George Formby hangs up his bucket and sponge
16426 posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
I agree with your premise - the MP should be physically present. The existing system doesn't guarantee that either, of course, simply that they must be within 15 mins of the HoC. The tablet could achieve this by requiring the vote to be placed through HoC's own wireless network.
But what I see as what could go wrong as something different; that when the MP tries to vote they discover that someone (?in the whip's office) has already voted in their name.
Whether you'd be better off in the CS or not probably depends on a variety of things.
After 14 years I think I avoided a nervous breakdown by getting out. Apart from anything else I spent about half that at the top of my pay scale in a department that quite cynically didn't hand out promotions above that level (cynically? I was offered a promotion, no board or any other formalities as soon as I handed in my resignation). After a few other permie jobs I spent the last 10 years of my working life freelance and found I'd finally got to be where I wanted.
But if it works for you, best of luck.
"f your team has fewer than five members, everyone has access to the production system. It also means your system isn't that valuable in the first place."
The first part may well be true. The second, not necessarily.
There's one point to bear in mind - if you're going to have to support it in production you end up writing something you can support.
If you're supporting something in production you might find yourself working more closely with users and gain a better understanding of their jobs which feeds back into the ability to match what you develop with those needs.
A lot of this has been lost with separation of functions. Now it's suddenly so fashionable to get back to doing this sort of thing that it's acquired a name: DevOps.
"I assume this needs a web based e-mail program, or at least one that displays html documents for this to work."
Probably not. I don't know about you but I find that spam that claims to be an invoice actually has the alleged invoice in an attachment. Even if the enclosing email is plain text and read in a text-based browser anyone who actually thinks it's an invoice they have to look at it is going to try to open the attachment and that's the dangerous act.
"those in top management"
Those in top management might well be the source of a good deal of harm but this type of attack is likely to be aimed at accounts staff. They deal with invoices and banking.
"they at least pay the bills"
But don't you think there ought to be a better way for sites to pay their bills than letting the advertising industry poke their fingers into visitors' eyeballs and ears and letting the scum of the internet have a go at pwning visitors' PCs?
Has it really come to this?
Let's extend your argument a little.
On the whole websites and email are harmless and don't try to install malware so there's no reason not to run your OS in admin mode all the time and no need to use anti-virus software.
You're failing to understand that by now adblocking isn't just to avoid all the attempts by advertisers to loose their screaming jiggling auto-play brain-farts on you, it's become part of your normal security setup to keep malvertising out.
“One of the big learnings we had to incorporate was how do you develop something that is transparent and perceived as affordable in comparison to paying upfront”
He's not going to impress many English teachers. At least I hope he's not although standards may well have lapsed since I was at school.
"Windows 10 is terrific and I urge everyone to upgrade their personal 'at home' computers to it asap."
Why would I want to do that?
My Linux OS runs pretty well anything I need, proprietary or open source. Of the few Windows applications I need most will run in Wine. The exception will run in W7 or W2K in a VM and given Microsoft's aggressive pushing of monitoring by upgrades it will be the latter in future.
I see no reason in moving to a make-work OS that I'm going to have to actively police to make sure it doesn't leak information to its maker any time said maker pushes a non-optional upgrade that might change the privacy settings - and that has T&Cs that allow them to grab any login credentials and transaction data when want.
And when my particular version of Unix-like flavour of Linux goes out of support then rather than downgrade to something more Windows-like I'll simply go to a proper Unix variant.
"Not at all; even if the most liberal governments need to be accountable to someone."
Which, in a democracy, should be its people. The fact that we need an external court to do that is something that both Conservative & Labour should be ashamed of. Both because both have form in this.
'If Microsoft loses this case, there can be no "Safe Harbour"; all data held by American companies is outwith the protection required by European Law'
It's more subtle than that. The article makes reference to the trustee model that MS are exploring with Deutsche Telekom. Essentially it's possible to set up an arrangement where the US corp doesn't actually get access to the data. Access is controlled by an EU company with wholly EU ownership (not an EU subsidiary of the US corp) under a contract governed by the law of an EU country. The contract would need to exclude any rights of the US corp to demand access.
