Re: Note to plaintiffs
So, don't ask for justice or fair treatment you worthless scum! Suck it up and just be happy your lords and masters see fit to pay you the pennies they do. It's more than you are worth!
91 posts • joined 29 Jun 2009
So, don't ask for justice or fair treatment you worthless scum! Suck it up and just be happy your lords and masters see fit to pay you the pennies they do. It's more than you are worth!
Is it windy?
No love, It's Thursday
Aww, I just had a cup, why didn't you say?
"Part of the three-judge tribunal’s unanimous decision that the public interest was not strong enough to order disclosure rested on reasons given in its closed judgement."
That's the really crappy part - can't even challenge the validity of their judgement because the grounds on which they made the judgement are secret. Huh. Love a secret kangaroo court, me.
'But it's up to the lawmakers to make better laws'
The existing laws are working *exactly* as intended by those who wrote them.
They just wrote them in the interests of the rich, not in the interests of the rest of us.
Yup, that's a story about the US. It's exactly the same here.
That was covered on R4 today programme this AM.
Sucessful prosecutions *should* have risen as the vexatious ones were stripped out.
The sucess rate was virtually unchanged, suggesting that access to enough money to pay fees was the differentiator, not strength of case
And when the googlopoly becomes apparent even to the meanest intelligence, it will be there to pick up the mantle, probably under a different name and in a different form.
Thanks for using the term SJW.
Only the extreme right wing use that term, so I was able to ignore your comment and skip straight to the next. A handy time saving!
Actually, ad agencies are just as concerned as the advertisers. Measured by results: sales increases and the like, most agencies loathe this phenomenon. Yes, full disclosure, I work for one (I know, I know: here, have some snake oil). Anyway.
We frikkin HATE this crap. I spend my day deep in analytics, trying to work out how get the right ads in front of the right people and have shit like this to deal with. I'd rather buy 1 piece of adspace and have it go to people who actually care about the product my client is selling than have to try and navigate this bewildering world of crap. Yes, it affects our bottom line (media spend goes to Google instead of allowing us to do a better job on the actual ad), so yes we hate it. Yes, it affects our bottom line because our clients don't have trust in targeting, so are tempted to spray and pray whilst bitching about cost per acquired customer: as if that's something we have any control over (because of scams like this). And you suffer because you get a million completely irrelevant ads that clutter up your browser.
Yes. I really would rather make just one ad and send it to exactly the right people. You'd get fewer ads, we'd get to make better ads (better engineered, faster loading and less buggy too because we'd have the time/money to spend on it) and our clients get the customers they need.
And if you don't think advertising is necessary for the modern economy to actually run then you have *never* run a business. I have.
And yes, everything should be constantly patched and updated.
Good luck explaining to your customer why they should pay for it (in an age where you can get a wordpress site designed and built for under £500).
The only solution is for it to be fixed at source: for the libs to be secure and the version number to become irrelevant: no local copies and the CDN always serves up the latest version which is *always* backwardly compatible.
But good luck with that too. Unpaid devs. contributing to OSS in their spare time using version numbering systems that make sense to the community aren't going to change how they work anytime soon.
There is no solution: you are lumbered with the insecurities.
The NHS has not made me particularly careless of my own health.
But it did de-risk at least one aspect of launching my own business.
And that's the point.
UBI frees people to fulfill their actual potential, without having to worry about failing.
Still, I don't think UBI is the right solution as it puts you at the mercy of the state.
Far better is a model around capital homesteading, whereby you gain an actual ownership of the services you use over time and derive an income from it. Think about it like this - every month you pay for your mobile phone contract. And in return you get a phone line + a tiny ongoing share in the business' profits. Over time that accrues and you start to build an equity stream.
Like a mortgage instead of rent: over time you accrue equity.
It's not a new idea, but it is a good one. Like UBI, but without the need for an all-powerful state, a revolution or a 'big bang' change.
