Re: MINIX anyone ?
If the NSA is involved, a FISA court will dismiss this in a heartbeat.
121 posts • joined 26 Aug 2010
If the NSA is involved, a FISA court will dismiss this in a heartbeat.
Those are strong words - should, must, etc
A paper stating "it must be secure" has little value. Any more than one saying "steps must be taken to ensure world peace."
It has to be paper that is practical, specific to the issue and peer cited so that it is isn't an obscure one.
i.e ensure that during OoO execution all HW access protection rules are honoured and considered. Even saying "HW access protection rules must be honoured" on its own is no good. There has to be something specific that constrains the attack surface so that the development cost is sensible. That is a valuable paper, because that is the challenge to get secure designs. i.e. when you have a 100 million lines of code, how do you make it secure?
"Professionals are meant to be masters of the body of knowledge in their profession. Lawyers, for example. And chip designers."
Fact - All major vendors affected - Intel, AMD, ARM, Apple, Qualcomm, etc i.e. This issue was not typical of the knowledge of the profession. All face the issue in different manifestations.
From Intel T&C of sale, their caps, emphasis mine
"SELLER SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, SATISFACTORY QUALITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WHETHER OR NOT SELLER HAD REASON TO KNOW OF ANY SUCH PURPOSE, AND ANY WARRANTY AGAINST INFRINGEMENT OF ANY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHT OF A THIRD PARTY. NO ORAL OR WRITTEN INFORMATION OR ADVICE GIVEN BY SELLER OR AN AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SHALL CREATE A WARRANTY OR IN ANY WAY INCREASE THE SCOPE OF THIS WARRANTY. PURCHASER ACCEPTS THE RISKS OF USE AND SUCH RISKS FALL SOLELY ON PURCHASER. "
That's the Intel lawyers being masters of their profession. By the same logic, if Intel lawyers are masters of their profession, there is no court case. But that is not proven yet either.
Both (chip designers and lawyers) have taken step typical of their profession, this is what the present evidence says.
"can only be solved by software"
The "only" is a garnish there, that is not stated. Any more than it can "only" be solved by hardware, for a lawsuit.
"all qualified computer scientists, of which the chipsters must employ hundreds if not thousands."
So a lawsuit needs to show that Intel does not hire qualified people, or that those scientists raised the issue and were ignored and this was a promised product feature.
"the solutions to Spectre and Meltdown are now known to be partially or entirely hardware"
Not quite. The HW "accelerated" versions are, yes in HW. If there was no sw solution, yes it can get into faulty HW territory depending on what was promised. This is not the case.
Was there wilful negligence.. i.e. it was common knowledge for OoO CPU design or Intel was informed and ignored it. This was what the original source cited implied - it implies this was known for *HW OoO CPU design* since 1971.
If common knowledge, it should have been only Intel, but that is not so.
If Intel was informed and still neglected subsequent design.. ok but no evidence yet. So innocent for now.
If Intel specifically claimed guaranteed security, but knew of the weakness. Again no evidence.
If Intel show in their design flow that they have taken reasonable steps to review designs etc, and that their design process is typical for the industry (or better), and that the problem was not recognisable, then it isn't a legal problem. It is a PR problem.
It just becomes a lesson learnt in CPU design and engineering. As with all human created endeavours CPUs are imperfect too.
The lawsuit seeks to assign guilt, but the verdict seems to be already here if you read the comments and articles. "Intel guilty" - I find this irrational.
It is a fact that every product has bugs and so this line of thinking which is equating a bug to guilt would mean every manufacturer is guilty of selling faulty products. This is not a tenable stance.
There needs to be more evidence than just finding a bug.
Erm this is a SW guideline, so your evidence actually is exactly what Intel, AMD and ARM will use.. the SW didn't use the HW right inspite of guidance since 1971.
If you have ever worked with bare metal and custom ASICs, you'd know this is rather common. One side is blamed, the fence is between HW and SW.
When a workaround exists, SW is at fault. Because the HW people will just say the workaround was always the right method... (you can't use the HW that way you were for performance unless you are willing to take the security risk, we'll improve documentation for next time...)
>>Intel did not take any lessons learned from its experiences with other chip architectures
which architecture for example?? This has nothing to do with processor ISAs.. Architectures and the implementation of an architecture are two different things. AMD's implementation of x86_64 architecture is better when evaluated on this specific criteria. It might be worse on others. So could ARM8. Better and worse.
