Re: stupid question
"Sorry, I said it was a stupid question."
Given in-house means DWP, yes it was a stupid question.
42029 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
Whilst I have no enthusiasm for FB and the like the potential for collateral damage is huge. The basic principle of the WWW is that if you post something there it can be linked to. If you don't want that to happen don't put it there. If you don't want it indexed protect it with robots.txt. If you don't like that go off, sponsor some hard engineering effort and invent something that works the way you want but don't forget to make it attractive enough to the public that they'll want to use it.
I can't help feeling that the traditional media giants have come along, decided this was something they could exploit and, discovering that it doesn't work exactly how they want, are now trying to change the way it works.
But SCO - the old SCO, not the litigation machine - had a free or cheap development licence that was only supposed to be used for 6 months but never timed out. You needed a floppy, and CD drive to install it. If they'd just sold the ordinary licences at an affordable price Linux would have been one of those archaic 90's curiosities that you vaguely remember and kids disbelieve. And SCO would have dominated the office server market ever since.
"I kind of miss how insecure we used to be able to be"
Support modem plugged into the back of the Unix box. Dial in from a Nokia brick Communicator. Pick up email (this is one that will get the kids - Unix boxes have the facility for internal email so the overnight jobs email their output to a user who can then read it on a character terminal with elm or pine etc). rsh from one box to another - none of your telnet here!
A client with problems would ring me at my main client's office, then unplug his fax and plug a modem into the fax line and, again, dial in from the Communicator.
Bingham was chair of the vaccine task force. I recall reading somewhere that right in the early days, i.e. not long after the SARS2 genome had been published, some of the UK scientists starting vaccine development roped her in to organise production so in effect the government was presented with a fait accompli. This may have been a story invented after the event; however it has a ring of truth in it in that somebody competent got the job which is not a normal outcome of the BoJo circus's way of appointing people to this sort of position.
Ah, yes. Continuous improvement.
The powers that be decided on TQM - mantra "Get it right first time every time." (They, the top team, spectacularly failed at that one ballsing up a projected relocation.)
Then they decided we had to move up a gear to ISO9000 - mantra "Continuous improvement.".
Nobody explained why, if we were getting it right first time every time there was scope for any improvement, let alone continuous improvement.
It's the seductive lure of numbers. They are the rocks on which the unwary will dash themselves to pieces. Reducing something to numbers is irresistible. The easier the better and best of all if the numbers turn up on a display without you having to have the skill to operate some device to get them. Numbers become and end in themselves. They're much easier to deal with than the messy business which is the reality they represent. Management by numbers, therefore, becomes management by the numbers which are easiest to collect.
"I would be interested to hear from other Register readers of their experiences of Test and Trace."
I can only cite my daughter's experience. Returning from Spain she had the option of taking a test (back at the airport). After ringing several times for the delayed result she decided to drive back to the test centre and was half way there when they rung back.
I haven't read of the PAC getting into this aspect of T&T but maybe they should: schoolchildren failing a lateral flow test can have a PCR test to overrule it. A test taken at school has no such option. The essence of a a quick test known to return a proportion of false positives is that it's treated as a presumptive test whose positives you should follow up with a definitive test. It's almost as if T&T and/or DoE don't know what they're doing.
"the paper notes that the simulations did not include any other vehicle traffic, so any effect such traffic might have on the Waymo Driver's sensors is not modeled."
So not comparing like with like. Or is there an assumption that the other vehicle traffic might not have had an effect on the human driver and wouldn't have left the human driver with nowhere else to go?
The difference is that the DR centre is only activated when you need it, not all the time. One of the advantages of being prepared in that way is that you should have a regular rehearsal event as part of the contract. That enables you to test your backup-recovery cycle.
I worked for a client who simply had a hot standby at the opposite end of the factory. In the event of a fire big enough to destroy both ends of the factory losing IT was the least of their worries.
"Probably all that Avon can do is to remind their agents of the law and the dangers of using unvetted leads - but they can't enforce it."
Trademarks need to be protected. By passing themselves off as Avon they were devaluing the trademark and Avon can take action for that. We often hear of trademark disputes where there isn't really any possibility of confusion when small business has a name that sounds like some megacorp that starts throwing its weight around. This really the sort of situation where it should be used.
You're missing out a stage. Vision is only one aspect of this. A baby learns about the world by correlating inputs from all the senses. It will learn that a banana has an inside which is edible. It will also learn that it is much smaller than a golfing umbrella, something which is not necessarily obvious from an image. And it will be making these correlations before gaining language.
An object and a picture of the object are two different objects.
They'd had to get an ISO standard on the file format to satisfy government procurement standards. That meant that that barrier to rival versions - OpenOffice etc. - disappeared because it was possible to catch up with the moving target and stay caught up. Imposing a new UI gave them the edge. It might have made it hell for old users but new users then couldn't deal with OO/LO's interface which was close enough to the old Office one.
In resisting interface changes I think your wife has it right. The rationale for interfaces in computing is that the interface can stay stable whilst the implementation changes; it avoids the need for everything that uses the interface to change in step. The interface should only change if there's a specific need for it to do so. A change of chair-warmers in the crayon department does not amount to a specific need.
As you seem never to have looked at what it's actually about: the LibreOffice download page always offers two versions.
Currently its 7.1.1 and 7.0.4. The first is the enthusiast's version, the second is the stable version and was the one that used to be labelled for business deployment or words to that effect. Once 7.1 is deemed stable enough, say at 7.1.4 it will be the older option and 7.2.0 or possibly 8.0.0 will become the enthusiast's version.
The stable versions continue to receive bug fixes. The previous stable version was 6.4 and that ended up at 6.4.7.2 (at least). An OS's repository might offer something older - for Mint 20.1 it's 6.4.6.
The only difference now is that LO are trying to push those willing to pay towards firms such as Collabora who actually do the development work and need to improve their income streams. In part it seems to be a consequence of the Document Foundation painting themselves into a corner by having a constitution whereby they couldn't actually pay for development so those of us who thought our donations were going to development discovered they weren't.
It seems to me to be a good example of using somebody else's panic (you can almost hear the sigh of relief "wow, we dodged that one") to encourage their customers to do something sensible - use a unique password. And if their password isn't unique then the only way to make it so is to change it.
"Have none of them ever heard of GDPR?"
Yes. This is what it's all about.
Simple solution is for the clients to take the attitude You want the gig? Here's the terms. If you can't meet them don't apply. Come back when you can.
If US suppliers can't or won't meet the terms it opens up an opportunity for European suppliers. If there are no alternative suppliers keep it in house until there are.