Or the indefensible doing the irresponsible depending on your perspective.
307 posts • joined 18 Dec 2009
Re: "....make the act of attaching a camera to a flying machine illegal."
I wonder how they'd categorise the satellites that are currently photographing the Earth in great detail? Are these defined as flying machines when in geo-stationary orbit? When a satellite re-enter is it a flying or a falling machine?
Lately FF on the Mac is a pile of poo. It chews up huge amounts of memory; takes ages to start-up and shutdown; frequently falls over / locks up; and won't play nicely with a whole raft of web pages. Ok, some of this is not just down to FF but all the same I expect it to play nicely. No browser is perfect I know. So perhaps it's simply that I have come to expect more from FF than from the others.
Re: Do we believe this?
You don't know his circumstances. Maybe he is from a very affluent family or perhaps he perpetrated a crime to obtain the funds. Personally I can't ever see a circumstance whereby I'd submit to blackmail - once you have subjugated yourself to their whims you only ever increase their leverage. Tell 'em to fuck themselves and then spend the 95k hunting 'em down and making sure they suffer, slowly!!
You can downvote me all you like. It doesn't change the reality of the situation. The CEOs want to appease the shareholders so they can garner bigger and bigger bonuses. To do this they pay out silly dividends, along with various other malpractices that i have neither the time nor the energy to go in to here, and in doing so over inflate the share price. Speculators jump in; buy; the shares; take the dividends and sell on quickly. Creating an artificial view of the company's worth and so further inflating the price (and the CEO's bonus) even further. And so on and so forth...
No doubt there'll be plenty of down-votes from other greed oriented idiots. Bring it on, baby ;-)
Yes, I do understand that the Shareholders *own* the company but as the custodian Cook has a duty of obligation to act in the company's interest and that is not necessarily the same as the owner's. He has a duty to ensure that the company is run in a financially prudent way and that it complies with all of its legal and regulatory obligations. This includes but is not limited to making sure that there is sufficient money retained to ensure that not only can the company grow but that it can also survive a down-turn in the economy. The shareholders might expect that all the money that comes in the door be paid straight back out to them in the way of dividends (after paying the bills of course) but this would not be sound business practice. Again, inflated shareholder expectations are the reason we have so many maladministered companies. It is not a sustainable model as has so ably been demonstrated.
Without access to Apple's accounts I cannot comment on what is happening or planned with regards to its cash pile. I do know that having such a large amount of money available changes the market dynamics and in its favour. It is able to react quickly should it need to; it is able to survive a downturn in the market; it gives it better leverage when negotiating credit or other contracts. Getting a 3% return (and I am betting they are probably getting a higher percentage rate than that) on several billion dollars is still not a bad income.
Hang-on: why is it not theirs but their shareholders? By that token no company should ever retain funds, they should immediately pay it all out in dividends. It's this kind of stupid, greedy engagement model that's caused the screwed economic situation that we're in now. It does not make sound economic sense for shareholder remuneration to keep on climbing at all costs. It sets false expectations and causes CEOs to make unsound judgements just to appease the shareholder and improve their own bonus situation. It gives a skewed picture of a companies financial position and actively encourages speculative investment. Altogether short sighted. If companies spent a little more time planning for the future and a little less pandering to every shareholder whim we'd be in a lot better place all round.
Given that a good percentage of the Yanks I have met get confused about the location of various countries I think we're fairly safe from an American invasion seeing as the buggers can get to out of space (I guess it is only straight up after all) but would have problems pinpointing Malawi on the map.
And most of the shit that America relies on so heavily was invented in Europe in the first place.
Yeah, good old US manufacturing. Tell me, had any problems with your aerospace or motor industries lately?
I could go on but I'm getting bored.
Re: If I worked there and they were holding my wages
I'd like to see the fuckers walk 300 plus people to the gate.
The laws on corporate responsibility really need to be tightened up in this country - and employees should be placed at the head of the list when it comes to doling out whatever assets remain. Waiting until two days before pay day before telling people they won't be paid is not just unfair it's irresponsible and should not be allowed to go unpunished.
Bet the director's made sure their expense accounts were all settled before they made the announcement.
I think they've missed the point...
...the problem is that too many people spend too much time on social media channels telling people how great a job they are doing rather than focusing on doing the bloody job itself.
