I've done that several times lately trying to scroll to the bottom to hit 'moderate' but have instead scrolled to the end of the dropdown - which is 'overrated'.
Why isn't the moderate button next to the dropdown?
Agreed, one is not entitled to a refund if one does not have an accident (although you may be entitled to a subsequent 'no claims' discount) however one is entitled to receive the compensation you were led to expect if you do have an accident.
Most Insurance companies seem to have forgotten this.
If you collect fewer premiums each month than you pay out in claims you don't have any cash, yesno?
A corporation can have morals by the individual 'humans' that own/work for it having morals, by having morals built into it at its incorportation, rules that bind the behaviour of its Board of Directors and by recognising that the win/win is the best way to make a long term profit.
Shitting on your customers is no way to develop loyalty.
Greed is only good for the free market so long as it does not overwhelm your ability to obey the rules of the free market.
Insurance companies 'are not getting a grip on the basic idea of an insurance.'
Which is, of course, to recompense policy holders for losses they incur that are covered by the policy that they were SOLD.
The consumer protection act entitles consumers to a complete refund on any product that does not perform as the salesdrone said it would.
Insurance salesdrones ROUTINELY lie and mislead when selling policies.
Of course proving that is like getting a refund out of Microsoft 'cos you don't agree to the EULA.
An insurance company ought to have the goal of making a profit whilst cutting out fraud but ensuring that all legitimate claims are satisfied at least as much as the policy requires.
An insurance policy is supposed to put things right when the worst happens not leave the poor victim feeling like they've been raped twice.
CLAIMS are a huge problem in the insurance industry and all insurance companies do their utmost to avoid paying them.
Insurance companies employ people whose sole purpose in life is to find ways of weaseling out of perfectly legitimate claims.
That's disgusting.
There ought to be a consumer association that prepared figures of how much money each insurance company dodged paying to customers that thought they were covered (thanks to the persuasive sales staff) and ranked them.
That way, when you were thinking of buying a policy, you could check out the company and see how likely they are to actually pay out on a claim.
Insurance companies are wank*rs. Greedy, amoral, heartless wank*rs. Trust me.
the Data protection act is designed to ensure the veracity of data stored on computers.
It does not prevent companies storing, processing or selling said data to others.
It merely ensures that the individuals the data refers to have a legal right to demand that it is accurate.
They are probably required to be registered under the act and make some sort of statement regarding said registration because the recordings and analysis will no doubt be done with computers.
As to the 'this call may be recorded for training purposes' I am fairly sure there is no statutory requirement to do so.
I could be wrong about that tho'.
It is common practice for companies to provide such warnings regarding CCTV also and it is a common perception that such recordings are not admissible in court without such warnings.
However I suspect that said perception is bollocks.
There are dozens of CCTV cameras operated by the police scattered all over Edinburgh and I don't recall seing any such warnings associated with them.
I'm pretty sure those recordings are used in court all the time.
Such warnings about being recorded are AFAIK a courtesy/PR measure designed to head of the public privacy outcry that occured when such monitoring was first introduced. Voluntary self-regulation designed to head of statutory regulation.
well that was a bloody waste of time posting AC. Lost all the mods I'd done AND couldn't see the fricking comment 'cos it started at zero. Bloody Slashcode
further moaning: If you've moderated a thread and then post in it as AC it posts the comment and removes all your mods anyway, but if you just post as yourself it stops you and warns you that all your mods will be lost. Bast*rd!
AAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!
Now I have to wait 2 minutes before I can post.....
Win2k machines do not reboot when unsuccessfully attacked.
When you are attacked by MSblast it uses 1 of 2 exploits randomly. One targets Win2k and the other XP. A win2k machine attacked with the XP exploit is not infected but RPC does crash. This causes all the symptoms you are seeing with the clipboard etc.
When an XP machine is attacked by the win2k exploit RPC crashes and the machine reboots.
You might find that's why the machines behave wierdly but exhibit no signs of infection.
