Posts by big_D

Re: why, why, why... what is the point?

"But then I don't live in an inner city and also don't live in a perpetual state of paranoia thinking it is normal!"

Great, wouldn't want you to be paranoid. Hell if it doesn't matter, could you just let us know where you live and what time your house is normally empty?

I have a friend who used to leave his garage unlocked and the keys to his bikes in the ignition, with the comment: "if you are in the area and want to go for a ride, just take a bike, just remember, you bend it, you mend it."

He never used to lock his patio door either.

He never had any problems.

On occasions I've forgotten to lock my car doors - one time, when I was still in the UK, I got home at 11 in the evening from work and my neighbour knocked on the door at 10 the next morning to let me know the windows were still open... My coat, briefcase, CD player and CDs were all still in the car - that was in Southampton - although speaking to my old neighbours a couple of years back, they daren't leave the cars on the street at night any more, let alone leave them unlocked!

In Birmingham, I left the car in a carpark under the Holiday Inn on Monday morning. As I picked it up on Friday evening, it was unlocked - but nothing was missing.

I tend to lock the car, but there are times I forget. The only time somebody broke in was when I was a kid and despite the door being unlocked, they used my father's golf clubs to smash the window, then made off on my kiddy bike!

The same for a friend, he had a Spitfire and was always worried somebody could cut open the roof, so he left the doors unlocked, so that if somebody wanted to steal the radio, they didn't have to cut open the roof... They cut open the roof anyway [LIFTED] idiots!

Re: Wow!

@John, my first thought as well, my private phone is 19€ a month, unlimited calls, unlimited texts, unlimited data (2GB full speed limit, then throttled).

$19 with no data and $10 per GB sounds like a very poor deal.

And unlimited international SMS? What is the difference? An SMS is an SMS, I've never had a contract (since 1993), where sending an international SMS was more expensive.

Re: It's my computer

It is your computer, but it isn't your content that you are (generally) reading. How much are you paying those websites for their content? Nothing? So why is it unreasonable for them to display a (static) advert?

I don't run an ad blocker, but I do run NoScript and FlashBlock (well, I disabled Flash in January, so FlashBlock is now irrelevant), so I only get static JPEG ads. If the ad network tries to push a Flash ad or a JavaScript driven ad, I just get a blank space, if the ad network pushes a JPEG, I get the advert.

I am fine with that. As long as the ads aren't annoying me, I'll let them come through and help sponsor the sites I am visiting, because I generally want to keep coming back. If the site doesn't earn any income, then it might not be there next time I need / want to visit it.

What I don't agree with is corporate websites and product websites that also have advertising, it is your corporate presence, WTF are you doing showing ads on it?!?!?

Re: Get 'em a decent case!

I like that they are looking at choice.

We sell iPads with the Griffin case to some of our slaughter house customers for stall management. The cases work very well - although I still wouldn't use an iPad, given a choice.

We also have customers that only use Android.

Internally we use everything - although Surface Pro 3s seem to be very popular at the moment, as they replace the desktop and the tablet in a single device (desktop dock with dual external monitors for the desktop, keyboard case for typing on the move and finger and pen input for meetings and "proper" tablet apps.

Re: This bunch of leeches in Brussels is sickening

Erm 3 of the biggest complaints in the Windows case had nothing to do with money - in fact it was exactly the opposite.

They were using their dominant position with Windows to push a free browser on users and thus destroy Netscape and they pushed a free media player, pushing "real" media players out of the market.

That is why they had the silly browser ballot and the version of Windows (Windows N) without the media player.

The other big point was the undocumented APIs that gave Microsoft software an unfair advantage, especially on their servers. Again nothing to do with price, they were ordered to provide documentation for these APIs.

In Google's case it is similar, they are accused to using their dominant position (in some markets they have over 95% search market share) to push other products unfairly.

Re: Competition Violation?

I have Google-Analytics and Co. blocked in my browsers - either no scripts allowed or local hosted.