"why not implement something like this at the ISP level"
Yes, this is the appropriate place. The ISP is the route for the user onto the net. There may well be something in the ISP's existing T&Cs that enable them to disconnect a user after due warning. If there isn't updated T&Cs re internet access from the ISP are more appropriate than MS changing its T&Cs to allow it to kill a customer's computer. A communication from the ISP is less likely to be treated as a scam than one from MS although maybe the users who get pwned are probably unaware of the Microsoft-calling scam.
The downside is that it doesn't deal with the laptop on the coffee-shop WiFi.
"There are three ways to look at this issue, from the viewpoints of the user, the site owner and the advertising agencies."
There's a fourth (and these days a fifth).
The fourth is the actual advertiser. He's been sold on the idea of advertising by some agency in the advertising industry. The poor sod is now paying the industry and the website to piss off potential customers. The advertising industry is very good at selling advertising. Providing that's good for their bottom lines they've got what they came for. Why should they worry about anyone else?
The fifth? That's the malvertisers.
"And I'm sure you will happily pay for *all* of the content you consume without charge to you? Glad you can afford that."
As far as the advertiser's concerned if they were advertising something I might want then they're better off if I block the advert. If I get the ad them I'll probably boycott them and look for another vendor. And the more obnoxious the ad then the more likely the boycott.
'"Lord Dyson also said that the publication of material can amount to an act of terrorism, as defined by the Terrorism Act, if the publication endangers life and the person publishing the material intends it to (or is reckless as to whether it does) have that effect."
And as governments decide what info "endangers life" saying something the government does not like can now brand you as a terrorist.'
It's not clear from the article whether that comment was part of his reasoning or obiter dicta (Google is your friend). It would in any case be up to the court to determine whether something endangers life, not the government. Publishing instructions on how to make a bomb might reasonably be construed as endangering life. Publishing something that merely embarrasses the government would make for a tough job for even the best prosecuting counsel. With that in mind and without a better account of the case I'd guess it wasn't part of the judge's reasoning.
'Ah, that old canard. Shouting "FIRE!" in a theatre is, or should be, perfectly legal.'
In practice I'd expect a court to take intent into account. If there was good reason to believe that there was a fire or other danger and the shouter acted on that basis then fair enough. If the court believed the intent was to cause mischief or endanger life then it might convict accordingly.
"Best case, they continue to design the same quality and style of product they do now, only at lower margines."
Best case from whose point of view? Not necessarily Apple's. They could up-sticks and locate themselves in the most convenient country. If need be they could de-list from NYSE. So could any multinational - the clue's in the name, they can headquarter in any country they find convenient.
If this were to happen it would almost certainly prompt other multinationals to do the same. The shock-waves could affect us all.
"the owners of The Beano"
They have a substantial online business including FindMyPast. One of their sites is GenesReunited. I took up their free trial long ago & backed out PDQ as they seemed not to be able to not send emails about the most unlikely matches of name.
Are you by any chance based in Stockholm? You certainly exhibit the syndrome.
If something comes down the MS upgrade channel that overnight obsoletes the boxes those 3500 users are running on you'll happily put your hand in your business's pocket & write out an order for 3500 new boxes, won't you?
I once ran a Unix unit in a shop where the IT management had a similar one stop shop mentality. They were going to replace my system in 6 months time. For years and years. Eventually I retired. I regret not being there to see what happened in the end. Their one stop shop was for VAX/VMS.
"If the telemetry is of concern"
There's an implication that it isn't of concern to you.
Have you read and understood the T&Cs? Go back and read them again.
Read the bit that says they keep your login credentials. Can you find anything that limits it to login credentials to their services? The bit that days they won't keep login credentials for your bank or your work if they feel like it? If you can't find that doesn't it worry you, even just a little?
The same thing about keeping details of your transaction - can you find anything there that restricts them to just purchases from MS & not M&S?
Or did you think that this was just an oversight & MS couldn't find a lawyer to check them over?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019