Time to google myself (again)
I am pleased to report that none of the Google images for "Pete 2" are me.
Though I do like one of the Pete2b.jpg shots.
2495 posts • joined 10 Jun 2009
I am pleased to report that none of the Google images for "Pete 2" are me.
Though I do like one of the Pete2b.jpg shots.
Learn chinese. Then learn whichever IT skills are in short supply in the CST timezone (China Standard Time) . Then find a low cost place to live. Then brace yourself while the job offers come flooding in -but not in english.
For a short time the novelty of employing a native english speaker should get you a position. But after that, you'll need to have embraced the culture and be able to demonstrate a string of successful projects.
Oh and don't go flashing your iPhone during the interview.
So why to medics have more problems than IT professionals?
It can't be due to the amount of time spent in front of a work 'puter - my local surgery only offers appointments for 3½ hours in the morning and 3 in the afternoon, with a 2½ hour break for lunch. And none of the GPs work all those shifts (and none of them work at all at weekends).
Now, it's true that their offices are dingy little rooms with trailing cables and childrens' toys scattered around (is this how they drum up business? by booby-trapping their own work spaces. H&S would have a fit, as would any IT unionised company) and poorly sited desks - but that's no worse than a lot of the IT shops I've seen.
Maybe the clue is in the "tennis elbow" remark? I may be tarring every IT worker with the same brush, but it does seem to me that in general IT people are less likely to spend time taking exercise than your average doctor. Apart from the fitness aspect, we just don't get such cushy shift opportunities with long breaks that need filling.
> I want to buy a YouView(HD)/PVR/DVD-RW/BD-RW/WiFi/DNLA combo box, but can't tick the YouView box on that list yet.
Wot? not even a freshly hacked Dream <ahem> Openbox or Humax?
As far as home-ents hype goes, yup lots of talk. However in terms of actual stuff that ordinary people have and use: very little changed.
Probably the biggest event of the year was the turning-off of analog TV, although that was more of a ceremony than a world-shattering paradigm change.
As for 2013? I fully expect nothing much. Radio will go on as before. The internet will have slightly less SPAM and slightly more advertisements. TV will continue on its downward spiral of more repeats and fewer worthwhile programmes (although it's a racing certainty that reality TV will increase, like an annoying rash). There will be a few good films amongst the dross and possibly the same can be said for gaming, too.
I might buy a tablet.
It all depends what the "puller"'s motivation is.
Given that a country (and here I mean specifically a western democracy or the UK) would feel the need to deny its citizens access to news and information to/from abroad, what would they have to do to achieve that?
The first thing would be to switch off the landline & mobile phone networks. I doubt that would be too difficult and wouldn't even need the use of (much) force - just a quiet word and a soft <click> in the right ears would be enough.
To do the same to the internet wouldn't be much harder. Forget all the stuff about routing and IP and resilience, the simplest way is to attack the physical layer. Half an hour's work with some cable cutters (remember: to get to this point, we're already well past the suspension of democracy and looking Martial Law in the eye) would do the trick.
All that would leave would be a few hardy souls with direct satellite feeds. Since you'd have to be desperate, cut off and completely isolated to even contemplate the cost/slowness and inconveinece of satellite internet, those few individuals probably have little idea of what's going on, anyway.
> test the Special Project Electronic Altitude Release System (SPEARS) control board at altitude - specifically to see if it would fire the igniter
Was there any telemetry to say whether the firing took place - or will this need another test flight?
Given how litigious Apple are, "sue" would be a good choice. Although it's not a product, it can't be long before Apple patents a method for extracting obscene amounts of money from unsuspecting competitors for very little effort and zero original work.
Shortly after, they'll be sending nasty letters to Johnny Cash's executors asking for retrospective everything.
