Of course, it would probably help if the perps contributed to party funds, lobbied politicians or were on handshake terms with MPs.
That way, like the banks and finance sector, they would probably be thanked for their initiatives, awarded government grants with bundles of public funds as an encouragement to legitimize their business?
As none of these hold well, it looks like prison for the perps.
Now then, for the banks and finance sector.
Has anyone conducted a criminal investigation or a national security investigation with a view to confiscating assets, property, goods and chattels of the various organisations, executives and leading bonus earners?
(I thought not. It may be amazing what "influence" can purchase?)
Our cousins over the pond have some notions of "enemy within" and :anti-America activity" but here in the UK ... ?
OK, if O2 has been fined for 3G naughty haughtiness perhaps the next inspection could run on lines of "Ok O2, second strike on poor 3G, a bit of a monopoly on the iPhone therefore give your customers a 75% rebate. As customers paid 100% in currency it will be good for O2 to deliver to 100% in technology"
To O2:
Don't compromise your customers and get on with it (3G and iPhone functionality that is in this case).
To Apple:
If UK based O2 do the dirty take the contract somewhere else (anyone but Orange?)
To me:
Must get iPhone, possibly two. Fearing terrible contracts and constraints from O2 and massive unlocking potential somewhere down the line.
I'd rather hope that any MP, SMP, WMP , ... would relish opportunities to demonstrate accountability to the public whenever. Instead we seem to have cause for concern over a security matter.
Tie that in with MEP creativeness with expenses, employing family in non-productive posts/roles, claiming expenses fr non-existent stuff and I begin to see where our much beloved public servants take their leadership models.
Is it really far, far better to "grab it while one can"?
Whatever happened to notions of accountability (the Tories really can take a good rest from that discussion) and public servitude?
These, that is skeletal strokes, are brilliant and not without some issues. However, tidying up the issues seems to render the creative aspects of skeletal strokes as timid and much diluted.
It would be soopa (as in SOOPA!) to see skeletal strokes technology go almost open.
The first thought that occured to me is related to an earlier posting about Vist'a successor.
In that we considered dumping the "Windows" moniker and looked at "Microsoft Vienna" (Oh Vienna!, Ultravox and all that).
And now the thought occurs to me that MS Vista++ should have two forms. One is the general type open hardware platform that makes on OS run on non-ECC RAM and so forth (it keeps the lo-cost people happy) and the other is a top level, limited hardware variant (MS Vienna Top Class?) running along Apple hardware type model.
ps - it is almost worthwhile becoming an American citizen purely to vote in an election in which the aforesaid and aforementioned person is a candidate.
The USA needs it, Europe needs it, the world needs it?
A lot can be learned from this especially the importance of user management of updates and effect on work in progress. I am sure that won't be lost to either party.
I beginn to wonder if MS research shows abounding stuff that is (mostly) sold off to corporate clients grabbing the best bits that eventually leave a poorer subset of functionality that is cobbled together to make something like Vista?
If so, then virtualization is really going to be best manifest not by what MS research say but by what corporate customers demonstrate as MS merketing gets under way?
if anything goes wrong blame social factors that the incompetent invokes in a social sense to show that it was not intentional to appoint an incompetent in the first place.
See, in the commercial, free sector an organization is accountable and that accountability has consequence.
When annual or periodic reports are published the free sector pitches in to buy or sell shares and the "worth" of an organization and its governance tends to be (in broadest generalities) demonstrated in its share prices.
They go up (peer group supporting good and robust governance) or they go down (peer group supporting poor or shoddy governance). It may be different across the pond due to non-standard accountancy practices much frowned upon over recent years.
As far as the UK goes that does not happen with publicly funded bodies.
Should your local school be in best management it will secure funding for next year.
Should that same UK school be in poorest management it will also secure funding for next year.
So, in real terms: why bother?
The budget will be the same, employees will be the same and there is no real difference between squandering or good use of public funds to many an organization.
But I am pleased to have reached #1 in the comments thread :)
There are two extremes under reductio ab adsurdum that need to be considered.
a) these reports are really as bad as it gets under accountability standards (especially under invocation of public accountability standards in the UK)
b) these are tip of the iceberg indicators and demonstrate that much malpractice has been sustained over quite a while compromising Ministers (in the UK these are Government Ministers), public and public funding alike.
You may choose some variance between options a) and b) as suits your perception and needs.
