Down-arrowed for not being brave enough to spell "whore".
93 posts • joined 17 Jun 2009
It really is true, and that's all I can say about it really, for obvious reasons.
However there is an amusing follow-up. When the search engine was introduced, (this was before Data Protection laws had been put in place), the staff were encouraged to "play" with the system to gain speedy working knowledge. So of course everyone accessed all the celebrities etc.
Someone at Head Office realised what was going on and introduced the security protocols to stop that. And then introduced the instant dismissal protocols to go with it!
A very large Govt Dept that I was blessed to serve in for 40+ years had a database of all celebrities, people in the news, politicians, staff members and immediate family etc etc. Certain staff would trawl all the papers and online trending stuff and add the details to the database.
A program would then cross-reference every single search made by any one of the 70K+ employees and if there was a match, the employee would be summarily dismissed. To avoid dismissal, one had to demonstrate unequivocally that there was a legitimate business purpose for the access. Woe betide you if you forgot to keep a personal note of why a particular person's details were accessed and then try and remember the reason weeks later!
As far as I know, that was a model for the NHS and Police and it, or at least the principle behind it, still is I think.
1. Cheap plasticky hair-dryer costing £300/$300 - does anyone pay that for hot air?
2. Dyson animal vacuum that uses off-the-shelf Panasonic motors and not the Dyson ones.
Not to mention style over substance!
I rest my case. Gawd knows what the cars'll be like. Get yer feet ready a la Fred Flintstone..
This "woman" used to be my MP in Hastings and displaced an honourable solicitor who did a lot of good work for his constituency when he was the MP.
She only just passed the post this time round and I now wish I hadn't moved from Hastings because my vote might well have kept her from being re-elected.
Bloody stoopid woman, go and effoff.
"The response (PDF) accepts the recommendations of both reviews, which included a simplified model for consent, the adoption of 10 data security standards and significant improvements to the way data use is communicated to the public."
I don't want simplified, I want complicated!
As an example, I went to the dentist recently and they asked me to sign a consent form. There were about 4 different phrases with reference to how my data is used. I had to consent before I was "allowed" treatment. I objected to two of the phrases regarding outside use and access, only to be told I can't do that (I had modified the form and initialled it to withdraw consent for those items).
If I didn't agree to my data being given to other organisations I wouldn't be treated.
Well the "Gubmint" can go kiss its arse for fuxache!
...tomorrow the UK.
Especially during election times.
Oh and BTW, we now know why May wanted to be able to see inside What's App etc. It wasn't to track terrorists (cowardly murderers is a better word and doesn't give them a legitimate label), but to try and keep track of all the MPs plotting to oust her.
Can El Reg PLEASE stop using artists' impressions!
Looking back to my school text books of 60 years ago, an artist's impression of, for example, the moon or Mars looked nothing like the actual photographs from people or landers that visited them. (Assuming no conspiracies at this stage).
Why should I think an artist's impression today is any more accurate?
How fed up I am with these stories.
The Police (at least the ones I have talked to) are generally helpful, friendly people.
As an organisation they tend to be shite, as many media outlets report.
And as for the plastic plods, don't get me started. I was once given a parking ticket by one for blocking my own driveway. It was I that put the "It is illegal to park here" notice. It wasn't but it helped deter some railway commuters! The plastic woman thought she should act though. I did enjoy the joke with the Town Parking supervisor over a beer later!
I think this may be the first time a deflector shield has been employed in reality and not in a TV show. Someone may correct me perhaps.
All they need now is somehow to be able to divert power to the deflector to increase protection and then they can really plough a path through the asteroid belt without spending years going around it.
We're a long way from "Passengers" but it looks like we're getting there.
I remember visiting Moscow in the mid 1970s when I visited Red Square. A beautiful place with a fantastic if somewhat elaborate cathedral (St Basil's).
Anyway I was sauntering towards it and had my Practica 35mm camera (good East German make) ready for a few quick snaps when I noticed a guy in a grey raincoat standing quite close by, watching me. I realised I had seen him before at my hotel and suddenly had a mild panic attack that I was being "monitored" by the KGB or summat.
I went over to him and asked him if it was OK for me to take pictures here, that I was a budding architect and I wanted to study buildings for reference (I particularly like Ecclesiastical architecture). He spoke most polite English and took it upon himself to show me the best places to film and gave me a fascinating insight into Russian life.
How annoying therefore that I have spent most of my life (well since Sept 11th 2001) fighting with English and US authorities to take innocuous pictures such as Canary Wharf or in Times Square!
I see the last photo with the caption:
"GOES-16 image of Earth and Moon. Image: NASA/NOAA"
doesn't show any stars (rather like the photos from the moon etc).
So it's quite clear that this was all filmed in a studio with some sort of CGI backdrop.
Another case of "alternative facts" for us poor humans to digest.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020