> serious crime, terrorism and child sex offences
All very laudable ... except we know from past experience of "anti-terrorism" laws that they get perverted, converted and subverted into general-purpose anti-anyone-we-don't-like laws. You can't pass a law to say "this will only be used against people we suspect of .... ", once a law is on the books, it becomes just another tool to be abused: like the chisel that gets used as a screwdriver - it wasn't designed for that, but that's what it gets used for if it's convenient.
So the scope of laws creep out from the well-intentioned uses they were first written for and become just another weight hanging around the neck of our freedoms. Great idea in theory - terrible implementation in practice.
> *unintended* consequences ?
Yes. ISTM the government "plan" is that every company (not just Starbucks, but that's as good an example as any other) should pay HMRC more tax, but that the tax should come out of their "profits". The govt. then trousers the cash and spends it as a windfall on some schemes that weren't in their manifesto and that nobody voted for.
What I expect to happen is that all these companies will class the extra UK tax bill as a local cost of business expense and recoup that cost through increased prices. I further expect that they will use this as an opportunity to get some good PR - as being "ethical" businesses :). I would also expect that, far from just increasing their prices by the few pennies needed to cover the cost, they'll round them up and hide a price rise in the general increase. They may even have the balls to blame the increase on rising commodity prices.
After that, I would expect all the other businesses in the same sectors to make comparable price increases, even though their costs weren't affected. After all, if the dominant player in a market ups their prices, that's a good excuse for everyone else to do the same.
So what we're left with is higher prices to consumers, increased tax take to the government, a little extra profit to the newly "ethical" tax-paying companies and a larger one for all the others. In due course, those prices rises will feed through to increased inflation, slightly higher interest rates and a small, probably imperceptible rise in unemployment. Those would be the unintended consequences.
In the end, any higher cost of business will be passed on to the customers (hint: in the country where costs have risen).
So ultimately any additional tax that these companies volunteer, for PR reasons, will simply be passed on to the consumer. What will happen then is the fiscal equivalent of a rising tide lifts all boats". Since these are the DOMINANT players in their market segment, when they increase their prices all the other retailers will follow suit. So not only will a Starbucks coffee go up in price, since they set the benchmark, but every other outfit will follow. Add in the chance of an opportunistic (non-tax related) price rise hidden in there too, and all that's happened is that consumers will be paying extra for these companies to pass on a portion of the price hike to the government.
Net result: we all pay a little more tax. The "good" companies get to increase their prices/profits and inflation eases up a notch. Here come the unintended consequences.
> goods they've ordered online to be shipped to one of its pick-up stations.
> Amazon already has a similar service
Why not just deliver stuff when people are at home?
If all the delivery vans are standing idle after five-thirty and all weekend, too (as all the couriers are organised around business hours, not real people's hours) wouldn't it just be sensible to let delivery people have the chance to earn some overtime, or take a second job by offering EVENING DELIVERIES, rather than create and operate an entirely new, and inconvenient, service.
No need for innovation. Just use the existing infrastructure for longer hours.
I was particularly impressed by the video feed from the chase car.
Since there's no sound on the broadcast, next time there should be someone with a small whiteboard and marker to write commentaries for the camera as the day progresses.
> not just through the curly braces ...
Maybe for December, those of us who owe our living to the "curly braces" brigade should eschew the belts to our trousers and wear some "curly" braces instead?
... is to NOT have an exit strategy.
Cloud computing is just another fad, It won't last forever - and it's highly likely that one (or more) cloud offerings will go belly up, have major infrastructure problems, get hacked to a crisp or simply get bought up by the next evil empire who will realise that all their customers are locked in and will squeeze them till the pips squeak.
So, on the basis that at some point in the next 10 years, a lot of outfits that are currently rushing headlong ito cloud services will want out, and want out FAST, it's important that these organisations have a way of pulling out - and that they don't wait until it's too late, but design and negotiate a solution to let them say "goodbye" with the least pain, downtime and cost.
However, this does seem to be a factor that is entirely missing from most company's IT strategy, or long term planning, I can only assume that any exit strategy that IS being planned is the exit of the decision-makers who committed all their IT to a single basket - and then ran for the door, leaving someone else to pick up the mess.
