I don't know if you can do that in the UK? Here, I can insure my license. Any vehicle I drive is covered....... Even if I drove your car, if I crashed it - it's fully insured. I have no idea if they offer that in the UK....when I rented a car in the UK.. I paid for additional insurance and they cared not one bit about my piddly US insurance. I don't actually know if that would cover a rented car in the UK or not
No, you could not. In the UK you effectively insure the car, not yourself. You might think the UK car insurance system is loony, but it actually works on a very simple principle - ie, the premium is whatever the bastards think they can get out of you. It is an extortion racket.. An American tourist/businessman in the UK?! - milk them for all they are worth!
For example, I had a fairly powerful up-market car for which I paid insurance with a discount for not having made any insurance claims (ever). Fair enough. But I then also acquired a small, cheap, sedate, motor-caravan (US motorhome? but less than Transit sized). I was staggered to be told that the additional insurance premium for this would be about 3 times as much as for the more powerful car because my clean insurance record "could only be applied to one car", they said. So I was insured for the second vehicle as if I were a new driver. As I could not even drive both cars simultaneously, you would think the premium would just be that for the more powerful and expensive car. Their "logic" seemed to be that as I could afford to run two cars, I should be an easy touch for money.
Similarly, I once commuted into London every day by train, and saw an advert by an insurance company offering "discounts" for drivers who had a railway season ticket. When you think of the insurance risk of someone driving into central London in the rush hours every day, I expected the discount to be massive. Nope, the quotation was about twice as much as I was already paying. Again, the logic seemed that someone with a job in central London must be well paid.
Even if you do not buy based on these ads, you see their brand or product multiple times, and the.. Mere-exposure effect makes you little by little gain positive opinion on the product.
No it doesn't, it gives me a negative opinion. For one thing I don't like being patronised, which most adverts do. For another I think of all that money being spent on advertising rather than going on quality in the product.
I bought a pressure washer recently; I see adverts for Karcher washers everywhere, so I bought a Black and Decker. I bought a chainsaw last year; I see adverts for Ryobi everywhere, so I bought a Stihl. Ryobi are rubbish anyway (correlating my point above about adverts vs quality) apart from the fact that you cannot get spare parts for them. Stihl don't need to advertise much because their reputation is rock solid, and just look at what most professionals use.
1) Everyday things like food. What I buy is not decided by advertising, it is decided on trial. Eg, I will try different types of beer and settle on the one I like best.
And how do you know your "liking" doesn't result from harmful components?
I don't, but that is nothing to do with advertising, the topic here.
3) Specialist things like car spares and building materials. What I buy is not decided by advertising, it is decided by what I can find... who sells the same brand anyway
Here you dodged the question - how did you select the brand in the first place.
By my method (2) in the case of the car itself. With regard to most of its spares there is no choice, even if I went 100 miles for it. Replacement headlamp for a Jeep Grand Cherokee (in the UK) - nearest main dealer for that (the 25 mile away one), and no brand choice. The point I am making here is that for some things there is no choice. Another example is looking for replacement ceramic tiles to replace broken ones installed before my time - had to be certain size and colour. Lucky to find any at all, I don't care about the brand. They don't advertise that sort of stuff anyway, not in the UK.
You did tell an unrelated fact - that the brand you selected is available both 25 miles away and > 100 miles away.
Why is that unrelated? As said above, I didn't "select" the brand; there is only one, the one made for the car. I "selected" the nearest place that sold it.
In spite of knowing that advertisements tell a one sided story, humans still get affected significantly by it.
I havn't time to read that lot, but I can guess what it says. I'm talking about me, and if anything adverts affect me adversly, especially intrusive ones, and increasingly it seems I am not the only one. My reaction to an intrusive advert on my screen is to shout "Fuck off!" and make a mental note never to buy that stuff. Not hard, probably not the type of stuff I am likely to buy anyway.
Not everyone has time to agonize over every purchasing decision. Many people make purchases based on questionable information.
My purchases fall into three categories:-
1) Everyday things like food. What I buy is not decided by advertising, it is decided on trial. Eg, I will try different types of beer and settle on the one I like best.
