Phil Cook wrote:
> And lo on Fri, 16 Nov 2007 11:46:50 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did 
> spake, saying:
> 
>> Yeah... These guys don't seem to comprehend that the UK isn't the USA. 
>> When we tell them things like this, they seem to think we're making a 
>> fuss about nothing.
> 
> Try http://thepiratebay.org/legal.php for more 'the US is the World' fun.

Wait... In Sweeden it's legal to copy protected works? ._.

>> Do you have a cite for that?
> 
> You mean other then the £ being a stylised L which stands for librae, 
> which also refers to weight and is what the currency was originally 
> based on...no :-) Oh and it should be lb for the plural like sheep, so 
> they did get that wrong.

Ooo.. I didn't know that. (About lb being plural.) I'm pretty sure I've 
seen it wrong in a number of places though...

>>>  And HQ have been told this?
>>
>> Endlessly. Our accountant spent *months* trying to get them to 
>> reconfigure the software to allow her to do her job properly. They 
>> variously didn't understand what she meant, or thought she was just 
>> being awkward for the sake of causing trouble.
> 
> Invite their accountant over to 'show' her how to do her job properly.

Heh. Well, the trouble is, the Big Boys want to control everything, but 
don't want to do any actual *work* and certainly don't want to be held 
*responsible* for anything. They want all the glory when it goes wrong, 
they want to be the control freaks who get to boss everyone around, but 
they're not interested in doing anything helpful...

>> Well, it's Cisco, so at least you can geniunely say it's the best 
>> product on the market. (Unlike the Dell thing...) It's expensive, but 
>> at least you can say you're getting build quality.
> 
> It is kind of like buying gold-filigreed oars carved from the finest 
> woods by master craftsman in order to paddle your hide coracle.

Indeed.

>> OTOH, our current switches have worked perfectly for over 10 years too...
> 
> Ah due for failure then :-)

Doubt it. :-P

>> You just sumerised the whole CF, right there.
> 
> It's a knack,now just COPY* and paste it into an email to HQ.
> 
> *Just for you Warp.

Well, I don't know, I don't think even He is omnipresent... ;-)

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:18:56 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake, saying:

> Invisible wrote:
>
>> 5. This just in - HQ have proposed a new, standardised company-wide  
>> computer naming scheme.
>>  They want to name each computer according to where it is in the  
>> building.
>
> roflcakes!
>
> I just had the most amusing conversation with the head of IT...
>
> I tried to explain to him that renaming a PC is an expensive operation  
> and something that should be avoided at all costs. Some of his responses  
> were really quite amusing.
>
> "My *God* - you have a log book for *every* PC on your network?? What on  
> earth is the *point* of that?!?"
>
> I manage to avoid exclaiming "...and you *don't*?"

I trust your answer was more along the lines of "We keep them as part of  
the audit trail that is legally required for our industry, both here and  
in the USA" and watched him turn a whiter shade of pale.

Knowing what you do I'm not surprised that you need such a trail;  
disconcerting at the least that your IT head doesn't know that.

> For anybody who doesn't work in this kind of righly-regulated  
> environment: Being able to provide an audit trail of *exactly* what has  
> happened to a particular computer system is an elementery requirement of  
> the industry regulations. (In particular, the same requirements also  
> apply in the USA.) The fact that the company head of IT didn't know that  
> is... disturbing.
>
> "Wow, that's *insane*! You can't do that...! OK, I'm gonna have to get  
> that fixed."

Hehe that's easy just hire a good lobbying company and get the regulations  
changed for the whole industry - piece of cake it'll all be done in a  
couple of years. I do like "You can't do that" always funny when used in a  
situation where not only have you done that, but have done that for quite  
some time now.

> Ahem. Good luck with that one honey. I think the auditors might have a  
> little bit to say about the matter. ;-)
>
> Seriously. The very idea that we would actually *record* an audit trail  
> and be accountable rather than just do whatever the hell we feel like  
> utterly blew his mind. It was a total shock to his system.
>
> Clearly, at HQ they do things a little bit differently. ;-) I always  
> thought it was an exaggeration, but now I'm not so sure...

What are they doing over there?

> [Hint: If you go to QA and say "oh hai, i r deleted ur audit trails,  
> kthxbye" I can *actually guarantee* - as in, I can put money on it -  
> that QA will say, in no uncertain terms, "ME NO WANT!!1!". And what QA  
> doesn't approve, does not happen. Not without severe legal implicatiosn  
> anyway...]
>
> OMG, I should stop reading lolcat!

Yes, yes I think you should.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Does anybody else feel frustrated at work?
>
[Snip]

> No, I'm sorry, this is absurd!)

You must be a masochist. Tell us that you enjoy this :)

Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook wrote:
> And lo on Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:18:56 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did 
> spake, saying:
> 
>> "My *God* - you have a log book for *every* PC on your network?? What 
>> on earth is the *point* of that?!?"
>>
>> I manage to avoid exclaiming "...and you *don't*?"
> 
> I trust your answer was more along the lines of "We keep them as part of 
> the audit trail that is legally required for our industry, both here and 
> in the USA" and watched him turn a whiter shade of pale.

Actually, he'd probably just not believe me. :-P

The guys at HQ tend to not believe anything anyone in the UK says.

For example, a while back we had a period where the lab was utterly 
empty. Bored analysts were dusting shelves and rearranging paperwork 
(and leaving work *hours* early) because there was simply no useful work 
to be done. There were even rumours that the site might close, it was so 
damn quiet.

