Re: Well said
Downvote for this: "Do wake up."
157 posts • joined 30 Jun 2009
Downvote for this: "Do wake up."
>bandit horde of untrained, unlicensed, unregulated and quite probably uninsured "taxis"
Except that Uber require drivers to have a private-hire license and commercial insurance and pass background checks.
Assuming a private-hire licence requires some form of training then every point of your sentance is an incorrect assumption
>You could be picked up by a convicted rapist in an ininsured car for all you know. I doubt Uber or its rating system would give you the slightest clue either. That's the fundamental issue here.
well except they do background checks and have insurance, but lets not let that get in the way of your mouth frothing
but you would have to blindfold the payers and officials to make sure
If they spent 8+ years and £15m and got nothing out of it then it clearly wasn't an agile project!
What are the licensing requirements to drive with Uber in London?
Uber works with Public Carriage Office (PCO) licensed drivers. At the time of onboarding, you will need to bring with you all up-to-date legally required documents. For yourself this includes:
a valid driver's license
driver's license counterpart
For your vehicle you will also need to bring:
a valid MOT
commercial insurance certificate
If you are a PCO Operator yourself, just bring your operator's license.
So yes you need insurance
Turn it around, if someone had a blow-out in a regular car and it turns into a pile up, who is responsible?
I would guess: if its a manufacturing fault, the manufacturer. If the car hasn't been serviced then the owner/driver, if it has but badly then the garage.
IANAL but my understanding is: If someone stops (at traffic lights or emergency) and you hit them its your fault. Unless they they perform an emergency stop for no reason in which case they could be guilty of dangerous driving (or possibly insurance fraud). If they have an accident (or pull out at a junction or change lanes without checking/indicating etc) and you hit them then it's their fault as they caused the accident, unless you are guilty of dangerous driving (driving unreasonably close, without due care etc)
At the end of the day I don't see the situation changing too much, except the responsibility between the driver/owner('s insurance company) and the manufacturer('s insurance company) possibly needs to be clarified, which is the role of the courts.
Except 'back then' one of the main complaints was the 'violent' games were to realistic and kids/people couldn't tell them from real life.
When you were younger you probably scoffed at those comments, now you are older (and, of-course, wiser) you are making the same comments and the kids are rolling their eyes and scoffing at you!
Tell that to Madoff, Caught red handed, admitted his guilt and sentenced to 150 years of chokey
>Now don't even get me on trying to find the school term times and teacher "training" days. Yet to manage that.
Google 'school term dates', first link is direct gov. click it.
enter your post code or click on the map.
click the link to your local authority.
Term dates displayed.
Inset days (teacher training days)?
Don't know about other LA's but Surrey's term page says it varies by school and provide a link to the school directory with links to schools websites.
Ok so a centralised list of inset days would be more useful but not being able to google 'school term dates' and click on a link? really!
Not exactly rocket science
Then, when I vote at an election, why is it in secret?
>>There is a 100% chance someone's world will change when they try to enter my premises wearing this thing, and not in a positive fashion
How is you politely saying "I'm sorry by you can't wear that in here" going to change someone's world?
So gbp is money, euros, usd and yen aren't?
Here are some more:
>I would like to see the data custodian acting as a fiduciary *on my behalf only*
On your behalf as a borrower presumably. If they can't act on their own behalf they they must be a non profit. So you are asking for a non-profit bank, or simply a bank with higher standards of data security?
Alternatively maybe you want these data custodians to be ratings agencies for individuals. However ratings agencies aren't held responsible for their recommendations and risk isn't an exact science so their recommendations are usually crap anyway. If the data custodian is forced to guarantee a loan they will probably only lend to very very safe borrowers and charge a high margin to cover when they get it wrong.
Their ability to rate borrowers is what makes each bank unique and why they offer different interest rates. If they can only offer loans to these indemnified borrowers then it's just a race to the bottom in terms of returns.
>An indemnified 'yes' to a loan will be picked up by somebody.
True, but what happens to people who want a loan but the data custodian refused to indemnify their loan? Is it because the borrower is too risky for a loan, or they are too risky for the data custodian, or the data custodian made a mistake or had a bad risk algorithm?