2) Occasional things like a camera or a car. What I buy is not decided by advertising, it is decided by looking at reviews and listening to others' opinions. Both of these channels I weigh up by reading between the lines - for example people who have bought a lemon are notorious for recommending it to others because they don't want to look like the only fool. Call that "agonising" if you like - I call it care.
3) Specialist things like car spares and building materials. What I buy is not decided by advertising, it is decided by what I can find. Eg, I have to travel about 25 miles to find the nearest place that sells spares for my car, and >100 miles to the next nearest (who sells the same brand anyway). Hobson's choice.
There are also no straight or flat roads in this part of the state. My 25 minute drive to work would take hours on a bike.
Your bike cannot get round bends? It needs flat roads? And take hours?? - are you using it the right way up?
When I commuted in London it was faster by bike than by car - and that was in the outer suburbs. In the countryside of Southern England my average bike speed (17mph) was about half that of driving a car if not on motorways. The long-term average speed currently displayed in my car is 36 mph (there are only country roads in my area).
So what does this Mike do exactly with his weed trimmer in his acre that is "nearly through" in 45 minutes? As it happens my garden is also an acre and there is no damn way I would get through trimming the weeds in it in 45 minutes. I have a arsenal of professional grade (mid-range Stihl) 2-stroke kit and could spend my entire spare time on it (but don't).
Don't worry though, I have only one neighbour (a farmer) within half a mile, and he's deaf (but not from me).
you find two-stroke engines in applications where you need high power but extremely low weight. Their cheapness is simply a byproduct of their simplicity (hence, weight savings). There are plenty of applications where a 4-stroke engine simply wouldn't work because it would weigh too much... or would be too bulky
You forgot the main reason that 2-strokes are used in hand-held kit, especially chainsaws : being sump-less they work at any angle and tolerate being tossed around, because the lubricating oil comes in with the fuel. This can be done with 4-strokes with fancy sump design having swivelling pick-up nozzles (like in acrobatic aircraft), but it is expensive and less reliable.
Leave the goddamn leaves on the ground. Or if you really must collect them, just use a fucking rake.
A rake is no good on a gravel drive as it pulls the gravel as well, and mixes it with the leaves. If you leave the leaves on the drive (or anywhere, like the previous occupants of my house seem to have done for the last 20 years), they just turn into mud. Half my driveway is a mud-bath of rotted leaves with gravel somewhere below, which I must sort out one day.
And a Tesla model S/BMW, a bigger house, traveling around the world, somethings you didn't have 100 years ago. An average Joe today can afford the health service better than the richest people can have 100 years ago
Not in the UK. New houses are shockingly tiny; if you want a larger house you buy one that's 100 years old. My parents 60 years ago, with hardly any money, bought* about the most modest new-built house they could find. Today, that same house is considered middle-market; the builders would put 4 "homes" on that plot today.
In the UK, very few people are working towards getting a Tesla or BMW; they are working to survive and to keep their 15 yo VW Polo on the road (which they need to run because the politicians have cut the bus services). My father was a blue-collar worker in the 1950's, wokring only 9-5 with 4 weeks annual leave, but still managed to run a Morris 8 (== a Polo in its day), as well as the house.
100 years ago, young men travelled round the world by joining the Army or Navy.
* Bought with a mortgage. My father exagerated his income to get it.
in my experience at least have gone from being happy with 1 TV and one stereo in the "family".... If we lived with the stuff you had in 1930's yeah we could work a lot less.
But a pre-1980's TV was built by hand while today robots do most of the work. The effort that went into that 1950's TV or 1930's car would make a dozen today.
The real reason for more work today is that most of it is non-productive. As automation has replaced much real work, new non-jobs have been created. It is doing stuff like safety inspections, progress chasing, advertising (half the cost of some stuff today goes to its advertising), making financial cases (that can cost more than the work) and so on ad nauseum. In the book "How to be a Wally" it gives a "Wally's" job description : - "To liaise with other Wallys". That's it, in in a nutshell.