A person of my acquaitance who is well placed to know assures me that Vodafone don't maintain *any* quality of service data from any of their masts, so I have a low, low, low opinion of the efforts that they go to to ensure coverage.
In 2016, you *still* can't get a consistent signal on the west coast main line to london.
because we have more than enough bigots around at the moment.
And yes, systematic change in how tax is levied and collected is the only option. Requiring transnational co-operation and continent-wide organisations focused on that laudable goal.
So, the closest we had to that was the EU.
And they tended to be on the side of the fat cats anyway. Bugger.
I genuinely don't know how you might change this.
The big 4 accountancy co's (who also do the tax auditing of these big companies), spend a *huge* amount of time lobbying and gaming the system. Google's lobbying is very well known: they love-bomb the US and UK legislators and executive constantly to ensure the 'right' laws are passed. I'm less familiar with Facebook's activity in this area. Might well be that they are (ironically) 'free-riders' on the lobbying effort. Suspect not.
Don't forget, too, that Theresa 'hit the fatcats' May's cabinet contains 27 millionaires. Are they going to vote against their financial interests? I'm inclined to doubt it.
Both US presidential candidates have benefitted from hugely complex tax law too: Trump famously 'possibly' not paying income tax for up to 18 years. And then he pointed out that the Clintons did exactly the same. They are all in it together. And we aren't.
That at least, is actually straightforward. If you invest £10bn now, with the hopes of makeing £50bn over the next ten years by building, say, a datacentre, then you lose £10bn now, but grow the business by taking a loss.
That's only sort of true. In fact, it's true, but completely misleading and beside the point.
These enormous companies can hire battalions of accountants - often the very same accountants that *wrote* the tax law a year previously to find all the ways through the maze.
And then, of course, they have huge lobbying efforts to make sure that the politicians don't pass any laws detrimental to their interests. They game the system top and bottom.
So, in saying that it's the responsibility of the lawmakers to ensure the laws make them pay is at best naive, and at worst, well...
I hesitate to suggest that an anonymous coward might be employed by a PR company to put out a line that sounds trivially plausible but is in fact designed to mislead. I really do. Truly. That would never be the case, surely.
The fruity one has been tacking consumerwards for nearly a decade, now wants to play nice in the enterprise? Apple OSX server can't even do SMB properly. No user serviceable parts. Apple Open Directory has a fraction of the capabilities of AD.
I have to manage a small network of apples. God it sucks. Give me windows back any day of the week.
Wandering round this lunchtime, I passed abotu 40 open hotspots, many of which provided as free wifi by the great city of Manchester.
So yeah. That's gunna work.
I'll just type my passport number into this unsecured network to verify my identity shall I?
What could possibly go wrong :D
yeah, and I work for an agency with about 100 sites to look after.
For each one, I have to cost this for the client, discuss it with them, agree the timings, execute it, test that the site still works as expected with no SEO impacts and then keep track of all those certs in a year's time.
So that's a couple of weeks up the swanny.
For *no frickin' benefit to anyone*.
Oh, and my clients will blame me because I'm the messenger. Cost to them for no benefit. Yay!
The ones that stored personal data already had certs. *sigh*
Thanks for massively wasting my time Google.
What an odd right-wing rant this 'article' is.
US broadband is known to be dismal and most of blame for that lies in monopolistic behaviour from the telco's. In the cases of a clear market failure, it is the duty of the state to intervene to ensure that competition can flourish. And yet, this ranty article seems to completely ignore that. How odd.
Wow, they ploughed a whole 1.7% of their roads capex budget into bike facilities. The other £58m will be spent on new roads.
Yes, I can see why you are aggrieved.
Nevermind that most people don't bike in cities because they are scared to. So, separating out cars and bikes will encourage cycling: reducing congestion and therefore is a win-win for both driver and cyclist. You are definitely right to be angry.
How does one spell 'massively entitled bellend' again?
Oh: just like that.
The real affect of Fairtrade is that it shifts the whole debate from a commodity-focused trading issue to being about people and behaving with basic decency and fairness.
