Trevor_Pott • User • The Register Forums

Wednesday 9th October 2013 11:23 GMT Trevor_Pott

Need to remember to buy UofC team many beers for being awesome about helping others. Proper Canucks, them. Odd, for folk from Calgary...

3 0

Wednesday 9th October 2013 11:22 GMT Trevor_Pott

Re: CANUCK TRUCK STUCK IN MUCK

Someone order a Jack-shaped douche canoe? Looks like your in LUCK!

0 0

Wednesday 9th October 2013 11:08 GMT Trevor_Pott

Re: nice to see

Mark is damned good people. Proud to share a country with the man. There's a reason I've used his DNS services for over 15 years and I'm not about to stop now. Not only is he absolutely a stand up kind of guy, EasyDNS proactive nameservers make them a leader in DNS innovation. I'd not have thought that there could actually be innovation in DNS...but the man has the patents to prove it.

All 'round, good bloke, good company, great service...and he's Canadian! What more could you ask?

9 0

Wednesday 9th October 2013 00:14 GMT Trevor_Pott

@Robert Helpmann??

You can rent RED cameras. We almost rented one for the NAS we're setting on fire, but went with a cheaper one instead. The cost difference wasn't that much, but we we'll be lucky if the Special Projects Bureau pays our costs as is.

A RED is probably overkill for the web anyways. *shrug* In the meantime, I have to go produce new content. By setting a NAS on fire.

Fuck you, hollywood.

0 0

Monday 7th October 2013 10:38 GMT Trevor_Pott

@Khaptain Re: @Trevor_Pott RE: "I hope they all get cholera."

fry_narrow_eyes.jpg

0 0

Monday 7th October 2013 07:36 GMT Trevor_Pott

Re: To be honest

4K has absolutely nothing to do with increased quality. The reason for it is to give them another "differentiators". Anyone can do HD nowadays; hell, lots of people are producing top-quality content using RED cameras without having anything to do with the major players. 4K is something you can only do if you are well funded. Even if you had 4K cameras, the file sizes are enormous, and the higher the resolution the better your makup/costumes/props/etc have to be. Today, 4K needs major studios to be done right.

More to the point, they get to use 4K as a means to both attempt to ram through restrictive copyright measures and argue for another round of copyright maximalist legislation. They'll even use it to try to crush the competition (independent content producers) and go after copyright infringers in order to extend and then preserve their monopoly on content.

I'd wish them luck with that - the genie of content competition is not going back in the bottle - but the major content companies are the epitome of what's wrong with our society. So instead of wishing them luck, I hope they all get cholera.

58 1

Monday 7th October 2013 07:30 GMT Trevor_Pott

I'll buy content only when A) it's content I want to watch and B) it's reasonably priced. Otherwise, there's plenty of free content out there. Like just reading The Register instead of watching a movie.

This isn't 1986. TV and movies aren't competing against a limited selection of books and the terribly dry newspaper. They're competing against Reddit, Steam and an entire universe of new content. If they make this too onerous - or expensive - then they are signing their own content-protected death warrants.

If you don't let me run it on any device I want, when I want, where I want and for whatever reason I want then fuck you, because I've got better things to do than to fund the retirement of a bunch of geriatric douche canoes that can't grok their own irrelevance.

Now, if you'll excuse me, Tabletop and House of Cards are on. What's that? They're always on, you say?

That's king of my point, right there, innit?

61 0

Tuesday 8th October 2013 08:05 GMT Trevor_Pott

@That awful puppy

I agree that balance is a must. That said, people innately reject balance. Since we live in an era where one must choose an extreme if they aren't going to be completely marginalized, I choose the workers over the wankers.

2 0

Monday 7th October 2013 18:23 GMT Trevor_Pott

Re: @Casaloco

In a perfect world society would find a balance between worker power and employer power. Society seems to have no interest in "balance" of any sort.

Give the two possibilities - employers with all the power leading to a Victorian distopia or workers with all the power leading to slower economic growth as people stop become "lazy" and stop killing themselves for the sake of their jobs - I vote "worker power."

I fundamentally disagree with the notion that our businesses/economies/what-have-you need to be perpetually growing. I'm satisfied with establishing a "good enough" level of income and productivity that meets the needs of the workers to have a good life. Maybe some other nation that flogs their children and burns their old people for fuel will become more technologically advanced or own more aircraft carriers.

