The company I work for (roughly 300 employs, fairly major UK national insurance broker) had to hire a new web dev last year. We put the feelers out in June, ended up interviewing throughout July and August, eventually hiring someone in September.
The job went out to all the usual boards, the HR dept (two women) hunted for candidates on LinkedIn, and we were also passed résumés by several agencies.
We saw well over 100 résumés in that time, with Indian and Chinese candidates massively over represented. How many résumés did we see from women for the position? Not one. Not a single, solitary one.
So yes, gender diversity sucks in tech, but when women aren't applying for the jobs, how can we diversify?
But that's not the two options usually given, because the assumption made is that someone has a right not to be offended, and a right to be able to do something even if that means someone elses behaviour has to be modified to allow them to do it. Don't like the behaviour of a group leader but still want to take part in the group? The PC reaction is that your right to take part trumps the leaders right to be themselves. My reaction is that both of you have the same right - but that doesn't solve your problem with the group leader so its a zero sum game.
The point is, the PC groups position is not to ask the leader not to be an asshole, its to require them to not be an asshole - putting your right above theirs. By all means, ask. But when you step over the line into requiring a change of attitude or behaviour, that's when its wrong.
If you are asking him to modify his behaviour because others do not like it or feel hurt by it, then yes that is being PC. The correct response to those people is "don't interact with him if you don't like his behaviour".
Nobody's asking him to be PC. Not many people are asking him to be friendly or polite. People are asking him to not be publicly abusive, to not be a bully, and to recognize the impact his words have on others.
So, PC then - its his project, he can run it the way he wants.
So what if words have impact on others - grow a pair and deal with it, requiring others to cater for your pansy ass feelings *is* asking them to be PC.
Being a bully is also subjective - you are there voluntarily as part of the project, you can leave the project just as voluntarily.
Abusive is also a PC subjective thing.
So yes, you are asking him to be PC, because PC is the current attitude pushed by certain pressure groups.
USB is CPU intensive because it makes devices cheap to make, as they dont need any processing power themselves - which is why it undercut FireWire, even tho FW was arguably the better of the two.
Just a note, but swatting doesn't happen here in the UK, all you would get is a few cars of armed police who would turn up, cordon off the road, and demand you come out of the house. No dramatic raid, only a few guns drawn. The police would basically outwait you.
Yup, I remember back in the 80s as a 10 year old being allowed to go out in the morning with a packed lunch and disappear for the entire day, coming back for dinner. I remember once having to get the bus back home, we had gone so far and left it so late.
Yeah, not so much here. Unions here get to bitch and moan a bit, perhaps call a strike, but generally get nowhere.
Oh, and if your name is Mick Cash, and you speak for the RMT Union, you also get to make up bullshit conspiracy theories and claim that a national package delivery company is equal in importance to the country as banks, so why isn't the government rescuing them? Despite the fact that everyone in the UK went "yay, finally" when said package delivery company went under, and no one has stopped receiving parcels since.
Satellites also provide better for the back haul connection - with towers you still need to visit all locations and get the back haul sorted (be it physical, microwave or indeed satellite). Visiting certain locations can be very dangerous. Also, towers wouldn't last in certain locations.
Depends where you are in the world, here in the UK domestic bin collection is done typically with a crew of three or four, one to drive, two to collect the main bins and one to collect the ancillary bins (food waste). No other way to do it, British residential streets just aren't built for a truck that can grab bins itself, as there will almost always be parked cars in the way.
No, because there is no identifying information about you, so you have no right to tell a website to forget an address with no personal details involved.
The "Right to be forgotten" is not all encompassing, you dont simply have the right to tell a website to remove whatever data you wish to have removed - there are boundaries to what you can accomplish with it.
Unless the defence puts together a convincing reason why certain evidence should be excluded, there should be no question about its legality. If the evidence was obtained illegally, it should be easy for the defence to discredit it.
Any instruction given to the jury is to counter comments designed to do nothing more than cast doubt about the legality which a juror may have heard online or through their friends etc.
No court case starts off by requiring the prosecution to establish the legality of its evidence or evidence gathering techniques - this particular one is no different.
Any such opinions or statements would have to be signed off by both prosecution and defence before the jury sees it, as its an outside influence on the case. I can see many situations where wording alone would be an issue for either party in the case...
