@frank ly Re: "It's about what they think they can get away with"
2402 posts • joined 6 Nov 2009
Pardon, what did you say? Did I hear a 50 hour basic contractual working week here? If I have not misunderstood then all I can say is - Land of the Free - bollocks. Land of the Indentured Surfs more like.
Delighted to hear it. I would say the same regardless of which company was concerned.
Happily for the reputation of the human race not all of us share that opinion.
"For many people in the world, 600 quid is a lot to spend on a phone."
.............would feel that is a lot of money to spend on a phone!*
*I have spent almost that much. To be specific, my lady's Xperia Z2 for a special birthday. I did not for one moment begrudge it but it still wasn't exactly small change from my point of view.
"Organisations should get their antivirus products security tested before deployment"
In my innocence not to say ignorance I had imagined that that would be standard practice and if it is not I confess myself astonished. My question is - if it is not regarded as best/standard practice, then why not?
I entirely agree. The marketing of these so-called "unlimited" plans has been dishonest from the outset. How it is that the ASA has not descended on them (the telcos in general not just Verizon) from a very great height over the term "unlimited" is a mystery to me. It is clear that no infrastructure as currently envisaged could cope with people having high-res streaming on virtually continuously. Some throttling of the most intensive users is unavoidable. However, they should be genuinely open and honest about that in their advertising, not just in the small print.
In the same sense that at vampire is a predator. Their strategy in practice (in the longer term) destroys the market they are exploiting*. They are a bubble company. The moment they are required (by circumstances - shareholders, the authorities and the like) to show a (sustained) profit then they are in the shit up to their necks.**
*The only world a vampire understands is one where he is last of his kind left standing.
**Oh and yes, I am perfectly well aware that there are plenty of other examples of BigCorp out there who deserve the same critisism.
This has been a bugbear of mine for a long time. The same suspects use/abuse the facility to post anonymously to avoid having to take responsibility for what they post. This does not mean that I am calling for the facility to be withdrawn - far from it in fact. However, the cowardice/dishonesty in that kind of behaviour really fucks me off.
Indeed. Your italicsing "the International Trade Commission" hits the nail right on the head. If companies not "resident" in the US have no rights when persuing/defending a case against this august body then the International Trade Commission is in fact the National Trade Commission" and as such should having nothing at all to do with these decisions where one of the parties is not a "US resident". If the International Trade Commission is not interested in international law then my original point stands.
"Seagate and LSI are off the hook for infringing Taiwanese firm Realtek’s semiconductor patents after the US International Trade Commission (ITC) ruled that Realtek can't enforce its rights without a local presence."
Your patents are invalid unless you trade within the United States? Pardon my naivete but I thought that there were several international agreements relating to patent recognition? We have here in the UK the expression "Little Englander" describing a closed-minded "patriot" who cannot see further than his own nose. This kind of thing from the "Leader of The Free World" is bloody embarrassing.
Of course and I understand why circumstances sometimes require "donning the mask". However, I have over the last few years become convinced that some AC-postings are driven by a desire to avoid being exposed for having argued "both ends against the middle" from one posting to the next simply to be able to get away with posting something completely illogical (in the context of previous postings) against whoever their favourite hate-figure is. That type of dishonest debating tactic really pisses me off. On the other hand, as I made clear in the post to which you were kind enough reply, that does not mean that I wish the capacity to post as an AC to be withdrawn.
Sorry Herr Sauerkraut, I did not understand a word of that other than that you appear to believe that my post to which you "replied" had something to do with The Demon Lords of Redmond. Given that I did not say word about Redmond I am somewhat puzzled. I only meant that I could clearly see why the poster concerned needed to post as an AC, something which I remain convinced was clear from what I wrote. Furthermore if someone is in a position where they genuinely feel that posting something negative about MS (they might be employed in the channel with a firm that is an MS "partner" for example and are concerned that their employer might turn nasty) would cause them problems then they should certainly post as an AC if that is really the only way they can safely participate in the debate.
Hi AC. I realise that I have often mouthed off about the "ring on your door-bell and run away ACs" but on this occasion I wish to make it clear that I fully understand the need for the capacity to post here as an AC for the reasons you allude to in your post. I hope that you will forgive my frustration with those who abuse the system. It is entirely clear that you could only comment in this context under conditions of anonymity. This facility I regard as crucial to free debate here at El Reg - I just get fairly hacked off with those who take the piss out of it.
It will be even more interesting to see the Chinese government's response when they really understand the degree to which they have let the geni out of the bottle. *
*Regardless of the "Great Firewall of China".
