Re: What's all this?
Would you prefer Curriculum Vitae?
Except this is a .co.uk site not .roman.empire site.
Romani ite domum!
847 posts • joined 10 Mar 2010
Would you prefer Curriculum Vitae?
Except this is a .co.uk site not .roman.empire site.
Romani ite domum!
"You know hands-free devices are just as distracting to use whilst driving, right?"
This is true, the only way I tend to use my phone while driving is by voice command, with Google Now set up and the phone unlocked and charging in it's cradle before I set off I can make phone calls or send text messages by voice command (usually just "I'm going to be late" or "I'm stuck in traffic", things I don't need to read a reply for) without looking at the phone at all.
Is it still dangerous to make hands free phone calls while driving, even when not looking at or touching the device? Possibly, but I would argue no more so than it is to hold a conversation with a passenger and how many of us sit in absolute silence ignoring our passengers while driving?
I've also always been annoyed by the specific addition of use of mobile phones while driving to UK law. Not because I have anything against the law as such, but firstly because it was pretty much covered by "due care and attention" and secondly because it doesn't take any account of CB radios that farmers/HGV drivers use all the time while driving, arguable with far greater risk because of the size of vehicles they're operating.
"But the main advantage is that I can see who is calling or texting me with the flick of a wrist. Makes in invaluable when driving as I do not need to take my hands from the wheel"
Yeah because turning your head to look at your wrist instead of the road while you read a message on a tiny screen on your wrist isn't dangerous at all!
I would strongly advise against trying to read messages while driving at all, but at least with your phone in a cradle on the dash you can glance at it without turning your head away from the road.
I misread this headline as "Will.i.am spells the end of humanity", frankly this is probably closer to the truth.
It's not that there's lots of Hillary supporters here, there are lots of techies here who think that her use of a private email email server for government work was stupid.
However while we may criticise Hillary, we don't compound that with accusing the FBI of being corrupt or ineffective, or assuming we're better qualified to judge her legal culpability without either seeing the evidence or having any legal training.
I have little doubt that the issue of her emails, while bad and stupid, was technically not a crime. Whether it was a sufficient violation of policy and should in some way disqualify her from holding some or all public offices in future is an entirely different matter, which I am undecided on.
But really I think in terms of whether she should be allowed to run for president as a result, that is something for the Democrat party to decide on in the first instance, and the people in the form of voting in the second.
I assume you've never had a pet rabbit/hamster/gerbal/guinea pig/other rodent. I think you'd be surprised at the piercing ability of rodent teeth. It's not just about the hardness of the teeth but also the sharpness and the surface area combined to jaw muscle power ratio which is surprisingly high.
Armoured cables are in general intended to withstand strikes from tools and digging equipment, a spade driven by a human or a mechanical digger may be powerful but the power is spread over the whole surface of the digging implement.
Also I think in a lot of cases when builders damage armoured cable, it's not so much the initial impact that damages the cable but also the pulling and torsional stress as the digging implement tries to pull the cable out of the ground along with the surrounding earth. A squirrel on the other hand can't really apply much force to the cable as a whole.
Not to mention it has to be possible to cut the armour with something, otherwise how would you ever get the correct length of cable :)
"With no real world evidence that things will be worse"
Sure, there's no evidence things will be worse, it's hard to have evidence about the future particular when the planned shape of that future has yet to be detemined, but there is evidence that things are already worse.
Most price rises we're seeing now are as a result of a fairly steep decline in the value of GBP against both USD and EUR, causing import costs to sky rocket immediately for any business without currency hedging and with a clear expectation of them sky rocketing for those who did hedge.
With further declines in GBP value likely and expected up until the UK reaches a new deal with the EU and/or Article 50 is actually triggered and the two year leave period has passed, businesses have no choice but to raise prices for the time being. (I admit there may well be some profiteering going on but there are genuine cost increases as well).
Whether GBP will continue to decline after the actual exit/new trade deal negotiation remains to be seen. It's perfectly possible it's value could rise back to where it used to be it. But businesses cannot base their current pricing on the possible value of the currency in an uncertain future in 5 - 10 years time, they can only base it on the current value of the currency and what that makes their costs come out at now and perhaps at best the predicted value of the next year or so.