I am a power station engineer and I spend hours sitting in meetings with a dozen other qualified engineers discussing eg whether to replace a slightly leaking seal on a large valve, whether it is cost-effective, whether we have a safety case, whether we can spare a fitter to do it. I generally take the line "Just give me a fucking spanner and I'll go down and do it this morning"; but I am treated as if that would be spoil the meeting.
'targeted, lawful, proportionate, necessary, jurisdictionally bounded, and transparent'.
2. lawful, we're passing the law right now
Being from the UK I did not understand that point. If it is introduced as a new law, then anything done under it will be lawful by definition. These companies are USA based and don't seem to realise that there is no higher law in the UK; for better or worse there is no equivalent to the US Constitution. It would have been better if they had left that point out as it only reveals misunderstanding of the way UK law works, raising the question of how they are qualified to comment.
Liberty minded means willing to act like sheep, and follow all the other liberty minded sheep to NH, and willing to vote the way the shepherds say to vote,
Stop !!!! You are reminding me of the Pilgrim Fathers
They deserve to fail and die for not only choosing a common word for their name, but also choosing a name that's in common use in something closely related.
I don't understand this. Contactless cards have been around in the UK for a while now. While they are "wearable", like you could wear them in your sleeve, they do need to be waved in front of the reader so you could not wear them in your socks, or your pants probably.
But that is also the case with these "Coin" devices too. FTFA:- "owners of wearables with integrated Coin technology will be able to pay... just waving the device in front of the payment terminal., So what is supposed to be new about this? What have I missed?
Anyway, have you seen this thing, in the photo in the first link? Strapped to someone's wrist, it's as big as a bible FFS!
quite frankly I'm happy sharing my marketing data too if it means I'll get advertisements for Nikon Cameras in stead of cheap viagra, libido enhancers, single ladies, and online casinos
I'm also happy to see adverts for Nikon cameras if, and only if, I am searching for cameras to buy one. Maybe ditto the single ladies. In other words if I go to a camera retailer's website I am happy, indeed want, to see camera adverts.
Otherwise I don't want to see such adverts. I will not be buying a camera so WTF is the point?? It is just a waste of screen space and bandwidth.
Be helpful if you said what you disagreed with. [I scroll back a million screens to find out]. Oh, that "no one cares"; Well, I care, you care, but Joe Sixpack does not.
until Microsoft takes the hints and stops the spying
Microsoft does not take hints. Not even "hints" in the form of bloodygreatkicks up its arse.
Most of the people who use Windows 10 do so because they do no comprehend the full consequences of its use.
No, they use it because it came with their PC, or was pushed on them as an "upgrade" from Win 7 or 8, and they would not have any wish or clue to replace it with anything else.
They need to be informed and educated.
No, it would make no difference. These days we all live in a barrage of spiel "informing and educating" us about others' favourite issues (SJWs, vegetarianism, femisism, World hunger, global warming, religion, flat-earthism); some may have a point but it is lost in the noise.
they seem to target those who struggle to afford the licence fee
No, they target everyone who does not have a licence. They assume everyone watches TV and should therefore have one. I owned an empty house for 2 years while trying to find a buyer. I'd check the post there every week and there was always a threatening letter written with successively increasing levels of hysteria. They would stop after a while, and then resume starting at the bottom of the hysteria scale again. I ignored them all because I did not wish to spend money on a stamp and envelope to reply. I did try a phone call once and it said contact via the website; the website said I should phone.
These prosecutions account for the vast majority of local magistrate time.
Slashdot Mirror
Can you cite a source for your silly assertion?
Cite me, driving along Bath Road, Bristol, UK.
I don't know if you can do that in the UK? Here, I can insure my license. Any vehicle I drive is covered ....... Even if I drove your car, if I crashed it - it's fully insured. I have no idea if they offer that in the UK. ...when I rented a car in the UK.. I paid for additional insurance and they cared not one bit about my piddly US insurance. I don't actually know if that would cover a rented car in the UK or not
No, you could not. In the UK you effectively insure the car, not yourself. You might think the UK car insurance system is loony, but it actually works on a very simple principle - ie, the premium is whatever the bastards think they can get out of you. It is an extortion racket.. An American tourist/businessman in the UK?! - milk them for all they are worth!