Oh well.

This is the 21st fucking century. We have the technology to be lazy. I say we use it for the workers.

10 3

Monday 7th October 2013 17:48 GMT Trevor_Pott

@Casaloco

"German labour laws put ALL the power in the hands of the workers."

Good.

8 1

Monday 7th October 2013 18:08 GMT Trevor_Pott

Re: Not Terminator

No neutronium just means you can't get human-form replicators. (Which need such gods-awful amounts of power to create in the first place that I am entirely unsure Earth can generate that and deliver it all to one place.) You can still get the bugs. Those creepy, evil bugs.

Frankly, I always felt they were the single worst Sci-Fi enemy of all time. The human form replicators could be (sort of) reasoned with. The Pegasus replicators had some bizzare glitch where they actually constructed their ships and cities from regular materials (instead of blocks), making them vulnerable. Even the Borg always had the possibly of eventually negotiating a compromise.

Not the replicator bugs. Those things were relentless. They had one purpose and one purpose only: make more bugs. You were nothing more than raw materials to them. They would consume whole planets and convert them all into bug-blocks.

Terrifying, terrifying stuff. "Grey goo" given form and the ability to spray acid onto your face.

I'm going to give that a great big "nope" and run the hell away.

5 0

Monday 7th October 2013 17:59 GMT Trevor_Pott

Screw 'em both. Get Nutanix or Simplivity.

0 0

Monday 7th October 2013 10:18 GMT Trevor_Pott

Re: EFF should rename itself "Anti Copyright"

Bullshit. The EFF have been going nuts over the NSA spying stuff. See here as one example. There are lawsuits in play, too.

Just because you, personally, haven't read about it in your daily dozen doesn't mean that the EFF aren't a great organization that actually stands up for individual liberties. They are easily one of the world's top civil liberties organisations, and I'm so sorry (read: eat a dick) that their work opposes the "rights" of middle-man monopolistic douchenozzles to screw joe everyman out of yet another bag of bent coppers.

In short: EFF #1. If you'd like to help uphold individual civil liberties in the digital age, why don't you donate now? It take only a moment, and you can rest easy knowing that you've actually done some good for the world.

28 6

Monday 7th October 2013 04:18 GMT Trevor_Pott

@Paul Crawford

So you are the model for the entire internet? The suggestion was made in a "well just do this and you're fine" manner. You may have minimal IP changes - and apparently "automated" manual entry that relies on developers knowing how to work the thing (rare in my experience) - and can simply "ignore IPv6" so evidently that's everyone sewn up then.

Also, let's totally ignore the fact that if you're a cloud vendor doing things properly you'll have alliances with upstream telcos to have DDoSes blocked upstream of you - where your systems can feedback into theirs to block IPs and so forth - so that traffic can continue to flow. There are even some bandwidth/hosting providers that specialize in this. Github chose not to avail themselves of this, while providing a hosted service and that is the real issue here, not that companies are using a hosted service in the first place.

"I think I've got something that probably works for my situation (though it's never had to withstand a concerted attempt to attack it) thus everyone who doesn't do it exactly like me and/or trusts a hosted provider is a moron" is arrogance of the first order.

Maybe your solution works for you. For now. Congratulations. It also doesn't take into account the needs of others nor has it come under serious attack. To advance that as a cure-all whilst poo-poohing hosted services on principle is to sell snake oil and claim it's a panacea.

1 0

Sunday 6th October 2013 08:31 GMT Trevor_Pott

Re: Not even a small developer would trust it for private, internal code

Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers.

MICROSOFT IS GOOD, BUY MICROSOFT.

Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers.

BELIEVE IN MICROSOFT. MICROSOFT IS GOOD.

Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers.

MICROSOFT IS GOOD. MICROSOFT HAS NO PROBLEMS.

Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers.

THE LICENSING IS APPROPRIATE AND NOT GOUGING AT ALL. MICROSOFT IS GOOD.

1 0

Sunday 6th October 2013 08:29 GMT Trevor_Pott

@Frumious Bandersnatch

Pfft. It was "grandpas" that built most of this Internet of yours ...

Yeah, and a right pile of badly engineered shit it is, too. "Forward thinking" you old folks were not.