Re: I google for "Webmail" on my Nexus 5

It isn't necessarily about what they are doing now. Don't forget that Google have been in discussions and gently tweaking their algorithm for several years, whilst they have been in discussions with the EU. The questions are more what the results where, when the case was started and have Google done enough to counter those claims in the meantime.

If you caught speeding, you tend to drive more sedately for a while after that. This is the equivalent of Google being caught and having a cop randomly check them for the next 5 years. The initial offence is what counts, but their actions since that offence will also be taken into account in the final verdict and any subsequent punishment.

So, if you were caught doing 100 in a 50, you face a big fine and a driving ban. If they defer judgement to see how you drive in the meantime and follow you for the next 5 years and you continue to speed, then you will get an even bigger fine and a longer ban, because you haven't changed your attitude. If the random checks show that you generally now obey the limit, then you face a smaller fine and a shorter ban.

Re: EU has already said that it will not "fix" the problem

Which is all they can really do. It was the same with Microsoft, they were told to release documentation for the undocumented APIs and they kept getting top-up fines every time they failed to deliver in a timely manner.

Re: "US cannot ignore foreign privacy laws"

They wont go away. It will have very serious consequences, but they have options. Azure from the technical side already has everything it needs to do proper data segregation and indeed it does it already. If Microsoft lose (and I seriously hope for them, us and the US IT industry that it doesn't), then they pull some corporate shellgame and appoint licensor corporations in Europe and Asia that under strict controls allow them to be "Azure Partners" or whatever terminology Microsoft come up with.

That is what I meant by MS selling their technology further. Azure itself, a worldwide, single cloud won't be usable outside of the USA, but they will sell the software and know-how to set up 100% regionally owned "mini" Azures.

Amazon is harder, that is their own technology and would require that they set up regional companies that purchase the licenses from Amazon USA, but they cannot be subsidiaries, like they are today.

@Peter2 exactly, if MS lose, it will turn American cloud companies into purely domestic operators, they will be pariahs in other countries.

MS have one trump, that they sell a lot of the infrastructure behind cloud services - they could start selling Outlook.com and Office365 turnkey solutions to local providers, for example, but there is also a lot of open source solutions that can do similar things.

But I don't see Google selling its search engine, YouTube, GMail etc.

Re: "US cannot ignore foreign privacy laws"

@Mage not just Ireland, Germany had a huge media campaign in December and January that the coming changes to Facebook are illegal and people should quit the service.

Both my daughters deleted their accounts in January.

Re: "US cannot ignore foreign privacy laws"

The US government seem to be doing everything in their power to kill the US IT industry, especially internet companies. Very strange behaviour.

If the US authorities win this case, then it will be the end of the international cloud. It will mean a splintering of services, with them being national based (or maybe EU or Switzerland based).

Microsoft, along with the likes of Red Hat might survive, as they sell the software behind a lot of cloud infrastructure, but you can wave goodbye to Facebook, WhatsApp, Azure, AWS, iCloud, Outlook.com, Office365, Salesforce etc. especially any business orientated cloud services. They will be untenable, no business is going to risk prison for its executives, because their hosting services hand out their data "illegally" at the drop of a hat - "illegally" for the jurisdiction in which the company operates, not where their cloud provider is based.

Re: Stupid, stupid people

Exactly Trevor, it is irrelevant whether I order a taxi via a phone call from my smartphone or via one of the plethora of taxi apps, I am ordering a taxi and the driver has regulations they have to abide by. If Uber isn't ensuring its drivers are properly registered and insured.

They seem to thin, just because they a using a smartphone app, as opposed to a telephone call, that all the regulations for drivers plying for hire do not relate to them. Wrong. A driver plying for hire is a driver plying for hire, regardless of how he is informed about his fares.

Re: Benefit of the Guilds

You can set standards without unduly constraining market participants who follow the rules. What's happening here in the US is that a lot of places have established taxi operators who bid on a limited number of medallions, badges, licenses, etc, with the entire "fee" going into the city's coffers.