The implication was that the same principle applies in the US. To the best of my knowledge it does. However I can only speak with any authority regarding the legal system in the UK.
So long as there was no intent to commit an illegal act and the act was not one that any 'competent' person should automatically recognise as inappropriate, ignorance is indeed an acceptable defence.
It would appear that SCO agreed to pay 95% of Unixware 2+ licences back to Novell until 2002 and all of the Unixware 2- licences in perpituity.
I was unable to come up with the text of the 6th December 1995 agreement between the two although at the time it was anounced (september) SCO thought they would get all the Unix IP but by the time it was finalised the claimed they owned the 'UNIX source code business', or words to that effect.
Please Mod parent -1 Hasn't read OSI position paper.
SCO has never claimed, in their court filings, that IBM ever put any of their code into Linux.
SCO claims that IBM improperly, in breach of contract, used SCO's trade secrets to improve Linux.
SCO, now, claims that the kernel source was contaminated with their code before IBM became involved and that they have only just discovered this. As this is a copyright issue, and they recognise the terms of the GPL would make it illegal to distribute a GPL program that contains non-GPL code, they have pulled their distro's.
"0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License."
I think I can safely bet my life that SCO have not chosen to place such a notice in the code they claim was improperly introduced to the kernel source.
Therefore their, alleged, code has not been 'accidentally' placed under the GPL.
However if its not GPL it cannot be distributed in a program that contains GPL code.
"4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License."
They are still distributing it ( here ) in blatant, knowing (=punitive damages) breach of the GPL, unfortunately.
SCO has never claimed, in their court filings, that IBM ever put any of their code into Linux.
SCO claims that IBM improperly, in breach of contract, used SCO's trade secrets to improve Linux.
SCO, now, claims that the kernel source was contaminated with their code before IBM became involved and that they have only just discovered this. As this is a copyright issue, and they recognise the terms of the GPL would make it illegal to distribute a GPL program that contains non-GPL code, they have pulled their distro's.
They are still distributing it ( here ) in blatant, knowing (=punitive damages) breach of the GPL, unfortunately.
SCO's suit against IBM claims only that IBM broke confidentiality contracts and used SCO trade secrets to improve Linux.
Darl did indeed make an infringement claim today.
Boy, is he dumb.
Re:show us the CODE!
on
Today's SCO News
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
SCO has never claimed (until now) that IBM ever put any of their code into Linux.
SCO claims that IBM improperly, in breach of contract, used SCO's trade secrets to improve Linux.
SCO's court filings focus exclusively on trade secrets and breach of contract. Darls outburst today, claiming that IBM has committed acts of copyright infringement, will probably get him in much hot water with his legal team.
If there are no such infringing pieces of UnixWare code in Linux then IBM's legal team will know very soon that Darl is full of shit. They have access to both source trees so they can prove it beyond any doubt. If they can they'll counter-sue with a massive libel claim.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you using a wheel mouse?
I've done that several times lately trying to scroll to the bottom to hit 'moderate' but have instead scrolled to the end of the dropdown - which is 'overrated'.
Why isn't the moderate button next to the dropdown?
Even my totally non-geek wife remembers Ogg Vorbis.
But then she is a Pratchett fan...
also on that theme, every time I read today's story about SCO's madness I think
INCONCEIVABLE!!!!
which reminds me, I promised to buy my wife a copy of Princess Bride in paperback this week...
How many cool sig's can one man have?
Every time I try to think of one I have to say 'no Janne has used that one...'
Your a sig monopolist.
Agreed, one is not entitled to a refund if one does not have an accident (although you may be entitled to a subsequent 'no claims' discount) however one is entitled to receive the compensation you were led to expect if you do have an accident.
Most Insurance companies seem to have forgotten this.
funny, I've never given any Credit Reference Agency consent to store or transfer any data regarding me.
They all seem to have loads of it though and I supect if I told them to cease and desist they would tell me to get stuffed.
