Seems to be working
The Beeb haven't noticed yet.
33072 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
"It is as if as soon as they become senior managers or above, that they believe their own lies, and everyone else will too."
It's not necessary for them to believe their own lies. They just need to get others to believe them. As that's been what they did for a living it's not surprising that they're continue to do it in their own interest.
Because of all of the crying about the result of the referendum, the EU has us bent over and all lubed up ready for a forceful screwing over.
FTFY
Brexit has put us in the inevitable position of negotiating from weakness. It's glaringly obvious in every news item and you still don't get it!
"Also, we happened to ask the opinion of everyone in the country and the majority disagreed with you."
No they didn't, that's the trouble. It was a very close split. It's customary when a referendum is binding to require a substantial majority, something like 2/3, to overturn the status quo.
And it's not customary to hold an advisory referendum and then treat it afterwards as binding.
"Sadly, there are many who would prefer to see the UK fail rather than accept the outcome of the largest democratic vote in British history."
Actually we would rather see Britain succeed. That's why we think that Brexit is a huge mistake.
We don't want to be proved right but fear we will be and we can also imagine the terms under which we'd have to be let back in. The Euro will be one. Probably the ever closer union crap will be another. It's just a huge strategic mistake which will end up with us back in the EU in 10 years time under conditions that nobody likes and with absolutely nobody willing to admit that they voted for it.
And I suspect this "Remainers want Britain to fail" is a line born of increasing desperation of Brexiteers realising that the EU isn't folding to their every demand, maybe realising that we're negotiating from a position of weakness and seeking somebody - any body - to blame for this other than themselves and their madness that put us there.
"It's also up to voters to select better ones and not old gits who just seek re-election."
Better old gits with some knowledge of what privacy means than millennials who've never heard of it. That's the irony of the situation.
"We need some real innovation in Legislating Digital. Its about time politicians and lawmakers realized their limitations and re-tooled / re-schooled. Max Schrems has been the only real hero to praise here."
While I totally agree re Max Schrems it still remains the case that without the legislation that had already been made he wouldn't have had a means to do what he had.
"raised beaches in Scotland or N Ireland ... intertidal peats"
A nice example of this: Balcary Bay hotel in Scotland. The hotel itself sits on what looks like a low raised beach with a higher one behind it and on the foreshore a shallow peat bed at about high water mark so not quite intertidal but certainly indicative of a relative sea level lower than it is now.
There seem to be a lot of people who've never seen, or at least recognised, raised beaches in Scotland or N Ireland; never seen intertidal peats and sub-fossil forest remains further south nor glaciation features such as drumlins, eskers, kettle-hole lakes, moraines or outwash fans deposited in former ice-dammed lakes in N.England or N Ireland; never heard of the boreal maximum, the medieval warm period or the frost fairs on the Thames. And yet all these and more are real phenomena.
Climate and sea levels really have changed and will continue to do so despite your downvotes. (Downvoting creationists who attribute glacial features to Noah's flood are excused on grounds of not knowing better.)
"Apart from 'their' being the the correct word, plenty of evidence exists that climate change is actually happening"
As a geologist you'll be aware that climate is always changing as are relative sea levels. The entire climate change debate seems to be between two sides one of which believes that this isn't happening and the other that it is but shouldn't and either we can prevent it or could have except we're too late. Neither PoV seems quite well founded.
"Personally, I would consider the amount paid to track down addresses for the class members and then print and mail all the checks as part of the punishment."
The problem here is seeing this as punishment. If there is punishment it should come from criminal action. This is supposedly compensation and the cost of processing that should be part of the costs paid by Google. If someone has suffered $x damages then $x should be what they're entitled to receive, not $x minus some administration fee.
"Ok maybe the company was punished?"
It's the criminal law's job to see a company is punished if they have broken the law. It's civil law's job to see the victims are compensated. In any given situation one or both might apply. But if there is compensation the calculated amount should go to the victims. The cost of administering the payment should be paid by the perpetrator. If that came to more than 56 cents it shouldn't be anybody's problem but the airline's.
The present commercial academic publishing model is surely one whose time has gone.
It's perfectly possible for an academic society to do all the editorial work needed. I was on the committee of one which did this. As our membership included all the staff of the local University department and the public sector body in the field there was no problem of recruiting well qualified people to do that. We did, however, have to carry the cost of typesetting and printing so although we sold copies to libraries etc. - at nothing like the current subscriptions - it was our major cost of running the society.
Now the typesetting and printing costs have gone the equivalent would be hosting costs and it would certainly be cheaper for libraries to get together and share those than continue to pour huge sums into the coffers of Elsevier.
"While Nature is an esteemed publication, one has to wonder how it got that way. Was it because they had well-known and peer-evaluated reviewers looking at articles, or was it because they slowly clamped down and monetized what the publishers thought were best."
