertarianism?
"US-style libertarianism has produced healthcare that is both more expensive and worse than any other 'western' country"
Bollocks. The US healthcare system has far and away the best outcomes in the world - while also costing a fortune. That's why those who can afford to fly from poor countries to the US for treatment, not to Europe.
Economics was called the 'dismal science' for explaining why slavery is uneconomic. Productivity is much lower, obviously, because slaves have to be forced to work, and the costs of enforcing compliance - overseers, whips, hunting down escaped slaves, etc - are high. Overall, it's cheaper to free your slaves and employ them.
The worst jobs today are massively better rewarded than the worst jobs even just twenty years ago, let alone thirty or forty. Purchasing power matters more than anything else here, and that's what automation boosts. The poor see by far the biggest benefits from cheap stuff, since the rich could always afford expensive stuff.
"Certainly, a mechanised loom might push down the income of a hand-loom weaver, but it creates a whole new industry of skilled loom-makers & repairers. "
If that took as many workers as the looms did beforehand, there's no point automating. The idea is that we can instead get the stuff that the handweavers used to make, and whatever else people who don't work as handweavers find to do.
The agricultural revolution meant that we no longer need 95% of us standing in mud to produce our food, more like 5%. We don't have the 90% making tractors, and so on, just a small proportion of them. The NHS employs roughly 10% of the population, which simply couldn't have happened when 95% of us worked in the fields: the benefits of the agricultural revolution aren't food - we had that already - but things like the NHS which people can now do instead of producing food.
It isn't wishful thinking. If the robots take over doing and making everything, we won't need jobs. If they don't, we will still have jobs.
"In Naughton’s nightmare scenario the robots are doing all the work and we humans are just appendages to the automated economy. Those who own the machines hoover up the economic gains until capital has a 100 per cent share of the economy and the rest of us are left with only a tiny slither.
"What happens here as inequality soars? Fortunately, last year’s joint winner of the Nobel Prize, William Nordhaus, has crunched the numbers. He calculates that in this doomsday wages would go up by a cool 200 per cent. Triple every year that is. No, really, every December, we workers are three times better off than we were the previous January."
The real problem is that in general we don't do nearly enough to help people whose jobs vanish, because that happens all the time. People often need retraining, or to relocate, in response to innovation and changing economic conditions. It's bonkers to refuse to spend the relatively small sums needed to keep them working.
Not sure what the specs are on your laptop, but I was saying the same about my HP 5910 a couple of years ago. Since then, it's got to the point where it can't handle modern websites anymore. It had a good run, considering I got it as a refurb over ten years ago, and if it could handle more ram it would still be fine.
No, an expert can be asked to explain what it would mean if certain things were true - that is, a report is written assuming they're true, with that assumption clearly stated. It doesn't mean the expert thinks the assumption is likely to be true.
The danger for the litigants in commissioning a report of that nature is that if the conclusions are ludicrous, they cast strong doubt on the truth of the underlying assumptions; if the conclusions are insufficient to support the case, they cast doubt on the relevance of the assumptions.
It isn't at all uncommon for people to pull out of deals at the due dil stage. That was the final nail in the coffin for Enron, for example.
Auditing, on the other hand, is just widely misunderstood. It doesn't do what people think it does, and when something comes out that people think should be, but isn't actually supposed to be covered by auditing, people criticise the auditors.
An audit checks that a set of accounts fairly and accurately represents a business's stated financial position. It doesn't check whether that position has been fraudulently mis-stated.
"I know of a small businessman in my home town who nearly went bust having been called up for a complex case. He narrowly avoided bankruptcy by walking out of the case, the 28 days in jail he was given for contempt being financially preferable to months more jury time."
Really?! He would be entitled to be excused service under those circumstances. If he had informed the court, he'd either have been excused altogether or put on a short case.
In any case, there's only a £1k fine for refusing at the outset. Perhaps 28 days for contempt, for walking out halfway through a trial, but that's a ludicrous sentence - 24 hours for contempt is considered extreme.
They could conceivably provide useful data. I know a statistician who works in something like this. The question is how many total inputs you need for all the random inputs to be reasonably expected to cancel out. Then you're only looking at the excess over the randomly distributed base.
"how do I like my car part I had no choice but to buy? It didn't fall apart immediately"
Not just car parts, but various other things, the only difference is how long they're going to last. You can pay double or triple for outwardly identical items. And then they ask you to review the purchase, before any difference would even begin to show up.
Search engines heavily weight urls with the search term in, so the examples you gave would actually work.
I seriously considered registering restore.house for a home renovation company; I was only put off when I realised it doesn't look like a website address in marketing materials; give it another few years and people may be more used to it.
It's a very good idea once you realise what would actually result: Xerox's management running HP. Other considerations are secondary to achieving a complete replacement of the HP board and c-suite - something investors have been trying to do since Carly (remember her?) or even before, but have been unable to achieve due to the cronyism.
This post has been deleted by a moderator
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020