Re: Cheddar why?
Oh, I thought you were complaining about the bouzouki player
Just in case anyone is wondering how a bouzouki player got into the discussion, here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hz1JWzyvv8A.
1546 posts • joined 3 Sep 2015
@Lotaresco: "Supporting ministers’ priorities, enabling effective operation of public services and improving people’s lives." Either it's not very good at its job or it's not consulted for these mass-communication efforts.
OR (and IMHO much more likely) data security and the minimisation of the risk to the public from contact - tracing based scams simply isn't a ministerial priority. Why would this application be an exception?
In a decidedly low-tech scheme, the plan is for those testing positive for COVID-19 to get phone calls from NHS tracers, who will ask them who they have been in contact with.
AIUI the "NHS tracer" will not tell you who it is that you have been (or may have been) in contact with that has reported developing symptoms. On the strength of that you are supposed to tell the "NHS tracer" the names and contact info for any others with whom you have been in contact since.
Put another way any 'phone call from an "NHS tracer" has to be taken at face value without any obvious means of verifying that the caller is indeed an "NHS tracer".
OTOH anyone claiming to be from my bank has to be ignored along with any other caller with suspect credentials.
No wonder the Health Secretary was laughing...
I heard about this years ago and assumed it was made up.
Quite understandable that, but read on...
On another occasion a highly experienced (Police) Driving Instructor was driving away from <redacted> and failed to take a fairly gentle bend in the road and finished up in a ploughed field.
Thereafter said bend was known locally as <Redacted>'s Corner. I don't know what the outcome of the investigation was although I do know who carried it out.
On yet another occasion there was a disgreement between a Dog Van (no canine occupant at the time) and another vehicle at a clearly marked and properly signed crossroads with clear lines of sight which the driver of the dog van seems to have ignored. Sadly I don't think I can expand on that story because to get the full flavour of it I would have to reveal the location and other factors that add to the overall entertainment value and those would identify the Police Force in question.
Once upon a time, many years ago, I worked for <redacted> Police. One Saturday night a patrol vehicle did a check on a car park that was completely deserted except for (a) the patrol vehicle and (b) a single, solitary car parked more or less in the middle.
Do I really need to say what happened?
Well anyway; happen it did, to the merriment of about 3500 people with the certain exception of the Officer who was driving the car at the time.
...designed to simplify the "operating landscape to be supported by an enabling integrated property management solution."
When oh when is someone going to develop an add - on that strips "management documentation" of such self - evident bollocks?
A burst of hysterical laughter from the perpetrator's loudspeakers (fitting thereof to be mandatory) for the first offence followed by the same laughter from every other employee's speakers (with a pop - up to identify the guilty) if any offending text is not removed by the next "save".
Somehow the idea of the above makes me feel better...
PCSO's have no authority and can be ignored, they are just civilians with the power of citizens arrest, same as everybody else, that's it.
Wrong, I'm afraid, at least in this case. Under Section 8 of the relevant regulation para 12 (a) (ii) a PCSO has powers under the regulation
Only an officer of the crown can stop you and ask questions.
Not entirely certain about that. They certainly do not have powers of arrest but they can legally detain someone pending the arrival of a sworn constable to effect an arrest. Also see the sentence above about Para 8 12 (a) (ii)
I have just seen on the news the chief of Nottinghamshire police saying that at currently they are not going start searching peoples shopping to see if their journey was essential. But they might begin to do that if people don't heed advise to stay at home.
I heard that on the R4 News at 1800; I may have misheard but I thought it was Northamptonshire. It was then reported that the CC had retracted after getting a broadside from some politician or other.
It that sort of abuse of power if they do start doing that, that will stop people being behind the police during this crisis.
No it's much worse than that; public support for the police generally will be withdrawn and may / will take a long time to recover.
I am sure even with the emergency law that was passed it did not give police the powers to rummage through your shopping
No it didn't, but I think there are other statutes that will be used as a
reason excuse to carry out a search. Forewarned is forearmed; best to let them get on with it unless you have something you really shouldn't on your person or in your bag. It'll be a nice waste of time for them.
Mrs Commswonk and I ran foul of a couple of PCSOs when we drove 2 miles to a local park to have a walk. They were insistent that this was against the law, and (when pressed) even tried to use the current Statutory Instrument to back themselves up. Someone in authority had decided that a 2 km limit applied, which is utter bollocks; the S/I is quite clear about what the restrictions on movement are; see Section 6 of http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/made.
