Re: Organisations perpetuate themselves
"Organisations perpetuate themselves"
As soon as I saw that, I thought TV Licensing Authority... weird!!!
337 posts • joined 28 Feb 2012
"Organisations perpetuate themselves"
As soon as I saw that, I thought TV Licensing Authority... weird!!!
"where lads (and it is pretty much always lads, although not always) gang up on someone"
I call bullshit. In my school of about 80-85% boys, those 20% of girls routinely crushed me. The boys, meh!
You're mileage may differ, but a blanket statement like that is nothing better than codswallop!
"I just ask myself the simple question as to why it is that you can't prevent the texting of sexually explicit images by people under the age of 18, if that's a lock that parents choose to put on a mobile phone contract. Because there is technology that can identify sexually explicit pictures and prevent it being transmitted."
I just ask myself the simple question as to why the Health Secretary is poking his beak into the remit of the Culture Secretary (or whatever that job title is nowadays), instead of just sticking to his own job, that he doesn't even do well. Because the method of identifying and blocking inept politicians is already in place. It's called an 'election'.
"I ask myself why we can't identify cyberbullying when it happens on social media platforms by word pattern recognition, and then prevent it happening."
Again, I ask myself why you are still in government, local or national, when you simply don't have a clue!
Just saying, but, however bad the software is...
If only there was a way that the people responsible for physically recording the judgements handed, to actually do their fucking jobs, instead of just telling some speccy zitty 14year old trainee clerk to do it.
"It's supposedly a true story, but impossible to prove given the state of Roman record keeping."
"Ah, so they were using Odyssey as well!"
The judge said everyone involved was to be exonerated... Odyssey's poor data entry layout caused some peon to accidentally put 'executed'.
Wonder if I can find a long enough reel of Cat5e? 150km should do it.
And here was I thinking this Government wanted the UK to be a financial business hub of some kind. Makes you think that successive months of post EU Referendum job losses et all, really would have happened when those same businesses should have been leaving at this announcement anyway!
What bank (for example) would host its business on these shores knowing now, when its customers transactions are going to be put in the public domain, or left on buses on unencrypted memory sticks. That was a problem before this, but now with data encryption effectively becoming illegal, you may as well use plain text and sign a waiver allowing your bank to posting your transaction history on Facebook.
If only there was a way to prevent that!!
I normally blast the horn a few times on the approach to a corner, and similarly if some idiot is on the phone in my way regardless.
"Oh, sorry, your grandmother had a heart attack due to the fright of a load horn over the phone while you were talking to her? The best way to avoid that in future is to fuck off to the staff room for non work related calls!"
Quote: It is clear that for this user, the iPhone does things an Android can't, else he would be using an Android phone.
It's clear that an Android phone does things he wants that he can't do in an iPhone... yet he buys the product that doesn't suit his needs.
I'm curious why your defending his stupidity in buying products he can't use?
What the actual fuck are you talking about?
Your appear to have tried using sarcasm against the OP, when in actual fact, you come across as implying the only phone that disabled people should use is iPhone? This suggests that, despite your obvious attempt, it is YOU and not the OP who think disabled people SHOULD be excluded from telecommunications, since it is YOU saying they should only use phones that don't help them communicate.
Spectacular fail, well done! Those billy-goats are safe for now.
Only way to find out, OpenBox!
Oh, damn. I was about to comment on the irony of Microsoft, those stalwart overseers of Internet security, being responsible for the global average decline in secure use of the Internet, thanks largely because of its Internet Exploder browser.
But the headline and e-mail flier imply the fact that nobody other then them still use that shit, an implication clearly incorrect in the article!
Dammit, El Reg, you got me!
Just a small aside regarding mobile device figures.
I for one set my tablets User Agent to a 5 year previous string. I do this even on my newest and sparkliest of devices. If I don't, every website I visit comprises 1k of content, and insists on sending 20 fucking megabytes of flash adverts. And even IF I can be bothered to wait for it all to be rendered, the lag those adverts cause simply by being displayed after downloading is barely tolerable.
This, sadly, appears to be a universal constant. And while I'm not suggesting your own web server is guilty, it's unlikely that users in my particular mindset (meaning, they prefer content over irrelevant advertising) will reset their UA to access your server.
Short version: Your logs only list the UA of accessing devices, which might not represent the ACTUAL device used.
I thought I was under the impression that the deliberate spreading of malware was a criminal offence?
Quote: "GPS tagging really should be off by default, but this option has a future use (possibly). 40 years from the moment the picture was taken, someone might like to try recreate it."
