Dealing with Indian online support is about as much fun as dipping your testicles in a bucket of sulphuric acid.
C'mon, we all want to know how YOU know this.
5858 posts • joined 1 Jun 2012
Dealing with Indian online support is about as much fun as dipping your testicles in a bucket of sulphuric acid.
C'mon, we all want to know how YOU know this.
you are now gifted the splendid opportunity to continue to 'contribute to the economy' because nothing else matters.
Given that politicians and companies have made pension and healthcare promises that they can't afford to keep as life expectancy increases, what is your answer to the problem of an ageing population? Let 'em all retire at 60, and then expect the rest of us to pay for them and their health care for the next quarter century?
The idea of "retirement" as some sort of decades long paid holiday that people are naturally entitled to is a thoroughly 20th century construct that has no rational, social or economic foundations. If individuals want that, fair enough, but lets see them contributing a third of their salary into a pension fund for their entire working life.
Where is the modern day 'ned ludd' when you need them eh?
He's leading Her Majesty's Parliamentary Opposition.
the autonomous car could reverse the decline of the country pub
If transport were the issue, yes. But the even faster decline of urban pubs suggest there's rather more to it. The decline has been fairly continuous since before 1980, with a brief pause during the late 1990s. It isn't really about the smoking ban, or taxes, or transport, it is that fewer and fewer people want to drink in pubs, for a range of reasons.
Good idea, AC! They could learn from the UK's best public transport, in and around London.
Its slow, dirty, overcrowded, and a wholly unpleasant experience. It has minimal levels of adaptation for the elderly or those with limited mobility. And at a total cost level it is ludicrously expensive, even if fares are controlled down.
If you really think we're moving to a post-personal transport world, you've only thought about it from the public sector provider perspective, rather than what people actually want.
If your washing machine fails (which it always does on Friday night)...
Ours failed a couple of weeks ago on a Saturday morning. Rather than rely on DCPW, I just ordered from AO.com at a great price, and the new one arrived less than 24 hours later on Sunday morning, and they took away the bust one for an extra fifteen quid.
Or maybe I actually scream "no fucking warranty" at them, it's hard to tell these days.
I think the extended warranty party may be coming to an end. It's the biggest known-but-as-yet unaddressed mis-selling scandal, and a few of the people involved are starting to hear the ice creaking. Many aren't, but the FCA has taken some token action, and I think that there's a possibility of the PPI vultures moving onto become extended warranty vultures.
it's not beyond the realms of possibility for the government to do it in 5yrs.
I would suggest that it most certainly is, and I base that on the total lack of competence and success across a huge number of public sector tech projects. I love the idea of the country not being beholden to crappy companies like Microsoft, but I can't see the British public sector ever being capable to maintain the circa ten million lines of code of a significant OS, and presumably the similar number of lines of a Linux office suite.
Is it me or does this ship look out-dated already?
Well, yes. That big flat top and huge slab sides are soooo 1942.
Interesting to observe that our last carrier capable of launching supersonic jets was ordered in 1942, and laid down in 1943.
But that's OK, as they have the right family/government connections.
That may be true, but I suspect the heart of the problem is that the senior Civil Servants who are supposed to advise politicians lack any tech experience, lack the spine and gravitas to influence a know-nothing politician, and themselves do not have the logical and dispassionate decision making ability.
Surely there could be a country that can make full use of the technical know-how and allow foreign staff to enter and become the second Silicon Valley
Like where? The unique thing about Silicon Valley isn't either the silicon, or the tech sector as such, it is a combination of friendly regulation and ready access to investors and capital markets willing and able to throw vast sums of money at tech.
The remaining Five Spies countries are too aligned with US security policy to step out of line much, and don't have access to bottomless money pits. The EU countries are far less accommodating and tech-friendly, and they don't have the money either. Places like UAE, Saudi, and Dubai could find the money and the will, but are intolerant and repressive. Russia and China only seem keen on tech as a means of keeping their own population under the thumb, or causing trouble abroad.
users just can't be trusted not to click on dodgy attachments....I agree but its more of a training issue.
