You're right - you can charge someone then a judge can deny bail and remand in custody - but that isn't germane to the point of the planned legislation.
Currently, to be charged there needs to be sufficient evidence in the hands of the Police that they can go to the Crown Prosecution Service who then decide whether it's going to Court or not.
Under the planned, and thankfully failed, legislation (and the amendment which sadly was passed - at least in the Commons, it's still got to get past the Lords), the Police can hold you WITHOUT charge and WITHOUT evidence.
It's an attempt to get a fishing licence. 'Your face looks funny so we'll throw you in a Remand cell and then go looking for a reason why'.
There's a word for what El Presidente Blair and Josif Vissionarovich Clarke are trying to to, and that word is Internment. It's been tried before on these shores, and proved to be a hugely fertile recruiting ground for militants.
The illusion that this is in any way similar to any form of proper Judicial process is one that El Presidente and his morons^Wminions^WMinisters have tried hard to produce - and, thankfully, failed. Unfortunately, they have managed to convince the tabloid-reading population. The Sun, that revered repository of unbiased information, yesterday referred to MPs who voted against the bill as 'Traitors'.
This was - and is - a blatant attack on civil liberties, using terrorism as the bogeyman the same way that Communism was used by McCarthy. A raghead under every bed?
So please - don't be fooled. This has nothing to do with charging someone then remanding them in custody, and EVERYTHING to do with moving towards creating political prisoners and internment. It's not the same, and it certainly isn't Justice.
You're right, and it's unfortunate. It's a short-sighted and ultimately damaging approach.
I've worked in both types of company, and there are some CEO's who seem to think that inter-departmental friction is somehow beneficial.
Thankfully, the one I work with now has no such idiotic views - and is more productive as a result, growing sales turnover over 40% last year. We're not a small company either - we're a multinational. And (this is important) there weren't many new customers - it was REPEAT ones, drawn in by good account management and effective, well-backed Technical support.
It's unfortunate that stereotypes of Sales people in the Tech world persist just as much as stereotypes of geeks in the Sales world.
Personally, I do both roles. Perhaps I'm fortunate, however I can see both sides.
I totally agree that there are some salespeople who believe that they are somehow superior to the technical people, who don't bother to learn or understand what they're selling, and the technical aspects of what they're selling. I have managed such people - but only briefly, normally. They haven't tended to last long with me.
Similarly, I have worked with Technical people whose contempt for sales was manifest, and whose elitist attitude made getting information about what we actually could and should sell was nigh-on impossible. Again, these people didn't last long - they had a technical manager who understood the requirements of working in partnership with Sales.
The fact is, in business we ALL need each other.
A good sales guy will work with technical to learn and fully understand his products and services. He will deliver what technical can support - and act as a buffer between the end-user and technical. If he is over-promising and causing problems for the tech - question it. Put your questions in writing, with valid explanations. Sales people should be ethical enough NOT to be causing you problems - if that is happening, then they're lying to their customers and that's something management should hear about and act on.
But Technical - you don't live in a vacuum, either. You need to be interacting with Sales. Most sales people aren't as moronic as you might think - and would welcome a deeper knowledge of what you can do. The more we know, the more information we can give our prospects - and the more we can sell.
Don't let Sales fool you - in the end, EVERYONE in the company is involved in one thing - bringing in money. Your sales rep has pressures you don't. You have pressures your sales guy doesn't. Communicate with him clearly, in language he can understand - and make sure he's doing the same to you.
If that isn't happening, make it happen.
We can work closely together - and believe me, when it's done right, everyone is happier and more productive. But little snide wars like this thread DO NOT HELP - on either side.
I haven't bought new kit for ages - in fact, the newest machine I have is a P4 1.6 which was obtained by barter. I will confess to having bought RAM and additional hard drives, but I won't spend cash on bleeding-edge CPUs and mainboards.
If I want to play games I have my PS2, and if I want a newer PC - well, there's always someone throwing out an old one coz it's got a dead HDD or PSU, and I've always got spares.
IMHO I think older hardware is cool anyway - hence my using an HP320LX as a PDA and a Nokia 7110 as my mobile phone. Old kit just rocks, and it's more fun to keep it working than just slapping your credit card down for something new every time.
. . and can wholeheartedly recommend Xandros Desktop for new users.
The last time I even _tried_ to install Linux was eighteen months ago, and it all went rats.
Yet just last weekend I finally plucked up the courage to try again on an mid-spec (P4 1.7) second-hand box. I took ages making sure I had the precise hardware specs. Then put in the install CD.
Set the admin and user account details.
Went to get a coffee.
Came back and it was 80% done. Total install time was less than 12 minutes. It autodetected everything, and happily picks up my USB thumbdrives and so on.
My wife has used it since the install, and so has my 11yo daughter, and neither of them had the slightest problem.
So my vote has to go to Xandros, and I'm advocating it now to anyone who asks!
. . and it's just taken me months to get out of their contract. I ended up writing the letter below to them, and even set up a blog to post it publicly. ..
