Re: abbreviated, with substitutes
Where's the black pudding?
6297 publicly visible posts • joined 28 Oct 2011
soda and potato farls.
And that's why the bacon has to be fried, not done in the oven. Briefly dip both sides of the bread in the bacon fat, remove it and pour off the excess fat. Then return the bread to the pan and fry until crisp. I learned that trick from my Dad. Crispy bread, not soaked in grease.
at best its going to be some kind of pseudo random number generator seeded with some number derived from a source like the time between two keypresses (or just the time).
There are much better approaches than that, but in any case any DRBG used for passwords and other crypto should at least be written to comply with NIST SP 800-90B, and preferably be tested by an approved lab, especially if it's being sold as a password generator and not just used to simulate a dice roll in a game.
useful vendor-agnostic setup
A big problem with vendor-agnostic designs is that it makes it very easy to swap between vendors, and the vendors hate that. As a result they invariably implement the design (which tends to be lowest-denominator) as specified, and then add some "extensions" which make their solution more appealing to their customers, but which are of course incompatible with the additions from other vendors. The result is that the agnostic part is buried under a bunch of proprietary extensions which create the same vendor-lockin as before. Apple and Microsoft are past masters at the "embrace, extend" model.
who was really at fault here?
Lucas, for multiple reasons. A "potentially suspicious" email could still have contained business-related confidential or personal data, no emails should be automatically forwarded out of the company mail system. Also, if he's on a day off then he should have either arranged for his colleagues to cover him, of let them know he wasn't really off, anything else could lead to duplicated work (as it did).
I see too many companies that expect their employees to take their phone with them and return calls when they are on holiday, maternity leave, etc.
I see too many employees that think their company expects that, and of course after a few times doing it they've set their boss's expectations to assume they're happy with it. Too late to complain about it then.
The "once a month" is relative to us observing the events on Earth.
Obviously, but the comment in the article says "A merger between a galactic void and the densest type of star probably occurs within a billion light years of Earth about once a month". The events did not happen within a month of each other, they were observed from Earth in that period.
Observed from somewhere else they might have appeared 1m years apart or more.
My point is that one of these happened 900m LY away, and the other was 1bn LY away, so even if they were recorded a few days apart by the time the signals reached us, there was actually 100m years between these two events. If they were both at the same distance then I would agree with you.
IIRC United were one of the last hold outs of central aisle-mounted TV screens and those horrible rubber-tube pneumatic headsets. They were also one of the first to charge for any alcohol, even the plastic mini wine bottles, on transatlantic flights. I stopped flying with them years ago, and won't be back.
feeding antidepressants to crayfish can make them more outgoing and adventurous
They've probably been hearing about what happens to their cousins in the Marshall islands, no wonder they need cheering up.
Enforced free roaming was costing the phone companies a fortune, they were already trying other tricks to get the money from somewhere else. The business users won't care about this, their company pays, and for the personal users most hotels & similar places have free WiFi these days. I'd be hard pushed to use 25GB when roaming on holiday (I rarely even go above 5GB at home), so this definitely looks more like a way to grab back some money from captive business users.
a Brexit goon-squad of Tory MPs
Ah, nothing like a bit of unbiased reporting, is there?
Leaving aside the political cracks, "These restrictions limit AI because they prevent AI organisations from collecting new data before they understand its potential value and they also mean that existing data cannot be reused for novel purposes" is actually an interesting point. Much of scientific discovery has come from serendipity, those "I didn't expect that, I wonder why it happened" moments, and it would be unfortunate if this was prevented.
Instead of prescribing, in advance, the data as collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes, effectively trying to second-guess how it will be used, perhaps it would be better to define the things it MUST NOT be used for, and leave any grey issues to be decided by courts if necessary? It's that old difference between "everything not explicitly allowed is forbidden" and "anything not explicitly forbidden is allowed", which has always been a difference between European countries.
the ruling on the UK being an adequate jurisdiction to share data with would be reviewed on an ongoing basis as UK legislation diverges from EU law.
Which is exactly how it should be (and applies vice-versa if EU law diverges as well, of course).