If there is a law that the majority of people do not understand - either because it is too complex to understand (unlikely) or because nobody is good at explaining it (more likely) - then there is a problem with the law.
You are assuming the problem is with the law, when in many cases the problem is not with the law but rather with what the defendant did to break the law.
Its very well to say "trying to gain monetary reward through dishonesty is illegal" rather than having complex fraud laws - but you still have to explain to a jury just how that ponzi scheme that spans 15 shell companies, 8 futures markets, 4 currency markets and 32 bank accounts and involves moving pennies around several million times a day or purchasing 30 million shares in various companies for 6.25 seconds on the hour constitutes an illegal financial construct which results in fraud.
The main problem with this is that the Royal Mail was privitised so this publically funded data source has now been commercialised and the IPR owned by a company thanks to the tories.
Thats not really any different to saying that the publicly funded infrastructure, such as the vans and physical buildings, have now been commercialised.
Its the Royal Mail which maintains the PAF and the postcode system, so why should the government get income from licensing it?
There is currently a big debate within legal circles in the UK as to what to do about juries in complex fraud cases, where its near to impossible to explain to a lay person actually was, and how it was conducted, because they have no understanding of major international financial markets.
One proposal is to have a board of judges which are well versed in the financial profession sit in such cases without a jury, which understandably makes some people uneasy.
Jury-less cases have been heard in the UK as far back as the 1970s when related to terrorism offences, where the offence was of a complex type (eg, financial in nature - funding and money laundering for terrorist groups in Northern Ireland) or where there has been a history of proven jury tampering.
A proposal gathering speed is to include level of education and area of employment in jury selection, so rather than a completely random jury you do indeed get a jury which has a greater understanding of the specifics involved.
Perhaps some pictures, with primary colours only, might help? Narrated by Dora the Explorer maybe? Or Peppa Pig?
Sometimes you just need a better, more educated jury rather than a dumbed down series of explanations - the Judge would probably have an issue if the prosecution spent a week explaining Tor in single syllable words and interpretive dance...
What if you want the equivalent of an unlisted number, though?
Then you are thinking of something else, like the electoral role or exclusion from the phone book (which also includes addresses).
This is the equivalent of the Royal Mails Postcode Address File - matches locations to addresses, postcodes to streets, house numbers to postcodes etc. No names or occupants involved.
So there is no such thing as an unlisted address - its like BT releasing a list of all phone numbers without names of the people who you can call using them. Except having the address database is a damn sight more useful, as you don't deliver stuff to a phone number...
You don't need to have a license in the first place to be prevented from operating a business later on. Just because you don't have to get permission to start operating doesn't mean there isn't rules to follow when operating. In the UK you don't need a restaurant license to open a restaurant - but food hygiene inspectors can certainly close you down.
So no, Uber cant "operate their business however the hell they want to". They still fall under the purview of the law regardless of what you think.
My counter examples certainly are comparable - if you block the ability for inspectors to do their job, what makes you think you have the ability to continue to operate?
This isn't a "you can operate until the inspectors find a problem, but good luck finding a problem because I wont let you inspect me" situation.
No inspection, no continuing authority to operate.
Ban health inspectors from your restaurant - restaurant is closed by said inspectors pretty damn quickly.
Ban safety inspectors from your building site - you lose the ability to conduct any building operations on that site pretty damn quickly.
Make it impossible for inspectors to do their job, and your job goes away pretty damn quickly.
Make it impossible for inspectors to randomly inspect Uber drivers, lose your ability to operate any Uber drivers in that jurisdiction.
Inspectors have that power, and its a legitimate power to stop such bullshit tactics like you and others suggest.
The fifth amendment and encryption don't give you the ability to circumvent such ability to stop you conducting business - either you supply the legitimately requested information, or you lose your license to operate. Nuff said really. You can withhold the requested information quite legitimately, but it doesn't mean you also retain the ability to continue to operate. The with drawl of the latter doesn't affect your rights to the former.
Trying to game the system just gets you looked at harder. It doesn't make your problems go away.
Slashdot Mirror
Can the UK have its assets back the US government stole? And I'm not just talking about back in 1776.