What if there is a lender who disagrees with the data custodian and is willing to take the risk on this borrower (or would if they knew the details/credit report)? You seem to be suggesting one large data custodian, if effect this is destroying the loans market and would result in increased rates for everyone.
>Unless you are engraving a name plate, you don't need my name.
Well someone needs your name, if this data custodian came into existence then no the bank wouldn't need your name, but the data custodian would.
>However, they do not expunge that data once they have made the determination.
They would need to keep your contact details, but the rest should not be kept. If it is their the data protection watchdog should give them a kicking.
Side note: Have you heard of zopa? Its a 'peer-to-peer' lending scheme here in the UK which appears to do what you are suggesting without the indemnity. They do credit checks on borrowers and split them into risk groups. Lenders then sign up and offer to loan money out to the groups at different rates. Lenders get better rates than at the bank, borrowers get better rates than at the bank. Zopa make a margin. People seem to like it as it identifies banks as a greedy middleman and bypasses them, but if a borrower defaults the lender loses out.
>The fact that anyone even thought to ask for people's facebook passwords as a condition of employment in the United States is cause for alarm.
This is a whole other thread, yes employers asking for facebook passwords is wrong (and if you give them over breaking the TOS). The simple answer is say no and work for a less creepy boss (hey I did say simple answer).
>They could not ask for it if it effectively did not exist.
True, but some people want to use facebook. Just because some dodgy employers are making unacceptable demands does not mean innocent people should have facebook taken away from them.
>I am mostly talking about the U.S. government, which has a huge sway over the rest of us.
>controlled export of encryption stronger than 64 bits
From what I understand this is a handup from old weapon export laws but isn't enforced.
>That effectively lowers your encryption to zero bits. Sounds like crappy encryption to me.
But only on a court order, which one would hope was carefully considered. Unless you are seriously suggesting law enforcement should never have access to any encrypted data. Could you imagine how badly this could be for society. On the other hand if it became too easy for 'them' to get private data it could be equally bad for society. (and I did say this was a broken law)
>The vast majority of creators would give up any right to copyrights or patents in a heartbeat if they understood what the trade meant. Give up a tiny trickle of income and gain access to all the world's art and music, science and literature and remove the 'IP' tax from goods and services -- not just for yourself, but for everybody.
If your sole income came from being a creator; authors, song writers (not necessarily performers), artists and computer programmers are a few examples that come to mind, then I bet you wouldn't agree to this. Lose your income but get other art etc for free, Great but you can't eat art.
Unless you are referring to a utopian vision where physical goods are free then this isn't going to fly.
What about a company that designs advanced computer chips, or any industry that take a huge investment to produce a new good. Are you seriously suggesting that anyone with manufacturing capability should be able to grab their designs and start selling?
Current copyright and patent laws are not perfect (to somewhat understate the situation) but what they are mean to do (protect innovators for a *limited* amount of time so they can turn a profit before their competition gets their innovation for free) is a fine goal.
>Re: Then create a project/product. Make it user-friendly and shout to everyone why they need it!
>I think you might be joking here, but if not: you can't trust me. If you need to depend upon me, then you don't really have that security.
Yes it was half tongue in cheek statement. More a dig at the open source believe that everyone can code and many eyeballs makes for safe code.
On a more serious note: above you were talking about someone acting as a fiduciary and that takes trust. So yes somewhere along the line you need to trust other people. You can't survive without it.
>My point is, unless you can do it yourself, you cannot be sure it is not compromised.
And unless you are the worlds expert on encryption (and cracking of) you can't have reliable security.
How do you write code? Because unless you wrote the compiler yourself...
A few notes on your notes
Some of your notes went over my head but here's what I got:
Your idea of loan proxies is effectively what a bank does at the moment. I lend my money to the bank (or they buy it on the money markets) they lend it to borrowers. I get a small return, the bank gets a much bigger one. I don't get to know who borrowed my money, but neither do I take the risk of an individual borrower going bust. (And if the all go bust then the Government covers the risk. And if the government goes bust then I have bigger worries than losing a few thousand of what is now a worthless currency)
When you ask a lender for a loan the reason they get all that personal information is they use it to determine how risky they think you are. Each bank has a different idea of what makes someone risky and so algorithm they use is different for every lender. They don't want anyone 'working the system' or copying their (obviously superior) algorithm so it is kept very, very secret. Banks have different risk appetites and like a mixture of different risk levels. If you lend with zero risk then your return is minimal, for this reason banks would would never go for exclusively using a proxy as they couldn't make enough money.
