:agree: I think most of them still dont know that. :faf:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
Printable View
:agree: I think most of them still dont know that. :faf:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
I've no idea why this has just sprung to mind, but the English version of the Hokey Cokey and the rah rah rah bollocks.
I had no idea there was two versions. We must have been taught the English version at school cos we all rah rah'd.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bangkok Hibby
Excessive security on online accounts. I had to log on to my online banking for something urgent earlier but my phone wasn’t to hand but I was on my laptop anyway. I would normally do this on my phone where the app just accepts facial recognition. However, to get in on the actual website I had to:
- Enter my user ID (had to do a reminder to get this)
- Enter my password
- Enter my security number
This wasn’t enough and was where I found out you need your phone to get in on the website because I then had to:
- Go onto the app to click a button saying that yes, I did want into my account on the website
- Wait for a text to enter a one time code.
- Enter the one time code.
What a waste of time!!
Would you rather it was easier for someone to empty your accoumt?Quote:
Originally Posted by overdrive
Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
I would rather not have to go onto another medium (my phone) when I’m trying to enter via their website. What if my phone was broken?Quote:
Originally Posted by O'Rourke3
It’s not just this example. When logging into my mobile phone account, I get a text saying that I will receive a code in around one minute. You then have to wait on the code and enter it. Then when you’re in it’s the same rigmarole when you click to go on several screens - text saying you’ll get a OTC in around a minute, etc.
There’s a balance between security and user experience. I think they’ve gone too far towards security over user experience.
I work in fraud and could not disagree more. Even with everything you are stating, fraudsters are still getting access to people’s accounts.Quote:
Originally Posted by overdrive
I feel you…it can be a bit of a pain for sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by overdrive
You can then add RBS needing me to use a card reader to then do anything once I’ve got into the account!
I get the need for security but could I find that damn card reader….[emoji2957][emoji2957]
Multi factor authentication is currently one of the safer options for accessing Personally Sensitive Information online. Were banks found guilty under GDPR of failing to conform with the legislation the fine could be as much as 4% of their annual turnover. Wait till Banks stop doing free banking...Quote:
Originally Posted by overdrive
Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
STV News having 2 presenters and doing half sentences each.
Yep that's so stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveHFC
And the camera operators zooming on on people's hands when they're being interviewed about something stressful. I think BBC Scotland are equally as guilty of that one.
And in different studios, 1 in Glasgow and 1 in Edinburgh. (and Aberdeen if you are in the North)Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveHFC
Watching TV with someone constantly on their phone so all you get every couple of minutes is “what did they say?”
What did you say?Quote:
Originally Posted by matty_f
Always been confused by, been critical of, ridiculed, hated, modern art. I've tried to understand but nobody will ever persuade me some of it isn't just a piss take to rob assholes with more money than sense.
I now give you "le sono" invisible sculpture. I'll let anyone interested google it but just to note, some prick paid 15 thousand euros for a certificate and instructions on how to display it!!!!;
You see, I think that’s brilliant! Someone made £15k from nothing, made some people annoyed, some happy, some laugh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bangkok Hibby
It’s art.
Art is in the eye of the beholder 😉Quote:
Originally Posted by Northernhibee
Unless its invisible!Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
I kind of agree. Whilst not conceding its art, fair play to anyone who can con people into paying good money for utter nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Northernhibee
I broadly agree. I think with modern art part of the issue is people will react with a 'I could have done that'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Northernhibee
The point being: they didn't. If we take 2 examples of British art in relatively recent times both Damien Hirst's Spots series and Tracey Emin's My Bed provoke strong reactions. It's easy to say anyone could paint some coloured spots or let people look at their manky bedroom. The difference is the artists in question thought of it, conceptualised it and gave it a story that spoke to people and made them want to part with money for it.
I hadn't heard of the Lo Sono invisible sculpture until now. I would never have thought of it though and even if I did no one would have paid me for it because I don't have the body of work to support the given story.
For me art should be provocative and divisive. There's nothing more boring than everyone agreeing. I remember going to see the Mona Lisa and being totally underwhelmed. I'm not disputing it's a great and iconic painting, everyone thinks that, but we have all seen it thousands of times. People were crowded around it and it was a thoroughly depressing experience. Give me a Cecily Brown or Jean Michel Basquiat any day.
That has been said countless times over the centuries about things we now accept as art.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bangkok Hibby
Personally I'll never accept an unmade bed or something I can't see as art.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
And we all remember thisQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
https://m.facebook.com/lostedinburgh/photos/1016112648446418
https://www-scotsman-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.scotsman.com/whats-on/arts-and-entertainment/lost-edinburgh-kinetic-sculpture-1580896?amp_js_v=a6&_gsa=1&&usqp=mq331AQKKAF QArABIIACAw%3D%3D#aoh=16246949255859&referrer=http s%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&am pshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotsman.com%2Fwhats-on%2Farts-and-entertainment%2Flost-edinburgh-kinetic-sculpture-1580896
😄 from memory it cost 11 grand. An astonishing price back then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
...but your descendants might, which is partly my point. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Bangkok Hibby
Many paintings and sculptures over the centuries were dismissed as soft porn or blasphemy. Our New Town was the object of a lot of resistance. And then there's Jack "painting by numbers" Vettriano. :greengrin
It's for future generations to make the call, sometimes, as to whether something has artistic merit. The Parliament is one that springs to mind. In 30 years time, people might be marvelling at its beauty, or maybe saying "Who in their right mind....?".
Art, and its consumption, is meant to be subjective, though :aok:
Yes I get it. And maybe I should frame this differently.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Is anything currently out there a pure piss take, just stealing money from idiots?...I'll say yes. Or will it all have a respected place in art history classes in the future?
I'm waiting until they're available from Wish.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bangkok Hibby
£30k springs to mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bangkok Hibby
£11k according to the scotsman article.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peevemor
Meanwhile, will the owner of the lo sono insure it and will the police believe it has been stolen 😉
How about we start with the new St James Centre?😯Quote:
Originally Posted by Bangkok Hibby