Comments for VinceH's Miscellany

Comment on Sky One shows contempt for their viewers. Again. by VinceH

VinceH — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 11:40:40 +0000

Interesting point – I was thinking in terms of it being an advert, and therefore the ASA, who tend to be quite toothless. I didn’t think of Ofcom at all – if I have time over the next few days, I’ll look into firing off a complaint about both this and the Stargate one.

Comment on Sky One shows contempt for their viewers. Again. by irrelevant

irrelevant — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 09:46:07 +0000

Hmm. I wonder if this would fall foul of the broadcasting code – I had a complaint to Ofcom upheld about a simple “skytravel.co.uk” DOG; (see Broadcast Bulletin 92) and this would seem to be similar. I didn\’t see the Stargate Universe incident, but will have Terra Nova waiting to be watched on the sky box downstairs.

Comment on Sky One shows contempt for their viewers. Again. by irrelevant

irrelevant — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 09:45:12 +0000

Hmm. I wonder if this would fall foul of the broadcasting code – I had a complaint to Ofcom upheld about a simple “skytravel.co.uk” DOG; (see Broadcast Bulletin 92) and this would seem to be similar. I didn’t see the Stargate Universe incident, but will have Terra Nova waiting to be watched on the sky box downstairs.

Comment on The second rule of the Virgin Media forum moderators by VinceH

VinceH — Mon, 02 May 2011 11:35:03 +0000

There was supposed to be a footnote to this item, which I forgot to include. Rather than edit the post again, I'll just add it as a comment: * "The wider world of the web" - with "www" standing for "world wide web" I used the term "the wider world of the web" as an obvious paraphrase with a specific meaning: The world wide web encompasses everything on the web (and is why it's called what it is!), and I figured the variation, the wider world of the web, was a nice way to describe the whole of the web beyond any given space within it - in this case, the rest of the web outside Virgin Media's forums. Googling now, I see I'm not the first person to use it (given how long the world wide web has been around, now, it would have been absolutely amazing if I was, since it's hardly a genius paraphrasing) - for example, the first two results Google provided me were to posts on blog called Digital by Default, 'an online notebook by Matt Jukes' (who, coincidentally, comes from Bristol). For completeness the two posts Google offered are this one from a few weeks ago, and this one from 2007. Timing on some of the other links of page one of the Google results in unclear, and for the rest it's a mixed bag - and similarly the context in some cases can lead to the phrase being used as I intended it in this post, and in others simply as an alternative way to describe the world wide web itself. Personally, I think the way I and some others appear to have used it, as a way to describe the web beyond a certain site (or forum, or whatever), is the better use of the term. Either way - although I haven't (as far as I know) encountered the phrase myself before, so it was to me an original use, I obviously wasn't the first, and can't claim credit. I do claim credit for 'Overpuddle' (and 'Overpuddlians') to refer to America (and Amercians), which I've been using for many years, along with the more recent 'Danundaland' (and 'Danundians') for Australia (and Australians).

Comment on Potential security issue on Amazon’s website (updated 11/4/2011 – twice) by VinceH

VinceH — Mon, 11 Apr 2011 21:50:32 +0000

No – the order history supports the new account scenario. The order history on the account with the new name only goes back as far as the change of email address. This is consistent with both Amazon’s suggestion that I “inadvertently” created a new account (when changing email addresses, I must have clicked that invisible button on the same page that says “make this a new account”) – but it’s also consistent with my own belief that the new account was created due to the way their system works (or worked). This isn’t something I’d noticed at the time because it’s only rarely that I even look at my order history – I keep a track of outstanding orders etc through the way I archive my emails.

An interesting oddity, though, is the business of not having any orders from March 2010 onwards on that account. As I said, I did order stuff after that date – I have the confirmation emails etc. When I looked in the order history when this ‘problem’ came to light, it looks just as Amazon says: No orders after March. Odd.

Comment on Potential security issue on Amazon’s website (updated 11/4/2011 – twice) by VinceH

VinceH — Mon, 11 Apr 2011 21:43:32 +0000

It does seem confusing at first – it’s because I’ve set the site up so that any user’s first comment is moderated (along with any containing links). Once I’ve approved the first comment, as I’ve now done, you should see any future comments appear straight away. Just a bit of spam prevention. You should see the user list – shedloads of spam just waiting to happen.

Comment on Potential security issue on Amazon’s website (updated 11/4/2011 – twice) by jjvdgeer

jjvdgeer — Mon, 11 Apr 2011 18:09:11 +0000

Hm. I can add comments but I cannot see my own comments? Strange. When I tried again, it said it detected a duplicate comment, but I don’t see it…

Comment on Potential security issue on Amazon’s website (updated 11/4/2011 – twice) by jjvdgeer

jjvdgeer — Mon, 11 Apr 2011 18:06:30 +0000

What happened to your order history? Did that get duplicated? Or did it get moved? If it got duplicated I suppose that should prove that you did not create a new account like they claim, because I don’t think you should be able to cause things like that.

Comment on Additions Direct: The story begins by VinceH

VinceH — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 08:53:04 +0000

Despite my criticism of the hours, when I called them this morning the matter was dealt with quickly and efficiently – and it was actually quite a useful call to me, and potentially useful to the three or four people that actually read these posts. I don’t really have time to write this up today, so a quick summary of the discussion regarding the attempted fraud itself: The account is blocked and the goods won’t be shipped. The account was set up online on September 23rd. The delivery address for the goods ordered was in London SE28. I suspected, but asked and it was confirmed, that if I apply for a subject access request (for which their fee is £10) it’ll include that address, since that is on the file for my account. Not that I can sensibly do anything with that information.

Also useful to me and potentially to others: I’ll just give the website address for now and perhaps expand on it further when I have more time: http://www.cifas.org.uk/

Comment on Barclaycard: The story ends… for now? by VinceH's Miscellany » Blog Archive » Additions Direct: The story begins

Thu, 30 Sep 2010 20:09:54 +0000

[...] Miscellany « Barclaycard: The story ends… for now? [...]