Part of this perennial problem is of course the refusal of some people to except variety and change. However, I personally speaking really dislike the ribbon. Does this mean that I feel an overwhelming urge to call everyone who likes it an idiot? No, of course not. Where MS fell down with Office 2007 was their attempt to shove the notorious ribbon down the throats of their customers when they could equally well have permitted said customers a way out. They in the end did that with Office 2010 but they did a fair amount of damage to their relationship with their customers in the meantime.
As far as texting while driving is concerned I entirely agree - utterly insane. It is simply not possible to both drive a car safely and at the same write text messages, an activity that also requires concentration. If one has to answer a text then pull over as soon as you can and then do it. As far as this study is concerned on the subject of talking on the phone I remain agnostic.
Well funnily enough some people do have a user-case for a highly mobile form-factor that can run full fat Windows. I am sitting at my kitchen table typing this post on my - yes, you guessed it - ThinkPad 8. I rebuilt our heavy-lifter for our home office 2 - 3 months ago for the very obvious reason that there are clearly tasks that can only in reality be performed on a full desk-top pc and it was worth plonking down the 600 quid or so that I spent on the upgrade. However, this little fellah is pretty nippy and has no trouble running the likes of Office. I would of course be the first to concede that that would be a fairly painfull experience without my compact little blue-tooth keyboard! Personally I have no interest in trying to persuade others who have a different user-case which excludes this type of device, all I can really say is that I like it and am finding very usefull. Each to their own and all that.
I entirely agree. I have in fact on several occasions upvoted a well written post even where I disagreed with it. If someone clearly is trying to make a contribution (as someone further up has already said) why not post and engage with them? Downvoting and not posting is very often (albeit not always of course) the equivalent to the childhood game of ringing on somebody's doorbell and running away.
..........that a little bit of rewriting is in order. In my opinion the following:
"to prevent direct exhortation to children,"
should read as:
"to prevent direct extortion to children,"
...to at least evaluate whether or not I should avoid the upgrade to 8.1 when it arrives up here. ("Up here" being the arctic arse-end of nowhere). I have read reviews by people I also respect that have a rather more positive take on 8.1. However, thank you for a very frank review Andrew all the same. I look forward to those posters (usually AC, natch) who have posted the usual "shill" accusation garbage on other threads connected to your articles related to the Lumia range having to eat their words.
......steady on. I feel not the slightest desire to engage in that kind of thing. Especially since I am very happy with my Lumia 1020! I look forward to getting the 8.1 update.
If the tosser concerned does not realize that a website will end up in very deep shit if they publish/relay libelous material without evidence to support the allegations then he deserves to have his arse modded, end of.
Then maybe the aforementioned AC should have kept his gob shut when it came to such "comprehensive" howling - so much howling that he actually succeeded in getting modded here of all places....hmm?
Good tip for those who have not tripped over that one before.
It takes a very dedicated iPhanboi to boast that the Fruities would make suicide look cool and stylish!
"A point in their favour is they do send an e-mail immediately on purchasing or downloading a free app so you know exactly what apps are being bought or used by your little darlings."
........that our "little darlings" would ever have been in a position to buy anything at all with my (or my good lady's) hard earned without having to ask us first brings us both out in hives. We would have under no circumstances ever have given them that kind of access. Some parents, in our not so humble opinion make a gigantic rod for their own backs.
"They don't like it up'em Captain Mainwaring sir."
Indeed it appears that Cupertino (judging by their own choice of words in response, a choice that indicates strongly that they know that they are on a sticky wicket) does not "like it up'em". Words like "hoist upon ones own petard come to mind".
...........some of our compadres in our little congregation here at El Reg will not know in which direction to explode.
Not if you make sure that you are upwind of the other contestants.
The side that Columbus came from old chap.
.......largely means people we are not likely to bomb anytime soon but I think we should all rethink this transanlantic alliance. Not in the sense of flushing it down the lav, more in the sense of trying to persaude our friends on the other side of the pond that this kind of behaviour is counterproductive.
"Will it work? It already has. The purpose is to broaden the audience who hears your complaints. That being the case, this is a 100% success."
I am not so sure. The answer to El Reg' subbie's rhetorical question is of course, IMHO, that like so many other examples of BigCorp, they figured that they could do what they liked. I don't think that the current public mood (in Europe at any rate) is particularly well disposed to arrogant multinationals. 100% success? I would not bet the farm on that.
""Big companies don't care unless there is a law. Life today is different and children live in a different environment. Companies that collect data and infringe privacy are not necessarily the bad guys, but they often end up doing things which society considers wrong."
Nobody asks "should we do this?", they ask "can we get away with it?". When it appeared that it was all going to go down the shitter a few years back everybody asked "how could this happen?". The "Cognoscenti" of the Chicago School began to howl about "moral hazard" if any of the poor bastards that got caught up in that poisonous shit got, even partially, forgiven their debts. Where is the "morality" in the "can we get away with it" attitude in the current climate? There are some serious questions to be asked, and even the most fervent supporter of the "Holy Free Market" ought to be willing to discuss the issue without starting to howl like a dog if anyone dares mention the obscene word "regulation".