For example, I had a fairly powerful up-market car for which I paid insurance with a discount for not having made any insurance claims (ever). Fair enough. But I then also acquired a small, cheap, sedate, motor-caravan (US motorhome? but less than Transit sized). I was staggered to be told that the additional insurance premium for this would be about 3 times as much as for the more powerful car because my clean insurance record "could only be applied to one car", they said. So I was insured for the second vehicle as if I were a new driver. As I could not even drive both cars simultaneously, you would think the premium would just be that for the more powerful and expensive car. Their "logic" seemed to be that as I could afford to run two cars, I should be an easy touch for money.
Similarly, I once commuted into London every day by train, and saw an advert by an insurance company offering "discounts" for drivers who had a railway season ticket. When you think of the insurance risk of someone driving into central London in the rush hours every day, I expected the discount to be massive. Nope, the quotation was about twice as much as I was already paying. Again, the logic seemed that someone with a job in central London must be well paid.
What if it's a glass tunnel so it does not look like a tunnel?
Even if you do not buy based on these ads, you see their brand or product multiple times, and the .. Mere-exposure effect makes you little by little gain positive opinion on the product.
No it doesn't, it gives me a negative opinion. For one thing I don't like being patronised, which most adverts do. For another I think of all that money being spent on advertising rather than going on quality in the product.
I bought a pressure washer recently; I see adverts for Karcher washers everywhere, so I bought a Black and Decker. I bought a chainsaw last year; I see adverts for Ryobi everywhere, so I bought a Stihl. Ryobi are rubbish anyway (correlating my point above about adverts vs quality) apart from the fact that you cannot get spare parts for them. Stihl don't need to advertise much because their reputation is rock solid, and just look at what most professionals use.
1) Everyday things like food. What I buy is not decided by advertising, it is decided on trial. Eg, I will try different types of beer and settle on the one I like best.
And how do you know your "liking" doesn't result from harmful components?
I don't, but that is nothing to do with advertising, the topic here.
3) Specialist things like car spares and building materials. What I buy is not decided by advertising, it is decided by what I can find ... who sells the same brand anyway
Here you dodged the question - how did you select the brand in the first place.
By my method (2) in the case of the car itself. With regard to most of its spares there is no choice, even if I went 100 miles for it. Replacement headlamp for a Jeep Grand Cherokee (in the UK) - nearest main dealer for that (the 25 mile away one), and no brand choice. The point I am making here is that for some things there is no choice. Another example is looking for replacement ceramic tiles to replace broken ones installed before my time - had to be certain size and colour. Lucky to find any at all, I don't care about the brand. They don't advertise that sort of stuff anyway, not in the UK.
You did tell an unrelated fact - that the brand you selected is available both 25 miles away and > 100 miles away.
Why is that unrelated? As said above, I didn't "select" the brand; there is only one, the one made for the car. I "selected" the nearest place that sold it.
In spite of knowing that advertisements tell a one sided story, humans still get affected significantly by it.
I havn't time to read that lot, but I can guess what it says. I'm talking about me, and if anything adverts affect me adversly, especially intrusive ones, and increasingly it seems I am not the only one. My reaction to an intrusive advert on my screen is to shout "Fuck off!" and make a mental note never to buy that stuff. Not hard, probably not the type of stuff I am likely to buy anyway.
I don't even know what Forbes is (even after trying to go there), but I have a better solution :-
Tell them to fuck off.
As the admen keep telling us that there will be nothing on the Intenet without paying for it, please send me a dollar for that advice.
Not everyone has time to agonize over every purchasing decision. Many people make purchases based on questionable information.
My purchases fall into three categories :-
1) Everyday things like food. What I buy is not decided by advertising, it is decided on trial. Eg, I will try different types of beer and settle on the one I like best.
2) Occasional things like a camera or a car. What I buy is not decided by advertising, it is decided by looking at reviews and listening to others' opinions. Both of these channels I weigh up by reading between the lines - for example people who have bought a lemon are notorious for recommending it to others because they don't want to look like the only fool. Call that "agonising" if you like - I call it care.
