"Lyons airport - where is that?! Anywhere near Lyon?"
An airport. Of course it wasn't near anywhere.
40484 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
"EU economic projections from a couple of years ago (agreed by the World Bank) had UK poplulation hitting 85 million by 2040."
Economic projections from anywhere need to be treated with rather more scepticism than Gartner projections. Every budget I can remember includes the Chancellor making projections which are increasingly rosy in the future. The next year is hardly better than the current year and the current year is usually a bit disappointing. Even when one of those halcyon years forecast for the future becomes a bit disappointing once it's the current year.
"And even then, there was always UUCP via dial-up. All you had to do was look around, the options were there."
Where you were, maybe. Where I was in '88 the only thing UUCP did was get you through to the other Zilog (via a parallel cable IIRC).
And, yes, vi is still the direct connection between brain and file.
"Makes me wonder why this country is in trillion pound debt"
Gross financial mismanagement not directly connected to
"and we are handing out poxy finds to corps"
Read the article and note that this was the maximum fine under the legislation at the time. Would you be happy if a regulator could just make up penalties at whim? (Think carefully what you ask for before you answer: "Mr Wibble, you were found parking on a double yellow line for the second time. You clearly have disregard for the law. Your car will be taken and crushed and you will serve 3 years in prison.")
"I agree, but the fine is as large as it could be under the old rules."
As the article says but maybe some don't read beyond the headlines.
What businesses should be taking note of it that the regulator has no qualms about setting maximum fines for the really big offences. A business such as Equifax might be able to shrug off £500k but 4% of global turnover will get their attention and this is a signal that it's not a remote probability in such circumstances. It really is worth while spending money on security.
Presumably other EU regulators will be looking at whether any of their citizens were affected and issuing their own fines. And if the US continues to be tardy getting round to issuing penalties then that should be taken into account when the Security Figleaf gets looked at again.
"The correct answer is to stop deferrment, but for the US to lower corporation tax and/or dividend tax"
The other alternative would be for multinationals to move their corporate HQ out of the US entirely with just a US subsidiary for sales there. A subsidiary which would, of course, make vary little profit. There might not be enough incentive in that alone but if the US govt. were to insist US corporations were to put in back doors in encryption then it might provide the extra incentive.
"I suspect that they were thinking that low taxes were their only tool to attract investment that they otherwise wouldn't see at all, it creates a few short term construction jobs, and after that it is just a tax resident business."
There's more to it than that. It lowers corporation tax across the board which makes all the other companies, including those with a higher proportion of employees to revenue, more competitive internationally. Essentially the multinationals are subsidising the national companies. You can only do this if your real economy is relatively small so only a few countries can play in the multinational taxation market which pisses off those who can't.
"How deep in Apple's pockets must these politicians be to be refusing this tax being forced onto their country and the benefits it could have for their constituents?"
Yet again we have to explain.
Apple locates in one country.
The country that they land in gets corporation tax of x% of How Much!!!.
x% of How Much!!! is a tidy sum.
What's more it's a tidy sum more than zilch which is what all the other countries get.
It's a competitive bidding situation. Ireland put in the lowest bid and got the gig. That benefits their constituents because it brings that tidy sum into the nation's coffers. It also brings some employment although not in proportion to the amount of money that's flowing through the company. For extras it also means that the corporation tax for all other Irish companies is lower as well and that puts those companies, including those that employ proportionate numbers of people, at a competitive advantage.
In short it's a big win for the constituents, so much so that ever since Ireland won the rest of the EU governments who missed out have hated Ireland for it. That's why things have ended up this way.
"the company still has a relatively low proportion of subscription revenue."
What is it that makes people think that making stuff and just selling it is a problem? Yes, I know as a CFO you'd like people to pay you money in perpetuity but from a punter's perspective would you prefer a one-off cost or a millstone?
"I really hope that's tongue in cheek. F'rinstance I make my living now from my own bespoke applications none of which remotely resemble anything that MS offers."
You don't have to read many of my posts to rest assured about that. Writing and administering bespoke stuff was also the way I made my living for a large part of my working life. Even when the main application was a bought-in ERP system there was always something bespoke to do round the edges.
"I wish now that at the time, when the whole process started, that Linux were as it is today."
There was SCO inter alia. Linux didn't appear out of thin air.
As a customer on the retail side it's becoming clear that they're losing the plot in terms of getting the goods to the customer. I wonder if the whole business has got too big and diverse to manage properly. Splitting it up might help.
What wouldn't help would be someone taking advantage of the fact that it's largely debt free, borrowing heavily to buy the bits, loading it up with debt from that and then gradually running it into the ground before calling in the administrators. Not that that sort of thing ever happens, of course.
"Ask any business beancounter and they will tell you IT has always been a dirty blackhole"
That's the problem with a lot of businesses - their beancounters who treat one of the most significant engines of the business as a cost to be minimised.
I'm reminded of my days back in forensic science. Some of the detectives who brought in cases would share a lot of detail with us because they felt they got better results that way. Others didn't think it worth while because they didn't expect to get anything useful. Would it surprise anyone that both groups usually got the results they expected?
So whether doctor, nurse or "other", you can be a briliant manager, or you can be an appalling one.
One of the underlying causes of good whatevers becoming appalling managers is that only management is considered worth the higher pay grades. The result is that competent whatevers get promoted to management irrespective of whether they have any talent for it. As a result the work is given to those too inexperienced or incompetent to be promoted to management and managed by those who weren't appointed for managerial ability but could have done the work well.
"Databases are particularly vulnerable to this kind of data loss. In the case of an on-premises outage a skillful systems person could stitch things back together again, having direct access to the actual underlying files: Not easy, but arguably doable."
Some customers might have wanted to prioritise fail over to integrity (management, of course, would want both but pay for neither, that's a different argument). On-premises gives them the power to decide.
"Why instead are the brexiters forced out"
They weren't. They had a chance to get their shit together when Cameron resigned. Instead they stabbed each other in the back and left it to May. Leave had their chance. They blew it. But if your version of Leave was "Out! Right now!" then this report tells you what the consequences would have been.
"Funny how Cameron didnt negotiate anything (and would be staying to negotiate) about leaving"
Why did you expect him to? It wasn't what he wanted. It wasn't what he campaigned for. It wasn't something he believed in. Why should he be expected to implement something to which he was opposed?
"Even though we are the ones not getting what was voted for."
Just what did you vote for?