Could have been a winner...
....if they'd put Android on it.
4626 posts • joined 1 Jun 2012
....if they'd put Android on it.
techniques such as fuzzing are the way to go
Nothing wrong with that as a testing method, but it doesn't take away the fact that the code should be properly written and inputs properly constrained. If you think about the core OS and application vulnerabilities, a huge proportion of these are buffer mismatches, integer overflows, or string format risks. These are almost all because underlying code is poorly written without sufficient field validation for both user input and registers. How basic is that? And that's what needs fixing.
<owld git mode>
Back in t'day when I worked on sharp end military systems, the code was written on the basis that at any stage you always handled unexpected input gracefully and securely. And unexpected meant any input or register not within the parameters that the code is intentionally handling. It can be done, I've done it, I'm sure you've done it. But the problem is that commercial software is usually written on the cheap, with cheap or non-existent quality control, and the only fix is rewriting the dodgy bits one line at a time.
</owld git mode>
NATO countries have an aggregate annual defence budget of around $1 trillion each year (and that doesn't include intelligence services and homeland defence etc). Which rather begs the question why the defence sectors of those countries are using commercial closed-source cr@pware, notorious for vulnerabilities and security problems for decades?
How much would it cost to take a Linux distro, and make that as near secure as you'd ever get by scrutinising every single line of code? For 0.05% of the annual NATO defence budgets you'd have $500m as a starting fund....
I don't see Android being a desktop replacement... Nor ios.
Why not? As implemented on a phone or tablet perhaps not, but Chrome OS is pretty good as a thin client with some offline capabilities. We've already heard that Google are quietly dragging Chrome and Android together. Apple can do the same thing if they choose.
Microsoft like the idea of a full fat WIndows + Office bloatware install on a phone because that supports what they want to sell, rather than because that's either what the market wants, or what is the best technical solution.
surely choice is a good thing?
Choice exists, but that doesn't mean people will take it and create diverse and roughly equal ecosystems and markets. So you have IoS, Android (and derivatives like Cyanogenmod), Windows, you have Blackberry, Ubuntu, Firefox. If you search hard enough you might find Tizen, Sailfish and a few others. But the reality is that most people perceive only a choice between Android and Apple.
One of the biggest killers of choice is "free" software. So Microsoft destroyed the browser market by bundling IE "free", with negative consequences still being felt thirty years later. The same vile company did the same thing with its mail client, and again the negative impacts (of lower choice and lower quality in the market) are still seen decades later. The ongoing cr@pness of Android with regard to updates and security is a result of the "free" nature of Android (who will bother to support something they aren't being paid to support?). Adobe Reader, Flash Player, both "free" and infamously cr@p.
At the root of the problem of "free" are three simple issues: 1) that new entrants are unable to create any revenue stream to give them traction thus crushing variety, 2) the lack of successful new entrants reduces pressure on incumbents to innovate and maintain, and 3) the lack of revenue streams from user-choosers reduces the incentive to keep the dominant "free" products secure and up to date.
Unfortunately "free" presses an evolutionary button in most of us, some sort of scavenger instinct that over-rides common sense, and makes us think that we are getting something for nothing. Not sure how you can undo that.
The 'Time Field Buffer', the ultimate form of temporal transduction barrier, prevents travel into the past of future of Gallifrey, though it was theorised........................
Let me help you on with the anorak over here ----------------------------------->
she's there so 70% of the audience tune in to drool
You've got me there. And if the scriptwriters are reading, could I just say the snug fitting fluffy jumper was a choice of genius. But WTF did the other 30% tune in for?
No, I say let Moffat keep doing what he's doing.
Personally I'm finding this series tired, predictable, too many of the sets and plot lines samey. Look at the repeated "shuffling monsters, run away, run away, in dark industrial environment, with emphatic exclamations" crap. I suppose at least the four billion year time loop doffs its cap at the concept of retreading, although I think that's an in-joke at the expense of the audience.
Capaldi is a good actor, was excellent in Musketeers, but as the doctor he's just not the man. His impressively vehement "I will hunt you through the universe" and "be afraid, very afraid" type declarations are then completely frittered by the inability of the over-arching story to allow a vengeful doctor, and that undermines the point of casting the rather grizzled Capaldi.
The rot started with the wet-lettuce of Matt Smith. Capaldi is far better, but still doesn't fit. I suggest a petition to Downing Street demanding a change in the law to force David Tennant to work as the doctor until the end of his days.
but it was cancelled even before it started when Russia effectively mothballed its Tu-160 fleet for 10 years due to economical reasons in the early 1990-es.
