but it may well be that at the time of interviews there is no expectation of paying less to women, and that the salary negotiation is a detail after the decision to appoint the individual; that women end up being cheaper is therefore a permanently unexpected bonus, not something which the recruitment process is equipped to take advantage of; no choice is ever being made to employ the cheaper. Therefore men and women will be recruited purely on the basis their skill set.
The possibility is that women fail to push for higher pay both at interview and when seeking rises. The latter particularly will leave to them staying on lower pay long term.
There is an judicial organisation with responsibility for oversight of this. The question is whether they are doing their job, and whether the penalties for abuse are sufficient. Given that the answer to both is probably 'no', we clearly do have a problem, but it's too simple to say it is 'extra-judicial'.
If the data is physically in country A, then the court of country A can ban the company that owns it from releasing it, regardless of its 'ownership' by someone else. And it gets lots more interesting if the data is owned by MS Ireland, not MS USA...
The question is whether appropriate maintenance was done subsequently; a failure to do so would indeed constitute a symptom of the infrastructure crisis, which is often caused by routine maintenance being cut as a 'painless' cost saving for a financially strapped government. Then it comes back and bites them...
The reality will be that there are capabilities in the drones that they don't want to talk about. Now the interesting issue that this raises is that if a drone is used for a criminal case, it is the right of the defence to have ALL evidence gathered in the case, so actually the capabilities will become public if it is used in a case that comes to trial...
The reality is that governments - be it in defence or eslewhere - are always moving the goal posts, and the contractors are running to catch up. So in theory option 2 is the best, but it usually doesn't work out as well as it really ought to. The UK is currently playing the same game with a new system for welfare benefits, and it's equally disasterous. And remember - the private sector is often as bad, they usually get to bury their mistakes without publicity!
The 'placebo' one is merely successful using the data collected by this feature. And we all know that it exists - every computer will go wrong just when you are most dependent on it working right...
Consultation is NOT about demonstrating that there are a lot of people opposed to a decision; that's what the democratic process of the commision, congress etc is for. Consultation properly is to raise specific issues that the bureaucrats haven't thought of, to ensure that the final regulations will achieve what the bureaucrats want it to do, or to identify why the implementation will fail. So lots of identical objections will achieve nothing; a detailed examination of why the regulation will have unintended consequences in area 'X', will get attention - as long as the people tasked with reading them don't give up because there are so many.
The purpose of the criminal law is to protect the public from damage caused to people or their property as a result of the actions of another. The failure to deal correctly with these biohazards raises the prospect of serious damage to people. Therefore it is logical to invoke the criminal law to punish those who put people at risk of serious damage. If there are no consequences on the perpetrators of an offence, in the broadest terms, then there is every reason to expect people to do it again. The only question left is whether this is the BEST way to ensure future compliance / a safer society. This can be disputed - but that criminal sanctions should be seriously considered should be inevitable.
I accept your point which is well made. I was referring to ignorance of the regulations about a topic when fully aware of the facts. Telling the IRS you didn't know about a tax rule is generally not a successful strategy!
I was confident that rules would exist. Two minutes playing on the OHSA website produced
https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaw...
which lays out comprehensive requirements for biohazard materials. I would have been amazed if they hadn't existed - which is why I 'guessed'. Governments are often predictable!
The problem, of course, is that if there is no meaningful accountability, then there's no incentive to get it right. UK unions are attempting to get a named company director liable for health and safety violations to encourage compliance, but the reality is that it's so difficult to do that the outcome is liable to be that nobody would accept the job. By contrast the National Health Service is trying to encourage 'no blame' reporting of errors, but there the ambulance chasing lawyers turn up and make it undesirable to admit errors for a different reason
Thanks for making me think!
If the law has been broken, then it is always chargeable as a offence, even if it's as a result of stupidity not criminal intent. The alternative is that ignorance becomes an absolute defence, which makes no sense.
When you live with a situation that the world labels 'dangerous' and nothing happens, it's hard to keep believing its really dangerous. This is why deterrent sentences on criminals don't have much effect; people get used to the idea, and carry on living in the same way regardless of the risk. Sad but true!
Slashdot Mirror
It was good enough for the British scientists of the 19th century, but young people these days are made of wimpier stuff :P
but it may well be that at the time of interviews there is no expectation of paying less to women, and that the salary negotiation is a detail after the decision to appoint the individual; that women end up being cheaper is therefore a permanently unexpected bonus, not something which the recruitment process is equipped to take advantage of; no choice is ever being made to employ the cheaper. Therefore men and women will be recruited purely on the basis their skill set.