This is a generational shift that takes decades to embed, but ends up benefitting all.
Mars, for example, is on the cusp of announcing that all it's cocoa will be fairtrade.
All because of consumer pressure to do the right thing.
It's a slow, messy and imperfect process, but one which is about doing the right thing, today, here, now, in the best way you can. And when enough people join you, it eventually becomes the new normal.
Oh right, but the biggest thieves are the companies that absolutely rely on our economies having advanced education, infrastructure and rule of law enforcing strong property rights but pay nothing towards that. So... they must be socialist then? The ultimate free-riders trying to get something for nothing.
Small market traders and shops setting up the same tax dodges as the big multinationals to expose how these guys take and take and take and give nothing back.
As one local trader put it: "We do want to pay our taxes because we all use local schools and hospitals but we want a change of law so everyone pays their fair share."
"if the billion was earned on the free market (no state involvement or corporate welfare"
If the billion was earned by my team of pet unicorns.
Because both ideas are complete fantasy.
Ah, so if you can't have dignity, then no-one must.
Aye, let's get 'em used to being treated like crims from an early age.
Odd way to start a paragraph 'Left-wing newspaper...'
As though that was relevant?
Do you routinely start sentences with 'Right-wing newspaper' when describing the Torygraph, or 'Risible comic-book wank-rag' when describing the Sun? Not that I've seen, but maybe I'm wrong.
Weakens your reporting if you chuck in irrelevant canards like this.
And the fortunes of the richest 100 people in the world increased by $2.4bn EACH last year.
But of course, they paid their fair share in tax, right?
Oh dear, seems not. No-one actually knows how much money is held permanently offshore in tax havens, but I've seen estimates ranging from about 10 Trillion to about 32 Trillion.
I watched the whole advert from behind the sofa, cringing in fear: just waiting for them to ride into something big, painful and sudden.
It's what happens if you don't look where you are going on a bike.
And then I realised, they are impossibly well-styled hipsters.
And then I wanted it to happen.
Interestingly, I went back in time to 1905 and attended a public debate on the introduction of motor-cars to our roads.
It was funny because there was a gentleman there who said: 'It's all very well having a fuel tank that can be refueled in a minute, but that assumes that you have big storage tanks that can hold all that petrol. You're not going to find that in a domestic setting. I doubt that many coaching inns that would pay to have these expensive fireproof tanks installed on their premises either, at least initially'
And yet, here we are....
Gosh, I hope you don't take any statutory sick pay when you keel over sick, or statutory holiday or enjoy employment rights of any kind. If you do, then you have unions to thank.
Is your 6 year-old not apprenticed to the local mill? If not, then you have unions to thank.
Even if you are freelance, you benefit from all that because you can and do price in the risk of not having those, secure in the knowledge that the employer has to pay for that for a permie.
Higher productivity through capital accumulation can be a good thing, but there need to be checks and balances to ensure that those accumulating the capital don't just exploit people like slaves.
Even a cursory reading of history will show you that those at the top of the heap aren't generally very good at sharing with those at the bottom of the heap. Unions help redress that problem. You may not like them, but boy are they necessary.
When was that around?
Oh, you mean when NN and IE had completely different DOMs so you ended up writing each script twice?
Yeah, none of this 'standardised library' nonsense that we get from jQuery.
Sheesh. Get yer facts right.
Tables are for the display of tabular data. Not for layout/styling. That's what styesheets are for. Y'know, so you can reskin the site in 2 years time without having to edit every line of code on every page with <font color='green'> or somesuch rubbish.
The good old days? They were shit.
methinks DJ2 doth protest too much. Most of the DJ-orientated stores such as beatport offer uncompressed 44.1k wavs, which are identical in quality to CD. Some places even offer 96k 24-bit files, much better than CD.
It's not just mp3s anymore.
profit in the absence of turnover would be fraud in most people's book ;-)
Seriously though: profit is profit is profit. If you are profitable and you don't have shareholders, then you don't give a rats arse about % rates
wow, was that a comment? Reads like a press release.
by over a grand a year per person.