> As of this point in time, most data is being held and transmitted in the clear
Source? Depends what you are talking about I guess. If you mean credit bureau to bank then I don't have personal knowledge but would be very surprised if this was true. If you are talking websites then most I use on a regular basis are https.
> the establishment that controls things insists on keeping key sizes down, insists on a woefully insecure network and still is madly attempting to create legislation to force intermediaries like ISPs to reveal 32 bit IP addresses-user pairs, to enforce weak encryption and to outlaw attempts to circumvent their own encryption.
Who do you mean by the establishment? If you mean the Govt then, here in the UK at least, they seem to take it seriously. Pen testing for externally facing systems, GSI for emails, usb device ban other than encrypted devices. All laptops encrypted. Constant training on how to not leave sensitive info on the train. etc etc
> enforce weak encryption
I haven't heard of anyone trying to do this. Yes, in the UK, a Judge can force you to hand over your encryption keys (and yes the law is broken) but they haven't forced anyone to use crappy encryption.
> outlaw attempts to circumvent their own encryption
Are we talking Govt or private industry here? Yes they have DRM, no I don't like it, but from their point of view the west makes less physical goods and more IP so the IP needs to be protected to keep our economy going (If the IP holders decide to pay tax of course!)
> This is not available to non-programmers, but it is certainly available to a significant subset of programmers.
Then create a project/product. Make it user-friendly and shout to everyone why they need it!
> They're not out to get you.
Unless you're *that* Naozumi, in which case they are out to get you
The pay points at our local car park have been 'upgraded' to accept nfc.
So if you put a wireless card in it uses it automatically rather than ask you for a pin.
Only take about twice as long to authenticate, grr
> Grapes Of Wrath. Kindle price £7.99, paperback £6.89
> No proofreading, no marketing. All that was done in the 1930's
I'm curious so lets run the numbers as close as we can:
Stross is quoted above as saying "80-90% of the cover price of a book has nothing to do with the paper and ink"
So if we assume 10-20% of the cost is printing costs and everything else if profit:
printed book profit: £5.51 - £6.20
ebook profit: £7.99
but ebooks charge VAT so:
ebook profit: £6.66
Amazon book fees are 0.86 + 17.25% of selling price for printed books and 30% for ebooks
printed book profit: £3.70 - £4.27
ebook profit: £4.67
So, based on cost, using these rough number and my (probably) dodgy maths, it appears ebook is 40-97p overpriced. But prices, and purchasing decisions aren't made on cost but on value.
> That is pure profiteering
No it isn't. Profiteering usually refers to raising prices during an emergency, especially on critical products. This is not profiteering but capitalism, the seller has the rights to sell this product at whatever price they want. If you like the product and the price you can buy it. If not you are free to look elsewhere or for something else. You could even contact the seller with a counter-offer but good luck with that.
> no such costs to recoup.
The aim of selling isn't just to recoup costs but to make profit.
If the prices are a rip off then people wouldn't buy. As people clearly are buying these best-sellers then the price is acceptable to a large number of people. They may get more profit at a lower price with more sales, or they may get more profit with a higher price and less sales. Without seeing their accounts we can't possibly know.
Prices are not based on cost (+ reasonable profit) but on value. If people are willing to spend £10 on a book it is irrelevant if the costs are £1 or £9.
Publishers need to get the most profit they can from all books they publish. But (I imagine) the book market is really hard to segment. Traditionally the only segments are hard & paperback. Now they have ebooks as another segment.
But how do you price that segment?
Again, this depends on value, how much are people willing to pay?
Some people (seems like quite a few on the reg comment boards) prefer printed books and against ebooks on principle. You can't consider these people for pricing as no matter what price the ebook they will never buy.
Currently (I would hazard a guess that) most people value the printed work over an ebook, thus ebooks lose value (This may be because they think ebooks cost significantly less to produce).
However Ebooks have many advantages over printed books, instant download, easy to take on holiday, don't take up shelf space etc etc. So ebooks gain value.