0 0

Sunday 6th October 2013 08:26 GMT Trevor_Pott

Re: Not even a small developer would trust it for private, internal code

"No, but you could have a firewall list that only allows the IP addresses of your developers to gain access."

Pain in the ASCII when everyone's on these dynamic IPs handed out by telcos and/or IPv6 which appears to mean "completely random IP addresses depending on location that often change faster than the DNS TTLs for most dynamic services. If you have a dynamic service that supports AAAA, of course."

But hey, sure, Dunning Kruger the problem. Woo.

0 0

Sunday 6th October 2013 23:14 GMT Trevor_Pott

@Steve Davies 3

Wait...are you talking about Jags? Because here in Edmonton Jaguars are well known (infamous) for being vehicles you have to keep a complete set of tools and diagnostic equipment in the trunk. The damned things are always breaking down, the parts are hideously expensive and the "computer" systems on board were crafted from the raw, elemental madness at the centre of the universe.

"Well made cars?"

Bollocks.

0 0

Sunday 6th October 2013 22:30 GMT Trevor_Pott

Closer to 20%, I'd guess. Still a far cry from the ~33% that I pay...

1 0

Sunday 6th October 2013 08:22 GMT Trevor_Pott

Depends, how much of that $500M would he actually have gotten to keep? After taxes, not nearly $500M. Depending on how the numbers get worked out, it might not have nearly been so big a hit as you might think. (It can alter how much of various other monies get taxes at what rates, etc.)

Balance that against legal costs and the opportunity cost of wasting his time on this when he could be earning his millions doing something else...

When you're Larry Ellison, $500M pre-tax just honestly isn't that big of a deal.

0 0

Sunday 6th October 2013 08:36 GMT Trevor_Pott

Re: Eh?

You might say that. Apple doesn't.

And at least by saying that we can have an honest disagreement: you are arguing trickle down economics.

I want proof.

You're wrong - I believe dangerously so - but at at least you're honestly wrong. I can respect that. I don't respect Apple, or anyone else who isn't honest about such repatriation.

1 0

Sunday 6th October 2013 06:41 GMT Trevor_Pott

Re: These shareholder payments and management bonuses

So let's say I have a household of 6 (because I'm rich and can afford to reproduce somewhat.) I pull in roughly a half-mil a year. After taxes and some hand-waving, I'm left with about $200k. I plow that into a couple of houses and some cars; over the course of about ten years I acquire all the material wealth I really could want, before I start getting into the "just plain silly" jets and yachts kinds of purchases.

I'm no longer paying a mortgage. I don't really have much in the way of expenses. Even factoring in all my increased insurance costs and so forth I'm still looking at around $75K per year in outlay to support my family in a luxurious manner in secure neighbourhoods where I don't have to worry about getting robbed/killed/etc.

Now, admittedly, these are calculations I've done along the lines of Canadian cost of living, but I figure that after 15 years at $500K gross per year, paying my taxes properly I would be set for life. 10 years would buy me all the material goods I could want, set up 4 sprog for post-secondary education and so forth. Another 5 years would sock so much away into my retirement account that I no longer have to worry about that, ever.

As I see it, I could then work part-time for the rest of my life and bring in the $75K that I need to make the ends meet. I could spend the rest of my time writing the books that I want to write.

In fact, I am basically killing myself to try to get to exactly this place right now, because I really, really want to write those books.

But I just don't see "trickle down." More income doesn't equal more expenditure. In fact, it probably equals less. Instead of having to buy cheap consumer tat that breaks every year or two, I'd be able to afford proper quality stuff that lasts for generations. (And why would I buy anything else?)

At the end of the day, no matter how much money you make, you can only actually spend so much of it. You only eat so much, drive so many cars, live in so many houses, need so many sets of dishes...

Rich people aren't going to invest that money into high-risk ventures like a new business. Not unless they have so much that they are not only set for life, they've got some "rolling around in it" money too. Even then, they're far more likely to squirrel it away somewhere safe - or a significant portion thereof - "just in case."

I've thought long and hard about this. I've talked to a number of very rich people about the topic. While there is some divergence in opinion, the balance of people who have actually achieved wealth - or who are on the path to it - seems to be the same: hoard your money until you're sure you're set for life. Only then start risking the excess.

Not exactly a recipe for "trickle down economics." Unless you count "trickle down to the next generation, who will also hoard it."