As for companies saying their prices will continue to rise after Brexit is complete? That seems a perfectly reasonable thing to say, given that the current currency value has dropped and is continuing that trend as a result of the referendum result, but before Brexit has actually happened, it is reasonable to predict that the same trend could continue following the actual exit.
Sure it might not, but would you prefer companies who believe that their prices will be affected to lie to you and tell you that they won't need to put their prices up and if it then turns out they do just say "Sorry we have to charge you more after all"?
While I believe that to a certain degree it is correct that automation doesn't necessarily result in less human work, the view taken and example in the article is fundamentally flawed.
In the case of the shoe factory given the example of a machine, operated by a human, being replaced with a more efficient machine not reducing the human work hours because the company simply produces more shoes has never been the concern about automation.
The idea that automation allows you to either increase efficiency or production volume or both is of course the driving force behind automation but the concern about job losses doesn't come from replacing one machine with a more efficient version of the same, it comes from the possibility of the automation removing the need for a particular skill set that a certain group of employees have.
If your skill set is no longer needed in your profession because the job has been automated, there may well still be human work to be done in the form operating and monitoring the new automated equipment but this is not part of your skill set and you are now out of a job.
To say that "there is no reason to fear (or hope) that automation will put people out of work permanently" may well be true on the grander scale, as a percentage of the population and over time certainly the unemployment will be temporary.
But what of the workers who are made unemployed by automation who don't have another skill set to gain employment with, and are of such an age where once they have retrained to do something else their prospects of gaining new employment are exceedingly low.
HGV or Taxi drivers are a good example of this, if we reach a point where all driving work of this nature becomes automated, what does a say 55-65 year old HGV driver with no other skills or work experience beyond driving HGVs and no qualifications besides a HGV licence do when he is made redundant? Where does his income come from when he can't find work because the only work he was qualified for has been automated, and he is still a number of years from being able to retire and draw pension.
Certainly I would agree that in the long term, on a large societal scale, there is no reason to fear automation putting people out of work. Since as certain areas of work are eliminated by automation, the education system will adjust to direct people toward other forms of work and training and new young employees will be seeking different kinds of work.
But to say "The Automation Argument simply misunderstands how our economy works" is not true. The Automation Argument does understand how our economy works, but our economy doesn't give a flying fuck about the individual worker it only takes account of the population at large scale.
It says in the article, they already have
"could have placed their enterprise credentials at risk through a since-closed vulnerability"
"Although nobody should be using the Outlook app anyway, because it's terrible."
Honestly from a usability point of view I don't think it is terrible, particularly for free, as long as you're not concerned about the whole cloud storage thing.
I was using the official Outlook app quite happily for my personal mail until I bought Nine to use for my work email, because once you've bought it, why not use it for all compatible email accounts.
"Attacks are unlikely but should serve as a warning for those using third-party apps to access corporate credentials."
Third-party apps as opposed to the 'official' Microsoft Outlook for Android app which is actually just a third party app Microsoft bought and rebranded, which in its original incarnation used AWS to store your credentials and a certain amount of your mail. It still does that now, although it uses Microsoft's own cloud services now I believe, it's still holding your data on servers outside of your control and outside of your country potential violating data protection laws depending on where you are based.
"I'm a top brass, so policies and rules don't apply to me because I'm obviously smarter than anybody else"
Given that his role is as an aide to a presidential candidate (who is to a large extent just a private individual), rather than an actual government official, I'm not sure there are any rules or policies beyond internal party ones and certainly no laws that were being broken. I think, much as I believe was the case with Hilary's email fiasco, stupidity rather than arrogance or criminality is the order of the day here.
A new Milestone with modern specs? That would be a dream come true!
My BlackBerry Priv says Made in Mexico on it.
I've actually quite enjoyed my Priv, I'm slightly saddened that there is now unlikely to be a successor of any real quality. Back to Samsung Notes I guess, as long as they can stop them exploding, my Note 2 and 3 were fantastic aside from the lack of keyboard.
" is anyone not on a promotional offer with them?"
Unfortunately yes. Their half price for the first 6 month type offers are only available to new customers.