With the recession ravaged spanish economy, this whole initiative will depend on price, Given that data services in Spain are still killingly expensive (8 EUR buys you 500MB/month on Yoigo) this service sounds like a way to INCREASE telco income, rather that compete with Skype.
> However, replacing them with shell scripts means the company spends less money, and makes more profit, and pays more to shareholders, perhaps outside the UK. So the overall benefit to the UK economy is reduced by the income tax of one less recruiting agent
Maybe, but there's a huge benefit to the country as a whole of having the right staff doing the right job AND of getting vacancies filled speedily and reliably, with less time wasted interviewing candidates who's only talent is keyword stuffing. Those pluses more than compensate for having to pay dole to a bunch of otherwise unemployable individuals propping up an industry that really has no reason to exist.
Even before the term "IT" was coined there were non CompSci graduates taking "IT" jobs.
In two places I worked there were programmers who told the same story. They'd graduated with degrees in subjects like History, Classics and Englsh. Unsurprisingly, apart from the traditional route of teaching more students to get degrees in History, Classics and English, there weren't many career openings for these people. As a consequence, when they bemoaned their lot to their ex-tutors, careers advice offices, anyone who'd listen (or couldn't get out of the corner they'd been skilfully boxed into) they were given the same advice: computing or sales.Some went into one, and some into t'other - and some of those later swapped the shiny suit for the scruffy jeans.
The moral being: the IT world wasn't too picky about your technical skills - just so long as you could demonstrate sufficient intelligence to learn BASIC, or technical writing, or how to follow a test plan. Some of those arts graduates made a success of their computing careers and the rest became IT managers.
> Those with children can pass them on generationally
Good luck with that. You'd have more chance of a child accepting your old clothes (sometimes they come back into fashion) than your old phone.
However old phones, the simple: press buttons, talk to people types, are ideal for the grannies of this world. They have fewer functions and longer standby times (assuming the battery isn't completely knackered) which is appealing. They also tend to have larger buttons, which for those with failing sight or arthritic fingers is also helpful.
> noxious ammonia, nitrogen, sulphur and supersaturated nitrous oxide.
So all the stuff we pump out as pollution is actually scrummy, yummy FOOD to these guys. It could turn out that the sole reason humanity exists is to prepare the way for the next wave of evolution.
Turn them coal-fired power stations up to 11 and lose the scrubbers!
Coders (or any other worker) will never be able to match the low costs, low overheads and low wages in other countries.
Why? for a start, people in Britian believe in the "because you're worth it" mentality. They feel they have a "right" to a high standard of living: TVs, cars, heating, food, etc, whereas workers in many countries would only aspire to one or two of those pricey goals. On top of that, being an island and an overcrowded one AND one with strict green-belt / planing regulations, there will always be a scarcity of housing. That makes having a roof over your head a costly proposition simply due to supply (small) and demand (high, and growing). So people need to earn a lot just to live - even before they go for the luxuries: holidays, children and a takeaway pizza every night.
Even if we suddenly had a million new coders injected into the workforce there would be no uptake of this army of programmers, they'd simply be too expensive to employ.
> So *any* assemblage of random bytes can be assumed to be encrypted ?
That does seem to be the unqualified opinion.
The thing is, yer avrige copper assumes that any collection of random bytes )must_ be an encrypted file (probably because their forensic software tells them so, not due to any actual knowledge they possess). Further, they'll assume that you'd only encrypt something you wanted to hide, ergo that must be illegal, immoral or fattening.
What if every geek in the country spent a couple of minutes being subversive? If everyone sacrificed a partition of a few GB and went on record (e.g. with a youtube video) as dd'ing the contents of /dev/random into it? Once there was "proof" that blocks of random data were commonplace on peoples' disk, the suppository that it must be encrypted and it must be illegal fails.
