Effective use of time?
Surely a 'divisional General Manager' has better things to do with their time than check travel expenses? Or if they haven't maybe they are, oooh, what's the word?...oh yes 'redundant'.
3782 publicly visible posts • joined 1 Oct 2010
Never mind about "Give me 6 lines from an honest man and I'll find something with which to hang him, given the appallingly vague and all-encompassing wording of the various bits of anti-Terrorism Legislation, you don't need six lines any more. Just think what fun you can have with "possessing material likely to be of use to a terrorist" - an A-Z, a camera, a steak-knife, a piece of paper and a pencil(to write their plans)
May: we need to review Britain’s counter-terrorism strategy to make sure the police and security services have all the powers they need.
I think you'll find they have all the powers they need already, and then some, but maybe they need some more resources to make use of the existing powers? Like following up on strong tip-offs from family and mosque? Instead of having a whole new barn-full of data to trawl through for micro-needles?
"AC I don't think it will happen as half of the USA thinks that the world is only 4000 years old
That is just so wrong - typical leftist socialist commie pinko atheist misunderstanding. They think the world was created in 4004 BC, like wot Bishop Ussher worked out, so they think it's 6000 years old.
@Dr Ellen "I have personally transmuted palladium into silver."
Well, that was a bit silly - current price of palladium - $26,600 per kg, price of silver $560/kg. Sounds like a very expensive and complicated way of losing money.
Now, if you could transmute silver into gold (or green)...
Sounds like the marriage laws were badly written - possibly they got some of the Westminster legal drafters involved.
If a law on marriage doesn't start by saying something very like "marriage is a contract between two consenting, adult individual persons..." then it's badly drafted. That then simply excludes a) children (a problem in some states), b) corporations c) things d) animals and e) football teams or other groups of people. If you want to allow polygamy and polyandry then drop the 'two', but that does introduce some interesting complications for who gets a 'widows' pension!
Replying to myself - there's a lovely story that we all might appreciate.
My local council were suckered into the consultant trap. Massive cuts to funding and they needed to save money, and got in PwC to make some suggestions. Bill of £2 million to start with, plus a slice of the savings. Of course the staff and public could have come up with the same ideas, but these were better ideas because they came from consultants.
The best bit...if they made a suggestion for something, and the council decided not to use it (perhaps it was politically unacceptable? like putting dead people in with the food-waste recycling to save on cremation fees sort of thing, or at least hiking parking fees in towns so no one goes there and all the shops go bust) then PwC still get paid their share of the projected savings anyway!
Champers all round in the PwC boardroom.
"They struggle to get sufficient numbers of specialised cyber experts to help – instead relying on hordes of lobbyists, pseudo-experts and opportunists"
The problem is that what they need are cyber-experts, who may or may not exist, but they're only allowed to offer them peanuts. What they're actually allowed to get are a bunch of useless merchant bankers from PwC etc who will wander in, look around, tell you water is wet, and today is Tuesday (approx), sell you some inappropriate software that they just happen to make, and give you a bill for a couple of million squids. But that's worth it, because they're consultants
I remember someone referring to the idea of 'portfolio' careers. In the 'good old days' before the EU and antibiotics, most people stuck to the same job all their lives (well, a seven year apprenticeship tended to discourage re-training). They also then died at a sensible age.
Now it's different - the world and society now changes very fast. Many people will have working lives of 60+ years, and we need to handle that by letting people have several careers during those years. As individuals we need to look to ways to feed ourselves for longer, but when we're 80 do we need to keep buying expensive consumer durables? To be honest, we can all live with rather less in the way of shiney-shiney. Many people already have several jobs (just to make ends meet) but there's nothing fundamentally wrong with older people having two or three easier lower-paid part-time jobs, just so long as they are able to do them and happy and earn enough for a reasonable standard of living. A lot of this comes down to changing peoples' expectations.
How many jobs around in 1979 even exist now?
Quite a lot actually - although punch-room girl [sic], audio typist etc have gone.
But I started in IT as a programmer in 1979 - and I'm still here. The job has evolved (no more PL/1 on mainframes for me) but the fundamental skills of analysing problems and developing solutions are unchanged, it's just the solutions tend to use different software and hardware.
So the plan is for the workers to pay for a £530 million accounting scandal in Italy? And a load of other bad decisions.
