Re: "already have migrated"
Yep, my first thought was similar - install VirtualBox on XP then install a proper OS like Fedora on that for network stuff. Then all you need to do is disable network access, etc, in the XP settings and away you go...
50 publicly visible posts • joined 24 Dec 2007
Very possibly slightly overdone, but there is an element of spontaneity in the A90 that still retains a hint of excitement - possibly even a feeling of hope.
I scored the Bi-Bacon quite highly but then deducted some marks for the use of 'homemade sourdough bread' which I felt was a bit 90s and didn't reflect these austere times
"Call me naive, but I should imagine someone would come up with some sort of standardised data access method. Profound, I know, but it might just be possible."
OK, you're naive.
It might just be possible if we had an integrated *national* health service, but what we're going to end up with is a free market of 1000's of competing organisations. Who do you think this 'somebody' is who will standardise things across that lot? The politicians?!? Private enterprise?!?
...there won't be an NHS will there, because you're hell bent on dismantling it, aren't you.
Currently the vast amount of very valuable and useful data collected is largely all under the one NHS roof and data systems and formats are *fairly* compatible, and access to the data is (relatively) well controlled. Once the NHS is a random mixture of private companies, third sector organisations, charities, trusts, international businesses, etc, who's going to be looking after all our personal data then, eh?
Our senior management didn't work it out, guess, or even consult IT. No, they've gone down the old fashioned public sector route of just spending £000s of your money on fashionable novelties and THEN discovering they're no good for serious work. There again, maybe that's a 'match' after all...
The market value of something is exactly what somebody is prepared to pay for it. In the case of stripey shirted *ankers that gamble with other people's money, that's $100billion. I suspect most Facebook users wouldn't pay at all for a service that gets less comprehensible as time goes on and advertisers won't pay much more than that. There seems to be a discrepency somewhere...
Media organisations being a bit biased to left or right is one thing, mistakes do happen and 'rogue' incidents also happen. What differentiates News Corps is the sheer scale of institutional, systematic and deliberate corruption of those in positions of power and their blatant interference in (what is supposed to be) democracy, for private profit. Not to mention the use of character assassinations, blackmail and bribery to further their squalid aims. Compare almost anybody to News Corps and relatively, they'll look a like a 'lefty'
Political parties hate the BBC because they won't do secret deals to help get them into power. News Corps - the 'mafia organisation' that hacks murdered children's phones and bribes coppers - hates the BBC for obvious reasons. The BBC is worth the TV Tax just to provide some democratic opposition against these pieces of shit. And the argument about people gladly paying for BSkyB but being forced to fund the BBC is bollocks - Murdoch has done nothing but pull up in an ice cream van next to the well he's poisoned.
For the amount of actual business use our iPads will be getting the Psion 3a would have been the optimal choice. Come to think of it, a black vynil floor tile with an Apple logo on it would have been even better - the numpties would still seem fashionable in front of their IT illiterate brand-rimming peers and it would be less disruptive to our IM&T infrastructure
I'd be interested to know what percentage of the iPads were bought because of their gadgety glittery appeal to managers rather than for any clearly defined need. Senior management here (NHS) have spent thousands on them, bypassing all IT procurement best practice and common sense. They didn't even look at the competition - if I was Samsung or RIM I'd be livid. Asking why they need them doesn't do any good, either - it's like asking an arsy teenager why they NEEEEEED the latest £200 Nike's
"Not that Apple is standing still: it has just been awarded a new patent on parental control of children's spending, so a child could have an iTunes account but every transaction (or every transaction above a certain point) would have to be authorised by the parent."
Can we have one of these applied to NHS senior managers so that every purchase of shiny but utterly non-essential iPads can be properly authorised by someone with common sense?
Unreasonable demands is the CSA deciding they're not only doubling the agreed amount you're already paying but back dating it for several months and putting you in a downward spiral of debt, taking thousands of pounds from you and then not passing that money on to your children thus putting an intolerable strain on the relationship with your ex becasue she assumes you're somehow avoiding paying.