The company I work for (roughly 300 employs, fairly major UK national insurance broker) had to hire a new web dev last year. We put the feelers out in June, ended up interviewing throughout July and August, eventually hiring someone in September.
The job went out to all the usual boards, the HR dept (two women) hunted for candidates on LinkedIn, and we were also passed résumés by several agencies.
We saw well over 100 résumés in that time, with Indian and Chinese candidates massively over represented. How many résumés did we see from women for the position? Not one. Not a single, solitary one.
So yes, gender diversity sucks in tech, but when women aren't applying for the jobs, how can we diversify?
Perhaps you could ask for a refund...
But that's not the two options usually given, because the assumption made is that someone has a right not to be offended, and a right to be able to do something even if that means someone elses behaviour has to be modified to allow them to do it. Don't like the behaviour of a group leader but still want to take part in the group? The PC reaction is that your right to take part trumps the leaders right to be themselves. My reaction is that both of you have the same right - but that doesn't solve your problem with the group leader so its a zero sum game.
The point is, the PC groups position is not to ask the leader not to be an asshole, its to require them to not be an asshole - putting your right above theirs. By all means, ask. But when you step over the line into requiring a change of attitude or behaviour, that's when its wrong.
If you are asking him to modify his behaviour because others do not like it or feel hurt by it, then yes that is being PC. The correct response to those people is "don't interact with him if you don't like his behaviour".
Nobody's asking him to be PC. Not many people are asking him to be friendly or polite. People are asking him to not be publicly abusive, to not be a bully, and to recognize the impact his words have on others.
So, PC then - its his project, he can run it the way he wants.
So what if words have impact on others - grow a pair and deal with it, requiring others to cater for your pansy ass feelings *is* asking them to be PC.
Being a bully is also subjective - you are there voluntarily as part of the project, you can leave the project just as voluntarily.
Abusive is also a PC subjective thing.
So yes, you are asking him to be PC, because PC is the current attitude pushed by certain pressure groups.
That's swotting.
USB is CPU intensive because it makes devices cheap to make, as they dont need any processing power themselves - which is why it undercut FireWire, even tho FW was arguably the better of the two.
Where does it say that? That article is about someone completely different, not this arrest.
Just a note, but swatting doesn't happen here in the UK, all you would get is a few cars of armed police who would turn up, cordon off the road, and demand you come out of the house. No dramatic raid, only a few guns drawn. The police would basically outwait you.
Yup, I remember back in the 80s as a 10 year old being allowed to go out in the morning with a packed lunch and disappear for the entire day, coming back for dinner. I remember once having to get the bus back home, we had gone so far and left it so late.
Yeah, not so much here. Unions here get to bitch and moan a bit, perhaps call a strike, but generally get nowhere.
Oh, and if your name is Mick Cash, and you speak for the RMT Union, you also get to make up bullshit conspiracy theories and claim that a national package delivery company is equal in importance to the country as banks, so why isn't the government rescuing them? Despite the fact that everyone in the UK went "yay, finally" when said package delivery company went under, and no one has stopped receiving parcels since.
Satellites also provide better for the back haul connection - with towers you still need to visit all locations and get the back haul sorted (be it physical, microwave or indeed satellite). Visiting certain locations can be very dangerous. Also, towers wouldn't last in certain locations.
Depends where you are in the world, here in the UK domestic bin collection is done typically with a crew of three or four, one to drive, two to collect the main bins and one to collect the ancillary bins (food waste). No other way to do it, British residential streets just aren't built for a truck that can grab bins itself, as there will almost always be parked cars in the way.
No, because there is no identifying information about you, so you have no right to tell a website to forget an address with no personal details involved.
The "Right to be forgotten" is not all encompassing, you dont simply have the right to tell a website to remove whatever data you wish to have removed - there are boundaries to what you can accomplish with it.
... Jury nullification seems to be massively overstated here on Slashdot - another meme that just wont die?
Unless the defence puts together a convincing reason why certain evidence should be excluded, there should be no question about its legality. If the evidence was obtained illegally, it should be easy for the defence to discredit it.
Any instruction given to the jury is to counter comments designed to do nothing more than cast doubt about the legality which a juror may have heard online or through their friends etc.
No court case starts off by requiring the prosecution to establish the legality of its evidence or evidence gathering techniques - this particular one is no different.
