217 posts • joined Tuesday 8th December 2009 09:13 GMT
Re : FunkyEric
That's absolutely correct. Because that way they don't get picked up and nabbed for something stupid like not wearing a seatbelt, or doing 5mph over the speed limit, or dropping litter, etc. etc.
Not quite as insulting this time.
But he forgot a number of points.
1) Dress for an INTERVIEW! Your favourite geek tee-shirt won't do. And yes, I've had an interviewee turn up in tee-shirt and jeans. Cleavage DOES NOT WORK! If it does you really, really don't want to work there. I have blackballed a candidate simply because of inappropriate dress.
2) Posture. This is important. Look as though you are interested in the interviewers and what they are saying. Even if it is a bunch of crap.
3) Say Hello, say Goodbye. Manners maketh the man. They also help make the employed.
4) Most technical managers doing the interview are probably as nervous as you are. If they feel that you are at ease, that will probably help them too. This brings major brownie points.
or even religious fanatics who are lawyers.
Never bought into the i* thing. Was impressed by the Apple Lisa, after than, no.
Mr. Jobs, the man... A great loss to his family, my condolences to them.
A loss to the business world? well, that depends on your views of his business ethics. As others have said, like him or loath him, he had a tremendous impact on the way we now live our lives.
Re : Jedit
"And what do they intend to use when they need to test the upper end of the intelligence spectrum?"
The ability to leave the bluudy thing alone for ten minutes.
Re : Solomon Grundy
I was using non-IBM PC's in the mid to late 80's. We even had an official copy of Flight Simulator. If a PC could run FS, it _WAS_ IBM compatible.
I worked on the Sirius 1 (Victor 9000), and machines from Aston Technologies an outfit near Birmingham (the UK Brum).
There were a huge number of third party manufacturers around then. Low margins finished most of them though.
That's Average consumption, right
So, given the number of teetotalers that I know, the rest of us probably need intravenous drips (or should that be pressure pumps?) to keep up the numbers.
I should add that my wife drove me to drink.
God bless her.
Re : AC - 20110811 21:34 GMT
"Education is the way out of this problem."
And most of the chavs I've seen don't want education.
In the forces they'd be subject to a strict formalised environment where they can be educated.
Its either national service, of bringing the SAS into our schools to impose discipline on these feral buggers.
Re : Dan 55
"Perhaps he should be in talks with the Finnish government to share education methods."
WHAT!!! You mean we should start trying to educate these people!!!!
Go and have a lie down Sir, you're obviously delusional.
"Slinging an expensive remote-controlled buggy across will of course not get quite as much done, but it's a lot cheaper and a lot lower risk."
But if you posted an ad in, say flight magazine, "Wanted qualified test pilots for one way Mars mission. 8.5 months in hard radiation 24 months of supplies and no possibility of resupply. Four positions available. Send CV to NASA.
Then I think that you'd need to employ three or four extra admin / HR staff to sort through the CVs and, maybe a platoon of SEALs to stop them trying to break in and plead their case in person.
Exploration is incredibly dangerous. But, if humanity wishes to survive, then it needs to get its collective arse in gear and get off this rock.
This is the reason...
"The inquiry into peer review came after the release of the Climategate files, which revealed academics at the University of East Anglia selectively disclosing data needed to replicate their results, hiding from Freedom of Information Act requests, recommending destruction of email trails, and vowing to "redefine" the peer-review process to keep papers they disagreed with out of the publication system."
This and this alone should have been enough to have the scientific world screaming at the CRU.
Golbal warming is far too serious _NOT_ to publish full data, show the algorithms and assumptions used, and present conclusions.
The 'Hockey Stick' graph, would have been laughed out of existence _IF_ the full data and algorithms had been published.
So we now have 'scientists' who are ready to block access and pervert the usual quality processes, I cannot help but wonder WHY.
This time, _WE_ really do need to know.
I just LOVE these
'it can't be done' proclamations. The 'it's impossible!' ones are just as good.
We'll all have a good laugh about this when time travel is a reality, made possible by ignoring the so called 'limits'.
You try getting a 'suspended prison sentence'. It is a punishment, one that will affect his entire life. _IF_ he gets caught, and convicted, for anything else during the period of his sentence then he goes inside.
So he might not serve 1 day behind bars, he might serve 16 months.
A number of people
still are posting the "I drive ten miles a year and pay more than my wife/girlfriend/SO who drives a million miles a year and has an accident every day!" And "But this man / woman / sloth is paying the same as..." And Insurers should look at the individuals risk.
Go back to reading the DM. You're lack of understanding of the insurance system is beginning to bore me.
Do you buy you shirts / shirts from a bespoke tailor?
No, you by them from a shop which sells to a large number of people. So you get a "STANDARD" item of clothing.
