Re: "and thought it was ok to include the production password?"
@LDS
I think you've just described DevOPs.
42409 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
"Are we going to give the police authority to deport anyone they suspect of activity planning terrorists attacks"
Please explain how this could work bearing in mind that these are generally UK-born. To where do they deport them? And then if the police had these powers absolutely, which is what you seem to suggest, and they decided they suspected you then wouldn't you want to be able to argue your innocence somewhere, such as before a court?
Why, when we're faced with a movement determined to overthrow the rule of law which we've built up over centuries do we seem to have all these blethering, hard of thinking numpties who think that the best way to combat it is to throw away the rule of law which we've built up over the centuries?
"Rant time with naughty words and opinion, so look away now kids."
If you feel the need to emphasise your argument with obscenity then you obviously realise you have a weak argument. Specifically your weakness is that by and large you're dealing with British-born individuals and you can't go about banning your own nationals from re-entering your own country.
We're dealing with people who want the West to abandon its own laws and here you are wanting the West to abandon its own laws. The terrorists have won a little victory over you.
"If you're willing to credit her with failures in our security when they happen should you not also credit her with successes too?"
The thing that makes the failures so egregious is that they seem inevitably to involve people known to the police or security services or who have been reported by alarmed acquaintances or family.
But the real problem with her, right from her Home Sec. days, is her concern with the internet and particularly with her obsession of treating everyone who uses it as suspect. This abandoning of the presumption of innocence is a more drastic blow against British values than anything terrorist organisations could manage on their own. It's a major indirect victory for them. And what could she gain by all this? Terrorists are already breaking the law; is providing another law for them to break going to be effective? Those who would be affected by her attacks on the net will be lawful users. This Home Office-sponsored action is something akin to an internet auto-immune disease.
"How much more funding would have prevented this one."
Hard to say but inevitably we're told after the event that the offenders were either known to the police/security or that concerned acquaintances or even family had made reports which seem to have been ignored. So a combination of more funding and a redirection of funds away from mass surveillance might have borne some results.
"IT's job is to connect and enable.
Security's job is to prevent unnecessary connections and disable dangerous capabilities."
I tend to think of security of the ratio of the ease with which the intended users can connect and be able to use the facilities to the ease of the bad guys to do the same. In other words it's not useful to lock the bad guys out by locking everyone out.
I can't see how this idea can be applied without making security, or at least IT security, part of IT. The security guard in reception is SEP, of course.
"There's sufficient difference between C13 and C14 chemical activity in biological systems that you need to take this into account when sampling for carbon dating."
You're partly right. Most carbon is C12. Back in '60s we started measuring C12/13* ratios by mass spec to get a measure of fractionation which was then used to correct the C14 measurements from radiation counting. AFAIK thse days C14 is directly measured by mass spec but I suppose there's still a correction applied from the C12/13 ratio.
*These are both stable isotopes so any change in the expected ration is presumed to have been present at the time the material was deposited.
"edit: it appears the article was literally edited as I posted this, 'create' being replaced with 'produce' and thereof. Not bad, but I still think 'concentrate' is better."
I'd settle for "illiterately edited for the reason you state. The result, as it stands on Sunday, is still scientifically illiterate.
"Welcome to the Thatcher/Reagan New World Order."
I've got news for you. You're about a generation out of date. If you need to look to the past to find out where the problems are from you need look no further back than Gordon Brown and his cohort of economic managers.
"That means that that same 40 years keeps me alive for 13 years - much longer when the magic of things like compound interest kick in."
That magic if compound interest also applies to the 5% level. The real difference between the time you selected to pay a few % and now is that current interest rates are lower so that the returns your savings would pay in retirement are now much less. This is why so many pension schemes are in deficit. If interest rates kick up again your pension fund will start to offer higher returns.
"One factor in the demise of D/B schemes that is rarely mentioned is Gordon Bown's tax raid on the dividend income"
True. It was a tax on the future and that future is now.
I felt at the time - and still do - that pension schemes should have started issuing double projections: this is what your pension plan is actually likely to bring you and this is what it would have been likely to bring you without the tax. The consequences would have become widely understood very quickly and he'd have been forced to think again.