Training helps. But if you work in HR, Procurement, Accounts Payable etc you'll get shedloads of external emails with attachments that you need to open as part of your job. The bad guys are slowly getting better at hiding the executable element, and in a large business all the training in the world, all the IT Sec policies, all the threats of retribution against employees won't stop somebody somewhere eventually clicking to open a malware file, or following a link to a malware slinging website or file host.
Perhaps we should pre-emptively ban it over here in revenge for the US's hissy fit over Concorde in the 1970s?
The best form of revenge would surely be to encourage them to develop the technology, and re-learn the lesson that the market is tiny, and that they're overlooking ever tightening noise and emissions standards will make it near impossible to operate an SST in civilised markets.
"high bypass" engines where much of the thrust comes from a large volume of air at lower speed from the part that goes past the actual engine
They'll have a huge challenge making supersonic capable engines anything near compliant with current noise rules for aircraft design. As proven by Concorde, there's a small, high wealth customer base willing to pay the high fuel and operating cost of an SST, but I suspect that there's no economic case when the development costs are combined with the small passenger numbers. And because fuel consumption and costs will always be high, it will be impossible to take the technology into the mainstream, and then recover development costs across a much greater production volume.
Sadly, I think this is a rich man's toy, and it is sad to see NASA wanting to spend taxpayer's money on a technology that will only ever benefit the ultra wealthy. Britain and France did this, and funnily enough seem in no hurry to repeat the adventure. If Boeing (or Musk, or Branson) wanted to develop their own aircraft at their own risk and cost, that's different. Evidently NASA haven't realised that The UK and France don't appear to be in a hurry to repeat the experiment.
if something like you suggest happened in the Gulf I suspect a large number of TLAM would be en-route to the source before they got close to launching 50
You're right (and I also doff my cap to your experience and relevant knowledge) but equally you reinforce my point. Any cruise missile attacks a fixed target. So FAC, subs, mobile ground launchers and aircraft are immune, even if you can destroy their primary bases. Now look at what TLAM can do. The recent attack on a Syrian airfield by 60 odd cruise missiles knocked out a handful of obsolete jets and the airfield was launching warplanes within 24 hours.
Most military planners are not stupid (although with MoD and the Pentagon I'm less sure), and they know that the US approach is still modelled on "shock and awe". If the Iranians expected anything to kick off, they'd have all their anti-ship missiles mobile, using what are at a strategic level multiply redundant disposable platforms. And they've been taught the lesson of fixed bases the hard way by Israel.
You make the point that ships in the Falklands didn't fire 50 SAM, but that overlooks the ground launched weapons (a few ManPADS plus around 20 Rapiers fired), and the fact that the attacking force relied solely on air dropped or launched weapons against ships, and had a small number of serviceable aircraft. 1982 includes some valuable lessons, the number of missiles used isn't applicable unless we're refighting that conflict. In 2017, the cost of really rather good missile systems is pretty low, and the availability high, and betting a big lard-arse carrier against them might not get very good odds at William Hill.
With ships armed with missiles that can take out the incoming threat.
Some of the time. Israel's Iron Dome system has a much easier job than protecting a carrier against advanced hostile systems, yet still boasts a success rate of only 90% (and there's question marks over that claim). If one in ten anti-ship missiles gets through, then the carrier and its escorts will have a bit of a problem.
And compounding the "kill ratio" challenge, there's been a tendency towards "cassette" missile installations. Take the Type 45 and its Aster/Sylver air defence missile systems. A Type 45 has 48 shots (and has to pre-choose the mix of long and short range Asters). I'm sure that the Sylver launcher can be reloaded at sea, but with some significant logistical challenges, and certainly not during combat. If that's the escort to the carrier, even if every Aster hits its target, all the opponent has to do is launch a series of fifty low cost sacrificial missiles, and then it is open season. In the open ocean, launching fifty sacrificial missiles would be a big ask other than for a major power. But in the Gulf, or within 150 miles of hostile land, its not much of an ask at all.