It's an IT system that's built on party dogma, to mercilessly batter divorcees, and unless you've experienced it you wouldn't believe it. Ironically, the real victims were the 'absent' parents who actually wanted to contribute to their kids upbringing, who were made to pay at least double to make up for the money they couldn't be arsed getting from the real 'feckless fathers'. The other victims were the 'parent with care', normally the mothers, who they let down massively by spending money on their shit EDS Thatcher Hobbyhorse computer rather than passing the money on, and ultimately the children who they were pretending to 'Support'.
The government didn't think of this themselves, they don't know their arse from their elbow about computy things or clouds so they depend upon 'advice' from 'consultants' and 'think tanks' whose only purpose is to work out ways of moving massive amounts of taxpayers' money from the government to large IT firms and make a bundle while doing it.
If only getting a life was the solution. Unfortunately, it's those without that are the problem - I certainly never posted pictures to facebook of me shitfaced, or in the drug den, or as hitler at the New Years fancy dress party, or punching the waiter.
Grrr. Curse those Young Conservative get togethers
"An industry that gives away its content is cannibalizing its ability to do good reporting," Murdoch said.
...then went on to say that for this reason "The Sun" would not be given away online?!?
I can understand people paying for expert or specialist content, like with the Financial Times, but paying for 'news' about soap operas and reality TV 'stars' - who in their right mind would pay for that crap?
Not newsworthy, but Friday afternoon's are a bit quiet and I have a theory about Micorsoft's naming of Bing. Is it some sort of followup to Microsoft Bob?
Also probably not newsworthy but just noticed that if you type 'unusable crap' into Bing, top of the list that comes back is a link to Microsoft's own Windows XP page. The source actually contains the words 'unusable+crap'.
Why is this? It doesn't happen with Google...is this some sort of Microsoft attempt at Honesty? What's going on?!?
'...spending thousands on Linux consultants and retraining' (etc)
Which is absolutely nothing compared with the cost of a corporate monopoly having you by the balls.
The implications of monopolisation being forced on an organisation (e.g. the NHS) are very, very bad for everyone concerned, that's why they used to prevent it in the good 'ol days before Microsoft.
So, go ahead if you want to - take the money from our kidney machine savings account and just hand it over willy nilly to Bill and Steve, without a fight even. You'll pay in the end, oooh yes.
...introducing Open Source into an organisation was that easy. Yep, Open Office is good and works great at home, but large organisations usually have IT departments who decide what goes on users' machines, and they're not likely to support a mixture of operating systems if they can help it (or even different applications).
Neither is it a 2 minute job to test replacement OSS applications for compatibility with all /existing/ systems. E.g. in somewhere like the NHS - is the GEM software used to authenticate NHS smartcards available for Linux? If not, that's a showstoper, and that's just one example out of 100's. On top of that, all the helpdesk support is usually geared up to Microsoft and the top tier of decision makers haven't got a clue about what the 'problem' is with Microsoft anyway.
In short, the problem is systemic - proprietary formats such as Microsoft's have come to be seen as 'standard' (e.g. Explorer) and they're extremely difficult to extract now they've got their insidious multi-tentacled grip. Hmmm - almost like a cancer, come to think of it...
Anyway, having spent a lot of thought on how to get more OSS into public organisational use, I have come to the conclusion that the only realistic way is for the procurers of public software to simply insist upon compliancy with open standards. If they'd done this in the first place, neither Explorer or Office would be in great use, for a start.
...absolutely right, Mike.
I remember a comic strip on the back of a Dead Kennedy's single (ah, those were the days) where someone was shouting to the police, "Stop Him! He's trying to buy vegetables and he hasn't got a number" (I think the numbers were tattooed on forearms or foreheads)
I didn't know why it stuck in my mind, until now...
Anyway, I'll get my coat because with no ID card I soon won't be able to buy a new one.
Where are these people recruited? C*nts R Us?
The only thing as depressing as the playground smear politics of Labour is the slimy self righteous indignation of the Conservatives as they try to capitalise on it.
Maybe before a politician does anything at all, they should ask themselves "What would Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Abraham Lincoln (or anyone else truly worthy of respect) think of me for doing this?"
If the answer is "They'd think you're a wanker", then don't proceed. Simple.
when I suggested airships for this kind of thing. No easier to shoot down than a big flimsy flying wing, cheaper surveillance and easier deployment than satellites, they stay up even without power, can drop guided bombs, etc. Just cover one in solar cells for powering the steering and propulsion etc and yer laffin.
