Re: Why would one ...
"I once put a pan of water on to boil some eggs, forgot about it,"
SOP for one of our former neighbours - with the eggs in the pan. I think her kitchen ceiling had been replaced a couple of times.
42420 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
"To sue you must know Facebook has collected personal health/medical data on you."
The solution to that is legislation that ensures pro-active enforcement and fines so large that such data would be regarded as toxic and companies wouldn't want to touch it let alone pay for it.
What do I mean by pro-active enforcement? The equivalent of factory or fire inspectors who would have the right to descend on a company and go through it with a fine-tooth comb to see what they were doing. Impossible to legislate? Well, in the early days of the industrial revolution you'd have said the same thing about regulation of working conditions but as the abuses came to light legislation became inevitable irrespective of the influence factory or mine owners might have wielded.
I don't usually disagree with you but on point 1 I do. A perpetual licence is what it says in the licence terms and that's usually a licence to use whatever was on the (possibly virtual) medium in perpetuity as long as you have something to support it. Maintenance or support contracts are a separate thing and usually bought on an annual basis.
Products based on regular connection to the vendor's server (other than those where the service is the product) are a different matter. Can we have a tar and feathers icon?
And this could be bad news for Open Source.
From TFA:
(If you're wondering where open source code fits into this planned approach to liability, the strategy has this to say: "Responsibility must be placed on the stakeholders most capable of taking action to prevent bad outcomes, not on the end-users that often bear the consequences of insecure software nor on the open-source developer of a component that is integrated into a commercial product.")
That answers your question "You pick up some package for nowt off NPM, who is the responsible person?". You are, at least in the first instance. If the package is deliberate malware then the author, and any third party who planted it in the repository, would also be responsible. If a particular repository were to become conspicuous for hosting malware then its operators might also become responsible; it would certainly encourage them to be able to demonstrate that they were making serious efforts to curate the contents.
My take on this is that it gives those who use FOSS in commercial products an incentive to take a more active interest in what it is they're using, review it, fix problems and send the fixes upstream.
Legislation without sufficient enforcement is useless. Back in the C19th when the Factory Acts and the like were introduced an inspectorate was set up to ensure it was obeyed.
The same thing is needed now along with a provision that was in DPA 1.0: the power to forbid further data processing until the situation is remedied. Party inspected tries to hide from the inspector via an NDA? Told to take down the site Right Now.
For a pile of dust & gravel just rely in the ejection impulse. Send up a solar-powered gizmo that parks itself on the asteroid scooping up handfuls & ejecting it. No need to achieve high velocities and wiith enough warning the entire asteroid could be thrown away. My H Robinson could design something suitable in a trice.
If it's known how to produce iron in any form from ore then it's likely that iron-working sites would of the period would have been discovered and the Early Iron Age would have been pushed back to that period. I take it that no such sites were known. That raises the possibility that this was derived from meteoric iron. How close is the carbon content of meteoric iron to that of steel?
In the situation I was remembering we'd had the accountants do all the UAT on the new hardware (old H/W wouldn't support the Y2Ked version) so the obvious time to switch over was when the office was shut down over the long break. So rather than go with the signed off, known Y2K compatible version, they insisted on running the first 2 months of 2000 with a known incompatible version. It didn't go entirely as badly as feared (thanks to the vendors going above and beyond by dialling in several times to fix database errors*) but it didn't go well.
*Small S/W houses have a different attitude to customer service.
In my case it was covered by salary and, like the police witnesses, I doubt the cost was charged to the prosecution, courts or anyone else. If that had happened it might have encouraged more effective use of time but I doubt it.
As to taking written statements a colleague who had come from working in a different lab said that in her area that happened much more frequently than ours - and it was quite rare to encounter a defence expert in ours.
But one of my statements concerned a partial identification of one of three women's' bodies from La Mon House burned beyond recognition. Circumstance had preserve a small amount of head hair and my statement was confined to saying that, on the basis of comparison with samples from the hair brushes of the three women known to have died, that it could have been that one and couldn't have been either of the other two. The main consequence was that one of the families had the assurance that they had the right mother's body to bury and yet I spent ages hanging about to make that brief statement in person in the several separate trials that took place. That was an extreme example which sticks in my mind after all these years but there were many others which were less so.
Having spent a lot of the first half of my career hanging around courts waiting to be called as a witness and then told to go away and come back tomorrow - or next week - I'm not surprised. What made it worse was that quite a lot of the time the evidence was quite formal & could have been taken as read from my original witness statements.
The courts are a textbook case of why you shouldn't go straight to computerising the process when it's the process itself that needs sorting out.
One of the core issues is that the lawyers* may be concerned in multiple cases and that if one case overruns it affects their availability for others. Even judges are not immune to this as they may have to preside over an urgent hearing.
Add to that that it might not be predictable how long a witness's examination and cross-examination This obviously affects the overall length of the case but by pushing a hearing over into another day it can lead to conflicts with counsels' or witnesses' commitments to other courts. (I've seen this exploited by a prosecutor stringing out one day's proceedings to hold back another witness's testimony because he knew the leading defence barrister was due in court and that the junior would be too timid to cross-examine that witness.)
*And also various expert witnesses.
"Well, you should be able to ask any search engine for exact search terms and exclusions and actually get a result on that basis."
And back in the 1980s you could so there's no good reason why you shouldn't now.
Part of the reason that you can't may well be to sell you advertising. The other part might be that the providers of such engines don't like the idea of failing to produce a response hence, apart from advertising, your results might be a load of irrelevant nonsense.
