6562 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
They forgot to include paedophiles and drug dealers...
... if there is a fire or similar emergency:
1) Get out of the building
2) Phone 999
3) THEN you can post it on social media...!
...the man whose department has instigated benefit sanctions against people who have been declared as "fit for work" and who then, inconveniently, died not long after.
And, of course, that same department who is now asking terminally ill people when the expect to die before they can claim the benefits they're due.
Clearly he is just improving the gene pool by eliminating the weakest in society...
Of course! Twenty years in chokey will teach him the error of his ways and be a warning to anyone else that building systems with crap security and then blaming someone else for when it all goes tits-up isn't a crime...
"... all the crucifixes already?"
> you've obviously driven him to distraction.
Actually he drove me to type - site:theregister.co.uk "matt bryant" "lucrelout" - into a search engine to see if his claim of not having any idea who Matt is was credible, but, well, to him that's "disturbing stalking"...
You know, LucreLout, I *really* wasn't going to post in this thread again, but then I read THIS
> Who on earth is Matt Bryant?
Seriously, LL? You've been posting on The Register since June 2014 and you have *NO* idea who Matt Bryant is?
Here, let me remind you of just some of the threads where you both commented, indeed, in some of them in the *same* sub-thread:
I don't use the Fail icon lightly (unlike some), but this in this case, LL, yep, Epic Fail.
PS Of course I have no doubt now LL is going to try to dig himself out of this hole by vociferously claiming that he was joking or being sarcastic or something else clever. Methinks he doth protest too much...
Have fun, LucreLout, I'm sure I'll see you in another thread soon.
You know, LucreLout, sometimes I have to wonder if you're a Matt Bryant Sock Puppet, since you and he have the same debating tactics of shifting the goalposts or insulting people's intelligence to avoid conceding a point.
Rowing boats? Yes, they fit in the same general classification of craft as Luxury Yachts, but I don't think the skills needed to build them are quite the same, are they?
"You're either ignorant of your own position or lack the vocabulary to express it coherently." Or perhaps you just don't want to listen to anything that doesn't fit in with your narrow mind-set.
> Political compass has the Conservatives being more authoritarian than labour, which is patently untrue.
Ah, now we see LucreLout's true colours (as if they weren't obvious). I have no love for Labour, but at least they didn't try to get rid of the Human Rights Act and replace it with an act which says "You get the rights *we* say you can have, provided you're someone we like"..A pox on both their houses.
> You seem not to understand that the Prince hasn't given the fortune to his staff via pay rises. In fact, as far as is publicly known information, he hasn't given them a payrise at all.
"The massive handout, estimated to total more than $32 billion, includes a two-month basic stipend for all state employees, soldiers, students, and pensioners, as well as generous grants to various professional associations, and literary and sports clubs."
Fine, if it makes you happy, it's a bonus, not a "pay rise". Feeling better now?
> Employees get paid at replacement level salaries. [...] you certainly seem to understand little of how capitalism functions in the real world.
No, LucreLout, I understand perfectly well how capitalism *can* function and does, indeed, function in the minds of those who think that labour is simply another resource which needs to be chiseled down to the lowest possible level to make it as cheap as it can be in order to maximise profits.
I'm simply saying that this is not actually an absolute necessity. I'm saying that those at the top who are paying themselves nice big salaries and bonuses shouldn't forget the ones at the bottom of the ladder who are actually doing the work that *earns* that money and that maybe paying them, at the least, a Living Wage instead of the government mandated Minimum Wage might actually make things better and, who knows, they might even work harder because you get more from loyalty than fear.
If you cannot understand this, then I pity you.
Now feel free to get the last word in, then you can go back to counting your money and seeing how good that makes you feel.
> Gathering all of that into one place is certainly a skill too, which is why the business owner gets rewarded. The employees are self evidently taking less risk with their capital
Neatly missing the point that, as said, it *takes* money to *make* money. If the employees *had* the money, they could start up on their own, but they haven't, so they can't.
> Well that certainly qualifies you to..... Well, I'm not sure what.
It doesn't "qualify" me to do anything. It just shows that your (not very implicit) sneer that I "understand the least about how the game is played" is wrong.
> And its worth bearing in mind that IT contracting isn't running a business in any real sense
Who is an IT Contractor? Not me, so another point fails.
> Equality of opportunity is what really matters, and you'll never get that between the only child of a millionaire [...] do we beat pretty people in the face to equalise their looks with those of us with a visage that appears to have been kicked by an epilleptic donkey
Yadda, yadda, yadda.
Please, LucreLout, spare me the ridiculously silly Straw Man arguments. I've never said anything of the sort, nor would I, so please don't imply that I have because *you* are ignorant of my position.
> Why then are those of you on the left so obsessed with other peoples money?
