Re: What happened to screwing?
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.
5867 posts • joined 1 Jun 2012
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.
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.
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.
The ICO should fine them again for this response; clearly they didn't learn.
Let's see if they appeal. If they appeal, they forgo the 20% early payment discount. I suspect that they won't appeal, and they will therefore technically admit their guilt, even whilst they publicly protest that they somehow weren't guilty.
I agree, though, that the ICO should call them out. It clearly was marketing material, and for some corporate f***wit to claim otherwise - well, if Morrisons are so f***ing disappointed, lets see them appeal this through the courts.
Sky do this all the time. Where's their fine?
ICO are reactive. Have you complained?
a postal marketing campaign, which Virgin Media seem to be happy dropping though my door on a weekly basis
a) If you don't want the mail, return it marked "not known at this address". Works a treat even if you're a customer, and I suspect the cost of dealing with RTS mail is triple that of the original mail shot. The downside is that you've saved them money after three subsequent cancelled mailshots.
b) If (like me) you're a customer and hate Virginmedia because of their crap service, offshoring, and persistent price hikes, then put the junk mail in the bin. They'll keep on sending it, you keep binning it, and that way you're keeping up their marketing costs.
"sounds like a good deal to me"
Sounds like a fair price to me. Given the low conversion rates on spam, this is probably easily high enough to make such activities uneconomic. There's the reputational damage that they get from being fined for this, and repeat offending would be a serious aggravating factor if the company does it again, meaning a proportionately higher fine. Even if the ICO fined them millions, who'd end up paying? Ultimately customers would, or rank and file employees would suffer because the company would "cut costs" to offset the impact on investors.
I've seen this before where companies have an opt in/out and regardless of what you select, you "mistakenly" get included in the spam list, so I'm pleased to see the ICO dishing out some fines. If I really distrust the company then I'll take a screenprint of my opt out selection, and save that, though so far I've not yet had the delight of sending one of those to the ICO.
I think they did that some years ago - and concluded the best solution was to drop the "Do no Evil" slogan.
It was all a huge misunderstanding in the first place. The original question was "Will Google abuse its position?" and the unfortunately misinterpreted answer was "We do know evil".
Google never intended to say that they wouldn't do anything bad, they just meant that anything they did that was bad was wholly deliberate. When you think of it that way, it makes a LOT more sense.
I hope that clarifies my opinion for you.
So, to paraphrase you, any referendum that is non-binding should be ignored? The logic there is not to hold non-binding referendums. But do you really think people would have voted differently? I don't. My work involves working in a provincial city with a large European owned business, but engaging with London based think tanks and NGOs, who are largely liberal intellectuals. The liberal elite were (to a man, woman, and transgender thing) united in being believers in Remain, the more down to earth workforce of my employer were much more given to Leave. The Leave contingent understood that the metropolitan brigade were adamantly pro-EU, the urban Remainers were absolutely clueless as to the mood outside London, and when the result became clear, they were utterly amazed. They couldn't understand who, how, or why anybody might vote to leave, and this in part explains the left wing press attempts to characterise the Leave contingent as mouth-frothing racist Little Englanders.
It's the same with defence equipment.
Like land mines. And cluster bombs. And torture equipment.
Just because there's a commercial opportunity selling evil stuff to evil cunts doesn't mean that you can wash your hands of how they use it.
Your example of Apple is not a good one because their offshore accounting means that they aren't bringing the money back to the US (for tax avoidance reasons), and then, like many US companies they have to present non GAAP accounts to investors.
Trade deficits do matter, particularly over an extended period of time, because if we keep buying more than we sell overseas, we need to fund that through other balance of payment transfers. As a grand simplification, in the US they just keep selling Treasury bonds to finance their import addiction, in the UK we sell anything we can find - companies, government assets, infrastructure, IOUs, and still we're cash negative on BoP.
Brexit just cost me another grand and a half, so a thankyou to the 52% out there.
I'm pleased to have been of service.
But, Brexit aside, the UK exchange rate was walking on air anyway. The appalling double deficit (trade and budget) meant that we were paying too little for imports, and buying too much of them. So it may be uncomfortable, but we need to buy less from overseas, and pay more for what we do buy, until (if ever) we start exporting sufficient goods and services to balance the trade books, and the bunglers of government stop spending vast sums they don't have.
"I'm not sure you fully grasp the difference between Billion and Million..."
