12 posts • joined 21 Aug 2009
Most people would think this yes but it isn't really the case. The car is worth more as parts than what is inside it so the ability to take the whole car is rather useful to a thief with a beavertail.
People also think thieves don't take time to set things up but they do. Motorcycles for example with alarms, the old trick was to tie a length of fishing line to it at night and tug from a distance setting the alarm off. Owner eventually thinks the alarm is playing up so turns the alarm off and bike is stolen. Might take a few nights of sitting around but to a thief a few nights for a few grand is time well spent.
Now think of that in relation to a car that can be crated up and out of the country or stripped down in 12 hours and any lapse in security or even merely mistrust of security could net someone a fair few grand for a few nights messing around.
Re: this is an example of prior art
You mean Laptops with internal batteries so they can be used in a mobile fashion ie not tied to a desk in an office environment aren't mobile?
Again aiui new applications of a prior used idea aren't generally considered original, unique and patentable otherwise every time someone put a zip on a newly designed item of clothing for example they could sue anyone who used a zip at a later date, clearly nonsense.
Re: Interesting Point I Suppose
It may be pretty damning evidence but it is also quite probably irrelevant.
Take a look at the underside of virtually every laptop and there is a slide to unlock release on the battery so aiui this is an example of prior art.
Pretty sure that was a data centre previously as I helped liquidate the old firm in there a bit over 10 years ago. They ran huge amount of Compaq gear back then.
I think it was called 'Crisscross communications' and they sold access all across Europe.
As the prievious infrastructure would already be in place it would explain why it is based there and not out at Docklands or some other low rent area.
Re: FO Cables in sewers. I heard of this.
You are possibly thinking of the pipework of the London Hydraulic Power Company that was bought by Mercury so they could run cables cheaply through it.
Considering we have a legal right within the EU to resell software under our own terms how exactly without adding time limits to the ownership of software, which is of dubious legality in itself when media is supplied do Microsoft intend to implement this without falling foul of the law. Even if as Microsoft say they are merely allowing Software houses to charge they are directly facilitating an illegal act and as they charge a license fee on each and every new sale they are benefiting from an illegal act.
I think someone needs to write a piece on the legality of Microsofts actions. This could make the anti trust cases small in comparison.
Not a problem
Same day delivery isn't a problem and if de-centralised warehousing is used can be achieved with delivery times of less than an hour per five miles from the warehouse in major urban areas as long as the warehouses are based within or on the edge of a central population areas, the problem is no one wants to pay for it.
If you consider Royal Mail Special Delivery costs from £5.90 for a before 1pm next day delivery the companies offering same day delivery expect to pay less than £5.00 to the delivery company for sameday while charging the customer twice that regardless of volume with free warehousing of their goods as well, an unrealistic expectation.
If companies want to offer an efficient and cost effective sameday service they simply need to do the deliveries in house but that takes someone who has worked in and dealt with the sameday industry rather than someone who wears a suit and has a degree which unfortunately won't happen.
If it is a batch file problem is it the same kind that had caused trouble for Paypal in the past with their RBS backed prepay debit card?
are continuing at the branches. All systems are down so you can't deposit or withdraw at a branch either
One has to wonder...
where the tow ball is in that picture...
Why not use the Internet?
Well the answer to that is tied up in the red tape DVLA have wrapped around SORN.
If you don't receive your VED reminder and can't find your log book (my paperwork system is haphazard at best) or have an old style log book for a vehicle that has been off the road since before SORN came into being (DVLA didn't issue new type log books for these vehicles) then you are forced to download and print form V890 and apply for SORN by POST.
As you can't interact directly with the DVLA data base via their website, even if you do apply online there is no guarantee that your SORN application will be processed. In fact take a look around the Internet and you will find a fair few examples of this.
It's very easy to assume that just because you are able to SORN your vehicle over the internet that everyone else can. Last figures I read stated that something like 10% of vehicles couldn't be SORN'd online.
Hope that helps answer a few questions.
James E Collins
Time saving exercise maybe?
I suppose it means DVLA doesn't have to think up fanciful reasons for giving it out now.
- Review Reg man looks through a Glass, darkly: Google's toy ploy or killer tech specs?
- MEN WANTED to satisfy town full of yearning BRAZILIAN HOTNESS
- +Comment 'Stop dissing Google or quit': OK, I quit, says Code Club co-founder
- Nokia: Read our Maps, Samsung – we're HERE for the Gear
- Apple tried to get a ban on Galaxy, judge said: NO, NO, NO