Posts by peter 45 493 publicly visible posts • joined 22 Jun 2009
"It's not what you intended by your comments, but how a person may reasonably interpret them"
Well, I 'reasonably' interpreted the post as a joke. Everyone I have discussed this with 'reasonably' interpreted the post as a joke. The problem is that 'reasonable' seems to go straight out of the window when officialdom populated by fuckwits meets 'terrsm' and 'keeping the public safe'.
Icon of a muppet for anyone tho thought he was serious
of an story told to me by a radio ancillaries company who were approached by their local police to fit hands free kits to all their cars (in the days well before airwave)
Apparently someone had been nicked for using a microphone whilst driving. During cross examination the policeman admitted that he has called in the stop using his microphone whist driving, and the magistrate had rightly pointed out that if the prosecution had continued, he would have been forced to find the policeman guilty of the very same offence the motorist has been stopped for.
Proecution withdrew charges and handsfree kit was fitted to all police cars.
Too right. All the rules and all the fines are in their favour.
- DVLA forget to send you a reminder.......not their fault
- You forget to send them a form telling them that the car is STILL off-road......your fault and fines and payment for full tax for the period was not declared SORN.
SORN is just another method of collecting payments from all those naughty people who are dodging paying annual car ownership tax (and not paying tax, is equivalent to stealing it in their eyes.).
....your bank gives out your account details by mistake, you want it kept quiet because it undermines the public confidence in banks?
....HMRC emails your tax login details to everyone on its mailing list, you want it kept quiet because it undermines the public confidence in the Tax office?
....The Company you work for gives out the details they hold on you to everyone in the Company(Salary, Bank Account, Home address, CV, pension details, NOK details, annual apraisal etc), you want it kept quiet because it undermines the confidence in the Company's workforce?
And then when they do it again......and again......and again..........
That is what you mean, isn't it?
/icon of a muppet/
If it is so easy and convenient, why can't I buy it when I buy my ticket to go into london for the day by train from my local train station?
If it is so easy and convenient, why does it cost £10 to get a refund on unused credit? Why cannot I just put on the card enough for the journey I plan to make, for example. Why, for example, cannot I just use the Oyster card and have the cost of that journey direct debited from my account?
If it so easy and convenient, why can't I buy one from everywhere I can buy a paper ticket?
If it so easy and convenient, why do I have to plan in advance to get an Oyster card as opposed to turning up and paying for the journey when I need to.
If it so easy and convenient, why do I have to remember where I put the card last time I used it 6 months ago .
If it so easy and convenient how can I find out much is left on it so I dont have to go to a ticket office to top it up (just like going to a ticket office to ........oh I dunno.......buy a ticket for example)
Basically it is easy and convenient for those who use TFL services on a daily basis and know how much per month they need to put on the card. For the rest of us in the rest of the country who come to London irregularly or infrequently it is no more convenient than buying a ticket (and usually less so because I can conveniently buy a paper ticket as part of my rail fare). I suppose that is why they have made the ticket prices really expensive, to try to force all of us into buying the card, 'cos there is really no other reason to do so.
bolting the stable door.
changing the laws of time and space.
gaming the patent system and getting caught.
Thumbs up to Nintendo for calling their bluff and holding out in the fact of the first verdict. Mind you couldn't have been a difficult decision. You can just image the conversation at Nintendo HQ. "They added our design to their patent two years after we produced it and they are accusing US of theft.".
Other 'review' sites that either seem to have nothing but "5* I cannot believe how wonderfull you are" or "1* you took my money you scummy gits" reviews include:
a. virtually every 'Post your old gold to us' site
b. virtually every 'Post your old phone to us' site
It is really funny to see just how many obviously fake reviews you can spot. It is not that difficult, just count the 5*.
This gives Google, at the very least, an Unclean Hands defence.
If Viacom is sensible, the lawsuit quietly magically disappears before it even gets that far and gets declared as a huge misunderstanding.
If Viacom is not sensible, I predict a summary judgement for dismissal followed by an criminal investigation of attempted fraud? perverting the course of justice? (lawyers please choose). This could be interesting.
".... existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes....."
"....Iraq's development of weapons with a range of more than 1,000 km...."
"Because there is no way this man, in this region above all regions, could begin a conflict using such weapons and the consequences not engulf the whole world, including this country."
Tony Blair - Reference House of Commons debates, 24 September 2002, 11:30 am.
What he also said was "....Afghanistan is a country now freed from the Taliban....". Funny that!
I am old enough to remember the days when a new font was invented for machine readable writing because computers were not powerful enough to read handwritten or even typed characters. I still see this font in 60/70s TV and movies. I wonder what happened to it and why it is no longer used?