3) Specialist things like car spares and building materials. What I buy is not decided by advertising, it is decided by what I can find. Eg, I have to travel about 25 miles to find the nearest place that sells spares for my car, and >100 miles to the next nearest (who sells the same brand anyway). Hobson's choice.
There are also no straight or flat roads in this part of the state. My 25 minute drive to work would take hours on a bike.
Your bike cannot get round bends? It needs flat roads? And take hours?? - are you using it the right way up?
When I commuted in London it was faster by bike than by car - and that was in the outer suburbs. In the countryside of Southern England my average bike speed (17mph) was about half that of driving a car if not on motorways. The long-term average speed currently displayed in my car is 36 mph (there are only country roads in my area).
What about a rake?
My "yard" is gravel. A rake would pull up the gravel with the leaves.
So what does this Mike do exactly with his weed trimmer in his acre that is "nearly through" in 45 minutes? As it happens my garden is also an acre and there is no damn way I would get through trimming the weeds in it in 45 minutes. I have a arsenal of professional grade (mid-range Stihl) 2-stroke kit and could spend my entire spare time on it (but don't).
Don't worry though, I have only one neighbour (a farmer) within half a mile, and he's deaf (but not from me).
you find two-stroke engines in applications where you need high power but extremely low weight. Their cheapness is simply a byproduct of their simplicity (hence, weight savings). There are plenty of applications where a 4-stroke engine simply wouldn't work because it would weigh too much... or would be too bulky
You forgot the main reason that 2-strokes are used in hand-held kit, especially chainsaws : being sump-less they work at any angle and tolerate being tossed around, because the lubricating oil comes in with the fuel. This can be done with 4-strokes with fancy sump design having swivelling pick-up nozzles (like in acrobatic aircraft), but it is expensive and less reliable.
Leave the goddamn leaves on the ground. Or if you really must collect them, just use a fucking rake.
A rake is no good on a gravel drive as it pulls the gravel as well, and mixes it with the leaves. If you leave the leaves on the drive (or anywhere, like the previous occupants of my house seem to have done for the last 20 years), they just turn into mud. Half my driveway is a mud-bath of rotted leaves with gravel somewhere below, which I must sort out one day.
[Apple] don't care, they'll never pay and you'll be left sobbing in a corner going "why apple?! why?".
No, I shall be laughing in the open going "Good riddance to Apple!"
And a Tesla model S/BMW, a bigger house, traveling around the world, somethings you didn't have 100 years ago. An average Joe today can afford the health service better than the richest people can have 100 years ago
Not in the UK. New houses are shockingly tiny; if you want a larger house you buy one that's 100 years old. My parents 60 years ago, with hardly any money, bought* about the most modest new-built house they could find. Today, that same house is considered middle-market; the builders would put 4 "homes" on that plot today.
In the UK, very few people are working towards getting a Tesla or BMW; they are working to survive and to keep their 15 yo VW Polo on the road (which they need to run because the politicians have cut the bus services). My father was a blue-collar worker in the 1950's, wokring only 9-5 with 4 weeks annual leave, but still managed to run a Morris 8 (== a Polo in its day), as well as the house.
100 years ago, young men travelled round the world by joining the Army or Navy.
* Bought with a mortgage. My father exagerated his income to get it.
in my experience at least have gone from being happy with 1 TV and one stereo in the "family" .... If we lived with the stuff you had in 1930's yeah we could work a lot less.
But a pre-1980's TV was built by hand while today robots do most of the work. The effort that went into that 1950's TV or 1930's car would make a dozen today.
The real reason for more work today is that most of it is non-productive. As automation has replaced much real work, new non-jobs have been created. It is doing stuff like safety inspections, progress chasing, advertising (half the cost of some stuff today goes to its advertising), making financial cases (that can cost more than the work) and so on ad nauseum. In the book "How to be a Wally" it gives a "Wally's" job description : - "To liaise with other Wallys". That's it, in in a nutshell.