>> shouldn't they first be required to produce evidence that there is, in fact, something there to decrypt?
>They should be. They aren't.
>A Section 49 notice only requires belief "on reasonable grounds" that there is an encrypted data block. And it doesn't need to be Plod issuing the notice - it can be anyone in Schedule 2.
Which is worrying in itself. Usually it's not the responsibility of the accused to prove that a crime has been committed. The police are the ones who have to produce (or at least suspect) that a law has been broken. Once they've done that, they proceed to collect evidence and if there's enough, the CPS will make a decision to prosecute. I suppose it could be argued that providing a password is part of the interrogation process and just like perverting the course of justice, lying about not knowing a password (or having forgotten it) is a bit naughty. But to be required to provide a password when there's no proof that one even exists sounds like a policeman requiring ordinary citizens to 'fess up to any crimes they may (and the presumption being that they did) have committed at any point in the past - even if there's no proof that the person has committed any.
A third option would be to deny that the block of data is encrypted at all.
You'd hope that something that was encrypted properly would appear as just a series of random bytes. Before the police start demanding passwords, shouldn't they first be required to produce evidence that there is, in fact, something there to decrypt?
As luck would have it, a decent encryption regime would mean that the only way to distinguish the difference (from random bytes) would be to decrypt it in the suspicious data first place. Only _then_ would there be something that you could be legally required to hand over the password for. But of course, by then the topic is moot.
There used to be a way for people or companies who'd goofed up their tax declarations (either by accident or design) to come clean, negotiate a "fine" with the Revenue and get on with their lives. This was helpful to both sides as it produced a quick result AND it returned unpaid taxes to the exchequer.
It was canned in 1993 and since then the only recourse the Revenue has is a full-blown and antagonistic, investigation of all the person's (or company's) doings. This takes a lot longer and drags in lots of expensive consultants & lawyers on both sides - as well as the glare of publicity and the hypocritical tutting from some members of the public who want BOTH high tax takes (so long as it's not from themselves) and low retail prices. With all this current furore about unpaid taxes, it may be time to conclude that too much transparency doesn't really work in the public interest, and to allow some "behind closed doors"" deals to be done, again. With the obvious proviso that "we'll be watching you".
So what it boils down to is that OS/2 was more advanced than the competition but too expensive, it needed more resources and was only designed to work with IBM hardware - any other platforms' success being just a lucky co-incidence.
Put aside all the infighting and cluelessness about marketing, internationalisation (where I was working during this time, none of the "internationalisation team" even had a passport) and the turf wars - every new product has that. It's just lucky they didn;t have software patents to worry about.
Given IBMs background and way of doing business at the time, I can't see how such a foray into the commercial world and with a non-IBM partner could possibly have worked out any differently.
We should stop and reflect just how lucky we are, that the busybody who makes these decisions on which bits of flesh can / cannot be displayed didn't choose noses to be the subject of the nation's modesty, instead.
Not only would we *all* have to traipse around in "nose bras", but you'd probably get locked up for picking your schnozz in public, As for sneezing - I hate to think.
Why erroneous? Consider all the mistakes they've caused.
Once people start to colonise LEO for real, and transform their habitats from being dependent on resupply from Earth to being able to fend for themselves, they will evolve their own "thanksgiving" celebrations. If history is anything to go by, that first step will be followed later by a breakaway from the "home" planet - though since success is really being at the top of the gravity well, not the top of the food chain - us "earthlings" would lose and conflict that arose.
Generally, wars of independence are followed by civil wars, after factions in the breakaway region starts competing for power. After that, we can look forward to inter-orbital wars (or possibly more wars over the Libration points, minor planets of the Moon).
Then, maybe in a thousand or two years humanity will start to settle down, realise there's enough space, rocks and sunlight to go round and learn to get along with each other.
Iberbanda? Eeee, thee's don't know thee's born!