And yes, I have a car. Doesn't make me blind to the numbers tho'
See, that's why I could never vote UKIP.
None of our members are right-wing nutjobs, but we regard the BBC as extreme left-wing (cluetrain: most left-wingers regard the BBC as right-wing). None of our members are rascist, but in the extremely complex and sensitive issue of Israel/Palestine, we could never side with the a-rabs. We think its OK to say that you are a supporter of brutal dictatorships and terrorists if you are anything other than howling and frothing about the iniquities of the (democratically elected) Hamas group. Unlike Netanyahu of course, who is a paragon of truth and virtue no matter what other world leaders say. He would never kill and maim and slaughter in the defence of his side of the argument.
Thank you, Anonymous Coward, for having the courage to stand up and be counted for what you believe in. And for confirming that you *do* hold the same views that make so much of the rest of the world regard you as nutjobs.
"The UK's energy policy is anything but "technology neutral". It's full of measures created by lobby groups for their respective energy sectors."
You forgot a subsidy.
The fossil fuel industry requires a regular influx of 'dead english soldiers' and 'spent munitions' to produce 'dead arabs' er.... I mean 'friendly oil-producing states'
It's the same one you always forget Andrew.
good point you make, but there is a strong correlation between mortality and birthrate. High mortality = high birthrate.
In the west, where we have very low infant mortality, the birthrate barely exceeds the deathrate, in fact we have an ageing population i.e. no growth.
In 'developing' countries, they need to have many more kids in order to have a chance of having someone to look after them in old age: so they have many more children than we do.
Saving lives lowers population growth. Counterintuitive, but true.
Ha. Not so long back, I contacted these clowns asking them to switch off one of the last two servers we had with them, gave them the unique server name + account number + pin.
Three weeks later, they duly shut down the other one.
When they put it back online, they then forgot to hook up their own backup systems again, so it was running without backups. Utterly amatuerish.
Hutchison - Hong Kong and Chinese owned.
Orange - owned by France Telecom
Tiscali - owned by Carphone Warehouse. A British firm: Yay!
One out of three aint' bad I supppose. Tiscali was originally Italian of course, although mentioning that seems churlish. But then, so does criticising a journo for sticking to facts he knew he could check (and owning up to that) whilst getting your own facts wrong. It may travel over pipes in the UK, but that doesn't make the companies British.
As you were.
would be 'nuff said, had he ever said it. but he never did so what's your point exactly?
"Generally, unlike other major internet companies, we have no interest in tracking people," the insider added"
Err. sure. An ad delivery network that has no interest in tracking the habits of its product (that's you, btw). It's rare you see a whole flock of pigs airbourne at one time.
Ah yes, but thumbs up to el reg for publishing the rebuttal, in full, on the front page, in a way it knew lots of people would look at (surely everyone reads FOTW).
So, I reckon the reg comes out ahead on points + as a bonus, if the guy's facts aren't right then others will point that out and then they do have a story!
If it were a UK print daily, corrections and apologies would appear at the bottom of page 93.
In 4 point type.
A programmer is someone who thinks software can be finished.
A developer is someone who knows the job is never completely done.
'Finished' is a word with many meanings.
Every time the big man pays tax, its levels the playing field between him and homegrown entrepreneurs.
I run a UK company and employ skilled UK software engineers, but can't offshore my profits like this because I'm not big enough. My corporation tax payments subsidise my multinational competitors. They pay virtually no tax but benefit from UK services and infrastructure. This destroys UK companies by giving foreign competitors an advantage.
Per pound of profit, I pay 100x as much tax as Google UK operations.
UK tax laws actively discriminate in favour of big, successful US companies at the expense of UK companies.
This is not special pleading, I just want a level playing field.
but the world just keeps on making me feel naive.
He owes me a new keyboard.
*cough* Android is linux on the palmtop and it's kinda mainstream wouldn't you say?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017