LulzSec hacks NHS.

Post by gaius » Fri, Jun 10, 2011, 2:13 PM UTC

jbooth wrote: post #28

gaius wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would suspect that it's because the primary mission of the NHS is to provide jobs for bureaucrats, any healthcare we happen to get is just a side effect. Same with the MoD and submarines.

Even the most incompetent bureaucrat doesn't actively want to do a bad job. And I'm pretty sure that it doesn't say "we exist to provide jobs, with healthcare as a side effect" anywhere in the NHS charter. Gov't IT projects suck because the RFP process is the most waterfall thing in existence, meaning the project is doomed from the start. And it goes downhill from there, with absurd amounts of politics and turf-prote…

Post by jbooth » Fri, Jun 10, 2011, 2:27 PM UTC

gaius wrote: post #31

jbooth wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even the most incompetent bureaucrat doesn't actively want to do a bad job. And I'm pretty sure that it doesn't say "we exist to provide jobs, with healthcare as a side effect" anywhere in the NHS charter. Gov't IT projects suck because the RFP process is the most waterfall thing in existence, meaning the project is doomed from the start. And it goes downhill from there, with absurd amounts of politics and turf-prote…

Well you could never say it outright, could you? But consider that the last government increased the number of nurses by 10% yet doubled the number of managers. Other than shuffling paper back and forth amongst each other, what do they do ? It's a truism that a bureaucracy always seeks to expand itself. They could all be brilliant at it, but the problem is a) it takes time and b) isn't actually necessary oh and c) th…

Post by tkahn6 » Fri, Jun 10, 2011, 2:39 PM UTC

jbooth wrote: post #24

dsplittgerber wrote: post #11

Anonymous is the best that could ever happen for proponents of a crackdown on freedom (through/via/on the internet). No one knows who's behind it, so no one will stand up for them, no one will complain if they get harassed and all the blaim for everything that goes wrong in the future goes to Anon/hackers. It's the perfect scapegoat for incompetence.

Does it really matter who the scapegoat is? At all? A few short years ago we had scary arab terrorists, I think they're still a bigger scapegoat than anon. Anonymous doesn't change anything as far as excuses. If they're looking for an excuse to crack down, they can always make up an Emmanuel Goldstein.

Post by gaius » Fri, Jun 10, 2011, 2:49 PM UTC

arethuza wrote: post #34

gaius wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a matter of perspective, there are shrill voices saying that if we scrap Trident all our economic woes will be over, but really there are much, much lower hanging fruit than that. A windfall tax on the big IT outsourcing firms would be a good start.

Having a salary cap for public sector employees might be another way of doing things - say the same level as the PM (£140K or so).

Post by tkahn6 » Fri, Jun 10, 2011, 2:55 PM UTC

jbooth wrote: post #36

tkahn6 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A few short years ago we had scary arab terrorists, I think they're still a bigger scapegoat than anon. Both Anon and arab terrorists have carried out numerous attacks...

Awesome. Great way to cram them into the same sentence. They both start with "a", too! We've already proven that if you put "Saddam" and "al Qaeda" in the same sentence enough times, you can convince a majority of the USA that they're buddies. Let's see if we can do it here, too. More to the point.. I can't stand the logic of "they should quit attempting to fight for freedom because authorities will use them as an ex…