And just WHAT makes you think that insurance is any different? If you want a cheap insurance deal, you'll go to a company who sells to tens of thousands of people. You'll put up with not having "your" risk calculated for the sake of saving a few quid.
There are quite a lot of insurers who would just love to insure you PERSONALLY. But it will cost you.
Just like a made to measure suit will cost a lot more than the off the peg counterpart.
So, you have your choice go cheap and get an 'off the peg' deal. Go tailored just for you and pay through the nose for it. Your choice.
So now you can stop whinging that the insurers are cheating you, because THEY aren't assessing YOUR risk. Go to a respectable broker and They'll arrange insurance just for you.
Also men and women are different. I don't know why, but they are. If you feel that you must make the genders equal then start at the beginning. In the UK 1011 girls are born for every 1000 boys. Start with that. Get the birth rates equal. How are you going to sort that one out?
The law is an ass
In the discussions of this ECJ ruling I have heard time and time again 'Insurers are just greedy bastards' and words to that effect.
Insurance, and re-insurance, is just a business. It needs to make profits to survive just like any other business. And, like all other businesses insurers are in direct competition with other insurers.
So, unless you can prove collusion and price fixing within the industry each insurer must try to keep their costs, and thus premiums down to the minimum that they can. This is simple business sense.
Another, often voiced, claim is that insurers think that one group of people are 'better' or 'worse' drivers than another group. this is just untrue. The insurers _know_ that one group of people is a higher risk than another. And another group is a much lower risk than others. Yes this is based on statistics. And it is based on actual experience.
If I do a SELECT on my claims database, and group the output to show total payments, broken by age ranges, and split by gender, then the output, from a history of actual claims, is obvious. Younger males are a greater risk than older females. This is a fact. I don't care if you scream discrimination, all motor insurers will be able to show the same outputs from their own data. Facts do not discriminate. They are just facts.
So, this judgment is purely social engineering. Trying to ignore reality and impose a world view on to facts that doesn't fit, damages, not only the businesses it relates to, but the people who use those businesses.
If we take into account age as well, then similar data mining will show the obvious results. Women, on average, live longer than men. Don't blame me for this, it too is a fact. On average men have different medical histories than women. No matter how loud you demand that these be made equal, it won't happen. These are facts. And facts do not care what social engineers think.
Re : AC 20110301 23:11
"Grow Up and stop acting like snickering school children."
Sarah's been trying to get us to grow up for years. She hasn't managed it what make you thing you've a better chance?
Re : Sarah Bee
I might have been the first to post it, but I bet I wasn't the only one who thought it.
is the transference of risk. that's it pure and simple.
If a person is within a group which the insurance companies have found to be a higher risk, then they will be charged more. This is irrespective of age gender colour or religion. If you are in a group which has shown itself to be a low risk then you will pay a reduced premium. The questions that you're asked on your application are all about identifying _precisely_ which group you belong in.
Insurance companies have huge data sets to mine for this type of information and, in a hugely competitive market, they cut their margins as much as possible.
If you wish to complain about sexual discrimination in insurance then have a go at companies like Sheila's Wheels, companies who only sell to a single gender.
But complaining that you fit into a group which has a higher than average number of claims every year is pointless. Do something to get out of that group, take the advance drivers tests. That will lower your premium.
But no, it's far easier to just whinge at the insurance companies and blame them.
Yes, I am a DBA for an insurance / reinsurance company in the city.
that would be iGenius.
Oh Boy, err girl... err human
Sheila's wheels will be stuffed.
So why, when there is a huge amount of statistical evidence to support the insurance industry's premium differentials, are people complaining about this?
Is it just jealousy? Is _SHE_ paying less for her insurance that _them_? How about me, I pay more for health insurance than a twenty year old. Should I complain and get a refund for the last 30+ years of private health insurance?
How about premium differentials within genders but by age? A younger driver pays more than an older driver. they pay more because they are a higher risk. Both of these drivers pay less than a very old driver. Again because they are a higher risk again.
None of these decisions are made on the basis of gender, they are all made purely on perceived risk for each person.
All these complains and (if made) judgments will do is drive up the premiums for everybody. NOBODIES premiums will go down.
So well done whoever you were. You can be pleased with yourself that you took a working system and broke it. Well fucking done.
Anyway, if there's a company called Sheila's Wheels purely for the girlies, why can't we have a Mike's Motors, or Clarkesons Cowboys for the boys? Gotta keep things equal dontchaknow.
completed the survey.
Perhaps the only way to stop ridiculous laws being enacted and enforced is to have a body of research like this.
Asking pressure groups what their opinion is will only get you their narrow, and biased, viewpoint. This is dangerous as it warps the viewpoint of our lawmakers (as if those viewpoints weren't warped enough already.) And this leads to very bad laws being enacted, i.e. the extreme cartoon laws.