And then the Big Bosses came over, and we had a meeting. So they're 
standing there telling us how we all need to pull our weight and work 
hard and work unpaid overtime if necessary (!!) to complete work on time 
and someone piped up "why? We haven't got any work to do right now."

"Oh, I don't believe that."

"No, seriously. We've got no work."

"Well, you might not have much, but you must have *something*. Anyway, 
what we-"

"No, we've got NO WORK."

"Well I don't believe that for a second."

Only when our exasperated lab director *dragged* these guys over to the 
lab and physically *showed* them the empty freezers did they all gasp 
and go "holy crap! We gotta get some samples in here right away! We're 
losing a fortune here... Jeez, why didn't you guys *tell* us you had no 
work?!" (Obviously, the answer being "We *have* been telling you about 
this - for many *months* before the gap in the schedule actually hit the 
lab. Why didn't you LISTEN to us?")

Within days we had more work than we could handle coming through the 
door, but you have to wonder why this didn't happen months ago when our 
lab director is phoning these bozos *daily* to tell them we've got no 
work. I imagine because they though "no work" was an exaggeration...

> Knowing what you do I'm not surprised that you need such a trail; 
> disconcerting at the least that your IT head doesn't know that.

Er, YES. o_o

>> "Wow, that's *insane*! You can't do that...! OK, I'm gonna have to get 
>> that fixed."
> 
> Hehe that's easy just hire a good lobbying company and get the 
> regulations changed for the whole industry - piece of cake it'll all be 
> done in a couple of years.

These are the kind of idiots who seem to think that major national 
governments will just change their laws to suit the company. Obviously, 
they are sadly mistaken. (What *is* it that gives people these ideas 
that the world revolves around them??)

> I do like "You can't do that" always funny 
> when used in a situation where not only have you done that, but have 
> done that for quite some time now.

Yeah, isn't it great? :-D

>> Clearly, at HQ they do things a little bit differently. ;-) I always 
>> thought it was an exaggeration, but now I'm not so sure...
> 
> What are they doing over there?

Well, from what I can tell, they spout a lot of grand talk about 
compliance with regulations, and then just do whatever they feel like 
whenever following the rules isn't convinient.

For example, a lot of their "procedure documents" basically say, in 
flowery language, "the person performing this task will decide on the 
best way to do it based on their expertise". Or perhaps "there will be a 
procedure. The people doing it will know what it is. It may change from 
time to time. We won't actually write it down anywhere though."

The entire *point* of a procedure document is to rigidly define 
*exactly* what the procedure is. So that you can be tested against it. 
Also, official procedure documents go through an extensive review and 
approval process, to ensure that the procedure is acceptable. Also, 
these documents get archived, so that when you reconstruct a project, 
you can determine exactly which version of the procedure the people 
would have been working to at the time.

All of this goes straight out the window when you have cursory "there 
will be a procedure" documents. I seriously wonder how they get away 
with it - our QA department in the UK would *never* allow such a thing. 
(In fact, they regularly refuse to adapt "global" procedure documents 
because they don't specify any procedure - or they specify a dumb 
procedure!)

>> OMG, I should stop reading lolcat!
> 
> Yes, yes I think you should.

pleez to stop poking me now?

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Does anybody else feel frustrated at work?
>>
> [Snip]
> 
>> No, I'm sorry, this is absurd!)
> 
> You must be a masochist. Tell us that you enjoy this :)

Well... It *can* be amusing sometimes! ;-) Watching all the stupid ideas 
these guys come up with, watching them shoot their own arms and legs off.

And sometimes it's significantly *less* fun - like when they start 
shooting *my* arms and legs off. o_O

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:45:09 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake, saying:

> Phil Cook wrote:
>> And lo on Fri, 16 Nov 2007 11:46:50 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull>  
>> did spake, saying:
>>
>>> Yeah... These guys don't seem to comprehend that the UK isn't the USA.  
>>> When we tell them things like this, they seem to think we're making a  
>>> fuss about nothing.
>>  Try http://thepiratebay.org/legal.php for more 'the US is the World'  
>> fun.
>
> Wait... In Sweeden it's legal to copy protected works? ._.

No read it again a little more carefully. Think of PirateBay as a Google  
for torrents, they don't have the data they just provide links to it which  
apparently is perfectly legal there... so far.

>>> Do you have a cite for that?
>>  You mean other then the £ being a stylised L which stands for librae,  
>> which also refers to weight and is what the currency was originally  
>> based on...no :-) Oh and it should be lb for the plural like sheep, so  
>> they did get that wrong.
>
> Ooo.. I didn't know that. (About lb being plural.) I'm pretty sure I've  
> seen it wrong in a number of places though...

librum/libra

>>>>  And HQ have been told this?
>>>
>>> Endlessly. Our accountant spent *months* trying to get them to  
>>> reconfigure the software to allow her to do her job properly. They  
>>> variously didn't understand what she meant, or thought she was just  
>>> being awkward for the sake of causing trouble.
>>  Invite their accountant over to 'show' her how to do her job properly.
>
> Heh. Well, the trouble is, the Big Boys want to control everything, but  
> don't want to do any actual *work* and certainly don't want to be held  
> *responsible* for anything. They want all the glory when it goes wrong,  
> they want to be the control freaks who get to boss everyone around, but  
> they're not interested in doing anything helpful...

Phrase it to massage their egos.