2 June 2004
Dear Sir
Reference 6040
Termination of Contract - Tel No. xxxxx xxxxxx
Further to my lengthy telephone conversation with your Customer Disinterest Desk yesterday evening - a call which I fervently hope will be my last.
As discussed, please accept this letter as confirmation of my wish to terminate my contract with Vodafone, with one month's notice prior to the anniversary of my contract.
In the eleven months I have been with Vodafone, I have passed through bemusement, disappointment, disbelief and rage at the abysmal degree of so-called 'service' I have received, and am finally at the point where I am left doubting my own sanity.
In all the time I have been with you, not once - not once - have I been charged correctly for the service I have used. I have had to call innumerable times in desperate and increasingly vain efforts to get somebody to resolve my issues. Average call times have been 40 minutes, normally including drawn-out verbal exchanges with script-wielding, broken-record morons who simply cannot comprehend the meaning of the phrase 'customer service', much less actually implement it.
I am finally left with the unshakeable belief that there is not a single member of staff at Vodafone competent to run a whelk stall, much less administer a mobile phone company.
The final straw for me came this month, when I received my May invoice. Leaving aside the fact that the bill was ten days late - I should, by rights, receive my invoice 14 days prior to the direct debit leaving my account, but as usual was left with just 3 days - I was stunned to note that Vodafone were STILL charging me 15.31 for a text message bundle that I had specifically, REPEATEDLY requested be removed from my package, for the simple fact that I was no longer using the phone.
My second attempt was more successful, in that I actually spoke to a member of the human race, one Mxxxx Vxxxxxx. He single-handedly managed to prove every one of the opinions I have built up over the last eleven months, in that he was disinterested, monosyllabic and unable to deviate from his prescribed script in any way, shape or form. I can only suppose that CPW either hire staff with minimal EEG function, or that lobotomies are mandatory as part of the employment contract. I ended up having to hang up on him and call back - again.
Call three led me - after a lengthy debate over whether there were any managers in the office at 6pm - to one Cxxxxxx Txxxx. Speaking to someone vaguely more senior than the protozoa infesting your call centres is, in itself, a feat on a par with the scaling of Everest. I have come to believe, in fact, that your 'managers' are purely mythical creatures, akin to Bigfoot, The Yeti or an honest Labour MP. This is based on the number of completely fictitious callbacks I am supposed to have had in the last eleven months.
I was impressed with Ms Txxxx initially because it only took her some 15 minutes to comprehend that she had an unhappy customer in her headset. This is an improvement of approximately 100% on every other call centre 'employee' I have encountered. It then only took a further 25 minutes of debate and hold time for her to (finally) agree the following proposal;
1. I will pay the purely fictitious invoice for 33.48 that is masquerading as my bill for May 2004. 2. This will leave Vodafone in debt to me to the tune of 15.31. This will be applied as a credit on my June invoice, against my line rental - effectively ensuring a Zero bill. 3. The June invoice is my FINAL invoice. Therefore, service to 07xxx xxxxxx will be terminated in accordance with this letter.
So yet again, in order to get back money Vodafone/CPW have taken without my agreement or consent, I have had to spend MY time and money on calls, and fight my way through staff w
Personal experience here. ..I'm getting married in ten days. And I met my partner on the internet.
If you're busy with work and so on, and you don't necessarily find fighting your way through alco-pop fuelled teenage cretins at the local theme bar to meet the opposite sex, the internet can be a great way of meeting and getting to know people.
I found it really useful - I was able to talk to people without masses of background noise, and get to know a bit about them _before_ I made the decision to actually meet up with them.
Three months of regular dates and I ended up meeting the woman of my dreams - she even administers a Web portal!
So I guess, from my experience, I'd say - go for it.
I'm sorry, but I have to question this whole concept of 'shoot to kill'.
I spent seven years in the UK Forces, and have been trained - and carried - both rifles and pistols. The concept of 'shooting to wound' is a fallacy from the movies, where the good guy can hold his pistol sideways in one hand and hit a moving target in the knee from fifty feet.
We were taught simply to shoot for centre mass of the target - namely the chest area. Why? Well if you're under stress - and believe me, if you're in a firearms incident, you're under extreme stress - it's the biggest and easiest target to hit. Plus, there are nice big organs in the chest cavity.
If you've reached the point where it is a necessity to draw your firearm, you are going to be using it - it should never be drawn unless you are certain of that - and you're going to want to ensure that you hit your target.
Messing around trying to shoot a gun out of the bad guy's hand, you're going to miss - then you're going to die. Centre mass will stop - and likely kill. Your choice!
Usual disclaimer - IANACL (I Am Not A Competition Lawyer.
However, I have been involved in training and training others on competition and competition law.
You're not quite right in saying the same laws are being used - it's the same overall competition legislation, but the three cases you've mentioned relate to very different clauses and laws within that legislation.
I can't speak for the US, but in the UK it's basically like this. ..
