Re: "Portable Display" means what?
Mine isn't touch. I looked at a few that were, but they were all FHD. In the end I decided that 4K was a higher priority.
215 publicly visible posts • joined 28 Jul 2010
USB-C powered portable monitors exist from elsewhere and have done for a while. Last year I bought a device branded Arzopa E1 Extreme. It's 15", 4K and either uses one USB-C from a laptop or a mini HDMI and a 5V USB-C power supply. I've not checked, but I think it may well use more than 4W.
The only issue I have with it is that it won't do 4K at 30Hz, it's 4K at 60Hz or QHD at 30Hz. On the other hand, 4K on 15" is a little small anyway.
The clamp-on stand is appealing, but not sure my 13" laptop would balance with the extra weight
I don't think CCTV and alarm installers ever consider restricting outbound network traffic. Last year our remote monitoring company changed its IP address and asked me to update our firewall rules so I asked them to confirm which of the other addresses they still needed. This was the reply:
"You’re very on it with your network.
[redacted] needs to be cancelled
[redacted] & [redacted] our inbound connections but these should not need to be on your firewall as I can’t imagine your firewall blocking outbound traffic."
Naturally, the firewall does block outbound traffic.
As I recall, some years ago when they last changed IP address they just sent one of their engineers to update the firewall settings. Of course, I ddn't let him do that.
(assuming Windows laptops - 2000 or XP) I would guess the iPod synced its files into the roaming part of the user profile. This is copied to the server roaming profile folder at logoff and copied back at logon. This would also have slowed down the logon process if each user had a couple of GB of MP3 files that all need to be shunted across a 100Mbps LAN at the same time each morning..
Alternatively, redirect the users' default file location to their server home folder and then sync using off-line files (although that was really not a good idea in practice, as it only works properly during carefully crafted demos).
I'm not a lawyer, but I work at an employment law practice and see a lot of the documents
In the UK the statutory minimum notice period is one week during your first two years of employment. After that it is one week for each completed year of employment (so five years, eleven months is five weeks' notice, six years is six weeks' notice) until it reaches twelve weeks (so a twenty-year employee is entitled to twelve weeks' notice). The employment contract can specify longer notice (for example some of ours are three months from day one).
Your pay period has no effect on this.
You are correct that changes to contract terms require agreement and the employee can refuse. The usual way to gain agreement is to offer some other incentive that's part of the changes (pay increase, extra day's holiday, some other benefit). The last resort is to dismiss people that won't agree for 'some other substantial reason' and offer re-engagement on the new terms. It they take the re-engagement their service is continuous so they maintain their entitlements to notice and redundancy pay.
This is an overview - there are procedures to follow so that it's 'fair'.
You'd state the fuse rating when you described fitting it in the plug, then go on to describe how you checked the terminals were secure and the cord grip was correctly fitted. Then you'd mention the appliance power draw in passing so we could all nod wisely in anticipation of the punch line. Finally you would express disappointment at the lack of flashes and bangs.
Or it's something that is failing to attract girls to computer science and the only reason to study the subject is because you want to do more of it. Otherwise there are plenty of alternatives that leave your options open.
To draw a parallel that may be relevant:
My older daughter did maths A-level because she could get a good grade and it would support what she wanted to do at university. College tried very hard to get her to do further maths, but she refused. Her maths class was predominantly male, but it was nowhere near a 5:1 ratio (possibly 2:1 or even lower).
My younger daughter is currently doing further maths because she and, I gather, most of the others in the class want to explore maths for its own sake. The male:female ratio is just over 4:1. On the other hand, her chemistry class is close to parity, but is mostly people that are not interested in the subject but need it for what they want to do next (medicine etc).
The point really, is that until computer science is an option that enables further study of other subjects it will only attract those that want to do computer science later on. For some reason that doesn't happen with many girls when they still have time to choose it.
That option was (and still is) off by default. And keeping all the messages that you've dealt with but might want to refer to later in your recycle bin folder was common at this place a few years ago. I stopped it by creating folder policies to delete recycle bin items more than 30 days old.
I even told them about the change before I made it (I'm far too soft on them).
I've read the judgement so we can all stop speculating.