A lot of the pressure groups, who are trying to force these limitations upon us, are just trying to make us conform to a set of rules which are basically unnatural and unworkable. These laws are criminalising people just for the sake of criminalising them.
This ruling doesn't go far enough
All pasties should be made in Cornwall. It should be forbidden on pain of death to make them anywhere else.
And then we should ban the export of pasties out of Cornwall.
That alone will increase the standard of British food by a measurable amount.
at least he got a cat for his lunch.
The people in charge of the budgets
are used to having subordinates jump at their whim. Now these officers (its always the officers - Sorry Lewis) find that they have to deal with civilians and company bosses too. People who have been trained to screw the fuck out of them.
Its like leading lambs to the slaughter. The officers in charge (Sorry, had to put that in - delicious irony and all that,) have no idea how badly they are going to be screwed. And the "civil servants" just sit back and watch the military make fools of themselves. After all, it's not _their_ fault if the brass can't find their arses with both hands is it?
Re : Jaap stoel
Yes, there are two sides to this. Unfortunately FB told them to go away. so now there isn't.
So what do they do now?
Go back on FB again? get kicked off again? Give up?
Re : Graham Marsden
As far as I can see FB has been very consistent. It's possible that you've been looking for 'fairness'. FBs consistency is that FB users do whatever FB say, Bitch!
So they want to list the security holes in social websites
Pointless. Nobody is going to read past the first 16 or 17 pages.
I think I was the first
to suggest them running their own site. And I have read the article.
Now if they have problems with FB, and other FB users, what are they going to do?
FB said "Go away," to them, for whatever reason. So do they just whinge and whine in the corner? Do they try (very probably unsuccessfully) to get their group reinstated, or do they move on?
Running their own site / forum is a reasonable alternative. The cost of hosting is minimal, forum software can be downloaded easily. The basic setup is quick. Yes, there is a maintenance overhead, but that is also true when running a FB group.
I am also aware that not everybody wants to get involved with the technical aspects of running a site. However, there is always that 1 in the 100 who is. And in any large(ish) group of people, whatever there narrow area of specific interest, there will be one or two able to do this job. And quite often for free.
And nowhere has anyone suggested that any group should build their own "all singing /dancing web portals." Quite often a simple forum is all that's needed. Usenet worked very well for years. And is still used by a number of 'special interest groups'. That doesn't have FB's "bells and whistles." FB seems to be used just because its FB. Not because it has any special or unique functionality that these groups cannot do without.
"Comentards? christ there are some dickheads on this site." Yes, there are, aren't there.
does it cost to buy hosting now-a-days? £150? £100?
And free / open source forum software is easily available. Then they could have their own meeting place, without ads (or with ads to help pay for the hosting.)
Got to be better that basefu^W facebook.
The way to get more people volunteering and working in, and for, 'the community' (tm) is to reduce the red tape and bureaucracy involved in doing so.
I read in the ES last night about a woman who wanted to 'do something'. While she is obviously insane, this is a laudable ambition.
She decided that visiting the elderly was within her means and started to find out how to 'do it.
However it took her three months to gather the required 'permission'. That included the charity involved picking up references from the electoral register and her work, and her having a CRB check. Then the spending cuts meant that the charity involved lost part of its funding and this particular program was being terminated.
How sad she was, she couldn't visit the elderly any more.
Now all of this raises a few questions.
1) Why did it take so long to get her in touch with someone who could use a visitor? If this process had been quicker perhaps she would, even now & without the assistance of the charity, still be visiting someone.
2) Why didn't she look up and down her own street. I bet she'd find a couple of elderly people within two minutes walk. They might dribble a bit and smell of wee, but that's a hazard with any of us over 30. She could start to speak to them in the street. Perhaps help them carry shopping back from the local shop etc. You know, stuff that we used to do in the olden days. Perhaps she could have made a couple of FRIENDS!!!
No need for CRB checks. If she's bad then hammer her hard. If she's not then why bother with her in the first place. After all we don't start checking the youth of today to see if they're going to be thieves and burglars do we? Oh wait, some ones already proposed that we should do that.
Re : AC - 20110217 1045
"after all they didn't need to offer the Install Other OS option in the first place"
But they did include the 'Other OS', and nobody forced them to do that either.
And then, without warning they removed that feature from existing owned boxes. Not I believe that could easily be against the law in the UK / EU. Did they offer a refund after limiting the functionality of hardware that people have paid for?
So if you have a feature which, maybe, is only used by the top 10% of technically skilled owners, then you really should expect big problems if you remove this feature, especially FROM EXISTING OWNED BOXES.
And, no, I don't own any form of games machine. However I did once buy a Nintendo DS for my granddaughter.