Publishers view ebooks as another sales channel, so the per ebook profit margin must not be less than the per printed book profit margin or they run the risk of cannibalising their market.
It is perceived there is a higher risk of piracy with ebooks (which may or may not affect sales) so should the price should be higher to compensate, or lower to encourage legitimate purchases?
Also ebooks get charged VAT so they should cost more.
So how much do you charge for your ebook? Depends on how much the market values it not cost.
If you are hell bent on thinking about costs, remember you can't look at one book in isolation. The publisher has no real way of knowing which books will become best-sellers or flops so must cover the cost of the flops with the profits from the best-sellers. By taking risks on usual manuscripts they can discover great new (profitable) authors which benefits everyone, but they are more likely to discover a flop. I wouldn't like a market where all the proofread and edited books are about moaning teenage vampires.
Yet another thread to consider is the growing number of self publishers. When the costs of printing are reduced to practically zero then assuming you abandon proof reading, editing, commissioning book art and marketing and paying yourself for the time you spend writing, you can sell the ebook dirt cheap and everything is pure profit (apart from Amazon's cut).
Of course this means there is a huge number of cheap and free ebooks from unknown authors of various quality. Hidden in amongst this load of crap and spam there are a number of excellent books well worth reading. Some of these authors have spent time and money proof reading, editing, getting a good cover and generally polishing their work. However at the price they are charging and number of sales they are getting I can't see how they are covering costs let along making profit. So people are getting used to paying an unsustainable price for these ebooks.
This could be a massive threat to publishers, if they are no longer needed for publishing they how will they continue to exist? The problem that seems to be happening now is a lack of quality control in the market place and marketing. Quality control is really Amazon's problem (or Google books or Apple or whoever owns the marketplace). If this was sorted then the threat gets even bigger to publishers, high quality books from big publishers for £6.99 or high quality books from a little publishers for £0.77?
Publishers could reinvent themselves to provide services to authors, on-demand Proof reading, editing and marketing etc but this is a hell of a culture change from being a gatekeeper (and somewhat a reduction in grandeur) and there are already services offering this.
These days I tend to download a lot of free ebooks. If I find a book I enjoy and the author has other books for sale then they will get a sale from me. I get high quality entertainment for a fraction of the cost in a more convenient format. The only other cost to me is the time I spend reading crap books before deleting them.
I guess I'm glad I'm not a (big) publisher.
>Rape victims are easy subjects to denigrate.
As are men falsely accused of rape
If there are pictures of people having sex circulating, that doesn't prove if it was rape or consensual.
So, like most rape cases, this comes down to the man (or men in this case) claim consensual sex, the woman claims rape. Hard to prove and get right, like most rape cases.
*If* the authorities did not investigate this properly then yes this needs to be investigated and addressed.
As you point out its up to the Crown to decide whether or not to prosecute and this will be based on the evidence supplied to them by police. I haven't read anything to suggest that they (the crown) made a bad call in this case. (Although, obviously I don't have all the facts in this matter)
>> I sure hope that many places and organizations will ban the use of glasses within their boundaries the same way cameras or phones are today.
So no Google Glass in Strip clubs and art galleries then but OK most other places
>> Google Glass, (which among other things would be classed as a mobile phone under this law)
Really? Unless the law is really broad in its definition of mobile phone then this is one to be decided by the courts as it would be quite a jump to describe Google Glass as a mobile phone.
>> driver’s pocket or pouch excluded
Easy then, the actual Glasses frame is the pouch used to store the communication technology.
A fairly woolly law with enough leeway to keep the lawyers busy.
If the price fixing happens between two (or more) sellers, you have the option of buying the product at that price, buying elsewhere (possibly at a different price) or not buying the product at all.
If someone robs you then you don't have the option not to be robbed.
Theft can also include assault, threat of assault, damage to property etc etc which price fixing does not.
Do you really not see a difference?
(AFAIK) Laws against theft are fairly universal, you can't take something that doesn't belong to you. Laws against price-fixing aren't. They vary from country to country and from market to market within countries. E.G. in the UK Magazines and newspapers are price-fixed and this is legal.
