Re: towheaded
Yes, but does it refer to the outside or the inside? Or both?
33045 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
Now that a level of sanity has returned to the phone markets I would expect a "quality" phone to be good for at least 5 years
It depends on what you mean by a quality phone but I suspect Jedit's post is closer to the mark. A quality phone that lasts 5 years isn't going to bring continuing profits.
At best "weeding" isn't going to bring a RoI in sufficient time. In reality we all know what happens if you chuck out old documentation. Murphy arrives bearing a slightly broken piece of kit you thought had been chucked out but is (a) indispensable and (b) irreplaceable.
"the differences between 1/2 and 3/4 are significant"
That sort of thing is the problem. if Xv3 is so different to Xv2 it really shouldn't be Xv3 at all. It should be Yv1. There may still be a market for X to be supplied for some time to come but without the demand that Y be back compatible with it.
It could be worse. It could be Snap.
I looked at Flatpak briefly. It requires that a Flatpak system be installed for the particular OS including the window manager. There was an version that seemed from the description to fit my case. It didn't.
As far as I can seen all these schemes seem to be a means of exchanging one lot of dependencies for another. Putting a directory with the application's dependencies in /opt is as effective as any but it's an old idea and, therefore, not shiny. Sigh.
"get them to arrange with the Royal Mail to assign a number to the building"
Maybe it might be easiest to decide on a name, get a nameplate made and stick it on the house (assuming it's not listed) because from my experience it might well be possible to get the Royal Mail to do that. Our house has had a name ever since my parents move in in 1968. It's carved in 6" high letters on a block of stone beside the gate. A few bills and the like had the name slightly wrong. Eventually I discovered that it was wrong in the PAF file that so many businesses take as the immutable standard. I rung Royal Mail to get it changed. This, of course would involve all sorts of official verification and the like, no? No. It was changed just like that. Of course things may have changed in the last 20 years.
"Nearby Town"
I think that should be "Post Town". Nearby is not guaranteed.
It's US address formats that annoy me. They seem to always have a line for "City" but, of course, they treat as a world-wide standard address format even where it's geographical nonsense. This even pervades genealogical S/W where it can be historical as well as geographical nonsense.
"Couriers don't seem to realise that whilst their legal customer is the sender the real customer is normally the recipient."
I've had this argument with one courier in the past. The address they'd been given was incorrect. They wouldn't change it on the basis that only the owner of the goods could do that. Just who did they think the owner was?
"and on one memorable time it was an 80 seater coach"
Ah, yes. Coach navigation. Coach from God's Own County to Victoria coach station. There were two drivers on board who swapped over at a half-way stop. The one who took over for the second leg got into slight navigational difficulties trying to follow the company's official route into the north London stop Golders Green bus station. I overheard a snippet of conversation "Shall I go right way or t'way I know?".
I noticed we came to a crossroads close to the bus station at right angles to the usual approach.
Nevertheless an improvement on the driver who, immediately after leaving Victoria, spread some forms over the wheel and started catching up on his paper-work while threading his way through central London.
I take it "14 Avenue" does at least have a town name added. I knew of an accounts database which, for years, had a distributor's address as street number "High Street, Somerset". I suppose most people with a smidgeon more knowledge of English geography the whoever entered it would make a reasonable guess. It was years before we sere in that part of the world and SWMBO wanted to visit the shore museum there. (No, I've no idea either.) Yes, there the business was, at the appropriate number in High Street, Street, Somerset.
It looks as if a great many in IT in the UK of my son's generation started out on the Spectrum. In my generation it was punched cards. In our grandchildren's generation it's likely to be the Pi but I suspect for many the Pi will be eased out by the smartphone and the laptop. I wonder how that will work out.
No, irrespective of whoever's in charge of the department of culture media. When a government's entire raison d''etre is getting out from under a regulatory regime which seeks to protect citizens' rights none of its party can be trusted with data protection.
"Yes, the controller is not responsible for this, but why should they?"
Let's turn that round. Why shouldn't they be? They are the ones with whom the data subject has a relationship. They are the ones who undertook - or should have done - to handle the data carefully. They have a duty of care. Part of that includes care in their choice of who they entrusted to process the data if they didn't do so themselves. The processor is the controller's agent. The controller should be responsible tor the actions of the agent.
That doesn't let the agent of the hook, of course, and, indeed, they would presumably be liable to the principal for breach of contract, but the data subject should have a very clearly identified body from whom to claim redress.
The problems with the Privacy Figleaf are that the US jurisdiction doesn't give allows the contractual obligations to be overruled. If that were not the case it seems to be accepted that the EU data subject would be able to take action against the processor in the US; that, I think, in unacceptable, the data subject should be able to take action in the jurisdiction where the original transaction occurred and against the other party in that transaction, the data controller.
None of the examples in the article falls into that category. However the concentration of data that the likes of Equifax accumulate could also be regarded in the same way. When a business holding that much data guards it so badly there should be personal penalties for senior management. It might take a few prominent cases of CEOs or board members jailed but not too many. Management needs to be put into thinking along the lines of "This stuff could be dangerous to me ".
There's a fairly straightforward solution. Make re-identification of de-identified data illegal with personal responsibility for some person in senior management. The newspaper editor, the marketing manager or even better, the CEO get a criminal record and go to jail. And for good measure the company loses any govt contracts it may have, forfeiting any outstanding payments for work done.
The only way to deal with excess data is to make it toxic. That will give businesses second thoughts about collecting it in the first place and make them very, very careful about how they use it.
"They could probably do that tomorrow if they wanted to but they are holding off to give time for people to switch to a VoIP alternative."
Unless they can find a way to power VoIP over the line they don't have an alternative. One of the characteristics of the analogue service is that it continues to work when the lights go out. Discovering that the backup battery has died when the lights go out should not be an option.
The advice included how to spot scams – and this belter of a top-tip, which read: "Don't click on any links… if you've received a suspicious message."
Much the same as an email from the bank warning about phishing emails and stuffed full of links to click. The trouble is that half marketing people completely lack the self-awareness to realise that their emails are indistinguishable from the phishing emails they're warning about and the other half probably see nothing wrong in clicking on aany link in any email they receive and sooner or later are going to let ransomware into their company.
A lot of would be exporters into the EU are now discovering the hard way how red tape works. Previously they weren't really exporting, just selling into a part of their home market that happened to have a bit of water in the way. Now they're really trying to export and it's more complicated than they thought, especially when it's some sort of agricultural product.