"no one wants to tell the Emperor that he has no clothes,"
It looks as if quite a few people have told him. He's just not listening.
40557 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
"the LHB occurred between 4.1 and 3.8 billion years ago, the earliest evidence we have for life on Earth is from around 3.7 billion years ago."
If life had developed prior to the LHB the evidence for it might not have survived - indeed life might not have survived - so it's not surprising that the first evidence comes later.
"current theories, and experiments conducted since the '70s suggest that it is rather difficult to get life going on its own"
It's still difficult to get going even if you suppose it happened elsewhere. I've never found this hypothesis appealing - it smacks of trying to avoid a difficult problem by turning your back on it. I suppose the advantage of the hypothesis is that you can allow a much longer time-span for it to have happened. But as a scientific hypothesis it has the disadvantage of being difficult to falsify - look at a comet & find nothing you have a choice of saying "wrong comet" or "wrong type of comet".
"For applications that don't, it can take anywhere from hours to years to solve the roadblocks."
And that doesn't even include company politics. Sequent box running the entire logistics business going out of support at year end. Se well in advance IT planned to migrate to Sun over the Christmas/New Year break when the business was closed for holidays. Told definitely not. Eventually it transpired that the owners had arranged for the books to be gone over to value the business for it to be sold.
As a Unixer with experience dating back to 7th edition days I'd obviously recommend a Unix-like platform wherever feasible. But Trevor's right: you can't make a cross-platform move like that in a month, especially if you've no existing Unix experience. OTOH I'd have thought that a month is cutting it fine even for moving a small estate from one Windows platform to another. Apart from the acquisition of any new hardware you have to allow for testing and plan a good time for the migration. Realistically you have to allow for the possibility that testing will reveal some problems there may be no suitable time for the move within the month, especially if you have to work round some problem discovered in testing.
"The trouble with backs is that spines were designed as beams for four-footed animals. Walking upright we have turned them into columns and the stresses are completely different."
No. They evolved as beams for four-footed animals. Then they evolved into columns. Evolution is effective at optimising things but it can only achieve local maxima. So what we have is probably the best column that can be adapted from an articulated beam but probably not the best column that could have been evolved directly from a notochord and certainly not the best column that could have been designed. And hence, as you say, the backaches & other problems.
"The last time I was given XML from a client - ummm, this year - it wasn't even proper XML."
The way we set things up was that the XML schema was agreed with the client (i.e. my client's client, the main project contractor). I'm not sure whether it was part of the actual contract but every new product or product change was documented in a version controlled spec and in a DTD or schema (which I usually maintained). Nothing went live until we had test data from the client validated against the current schema, processed and the sample product signed off by the main contractor's client. In production any file received which was not a well-formed XML document would be refused. This happened from time to time because the sometimes the latest devs at the other end hadn't grasped the use of entities to handle certain characters. As the devs rotated when their visas ran out I occasionally had to do a bit of education...
We didn't validate the whole XML document but validated the individual fragments representing an order printed document. IIRC we had an arrangement to simply discard and report a particular order that failed validation rather than bounce several hundred good ones.
Although it's fashionable to decry XML as over-engineered it came with a selection of tools to do the heavy lifting and if you made proper use of them it was vastly better than having a system gamely soldier on and do the wrong thing or fall flat on its face when encountering bad data. I can't comment on JSON as I've never used it; does it have the same support for data integrity?
Sometimes the bodges are mandated by the client.
Client ran a digital print service. They got flat files, usually CSV to print. The printers were driven by a package which took in flat files with one line per field in the document together with a formatting in file which told where & how the field was printed. The normal work-flow was to store the contents of the incoming files in a relational database & then pull the data out in the field-per-line format. Having the stuff in the database helped manage batching, remakes etc & also made the conversion from one flat file format to another fairly transparent. The normal IT work-flow had been to write a system for this more or less from scratch for every contract. I'll draw a veil over the contract where the data came via EDI...
Along came a contract which needed this new-fangled XML stuff. The document was way more complex than the usual stuff and flat files wouldn't have handled it. I put myself up to handle the XML end & did some training on the subject. The obvious route was take the original XML & apply XSLT to convert it into the field-per-line format. To handle the usual work-flow requirements the incoming XML could be split into fragments, one per printed document, stored as text elements in the database and reassembled for a batch job. Client said 'No'.
They wanted the XML taken apart and stored in relational form just like all the others except this time it would require a whole hierarchy of tables and it quickly became clear that for performance reasons surrogate keys would have to be used to tie stuff together. I ended up with XSL to convert the XML to SQL with a series of macros to act as place-holders for the keys and a macro-processor to handle the tying together. Inevitably more sections were added to the document format and hence to the XML over the life of the contract. The database design was tied to the document structure and chunks of the code were tied to the schema so the client had committed themselves to changing both at intervals through the life of the contract.
"For example, how can you stop someone being influenced by a lobbyist who also happens to be their spouse or immediate relative?"
