|
Not Operator posted:Or more literary, did a Yithian just leave? e: 2017 - The world's most powerful laser is scheduled to come online in Romania, where it will be used to terrorize Nigel Farage.
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 23:28 |
|
|
Don't be silly. Human souls can't exist inside fursuits.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
Not Operator posted:Or more literary, did a Yithian just leave? Arrived.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
Kegluneq posted:Corbyn is the leader of the Labour Party... 'Now, Win the Peace' seems a little more tone deaf to me. Yeah, but two of the four "Iconic Quotes" to cover the entirety of the history of the Labour Party coming from the current leader, when his name isn't Kier Hardie, is a bit like those polls that claim Angels by Robbie Williams is the greatest British song of all time. Also don't worry, I'm sure HSBC will ensure the charges for the declined transaction will go to a more deserving political cause. Guavanaut posted:The new Clause IV is a sort of cheery cheesy political equivalent of Keep Calm And Carry On. Fair point. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
winegums posted:
That is hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:a bit like those polls that claim Angels by Robbie Williams is the greatest British song of all time I will FIGHT you. At least I know I will always be blessed with love 
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
Mark and Lard's version was better.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
perhaps the press will keep pushing this? If there was ever a time a straight question demanded a straight answer, it was this afternoon when David Cameron was asked about his family’s involvement with offshore tax avoidance. But unfortunately for the British public, the Prime Minister wasn’t in the mood to provide a straight answer – and instead chose to dodge the issue of his late father’s offshore business dealings altogether. The Prime Minister was speaking at PwC this afternoon and, at the end of his speech, took just two questions from the press. He had previously implied that he would take more but this opportunity didn’t materialise, meaning that journalists were unable to probe the non-answer he provided. Cameron was asked directly whether he or his family had benefited from the offshore Blairmore Holdings fund mentioned in the Panama Papers and established by his father, Ian Cameron. In reply, he spoke about British efforts to reduce tax avoidance and outlined his personal financial situation. He detailed his salary as Prime Minister, his savings and interests and the proceeds of the rental of his Witney home. While it’s great to see the Prime Minister open up about his personal finances, he didn't exactly answer the question. Perhaps this new period of openness will lead to him releasing his tax return, as Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn promised to do earlier today. Perhaps not. The disappointing fact is that today, Cameron answered the question he wanted to answer. On an issue as important as this, that simply is not good enough. If it’s true that at the same time as the Tories have been talking tough about tax havens and tax avoidance – not to mention legislating for some of the harshest cuts to public services – our own Prime Minister has known all along that he benefited from offshore accounts which didn’t pay UK tax, then we deserve proper answers. “Have you benefited from tax avoidance?” is a pretty straightforward question. If the answer really is no, then why didn't Cameron just say it? If the answer is yes, then we have a serious problem on our hands. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...g-a6969941.html
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:oh my loving god I just saw this on the BBC frontpage He did it before, wandered round Glasgow crying about how very sad it was that people were so poor then got the cabinet position and proceeded to gently caress them over all the more. I don't know, maybe he does believe everything he says and genuinely thinks he is helping people overcome their dependency to food and shelter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
Not Operator posted:Or more literary, did a Yithian just leave? That would explain so many things in politics. hookerbot 5000 posted:I don't know, maybe he does believe everything he says and genuinely thinks he is helping people overcome their dependency to food and shelter. Well, he is, he's liberating them from their bodies by killing them. IDS the transhumanist libertarian would be a more interesting character than IDS the rules lawyer libertarian. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 20:37 on Apr 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
I know this isn't strictly UK* but the new president of FIFA has apparently been linked to corruption via the panama papers lmfao On graun and i'm phoneposting so cba to link. *except insofar as everything to do with football is inherently and eternally british
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
This is the Graun article Colour me shocked, corruption doesn't end with Blatter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
winegums posted:There is definately fat in the NHS to cut. Basically 2/3 of the shite that is used to keep doctors on a short leash could be removed with no harm. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:The problem is they care about being the next big figure of history who led the Great Socialist Enlightenment, and if they can't be in the inner circle then by golly are they making their own new party with a new inner circle that they get to choose this time. There are groups that don't do that, you just don't hear about them because they don't self publicise quite so much.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
mrpwase posted:I will FIGHT you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHfLbUqqqlM
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
I really hope that this Panama thing drags out for as long as possible in the runup to the local elections. Oh god imagine if another large offshore bank suffered a similar leak.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