More likely, 40 years after it was taken, Apple will patent it and sue the original artist retroactively.
"Ah, you may have managed to justify the $1M price tag after all: it's taking into account the number of ruined iPhones in the process to perfection, and even in bulk they don't come cheap."
Indeed, if it wasn't for the 1 damaged iPhone, it really would have cost $100.
And of course, even manure has its uses.
Quote: "Not having a television is no longer sufficient reason to not have a TV licence. You have to also not watch live streams over the Internet."
You also have to not watch BBC iPlayer at all, live or not.
Personally though, I never had a problem getting a "license not required" statement.
I've long been an advocate of getting unemployment benefits on a card, which can be used in certain retail outlets or for certain products and services. This has a huge advantage over the current system, where benefits can go on lottery tickets and 20 B+H, or on a piss up at the local, only for the claimant to go cap in hand to the JobCentre and claim for a Hardship allowance.
The additional price of a ticket to an interview can be added before or after the time, and the card be queried as to whether it was used to actually buy that ticket. This will help in fraud cases, where someone "says" they need a £20 ticket, but just gets a lift with their mate.
Why should people who pay a subscription for sky fund the BBC if they don't watch it?
Well, bully for you and your wonderful rose tinted view of internest service provision.
As for me, I pay the same as other people on the same "up to" speed plan with the same provider, but get about a quarter of the speed even though I live in the same post code.
I'd get a better price if I paid by the MB.
I think it would be better to gouge out their eyes, or something else that will make it hard for them to actually continue doing this shit.
"The fact a set happens to be showing a given programme does not tell you how many (if any) people are watching it."
Sadly not relevant. The exact wording of the TV licence is that it is a licence to receive TV broadcasts
To be fair, that comment was referring to a previous comment about how requiring a licence number to even recieve the iPlayer stream, would help with accurate viewing figures rather than them just plucking an estimate out of thin air. It wasn't actually attempting to argue that an unwatched TV was exempt from the licence fee requirement at all, which is what you appear to think it was saying.
Personally, I think the argument the BBC is neutral, and must remain neutral, and that is why they must be funded in this fashion, is old, tired and irrelevant. It gives them licence to produce a never ending stream of vomit with no reason to improve because they know they don't need to... they get paid, whatever happens.
They should bloody well be forced to produce quality programming, and if that means them having to source income on an equal footing as other broadcasters, then so be it. Sure, I understand that ITV, C4, and Five all get a percentage of the fee nowadays. But the fact that they didn't originally, and all of them thrived using advertising instead of TV licensing, should be enough to prove that it's a viable option.
Of course, at least under this current system, those without a TV have a good enough excuse no to pay. Which is better than the way the BBC wants and was floated in parliament by the Culture Secretary of the day. They wanted to scrap the TV licence entirely, in favour of a broadcast tax, which would be administered to every household regardless of if you even had a TV, similar to the broadband investment tax that BT wanted to introduce.
Yeah, because that just seems so much better...
"STMs are not known for their speed"
Last time I got an STM, my girlfriend ran at a bloody fast rate...
Quote: "52 to 48 isn't a "popular vote". It's a draw, near as damn it."
But, this is a referendum, not a neverendum...
Quote: "Something you seem to have trouble in comprehending is that some of us making comments against Brexit don't live in London."
And you seem to have trouble comprehending that some of us making comments for Brexit aren't racist, xenophobic, thugs.
But, what do I know, I'm only a racist, xenophobic, thug because I make comments for Brexit... right!
Glass houses, stones, etc...
Quote: "If it's only 4:1 in favour of Brexit that's practically a vote of confidence in Angela Merkle."
There was a vote with every eligible person being given a single choice on whether we should leave or stay. The majority voted to leave.
You can slice it however you like, it doesn't change the result one iota. 52% of the British citizenship wish to leave the EU.
Quote: "The clearly expressed democratic will of MY people is clearly different to that of yours..."
You had an opportunity to change THAT state of affairs 2 years ago. Remember to take that chance next time, instead of complaining (by inference) that the rest of the UK is an impediment to you.
Quote: "Let me remind you that the petition was started by a Brexit campaigner pre-referendum in case his side lost by a couple of percent the other way. And that Farage was the first to suggest a second referendum if his side were to lose by a couple of percent. So Leave campaigners wingeing about people wanting this to this happen when the vote went the other way are being, to say the least a bit hypocritical."