I wouldn't rob a bank with you as you are clearly hard of thinking, it's probably your fault we got caught anyway.
Apple and their publisher buddies didn't conspire to rob people of millions, they are accused of price fixing, that is offering goods for sale at a higher price than they would if they were competing properly.
Offering goods for sale at a high price and forcibly taking peoples cash from them are two different crimes with different levels of severity and hence different penalties.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW or should I say it again, S-L-O-W-E-R?
although "Arthur C. Clarke, wrote detailed descriptions of the concept of a waterbed while hospitalized in the mid 1930s. His writings were later used as prior art to prevent a patent from being awarded in the 1960s as the waterbed started to become popular. " from http://appleinsider.com/articles/11/08/23/samsung_cites_science_fiction_as_prior_art_in_us_ipad_patent_case.html
So it really seems to depend on how detailed the description is in the book!
"A science-fiction novel might describe an invention without going into details. While this will describe the basic idea behind the invention, it does not enable the skilled person to construct the invention. For example, the famous Star Trek TV series features the so-called "transporter", by which Starfleet personnel could be "beamed down" to the surface of the planet. However, no details were ever given on how the transporter was supposed to work, or how anyone could build it. If someone today were to invent a working matter transporter that operated in exactly the same way as in Star Trek, he would still be able to obtain a patent on it. The disclosure given in the TV series would not be sufficient to destroy novelty of the features of his transporter.
That does not mean that fiction cannot be used as prior art at all. If the fiction describes the invention in sufficient detail, it counts as prior art just like a technical publication would. "
I an not a lawyer (thank Dog) but I read that as unless those authors/books described the tech in sufficient detail that it could actually be build then it isn't prior art
Tesla wanted him to write a review about the charging infrastructure, he actually wrote more about problems with the car and the charging infrastructure.
When you give a reporter a product to review you don't get to dictate what they write.
Your car tells you "You have 30 miles of range" but you need to go 45 miles. In the last few hours or days it has been wildly inaccurate, both optimistic and pessimistic.
You have a Tesla rep on the phone telling you to they have diagnostic info from the car and charge for an hour before continuing and ignore the predicted range and it will sort itself out.
Are you really saying you would keep on charging and ignore the experts who tell say you've got more than enough juice?
"I'd have to be deliberately trying to fuck it up in order to write a negative review.". No. Its possible you deliberately fucked it up to get a negative review, its also possible you didn't deliberately fuck it up and still had a negative experience and wrote the review based on this.
In a couple of places the two blog posts seem to directly contradict each other:
Musk says it never ran out of power, Broder says the car warned it was shutting down and then did. So either one of them is lying or the car will shut-down when there is power remaining.
Musk claims Broder was told to keep charging one the last leg and stopped "expressly against the advice of Tesla personnel". Broder states he was told to charge for one hour then continue "expressly on the instructions of Tesla personnel". Again one of them must be lying.
Musk claims Broder took an unplanned detour through lower Manhattan, Broder claims he had a planned stop in a different part of Manhattan which added about two miles to the trip. Weather the detour was planned or unplanned frankly makes little difference as, presumably, every Tesla owner doesn't OK their journey plan with Tesla beforehand. I don't understand why Musk cares about this, unless it was a big detour not the two miles Broder claims.
Six days after the trip when Broder asked for copies of the logged data, presumably before the story was published (assumption on my part) "to compare against my notes and recollections" i.e. ensure his review was accurate. Tesla said they "did not store data on exact locations where their cars were driven because of privacy concerns". Later they published a bunch of this data that doesn't exist. So either he is lying about this, they lied to him about it existing or it was fabricated at a later date.
Based on current statements I believe either Musk, Broder or Both of them are lying. With such conflicting statements it doesn't seem possible that this is all just a misunderstanding.
one step at a time, anon, one step at a time
I think you mean Dr Sheldon Cooper
wow, just wow
>My current "activity" is to allow Google+ to upload pictures from my smartphone--and I increasingly regret my choice of Android.
Then why do you have this functionality turned on? I remember installing the G+ app on my phone and it specifically asked me if I wanted auto upload turned on, seems a bit silly and a waste of data allowance if you have no plans of using it!
I apologise unreservedly for both the insult and the profound worry which I inadvertently caused
>PROVIDED he won't be abducted by US Agents.
