Re: Older applicants
Sorry, can't tell you. GDPR.
42272 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
"You might want to see a sparse CV. You might know what you are looking for. The guard droid, however, is looking to tick boxes and most job advertisements don't actually indicate which boxes need ticking. " etc.
Perhaps the solution is to specify what sort of CV you want to see, both to the guard droid (to whom it should be made clear their own job is on the line if they don't follow it) and in the job ad.
"replaced them with serviced accommodation for 40-50 seats."
I think this is the key. They'd better not be located in the cities, however. They need to be close to where people live. By the time the planners catch up with this it will be too late.
We've had a local neighbourhood plan produced. It would have been fine 100 years ago - everyone worked within walking distance of their homes. Fifty years ago the cracks would have been showing as the mills closed, their sites started to be built over for housing and people were starting to commute by car. Forward another decade and all those old houses with no off-street parking to facilitate charging electric cars will be useless without a return to local working - which isn't, of course, in the plan.
"it's a volunteer OSS project"
It seems we have to keep repeating this: there are published statistics on who contributes most to Linux. The main contributors are inevitably corporate. It's in Intel's interest, for instance, that their products are supported so they're always there are thereabouts at the top of the list. From memory Google and Red Hat are also leading contributors.
It's a lot cheaper for someone who needs an OS kernel that can be almost met by Linux to take it and tweak it than to develop from scratch and it's also cheaper to contribute their changes back than to have to keep applying them to every new version of the kernel.
It's called collaborative development.
"The main reasons for things like IR35 and similar rules designed by HMRC...."
I rather think the main reason is that HMRC staff are salaried employees. That's the way of working they understand. They prefer PAYE - a tax system designed by employees for employees. Anything else is foreign to them and hence automatically suspect.
"no one ever got into trouble for deciding to not spend money today"
Back in days of yore if you didn't spend your budget it was likely to be cut next year. The result in NI was known as the Spring Sales. DoE would have had contingency for road clearance to cover a bad winter. This was inevitably more than needed so that in the run-up to the end of the financial year there was money going spare for other departments. Given that lab consumables were fairly predictable it was possible to stock up on a few things for the coming year to help them out.
"my laptop has no camera, as various customer sites ban laptops with them from cleanrooms and other sensitive areas"
On a visit along with one of my client's managers to their client's office. Cameras on phones were fairly new at that time.
"Anyone with a camera on their phone, please leave it outside."
Slight over-specification there: nothing about a camera per se so my companion said nothing about the camera in his pocket.
So you can cite - well, not cite but I don't suppose PR folk with their first post really understand what a proper citation is - a study that relied on large amounts of data obtained prior to this data grab. Doesn't this pose a problem for the argument you're putting forward? After all if such studies are already possible with ethically sourced data why would we need this? Or does the study you cite say happened have an ethics problem?
"30/12/31"
??
Even if you make that 30/12/21 ??? applies. I can't see any means by which any of Max Schrem's (more power to his elbow) from this February onwards will help protect us. The difference isn't just the highest court of appeal, it's the entire jurisdiction which has changed.
it puts this data into the "significant national interest" exemption of GDPR
This is an example of why the ability to apply for a judicial review of government actions is important. No government which respects the rights of its citizens would want to curtail that ability would it?
"we'll just see the attacks move to other countries"
If sanctions include blocking traffic then there's an immediate preventative element. But a longer term element would be deterrence. If condoning or even being over-casual about enforcement were to lead to life becoming difficult for the offending country then it would become difficult or risky to make such moves.
It might be a good move for Health Services (and similar organisations) to instruct the local offices to run an overnight job to print out next days' appointments and explain why. The explanation might at least concentrate minds and the print-out should avoid cancellations for the next day and give the clean-up a day's start.
Of course going back to something as old-fashioned as paper might offend those who thought it would be a good idea not to have fax, pagers or the like as backup.
"t is now extremely easy to restrict telemetry to the functioning of the OS itself, which is entirely reasonable"
Have they changed their T&Cs then? Or have you read them? Certainly when I read them the alarm bells were rung no so much as by what they said as to what they didn't say.
For instance they gave themselves permission to extract data about transactions. Innocent reader looks at that and says "Quite reasonable. If I conduct a transaction with Microsoft of course they're going to need that." Anyone used to reading more carefully notices what it doesn't say: that they're restricting that to transactions with Microsoft or some affiliate. If they syphon up a few transactions with your bank that's quite OK, their T&Cs allow it.
I think there were a few other bits like that. Don't take my word for it. Go and read it for yourself. It's possible they've changed the wording and those limits have been imposed. But read it with a critical eye as to what limits it does or doesn't impose. Compare the reality of the legal statement with the PR puffery. What's the worst case, not the sales patter? If you do that critically you can make an informed opinion about FUD for yourself. Do the same with any telemetry - do the T&Cs restrict the vendor in the way your first sentence suggests? The legal agreement is what matters, not the PR promises.
Not for profits might not make profits but they can make a surplus.
They will be funded by somebody. It might be membership if it's something like a user group. It might be by offering services. It might be by some corporate with an interest in what it does - again, a user group is an example, having seen that from the inside, as it were. In this case TFA suggest it might be the NHS.
It's worth remembering that the salaries, however, large, paid to officers and staff nor payments to outsourced management do not count as profits.
he "keys" to the kingdom can be on a thumb drive or a slip of paper.
If the contents of the thumb drive are the database for a password manager such as KeePassX it's not necessarily a problem. The problem might be a keylogger in the device via which access is gained but that's not a problem specific to the password manager.