>>> You just sumerised the whole CF, right there.
>>  It's a knack,now just COPY* and paste it into an email to HQ.
>>  *Just for you Warp.
>
> Well, I don't know, I don't think even He is omnipresent... ;-)

I think He only gets invoked with the holy and powerful phrase "Cut and  
Paste"... we'll see if that works :-)

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Fri, 16 Nov 2007 15:18:38 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake, saying:

> Phil Cook wrote:
>> And lo on Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:18:56 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull>  
>> did spake, saying:
>>
>>> "My *God* - you have a log book for *every* PC on your network?? What  
>>> on earth is the *point* of that?!?"
>>>
>>> I manage to avoid exclaiming "...and you *don't*?"
>>  I trust your answer was more along the lines of "We keep them as part  
>> of the audit trail that is legally required for our industry, both here  
>> and in the USA" and watched him turn a whiter shade of pale.
>
> Actually, he'd probably just not believe me. :-P
>
> The guys at HQ tend to not believe anything anyone in the UK says.
>
> For example, a while back we had a period where the lab was utterly  
> empty. Bored analysts were dusting shelves and rearranging paperwork  
> (and leaving work *hours* early) because there was simply no useful work  
> to be done. There were even rumours that the site might close, it was so  
> damn quiet.
>
> And then the Big Bosses came over, and we had a meeting. So they're  
> standing there telling us how we all need to pull our weight and work  
> hard and work unpaid overtime if necessary (!!) to complete work on time  
> and someone piped up "why? We haven't got any work to do right now."
>
> "Oh, I don't believe that."
>
> "No, seriously. We've got no work."
>
> "Well, you might not have much, but you must have *something*. Anyway,  
> what we-"
>
> "No, we've got NO WORK."
>
> "Well I don't believe that for a second."
>
> Only when our exasperated lab director *dragged* these guys over to the  
> lab and physically *showed* them the empty freezers did they all gasp  
> and go "holy crap! We gotta get some samples in here right away! We're  
> losing a fortune here... Jeez, why didn't you guys *tell* us you had no  
> work?!" (Obviously, the answer being "We *have* been telling you about  
> this - for many *months* before the gap in the schedule actually hit the  
> lab. Why didn't you LISTEN to us?")

At which point you say "well we did email you on the 1st, then the 5th,  
the 11th, the..." ah gods bless the paper trail.

>>> "Wow, that's *insane*! You can't do that...! OK, I'm gonna have to get  
>>> that fixed."
>>  Hehe that's easy just hire a good lobbying company and get the  
>> regulations changed for the whole industry - piece of cake it'll all be  
>> done in a couple of years.
>
> These are the kind of idiots who seem to think that major national  
> governments will just change their laws to suit the company. Obviously,  
> they are sadly mistaken. (What *is* it that gives people these ideas  
> that the world revolves around them??)

Well it depends on the size of the country, the size of the company and  
the laws in question. Remember if a government passes a law preventing the  
sale of some goods in its country then this is a trade restriction, if a  
company prevents retailers selling its goods in stores that's copyright.

>>> Clearly, at HQ they do things a little bit differently. ;-) I always  
>>> thought it was an exaggeration, but now I'm not so sure...
>>  What are they doing over there?
>
> Well, from what I can tell, they spout a lot of grand talk about  
> compliance with regulations, and then just do whatever they feel like  
> whenever following the rules isn't convinient.

Are you sure they're not French? (no please I'm just kidding really I am)

> For example, a lot of their "procedure documents" basically say, in  
> flowery language, "the person performing this task will decide on the  
> best way to do it based on their expertise". Or perhaps "there will be a  
> procedure. The people doing it will know what it is. It may change from  
> time to time. We won't actually write it down anywhere though."
>
> The entire *point* of a procedure document is to rigidly define  
> *exactly* what the procedure is. So that you can be tested against it.  
> Also, official procedure documents go through an extensive review and  
> approval process, to ensure that the procedure is acceptable. Also,  
> these documents get archived, so that when you reconstruct a project,  
> you can determine exactly which version of the procedure the people  
> would have been working to at the time.
>
> All of this goes straight out the window when you have cursory "there  
> will be a procedure" documents. I seriously wonder how they get away  
> with it - our QA department in the UK would *never* allow such a thing.  
> (In fact, they regularly refuse to adapt "global" procedure documents  
> because they don't specify any procedure - or they specify a dumb  
> procedure!)

Sadly the flip side is not being able to get a client to sign off some  
documentation while they're physically there as the procedure says it has  
to be faxed to their office for approval and faxed back with their  
signature.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

The Matrix has you.

Post a reply to this message

Are you the White Rabbit?

Post a reply to this message

>Are you the White Rabbit?

No.  This is...

http://www.jobsearch.co.uk/

Post a reply to this message

http://content.crazyphotos.com/fertilizer.jpg

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> http://content.crazyphotos.com/fertilizer.jpg

teh 0wnerz!

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote:
> http://content.crazyphotos.com/fertilizer.jpg

  It looks so fake that it would be a real surprise if it was indeed a
genuine photo.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   It looks so fake that it would be a real surprise if it was indeed a
> genuine photo.