Any such opinions or statements would have to be signed off by both prosecution and defence before the jury sees it, as its an outside influence on the case. I can see many situations where wording alone would be an issue for either party in the case...
If there is a law that the majority of people do not understand - either because it is too complex to understand (unlikely) or because nobody is good at explaining it (more likely) - then there is a problem with the law.
You are assuming the problem is with the law, when in many cases the problem is not with the law but rather with what the defendant did to break the law.
Its very well to say "trying to gain monetary reward through dishonesty is illegal" rather than having complex fraud laws - but you still have to explain to a jury just how that ponzi scheme that spans 15 shell companies, 8 futures markets, 4 currency markets and 32 bank accounts and involves moving pennies around several million times a day or purchasing 30 million shares in various companies for 6.25 seconds on the hour constitutes an illegal financial construct which results in fraud.
The main problem with this is that the Royal Mail was privitised so this publically funded data source has now been commercialised and the IPR owned by a company thanks to the tories.
Thats not really any different to saying that the publicly funded infrastructure, such as the vans and physical buildings, have now been commercialised.
Its the Royal Mail which maintains the PAF and the postcode system, so why should the government get income from licensing it?
There is currently a big debate within legal circles in the UK as to what to do about juries in complex fraud cases, where its near to impossible to explain to a lay person actually was, and how it was conducted, because they have no understanding of major international financial markets.
One proposal is to have a board of judges which are well versed in the financial profession sit in such cases without a jury, which understandably makes some people uneasy.
Jury-less cases have been heard in the UK as far back as the 1970s when related to terrorism offences, where the offence was of a complex type (eg, financial in nature - funding and money laundering for terrorist groups in Northern Ireland) or where there has been a history of proven jury tampering.
A proposal gathering speed is to include level of education and area of employment in jury selection, so rather than a completely random jury you do indeed get a jury which has a greater understanding of the specifics involved.
Perhaps some pictures, with primary colours only, might help? Narrated by Dora the Explorer maybe? Or Peppa Pig?
Sometimes you just need a better, more educated jury rather than a dumbed down series of explanations - the Judge would probably have an issue if the prosecution spent a week explaining Tor in single syllable words and interpretive dance...
What if you want the equivalent of an unlisted number, though?
Then you are thinking of something else, like the electoral role or exclusion from the phone book (which also includes addresses).
This is the equivalent of the Royal Mails Postcode Address File - matches locations to addresses, postcodes to streets, house numbers to postcodes etc. No names or occupants involved.
So there is no such thing as an unlisted address - its like BT releasing a list of all phone numbers without names of the people who you can call using them. Except having the address database is a damn sight more useful, as you don't deliver stuff to a phone number...
Wow, the denial is strong in this one...
You don't need to have a license in the first place to be prevented from operating a business later on. Just because you don't have to get permission to start operating doesn't mean there isn't rules to follow when operating. In the UK you don't need a restaurant license to open a restaurant - but food hygiene inspectors can certainly close you down.
So no, Uber cant "operate their business however the hell they want to". They still fall under the purview of the law regardless of what you think.
Performing quasi-legal shenanigans doesn't work.
My counter examples certainly are comparable - if you block the ability for inspectors to do their job, what makes you think you have the ability to continue to operate?
This isn't a "you can operate until the inspectors find a problem, but good luck finding a problem because I wont let you inspect me" situation.
No inspection, no continuing authority to operate.
Ban health inspectors from your restaurant - restaurant is closed by said inspectors pretty damn quickly.
Ban safety inspectors from your building site - you lose the ability to conduct any building operations on that site pretty damn quickly.
Make it impossible for inspectors to do their job, and your job goes away pretty damn quickly.
Make it impossible for inspectors to randomly inspect Uber drivers, lose your ability to operate any Uber drivers in that jurisdiction.
Inspectors have that power, and its a legitimate power to stop such bullshit tactics like you and others suggest.
The fifth amendment and encryption don't give you the ability to circumvent such ability to stop you conducting business - either you supply the legitimately requested information, or you lose your license to operate. Nuff said really. You can withhold the requested information quite legitimately, but it doesn't mean you also retain the ability to continue to operate. The with drawl of the latter doesn't affect your rights to the former.
Trying to game the system just gets you looked at harder. It doesn't make your problems go away.