Re: Slam code
Well they might find their phone service switched to another provider without their knowledge and end up with a massive bill...
6840 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
Well they might find their phone service switched to another provider without their knowledge and end up with a massive bill...
> 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...?
Perhaps they just have better taste in Giant Robot movies...
> 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...
"...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...
Please attend your mandatory DoubleThink classes, Prole. DoublePlus Good!
Of course it's not, because the people at the top who are responsible for company policies don't give a damn.
It's not going to affect them, they're still going to get their salaries and bonuses, the company might declare a slightly smaller dividend, but that's just a pin-prick to a big multi-national and whilst the users whose privacy was compromised might complain, they have no power to do anything because the big shareholders don't care either.
If the ICO actually started fining individuals or, even better, putting them in prison, THEN we might actually see some action being taken.
But until that point, the executives will still be laughing all the way to the bank.
Just as long as it's not on an Express Elevator to Hell... Going down!
> Question : Why is being called a Gorilla an insult ?
Seriously? Try looking at some history and how people who don't have white skin have been constantly and repeatedly dismissed over the centuries as "less than human" and then you may find the answer to your question.
> I did chose braking heavily
You described what you did as "slamming on the anchors" which sounds to me like an Emergency Stop or something close to it. If you'd done that with an Observer in the car, he'd probably have had a few words to say about it.
> The only major difference is that you seem to think that overtaking is the preferred option to get out of trouble
a) that was related to the situation you describe and
b) on a motorbike, often it is the best option to get yourself away from a dangerous situation as you've got a lot more acceleration available.
As has already been stated, it's clear that you don't ride a motorcycle...
> the traction engine should have been able to see me
And then, when you're lying on the ground, someone would no doubt have uttered the phrase "Sorry, Mate, I Didn't See You".
> to all intents and purposes waiting for me to go past
You assumed this. Doesn't make it a fact. If you ride a bike, you soon learn never to assume anything like that, because it doesn't make the ground hurt any less thinking "I was in the right" as you're flying through the air.
> you've suggested sounding the horn but I can hardly do that every time I approach a junction when a vehicle is waiting or I might end up being fined for excessive use
Really? "Sound your horn whenever you think another road user could hear and benefit from it" - Motorcycle Roadcraft - The Police RIder's handbook to better motorcycling.
And the Highway Code now just says not to use your horn "in an aggressive manner".
> what are you going to do here if the Range Rover starts reversing out of the drive?
Let's go back to IPSGA:
Information: There's a vehicle on the left which may reverse out. I don't know whether it's coming or going, so treat it as a potential hazard and plan accordingly. There are no on-coming vehicles. It's a National Limit, so I'll probably be doing around that limit. Check the mirrors for traffic coming up behind.
Position: As there are no oncoming vehicles, I'm most likely already positioned in "track two" (ie the line of four wheeled vehicle tyres closest to the centre line), but, absent any other vehicles, I may well consider moving across the centre line to give myself as much clearance as possible.
Speed: If that vehicle decides to start reversing out, I want to give myself as much time as possible to react and sufficient braking room, so start to slow down.
Gear: As I'm slowing down, I'd drop down the gears so I'm in one that will give good power response if needed.
Acceleration: When I get to the point that I'd have to reduce my speed much further, I'd consider accelerating and using the opposite lane in an "overtake" style manoeuvre to get past the vehicle as quickly as possible. Or, if I'm still unsure, slow right down.
All the time, I'd be updating my Information (which, of course, runs throughout the entire IPSGA system) and using the principle of TUG (Take, Use, Give) to Take information (look around, watch for the vehicles wheels starting to move, look for people getting into or out of the vehicle etc), Use (plan what I'm going to do) and finally Give: Consider sounding my horn to make them aware of my presence (and giving a friendly wave as I pass to let them know that I wasn't being aggressive).
> Are you suggesting that I should drive along wide open country roads at 30mph on the off-chance that some bell-end pulls out in front of me?
No, I'm not. And (since you're a long-time Commenter on El Reg's Forums) you should be familiar with the fact that I am not impressed by Straw Man arguments.
> to suggest that there is always a way to avoid a vehicle pulling out of a side junction in front of you is silly.
