Re: Come on, Pedents...
That's Muphry's law for you.
42029 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
The root problem there seems to have been with the surnames. The parents would have been well aware of that having plenty of experience themselves. The only option would have been to change their own name first. The fact they haven't suggests that generations of them have each learned to live with the consequences and maintained solidarity to their own parents.
The initials thing... Yes, we carefully avoided any pronounceable set of initials for our own children although it's only just occurred to me that if our daughter had married someone whose surname began with a Y she'd have become DRY. What we hadn't spotted was the potential confusion when, as happened, she started post-grad research.
"If it all goes pear shaped..."
If by that you mean that when it all goes pear-shaped we'll end up applying, from a diminished economic status, to rejoin an EU that has evolved without our having had a say in its evolution and on terms such as adopting the Euro then I'm afraid you're correct. If you mean that that's what we want then you are seriously incorrect; that's what we want to avoid.
"I agree with your whole argument and especially your assertion that MPs have failed."
Where is it that you think opportunities for success lie? AFAICS the whole idea of Brexit was a nonsense. Set aside the economic issues; the N Ireland border issue offers no solutions, only a choice of ways to fail. I can't see how MPs can have been accused of failing to solve it.
From time to time we have to look at the basis of govt. in the UK. The govt. gets its authority by being able to get Parliament to vote for its Bills. Govts don't like this but it's the truth. A govt. that seeks to bypass Parliament like this no longer has a basis on which to exist. It's an ex-government.
"Parliament has had 3 years to find a way through."
What sort of way? All the rhetoric and all the votes don't change reality.
One reality is that this country is one of the parties to an agreement about N Ireland that brought, as near as possible, an end to prolonged period of bloodshed. The agreement was reached in the circumstances of both the UK and the Irish Republic being members of the EU and although not explicitly stated the the soft border, part of that agreement depends on both countries being in the EU. Actually it could equally well work with both being out of the EU but that isn't an option. The only ways it could work with one being in and one being out are very few and those presented that don't rely on hand-waving are either a border in the Irish Sea - not going to happen as long as the govt. depends on DUP support - and the backstop which the Brexiteers themselves reject. The fact that Parliament hasn't found a way through that one might indicate idleness on their part. It might also indicate that there isn't a way through. It certainly indicates one thing: that Leave hadn't a solution when they asked for a referendum on the issue, otherwise it would have been there waiting for us the day the result was announced.
We could, however, jut unilaterally break that international agreement and get on with making all the new international trade agreements we'll need to make whilst wondering why nobody else trusts us.
"yet-to-be started trade negotiations."
Be fair. There was announcement just the other day about a completed agreement. And there was one some time ago as well so that's a couple of countries signed up, South Korea and the other one which was, let's see...oh, South Korea. They announced the same thing twice.
The only reason not to run the suspension until 1st November is so he can claim that "it was nothing to do with Brexit"
And he doesn't need to. That's assuming he lasts that long as PM. I'd guess that there'll be a pretty swift vote of no confidence as soon as Parliament reconvenes.
OTOH the opposite sort of comments are also flung around fairly freely when these sort of rows are going on. I can't see any of either persuading anyone that this is a good field to enter as a career unless, of course, they are the sort of profession umbrage taker who prospers in said rows.
There are, of course, purists who insist that "contact" is only a noun and el Reg should have said "attempted to make contact with".
JR-M probably has it on his banned list because his 2nd deputy nanny told him not to use that because her primary school teacher told her not to because her English teacher told her not to because Dr Johnson didn't define it as a noun. (Actually my old Pocket Oxford doesn't either but I'd guess a newer edition would.)
"My only gripe with Debian Linux being that infuriating Libre Office software that won't let me install Apache Open Office."
1. I've never come across that one. Really? I've had LO & OO on the same box in the past with no problems.
2. You do know you can remove S/W you don't want, don't you? Although I run LO myself it's the version from the LO site, not the distro version which I removed.
3. OO is still a thing?
I haven't tried anything with a 2.0 kernel lately but what I have found is that I could install new versions of Linux on very ancient H/W. Subsequently used than ancient H/W & Linux combo talk to and set up a brand new printer that the user's W10 infested laptop kept trying to set onto a sub-net that the laptop itself wasn't on. So new gadget worked better with Linux & old S/W rather better than with new W10.
Most banks don't seem to care that any time their users use this thing they're in breach of the contract with their bank (the "do not give your details to anyone ever not even the police" bit).
This is something the "nothing to hide" crowd fail to grasp. There are perfectly legitimate things which you're obliged to hide.
"IT is a service"
Quite right. It's a service within a business and it's the business that's the unit. Working in IT I always found it was most useful to the business if I got to know something about how my users worked. It didn't even do any harm if some of the users got to know something about IT. And the most effective way for that was face-to-face communication so not only did I not take offence at them coming and talking to me, I went to talk to them. In fact, at times, the seating arrangements were a little ad hoc and I found myself seated next to them.
Apart from anything else the "keep users at arm's length" approach is an invitation for users to keep IT at arm's length. Perhaps an arm long enough to reach to India.
"Before that, I lived in the Peoples Republic of Islington,"
A very long time ago, when David Blunkett was in his pomp, I went to a couple of talks by a pathologist from Sheffield. His standard opening (maybe not the best term in relation to a pathologist) was "Greetings from the People's Republic of South Yorkshire".
My preference is for requiring the telcos to automate the process but at much lower fees, say a couple of quid or a fiver for a TPS registered number. Get a call, dial a code when you put the phone down, the fee gets credited to your account and the caller charged with the fee plus the telco's fee. The call came from a different telco? No problem, the charge gets passed to them, they add their own fee and pass it on to the caller. Multiple telcos? It goes on accumulating more handling fees. A telco doesn't know where the call comes from? Tough, they pay the bill and realise they need to keep better records.
Downsides?
There'd be a need to prevent fraud - someone trying to collect a fee on every call whoever it came from so there'd need to be some statistical work to verify problem callers and maybe charge the would-be fraudsters for their trouble.
There'd also be an upfront cost for the telcos putting the mechanism together. In theory their fee covers it, in practice as it would close down the problem PDQ and they'd lose out on their investment. You know what would happen? They'd suddenly find ways to cut down on the problem rather that do that. Not being faced with a mandatory investment they couldn't recover is also good for the bottom line.