£1 for the new favicon, £584 for knowing how to do it.
£1 for the new favicon, £266 for the trouble of dealing with government procurement, £268 to compensate for the guilt of charging the government £267 for £1 of work.
A favicon? That’ll be £585 please.
81–90 of 107 posts
Re: A favicon? That’ll be £585 please.
#82Scary thing is I encountered a similar 'issue':
The quote was to modify a piece of linux-based kit to work with a regular screen and keyboard instead of a touchscreen. The cost? £3300 for 'development'.
I was asked to grab a piece of sample kit and liaise with the development company to have the work done. To cut a long story short, one of the developers called me back a day or so later and gave me instructions on how to change one line in an XML file from TOUCHSCREEN=YES to NO.
After I had completed the work, I reported back to the man in charge of the project and queried the cost. He said that since it was being passed to the customer it was not an issue.
Re: A favicon? That’ll be £585 please.
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, lets say it didn't take 5 minutes. Lets say it took 3 hours for a designer to make the favicon pixel by pixel, and 1 hour for a developer to upload the favicon to the server (maybe he only has one arm or something, I don't know, bare with me.) That's ~$230/hr. Really, you can't argue that this wasn't crazy expensive. However, when it comes to government waste this is a pretty trivial example.
Well, you forgot the 2 hour meeting to get approval of everyone involved, then the changes needed after the team weighed in, another meeting for final approval (assuming there was only one round of revisions - this is government here) and then actual implementation. You also forgot the time it took the designer to come up with the original concept - you can't just sit down and produce a production-ready favicon witho…
I dunno, if a company we hired on contract pulled shit like that we'd fire their ass exactly 3 minutes after the first invoice arrived (and of course we would require weekly invoices with written notice if there was deviation from the original budget.)
The UK government has no such contraints of course.
Re: A favicon? That’ll be £585 please.
#84£1 for the new favicon, £584 for knowing how to do it.
£1 for the new favicon, £584 for sitting through multiple approval meetings.
Re: A favicon? That’ll be £585 please.
#85Dude... where i am from... you ask such a question to the government they will laugh to your face ! should you insist security is called... If you come back you will be thrown in jail... On another note... a FAVICON generator website business startup anyone (of course based out of the UK)? lol
based out of the UK Why? The seem willing to pay for favicons :) favicon generation: £0 installation: £200 1-year email support: £200 -------------------------- TOTAL (*): £400 Savings (*): £185 * VAT not included
Yeah that is what i meant. Not "based outside of" ... well i think it is bad english anyway my fault, i meant "based in the UK".
Re: A favicon? That’ll be £585 please.
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
Assuming you are employing hyperbole I'll skip over the idea of it costing more than £585 in their time to find out. As to the MPs' expenses stuff, I don't know the figures of how much the inquiry cost, but assuming you're right that it cost more, it doesn't mean they shouldn't have done it. For one reason, ethics - should police ignore crimes when it appears that the damage caused by the criminal is less than it wou…
I'm not in the least... It probably took them an hour to find out, reply to the emails etc. They probably had to ask others etc. Their salary, electricity, office overhead etc. I'd expect it came to a fair bit more than £585 to deal with the request for information. The MP expenses thing was always ridiculous. So an MPs husband mistakenly put in an expense claim for £10 adult movie. Sure it sells papers, but £10 is n…
I agree that MPs are relatively underpaid [1] and mistaken adult movie claims are a cause for embarrassment rather than the source of the national debt.
But I don't think it's ridiculous to prosecute MPs who defraud the public by claiming "homes" belonging to other people that they've never even stayed in; even though the prosecution costs far more than the actual offence. Lines have to be drawn. It's expensive to prosecute people for shoplifting too.
[1]underpaid enough to be justifiably anal about claiming expenses; not so underpaid that doubling their income by home flipping is the only way they can feed their families
Re: A favicon? That’ll be £585 please.
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not in the least... It probably took them an hour to find out, reply to the emails etc. They probably had to ask others etc. Their salary, electricity, office overhead etc. I'd expect it came to a fair bit more than £585 to deal with the request for information. The MP expenses thing was always ridiculous. So an MPs husband mistakenly put in an expense claim for £10 adult movie. Sure it sells papers, but £10 is n…
I agree that MPs are relatively underpaid [1] and mistaken adult movie claims are a cause for embarrassment rather than the source of the national debt. But I don't think it's ridiculous to prosecute MPs who defraud the public by claiming "homes" belonging to other people that they've never even stayed in; even though the prosecution costs far more than the actual offence. Lines have to be drawn. It's expensive to pr…
As far as I know only 2 MPs or so were prosecuted. Considering the enquiry cost several million, that doesn't seem like money well spent.
Re: A favicon? That’ll be £585 please.
#88£1 for the new favicon, £584 for knowing how to do it.
> £584 for knowing how to do it. 1) Draw crappy icon in any of the zillion free icon editors out there (e.g. IconEdit32). 2) Name the file 'favicon.ico' and upload it to the root directory of the website. I have a feeling I should be doing consulting in the UK or something.
If I tell a designer to recreate Amazon.com's front page as a Photoshop PSD, they could probably do it in under an hour.
If I tell a designer to create the front page of a feature-packed, online store where every tiny decision has a significant impact on sales figures, and the process has to be run past (and work for) countless people within the organisation - no one is doing that in under an hour!
In this case, there's every chance that the actual decision making process was "resize logo or part of logo to fit a small square", but there's also a chance that other options were considered, a couple of meetings were held to get it approved, etc.
Re: A favicon? That’ll be £585 please.
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that MPs are relatively underpaid [1] and mistaken adult movie claims are a cause for embarrassment rather than the source of the national debt. But I don't think it's ridiculous to prosecute MPs who defraud the public by claiming "homes" belonging to other people that they've never even stayed in; even though the prosecution costs far more than the actual offence. Lines have to be drawn. It's expensive to pr…
As far as I know only 2 MPs or so were prosecuted. Considering the enquiry cost several million, that doesn't seem like money well spent.
Money spent on stuff like that can act as a deterrant for the future.. So it might be about break-even.
Re: A favicon? That’ll be £585 please.
#90It only cost 585 pounds to add a favicon to a government website?
I'm surprised it wasn't more.
Working wit the government is not cheap. It is not easy. It is not something that lends itself to lean development shops. That development work is supporting a bevy of sales and process people to deal with government stuff. 585 pounds is cheap