If their areas of concern are different there's no problem. But you should require them to declare a conflict of interest and one of them to resile. But maybe I'm old-fashioned.
"Does this imply that you can't tell foreign software companies about security holes you have found in their products?"
AFAICS, yes. It would also be illegal for any criminal to make use of the same holes should they discover them. Smart, very smart. Aren't we lucky we have such smart people looking after us?
"British TV companies now spend less creating original material; scrapping regulations means you get low quality programming; and people are losing the habit of watching live TV."
Let's rearrange that sequence:
1. scrapping regulations means you get low quality programming;
2. British TV companies now spend less creating original material;
3. people are losing the habit of watching live TV.
1 leads to 2, 2 leads to 3 & a feedback loop from 3 to 2 makes the situation a runaway race to the bottom.
"The one thing you have to understand, if you really want to know why things like this happen, is that the ONE overriding concern of everyone involved on the government side of this, is THEY MUST NOT BE ABLE TO HOLD ME RESPONSIBLE."
Quick fix. The Treasury doesn't release funds for any project above £x without having the name of an individual who is held responsible. If cost overruns take a lower cost project up to £x no additional funds are released without their having the name of an individual who is held responsible. For existing projects over £x no further tranches are released without having the name of an individual who is held responsible. And require evidence that the named individuals actually have the clout to exercise that responsibility.
The Treasury hold the purse strings. They can lay down such conditions if they have the will-power to do so. It might cause ructions elsewhere but that's elsewhere's problem.
"taskbar-like panels with applets, a start menu and system tray"
This misses out the most significant part: the ability to put files, folders*, links or applications on the desktop. The current fashion in "user experience design" is that you must follow the designer's workflow whether it's relevant to you or not.
Stuff designing my user experience, just provide a versatile user interface & I'll design my own experience.
No ship allowed to dock in Dover unless all vehicles aboard have been searched in port in Calais after loading. Of course this allow far fewer ships to sale from Calais so most of the traffic would be diverted to Belgium. How long would it take the Frogs to realise that the value to Calais of the cross-channel trade is worth beefing up their security?
If the scope extends to pre-schoolers the old Ladybird Peter & Jane books have a lot going for them. Back in the day they got my son reading within weeks aged about 4. The content may need updating (autre temps, autre mores). The crucial aspect of it was that learning involved three elements, the child, the material & a parent (or other reader) providing one-to-one support. The books provided well-paced material so that the parent didn't have to have skills in teaching reading.
"However, Stanton noted the government's indication that the laws won't be used against specific vendors."
I the laws aren't used against specific vendors then against whom are they to be used. AFAICS "against specific vendors" makes no sense at all so let's delete it.
"the government's indication that the laws won't be used"
So why have laws that won't be used? Because "we" (i.e. the govt.) can?
"after the public paid for the infrastructure"
The problem was that the public via the government wasn't paying anything like enough tor the infrastructure, hadn't done for years and wasn't likely to. By selling stuff off the government could get back of the value left in the historic investment and make the future Somebody Else's Problem - except when they totally muffed it.
At the time the railways were being privatised I was one of their victims AKA commuter. It struck me then that it was being done in a completely arse-about-face manner unlikely to improve my daily life. There was no reason at all to suppose that the infra-structure company would have any reason to align its plans, or lack thereof, with the requirements of the operating companies. Regional franchises removed scope for competition and the length of those franchises tended to inhibit all but the most essential investment.
The result was the same, largely ageing, hardware being operated but the same staff with, for the most part the same management with even less alignment between customer need and service provision.
It would have made sense to sell off whole lines, infra-structure & operations as a whole. It would have made sense to keep infra-structure separate but to allow multiple operating companies to run competing services over them. It would have made even more sense to have done the latter but split the infra-structure into regional companies so as to concentrate each management's attention on getting its own bit right.
"The march of technology"
Ah yes, the saviour of us all. But only if someone has the money to invest in it. And the GPO didn't. The new chief executive who took over the newly separated but not yet privatised BT is supposed to have said that he found himself in charge of the black telephone rationing company.
'A Capita spokesman sent us a statement, saying more customers are using digital channels "rather than traditional customer service telephone channels" to log issues.'
My one experience of this was before the Crapita take-over so I can only imagine it's got worse. All I wanted to do was change a number from contract to PAYG. I tried the email route which was clearly handled in India. After several weeks I gave up & phoned for a PAC. Leeds arrange the PAYG on the spot. But I wish I'd got an email address for any of my old colleagues there, if any of them had survived, to send them an archive of 21 emails to and from the incapables.
The history of variously pissing on and pissing off staff by this business extends right back to BT Mobile days and "We're relocating from Euston to King's Langley. Oh, 80% of you still want to work for us. OK, we're not relocating there, we're going to Leeds instead. And by the way 'we' doesn't include most of us in the top team that made the decision."