Also I don't know if it's the case with call customers, but following the end of my contract with them they offered me a loyalty discount to stay however it was not for the full term of the new contract only about half of it and doesn't isolate me from price increases I guess because it's a discount and not a promotional offer strictly speaking.
There are also a fair number of windows and office keys listed by those who aren't bright enough to blur or otherwise obscure them in their listing photos....
This smacks of someone who doesn't actually have a clue what being a sysadmin is like but thinks they do.
Plenty of the helpdeskers, desktop technicians, and other vaguely technical staff where I've worked think they could do a better job than me or my team.
Unfortunately those same people are also the ones who think it's our fault when a product doesn't work as advertised, or some undocumented bug prevents us from using it the way they want, or don't understand when we won't do something because of the range of impact or potential risks involved in something they insist we should do.
Not coincidentally these are often recent graduates who feel they have vast technical knowledge from their wealth of education and they fully understand how things should work, not realising that due to lack of experience they have no idea how things actually work.
It's not racketeering to take down legitimate negative reviews for a fee or as part of some other business arrangement i.e. taking out advertisements. It may be morally questionable but it's not racketeering or any other form of crime.
It's only racketeering if the negative reviews are written by (or on behalf of) the people offering to remove them for a fee.
In fairness this guys claim was clearly a bit of a none starter, one bad review followed by them offering him advertising, which would also have made the bad review go away, may perhaps seem a little suspicious but hardly the basis for a court case. You'd think if Yelp were going to use such a tactic they would post more than one bad review as leverage.
In fact he's lucky Yelp didn't counter sue him for damages from slander/libel since it appears he accused them of racketeering without any evidence beyond a single coincidence that they actually did it.
I'm all for holding illegal or immoral business practices to account, but not without a little more than a single coincidence to go on.
" if I need something, there is a great product called google that is really useful for finding things."
So because you hate advertising, you find the the things you want by using a search engine, which displays ads (or sponsored results if you prefer to call them that) in your search results and which is run by one of the largest advertising companies on the planet. Congratulations on successfully sticking to your convictions there....
"Until sites actually write the ads into their own pages"
Frankly this is how it should be done. Sure it would require more work but it would massively reduce the possibility of malware laden ads since the site publishers themselves would be vetting and uploading the content before you see it, rather than simply sticking in a URL to somewhere else the content of which could be changed at any time without their knowledge.
It also takes care of any overly intrusive ads, since the site operators themselves would have to check they're behaving before you ever see them.
Surely in a situation where you can trust the ads not to contain malware, just as much as you trust the rest of the site not to, and a situation where the site publisher is having to make active effort to ensure the ads aren't intrusive you could tolerate one or two ads?
The added bonus then is that if the site you want to visit displays too many ads, or annoying/intrusive ads, you can blame them directly and not their ad supplier.
"The only real change is that I've purchased from different sites than the one I originally expected to visit - their loss."
Actually it may well be your loss as well. That advert, whether you click on it or not (don't forget in some cases ads pay for being loaded on the page as well as when actually clicked) is a revenue stream for that company. Having that revenue stream may well enable them to offer you a better deal on whatever it is they sell since they also have the ad income.
You wouldn't refuse to go into a supermarket and buy food there simply because they also have other things on display you don't want to see on the way in and demand they only display the things you want. As long as the other products aren't clearly in the way and preventing you getting to what you want there isn't a problem. It's no different with ads as far as I'm concerned.
As much as intrusive ads (and by intrusive I mean autoplaying videos and ads that cover the sites own content) are a genuine problem, a banner across the top or side of a page is really not a problem to anyone. You can try and argue that it's a problem to you, and that you don't want to see it and you'll decide when you want to buy something but if that's really the case you have a sufficiently capable brain to simply ignore the advert.
"Look, we're going to continue to block ads as people look at your site unless you cough up the cash"
I'm not sure this is really an issue, since they're making their money by taking a cut of the sites advertising revenue rather than charging them a subscription fee. If they make their percentage too large then publishers will simply abandon the service. Sure by doing so they'll loose ad revenue from visitors using ad blocker but they'll still be getting 100% of the ad revenue from the ones not using an ad blocker.
