When the EU states start to fine companies for the breaches that have occurred since May last year when serious fines became possible, they'll start to WORRY.
The recent news blaming a 20 yo in his parents' bedroom for the hack of sensitive data about German politicians which was originally blamed on 'state actors' has confused the situation a great deal.
Thanks for the challenge. I realise that the police don't need a warrant for a stake out; the point I was making, badly, is that a strict application of the ethics committee principle would be the equivalent of requiring it, whilst the need for a search warrant is the ethics committee working correctly.
A disappointing feature is the decision to concentrate there rather than to focus away from the overly expensive areas of NY and DC. This would help spread prosperity to other parts of the country.
In the same way that if I kill someone in the course of the war I'm a hero but if I kill someone on the next street I'm a murderer. These guys clearly and demonstrably set out to offer false data to prove a point about the failures of the system - and did so. If I offer a paper of false data to fool the Academy, I'm in a very different place.
Social scientists have established ethics committees whose say so is required before you carry out experiments on human beings where there are being deceived. He ignored this rule, and therefore has been a naughty boy. Presumably he ignored it because he feared a leak of his intentions, but it would be interesting to know whether he actually considered this.
OTOH those ethics committees are designed to protect the innocent. In this case the victims of the research should be able to cope with the implications; on this basis the police will required to check with an ethics committee every time they establish a stake out - though it can be argued that the court warrant requirement does serve this role to some extent...
When an institution - including a government - is wanting to control troublesome critics, it doesn't need to persecute all of them, it merely needs to effect enough to frighten the rest of the group into silence. What we appear to have atm in the Western universities is that those who would offer substantially unacceptable ideas are being frightened into staying away from those topics, and the fields are being abandoned to the dominant ideology.
The desire to find someone to blame and punish them severely is human nature, but the reality is that we need to be able to trust in order to operate at all. One of the issues of making a senior manager responsible for certain issues to the point of criminal liability is that it may become impossible to get anyone to accept the responsibility if they aren't able to show that they acted reasonably in response to the information they had when making the iffy decision. Given that there is ALWAYS a trade off between safely and operating (you drive your car faster than 10 mph - therefore you choose to take the risk of hurting someone seriously if you hit them), we need to balance those. Now I agree in this case they seem to have got it wrong - although there is also a failure with the regulator who didn't force them to act on this.
If you only have a high school education, you're almost bound to leave an area that's so expensive to live in, because you have ZERO chance of a high paying job. But if you have a degree, you've got some chance of being able to grab one, so you will not give up so quickly. Therefore unemployment among the educated will be higher.
When it indulges in this sort of bad science, it brings their reputation for reliable reporting in their main area of activity into question. Sad; they used to do a good job.
It's a game that has the newspapers reporting on the 'offence' taken, encouraging the attention seeking to shout their outrage, and with journalists harassing the original commentator whose remarks caused the twitter storm. Everyone is happy - except those attempting to have a sensible conversation. Given that I doubt it will stop soon...
The reality is that most politicians are not willing to actually do anything about it - so in practice don't believe it - whilst claiming the opposite.
Your comment is fair - however turning it into a personal attack merely shows that you have no ability to accept when you are wrong. That's not a good place to be...
The UK has no law outlawing jaywalking. The history of the law, passed as a result of pressure from motor car manufacturers to allow them to blame pedestrians for accidents, is unimpressive. It has an alarming tendency to be used in a racist way by police e.g.
makes the point more strongly. Indeed the underlying assumption that pedestrians aren't capable of rational thought is extraordinary. The fact that it is the law in ISRAEL is even weirder (a friend got done for it).
Two strikes and you are out. There need to be consequences for such cock ups. The need is to encourage pessimistic planning - and if higher management whinges, it should be their job on the line as well.
Also crunch time overtime should be very highly paid. Again: there needs to be a strong incentive to avoid it. If it happens, it needs to HURT the reputation of the managers who allowed it to happen.
There's a problem with the fact that the police are ignoring the terms of service of course; in theory we would like to believe that cops don't disobey the law. But otherwise? What you do PUBLICLY on line is clearly available for anyone to see, so it's not unreasonable for cops to use this for intelligence gathering.
I got censored from the Guardian for pointing out that a non-white female writer who won a Hugo would never know if she was the best, or merely the best available woman writer. In the same way a female director will never know if she is on the board because she is competent, or merely making up the numbers...
Slashdot Mirror
When the EU states start to fine companies for the breaches that have occurred since May last year when serious fines became possible, they'll start to WORRY.
Very impressed.
The recent news blaming a 20 yo in his parents' bedroom for the hack of sensitive data about German politicians which was originally blamed on 'state actors' has confused the situation a great deal.
https://www.theguardian.com/wo...
It also reminds us that at least some states aren't bothering to defend themselves properly.