That's why those 'digital nomads' travel around the world and pay no taxes anywhere
Doesn't work that way. Normally you pay tax where you are "resident", which often means 183 days of physical presence, but if you manage not to be resident in any one place long enough you will then be taxed based on where you are "domiciled", and that's a much more flexible definition. Have a UK passport & own UK property, or a UK bank account, or even just still have family in the UK? Then you're likely to be determined to be domiciled in the UK for tax purposes unless you can prove that you were genuinely resident for tax purposes somewhere else.
It's the same for most countries in principle, the days when you could live on a boat & claim to be non-resident anywhere are long gone.
In hindsight, this was completely predictable
Doesn't require much hindsight, it's an example of the "Byzantine Generals problem" described by Leslie Lamport 40 years ago, and should be well-known to anyone working on highly-available systems. With only two sites, in the event of network failure it's provably impossible for either of them to know what action to take. That's why such configurations always need a third site/device, with a voting system based around quorum. Standard for local HA systems, but harder to do with geographically-separate systems for DR because network failures are more frequent and often not independent.
In that case best Business Continuity practice is not to do an automatic primary-secondary failover, but to have a person (the BC manager) in the loop. That person is alerted to the situation and can gather enough additional info (maybe just phone calls to the site admins, a separate "network link") to take the decision about which site should be Primary. After that the transition should be automated to reduce the likelihood of error.
denied the steel contacts in the JT blocks were at fault, telling the court: "A break in a contact as described would cause a continuous fault, being a physical or electrical break in connection. Neither would (without external factors for which the Defendant is not responsible) cause intermittent (i.e. irregular or non-continuous) faults."
Bare steel will rust, and I've have thought that copper wires pushed straight into IDC slots on rusting steel would certainly lead to intermittent contacts, and even "rusty-bolt" diode effects that would play havoc with ADSL.
The real kicker of problematic is people at a company dictating a specific system and or sub-system.
In my experience this is the biggest driver of shadow IT. To take a recent example, our corporate IT group decided to replace the in-house wiki & document-sharing platform that we had been using for years with a different, more modern one. The argument was that it was newer and more supportable. This was simply imposed on the company without consultation (beyond the C-suite).
For many of the basic sales/marketing users who used it to upload plain info, HowTos, etc. it was just the usual pain of learning a new system. No big deal - "they'll get over it". The development organization, however, was a big user of in-house tools, specific to our products and processes, and they produced HTML output. The new wiki system would not render HTML without new plugins which were not part of the deployment, and were clunky & unfriendly to use in any case.
After a few months of trying to adapt, various parts of the development org opted for the obvious solutions, they started to re-purpose lab systems as standalone web servers. They served the HTML and the wiki system just became a front-end to them.
Is this maintainable? Sort-of. In most cases the systems were stood up by the team that needed them, so when someone leaves they rot until someone else figures out how they work, which depends on how well the initial developer of the system documented it. Does it get patched in time? Sometimes, when people remember. Does it respect the in-house security rules? Best-effort, but obviously IT don't audit it. Does it allow the development teams to get on with their core work, and make money for the company? Absolutely.
That's what causes shadow IT.
poster child for stupid.
Stupid or not, there's still no excuse for someone who happens to find those photos then sharing them. That's what Apple has paid up for. If the repair tech had simply admired the images and fixed the phone there wouldn't have been a problem.
Using ordinary drives in a RAID enclosure can also do that, at least for READ operations. The controller parallelizes read requests, distributing them around the disks, and using whichever disk has the heads in the best place for a particular request, that's been around since the 1980s at least. Looks like the Seagate solution is just to put this in one drive box & call it a single disk.
If Company G generates revenue in country X
If it generates profit in country X, it should pay tax in country X. Paying tax on revenue does not make sense, it's a bodge to get around the fact that tax codes are stupidly complex. The fix is to simplify them, not to add yet more bodges on top of bodges. That just creates even more loopholes for tax lawyers to exploit.
that never happened during her operational life.
The problem was that being a 1950's design, Britannia's engines burned heavy bunker oil. Since recent Navy ships all burn light diesel they couldn't send Britannia anywhere (to the Falklands, for example) because they would have had to send a special fuel tanker to accompany her. Not only uneconomic, but impractical since it just created a two-birds-with-one-torpedo target.