It would be even better if there was any realistic chance of having a sufficient, dedicated RN escort group for her,
Why? In hobby wars against tribals and insurgents there's no need for a battlegroup, as the carrier is simply a mobile airfield beyond their reach. Against any sovereign nation with even the most modest military pretensions, a battlegroup is simple a larger floating collection of targets.
In the age of high speed anti-ship missiles and supercavitating torpedoes, you simply cannot afford to put a battlegroup within operating range of an attacker who can launch missiles from subs, fast patrol boats, ships, aircraft or land sites. The high speed torpedoes (200+ knots) may be as much of a hazard as the more obvious missiles, and as soon as you start losing capital ships the whole battlegroup concept is looking difficult, as basic escort group is only three to five destroyers and frigates, split between air defence and anti-sub. If the attackers get lucky and disable the carrier, then the whole mission is lost, if they disable the one or two air defence escorts then the remaining group is vulnerable.
The Iranians have been experimenting with swam attacks, with reverse engineering a British designed high speed boat to take their fast attack craft speeds up to 70+ knot speeds, and are also attributed with an unmanned surface vessel "kamikaze" attack on a Saudi frigate at sea a few months back. That last one is all on Youtube if you care to watch. That's the sort of "drive up" attack a battlegroup really should protect against, but the torpedoes, mines and missiles remain a very high risk threat. You'd really need to have 100% confidence in all of your technical systems to cope with the various and possibly simultaneous hazards, and be absolutely sure that your limited number of big ticket assets won't be outflanked by the far faster, less conventional approaches of asymmetric warfare.
In this day and age, a big carrier is simply a codpiece for the admirals.
Why not 'Rick roll' the Russkie subs listening in? Place big sub(!!) woofer speakers on the hull and blare out Rick Ashley 24/7
Because the Ruskies wouldn't be able to hear Rick over the appalling racket of any Type 45s that the Navy have in the North Sea.
so you'd hope that assets would have already been identified or counter measures put in place to an extent
Like what assets? Between Blair, Brown and Cameron our government dismantled the existing Nimrod maritime patrol capability and the Cameron cancelled its replacement. We'll be relying on the handful of the now rather old Type 23 frigates, and the rather binary threat of our handful of hunter-killer submarines.
If a Russian plane flew into our airspace, I wonder if it would be shot down
Very, very unlikely, although it depends how much of a diplomatic incident you want. The more belligerent nations (eg Turkey) are happy to take the consequences, but between the major powers they do try to avoid getting into that sort of situation. Since UK territorial water are only 12 miles from the coast, most of the QE sea trials will be in international waters anyway.
This situation seems to becoming more farcical by the week.
Yes, you're right. But its not that much different on what (I suspect) is your side of the Atlantic?
In the UK situation, the entire problem is that the simpleton Theresa May called a snap election that EVEN SHE HAD NOT PREPARED FOR. As a result the manifestos were just lightweight, ill thought through rubbish - even by the low standards of such things. She then compounded that by her weird reclusiveness and her rather cold and out of touch persona. Nobody knew what they were voting for, and the public pronouncements of both sides were idiotic. Even on questions like "What's the naughtiest thing you've ever done?" she fluffed it, with some flannel about running through a cornfield. If she'd said "Actually, me and Philip are into the BDSM swinging scene. Every Saturday night I strap on the leather, and whip the bollocks of a complete stranger to a bloody mess" then I'd have thought that was somebody with something about them. More so than the opportunist, rocking chair Marxist leading the Labour party. But apparently he goes down well with the sad-sack milennials at Glasto.
I'll agree with you on Heath but I will never agree on that peado Brittan. He dodged the police for decades then claimed dementia while still claiming his lords money.
I don't believe there's any credible public domain reason to conclude that Brittan was probably a paedophile. I suspect you're thinking of Greville Janner, Labour MP for Leicester West, where there were ample accusations from multiple sources across at least two decades, and the governments, Clown Prosecution Service and police deliberately looked the other way.
We should be turning this into a teaching opportunity.
How? They're all a collection of pompous, self-obsessed, talent free clowns, with no relevant education or experience in any area of science, technology and most areas of important business. They are beyond teaching the error of their ways.
Just a splash of water resistance?