Now surely the people responsible should pay for management errors and failings? If BT was a co-op then fine, adjust wages and pensions, but it's the shareholders who are responsible for these decisions (via their appointed management) - surely the solution to a pension black hole is a levy on the shareholders?
On a more fundamental point, I accept there is a need for a pensions re-think. A system that is based on making a promise of benefits 40 or 50 years in the future is really asking for trouble, and it's amazing it's lasted so long. State pensions were introduced on the assumption that pensioners would die fairly quickly. Now we're all living much, much longer (thank you medical science and the NHS). A system designed around people contributing for 45 years and receiving benefits for 5, won't work when they contribute for 40 years and receive benefits for 30.
We'll need to work longer - possibly at different jobs (I don't anticipate many 75 year old fire-fighters). We'll need to save more (fewer 65" TVs and foreign holidays now, but food and heating when we're old)
BT not doing it right though!
Wow, I mean, just...wow! It sounds wonderful. Hang on a sec and I'll fire up my Office 365 subscription and get to work finishing my latest Publisher doc 'in the Cloud' (wow, doesn't that sound sooooo sexy and cool?)
What? You mean...there isn't a version of Publisher in Office 365?
Oh pooh.
@AC
"phones these days seem to follow the fashion pricing model"
It's not just the fashion pricing model, it's the whole haute couture shtick.
Fashion: expensive, impractical and largely unnecessary items, which will be used once and then discarded, bought by people with too much money who worry about what other, similar, people think of them.
Latest high-spec phones...remarkably similar
Sensible people look for the Marks and Sparks equivalent of a phone - but avoid the Poundland stuff!
All passengers and crew fly naked, after a 'thorough' search. No luggage, hand or hold: luggage sent in a separate aircraft. No meals or drinks served (trolleys could contain a bomb from ground staff). In-flight magazines limited to 1 sheet of A4
Simples
"In it he[Corbyn] placed part of the blame for terrorist attacks on Britain's foreign policy"
No he didn't. You're repeating Tory propaganda.
What he talked about was causes and reasons. Blame is a moral matter, cause is simply a factual link in a chain of events.
The actions of the UK and other governments over the years have undoubtedly been a cause of some people becoming rather unhappy with Britain, and a very tiny minority deciding that as a result they should kill British children. The British government and some people may feel their actions were justified, but it doesn't stop those actions having a causal link to later events.
Corbyn was very clear about that. "That assessment in no way reduces the guilt of those who attack our children. Those terrorists will forever be reviled and implacably held to account for their actions." and "The blame is with the terrorists...". He also made clear that UK foreign policy is merely one factor "Those causes certainly cannot be reduced to foreign policy decisions alone. "
He also noted "But the responsibility of government is to minimise that chance, to ensure the police have the resources they need, that our foreign policy reduces rather than increases the threat to this country, and that at home we never surrender the freedoms we have won, and that terrorists are so determined to take away."
Who has been cutting police resources? Why did the security services not have the resources to follow up on the many reports they received about the Manchester nutter? How many freedoms have Theresa May and other Tory governments already taken away from us? How many more will go if she is elected next month?
Corbyn's full speech is an interesting read, when not selectively edited by The Heil, the Sun, the Telegraph and the Tories. I've never been a Labour supporter, but I thought it rather hit the nail on the head.
Full text at
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2017/05/jeremy-corbyn-speech-terrorism-and-foreign-policy-full-text
</rant> - sorry, but I get really worked up about politicians misrepresenting reality for the sake of votes.
This is wrong on so many levels
The major online grocery retailers work because they have massive bricks-and-mortar shops and warehouses to provide good prices. Unless amazon plan to buy out Kwikimart or something that won't apply.
And it's another tax on Prime users. 'Free' - but useless if you don't want it/aren't eligible. I just wish they'd split Prime into its component parts - I'd happily pay a fair price for free next day delivery, but they don't offer that. Prime means that as well as the delivery I have to pay for lots of useless things I'll never want or use (Clarkson?).
IANAL, but I seem to remember that under the various Data Protection laws in the EU the Credit Card companies and the banks can swap info for certain limited purposes, such as combatting and investigating fraud, evaluating credit applications etc, but that's about it. I'm pretty sure flogging the raw data is a very big no-no!
I'm probably wrong though...