Never is a long long time
"Unfortunately, the Corporate guidelines have been set in place for a reason."
And like most Corporate guidelines, were made up by someone whose 2 seconds of thought came up with "CRB everything just in case" instead of applying thee seconds of thought and coming up with a policy that actually helped protect children.
Except of course it does not check for convictions of "child-abuse or possession of child pornography". It checks for convictions/warnings/cautions for ANYTHING, no matter how relevant, recent or serious. It then leaves it to the organisation applying for the CRB to determine what is relevant, recent or serious. And often of course the organisation does what any organization would do, it covers its own collective behind and determines that anything on a CRB constitutions a fail.
The intent behind the law to prevent predators preying on children isn't stupid, but this is a stupid law, stupidly applied by stupid people.
Has our entrepid Mr Fawcett tried to use it yet....say for example....
Down Tescos to prove he is old enough to buy Alcohol
or down the Nightclub to prove he is old enough to get in
or down the bank to prove who he is to buy foreign currency
or at Heathrow or Dover as proof who he is to travel around europe
or proof who he is at his first job interview.....
because I can guarantee each one of them will take one look at it and ask for some proper ID
Being caught up the the biggest snarl up in the Crawley one way system during rush-hour. 45 minutes later got to the police car at the front of the queue and looked in vain for the acident. Nice police woman asked "were you drinking last night Sir". Told her no, and went on my way. The police themselves were the sole reason for bringing the whole town centre to a shuddering halt.
Thing was, if I had answered yes or she had smelt drink on my breath, there was nowhere to pull over safely to be tested, and no-other Police anywhere near to do the testing.
Conclusion. They were not stopping anyone to actually catch people over the limit, but just to remind people that they could be caught if they happed to drink too much the night before. Security theatre at its very best. Thank you mister policeman for reminding me of that fact. It only caused me to be 45 minutes late for work.
I can just hear the justification of " We are only doing this to keep the streets safe. Its for your own good you know." I might accept it if they were actually trying to catch people over the limit, but this was just a big PR exercise. How do we charge the Police with wasting my time?
Horray. Go go Google I say
For many years I have been waiting for a phone manufacturer with the pods large enough to challenge the dominance of the network operators. The SIM standard were setup in the first place so that any SIM would work in any phone. It is the Network Operators wanting to lock-in their customers and the Mobile phone manufactures willingness to bend over to meet the Networks demands for locked phones that broke that sensible design.
I want to choose the best phone for me and the best operator for me and anyone who can start to make that happen has got my vote
I work in a high tech company where everything is done on the computer, however in order to get anything changed on you PC, you have to request it of the IT department. The procedure is to go to the IT webpage, find the relavent form, print it out, fill it in by hand and then post it to the IT department.
I did mention that this was a old fashioned and low tech procedure for the IT department in a high tech company in the days of digital signature and on-line forms. They agreed and issued a new procedure. You can now scan the hand written request in and send it to them as an email attachment!
Wooo Hooo. Go go paperless office
It used to be the case that an Ministry Of Defence ID card and a NATO travel order was all you needed to travel around Europe. It still is, except you cannot actually get to Europe. Show the numpty controlling access to the ferry an Army ID card whilst in uniform whilst driving an army vehicle and his only response is "Errr. Whats that? Its not a passport. Show me a passport or you are not getting on the ferry".
It has now got so bad that we are now having to pay for new recruits to get a passport because we cannot take the risk they will be left on the quayside. Anyone without a passport is now left behind.
If an organization the size of the British Army cannot get it through the thick skulls of the ferry operators that an MOD ID card is acceptable throughout europe and has been for 50 plus years, a press release announcing limited distribution trial issue is not even going to fire a synapse of the single collective brain cell owned by the ferry operators.
"Identity cards are already proving themselves extremely useful in daily life, from opening a bank account to entering a nightclub, and for travel to Europe"
Really?
1. Can anyone in the Home Office Press Office tell me why I was not allowed to get onto a Ferry over to europe by the Ferry Operator then? I had an MOD identity Card, and Nato Travel order and was traveling in an Military vehicle, but the Ferry Operator would not allow us onto the ferry until we produced our passports.
2. Can anyone in the Home Office Press Office tell me why no form of identity card was sufficient for me to get foreign currency at the local bank and it had to be a Passport or Driving Licence. Presenting my GOVERNMENT ISSUED Ministry of Defence identity card just got a puzzled look from Tracy behind the security gril. Its not 'on the list' apparently. And guess what ? The national ID card was not on the list either.
I think somone either does not know what is actually happening on the ground floor, or is just making it up.
either way
Wall
Rat-a-tat-a-tat.