I fear you are hideously misinformed as to how much protection the Data Protection Act is designed to afford you.
What blo*dy cash?
If you collect fewer premiums each month than you pay out in claims you don't have any cash, yesno?
A corporation can have morals by the individual 'humans' that own/work for it having morals, by having morals built into it at its incorportation, rules that bind the behaviour of its Board of Directors and by recognising that the win/win is the best way to make a long term profit.
Shitting on your customers is no way to develop loyalty.
Greed is only good for the free market so long as it does not overwhelm your ability to obey the rules of the free market.
Move?
Where to?
Mars?
Insurance companies 'are not getting a grip on the basic idea of an insurance.'
Which is, of course, to recompense policy holders for losses they incur that are covered by the policy that they were SOLD.
The consumer protection act entitles consumers to a complete refund on any product that does not perform as the salesdrone said it would.
Insurance salesdrones ROUTINELY lie and mislead when selling policies.
Of course proving that is like getting a refund out of Microsoft 'cos you don't agree to the EULA.
An insurance company ought to have the goal of making a profit whilst cutting out fraud but ensuring that all legitimate claims are satisfied at least as much as the policy requires.
An insurance policy is supposed to put things right when the worst happens not leave the poor victim feeling like they've been raped twice.
'the insurance industry pays out more in claims than it takes in by premiums.'
And if that is the case the are greedy, amoral, heartless, STUPID, wank*rs.
Any company charging less in premiums than it pays out in claims really ought to take some basic business classes...
CLAIMS are a huge problem in the insurance industry and all insurance companies do their utmost to avoid paying them.
Insurance companies employ people whose sole purpose in life is to find ways of weaseling out of perfectly legitimate claims.
That's disgusting.
There ought to be a consumer association that prepared figures of how much money each insurance company dodged paying to customers that thought they were covered (thanks to the persuasive sales staff) and ranked them.
That way, when you were thinking of buying a policy, you could check out the company and see how likely they are to actually pay out on a claim.
Insurance companies are wank*rs. Greedy, amoral, heartless wank*rs. Trust me.
ummm...
the Data protection act is designed to ensure the veracity of data stored on computers.
It does not prevent companies storing, processing or selling said data to others.
It merely ensures that the individuals the data refers to have a legal right to demand that it is accurate.
They are probably required to be registered under the act and make some sort of statement regarding said registration because the recordings and analysis will no doubt be done with computers.
As to the 'this call may be recorded for training purposes' I am fairly sure there is no statutory requirement to do so.
I could be wrong about that tho'.
It is common practice for companies to provide such warnings regarding CCTV also and it is a common perception that such recordings are not admissible in court without such warnings.
However I suspect that said perception is bollocks.
There are dozens of CCTV cameras operated by the police scattered all over Edinburgh and I don't recall seing any such warnings associated with them.
I'm pretty sure those recordings are used in court all the time.
Such warnings about being recorded are AFAIK a courtesy/PR measure designed to head of the public privacy outcry that occured when such monitoring was first introduced. Voluntary self-regulation designed to head of statutory regulation.
well that was a bloody waste of time posting AC. Lost all the mods I'd done AND couldn't see the fricking comment 'cos it started at zero. Bloody Slashcode
further moaning: If you've moderated a thread and then post in it as AC it posts the comment and removes all your mods anyway, but if you just post as yourself it stops you and warns you that all your mods will be lost. Bast*rd!
AAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!
Now I have to wait 2 minutes before I can post.....
Double Bast*rd!!!
Are you sure these machines are infected?
Win2k machines do not reboot when unsuccessfully attacked.
When you are attacked by MSblast it uses 1 of 2 exploits randomly. One targets Win2k and the other XP. A win2k machine attacked with the XP exploit is not infected but RPC does crash. This causes all the symptoms you are seeing with the clipboard etc.
When an XP machine is attacked by the win2k exploit RPC crashes and the machine reboots.