Of course I do. But maybe you don't grasp the insignificance of a circa $1bn fine for a company that currently makes a pre-tax profit of $7bn every three months. If the trend growth continues, Alphabet will make a profit approaching $30bn this year.
If we assume that the suggested fine applies to only three years of operations, then in that time Google/Alphabet will have made total pre-tax profits of around $60bn.
The problem with fines for rich or monopolistic companies is that they really don't give a toss. Banks and tech companies regard fines as a normal business expense. What regulators need to do is evolve, and better understand what inflicts pain on corporate entities and their decision makers. Fines usually punish shareholders, and that's pointless because most shareholders are too small to be influential, and don't have the time or insight to become activists demanding change.
For banks and retail services, a straightforward temporary sales ban would be excellent - it affects many KPIs that the board will get rewarded for, and lower down the food chain it means staff are paid to sit around doing nothing for a while, and prospective customers realise that the company is on the naughty step, which they rarely do with fines. For Google, what would work as punishment? I'm not sure, but requiring them to permanently delete all instances of all data collected across the EU for the latest three months would probably concentrate management's minds a treat.
Well yes, they are to an extent going to compete - just not too hard.
You're correct that the comedy "separation" is just for asset management and operations, and BT group keep ownership of the assets. That means they can continue to load up on cheap network secured debt as they over-pay for sporting and media rights, and there's no risk of a complete asset divestment if they had to sell Openreach. Without Openreach's assets on its balance sheet, BT Group would be uninvestable for most equity investors. And with the OR assets mixed into all the other toxic sludge on BT's balance sheet there's plenty of opportunity for sleight of hand. The BT Group pension fund is also something that they want to keep hold of the OR assets for - low interest rates and rising life expectancy mean the deficit is probably rising, and it was £7bn back in 2014. Because the government have agreed to underwrite the BT group pension scheme in the event of insolvency, they pressured Ofcom to accept this tawdry deal.
Investors have been gifted over-large dividends for years, when more money should have gone into the pension fund, and at the same time the terms of the fund should have been changed to increase employee contributions for defined benefits. Instead, the investors get off the hook, the pensioners get given generous pensions funded by transferring a big chunk of the OR assets. Incidentally, this means that OR might want to have a more modern and higher value network, BT Group will remain averse to cash consumption by OR, so if they aren't given the money by government, or forced by Ofcom (ha!) then all this talk of fibre networks is rubbish. The build out of fibre will remain opportunist in the worst sense of the word, plus (possibly) when they do asset renewal of the local loop. According to BT Group Accounting Policies, cable is depreciated over lives between three and twenty five years, so if they'd had their act together and been replacing cable at the end of its accounting life, they'd have made significant progress. The reality is of course that they don't proactively replace cable, they just leave it for as long as possible, and then only do something if the complaints become embarassing.
"I thought OpenScreech were already targetting VM areas anyway"
I'd agree there's some anecdotal evidence, but it would also suggest a degree of commercial competence that I'm reluctant to ascribe to BT/OR. Do you think they are that organised?
I suspect that there is targeting that it is coincidentally correlated with VM's footprint, but that arises because any telecoms build out uses a similar logic for building a business case, based on the size of a town, population density, accessibility of the individual property, and backhaul connections.
...is that nobody believes you.
Openreach has lacked any transparency whatsoever, its costs and revenues, and balance sheet have been wilfully opaque since forever. Now that Ofcom have done a teensy bit to disperse some of the smokescreen, claiming to want to work together with everybody seems a bit disingenuous.
Having said that, I DO believe you. You know that stronger regulation is coming, if slowly, and that means that Openreach's value is enhanced by the largest possible regulated asset base, and the biggest possible investment programme. Widespread FTTP is a lovely way of bulking up the RAB.
But you'll find that your new "industry partners" have little enthusiasm for that. In particular, VerminMedia will be most unhappy about an FTTP roll out in their cable areas. Sky might be more supportive if they can be convinced that there's some Chinese Walls within BT (though on blance I wouldn't trust BT in that respect).
Who will be your friend?
via Google Translate
I'll be they have similar good fun with Western names - I would hope they do. Would any Chinese/Korean/Thai speakers be able to provide examples we can understand?
But the AV8B on the otherhand is pretty much up to date
Still a rehash of a design concept originated in 1957 - still unstable and tricky to fly, still can't carry any decent weapons load in VTOL, still aerodynamically compromised, still as stealthy as the Eiffel Tower. The newest of these AV8Bs are fifteen years old, and the design was completed 22 years ago. Not "up to date" in my book.