Really I find that hard to believe. Phones and tablets are fine for people who want to consume data off the network, and occasionally send a short message or a photo. But for people who actually want to do some work and create something, a netbook is a minimum requirement, and ideally something bigger and meatier. Who would consider writing anything longer than a tweet on a phone keyboard with predictive text? If Tolstoy had had to use a tablet War and Peace would be about 1000 words rather than 1000 pages.
Interesting article in the Indie today - India has cancelled plans for 14GW of coal, as the wholesale price of solar is now 25% below coal.
Auction price for a 500MW solar deal recently was $38/MW - eat your heart out Hinckley!
Okay, we have a different climate to India, but interesting...
Press release out today on consultation for the new Wylfa station on Anglesey (Wylfa 1 was switched off in 2015)
Output 2.7GW, cost £10 billion. 'Enough for 5 million homes' 850 full-time jobs once commissioned.
Questions: how much of the salaries from those 850 jobs end up locally? How many of the 850 will even live locally?
5 million homes - but there are only 1.4 million in all of Wales! We could get rid of all the wind farms - although did I hear a whisper of 'single point of failure'? Personally I think that is one of the biggest risks from very large Nukes. Small ones will mitigate that risk, whatever other issues there are.
Perhaps time to scrap this idea and commission 10 SMRs scattered around the country - we have some very nice old underground mines that could be ideal locations.
ICANN are making money, but so are the people who own the TLDs - by failing to remove dodgy TLDs are they not somehow complicit? And involved in a conspiracy to defraud, which tends to be illegal.
In the case of .science we have "Famous Four Media (Domain Venture Partners) is a prominent applicant in ICANN's New gTLD Program. It has applied for 60 generic TLDs. In addition to its main headquarters in Gibraltar, the company also has operations in London and New York" (ICANNWiki)
Surely the legal authorities in Gibraltar (or London, or NY) can kick a bit of buttock?
@stuart 22
Spot on comment.
I got my OnePlus One in Feb 2015 - so just over two years old, and it's fine. It cost £269 + shipping. That's a decent middle ground - remarkably high spec for under 300 quid. And I expect that to continue. I can't see me replacing it for a couple of years yet, and then I want the equivalent pretty high spec for £300-ish. With phones I expect the price point to stay stable over time as the spec goes up. Paying £500-£800 for a phone that lasts for a few years is sheer madness.
@a_yank_lurker
It is sort of like arguing over how leaky on collander is compare to another.
Not quite - the whole point about a collander is that it is designed to let fluid through: the size and number of holes defining the rate and what doesn't get through. It's not a 'leak' - it's what it's intended to do.
We could argue for ages about whether MS operating system holes are there for a reason...
Obviously worth a giggle or two, but there are some interesting ideas and questions driving the work - they've taken an extreme example, but the idea of accurately emulating style in writing needs more serious research. Good luck to them - although perhaps they need to retrain it on Barbara Cartland before they take it to a conference!
Yes, he committed an offence of jumping bail.
BUT the charge for which he was on bail has been dropped, so in hindsight there was no reason for him to be on bail in the first place. So is it reasonable, fair and just (as opposed to legal) to continue to pursue him for something he wouldn't have done in the first place if things had moved faster, i.e. the Swedes had decided at the beginning that there didn't seem to be enough evidence?
Yes, he's a <insert insulting term here> but it does seem a tad unfair.
I don't have a 'hold' function, I usually use one of two variations:
a) if they ask to speak to the manager, I reply that "He's with a client at the moment - oh, wait, he's just seeing them out. He'll be with you in a minute" then put the handset on the desk and leave them to wait in hope.
b) Start talking to them and then say "Oh, hang on, there's someone at the door. I'll be back in a moment" and again put handset on desk
Best I've managed so far is 6min 35sec before they give up.
And for a simulation of 'hold' switch to a really weird Internet radio station in the background - Hot gospel preacher?
Should the police be allowed to knowingly ignore a threat to a householder? Once upon a time the parish constables would wander round, checking all was well, 'shaking hands with door-knobs' as Vimes would say, rather than sitting on their bum in a nice warm car. If such an officer discovered a front door was unlocked, should he ignore it and note the fact in case he wanted to come back later to plant evidence, or should he notify the householder so they can secure their property.
In a democratic society I know what I'd expect them to do