Yeah, it's probably fake, but that doesn't stop it being funny. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook a écrit :
> And lo on Fri, 16 Nov 2007 11:46:50 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did 
> spake, saying:
> 
>> Phil Cook wrote:
>>> And lo on Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:11:41 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> 
>>> did spake, saying:
>>>
>>>> So rather than costing "less than £1,000", it's now more like £5,200.
>>>  But at a 4x heightened efficiency no doubt.
>>
>> Well, it's Cisco, so at least you can geniunely say it's the best 
>> product on the market. (Unlike the Dell thing...) It's expensive, but 
>> at least you can say you're getting build quality.
> 
> It is kind of like buying gold-filigreed oars carved from the finest 
> woods by master craftsman in order to paddle your hide coracle.
> 

Having worked with many brands of switches, Cisco gear clearly 
outperforms the others when it comes to troubleshooting.  This might 
have factored in.  Of course, maybe the guys in the US simply went for 
the "Oooh Shiney!" ads.



-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   sympatico.ca  */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Sun, 18 Nov 2007 15:37:33 -0000, Francois Labreque  
<fla### [at] sympaticoca> did spake, saying:

> Phil Cook a écrit :
>> And lo on Fri, 16 Nov 2007 11:46:50 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull>  
>> did spake, saying:
>>
>>> Phil Cook wrote:
>>>> And lo on Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:11:41 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull>  
>>>> did spake, saying:
>>>>
>>>>> So rather than costing "less than £1,000", it's now more like £5,200.
>>>>  But at a 4x heightened efficiency no doubt.
>>>
>>> Well, it's Cisco, so at least you can geniunely say it's the best  
>>> product on the market. (Unlike the Dell thing...) It's expensive, but  
>>> at least you can say you're getting build quality.
>>  It is kind of like buying gold-filigreed oars carved from the finest  
>> woods by master craftsman in order to paddle your hide coracle.
>>
>
> Having worked with many brands of switches, Cisco gear clearly  
> outperforms the others when it comes to troubleshooting.  This might  
> have factored in.  Of course, maybe the guys in the US simply went for  
> the "Oooh Shiney!" ads.

Odds-on for 'Shiny'.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook wrote:
> And lo on Sun, 18 Nov 2007 15:37:33 -0000, Francois Labreque 
> <fla### [at] sympaticoca> did spake, saying:
> 
>> Having worked with many brands of switches, Cisco gear clearly 
>> outperforms the others when it comes to troubleshooting.  This might 
>> have factored in.  Of course, maybe the guys in the US simply went for 
>> the "Oooh Shiney!" ads.
> 
> Odds-on for 'Shiny'.

+1

*sigh*

Post a reply to this message

> 1. We had a different accounts package at all 5 sites. Obviously, this is 
> highly suboptimal. So we decided to standardise. On Micro$oft Axapta. This 
> cost us $1 million US. And yet it doesn't seem to "understand" about VAT.

Did you actually train any of your staff to use this $1m software package? 
I can assure you that MS Axapta can handle UK and EU VAT perfectly well, as 
well as printing VAT numbers on invoices and far more complex things.  If 
you sent them on a training course then they could just ask how to do this 
and they would be shown...

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> 1. We had a different accounts package at all 5 sites. Obviously, this 
>> is highly suboptimal. So we decided to standardise. On Micro$oft 
>> Axapta. This cost us $1 million US. And yet it doesn't seem to 
>> "understand" about VAT.
> 
> Did you actually train any of your staff to use this $1m software 
> package?

What??

Don't be silly! ;-)

On 24 hours' notice, we found out that some guys were coming over from 
the USA. (Nice of you to give us some notice... We only found out when 
somebody asked "you have got accomodation for next week, right?" "Uh, 
next week??") They spent 5 days importing all the data from Sage into 
Axapta. Then they said "there you go, here's your new software", and 
left. That was "it". Initially, our accounts guys didn't even have 
passwords to get into the system.

>  I can assure you that MS Axapta can handle UK and EU VAT
> perfectly well, as well as printing VAT numbers on invoices and far more 
> complex things.  If you sent them on a training course then they could 
> just ask how to do this and they would be shown...

The last thing I heard on the matter was this:

"There's a UK add-on module that gives you support for VAT and a couple 
of other things. We won't be purchasing it. It's just too expensive."

In other words, "this is only a problem for the UK so we don't really 
care about it". Almost all problems that only affect the UK 
automatically get an extremely low priority.

In all honesty, it's really hard to determine whether Axapta is a bad 
product, or whether the guys who set it up just don't know how to work 
it properly. Nobody I have ever spoken to seems to have any great 
knowledge of how to work it.

Certainly the finance people in HQ like to invent needlessly elaborate 
ways of doing things to make themselves feel important. Hardly a week 
goes by without them issuing some decree that something we've been doing 
for years we now have to do in a completely different and much more 
convoluted way. (Usually so that the guys at HQ can be "in charge" of 
it, which seems to make them happier...)

Post a reply to this message

>>> 1. We had a different accounts package at all 5 sites. Obviously, this 
>>> is highly suboptimal. So we decided to standardise. On Micro$oft Axapta. 
>>> This cost us $1 million US. And yet it doesn't seem to "understand" 
>>> about VAT.
>>
>> Did you actually train any of your staff to use this $1m software 
>> package?
>
> What??
>
> Don't be silly! ;-)

1) Stay with your old system
2) Upgrade to Axapta
3) Upgrade to Axapta and train the staff

Option 1 is good because it's cheap (2 and 3 are roughly the same cost). 
Option 3 is good because it will (should) make your company more effective. 
Option 2 is just, well, pointless.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Does anybody else feel frustrated at work?
> 
> It just seems that HQ are forever taking simple systems that work, and 
> replacing them with complex systems that don't work.
> 
> The irony of all this is that they do this to "simplify" and 
> "streamline" our business process. Ha!
> 
> One of the main things they like to do is change it so that al 5 sites 
> do things the same way. Well, it does make sense to standardise. But 
> *why* do they insist on standardising on the worst possible thing?
> 

Didn't you say a while back that they had NO IT at HQ?

