paulkerton

I agree that knowing your brands is not a security risk, but declaring specific models of copiers, firewalls and CCTV cameras IS however, I would argue a security risk. Especially in an education setting where upgrading these security risks isn't always seen by senior leaders as a priority. I agree that security by obscurity is not security - well security by obscurity ALONE is not security, but security by obscurity should be by design part of your process.... but neither is it security to tell everyone exactly where the potential weak spots are in your systems. Again, talk to your legal teams and DPO on this, but if there are specific reasons you believe that disclosure could prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs, then you do have mechanisms to reject it. It's up to your legal teams and DPO to help make that decision as to whether make and models could prejudice your day-to-day operations long term though.

Wherever you stand, the fact is most people truly complaining and upset by what happened this weekend really need to look back at the history of F1. Senna. Prost. Schumacher. Hunt. Lauda... Lotus "water cooling and ball bearings..." I mean, I hope they don't watch Formula E next year and see what Dan Ticktum gets up to!

See, I kinda disagree with that. It's really dependent on what you've already disclosed. If you've already told people what your edge appliances, firewalls, your ISP, your AV solution, your wifi solution, what CCTV systems you have etc. are then eventually it can become a security threat. How you handle FOIs? Well, That's a whole different kettle of fish, but disclosing everything could easily present a security threat. Not that obfuscation should be your only security tool in your kit, but it should be a part of it.

Yeah, you can. But as it stands, it hasn't gone well with SIMS doing this historically.

Securly, Lightspeed and Senso can all do this, yeah.

We don't have to do that? I thought there were some requirements on this somewhere...

Sorry, didn't mean to suggest you were! More that the law leaves these big gaps that people can take advantage of and we have to follow it, even if it is an a*s.

Well, Monday was pretty horrible when it come to side effects from Sunday's jab. Feeling LOADS better today. If that was a 24 hour example of a mild case I'll take the booster over the real thing, thanks!

As soon as this appeared in my inbox I thought of here. Not sure I want to be supporting climate change....

Agreed, but it is within the letter of the law, if it isn't in the spirit of it. As much as it vexes me too, we can't make up the law to suit ourselves. The law needs revisiting, but it is what it is currently.

Except in Brazil, where yeah, Verstappen didn't give Hamilton a lot of space in Turn 4, but clearly Turn 1 at Yas Marina was fine to cut the corner and take an advantage. Bad pit strategy by Mercedes all season, and it happened again here.

... TOTO!!!!!!

And Lewis couldn't have pitted after him? Max's tyres would've lasted even though they'd gone a lap longer than Lewis's? Lewis had the faster car when all was equal from lap 13, that much was clear. I mean, this all sounds like bad pit strategy to me... I doubt it too, it's not like being 33 points behind at Silverstone is it...

The best season of Formula One is 25 years and its "ruined" Wow. Honestly.

Ahhh this is like the Tolkien didn't understand his own work argument... I see...

Funnily enough, the FIA disagree with that interpretation.

I don't disagree, but it comes down to trust that they won't turn back on that. And trust is in VERY short supply with them right now. Also, they clearly haven't learned about Capita's adventures with outsourcing development to countries with a fundamental lack of knowledge about the market they're developing for I see! http://www.edugeek.net/forums/educational-jobs/225429-developer-ess-pune-india.html

2021 Sporting Regulations for Formula One Clause 15.3 The clerk of the course shall work in permanent consultation with the Race Director. The Race Director shall have overriding authority in the following matters and the clerk of the course may give orders in respect of them only with his express agreement: Subsection e) The use of the safety car

No, that's Amazon Prime, Netflx is Drive to Survive. :getmecoat:

Yes there is. If he'd have come in at the same time as Max at lap 36, or a lap later under the first VSC.

No, they didn't. But apparently you want the race director to make new rules up to benefit Mercedes.... You don't have to share my view, but it's clear that they got the strategy wrong when you've got Lewis in the faster car on tyres that couldn't keep up with a slower car on fresher tyres. Especially when Lewis had the chance 10 laps prior to change them and didn't take them because his team thought race position meant more than a tyre change.

Just a quick sample of what kind of things happen on Discord (from initial connection on Roblox) and what could be done under your school's name without you even realising it

During the race Verstappen went in THREE TIMES.... and won! It was ABSOLUTELY the wrong call not to go in. Max - Lap 13 - Soft to Hard Lewis - Lap 14 - Medium to Hard == Lap 20/21 Checo holds up Lewis - Lewis complains that someone racing him is "dangerous" == Max - Lap 36 - Hard to Hard - under Virtual Safety Car =52 - Latifi crash= Max - Lap 53 - Hard to Soft - Under Safety Car

Formula One : It's Called A Motor Race, Okay? We Went Car Racing™ Is anyone selling the T-shirt yet btw?

Absolutely not true. At all. Under the VC he was more than enough seconds ahead to get out ahead and back into P1.