Enough to stop the glass from getting wet. Now that would be a disaster.
Surely London commuters only read the Daily Mail or Express for their daily dose of "THOSE FUCKING IMMIGRANTS" or some crap?
You don't know much about London, I assume.
eyeballs on the paper is what attracts the advertising revenue that pays to keep the publication going
And is that a good thing, for a rag "edited" by a failed politician with no relevant journalistic expertise, and written by a skeleton staff doing desk journalism? Note also that it is majority owned by a dubious Russian oligarch, with a 25% shareholding by the owners of the Daily Mail.
I might add that in terms of second order crimes that you're alluding to, how about aiding and abetting littering? The free rags cost huge amounts to clear up from abandoned papers on the underground, trains, buses, and even off the street. When the Evening Standard pays for the costs of collecting and recycling its ordure then they may have a case for complaining about people "stealing" its papers.
And a final observation, good to see that the Met (apparently) have got sufficient manpower to investigate this and take it to charge. If there's a complaint to them they are required to investigate and that's fair enough, but they've obviously got time on their hands if they have chosen to charge people over this trivia. I would have thought there's a lot more pressing concerns that they should spend their time on.
Less than modest, more like trivial. Anthem's turnover if $85bn a year.
As primarily a healthcare insurer with other lines of business, I would guess that the average revenue per customer is around what, $8,000 per customer per year? So paying $1 per customer record isn't going to even register with them.
The US regulators have it all the wrong way round. Rather than bilking a few million dollars for a "not our fault" settlement, they should forgo the money, and insist that companies admit liability. Then let the civil courts and customers determine the penalty.
How much longer before Alphabet's insatiably growing appetite for greed overcomes self-restraint?
I know commenters here are rightly suspicious of big-business but to say "you can bet they're doing it" is tinfoil hat zone
Before Snowden, a whole lot of concerns about government snooping were for tinfoil hatters. Now we know that anything governments can poke their nose into they will. The US tech sector appears to have a culture of assuming that rules are for the little people, so why should we assume that big tax avoiding corporates choose to play by the rules when it comes to other's people's data?
All sorts of rich and powerful people would be given the impression that if they make it expensive for the law to be applied they would be given an exception.
Hardly an impression, more a matter of fact. And not just rich people, big companies. Why make US tech companies and coffee chains pay their dues, when you can persecute individual IT contractors? Why prosecute dangerous driving by Saudi "princes" and moron top footballers when you can just use speed cameras on the hoi-polloi? Why force banks to behave ethically when you can just waste everybody's time micro-managing gas and electricity suppliers?
It worked on the Iranian embassy.
Did it really? Due to our feckless and disgraceful government, the main Libyan suspect for the murder of an unarmed policewoman now lives in the UK, and although arrested a few weeks ago for the murder of Yvonne Fletcher, was released on "national security grounds" the next day.
You have to wonder what exactly is so utterly rotten about our governments, the Home Office, the immigration authorities, and our rather crappy security services that foreign murderers from unstable and hostile countries are welcomed here.
when the total cost had already hit £11m
Assange will be very worried now Cressida Dick's in charge. Shooting a South American dead only results in a £175k fine and a rap on the knuckles for H&S failings.
When certain manufacturers already clearly try to operate resale price maintenance without any sanctions. That includes several car makers (although they struggle to control the dealers on that), and a number of Japanese tech companies, where funnily enough every outlet charges the same price, from local specialists in cheap locations, up market specialists in expensive locations, big box discounters, and premium department stores.
Why bother with an algorithm when the old fashioned "sell at our chosen price or lose the franchise" works well enough?
If it was the first aimed shot, that's 'a record'.
Luckily for the shooter, the invigilators from the Guinness Book of Records weren't around to check exactly whose bullet ended up in the shootee. If I were a betting man, I'd guess that it was one from much nearer that arrived at the right time.