You can trust the Tories with the nation's finances, because they know all the tricks *WINK*
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
You know when you all joke about "this is bad for Corbyn because..." Well https://twitter.com/LBC/status/717460847585574913
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
No.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
I put my right shoe on my left foot by accident this morning. Corbyn should resign over it IMO.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
Cabinet posted:You know when you all joke about "this is bad for Corbyn because..." Either that was a typo or Pissflaps works for LBC.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
Seaside Loafer posted:Having worked in software development in the nhs since January id be professionally interested in knowing which tight security is bothering you exactly and what you scamps are up to getting around it and why Well my hospital has a loving retarded policy where if you want access to anything from a network folder to a ward (via swipe card) the only way to do it is to get someone who already has access to send an e-mail to IT saying you need access. When I started in my job obviously the person before me had left, and my immediate superior was a locum. I didn't know anyone who had access to the stuff I needed, but no matter how many times I called IT it was met with the same 'someone who already has access has to tell us to give you access'. I spent the better part of a week writing everything down and tailgating people through locked doors. Thanks a bunch.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:There are groups that don't do that, you just don't hear about them because they don't self publicise quite so much. I found a man who locked himself in a box who happens to be a perfect leader for the entire world. Unfortunately he refuses to leave his box even if he'll happily provide policy and leadership. I'm sure he'll become leader someday once we find his box and agree to listen to the box. Cabinet posted:You know when you all joke about "this is bad for Corbyn because..." Oh good I live in The Thick of It. gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I put my right shoe on my left foot by accident this morning. Corbyn should resign over it IMO. Brutal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
Why is the new Labour Election Broadcast so tedious and bad? It's like they looked at the Liz Kendall campaign video and thought it would be good to imitate it for some reason?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
Labour hasn't really been in a good stride with PR for a while.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
jabby posted:Well my hospital has a loving retarded policy where if you want access to anything from a network folder to a ward (via swipe card) the only way to do it is to get someone who already has access to send an e-mail to IT saying you need access. There is a reason for it not being easy, real life peoples names/addresses/medical records etc, super private data innit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
OvineYeast posted:Why is the new Labour Election Broadcast so tedious and bad? It's like they looked at the Liz Kendall campaign video and thought it would be good to imitate it for some reason? I thought it was OK. It was nice to see actual evidence being used to back up points rather than just 'we are great, vote for us'. Speaking of which, what did you think of the Tories? Not sure they hit the right tone by emphasising that they will lower taxes, protect education and improve the NHS. Surely everyone with eyes and ears knows that they are locked in major disputes over all those things right now. Seaside Loafer posted:Yeah fair enough. The general rule (with loads of exceptions) with access to anything from intranet pages to network drives to areas is that authorisation needs to come from your line manager which I can see must be a bit annoying if you dont know who it is and they arent around. An email from them will usually do it, email them, say you need this whatever because reasons and tell them to email IT saying i authorise. The problem is this is poo poo that should be sorted out before you start the job, not a week in. My predecessor left me detailed notes about all current patients that I couldn't access. It was dangerous, and when you have a ward full of sick patients you can't properly treat a generic 'nothing we can do' from IT is enough to make your blood boil. It shouldn't be that hard to just say 'this guy is starting as the new medical F1, he needs access to this, this and this'. Rather than me filling in a form and getting an email sent for every single thing I need. Right? jabby fucked around with this message at 23:26 on Apr 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
I wanted to have toast this morning but then I noticed the bread was mouldy. Corbyn should resign over this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
Extreme0 posted:Labour hasn't really been in a good stride with PR for a while. tbh I would have said that generally their campaign has been right on point the last month or so, but this is a really terrible advert.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
jabby posted:I thought it was OK. It was nice to see actual evidence being used to back up points rather than just 'we are great, vote for us'. Not if they shout loudly enough that they're not, they're not. At least, not in the minds of the voters. Or at least that's they're logic, and sadly it's pretty accurate at times.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
Seaside Loafer posted:There is a reason for it not being easy, real life peoples names/addresses/medical records etc, super private data innit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
jabby posted:I thought it was OK. It was nice to see actual evidence being used to back up points rather than just 'we are great, vote for us'.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