Oops! LucreLout gets it wrong again. I am only on the "Left" from your point of view. On the scale of http://politicalcompass.org/ I come in at -0.3 on the Left/Right axis and -7.75 on the Authoritarian/ Libertarian axis, so I'm hardly some left-wing, pinko, bleeding-heart liberal who thinks that the only way to equalise opportunity is to tax the rich and give it all the the poor.
Have you seen the recent story about the Saudi Prince who has just given $32 billion to charities and government employees? Apparently that has inspired a number of other Saudi business leaders to give bonuses to their employees. Similarly Abramovich has decided that Chelsea is going to not just pay staff the Minimum Wage, but the Living Wage and other football clubs are doing the same.
Why? Perhaps it's because they've realised that they don't actually *need* many millions or even a few billion in the bank and that paying people what they're worth, rather than only what they *must* pay them is actually a better way of doing business.
So which is better, saying "Screw you workers, I'm alright Jack" or developing a conscience and not trying to hog it all for yourself?
> All the while the workers will be doing their damndest to ensure they get paid the absolute maximum for their effort in building the boat.
Except that, as has already been pointed out, unless there's a situation of almost full employment which forces employers to offer better wages, they can say "This is what we're paying, take it or leave it. If you don't take it, someone else will".
> I tend to find those that are the loudest critics of capitalism understand the least about how the game is played.
Really? Perhaps I should point out that I've been running my own business for over 20 years and got an A-Level in Economics many years ago...
But the fundamental point that *you* are discounting is that it *takes* money to make money. The first rule of the game is that you need a stake to get into the game.
What is stopping those workers setting up their own company? Answer: A big lump of capital to afford to buy premises, a boat yard, raw materials, pay labour, etc etc etc. And if you say "they can get a bank loan" I'll ask "who are the banks likely to loan to? The workers who have little in reserve or someone who's already got a few million in the bank?"
The fundamental issue with capitalism, socialism, communism or anything else is that they run into the problem known as "Human Nature" and unless you make sure that the game a) has rules and b) people are made to play *by* the rules, you will always end up with a situation of increasing inequality.
> If you read up a bit you'll see that that's the bit that I think that Marx got right.....
Yes, Tim, but again you ignore the elephant. You quote: "by their purchase of things to consume they do spread that income, that wealth around" and "that's what then raises wages. And that's the invisible hand that benefits."
Except that the wealth doesn't get spread around, does it? The wages don't go up, do they? Or, at least, only the barest minimum possible. Meanwhile the rest of the wealth gets concentrated upwards, so who *actually* really benefits?
Once again we have an article from TW which, whilst accurate and informative, manages to ignore the elephant in the room:
> he must have, by definition, have spread the value of that consumption, thus allowing them to consume that amount, among the people who provided him with the yacht.
Yes, that's very true, BUT, of course, the value of that consumption is NOT spread evenly, is it?
> if he's paid £1.5bn for that yacht then obviously there's some yacht builders somewhere who now have £1.5bn in spondoolies, and that's been used to pay the workers who built the yacht, pay the workers who made the steel, that made the yacht and so on and on.
How much of that £1.5bn goes to pay the workers who *built* the yacht? How much of the money that paid for the steel goes to the workers who *made* the steel? Isn't it actually the case that (with a few exceptions) the people who got that £1.5bn will be doing their damndest to ensure that they pay the absolute minimum they can get away with to get the work done (and giving as little as possible away in dividends) ensuring that they manage to keep as much of that money for themselves as possible.
> it's capital added to labour which makes labour more productive and that's what then raises wages. And that's the invisible hand that benefits.
Really? Unless you have a situation approaching full employment where the workers have sufficient power, you get the result where the employers can say "You do what jobs we want for the money we're going to pay and if you don't want to do that, we'll find someone else somewhere else who's cheaper or more desperate who *will* do the job. So take our wages or starve!"
Can you guess what I'm going to say? It starts with Cui...
And, to emphasise this, El Reg has a picture of someone, with a phone, eating pizza.
Right, so glad to get that sorted out...
Apparently (according to a friend of mine who is a total Star Wars geek and who has told me about this in excruciatingly tedious detail) Kessel is surrounded by a cluster of black holes and most ships have to take the "long way round" to avoid them, but the Falcon is such a nippy ship that it could dodge between them and shorten the route (or something like that, my brain may have switched off somewhere along the line...)
Or, of course, this could simply be RetCon because George Lucas didn't know that a parsec is a measure of distance, not time...
... the Government doesn't trust us, but they expect us to trust them...
Are you after a job as an El Reg sub-editor?
The question is whether someone is *specifically* looking for an MTM watch or something that *looks* like a military design watch and there's really no way to tell that.
