Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2017 18:21:14 GMT
ps non execs arent 'government' by the way. I am aware of the set up of the board. Can I ask what you or others consider the Governments role in the NHS is? Really? Then why did you say the non execs were 'government in this case' when they patently are not. As for the second bit - I see govts. role to set the overall funding levels and general priorities and not really much else TBH. The NHS desperately needs to be released from its role as a 'political football', sadly I don't think that wil ever happen.
|
|
|
Post by Robbo on May 14, 2017 18:27:20 GMT
if it's on a secure network it's secure. Simples. I can safety run XP at home if I wished to do so. A standalone Xp system running some equipment is secure. Not every single system is connected to the net with a dumb user using it to surf Facebook.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2017 18:28:05 GMT
I am aware of the set up of the board. Can I ask what you or others consider the Governments role in the NHS is? Really? Then why did you say the non execs were 'government in this case' when they patently are not. As for the second bit - I see govts. role to set the overall funding levels and general priorities and not really much else TBH. The NHS desperately needs to be released from its role as a 'political football', sadly I don't think that wil ever happen. It was because I see the Governments role in the NHS as a sort of high level Non-Exec role. The NHS is not a private company and in effect the shareholders are the 'taxpayers/public' - that means it will always have some political involvement. I'm not saying any of the decisions are easy but am struggling to see why the Government seem to be getting off the hook.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2017 18:35:34 GMT
I think hackers should be taken out and shot. Scum. I just hope they appreciate the effects of their actions. People die because of this shit. Not good.
Ranting excepted I realise it is probably big business doing it for profit as most nasty things seem to be..
|
|
|
Post by Delta9 on May 14, 2017 18:36:46 GMT
if it's on a secure network it's secure. Simples. I can safety run XP at home if I wished to do so. A standalone Xp system running some equipment is secure. Not every single system is connected to the net with a dumb user using it to surf Facebook. We aren't talking about computers that are isolated from the internet though are we. Jesus fucking Christ. You are either on a wind up or thick as fuck.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2017 18:39:16 GMT
Really? Then why did you say the non execs were 'government in this case' when they patently are not. As for the second bit - I see govts. role to set the overall funding levels and general priorities and not really much else TBH. The NHS desperately needs to be released from its role as a 'political football', sadly I don't think that wil ever happen. It was because I see the Governments role in the NHS as a sort of high level Non-Exec role. The NHS is not a private company and in effect the shareholders are the 'taxpayers/public' - that means it will always have some political involvement. I'm not saying any of the decisions are easy but am struggling to see why the Government seem to be getting off the hook. Then you don't see the role in the same was I do. I think the govt. are off the hook because this issue of still using XP computes has been something that has gone on for years through a succession of administrations. They are also claiming trusts have had more than enough time to address the problem and the media seem in the main seem to be agreeing. It would be a brave Director of IT to speak out against this view.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2017 18:57:08 GMT
It was because I see the Governments role in the NHS as a sort of high level Non-Exec role. The NHS is not a private company and in effect the shareholders are the 'taxpayers/public' - that means it will always have some political involvement. I'm not saying any of the decisions are easy but am struggling to see why the Government seem to be getting off the hook. Then you don't see the role in the same was I do. I think the govt. are off the hook because this issue of still using XP computes has been something that has gone on for years through a succession of administrations. They are also claiming trusts have had more than enough time to address the problem and the media seem in the main seem to be agreeing. It would be a brave Director of IT to speak out against this view. What do you see as the Governments role in the NHS then? Just to hand over a pot of money and take no further part? But wasn't it still the Governments decision to cancel the XP support or was this taken on an individual Trust basis? I don't know the answer. Media? ...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2017 18:59:29 GMT
[quote author=" Delta9" source="/post/62533/thread" timestamp="1494615560"How will the government twist this to make it seem like it isn't their own fault? [/quote]] I blame the government...lol. Everything these days is run by business (and ultimately the elite). That includes ANY government. Who knows what games are really being played out here? Maybe it is just a bunch of hackers who have a grudge against this country. Maybe it's yet another attempt to add to the fear culture we already see day by day.. After all, stress is the best way to reduce the population.
|
|
|
Post by Robbo on May 14, 2017 19:12:57 GMT
if it's on a secure network it's secure. Simples. I can safety run XP at home if I wished to do so. A standalone Xp system running some equipment is secure. Not every single system is connected to the net with a dumb user using it to surf Facebook. We aren't talking about computers that are isolated from the internet though are we. Jesus fucking Christ. You are either on a wind up or thick as fuck. How do you know the XP machines aren't just on old equipment that's only on rarely used stuff which I'm guessing is what the majority are? Only 5% of trusts now have XP of some sort. 20% of trusts were effected. i think your a bit delusional on how easy it would be to upgrade fully away from unsupported systems (whether XP or A Unix variety), you obviously have no concept of how IT or IT systems in the NHS work.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on May 14, 2017 19:14:15 GMT
A nudge for millions of windows version updates. Now who could possibly gain from that? "So the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation spends money to help us little people. That's great. Makes Bill Gates look like a nice guy. But Gates is the same guy who made huge profits off the backs of us all, owning the monopoly on an operating system (that many argue is inferior to others) and working hard to maintain that monopoly. We were all made a little poorer, so that he could be an awful lot richer. And the solution is that he gives away a pittance and we are supposed to be happy?" From here: livingstingy.blogspot.fi/2015/01/are-charities-scam.html
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2017 19:15:03 GMT
Then you don't see the role in the same was I do. I think the govt. are off the hook because this issue of still using XP computes has been something that has gone on for years through a succession of administrations. They are also claiming trusts have had more than enough time to address the problem and the media seem in the main seem to be agreeing. It would be a brave Director of IT to speak out against this view. What do you see as the Governments role in the NHS then? Just to hand over a pot of money and take no further part? But wasn't it still the Governments decision to cancel the XP support or was this taken on an individual Trust basis? I don't know the answer. Media? ... No if you read my post correctly it's not just handing over a pot of money, if we are to have a proper discussion on this it would help if you read what I am posting before replying. The govt. pulled the plug on XP support, but as I have already said Trusts had ample notice. I retired in Jan 2011 and it was known back then support was going to be withdrawn, all MS products have a well publicised life cycle. Support for organisations was extended at considerable cost because it became obvious some organisations weren't going to update before cut off time. Even after this extension some still haven't updated, hence where we are today.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2017 19:16:33 GMT
We aren't talking about computers that are isolated from the internet though are we. Jesus fucking Christ. You are either on a wind up or thick as fuck. Only 5% of trusts now have XP of some sort. 20% of trusts were effected. I think it was more like only 5% of computers (not Trusts) were on XP.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on May 14, 2017 19:17:09 GMT
no, it was defiantly a norty foxx.
|
|
|
Post by Robbo on May 14, 2017 19:17:48 GMT
Only 5% of trusts now have XP of some sort. 20% of trusts were effected. I think it was more like only 5% of computers (not Trusts) were on XP. I saw fewer than 5% of trusts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2017 19:20:52 GMT
What do you see as the Governments role in the NHS then? Just to hand over a pot of money and take no further part? But wasn't it still the Governments decision to cancel the XP support or was this taken on an individual Trust basis? I don't know the answer. Media? ... The govt. pulled the plug on XP support, but as I have already said Trusts had ample notice. But the Government stilled pulled the plug despite supposedly knowing the risk, was that wise? Or could they have done more.
|
|