1. You can only be accused of predatory pricing in a specific circumstance - namely when you are in a monopoly position and therefore able to sell your product or service at such a low price as to force competitors out of business. For example, a software monopoly would be breaching this if they sold their office suite for next to nothing. Often, the key is whether the company has sold for below their cost.
2. You already said it. You can only abuse a monopoly position when you are IN a monopoly. That can't be said to be the case here, realistically.
3. Evidence of 'price fixing' is not just a matter of "your price is the same as your competitor, you're nicked chummy!".
In the UK, an in inquiry would be started by the OFT after complaints had been made regarding potential collusion or cartelling. The OFT then has the power to raid the offices of any company being investigated, and remove anything - anything at all - that they deem pertinent to their enquiry. I've seen case studies where the diaries of sales management were used to prove that there had been a meeting to agree price fixing.
So in summary, the first two instances can only be invoked when you are in a dominant position in the market while the third can apply to any company.
It's worth reading the UK Competition Act - it mirrors EU legislation on the subject and may expand on precisely what the EU are going to investigate and how. Apologies for the lack of a link, but I hope this clarifies things a bit.
My response to the BBC - I've tried to keep it in simple language even those morons will understand!
Having read the article at the url below, I felt I had to contact you and make you aware of the glaring errors within the piece, and the apparent bias shown.
Your article clearly lays the blame for the MyDoom virus at the door of the Linux/Open Source 'community', implying that a Linux user, outraged by SCO's recent actions, wrote the virus in order to hamper or disable SCO.
This is laughably incorrect, and made worse by the following errors:
First, you focused only on a small fragment of the payload of the MyDoom virus. MyDoom does indeed appear to target SCO - however, it's greater purpose is actually to open vunlerable points on an infected PC, allowing private information to be accessed or permitting the PC to be used as a 'zombie' through which to route unwanted spam email.
Second. The MyDoom virus was designed as a Windows worm, written in a Windows-based language. I am not a programmer, however having worked with many developers, I can tell you that the number who would voluntarily work in a Windows environment - even in order to formulate an attack on an unpopular organisation - is vanishingly small.
Third, you mentioned SCO's claim to 'own' Unix code upon which Linux is based, and a fraction of their ongoing litigation in this matter - and you endeavoured to use this as 'evidence' that the Open-Source community was behind the worm. Wrong. Totally, utterly wrong. Had your researcher actually delved a little deeper, it would have become obvious that SCO actually has no legal leg to stand on, and has been consistently failing to provide the information demanded by the case judge in terms of discovery. After two years SCO has still neither provided evidence of the so-called infringing code, nor been able to point experts at any part of the Linux OS which contains it. SCO is becoming increasingly seen as fighting a losing battle which they should never have started in the first place. This attack on SCO (which, it must be pointed out, has not been PROVED to be a result of MyDoom - we only have the word of a company who have relied on unfounded rumour in a multi-million dollar legal battle) would actually result in damage to the reputation of the Open-Source community, precisely becuase of ill-informed articles such as yours. Nobody in the community wants that to happen, as we would quite simply lose the moral high ground.
Fourth, with regard to your comment
"If anyones anger has no measure, it is the wrath of internet zealots who believe that code should be free to all (open source).
So, it seems likely that the perpetrators of the MyDoom virus and its variants are internet vandals with a specific grudge.
SCO is the big, bad company that violates one of their sacred principles, as they would see it."
This is wrong. Totally wrong.
I would draw your attention to a company called Red Hat. Red Hat distribute Linux. Their distribution is not free. However, they are part of the Open-Source movement.
Free software does not necessarily mean free-of-charge. Free can also refer to freedom of use - freedom to change or modify as the user requires. In the case of proprietary software, users have to modify their actions to suit the vagaries of the software. With Open-Source, users can modify the software to suit their own needs.
When you are making a story such as this public, then independent reporting requires that you report the facts accurately, covering the arguments from both sides equally.
You have failed to do so in this case, instead relying on a single impression and using that to generate a story which is factually incorrect, biased and damaging to those who wish to see change in the software world.
Those people in the Open-Source community I have talked with and the forums I subscribe to condemn the writers of this worm because it is of no b
IMO, as far as the US administration is concerned, the long-term economic benefits of invading Iraq outweighs the interim costs.
America now has strong links with Saudi Arabia and, since 1991, even stronger links with Kuwait - both members of OPEC.
Who controls oil supply?
Got it in one.
So roll to 2003:
(1)Invade Iraq; (2)Install pro-US puppet regime; (3)Tighten US influence over OPEC decisions; (4)PROFIT!
The invasion and subsequent Americanisation of Iraq will permit the US to gain further global control, exerting influence and pressure over countries such as those you mention.
China upsets the US? Not if they don't want 'technical difficulties' with supply or pricing.
The current US Administration almost all have ties to the oil business. The war was started and prosecuted for oil. And money. Nothing more.
Just a thought on this point from a marketeers perspective.
On a recent Marketing course, we had a presentation from representatives of a very large clothing house (whose initials were T.H.).