WiPro provided Unix systems that supported three council services. The council transferred one service to OLM Systems and the other two to Northgate. These two, the sysadmin and DBA, spent all their time directly working on those systems.
WiPro and the council maintained they were transferred to Northgate, with the service (how Northgate chose to provide that service was irrelevant). Northgate disagreed. As both organisations were refusing to take responsibility for their contracts of employment they claimed unfair dismissal, a redundancy payment and pay in lieu of notice, naming WiPro, the council and Northgate.
As nobody is employing them, it cannot be disputed that they were dismissed. The question the judge has just answer is who dismissed them?
Since there was no proper procedure the dismissal is unfair, and Northgate's legal counsel will now be busy trying to reduce the liability. If Northgate has any sense it will now try to settle the case.
In the meantime the two people should have got new jobs - they're under a duty to mitigate their loss, and failing to do so would give Northgate an argument for reducing the amount of the claim.
You're right, they only want to alert people in good mobile coverage areas. You don't have to be in range of 'a mast', but rather 'a 4G or 5G mast'
> Mobile phone networks
> Emergency alerts work on all 4G and 5G phone networks in the UK.
> Phones and tablets connected to a 2G or 3G network will not receive emergency alerts.
As Sir Humphrey explains:
Do you want to improve the state of medical research in this country?
Do you think actual healthcare data from GP records could contribute to medical research?
Do you think large data sets can improve the validity of research?
Would you support the use of GP patient records in improving medical research?
Manchester has a lot of fixed bus lane cameras (Mrs Humbug was caught by one when she moved over about ten yards too early in order to turn left at a junction). My guess would be that they are all recorded as MC1192.
I would also guess that some parking areas have automated camera enforcement and 'no ticket displayed' really means 'didn't pay by phone app'.
But this is all just a guess
> moving their jobs to another country in order to lower costs is not redundancy.
Actually, it is.
The legal definition of redundancy is that it happens when a business stops doing work of a particular kind or in a particular place. So if there are tech support employees in London and the business moves its office to Manchester (or to another country) then the London tech support employees are redundant.
They should be offered suitable alternative work, if available (which might be in the new location). The employer doesn't have to pay for them to move, but better employers might offer to.
Of course, if not all jobs are moving then the selection criteria must be objective and fair, which is what seems to have got IBM into trouble over this one. The 70% reduction says that the judge agreed that even if IBM had been fair and objective teh result would have been the same.
Presumably, 3 has decided that it needs a bigger "average revenue per user", which is what the "more for more" strategy seems to be aimed at. Someone who makes 10 minutes of calls, send 20 texts and uses 50MB of data per month won't suddenly start using 500 minutes, 1,000 texts and 2GB of data just because they are paying for a £5 bundle that includes all that. But 3 either gets more money from them (through increased PAYG charges or a bundle that they don't use) or gets them off its books. Either way, ARPU increases.
ARPU seems to be the way that mobile networks measure their value.
There are a couple of reasons for packaging it as a loan, not graduate tax:
Graduates who move to highly paid jobs abroad stop paying UK income tax but still have to pay the loan repayments
For the next 30 years the borrowing is an individual's personal debt, not part of governemnt debt. A graduate tax would have the government paying the money up front against gaining potential future tax revenue, so natioanal debt increases
Last year we had a line cut at work (gardeners, hedge trimmer, very tall hedge). We were paying the extra £3 or whatever it is per month for high priority response to faults so two OpenReach vans arrived within a couple of hours of reporting it to our service provider and three cut lines plus an additional fault on another line were fixed on the same working day as the report. We did get charged (not OpenReach's fault after all), but it was only £117 plus VAT for two engineers for a couple of hours
I've always had excellent experiences when dealing with the OpenReach engineers. It helps if you use the right words (the thing from the pole to your building is a 'drop wire' or 'drop', not a cable and you're connected to a 'pair', not to a line). Although you can never be quite sure what will happen if OpenReach subcontracts the job to Quinn or Kelly.
Thanks a bunch! I'd managed to put that 'tool' completely out of my mind.
I did use it once, to discover that its description was far in advance of its capability. As I recall, all it did was copy the table field structure and data. All queries were still executed in Access, so performance actually decreased, and you lost all the foreign key constraints