Shooting the messenger..
..to become a legal requirement.
16426 posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
"compensation to the businesses whose (paid-for) ads are being blocked"
If a business pesters me with ads then I'm much, MUCH less likely to buy from them. Less as in "if there's an alternative I'll go for it". Less as in "I've taken my business elsewhere from services who thought that my being their customer entitled them to pester me".
It's to the advantage of any business that thinks it wants to sell to me to have ads that I might otherwise get being blocked. So maybe "compensation" should be negative and such businesses should pay the ad-blocker a fee to block them.
The truth of the matter is that I'm far from alone in this attitude. The situation is that the advertising industry makes money by charging advertisers to piss off potential customers.
...the more they stay the same.
Back in the days when we were trying to train police officers about preserving evidence from contamination by stray fibres I walked into a CID office & found a jacket which was part of the evidence (in a murder investigation!) hanging on the back of a chair. Forty years later and the nature of the evidence may have changed but it still takes time for proper handling procedures to be taken on board. In answer to Lost all faith's questions - that message has probably got through by now; it's this new-fangled stuff that causes problems.
"A way to claw back bonuses, and to structure bonus incentives better, would also be good. But it's notoriously hard to do."
Just thinking out loud but...
Say we have a special share class that is used for share options. The only way to exercise such options is to buy this class of share. When the govt takes new shares for a bailout more shares of this class get issued but the proportion of dividends allocated to such shares doesn't get expanded in proportion so it's only the share option holders who get their shareholdings diluted and devalued. Could this have any traction?
"the zombification of of many companies with the misfortune to have been running final-salary schemes"
Gordon Brown had done a lot of damage to final-salary and private pension schemes way before this. I reckon the pension companies could and should have raised the profile of this: every year when they sent out projections they could have added another projection - what the pension would have been without the tax raid.
"Inflation means cash loses value over time."
Indeed it does. But if people are concerned that they could lose the entire deposit they'd prefer to lose some of the value. In fact at today's interest rates bank deposits are losing value.
Or to look at it another way, if someone you'd never met emailed you from Nigeria to offer you 10x bank interest rates would you lend him money?
If we make the banks small-enough-to-fail we don't have to bail them out for the damage a failure could do to the overall system. But if such a bank does fail then it takes the deposits of its savers with it. From a saver's point of view any bank is too big to fail.
So if I'm a saver then I might consider keeping my cash under the mattress instead of putting it in a bank. I might also draw out my salary or pension as soon as it's paid in - look, no float. Neither response is good for the economy as a whole.
This can be handled in two ways, first a deposit guarantee scheme, which is to some extent a bail-out mechanism, or far more draconian regulation. And while the latter might sound a good idea it does seem liable to an out of control regulator trying to micro-manage everything and everyone.
I take it that you've inside knowledge of this particular situation as you seem to know that the codebase is a mess, that it was written in a hurry, that they're following scrum etc.
I can think of several alternative ways in which this could have gone wrong. For instance a salesman having sold the client a product that didn't fit with assurances that it could be adapted (I've quit as a developer over having that dumped on me). Or, for instance, the development team, or a good chunk of it, having been pulled off to work on something else, leaving them insufficient time to complete what was, originally, a well estimated project.
The plastic thingies, at least the PlusNet ones, appear to be individually printed so I assume that the passwords are individually set so it wouldn't be a problem. However I reset mine anyway. But if you do that don't throw the card away; if you reset the router it goes back to the factory settings & you'll need the card again.
I think you've missed the point here. The BT Chairman is speaking for the BT Board. In the event of a spin-off it would fall to the spin-off to roll out broadband. It's no business of his (literally!) as to what that board may do unless, of course, he expects to be its chairman as well. If the latter he's making a damn poor job application.
The other day my doorbell gave a single ding which indicates the back door bell push had been pushed (back door ?"NSA calling"). There was nobody at either door. I then realised the bell mechanism was making a buzzing noise. A little investigation showed that the front door bell push had finally succumbed to a mixture of spider introduced grot, moisture & old age.
A little though showed that the bell, transformer and front door wiring had probably been fitted about 50 years ago. The bell push might not have been original - there's a cut-out in the door frame which suggests a larger one was intended - but must have been installed at least 30 years ago. A few minutes searching indicates that identically sized & styled bell pushes are still available.
I wonder if a Ring bought now still be in operation in 30 years time.
That's the whole problem. The entire democratic basis of membership, at least as far as the UK is concerned, is a referendum about 40 years ago on membership of an organisation which is very different from the present set-up, especially the ever closer union bit.
Each time the organisation has changed the issue of popular approval has been ducked so a huge democratic deficit has been built up. Even worse, when the Republic of Ireland voted against the Lisbon Treaty they were told to go back & vote again until they came up with the right answer. And I think that in a lot of people's minds that is so objectionable that they'd be prepared to vote for an exit as a matter of principle even if the economic consequences meant going back to living in Iron Age round houses.
This situation could have been avoided. It would have meant getting popular approval for each stage of change across all the member countries. That would have been hard work. At each stage the negotiators would have had to come up with something which could have gained that approval. The end result might have been something rather different to what we have now. The membership might have been smaller. The role of MEPs might have been greater. But if an in/out vote were now being proposed against such a background the Europhiles would be quite laid back about it because there'd be a history of repeated approval over several decades.
The task for the EU is to get rid of that democratic deficit and retain the membership intact - give or take Greece.
"A $200 device attached to your front door with 2 small screws will get nicked or maybe vandalised."
I know I'm sceptical of this device but at least I'm capable of following the links & scrolling down the page to where it says:
"The Ring Doorbell attaches to its mounting plate using a proprietary screw for security."
OK, screws start off proprietary but given time the drivers do tend to end up in cheap sets at B&Q. But it then says:
"If your doorbell gets stolen, don’t worry - we’ll replace it. For free."
"Until we have IPv6, all devices involved in house security have to go through an external server, because most home setups run NAT to offer internal devices access to the Net."
I'm not sure I follow this argument.
Scenario 1. Internal sensors, internal responders. There's no need to even get beyond the internal lan.
Scenario 2. Internal sensors, external responders, e.g. owner's phone as in this example. No need for an external server. PCs manage to go online with no external resources other then the ISPs. Why should security kit be different?
Scenario 3. Single internal sensor externally interrogated (e.g. from phone). Would need router to provide access via some specific port. Yes, as soon as you start opening the firewall you have a security risk but if that access is to a security device then you'd hope the security device is secure. Otherwise it isn't fit for purpose.
Scenario 4. Multiple internal sensors externally interrogated. Either punch multiple holes in the firewall, one for each, or, much better, a single hole to contact an internal server.
None of these scenarios require an external server. Granted 3 & 4 introduce trade-offs that some of us might not be comfortable with but not more so than an external server provided by a service company. And they're not dependant on the service provider remaining solvent.
Scenarios where external servers become essential involve one or more of marketing ("because cloud"), continued revenue stream or big data (you're not the user, you're the product). In other words they're there for the interests of the vendor and if the vendor goes out of business then the device becomes more electronic land-fill.
'"local government" has gotten above its station'
It certainly has. If asked about failure to grit roads adequately or run public libraries it regularly pleads poverty. And yet it has money to spaff on vanity projects such as cycle races where it pays foreign organisers to run them over local roads which it blocks residents from using.
"An estimated $1m (£656m) in suspected counterfeit goods was seized."
How do you value counterfeit goods? At the price of the real thing? At the "back of a lorry" price they were being flogged at? The market price you'd get for them as not the real thing? Or do you just think of a nice round number call it job done?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019