They estimate approximately ten percent of the people who enter their shops are young male shoplifters, who then wear the clothes they steal.
The company's view of this?
It's good marketing. It increases brand awareness. The kids with money see those without wearing the (stolen) latest sweater/jeans/trainers, want them for themselves, so get Daddy to buy them. It's a good business model for the large clothing company (T.H.) - profits from sales outweigh the losses from shoplifting, and more people are wearing their products as a result of the thefts.
Personally, I share a lot of mp3 with friends, and decide which albums to buy and recommend based on mp3 samples.
If I recommend an artist to my friends, and they buy that album, that IMO would constitute increased sales for the record company. Therefore increased brand awareness!
If the RIAA (and for me, the UK record industry) were to recognise this, embrace a tide of change they can't hope to stop, and actually use the information they can access as a brand-awareness and data-mining tool, they would potentially see more sales - and, you never know, we may see better quality music.
We (the US) have something that doesn't exist in the rest of the world, which is a jury of your peers. This has been occasional currupted but it is still better than other systems.
Perhaps you have never heard of the United Kingdom then?
Strange, but we seem to have a jury system too
And though we have a government that doesn't listen to us, at least ours hasn't introduced the Patriot Act.
Personally, I think the US can no longer be held up as the global paragon of democracy and freedom. It's a corporate dictatorship hiding behind a facade.
You'll get your day in court only if you can afford it. If not - well, hand over your house to the RIAA.
I have two children, both of primary age - the youngest is just five.
His school have just spent a fortune on IT kit, up to and including interactive whiteboards.
At the same time - how often do they practice their spellings or maths with a teacher or assistant? Once every TEN days or so.
My ten year old has to research her projects on the web - and then just print the pages and hand them in. If she does write something her spelling is atrocious and her grammar worse. The teachers tell the children - and the parents - not to worry, because the children will have access to spellcheckers!
I can only speak for the UK, but IMO computers are being used by some teachers and by a statistic-obsessed Government to hide mediocre standards.
They think that by showing flashy new TFT monitors and a cleverboard, we are somehow not going to notice the two hours a night we put in helping our children to handle basic literacy and numeracy - the stuff that should actually be being taught.
But here endeth this morning's rant. Let kids use computers - but in moderation. Teach them to read, write and count - because in the end, they are the basic - and therefore most marketable - skills of their future. Programming is a career choice - being able to write a letter a prerequisite.
the problem, IMHO, is not with the equipment used - most of us are knowledgeable enough to know what we should and shouldn't operate in the air. But the same doesn't seem to apply to the cabin crew. On a recent BA flight to Paris, I was asked to turn off my MD player(note this - a player. Not any form of radio at all) because 'it could interfere with the flight instrumentation'. I politely explained what the mysterious object I was listening to was, but the cabin crew were adamant. How are they going to know the difference when it comes to people waving laptops and PDA's around? Some additional training for crew will be needed - cue an increase in flight fares to cover it?
What an insightful comment. And it shows a remarkable lack of empathy for those of us who may be a little behind you in their geek development.
Put it this way. I'm in sales. For an IT company. And I thought it would be helpful to learn more about the subject. So I'm teaching myself from the O'Reilly books. Something like this for a person like me, who doesn't come from a numbers-based, analytical environment, helps me approach matters and can give me valuable pointers. I for one will be buying it.
So please, try and be a little less elitist with your posts. Some of us want to get to a decent level and don't need thoughtless and insulting posts like this. Especially anonymously.
Here endeth today's sermon on behalf of newbie geeks.
It doesn't matter whether you - or anyone else - has hear of Sendo. Every time the general public (those who are not reading/.) reads something like this, it reinforces what should be the base message of the Open Source community - not 'destroy M$' but, simply, 'you have a choice'.
Change comes from positive reinforcement. If we want to change the minds of the non IT-literate, stories like this do help.
You may not care, but I'm selling Open Source answers to small businesses. This sort of thing helps.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right - you can charge someone then a judge can deny bail and remand in custody - but that isn't germane to the point of the planned legislation.
Currently, to be charged there needs to be sufficient evidence in the hands of the Police that they can go to the Crown Prosecution Service who then decide whether it's going to Court or not.
Under the planned, and thankfully failed, legislation (and the amendment which sadly was passed - at least in the Commons, it's still got to get past the Lords), the Police can hold you WITHOUT charge and WITHOUT evidence.
It's an attempt to get a fishing licence. 'Your face looks funny so we'll throw you in a Remand cell and then go looking for a reason why'.
There's a word for what El Presidente Blair and Josif Vissionarovich Clarke are trying to to, and that word is Internment. It's been tried before on these shores, and proved to be a hugely fertile recruiting ground for militants.
The illusion that this is in any way similar to any form of proper Judicial process is one that El Presidente and his morons^Wminions^WMinisters have tried hard to produce - and, thankfully, failed. Unfortunately, they have managed to convince the tabloid-reading population. The Sun, that revered repository of unbiased information, yesterday referred to MPs who voted against the bill as 'Traitors'.