If there are lots of watches of similar design and someone has seen a friend/ review/ advert for MTM they might go into a shop and say "I want one of those MTM watches" but then find the price is too high or they don't quite like the look of what they're offered or, of course, that the shop doesn't stock that particular brand at which point the assistant can say "We also have these..."
As such, *provided* Amazon or whoever says something like "We cannot find any results that match what you're looking for, but we have these ones instead..." I would not have a problem.
If, on the other hand, they say "Here's what you're looking for" and it's necessary to waste time trying to refine your search enquiry or look through several pages to discover that they don't actually have that particular brand, then that would be a problem.
... security takes second place (or even lower) to marketing...
Preferably something that *isn't* Javas$$t!
Icon because... oh, you'll figure it out ;-)
> one of the early ideas mooted for the prototype was as a wearable
I don't think it will be long before someone comes up with a case that will allow you to substitute the 2xAAA batteries for a button cell and sell it as a Mod.
Does it run BBC Basic?
I don't know whether to downvote you for having done (or been made to do) such things or upvote you out of sympthy...
... so have a beer instead!
> You shouldn't be able to patent something that has been already patented, nor something that is already out there either.
FTFY! (Now let's fix the US Patent Office...)
... of those patents are actually original or inventive and aren't simply attempts to patent the wheel or something that someone else has already patented...?
... that our Government should tell us anything that would make us think that they can't be trusted with all our data...
Mine's the one in the secret extinct volcano lair...
Well they might find their phone service switched to another provider without their knowledge and end up with a massive bill...
Perhaps they just have better taste in Giant Robot movies...
"...when a lot of your audience is streaming, or has YouTube"
The same way you calculate how much "piracy" is costing the music industry: You make up a large figure, multiply it by another large monetary amount, then get the media to publish it unquestioningly...
... so much so that El Reg used the Hero Image twice!
(Or was it just some sort of wibbly-wobbly-timey-wimey thing?)
If that's the case, then there's a whole lot more of us who have also reading El Reg for too long...
Oh well *that's* ok then!
Lewis has told us (again) that it's nothing to be concerned about, so we can stop worrying our pretty little heads!
Of course the fact is that we're still using more and more energy, so using it in more efficient ways (which, BTW, has nothing to do with living in yurts or wearing hair shirts or any other of the usual BS) will a) lower our emissions of CO2 and b) give us time to actually get fusion and similar generation methods working properly so it's win-win all round.
We don't believe you!
(ADDENDUM - Unless your name is Buster Gonad, of course)
> All you gits wanting other people to be forced to pay for your preferred viewing need to get a grip on reality
How do you think all those companies who advertise on TV pay for it? We are *ALL* paying for it because the cost of the advertising is built into what we pay for their products!
In your "15 years time" future when you have a choice of watching 47 different versions of Britain's Got the X-Factor Coming Strictly Through a Hole in the Wall on Ice, maybe you'll realise then what you've lost.
What's an advert? I don't see them when I fast forward through the breaks as I'm watching stuff I've recorded on my Sky+ Box.
... hit it with a hammer...?
"... the Nobel Prize committee would have been beating down his door with honors and funding."
Or fundamentalist religious nutters with torches and pitchforks...
In other news, Mark Zuckerberg has just announced that Facebook will be establishing a new headquarters on Mars...
Should I do it?
- Probably not.
Am I going to do it anyway?
- Of course!
> What is a 'Nazi tank', anyway?
It's a description by someone who doesn't know (or can't be bothered to know [cough]Quentin Tarantion[/cough]) that there was a difference between the German people as a whole and the Nazi Party and its sympathisers.
> That process is designed to thwart obvious attacks where attackers could use a still image of a victim
So, let's see: How about I get a picture of someone, wear it as a mask so my eyes are looking through the eye-holes and then blink when it says?
Hmm, of course that's not obvious, is it???
Certainly better than some of the contrived Acronyms out there!
The other problem with 2.4GHz is that it's susceptible to interference from duff microwave ovens.
I used to have a Sender so I could watch TV from my Sky Box in another room, but for several minutes a day I'd have to stop whilst my neighbour cooked their tea :(
"It is impossible to make a system foolproof, because fools are so ingenious" - Corollary to Murphy's Law.
Either way, I bet she had a gold-plated lifeboat...
... probably because they have no idea what they actually *need* it to do.
Oh, sure, they've got some vague ideas of "wouldn't it be good if it did this..." and, naturally, the Government Approved Contractors will say "Sure, no problems" whilst laughing up their sleeves, knowing full well that the Government has no idea how to write a proper contract anyway, so when they start changing the specification or adding new bells and whistles and it all starts to fall apart as the Contractors say "sorry, can't be done", they'll be in line for another £x million and the whole silly thing goes round and round...