Re: off peak power
800kv applied direct to the logic boards should solve the problem and be quite illuminating.
42396 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
I used to think it was a law of political organisation that any party of sufficient size would develop a Dunning-Kruger wing.
Then I thought of the opposite. Any party of sufficient size develops a non-Dunning Kruger wing. That fits observed data much better.
They've all got one. The best we can hope for is that the main parties don't have their DK wing in the ascendency at the same time and even better if the one in power doesn't.
Still no mention of how the Bill will "handle" Northern Ireland's post-Brexit protections
We can work out the answer to that one easily enough: as badly as it has handled every other aspect of the Good Friday agreement because that assumed that NI and the rest of the UK and Ireland would all be in the EU. The only way they could have kept the process on the rails would have been for the Republic to leave the EU at the same time. I doubt they expected that to happen because I doubt they thought anything through to that extent.
A good programming language is one which allows the developer to express the requirement clearly and should be equally clear to read for anyone who has to maintain the code afterwards. For its given domain SQL does just that and it's a good deal less verbose than what I understand COBOL to be.
I'm not sure of your preferred programming language but whatever it is could you give an example of how you think it should be done to extract data joining, say four tables, with selection criteria spanning at least five columns in at least three of the tables. At least one of the criteria should be a range of values and at least one other should provide the equivalent of a SQL OR clause to filter on multiple values for that column.
Then explain how the resulting code meets the clarity of expression and reading criteria better than the equivalent SQL.
The problem in TFA is not SQL It's in constructing the SQL on the fly as opposed to parametrising a pre-written statement. About the only benefit of your "real" programming language is that parametrising would be unavoidable. The downside is that you'd have to produce a complex set of statements for each individual SQL statement you replace.
I'm trying to cast my mind back 40 years to the time before Informix adopted SQL and we had to use a C library instead. Fortunately time is shielding me from that.
You're excused. The paragraph you're looking at uses "These" and "they're" ambiguously because it's not specified to what they refer.. You parsed them, quite reasonably, as referring to "parameterized queries with prepared statements" in the previous paragraph.. It seems more likely that "input sanitization techniques" was meant. If you read it like that it's consistent with your getting yelled at.
From the incident report:
"A few key software systems, including the library management system, cannot be brought back in the form that they existed in before the attack, either because they are no longer supported by the vendor and the software is no longer available, or because they will not function on the Library’s new secure infrastructure which is in the process of being rolled out."
There's no substitute for having source: whether it's your own, open, available or in escrow matters rather less than making sure is will be available and can be rebuilt if needed.
Once a piece of software is built it should essentially work, as in keep doing the same thing (functional defects may mean this isn't the "right" thing), for all eternity. We need to rethink how we deliver applications.
Two things there. 1. It may have as yet undiscovered vulnerabilities built in. 2. What it does when delivered isn't necessarily what it will need to do in the future.
Development is the process of launching a software product into the maintenance cycle. Eventually most of the work that has been done on it may well have been done by maintainers. They need to be at least as good as the original developers.
One bullet point from the PDF dealing with improvements for the future:
"a holistic, integrated security suite that covers the whole organisation, backed by managed security partners for improved incident response, detection, and remediation"
I read that as "Single point of failure exposed to supply chain attack."
"because I didn't manage staff and that's how the wagers were calculated."
And that goes right through the thinking and also a long way back. Investigating crime and giving evidence that could clear or convict someone on charges that could result in life imprisonment but don't manage staff? you don't have the responsibilities needed for promotion. (At least not until you hand in your notice at which time it's magically offered without any of the usual procedures.)
Yet another project that can't build a website that says anything unless javascript is enabled. Also, yet another project that can't explain what it's about without assuming the reader knows all about another project. So what I take from this is just a guess but it's a development system for a development and/or packaging system that, like too many others, depends on taking the familiar, well understood - by some of us - Unix-style file system and rearranging it.
To which I can only respond by quoting two well-known sources:
"Oh no, not again" (Bowl of petunias)
"The great thing about standards is there so many of them to choose from" (Tannenbaum)
You can buy adapters which are double size plates drilled with VESA-pattern holes, intended to solve the problem of one size mount on the monitor and another size on whatever you wish to attach (I have one to mount a Pi on the back of a TV). That's one option. Another is that you can also get an adapter with two parallel VESA plates joined with a bracket to sandwich your computer between them an fit the mounting bracket onto the back.
On't work. You'll just get another board indistinguishable from the first. Oops, sorry, previous board. It can't be the first because we recently lost a board in that unfortunate accident at bonus time. In fact, with the BOFH about there must have been quite a few boards and accidents over the years.
"Given the difficulty in recruiting nurses you want to be sure the number of reasons limiting recruits aren't more than the pay and conditions on offer."
So the offer should be made without asking questions other than qualifications although those will include the checks on barring or whatever the term is now.
"but you don't know how well you're doing if you don't measure it."
And if it's not your business to know you won't need to measure it.
The underlying problem here is the busybodies and professional umbrage takers who make it their business to know, probably because it's an easier gig than getting nursing or any other useful qualifications.
"Your ERP goes down and you're not giving the CFO hourly updates on the expected recovery time and process - your IT dept is a clown car."
The best responses here are along the lines of "It'll be back when it's back. Now get off my back." or "Do you want me to fix it or stay here talking to you about fixing it?"
As to the OP's comment he is actually saying the same thing as you and making the point that what both of you are recommending isn't being done in this case.
Taking "company" as a collective noun (the company is the collection of those who have investments in it) we can turn to Fowler* for advice. The advice there is that consistency is essential but either usage is acceptable. So you and your friend can both be right.
Fowler falls foul of Muphry's law in giving an example of incorrect usage:
"The government is pressing ahead with their policy or privatization"
Note the "or".
* Yes, I have a copy tucked away in the "Misc user guides" folder on my desktop. Why do you ask?
The general point is true but with cash the counter is no longer tightly bound to the computer so the system is tolerant of quite long outages unless..."If a POS system fails, the retailer may not be able to process transactions at all, regardless of the method of payment."
There you introduce a tight binding and if the PoS depends on a PoS at head office (or The Cloud) then when (not if) that goes out so does the entire business. If individual tills at the counter only need intermittent connection to head office, say to report the day's takings, then the rest of the business continues. In fact, if there's more than one till available even that branch's business continues. At the very worst tills depending on a single branch server only result in loss of the branch in the event of a server failure.
Tight integration may not be necessary for day-to-day business but it is for business-wide failure. Designing a system that way for a business with a national or international chain of branches is an abominable mistake.