This was - and is - a blatant attack on civil liberties, using terrorism as the bogeyman the same way that Communism was used by McCarthy. A raghead under every bed?
So please - don't be fooled. This has nothing to do with charging someone then remanding them in custody, and EVERYTHING to do with moving towards creating political prisoners and internment. It's not the same, and it certainly isn't Justice.
You're right, and it's unfortunate. It's a short-sighted and ultimately damaging approach.
I've worked in both types of company, and there are some CEO's who seem to think that inter-departmental friction is somehow beneficial.
Thankfully, the one I work with now has no such idiotic views - and is more productive as a result, growing sales turnover over 40% last year. We're not a small company either - we're a multinational. And (this is important) there weren't many new customers - it was REPEAT ones, drawn in by good account management and effective, well-backed Technical support.
Wish there were more MDs like mine.
It's unfortunate that stereotypes of Sales people in the Tech world persist just as much as stereotypes of geeks in the Sales world.
Personally, I do both roles. Perhaps I'm fortunate, however I can see both sides.
I totally agree that there are some salespeople who believe that they are somehow superior to the technical people, who don't bother to learn or understand what they're selling, and the technical aspects of what they're selling. I have managed such people - but only briefly, normally. They haven't tended to last long with me.
Similarly, I have worked with Technical people whose contempt for sales was manifest, and whose elitist attitude made getting information about what we actually could and should sell was nigh-on impossible. Again, these people didn't last long - they had a technical manager who understood the requirements of working in partnership with Sales.
The fact is, in business we ALL need each other.
A good sales guy will work with technical to learn and fully understand his products and services. He will deliver what technical can support - and act as a buffer between the end-user and technical. If he is over-promising and causing problems for the tech - question it. Put your questions in writing, with valid explanations. Sales people should be ethical enough NOT to be causing you problems - if that is happening, then they're lying to their customers and that's something management should hear about and act on.
But Technical - you don't live in a vacuum, either. You need to be interacting with Sales. Most sales people aren't as moronic as you might think - and would welcome a deeper knowledge of what you can do. The more we know, the more information we can give our prospects - and the more we can sell.
Don't let Sales fool you - in the end, EVERYONE in the company is involved in one thing - bringing in money. Your sales rep has pressures you don't. You have pressures your sales guy doesn't. Communicate with him clearly, in language he can understand - and make sure he's doing the same to you.
If that isn't happening, make it happen.
We can work closely together - and believe me, when it's done right, everyone is happier and more productive. But little snide wars like this thread DO NOT HELP - on either side.
Amen to that!
I haven't bought new kit for ages - in fact, the newest machine I have is a P4 1.6 which was obtained by barter. I will confess to having bought RAM and additional hard drives, but I won't spend cash on bleeding-edge CPUs and mainboards.
If I want to play games I have my PS2, and if I want a newer PC - well, there's always someone throwing out an old one coz it's got a dead HDD or PSU, and I've always got spares.
IMHO I think older hardware is cool anyway - hence my using an HP320LX as a PDA and a Nokia 7110 as my mobile phone. Old kit just rocks, and it's more fun to keep it working than just slapping your credit card down for something new every time.
Plus it keeps Louise the Darling Wife happier this way - I can geek without breaking the bank!
From personal experience, I think this is a brilliant first distro to try.
I installed Xandros Desktop 2.0 on a spare machine as I didn't have the courage at the time to go for a full Debian installation.
I've since installed Ubuntu on another box - but for day-to-day use, Xandros remains.
It has worked fine with all my hardware, including two different printers and two different thumbdrives, all with no tweaking or downloads.
I would strongly recommend it as an introduction to Linux.
And no, I _don't_ work for Xandros or represent them in any way.
Xandros Desktop does the same.
It took about ten minutes to install and another 30 last week to run a complete update. I love it.
And yes, I know it's got proprietary components, but I really rate it for desktop use.
That said, I'm trying to pluck up the courage to install Debian on another box as a learning exercise!
Neilthemonster
. . and can wholeheartedly recommend Xandros Desktop for new users.
The last time I even _tried_ to install Linux was eighteen months ago, and it all went rats.
Yet just last weekend I finally plucked up the courage to try again on an mid-spec (P4 1.7) second-hand box. I took ages making sure I had the precise hardware specs. Then put in the install CD.
Set the admin and user account details.
Went to get a coffee.
Came back and it was 80% done. Total install time was less than 12 minutes. It autodetected everything, and happily picks up my USB thumbdrives and so on.
My wife has used it since the install, and so has my 11yo daughter, and neither of them had the slightest problem.
So my vote has to go to Xandros, and I'm advocating it now to anyone who asks!
Actually - I expected that to be the case, most of it was just venting as I don't like shouting at people in callcentres.
Unbelievably, it actually worked, though - I got a phone call within 48 hours from a senior manager, a written apology and compensation.
So maybe sometimes - and I certainly wouldn't say always - vitriol can achieve something.
But thanks for the opinion!