For anyone other than large websites/publishers at some point paying the ABP tax, plus the time to select acceptable Ads from the market, wouldn't be worth the commission ABP want. Anything >=50% would seem like it wasn't worthwhile to any small or medium sites I suspect.
So the question then is, would ABP rather get 30% of something or >=50% of nothing.
If ABP wanted to hike their fees this way, they could implement a sliding scale where their commission goes up based on the number of hits per day your site gets.
"Virgin and other cable suppliers could probably provide similar data for their connections."
They could but there isn't much point IMHO. From my experience and that of others I know who are Virgin customers, if you're in a Virgin area you pretty much get the advertised speed.
This comes down to the the type of cable used and the fact it is much newer and was always intended to provide more than just a basic audio telephony service unlike a lot of BT's copper, maybe not the 220Mbps it's now doing but still more fit for purpose than a single twisted pair phone line.
Occasionally with Virgin post install visits are required to fit attenuators or they have to tweak the power levels from their end but of the dozen people I know on Virgin in different areas, they all get the speed advertised.
Virgin's only real speed problem is contention in some heavily populated areas.
Long live Bearshare!
"Wathelet said that hyperlinks should not fall under copy protection. This caused a shock wave around rights-holders since it meant EU works were not protected by copyright in the EU"
No, it doesn't mean that, not even remotely. All it means is that providing hyperlinks to copyrighted work is not covered under copyright protection, the content itself would still be protected however.
It would mean that rights holder would have to pursue the site/service hosting the content rather than any other site providing a link to that site/service.
To make it law that providing hyperlinks to copyrighted content infringes copyright has two problems
1. Unless you make the wording of the law very specific so that it only covers links to sites/services providing copyrighted content without the right to do, it would make links to the copyright holders (or their licencees) own sites and services illegal
2. Even if it did specifically cover links to sites/services providing copyrighted content without the right to do so, and hyperlink is effectively just a pointer. To make it, in principal, illegal to point to illegal activity is to essentially make it illegal to report crime.
"I think either works in this context."
That was what I intended to suggest.
" I'm going to put you forward for an award from to the Campaign For Plain English"
I'm afraid I must veto that award, since the syntax makes the meaning technically unclear.
The sentence should read
"You are fucking clowns"
However this sentence then leads to confusion as to whether it is intended to mean that BT are clowns, and the fucking is just a pejorative adjective, or that BT are partaking in sexual in sexual intercourse with clowns.
"what is meant by "Brexit traitor"? "
Not my words, I consider him more of a failure than a traitor.
But you could say he is a traitor to the labour party by refusing to provide effective leadership for the party's position on a key issue because he disagrees with it and not stepping down so that someone else could do so.
From an EU neutral point of view you could say he was a traitor to the people for not being more active in supporting the course of action he felt was best for the nation, regardless of which side that may be.
Even if you were in favour of Leave, you shouldn't ignore his failure and betrayal of the party, the British people and his own values by refusing to actively support either side on such a key issue. It demonstrates a lack of courage (either to stick to your beliefs of swallow your pride and toe the party line) and a lack of leadership, which somehow the the swathes of Corbyn superfans seem to be ignoring.
"Corbyn is a dirty Brexit traitor"
"You keep writing this and I still don't know what you mean."
I would of thought it was pretty obvious. Corbyn is the leader of the labour party, whose official position was (and is) support for remaining in the EU. As leader of the party you really have 2 choices, support and publicly advocate for the party's official position, or step down. At best you could argue that you have the option to keep you mouth shut and let someone else lead the campaign.
What Corbyn did was to claim to support Remain, but do very little in terms of large scale public campaigning to support the cause. This is mainly down to the fact that Corbyn does not like to engage with the mainstream media, which is a perfectly valid choice for an MP but not for a party leader and potential Prime Minister. When he was pressed for details in his few media engagements he gave very half hearted support for the EU and was quick to list all the flaws he saw with it.
I am by no means saying the EU is without flaws, or that they should be ignored or glossed over, but if you are the leader of a political party whose position is in favour of it you have a responsibility beyond your own personal feelings and opinions to espouse its virtues and support it.
