However ...
... credit (no not that kind of credit) due to where credit (no not that kind of credit) is due and has there not been a worldwide cooperation in seeking a less harmful way of working through things (as described in the article?)?
1288 publicly visible posts • joined 8 Sep 2011
Ethereal rather than virtual? In either case they merely describe models of happening in a "real" world depending upon the data sensed, perceptions and understandings of it, and derivations taken between the model and empirical evidence?
In either case it looks like a dynamical system in which, for example at time T it looks as if a cliff edge with steep drop is approaching.
Add some interventions according to one's tastes and preferences and at a later time say (T + t) the cliff edge has disappeared and been replaced by a meandering normality?
Maybe there are other reasons for wearable fitness - factors such as:
+ is it cool to have
+ is it fashionable
+ will my peers accept it positively
+ does it satisfy my inner vision of myself
+ does it satisfy or convey the image I wish to project
+
...
+ will it encourage me to exercise more or increase my personal fitness
(having, say, MS Office on a mobile device does not automatically imply everyone will try to create prose, plays, movie scripts, War & Peace, ... no?)
I don't get how restructuring UK civil service equates with country going bankrupt. Perhaps the point is that corrective checks and balances and wheezes and evasions do exist in private sector but in UK public sector the tax paying (whether voters or citizens or subjects or not) always pick up the bill.
It seems an essential corrective structure is missing.
Economics is a hocus-pocus upfrontery and besides I am very tempted by the "The Next Step in Evolution" ad asking me if 'I am ready' (well, really "Are You Ready?") with a link to Watch Incredible Video. But I wondered what a scantily clad female human wearing almost nothing and looking down at me might mean?
... of why UKs civil servants en masse should approach Guvmint and say things like:
We know public finances are bad and don't want to heap stuff on top of that. Here is a restructuring plan to save 20% of total cost without adversely affecting service levels. The proposed structure ensures frontline delivery of services with modest increases for those with income levels below national average-local average and loss of many midmanagement positions with income levels at the highest level reduced by up to 50%. There is also an additional governing factor in which civil servant incomes whether direct or indirect (that is a "private" company wholly owned by the state or state apparatus) will never ever be paid more than than the Minister for the Regions. We fully acknowledge that the Prime Minister should have lead salary in the public employee-publicly paid sector even with the mish-mash of psuedo companies now in existence??
Huh? Huh? Huh?
PS (edit): only the finance sector seems to get the same level of public funds chucked at it on a regular basis. A rule in the private sector seems to be: can't manage your income-expenditure and owe the bank lots of dosh then it is Time for closure and bankruptcy?
And what private sector company goes into huge deficits with big wage rises all round, improved terms and conditions of employment matched by huge reduction in services and service levels?
Incumbents in the civil service are well experienced at dealing with threats from the unwelcomed (be they MPs or awkward sods?), potential competitors and those invited against the civil service wishes.
Expect lots of cold shoulders, trips (what was the movie that showed the established at a public school fouling a newcomer to the same - something to do with running?), press releases by the hour, ... , ?
... law.
Passing a law does not automatically imply that people will uphold the law nor does it infer that those not upholding the law will somehow meet with some justifiable sort of justice (or in some cases: punishments)?
A law is only an authorised form of words on paper, to be meaningful it, the law that is, requires support and nourishments?
And assuming the law falls in a nation or state then the mechanisms to make the law "real" rest within that nation or state. If the law reaches across national or state boundaries well, that is a whole complicated bit of other businesses?
Guvmints don't really know anything - they are in a democracy supposed to be of the people to represent the people (in the UK common people that is people without land or wealth or title?) but that is increasingly becoming a 1984-ism with dynasty effect becoming obvious in land-of-the-free?
But Guvmints are expected to decide upon policy and how to make that policy manifest (my own view is that here in the UK Guvmint should estrange and divest itself of its manyfold civil servants)
... thing in the UK too.
It does not matter a jot what the case is for or the case is against.
Proponents can get into heated debate and all aflustered and whatever, however the outcome will be undeniable as the framework in which the debate happens has been constructed to give the -ahem- cough-cough preferred outcome?
Example: independence in Scotland (failed) but Scotland returns all but 2 MPs as Scottish Nationalist Party members?
Oops apologies ... in haste
open up invitations and make it internetable as per EU wishes
should be
open up invitations to tender and make it internetable as per EU wishes
ps: biggest laugh of all?
Deutsche Bank mulls UK EU exit plan (see bbc .co .uk) tee-hee the Tories will probably do a doublespeak on that one
The EU and (probably?) the world has rumbled UK "free market" working methods.
To save them additional expense, more investigations and embarrassment to all concerned here are the UK "free market" funding practices:
- make a state run service into a psuedo-private enterprise (shares held by Treasury no?)
- open up invitations and make it internetable as per EU wishes
- ensure that the "local" rules are public sector based with public sector language, practices and bureaucracy as a first stumbling block to the private sector (they don't really have the (overpaid?) staff to create all sorts of obfuscating rules, practices and hurdles to the well-intended)
- design the framework and tone of questions and answers and paperwork and bureaucracy to comply with public service standards and practices (that means far too much of the 'orrible stuff but it does keep plenty of UK priveleged folks in jobs no?)
- woteva make sure the contract goes to the psuedo-private company pretending it was a free market with lots n lots n lots n ... n ,,, n lots of scrutinies at every stage (got to make sure that the winner is absolutely the winner innit?)
- remember to beg knighthood for duties performed?
Just saying thats all
How many digital images do you have of your family?
How many scanned images do you have of your family?
How many years, generations, variations in technologies do these images (and soon to be added in the archival sense?: movies) do you have?
