But look on the bright side
Most leaks go straight back into the water table anyway. They're probably all that's keeping your houses from subsiding...
1788 posts • joined 24 Apr 2007
I recall when management thought it would be a good idea to have a single helpdesk for everything. So the hapless souls from the property department were stuffed in a corner of the helpdesk area and the theory was that lightbulb and blocked toilet calls would go to them, and the users would have a single point of contact. Of course there was no call routing at all, so the poor sods would pick up the phone with IT calls, be quite unable to do anything with them, and at busy times be unable to find anyone to pass it on to. I forget all the various things that went wrong, but it didn't last too long...
Back in the day the story was told of an expensive satellite link and an early snmp implementation. The unwise network admin thought it would be a good idea to confiure all his routers to send an snmp trap if their links changed state. You can tell what's coming, can't you. Yes, he forgot to exclude the satellite link. And better yet, he didn't have a minimum call duration, so as the story goes the line dropped, snmp sent a trap, the line went up to transmit it and dropped again. And better yet, it continues, he hadn't allowed for the minimum period, so, like your ISDN bill, the satellite bill was for many times what having the link up 24 hours would have cost. And in those days satellite bills weren't cheap like ISDN...
...have clearly had zero experience of large organisation software licensing and the byzantine complication thereof. But ultimately all that counts is the bottom line. Hopefully you get the license cost, however ridiculous or frustrating or just plain unfair its basis (at least two, quite possibly all three) beforehand and build it into your business case. After that its just another number in the project. And you think, yeah, if we'd spent six months arguing about the licensing and understanding ir properly maybe we could have saved umpteen thousand quid, but the delay to the project, the time spent arguing, not to mention all the staff effort spent and all the rest would have cost us a damn sight more, so WTF would be the point?
Because if you have limited skill sets and resources in your organisation its a lot easier and cheaper to go with a platform you already have staff trained in and understand than it is to introduce a new one. In this sort of context the cost of the processor and OS is a trivial part of the TCO.
Ah yes, the system that first brought the realisation to me that anonymity on the internet was going to be 1% legitimate and 99% abuse. And that the people running such things would have their heads so far up their metaphorical posteriors that they wouldn't give a flying **** about the abuse. And so it has turned out...
I don't really recall a time in the too many years I worked there that BAU at SCC wasn't on max cost savings. Going away to conferences and things and finding out how much better funded one's oppos up north were was always kinda depressing. Even more depressing, though, was the way funds could always be found for exciting big projects that would look good on an execs CV, but never for little low profile stuff that might say reduce the number of helpdesk calls and give a better service to the users and thus taxpayers.
Trouble is, unpalatable as it might be, no extradition of people who were covered by diplomatic immunity is probably the correct option. Otherwise you have a precedent for our staff in Dodgigovernmentistan being extradited for their part in a traffic accident they don't recall happening at all.
Whether it would have been better if the US goverment had waived diplomatic immunity is another and separate question.
By the sound of it they didn't change the password on an admin account. It could of course have been an anonymous sounding admin account that he set up, not the main one. It could be quite onerous to change the passwords on every admin account and every account with admin rights every time someone leaves. Necessary though if someone leaves under a cloud.
However privacy concerns and all that: who communicates that someone has left under a cloud? Isn't there an argument it should be confidential?
True of course, but if the reason you've bought motion detecting cameras is to try and trap lowlives thieving from your premises then you do want the image storage off site so that the images don't get stolen with everything else.
They make our jobs much more difficult and less fun, because we have to put enormous amounts of effort into scum mitigation rather than actually doing something useful for our users.
Those of us who are old enough recall when we built and/or used the internet on a basis of trust, foolish as that might have been in hindsight, and the actions of these [redacteds] feels like a betrayal.
Its more complicated than that. MCAS was put in because without it the planes had some extremely nasty handling characteristics that are absolutely prohibited, and rightly so, as Electronics R us says above. That wasn't unreasonable, I very much doubt that its the only plane that has similar fixes in software, and as far as anyone can tell that part of it was OK. It wasn't anti stall, it was to prohibit getting in a situation where it would be difficult to avoid stalling. If my understanding is correct it was perfectly reasonable.
But, and this seems to be where it has gone wrong, once they had that system in place they then extended it into another part of the flight envelope to deal with another more minor handling issue, and the scope in which it would come into play was greatly extended, and that's where everything went wrong.
If I read the reference I just found aright, then the water carrying capacity of air decreases with increased pressure. So as the aircraft descends below whatever the cabin air pressure level is pressure increases and there's a potential for condensation. would have thought the air would need to be pretty hu,mid already for any noticeable effects though, but I haven't done sums.
My dear chap, why would they need to be bribed when they can award themselves huge bonuses for facilitating the sale?
Under the new form of capitalism, where the real owners are almost powerless, and all the power is in the hands of executives who endlessly inflate each other's salaries there's little need for that sort of bribery. The executives get just as rich:
Thou shalt not steal/an empty feat/when its so lucrative to cheat
Technically, no reason at all. However I think the support overhead would be horrendous. Ask anyone who has been involved in end user support for things like business VPN on end users' own devices and routers. I can easily see why having a single centralised control system would look very appealing to the vendors. To me it has about as much appeal as malaria, but my enthusiasm for uber-geekiness is subsiding, and I'm not sure I can be bothered to set up a control system myself either...
(well I wouldn't have wanted to stand up in court and guarantee I was correct) I investigated the identities of the two people having a vicious flame war on the anonymous internal forum - and discovered they were both the same person. That was my first introduction to quite how very weird the weird net user can be.
I don't have a problem with that, just so long as the special backups are properly identified and don't compromise the BAU in action. I don't really see it as being different to taking extra backups before a destructive migration. If you actually need to use your special backups to recover from a DR test then you've identified a major problem with BAU DR without hopefully having too badly compromised the service. But if you had the same problem and you didn't have the special backups then the problem has become a crisis.
In fact the situation is worse than that. In many cases, especially at the higher levels the rating rules are required to both ensure the best crew wins and to encourage design innovation. The logical flaw is ensured because there will be a lobby for both aims, and like any good management team the rule administrators wish to satisfy both lobbies, leaving the backroom techies to sort it out.
The other issue is that its much easier to design a boat that's slow, but not as slow as the rule thinks it is, than it is to design a boat that's fast, and even faster than the rule thinks it is.
All the resulting situations and recriminations are familiar territory to anyone in business.
There have also been some monumental throwing of toys out of prams when some very well heeled executive (because such commission racing yachts) commissions a very expensive "innovation" intended to be extremely slow in the eyes of the rules, and the rule writers take a different interpretation. This results in said executive having spent a lot of money making his boat go slower, only to find that the rule makers have adjusted his handicap fairly, so all the money has bought him no competitive advantage at all!
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020