namesake posted:One overly tight security mess is with Commissioning support units and personal details. Commissioners are required (as in are legally required to) to have service arrangements with outside organisations like CSUs or private data companies but because these aren't considered NHS organisations or deal directly with care situations they aren't allowed to have free access to patient information like NHS numbers, instead they must be an accredited safe haven which allows them some access to data but not all of it. However since we do deal in situations where we have to identify patients by their NHS numbers or receive data with NHS numbers in it there are a few members of staff at the CSUs which are technically employed by a different NHS organisation which means they are allowed to see NHS numbers. Some of these people sit opposite me in an open plan office. These people are responsible for building our data warehouse with pseudo NHS numbers replacing the real ones meaning we can identify patients within our system but not with any other organisation. I think I actually find it easier to explain how the tariff works than I do to explain how CCGs/CSUs/DSCROs work. It's convoluted beyond belief and makes trying to deal with data challenges a pain in the arse, as everyone on the commissioning side can often only see pseudo data.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Until the government wants to sell it, then it's less of a big deal. e: To claify the BI company are doing work for the nhs, they arent just mining data for adverts or whatever! it just weirds me out a) money is being wasted on the highly likely to be useless results and b) its so loving easy for a company to get hold of 3 million records of highly private data and they are a noddy looking bullshit firm with a crap website :/ Seaside Loafer fucked around with this message at 00:16 on Apr 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
Seaside Loafer posted:Couldnt agree with you more and whoever was in charge of you starting should have sent the 'ive got a new starter, sort him out with this this and this' poo poo to whatever places were relavent for you. If they did and it just didnt happen then i dont know. I do know the system is very email reliant in many places which is a bit poo poo. Yeah, that doesn't happen at my hospital. Everyone gets generic IT and ward access on the first day. Then, while doing your job, you have to figure out everything specific to your job you need access to, where it is located, and find someone to give you access to it. That is the actual procedure.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
Seaside Loafer posted:Last month on request of some management bods I produced data for the last 3 years worth of 911/999 calls and ambulance assignments in my trust including the private data; addresses, phone numbers, detail of the incident etc. This was sent to some 3rd party 'Business Intelligence' company to do whatever the gently caress they are doing with it. Its all above board, they signed some confidentiality thing but it weirds me the gently caress out that this happens, allot. The developer I dealt with at the 3rd parts end was a proper pushy arsehole and not really someone id personnaly choose to have all that data. Makes you think dont it. Then apparently after a whole lot of people opted out the government shifted the goalposts so that the opt-out wasn't all that strong anyway. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
jabby posted:Yeah, that doesn't happen at my hospital. Everyone gets generic IT and ward access on the first day. Then, while doing your job, you have to figure out everything specific to your job you need access to, where it is located, and find someone to give you access to it. That is the actual procedure. This is the same at basically every company that is more than a few years old. Role based access is both more secure and less effort to manage for everyone involved, but unless you're building a company from the ground up you have to do a cutover from the existing security setup, during which you can expect a whole bunch of people being unable to do their jobs. That might be acceptable if you do the heavy lifting while most staff are on holiday and then tell all your staff to deal with the fact that there will be some disruption for a while afterwards, but causing a week (at least) of chaos in a hospital is never going to go down well. If you don't do a cutover and try to do things gradually, then you end up running two security architectures in parallel which is double the management workload and double the opportunities for mistakes to create security holes. In the meantime the goalposts keep moving whenever staff are reorganised and it takes so much effort to keep things going that the project never finishes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
Scikar posted:This is the same at basically every company that is more than a few years old. Role based access is both more secure and less effort to manage for everyone involved, but unless you're building a company from the ground up you have to do a cutover from the existing security setup, during which you can expect a whole bunch of people being unable to do their jobs. That might be acceptable if you do the heavy lifting while most staff are on holiday and then tell all your staff to deal with the fact that there will be some disruption for a while afterwards, but causing a week (at least) of chaos in a hospital is never going to go down well. If you don't do a cutover and try to do things gradually, then you end up running two security architectures in parallel which is double the management workload and double the opportunities for mistakes to create security holes. In the meantime the goalposts keep moving whenever staff are reorganised and it takes so much effort to keep things going that the project never finishes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 23:28 |
|
|
Seaside Loafer posted:Id go along with that mostly but Jabby or whoever needs the basics to do their main job on day 1. Not having that setup for him is a gently caress up. Incremental works after that. Yeah I don't know much about security systems but surely it should be possible to say 'the cardiology F1 needs access to this folder and this ward' then give that to whoever the new cardiology F1 is by default. Instead of them having to find out where the folder they need access to is located and request it themselves. Especially if there isn't anyone present who can actually authorize access.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 00:50
|
|