I hold that option b) is closer to the truth.
Have pity on the poor UK tax-payer and the atrocious service extended to those individuals (for as sure as eggz is eggz the CEOs don't).?
Under a delegation of duties model it is indeed true that:
a Principal in a College/University/establishment is responsible for "everything" that happens
Similarly so for a government minister, Head in a school, Chair of an organization, ...
On the other hand were individuals to deviate from instructed practice or policy then that sort of clears the governance issue on one point but then begs what steps are being (realistically) taken to ensure policy is in practice.
It is also a great way for public servants or others to deny their own ineptitudes and so forth by hoping that the public will hold someone else responsible rather than the direct management chain that has endorsed such things to happen.
Get the feel for what is being reported (data losses possibly with pecuniary advantage to organizations (in this case the Courts), consequences on public accountability, verifying key performance indicators, ... , what is not being reported or being withheld, fogged or obfuscated and one will indeed have a truer picture of management malpractice.
Now dovetail this report with poor security measures (lost data, funny use of public money, ...) that also hit the press.
It also seems that the £154 million is acting more as a quality assurance arm (identifying overpayments requires £154M???) rather than identifying criminal intent to defraud.
It really does not matter too much if a standard is set that has no proprietary support. And even if it did sometimes the fickle public may choose to ignore it by spending its hard earned income elsewhere.
On the other hand, it can be quite good use of a publicly funded budget especially if put into the (sufficently) wrong hands.
In other words: a technicality that may or may not be endorsed by the public?
This is not intended as a smack on the MoD, and it probably is a norm in the whole public sector in general (at least here in the UK).
The premise is that people entrusted with responsibilities probably are very low skilled and much in deniance of that but rank or authority means that what is done is done. In other words one may have authority to do so even though there is an obvious lack of skills to support the basis to grant one to do so.
In short: the public deserves better, should have better and lots of public money (in the UK) is probably squandered as these events are indicators of the skills levels and practices within the sector proper. The security issue really is , in my opinion, a manifestation of mistakes that probably extend far, far wider.
In short: I am surprised that anyone is surprised.
Interim conclusion:
It is a manifestation of the Policy-Practice divide. Ideally Policy should drive practice should drive policy should drive .... but in effect for many organizations it is far more expedient to allow policy makers to do what they have to do in order to attract funding or pull down funding streams. Once that funding is there then Practice part of the organization can do what it want s without consideration or support of the policy part. I call that the Policy-Practice divide and it is the nightmare scenario of a Policy-Practice synergy.
Personal conclusion:
Organizations that demonstrate Policy-Practice divide should be stripped of opportunity to call down or pull down public funds full stop.
It is an old story often claimed (especially at conference dinners).
The usual hurdle is that scientific knowledge and skills often grate with power politics visions or preconceptions. In other words research should drive practice and policy and in turn should be driven by the same. But when the results jar that is usually the point policy makers start to stop listening.
It's a bit like saying "know that the Earth orbits the Sun" when common understanding is that it is not so.
OS X 10.5 is stunning, absolutely brilliant - and it is still in early days of its introduction to a big new world.
Over on one of the forums the reported message rate of all OS X 105 posting (faults and praises) corresponded to 0.005% of the 2 million sales in the first weekend. Now that is worth thinking about for sure.
As a relatively new to Mac person the other things (apart from TM, Cover Flow, ... ) are the more mundane things like data transfer rates. What does that mean?
Well one thing is 25 MB/s to an external USB drive.
Transfer rates, if there is a lot of data to shift, between devices is awesome with the usual advantage that moving stuff does not eat into CPU cycles.
But no OS is perfect and the first few weeks into "Hello world" really does mean some stuff will be identified (good and bad).
Now the biggest problems are: MacDrive? Parallels? VMWare? Will I won't I?
Register
50 posts • joined Tuesday 15th May 2007 22:10 GMT
Strewth the truth?
Truth is that quite a few people living in Keilder use these or something like as there is very, very poor signal coverage for mobile phones anyway.
heh heh
heh heh...
It seems to depend on chumminess?
(Continuing tirade from another post)
Of course, it would probably help if the perps contributed to party funds, lobbied politicians or were on handshake terms with MPs.
That way, like the banks and finance sector, they would probably be thanked for their initiatives, awarded government grants with bundles of public funds as an encouragement to legitimize their business?
