Re: You show me yours, I'll show you mine?
Maybe a FIA request for Teresa May's internet communication records for the past year? Just as an illustration of what's intended, of course.
16449 posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
"what happens when networks get the bright idea of selling ads themselves"
Given that they seem to have cottoned onto the fact that users don't want ads then if the other networks do provide ads themselves not doing so is a valuable differentiator.
There's a big difference between being ad-supported and providing a paid-for service. Ad-supported sites could suffer in the sort of thermonuclear war you suggest. Paid networks aren't going to nuke themselves unless they have very stupid managements.
BTW, re your prediction. How are Google going to send ads to Android devices if the networks are ad-blocking?
But should Net Neutrality mean that users pay for the advertisers' bandwidth? I'd suggest that whoever wants to use the bandwidth pays.
At present the objections to ads are (a) they're annoying (b) they may be malicious and (c) they steal bandwidth the user paid for. If the advertiser wants to sell something to me then stealing from me isn't exactly a good start.
So if the advertiser pays their share then that's one obstacle removed.
The next is that if advertisers are paying for their bandwidth then they may start paying attention to just how effective their ads are and realise that pissing off the potential customer by being annoying isn't a good idea either, not it wasting money sending out ads for something their tracking tells them the customer's bought already. So the ads might get less annoying.
The worry is that the only "ads" worth paying to send the user are ransomware or the like.
"That would make the court a lawmaker."
Well, making case law is a role for the courts. But I don't think it's a matter of defining what's acceptable. It's already said that the pig wasn't for specific reasons. It will then have the job of deciding whether the pig with lipstick is any better depending on whether the specific reasons have gone away. Somehow, I think that lipstick or no, the pig's going to remain earth-bound.
There's clearly a need to known how many. The neediness to know who is much more questionable. When we see statements such as "legislation to make it easier for local authorities and government departments to share citizen data without breaching the Data Protection Act" we really should be questioning this. Firstly is the DPA there for a reason? Secondly does the DPA allow for this sharing already? If it does why do we need extra legislatation? If it doesn't is this additional legislation intended to weaken the DPA so what's illegal now can become legal whilst still claiming to be not breaching it? And if so does it make a nonsense of the reasons we have the DPA?
"1) Security pays what? 6 - 7 quid an hour or thereabouts?
So, you are basically going to get either: Total monkeys "who like the uniform" or those people with other problems in their life (like being recently out of jail or supplementing their measly salary in ways that might land them in one). Neither character is going to be around for long, why train them? It's not like anything they do will come back to you (If it does, you can always sack them)."
If you're safeguarding important installations with international security regulations pertaining to them then these are not the people you should be hiring to do it, the people you're hiring should be trained and if 6 - 7 qph isn't enough to recruit and retain the people you should be hiring and training, then it's not the rate you should be paying.
"Theft is theft, there is no time limit or extenuating circumstances such as saying that you were going to return the item eventually."
Theft is indeed theft. It's taking with intent to permanently deprive. That's why the charge against a joyrider isn't theft, it's taking and driving away.
"They will learn, adapt and in time drive those roads better than either of us ever could."
They'll have a lot to learn. The sheep might not be in the road yet. Given that they can recognise a sheep, can they still recognise it when it's standing on top of a wall. Can they recognise that the sheep on the wall is facing the road? Can they recognise that it's getting ready to jump and that when it does it will already be too late to break so break NOW?
Here's another interesting one: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Northumberland+St,+Huddersfield,+West+Yorkshire+HD1firstname.lastname@example.org,-1.7805395,3a,66.8y,75.07h,73.98t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sUmncoXKNzFGnjA-AhaYgog!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x487bdc6d76aee929:0x84feda5b66e64326?hl=en
Bus (non bendy but see below) occupying the left hand lane opposite the side street waiting for the lights to change at the next junction with me behind. Smallish Volvo, (i.e.smallish in Volvo terms) exiting the street on the right (it wasn't one way back then) absolutely determined to butt in behind the bus crept forward until the rubber strip on his bumper was resting on the side of the bus half way along.
What I hadn't noticed until the bus started to move was that he'd actually pushed in what must have been an unsupported panel form in the skirt of the bus. I watched fascinated as the bus eased forward. The panel yielded as it came to the bumper, then sprung out again after it got past so a depression an inch or so deep ran past the bumper until the leading edge of the wheel arch cleared the bumper..
A second or so later the trailing edge of the wheel arch hit the bumper and tore it clean off. The bus drove on. I drove round the back of the Volvo into the side street and left the muppet, his wife, their car and its bumper to sort it out on their own.
"Unfortunately - unless you rewrite huge swathes of company law, you will have a problem."
Leave company law alone but amend insolvency law to prevent a company being liquidated whilst criminal proceedings or fines are pending with the body issuing the fines joining HMRC in getting first dibs at the assets.