And that seems to be the fallacy of many comments coming from the left side of the Pond. "That is how the taxi business works in America, so it must be the same (and corrupt) in the rest of the world."

So many commenters automatically assume that the reason Uber is getting into trouble in other parts of the world has nothing to do with the fact that the drivers don't have the relevant driving licences, insurance etc. but that it is protectionism by the taxi drivers and the government in collusion.

As somebody who lived and worked in London for a while, I would assume that New York, Boston, LA etc. taxi drivers go through rigorous training, have to know the streets of their city like the back of their hand and don't need modern technology like a SatNav to get from A to B.

(As an aside, I took my step-daughter to the airport yesterday and she was astounded that I just got in the car and set off to the airport. She asked me where the SatNav was. She seemed to think it is nearly impossible to drive so far without a SatNav to guide you.)

Re: Funny isn't it?

@phil,

no FUD. In Germany, unless you have a professional driving licence, it is impossible to get commercial insurance. The insurance companies cannot legally issue commercial insurance for a driver transporting passengers for money unless they have the licence.

That is the issue, Uber won't ensure its drivers have the licence and that they therefore have valid insurance.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxi

If they don't have a professional licence, then the best they can do is transport the passenger for a maximum of their share of the cost of the fuel.

Re: Funny isn't it?

That is my point exactly. No money changed hands.

Yes, I get debited elsewhere. But the "no money at the point of service" is the difference. In a normal taxi you pay the guy and he pays the firm (or some calculation thereof). In an Uber some guy drives you and you pay Uber, and they pay the guy. You do see the ordering is different?

But both parties go into the transaction knowing that the passenger is being charged for the journey (more than the cost of the fuel) and that the driver will get recompensed. It is irrelevant if that is direct or over a third party, the driver is "PLYING FOR HIRE" and that is illegal in Germany without the proper driving licence.

Let's say Uber charges their drivers 50 euros a litre, so no license needed? (Hire car firms do this all the time, BTW)

Can't do that. Uber would first need a network of petrol stations charging 50€ a litre, who in their right mind would refuel their vehicle there? And what is the incentive for the driver? IF they are being charged 50€ a litre? They still aren't earning anything!

The regulators would also frown upon it.

There are already several of "car sharing" services in Germany, where you can book a journey from A to B and you are matched with a driver who has registered the same journey, you pay half of the fuel costs for that journey. That is legal and doesn't require a professional licence, because the driver isn't making the journey as a professional driver for profit.

Yes, Uber are being knobs. They have come into a market where there are clear LEGAL requirements for a driver to carry paying passengers. They completely ignore those rules, don't ensure their drivers are within those laws and let them drive with invalid insurance, putting the driver, passengers and third parties at risk - if the Uber driver has an accident, then he has to pay for the damage to all parties involved and any personal injury to himself, passengers and others involved out of his own pocket - and will probably end up with a prison sentence for driving without insurance and lose his licence for several months or a year.

Re: Funny isn't it?

If I meet a bloke in the pub on Thursday morning and get talking for a few minutes, and he adds me to Facebook and then turns on geolocation, and I then ask him for a ride when he is near on Thursday evening. Could someone explain if the few minutes I talk to him makes this any different than Uber?

You are getting a lift from a private citizen in the first instance, in the second instance money changes hands and it is a professional service.

In Germany Uber drivers can carry passengers, as long as they don't charge more than the petrol used. Any more and they need a professional driving licence.

Re: Funny isn't it?

Nothing to do with insurance companies, it is a legal requirement.

If Uber want their drivers to drive without a professional licence, then they need to first get the legislation changed.

Re: Funny isn't it?

It isn't forbidden. In Germany Uber just has to ensure their drivers obtain a professional driving licence in order to get insurance.

As they don't do this and all of their drivers are driving illegally, with no valid insurance, they are banned.