...is convincing the (mainly non-IT) public that he's some sort of rich but friendly harmless nerd with a 'vision' and a love for technology.
But beneath the crap sweater exterior is, first and foremost, a very greedy, very shrewd businessman who always did his utmost to thwart common open standards and would stoop to anything to maintain a corporate monopoly that's cost millions of people more dearly than they'll ever appreciate.
Hate him because he's a 'winner'?!? I suppose he is a 'winner' in the 'Stalin' sense of the word.
I think French farmers ought to consider the use of these performance enhancing suits during their next riot - I seem to remember a French farmer trying to throw a sheep at the police during a confrontation at the docks once (something to do with British imports I think). It didn't go very far (more of a drop really) - I scored it at 8 for originality but only 0 for effectiveness.
I take the glib line "...nothing to hide, nothing to fear" to be ironic, but just in case there is such thing as a Reg reader who doesn't understand what the fuss regarding privacy is about, here's one reason why you do have something to fear:
The more information an organization (such as a government) has on you, the more power they have over you, and the organization that's collecting your information today may not be the organization that's victimising you tomorrow. The latter organization could be your own government, a foreign government, a multinational company, a criminal organization, etc. The information could be used to make it harder for you to get a job, insurance, credit, health care, etc, etc, etc.
The perfect people/smug puritans who have never done anything 'wrong' will suffer from this just as much as anyone else, because it's not just about them - they might unknowingly associate with 'undesirables', have a particular postcode, be of a certain demographic type, have visited the wrong country, had a particular illness or even had a sick relative, all of which maybe outside of their control but any one of which could label them as a 'risk' or a 'problem', and there wouldn't be a thing they could do about it.
Privacy International haven't shot themselves in the foot, they exist because what they're campaigning about is real and there are plenty examples of data/privacy abuse to back them up.
It's a pity that Nazi Germany is brought up in a debate about Government data collection in the UK, 2007, but to dismiss it as just a twisted regime misses one frightening aspect of it that is relevant - the 'twisted regime' might have set up the system, but once that system was up and running, people who wouldn't have normally been considered 'twisted' then did what the 'system' told them to do.
Once you have a government 'machine' that does something, it's difficult to switch it off, and if it's a badly designed machine (even if not intentionally designed as evil) it will still do what it does, and pretty relentlessly. If you don't think this happens now, you never had a taste of the CSA. Obviously not remotely on the same scale, but that system did cause real human misery (to all sides), largely due to a badly designed computer system and blind faith in its abilities. Even though everyone knew it wasn't working, it just carried on causing misery and injustice, and people still served it.
When the government has every bit of information on you, including tax, criminal, financial, educational, medical, travel records, etc, and it's all linked and subject to the latest badly designed government IT project, even without an evil regime, the possibilities are truly scary.
All it might take is a change in the law, bad data or poor security and you could be inexplicably finding it hard to get insured, employed, attain certain medical treatment, get a loan, travel abroad, etc. Governement data collection and linking makes this much easier to do and yet it will be very, very difficult to put right once the system is in place.
I think there maybe too much emphasis on the 'bulk' side of data security with NPfIT. Obviously (to anybody who deals with it), it's a bit feeble, but it's the smaller breaches that might be most insidious.
As there is a market for information on where a particular individual lives, what their state of health is, when their appointments might be, all you need to do to make a few quid is acquire a smartcard and access to the Spine, which is stupidly easy to do, thanks to NPfIT. Audit trails are no good after the horse has bolted, and if my information is correct, they can easily be outrun/fooled anyway.
The really worrying thing is that Connecting for Health seem to be so convinced that it's a robust system from top to bottom. Who are they kidding? Or are they just comfortable in their ignorance?
Experts can debate the pros and cons of centralized vs decentralized for a long, long time, (and I think either, done *well*, might be fine) but one of the many flaws, security wise, with NPfIT is that it has centralized data but very decentralized controls of access to that data.
E.g. A credit card and PIN are supplied centrally from the bank - very few people can change that PIN or issue that card. Contrast this with NPfIT where literally thousands of people are able to unlock and even issue smartcards (a large number of whom aren't even NHS employees).
True, there are a few other security 'extras' like to use a smartcard you'd need access to the Spine, and there are 'audit trails', but not exactly bullet proof, is it?