The possibility is that women fail to push for higher pay both at interview and when seeking rises. The latter particularly will leave to them staying on lower pay long term.
The point about filtering is well made, but to believe that 2500 miles of ocean is not enough to disperse the gunk seems pessimistic!
There is an judicial organisation with responsibility for oversight of this. The question is whether they are doing their job, and whether the penalties for abuse are sufficient. Given that the answer to both is probably 'no', we clearly do have a problem, but it's too simple to say it is 'extra-judicial'.
If the data is physically in country A, then the court of country A can ban the company that owns it from releasing it, regardless of its 'ownership' by someone else. And it gets lots more interesting if the data is owned by MS Ireland, not MS USA...
The disk crashed and we lost the data - like her at the IRS... terribly sorry...
the wholly owned subsidiary of MS, but subject to IRISH laws which require a court order from an IRISH court to release data.
and not a revolution by force... otherwise those nice people in the black vans will be round.
But ensure that the operatives who DID know are charged with something.
n/t
The question is whether appropriate maintenance was done subsequently; a failure to do so would indeed constitute a symptom of the infrastructure crisis, which is often caused by routine maintenance being cut as a 'painless' cost saving for a financially strapped government. Then it comes back and bites them...
The reality will be that there are capabilities in the drones that they don't want to talk about. Now the interesting issue that this raises is that if a drone is used for a criminal case, it is the right of the defence to have ALL evidence gathered in the case, so actually the capabilities will become public if it is used in a case that comes to trial...
A 'liberal' is someone who has just been arrested and wants to assert their rights... whilst a 'Conservative' is someone who has just been mugged
The reality is that governments - be it in defence or eslewhere - are always moving the goal posts, and the contractors are running to catch up. So in theory option 2 is the best, but it usually doesn't work out as well as it really ought to. The UK is currently playing the same game with a new system for welfare benefits, and it's equally disasterous. And remember - the private sector is often as bad, they usually get to bury their mistakes without publicity!
The 'placebo' one is merely successful using the data collected by this feature. And we all know that it exists - every computer will go wrong just when you are most dependent on it working right...
Consultation is NOT about demonstrating that there are a lot of people opposed to a decision; that's what the democratic process of the commision, congress etc is for. Consultation properly is to raise specific issues that the bureaucrats haven't thought of, to ensure that the final regulations will achieve what the bureaucrats want it to do, or to identify why the implementation will fail. So lots of identical objections will achieve nothing; a detailed examination of why the regulation will have unintended consequences in area 'X', will get attention - as long as the people tasked with reading them don't give up because there are so many.
No effort... and remarkably eloquent; perhaps with a link to the court case...
The purpose of the criminal law is to protect the public from damage caused to people or their property as a result of the actions of another. The failure to deal correctly with these biohazards raises the prospect of serious damage to people. Therefore it is logical to invoke the criminal law to punish those who put people at risk of serious damage. If there are no consequences on the perpetrators of an offence, in the broadest terms, then there is every reason to expect people to do it again. The only question left is whether this is the BEST way to ensure future compliance / a safer society. This can be disputed - but that criminal sanctions should be seriously considered should be inevitable.
I accept your point which is well made. I was referring to ignorance of the regulations about a topic when fully aware of the facts. Telling the IRS you didn't know about a tax rule is generally not a successful strategy!
I was confident that rules would exist. Two minutes playing on the OHSA website produced https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaw... which lays out comprehensive requirements for biohazard materials. I would have been amazed if they hadn't existed - which is why I 'guessed'. Governments are often predictable!
The problem, of course, is that if there is no meaningful accountability, then there's no incentive to get it right. UK unions are attempting to get a named company director liable for health and safety violations to encourage compliance, but the reality is that it's so difficult to do that the outcome is liable to be that nobody would accept the job. By contrast the National Health Service is trying to encourage 'no blame' reporting of errors, but there the ambulance chasing lawyers turn up and make it undesirable to admit errors for a different reason Thanks for making me think!
I'm guessing that there are laws about such things...
If the law has been broken, then it is always chargeable as a offence, even if it's as a result of stupidity not criminal intent. The alternative is that ignorance becomes an absolute defence, which makes no sense.
When you live with a situation that the world labels 'dangerous' and nothing happens, it's hard to keep believing its really dangerous. This is why deterrent sentences on criminals don't have much effect; people get used to the idea, and carry on living in the same way regardless of the risk. Sad but true!