But its good to see them back in service now. Unless you're anywhere in Syria, and particularly if you're a Turkish aligned insurgent. Here on the right you can see an IS oil convoy taking an unscheduled stop whilst heading towards Turkey.
You're a witch-burning, pitchfork-and-torch-waving mob, who collectively and individually represent the gravest threat to freedom and justice this world has faced since the Inquisition.
Boohoo, what a shame, how sad.
The bloke is a cunt. He deserves to be hounded for the rest of his miserable life, for ruining other people's just for a quick buck. If it was your sister or your wife, or your daughter, you wouldn't me mouthing off that he deserves another chance and he should be left alone to get on with his life. If Brittain can never work again for the rest of his life, I would be quite pleased. And if he feels a shiver of fear every time there's a knock at his door, then that'll be good to.
If that's the spirit of a pitchfork wielding mob, then get me a flaming torch: Let's march.
I don't tend to think of anything bearing the Wetherspoons name as a pub, merely a corporate retailer that does on-sales.
Over time buses are going to slowly become obsolete
You wish. The council sees its job as producing "public services" and it sees your job as "consuming public services and picking up the tab". And as part of that, the council regard the War on Cars as a sort of sacred duty.
On a related note, I've had to do a system restore today because this week's Windows 10 update screwed up my PC.
Don't worry, it'll just download the screwy update and fuck your machine over a second time for you.
WTF? How did that happen?
Probability. I think that Ballmer has proven the Infinite Monkey Theory is correct. Maybe CERN should investigate, because Ballmer being correct in his own lifetime could only occur if most common probability distributions have integer results (or something like that, mathematicians, bail me out on this....)
Because that's almost certainly what's actually happening here...
Well that's what HPE want to happen (my employers are being reamed out for HPE's crummy services at the moment).
But there's a tiny ray of hope, that the financial services sector are masters at the contractual stitchup. And much as I loathe the thieving charlatans of the City, I do hope they stuff HPE this time round. Either way, with these two counterparties, so long as somebody loses out the rest of us can enjoy it.
It's irritating for me and a waste of money to run the system behind it.
The bizarre thing is that all this money is wasted on border control, and still we have net immigration of a third of a million people a year (and that's before Cameron welcomes a small town's worth of Syrians). If the government are not going to control the numbers coming to the UK, why even bother with expensive but pointless immigration controls?
Be ready to pay LastPass ... which I do
Given that the "free" genie is out of the bottle, what proportion of the LastPass user base will pay? Most won't, so will LogMeIn continue to support it for the few that will pay?
And that's before the decisions are taken about code consolidation by LogMeIn. Maybe LastPass will be the best product, will be supported, and the nearest LogMeIn products will be canned. Even if LastPass is the survivor product, the track record of acquired software is poor, since the decision to buy is invariably corporate and financial, not technical and capability based. The new owner rarely keeps the original architects and coders, so they don't know what is under the bonnet, they are only interested in milking the acquired user base to achieve the financials of the acquisition business case.
No, time to bail out, IMHO.
there will be some questions to my MP to ask in the Parliament on exactly why we are offering military support and to whom
A pointless waste of your time. I did write to my MP, Karen Lumley, on the topics of the ill-advised desire to engage in the recreational bombing of Syria, and the great evil that is the Snoopers Charter, and got back a letter that indicated to me that she is a traditional lickspittle Tory, slavishly following the will of our shiney-faced, vacuous, over-fed turd of a prime minister.
Having swallowed the excrement-coated dodgy dossier to go to war in Iraq, it seems parliament never learn, and will shortly vote to join the hobby war in Syria on the back of Lightweight Dave's claim of "70,000 moderate rebels". What a complete tit the man is.
Then we can join together in waving to our bumpkin friend and his wet string connection - no point sending an email.
At least he's got a promise from David Cameron of a universal high speed service by 2020. Oh. Yes, I'd forgotten those promises about a referendum on the Lisbon treaty under the last shower. And his promise that Heathrow expansion wasn't going ahead, "no ifs and buts". And the one about not raising VAT. And the promise about not reorganising the health service. Or the one about not means testing child benefit (although I suppose he's kept that for all the scroungers claiming CB but living outside the UK). Or the promise to maintain Surestart, or midwife numbers.
I won't be holding my breath on his worthless promise on an EU referendum, and I'd suggest our AC bumpkin should consider investing in semaphore.
