Strewth the truth?
Truth is that quite a few people living in Keilder use these or something like as there is very, very poor signal coverage for mobile phones anyway.
50 publicly visible posts • joined 15 May 2007
(Continuing tirade from another post)
Of course, it would probably help if the perps contributed to party funds, lobbied politicians or were on handshake terms with MPs.
That way, like the banks and finance sector, they would probably be thanked for their initiatives, awarded government grants with bundles of public funds as an encouragement to legitimize their business?
As none of these hold well, it looks like prison for the perps.
Now then, for the banks and finance sector.
Has anyone conducted a criminal investigation or a national security investigation with a view to confiscating assets, property, goods and chattels of the various organisations, executives and leading bonus earners?
(I thought not. It may be amazing what "influence" can purchase?)
Our cousins over the pond have some notions of "enemy within" and :anti-America activity" but here in the UK ... ?
OK, if O2 has been fined for 3G naughty haughtiness perhaps the next inspection could run on lines of "Ok O2, second strike on poor 3G, a bit of a monopoly on the iPhone therefore give your customers a 75% rebate. As customers paid 100% in currency it will be good for O2 to deliver to 100% in technology"
Don't compromise your customers and get on with it (3G and iPhone functionality that is in this case).
If UK based O2 do the dirty take the contract somewhere else (anyone but Orange?)
Must get iPhone, possibly two. Fearing terrible contracts and constraints from O2 and massive unlocking potential somewhere down the line.
I'd rather hope that any MP, SMP, WMP , ... would relish opportunities to demonstrate accountability to the public whenever. Instead we seem to have cause for concern over a security matter.
Tie that in with MEP creativeness with expenses, employing family in non-productive posts/roles, claiming expenses fr non-existent stuff and I begin to see where our much beloved public servants take their leadership models.
Is it really far, far better to "grab it while one can"?
Whatever happened to notions of accountability (the Tories really can take a good rest from that discussion) and public servitude?
I hope they start with skeletal strokes.
These, that is skeletal strokes, are brilliant and not without some issues. However, tidying up the issues seems to render the creative aspects of skeletal strokes as timid and much diluted.
It would be soopa (as in SOOPA!) to see skeletal strokes technology go almost open.
The first thought that occured to me is related to an earlier posting about Vist'a successor.
In that we considered dumping the "Windows" moniker and looked at "Microsoft Vienna" (Oh Vienna!, Ultravox and all that).
And now the thought occurs to me that MS Vista++ should have two forms. One is the general type open hardware platform that makes on OS run on non-ECC RAM and so forth (it keeps the lo-cost people happy) and the other is a top level, limited hardware variant (MS Vienna Top Class?) running along Apple hardware type model.
I beginn to wonder if MS research shows abounding stuff that is (mostly) sold off to corporate clients grabbing the best bits that eventually leave a poorer subset of functionality that is cobbled together to make something like Vista?
If so, then virtualization is really going to be best manifest not by what MS research say but by what corporate customers demonstrate as MS merketing gets under way?
But I am pleased to have reached #1 in the comments thread :)
There are two extremes under reductio ab adsurdum that need to be considered.
a) these reports are really as bad as it gets under accountability standards (especially under invocation of public accountability standards in the UK)
b) these are tip of the iceberg indicators and demonstrate that much malpractice has been sustained over quite a while compromising Ministers (in the UK these are Government Ministers), public and public funding alike.
You may choose some variance between options a) and b) as suits your perception and needs.
I hold that option b) is closer to the truth.
Have pity on the poor UK tax-payer and the atrocious service extended to those individuals (for as sure as eggz is eggz the CEOs don't).?
It tends to be a natural consequence of numpty management using numpties :)
BTW: apologies, I made a mistake in earlier post implying that CEOs or similar rankings within an organisation are the responsible dudes.
In general that is not the case.
The responsible ones form the board of governors or board of directors usually under a principle of shared responsibilities.
A CEO (or similar) is non other than the senior accountability officer accountable directly to the board.
Of course, legal models differ slightly but the above is a good and (I hope) robust generality.
CEO and under: accountable.
In one's own experience public servants use this to there great advantage and public disservice.
If so consequence:
If public funded organization ceases to serve government or public whom does it serve?
