* Posts by adam 40

7 posts • joined 15 Oct 2009

EE dismisses DATA-BURNING glitch with Orange Mail app

adam 40

Thanks for all your comments

A number of things really got my goat about this experience, in no particular order:

- It's not really an option for the general population to root their phones and install firewalls. Even if the 10% of typical public who can understand this stuff did it, they may invalidate their warranty, so are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

- The rest of the population have to put up with the balance chiselling.

- Orange never have contacted me to say sorry. Nor refunded the whole amount. The "stock answers" went to the Register - not me.

- Orange didn't even want to refund the £7 until the Register contacted them - how tight is that - especially considering that all they are doing is crediting a PAYG balance? Do we really have to whack these companies over the head with a news story before they will cough up?

- They operate a "phone only" compaints procedure, so when you complain, like most companies that do this, as soon as you hang up the complaint is forgotten. The complaint can't easily be used as evidence to the ombudsman or small claims - I have taken to recording all such customer service calls "for training purposes"!

- If my son want to receive an MMS (for example I might send MMS to get a read receipt for an important message) he has to leave data on - at a cost of around £4 a day - so it's a ridiculous suggestion that he leave it turned off permanently. (Yes the phone is firewalled now, but what about Joe Public with non-rooted phones?)

- The "recent usage" stats online only go back a month or so - so I cannot get proper evidence of previous instances to get refunds for. So much for online billing... get paper every time.

This bug has been around for at least 3 years, it beggars belief that "no one" has reported it. Apart from anything else, the sevenemail1 server must be deluged with pings all the time from millions of handsets, which probably cripples performance.

My next mission is to get as many consumer groups as possible aware of this for people to get refunds. Please help by copying this story this far and wide.


How Brit computer maker beat IBM's S/360 - and Soviet spies

adam 40

That's Nowt!

You were lucky!

When I were a lad we ‘ad ter toggle t’ bootstrap into t’PDP front panel, BY HAND, ‘til us fingers bled.

Then us system manager used ter kill us in COLD BLOOD for setting off t' halon in t’ computer room which were a shoebox in t’middle of the M1.

Try telling that….


USB reversible cables could become standard sooner than you think

adam 40

Jack Off?

It's bad enough doing the "reach around" the back of our PC's to find the standard USB ports, to feel for the hole, how on earth are we supposed to fumble for this diddly little orifice to insert our jacks?


Too late, Blighty! Samsung boffins claim breakthrough graphene manufacturing success

adam 40

The human hammock wouln't be invisible

The cat hammock supports 4kg and absorbs 2.3% of light.

The human hammock - let's assume you are a lithe 100kg - would be 25 sheets thick, assuming we share the load evenly.

So the light absorbtion would be 2.3% 25 times over, so the transmission of light is 0.977^25 = 0.56 or 56%.

The human hammock would appear fairly dark, absorbing 44% of light.

On the other hand, you might always be a flying-car-driving cat, who knows?


Win XP usage down but not out as support cutoff deadline looms

adam 40

Outdated 'cos designed in the '90's??

Err - UNIX was designed in the '70's and is still going strong.

If you got the design right in the first place, you wouldn't be in this mess.....

Now - back to my Isambard Kingdom Brunel biography....

(P.S. W98? I have test equipment that runs W2000....)


Stephen Hawking pushes for posthumous pardon for Alan Turing

adam 40

Re: Starting an e-petition

The petition is now up - so vote if you feel like it...



Cambridgeshire makes road charge last resort

adam 40

No Mandate

"After the council received mixed responses from the public when congestion charging was initially mooted" - well not really _that_ mixed, over 90% of Cambridgeshire residents are opposed.

The County Council owns the roads that would be affected, and hence it must decide, however everyone who lives outside the City doesn't want congestion charges. The City Council wants it, but can't implement it because it doesn't own the roads.

No County councillors have a mandate for introducing this, indeed it's against the majority of their consituents wishes. So hopefully it'll die a death (again).