As for Virgins laughable comments on 4G - my mobile provider supports 4G, but signal so dismally low that download speeds are well below the target 10.
So you won't enjoy my obligatory tauntage concerning the smooth, reliable, deep 150 Mb/s Virgin deliver to my home, with virtually no contention issues because all the neighbours are on Openreach?
I'd second that. But I don't think it's bandwidth at the user end. It's either my corporate IT team have specified a really narrow data pipe somewhere in their infrastructure, and/or Microsoft doing the same thing with theirs.
Either way, Lync is a poor solution as implemented, even though it ought to work very well.
Cyber resilience tests are currently mandatory for the financial sector, and this is enforced by the bank of England.
Ahh, The BoE have been busy working out what computers are. That could explain why they were asleep in the run up to the financial crisis, and why they've done nothing to make the banks learn the lessons since, and UK household debt is now a larger share of GDP than before the crisis, and house prices average five times earnings.
Officially the answer is that it isn't a British Standard, it is the DECC SMETS standards. SMETS2 is supposedly the defintitive version and was ISTR finally agreed about November 2014. Some non-compliant meters can be upgraded in firmware, some can't, and all those will need to be upgraded to, or replaced with SMETS2 compliant meters.
Even with a compliant meter, they can't force you to have one operating in smart meter mode. They can in theory (since it is their meter) replace the asset without your consent and run it in dumb mode, although even that is next to impossible because safety rules mean they have to have access to the consumer side electrics, and if you're not willing to be in, or not willing to have supply interrupted then they can't do it.
Eventually the bureaucrats at DECC will have you on a smart meter, whether you like it or not, because you don't have an option to have a pre-existing meter removed or deactivated. Most of the population will take the pill and swallow it, and when the anti-smart meter types move house their chances of avoiding a meter are greatly reduced.
The numbers aren't huge, IIRC, but out of all the users a significant number were government types
The problem that Pakistan has is that it has no genuinely functioning democracy (and little cultural acceptance of Western democratic structures), and the security services (ISI) are a power player in their own right, widely believed to be in cahoots with domestic terrorists, insurgents in Afghanistan, and supporting (for example) the Mumbai terror attacks.
The difficulty of this request is that it may not be clear (even in Pakistan) who is the prime mover of the request, why they want this, nor what they will do with the intelligence. The worst and perhaps most likely case is that the ISI want the powers to cement their own power base and to subvert what limited democracy does exist, whilst continuing to support terrorism and failing to stop meddling in Afghanistan.
I'd guess that BB asked the Canadian and perhaps US authorities about this, and were told that it was a very bad idea, so bad that retreat was better than acceding to the request.
In the UK we wouldn't want local government to do the planning, spec, digging, investment, or operation because they know nothing about these, but (speaking as somebody working in an infrastructure based industry) co-operation and support of local government is vital.
If you don't have that strong co-operation, you don't get the permissions quickly to dig up roads and interfere with traffic, you struggle to get permission to use council owned land, you have problems getting agreement to site cabinets etc etc. All of which dramatically increases time to completion and cost, and they in turn harm the economics.
There's also a difference between what they say (all councils will say they support fast broadband or other infrastructure improvements) and what they do - the ideal council pledges its functional support, the politicians tell the planning & highways officials to pull their finger out, and then they help make it happen. As a general rule, the cooperation in this respect is best in shire counties and second tier cities and towns. Go places like London, Manchester, Birmingham or Glasgow, and the bureaucratic treacle is so thick that making anything happen is a nightmare.
but I'd be willing to pay money to get a better modem/router with my contract
Crap modem/routers are the norm, because they're built to the lowest possible price for "free" issue. In many cases you can switch the device to modem only mode, in which case you're free to buy a good quality home router. But don't be surprised if a good one is rather more expensive than you might think (like £100+), although it'd be light years better than the integrated devices ISPs dish out.
And if the EE modem/router is so rubbish that you can't run in modem only mode, then you can buy OEM modems that should work with the correct settings. For FTTC connections you'd need a VDSL modem, for perhaps £80, and your high quality home router would be in addition.
All depends on how much you want to spend improving your wifi connections.
personally I suspect it was BT in the server room with the halon +1
But I am not advocating everyone drives "Noddy" cars, your being foolish.
<invite fate to point out spelling error in my own posts>
Maybe, but at least I can spell.
</invite fate to point out spelling error in my own posts>
Personally I feel it extends beyond the "looks" of the car into all the aspects of the car, generally its whole temperament.
