I think most people want to be good, and will be - unless under much pressure.
Atheists are good because it is the right thing to do. They don't want to "sin".
Theists may want to be good, but they also have some system of ultimate power to punish/reward them, so forcing them to be good. They seem insecure in their desire to be good without a carrot/stick.
But some theists also create a "get of out jail" system of "ask for forgiveness", which means they can be "bad" and "sin" and that is OK!
@revk Not all theistic religions (not even all flavours of Christianity) have the total forgiveness approach common in Christianity, and even that is meant to be only with genuine remorse. Rather more of them (though still not all!) have some set of moral precepts which are handed down with authority.
The theist fears me because I don't accept the moral authority of his book or his priest. I fear the theist because he does, even when it suddenly changes.
The theist fears me because I have no fear of punishment to keep me in line (and he doesn't realise that I must have something else). I fear the theist because he might suddenly stop believing, and then he will have nothing else.
@revk Ah, that makes sense. Never heard of this "one touch switch" What's the difference? Guessing you're still filling out this form which is more than one touch.
Only just found "correlationID" is meant to be maintained for the whole message series, which seems crazy, as all but the first message would involve a switching order reference. I expected it was just for Request/response pair.
Pain in the arse as means I have to now store switching order reference and two correlation IDs, not just a simple switching order reference. Why the hell do that?
OK I’m going to float an idea on here. It looks like we won’t be able to cancel a “broadband switch” from losing side. So won’t be able to do “anti slamming”. Shame.
But to switch using OTS you have to have a match on surname (using some fun, and vague, rules for accented characters).
So we could allow customers to set any surname on a line, and use as a sort of “password”.
After all, you can call yourself what you like, and we have to accept changes to personal information.
@revk If this is added as a feature I will immediately be using it. I have to protect myself from unscrupulous organisations and ISPs fall into that description frequently. Whatever I can do to place my own padlock on my service, I will do.
This bloody #TOTSCO one touch switching stuff has taken me nearly a week now, annoying. But working out how it will impact the ordering process. Essentially it makes it worse! More steps, more info to provide. All to save someone ceasing some other type of service by themselves. But getting there.
What worries me is the ease of “slamming” and I gather we won’t be able to stop slamming from losing side any more, which is worrying.
@revk I have said from the outset that the fix for this was Ofcom doing something that would actually help consumers like insist it is as easy to cancel broadband as it is to sign up (i.e. tell Virgin to stop being shithouses), and for bonus points the banning of anything over a 30 day term to get rid of 'introductory pricing' with loyalty penalties.
@revk Make providers charge what they actually need to make a profit without gouging long term customers, and let people finance their own deals to cover any install costs or whatever can no longer be hidden in an amortisation however they see fit.
@revk maybe when they switched to the NCC classifications, the Federation was big enough that Earth got assigned the 17xx series to name, and other planets got other series.
(*) I suspect this theory wouldn't stand up to any trekkie with deep Federation history knowledge!
The constant "logging what you are doing" is something we do in the data centre, via irc, so we know what happened just before shit hit the fan, or we can but in and say "wait!".
But the captain having to say "deploy damage control teams", or "seal off that affected area", or "divert auxiliary power", makes zero sense...
@revk Guessing the captain may want to purge a level of the enterprise if they've been misbehaving. When he's told "hull breach in level 2" he can hold off a few seconds just to make sure they're gone before he puts up the shields.
@revk It's obviously for legal backup in case of a court martial. 'So Captain, please explain how you lost another starship....well, I did everything by the book, sealed off the affected areas, deployed the damage control teams...'
Legitimate interests… I wonder if that will get tested.
But objection applying “going forward”. Surely one can object to how data “was” used as well? #GDPR
@revk You need to be logged in to see and submit the form. The facebook app annoyingly opens the form in a pop-up browser window and doesn't SSO you into Facebook. They must have designed this pattern to be annoying as possible.
So I have to find a matching service for a switch.
I construct the SQL query and pile on the conditions - installed and not ceased and not in the middle of a port, and the right account number and line number and so on.
I get either zero, one, or more results. If I get one, I respond with matching details.
But it not, I have to send a failure. Let's check the failure codes.