3 0

Sunday 6th October 2013 06:29 GMT Trevor_Pott

Re: Eh?

Which is fine, if you want to say "we want to repatriate this money with next to no taxes for the purposes of paying off the shareholders." That's called honesty. I've no problem with that; either the government - and the electorate - view that as acceptable fiscal policy or they don't. That's a decision for society to make, not a corporation.

Saying "allowing us to repatriate this money with next to no taxes will help spur innovation" is complete horseshit, and frankly I'm in favour of having people who are in such disproportionate positions of power lying so boldly to the public being thrown in jail. If we have to invent new laws for that to happen, I'm entirely down with that too.

"Trickle down economics" is a provable fallacy. It does not work. It has not worked. It will not work.

If you want to bring the money in to pay shareholders, have the goddamned testicular fortitude to say so. Don't lie.

To be brutally honest, Tim, I hold those who defend outright liars - or the "right" to lie about something like this as some sort of innate right of businesses and their owners - as people of even lower moral and ethical calibre than the douche canoes trying to pull one over on their nation.

Either what you - and those you champion - are about is decent, honest and honourable, or it isn't. If business is a moral end (or a means to a moral end) then stand up and defend the actions and decisions with no prevarication. If you cannot look upon your works, ye mighty, without anticipating despair from those your rule...

...then you'd better hope the pitchforks and torches don't maul your ass on the way out.

1 0

Sunday 6th October 2013 02:03 GMT Trevor_Pott

Re: Is this a first?

I've no problem with the concept of targeted intercept. It's a fundamental tool of modern policing and important for defending our nation against threats both external and domestic.

But you get a fucking warrant from an actual judge and you declassify any and all requests that do not pose an ongoing threat to national security 24 hours after arrests are made. You revisit any still-classified items every 6 months and you declassify everything that can be declassified.

Targeted intercept is fine. Dragnets absolutely are not. Secret dragnets authorized by secret laws and secret courts hushed up by secret national security letters are something that should be triggering a goddamned revolution.

1 0

Saturday 5th October 2013 02:10 GMT Trevor_Pott

Re: I'd love to know

Your lack of noticing us has been noted.

3 0

Thursday 3rd October 2013 22:39 GMT Trevor_Pott

Re: err ,,,, [auburnman]

In civilized countries which have found a balance between the individual and the group this isn't determined by your pocketbook. Nor is it a financial burden to go after those who have libelled you. Only in cretinous backwaters like the USA where "free speech" is applied with maximalist strokes, unless, of course, said speech is directed at government officials. (Which is ironic, because calling out government officials is why "free speech" is in their constitution in the first place.)

So no, you cannot simply say someone is guilty unless they are proven to be so. Not here in Canada. If you do so then you will in all likelihood be yourself guilty of libel, and the person whom you have wronged will not end up out-of-pocket to pursue this.

How the barbarians choose to handle their mewling masses is rather irrelevant. Their take concepts like "freedom of speech" or "presumption of innocence" are as utterly corrupt as the Chinese, merely different in the implementation of that corruption. (Though decreasingly so.)

The UK is not far behind.

0 0

Thursday 3rd October 2013 16:27 GMT Trevor_Pott

Re: err ,,,, [auburnman]

Laws don't say "innocent unless/until proven guilty." High-minded documents do. Laws talk about the presumption of innocence which is a way of avoiding the whole debate entirely.

Your argument, however, is still horribly flawed. Being found guilty in a court of law is being "proven guilty." Full stop.

You are innocent unless proven guilty. That guilt is proven in a court of law. No newspaper may say you are guilty unless you are proven to be so. Until that point they must say things like "alleged murderer", "the accused" and "suspect".

If you prefer to live in a society where you are innocent until you are proven guilty then please make sure that society is a fuck of a long ways away from me. It sounds thoroughly terrifying.

0 0

Thursday 3rd October 2013 10:36 GMT Trevor_Pott

Re: err ,,,,

Canada, eh?

Oh, we have our problems; corrupt politicians and stupid laws among them...but we have a judiciary that sides with the people and actually gives fucks about the charter of rights and freedoms.