>>Intel did not take any lessons learned from its experiences with other chip architectures
On which of their other implementations did they make the same mistake to learn from and corrected it there but chose to ignore "the lesson" for their out of order CPUs?
This is becoming an Intel withhunt - lots of comments but little fact.
"Intel knew all along I tell you.. all along! The CEO must be burned alive! Burn Intel.. off with it's head.."
"I'm afraid to enter my password.. Am I alive? Is my money safe? Can I fly? My phone! Will the internet stop? Bitcoin wallets are insecure causing market crash.. It's all intel's fault I tell you!"
"Everyone should have used <favourite vendor of the week != Intel>. That's what I've been telling to you all.. Told ya..."
I mean at what point does one state that The Register is spewing "fake news". If it became obvious in a few years that the commentary didn't hold or other cpus have even more fatal flaws, does The Register become a fake news outlet for what it printed ingood faith today??
Prove Intel's bad faith...
I don't get the comparison to aircraft, they are specifically sold with safety assurances and hence as commented use a different development process.
The CPU is a part, and it is the procuring entity/system manufacturer that is responsible for assessing suitability and fitness for purpose.
If Intel claimed suitability this is a different matter. No one has pointed to any evidence of this.
You can ask why do SW like linux and windows store critical data in such a fashion to gain performance? Intel will say this is not a secure implementation and the OS vendors mis-represented performance by compromising security.
The corollary here is that insecure CPUs are illegal to be sold. Who said so? Which law forbids this??
Bad PR for Intel yes, but this is not remotely the same as being illegal.
Well for it to be gaffe it should be an embarrassing mistake, a mistake made rarely/by a few.
For it to be a "mega-gaffe", it would have to be a obvious oversight, made by no-one and blindingly obvious.
So I see a mega-gaffe as a mistake made on the very obvious. And obvious this isn't.
I mean what is "mega-gaffe" about it? "Mega-gaffes" don't take a decade to find which is my point.
>>This is, essentially, a mega-gaffe by the semiconductor industry.
This is a bit rich I feel.
It has taken the world a *decade* to find this on what are the two most popular architectures (x86, ARM) which are open on the details of the involved HW (out of necessity for SW use).
The number of technical people and engineers who have seen this is not insignificant over that decade.
Yet it has taken so long to identify it.
Hindsight might be 20/20, but to call this an obvious gaffe is contrary to a decade of evidence.
>> Now will people believe me ?
There's nothing to believe... there is no such thing as perfect security which means every subsequent discussion claiming it is moot. There is no perfectly secure OS, perfectly secure silicon, perfectly secure system operator.
Perfectly unintelligent claims do look possible.
Much of this is going into what are called ICOs AIUI. The big transactions are not cash, the small ones are. Thus most volume is for inter-crypto currency conversions. This is why the transaction goes through even when fiat exchanges are down.
I think money laundering also plays a huge role. I do think this is a bubble but then I also think fiat currency and QE are bubbles too so I don't know enough to draw the line.
If it ever becomes a real economic currency it will absolutely skyrocket but then regulators will stop it and it will die. I can't see how crypto currency can help society anyway.
You are not helping a company grow by buying shares unless you've bought them directly from the company.
Not necessarily, a higher listed share price could allow a company to secure additional funding such as debt.
This could be what Snap Inc means.
I think the command needs a space at the end.
pip list –format=legacy | egrep '^(acqusition|apidev-coop|bzip|crypt|django-server|pwd|setup-tools|telnet|urlib3|urllib) '
I couldn't believe they'd get something so fundamental wrong, but yes I deferred feature updates to get the feature update, and my machine upgraded.
I have also found Office 365 much buggier than Office 2016.
This must be a new strategy - alpha is now beta, and what was beta is now gold.
Making a profit does not equate to success.. How you go about it matters. Profit via "abuse" of power does not make for a "successful" company, accepting that what constitutes "abuse" is subjective.
So arguing for striking the right balance would be valid, calling any regulatory step a "penalty" isn't.
Ultimately "successful" companies require regulation to serve the ultimate purpose of any and all laws - the wider good - for humanity and society.
No monopolies is what I say. Yes if you are that successful, you're too successful. You're eliminating competition, instead of competing.
The wider good takes over and laws must ensure this. A free market cannot function without competition - it is designed to only work with it.
So start with a BS implementation, and give enterprise knobs to make it less shit, is what we can look forward to from Windows 10?
That's like someone leaving a pile of shit on your front door, with a free toilet paper roll.... Hey you didnt use the paper, so don't blame the poo for stinking!
