Re: The only downside
" the people buying crypto knew it wasn't backed by any government"
Knew? Hoped, imagined, believed. But not 'knew', because whilst it's not entirely clear the evidence is against it.
1614 publicly visible posts • joined 26 Apr 2019
"Unfortunately superyacht owners really do seem to believe the laws of physics don't apply to them."
IME it's more that no-one is willing to tell them no, and capable of explaining why properly.
In the case mentioned in the story, it's ridiculous that no-one was willing to tell the owner 'this is a different kind of connection, you aren't on the end of a wire', which would probably have been all it took.
" that effectively holds their customers to ransom when it comes to maintaining products"
The interesting thing is that while there is a small and highly vocal group of ex JD customers (or soon-to-be-ex) loudly criticising the model, their sales have increased because almost all their customers love the stuff they're doing. Farming is mostly big commercial business these days, and what they offer fits perfectly with that while deeply pissing off the relatively few remaining diehard independents.
If you buy a million dollar tractor, and hire a guy on $30k a year to operate it, would _you_ want him fiddling with the thing if it breaks down? On the other hand, if you buy _yourself_ a million dollar tractor, and you can't fiddle with it yourself, how pissed off would you be? I'd be annoyed enough to buy another brand.
Apparently the real problem isn't that JD have come up with something unacceptable to a few farmers, but that those farmers are JD fanboys and won't just go and buy the competing model from another manufacturer :)
"but I have a real concern that when electronic parts fail it will be simply impossible to source replacements even from dealers"
But in fact you can buy stuff manufactured by third parties, if there's demand. Exactly the same problem exists with mechanical parts for old, rare cars too.
" I have been told repeatedly that English law does not allow for damages beyond actual losses."
A) that's something of an oversimplification. There is stuff that says what can be claimed, but no overarching statement of what cannot be. Direct consequences of something vs indirect consequences is a grey area. But just for example, if you're injured and can't do your job, you can get compensation for the injury and for lost earnings - but not for the higher wages you expected to get once you'd found a new job, which you were planning to do before you got injured.
B) these were actual (directly consequential) losses, according to this court case.
People never consider the drainage issues - a concrete-lined trench will fill with water sooner or later unless v well drained. Especially if the water main shares it.
This presents a significant limitation on depth, if you want the conduit to be able to drain into the existing system the lowest point has to be above it. You're also going to want one way valves to stop a blocked drain backing up into the conduit.
It's not at that stage - the Dutch authorities still need to decide if they're going to pursue these penalties, and, if they are, to get them confirmed by a court.
"Trading Standards used to do this, but they just don’t seem to have the resources nowadays."
Of course they do. They have a court order and just need to send in bailiffs to get money to spend. Why on earth wouldn't they do that? To 'save' the costs of bailiffs' fees that are included in the court order?
"older russians are taking them at face value because they don't know any better"
That is a rather ludicrous contention. Who, if not older Russians, knows about state propaganda being a dubious source?
Anyone who believes Kremlin propaganda does so because they want to believe. Older Russians want what Putin says to be true, even while they know deep down that it isn't.
That document says what Russia claims to have, and it suits the US to accept the claim in that context.
If you think a Cold War ICBM and MIRVs has any chance of getting to target against modern missile defences, you haven't actually looked at the developments. Really, there is zero chance of even a single warhead making it to target by that route.
There is some chance of a tactical warhead making it as far as Warsaw, if launched from the Belarussian border, but that's assuming saturation with short range missiles and getting lucky. Anything that has a flight time of more than a few hundred seconds simply has no survivability.
You're forgetting the bit where there are missile defence systems. Sure, Russia can launch stuff. It won't get through. They were losing the race by the end of the Cold War, and have built _nothing_ in that line since, while the West has kept upgrading the defences.
A Cold War ICBM won't get through. Every one of the MIRVs will be destroyed. Zero chance of a single one even getting lucky and getting through to target.
"We are not the world's policemen."
But we should be. It's morally wrong to stand by while Putin destroys things and kills people, when we could so easily stop him. The world would be a much better place with a democratic, liberal, wealthy Russia instead of a totalitarian warmongering kleptocracy.
Russia is not thought to have many working warheads left; if there are any at all, it's a handful. More to the point, they have no delivery system that can reach past Warsaw, and even that's only if they launch from Belarus and get lucky.
"Sure, NATO could do nasty things to Russia's military, but not before Russia's military arranged for most of NATO to become glowing glass"
You're going off message in the first part, but the last part is pure Kremlin propaganda. The simple reality is that Russia has less military power than at the end of the Cold War in Cold War era terms, and no modern military equipment whatsoever. NATO will achieve absolute air superiority in a matter of hours, and that's game over: any Russian deployments after that will be bombed out of existence as soon as they move.
Jesus, you're so far behind the times you must be reading this on a CRT. Modern OS handle all those things for you. It's only *nix that gives users a chance to f-it-ubar in the ways you're suggesting and even praising.
Windows and MacOS will both perfectly happy do a fresh reinstall, or install a new version, without needing to take special steps to protect your personal files.
Anyone who's actually done support knows how brilliant the ribbon is. Power users don't benefit. Ordinary users suddenly found stuff they never knew was there.
There is no doubt whatsoever that it was a huge step forwards. You're just ranting at clouds if you won't admit that it's good for most other people even if not you.
The use of VBA is perfectly cromulent at low levels, and absolutely evil in situations where 'you should probably be using a proper development platform'. The problem comes when you start with the first, and slowly add stuff until you're in the latter category.
For basic - sorry, unintentional pun - automation of simple Office functionality, there is nothing that even comes close to VBA.
"One flash of the hazards is a universally understood symbol for "ta" used when the person who you are trying to thank is behind you."
No, it's a universal sign of a bad driver. Hazards do not mean that. People who use them like that shouldn't be allowed to drive - it's a sure sign they can't do so safely or sensibly.