Presumably, the world will be a better place if the styling of all cars was close to that of Noddy's car (in the event that convertibles are allowed)?
Clearly you don't recall the relevant facts, primarily that Noddy was assaulted and robbed by the goblins in order to TWOC his car, showing that regardless of the appearance, a car will still incite envy and anti-social behaviour in the lower social order. And on another occasion Noddy himself was arrested for inconsiderate driving.
At least Mockridge is speaking of that which he knows. Virginmedia certainly don't offer their customers value for money, to judge by the latest of a series of inflation busting price rises, in return for speed increases that are not perceptible to the vast majority of customers.
Yes, all those problems *can* be solved, but, ..... WILL they? And if so, WHEN?
What about WHY?
Amazon need to stop w@nking around with drones and concentrate on the day job. They are nowhere near optimising logistics based even on meatsack-in-a-van technology. In this day and age there's no reason they can't offer me a precise delivery time hours, days or weeks ahead. Tesco can reliably achieve one hour slots when I order, why not Amazon?
Airlifting anything other than small blocks of polystyrene uses a lot of energy, so this isn't going to be cheap. The limited lifting capacity also means low asset utilisation per drone. So we're into use cases: Low mass, high value, delivered in internet connected low population density areas. Not looking like a mass market to me.
Same donkeys in charge of the user interface as ever, I see.
Still the UI could be a lot, lot worse, couldn't it? Not mentioning any particular Redmond-based company, by way of example.
It's idiots who don't wear underpants.
I agree, sounds bizarre. I suppose these people also don't use bog roll, as the carelessly trimmed fabric edges on the inside of a typical pair of jeans would go a good job scrubbing an unprotected nipsy. After a few days use those jeans might be a bit, well, musty, but I suppose the glamour of going commando has its own unique price.
You know how old pants get farted out? I presume that's the hydrogen sulphide reacting with some sweat to form sulphuric acid, but if you're depositing neat clag on the jeans, is that going to rot them through in no time? Have you seen the price of a pair of Levis?
Post script: Don't read this post whilst eating your dinner.
The ladies of the house will embrace it as they know the seat will be down upon entering the Room of the Throne. The males... it will be raised.
But blokes going to see a man about a dog with some haste will always find the seat in the wrong position. And if they're fiddling with tightish jeans and button flies* as well, then things could come to a head**
I suppose a fitbit-type of affair might be able to detect the racing pulse and rising blood pressure of a Man On A Mission, and alert the toilet seat to lower at maximum speed, but like all IoT stuff, it's looking like a solution searching for a problem. But....tell you what, we both grow goatee beards, don trousers that are too short whilst forgetting our socks, you write an investment prospectus that talks of a $14bn market by 2020, I'll act the sullen, Asperger's afflicted, sociopathic, withdrawn technical genius in front of the investors, we drink coffee for nine months on six figure salaries, then we start all over again.
* Which knob-head designers think button flies are a good idea? We invented the zip a hundred years ago, and some tossers keep putting buttons on trouser fronts. W*nkers.
** A turtle's head
if I lost a million bucks, I think that the fact that the loss would be tax deductible would be more like a kleenex on a 3rd-degree burn
Yeah, but you're imagining it's your money. Private equity and seed capital investors are generally playing with other people's money. Often people who don't know what's happening with their money, because they've taken financial advice, and invested part of their pension funds into something called, for example, the "Ledswinger Perpetual High Growth UK Technology Investment Fund 2 LLP". Sounds sensible and innocuous, n'est pas?
And because tracker investment funds can be listed (hahahaahahaa! FFS why?) you even have situations where regular Joe's have their money invested in fractally nested investment funds, and were you ever to get far enough down amongst the cockroaches and poo, there you would find the investment vehicles like LPHGUKTIF2, and below that its investments in toilet seat raising apps and other IoT and smartphone idiocy.
All the dumb investor knows or sees is the aggregate value of all the investments of the Fund, less Ledswinger Prudent Financial Corporation's extortionate "management" fees. In turn, all LPFC actually does, is farm out big parcels of cash to other investment funds, where the cash buys a "limited partner" share. The people running these funds are the "general partners", and they usually get preferential treatment when things go sour, they have near absolute say in the management of the invested cash, and they also screw a generous "management" fee. They'll have big fat financial sector bonuses for doing jack shit, and the contract will disproportionately share any upside that might occur to their benefit.