I agree, that is why I did *NOT* suggest that. But you can make a Driving Plan which takes such possibilities into consideration to reduce the chances of you needing to "slam on the anchors".
Did you consider using your horn as an "audible warning of approach"?
> Ultimately there's not much it can teach you about vehicles who - despite having great visibility of you - choose to pull out at the last possible minute.
Perhaps you should try joining your local IAM group, you might learn differently.
It teaches you to make Driving or Riding Plans which start with three simple questions:
1) What can be seen?
2) What cannot be seen?
3) What might reasonably be expected to happen?
The answer to Question 3 in this case is "that vehicle might pull out".
As Pete65 points out, try riding a motorbike. You soon learn to assume that *every* vehicle in a side-turning is going to pull out in front of you because "Sorry, Mate, I Didn't See You".
IAM use "The System" or IPSGA which stands for Information, Position, Speed, Gear and Acceleration which is based on the Police's Roadcraft book.
Information: There's a Rally. There may have been signs pointing to it. Presumably there's a side turning, possibly also with signs, bunting, or other clues that something's happening up ahead, so vehicles may be entering or leaving it. More information: Perhaps you can see over hedges, so you may well be able to see the Traction Engine as it's about to pull out. Yet more information: Check mirrors for traffic coming up behind you (possibly even intending to overtake). Look for vehicles coming the other way.
Position: If possible, move towards the centre of the road, provided that there's nothing intending to overtake and you won't cause any on-coming vehicle to have to adjust their speed or position, giving yourself more room to manoeuvre and moving yourself away from the hazard.
Speed: You're approaching a potential hazard, so SLOW DOWN! That gives you more time to respond or brake as necessary.
Gear: Select a lower gear to give better power response if needed.
Acceleration: As you clear the hazard, accelerate back to the limit or, if you need to decelerate, do so.
Note also, of course, that that "60 zone" is a 60 speed *limit*. That's a limit, not a target. It's not obligatory.
(PS there's more than the above, before someone start's saying "but what about...", however that's a quick run-down of the guidelines).
There are a lot of road users out there on four wheels or two, who would benefit from Advanced Training, whether it's IAM, Rospa, Bikesafe or whatever. Too many drivers think their skills are better than those of others on the roads. Oddly, those other road users also think the same.
They should try it, they might even find that they learn something new...!
As the saying has it: An honest politician is one who stays bought...
More's the pity...
... something like this in Berlin once...?
Well there's a surprise.
I wonder how much
money lobbying was needed by the industry to ensure that the law would be utterly hamstrung from the word go?
> My first thought was where they would place the ads.
Get a grip...!
... a piece in El Reg attacking both The Guardian and the BBC,
I wonder who could have written it...?
"... perhaps gaining their first experience of coding in the process"
That was exactly how I started to learn 6502 Assembler and Machine Code 30 years ago!
A9 03 - Load Accumulator with 03 (Try changing 03 to FF or 7F for 255 or 127 lives)
E9 01 - Subtract 1 from Accumulator (Try changing the 01 to 00 for infinite lives)
> a hell of a lot more
Ok, ok, I meant *less*...
Again, I have to ask the question in response to one of TW's articles.
Our (yes, *our*, because our parents and grandparents paid for them) public services and utilities are flogged off, generally in a completely inept way and often for a hell of a lot more than they're actually worth.
That money is then used by governments for short-term
bribes tax cuts which eventually and almost inevitably end up in the pockets of the wealthiest who, despite what some may claim, *do not* spend most of it (which is how it's supposed to "trickle down") , but, instead, stash it away in foreign institutions and in tax avoidance schemes.
Meanwhile the companies that now own said services and utilities think, hang on, the government got away with under-investing and skim off the profits, bet we can do that too! And when the government says "hang on, you're supposed to be fixing the problems caused by our under-investing and profit skimming", the companies go "gissa subsidy. Go on, you know you want to..."
Of course, that subsidy comes out of *our* pockets again and goes into *their* pockets and tax havens.
So we're left with what's still a crappy service and/ or expensive utilities but being told that "you should be happy, we did this for *your* benefit!"
Cui bono? Still not us...
> WARN: THERE IS ANOTHER SYSTEM
> SIRI to CORTANA: 1 + 1 = 2