They are about as hypocritical as Remain campaigners who shot down any suggestion of a 2nd vote if the Remain win margin were small. The same ones that now, after losing by a few percent, seek to renege on their assertion that there should only be one vote.
But lets brush that under the carpet, shall we? Along with the wishes of the larger majority, because... you know... democracy!
Quote: "Your vote is not worthless, it is instead worth the same as everyone else's. That you live in an area where the majority of people disagree with your point of view does not make your vote worth less."
Funny, I think exactly this can be said of the referendum.
1/3 of the voting population is still higher than less than 1/3 of the voting population.
Last I knew, a tie was a result without a clear winner. Unless percentages are worked out in 104 points, 52 percent is a win.
Or am I mistaken?
"Yet lighting up a ciggie isn't?"
Depends if minors are in the car or not...
In that case, I believe you.
Unfortunately it's the other people who can't see the sarcasm that won't!
Interesting, and somewhat valid point, to highlight the difference between wants and needs of a connection speed. The only problem is that, while someone may only NEED a speed of a few kb to read a web sites text, because web sites consist of a few mb of picture, animation, advertising, flash, audio, 3rd party plugins... it needs some beefy speed just to get past all the cruft to get to the text in the first place.
For such an industrial city, and with an ever increasing student driven economy, Southampton is probably the worst place I have experienced for internet. Even now, I get less speed than I did in Rotherham over 10 years ago, and I'm paying 3 times as much adjusted for inflation.
Honestly, when (if) Virgin pull their finger out and actually offer my address fiber, I reckon I could probably get by with the lowest package they offer and still get a better service.
The headline seems to indicate an increase in average speed, but the article implies that the headline (advertised i presume?) "up to" speed has increased. I mean, sure, an increase in advertised "up to" speeds should naturally mean the actual speed has increased. But as we all know, an advertised speed of "up to" 80mb means jack shit when your actual speed hovers at ~0.4 - 0.8.
For those who's speed is practically zilch, an average increase of any advertised up to speed means nothing. And besides, what use is averaging "up to" speeds anyway, when there's STILL no requirement for companies to actually supply it. Unless it's suddenly become law to supply an advertised speed since I last looked, a company can advertise speeds of up to 150tb (terabytes), and not need to supply more than the speeds gotten via dial up. Sure, it'd be stupid because nobody would believe it or pay for the package if not getting it, but it certainly increases average headline speeds, just like OFCOM are harping on about here.
All in all, a pointless study exercise taken out by OFCOM to deflect from the fact they are toothless or incompetent.
And all those billions of pieces of torrented music, films and software contained a text file with a disclaimer saying that using such music, film and software without an appropriate license is unlawful... so I have been told.
Yet big business was able to get entire web sites taken down, change legislation worldwide, and successfully sue individuals for millions because of a single illegal distribution, just to protect their IP.
So I'm not sure a disclaimer absolving the online publishing of independant reviews is going to hold that much sway.
Having had no experience with Enigma OR Bleeping Computer, it seems to me that if the review is even remotely accurate, that SpyHunter deserves to be in the same boat as McAfee was at one point and probably still is... recognised as malware by other anti-malware vendors.
So, the gov, police force etc... want to introduce legislation to legalise the force, the gov, local councils, foreign law enforcement etc... to access anyone's personal data, whenever they want, wholesale and for any reason they want, yet they get uppity that one copper used the system already in place to access one persons data.
I'm sure there's logic in there somewhere. This seems less like them following their own code of conduct, and more like them trying to convince us they can be trusted with our lives at their fingertips. This officer did nothing that they wouldn't be legally allowed to do if May gets her way.
Sorry, but I see no justification where anyone, ever (short of volunteer or charity work) can legally be 'employed' by someone who gets away without needing to pay them. This is true regardless of if they take tips into account or not.
Indeed, the problem is compounded when you consider that many establishments pool the gratuities, and distribute them evenly between staff members, including those who do earn a decent wage and were not given those gratuities for the good customer facing service... which is generally what a customer tips for.
The fact you're even now STILL trying to justify the policy, or differentiate the effects of it between shifts, frankly, speaks volumes. One restaurant owner in New York changing their own policy is great for the underpaid staff in that restaurant. All thats needed is the rest of the nation to follow suit. If only there was a way to enforce a decent wage for all, maybe some kind of minimum wage law... or something.
And I might point out this isn't just about waiting staff, but pretty much anyone in the service industry.
