pcstru

At the end of the day what matters is what you like. That said, BURN HIM WITH FIRE!

Yes they are two different things with roasting typically exposing beans to temperatures in excess of 200 deg C. My point is there is no magic in the 100degC figure as opposed to 95 deg C, beans will not "burn" if exposed to boiling water (they have already been subject to far higher temperatures), the main effect of higher temperature water is to accelerate the extraction process so the same outcome can generally be had by adjusting the extraction time. IMO the biggest problem people have brewing coffee is they leave it brewing for far too long and over extract, leading to a bitter brew. I've yet to meet an espresso machine that allows temperature selection. Espresso is an extraction process. An espresso is 7 grams of ground coffee compressed into a puck through which 1fl oz of water is pumped at 9bar, 198degF for 25 seconds. Normally the only operator variable is the grind and tamp (how hard you pack the puck), but Barista's will try to get a consistent Tamp so . So if you are pouring long (>25 seconds to produce 1fl) you tend to adjust for a coarser grind and if you are short, you make it finer. If my espresso machine started delivering water at 70deg C, I'd throw it out!

IMO that is an urban legend. Coffee is roasted at temperatures far in excess of 100deg C, so what do people think happens when you brew it at 100deg C vs 98 deg c? If anyone could tell the difference in a proper double blind test, I'd be gob smacked.

^this. Boots. Good boots & Gloves. Apparently @30mph, bone will wear at a rate of around 1in per second as it scrapes down the road [*1]. Some dead cow skin - not so much [*2]. [*1] A slightly dodgy 'fact' for which I will provide no evidence at all. [*2] Pretty solid fact but perhaps one not to aim to vouch for personally.

I encourage you to read what I wrote with a bit more care and thought. I will draw to your attention specifically the words "Of course there is always a risk that even with extra high levels of diligence you will still come a cropper". However, 8 accidents strongly suggests room for improvement in being diligent. Giving up the bike was a sensible response and it seems we would both agree on that.

IMO anyone who has the attitude of "not my fault" should not go anywhere near a bike. You simply have to take responsibility for other peoples mistakes - not spotting high risk situations (overtaking on or near a junction for example) and avoiding them becomes a 'fault' and specifically your fault! Of course there is always a risk that even with extra high levels of diligence you will still come a cropper but if you do not think it is possible to avoid the majority of "it was not my fault" situations by good roadcraft (and if you are not prepared to take the time to learn good road craft), then for your own sake, do not get a bike.

So now we know the ingredients match the taste.

You presumably have the ability to keep a log of what backups you have and what they contain? You are presumably the people that would ask for a backup to be restored? If both of those are true then you have everything you need to add another column to your list which will record that the backup should not be restored. Fundamentally if you do have a backup system that cannot meet the needs of the GDPR, then currently there is no question that it will be your backup system that has to change.

Excellent. Good luck.

The fact is there will always be a delay. The question is how long a delay is acceptable. For deletion, there is additionally a technical issue of what it means to 'delete' data. When you delete a file, the data is still on the media, it is just the pointer to that data that is updated. That is similar to what I suggest, the data is still on some media but the pointers say you can't actually use it.

I think you should read what I wrote again. The key element is procedural and not particularly tied to any technology.

Well, if you are compelled to delete data (and I'm not clear you are), you are compelled to delete it. You are compelled to correct data and to all intents and purposes the implications are the same (deletion could be thought of as simply updating with correct data which is now null). Then I guess your backup system will not be able to comply with the needs of the business and you will need to change it. I don't think people saying "it is not practicable for us to do that" will trump the rights data subjects have been grated by law. If I was asked to do this, I'd probably propose that we simply correct the data in the live system, take a new backup, mark the old backups as "DNR" (do not restore) and allow the old data to be overwritten (effectively deleted) in the normal manner. The key thing would be that we ensure the MIS (our source for that data) is correct and that the backups are KNOWN to contain data that MUST NOT be restored to a live system. The system would take a while to get the data 'corrected' entirely but I don't foresee a major problem with that.

I'm glad you said "in part". Hopefully you mean "in a small part"! So how do you actually test your backups are viable (can be properly restored)? I guess some people will just be impacted more than others with this, perhaps to the extent that they will need to change how they do backups.

Sure. Any backup system should be capable since any backup system should be capable of being restored to an operational state (if it is not, it is not a backup), the data corrected and then committed back to the backup media.