"The reality is that we have to take the employers warmly by the throat and make it clear that they do not have a choice."
One part of this may well be a demographic change. With smaller family sizes employers are going to find there are fewer young recruits and will have to look at recruiting and/or retaining older staff.
Another will be that as the average age of the population increases so will the age of those making such decisions; things will look different from an older viewpoint. Experience will come to be something to be valued.
It would help if management skills were increased. Less experienced workers may be impressed by managements "motivational" attempts. After a few times round the block it becomes seen as an insult to the intelligence, the victims react accordingly and management wants to replace them with someone who'll be seen as a better team player or whatever when in fact it's they, the management, who need to learn to do better.
"Many people will have working lives of 60+ years, and we need to handle that by letting people have several careers during those years."
I'm not sure about 60+ but in the course of 40+ I changed career midway through. I doubt I could have stood the first one much longer than I did. I'm also not sure how much longer I'd have been able to stand the second one. In my case stuff I learned in a peripheral way helped start the second career but I don't see how I could have moved on to a third anything like as easily.
"Letting" people have several careers would actually involve being prepared, as a society, to retrain them. In practical terms we've somehow got ourselves into a situation where we're not even financing training for a first career.
"Property taxes are covered by the mortgage since it's still the bank that owns the house, not you."
Where you live, maybe.
Certainly not in the UK. Property taxes are local taxation and part of the funding for local services such as emptying the bins on reduced cycles, closing the libraries and building big shiny sports centres and paying for the Tour de France so that the council leaders can get there photos in the local paper.
"Unless there are jobs being created you would be 'bed blocking' in the workplace; stopping people moving up the ladder and preventing new people coming in."
On the one hand we're worried about there not being enough youngsters in jobs to finance support for the oldsters and on the other about the oldsters stopping the youngsters getting jobs. There's a contradiction here.
Then we have concerns about automation taking all the jobs but if it did that why are we worried about the oldsters needing to work to keep the economy going?
"If we sell the properties, we have to spend all the capital before we get any pension at all. The income from the properties is barely enough to pay down the loans."
Sell em, blow the lot (if there's anything left after paying off the loans), draw the pension.
"Then there is the expectation that we earn more the older we get, irrespective of productivity, which also makes it less attractive to employ older people."
I'm not sure that applies in all cases. Skills tend to depend on experience but for many traces that will top out after a few years. Where experience brings responsibility then you will find an increase. It might be difficult to measure the justification in terms of productivity because the nature of the product changes.
"My pension is being paid from my taxes"
Maybe in OZ. Back in the UK state pension and many public sector pensions are essentially Ponzi schemes. It would have been a good idea if, when NI was introduced, a portion of it had been put into investments so that eventually the proceeds of this would gradually have superseded paying the pension out of current payments. Presumably this would have been regarded as putting too much power (i.e. choice of investment) in the hands of Civil Servants.
"A contractor isn't the same as outsourcing."
CBRE are a little vague as to what they do. It seems to come down to "advising" but it certainly doesn't sound like electrical contracting. Maybe they were overseeing electrical contractors. See their site at http://www.cbre.co.uk/uk-en/services/global_corporate_services/data_centre_solutions where they claim "With Data Centres, knowledge is power".
"As per the article, if BT had been more prudent on who they trusted with regards to finances"
Yup, it was a mistake to trust HMG - letting them define the criteria for over-funding, changin the taxation on pension schemes and cutting interest rates so the predicted rates of return on bonds suddenly became wildly over-optimistic.
"One possible solution might be a DC on a different operating system entirely"
A good start would be having the servers run on a different platform to the clients. Of course that means having the two work together and that means using open standards and not just "our" version of the open standard or even "our" open standard.
@LittleTyke
Nothing's perfect. You're going to have to work on constructing the best system to fit your requirements. But why start with the least secure platform you can find? That's just plain daft.
And why set up a monoculture? Make different parts run on different platforms. It makes it harder to support? Well it also makes it a damn sight harder to attack and if you get attacked then you might find that your supposed ease of support was illusory.
Big Tyke.