I assume you mean he want a guarantee that Sweden will not extradite him to the USA.
This is a guarantee everyone knows they cannot possibly give as:
1) There has been no extradition request, so he is effectively asking they guarantee they will never extradite him not matter what the circumstances. (i.e a free pass to (unrelated) commit crimes in the USA)
2) No one has the power to give any such guarantee, and if they did it would be worthless
3) There is no justification for giving any such guarantee
That's like saying I will 'submit' myself to your legal process if you can prove 1=2.
I'm surprised that you don't know this and can only conclude either:
1) you have not paid even cursory attention to the case;
2) you are simply trolling; or
3) you are a fucking retard.
I think this has been discussed to death on other threads.
Under British law (and, from what I understand, most countries laws) this is correct. However in Sweden it is different. You have to be interviewed, then charged, then trial.
Assange has skipped town before the interview takes place, so Sweden cannot charge him yet, although they have stated they want to.
This argument was also considered by the British Judge who said (something along the lines of) If he was accused of the same actions in the UK he would have been arrested and charged here.
This point is, I believe, well known by many commenting on this case but ignored as it is inconvenient.
Of course I'm not a lawyer so might have got this wrong, but when others have pointed this out its not refuted, just down-voted, ignored and then the original argument made again. (Oh damn-it I think i just fed the trolls!)
this is the most sensible comment I have read on the whole case so far
> are anyway his word versus theirs
so like 99% of rape cases then
> he risks being extradited the the USA!
I've read quite a lot of comment about this case, no one has *ever* made a reasonable case for this!
Personally I think the whole case seems a bit dodgy, but the only way to sort it all out is to have a proper trial. Assange has been accused of a crime an his response is to run. No amount of claiming 'its political' can justify this.
You don't see any benefit to something, so it should be banned for everyone.
I guess you really did learn something from the Chinese (or the think of the children brigade)!
So did the bbc get this wrong:
'HTC defeats Apple in swipe-to-unlock patent dispute'
""National patent laws thematically are very similar, but can be applied very differently.
"Not only are the tests different but also the evidence that can be introduced in different courts varies. If the Neonode wasn't released in the US it might not be able to be cited there.
"So the fact that Apple has lost this particular patent battle in the UK shouldn't mean it should be seen to have lost the global war.""
I may be wrong but I believe FRAND applies to patents not services
TBH I don't see anything wrong with that, I think when it comes to negotiation its only natural to hold your cards close to your chest and try to not give anything away - who ever is (or appears to be) most willing to walk away gets the best deal.
It's why we have middlemen and brokers etc (well one of the reasons anyway).
A (kinda stretched) analogy:
If I pay someone to wash my car for £10 and they later find out I'm a millionaire, they don't get pissed that they didn't charge me £200.
<< Pirate, cos someone is clearly trying to fleece someone else, just not sure who is the victim!
So Apple brought the trademark from Proview Taiwan, Proview claim Proview Taiwan didn't have the right to sell the trademark.
So doesn't Apple have some legal comeback with Proview Taiwan? Presumably the sales contract said something like Proview Taiwan confirm they have the exclusive rights to the trademark? and cover liability if this turns out not to be true?
If this is the case cant they sue Proview Taiwan to cover their costs in this case (to be picked up by their parent Proview)
I don't particularly like Apple as a company but they seem to be getting a bit of a shafting here
"<-- My kind of piss."
You drink Carling?
You don't like a lot of popular fantasy; fair enough.
You seem to want to:
a) convince the world that things they enjoy actually suck
b) redefine a genre into something less popular / different.
Telling people that, essentially, their tastes suck and yours are awesome isn't really a winning strategy. Nor is it going to make you any friends.
I guess my point is: grow up.
The article does not say STA Travel have no liability for their misleading adverts, it just says Google *do* have responsibility for publishing misleading adverts.
They both were naughty.
I presume STA Travel were charged separately.
This is advertisers paying to have their dodgy adverts shown doing the bad stuff, not website owners getting paid to show adverts,
if I hired a taxi and told the driver to run over a bunch of people would he be responsible?
or do almost all of those chairs look massively uncomfortable?
not great for productivity