Sensible approach. As far as I know, there is no right to be removed in DPA or GDPR and Data Processors are not obliged to "delete" your data (perhaps confusion arises from the EU's so called "right to be forgotten"). The usual request for deletion is probably something like "delete my data and do not contact me again" - but if they delete your data they will lose the fact that they should not contact you again. Data Processors may also be obliged to retain your data to meet legal requirements. So really the obligation (IMO) is that the data you store is correct and is being used as per the registration.

Reach into backups to delete and correct data, yes - you will need to be able to do that. I think this is confused. If you are sending data to someone and they are acting as a processor on your behalf, then you will need to be able to correct that data. If you sent a document to someone who needed the data for their own purposes, then you are not the data controller and so you are not obliged to correct that data. You do need to ensure that the data you supply is accurate at the time it was supplied, but you have no obligation to then track changes to that data and inform everyone you ever sent the data of a correction to it. I'd say in the case where you cannot truly delete data, that correcting it (so that the revision history shows the correction and the current version shows the correct data) would comply. However, there is a workaround to that, just download the document using (say) RTF (or any format which has no ability to track changes), delete the original and then re-upload.

It has to be a big element. Someone signed off on work both before it was done and after it was completed. Everything I have seen says that the cladding itself was OK (no manufacturing problems) but it should not have been used in that way (above 18m, or without appropriate fire breaks). How it then came to be used is the question. I've also seen reports that the insulation used behind the panels was itself flammable which would be another fail. Possibly. A lot of this stuff is risk based, which is to say that it is down to planning and building control to say what is appropriate. The Cladding is just a material with a number of uses and a lot of building materials are flammable. Given the large number of buildings now deemed unsafe, I'd say the law itself needs to be clearer. "Risk" seems to be something that people find difficult to understand (it is not a simple probability) or deal with, so perhaps the real failure is legislation which puts too much reliance on people doing something well which has been demonstrated time and time again not to be something people do actually do well!

I think this is a little confusing but perhaps that is because the definition is. When we talk about personal data in the context of the DPA or GDPR, the key is whether it identifies a unique living individual within the context of the data. So the name "John Smith", is not by itself personal data (because there are many John Smiths around). However usually that data will have some context, so a list of students in a particular school (even where that metadata does not appear in the list) will usually make that unique so in that context, name must be treated as personal data. Occasionally, people come along with an unusual name that is itself globally unique. So while a name by itself may not be personal data, it is dangerous to assume that a list of names and other attributes should not be treated as if it is personal data - because those people might be in the list. I think it would be highly unusual for an IP address by itself to be able to be considered personal data, more likely it will be data that is recorded along with other data that does personally identify you, so needs to be managed and disclosed under the terms of the DPA.

We had a spate of squirrels eating through our fibre. They eventually saw the light.

They are significantly more expensive as outlay than a windows laptop, so I'd query the purchasing policy (what happens when others ask for a Mac) and I'd advise that we have a much more limited ability to offer expert support and that offering such support for one off devices is inefficient. However, given it is the Head, they are the decision maker and are responsible and accountable for all things in the school, so I'd try and offer 'wise council' (including responsibility for DP issues (encryption etc)) rather than dictate. A compromise we might be able to do here, would be to treat it essentially as BYOD.

Friendly neighbourhood directed EMP. Sssshhhh now.

Presumably someone signed for receipt of it or it was present in a bill of materials which someone signed for? What evidence do they offer of the supply of the item? Does it appear on any signed orders etc? Just in case, have you looked down the back of the sofa?

A horrible tragedy seems to be unfolding, many unaccounted for. One can only feel for the victims and their families. The landlord will have some awkward questions to answer.

Kyocera is the spelling (just in case there is some pretender out there trying to impersonate them with a spelling variation!). I don't see sharp listed as a supplier to rm3781, so if you are not using the framework to purchase, it is worth investigating as it is likely to be extremely good value compared to other routes. Link : RM3781 Government Framework

How many discs you can lose varies. In RAID 10 each disc is mirrored and then the mirrored pairs are joined into the final lump. So with 4 drives in the array and one down, there is a 1/3 chance that the next drive to fail will be the other one in that pair, which will be goodbye data. We have a RAID 10 with 24 drives; we could in theory lose 12 drives and still be OK, but we could also in theory lose only 2 drives and be stuffed.