It got that way by being very early into scientific publishing. If you couldn't get into Proc. Roy. Soc. you wanted to get into Nature although in my field New Phytol. or Proc. Roy. Ir. Acad. were pretty good.
However I do recall being told that just before I started out as a researcher that a journalist on Nature rung up my boss and my predecessor to check a report he'd written about someone else's paper and it was so bad that they more or less rewrote it for him over the phone.
It wasn't just refereeing that got farmed out, it was also proof-reading. Hot metal printing meant both galley and page proofs. For an author it was a chance to change your mind providing it wasn't a big change and fitted into exactly the same space as the text you'd changed. It was intended, however as means of picking up typos which really required a new set of eyes so the authors needed to rope in another academic colleague to assist in that.
"Since I'm not seeing the symptoms that Isces wrote about, I am inclined to believe that the update problems he faces are down to laptop models (drivers) or some esoteric configuration."
It's quite likely that in the NHS there are plenty of machines running what would be esoteric configurations to you and, indeed, to Microsoft but that esoterica is the core application for them. It explains, for instance, why some of them are still on XP.
"may $DEITY have mercy upon Wales, Scotland & Northern Ireland"
From experience, mercy is needed for anyone having to arm-wrestle data from several of those. I managed to avoid NI and Scotland was different enough not to be a problem but the distance between English and Welsh data sources was pessimal.
"avoiding the monumental scream-fest if people have to cope with a particular screen no longer looking like it did before"
That describes the evolution of Windows and Office fairly well. And yet there seems to be a perceived problem with making a one-off move to something that would offer the prospect of a stable user interface. One of the aspects of open source is that a change in UI is apt to prompt work by refuseniks to maintain the original.
"An upgrade breaking some slightly esoteric piece of software Im running I can accept"
Why? Surely the whole purpose of the system is to enable you to run your choice of software, whether it be common, slightly esoteric or full-on left field. That's what you bought the kit for. Surely you didn't buy it because you wanted a Windows paperweight.
"nor should any customer with common sense conclude that such an expectation was reasonable."
If a customer has a version of a system running and a vendor does their utmost, sneaky utmost in this case, to push a new version on it it's very reasonable to expect that the new version (a) continues to work on the hardware onto which it was pushed and (b) continues to support the application that the system was purchased to run.
Perhaps it's time to step back and remember that an operating system is not an end in itself, it's a platform to support the application on owner's hardware.
"Would it not be simpler (and cheaper) to standardise all IT equipment across all NHS trusts directly from Whitehall? Think how Maersk dealt with NotPetya, by replacing all servers and desktops/laptops."
Either (a) Maersk had a very small variety of tasks for their IT estate or (b) they didn't update anything with a very specialised control function.
If you look at the NHS you'll find a lot of machines that could be updated to a current version of W10 and a lot running lab and other diagnostic kit that depend on specific drivers that either aren't going to be available for W10 or possibly not for the H/W on which W10 will run. Identifying those that couldn't be handled like that will not be a trivial project.
But take it a step further. If a lot of PCs are simply running office suites, email and browser why not introduce extra resilience? A monoculture of Windows PCs of any single version could be taken out by an exploit of some zero-day*. So for such tasks add a mixture of Mac, Linux and xBSD, say 25% of each, to minimise that risk. And Linux and BSD for servers.
* This also applies to Maersk of course. They may be protected against the last variant of NotPetya. But what about the next?
The complaint, put forward by named plaintiffs Michele Jones, David Laietta, Kimberly York, Benjamin Murray, and Wanta Dureya on behalf of anyyone in the US who purchased something containing DRAM from one of the three companies from July 1, 2016 through the February 1, 2018 lawyers and their friends
FTFY
"24 hours isn't enough time to do it properly. To do that you'd need a team, all properly trained and kept up to date on every database change across an entire organisation, with an on-call rota."
As far as I can make out this isn't about routine subject access requests. This is about ICO investigations and the week-long stand off at CA. Even 24 hours is long compared to being able to roll up at 5am with a sledgehammer.
In fact, I'd go for the ICO being able to turn up at 5am with a sledgehammer.
"Making what is clearly covered by existing statutes for fraud, perverting the course of justice or other serious criminal offences into something you can get away with using a good lawyer."
I don't see any rush to bring CA to book for deleting data, nor is it clear what basis there may have been under existing law for doing so if the only thing affected is an ICO investigation.
Nor do I see the ICO's remit overlapping much if at all with what's covered by existing law (statue and common) so why should adding provision for prosecuting destruction of evidence for investigations within that remit affect existing criminal provisions.
Then we have to craft an ever-fscking "vision" statement in yet another demented "all-hands" group grope.
Insist on working some - no, make that all - your gripes into the "vision". Even if they're off-topic. Eventually I found manglement got a good idea about what it was best to leave me out of.