Casa Pete 2 is 8km from the nearest Iberbanda coverage. However for only a few more Euros per month, we get an HSPDA connection at a "screaming" 3.6MBit/s - at least that's what it dice on the lata - though to be fair the speed is usually pretty good. The only proviso being that you hold your mobile phone in exactly the right orientation, while standing on the roof.
As soon as the aforementioned signage gets moved closed to our place, sticks will be upped and another telecommuter will be on the plane to rural Spain.
I suspect that Spain and a lot of other countries could make some serious improvements to their current accounts by attracting more knowledge workers from the rich, rainy north of europe to the poor, sunny (though we suffer the same extremes of weather, that Lester describes: it's not always sunny in inland Spain, and when it is, it's bloody hot) south. However that would need a fair bit of improvement to the connectivity. Though doing that work would provide a fair few jobs, too.
There's little point in examining Comet as a simgle instance and saying "this went wrong, they did that badly, there were the following external circumstances ... "
The simple fact of the matter is that high-street electrical retailing in general is dying off. It starts with the smallest and least well run - but inevitably progresses to the larger, more resilient outfits. The reason: people just don't feel the need to walk into a store, be ignored or get bad advice and then have to wait at home for a delivery - when they can just go clickety-click in their sitting rooms and THEN wait at home for a delivery. Safe in the knowledge that distance selling regulations will absolve them from any mistakes due to poor choices.
they're closed crap.
We have a nice big Tosh. A couple of years old, LED, "smart", lots of buttons on the remote control, nmap reports it's running Linux. The built-in formware has a "scan for upgrades" option. Has there ever been an upgrade?
Has there heck.
So we have telly that _should_ be tweakable: it's running a known O/S, it has upgradeable hardware and a UI that is in desperate need of a usability revamp - but there are none, and the ability for the open source brigade (despite my rude remarks about them) are unable to even give it their best shot. Hell: I'd even pay for an upgrade
Maybe the best thing to do with the set is to leave it be. Ignore the Youtube interface (awful), the Netflix access (never really worked) and all the other tickbox features. Just Hook it up to a RPi, one of the mini-Android dongles or somesuch and just use the TV as a big old dumb display.
> Always get a second opinion.
What? You mean like they're profligate as well as incompetent?
Sounds like it's time to start taking a serious look at all the other acquisitions HP have made in recent years.
I wonder where the burden of proof lies in the claim that the account was, actually, hacked?
> Have you seen Sky's revenue!
>Almost 7 billion quid not enough to make quality programmes?
That's a very good point - although Sky has 3 parts, of which satellite TV is only one - though it IS the largest. When you look just below that headline figure, you see that Sky's investment in programming was £2.3Bn. it's unclear what BSB's (the TV business) operating costs were, but that's less that the Beeb's licence fee income of £3.6Bn¹ AND that Sky made a profit from all 3 of its businesses of £1.2Bn
 Inferred from the statement in the BBC Annual Report
That BBC Worldwide returned "£216 million to the BBC, equivalent to 6% of the licence fee income"
That's a very good analogy (except that vampires don't exist, but the BBC does).
It's impossible to have a rational discussion about the good and the bad aspects of the BBC, because the only thing that people focus on is the lack of advertisements. They say they value the "independence", or the variety or whatever else. But all it comes down to when the waffle is stripped away is not having 12 (or 18) minutes of unwanted programme breaks every hour.
What the BBC does, by being "free", is to suck the life-blood (i.e. revenue) from the real independent TV channels. How can a commercial broadcaster possibly compete with a corporation that gives its product away, for free - or in this case, advert free.
That's the reason all the commercial channels are so crap. The reason why they have to focus on the televisual trash, the lowest common denominator, the cheap and nasty and the crass. Because they can't afford the money to make good, popular, varied programmes - some of which might even push the boundaries. The BBC takes away over half the audience and therefore takes away the independents' ability to earn advertising revenue.
