Posts by Doctor Syntax 40557 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
"Only answer I could come up with (other than total insanity on the part of PHBs - which I can't rule out)"
The administrative mind runs on fixed processes. You have this job, you follow this process. It means they don't have to think. Throwing them out of that mode probably causes them the same pain that you and I suffer when deep in a complex problem and someone comes along looking for a time-sheet or progress report.
Insanity is probably close enough.
"A water bill is a far, far better piece of ID."
I'm not sure if this was sarcasm or not but in case it's not -
First off, utilities are trying to move us to paperless bills these days so neither a water nor other utility bill might be available.
Secondly, I occasionally visited the outsourcing site where my water bill and mobile bills were printed. Unused stationery was disposed of on a recycling bin outside. It would be very easy for someone to take a few sheets and knock up a false bill.
Thirdly, I worked in security printing for a while. No utility bill I've seen would count as secure base stationery. It would be straightforward for any jobbing printer to produce adequate fakes. In fact, I assume that photoshopped copies of most utility and bank stationery are in regular use by anyone wanting to establish a false identity.
"Pressure your MP for the introduction of a simple ID card, make it clear that this should NOT be linked to any backend systems other than a record of who you are."
Bad idea. It will simply be taken as an endorsement of what they actually want and the proviso will be ignored. Far better to make it clear that you do strongly disapprove of their attempts at universal surveillance and that includes ID cards.
Only if and when HMG has shown it can be trusted should you push for ID cards if you consider them to be a good thing - which, frankly, I don't as a matter of principle.
"It already is, the outsourcing company is called the European Union. They pretty much much set our laws and decide what we can and cannot do. hence brexit."
If you look more closely I think you'll find that the EU has human rights, data protection requirements and a court to enforce them that are directly opposed to this snooping. Very many UK politicians are irked by this protection of their subjects, hence Brexit.
"Now that Rudd's no longer Home Sec she's looking less like a sock puppet and more like one of the True Believers in data fetishism."
It doesn't quite work that way. HO brainwashing of Home Secs is such that they stay in the same mental state even when they've been fired. Being an independent true believer before they got the job is irrelevant.
"Let's also not forget that a bit further down the track you also over-threw your anointed king (James ?)"
James II - or do they count him as VII in Scotland? Yes. I had a little ponder about the "out of control King or two" and decided he qualified. I couldn't think of another actually.
"The government can be voted out"
No they can't. You just vote one or other government in but The government is there regardless. What's worse, most of this junk really stems from the HO who are extremely efficient at brainwashing new Home Secs* and they're still there whoever wins the election.
*The current specimen even gave an interview to the Times describing how it was done but, of course, he didn't describe it in those terms because he didn't realise that that was what it was.
"If the private sector can design websites that track our every move, that come up with suggestions for goods before we realise we want them"
These suggestions generally fall into two groups:
- stuff we just bought so don't need to buy again
- stuff we don't and won't want which is not quite the same as saying they're suggesting them before we realise we want but the difference might not be clear to an easily confused person
On the whole it doesn't put the private sector into that brilliant a light.
"SNCF's ticket sales team is not on speaking terms with its ticket issuing team. "
They have no monopoly on that.
I had a meeting in Norwich (someone has to). I booked tickets with whatever entity was then running the East Coast line. On the appropriate morning I rolled into the sophisticated of Wakefield Westgate (the point of comparison is Wakefield Kirkgate) to ask for the tickets I'd booked. The train was rolling into the station while the clerk was still hunting for them - and I still had to buy a ticket for the car park, go out and fix it on the car, go back in and get on the train. It wasn't going to happen. I left him, got in the car and drove to Norwich.
As anyone travelling there from the North knows that drive, especially the A17, isn't much removed from interplanetary travel in terms of arduousness yet I still got there only about a quarter of an hour later than the train was scheduled to do.
It took a while to disabuse the company that they weren't entitled to withhold part of the refund of the tickets they hadn't provided.
"Moot point. The EU as we know it will not exist in 5-10 years time.
Leavers know this. Smart bunch we are."
Of course it won't. We all know that. It won't even be the same after next March. It's changed over time so its form in 5-10 years time won't be as we know it now and we will have no influence in the way it changes in 5-10 years (unless, of course, we return).
It will, however, be the neighbour that looms large in our economic environment and the former, much-missed part of our home market. Leavers aren't smart enough to know that.