This is still very DM
So, I get caught with a cartoon of Lisa & Bart Simpson engaging in oral intercourse (or the 2012 Olympics logo if you prefer) on my PC, get a long prison sentence (because I'm obviously a complete and total perv and waste of O2). Get released after spending my sentence in effective solitary (because the ordinary decent criminals don't like pervs and I'm a convicted perv.) And then I have to wait _15_ years before I can appeal.
Of what about the 15yo teenager who sends a silly photo of him/her self to their SO? Same situation.
All of this presupposes that the original laws which put people onto this register are fair and just. And that the judicial process is unbiased, and that the police officers attending the case actually 'do their jobs' and don't stitch me up, because they are _sure_ that I'm hiding the _real_stuff somewhere and anyway, I'm single and I have a whole bunch of computers in my home, so, let's face it. I'm as guilty as sin right now, so why do we have to bother with the expense of a trial, just fall down these stairs sonny boyo.
I need a lie down now.
Obey The Man, for The Man is a vengeful man and will smight thee mightily.
If thou obeyeth the Man, then the Man will be a just and wise Man. Unless you pisseth him off in other ways.
Not gonna happen
Not in this country anyway.
1) You have to change the attitude of the senior / head teachers in the junior / senior schools away from the 'fluffy' ideas about the kids finding their own way through 'the learning journey' (tm). You have to convince these people that their job is to actually _TEACH_ the kids in their care.
2) You have to remove disruptive influences, including (or especially) disruptive students, from the classroom. How can a class of 30 to 60 learn anything when one or two of their number is running round being a total arsehole?
3) You have to get rid of the useless teachers. Now this is never ever going to happen. Once someone figures out how to properly evaluate a teachers performance, the whole teaching profession will shit themselves.
4) You have to convince the kids with the ability to attain these qualifications that they should actually _WORK_ to get the quals. Now that is going to be difficult when the kids see football or big tits, and the willingness to expose them, as their best gateway to fame and fortune.
5) You have to convince the hordes of middle class parents (who believe that their kids degree in media studies has equal worth as a degree in maths, science or engineering) that they are twats.
6) You have to convince the universities and HEIs (doesn't that give you a warm and cuddly feeling if 'insidership'?) that this country only needs about 1% of the media studies graduates that they currently churn out. And that most of these 'universities' are little but jumped up red brick colleges and they should go back to what they used to do so well. Teach technical subjects for those without the real ability for the 'pure' subjects.
7) And you have to convince the government, and those hordes of middle class parents whose kids were given^W^W obtained a media studies degree, that it is worthwhile for this country to pay for the harder, more salable courses.
There are countries who realise that the only way that you can give everybody an equal educational qualification, is to give everyone the lowest grade possible. Some people are brighter, more academically able than others. These people, the brightest of our children, need to be nurtured and helped to fulfill their potential. It means streaming kids into ability groups, it means harder work for the teachers of the higher groups. It means getting the very brightest kids into special schools so that they can be taught by the best teachers. It also means that the less able kids are grouped too. They should be helped to develop their potential just as hard as the brighter kids, but their needs will be different. And so on down the ability range until the very least able are helped in the ways that they need.
None of these thoughts are actually radical, nor are they 'consigning the less able to the rubbish heap'. If these brighter kids are from middle class or, heaven forbid, upper class families, perhaps we should be looking at what they are doing right and what the others aren't doing.
that seems to have been forgotten in this <terrorists are everywhere> piece.
"The purpose of terrorism, is to terrorise," Attributed to Lenin.
And you 'terrorise' people, not fish. Blowing up a farmhouse is much safer than a tube station or train. But that won't 'terrorise' people, so you would have failed.
9/11 worked because the American people, and their government, panicked. The whole country changed because of a single terrorist attack. The terrorists won and the world lost.
7/7 didn't work so well, people were getting on buses and tubes the next day. But the UK had already been bloodied by the IRA attacks, and knew what was most likely to happen next, nothing.
Blowing up a gas tanker in a harbour will only work if it is somewhere like the London docks. It is the population density that terrorists have to look for.
Blowing up an oil rig, won't affect most people and so won't 'terrorise', but it will seriously piss off some seriously rich people. People who have the means, and, possibly, the will to make things tough for the sponsors of terrorism.
So there is a real reason why even such a soft target as an oil rig hasn't been targeted by terrorists, it isn't worth it.
- Xmas Round-up Ten top tech toys to interface with a techie’s Christmas stocking
- Google embiggens its fat vid pipe Chromecast with TEN new supported apps
- Xmas Round-up Ghosts of Christmas Past: Ten tech treats from yesteryear
- Exploits no more! Firefox 26 blocks all Java plugins by default
- NSFW Oz couple get jiggy in pharmacy in 'banned' condom ad