"He oversaw the due diligence process, he said."
Not only was it overseen but someone claims/admits to doing that!
40471 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
That was a bright idea from long ago in the UK. In order to build an electronics components industry slap a tax on components.
Just components.
Assembled boards etc. were fine so there was less duty paid on the imported components when they were part of an imported item than being imported to be assembled in the UK. At that time any board contained components from all over the world, there was no way any manufacturer could source all its components from any one country let alone the UK. The result was that there was an incentive to offshore assembly. With off-shored assembly there was less home market for component manufacturers.
Question: why did this bright idea not result in a vibrant, cutting edge UK electronic component manufacturing industry?
"The National Audit Office has repeatedly said it could not identify any of GDS's claimed savings with any certainty."
If this is correct, then it begs the question as to how ANY of the financial business cases for any of these projects or initiatives were signed off in the first place
That's an easy one. They're signed off on the basis of what they claim they're going to save. When they fail to make good on their claims it's too late. They can't be unsigned. The real question is, having had a project failed by the NAO, are those who signed it off allowed to sign off more? I'm sure they are - lessons been learned and all that.
It's high time personal data handling was treated similarly to financial services and other professions. Above some minimum combination of volume and sensitivity businesses should be licensed and subject to spot checks. Maybe a requirement for individuals in senior management to be licensed. Unlicensed businesses and their operators fined heavily. The boards of businesses that are wound up or go into Chapter 11 etc. and thereby avoid fines face imprisonment. GDPR goes so far but only catches offenders after complaints. There's a need for enforcement to be pro-active.
Really cutting out the middleman is contracting direct, company to company, without any agent, in-house or not. My experience, probably not everyone's was that, at least where the clients were SMBs.
On a wider scale I wonder if there's scope for a freelancer owned agency. Not so much a group of freelancers doing their own pimping but a regular Ltd Co with the shares spread out between freelancers with the board drawn from the shareholders. The purpose wouldn't be to find work for just the shareholders, it would need a wider resource base, but to ensure that there was at least one agency drawing up proper IR35-resistant contracts and maybe educating clients.
"Two taxation systems.
That is the essential problem.
People are taxed one way, and companies a completely different way"
Not really a problem, just a reflection of different modes of operation.
If you operate a freelancing company you should run it as a company. It's not, or shouldn't be, a conduit for cash straight to the worker's pocket, nor should it be a vehicle for strange financial shenanigans involving loans with peculiar T&Cs or the like. I don't have too much sympathy with those who run into problems with doing the latter. A little sympathy if they were suckered into it by some smart salesman pushing a financial package to make a commission but they should remember if it looks too good to be true it probably is.
If you're an employee of a company that you don't own you'll expect your employee to take incoming cash, pay your salary, employer's NI, put aside cash to pay your holiday, sick pay, [mp]aternal leave and any employer's pension contributions. Also to continue paying your salary if things get a bit slack. A freelancer's company should so just that. In particular the client pays for instant availability - the regular greeting of an agent is "Are you available?". "Available" almost invariably means out of contract and possibly having been so for some considerable time. Providing that availability is an overhead for the the business.
Envious of freelancers? If you think you can hack it, including providing the availability, join in. If you can't, keep quiet, the freelancers are doing things differently to the way you choose to do them.
he left to go contracting because his "developer" job consisted of nothing but interviewing people.
It depends on who he was interviewing. If you mean interviewing new recruits, maybe he was right. If it was interviewing users to find out what was needed then maybe he needs to widen his view of development.
"Define economy. EU has exclusive (in)competence in a lot of political and economic areas, not all of which serve UK economic interests."
The EU isn't them, it's us, or at least has been for a few decades. As long as we've been in the EU we've been in the decision making process.
"Brexit just means having UK hands on those levers, and less money flowing to the EU to bankroll EUrocrat's lifestyles"
Brexit means taking our hands off those levers. The impact of that depends on the role the EU continues to play as a suppler and customer. There are a couple of alternative outcomes after the transition period (if any). One is that they don't in which case you'd better hope those unicorns come galloping over the horizon otherwise a good deal of the economy is goingto go the same way as Honda and Scunthorpe steel works. The other is that they continue to be a significant part of the economy in which case you might then start wondering just why it was that we took our hands off those levers.
"modifications to /proc and its kids won't hang around when the system is rebooted."
Just add a line to an init script to make the mod.
"I would guess that ... the device that is going to crash... is the network route"
That's the worry. Are proprietary routers going to get firmware updates?
"Ironically while all the focus was on SCO and Linux (and by extension/FUD, open source in general), it was MS who really came a cropper."
What happened to that one eventually? AFAICS it seems to amount to "let's pull data out of a transaction database into a reporting database and patent the idea".
"In the magistrates' courts you call the judges sir or madam. "
In the magistrates' courts you can probably get away with calling a judge "mate" or anything else. They'll just be there as a member of the public, a witness, possibly - because they're all lawyers and some only sit as judges part-time - they might be acting as counsel (they may even be the accused). The folks on the bench are magistrates.
"The idea of running some form of Linux in Windows seems to keep coming up"
And the explanation given, including, it seems, from those who see themselves as the target audience, is that they're employed in situations where they have to run Linux to do their job but have to run Windows-only PCs. It may not be a rational solution but the irrationality isn't on the part of the users but their manglements.
I suppose from MS point of view it enables customers to continue resisting Linux boxes and discovering that they actually work very well and they could actually wean themselves of the MS teat. I can't imagine why they'd put the effort into it otherwise unless unless all that wishful thinking about making Windows a Linux core with a Windows API and interface on top.
In regard to the last I read elsewhere that this build also includes steps towards separating the Shell, presumably that awful-looking flat thing, from the rest of the OS, just like we've been doing with every Unix-based GUI for years. Strange times.
The attempts to dejargonify (oops, squiggly red line) computers has a lot to answer for and the car comparison is relevant.
Ask any car driver about the accelerator, brake, clutch (at least on a manual), engine, gearbox or whatever and they'll know what you mean. At some point all these items were new and their names technical and drivers had to be introduced to them. But they just became part of the vocabulary. It was accepted that even f you didn't know exactly how they worked you knew what they were for and what they did. Nobody was unsure as to whether the brake speeded the car up or slowed it down (being able to hit the correct pedal was a different matter).
Somewhere along the line we got to a stage where people who would never dream of challenging the names for the bits of their car was start complaining about jargon when it came to their computer. Obligingly, vendors took to hiding the workings, trying to make everything seamless so that users, who would have coped just as easily with names for the components of their computer as they would with their cars*, now see it as an undifferentiated "thing" which works by magic.
* I will make an exception for my late aunt who must have been well into middle age when she got her car, an ancient Morris 8. She knew that when it appeared to have run out of petrol she needed to open the bonnet and hit a nameless black cylinder with something solid. Readers of a suitable vintage will instantly recognise an SU fuel pump but she didn't need to know that.