"no living direct ancestors"
Given that they themselves lived so long ago it would be a bit surprising if there ancestors were still alive.
16426 posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
"However, Stanton noted the government's indication that the laws won't be used against specific vendors."
I the laws aren't used against specific vendors then against whom are they to be used. AFAICS "against specific vendors" makes no sense at all so let's delete it.
"the government's indication that the laws won't be used"
So why have laws that won't be used? Because "we" (i.e. the govt.) can?
"after the public paid for the infrastructure"
The problem was that the public via the government wasn't paying anything like enough tor the infrastructure, hadn't done for years and wasn't likely to. By selling stuff off the government could get back of the value left in the historic investment and make the future Somebody Else's Problem - except when they totally muffed it.
At the time the railways were being privatised I was one of their victims AKA commuter. It struck me then that it was being done in a completely arse-about-face manner unlikely to improve my daily life. There was no reason at all to suppose that the infra-structure company would have any reason to align its plans, or lack thereof, with the requirements of the operating companies. Regional franchises removed scope for competition and the length of those franchises tended to inhibit all but the most essential investment.
The result was the same, largely ageing, hardware being operated but the same staff with, for the most part the same management with even less alignment between customer need and service provision.
It would have made sense to sell off whole lines, infra-structure & operations as a whole. It would have made sense to keep infra-structure separate but to allow multiple operating companies to run competing services over them. It would have made even more sense to have done the latter but split the infra-structure into regional companies so as to concentrate each management's attention on getting its own bit right.
"The march of technology"
Ah yes, the saviour of us all. But only if someone has the money to invest in it. And the GPO didn't. The new chief executive who took over the newly separated but not yet privatised BT is supposed to have said that he found himself in charge of the black telephone rationing company.
'A Capita spokesman sent us a statement, saying more customers are using digital channels "rather than traditional customer service telephone channels" to log issues.'
My one experience of this was before the Crapita take-over so I can only imagine it's got worse. All I wanted to do was change a number from contract to PAYG. I tried the email route which was clearly handled in India. After several weeks I gave up & phoned for a PAC. Leeds arrange the PAYG on the spot. But I wish I'd got an email address for any of my old colleagues there, if any of them had survived, to send them an archive of 21 emails to and from the incapables.
The history of variously pissing on and pissing off staff by this business extends right back to BT Mobile days and "We're relocating from Euston to King's Langley. Oh, 80% of you still want to work for us. OK, we're not relocating there, we're going to Leeds instead. And by the way 'we' doesn't include most of us in the top team that made the decision."
"each page individual customers read of your book, the first time they read it"
So, you write a technical manual. 60% of it deals with corner cases that few people ever need to read but if anyone needs to read up on one of those they really, really need it. But about 10% is valuable reference stuff that readers keep going back to. So most readers read 30% of the book once and pay for it once, they read 10% a lot but still only pay for it once and have the reassurance that the other 60% is there and that has value for them but they pay for little or any of it. Somehow that doesn't seem like a fair basis for payment, at least not for a reference work.
"When I was at school we learned that one of the markers of speciation was that you didn't have fertile offspring between different species"
As you've gathered, it's not as simple as that. We're dealing with continuities in time & sometimes in space. Your two non-interbreeding species will be the end points - or more correctly, current points - in separate lines of descent from a common ancestor with the degree of hybrid fertility decreasing with time. But much the same thing can happen in space where a species has an extended range but individuals from populations at the ends of the range can't interbreed although members of adjacent populations within the range can. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species In such circumstances all it would take would be a loss of habitat somewhere in the middle for such a species to split and this may well be the origin of closely related species inhabiting similar environments separated by some distance, e.g. mountains or islands.
It's this fuzziness that gives rise to what you might call metataxonomy - taxonomists are divided into lumpers & splitters.
"They use it for some BT events."
Back in my BT days I got in to work one morning to find customer services a bit agitated.
Sales had got a good contract and they needed to ship product out to hotels where the customer was holding courses for their staff. For various reasons this didn't fit with order processing but they'd overlooked that & now had several temps who should have been entering the data standing about. I quickly set up a table and data entry form on the development database to get the data entry there & spent the rest of the morning working out how to get the data processed into acceptable orders.
All the stuff got shipped on time & at the end of the exercise I discovered that sales had organised an event for themselves, customers and other BT management concerned - except it was preplanned & had no provision for anyone who'd dug them out of the hole of their own making. My own fault, I suppose; I usually kept my ear close enough to the ground to be aware of those things ahead of time.
If the article correctly represents the original report they're just licensing the name. It says nothing about the design or anything else. If Foxconn build a phone to Apple's design branded as Apple on contract to Apple it's an Apple. If Whoever just license the Nokia name & build their own design of phone branded as Nokia it wouldn't be a Nokia as you & I think of it, it would be a Whoever.
"The safer thing to do..."
This QR code problem is just a sub-set of a wider problem. Marketing engage "specialist" digital marketing companies to handle this for them. These companies are never going to get access to the client's domain so they either set up a domain that includes their client's name or just use their own. And that applies not just to promotional websites but also email shots, surveys - anything and everything. This trains the general public into accepting anything that claims to come from their bank, their govt, their sauce maker or anyone else actually is from them and clicking without a second thought.
It really needs to be a sackable offence to commit any digital marketing initiative without getting sign-off from IT security.
"and of course it's a standard contract clause that all copyright on work done on company time belongs to the company"
This is something to look at carefully if you're about to sign a contract. The company may well try to use wording that copyright on anything done during the period of the engagement belongs to the company without limiting it to work done on the company time. Of course this may simply a mistake and they don't really mean that. Anybody can make a simple mistake like that, can't they?
If you're faced with that get the wording changed, not just a verbal assurance, otherwise you could be seriously screwed if you happen to write a best-seller or something in your spare time.
" I've got nothing to hide"
OK then, go ahead with your not hiding anything. SSN, name, address. Bank details, log-on credentials, security answers. Same again for any other on-line services you use. Post it all here so as not to hide it.
What's that? You've just discovered you have something to hide after all?
It's OK with hindsight to say that Android vendors aren't making money in 2015. But Nokia's problem wasn't 2015, it was "right now" back in 2010-11 and the only "right now" option seems to have been Android. An Android line back then would have bought them time and time would have given them chance to decide what to do - finish Meego, wait for Windows to mature or even continue with Android - and do it. It's the facts that he eschewed that option, made the long term choice in the short term, made the long term choice that he did and also the Ratnerish way in which he did it all that laid the foundation for the conspiracy theory.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019