The jarheads want to hold onto the Harrier and take F35B not because these have much proven worth, but because they're desperate to keep their own fixed wing mini air force, and that SVTOL capability is just about their only real chance of having an argument for their own fixed wing capability. Logically, if USN can provide the ships for the USMC, then USN should provide the ocean-going air assets, with USAF doing the non-water based air missions. USMC may be the cream of the US fighting crop amongst conventional forces, but as a mini-military it is simply a job creation scheme for senior officers.
I find it surprising pilots are still willing to fly these things after all the problems found
You don't join the military and fly fast jets unless you're comfortable taking very high risks, and flying aircraft that often have a whole range of documented and undocumented problems. IIRC, in the 1980s RAF pilots in training were told that they had a 1 in 30 likelihood of being killed on peacetime active service during their career.
Do a search on "Harrier losses" and look down the Wikipedia list of aircraft losses - pretty grim, but didn't appear to put people off flying them.
because every nation can afford to build Nimitz class carriers...
Bizarre logic on your part. There's no need for the sort of scale, cost and complexity of a 100,000 tonne nuclear powered monster carrying 90 aircraft. A 50,000 tonne steam or gas turbine powered vessel with catapults could field a decent air wing of fifty aircraft including supersonic jets (eg R09, back in 1968). Had the idiots of the British government included catapults in the original spec of the QE class carriers, we wouldn't need the costly abomination that is the F35B.
Besides that, half the US carriers are of the STOVL type,
Doesn't make it a good idea though. A helicopter assault ship is just that. Giving it a couple of Harriers won't give it any defence capabilility against any modern air power. Although the dawn of hypersonic missiles and "swarm" tactics by non conventional militaries may mean that even a Ford class with a full collection of F35s is nothing more than a big, fat, dumb target.
the venerable Harrier, which, oh, they bought all the old British ones
If the Harrier was such a brilliant military asset, why did the US decide to build the F35B using Russian technology from the crappy Yak 38 and unproven Yak 141? It would seem that it did not occur to the Pentagon, that if there was the slightest hint of military potential in that tech, the Russians wouldn't be selling it to them. A further thought, is WHY the US and UK want carriers at all, given that the Russians have only one, that they are not looking to replace. We've jointly caused global mayhem by using our carriers as a small part of twenty years or so of hobby wars, they're clearly not much use in a real war against any modern military, they don't appear to be frightening Fat Boy Kim in North Korea, so is bombing Stone Age tribes in the Middle East and central Asia the single use case?
F-35 comes in different varieties, and only the carrier based one gets the VTOL
We do know. The whole F35 programme is bedevilled with the consequences of trying to share parts, use compromise specifications. Even if the F35B element were stopped today, the two other variants will still be "under the influence" of trying to make a multi-role aircraft for the remainder of their service lives.
Ok, it's early days, but it's beginning to look like the weapons system is actually pretty awesome.
After many tens of billions of development costs, and at $130m a piece, I'd hope so. If you'd thrown that sort of money at upgrades to F22 and the other older fast jets, the US military would have got a whole lot more for its money.
But regardless of whether they can make it work, the idea of a shared platform between three fundamentally different missions has built in a series of compromises for the life of the aircraft. S/VTOL on fast jets has never been a materially useful military capability. If you're penny pinchers who won't build a proper carrier, S/VTOL may be a necessity, but that's attributable to government accountants rather than because the capability is actually solves a military need.
The comments sound just like the prattle every other doomed company says before going permanently TITSUP
I work for a customer company of what is now DXC, and we're doing exactly the same as Meg's idiotic plan. And, like HP/HPE et al, we've got previous, and it didn't work then, and it won't work now.
And the reason is simple. Once you lose a good, product or service based commercial management culture, that's the end. No amount of "value engineering" by shitbag management consultants can save things. No "process reviews", "workforce actions", M&A, nothing is going to bring you back. When the dipshits take over your management cadre, there's no going back, you've crossed the Rubicon. Faust would approve of that.
Is it gonna be Oath! or Oath henceforth in El Reg?
What's wrong with Oaf?
Now it seems there or those who won't even learn from experience.
Given the stranglehold BA have on landing slots at the major London terminals, there's little competitive pressure, so why would they feel any need to change their behaviours? At Heathrow, IAG have what, about 54% of all slots.
Yet another PPE graduate from Oxbridge. Why is Parliament formed almost exclusively of know-nothing arseholes?