While individual MPs may, perfectly reasonably, be given freedom to campaign for whichever side they wish, the leader of the party has a higher obligation to lead the party in it's chosen direction if necessary to the detriment of his personal causes and passions.
If he feels unable to lead the party in it's chosen path because it conflicts with his personal opinion then he must step down, which is why Cameron resigned following the referendum result.
As per title, I don't think this is really a big problem.
If you're making that many calls outside your bundle that the increased call charges affect you significantly, then you're almost certainly not on the best value bundle for your level of usage and should switch tariff to one that includes the volume of calls you make.
In terms of voice calls the only people this will affect are people who go very slightly over their bundled calls each month, and if they only go over very slightly the cost increase will be minimal.
As for the other stuff, like picture messaging, who actually sends MMS messages these days anyway?
I've stuck with T-Mobile/EE for a number of years now for only one reason really, the fact that their data usage is capped. You get what's included in your tariff and then you're cut off, unless you actively choose to pay to add more on. Admittedly their data add-ons are horrendously over priced, but at least I get to choose whether I pay it.
I find this far more preferably to many other networks, where they charge either a fairly hefty per MB rate (1p per MB sounds cheap, until you realise it's £10 per GB) or a daily rate (£1 a day sounds good unless you accidentally use all your data within the first week of your billing cycle) for any usage over your bundled data, which could potentially lead to some fairly inflated bills.
Of course most smartphones now have very easy methods to switch off or cap mobile data built right into the OS, but back in the days of Windows Mobile 5/6 devices and the like such an option was either third party or did not exist.
It only took one massively inflated bill from O2, after my Windows Mobile device had lost it's WiFi connection and had eaten through a GB or two of data, for me to realise having the network automatically cut you off rather than just keep billing you was the way forward.
Sounds good except that I suspect if he reported to police that he intended to have sex and then didn't actually do it, that the police would charge him with perverting the course of justice.
It may not be true but that doesn't mean it's a lie. It just means that the legal system that doesn't want to help him has told him that.
Steamy webcams has always meant something very different to me.
"We had an American colleague fly to Iceland instead of Ireland. Only realised it when he got into a taxi at Reykjavik and asked to be taken to Dublin city centre."
If he didn't notice until he was in the taxi and asked to go to Dublin city centre, was he phenomenally ignorant/stupid? To get that far surely he musn't have noticed:
- The fact it said Reykjavik rather than Dublin on his tickets
- The various signs in Icelandic (I suppose he could have thought it was Gaelic, but come on)
- The length of flight (you didn't say where he was flying from, presumably the USA. But we're talking about an extra hour or two or flight at least most likely, I would of thought it would be noticeable)
- The Captain announcing the destination as Reykjavik on take off, and before approach.
- How bloody cold it was! Either in the airport or when he went out to get the taxi. I know Ireland is not exactly tropical but the difference is usually fairly substantial I believe? I think Reykjavik peaks at about 13 degrees in Summer?
"Trivial. Disk 38/38 is read and it asks for disk 39..."
Didn't that actually happen with Windows 3.11? I seem to recall it was something like after disk 12/12 it would ask for disk 13 which was actually an optional disk with printer drivers or something on that didn't come as standard. It wasn't actually required and you could continue without it, but still...
Despite the fact it was almost certainly an error, given that the bees were together in space, separated during removal and then presumably put together (colated, in a sense) into a proper hive, they were both relocated and recolated.
Love the incredibly episode specific Voyager reference.
Go go gadget Warp10 drive.
"Because every other fucker is out to get us."
Nah, He's out to get you as well. But there's nothing you can do about that.
"Is it because I'm unlovable, or because I take care about how much of my contact information I allow the rest of the world to have access to?"
I assume it's the unloveable thing tbh, since I've never used BBM ever and it only exists for me because I have a Priv, I think my problem has nothing to do with my contact information being out in the world and more to do with foreign scammers randomly generating BBM PINs and adding them as contacts.
"some really important stuff mixed up in the dross"
Obviously your experience may vary depending on circumstances, but for email from important contacts I just have separate folders for each person/organisation and server side rules filtering messages from them into those folders. Then when I look at my email I can largely ignore the inbox when checking for important messages and look at the unread message count against each folder.