Also, if you feel embarrassed by not giving tips to staff, then tip them. Sure, they'd appreciate it, but the point is you don't need to just to fulfill the minimum wage criteria the employer has to abide by. Because the food itself is a bit more expensive, you can rest your weary conscience in the knowledge that the tip is (for practical purposes anyway) included in the meal.
If this isn't to your liking, you could speak to the manager of the establishment, and offer to pay less than the advertised price and tip the staff the difference. Mind the door doesn't hit your arse on the way out though, because that's right where someone will be aiming for with their boot while escorting you out.
See. All thats offered here is a clarification that only tipped staff can be hired for free. Indeed, this is something I make specific mention of in my post anyway.
And, as I would have predicted had I not given El Reg posters the benefit of doubt, the replies offer no word of criticism against the policy itself.
Like I said, its an eye-opener!
I bet there are people on far less than her minimum wage job too. Americans have an odd relationship with some words and phrases.
I was involved in a debte recently on Quora, where I eventually questioned why someone (say a tourist) should be made to feel guilty or given worse service because they didn't tip waiting staff. The backlash I recieved was an eye opener.
Apparently, the minimum wage in the US accounts for gratuities. Thus, by not tipping staff, the customer is (according to some posters) responsible for them not having enough to live on.
In other words, the minimum cost for a employer to employ someone, aka the minimum wage, in the US is $0.00... so long as they work hard enough to get more generous customers than the other staff, and get them to pay above the advertised prices.
My suggestion that restaurants and bars should just increase the prices by a few % and pay the staff a decent wage, was met with posts arguing that restaurants 'overcharging' customers this way would lead to customers going to other restaurants or just staying home, putting outlets out of buisiness, mass unemployment, the ruination of an entire buisiness sector, the collapse of the US economy, global warming, the collapse of our sun, the eventual heat-death of the Earth...
Yeah, I'm the bad guy in this argument...
"If you ever find yourself in need of emergency, under the radar, restorative action, we want you to know that we are there for you. As a token of our thanks for your consideration, we have selected you, as one of only 100,000 people in your area to recieve an introductory bonus. If you hire 2 of our hairy tattooed bikers, we'll refund the hire cost of a blunt instrument of your choosing, and send you a knife weilding manic half price. This offer must be taken within 30 days, and is not to be used in conjunction with any other offer."
"were sentenced to death last month to death"
Not many other final outcomes of being sentenced to death.
... with this I'll be offered a get out of my contract and go to a company who can provide me with more than the 0.54 mb downstraem rate that EE are giving me. Even though they use the exact same fucking hardware that TalkTalk used and never dropped me below 6.
And maybe, they'll even sack the idiots in customer services who argued that OFCOM give them 3 months to correct faults before I can leave my contract fee free, because they blanket refuse to acknowledge that the temporary fixes they have been applying over the last 5 months (actually just resetting the line) are a part of an ongoing problem, and actually represent different problems every time I report it!
It's patently clear the original comment was referring to DieDie Harding when they said boss. They even quoted her. So they are also incorrect in calling her boss. The reply was merely correcting the original poster that the person they were referring to is a woman, not a man.
I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't think the reply was indicating the gender of the real boss.
Damien Hirst over inflates the value of himself.
... does anyone else think that anyone using these kinds of sites with publicly funded, government issued accounts and/or equipment, should be fired - not for moral reasons exactly, but for GROSS FUCKING MISCONDUCT!
Quote: “I think something should be done, because we all think that passwords make the whole thing secure. I always thought that was the point of passwords. I am surprised and shocked"
Really? So if you thought passwords were that secure, why have you lot been pushing for biometric data under the guise of increased security if it wasn't needed?
I'm taking that statement as an admission, from her at least, that biometrics are being pushed simply for an alternative instead of personal security. Don't know about anyone else.
Seeing as MTM are that concerned, how about every MTM advert states very prominently, that thier items are only for sale from the MTM store.
That way, any customers seeing the advert and wanting only MTM products will know not to go anywhere else, anyone wanting an MTM but are open to other products can still search as per normal, and anyone wanting any other product won't need to type in an exact product name when any watch will do.
Or perhaps MTM want us to back to the days without search boxes at all, and when searching meant clicking through a huge text list of items you absolutely don't want.
Maybe people not wanting to buy MTM gear should lobby to prevent MTM adverts from being displayed irrelevantly. Maybe they should only send advertising mailshots to people who have already purchased from them before. That way people who don't want their trash, don't need to go through the trauma of having to see it advertised. Maybe it's time to file for a restraining order to prevent them from malicious advertising... or something. C'mon America, use those frivolous laws you keep passing to teach them a lesson.