Call the BBC independent, or "value" or whatever. None of those attributes are important to its viewers. The only thing they really care about on BBC TV or radio is the lack of advertising. While they are allowed to keep that privileged position, the other broadcasters don't have any chance of making the money they need to become good.
Most BBC output cannot be described as "independent". What's independent about Eastenders, or Only Connect or Stricly? - Or even the overwhelming majority of the BBC radio, sports, childrens', or non-factual output?
When people talk about the independence of the BBC all they are referring to is the tiny amount of their total output that is related to news reporting, parts of Radio 4, the odd TV/Radio news programme and a few political or current affairs productions that are purposely run in unpopular slots. Of their 8 TV channels (excluding BBC Parliament which is government financed) and dozens of radio stations (about 40 locals and a dozen-ish nationals) almost none of their content is political or in any way controversial - so can't be counted as "independent", as it has nothing to be independent from.
None of this so-called independence is worth the £3Bn that is spent on the BBC. You could get the same sort of variety of views by selling off almost all of the BBC's assets and funding an "independent" news and current affairs programme source from a levy on all the "freed" BBC, now new commercial stations. Those programmes could then be offered back to the (truly) independent TV & radio stations for free - payback for the levy.
Even if the government does decide to keep the BBC under its present level of control, we need to remember that the free and independent BBC only exists while the government of the day allows it to. The idea that it is some sort of bastion against totalitarianism is ridiculous: not only would the BBC be the first up against the wall, come the revolution but by presenting a centralised, bureaucratic, heirarchical, single "corporation" they are far easier to control, influence or pressurise than a collection of financially free and intellectually diverse (though the combination of intellectual and TV is impossible) TV or radio stations would ever be.
> if you are giving 27 per cent of your profits to the Exchequer
Profits (like Humpty Dumpty's words - [they] mean what I choose them to mean), ... are purely voluntary for ALL businesses, more or less. Retailers know that if they have too much money left over at the end of the year, they buy stock, invest in the business, improve efficiency, modernise, pay off their loans, run an advertising campaign (a sure way to use up cash very quickly), increase their dividend or even pay their their staff a little bonus - though there is still tax to pay on those last two.
None of this is new, or revolutionary and is normal procedure for most competent businesses. If the people who run them are unaware of these, or many more, legitimate or even beneficial ways to reduce their tax bill then they really have no place heading up their operation. If their tax advisors aren't making these options known then someone needs a quiet word and a kick up the metaphorical backside.
The best art is created during times of stress: wars, shortages, social upheaval, revolution.
Under those conditions people tend to focus on what's important - survival, love, getting enough to eat. Come the "good times" those same people are more concerned with obtaining more, conspicuous consumption, building their dream castles in the air.
Mainframes tended to focus the mind. They had limitations that today would be considered impossible to live with (yet we did, and did very well) - partly because modern O/S, anti-virus, GUI, IDE and monitoring
bloatware software sucks up almost all of the available processing power and system resources. Luckily modern machines are sufficiently powerful that they can push through these huge overheads.
We also had much simpler systems on mainframes. I recently saw the design for a multinational's new customer / call agent system - it filled a wall of A0 sheets, taped to the inside of a"fishbowl" meeting room. It only had to support a few thousand users and (maybe) a couple of billion records - things that a moderately sized zSeries use to do on its own.
The difference is that this "modern" system needs to be web-accessible (with all the security overheads that entails), distributed, load-balanced, resilient and will run, I suspect, a rather crappily designed database (that will have it's original clean design mutated into an unrecognisable mess by changes, bug-fixes, new features and expediency). The design also requires a mishmash of proprietary, bespoke third-party and OTS products bodged together into something should nearly work properly.
However, as someone who makes a living from helping companies sort out the fubars, cockups and dead-ends that their designers wander, aimlessly, into I was glad to see the end of centralised, controlled and efficient mainframe architectures and I am thankful, on a daily basis, for all the complex systems that people design today - even though these dream castles are so far outside their (and my) comprehension that there's a lifetime of assured work, just waiting to be plucked.