The point is not to reboot when the user is active to begin with.. A good enterprise product shouldn't need IT teams to have to use the free toilet roll....
At work, we were in a meeting on Skype business with people presenting and all the windows 10 machines started rebooting one by one with people getting kicked out of the meeting. There was no warning other that "Windows is rebooting now" and no choice. The Windows 7 users were spared. It took about two hours before all the machines were done "finishing updates".
Updates - Home, Pro, Enterprise whatever - ought to be done when the user is idle, and also should complete whatever "finishing updates" step it needs to do as well. The worst bit on my Windows 10 Pro machine at home is to come back to my machine looking to do something quickly, only to find the unwelcome "finishing updates" screen. No update is so critical that it can take Microsoft a month to develop but requires immediate deployment no matter what.
Also Windows 10 is releasing stuff half done and well before their prime, meaning it has to update more frequently as updates are fixing bugs while introducing new ones at the same time. This is very visible to end users. This is being sold off as a "feature" of Windows 10. The comment earlier about Home users refusing updates shows this is not well received.
My Macbook Pro in three years in comparison has done it's best to restore things post update, and is intelligent enough to not do this while I typically work on it, and certainly "finishes" it without being an intrusion. I never come back to the machine telling me "f*** you user, I'm doing shit"
What other tools you use in life getting away with this kind of "Finishing can't use me now" shit when you reach out to use them..
I bet that the cost of all that marketing material shoved down letterboxes would pay for this... I get one almost fortnightly
They even post versions without the logo on the envelope to get you to open it.
If that's what it takes to get subscribers, estate overheads isn't what should be on top of the list, it's the CEO's salary that needs a spend audit...
Sure there'll be a performance hit. The question is would the x86 application still perform acceptably.
Android is sort of JIT, iOS is native. Shows it can work fine.
Well it isn't complete bollocks.. A 64bit system would be faster than a pure 32 bit system (without extensions) for eg when crossing the address boundary on paper. Whether this confers any practical benefit could be argued as a different matter. It does say "can" be faster after all.
>> I've seen it before with Qualcomm acquisitions!
Emotions aside could you give examples?
Can't see these being made royalty businesses. You also seem to be vastly overvaluing nxp rf ip if you think it alone is worth $37 bn. Those private equity owners would have milked it dry if this were true.
Qualcomm do not look to be just a royalty business so I'm curious how you come to this conclusion given the vast number of Snapdragon and atheros wifi chips they sell.
You actually think a widowed parent would have wanted such regulation passed????
At even if they had that view, that it isn't a purely emotional stance?
In any case, in spite of plugs not being on the ceiling, pretty much almost every kid isn;t dying. So yeah I don;t think such a law should be passed for the sake of a widowed parent.
They'd lose the ability to live a free life - a life of crime would be the answer for few.
It has to be justified against the cost of it, and besides someone transferring a life changing sum online to someone they do not know has to be an even smaller number of people.
It would be like passing a law that all plug points must be on the celiing, every parent must wrap the entire house with insulation and their kids too. Because you know, a kid might get to the plug.
I think it is reasonable to ask the banks to put up a big red warning message when a payee is being added (suggesting perhaps credit or debit cards for purchases), so then there isn't the excuse that the potential victim did not know.
I subscribe to Which so I know of the examples they speak of.
An example in the magazine was someone wanting a kitchen from an ad off gumtree which was cheap and "looked really nice", and they chose to make the payment online by bank transfer "for a discount". And it turns out to be a scam. He then asks the bank to refund the amount because no kitchen. The bank refused, so he went to Which. Which went to the bank and got the same response.
If the person had paid by cash, would he/Which expect the bank to reverse the ATM withdrawal? If he had posted in, would he expect Royal Mail to be liable too?
That's why things like 2FA won't help - this is not about hacked accounts or fraudulent account access or intercepted comms as people are commenting above. It is the account holder themselves performing an authenticated and verified transfer that Which is demanding that provisions need to exist to have the bank reverse such customer generated verified transfers. I don't understand how a bank can be liable and be required to reverse every payment transaction, at anytime. The cost of provisioning this would be onerous.
Credit and debit cards already exist that offer protection - these require payment processors who ensure payees are registered and verified, and to me it does not make sense to create similar barriers towards basic bank account opening.
So I don't agree that the bank is responsible in the examples they give. I mean buying of all things a fitted kitchen online off gumtree??? I don't think that sort of silliness should be protected by regulatory burden, we all make mistakes and we should learn to suck it up and learn from it, not go whine that someone else should fix it. I'd have more respect for the argument if Which actually proposed practical and cost effective solutions instead of just demanding that the banks solve it "somehow".
