Re: Google Maps/Streetview - Westminister Bridge.
"They are getting invasive now, aren't they."
Give them an inch and they take a mile.
16426 posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
"Block them - how?"
1. Get your own domain, or maybe an email provider who can provide you with your own subdomain.
2. Set up a separate alias/address for each firm you have to do business with such as your bank.
3. Every few weeks set up a new alias/address for one-off contacts and tear down the old one.
4. Each of these addresses gets directed to a single mailbox you you don't have to check all of them.
5. If any of these addresses leak you can tell which one. Be ruthless about tearing down the address because it isn't going to affect the rest of your email. If the correspondent gets in touch by some other means to complain make it an educational opportunity. Or change supplier.
6. It also helps to spot the fakes. If banking phishing mail doesn't come addressed to your banking email address it's immediately obvious even if they've hit the right bank name by accident.
This deals with most situations. There are exceptions. Amazon, for instance, seem to insist that communications from market place vendors go through themselves whilst others don't have that much wit. Paypal is one such. They pass the purchaser's email address to the vendor. Most don't spam but one or two do. What makes that particular situation doubly bad is that the email address is also the logon ID; that's right Paypal hand half the customer's login credentials to every vendor they buy from. Maybe there's an el Reg article in that?
It sounds like the usual call centre operation. Something fails so they repeat. With the same result. And it will keep on failing until someone escalates the problem. It really is in the call centre's own interests to have an escalation procedure of its own. If the customer ends up escalating it to the regulator it can get expensive; kudos to the nuns for doing that.
"Falling back to no special deal and going back to WTO rules will still be fine for the country and free us up."
The pixie dust view.
"My fear is a special deal where we lose what has been won, our exit from the political union the EU."
Reality seeping through. At some point you're going to cotton on to the real killer. That will happen and we won't be part of the decision-making process. The control that could be won back was an illusion.
"He gambled the entire country for the sake of party politics and to cement his own position."
Probably a serious mis-statement of his thinking. The right-wing eurosceptics were a menace for decades. He would have expected to win and thus not see it as a gamble. I think it was a ploy to get the eurosceptics back into their box. It didn't work with all the ominous consequences you mention. If it had you'd probably have been praising him for a brilliant out-manoeuvring of the Gove faction and UKIP.
"Scotland will leave the EU, either as a part of the UK or, if independent, on it's own, and will have to apply to join and suffer the time and requirements that takes, including, creating their own currency."
They already have banks that issue their own bank notes (ignoring for the moment that the UK tax payer owns a substantial slice of that).
"Again, that's fine, the EU is not a big export partner for the UK and it's not like those exports will cease to exist merely lose volume."
I regularly drive past a specialist shipping packer. Not the sort of place that shoves stuff in standard containers. They deal with the big one-off jobs, the sort you see as wide loads on the motorway (some of those wide load escort vehicles are hanging around from time to time).
No doubt the businesses that use this firm sell to a world-wide market. But at present the EU won't really be an export market for them - it's their home market. And they're going to lose 28/29ths of that. The sad fact is that a lot, maybe a majority of the employees of those specialist firms probably voted for Brexit. Will they wish they hadn't in a few years time?
"Sounds a huge waste of time and resources against a very unlikely real world scenario."
Unlikely? It happens all the time. It's how the likes of Google work out how to show you ads for stuff you bought last week. They've still not worked out that the information they glean from it can go stale PDQ.
The shortcoming of this whole scheme as far as I can see is the the people who'd need to make this work are the very people who wouldn't want it to work so it's not really going to happen. Anyone who wants to offer a search service where they don't know find out what the user was looking for has a much simpler solution. Don't look.
"The Human Rights Act is a UK law passed in 1998....Pity the Home Secretary doesn't do some reading before opening her mouth."
Yes, but the current PM has been wanting to repeal that ever since she was Home Sec. She's not going to want a Home Sec going against that. Don't pity Amber Rudd; she was doing exactly what was required of her.
The main thing that was stopping May was being in the EU.
It would help of the political interviewers had some technical nous.
Rudd should have been asked if she was prepared to lead from the front and publish all her credentials for online banking, eBay, Amazon or whatever. As she'd have been bewildered she (and the audience) could have then had it gently explained that this was, in effect, what she was demanding of the rest of the population.