Answers on a postcard please, marked strictly confidential and not to be lost in transit :)
Under a delegation of duties model it is indeed true that:
a Principal in a College/University/establishment is responsible for "everything" that happens
Similarly so for a government minister, Head in a school, Chair of an organization, ...
On the other hand were individuals to deviate from instructed practice or policy then that sort of clears the governance issue on one point but then begs what steps are being (realistically) taken to ensure policy is in practice.
It is also a great way for public servants or others to deny their own ineptitudes and so forth by hoping that the public will hold someone else responsible rather than the direct management chain that has endorsed such things to happen.
Get the feel for what is being reported (data losses possibly with pecuniary advantage to organizations (in this case the Courts), consequences on public accountability, verifying key performance indicators, ... , what is not being reported or being withheld, fogged or obfuscated and one will indeed have a truer picture of management malpractice.
See, in the commercial, free sector an organization is accountable and that accountability has consequence.
When annual or periodic reports are published the free sector pitches in to buy or sell shares and the "worth" of an organization and its governance tends to be (in broadest generalities) demonstrated in its share prices.
They go up (peer group supporting good and robust governance) or they go down (peer group supporting poor or shoddy governance). It may be different across the pond due to non-standard accountancy practices much frowned upon over recent years.
As far as the UK goes that does not happen with publicly funded bodies.
Should your local school be in best management it will secure funding for next year.
Should that same UK school be in poorest management it will also secure funding for next year.
So, in real terms: why bother?
The budget will be the same, employees will be the same and there is no real difference between squandering or good use of public funds to many an organization.
This is not intended as a smack on the MoD, and it probably is a norm in the whole public sector in general (at least here in the UK).
The premise is that people entrusted with responsibilities probably are very low skilled and much in deniance of that but rank or authority means that what is done is done. In other words one may have authority to do so even though there is an obvious lack of skills to support the basis to grant one to do so.
In short: the public deserves better, should have better and lots of public money (in the UK) is probably squandered as these events are indicators of the skills levels and practices within the sector proper. The security issue really is , in my opinion, a manifestation of mistakes that probably extend far, far wider.
In short: I am surprised that anyone is surprised.
It is a manifestation of the Policy-Practice divide. Ideally Policy should drive practice should drive policy should drive .... but in effect for many organizations it is far more expedient to allow policy makers to do what they have to do in order to attract funding or pull down funding streams. Once that funding is there then Practice part of the organization can do what it want s without consideration or support of the policy part. I call that the Policy-Practice divide and it is the nightmare scenario of a Policy-Practice synergy.
Organizations that demonstrate Policy-Practice divide should be stripped of opportunity to call down or pull down public funds full stop.
Now dovetail this report with poor security measures (lost data, funny use of public money, ...) that also hit the press.
It also seems that the £154 million is acting more as a quality assurance arm (identifying overpayments requires £154M???) rather than identifying criminal intent to defraud.
It really does not matter too much if a standard is set that has no proprietary support. And even if it did sometimes the fickle public may choose to ignore it by spending its hard earned income elsewhere.
On the other hand, it can be quite good use of a publicly funded budget especially if put into the (sufficently) wrong hands.
In other words: a technicality that may or may not be endorsed by the public?
It is an old story often claimed (especially at conference dinners).
The usual hurdle is that scientific knowledge and skills often grate with power politics visions or preconceptions. In other words research should drive practice and policy and in turn should be driven by the same. But when the results jar that is usually the point policy makers start to stop listening.
It's a bit like saying "know that the Earth orbits the Sun" when common understanding is that it is not so.
OS X 10.5 is stunning, absolutely brilliant - and it is still in early days of its introduction to a big new world.
Over on one of the forums the reported message rate of all OS X 105 posting (faults and praises) corresponded to 0.005% of the 2 million sales in the first weekend. Now that is worth thinking about for sure.
As a relatively new to Mac person the other things (apart from TM, Cover Flow, ... ) are the more mundane things like data transfer rates. What does that mean?
Well one thing is 25 MB/s to an external USB drive.
Transfer rates, if there is a lot of data to shift, between devices is awesome with the usual advantage that moving stuff does not eat into CPU cycles.
But no OS is perfect and the first few weeks into "Hello world" really does mean some stuff will be identified (good and bad).
Now the biggest problems are: MacDrive? Parallels? VMWare? Will I won't I?