As per the title meh.
I have a Priv so have all these things, however I don't find the Tasks and Notes apps useful, the launcher is perfectly serviceable but nothing to write home about, the Hub is something I have actively turned off as it's next to useless.
It's not that the Hub doesn't work, it's just that it doesn't really seem to serve any real purpose.
Sure you can read all your messages in one place, but it's not actually an email client or and SMS app, it's simply pulling in content from the apps you have for that already.
So you can read all those messages in one place but should you try to reply the Hub simply launches the app the message belongs to. Particularly for email this achieves nothing since I have all my email accounts in a single app anyway, and when I reply to a message it doesn't require another app to be launched to do it.
RIM's own messaging service BBM is even worse, once a day or more I get a notification that some random foreign sounding name has added me as a contact. Or at least I did until I disabled the app, I can't remove it altogether since it's a system app.
Stick to hardware RIM, you do that quite well. Software not so much.
I am by nature helpful, and enjoy problem solving, so if presented with a challenging problem that requires certain quirky things to be fixed before you can get down to the main issue that's fine.
But there are limits, and frankly this guy spent far more time on the work than I would of done.
At the point where it turned out that both the old and new servers were all fried, and that even the "new" server was ancient I would have been declaring the situation 99% likely unrecoverable and telling the company to find a plan B.
Sure it may have been possible (as indeed it was) to get a new server and configure Netware on it.
It may even have been possible to type in all 2000 pages of source code by hand, to recompile the software. But even then there is no guarantee the data is still intact.
Sometimes, regardless of the money on offer, it simply isn't worth the time or psychological trauma to put that kind of work in for people who have no concept of how to run a business properly.
"Horrible, soapy muck."
If you've had Earl Grey that looked/tasted "soapy" I can't even begin to imagine what kind of shite it was. I presume by soapiness you mean that it was excessively oily?
If it came in a paper tea bag then it was utter shite for certain. Paper tea bags are only acceptable when you're making bog standard tea brewed to within moments of stewing which is so strong you can't taste the paper anyway.
Also some of the supposedly "good" tea brands are still crap when it comes to things like Earl Grey. Twinnings for example make bloody awful Earl Grey.
I can highly recommended Tea Pigs or Whittards.
"I probably just use twice as much clotted cream though."
This is probably an acceptable reason not to use butter.
"That is fine (and good) for those forrinn teas!"
You mean "forrinn" like Earl Grey? One of the most quintessentially British teas there is?
If you'd consider putting milk in Earl Grey I'm afraid it will be absolutely necessary to have you killed.
"Does the anonymous staff member also add ketchup (or, shudder, mayonnaise) to chips before serving them? What about cream - (s)he doesn't add it to the crumble before it gets to the table, I presume? Jam on scones likewise - what sort of cafe would sell scones with the condiments pre spread?"
I was with you until the crumble. Crumble, especially of the apple variety, should be served with custard surely?
Also as for serving scones with condiments pre-spread, while it does seem odd I have been to at least one or two establishments where they do exactly that. My theory on the reason for this is that it prevents them becoming offended by your choice of order for the jam and clotted cream. I'm a butter/jam/cream sort of chap, but I understand there is a bizarre fashion for butter/cream/jam or in acts of clear insanity just cream/jam or jam/cream and no butter at all.
"Put it this way, candidate A and candidate B are absolutely matched for a job vacancy, one candidate, however, does not know the difference between "have" and "of". Which one would YOU give the job to."
The one that didn't feel the need to point out someone else's single misuse of those two words in a tirade of expletives, when the conversation in question didn't call for it and didn't necessitate perfect syntax. More specifically, not you!
"But what if it's locked down and you lack the key?"
Presuming it's your kit (or you can get permission to cause cosmetic damage)
Option 1: If it's a padlock break out the bolt cutters, If it's a key lock built into the case see if it can be jiggled around/forced with a screwdriver
Option 2: Drill out the lock, or cut out the casing around around the lock.
If it's not yours and you can't get said permission, declare it not your problem and walk away until the key is produced.
Left leg is called "wealthy London" and right leg is called "rest of the country" ?