As none of these hold well, it looks like prison for the perps.
Now then, for the banks and finance sector.
Has anyone conducted a criminal investigation or a national security investigation with a view to confiscating assets, property, goods and chattels of the various organisations, executives and leading bonus earners?
(I thought not. It may be amazing what "influence" can purchase?)
Our cousins over the pond have some notions of "enemy within" and :anti-America activity" but here in the UK ... ?
Ah good
That means even more high density targets as, of course, high population density areas mean lots of customers, but hey?
What about low population density areas?
Ofcom, O2... two strikes and out?
To Ofcom:
OK, if O2 has been fined for 3G naughty haughtiness perhaps the next inspection could run on lines of "Ok O2, second strike on poor 3G, a bit of a monopoly on the iPhone therefore give your customers a 75% rebate. As customers paid 100% in currency it will be good for O2 to deliver to 100% in technology"
To O2:
Don't compromise your customers and get on with it (3G and iPhone functionality that is in this case).
To Apple:
If UK based O2 do the dirty take the contract somewhere else (anyone but Orange?)
To me:
Must get iPhone, possibly two. Fearing terrible contracts and constraints from O2 and massive unlocking potential somewhere down the line.
The business of unfinished business?
It sounds like unfinished business to me with both parties needing redirection
OS/2 rocks?
Well, urm, it did but wasn't that a long time ago?
Picassa anyone?
OK it may be a bit dated now but when it arrived via courtesy of Google it was (and can still be) very, very useful.
Interim conclusion:
Gauging public demand is sorta important and does not really matter on the vendors name.
Accountability - what means it?
I'd rather hope that any MP, SMP, WMP , ... would relish opportunities to demonstrate accountability to the public whenever. Instead we seem to have cause for concern over a security matter.
Tie that in with MEP creativeness with expenses, employing family in non-productive posts/roles, claiming expenses fr non-existent stuff and I begin to see where our much beloved public servants take their leadership models.
Is it really far, far better to "grab it while one can"?
Whatever happened to notions of accountability (the Tories really can take a good rest from that discussion) and public servitude?
Well?
Visual Studio says "Defy all challenges". Maybe it is just another challenge?
Skeletal strokes
I hope they start with skeletal strokes.
These, that is skeletal strokes, are brilliant and not without some issues. However, tidying up the issues seems to render the creative aspects of skeletal strokes as timid and much diluted.
It would be soopa (as in SOOPA!) to see skeletal strokes technology go almost open.
DE11
I think it would be cool for Dell UK to have a base in Derbyshire (the part with postcode DE11)
Shares?
Are there any virtualization people out there that have not been purchased by a big player?
Wurdz an weels
Theez wurd things ar almost az bad az thoze weel things that spin roun an roun.
Heh, heh...
On the other hand there is/are:
OS X
Boot Camp
A combination of the above two :)
Hmmm, interesting!
The first thought that occured to me is related to an earlier posting about Vist'a successor.
In that we considered dumping the "Windows" moniker and looked at "Microsoft Vienna" (Oh Vienna!, Ultravox and all that).
And now the thought occurs to me that MS Vista++ should have two forms. One is the general type open hardware platform that makes on OS run on non-ECC RAM and so forth (it keeps the lo-cost people happy) and the other is a top level, limited hardware variant (MS Vienna Top Class?) running along Apple hardware type model.
Doable?
Commercial?
(R)-Evolutionary?
ps
ps - it is almost worthwhile becoming an American citizen purely to vote in an election in which the aforesaid and aforementioned person is a candidate.
The USA needs it, Europe needs it, the world needs it?
C'mon BG - do the biz?
Of course he should!
Of course BG should run for President.
The USA needs him and the world needs him.
In this short event usually called "life" an individual happens along, circumstances fall into place and brilliance happens.
Q: BG for president?
A: Of course!
Of course he should!
Of course BG should run for President.
The USA needs him and the world needs him.
In this short event usually called "life" an individual happens along, circumstances fall into place and brilliance happens.
Q: BG for president?
A: Of course!
Valve type?
Was it a diode, triode, ... pentode or other?
Interesting?
Two flavours both without "Windows" moniker?
Vienna
Vienna Top Class
One that follows through Windows propensity to open hardware and the other to a strictly limited set of hardware.
Money considerations?
I must admit to dwelling on finance issues. Not so much on this topic but of schools, NHS, police ...
