You *are* being watched...
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Ian on 1 Apr 2010 04:03 "Big Les Wade" <Les(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message news:snJhQ5Arz5qLFwxt(a)obviously.invalid... > Kim Bolton <nospam(a)all.invalid> posted >> >>Ret. wrote: >> >>>Yesterday my wife received a letter from the NHS describing the new >>>national >>>records database that is being set up. The benefits, of course, is >>>that once >>>up and running, any doctor, anywhere in the UK, will have immediate >>>access >>>to the medical records of any person from anywhere else in the >>>country. If >>>you suddenly fall ill, or are seriously injured when on holiday >>>down in >>>Cornwall, a doctor down there can access your records no matter >>>that you >>>might live in Preston. >>>It is made clear in the letter that if my wife does not want her >>>records on >>>this national database, then she can 'opt out'. Will she? Of >>>course not. >>> >>>I can see it now, however, you will all be saying: "What if the >>>information >>>is sold to pharmaceuticals companies. They will then be able to >>>bombard you >>>with junk mail advertising their cures for your specific ailments." >>>"What >>>if a blackmailer gets hold of the fact that you once had Syphilis >>>and >>>threatens to let your family know?" etc. etc. What ifs, what ifs, >>>what >> >>Although you dismiss these things as 'what ifs', that's how one >>explores the possibilities of database usage and data loss. >> >>Would you rather have a disaster and then deal with the problems? >> >>Databases exist to be mined and sold. The NHS one will go the same >>way >>- the NID was offered to firms that paid enough money, even while it >>was being discussed. > > Scotland launched its care record service a year or two before > England, and here's what happened: > > http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2010/01/10/doctor-who-hac > ked-into-prime-minister-s-health-records-escapes-prosecution-86908-219559 > 07/ > > Doctor who hacked into Prime Minister's health records escapes > prosecution > > Jan 10 2010 Norman Silvester, Sunday Mail > > A DOCTOR who hacked into the health records of Gordon Brown and Alex > Salmond will not be prosecuted, we can reveal today. [snip] Main reason he isn't being prosecuted is probably because the authorities don't want their weaknesses exposed to public scrutiny...;.l
From: Ret. on 1 Apr 2010 04:11 Ian wrote: > "Cynic" <cynic_999(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > news:mmhkq5dsivtaliqncf1vapoiu8clciqs6e(a)4ax.com... >> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 16:49:02 +0000, "steve robinson" >> <steve(a)colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> Products (some running into millions of items ) all accessable >>> within >>> a few seconds >> >> A few *seconds* ? >> >> See if you can time how quickly the till at your local supermarket >> is >> able to index a central database containing at least hundreds of >> thousands of items and extract the description and price of an item >> from its barcode number. I'm pretty certain that you will not >> notice >> any discernable delay between the beep of the scanner and the item >> description and price appearing on the till display. >> >> If it took as long as a few seconds the supermarket queues would be >> miles long! >> > I wouldn't trust a supermarket computer any further than I could throw > John Prescott. > > In front of me is a shelf label I purloined from Sainsburys a month > ago. It says: > > > -------------- > > fruit bowl yogurt flakes raisin 5 x 30g > > �1.99 > > �11.06 per kg > > -------------- > > Every week we go and buy a pack > > Every week we refuse to pay �1.99 for them, and offer �1.66 > > Every week we get them for �1.66. > > > Sainsburys were told of this a month ago (verbally, to customer > service desk) > And again 3 weeks ago (to a "manager", whose action was to scribble > through the figures "�11.06 per kg" > And again 2 weeks ago, written in the Complaints Book (together with > the information that the shelf label would be passed to whatever > Trading Standards call themselves these days). > > Trading Standards have been informed. > The local newspaper has been informed (there have been no slow news > days recently.....) > > It's STILL mathematical nonsense. > > see > http://www.sainsburys.co.uk/sol/global_search/global_result.jsp?bmForm=global_search&GLOBAL_DATA._search_term1=fruit+bowl+yogurt+flakes+raisin&GLOBAL_DATA._searchType=0&bmUID=1270107397717 > > > if long gets broke, try > > http://www.sainsburys.co.uk/groceries/index.jsp and then enter " > fruit bowl yogurt flakes raisin " in the search box > > The price of 150g multipack is somewhat higher than 5 individual packs > as well..... whaat's the idea there? The idea is for Sainsbury's to make money out of mugs. Most people believe that multipacks and larger sizes offer better value for money (and in many cases they do) - but my wife and I have noticed an increasing trend in Tescos for multipacks and larger sizes to cost more than buying the same quantity in individual packs or several smaller sizes. Kev
From: Norman Wells on 1 Apr 2010 05:09 Ian wrote: > "Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:80rvirFqbjU14(a)mid.individual.net... >> Phil Stovell <phil(a)stovell.nospam.org.uk> gurgled happily, sounding >> much >> like they were saying: >> >>>> Trivial, although Phil's suggested method is completely wrong. >>>> Just >>>> store the raw data, then perform whatever queries you wish at a >>>> later >>>> date. >> >>> Well, I was thinking of sort/merge and cobol! >> >> Cobol? Tha don't know tha's born. When ah were a lad, all we 'ad >> were >> Fortran, and a lump o'coal once a month. > > > dBase III+ > > With no Clipper. Oi!! I still use dBaseIII+. And what's Clipper? Something new fangled I expect.
