To be fair, the reason this is happening is that enough people think it was already happening, thus the lack of gender and race diversity in senior positions, and that organisations weren't addressing it voluntarily so laws were enacted to force them to.
Trust me that there are plenty of people who use SQL like a programming language. We have dozens of 3,000+ line stored procedures and job steps (queries) that we have to keep ticking over; just because SQL "shouldn't" be a programming language doesn't mean everyone got that memo!
It wouldn't surprise me if the judge thought the dead battery was a dubious way of dodging the charge, but I don't see that as a valid justification for intentionally distorting the law in response. My concern with interpretations like this is that they tend to go against the individual. We have extensive protections on physical documents and being compelled to give evidence against yourself, but many jurisdictions have interpreted these as not applying to digital documents and passwords. In this case someone is being charged with operating a phone because they had headphones plugged in to a turned off device... based on that interpretation we're accepting giving courts carte blanche to interpret just about anything from being near a device as using it or being distracted by it.
Judges are paid an very decent salary because they are supposed to be able to understand the fine nuances of the law and apply them without prejudice. If we just wanted to punish people for "doing stuff that seems wrong" we could save ourselves the bother and just let the jury decide if what the person did should be considered illegal.
All this has done is displace those who would have worked at McDonalds.
Sort of true, but I'd suggest this is only one side of it and the reason is a little different.
As a company it is attractive to hire resource as and when you need it. You can scale easily, it avoids longer term commitments especially in markets like the EU where labour protections are strong etc. However, if doing the work effectively requires knowledge of the organisation or practices that takes considerable time to pick up then having a stable longer term workforce has a considerable advantage.
The above means that delivery staff are an attractive option to outsource in many cases; but not all. It can also mean that many other specialist areas can be outsourced. It isn't uncommon to see, at least part of, finance, legal, HR, and IT provided in this way. My own area of experience is IT and I tend to find that it is either the most entry level work 1st line or the specialised technical work, for example core networking that could work that way. A lot of the rest of the work benefits considerably from experience of how the business operates etc.
Care to point to any of these studies? One would assume that when you download content you would actually need to use some power to watch it and you'd also have the environmental impact of the storage resources required.
Google demonstrated the service running on devices including low end Chromebooks. Any PC capable of generating 4k60 content locally is going to have vastly higher power requirements, even when not doing intensive work, so even if Google's servers were more energy inefficient than a home rig while running you'd have to use them hard enough to counteract the power inefficiency of a local rig for an other less demanding work.
I can't help but see your argument as the logical equivalent of: I have a car and can afford taxis if I don't wish to drive thus this idea of public transport is a solution looking for a problem.
Frankly anyone shoehorning how they own a "top end gaming pc" into a post where it isn't vital information just comes across as insecure.
Printing money increases supply and drives deflation, I'd suggest you not knowing something that simple is a pretty good indicator of how seriously the rest of your rhetoric should be considered.
The EU can't viably support a military the size of America's and nor should it want to. First the EU's GDP is roughly the same as the USA's not "a lot larger". Secondly, Europe has (rightly in my opinion) considerable government spending requirements on priorities like universal healthcare that the USA doesn't. The USA spends around $450,000,000,000 (500 Billion dollars) more on it's military than the EU states (inc the UK). It would be incredibly difficult for the EU to find nearly $1,000 per citizen per year in additional taxation or cuts to government spending to fund that increase. Even if they did, tripling military spending in a way that is remotely effective would take a couple of decades.
And you know what the above shouldn't matter. Although the EU should probably be investing more in defence the world, and Europe itself, doesn't need another military of that scale. The relative differences between the EU and the USA are still quite small, and anyone suggesting that it's beneficial to either side for this not to be a close friendship is an idiot or shilling for a country that benefits from that relationship being harmed.
The right of self determination - the right to decide for yourself what you do with your body and your life
But this never exists as a complete absolute and it is harmful to dumb down that it has. People don't exist in isolation and a huge amount of what would constitute this freedom for one individual would restrict the freedoms or cause harm to others. The moment you accept that people aren't free to commit murder without consequence you are accepting that this freedom isn't absolute.
When your choice is between a world where people with immune deficiencies have to hide away because of the risk of catching a disease with a widely available vaccine that others are choosing not to take or requiring people who don't have the vaccine to stay away from society to make things safe for those more susceptible there is no option that satisfactorily gives complete freedom to all parties.
I can't help but think there will be some obvious answer, but for once this is a suggestion on Slashdot that does seem to make quite a lot of sense. You can put a lot of security in place, but a lot of the escalated response steps are often manual. If my firewall IPS detects something it can stop that traffic, but a larger response would need to be triggered by an employee and we don't have a24/7 IT Ops desk so it could be 10+ hours between the first IPS and someone acting. If you're typical attack happens over a day this isn't a big issue, but less than a couple of hours...