So, there's winners here: Anybody screwing a management fee for putting retail investor money at risk will be pulling down a package of at least £500k after tax each year, and usually a lot more. Other winners include the bearded hipster twats (BHT) who get to burn through one or two rounds of financing, paying themselves a six figure salary, before walking away from the smoking wreck. Minor winners include institutional investors like LPHGUKTIF2, because our fee structure will make us money regardless of whether our investors do.
And then there's losers: Retail investors, who as noted above probably have no idea why LPHGUKTIF2 has actually lost them money, and then charged them for the privilege.
Welcome to the world of fund investing.
Post script: I'm beginning to worry that I should be registered with the Financial Conduct Authority to offer this sort of useful and accurate financial advisory. Better add the universal caveat emptor: "Remember, the value of retail investments can go down, or down a lot, it's only the big boys that get the gains."
Their hooks got slung
As, apparently did Dominic Connor's, more's the pity for all of those losses. And instead the Reg ply us with endless dull-as-ditchwater articles about containerisation and flash-in-the-datacentre, read and and understood by about 10% of the Reg's readers, and of actual interest to about 2% or less*.
* Yes, yes, I made them up. But prove me wrong.
wonder if insurance will cover "ripping up all the floorboards because they've been marinading in shit for a year."
A good loss adjuster will have those floorboards put on Ebay in minutes. And I'll wager he'd get a good price for them from scat fans.
could you get Dominic Connor's
FX: Sound of pin dropping
I think Mr Connor's gone the same way as various writers valued by the Reg readerati of late. At the expense of rolling out the "not as good as it used to be" moan, the Reg over the past couple of years has had a trajectory that's starting to look a bit less intelligent, less well informed, less rebellious, and - well - more corporate, albeit with the usual lashings of bad-pun infested headlines.
Maybe it's time for The Register to be put out of its misery, and somebody to come up with a new thoughtful & cynical tech site?
If you're feeling strongly about it, report them here:
It would seem to me that this company have been causing harm to customers, breaking the law, and if trading whilst declared dormant would have a significant irregularity in their affairs. The Insolvency Service probably aren't proactive, but once they've received a complaint they'll probably keep on at it like a dog with an old bone.
Winding up the company as a burner won't protect the vermin from investigation and hopefully from further sanctions that aren't open to the ICO.
allegedly dormant since 2013
Possibly they've notified HMRC and Companies House that they've been trading since they filed the dormant accounts, but I doubt it. I'd like to think that Colin Robertson the director who signed the dormant accounts would be prosecuted under relevant tax, VAT and companies acts, but I'll wager that ICO say "not my job", HMRC are too busy hassling IT contractors, and the police will say they're too busy hunting paedoterrorists.
Can we have some collection statistics?
Did this yesterday in a separate thread. From the ICO's last annual report, broad brush is that 18% of penalties (for all DPA breaches, not just spam texts and calling) are written off, almost all of the remainder are paid in full and early enough to get the 20% prompt payment discount that ICO offer to offenders.
My inference is that its only the bunglers in the public sector and large corporates who unintentionally broke the law who pay promptly (so the NHS, people like TalkTalk - hopefully), and it's the intentional law breakers who are the 18% of non-payers, by having "burner" legal entitities that they can jettison whenever the law catches up with them.
The sooner the ICO gets powers to bar directors and managers the better.
Unless you're a shareholder, since the determination appears to be to alienate as many users as possible. Every instance and revision on the misbegotten W8/W10 path has failed to do what users wanted, whilst adding stuff that users didn't ask for or actively don't want.
Not only do I now need to (again) edit the services on all the W8 and W10 home machines, but I really ought to change all the sensitive passwords because the twerps at Redmond have intentionally compromised them
Perhaps the Reg could put a question to Nutella: "Why does Microsoft persist in being a corporate @rsehole?"
perhaps someone would care to do the research and let us know?
You try the spiked drink, I'll do the other bit.
Medical researchers could think about this as a tool for recruiting people to drugs trials.
instead of competence, experience, and general ability to do the job.
When did they ever do that? Hiring people based on appearance can't be any worse than hiring middle aged white 1%'ers as your directors can it? Personally, rather than going down the "diversity" shape and colour sorting route, I think they should simply go for good looking Veeps and directors. No reason to believe they'd be any better than fat clowns like Ballmer, Skeletor wannabes like Gates, or death-by-cold-analysis types like Nutella. But they'd be better to took at.
