Re: Wooden Spoon company
No, TalkTalk are not in the same league as Capita. With Capita it is greed, pure and simple; with TalkTalk it is incompetence, stupid, stickling script following idiocy managed by cretins.
32 posts • joined 8 Feb 2016
The free-loader is the bbc, anyone watching (and by the way I don't) ITV or Sky or the many foreign channels by satellite is deemed liable to pay the bbc as well, now that is free-loading. No other organisation would get away with it. Imagine you buy your Guardian only to be told you have to pay for the Times as well. It is a nonsense, an aberration, a relic from the days before the internet and satellites, only surviving because it has been going on since 1926.
It isn't just the councils, it is endemic in the public sector. For instance why is it necessary to record so many traffic movements at so many locations? Hell, they might be speeding or they might use the Dartford crossing without paying. But mustn't grumble, could be worse, the bbc could demand they film me at home, just to make sure I'm not watching live tv without a licence.
What if they are good?
Because they are irrelevant to this year's management bonuses. Most likely the shit caused by getting rid of competent staff won't hit the fan until next year (or later) and by then this year's bonus will have been pocketed and new management imperatives unveiled.
Are you sure you have captured all the steps needed to complete this task?
You need time to discover all the consequences of this management meddling, er initiative. Then once you have listed them all you need to test. Days become weeks and could be months. Well, does the manager want it done properly or not? And don't forget to consider how backups taken under the old regime may be restored using the new regime.
Try the smaller sites. Lots of stuff sold on Amazon is actually sold by third-parties but at a higher price than the third-parties own site (well, they have to cover the cost Amazons fees somehow).
So, if you see something you like on Amazon check the sellers name on google, look for a similarly named site and check the item there. You may well save yourself 10% or more.
Except it isn't is it?
If microsoft think this will restore their reputation they are going to be disappointed.
The whole win 10 fiasco destroyed what trust remained in the microsoft brand.
It really isn't good for business if your customers :
a) Don't trust your brand.
b) Think your brand ignores their needs.
c) Use your products under sufferance.
It leads to :
d) Your products are only chosen as a last resort in the absence of a viable alternative.
Of course, it will take a while but as with the once mighty IBM I think microsoft is destined to dwindle from industry giant to industry also-ran.
"Microsoft was in the right place at the right time when command lines were superseded by GUIs,"
The GUIs were put together by Xerox before the hardware was cheap/powerful to support them.
Some years later Apple "appropriated" Xerox's ideas in the Lisa then and only then did Microsoft think they would have GUI too. Have you never heard of the court case, Apple sued Microsoft for copying their idea - they lost but for reasons other than it being an original idea by Microsoft.
Has Microsoft ever devised anything truly original?
By original I mean something Microsoft didn't buy in from an outside innovator. Neither do I mean something they developed after a smaller innovator got it first only for Microsoft to bludgeon them into insignificance.
Surely the publishers have only themselves to blame.
In the case of the paper press the ads are embedded in the page, you see the page, you see the ads, it is one.
Now, for whatever reasons, publishers have chosen to implement online ads such in a way they can be easily removed. It is a analogous to those "inserts" the paper press put in their publications; the ones I drop into the nearest bin, the ones I don't hear them whining about me or anyone else discarding.
So, why do publishers expect the consumer to behave any differently just because the content is online?
If in doubt go to the act-
Communications Act 2003
Part 4 Licensing of TV reception
363Licence required for use of TV receiver
(1)A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under this Part.
(2)A person who installs or uses a television receiver in contravention of subsection (1) is guilty of an offence.
(3)A person with a television receiver in his possession or under his control who—
(a)intends to install or use it in contravention of subsection (1), or
(b)knows, or has reasonable grounds for believing, that another person intends to install or use it in contravention of that subsection, is guilty of an offence.
In other words the crime is USING the tv to receive signals, not owning the tv.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019