> we'd like to hear what you, the reader, would like to find when you click to read a Register review.
First, I would like to know which items the reviewer (or any other member of the staff) have bought for their own use, with their own money.
Failing that, I would like to know which things have been loaned / given solely for review purposes (I suspect the answer is: all of them) or which items were picked randomly off the shelf i.e. are not "special" - and so have a level of quality / reliability that a normal purchaser could expect.
I would like balance. No bits of electronic (or software) wizardry are perfect, so it's reasonable to ask for the faults to be given as much page-space as the benefits. If you want an icon for this I would suggest replacing "stars" with "Curate's eggs"
Finally, don't bother just repeating any or all of the stuff in the promotional flyer. We're big boys and girls and are quite capable of discovering the makers' publicity for ourselves. So please, please, please write about your own, personal experiences as a USER, don't just parrot the sales blurb.
Restoring it all is the problem.
Sure, for a home user the "A" part of ADSL means you can (in theory, at least) pull data back off your cloudy storage faster than you can push it up there. But try restoring a worst case, of a whole 1TB data set in one go and see how far you get. Even with a 50Mbit/s fibre connection you're talking 2½ DAYS to restore, assuming you can get full-speed for all the time (and don't run into data caps). If you're using flaky backup/restore software, you could find that a break in the connection means you have to start again.
So, the best you can hope for, if you're running a business is that it'll be half a working week before you can get 1TB of stuff restored. How does that fit into your DR plan? That's assuming the plan works - and almost NONE of the DR plans I've seen have ever been tested in a "fire practice" situation.
So far as backups go, store stuff off site - that's just sensible. But remember than no network has the same bandwidth as a van full DVDs.
You raise an interesting point. I have a semi-formed theory that in order to find a statement offensive you have to believe it - at least in some small part. If you have an unshakable faith that the statement made has no foundation whatsoever, you simply do what people have done throughout the ages and shrug it off - possibly with a mutterance under your breath regarding the solo entertainments that the maker may (or may not) indulge in. It's only when part of your brain thinks "OMG, that's true ... tick ... tick ... clang! ... I'm offended" (which is really anger turned inwards in recognition that someone's found a fault) that the offense is registered.
If one had the inclination (and the ability to run away, terribly fast) it might be possible to test this on strangers. Simply go up to someone you don't know and say "your shoes look like two garden gnomes". On the basis that they bear no resemblance to aforementioned ornamentation, the wearer might reply "wot chew onna 'bout?", or just simply "Wah?". However if you make a comment that could possibly be pertinent to their footwear: tears, a smack in the mouth, or the "I'm offended" retort could well be the result.
Maybe it's time we stopped believing all the nonsense that other people randomly remark to us, start feeling more positive (a good thing to do any way) and and secure about ourselves and think up a few infallible put-downs instead of setting ourselves up as victims and turning hurt feelings into a criminal offence.
> millions of trolling offences being prosecuted in courts across the country.
Just like the millions of speeding offences.
When the flood of "criminals" gets too big for the slow, indolent, tradition-bound courts to handle the solution has generally been to pass the responsibility down from judges with legal backgrounds to well-meaning but unqualified JPs and then as the load increases further, to individuals in various uniforms who make the decisions themselves and hand out fixed penalty notices (though these can be challenged, but the "prize" for losing is a much greater punishment - not to mention inconvenience and high cost of defence, so most people just roll over and stump up even if they feel they have a good case).
So can we now expect your local plod to glance at your phone / tablet / computer, make an arbitrary decision of random quality and stick an £80 fine to your screen? At least with speeding tickets there's some sort of machine that takes away most of the decision making process (apart from the decision of which vehicle to point it at) so there's at least the semblance of impartiality or equality. When making snap decisions over whether a tweet, image, or website is "good" or "bad", there could be no such objectivity and the coppers' "gut" would rule.