The sooner Oxford & Cambridge colleges are closed (and the facilities razed to the ground, just to make sure) the better. And at the same time Eton, Harrow and could be cleansed in the same way.
The Empire is rebuilding itself by sheer willpower!
You're referring to the wrong empire. It'll be grey uniforms, mincy little hats, and a trip to the Kings Cross Deathstar.
On a separate note relating to red uniforms, when my dad were a lad, he knew an old boy who actually fought at Rorke's Drift. When you lived in Aldershot back in the day, you couldn't make that stuff up because people knew. How cool is that?
They're queueing up to get at ATPL jobs
Well, once you've got your ATP licence, which will usually have cost you (according to CAA) the fat end of £100k of your own money, you'd be quite keen to take any job. If you did a university degree before your ATPL, then you'd have about £50k of student debt on top.
I'm amazed that people would actually pay that sort of money, since the sort of salaries you'd get in the first few years aren't that brillant, so the actual return on your investment is a bit dubious. And that's before the dropout and failure rates.
it will let the airline to sell some "business+" seat upgrades with a nice forward view
If that's a money making opportunity, why doesn't the A380 have upper deck front windows?
A computer can respond much more quickly to all previously known problems, it's the UNKNOWN ones where humans generally perform better.
Maybe. But you need to consider the instances where a computer wouldn't have actually caused the crash (like the twit who snapped the tailplane off AA 587 or the expensive near miss for the Townsend's RAF Voyager), or where things go wrong, but a set of fallback routines would probably have done better than for example the panicky meatsacks of AF447.
Do a search on Youtube for "aircraft crash", and the vast majority of the gruesome footage can be attributed to human error that a computer wouldn't be likely to make. My ghoulish favourite is AF296, although fortunately "only" three people died.
Try paying them money! You know, that might work.
Salaries don't look bad in the UK compared to what you;d make in IT. My guess is that the common decision to expect pilots to pay for their own training has choked off supply, in which case airlines have only got themselves to blame.
Who said they were unaware? They will have been perfectly well aware of the change in the law, somebody, somewhere CHOSE to ignore the law, and the whole, stinking malodorous organisation that is Crapita have backed that decision, even as far as appealing the case.
Then Google came along and 'human curated' was no longer cool
It will be interesting to see how Google fade away. What will do away with their relevance?
Users deciding that their data and their privacy is worth more than they get back from Google services? Governments deciding that Google are too powerful? New phone OS and or search engines that simply supplant Google's offer? A vast data breach that sees users the world over revolt against the company? Advertisers finding an alternative to the FB/Google duopoly?
I don't know, but I'm guessing that Google (as we know it) won't be around in fifty years.
Same here. I suspect when this lands for universal distribution it'll be the usual botched bloatware that deliberately resets all my settings back to Slurp's preferences, as well as installing a shitload of code and features that I didn't ask for, and won't use.
Still, the good people at O&O will hopefully issue a prompt update for ShutUp10, and a quick download and run will fix as many privacy holes as possible.
The Theme Formerly Known As Aero.and of no real interest. TFTFY
No, that'd be TTFKAA (or TTTFKAAAONRI). Can't you spell, boy?
or else I'll tell you to stop doing that again
Possibly, but note this is a criminal investigation, not an ICO civil investigation. They'll need to put a case in front of a court, and a judge will decide any appropriate penalty, which can include leisure time in one Her Maj's residential establishments.
Hopefully this will shake the lot up into providing viable options.
Hopefully, but I can't see it myself. The Labour party didn't learn from two successive defeats, and now can't understand how they ended up with an unreformed marxist as its leader.
The parliamentary Conservatives simply can't see what their core and fringe voters really want, and prefer to try and govern with a toxic mismatch presidential fiat from May, special advisors, focus group gestures, and continuing with a series of policies many of which are essentially unchanged from those of Blair.
I think you're right on yet another election, but absent a revolution amongst the political parties to focus on robust, clear manifestos backed by policies that will deliver what electors (credibly) want, this could go on for some time.
If he's the twerp who drew up the lacklustre manifesto, then it would seem his demise is to be welcomed. I'd like to think next time they'll have a better effort, and perhaps give it more than a few weeks effort by knob-ends firmly in the Westminster bubble.
And perhaps, instead of yet another toff-boy with a degree in history, we could have a government IT strategy mapped out in two stages - a requirements statement overseen by somebody with proper business analysis or systems architecture experience, and then a technical delivery plan, prepared by somebody who also knows about the subject.