Tom

Post a reply to this message

Tom Austin wrote:

> Didn't you say a while back that they had NO IT at HQ?

Yes, that's true - after the head guy was fired and his clueless second 
in command promptly quit.

They have since hired a whole bunch of new people. Most of these seem to 
be a lot less arrogant and a bit less disorganised. Some of them even 
seem to know how to operate computers. But... confidence inspiring? No, 
not really. :-S

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:

>>> Did you actually train any of your staff to use this $1m software 
>>> package?
>>
>> What??
>>
>> Don't be silly! ;-)
> 
> 1) Stay with your old system
> 2) Upgrade to Axapta
> 3) Upgrade to Axapta and train the staff
> 
> Option 1 is good because it's cheap (2 and 3 are roughly the same cost). 
> Option 3 is good because it will (should) make your company more 
> effective. Option 2 is just, well, pointless.

...you noticed!

(What, you mean just having the latest shiny whizz-bang *won't* 
automatically solve all your problems?)

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Mon, 19 Nov 2007 12:28:11 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake, saying:

> scott wrote:
<snip>
> On 24 hours' notice, we found out that some guys were coming over from  
> the USA. (Nice of you to give us some notice... We only found out when  
> somebody asked "you have got accomodation for next week, right?" "Uh,  
> next week??") They spent 5 days importing all the data from Sage into  
> Axapta. Then they said "there you go, here's your new software", and  
> left. That was "it". Initially, our accounts guys didn't even have  
> passwords to get into the system.

Going to be so fun come audit time.

>>  I can assure you that MS Axapta can handle UK and EU VAT
>> perfectly well, as well as printing VAT numbers on invoices and far  
>> more complex things.  If you sent them on a training course then they  
>> could just ask how to do this and they would be shown...
>
> The last thing I heard on the matter was this:
>
> "There's a UK add-on module that gives you support for VAT and a couple  
> of other things. We won't be purchasing it. It's just too expensive."
>
> In other words, "this is only a problem for the UK so we don't really  
> care about it". Almost all problems that only affect the UK  
> automatically get an extremely low priority.

So what's the bet that despite this someone's actually bought the UK  
localisation pack and just hasn't installed it as it's 'not necessary'?


-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook wrote:
> And lo on Mon, 19 Nov 2007 12:28:11 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did 
> spake, saying:
> 
>> The last thing I heard on the matter was this:
>>
>> "There's a UK add-on module that gives you support for VAT and a 
>> couple of other things. We won't be purchasing it. It's just too 
>> expensive."
>>
>> In other words, "this is only a problem for the UK so we don't really 
>> care about it". Almost all problems that only affect the UK 
>> automatically get an extremely low priority.
> 
> So what's the bet that despite this someone's actually bought the UK 
> localisation pack and just hasn't installed it as it's 'not necessary'?

Why construct unsubstanciated rumour when we have verified truth to be 
horrified at?

The $1 million price tag includes something like 200 hours on-site 
training from Micro$oft. As far as I know, we have never taken them up 
on that...

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Mon, 19 Nov 2007 14:59:55 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake, saying:

> Phil Cook wrote:
>> And lo on Mon, 19 Nov 2007 12:28:11 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull>  
>> did spake, saying:
>>
>>> The last thing I heard on the matter was this:
>>>
>>> "There's a UK add-on module that gives you support for VAT and a  
>>> couple of other things. We won't be purchasing it. It's just too  
>>> expensive."
>>>
>>> In other words, "this is only a problem for the UK so we don't really  
>>> care about it". Almost all problems that only affect the UK  
>>> automatically get an extremely low priority.
>>  So what's the bet that despite this someone's actually bought the UK  
>> localisation pack and just hasn't installed it as it's 'not necessary'?
>
> Why construct unsubstanciated rumour when we have verified truth to be  
> horrified at?
>
> The $1 million price tag includes something like 200 hours on-site  
> training from Micro$oft. As far as I know, we have never taken them up  
> on that...

Well why don't you? Get the codes call up MS and say "About this training  
that's included with our purchase when can you come down?". What's HQ  
going to do bawl you out for NOT spending any money on training; heck if  
it's not invoiced will they ever know?

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook wrote:
> And lo on Mon, 19 Nov 2007 14:59:55 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did 
> spake, saying:
> 
>> Why construct unsubstanciated rumour when we have verified truth to be 
>> horrified at?
>>
>> The $1 million price tag includes something like 200 hours on-site 
>> training from Micro$oft. As far as I know, we have never taken them up 
>> on that...
> 
> Well why don't you? Get the codes call up MS and say "About this 
> training that's included with our purchase when can you come down?". 
> What's HQ going to do bawl you out for NOT spending any money on 
> training; heck if it's not invoiced will they ever know?

Heh. Well, if training is the issue, then I think the problem is really 
that the guys with their fingers on the master controls don't really 
know what they're doing. Our people over here really don't have access 
to very much. It's more the people at HQ who seem to need educating on 
how to work the software (not to mention how to do accounting...)

Apparently each year you have to get external auditors to come in and 
check the books. Well one year, the people HQ hired eventually walked 
out and refused to complete the audit because the books were too much of 
a mess.