Job done
Why do I get the feeling that Microsoft has gone balls out to find a flaw in the plug-in. Could it be that they want to deflect attention ffrom the huge number of flaws in their own product? Or could it be that they just want to find any excuse to bash Google. Ir could it be that they are pi**ed that Google has just parked their tanks on Microsofts lawn?
Either way adn word of advice to Microsoft. " people in glass houses.........."
"I used to drive a SCO system, I've known for a long time that they never intended to be in the software business"
Yep same here. I saw a device running SCO Unix drop kicked across a lab as an outlet for the frustration felt. Management wanted to sack him instantly for gross misconduct - until the whole lab threatened to walk off the job if they did. Only then the management started listening to what a pile of poo it actually was.
I have heard it said (from a policeman) that they cannot investigate a crime without arresting. He then 'clarified' that they cannot interrogate under caution, for which they need to make an arrest, because any interrogation without a caution cannot be presented in evidence. I know that is completely backwards, but what I think he meant was that the whole procedure of gathering evidence is easier if they just arrest everyone - so they do. The legislation has made is so easy to arrest someone (or at least pretend they have a good and vald reason) that is is just easier these days....and there is virtually no comeback for arresting a totally innocent person.
Add that to the propensity for the police to raid on the lightest inteligence (tomato plants) and to do every raid mob handed at the slightest excuse (usually health and safety!) and for the kudos of being involved in 'antiterrorist' operations, and this was bound to happen........and has happened many times. The only difference this time was the height of the stinking pile they found themselves on top of.
I seem to remember that one of the questions put at the time this came into law was an assurance that the police/procecutors would not us this as a easy kill.
I.e. raid his house for terrorism, find nothing but a few doggy pics. "Phew another terrorist-that-is-not-a-terrorist-but-we-can-claim-gold-stars-for-if-we-do-him-for-porn put away and the danger to society averted. Close one that. Without those pics we may have had to actually come clean and apologise for raiding an innocent man's house. Tea and muffins anyone?"
I seem to remember that this assurance was given. Not quite an innocent man done for a few naughty pics in this case, but nothing to do with the purposes of the raid was it?
There is a very good reason to plead guilt....a reduced sentence.
This guy probably had a lawyer who basically said that under strict liability:
It does not matter if your motives were pure, you will be found guilty.
It does not matter that you can go to the beach and see children clothed in less that he photographed them, you will be found guilty.
It does not matter that the parents asked you to take the photograph, you will be found guilty.
It does not matter that common sense says you are innocent, you will be found guilty
If you know you are going to be found guilty your best option is to plead guilty early. It gives the judge leeway to reduce the sentence to the minimum possible.
The judge can reject a guilty verdict if he considers it to be ill-advised, except then it would go to trial, and under strict liability law and he would have been found guilty anyway and a heavier sentence would have to follow.
Yes it is completly f***ed up that the best option is for an innocent man to plead guilty, but blaim the lawmakers who made the law a strict liability and who hand down sentencing guidelines....and vote the idiots out of office.
Many years ago I read about a new communications system for communication from aircraft to submarines...using lasers!
The difference that time round was that it relied on the principle that blue/green lasers would penetrate oceans to a depth of several hundred meters as they are attenuated less than other colours.
As I remember it died a death because you would have aircraft circling the submarine position. Bit of a give away really - and no different to this 'new' system.
When I went through Sandhurst, the army was going through (yet another) review of what civilian qualifications could be obtained on the back of military training (and yes there is a lot more training than shouting at people and killing them). The big rage of the moment was NVQs. I enquired thinking that some sort of' managing people' or 'planning' or 'leadership' qualification would be available.
The answer came back that I was able to apply for the grandly titled qualification 'keeping fit'.
I didn't bother
What if a port operator decided that they were not going to pay the fees needed to communicate to ships wanting to use their port. Imports and exports grind to a virtual halt overnight.
Wonder how long it would be before the Government woke up to the fact that there are some things that are for the econimic good of the country and should be allocated as such.
I know it is not going to happen....but I can dream
"A document marked Restricted can be shown to or discussed with one's family"
Er...no. Restricted still means that although it is on fairly free circulation within the Armed Services, you are not allowed to show it to just any member of the public. In fact if you have a laptop with Restriced material on it, it needs to be encrypted.
However I do agree that the defult position is "if in doubt, make it Restricted. In fact make everything Restricted and then you cannot be blaimed for 'declassifying' material".
AC1 and AC2
You are both right...and both wrong....possibly
It all depend if the O2 Spokesman knows anything about maths and percentages and therefore actually understood what he was saying.
My guess is that he actually did not have a clue what he was saying and although what he strictly said meant 1.5 times more than normal, the actual increase was only 50%
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