Thanks for the challenge. I realise that the police don't need a warrant for a stake out; the point I was making, badly, is that a strict application of the ethics committee principle would be the equivalent of requiring it, whilst the need for a search warrant is the ethics committee working correctly.
A disappointing feature is the decision to concentrate there rather than to focus away from the overly expensive areas of NY and DC. This would help spread prosperity to other parts of the country.
In the same way that if I kill someone in the course of the war I'm a hero but if I kill someone on the next street I'm a murderer. These guys clearly and demonstrably set out to offer false data to prove a point about the failures of the system - and did so. If I offer a paper of false data to fool the Academy, I'm in a very different place.
Social scientists have established ethics committees whose say so is required before you carry out experiments on human beings where there are being deceived. He ignored this rule, and therefore has been a naughty boy. Presumably he ignored it because he feared a leak of his intentions, but it would be interesting to know whether he actually considered this.
OTOH those ethics committees are designed to protect the innocent. In this case the victims of the research should be able to cope with the implications; on this basis the police will required to check with an ethics committee every time they establish a stake out - though it can be argued that the court warrant requirement does serve this role to some extent...
When an institution - including a government - is wanting to control troublesome critics, it doesn't need to persecute all of them, it merely needs to effect enough to frighten the rest of the group into silence. What we appear to have atm in the Western universities is that those who would offer substantially unacceptable ideas are being frightened into staying away from those topics, and the fields are being abandoned to the dominant ideology.
Hopefully they will be fined large amounts of money and Facebook as well for accepting the data...
The desire to find someone to blame and punish them severely is human nature, but the reality is that we need to be able to trust in order to operate at all. One of the issues of making a senior manager responsible for certain issues to the point of criminal liability is that it may become impossible to get anyone to accept the responsibility if they aren't able to show that they acted reasonably in response to the information they had when making the iffy decision. Given that there is ALWAYS a trade off between safely and operating (you drive your car faster than 10 mph - therefore you choose to take the risk of hurting someone seriously if you hit them), we need to balance those. Now I agree in this case they seem to have got it wrong - although there is also a failure with the regulator who didn't force them to act on this.
If you only have a high school education, you're almost bound to leave an area that's so expensive to live in, because you have ZERO chance of a high paying job. But if you have a degree, you've got some chance of being able to grab one, so you will not give up so quickly. Therefore unemployment among the educated will be higher.
When it indulges in this sort of bad science, it brings their reputation for reliable reporting in their main area of activity into question. Sad; they used to do a good job.
It's a game that has the newspapers reporting on the 'offence' taken, encouraging the attention seeking to shout their outrage, and with journalists harassing the original commentator whose remarks caused the twitter storm. Everyone is happy - except those attempting to have a sensible conversation. Given that I doubt it will stop soon...
Flawed because the NHS has a 'walled garden' of a secure network within which data is secure.
The reality is that most politicians are not willing to actually do anything about it - so in practice don't believe it - whilst claiming the opposite.
You mean those organisations that have fully repaid the emergency loans, making the government a significant profit?
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/0...
and especially remember that Lehman Brothers has paid all its debts
https://uk.reuters.com/article...
The decision to fail to support Lehman Brothers was driven by ignorant politicians and caused major problems for no good reason.
Your comment is fair - however turning it into a personal attack merely shows that you have no ability to accept when you are wrong. That's not a good place to be...
UK total road deaths - about 2,000, or less.
US total road deaths - about 30,000
Therefore, using your figures
UK pedestrian deaths - 400
USA pedestrian deaths 3,600
On the whole therefore banning jaywalking clearly makes it more dangerous to be a pedestrian...
Isn't logic wonderful!
The UK has no law outlawing jaywalking. The history of the law, passed as a result of pressure from motor car manufacturers to allow them to blame pedestrians for accidents, is unimpressive. It has an alarming tendency to be used in a racist way by police e.g.
https://www.economist.com/demo...
makes the point more strongly. Indeed the underlying assumption that pedestrians aren't capable of rational thought is extraordinary. The fact that it is the law in ISRAEL is even weirder (a friend got done for it).
Two strikes and you are out. There need to be consequences for such cock ups. The need is to encourage pessimistic planning - and if higher management whinges, it should be their job on the line as well.
Also crunch time overtime should be very highly paid. Again: there needs to be a strong incentive to avoid it. If it happens, it needs to HURT the reputation of the managers who allowed it to happen.
Indeed; it's widely recognised that cops only catch stupid criminals.
There's a problem with the fact that the police are ignoring the terms of service of course; in theory we would like to believe that cops don't disobey the law. But otherwise? What you do PUBLICLY on line is clearly available for anyone to see, so it's not unreasonable for cops to use this for intelligence gathering.
I got censored from the Guardian for pointing out that a non-white female writer who won a Hugo would never know if she was the best, or merely the best available woman writer. In the same way a female director will never know if she is on the board because she is competent, or merely making up the numbers...
Thank you
Which means that Federal results would be almost impossible to correct with a new election