"We disagree politically, so that's about the same as every general election ever then"
If you change your mind about a general election vote that's OK, the effect only lasts for 5 years at the most. If you change your mind about a constitutional vote affecting your countries relationship with others and which carries inevitable economic consequences, tough. At best, if you change your mind you're in for long negotiations to reverse it and you may only be able to do so at less advantageous terms than before. That's why its conventional for referenda to require a supermajority. And, of course, you decide before the event whether the decision is to be binding or advisory.
If you ask do I think such revisions to the EU treaties should have been subject to binding referenda requiring a supermajority, yes I do. That doesn't affect the fact that this has been an economically disastrous decision made in an outrageously stupid manner.
Don't diss the "remainers", they are a vital part of the Brexit strategy - any and all negative results after Brexit will be blamed on the remainers
Indeed that are. Because once the consequences start to bite everyone will claim to have been a remainer all along. It'll be the only way to avoid the blame. The outcome of the vote will be seen to have been a strange statistical anomaly.
"I think that voting leave will be worth any economic cost. And if we have a second vote, I'll still vote leave for that reason."
If you're not happy with what you see in a mirror I suggest you keep sharp objects away from your nose.
In the meantime my children and grandchildren are going to have to live with that economic cost in the longer term, or would have to unless they're able to take advantage of the fact that they're entitled to Irish citizenship.
But thank you for your exposition of the attitude that brought us this unthought-out mess.
"If you don't like the new design, for the time being you can click on the opt-out link at the bottom of the homepage – and bam, you're free."
Done.
I took a look at it when it was opt-in. The comments in the discussion were overwhelmingly against. IIRC they even said it made the mobile version worse so there goes the main reason for the change. But no, someone ?marketing, decides to go ahead anyway.
If I'd realised it was a WIP I'd have gone back and complained given feedback again. I guess that was the reaction of all the rest who didn't like it and when the feedback stopped you thought it was because we now approved.
"do you really think that British Airways and Ticketmaster are in risk of bankruptcy due to their payment system having been compromised?"
No but I do expect them to have to provide proper compensation to customers. I also expect the relevant data protection regulators to make it clear that fines for repeat offenders will rise rapidly, even if businesses do self-report quickly.
I expect them to have to spend sufficient money for compensation and fines for the board to have to be concerned and even put it into annual reports. If that doesn't happen this time round I expect that when financial regulators get back from lunch they'll require them to do it.
That will probably mean a lot of programmers get the brunt of the punishment for "following orders".
If it's company policy then giving such orders would be an infringement.
It would be up to the top management, preferably the board, to lay down policy; the costs of this are going to end up as sufficient to have board level visibility. It's then up to the board to ensure that the blame arrives in the right place or, failing that, the employment tribunal.
"the problem with laws, writing and re-writing them.. is it's the job of the lawyers to do this.
And you're back to having Google own the lawyers and getting them to write clauses in that benefit Google."
I don't know how things work on the other side of the pond but here it's Parliamentary draughtsmen who rewrite the laws and although, of necessity, they're lawyers they're not lawyers Google owns.
@Joe Harrison
Any judicial or quasi-judicial body with the power to levy fines does so on a graduated basis. If they go for a maximum fine in minor cases how are they going to differentiate the more egregious cases? Or, as the saying puts it, might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb.
"If BA is found to be liable I hope they get a fine in the £100's of millions"
Their quick disclosure takes them out of the top tier of fines.
A more desirable outcome would be for them to have relatively little in terms of fines to be contrasted with someone who tries to cover up being hit really hard. If BA were fined heavily after a quick disclosure it would send the wrong message entirely. It would suggest that the difference in penalty between covering up and being found on the one hand and owning up on the other wasn't great. That would lead to a risk analysis that it would be worth trying to cover up to avoid any penalty as the additional cost price of failing over the certain cost of notifying would be minor.
"have another box on the network getting PoE so I could easily add another to the cabinet, which would mean less cabloid mess behind the telly!"
I look on it the other way round - what's one more cable given the mess that's there already? I don't think I'd like the fan and SWMBO certainly wouldn't.
It was, Upton observed, "dumb luck" that heavy load testing was done with one brand of switch while lighter testing occurred with the other.
Where does luck come into it? Given the historical problems with power on Pis I'd have expected anything in that area to be fully tested with all possible build configurations.
"Not saying you may not have a point, but it is not really helpful to point out possible mistakes without also explaining how they may be fixed in a satisfactory manner."
How old are you? It's not that long since sites didn't work that way. The problem is that more development money goes on shiny UX <spit> than providing essential functionality on the server. It's more a matter of manglement deciding on whether to spend money now on development and maybe running services from their own servers or spending it later on compensation, fines and PR costs to try to repair a trashed reputation.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