I am a power station engineer and I spend hours sitting in meetings with a dozen other qualified engineers discussing eg whether to replace a slightly leaking seal on a large valve, whether it is cost-effective, whether we have a safety case, whether we can spare a fitter to do it. I generally take the line "Just give me a fucking spanner and I'll go down and do it this morning"; but I am treated as if that would be spoil the meeting.
'targeted, lawful, proportionate, necessary, jurisdictionally bounded, and transparent'.
2. lawful, we're passing the law right now
Being from the UK I did not understand that point. If it is introduced as a new law, then anything done under it will be lawful by definition. These companies are USA based and don't seem to realise that there is no higher law in the UK; for better or worse there is no equivalent to the US Constitution. It would have been better if they had left that point out as it only reveals misunderstanding of the way UK law works, raising the question of how they are qualified to comment.
Liberty minded means willing to act like sheep, and follow all the other liberty minded sheep to NH, and willing to vote the way the shepherds say to vote,
Stop !!!! You are reminding me of the Pilgrim Fathers
Also, people who wants less government/taxes are easy to share a territory with.
I suggest you get out of your basement and try living next door to a gypsy camp (in the UK) before you make fine sounding assertions like that.
They deserve to fail and die for not only choosing a common word for their name, but also choosing a name that's in common use in something closely related.
Like Microsoft's "Windows" and "Word" you mean ?
I don't understand this. Contactless cards have been around in the UK for a while now. While they are "wearable", like you could wear them in your sleeve, they do need to be waved in front of the reader so you could not wear them in your socks, or your pants probably.
:- "owners of wearables with integrated Coin technology will be able to pay ... just waving the device in front of the payment terminal., So what is supposed to be new about this? What have I missed?
But that is also the case with these "Coin" devices too. FTFA
Anyway, have you seen this thing, in the photo in the first link? Strapped to someone's wrist, it's as big as a bible FFS!
OK, his reason is an assumption on his part - one that he has not bothered to verify.
quite frankly I'm happy sharing my marketing data too if it means I'll get advertisements for Nikon Cameras in stead of cheap viagra, libido enhancers, single ladies, and online casinos
I'm also happy to see adverts for Nikon cameras if, and only if, I am searching for cameras to buy one. Maybe ditto the single ladies. In other words if I go to a camera retailer's website I am happy, indeed want, to see camera adverts.
Otherwise I don't want to see such adverts. I will not be buying a camera so WTF is the point?? It is just a waste of screen space and bandwidth.
"The thing is, the average/typical user doesn't CARE that any of this is taking place."
Let me fix that for you: "The thing is, the average/typical user doesn't KNOW that any of this is taking place."
Let me fix that for you :- "The thing is, the average/typical user doesn't KNOW or CARE that any of this is taking place."
I disagree.
Be helpful if you said what you disagreed with. [I scroll back a million screens to find out]. Oh, that "no one cares"; Well, I care, you care, but Joe Sixpack does not.
until Microsoft takes the hints and stops the spying
Microsoft does not take hints. Not even "hints" in the form of bloody great kicks up its arse.
Most of the people who use Windows 10 do so because they do no comprehend the full consequences of its use.
No, they use it because it came with their PC, or was pushed on them as an "upgrade" from Win 7 or 8, and they would not have any wish or clue to replace it with anything else.
They need to be informed and educated.
No, it would make no difference. These days we all live in a barrage of spiel "informing and educating" us about others' favourite issues (SJWs, vegetarianism, femisism, World hunger, global warming, religion, flat-earthism); some may have a point but it is lost in the noise.
they seem to target those who struggle to afford the licence fee
No, they target everyone who does not have a licence. They assume everyone watches TV and should therefore have one. I owned an empty house for 2 years while trying to find a buyer. I'd check the post there every week and there was always a threatening letter written with successively increasing levels of hysteria. They would stop after a while, and then resume starting at the bottom of the hysteria scale again. I ignored them all because I did not wish to spend money on a stamp and envelope to reply. I did try a phone call once and it said contact via the website; the website said I should phone.
These prosecutions account for the vast majority of local magistrate time.
Rubbish.