From: Iain on 1 Apr 2010 07:09 "Ian" <idh(a)henden.co.uk> wrote in message news:KaWdnVqgqspIzCnWnZ2dnUVZ7t-dnZ2d(a)brightview.com... > > "Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:80rvirFqbjU14(a)mid.individual.net... >> Phil Stovell <phil(a)stovell.nospam.org.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much >> like they were saying: >> >>>> Trivial, although Phil's suggested method is completely wrong. Just >>>> store the raw data, then perform whatever queries you wish at a later >>>> date. >> >>> Well, I was thinking of sort/merge and cobol! >> >> Cobol? Tha don't know tha's born. When ah were a lad, all we 'ad were >> Fortran, and a lump o'coal once a month. > > > dBase III+ If I remember correctly, one of the more useful functions with that was the $$ which I used frequently and which some other languages have incorporated. Clipper? Iain
From: Cynic on 1 Apr 2010 07:58
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 08:40:16 +0100, "Ian" <idh(a)henden.co.uk> wrote: >I wouldn't trust a supermarket computer any further than I could throw >John Prescott. > >In front of me is a shelf label I purloined from Sainsburys a month >ago. It says: > > >-------------- > >fruit bowl yogurt flakes raisin 5 x 30g > >�1.99 > >�11.06 per kg > >-------------- That is an obvious human error, and has nothing to do with an error in a database lookup, but in the database data. The database will contain many fields for every item the supermarket stocks, all of which were originally entered by a human. Some of those fields are used to calculate the price you pay at the till, some are not used at all by the computer but merely copied out (e.g. the item description), some are flags for VAT rate, age restriction, special handling etc, there will be a field for the "per item" weight, and other fields no doubt contain the item size, bulk package size, shelf area needed, the cost price and many other things that the store uses internally. In this case someone entered 180g as the "per item" weight instead of 150g. An easy and very common keying error (or may have been a mental arithmetic error in multiplying 5 x 30). That field is not used on the shelf label (which uses the "item description"), and so the error in the weight field is not readily seen. It is however very simple to do the reverse calculation and reveal what the database error must be. >Sainsburys were told of this a month ago (verbally, to customer >service desk) >And again 3 weeks ago (to a "manager", whose action was to scribble >through the figures "�11.06 per kg" >And again 2 weeks ago, written in the Complaints Book (together with >the information that the shelf label would be passed to whatever >Trading Standards call themselves these days). >Trading Standards have been informed. >The local newspaper has been informed (there have been no slow news >days recently.....) >It's STILL mathematical nonsense. Try calculating 5 x 5 on your calculator. But instead of hitting the "5" key, hit the key above it instead. The calculator will tell you the answer is 64. Does that mean that your calculator is outputting a "mathematical nonsense"? Great, so you have noticed a human error which Sainsburys are admittedly being very tardy to rectify. That is likely to be more inconvenient for them than for yourself, because it will affect the calculations of weight of bulk quantities that they use to determine how many to load onto a lorry or a pallet etc. Fortunately the error is in a safe direction. Next time *you* make a typing error, shall we notify the relevant authorities and see if we can get the newspapers to print a story about your error? -- Cynic |