We have decided that "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one, but the needs of the one outweigh the desires of the many." Things we regularly bitch about - wait times being long for health care, as one example - are not nearly so bad as we make them out to be. In the case of health care, wait times are long because access it needs based; medical triage by professionals is the standard by which need is determined, not money. When things like queue-jumping for the well-connected occur it's a bloody scandal here, and the judiciary very definitely gets involved.

If Canada has a fault it is that we roll over for the Americans too easily. Our current masters - the Tories - are far too quick to shelve "made in Canada" legislation and solutions to issues like intellectual property in the hopes of getting a pat on the head from the Americans.

Like any country, we have things we are not proud of. Our RCMP (the Canadian equivalent of the FBI) have been involved in some human rights scandals that boil down to "treating women badly and treating aboriginal peoples worse."

What makes us different from the US of the UK is that these are big fucking deals here. We actually use terms like "human rights scandal" to describe these events and we will see senior RCMP officers and public officials in front of a judge on these topics. Months go by and we still talk about these issues. We don't get distracted on topics that matter like this and we still have real journalists that actually keep digging.

We have flaws. We have problems...but we actually care enough to correct them. The latest season of television isn't enough to keep us from holding our elected officials to task. We don't just have two political parties, each mostly identical to the other. We have many and change happens here rapidly and overwhelmingly.

So Canada, eh? There's definitely some problems...but it mostly works. That's a lot more than I can say of the cretins to the south of us.

12 0

Thursday 3rd October 2013 07:44 GMT Trevor_Pott

Re: err ,,,,

Did John Adams ever imagine that imprisonment would become an industry, with nearly 1% of the total population behind bars at a cost of over sixty billion dollars per year?

It is better that a hundred guilty men should go free than that a single innocent man should be jailed unjustly. If you are worried about mass murders sort your fucking gun laws out, mate. While you're at it, maybe you could try a dozen or so fewer Wars On Things. You'll find that makes for a less pissed off, edgy population.

But what do I know, eh? I'm from a country that mostly works.

14 0

Wednesday 2nd October 2013 23:30 GMT Trevor_Pott

Re: err ,,,,

The UDHR is not the only document with that error. Literally hundreds of key documents in the past hundred years have that same error...but we don't have to follow along whit it.

Innocent unless proven guilty is a far more important concept than innocent until proven guilty. Change the language, change the thinking.

Which would you rather be?

Me, I'm innocent unless proven guilty. I've done nothing wrong, so there is no "until". Unless your "until" involves falsifying evidence. Unless that happens I eschew until for unless.

Until later!

10 3

Wednesday 2nd October 2013 22:26 GMT Trevor_Pott

Re: err ,,,,

*SIGH*

Innocent UNLESS proven guilty.

Innocent until proven guilty implies that you are, in fact, guilty...it just hasn't been proven yet.

Innocent until proven guilty is no different than guilty unless proven innocent.

I realize that you've had people feed you "innocent until proven guilty" your whole life, but that's a glorious example of newspeak changing the language to match the desires of those in power. And you're going along with it.

22 2

Wednesday 2nd October 2013 20:01 GMT Trevor_Pott

Re: About damn time

I'd gladly paid more for locally made IT hardware, software and services. I'm tired of pissing away my nation's money to the USA. Canada can - and should - do more than supply them with raw materials that they then transform into finished goods and sell back to us. Canada should be crafting final goods out of our raw materials and selling that on to others.

That includes keeping our smart and educated people in-country for them to build, design and manufacture IT hardware software and services. Why the hell is the Canadian taxpayer subsiding the education of people who defect to the states?

Globalization lines the pockets of the richest of the rich. When has it ever helped the common man? We get laws to make it so that small businesses have to sell at the lowest possible prices, but we still pay import fees as SMBs or individuals that are absolutely crippling. The USA blithely ignores every law and regulation from every trade organization it's a part of, yet puts enormous pressure on our country - blackmailing us in many instances - to change our intellectual property laws from a "mad in Canada compromise" that was reasonable and good for Canadians to a US maximalist position.

I think it's time for a little protectionism. If I had my way, Canada would stop selling good to the states, start selling good to China and the EU and - ultimately - pull out of NAFTA and sever economic ties whit the US altogether. I would be willing to see a substantial reduction in my generation's quality of life to make that happen, because I believe - honest and true - that it would make the quality of life of our descendants significantly higher than it would be under an American regime.

The US has nothing to offer us that we can't do better ourselves, should we care to. It's time we started to do so.