..........the technical side of this action very well I did feel that the following from the ISP's spokeswoman was more than a bit cheeky.
"At 6am, they seemed to make a change to forward on the good traffic, but it didn’t do anything. Although they seem to be trying to take corrective measures, DNS is hard, and they don’t seem to be very good at it."
I am sorely tempted to paraphrase her remarks in the following fashion:
"Although No-IP claimed to be taking corrective measures to prevent their service being misused by malware bandits, secure Internet service provision is hard, and they don't seem to be very good at it."
I am also very interested in what will happen if the results do not match the "warmers" expectations. I suspect that the howling will be deafening.
"Tech firms like Sammy and Apple go in for the kind of liberal aspirational branding and reputation that doesn’t sit particularly well with the exploitation of workers in China,...."
That is in fact a reasonably objective description of the situation that firms like Sammy and the Fruity Company find themselves in. If you object to this description of the situation then I am forced to conclude that you are yet another example (AC, naturally) of the low forehead knuckle-dragging tribalists (regardless of the sect to which you belong) that we have all too many of here at El Reg.
That's interesting old chap - how much does it cost?
...............that several of us here in our little congregation have already commented upon. Particularly with regard to the likely effect on the capacity of US tech companies to do business abroad. Only recently we saw the German government cancel a large contract with Verizon citing security concerns. The US already has enough difficulty facing the new economic challenges from the BRIC countries (if memory serves I believe that stands for BrasilRussiaIndiaChina) without shooting themselves in the foot in this way. I suggest that the current generation of American politicians review the slogan than one of Bill Clinton's advisers gifted his boss with when the aforementioned stood for reelection for the presidency, "It's the economy stupid".
..........that chap's comments take the biscuit!
Good to know, that possibility was of course why I expressed myself cautiously with regard to quality. It is a major league PTA even when the company concerned behaves properly (replaces, refunds or whatever) because of the disruption/delay that kind of crap causes. Personally I have owned/used three Intel SSDs so far and am pleased with the quality if not impressed by the price! I have also heard good things from friends/workmates regarding Samsung's offerings.
I have not used any of Crucial's kit and cannot say anything about the quality but the prices are astonishing. SSD prices (per gig) appear to going through the floor in comparison to the painful not to say eye-watering reality of only a year or two ago.
.............have found themselves in a very embarrassing and potentially very costly pickle in the wake of the Snowden affair. During the last few years (pre-Snowden) it was becoming very obvious that the American political establishment and their
paymasters friends in the US enterprise sector were using security concerns (both genuine and bogus) as a way of reintroducing a degree of protectionism via the backdoor which otherwise would be illegal under various international trade treaties that the US (ironically enough) had vigorously campaigned for during the last decade of the previous century. Given what World+Wife+dog now know about what the NSA have been up to, the American enterprise sector and their political cheerleaders are facing the serious prospect that individual firms outside of the US will start to avoid doing business with them where they can and that governments will start to regard US firms (as well as the American Spookerati) as a security threat that they would wish to avoid even if they at the same time do not wish to confront the US directly. The situation is starting to rebound on them in ways that they did not anticipate. I suspect that a great deal of rowing backwards will, albeit slowly, become visible in the medium term.
To be honest I am not sure that that is the most important question. The question is (IMHO) for how much longer is the US going to be the single most important market on the planet? Answer? A few more years max. Certain consequences are likely to flow from that inasmuch as the travails of the aforementioned US manager/company may become less and less important for the rest of us earthlings if their economy starts to become of lesser importance on a global basis.
Agreed. The only thing that would work is personal fines on the directors plus jail time. The damage that those bastards cause society demands nothing less.
It is far from unlikely that were it not for the demonstrable and very considerable damage to AMD that Intel's illegal tactics caused AMD would not have had any need to sell their Fabs to SAD.
It is further unlikely that the deal they settled for was anywhere near enough to compensate them for the long term damage that Intel's behaviour caused, however the situation they were in meant they had little choice but to accept the deal. This situation may very well have contributed substantially to the decision in the end to off-load their Fabs. In total Intel has ponied up about 2 billion but gets to keep a monopoly that earns them vastly more than that. You'll pardon me if I remain unimpressed.
Thanks for that, I was not aware. However, I have to say that yet another example of "BigCorp" dragging out a case for as long as possible even when they must have known that they were toast over the AMD business is not very edifying. One can just hope that their legal costs were as sky-high as possible.
...........had not yet paid up. Any chance that it could include a substantial interest payment on top by way of making the point that time wasting and frivolous attempts to avoid their very clear obligations should not be permitted to pay?