I can't decide though, whether even that low, low measure for our legal quality is better than the alternative of having a government originated web crawler performing the internet's equivalent of a speed camera and completely automating the whole mess. Maybe the best alternative is for people to stop being so intolerant of others - live and let live.
I can see that some of the "specialists" may actually have some useful knowledge to contribute. However I'd love to hear how the views of The US Embassy or The Church of England could be relevant. Also, organisations such as Stop Climate Chaos doesn't exactly make you feel that an informed and objective discussion, with no preconceived biases, will take place.
On the BBC side, what does the Development Executive, Drama Commissioning have to offer to the debate or even a person from the kiddies telly. Though given the outcome from this meeting it's pretty obvious what the Head of Comedy was there for.
> Obliged in what manner?
Obliged by the need to have other people invest their money in the business. Nobody invests in a business because they "like" it, or have some sentimental attachment. They put their money at risk (and it IS a risk: the price of shares goes down as well as up) in the expectation that they will make a profit - either though rising share value, or from the dividends that companies pay.
The greater the profit a company makes, the greater the benefit the shareholders receive (and as a side-effect, the higher the pay of the directors & employees, provided they can leverage it). Therefore it's the shareholders who are the main driver: directly or indirectly, for increasing profits. They are a remarkably fickle lot and will dismiss directors as soon as the profits stop coming. However, that's the game. You want investors? They want your profits.
> Pretty harsh downvotes!
I guess there's a lot of people out there who don't like cauliflower, either.
(well, it's not but it should be)
Whoever resorts to name-calling has lost the argument.
So for MPs to go around insulting these companies demonstrates in no uncertain terms that they have no logical, legal or contractual position that would stand up. I can forgive a 5 y/o relative who's argument against eating cauliflower was "because it's stinky!" but to hear the same argument, with the same tone, though different words being used by our lawmakers is, well, ridiculous.
Yup, we're talking Unique Selling Proposition.
The thing you have that nobody else has. The problem with discounts or Groupon is that giving people money off something is not unique. As a consequence you can't really build a success story on it - there'll always be someone else who can do it a little cheaper or for a little longer.
> you'll see the outline of it on the grass
Yes. These things only remain invisible until someone takes a crop sprayer over the area and drops red paint on everything. After that you've got a nice red rectangle, even though it's against a uniform red background .... Better make the shed rock-shaped, too. Just in case.
Having an invisible shed is all very well while you're inside it and enjoying the benefits of its invisibility (though those don't include being impervious to carpet-bombing or other nasty military techniques of ridding a landscape of every bloody thing on it). However, once you're outside you might need a trail of breadcrumbs to find your way back again.
Just look out for hungry birds.
As he enters the surgery, the doctor, still looking at his screen, says "Good morning Mr. Jones, how are you today?" and gets the reply "I'm very well doctor, thank you for asking". At which point the doctor finally looks up, looks him up and down and remarks "But you've only got one leg - how can you say you're 'very well'?".
Well, doctor I've always only had one leg, so to me this is entirely normal. So by my account, I'm fine."
The moral being that if all you've ever known was one situation (whether one-leggedness, or a string of ghastly managers) you can't imagine what anything else would be - so you judge that to be the normal state of affairs which cannot be improved.
Most people go through their working lives being "managed" by truly awful managers: ones who have no talent, less enthusiasm and hate being a manager, but have no skills to move out of that career - until someone finally makes them redundant. So when we do change jobs, we;re just trading the crap for the crappier on the basis that a change is as good as a rest.
Occasionally you will meet up with a good manager. Personally, I've seen two - one of whom I worked for. They are a revelation and as perks go, are so much better than a corner office that words cannot describe it. The tragedy is that the people who judge "good managership" are, themselves so completely unqualified to do so that having the skills: empathy, vision and motivational magic counts for naught - as their bosses, in turn, have no clue what makes a good boss. To them it's just a case of assessing how an individual's numbers are doing.