There is another consumer action in Which that annoyed me. They want any SW update to be ignorable and dismissable "without any consequence". So they want to be protected from security holes, but without having to install any SW updates. "Somehow". Nice one.
>> But should they be rewarded for the crimes of their parents?
Education isn't a fucking "reward" for a child - it is a basic need.
Next you'll say they shouldn't be "rewarded" with food and air.
Not if the EPS guidance was not seen as correct, and the market expected better performance, and so priced their EPS expectation into the stock prior.
Second they could be taking profits as the results tell them it is time to sell. i.e. forward guidance is not convincing.
Stock movement isn't always about the moment, or the isolated value of <pick some stat of choice like EPS> at the quarterly.
I got a very specific email from Ford confirming that their cars meet all required environmental standards.
You make the fatal mistake of assuming these products are made for the benefit of the customer or the planet! :)
A quick google search tells me Apple sold 231.22 million phones in 2015. At 50p the sd card tray would have cost them £115 million in materials alone. Further add development, test, repairs, and so on.
So unless the tray brings in enough *profits* to offset £115 million, what's good for the customer or the planet is irrelevant.
And it is fair to say given the iphone SE "free" replacement tale, it is actually even more profitable not to put in the tray, because it generates an almost guaranteed future sale. I swear I think that is why they price their storage upgrades so high. You're paying for the lost future sale too.
Do enough to make them return to your newer product, and make sure they don't realise you're actually screwing them.
>> I suspect that won't happen now that the UK has decided it doesn't want any migrant workers from Europe.
I don't get why people keep lamenting that visa-free employment is a necessity to be able to hire.
They'd just have to get visas now. It works everywhere else in the world.
It used to be in order of priority - local labour market, EU labour market, external labour market before a visa is granted.. That's would now become the local labour market, and then the external labour market including the EU.
Free movement for employment across national borders is unique to the EU.
It's fine to have it, but it's equally fine not to.
That's what "1st" world support "leads" pay them to say!
Telefonica is already a listed company. How do they list the O2 UK entity without ring-fencing their equity in it? That I'd imagine would be a very costly if the O2UK IPO did not do well, which it very likely will not.
Voda stock performance depends heavily on its global presence.
And for those who say prices will rise and things will fester, could you cite some evidence from past mergers? These tales of pre-merger competitiveness with lower prices and wonderful coverage has eluded my personal experience!
EE are deploying 4G+/LTE-A. Voda and O2 still are just getting round to even doing 4G properly. They never did 3G well. These were the biggest before the merger. There is no way orange or tmob or 3 would have taken the lead over Voda/O2.
An oligopoly, with less competition would imply that EE don't need to bother with LTE-A until they're done miking 4G. Yet they have.
If you say prices have risen (for the same product), why aren't Voda and O2 bothering if the market now actually allows them to charge more?
I'm curious as I don't see any actual evidence, it's largely cynicism. Some anecdotes citing worse customer care are far easier to correct (£) than getting infrastructure investments (££££). That latter clearly needs significant scaling now given how rapidly existing cell capacity is exhausting, let alone for operators to think of new cells in not spots.
Considering how much spectrum costs, the 3G auctions are what held back the industry before IMO, none of the operators, all 4 of them, would compete on price. It rose their capex costs and cut down R&D budgets. I don't see how, without some consolidation to encourage investment and scale, the stagnation of the industry can be stopped from happening again. It's already begun. The 3G problem was one of price, today's problem is coverage and capacity. The latter is not seeing the investment it should and it hadn't even with four operators. IMO EE is only one that is offering something better on this front over the pre-merger era/participants.
Another oddity in this affair : How can the EE commissioner and Ofcom leadership take opinion driven positions. It seems strange to me too. They aren't giving clear reasons, just that they don't "like" the idea. It's like a judge assuming guilt because the defendant "looks" guilty. I honestly think it's a call to the companies involved to pamper them behind the scenes and not break the law.
I don't think the number of operators matters as much as their scale - having 20 operators mean none of them can scale. That isn't good for customers as they do reach a point where they cannot reduce prices without compromising on the product itself - where coverage and reliability would rule I would think.
So if it's just about prices and the number of operators, it would be a race to the bottom. As a person alluded to MVNOs do cover that. Operators today are improving the quality and that isn't being fixed.