And these are the people saying my wages. Should I be concerned?

(Bennie seems to think that the wages they're paying me are a "ripoff" 
anyway, and that I should leave before the company goes under. Hmm.)

Post a reply to this message

Let me tell you what just happened here.

First, somebody from HQ sends me an email asking for the service code on 
our Dell server or something. So I tell him. Then he replies saying "OK, 
I'm gonna update the service contract on that. Say, by the way, how are 
you doing for servers anyway? Need more, need to consolidate, need more 
horsepower, etc?"

I nearly fell off my chair...

And then of course, I realised that nobody's offering to *pay* for more 
gear, they're just asking if I'd *like* more gear. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Mon, 19 Nov 2007 15:26:45 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake, saying:

> Phil Cook wrote:
>> And lo on Mon, 19 Nov 2007 14:59:55 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull>  
>> did spake, saying:
>>
>>> Why construct unsubstanciated rumour when we have verified truth to be  
>>> horrified at?
>>>
>>> The $1 million price tag includes something like 200 hours on-site  
>>> training from Micro$oft. As far as I know, we have never taken them up  
>>> on that...
>>  Well why don't you? Get the codes call up MS and say "About this  
>> training that's included with our purchase when can you come down?".  
>> What's HQ going to do bawl you out for NOT spending any money on  
>> training; heck if it's not invoiced will they ever know?
>
> Heh. Well, if training is the issue, then I think the problem is really  
> that the guys with their fingers on the master controls don't really  
> know what they're doing. Our people over here really don't have access  
> to very much. It's more the people at HQ who seem to need educating on  
> how to work the software (not to mention how to do accounting...)

Well yeah, but you get in the MS trainers and they constantly saying "So  
you do this" and you answer "We can't" then you've not just got your  
'whiny' accountant making a fuss you've got the people who actually wrote  
the software saying there's a problem.

> Apparently each year you have to get external auditors to come in and  
> check the books.

Sorry that statement is so funny to me for so many reasons I can't explain.

> Well one year, the people HQ hired eventually walked out and refused to  
> complete the audit because the books were too much of a mess.

Say you're not the EU Commision are you, oh  no wait it's just 13 years  
that their accounts haven't been signed off on.

> And these are the people saying my wages. Should I be concerned?
>
> (Bennie seems to think that the wages they're paying me are a "ripoff"  
> anyway, and that I should leave before the company goes under. Hmm.)

tum te tum.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 15:29:03 +0000, Invisible wrote:

> Let me tell you what just happened here.
> 
> First, somebody from HQ sends me an email asking for the service code on
> our Dell server or something. So I tell him. Then he replies saying "OK,
> I'm gonna update the service contract on that. Say, by the way, how are
> you doing for servers anyway? Need more, need to consolidate, need more
> horsepower, etc?"
> 
> I nearly fell off my chair...
> 
> And then of course, I realised that nobody's offering to *pay* for more
> gear, they're just asking if I'd *like* more gear. ;-)

Tell them that you'd certainly like to discuss the needs in your office, 
then do an assessment of what would make things *better* and start 
prioritising the needs.

With a new IT staff at HQ, perhaps some things will improve.  It can't 
hurt to ask, but approach it seriously.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

This just gets more amusing...

I sent them a reply saying that we need to replace a whole heap of 
desktops, but the servers are pretty much OK. I got a reply saying 
they're going to look at getting me some newer servers in the next few 
months. (But nobody is going to do anything about the desktops.)

Am I missing something obvious here??

Post a reply to this message

Kyle <hob### [at] gatenet> wrote:
> >Are you the White Rabbit?
>
> No.  This is...
>
> http://www.jobsearch.co.uk/

LOL

Take the hint, Andrew :)

Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> Kyle <hob### [at] gatenet> wrote:
>>> Are you the White Rabbit?
>> No.  This is...
>>
>> http://www.jobsearch.co.uk/
> 
> LOL
> 
> Take the hint, Andrew :)

Heh. Well, I have actually tried that particular site before and not 
found anything of any use. But I certainly get the hint...

(Today I'm writing an unecessarily long and complex plan document 
describing in absurd detail how we're going to test a trivial 2-page 
Haskell program. I really wish to God I was working somewhere else right 
now!)

Post a reply to this message

> This just gets more amusing...
>
> I sent them a reply saying that we need to replace a whole heap of 
> desktops, but the servers are pretty much OK. I got a reply saying they're 
> going to look at getting me some newer servers in the next few months. 
> (But nobody is going to do anything about the desktops.)
>
> Am I missing something obvious here??

Yeh, I wouldn't miss the opportunity for a clever reply with your boss and 
their boss cc'd :-)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> Kyle <hob### [at] gatenet> wrote:
>>>> Are you the White Rabbit?
>>> No.  This is...
>>>
>>> http://www.jobsearch.co.uk/
>>
>> LOL
>>
>> Take the hint, Andrew :)
> 
> Heh. Well, I have actually tried that particular site before and not 
> found anything of any use. But I certainly get the hint...
> 
> (Today I'm writing an unecessarily long and complex plan document 
> describing in absurd detail how we're going to test a trivial 2-page 
> Haskell program. I really wish to God I was working somewhere else right 
> now!)


Isn't it amazing how the things we enjoy can become such a thorn.