I can see some headaches about making sure your honeypots don't trigger lockdowns on unintended safe activity, and you'd have to ensure the honeypots were obvious enough they didn't get missed while also not being obviously honeypots which may be a hard thing to balance.
I've found that a very high exposure to water is surprisingly lethal for example, but I'm not sure banning it so people can't drown would be an improvement.
I think the reasonable point he is making is that it wouldn't have hurt to give some indication who might be considered highly exposed in the summary given that it's a pretty important point of distinction. If it means people who go anywhere near produce it was used on that's considerably different to, for example, it being the people who apply it. That doesn't mean it's ok that the people who apply it have increased risk, but that raises the possibility that changes in how it is handled and applied could decrease their risk rather than banning it entirely and replacing it with other products that may have equal or worse consequences.
Excrement is used on a basic food stuff, it doesn't mean it's part of a healthy and balanced diet.
This logic that the only way to back up claims something is safe to drink is to drink it anytime someone asks is ridiculous. If someone wants to sell a medical product that can cure a disease do they have to infect themselves with the disease each time someone asks just to prove they "really" believe it?
The counter argument to some of this, and I'm someone who thinks the higher rates of tax being discussed are excessive is that these ridiculous rates from the 70s etc were pretty ineffective. We currently raise more tax vs GDP than in the 70s, and that's because anyone who would have been paying 98% dodged it. To use some music examples: The rolling stones moved abroad for tax and the beatles set up a company to hold music rights and paid considerably less tax that way.
In the UK currently, by the time you account for national insurance, employer national insurance, income tax, and the loss of child tax credits then someone earning £50k+ whose company spends £10k more employing them might see around 30% of that. You then pay 20% on just about everything you buy, council tax for owning a home, stamp duty for buying a home, additional duty of alcahol, fuel etc. All accounted for they'd be lucky if more they could actually spend £1,500-2,000 of the £10,000 after taxes.
The figures really aren't as clear cut as that. You'll certainly be looking at more like 3 years for the break even between buying a perpetual license and an office 365 subscription in most businesses. If they're using Exchange Online or similar services which get bundled then that stretches the period even further.
Subscription models aren't just about milking more money, though obviously they can be, there can be plenty of other benefits for the provider including smoothing cash flow. It can also be that they think customers are less likely to make a decision to drop a subscription product than a perpetual product if the perpetual product involves making a very expensive and disruptive decision every few years (while keeping a subscription is a relatively cheap and easy decision).
You're slightly missing the point here; you could never share your personal information or DNA with anyone, and still end up with it being known because other people share the information or share their DNA (voluntarily or not) which provides insight into your DNA. The issue with a lot of this is that if you can't persuade almost everyone then you're fucked even if you yourself don't go along; and being realistic means you aren't going to persuade almost everyone.
I'm not sure on the right to be forgotten but you are missing it's claimed primary purpose.
In America some content is illegal. Individual Americans may or may not agree with those laws but they exist and a content provider needs to adhere to them. In America's case because it is such a large market and so much of the infrastructure is based there or run by companies under that jurisdiction it means that the vast majority of casually find-able content conforms to American law. In Europe that isn't necessarily the case so the right to be forgotten was implemented to cover scenarios where content that isn't acceptable by their laws can be blocked; this is a trade off to handle the fact that getting content that is legal by, for example, American standards and hosted in America removed or updated can prove impossible.
The above isn't intended to explain this individual cases merits; but if the information this site includes was judged to be inaccurate or misleading then this isn't as simple as European vs American free speech. Try living in American jurisdiction and posting false information about medical products or service providers who are also in the US and see how long your right to free speech protects you from considerable fines or even criminal charges.
By wondering what a panal was. Putting spelling mistakes aside it would depend on the context; the fact even you need to point out "by rule" says a lot about why. Panels have been mostly male only without rules for so long in the tech sector that a rule requiring it would seem pointlessly backwards. If you see an all male panel in many fields you don't even notice it. If someone was holding an event on primary school teaching and decided to have a session with an all male panel I could understand that as men only make up 15% of primary teachers. Obviously it'd be nice if the session had at least some tangential relationship to diversity or encouraging more men into teaching etc.
My biggest issue with this logic is that equating some level of compliance with an unjust system with being a co-conspirator can only rationally lead to us all being infinitely guilty of uncountable evils.
To pick on Americans, although it would work for just about any nation. You're government has ordered deeply immoral things, not least the rendition and torture of individuals without any access to a fair trial; when they became aware of these things the vast majority of Americans didn't respond by refusing to pay taxes that they know fund that behaviour; likely in no small part because although many will have disagreed with it they didn't want to suffer considerable personal discomfort (having to stop earning, or get arrested for tax evasion).