Somewhere along the line either the College of Policing and/or the National Police Chiefs Council had taken it upon themselves to come up with restrictions that were simply not included in the S/I. I find it deeply worrying that any part of the police service should think that it/they have the power to rewrite the law to say and mean something other than what it actually says.
Anyway within 48 hours the police (nationally) backed away from this sort of nonsense; I would like to think that my blistering email & letter to the local Police & Crime Commissioner* (who, from his website, was supportive of this sort of policing) had been a part of that rethink but somehow I doubt it.
I find it equally bewildering that Government & Ministerial spoutings are often still at lesser variance with what the S/I actually stipulates; read it - it is easily one of the most easy to read and understand pieces of "law" I have ever encountered. (Disclosure; IANAL)
* Lancashire, in case you were wondering.
Let the people who use the BBC pay for it and let everyone else get what they want without propping it up.
Sorry but that idea is fundamentally flawed. Channels 3, 4 & 5 are paid for by advertisements. Even if I don't have a television if something I buy has been advertised on television then a part of what it costs me goes to the advertising and television companies, notwithstanding the fact that not having a television means that I did not see the advertisement in the first place.
In short I would be "propping up the independents" even though I was not watching their (often horrible) programmes.
No point in replacing one wrong with another...
Indeed it isn't. While I can enjoy a bit of BT - bashing as much as anyone in this case it might not be wholly appropriate. Part of the "non - triviality" is replacing the one "desk top" per call centre worker *on duty* to have one laptop per employee, whether on duty or not. Apart from being able to get hold of that many laptops quickly (none to be had now I suspect!) the costs would be high and we all know that in the end it won't be BT but its customers that pay for it all.
Just off the top of my head, is it permissible to leave the place you are living to post an important letter, or to take your car to a garage to be repaired...
I'm glad you asked that question; the day the restrictions were annouced I received a letter from the manufacturer of my car informing me of a recall to fix a possible problem that could (according to the letter) result in a fuel fire if ignored. I made the necessary 'phone call and the car is booked in for remedial action next Thursday.
I am (almost) hoping that plod stops me and asks where I am going and why. Given that I will have the recall notice with me it would be interesting to see what reaction I got.
Oh and the saintly* Mrs Commswonk will pick me up in her car to come home while the work is done, taking me back to the garage later in the day.
* Actually I'm joking there...
From the article: And the nation's government today revised its restrictions on having a haircut. Previously patrons in need of a trim were limited to 30-minute visits.
And the UK restrictions came in just as I was considering having a haircut; the sort that takes about 3 minutes never mind 30. I have since bought a set of barbers' hair trimmers but the thought of letting Mrs Commswonk loose with them on my hair makes my blood run cold. She has a well - developed malicious streak. :(
A stiff drink or six* may be required before I take the risk.
* For me, that is, not Mrs Commswonk.
From the article: A £175m IT platform for Co-Op Insurance that was subcontracted out by IBM to a third party...
The above made me shudder a bit. When I worked for <redacted> (an Agency of the Ministry of <redacted>) we set up a contract (or more correctly a contract was set up on our behalf) for the nationwide maintenance of quite a lot of (non - IT) equipment. We then found that much of the work was then subcontracted to other businesses of which we had no knowledge whatsoever, which was a bit of a nightmare because of the serious security concerns it raised.
When the contract came up for renewal we managed to get the terms varied so that we had knowledge of those subcontractors in advance, which was a bit better, even if only a bit.
Perhaps my views are out of date (excuse; I am long retired!) but if I were to contract out a chunk of work I would expect the company winning the contract to actually do the work and not pass it on to subcontractors of whom I have no knowledge, or (worse still) I would specifically not want to be involved, perhaps because of previous experience with them.
To me a subcontracted contract rings the alarm bells very loudly indeed.
What actually mean to say is that you want to kick-start growth in the market, or something like that.
Yes but which market?
I have no idea what the current percentages are but at one time a significant majority of new cars bought were for corporate fleet use, including those issued to various employees. (And no, I don't just mean the C - suite occupants) Personally - owned vehicles were those passed on when the original corporate owners bought new and released the previous vehicles on to the second hand market.
If the above is still true then I can see why EV sales might be sluggish; not only would businesses have to provide charging infrastructure at company premises but also at the private addresses of those to whom the cars had been issued. On top of that there might well be a risk that the travelling requirements of those with company vehicles might be such that with no certainty of finding charging points at premises visited or at convenient places en route (coupled with time spent waiting for a vehicle to charge) the business model would have to accommodate the unknowns resulting from the above; not necessarily easy and effectively a cost to the business.
