Logic failure
"a Brexit dividend for individuals and businesses across the UK"
In this particular respect I think that's OR rather then AND.
In general neither is the more likely outcome.
32780 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
It's also a nice endpoint when you're preparing a carbon dating sample for the scintillation counter. Char sample to carbon. Heat with lithium to form lithium carbide. Add water (oh, look, South Belfast water supply from Silent Valley has radon in it) to form acetylene. Clean up the acetylene at low pressure given acetylene's tendency to explode. Convert to benzene.
"act as if they apologised when they in fact had not"
All too often the apology is for any "inconvenience" or, in particularly egregious instances, "distress" caused.
No! That's really hidden victim blaming. It's just polite wrapping for "sorry you're such a wimp".
What the apology should be for - and explicitly for - is getting it wrong.
"An ancient network share at Deficiency House only supports the SMB1 protocol."
But does it support non-SMB protocols? I ran into that a few Debian/Devuan generations ago. Then I realised it also supported FTP. KDE's network share mechanism supports that. Maybe Window's does too.
It all seems very vague. Perusing through the linked articles I find it talking about data taken from media. What data? What media? Then it would be processed in the user's device. How? Finally this quote seemed to be their answer to Why?
"The results of this processing might, for example be a profile of the sort of TV programmes someone might like or the sort of theatre they would enjoy."
So it's yet another attempt to double-guess me, rather like $RetailSite trying to sell me a fridge because I just bought a fridge or the garage that started texting me with their new car advertising when I just bought a car from them. It might answer their Why? but it certainly doesn't answer mine.
"sent by means of non-arriving SMS messages"
Just this.
Tried to make a payment this morning. After jumping through the hoops of enter password again and enter two digits from security code again they send a text. Phone which was supposed to be charging wasn't.. Hastily plug it in properly. Request resend. Request it again. Nothing. Eventually 3 texts arrive by which time the payment page has timed out. If I try to go through the whole thing again will it send duplicate payments? Who knows with this wunch of bankers? Thank goodness I still have a cheque book.
"Authentication proves that you are consenting to this security check."
By the time you've entered the password a second time and entered two digits of the pre-arranged security code a second time the SMS, should it arrive before time out seems a bit superfluous in terms of authenticating that you are consenting to the check.
And let's remember that the bank, should they ring you up, will be totally unable to distinguish themselves from any random phone phisher.
They will also fail to reply to any emails requesting that they confirm whether of not the marketing spam, laden with links, sent in their (noreply) name from some 3rd party professional spammer digital marketing company professional spammer is really theirs or not.
Two factors: User Id and password.
Count them. Two.
Why don't we call these two factor ID/
Because some numpty at some point decided that the user's email address was a piece of secure, unguessable information that could be safely used as a user ID and would save on the effort of keeping a separate email address. And the lemmings followed. Because most people only have a single email address they use the same user ID everywhere, reducing its authentication value to zero.
So now we have to have an additional, how many hoops can you jump through, "factor" and call it 2 factor authentication.
We already have brains. We may not understand how they do it but we have a good understanding of the results it can produce. A much better effort would be to look at what the human brain finds difficult and make products that help with those tasks. But that sounds remarkably like what we've been doing all these years with so much existing software.
Back in the distant past - 1980s, 1990s - I worked in an environment where we had a small team working on Unix/RDBMS (mine), another on VAX/VMS and another on IBM type stuff all handling different aspects of the business. I'm not sure about the last two but in my area we didn't really differentiate between development and operations; our technical knowledge applied to both operations (which wasn't all that onerous) and development, and user support informed our knowledge of our part of the business which was essential for development. Back then it was just what we did - it didn't need a special name.
Only in the last few years before retirement was I in a mostly Windows shop where operations and development were separate. It made life harder, at least from a development point of view, not least because of the amount of ceremony involved in handing stuff over. Oddly enough the ceremony was suddenly set aside any time we had to look at the operational system to sort out the crap data my client's client (one of the Usual Suspects) had sent because their favoured Indian outsourcer had rotated in another lot of XML-deficient staff on short term visas.
I wonder if combining the two has somehow become special because of the notion that you have to crank out new stuff on a daily or even hourly basis.
A late cousin-in-law was reputed to occasionally go over a roundabout to save time. And, no, that's nothing to do with him being late - he lived into his 90s. At one stage he owned a car I'd have loved to have had a drive in - a Bristol 406. The family were also keen on caravanning (takes all sorts) and wrote to Bristol for advice about fitting a tow bar. The body was aluminium on a chassis that stopped somewhere about the back axle. They wrote back to say if he worked it out could he let them know. As he co-owned an engineering works he did work it out.