Shhhh... We might be able to tell people that the waiting lists and delays in treatment are because we are waiting for a vendor patch.
28 posts • joined 14 Mar 2014
A scan and an email is not acceptable in all jurisdictions because it is "possible" to intercept that email, make changes to the scanned image and send it onwards to the original destination. In contrast, a fax sends the image line by line over a phone line & short of redirecting the call is much more difficult to intercept, alter & send onwards.
Legally, sending a scanned document via an email to fax product is fine, the scanned image still being transmitted as a fax.
I have wondered a few times about this & maybe you can help. Is there such a thing as a pro gun anti vaxxer? Are the NRA studies proof of herd immunity?
A) Gun carrying citizen = Vaccinated person
B) Criminal = Un-Vaccinated person
C) Poor little Timmy can be either immuno compromised or a victim.
More of A reduces B and protects C.
Or is it only the NRA that knows the true facts and the WHO are just making up claims.
Almost forgot... Vaccines can cause side effects = Guns can cause accidental deaths.
Going back a few years one of the Toshiba laptop models (Tecra A2 I think) had a volume control dial on the side of the casing, in just the right place for it to be dialled to 0 when pulling the laptop from the bag. Because the were lightweight for the time they were popular with execs & said execs demanded a visit instead of going through the usual help desk script.
Cue a technician turning up and rotating the little dial slightly to 'fix' the problem.
So if I stop using my car I don't have to tell anyone? It can sit on the drive with no insurance and I don't have to pay any vehicle excise duty? Why am I forced to tell the council when I move house?
If you are going down that route, why do I pay for libraries I don't use, swimming pools I don't go to and many of the other council 'amenities' I have no interest in?
It's £11 a month... and if it's 'The principle of the thing' then have a look at how much Channel 4 and, I think, ITV get from the licence fee because they also get a cut.
After reading a lot of the comments I am left wondering what people want, some are saying that Netflix is just as good, if not better (no mention of Amazon though). Some are talking about only paying for what you watch & using a subscription only model.
All well and good but when I had Nexflix I paid a flat fee every month and could choose from their offerings, kind of like paying the TV license fee and choosing what broadcast TV I watch.
As for Sky, again the amount of dross that you don't watch will outweigh what you do & there are probably 6 people watching 'Duck Dynasty' at 3am on Discovery+1 but everyone not watching is still paying if they have the basic package.
I am not a huge fan of the BBC but I find that £11 for the few things I want to watch is still better value than the £40 (ish) I pay to Sky for a similar number.
Pay as you go TV doesn't seem to be offerered by anyone BTW.
And if you don't watch BBC, that's fine too, there is a process whereby you can inform the relevant people and not have to pay the license fee.
A few years back this would have been the case but one of our glorious leaders decided to 'save' the public money by cancelling the licensing agreement between UK Gov & Microsoft.
As a result each NHS Trust (and local government) have to have their own licensing agreements with Microsoft, rough estimates have put the cost of this at 3 to 4 times the cost of the original agreement.
So one Trust moving to Linux means the lost of a single medium to large customer for MS.
There are times when just to be arsey you can pick these contracts apart, when told I 'had' to take part in the on-call rota I chose the 4th Tuesday every month because that indicated willingness and highlighted that there was no minimum level of commitment stated.
Similar sort of thing to extra hours worked, if the contract says you may be required to work extra hours, point out that you stayed late one day in Feb 2009 and regard that as satisfying the requirements.
Lots of people saying how they don't watch the BBC, listen to the BBC or even check the BBC website & therefor shouldn't have to pay. Sounds a lot like the old arguments against the Council tax, 'I don't use the library, swimming pool, etc so why do I have to pay towards it?'
The license fee is £12 a month by direct debit, if you can't afford that then fair enough you should be exempt but not if you have a 60" TV, cupboards full of booze, smoke & have whatever smartphones & tablets are the latest 'in thing'.
Really fed up with the 'cant put food on the table' argument, yes there are some people who are honestly in dire straights but seeing some overweight idiot puffing on a fag while moaning about no food for their kids is getting very old.
For the record, I listen to BBC radio in the car but only about 10% of my TV viewing is the Beeb.
5) Start with a cost-benefit analysis of each app in use. If you can't justify the cost, it goes.
So what cost-benefit do you place on saving a life? 'X bit of kit only saved 2 lives last year - bin it'?
6) For the unsupported crapola stick it on a VM, and reverse engineer it...
Um... Wouldn't this break various laws? Just because it's not supported on Win7 or Linux means it's ok to reverse engineer it?
So, my Trust has a dev team as you suggest, in collaboration with every other trust we re-write everything we need to it's all open source. Then a blood-gas analyser breaks & the company refuses to touch it because we are not running their drivers or software.
Oh, lets not forget that budgets are being cut and apparently public sector workers are hugely overpaid as it is so your "Pay them >=2x the graddy salary contract style on a 3 month rolling basis" idea would never happen unless you were happy to cut staff elsewhere. Oh yes, we can cut it from the dept that failed the cost-benefit part of the process.
Try working in the sector, using spit and baling wire to hold ropey systems together because there just isn't anything else that does the job. We know it's a problem, we know it's not sustainable but whos life do you want to make that little bit worse by deciding X system is not worth running anymore?
Posted this when they first talked about the & the comments were mostly the same so...
I work in a large NHS trust, we have over 100 individual departments, 9000 staff and 8000+ PCs and laptops. When shouting about 'How dare they?' please bear in mind that there is no single vendor for everything.
When working out how many discrete applications we were using we moved them into categories of 'want, need & site-wide' before testing. Of these, many of the site-wide applications had been brought up to date and were able to be moved without an issue. If an application was in the 'want' category and did not work on Win7 then the dept or individual was consulted and an alternative was worked out.
The main problem is with the applications and drivers that are needed for individual departments, some of these areas are extremely specialised and may only have one or two suppliers. Hearing aid testing equipment is one example, blood gas analysers are another, some of these machines can cost £100,000+ so 'buy from another vendor' is not a valid possibility.
Some web based applications will work using compatibility mode but others will not, there are problems with getting some NHS wide applications with Win7 64bit as well.
So yes we are migrating but unless you can decide which departments we should close until the vendors bring all software and drivers up to date there will be areas that still rely on XP for a while longer.
If 'The NHS' will do all of this work for me I'd be happy to but it is not a thing or a person, it is an entity with many many independent branches, each with their own budget & strategy, all trying to save money to meet with the latest 'Public spending cuts'.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018