The present models are understandable from a historical perspective but I wonder if they need revised?
Governance is good
I hope they start with food science
A lot to learn?
A lot can be learned from this especially the importance of user management of updates and effect on work in progress. I am sure that won't be lost to either party.
Nice one!
Nice one beardy!
Hang easy
An architect valuing stuff at 2.5 million is probably a couple of orders of magnitude out added with a dash of exaggeration (fee payers doncha know?)
Hasn't anyone told the architect of Time Machine?
Ho-hum?
I beginn to wonder if MS research shows abounding stuff that is (mostly) sold off to corporate clients grabbing the best bits that eventually leave a poorer subset of functionality that is cobbled together to make something like Vista?
If so, then virtualization is really going to be best manifest not by what MS research say but by what corporate customers demonstrate as MS merketing gets under way?
Thoughts?
Under statement mate, understatement...
One model often used is: employ an incompetent.
if anything goes wrong blame social factors that the incompetent invokes in a social sense to show that it was not intentional to appoint an incompetent in the first place.
Uh-huh, t'ain't so bad?
See, in the commercial, free sector an organization is accountable and that accountability has consequence.
When annual or periodic reports are published the free sector pitches in to buy or sell shares and the "worth" of an organization and its governance tends to be (in broadest generalities) demonstrated in its share prices.
They go up (peer group supporting good and robust governance) or they go down (peer group supporting poor or shoddy governance). It may be different across the pond due to non-standard accountancy practices much frowned upon over recent years.
As far as the UK goes that does not happen with publicly funded bodies.
Should your local school be in best management it will secure funding for next year.
Should that same UK school be in poorest management it will also secure funding for next year.
So, in real terms: why bother?
The budget will be the same, employees will be the same and there is no real difference between squandering or good use of public funds to many an organization.
OK I'll go off now
But I am pleased to have reached #1 in the comments thread :)
There are two extremes under reductio ab adsurdum that need to be considered.
a) these reports are really as bad as it gets under accountability standards (especially under invocation of public accountability standards in the UK)
b) these are tip of the iceberg indicators and demonstrate that much malpractice has been sustained over quite a while compromising Ministers (in the UK these are Government Ministers), public and public funding alike.
You may choose some variance between options a) and b) as suits your perception and needs.
I hold that option b) is closer to the truth.
Have pity on the poor UK tax-payer and the atrocious service extended to those individuals (for as sure as eggz is eggz the CEOs don't).?
Maybe just maybe
The 97% win and the 3% win with equal veracity?
Uh-huh
Uh-huh
It tends to be a natural consequence of numpty management using numpties :)
BTW: apologies, I made a mistake in earlier post implying that CEOs or similar rankings within an organisation are the responsible dudes.
In general that is not the case.
The responsible ones form the board of governors or board of directors usually under a principle of shared responsibilities.
A CEO (or similar) is non other than the senior accountability officer accountable directly to the board.
Of course, legal models differ slightly but the above is a good and (I hope) robust generality.
Board: responsible
CEO and under: accountable.
In one's own experience public servants use this to there great advantage and public disservice.
If so consequence:
If public funded organization ceases to serve government or public whom does it serve?
Answers on a postcard please, marked strictly confidential and not to be lost in transit :)
Alternatively...
OS for 600 UKP
OS for 90 UKP
One OS supports breaking hardware, workflows and technology.
An alternative OS is about 10 years behind and costs more.
:) with apologies
teacake by name, teacake by nature? :)
Drop the Windows moniker?
Would it be better to drop "Windows" from the brand name?
Maybe to call it Microsoft Vienna (for example)
NHS anyone?
Honestly, believe me when I say:
- NHS national records
- partnership initiatives involving diverse organizations with access to data
- ID cards
- ...
are also subject to the same or similar "effective" management funded by the public purse.
AC: true, true
Under a delegation of duties model it is indeed true that:
a Principal in a College/University/establishment is responsible for "everything" that happens
Similarly so for a government minister, Head in a school, Chair of an organization, ...
On the other hand were individuals to deviate from instructed practice or policy then that sort of clears the governance issue on one point but then begs what steps are being (realistically) taken to ensure policy is in practice.
It is also a great way for public servants or others to deny their own ineptitudes and so forth by hoping that the public will hold someone else responsible rather than the direct management chain that has endorsed such things to happen.