. . and it's just taken me months to get out of their contract. I ended up writing the letter below to them, and even set up a blog to post it publicly. . .
2 June 2004
Dear Sir
Reference 6040
Termination of Contract - Tel No. xxxxx xxxxxx
Further to my lengthy telephone conversation with your Customer Disinterest Desk yesterday evening - a call which I fervently hope will be my last.
As discussed, please accept this letter as confirmation of my wish to terminate my contract with Vodafone, with one month's notice prior to the anniversary of my contract.
In the eleven months I have been with Vodafone, I have passed through bemusement, disappointment, disbelief and rage at the abysmal degree of so-called 'service' I have received, and am finally at the point where I am left doubting my own sanity.
In all the time I have been with you, not once - not once - have I been charged correctly for the service I have used. I have had to call innumerable times in desperate and increasingly vain efforts to get somebody to resolve my issues. Average call times have been 40 minutes, normally including drawn-out verbal exchanges with script-wielding, broken-record morons who simply cannot comprehend the meaning of the phrase 'customer service', much less actually implement it.
I am finally left with the unshakeable belief that there is not a single member of staff at Vodafone competent to run a whelk stall, much less administer a mobile phone company.
The final straw for me came this month, when I received my May invoice. Leaving aside the fact that the bill was ten days late - I should, by rights, receive my invoice 14 days prior to the direct debit leaving my account, but as usual was left with just 3 days - I was stunned to note that Vodafone were STILL charging me 15.31 for a text message bundle that I had specifically, REPEATEDLY requested be removed from my package, for the simple fact that I was no longer using the phone.
My second attempt was more successful, in that I actually spoke to a member of the human race, one Mxxxx Vxxxxxx. He single-handedly managed to prove every one of the opinions I have built up over the last eleven months, in that he was disinterested, monosyllabic and unable to deviate from his prescribed script in any way, shape or form. I can only suppose that CPW either hire staff with minimal EEG function, or that lobotomies are mandatory as part of the employment contract. I ended up having to hang up on him and call back - again.
Call three led me - after a lengthy debate over whether there were any managers in the office at 6pm - to one Cxxxxxx Txxxx. Speaking to someone vaguely more senior than the protozoa infesting your call centres is, in itself, a feat on a par with the scaling of Everest. I have come to believe, in fact, that your 'managers' are purely mythical creatures, akin to Bigfoot, The Yeti or an honest Labour MP. This is based on the number of completely fictitious callbacks I am supposed to have had in the last eleven months.
I was impressed with Ms Txxxx initially because it only took her some 15 minutes to comprehend that she had an unhappy customer in her headset. This is an improvement of approximately 100% on every other call centre 'employee' I have encountered. It then only took a further 25 minutes of debate and hold time for her to (finally) agree the following proposal;
1. I will pay the purely fictitious invoice for 33.48 that is masquerading as my bill for May 2004.
2. This will leave Vodafone in debt to me to the tune of 15.31. This will be applied as a credit on my June invoice, against my line rental - effectively ensuring a Zero bill.
3. The June invoice is my FINAL invoice. Therefore, service to 07xxx xxxxxx will be terminated in accordance with this letter.
So yet again, in order to get back money Vodafone/CPW have taken without my agreement or consent, I have had to spend MY time and money on calls, and fight my way through staff w
Personal experience here. . .I'm getting married in ten days. And I met my partner on the internet.
If you're busy with work and so on, and you don't necessarily find fighting your way through alco-pop fuelled teenage cretins at the local theme bar to meet the opposite sex, the internet can be a great way of meeting and getting to know people.
I found it really useful - I was able to talk to people without masses of background noise, and get to know a bit about them _before_ I made the decision to actually meet up with them.
Three months of regular dates and I ended up meeting the woman of my dreams - she even administers a Web portal!
So I guess, from my experience, I'd say - go for it.
> Unless, like my wife, you consider a single short wire "clutter."
.
How true!
I have exactly the same. But. . .
Have you ever noticed that YOUR single cable (or whatever) is clutter - but HER candles, pot plants and fscking cuddly toys AREN'T clutter?
No, they're utterly necessary and you're insensitive/horrible/uncaring/chauvinist/delete as applicable if you dare to comment on them!
For my part, looking at it I had more trouble containing my excrement than my excitement!
I'm sorry, but I have to question this whole concept of 'shoot to kill'.
I spent seven years in the UK Forces, and have been trained - and carried - both rifles and pistols. The concept of 'shooting to wound' is a fallacy from the movies, where the good guy can hold his pistol sideways in one hand and hit a moving target in the knee from fifty feet.
We were taught simply to shoot for centre mass of the target - namely the chest area. Why? Well if you're under stress - and believe me, if you're in a firearms incident, you're under extreme stress - it's the biggest and easiest target to hit. Plus, there are nice big organs in the chest cavity.
If you've reached the point where it is a necessity to draw your firearm, you are going to be using it - it should never be drawn unless you are certain of that - and you're going to want to ensure that you hit your target.