A lot of people here comment that EE raised their prices. But I'd argue that's because they're offering a better product allowing them to charge more. They also have improved their offering vastly over TMob and Orange. (on data and coverage). Neither Tmobile nor Orange offered this before. For price conscious customers, MVNOs on their infrastructure are much cheaper while ensuring good spectral use. Voda and O2 are great for voice calls, but they are pretty bad for data, with far lower cell capacity and aren't that competitive. They both crutch on their business customers. EE and to some extent 3 are the ones who offer reasonably continuous data coverage on rail and key road links. Voda and O2 still only really do voice properly.
Bigger isn't always blindly worse! For me personally the merger would result in a better product. Ofcom simply passes the buck off with coverage obligations, but I don't see active steps to improve the quality of comms. Four operators today or five operators before did not offer this. I think lowering prices is only one aspect of a competitive market.
There are other levers such as MVNO's and mandatory national roaming perhaps based on spectral hoarding. Pebble shows it's possible, they today price it in.
So if it's all about competition, why is Ofcom going public with informal commentary. I'm wondering if this means the merger is happening and this is all just theatre.
I have a Dyson now that replaced a Henry. Having used the Henry for so many years, the Dyson literally changed the colour of my carpets. I expected the Henry to suck more dirt, sure, but it does quite stand apart.
There may be even better ones out there, I don't know, but my point is a Dyson is certainly not the same as a Henry in performance.
that's not much of an answer, Mvnos would not exist if this exclusive access as you put it key to provisioning coverage. the profit is probably not worth the technical trouble as well as having to get together and talk. They'd never agree to a rate on their own. May also need cell handover threshold tuning. Blocks of minutes might be a way to do it.
My point is it isn't loss making as such, and worse case needs additional coverage deployments. Both are customer wins, and push operators to do what they should be anyway.
The operators' non responsiveness says it all I think, they normally cry and wail when such things are announced, but they're quiet this time.
I hope this happens and makes operators fix their shoddy data coverage, some squatting on prime spectrum (read O2 and their gprs). It's sad that places in the east have leapfrogged ahead on coverage while the UK lags behind.
@ Peter2 I don't get it, you'd be roaming on to the network, so they would earn on it for calls their network is routing. Of course it shouldn't be cheaper for the competitor to roam than to build their own mast. But that cheaper would depend on the numbers. This is additional revenue, from your competitors.
If 10 of your customers roam onto your competitor, it's fine to pay the premium. The coverage providing operator makes money from those 10 customers, just like an incoming international roamer would. The competitor would have to bear the cost, the end user cost would be the same as your normal minutes.
Put another way, it's about monetizing the spectrum you *already* paid oodles for. If you paid extra for spectrum that is easier to provide coverage for, you'd make even more. This averages out the cost of spectrum AND cell density.
Isn't the operator rhetoric on poor rural coverage about not having enough people using the infrastructure? And if this did ever make them spend less on spectrum, I'd rather have that, better coverage and possibly lower charges, rather than the money being spent on moats and duck houses.
So I think it's great for competition, not for the competition.
this should have been mandated as part of the license conditions. While a sub GHz band is pricier, the upper bands should not be an excuse for shoddy coverage.
It can also be a revenue earner for the operators. If there aren't enough users in an insufficiently dense area, one operator could cover all visitors from other operators, making the infrastructure costs better justified.
If the operators could get their heads out of their arses, they would see that a properly done law would make infrastructure decisions easier to make, help their bottom line as well as customers. The data on national roaming usage should tell them where their customer base needs coverage.
Someone enlighten me but I cannot see any downside, beyond some work on the part of operators.
shipped != sold
I think the same thing applies on the way up. If you play the game on the way up, you have to play the game on the way down.
Whilst ARM is a good business, in terms of share price versus earnings, the valuation for the last few months/years is very, very optimisitic.
Only significant dominance of a very high volume market could justify its valuation going forward. (IoT is the buzz word these days)
Do the math - how many processors do they need to sell across their portfolio to come down to a PE of say 10?
I think shareholders are taking profits and that is fine.
Just saw ossi;s comment - totally agree!
Real Time not Retail time..
House buying is treacherous enough as it is!
Apple has always invested in its brand, but they've also done very decent work with product definition. Even if the end user did not understand it fully, there was at least something to it technically.
I think this is the first time where it is blindingly obvious that they are milking the brand and margins alone. These are incremental updates at best, at most a 5S+. None of the technology introduced has undergone any specific maturity to justify a delayed release, I was hoping it was being done in the name of product experience, but this is also not the case. The NFC and screens are not different, they would be spinning it any which way possible if this were the case. The other features only help operators get away with a sloppy job.