Politicians being politicians they are unlikely to have spotted these possible risk areas, and very possibly don't want to spot them.
There is a great deal more to increasing the number of EVs on the road than just announcing a cut - off date for the sale of ICE vehicles. A very great deal more...
The tech industry has become concerned about the restricted supply of components coming out of Hubei province, where the city of Wuhan, ground zero for the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (aka COVID-19), is located. "So many supply chains route back to China, or at some point, even if even the manufacturers assembled their product in other countries, they still rely on components coming from China," Nethercot said.
The "tech industry" has been happy to increasingly rely on a near single - source (i.e. China) for both its components and completed assemblies or sub - assemblies. This used to be called "putting all your eggs in one basket" with all the risks that accompany that approach, and yet now we find ourselves witnessing a load of hand - wringing because supply chains have been disrupted.
Although outbreaks of infections such as COVID-19 might not be an everyday occurrence the SARS epidemic of the early 2000s should have been warning enough about what could happen in the event of a repeat performance, perhaps involving something worse.
I find myself wondering if those companies that find they cannot obtain the hardware that they need have force majeure clauses in their supply contracts, and if they haven't why not? If they haven't then they only have themselves to blame for the consequences.
I'd rather reserve my sympathies with those who have had to misfortune to catch the disease, or have died as a result (or have had a relative die) along with those who find themselves quarantined - perhaps far from home - or if not in self - imposed or enforced isolation unable to return because flights have been cancelled.
ESN is voice and data. Airwave is voice. What is there to integrate?
The voice bit, so that wide area speech communication is maintained when (say) one force area has migrated to ESN while adjacent areas remain on Airwave pending later migration.
The previous VHF/UHF systems did not provide that capability, and the change to TETRA (Airwave) enabled it. Taking it away again for anything more than an hour or two might have a serious impact on emergency service operations.
It is also worth noting that Airwave does provide data comms, it's just that it is rather slow. IIRC the police don't use it much, if at all, while the ambo services do. Not sure about the fire service; their most critical comms is on the fireground which (again IIRC) doesn't use a trunked system anyway.
As a condition of your 4G/5G operating licence you MUST provide... whatever... on all cell towers, no matter the network. <snip>
and the telecoms operators know exactly what's happening and there are no favourites taking backhanders.
Of course... the latter reason is exactly why things aren't operated in that fashion.
I strongly suspect not. If there are multiple providers providing coverage at any given location then if there is a problem of some sort it might be very hard to determine which service provider's equipment / system is at fault, making both reporting the problem and getting it fixed complex and costly.
For something like an emergency services network, which since the introduction of TETRA has provided seamless coverage throughout the UK, there are strong arguments for having a single provider. Multiple providers result in multiple interfaces between providers all over the country with all manner of problems likely to arise.
Not a good idea.
So, you were parachuted into an existing situation and you could not manage, despite your impressive title, to get a complete picture of the siuation.
Point of order: general manager of cloud application innovation consulting is not an impressive title.
It is actually bollocks masquerading as an impressive title.
Is the west doomed to become a consumer of others products?
Looking at the (UK) businesses allegedly running out of parts because of COVID-19 then I suggest the tense of your verb is incorrect; it's already happened.
I wonder if any of them are consider repatriating their production back to the UK?
Somehow I doubt it. :(
When working at <redacted, but slight clue later!> some 24 years ago I and a colleague had to go to a farm to set up a (very temporary) SHF link for some news OB. I knew that trouble loomed when on trying to get through the gateway into the farmyard a couple of domestic geese (i.e. the white variety) squared up to me, notwithstanding the fact that I was driving about 9 tonnes of vehicle. I couldn't stay in the cab all day so I got out and the geese made it perfectly clear that I and my vehicle were not welcome on their territory.
Anyway the spot where we had to park and work was a short distance from where the geese were at their most protective so work continued uninterrupted until it came to pass that we decided on a brew - up, only to realise that the milk was in my colleague's car, and that was still within their designated security zone.
With 2 malevolent geese standing there my colleague was unwilling to risk going to her car, so I had to act as a decoy to lure the geese away from it. The geese decided that they really didn't like me, allowing my colleague to retrieve her car unmolested. I then had to run back to safety to avoid the avian hooligans, so "mission accomplished" and a brew was served.