Are you willing to store them to one machine (laptop, notebook, oompah-loompah broo ha-ha? mobile phone, ... ?) and be prepared to lose them when its storage chemistry and physics breaks down causing a data loss of sorts?)
That is only trivial (financial sense) example of critical (emotional sense) data that most pholks will have and be in the process of having and building even though they may not be cognatively aware of the data acquistion acquiring and building and ... OK! I'll shut up now :-)
... does it really matter (apart from scada type intrusions?) what hardware and OS a computer has?
All of that are compromised as soon as it connects to a network of any sorts, nonetheless a step in the right direction and maybe (just like gooogle & android) another way to diversify ITcoms gene pool and ecosystem?
Suppose I make a request about search engine X.co.uk
And X.co.uk upholds my request.
I then go on to X.com and find my request has not been upheld.
In shock! horror! and awe! I do similar searches on .it, .de, .es, . .. .... variants of the search engine.
Well, you get the drift, limitation in jurisdiction and law,... Discuss:
I for one welcome the step forward into W10.
Yes, sure there are ifs n buts n butts n buttts but the evolution goes on.
And yes, there are some who will always want tweakables and systems not based on Windows premise and predicates.
But it is a big, wide world and the public do not enmass share these enthusiasms or purist ponderances or even MSDOS echoes of simplicity, doability and other-ilities.
To those creative enough to be clouted, bold enough to assign budgets, astute enough to take the step forward I say (the rest is now copyright doodz :-) )
You are the captains of your products - don't mix up your captaincies?
Maybe it isn't so much to do with acquisition of data but the storage, accessibilities and analytics that may be performed on that stored data?
If the analytics wish to be used as solid evidence then I suppose someone will have to say something like "the data are tamperproof" and "the metadata are tamperproof"?
Would it be a shame if the data, metadata and analytics were ruled inadmissible in law court by points of order from some legal eagle?
Just realized that NSA might be a 1984-ism
For National Security Agency and NSA
read
National Insecurity Agency and NIA?
(Here in the UK we are very, very extremely good at doublespeak. For example we say Democratic Kingdom when we mean that royalty is a slave to parliament, We also say Democracy when parliament is a slave to Whitehall et al (un)civil serventia and Home Office when it used to mean anything that happened in the nation whether it was at home or in the street :-) )
One possible trouble may be that as such a large number of employees in broadcast sector are paid by public money that sets a framework and earnings structure that the private sector might never ever be able to reach?
For example: retail: it spans a range from the occasional market stall seller to Harrods, House of Fraser and quite a lot of others inbetween.
Public money always has this effect on the domestic talent in the sector it is embedded?
In an ideal world publicly funded stuff would operate ideally (okay, it's a truism?) but in the real world publicly funded means getting ripped off with no ethics at all.
For example, look at the t'internet - all lov n pees man n no naught stuff there is there?
In the UK public funds merely provide a feeding frenzy snatched by the greedy?
The main issues might be that in almost everything paid by public funds as soon as there is a shift downwards in public money going to that sector/organisation/woteva we are accustomed to hear things like "Reduction in service, increase in waiting times, longer queues, less frequent service, ... "
I'd guess that any one in private sector might be a bit stunned as change in customer buying habits sort of happens all the time (Tesco anyone?) and striving to keep in operational budget, pay the wages and meet customer demands all have to be balanced. Even if it does mean a reduction in wages.
When was the last time you ever heard an NHS consultant, doctor, surgeon, manager, ... say something like "Yes, it will be an X% reduction in my income but I work for the NHS, take public money and will do my best to make sure no patients are affected... "
The same goes for any publicly funded service -
Near where I live (in UK) we have home waste recycling centres. Basically they are dumps people with sufficient motivation use to discard stuff that really ought not to go in dustbin (there ain't really no dust in a dustbin), refuse can (the can did not refuse?) or domestic waste disposal container.
Now for a commercial enterprise it is all a bit different?
Commercial enterprises have to pay for waste disposal and here in the UK the Whitehall administered, managed, provided, ... commercial waste disposal system is a really nice little earner.
It is so nice that commercial entities resort to tipping waste, including and mostly always, contaminated waste in public places or farmers fields or ...
So, you see, legislation makes everyone feel proud, indicate intentions backed up by rule of law, ticks boxes in EU and UN commitments but in fact never ever really work partly because of the desire to make an additional quid, dollar, spondooly, ... rather than look after public interest?
I work with many varied nationalities - mostly European.
There seems to be a saying of sorts that crosses nations and nationalities and it goes something like this:
Every country has something to be ashamed of in its past.
Now, in the UK do we hear voices of dissension or derision about the Raj and what England did in India to the Indians?
Here in the UK do we hear, give voice, support legal actions about what England did in Africa to the Africans?
If not, why?
Discuss ...
I may be mistaken - and apologies if so - but it seems to me that a big difference between the UK-US overseas funding and China overseas funding is that the UK-US model funds individuals whereas the China model favours funding the nation state.
So where one model makes for very wealthy families usually evolving into dynasties (Shah, him in Iraq too, several in S Amerika) with some really dieing nasty the other builds sports stadia, municipal projects (okay I admit some are or appear to be on a scale that the host nation state is unlikely to require for a decade or two but the difference between benefiting a state and a few individuals within that state seems a bit obvious no?)?
Under Mandies proposals and continuation of the same moderately suspended since Blair and then Brown went AWL (absent with leave usually expressed in terms of going forth to multiply or breed?) but huh!?
whatever?!
The result is the same and merely without formality and with oozes of informality confirms Labour Party as the political wing of UK civil service?
I mean, what other Party gives (un?)civil servants in UK cause to Party and even more endearingly spend spend spend while lining its and theirs own pockets?
Huh!
Huh!
Huh!
Thought so ...