Re: Congratulations!
@ GitMeMyShootinIrons
Maybe a tad unfair to Heath given the fact that Wilson/unionism cronying had pushed a lot of power out of reach of government already. But otherwise spot on.
42407 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
"nowhere in the nervous system are the objective value of consumable rewards encoded"
Clearly the man has never been sent out by a SWMBO with a shopping list. In connection with which, and to pick up the point of Aldi & Lidl having fewer SKUs my interpretation of "Lidl surprises" is going there & finding what was on the list.
One of the weaknesses of human mentality is to believe everyone is in the same situation as themselves. It comes in many forms.
One is that people who find foreign languages/maths/games/IT/music/whatever easy and interesting imagine everyone else must be the same and that those who don't are being wilfully obtuse. (My misfortune as a youngster was the number of such folk in the teaching profession.)
Another is to assume that the facilities available to them in their situation - geographical, financial or whatever - are available to all.
You, A/C seem to fall into the second categor - maybe the first as well but you haven't given us any evidence on that point.
"least privilege is something *I* impose upon my user base"
There's a difference between you doing that & $vendor doing it. In your case the computers are owned by and operated on behalf of your company who's paying you to do this. It's like Dave123's PC situation writ large - the owner is making the decisions according to their needs and remaining, via you, in control. The problem with vendor-made decisions is the vendor taking control of kit they don't own.
"My biggest problem so far has been getting my copy of $application to run in it under WINE."
Assuming $application doesn't need you to go online then one solution is to set up a VM running an older version than W7 and run it under that. Alternatively a VM with W7 with updates off. Just keep it in its own little world.
"Microsoft EU is a wholly owned subsidiary of Microsoft (mumble), based outside the USA, but with Microsoft USA being the only shareholder."
That's not the same as having a wholly separately owned franchise operation. If they really want a clear legal air-gap then they need a company with wholly non-US shareholders running a franchise under Irish law (or whatever the country of residence is) with the terms of the contract excluding any ability of any part of US to demand customer information.
" this is an attempted end run around existing agreements coz some entitled bureaucrats think they shouldn't apply to Uncle Sam"
It could indeed be ignorance, arrogance or indolence that caused them not to choose the proper procedure. However, having thought about it some more I wonder if it's a fishing expedition and they don't have an adequate a priori case to present to the Irish. Or maybe they're a lot of secretive sods who can't bring themselves to present the case that they do have because somebody else.
"from a legal perspective, MS cannot be allowed to win as it creates a dangerous precedent,"
The precedent it would set would be that law enforcement would have to follow the due process which exists for this very purpose. There is an existing method for requesting this information & the authorities chose to ignore it.
Exactly what is wrong with a precedent that obliges the authorities to follow due process? This year we celebrated the 800th anniversary of the introduction of that concept into English and hence into US law. The US claims that Magna Carta is a valued part of its heritage. The prosecution in this case should be ashamed of themselves.
"US law governs companies in US jurisdiction, If Microsoft et al do not want to be subject to US law, they should move out of the US"
Sigh. I've said this here a couple of times. Looks like I'll have to say it again.
All they have to do is arrange for a franchisee to operate the business outside the US. They can then go to the US court & truthfully say they have no access, it has to be done through the franchisee which operates under the law of the country where the franchisee is located.
It's not like US business don't have lawyers capable of setting up franchises( for tax purposes).
You're also missing the point that it's not Microsoft et al who want to be not subject to US law. It's their non-US customers. Why should we be so subject?
If IT is just another supplier someone, somewhere is doing it wrong. And it might be IT.
If you're working in IT within a business you should be taking advantage of that to learn about how the business works and what it needs. You should have better knowledge of those needs which should let you meet them better and even be proactive in suggesting better uses of IT to the rest of the business. These are advantages which no external supplier should have. You are part of the business and the rest of the business should be aware that you have common interests with them.
"Ashworth pointed out that according to 2012 research by the EU, only 3.5 per cent of consumers wanted to access AV material across borders and only one per cent want to buy it across national borders."