As for not meeting demand on pre-sales, you'd thing they'd figure out how to deal with the problem over the years, with that cash pile. Perhaps physical storefronts, but certainly no excuse for the online store. Occam's razor implies that they are restricting supplies, likely for the free media hype generation. At the very least it should run out a bit later every year, but it's always a day. Probably helps with the "record sale" marketing spiel that follows opening day. Stats like that are relative so they could just add one more phone to the "day1 preorder inventory" and then claim they beat last years record. If the inventory size is small enough ever year to guarantee exhaustion, you have yourself a guaranteed "record sale" every year.
While arbitrage and true price discovery are great ends, the means matter. HFT trading adds to the noisiness around the true price, and with technology, delays convergence to the true price, and would also permit large deviations from it, particularly if the parameters of the created algorithms en masse encourage this. Presently there is no reason this won't be the case. Correlation not causation dominates. One stupid implementation from a too big to fail type entity can dramatically move pricing very quickly. The implied positive undertone of "one price" and a "true" price is where the price discovery and risk is focussing on fundamental economic criteria, and not simply movement/differential profit.
The HFT landscape is artificial, and like an arms race, creates illusions of value in making supply and demand cases just like nukes were justified.
If you have ever worked with control and multi-order feedback loops, hFT is the equivalent of unfiltered glitched samples. They're never far away but It throws off your convergence, and your loop response is very poor, and can even oscillate and collapse but hey, there's movement and it's fast, so it must be good!
This applies to accounting as well as numbers are massaged and reporting groups structured so that the wholesale division bears the brunt of "costs".
No matter what happens, the wholesale division will be shown to be a poor performer, it would be bad for BT and weaken the case for government grants if it did well.
If they take the grant money, they share the outcome no matter what the performance of the wholesale division.
The question that remains though is how much of the grant go into "shared" "infrastructure" that the retail division needs for the footie and everything.
Sorry no, just checked this on my Windows 8 x84 PC and both IEs do flash.
Perhaps the websites go wrong with the user agent or something, but flash is integrated in the tifkam whatever ie
I think they're launching ground breaking coloured covers for all the other products!
MacOSX now in green
iPad Mini in yellow
Macbooks in purple and of course gold.
So was this Plan B all along? To Sell Nokia for a song?
Ha it even rhymes, it must be true!
Adblock is one of the most important features of an Android phone for me.
This notion of yours is not correct.
Calories in => some are burnt for immediate use + some are stored as fat
Ongoing energy use => come from stored source among them fat, glycogen etc
The proportion of this is decided by the hormonal profile among other things.
So simply by cutting intake people with a poor hormonal profile do not lose weight i.e. store less fat. Their bodies are more inclined to simply offer less energy for their activities. They would in some cases actually have no energy to exercise.
Essentially the body's logic function to decide whether to store for the future or burn for immediate use is broken.
So as unlikely as it might seem to you, it doesn't make it any bit more factual. It's pop nutritional science I'm afraid.
If they aren't supposed to pay, then what is this payment?
If they aren't due any tax legally, won't this just be an overpayment that has to be credited against losses or refunded by HMRC with interest?
Assuming Starbucks knows their demographic well, are Starbuck customers going to actually fall for this?
I might be wrong, but charging technology is more analogy so the SoC bits are a bit less relevant. There's lot more to be done on the digital front.
Again, providing accommodation is *not* the same as being eligible for and claiming benefits. This as Daily Mail language, twisting words to imply something sinister.
Illegals have to put up somewhere, just like prisoners. The HMPS is responsible for providing accommodation for prisoners, just like the UKBA is for illegal immigrants. You don't go saying prisoners are claiming "housing benefit" because they are spending time in prison.
Stop using exceptions to define how the system is run. My original point remains - illegal immigrants are not allowed access to benefits - housing, Job seekers, whatever. They don't get NI numbers.
As for Panorama - what the GPs were doing is illegal. The way you are putting it, private medical care would be illegal because of the Human Rights Act. That is not true. Only emergency care needs to be provided under the Human Rights Act, routine care is not. A good example is cancer treatment, the NHS does not offer everything under the sun because of cost, this is not illegal.
So what you say is still misinformation.
Also Panorama prioritises sensationalism. The BBC's token vehicle for "balanced" reporting. But that bit would be my opinion.
The rest isn't.
The reason the guy tried to get into the country as a stoway was to hope to walk out of the airport without border control. I don't think there are any successful stories, but desperation can drive people to these unfortunate decisiosn.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018