anyone who has ever clicked a link in a genuine marketing email spam
FTFY
42273 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
A lot of would be exporters into the EU are now discovering the hard way how red tape works. Previously they weren't really exporting, just selling into a part of their home market that happened to have a bit of water in the way. Now they're really trying to export and it's more complicated than they thought, especially when it's some sort of agricultural product.
AFAIK he'd paid for the package. The support contract was being sold on as an extra.
I'm quite used to the situation where a package is sold and a support contract is optional but selling a support contract and trying to lock the customer out if they don't keep paying is taking the piss in my view.
There were some interesting features to the S/W:
- It was supposed to be based on Informix. Some Informix tools were supplied for reporting but it wasn't written in it for reasons which became apparent.
- They included some files with .sql suffixes which were supposed to be the DDL to set up the database. They weren't even SQL although possibly their S/W would read them to add some tables. They didn't comprise the full set.
- They provided a bcheck* program to check the database. The supplied Informix package also provided bcheck. The bchecks were different. Either would complain there were "errors" if the alternative bcheck had been run first. The DB was OK, it was just that the two products were setting a flag or label differently.
- There were the usual Informix system tables which included indexes. It became clear that the system they provided couldn't have run efficiently with just the indexes listed. When I needed extras for reports I was writing I investigated further with bcheck and discovered that there were indeed more indexes, they just hadn't told Informix's sysindexes about them. Clearly they'd set up the database with some other tools and copied in the Informix system catalogs from a rather less fully featured database to keep the Informix tools more or less happy. I hacked sysindexes with SQL to add in some of the missing entries.
I'm pretty sure that what they'd done was use a C-ISAM package** of which there were a few - possibly even a FOSS one - to write the software, marketed it as being based on Informix and sold some Informix tools along with it although they didn't have a chance of working as well as they might. On the whole I think it balanced out as six of one, half a dozen of the other.
I've often wondered if it was the same crowd who flogged a warehousing system to my ex employers about the time I was being eased out. Some time previously we'd proposed adding warehousing to the existing stock and SOP system - it only needed a couple of extra tables to describe the racking an the additional screens to support it. That had been turned down. Some crowd claimed to be offering an Informix-based system running on VMS sold them a free-standing warehouse system. I knew very well that there wasn't Informix on VMS; we'd been one of the guinea pigs when such a thing was attempted and abandoned. They countered that by claiming to have the database source code It must have been the same thing - an application built on a C-ISAM package. At least I was out of it before I had to cope with trying to keep two separate systems giving their views on stock levels.
* bcheck was a diagnostic for the b-tree indexes.
** Informix Standard Engine, even in its pre-SQL version was based on a C-ISAM package of their own (AFAIK) devising.
"Ever found the time and cash demanded by a vendor was vastly more than truly required by the actual change?"
I had a client who managed to do that all on his own.
I did occasional support work for him but the vendor still required a support contract with themselves. To enforce this they had some sort of lock on the system which involved periodically running something - I'm not sure if they logged in remotely, sent him a file to run or just gave him instructions to do it himself. I kept well clear of that. What they didn't do was provide actual updates to the S/W so in that respect they weren't providing anything in particular, just occasional problem solving.
My remit had been a bit wider as general Unix and DB admin stuff. I'd very quickly come to my own view of their S/W and, in fact, one of the things I was doing was writing bits & pieces round it to do stuff the client wanted. Eventually he realised that their support contract was providing him with nothing and he worked out the coding of the lock file that had to be changed every 6 months or so, ended the contract and updated the lock himself.
I have no direct involvement with Facebook. Nevertheless before I give anyone, official or otherwise, extolling E2EE a hearing I want to see them publish the following:
Their name and address.
Their online banking credentials.
Any additional ecommerce credentials they may have.
If they think think those are things that must be kept hidden then they need to realise that I have similar things that need to be kept hidden and that's what E2EE is about.
It's not an erroneous CC, it's a legally binding notice. The fact that it's possible to send out such a notice in this way doesn't make it any less legally binding. If you look at the PDFs they have a facsimile of s signature on them.