Tom

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
> > Kyle <hob### [at] gatenet> wrote:
> >>> Are you the White Rabbit?
> >> No.  This is...
> >>
> >> http://www.jobsearch.co.uk/
> >
> > LOL
> >
> > Take the hint, Andrew :)
>
> Heh. Well, I have actually tried that particular site before and not
> found anything of any use. But I certainly get the hint...
>
> (Today I'm writing an unecessarily long and complex plan document
> describing in absurd detail how we're going to test a trivial 2-page
> Haskell program. I really wish to God I was working somewhere else right
> now!)

You can generally shorten test scripts by using a spreadsheet or a table with a
layout that details:
Test Step |Test action & Instruction(s) | Field/Variable data / input | Expected
Results | Output | Passed/Failed

Of course you modify the script to suit the tests.

Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> (Today I'm writing an unecessarily long and complex plan document
>> describing in absurd detail how we're going to test a trivial 2-page
>> Haskell program. I really wish to God I was working somewhere else right
>> now!)
> 
> You can generally shorten test scripts by using a spreadsheet or a table with a
> layout that details:
> Test Step |Test action & Instruction(s) | Field/Variable data / input | Expected
> Results | Output | Passed/Failed
> 
> Of course you modify the script to suit the tests.

Well, let's put it this way: The plan is 17 pages long, and I haven't 
even said what the tests are yet! o_O

Basically there's a standard template for writing test plans. It's 
designed for huge complex systems, and the thing I'm testing is tiny. So 
I've already spend ages deleting all the stuff that's not applicable. 
And it's *still* 17 pages of whaffle.

(This is who we are, this is what the software is, this is were it's 
going to be used, this is who is going to use it, this is who will test 
it, this is what the software is for, this is what we do currently, this 
is why software testing is necessary, this is what the tests attempt to 
demonstrate, this is all the things the testing won't cover, this is 
what we'll do if any tests fail, this is what we'll do if we ever alter 
the software, this is the list of documents that will be produced during 
the test process, etc.)

Believe it or not, that bundle I just wrote there? It's incomplete. (!)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
> > Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> (Today I'm writing an unecessarily long and complex plan document
> >> describing in absurd detail how we're going to test a trivial 2-page
> >> Haskell program. I really wish to God I was working somewhere else right
> >> now!)
> >
> > You can generally shorten test scripts by using a spreadsheet or a table with a
> > layout that details:
> > Test Step |Test action & Instruction(s) | Field/Variable data / input | Expected
> > Results | Output | Passed/Failed
> >
> > Of course you modify the script to suit the tests.
>
> Well, let's put it this way: The plan is 17 pages long, and I haven't
> even said what the tests are yet! o_O
>
> Basically there's a standard template for writing test plans. It's
> designed for huge complex systems, and the thing I'm testing is tiny. So
> I've already spend ages deleting all the stuff that's not applicable.
> And it's *still* 17 pages of whaffle.
>
> (This is who we are, this is what the software is, this is were it's
> going to be used, this is who is going to use it, this is who will test
> it, this is what the software is for, this is what we do currently, this
> is why software testing is necessary, this is what the tests attempt to
> demonstrate, this is all the things the testing won't cover, this is
> what we'll do if any tests fail, this is what we'll do if we ever alter
> the software, this is the list of documents that will be produced during
> the test process, etc.)
>
> Believe it or not, that bundle I just wrote there? It's incomplete. (!)

Right! As if anyone ever reads that. I know the sort of template you mean.
Here we have to write design documents about what we are going to do before we
do it and get it authorised by QA. But if there is even a minor change then the
doc has to be re-evaluated and all work on it stops until it goes to the next
status. That sounds fine until you realise that most configure-ers are allowed
to prototype before submitting the design to QA.
Hint, put in a deliberate mistake that you can take out to keep QA happy :)



Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Well, let's put it this way: The plan is 17 pages long, and I haven't
>> even said what the tests are yet! o_O
>>
>> Basically there's a standard template for writing test plans. It's
>> designed for huge complex systems, and the thing I'm testing is tiny. So
>> I've already spend ages deleting all the stuff that's not applicable.
>> And it's *still* 17 pages of whaffle.
>>
>> (This is who we are, this is what the software is, this is were it's
>> going to be used, this is who is going to use it, this is who will test
>> it, this is what the software is for, this is what we do currently, this
>> is why software testing is necessary, this is what the tests attempt to
>> demonstrate, this is all the things the testing won't cover, this is
>> what we'll do if any tests fail, this is what we'll do if we ever alter
>> the software, this is the list of documents that will be produced during
>> the test process, etc.)
>>
>> Believe it or not, that bundle I just wrote there? It's incomplete. (!)
> 
> Right! As if anyone ever reads that.

Trust me, QA does. :-S (And usually they manage to find some minor typo 
somewhere so they can reject the entire document and make me resubmit it 
all over again. Or perhaps just complain I used the wrong size 
paperclips...)

> I know the sort of template you mean.
> Here we have to write design documents about what we are going to do before we
> do it and get it authorised by QA. But if there is even a minor change then the
> doc has to be re-evaluated and all work on it stops until it goes to the next
> status.

Fun, isn't it?

Oh, did I mention? The actual *testing* needs to happen before 1 Dec 
2007. No pressure or anything. I've never actually written a full test 
document for software before, but now's a fine time to learn. :-S

> Hint, put in a deliberate mistake that you can take out to keep QA happy :)

Yeah. I am *so* not trying that...

