Re: no real use case ?
Or at least a real use case that can't be solved by existing, simpler means.
40485 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
"As Khosla put it: "Most of these [data gravity causes] are not critical issues for 'once a year data anti-gravity' threat that CIOs need to hold over cloud vendors' head. "
That one's easy to decode. It's just someone ringing up the vendor every now and again and saying "About your prices...".
"Am I just overlooking them, or are the double-quote and period keys actually missing from the keyboard layout?"
Presumably double-quote is where it normally is, shift-2. Is that the period on the / key? Confusing if it is. But for something intended to run Linux where have \ and | gone?
"How much would delivery to the UK cost and what would customs charge?"
From Companies House:
Name & Registered Office:
PLANET COMPUTERS LIMITED
228A HIGH STREET
BROMLEY
ENGLAND
BR1 1PQ
Company No. 10468629
I don't know of any customs barriers between Bromley and the rest of the UK but with things going the way they are anything could happen.
"This will cause a serious syntax error situation to develop between three parties, the people who was promised a raise, the people who made the promise, and manglement."
To which the answer is "see you in court" which, in this case, would be an employment tribunal. The company can sort it out internally.
"Everyone else thinks IT is a cushy job and we are paid a fortune for little. We all know that's not true, we also know we are the first to be screwed over financially or with our jobs as opposed to everyone else in the company."
Having previously been in the scientific side of the Civil Service I can tell you that that's not confined to IT. There seems to be a strange dichotomy in the managerial mind: if they can't understand what's being done it must be very little and yet they realise they couldn't do it themselves.
"Manglement that puts people in front of a computer who are barely capable of working out what 2+2 equals (yes, those people are stupid, but manglement who give people tasks they are incapable of performing are even more stupid and the root cause of the problem)."
Yes!
Seen a couple of days ago. Must have been the world's slowest checkout operator. An infinite supply of unhurried patience in an overcrowded supermarket. Had to look carefully at each product to find the bar code.
Then someone paid with saving stamps. I can only imaging that the book of stamps totalled more than the purchase and it was beyond the wit of the supervisor (that's two dummies manglement put in place) to detach correct number and give the rest back. So she issued new stamps.
From several feet back I can see that the stamps are in sheets of 10 - 5x2 and all very clearly alike. So she counts the stamps, prodding at each pair with her finger. She counts each identical sheet to make sure they're the same.
"Ok what happens if we have a hard brexit?"
The voters who thought taking control was a good idea will find that (a) in the modern world nobody has as much control as they thought they'd have because external factors such as world markets determine so much and (b) such control as they have is over a cratering economy.
When there's nobody about who'll admit to having voted Leave there'll be a clamour to get back in at any terms possible, one of which will be saying goodbye to the pound.
Taking back control, indeed!
"And that's just with my commercial-grade network security in place; I can only imagine what MI6 have set up for parliament."
Very much less, I'd think. For a start MI6's role is foreign intelligence so it wouldn't be their job at all. Also, if Parliament is sovereign who are MI5 or GCHQ to tell them what they can and can't do?
"Cost of benefits, because he can't get a job afterwards."
He still has a criminal conviction against his name.
One shortcoming of the the rehabilitation system is that a number of supposed rehabilitees seem to get away with failing to meet their obligations with no substantive escalation of punishment to deter this. There are a surprising number of instances reported in the local press where so-and-so has missed appointments with probation officers/failed to turn up for their unpaid work/whatever and simply get a further term of whatever it is they're ignoring added or maybe a week or two's curfew.
The courts presumably think they're sending the message that the offender can't get away without extra punishment. The offender receives the message that he can continue without being punished. The first law of communication: the message communicated is what's received, not what's transmitted.
"Beyond that you implore your boss to tell their boss his users are not competent and need training / redeploying and its not his or your problem."
It depends. If it was your department's decision to replace the familiar with the unfamiliar then perhaps it is your problem.
But in general, use of the software is just part of the user's job so training the user to do their job including the software should be part of the user department and, although you might help with it, any written document should be the user department's work and cover the whole job instead of the IT aspect being taken out and documented separately.
"That is what they inherited or were gifted."
I think you're trying to say it's what the shareholders bought at privatisation from a government that didn't want to invest more in building up the infrastructure. And, of course, you're ignoring all the investment BT put into it in the intervening decades. Or do you think all that fibre was in the ground back in the '80s?
Remember the howls of anger when it took a few weeks to go to court to establish the correct legal process to pull the trigger and how this was delaying "the will of the people"? It's becoming increasingly clear that the lead time to accomplish this is stupidity should have been years just to work out what's needed.
"It will be like the millennium bug all over again, nice pay, good bonuses, resulting in tax revenue."
Except that the Millennium bug was fixed. Apart, that is, from the odd numpty business who insisted on running their old system into January because "year end"; that was - interesting. I reckon this is going to be a lot more interesting.
"I simple don't understand why the rules should allow tacking one (or more) distinct, unrelated items onto a bill."
It's got a long and not entirely shining reputation. In Westminster, back in the days when divorce required an Act of Parliament one way to do that was to tack on a clause to some other Act.
Being generous - it's Christmas - let's suppose for a moment that the TT management realise that they need to provide customers with a safe, reliable service, allowing for the fact that the bulk of their customers aren't going to be anywhere near the upper quartile of IT-savvy.
Given their starting point of having had their customer data breached multiple times, how do they do that?
Won't this mean that even more businesses will put customer data directly onto the Internet so that requests for what is held can be automated and sent to the applicant?
Only if they're stupid. For the reason's you mentioned, of course. There's a primary requirement to take care of the data. Putting it "directly onto the internet" would be the opposite of that. That doesn't, of course, mean that stupidity in business management doesn't exist. Some people only learn the hard way. The increased fines just raise the cost of being stupid.
Isn't it just a tax without any benefits to the end user?
Tax? Complying - which is what they should always have been doing, is just a cost of doing business. And "end user" of what? What you should be thinking about is "data subject". And the data subject could be a customer, a supplier, a patient, an employee ... Everyone about whom you want to hold data. If doing things right is too expensive don't do it at all. Don't hold data that you don't need. That is and always has been one of the principles of data protection.
Data Protection was the same, seemed like a good idea
What do you mean "was"? It still is Data Protection. That's what the DP in GDPR stand for.
world plus dog used it as an excuse for "I can't tell you that because of data protection laws" and it became a barrier for getting hold of useful information.
I'm not sure if it's specifically dealt with but wrongful invocation ought to be an occasion for judicial remedies. A good reply to anyone trying would be "I've got the entire text of the Regulation on the computer in front of me. Could you please refer me to the passage to which you refer? If it helps I'll read the entire thing out and you can tell me when I get to the relevant passage".
"If it's possible to access private date of multiples in clear text from an employees email system, you're already doing it wrong and nothing will save you. That's not designed for safety, that's designed for disaster."
For high value targets the object of spear phishing isn't to grab the employee's email. It's to subvert that employee's machine as a beach-head to work their way into the system. If you don't allow for that you're doing it wrong.
Google is a mere beginner at confusing people. Genealogists have been at it for centuries resulting in people allegedly becoming parents after they'd died - and probably before they were born as well. It's not easy matching names to construct profiles of people. Perhaps they should have tried it out on historical data first and then rolled it out slowly - and stopped when they discovered what a pig's ear they were making.