Talking of records, I'm personally all for the permanent rubbing out of IS, the Taleban, AQ, Boko Haram, and all the other religious tossers with a medieval mind set. I don't even mind if we have to bring back James Puckle's square barrel device to do it. But to go round trumpeting as a new record who's popped off a shootee at extreme distance would seem to me to be a very good way of inflaming the opinions of those who wish to be inflamed. And that group is primarily the dimwits radicalising themselves in Canada, the UK, US or Europe.
combining the most modern version of the CH-47 with avionics from when Pontius was a pilot
It is also pertinent to note that it wasn't just the bunglers of the MoD trying to write their own control software, it was also the MoD's own interpretation of its own flight safety rules that stopped the Mk3's from being used. It was a Whitehall classic. At the time, the Army and RAF were crying out for helicopters in Afghanistan, and due to this complete screw up, the Mk 3s were sitting in a (rented) hanger gathering dust. I daresay that servicemen died as a result of this, but in true MoD fashion, nobody was held to account for the lost lives, or the waste of several hundred million quid.
And the truly incredible thing is that the MoD should have realised exactly how complicated the flight control software is on a Chinook from the enquiry into the 1994 Isle of Mull crash, where (regardless of the true cause) questions were raised over the FADEC controls. Despite this, some bungling, bungling FUCKWIT at the MoD actually thought "lets modify the Chinook control systems ourselves, without talking to Boeing, it can't be any harder than coding in Basic, can it?"
The sad thing is that there probably aren't enough (good) films made in a year to supply 1 a week
Well, there's about 750 recognised Hollywood features released each year, and a similar number of largely overlapping films released in UK cinemas. Applying a suggested 4% worth watching to the 750 big screen releases, you've got 30 a year that might be worth watching for an individual of given tastes (the "worth watching" criteria varies from person to person, I suspect that the actual total they select would be tightly clustered around that 4% number.
However, if you go down to the indie film level, there's around 50,000 or so released each year. Which means that if there's nothing to watch, either the vast majority of Indie releases are dross, or alternatively there's plenty of brilliance there, it just has to be searched for. Worth thinking that Mad Max, Trainspotting, Texas Chain Saw Massacre, Bad Lieutenant and many other top films started out as Indies, and there's earlier works directed by George Lucas, the Cohen brothers, Spike Lee, Peter Jackson etc etc. And plenty of John Carpenter.
So perhaps the problem is that Netflix, Amazon, Sky and the rest is that they're just focused on big platform rebroadcast of major studio stuff. Making it all work is a great feat, but if the new content is fairly thin then its not much of a deal. I wonder why they don't do a better job of offering indie content? Having built the platform to sling blockbusters in high volume, surely adding a whole load of low-viewing films doesn't cost much more than the storage and a few dollars for updating the database and billing systems?
Unless absolutely 100% of the amount I enter into the app is going into the driver's bank account they can fuck right off.
So who codes, maintains, and hosts the app?
Who protects any IP that may exist?
Who makes all the decisions about policy, charging?
Who pays for marketing?
Who does (or in Uber's case should) validate driver background, licences, insurance, vehicle condition & maintenance records?
Fairies, apparently. I think (on public domain info) that Uber is a corrupt, busted entity. But the idea of every penny you paying going to the driver? Give that one some further thought, please.
The Tories have proven themselves incompetent over the last ten years. It's time for a change.
As a neo-Thatcherite, I'd agree with you. But the Labour party have ALWAYS been economically incompetent, so I presume you're not arguing for that laughable bearded Islingtonite? You know, the one who thinks Chavez did a great job taking South America's richest country to a broken ruin? Obviously the Libdems are a party of worthless turncoats. UKIP have (almost) achieved what they wanted.
So who are you proposing should be given a chance?
Nobody said anything about giving the work to other people. Just breaking up the contracts.
I'm sure for BT, 10 x £11.1m still equals £111m.
Sadly, in the longer term cheap != low cost
And government never learn. There are reports that the M25 Kings Langley viaduct, (built using shonky state-subsidised Italian steel) has cost several times the construction bill in subsequent maintenance. And as I lived round there at the time, I believe that to be true because workers didn't leave site for the better part of a decade after "opening", and only last year they had to undertake even more repairs after the steel developed cracks.