Yet again when everyones eyes were on Scotland and Nicola Sturgeon ...
And what a result in Scotland, eh? WTF have the SNP being doing to lose so many seats, and particularly to the Conservatives?
I the Scottish Tory voter was a species officially declared extinct, with the only chance of resurrection through exhuming bodies and cloning and patching the DNA, Jurassic Park style.
served up by the party that won the 2015 election
That's arguable other than in the strictest technical sense. The Tories won in 2015 only because of the shambolic attempt by Ed Milliband's crowd of third raters. Cameron was a shallow, vacuous toff who stood for nothing, had no vision, not clear policies, and despite the lacklustre opposition, and the implosion of the LibDems, the Tories scraped a wafer thin majority.
After Cameron threw in the towel after the referendum the parliamentary Tories elected May, from a short list regrettably devoid of any talent. For decades now, the MPs of the Tory party have been choosing the poorer candidates from mediocre lists, and until they stop choosing geographers, graduates in PPE, and people with no experience of a real world job, this will repeat again and again.
May, who whilst not quite a toff, is a re-run of Cameron. She appears to have no real vision and stands for nothing - idiot ideas like "lets have grammar schools, but they must let in the right number of pupils from hard working families" WTF? That was just air-head stupidity, but that's common currency on both sides of the house (look at Diane Abbott). May probably threw away this election with the single pronouncement of the "dementia tax". That was actually a fairly sound idea in a logical sense, but a guaranteed loser with the elderly, why would you announce that in the few weeks before a snap election? Proof that she has no judgement whatsoever, and that she is surrounded by people with no judgement, or she doesn't listen to them. Likewise her stance on protecting the UK's wildly bloated and ineffectual foreign aid budget, even as the NHS buckles under the strain of balancing its books - yet another policy that she opened her gaff-prone gob and announced, and couldn't see that the majority of people of a right wing disposition would be very unhappy about.
Why do they have to meet Wall Streets expectations?
Because if they don't, the company is labelled "under-performing", and the investors start to demand a change of management. The more passive investors just sell out and move on, but the new owners of those shares are only buying an under-performer on the basis that there's money to be made, so in net terms the shareholder base becomes increasingly "activist". Also, in the US, once you get sufficient shares you can start nominating your own directors (unlike much of Europe) which means that the activists have access to inside information, and are present at board meetings.
The prospect of being turfed off the mega-bucks gravy train is ample incentive for execs to come up with crap headed cost saving ideas, so it is less common to see the activists having to directly force action - they simply need to build up a notable shareholding, and make their intentions clear, and the most entrenched of boards usually wake and smell the coffee.
"Buying or building somewhere to put the practice is a somewhat substantial cost for a salaried GP wanting to start their own company, representing a formidable barrier to entry."
Not to mention the problems of securing a contract with a CCG, which are usually largely controlled by the existing local GPs. Those GPs moan about long hours, stress, depression, and how hard their lot is, but I doubt they're really looking to see new practices formed that would dilute their income of around £100k (and a lot more for those willing to pillage the system).
Example from what I can glean from reports. Calderdale had a bright shiny hospital built under PFI. The costs of this are crippling....
Similar example in Worcestershire, where the Worcester Royal was built under a botched PFI (another of that twat Gordon Brown's idiocies), and the solution has been to downgrade all the other hospitals in the country, even though the Royal can't cope with the demand it already has.
Whilst I remain of the view that Corbyn is an idiot, his promise to scrap PFI deals is actually really sensible. Ideally using new legislation to remove any undue gains from the finance providers when all the deals are reckoned up.
They (Labour) also plan to get rid of the far-more-expensive privatised services
Smoke and mirrors for the gullible.
The biggest element of privatised NHS services is GPs, and it was the Labour party that designed this back in 1948, and the Labour party that screwed the costs up astronomically under Blair's new GP contract. GPs are almost all privately contracted by partnerships to the local commissioning bodies. For most people, the majority of their exposure to the NHS since its inception has actually been with these private contractors, and it currently costs to the tune of £9-10bn a year. Many are also opening their own pharmacies, dipping into the £3bn a year costs that the NHS pays for community pharmacies.
When they commit to the NHS owning all health centres, and the majority of GPs to be salaried and managed by the NHS, then I'll believe that the Labour party want to reduce private sector involvement in the health system. Demanding that local trusts end load-spreading agreements with a local private hospital is political theatricals, that if implemented would make NHS performance worse. Why is Corbyn such a gibbering fool?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017