Messing around trying to shoot a gun out of the bad guy's hand, you're going to miss - then you're going to die. Centre mass will stop - and likely kill. Your choice!
Usual disclaimer - IANACL (I Am Not A Competition Lawyer.
.
However, I have been involved in training and training others on competition and competition law.
You're not quite right in saying the same laws are being used - it's the same overall competition legislation, but the three cases you've mentioned relate to very different clauses and laws within that legislation.
I can't speak for the US, but in the UK it's basically like this. .
1. You can only be accused of predatory pricing in a specific circumstance - namely when you are in a monopoly position and therefore able to sell your product or service at such a low price as to force competitors out of business. For example, a software monopoly would be breaching this if they sold their office suite for next to nothing. Often, the key is whether the company has sold for below their cost.
2. You already said it. You can only abuse a monopoly position when you are IN a monopoly. That can't be said to be the case here, realistically.
3. Evidence of 'price fixing' is not just a matter of "your price is the same as your competitor, you're nicked chummy!".
In the UK, an in inquiry would be started by the OFT after complaints had been made regarding potential collusion or cartelling. The OFT then has the power to raid the offices of any company being investigated, and remove anything - anything at all - that they deem pertinent to their enquiry. I've seen case studies where the diaries of sales management were used to prove that there had been a meeting to agree price fixing.
So in summary, the first two instances can only be invoked when you are in a dominant position in the market while the third can apply to any company.
It's worth reading the UK Competition Act - it mirrors EU legislation on the subject and may expand on precisely what the EU are going to investigate and how. Apologies for the lack of a link, but I hope this clarifies things a bit.
My response to the BBC - I've tried to keep it in simple language even those morons will understand!
Having read the article at the url below, I felt I had to contact you and make you aware of the glaring errors within the piece, and the apparent bias shown.
Your article clearly lays the blame for the MyDoom virus at the door of the Linux/Open Source 'community', implying that a Linux user, outraged by SCO's recent actions, wrote the virus in order to hamper or disable SCO.
This is laughably incorrect, and made worse by the following errors:
First, you focused only on a small fragment of the payload of the MyDoom virus. MyDoom does indeed appear to target SCO - however, it's greater purpose is actually to open vunlerable points on an infected PC, allowing private information to be accessed or permitting the PC to be used as a 'zombie' through which to route unwanted spam email.
Second. The MyDoom virus was designed as a Windows worm, written in a Windows-based language. I am not a programmer, however having worked with many developers, I can tell you that the number who would voluntarily work in a Windows environment - even in order to formulate an attack on an unpopular organisation - is vanishingly small.
Third, you mentioned SCO's claim to 'own' Unix code upon which Linux is based, and a fraction of their ongoing litigation in this matter - and you endeavoured to use this as 'evidence' that the Open-Source community was behind the worm. Wrong. Totally, utterly wrong. Had your researcher actually delved a little deeper, it would have become obvious that SCO actually has no legal leg to stand on, and has been consistently failing to provide the information demanded by the case judge in terms of discovery. After two years SCO has still neither provided evidence of the so-called infringing code, nor been able to point experts at any part of the Linux OS which contains it. SCO is becoming increasingly seen as fighting a losing battle which they should never have started in the first place. This attack on SCO (which, it must be pointed out, has not been PROVED to be a result of MyDoom - we only have the word of a company who have relied on unfounded rumour in a multi-million dollar legal battle) would actually result in damage to the reputation of the Open-Source community, precisely becuase of ill-informed articles such as yours. Nobody in the community wants that to happen, as we would quite simply lose the moral high ground.
Fourth, with regard to your comment
"If anyones anger has no measure, it is the wrath of internet zealots who believe that code should be free to all (open source).
So, it seems likely that the perpetrators of the MyDoom virus and its variants are internet vandals with a specific grudge.
SCO is the big, bad company that violates one of their sacred principles, as they would see it."
This is wrong. Totally wrong.
I would draw your attention to a company called Red Hat. Red Hat distribute Linux. Their distribution is not free. However, they are part of the Open-Source movement.
Free software does not necessarily mean free-of-charge. Free can also refer to freedom of use - freedom to change or modify as the user requires. In the case of proprietary software, users have to modify their actions to suit the vagaries of the software. With Open-Source, users can modify the software to suit their own needs.
When you are making a story such as this public, then independent reporting requires that you report the facts accurately, covering the arguments from both sides equally.
You have failed to do so in this case, instead relying on a single impression and using that to generate a story which is factually incorrect, biased and damaging to those who wish to see change in the software world.
Those people in the Open-Source community I have talked with and the forums I subscribe to condemn the writers of this worm because it is of no b
IMO, as far as the US administration is concerned, the long-term economic benefits of invading Iraq outweighs the interim costs.
America now has strong links with Saudi Arabia and, since 1991, even stronger links with Kuwait - both members of OPEC.
Who controls oil supply?
Got it in one.
So roll to 2003:
(1)Invade Iraq;
(2)Install pro-US puppet regime;
(3)Tighten US influence over OPEC decisions;
(4)PROFIT!