Think Pepper Potts getting sweaty and angry, and throwing chairs around on stage. Now contrast that with Steve Ballmer's little performance. In the interests of balance for those to whom Pepper Potts might not appeal, the same rules would apply to senior male hires: So Elon Musk won't get a job, but Robert Downey Jr might.
How's that for a balanced, non-sexist and almost-equitable* hiring policy, with no "competence downside" against the current arrangements.
* Unlucky for ham-beasts, the fugly, munters, and the grizzled, so that's me out.
An Astute ElReg Reporter might ask such questions of Ofcom. Be prepared to resort to FOI (and be ignored).
An Astute ElReg Reader might simply look at the ICO's last annual report, which shows that for the financial year 2014/15, civil monetary penalties of £1,129k were issued (clearly not enough by a factor of at least 10x), £167k of early payment discounts were credited, and £205k of impairments were recorded.
Put simply, that's 18% of penalties not paid, and the volume of discount suggests that penalties were either paid early in full less the early payment discount, or not at all. My guess is that the early payment discounts are largely the public sector and large corporates who ended up being fined through incompetence rather than wilful intent, but will pony up their fines. But that means the impairments are from the scumbag bottom feeders who knew what they were doing, didn't care, and have no intention of either paying their fine or of desisting from their illegal practices.
So I think that supports the subtext of your post, that is that the vermin get away with it, probably by bankrupting a disposable company to avoid paying. Whilst it is difficult to stop that happening, the ICO should automatically apply for relevant directors to be disqualified when a penalty is unpaid, and pursue criminal prosecutions for repeat offenders.
It's the morons that answer random unsolicited adverts and give them business that spurs them on.
Some may be morons, many are often victims of fraud. Listen to any incoming robo-call about energy efficiency, and they'll peddle lies that the UK government are committed to replacing all non-condensing boilers by 2015/6/7/whenever (or offering free cavity/solid wall insulation, free PV etc), and that <victim> is eligible for a free boiler under the Energy Company Obligation rules.
In these cases the first claim is an outright lie, and the second is usually an outright lie. But if you're not too clever, or a bit confused, or simply trusting, then it can sound plausible, and before you know it there's a foot-in-the-door salescreep in your living room pushing you to sign now for a one-day-only discount.
I'm with those demanding huge fines and disqualification for those involved. But that needs to go beyond the directors, and include operational managers. They know as well as directors that what they're doing is wrong, they choose to take the salary and ignore the law, so fine them.
Sure, it will mean a Refused Classification (which it would probably get anyway for some other reason), but you'll have made their day. They try to kill a 10-hour snoozefest until, at the last minute, they lose their lunch.
Give that man (or woman) a gold star! Excellent thinking, displaying qualities of forward planning, insight, vindictiveness and humour, all of which are to be applauded.
However, despite the high qualities of your plan, and its heroic ambition, I'm still not sure you can beat them, since they already have to sit through cinematic gorefests day in day out, Whilst only about 33 films were R18 (as opposed to 18) last year, about 540 videos were classified as R18, plus 379 18 rated videos, and 372 18 rated films.
In fact when I think about the mundane, the profoundly tedious, and the monumentally pointless sequels they have to sit through for general release, and then factor in the six 18/R18 films they have on average to sit through every single day, I start to admire the BBFC. I'm not sure what that whiney film maker is on about, the BBFC ought to be paid to sit through so much dross (and they ought to be able to charge penalty rates to film makers who submit shite).
You can never win against the bureaucrats. For them, this is another ten hours of paid, pensioned employment, sitting in a warm, safe room. I'll wager that ten hours of paint drying would be no worse than anything by M. Night Shayalamam (and speaking personally, Life of Pi would be in the same category).
We can be sure that the salary of those doing the classification will be considerably higher than (eg) the outsourced toilet cleaners working for an investment bank in London. Which would you rather do: Scrape investment bankers' tank tracks off of a toilet for minimum wage, or be paid a comfortable salary to endure a bit of boredom?
Seems to me that Charlie Lyne and his backers don't understand that no matter how low your standards, there's always somebody can go lower.
Happy to be proved wrong if someone can quote an example or two where the regulator has made a real difference.
Well OFCOM introduced competition in director enquiries some years back, and the cost soared to five times that of a call to directory enquiries in Germany. That made a real difference.
And this year OFCOM forced mobile companies to clarify calling charges to non-geographic numbers, as a result of which all the mobile operators put up the total charges for non-geographic calls by between 20 and 90%. That made a real difference.