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:

> Fun, isn't it?
> 
> Oh, did I mention? The actual *testing* needs to happen before 1 Dec 
> 2007. No pressure or anything. I've never actually written a full test 
> document for software before, but now's a fine time to learn. :-S

Damnit, Benny was right - I *don't* get paid enough for this stuff! :-P

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>
> > I know the sort of template you mean.
> > Here we have to write design documents about what we are going to do before we
> > do it and get it authorised by QA. But if there is even a minor change then the
> > doc has to be re-evaluated and all work on it stops until it goes to the next
> > status.
>
> Fun, isn't it?
>
> Oh, did I mention? The actual *testing* needs to happen before 1 Dec
> 2007. No pressure or anything. I've never actually written a full test
> document for software before, but now's a fine time to learn. :-S
>
> > Hint, put in a deliberate mistake that you can take out to keep QA happy :)
>
> Yeah. I am *so* not trying that...

I’ll tell you a trade tip. Do the test first then write the script. Or even
better write the script as you are running a pre-test test.

Stephen

Post a reply to this message

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:4742b3d3@news.povray.org...

> Am I missing something obvious here??

There's budget in the pool allocated to servers, but none in the budget pool
allocated to desktops.

Try my place for size. Getting an additional 2 TB of storage added to the
SAN that's used by 3 servers is just a matter of sending an email to one
person. Is approved and will be available after the year end freeze ends.
However I've been trying, unsuccessfully, for 2 years to get an additional
40GB hard drive in my desktop.

Post a reply to this message

Gail Shaw wrote:
> "Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
> news:4742b3d3@news.povray.org...
> 
>> Am I missing something obvious here??
> 
> There's budget in the pool allocated to servers, but none in the budget pool
> allocated to desktops.

Mmm, I think Gail has something here...

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:

> I’ll tell you a trade tip. Do the test first then write the script. Or even
> better write the script as you are running a pre-test test.

QA would go balistic... heh.

Mind you, it seems that over at HQ, they design and develop- wait, do 
they? Oh well, anyway, they develop the software, get some people to try 
it for a few months, check it does what they want, and *then* write a 
set of user requirements that exactly match the product they developed.

In other words, all their fancy high-end policy documents about 
"validation will encompass the entire product development lifecycle from 
initial requirements gathering through implementation to eventual 
retirement" is a complete fabrication.

If anyone in my class at uni did that, they got their work rejected. If 
the UK did that with something we developed, there would be an outcry. 
But for HQ, it's perfectly OK to completely disregard their own rules 
whenever it's not convinient to follow them any more.

These people make me sick...

Post a reply to this message

Gail Shaw wrote:
> "Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
> news:4742b3d3@news.povray.org...
> 
>> Am I missing something obvious here??
> 
> There's budget in the pool allocated to servers, but none in the budget pool
> allocated to desktops.
> 
> Try my place for size. Getting an additional 2 TB of storage added to the
> SAN that's used by 3 servers is just a matter of sending an email to one
> person. Is approved and will be available after the year end freeze ends.
> However I've been trying, unsuccessfully, for 2 years to get an additional
> 40GB hard drive in my desktop.
> 
> 

That can be easy to solve.  Just have a few leftover HDs from a server 
upgrade.  Or do they track everything that closely.



Tom

Post a reply to this message

"Tom Austin" <taustin> wrote in message news:47432a9b$1@news.povray.org...
>
> That can be easy to solve.  Just have a few leftover HDs from a server
> upgrade.  Or do they track everything that closely.

Dunno if they track, but I don't work physically on the servers and I have
no access to the server rooms.

I just copy large stuff to a server that the team 'owns'. Solves the space
problems and makes the backup some else's problem

Post a reply to this message

Tom Austin wrote:

> That can be easy to solve.  Just have a few leftover HDs from a server 
> upgrade.  Or do they track everything that closely.

I don't know about Gail, but that wouldn't work for me. The server HDs 
are Ultra320 SCSI, whereas the desktop HDs are Parallel-ATA...

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> I don't know about Gail, but that wouldn't work for me. The server HDs 
> are Ultra320 SCSI, whereas the desktop HDs are Parallel-ATA...

So buy it and expense it. :-)

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

"Orchid XP v7" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message 
news:47433661$1@news.povray.org...
> Tom Austin wrote:
>
>> That can be easy to solve.  Just have a few leftover HDs from a server 
>> upgrade.  Or do they track everything that closely.
>
> I don't know about Gail, but that wouldn't work for me. The server HDs are 
> Ultra320 SCSI, whereas the desktop HDs are Parallel-ATA...

Oh.  Surely all HDDs are the same, they just have bigger or smaller 
gigathingys and can plug in any computer?  You mean I can't put a 
hot-swappable 15 kRPM SCSI HD in my PC?  What about low-voltage differential 
SCSI?  High-voltage differential?  It's all just mega-gigsits of storage 
surely?
  :-)

Post a reply to this message

Brian Elliott wrote:

>> I don't know about Gail, but that wouldn't work for me. The server HDs 
>> are Ultra320 SCSI, whereas the desktop HDs are Parallel-ATA...
> 
> Oh.  Surely all HDDs are the same, they just have bigger or smaller 
> gigathingys and can plug in any computer?  You mean I can't put a 
> hot-swappable 15 kRPM SCSI HD in my PC?  What about low-voltage 
> differential SCSI?  High-voltage differential?  It's all just 
> mega-gigsits of storage surely?
>  :-)

You laugh, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's actually the same HD, 
just with a different circuit board on the back... ;-)

PS. How many different types of SCSI *are* there, anyway?!? There just 
seems to be an endless zoo of them!

Post a reply to this message