There seems to be something more than this at work. As the virus has evolved it has become more infective but provoking milder symptoms. This can't be a matter of our immune systems being trained against it - AFAICR this trend had started before vaccination had become widespread. This also needs to be understood. The wider understanding should help in designing the next generation of vaccines. The virus is here to stay so we need to try to push it to a form which is no more serious than any of the other respiratory viruses which we categorise as the common cold.
Less than 20c per data subject!.
If you're going to let them off that cheaply the settlement should at least include a requirement that any public statements about their data security be honest and accurate: "We didn't care enough about customer data enough to secure it."
But these breaches will continue until fines are big enough to bring a few companies down. Only then will manglement think security and IT expertise are worth spending money on.
"what really did it for the commercial Unices was the huge and extortionate licence and royalty fees that came with them"
Yes. If SCO had realised the possibilities of the mass market and set their prices accordingly its likely that neither Windows nor Linux would have got any hold on servers. There were a lot of businesses running on PC-architecture with SCO and some industry-specific application. They didn't need an in-house admin. I had a few of those under my wing and even taken together then they weren't my main customers.
SCO's window of opportunity lay before Linux was sufficiently polished to use in production and package vendors realised it was worth porting to. They missed it and then doubled down on that with their litigation.
Cool is neither here nor there as far as I'm concerned but keeping opened mail in the inbox is only marginally less sensible than keeping it all in the deleted bin. The reason people expect all their mail to be in the inbox (or in deleted) is because they're not provided with a system that makes any better provision.
Imagine physical mail trys on your desk. Somebody brings mail and puts it in there. You read it and put it back. Next day somebody brings more and puts it on top. You read that and put it back. In a few days you only get to read the items of new mail that you dug out from amongst the growing pile but you're unsure whether or not you missed any. In a few years or sooner the intray contents are piled up to the ceiling. There's another growing pile, the copies of the mail you sent out, and you can't match the replies to the originals when you need to.
It would be a stupid way of handling physical mail so why do we do the equivalent with email? Especially why do we do that with email when it should be possible to use the system to help handle it? The answer is that although better is possible it doesn't seem to be implemented. What is implemented is a thin wrapper around functionality to exchange messages with a server.
You and I make use of folders but my experience is that the implementation is clunky which is why few people do so.
On the subject of digging out emails here's an old email dug out at random from my archive:
"Like Peter, I have been through your e-mails back to 2015, but ca’t find anything on Marsden brothers. Any idea what you may have put as the title for the e-mail? David"
(Serendipity rules - the random choice was about digging through emails!)
Without the thread to give context it's not particularly useful; what was being asked about the Marsden brothers?
Personally I still use SeaMonkey - same underpinnings but 1. the underlying browser is available as a browser and 2. my reaction to the T'bird interface isn't that it's old, it's that it's too ugly modern*. But would I be prepared to change to an updated T'bird?
Yes, provided it really did involve a ground-up change.
Let's start be recognising that for the user the principle object of communication is the thread**, not the individual messages that comprise it; a singleton message is just a member of a thread which has, currently, no additional members.
In the SM/TB interface the thread is a run-time construct of any linked messages in the mbox file whose contents are currently being listed. By default a sent email goes into a separate, sent mbox. Unless the user discovers how to change this default the thread as shown doesn't even include their own contributions.
So the first step would be to add any incoming or sent message to an existing thread to which it belongs or create a new thread if none exists. The next would be to preview the thread contents better; show the first two or three non-quoted lines with the option to extent and reply. Something like el Reg's comment presentation, in fact.
Next, let's remember the numerous comments on here from support folk who discover users with thousands of read messages in their inbox or deleted folders. A good UI would confine inbox use to unread message Opening a message would remove it from the inbox. There should be another folder for current mail threads. After a period of inactivity; no further messages on the thread during the period would result in its being archived although there might be some sort of staging folder for recent but non-current threads. And the deleted folder is nothing more than a guard against those oops! moments, it will be cleared according to some sort of schedule.
That would be a start but there's scope - and, I think, need - for a much more radical approach. It's a typical email client and AFAICS no email client has got beyond being a thin wrapper around a basic utility to exchange messages with a server.
* i.e. UI components without clear boundaries and scratchy monochrome icons that look like a cuneiform writer's first attempt at heiroglyphs
** Thread, conversation, discussion or whatever you prefer.
I'm looking of an image, if one exists, of a specific mid C18th presbyterian clergyman ("Captain" Eden in Yorks Arch Soc Record Series CXVII on archive.org).
Search string to "Ask me anything" :get an image william eden 18th century presbyterian minister of holmfirth and elland not anthoney edan and not baron auckland
The first two entries are Dictionary of National Biography and ancestry for William Eden 1st baron Auckland, then People also ask about entries for Anthony Eden and his father, then Wikipedia entry for baron Auckland, then numerous entries for Anthony Eden.
An answer of "Can't find one" might have been a correct response. Scads of responses to what follows the word "not" isn't.
Back in the 1980s I was using a search engine that understood "not". I wonder how much more refinement is needed of AI before we get back to the functionality of those heady days.
"see how far you get"
You get to my favourite, Devuan, and Jake's favourite, Slackware, for a start, plus one or two others. They all work perfectly well. (From what I read it may well be that they have a problem running current versions of Gnome but that doesn't disturb my idea of "perfectly well" and there are quite a few others of the same view.)