As it is any politician can walk into any radio or TV studio, spout whatever nonsense their department has fed them and walk out unchallenged about any of it.
"Masood wasn't on anyone's watch list. He just a small town thug that came completely out of nowhere."
The reports I saw said that he was known from being on the fringes of some previous case but wasn't considered important. If this is the case we have yet another instance of the intelligence services being able to follow up on someone they did know about whilst trying to keep an eye on everyone in the country. Maybe a more focussed approach would be more practical.
"Not just tech stuff : one has to wonder what this person is doing as home secretary."
Don't you realise that this is the Home Office's main requirement of a Home Sec? They have to be so devoid of any relevant knowledge that they can parrot whatever they're told without showing any signs of cognitive dissonance and remain totally brainwashed even on being promoted to PM.
"With the MobileControl function you can keep an eye on your Miele appliance, even when you're not at home - via smart-phone or tablet PC. Not only can you access the programme status, you can also conveniently select and start programmes regardless of location using your mobile terminal device. Simply download the Miele@mobile app and connect the device to Miele@home. When you return home, your Miele appliance has already finished its work. "
It's a pity I'm not in the market for a new dishwasher. I'd have let a salesdroid give that spiel just so I could have asked "Why would I want to?". And then show them my ancient non-Apple, non-Android phone.
"It's unclear which libraries Miele used to craft the Web server, which means without a fix from the vendor – for a dishwasher – the best option is to make sure the appliance isn't exposed to the Internet."
No. That's the second best option. The best option is not to buy anything that's given a facility to connect to the internet that it doesn't need. A dishwasher doesn't need a facility to connect to the internet.
""As the worker (contractor), would you accept as substitute a suitably qualified worker instead of the worker?" "NO" --->> instant IR35 fail."
Once upon a time the IR as it then was had a boiler-plate contract on their site. It was for companies supplying services to them. Let me emphasis that, it was a contract for services, not a contract of service*. It included a term allowing them, the IR, to name specific individuals of the contractor's staff who could not be substituted without their, the IR's agreement. In other words the IR, when they were the client, were quite cool with the idea of a key man clause. I'm sure I still have a copy somewhere.
*Permies might not understand the significance of this but believe me, it is very important.
"My understanding is that companies won't contract a self-employed person because the rules change in the 1990s meant that two consecutive contracts would be equated with permanent employment, leaving the employer open to claims for employee rights."
My understanding is that it was HMRC's predecessor IR to blame. In the event of a self-employed person defaulting the Ltd Co engaging them became liable. The Ltd Co form of engagement protected the engager against this.
It seems to be an attitude to risk on the engager's part as I discovered a client who also had freelance graphic designers taken on as SE. I could probably have contracted with them on that basis. However I already had my Ltd Co set up so continued with that.
"No, the employer pays it once and the worker pays it once, same as everyone else. It ain't your money cos you're not a limited company."
I sort of take your point. The worker isn't the limited company and this really should be emphasised.
But the likes of the first post fail to make the distinction and ISTM that the previous A/C was replying in terms that they might understand. The amount invoiced isn't the amount that's available to be paid as salary and/or dividends. There is a world of difference between the nature of the payments the engager makes out to a permie and a freelancer's Ltd Co.
"...a class action that includes every person in the US who upgraded to Windows 10 from Windows 7 and suffered data loss or damage to software or hardware within 30 days of installation"
I can understand if the upgrade procedure somehow caused data loss or 'damage to software' but I haven't heard of Windows 10 either damaging hardware or causing data loss.
It's the sort of thing any lawyer would put in without even having to set the brain in motion for two reasons: firstly it saves having to investigate whether any hardware failures did happen so if someone does turn up with such a corner case they've already got it in there and secondly it cuts Microsoft off at the pass if they try "it was a hardware issue" as a defence.
"It genuinely made itself too big to sue into the ground."
No excuse. If for no other reason it would discourage others from using the same tactic.
In any case, if it did get sued into the ground there'd be good money to be made supporting the victims so someone would be ready to buy up the assets at fire sale prices.
"Cloud based services are so clearly the future"
And as the outages become more frequent their vendors will be able to say they were the future once upon a time. Anybody who can't see that coming needs to read the news and to have been around long enough to realise that IT is a fashion industry.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019