The invasion and subsequent Americanisation of Iraq will permit the US to gain further global control, exerting influence and pressure over countries such as those you mention.
China upsets the US? Not if they don't want 'technical difficulties' with supply or pricing.
The current US Administration almost all have ties to the oil business. The war was started and prosecuted for oil. And money. Nothing more.
Funny you should mention that.
Direct Connect
http://dcplusplus.sourceforge.net
They have several hubs whose members share work units for SETI. Check out the UKS hub (uks.no-ip.com)for their figures!
Apologies for not supplying a working hyperlink, I'm not very good with this HTML stuff yet.
Just a thought on this point from a marketeers perspective.
On a recent Marketing course, we had a presentation from representatives of a very large clothing house (whose initials were T.H.).
They estimate approximately ten percent of the people who enter their shops are young male shoplifters, who then wear the clothes they steal.
The company's view of this?
It's good marketing. It increases brand awareness. The kids with money see those without wearing the (stolen) latest sweater/jeans/trainers, want them for themselves, so get Daddy to buy them. It's a good business model for the large clothing company (T.H.) - profits from sales outweigh the losses from shoplifting, and more people are wearing their products as a result of the thefts.
Personally, I share a lot of mp3 with friends, and decide which albums to buy and recommend based on mp3 samples.
If I recommend an artist to my friends, and they buy that album, that IMO would constitute increased sales for the record company. Therefore increased brand awareness!
If the RIAA (and for me, the UK record industry) were to recognise this, embrace a tide of change they can't hope to stop, and actually use the information they can access as a brand-awareness and data-mining tool, they would potentially see more sales - and, you never know, we may see better quality music.
Here endeth today's 0.02!!
We (the US) have something that doesn't exist in the rest of the world, which is a jury of your peers. This has been occasional currupted but it is still better than other systems.
Perhaps you have never heard of the United Kingdom then?
Strange, but we seem to have a jury system too
And though we have a government that doesn't listen to us, at least ours hasn't introduced the Patriot Act.
Personally, I think the US can no longer be held up as the global paragon of democracy and freedom. It's a corporate dictatorship hiding behind a facade.
You'll get your day in court only if you can afford it. If not - well, hand over your house to the RIAA.
Hmm.
I have two children, both of primary age - the youngest is just five.
His school have just spent a fortune on IT kit, up to and including interactive whiteboards.
At the same time - how often do they practice their spellings or maths with a teacher or assistant? Once every TEN days or so.
My ten year old has to research her projects on the web - and then just print the pages and hand them in. If she does write something her spelling is atrocious and her grammar worse. The teachers tell the children - and the parents - not to worry, because the children will have access to spellcheckers!
I can only speak for the UK, but IMO computers are being used by some teachers and by a statistic-obsessed Government to hide mediocre standards.
They think that by showing flashy new TFT monitors and a cleverboard, we are somehow not going to notice the two hours a night we put in helping our children to handle basic literacy and numeracy - the stuff that should actually be being taught.
But here endeth this morning's rant. Let kids use computers - but in moderation. Teach them to read, write and count - because in the end, they are the basic - and therefore most marketable - skills of their future. Programming is a career choice - being able to write a letter a prerequisite.
Building an Improbability Drive?
Come on - what are the odds of that happening!
Someone got a pencil and paper? I'll work it out for myself.....
the problem, IMHO, is not with the equipment used - most of us are knowledgeable enough to know what we should and shouldn't operate in the air. But the same doesn't seem to apply to the cabin crew. On a recent BA flight to Paris, I was asked to turn off my MD player(note this - a player. Not any form of radio at all) because 'it could interfere with the flight instrumentation'. I politely explained what the mysterious object I was listening to was, but the cabin crew were adamant. How are they going to know the difference when it comes to people waving laptops and PDA's around? Some additional training for crew will be needed - cue an increase in flight fares to cover it?
What an insightful comment. And it shows a remarkable lack of empathy for those of us who may be a little behind you in their geek development. Put it this way. I'm in sales. For an IT company. And I thought it would be helpful to learn more about the subject. So I'm teaching myself from the O'Reilly books. Something like this for a person like me, who doesn't come from a numbers-based, analytical environment, helps me approach matters and can give me valuable pointers. I for one will be buying it. So please, try and be a little less elitist with your posts. Some of us want to get to a decent level and don't need thoughtless and insulting posts like this. Especially anonymously. Here endeth today's sermon on behalf of newbie geeks.
Mod this up, guys! This is way funnier than the usual 'beer and prostitutes' gags. .
That's an easy answer.
/.) reads something like this, it reinforces what should be the base message of the Open Source community - not 'destroy M$' but, simply, 'you have a choice'.
It doesn't matter whether you - or anyone else - has hear of Sendo. Every time the general public (those who are not reading
Change comes from positive reinforcement. If we want to change the minds of the non IT-literate, stories like this do help.
You may not care, but I'm selling Open Source answers to small businesses. This sort of thing helps.