Plus people are still new at the 360 thing, it's going to take a while for people to learn that it's crap and should join domestic 3D in the back of the virtual kitchen cupboard.
the ideal military aircraft is so easy to fly the pilot doesn't have to think about it, freeing him up to deal with the sensors and manage the mission?
Since, in real world terms, his unassisted eyesight won't be up to the job of target identification, evaluation and weapons targeting even at low level, the pilot is entirely dependent upon the sensors. In turn, this indicates the aircraft should fly itself, the sensors relay the information to drone controllers somewhere air conditioned, safe and comfortable, and they control the mission. Fragging a bunch of tribals at 350 knots and 5,000 feet isn't exactly seeing the whites of their eyes, so we might as well get over this Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines nonsense for fast jets.
But if they pay for this self-landing technology, you start to wonder why they bother with the meatsack at the sharp end of the aircraft. Auto-take off is already easy enough, flight-plan already largely in the hands of machines. All the weapons systems are computerised and operated by Fisher-Price buttons.
Ignoring that anything that MoD and BAES do between them is a disaster, they might as well put a fleet of Taranis on the carriers, and then we could avoid the mess of the F35.
I prefer a giving a quality drilling ...
SDS, man, that's the way to go. Proper percussive action, none of this rotating cam "rub the brick into submission" nonsense.
Given that Apple gives you quite a good rebate if you return older kit that is still working ...
How about they build something that doesn't HAVE to be thrown away if the battery or a component assembly becomes faulty? I must be the least environmentally enlightened person on this planet, and still this built in obsolescence sticks in my throat.
If Apple, Microsoft, Samsung don't have designers capable of building a repairable device, then they need to get people more competent in.
Go trim your beard before it trails in your soya latte macchiato and drips down your check shirt.
if you read the article you'd know there are issues with docking large ships
@James51: We've had manually controlled supertankers for many decades. The idea that lack of GPS would be an insurmountable problem is nonsense. You're also overlooking the fact that reliable accuracy of GPS is about 4m. If you were relying on that sort of accuracy to berth a large vessel, you'll find that rather too often the gangplank and cranes don't reach, or that you've wiped a hole twenty five feet deep in the side of the vessel.
The former had local knowledge and generally could get where they wanted without any assistance.
Looking on the bright side, a world without GPS is a world without Uber.
oh wait, post-Brexit the UK will now have to negotiate, and pay for access to it
They could also use GLONASS (as many phones have for years,) and from 2020 most will probably also have the hardware for Beidou 2. For civil use they'd just use the system any licence is paid on hardware.
But planning against the loss of a single sat nav system is a big bit stupid. If the GPS sats are clobbered by a Carrington event, then so will all other sats be. Same with some unexpectedly calamitous space debris or meteorite shower event, or even tit-for-tax satellite shoot downs. So preparing a Plan B needs to assume that satellite coverage is simply unavailable.
Another commentard has made the point about the use of wifi and phone triangulation or mast-location, and that's not so accurate, but I suspect that combining that with inertial navigation to fill in the gaps would be an acceptable alternative. If it were a Carrington event, then there is a problem that the ground and mobile telephony or power systems might have a few other things to worry about.
Maybe, just maybe, we'd have to cope without it? Hipsters and milennials would be dead in days, unable to find convenience stores or craft coffee shops. Those of us able to read a map might survive a lot longer.
£1bn per day?
UK GDP is around £2 trn a year. So that's £5.5bn per day. Do these twerps really believe that almost a fifth of GDP is created by shaving a few seconds of ambulance arrivals and helping zero hours van drivers deliver imported Chinese tat sold by a US company that avoids UK taxes?
And in case they haven't noted, congested roads are the norm. With few strategic route duplications and local roads already congested, loss of GPS wouldn't make much difference at all.
Those bits of software are all more than capable of sending emails securely from a vetted workflow.
ERP systems are often a pile of cack for anything non-standard, but your point extends to the fact that they (apparently) didn't even have the file encrypted and protected. Admittedly that's a weak last line of defence, because busting an Excel password isn't that hard, but at least most people couldn't do it, or wouldn't bother.
They deserve to be taken to the cleaners for this.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017