"almost all PCs still have slot-like 16:9 display aspect ratios"
So, you assume that everyone else ought to have your preferred aspect ratio? Why do we keep getting this stupid pattern of "I prefer/need $OPTION so everyone else ought to have it too"?
"How, then, did we afford to get electricity and water to just about anybody who wants it, even in our relatively impoverished past?"
Gradually. I grew up in a rural house that initially didn't have mains water (actually when we got it we still preferred the spring for drinking water anyway) nor electricity until after we left in 1958.
We're looking at a copper network that was installed over decades. Replacing that with FTTP would be a huge investment. Deciding who'll do that is secondary to finding the money. As you point out the cable installers lost money even though they were able to cherry pick the compact high density urban areas. Then there's the rate at which such a replacement might take happen; and hence working out how large a workforce might be or could be assembled for the task, how many roads could be dug up simultaneously etc.
And now we have muppets thinking that all it takes to roll out FTTP to the whole country is the right wording in an OFCOM report.
"the futility of doing something like this on a Friday"
This is actually OK. You just have to budget for spending your entire weekend fixing it. Providing you do that either (a) everything will work just fine or (b) you'll still not have everything fixed by 27:00 hours on Sunday evening. This is the consequence of the uncertainty principle running into time dilation.
" Security staff could get in the way to prevent the trolley going, but not stop him."
I find that odd.
Many years ago I met an ex-SOCO, now local station sergeant in the local supermarket. He told me he was following the store detective. He suspected she was slipping stock into customers' shopping baskets and then detaining them and getting them arrested for shop-lifting when they left the store. I think he eventually caught her.
I can never understand what anyone's saying on my mobile nor, indeed, on my landline if the other end of the call's on a mobile. Except - when I get into my car the built-in phone does a remote SIM connection to the mobile and all calls are clear as crystal. Weird.
Also weird is the fact that I had "Home" as a phone-book entry and the carphone wouldn't recognise it. I got it to read out the phone book and it pronounced it as Hulme. Very odd. Do the manufacturers think that a lot of customers need to call people called Hulme-spelled-Home but rather fewer need to call home?
"This made it possible to measure call handling time, time spent talking, time spent on hold and time spent wrapping up calls, metrics call centres love to harvest"
Metrics which have a common factor of being easy to measure. Calls closed to callers satisfaction? Far too difficult to measure, possibly too embarrassing for management to be aware of but the only real measure of a call centre's effectiveness.
"anyone who says back pain doesn't affect productivity has never had back pain!"
Very true. My back pain was the result of a single ill-judged movement when stretching to lower my car off its jack and had dogged me on and off for years. It's aggravated by standing for any length of time. Standing desks & stand-up meetings would have resulted in a lot of time off sick followed by resignation.
"I think it's fucking pathetic that most people can't wire a plug, or do up a compression joint / taped thread."
Given the way plugs are moulded on to mains leads these days the first of those seems to be obsolete these days and sooner or later there'll probably be regulations preventing it. Knowing how to choose the correct replacement fuse is another matter although again that might be regulated into the hands of the sparkies.
I have serious reservations about making things compulsory. Maybe it's a hangover from compulsory games and Latin at school. Having said that I have to admit that my experience of programming was a much resented compulsory course in FORTRAN. Mind you it was only 5 days of which I managed to miss the first by being out of the country doing field work - whatever they did that day it can't have been much as I wasn't disadvantaged.
I don't think it takes much exposure to a subject to discover that it is or isn't something you'll be good at. The field work for which I missed that first day of the FORTRAN course had been in a subject that grabbed my attention on a single day on a field course whilst at school; a day when the weather precluded the scheduled activity and its replacement was largely a matter of luck.
In fact, longer suffering of a subject being badly taught may well be counter-productive and, as others have said here, where do you find the (good) teachers?
Maybe the best approach would be to start with short taster courses concentrating on structured problem solving as much as coding. Provide short teacher training courses for this. If necessary some of the best teachers could work on a peripatetic basis to get it off the ground. It would increase exposure of the subject to the teaching staff so that hopefully more would be drawn into the short course and some of the initial batch could be trained up to offer a fuller course to the pupils who have an interest and aptitude for it.
I refer the hon. gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago. A summons requires a witness to produce some evidence they might have. Apple have the backup which might be evidence. This is a demand for Apple to produce something that they don't have and which isn't evidence.
Yes. I've had plenty of those. They're called witness summonses. A summons can also call on a witness to produce in court some item of evidence that they possess. What's being attempted here is to call on someone to produce something that (a) isn't evidence and (b) they don't possess. That's a radical departure from standard procedure.
"The big question is why the judge and FBI went to such great lengths to pretend this was a one off when they full well knew that was quite simply impossible in the US legal system."
According to a previous report here the answer to part one is that the FBI assured the magistrate that it was a reasonable demand and Apple's view wasn't asked for. The answer to the second part, why the FBI did it is pretty obvious to most of us.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019