Get the feel for what is being reported (data losses possibly with pecuniary advantage to organizations (in this case the Courts), consequences on public accountability, verifying key performance indicators, ... , what is not being reported or being withheld, fogged or obfuscated and one will indeed have a truer picture of management malpractice.
Beg to differ
It is not really a case of government ineptitude.
A government minister cannot give instructions to low ranking employees.
It is an example of public service (disservice) ineptitude and, at least to me, shows strong indicators of poor management within those organizations.
Heh heh
Now dovetail this report with poor security measures (lost data, funny use of public money, ...) that also hit the press.
It also seems that the £154 million is acting more as a quality assurance arm (identifying overpayments requires £154M???) rather than identifying criminal intent to defraud.
Realistic
It is also a time to be realistic.
Other comments seem to expect Mac to go from a 3% market share to a 97% market share overnight. Yeh? Well? Ummm? Realistic?
Mac is doing well 'nuff said.
So a standard may or may not be set? So what?
It really does not matter too much if a standard is set that has no proprietary support. And even if it did sometimes the fickle public may choose to ignore it by spending its hard earned income elsewhere.
On the other hand, it can be quite good use of a publicly funded budget especially if put into the (sufficently) wrong hands.
In other words: a technicality that may or may not be endorsed by the public?
Believe me...
This is not intended as a smack on the MoD, and it probably is a norm in the whole public sector in general (at least here in the UK).
The premise is that people entrusted with responsibilities probably are very low skilled and much in deniance of that but rank or authority means that what is done is done. In other words one may have authority to do so even though there is an obvious lack of skills to support the basis to grant one to do so.
In short: the public deserves better, should have better and lots of public money (in the UK) is probably squandered as these events are indicators of the skills levels and practices within the sector proper. The security issue really is , in my opinion, a manifestation of mistakes that probably extend far, far wider.
In short: I am surprised that anyone is surprised.
Interim conclusion:
It is a manifestation of the Policy-Practice divide. Ideally Policy should drive practice should drive policy should drive .... but in effect for many organizations it is far more expedient to allow policy makers to do what they have to do in order to attract funding or pull down funding streams. Once that funding is there then Practice part of the organization can do what it want s without consideration or support of the policy part. I call that the Policy-Practice divide and it is the nightmare scenario of a Policy-Practice synergy.
Personal conclusion:
Organizations that demonstrate Policy-Practice divide should be stripped of opportunity to call down or pull down public funds full stop.
It is an old story ...
It is an old story often claimed (especially at conference dinners).
The usual hurdle is that scientific knowledge and skills often grate with power politics visions or preconceptions. In other words research should drive practice and policy and in turn should be driven by the same. But when the results jar that is usually the point policy makers start to stop listening.
It's a bit like saying "know that the Earth orbits the Sun" when common understanding is that it is not so.
True, true, ...
You mean a Mac is not a good option? :)
Hi-spec computers are neat and I'd love to see one of the new Mac Pro units for sure.
Poor old early adopters?
On the other hand, 13 UKP = not a lot.
But there again, does it set a precedent for all other updates?
ah well?
I've gone for an eSATA Seagate based unit so I am glad that USB 3.0 has not been fully realised (yet).
Ah! The beeb?
At least the beeb (BBC computer/Archimedes?) did not have quite so demanding a footprint and all that RISK?
Hello World
OS X 10.5 is stunning, absolutely brilliant - and it is still in early days of its introduction to a big new world.
Over on one of the forums the reported message rate of all OS X 105 posting (faults and praises) corresponded to 0.005% of the 2 million sales in the first weekend. Now that is worth thinking about for sure.
As a relatively new to Mac person the other things (apart from TM, Cover Flow, ... ) are the more mundane things like data transfer rates. What does that mean?
Well one thing is 25 MB/s to an external USB drive.
Transfer rates, if there is a lot of data to shift, between devices is awesome with the usual advantage that moving stuff does not eat into CPU cycles.
But no OS is perfect and the first few weeks into "Hello world" really does mean some stuff will be identified (good and bad).
Now the biggest problems are: MacDrive? Parallels? VMWare? Will I won't I?
Time to reflect?
Perhaps it is about time for El Reg and Apple to make friends?
Records and audits
Some organisations need to keep records for a number of years (six) just in case a forensic audit is required or, in fact, any audit.