2 0

Wednesday 2nd October 2013 12:12 GMT Trevor_Pott

About damn time.

9 0

Tuesday 1st October 2013 04:59 GMT Trevor_Pott

The NSA "protect the nation and its interests from threats such as terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction". What they weren't in Iraq? Where do the lies to the American people stop?

Also, as a filthy foreigner...fuck you, NSA. Assholes.

4 0

Monday 30th September 2013 20:39 GMT Trevor_Pott

So, wait...we are on the cusp of having portable devices that can accelerate particles to relativistic velocities? Am I the only one thinking

A) Particle-beam weapon (assuming you lase a channel in the atmosphere first)

B) This, if they don't lase a channel...

1 0

Monday 30th September 2013 20:12 GMT Trevor_Pott

@neamtoad

Is your sarcasm detector broken or something? I was agreeing with him.

Calling him a prole is a way to reference his/my/our increasingly proletariat role in society. We are not members of the inner party nor even members of the outer party. Our job is to "shut up, prole" and like it.

Seriously, you would think that of all readerships I shouldn't have to explain that here. *sigh*

My faith in the readers is really collapsing of late.

16 0

Monday 30th September 2013 16:00 GMT Trevor_Pott

Shut up, prole. Here's a Dinosaur In Space to distract you.

9 4

Monday 30th September 2013 15:55 GMT Trevor_Pott

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

We as individuals are responsible for our government.

The route to hell begins at 127.0.0.1.

Really, I didn't think that evolution was particular difficult, nor beyond a reg reader's dot connection capabilities. Clearly I was mistaken.

4 0

Monday 30th September 2013 05:54 GMT Trevor_Pott

The route to hell starts at 127.0.0.1

8 0

Thursday 26th September 2013 00:00 GMT Trevor_Pott

I'm a note 2 user. 8 to 27 times the size of the lens system would go practically unnoticed. ;)

0 0

Tuesday 24th September 2013 23:17 GMT Trevor_Pott

I'm okay with increased Z height. What is with the obsession on minimal-height phones? Give me some girth to that thing, dang it! Unless the phone is flexible, I want it to feel like it's sturdy; some extra millimetres will help in that regard.

2 0

Tuesday 24th September 2013 20:23 GMT Trevor_Pott

You'd get a lot more megapixels if you just made a bigger sensor. Really, you can double or even triple it without impacting my usage of the device at all. And I get a better camera. Wot?

1 0

Wednesday 25th September 2013 23:22 GMT Trevor_Pott

Re: I prefer my ads...

Actually, I found the article rather useful. I know little about Autonomy, but I am facing an issue of having to migrate some Windows XP machines. If HP is claiming this is a solution, I want to investigate!

Does it "discover" applications and move them to a new OS? Or just "data"? What kind of data? Is it "drop box for enterprises" trying to upjump itself as a migration solution? Or is is actually going to help me migrate from one OS to another? What about user settings?

Ideally, I want to be able to run an application in my Windows XP box that will vacuum up everything about that box and then plop it down onto a Windows 7 with zero effort on my part. APps, data, settings...the user shouldn't notice a difference except A) there's UAC on Windows 7, B) they removed the up arrow in explorer (the bastards!) and C) they'll continue getting Windows Updates.

If the "migration solution" doesn't do the above then it isn't a "migration solution." It's Dropbox, but probably more crap.

Time to see how much truth there is in HP's claims...

0 0

Wednesday 25th September 2013 17:34 GMT Trevor_Pott

Re: Superior?

Why? Oh so many people spend their time typing words into a box then posting those words on the internet with no greater intent than "feeling superior." How is getting a product that actually does something valuable any different from the aforementioned self-aggrandising textual masturbation?

6 11

Wednesday 25th September 2013 01:40 GMT Trevor_Pott

Good to see competition in the American cloud. I wonder if the licensing deals will trickle down to services providers so that those standing up Azure Service Provider can help non-Americans achieve the same benefits?

0 1

Tuesday 24th September 2013 23:21 GMT Trevor_Pott

Re: The problem here is

Then it becomes a question of risk tolerance; yours and theirs...and how good your contract is for when it inevitably explodes. Where does the finger of blame point is ultimately the question.

0 0

Tuesday 24th September 2013 23:19 GMT Trevor_Pott