It would be well for those permitting their signature to to be used in this way to consider the safeguards they require - perhaps documents should require their personal release. (I've worked on a system that not only send out such "signed" documents. I was a sub contractor to the sub contractor to one of the usual suspects to whom the entire operation had been contracted out. OTOH I don't think the "signed" documents in this case carried the same legal weight.)
They're official notices giving or withholding permission to do things which have large amounts of money depending on them. So much so that there are frequent casual allegations of corruption surrounding them - any thread dealing with local govt. here is apt to include a few - and I have memories of at leas one scandal that became national news. This is serious stuff. It's not somebody ordering a gross of boxes of paperclips instead of a box of a gross.
The PDFs in the article are of notices sent to the applicants with the relevant official's signature on them. From the point of view of the recipient of an apparently official notice it should be assumed that it won't be rescinded as a mistake at some future date. The incorporation of nonsense in an official notice isn't a reliable indicator that it wasn't meant.
It still doesn't prevent you having a manual process around it. Click on the relevant fields without completing the process, collect P45. I take your point from earlier that it's a piece of S/W with problems but that just makes manual authorisation more necessary.
It would appear that in this case someone has been given access without any warning as to the risks or without being told what, if anything, is the authorisation process,
We hadn a similar situation. I used to live not far away from Late Bronze Age/Iron Age hill fort, later converted to a Normal motte and bailey castle. It had an Arts and Crafts period stone-built pub built inside it which was a nice enough building although it would almost certainly never have had planning permission. I'm not sure if it was listed with the rest of the site although I think it would have been worth it.
The owners got permission to extend the pub which required a certain amount of demolition. They demolished more than the permission allowed and were starting on a larger extension than allowed (which in turn would have broken extra ground within the scheduled monument). I think they would have been made to reinstate the excess demolition in the original materials. However they had, shall we say, failed to retain the (no doubt quite valuable stone on site. Oddly enough nobody knew where it had gone. So as they couldn't restore it they were ordered to demolish the remainder and grass over the site.
I believe they keep applying to rebuild. I'm not sure what the situation is now but occasionally there are murmurings of sympathy for them - frankly if it had been my decision they wouldn't have got the original extension position and I think the outcome is exactly right to set an example to anyone else who decides to mess with scheduled monuments.
"These errors will have to be rectified"
Which is nonsense. As the article points out, if they're acted on first there'll be no means to reverse them.
If the council has some means of imposing a hold whilst the JR takes place then there'll likely be civil action torecover the cost of the delay and £8k might only be the advance payment.
The WiFi trap is one that designers have worked on to improve over the years.
Removing the LED to indicate whether it's on or off has been one improvement. The move onto a function key was a master stroke. They could label the key with some nonsensical icon or go a step further and label it with something apparently irrelevant - of course an icon of an aeroplane means WiFi. And does the Fn key enable the actual Fn or the hardware functions.
Industrial design has contributed a lot to laptop ease of use over the years.
The operative word is "do", not "write".
It's designed to: a) avoid the pre-filtering by some Turing failure; b) avoid opening all the envelopes unless the very last one is that of the only viable candidate; c) be fair in that none of the applications are checked before closing so someone who takes time over their application isn't disadvantaged; d) try to cut down on the number of applications by warning off the bull-shitters (although this might fail for Dunning-Krugger reasons); e) lean towards actual experience rather than paper qualifications and f) be upfront about the whole process.
"Here's the job description. If you think you can do it tell us why. Applications close on $DATE and none will be considered before then.
"Applications will be reviewed by people who know what they're talking about, not HR, and who can spot BS a mile away. If there are too many to go through them all we'll pull out a sample at random until we get the sort of person we're looking for.
"You might be a good fit but someone who's good enough might get considered first and offered the job. It's a matter of chance but we think it's at least as fair as drawing up a short-list by looking for reasons to exclude you. If you don't like it, don't apply. If you do apply and you're the person we need, good luck."
I wonder if anyone would have the wit to do that.
Some of us don't "get" Windows.
A Linux distro isn't a project as such, it's a collection of projects. But in terms of building a user community each one needs to understand what its particular user base requires. I've made a similar point in the past in relation to deskoip managers - an app-based manager such as Unity is useless to a user whose requirements are document based.
One thing I've never been able to understand is the number of distros claiming to be very lightweight. Is the hair shirt community really that big?