24 years later and running from geese - or anything else for that matter - is something I'd rather not have to do.
Unless I am much mistaken FCC stands for Federal Communications Commission.
Why is it interfering in matters which its remit does not (or should not) cover? Surely the charges payable by telcos ought to be determined by the owners / operators of the utility poles. If I was the owner of a network of utility poles I would insist that I had the right to determine what charges should be paid by those wishing to rent space on them and that the regulator for the prospective renters should bugger off and mind his own business.
Perhaps the utility companies should retaliate by specifying the maxmum that they will pay for 'phone calls, i.e. much less than now.
Having once been a staffer at <redacted> I was invited back for a few weeks on contract in (IIRC) 1996 to check Y2K compliance on a certain department's equipment. As absolutely none of it contained anything resembling a clock or a calendar in some senses it was tedious certifying that audio amplifiers, video amplifiers, power supplies and so on would not fall over at the start of 2000. No IT equipment involved as there was another group looking at that. On the plus side it was an easy way of earning a few weeks money.
Then in 1997 I got a permanent job within the Ministry of <redacted> and had to go through the whole process again. This time it was a bit more tedious because there were some items where the HoD wouldn't take my word for it that such and such was immune to the Y2K transition so I finished up having to write to various manufacturers and suppliers to get their assurance that all would be well, backed up by surreptitious 'phone calls apologising for asking such damn - fool questions.
ISTR being given a 3.5" floppy that had a simple routine on it that would check any computer into which it was inserted would work or not after 31/12/1999, and it did prove marginally useful on one or two occasions. Probably still got it somewhere should the year 2000 happen again sometime soon.
I ate a Chinese curry last night, and now I've been banned from entry into my government job. They say I need to do a sh!t before I am allowed back in.
That suggests a concern about some sort of chemical weapon attack via a backdoor (ahem, cough) rather than anything else.
In other news our dog has weapons - grade flatulence; not the sort of thing you would want drifting around any place of employment. And that's without a Chinese curry.
Not a subject for a jokey icon
Nor one for the usual El Reg play on words in the headline; What was Boeing through their heads is IMHO being facetious with a subject that is tragic on so many levels; the loss of so many lives; the corporate greed that seems to have been the driving force behind it all; the apparent disregard for the warning signs that seem to have been there had anyone had the sense to recognise them.
There are times when a jokey headline is perfectly in order, but I don't think that this is one of them.
Ofcom today published new proposals that aim to see fibre-to-the-premises broadband become more ubiquitous...
"Ubiquitous" means "present everywhere". Something is either ubiquitous or it isn't.
More ubiquitous is a logical nonsense.
I feel better for getting that off my chest...
From the article: The trio promised that any investments would be repaid in full if the product failed to sell, with five per cent interest for good measure, with Bershan guaranteeing the funds.
That should have been more than enough to tell potential investors to stay away: it is impossible to get one's money back from an investment that fails to work.Suggesting that interest would be added compounds the deceit. If it were possible then the investment wasn't needed in the first place.
Golden Rule: If something sounds too good to be true then it probably is.
Be interesting to see if there is any flow down to Fujitsu who wrote the code in the first place.
Unfortunately if that were to happen successfully, it would be the Post Office that would "benefit" rather than those who really suffered. However, I strongly expect that someone in Fujitsu has a piece of paper signed by someone at the Post Office saying that the PO accepted the system and that it was performing to specification.
This debacle seems to be based on the assumption that the computer system just couldn't be faulty. How the hell could anyone accused mount a proper defence when Advance Disclosure probably included the statement that the computer couldn't lie; I very much doubt if any defence legal team had access to enough detail about the IT system to be able to analyse it in detail, even assuming that they had the means to do so.
We just have to hope that in the fullness of time justice is not only done but is seen to be done, but it might be a long wait.
...perhaps Which? could provide the name of a PMR446 manufacturer that does do encryption?
And where in the article does it state that the equipment in question is PMR446? This doesn't sound anything like PMR446:
...a spokesperson for VTech said consumers should be assured the VTech KidiGear Walkie Talkies, which uses the industry-standard AES encryption to communicate, are safe.
"Pairing... cannot be initiated by a single device. Both devices have to start pairing at the same time within a short 30-second window in order to connect. Additionally, if already linked to its paired handset, pairing with an additional, external handset is not possible,"...
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020