You might find that's why the machines behave wierdly but exhibit no signs of infection.
The 'consideration' one provides the original author is the right to use any modifications one makes to the original code under the same licence.
or put in simple words for the hard of thinking...
You may cross my lawn if I may also cross yours.
Sorry, I apologise, to be more precise I was discussing Scottish law. I am completely ignorant of English law in this matter.
AFAIK ignorance of law can be a defence in Scotland.
Dood...
The implication was that the same principle applies in the US. To the best of my knowledge it does. However I can only speak with any authority regarding the legal system in the UK.
'Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.'
It certainly is in the UK.
So long as there was no intent to commit an illegal act and the act was not one that any 'competent' person should automatically recognise as inappropriate, ignorance is indeed an acceptable defence.
'Mens Rea' I believe the technical term is.
Saw that earlier and did some digging.
It would appear that SCO agreed to pay 95% of Unixware 2+ licences back to Novell until 2002 and all of the Unixware 2- licences in perpituity.
I was unable to come up with the text of the 6th December 1995 agreement between the two although at the time it was anounced (september) SCO thought they would get all the Unix IP but by the time it was finalised the claimed they owned the 'UNIX source code business', or words to that effect.
However I did also find this.
That would indicate that Novell did indeed plan to keep important parts of the Unix IP all along.
Please Mod parent -1 Hasn't read OSI position paper.
SCO has never claimed, in their court filings, that IBM ever put any of their code into Linux.
SCO claims that IBM improperly, in breach of contract, used SCO's trade secrets to improve Linux.
SCO, now, claims that the kernel source was contaminated with their code before IBM became involved and that they have only just discovered this. As this is a copyright issue, and they recognise the terms of the GPL would make it illegal to distribute a GPL program that contains non-GPL code, they have pulled their distro's.
"0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License."
I think I can safely bet my life that SCO have not chosen to place such a notice in the code they claim was improperly introduced to the kernel source.
Therefore their, alleged, code has not been 'accidentally' placed under the GPL.
However if its not GPL it cannot be distributed in a program that contains GPL code.
"4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License."
They are still distributing it ( here ) in blatant, knowing (=punitive damages) breach of the GPL, unfortunately.
Not only +1 Funny but +1 Meta-Funny.
Inspired!
SCO will be forced to specify the exact code chunks in dispute during discovery.
SCO has never claimed, in their court filings, that IBM ever put any of their code into Linux.
SCO claims that IBM improperly, in breach of contract, used SCO's trade secrets to improve Linux.
So, no, they won't be revealing the infringing code during discovery because they haven't claimed there is any.
SCO has never claimed, in their court filings, that IBM ever put any of their code into Linux.
SCO claims that IBM improperly, in breach of contract, used SCO's trade secrets to improve Linux.
SCO, now, claims that the kernel source was contaminated with their code before IBM became involved and that they have only just discovered this. As this is a copyright issue, and they recognise the terms of the GPL would make it illegal to distribute a GPL program that contains non-GPL code, they have pulled their distro's.
They are still distributing it ( here ) in blatant, knowing (=punitive damages) breach of the GPL, unfortunately.
2 SCO is alleging infringement.
No they are not.
SCO's suit against IBM claims only that IBM broke confidentiality contracts and used SCO trade secrets to improve Linux.
Darl did indeed make an infringement claim today.
Boy, is he dumb.
SCO has never claimed (until now) that IBM ever put any of their code into Linux.
SCO claims that IBM improperly, in breach of contract, used SCO's trade secrets to improve Linux.
SCO's court filings focus exclusively on trade secrets and breach of contract. Darls outburst today, claiming that IBM has committed acts of copyright infringement, will probably get him in much hot water with his legal team.
If there are no such infringing pieces of UnixWare code in Linux then IBM's legal team will know very soon that Darl is full of shit. They have access to both source trees so they can prove it beyond any doubt. If they can they'll counter-sue with a massive libel claim.
The man would appear to be a complete idiot.