Re: I wonder if there's an opportunity
And the first time you make a mistake in that line of business would probably also be your last!
39 posts • joined 2 Dec 2013
Before banks moved to "national" numbers back in the 90's they had local numbers. Barclay's moved their Hertfordshire numbers to the Watford branch with a new number.
The phone number for the Watford branch of Barclays had the last few numbers the same as our home number in Bushey (482000 for watford and 4820 for ours). People would often dial our number thinking they were calling the Bushey Barclays because they hadn't read the full phone number.
There were a number of times I would come home and find that someone had left a message on our answerphone thinking they were calling Barclays and leave their name, account details and phone number asking for someone to phone them back.
This was back in the days before most people had heard of the internet so if they were that willing to leave their details on a strangers answerphone I am not surprised they are taken in by so many scams nowadays.
Barclays response to us when we contact them over this was telling us to change our phone number to stop us getting these calls!
Actually in the last year he was quite active on twitter and instagram - which he renamed to Prinstagram.
He was actually very funny and to his die in the wool fans (yes I am one) he was very generous. Saw him do 7 nights at Paisley Park in 2002 for $250. Would cost more to see some dross in the charts for a single concert now (ignore the flights/hotels/car rentals etc!).
The outstanding memory - after one show he invited everyone in the audience (probably 1500 of us) to join him at the cinema (that night happened to be a pajama party!) and watch Minority Report and at 1am we were following a white limo through Minneapolis to the local cinema where he had hired the whole thing out and paid for the popcorn and drinks for everyone.
And I think you shared out the C: as an explicit share and not accessing the C$?
If you were accessing the C$ on FAT32 on Win98 you should have patented the way you did it because you would have made a fortune because it wasn't technically possible according to everyone else.
if you create a share on a drive then yes you can access it on Fat32.
Maybe you don't actually remember what you did?
Depends on the ransomware, some sit there dormant for a little while before "showing" off to the end user. That way they have a chance to have encrypted some of the documents in the backup.
If the encryption kicked off on the PC and immediately displayed the request for bitcoin then yes a restore would work.
let's take that one step further.
You work for company A and they pay you £40k a year which is what you are taxed on.
Company A's income is £45k a year. Out of which they pay you £40k and the other £5k goes on electricity and other non negotiable costs such as building, internet etc. So there is no profit at the end of the year and nothing to currently be taxed on.
So Company A is now taxed on £45k a year (because that is fair to you) - even at 20% tax that means they are paying £9k in tax.
If they only had an income of £45k and they have had to pay £5k in non negotiable costs, and £9k in tax (because that is fair in your eyes) - then suddenly they only have £31k to pay you.
Oops - you have just done yourself out of £9k a year. Would you be happy with that?
Is that the irreparable injury that will be caused by their spouses taking them to the cleaners for signing up and trying to cheat?
I know this is a stupid thought but if you are going to do something like this then you have to be ready for the consequences.
What would have happened had they been with their partners and an email alert popped up on their screen saying they had a match (if that's how it works?). Would they then have wanted to sue Apple/Android for having notifications pop up on the lock screen.
Why can't people take responsibility for their actions?
In the UK this quote is very apt
“No man in this country is under the least obligation, moral or otherwise, so as to arrange his legal relations to his business or to his property as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel into his store.”
Lord Clyde, quote from a judgment given in 1929.
If at the time the "scheme" wasn't illegal then I have no issue with people doing this. I personally wouldn't touch it with a bargepole because I feel uncomfortable about the shifting of money around etc.
Most contractors - even those paying minimum wages via a Ltd company - will still be paying corporation tax (20%).
Based on a company billing £100000 a year and the contractor taking the minimum amount of £8000 a year. Even if they took expenses of £20k a year they are still left paying 20% tax on £70000 before they take dividends.
That means their company is still paying £14k in tax a year.
also by billing £100k a year they will have to VAT registered so there is another 20% they charge that goes straight to the government. They have to declare £120,000 to the government even though they have only seen £100,000 of it.
so the government is still getting at least £34000 a year in "taxes" from that contractor's limited company. If the contractor then takes dividends that take total remuneration to over circa £42000 he will be charged another 25% tax on the money over £42000.
so - if the contractor only takes £40,000 a year "remuneration" (not forgetting his £20k to pay expenses - such as train fares/lunches/pc's etc) he is then paying £34000 in tax, the company then retains £26000 in profits which can be used to pay the contractors wages when they are out of work.
A permanent person earning £60k a year only pays £17,870.12.
so a contractor taking home minimum pay through a ltd company will still contribute twice as much in taxes as a permanent employee on £60k.
Before any of you take issue with my maths and the VAT portion - it is still £20000 that the government has done nothing for to support the limited company so yes it is still a tax that the limited company has paid to the government.
Why is it morally reprehensible?
Surely the company's legal and moral obligation is to its shareholders not the average person???
Why should hard working companies/people be penalised for following the law? If the law is wrong (and lets be honest a lot of the times it is an 'ass') - change the law.
Of course changing the law would require the politicians to do real work as opposed to launching smear campaigns to get people to "morally" pay what is right regardless of what is legally right.
Sorry FSMO roles dont HAVE to only sit on one DC. In fact in most large organisations I have worked they have had an empty root domain which will have DC's hosting some of the FSMO roles and then the child domains hosting the others.
Also if it was that important that the FSMO roles were available during a reboot (and I really can't think of any reason off the top of my head) - surely you would just transfer the role to another DC first before reboot.
I had corrective surgery about 12 years ago. The first company told me they couldn't do the surgery I required (so some do have your interests at heart).
the second company used the new (at the time!) waveform technique and it has, touch wood, been fine over the last 12 years.
The missus who was watching said the worst part was the smell of them burning my eyeball with the laser.
Afterwards I started hearing horror stories of others - would I have it done again. NO
am i glad I had it done and it worked out great. YES
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019