Re: Sounds like marketing speak, I wondered why...
Before the reshuffle it was Dorries.
40413 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
"Just wait a few more years for the older generation to move on to the sunlit uplands in the sky then have another referendum."
While I agree with your general point that a referendum is a snapshot in time I do object to the casual ageism and, in particular, the idea that it was the "older generation" as some sort of homogenous group who voted leave. I'm one of that older generation and most certainly did not vote leave.
I doubt very much that rejoining will be that feasible. I remember the long drawn-out process of negotiating membership in the first place and can't believe that, having left, it wouldn't be even more difficult the second time around nor that any deal which could be achieved would be as advantageous as what we had.
It was unbelievably stupid to take a slim majority on an advisory referendum as being a fiat. And AFAIK all those who did so are younger than me.
"It wouldn't hurt law makers to say what they mean, rather than hope the courts correctly infer what they meant"
It's not quite as simple as that.
Legislators generally do say what they mean. but when legislation is written it's impossible for the legislators to anticipate every situation in which it will be applied. The courts have to interpret it in the circumstances of a particular case. In order for the system to work properly the legislation, however detailed, still needs to take into account that they can't revisit it every time an unanticipated situation is met or that circumstances have changed. It will probably be at least a few years before they get a second chance.
Making laws is one task. Bringing offenders to book is another; it might be the police or a regulator but it might be an individual, business or whatever if it's a civil matter. Interpreting them on a case by case basis to determine if they have been broken is a third task. Keeping the performance of those tasks separate is a Good Idea. It's probably essential if you want to have a free society.
There's a difference between not being defect free and being out-and-out malware. There seem to have been plenty of reports here about software repositories such as Pypi being subverted to introduce malware into the supply chain. Should these be treated as a "product", even if not commercial, whose providers "should be responsible for ensuring that it is appropriate for the job"?
It's easy to say that those who use the repositories should each be responsible for vetting everything they use, tracking every new version and re-vetting all changes. Easier said than done - the overall cost would be huge when given that every user would be duplicating the work. The likely outcome would be that companies would simply stop using them or else there would be a second tier of commercial repositories who would vet new additions before adding them.
"starts suing anyone he can think of"
That would open him to being declared a vexatious litigant. From Wikipedia "Those on the vexatious litigant list are usually either forbidden from any further legal action or are required to obtain prior permission from a senior judge before taking any legal action."
I was, in effect following your own logic of what happens if you put this into reverse: if someone has multiple cases pending against them from multiple litigants should a court take that into account as possibly indicative that some restraint is needed to avoid the possibility of their incurring still more?
"A slightly better version would be to require the approval of a judge, rather than the plaintiffs"
A likely mechanism would be the judge appointing an administrator responsible to both the court and representatives of the plaintiffs.
"But making the defendant ante-up is ridiculous"
That was my first reaction. But then it occurred to me that as there's a concept of a vexatious litigant perhaps there should also be an special status for the opposite case, a defendant who gets a large number of claims against them. It would not necessarily mean having to commit money into escrow but having their accounts frozen so that payments by then need approval of the plaintiffs. At the very least it would make delaying tactics difficult for them.
Although I retired from freelancing at about the same time as yourself it was being "offered" early retirement from a paid job in my 50s that gave me the opportunity to make the break into freelance. I needed to continue earning something before the rest of the pensions kicked in and the draw of freelancing was the opportunity to continue doing something I was good at rather then being dragged into management which seems to be the expected career move at that age. That and, of course, being "virtually invulnerable to office politics and arsehole bosses".
"it declares bankruptcy, parachutes out the officers"
If it's a listed company the shareholders might sue the management.
The longer term advantage, however, is that even the most recalcitrant board might start to take notice, realise that it can be a threat and start looking at their own products and processes.
"between Christmas and New Year when they had stupidly planned to go live on a new system"
Stupidly? If there's downtime to make the cut-over it's a very sensible time. I've told here before of the client who, at the last minute, postponed that. It was December, 1999 and the new system was the Y2K-compatible version...
Would you also apply this to other compensation situations?
Suppose you suffered an injury at work which left the you severely disabled and unable to work for the rest of your life? You might say the company should pay an annual income. But what happens if the company goes out of business? You would still be unable to work but the income would have gone forever.
The purpose of a lump sum is to future-proof the compensation.
Of course, in the example you suggest, it might work as expected until someone finds a health care professional willing to act as a middleman.
I think a lot of this nonsense originates from ISO9000 and its relatives. It starts with an innocuous statement that all jobs must be done by someone with relevant qualifications and/or experience. (NB this more or less knocks on the head any idea of recruiting the inexperienced and training them up). Then the next draft of the quality manual specifies a period of years. The next one says it must apply to all products in use. The next one says that departments must specify exact versions of products when recruiting.
If the penny ever drops that the quality manual is a millstone, in this and many other respect, it gradually starts being whittled down. Eventually it arrives at a statement that all jobs must be done by someone with relevant qualifications and/or experience. The ISO9000 certification simply becomes a badge saying the organisation wasted a lot of time, effort and money developing what is quite possibly a mediocrity management system - providing they're consistently mediocre everything's OK.
I think your & the OP's downvotes were a reaction tone of the posts being found offensive by those who voted remain* but are now stuck with the result, those too young to vote but who are now stuck with the result, those who voted leave but now realise they were victims of a con, those who thought it wouldn't have any consequences & wanted to make a protest vote and, with less justification, those who didn't vote because they thought they didn't need to bother voting against something so self-evidently stupid would never get anywhere near a majority.
I'd guess that now amount to more than half of the UK's population.
* In case you've forgotten, that was a whisker under half the votes cast.
Thanks - adds context.
It still leaves the issues of just how much they had - that weasel word "included" - and whether they needed it all. And whether the drivers knew it had been passed on. We're still not at the stage where data is regarded as toxic: you may need to have some but it's safest to hold as little as possible. And insufficiently guarded is doubly toxic.
It's the board that needs to get the message first. Then they can kick the complaints all the way back down the ladder. There does seem to be an inkling in govts that critical infrastructure is - well - critical. They might even be getting insistent about it. We can only hope that they work out PDQ what they need to insist on.
“encourage compliance, prevent harms before they occur and learn lessons when things have gone wrong.”
One hopes that this would consist of a severe bollocking pointing out GDPR's provisions for action against senior members along with notice that this will happen next time and an insistence that at the very least this will be an item on the annual reports of everyone in the command chain.
But I doubt it. ICO have given up the fight.
Growing up in the post-WWII years the typical usage seems to have been anyone involved in the sort of R&D that won the war (excepting, of course BP & the like which we were never told about). As such is was a term of respect. The IoPs problem seems to be that it's neglected to polish its own image.
" If you want to message someone on telegram, use telegram. If you want to message someone on WhatsApp, use that."
And what if you just want to have one ID on one system instead of buying into every service every would-be tech bro sets up
I don't have to have a mobile on every network and a landline from every landline operator because they all inter-operate.
I don't have to have email addresses with multiple MSPs because email inter-operates.
What's proposed here is to try to make messaging work the same way.
The problem here is not with what's done and why. It's with the term "crop". If that's what's offered to the user then it's reasonable to expect the user to think that that's what will happen. What's actually happening would be better described as "frame".
LibreOffice Writer acts in the same way and the compress option only affects the image's resolution, not its boundaries.