Worker: boss, we're two months over-run and three million in the red.
Pointy headed boss: Nonense. The project must be a great success. Our contractors have said so on Twitter.
FFS Who's paying Gartner for this rubbish?
Re: @ dz-015
And from the BBC licensing site:
"You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast. This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone or DVD/video recorder."
With regards to owning a device that can receive a TV signal, you simply need to prove that you are not using it to receive said live transmissions. For example, its being in a cupboard with the plug removed is sufficient. If you have a TV but only use it for watching DVDs you'd still be liable for a fine since you'd not be able to prove that you hadn't watched TV transmissions as well (unless of course you'd had the receiver removed).
Re: Tees and Cees
The definition of business use is I think where they come unstuck. Does this mean that you can't, for example, use your Sky Broadband connection to trade items on e-Bay for commercial profit? Also, does accessing your employer's systems class as business purpose? I am not sure they'd be able to enforce this from a legal perspective. Although it'd probably cover them if you were hosting web-sites, VMs or other servers with access provided over the BB connection.
"move to the BusinessBB"
...which, from my experience of BT as both a residential and business customer, was equally as shit in terms of quality of service but was more expensive.
I'm not a lawyer but I suspect that you're hardly breaking the T&Cs using the broadband for business purposes so long as your usage lies within the fair usage bounds - although I guess you're right, you wouldn't have a claim for lost income. You'd need to clearly define business in this context - by your definition, someone using E-bay to buy and sell products for profit would be in breach. An altogether interesting area of law.
Half the country's populace lives in abject poverty...
...but the government can spend billions developing its own chip-making facilities to protect its network infrastructure (and even more billions on 'defence').
Glad to see that their priorities are not skewed. And before anyone comments on the Western economies having similarly distorted priorities - I am not sure we have similar levels of poverty.
@AC - I agree and as I noted I don't have a problem with his being punished. If you note, my issue was with people sending personal information (photos etc) via public transport and then wondering when it gets out into the wild. The fact that it hasn't been disseminated for public consumption does not mean it has not already been viewed by any number of 'curious' people.
You are missing the point...when i send stuff by snail mail by putting it in an envelope I am, to some degree, encrypting it. Hardly secure encryption I agree. More security through obscurity. But I have to assume that there's a risk that the contents might be compromised - like the £10 that went missing from a card I received the other day and which had obviously been sliced open (but that's another matter). Now whether I'd send a photo of my girlfriend's private parts via snail mail is one thing (and, to be honest, I'm not sure I would) but I certainly wouldn't send them via email unless they were encrypted. Yes, you might hope you have a right to be privacy but be sensible - humans are, by nature, nosey bastards. And in the same way that you wouldn't walk your 14 year old daughter stark bollock naked down the street and hope that all the neighbours will refrain from looking I wouldn't expect you to send pictures of her via email either. If you, then more fool you. This kind of attitude is the reason why people can sue for twisting their ankle on an uneven pavement. TAKE SOME RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR OWN ACTIONS PEOPLE. FFS.
And no, I don't condone the fact that this idiot snooped the mail in the first place. He got what he deserved - actually he probably got a damned sight more than he deserved since 10 years seems a little excessive.
...email isn't really private. Just as SMS / MMS isn't really private. Email goes via any number of relays are held on any number of SMTP / POP3 servers ready for delivery to the next node in the relay chain (and for audit purposes). You have no control over who views the content. SMS I understand uses similar principles although I stand to be corrected on this. If you want something to remain private - encrypt it or don't send it via open transports in the first place.
Re: What about non-repudiation?
There seem to be a number of naive postings on here. Let's run through a scenario...
So I lose my card and it's used 30 times in a day (only a few pounds per transaction but as I said previously it adds up). At the end of the month I get my statement and see there's an issue. I appeal and start to track back. Now, is there a way to track from a specific CC transaction to an individual bus / train? If there is then fine, all I need to do is pay £10 per transaction to see the CCTV (ooh, that's starting to get expensive). I then need to try and identify the individual who used my card and / or prove that I wasn't anyone of the people on that vehicle and that I hadn't knowingly lent my card to any of them. Sounds like an expensive, time-consuming and ultimately fruitless experience.