If the demand is so low why go to the trouble of geoblocking? It must cost money to put in place. Is that a rat I can smell?
"All staff with access need to attend privacy training and be aware it's a sackable offense to breach data protection."
There are a couple of prerequisites for this. One is that it has to be a sackable offence and the other is that the employers need the balls to do the sacking.
"last time I was looking for something I could pick up *that day* and was checking the stores in reasonable travel distance they had really obfuscated whether they were actually carrying what I needed or not."
Same problem the other day with Screwfix - surely they can't all be on collect next day for a Dremel disk.
" We want to get to a point where we are adding to that range of products and making it more specific to customers.”
And we know what that means. Buy a camera, for instance, and every time you visit the site the muppets offer you more and more cameras ignoring the fact that that's the item you're least likely to be looking for this time.
The strong encryption genie has been out of the bottle this last couple of decades.
Assuming we can be confident of at least some of the cipher schemes in the libraries (and there are a good many non-government eyeballs looking at them nowadays) it's not beyond the capabilities of any organised group whom TPTB consider bad actors to roll their own applications. It would have no effect making that illegal: you don't stop people who are already breaking laws by furnishing them with more laws to break. The only effect would be to piss off those people who wish to use encryption for legitimate purposes - the name for those people is spelled V O T E R S.
"Clearly, the simple reason for this operation is to show other half-wits with British passports that going to that dusty shithole and making a video about yourself killing infidels will eventually get you killed too."
It tends not to work that way. They see that fate as glorious martyrdom, as glamorous. Yes, we may view that attitude as irrational but that doesn't stop people thinking irrationally.
"And we made a formal declaration of war on ISIS when exactly?"
Maybe not legally a war but they were certainly in a battle-zone. As far as one can tell they were there of their own volition and it was a battle-zone created by themselves and their fellows. And in a battle-zone people get killed.
'Pitching to who? The US Govt's claim that it owned control was weak enough in 1998 and is even weaker now. That's the wrong model. The correct model is "setting up their own nonprofit and DOING THE JOB themselves."'
From the sidebar of TFA: 'The US government contracts non-profit ICANN to run the so-called IANA functions' Whatever you may argue about the US government's claim the de facto situation is that it's the USG/ICANN contract that's the basis for the existing administration of IANA and it would need to be a USG/ANOther contract to replace that. What mechanism do you suggest for ANOther to simply shoulder ICANN out of the way (desirable though that may be) and take over?
I had the same problem with the terminology.
If distribution point is equivalent to cabinet, as in FTTC, then the amount of ventilation in the existing cabinets indicates a good deal more power is required than could reasonably be sucked down a few hundred yards of telephone copper and on the whole cabinets do seem to be located where power is readily available.
On that basis I assume they're thinking of something else. There's a BT manhole in the road opposite the end of my garden. My own phone line comes underground from that and the adjacent pole feeds about half a dozen neighbouring houses by overhead wires. Maybe that's what they mean by distribution point.
If the idea is to pull a single fibre to that they'll be pulling it through a duct which already contains a multi-pair cable which will be being made redundant so they could take as many pairs as necessary from that to feed power. Alternatively the fibre itself can be bundled with power lines.
And if they plan to run a bundle of fibres to that distribution point, one for each house then powering each house's box individually then power down the existing copper is probably feasible.
"cutting staff, regionalising production, so that little things like knowledge of correctly spelled local place names is lost, as papers are subbed hundreds of miles away from where they are notionally based."
And in the case of my local paper not bothering to send a photographer out to the scene of the story - they just print screen-scrapes from Streetview.
"Let them prove that they have the right information on YOU Not the other way round. Oh wait that won't work."
Of course it will work but only if they're obliged to do it which at the moment they're not.
One test, of course, is to offer them incorrect information. If the call is genuine they'll know it's wrong.
I never was a Barclays customer but when I was an HSBC business customer I used to get calls purporting to be from them wanting identification information. I always asked them to prove who they were. They never offered any proof. If a cold caller can't prove who they are before asking for any information always assume they're faking it.