It's easy to say someone is complicit, or has no right to complain, or is co-conspiring when you're judging others. Very few people can do that credibly because they haven't have been put in a similar situation where they would have had to sacrifice something incredibly important to them by not making a similar decision.
Of course it doesn't annoy them; the issue isn't realism, it's that a game manufacturer dared to do something inclusive for other demographics and this is highly upsetting for a fortunately small subset of gamers.
Because allowing people who want to play as a character without an X chromosone completely ruins a game, but balancing weapons by making them entirely unrealistic is making a playable game. There might be a few snowflakes out there who genuinely can't handle the idea of female characters in a multiplayer game, but I hope I'm not being naively optimistic in believing that the majority of the population couldn't care less. I did laugh when I saw the box and knew immediately that an entire portion of the internet would be raging and crying into their cornflakes about it.
Bullshit. If someone threatens to burn your house down unless you give them money, you aren't equally at fault for the consequences if you refuse and they burn your house down.
Trump is using the budget, and the damage this is doing to people's lives and the country, to try and blackmail congress into giving him something he wants. Ignoring politics, this is owned by him because he has decided the thing he wants is worth the consequences. Politically it's even worse. At best he knows the way he is handling this won't get a deal, but is happy with that because his priority isn't a deal because it's all posturing for his base. At worst he really does want a deal but he's so politically inept that he's been making it completely impossible for the Democrats to agree to one on anything approaching reasonable terms.
As the president said yesterday, he never said HOW Mexico would pay for it, nor did he say they'd be building it.
It's scary how many people are blatantly lying or completely ignorant about what Trump says when defending him. He said repeatedly that Mexico would pay for it directly; it takes about 5 seconds to google search and find video evidence. He spoke to the Mexican President and told him that he'd have to pay for it (which of course they refused to do). At this point I think a chocolate teapot would have considerably more credibility than most of the people defending Trump.
Elections do have consequences, and the consequence of electing more Democrats to the house than Republicans is that Trump can't just demand what he likes and get it anymore.
The Democrats, and the majority of Americans, don't support the wall. How is it acting like Children for them to refuse to sign something they don't agree with? A parent isn't acting like a child if they refuse to give their toddler more dessert every time they start having a temper tantrum; and depressingly that's a close analogy to the current President and his typical behaviour.
I'm really not sure on the point of this post. Your home insurance will include requirements about how the property is secured, and a sign asking people to take your stuff would invalidate cover that only covered theft or damage as you'd struggle to argue it was either; all of which has sweet f.a. to do with cyber liability insurance.
Clearly some more informed people are surprised that Mondelez payout was refused; which at least implies that it isn't simply clear breaches of the terms of the agreement, or that industry practice had been to previously pay claims in similar circumstances.
If I was you I'd be more embarrassed about being so out of touch that I don't realise people doing effectively the same thing manually has been going on for millennia and that given the value of the beauty product market it will almost certainly find users.
Slashdot Mirror
To be fair, the reason this is happening is that enough people think it was already happening, thus the lack of gender and race diversity in senior positions, and that organisations weren't addressing it voluntarily so laws were enacted to force them to.
Trust me that there are plenty of people who use SQL like a programming language. We have dozens of 3,000+ line stored procedures and job steps (queries) that we have to keep ticking over; just because SQL "shouldn't" be a programming language doesn't mean everyone got that memo!
It wouldn't surprise me if the judge thought the dead battery was a dubious way of dodging the charge, but I don't see that as a valid justification for intentionally distorting the law in response. My concern with interpretations like this is that they tend to go against the individual. We have extensive protections on physical documents and being compelled to give evidence against yourself, but many jurisdictions have interpreted these as not applying to digital documents and passwords. In this case someone is being charged with operating a phone because they had headphones plugged in to a turned off device... based on that interpretation we're accepting giving courts carte blanche to interpret just about anything from being near a device as using it or being distracted by it.
Judges are paid an very decent salary because they are supposed to be able to understand the fine nuances of the law and apply them without prejudice. If we just wanted to punish people for "doing stuff that seems wrong" we could save ourselves the bother and just let the jury decide if what the person did should be considered illegal.
Sort of true, but I'd suggest this is only one side of it and the reason is a little different.
As a company it is attractive to hire resource as and when you need it. You can scale easily, it avoids longer term commitments especially in markets like the EU where labour protections are strong etc. However, if doing the work effectively requires knowledge of the organisation or practices that takes considerable time to pick up then having a stable longer term workforce has a considerable advantage.
The above means that delivery staff are an attractive option to outsource in many cases; but not all. It can also mean that many other specialist areas can be outsourced. It isn't uncommon to see, at least part of, finance, legal, HR, and IT provided in this way. My own area of experience is IT and I tend to find that it is either the most entry level work 1st line or the specialised technical work, for example core networking that could work that way. A lot of the rest of the work benefits considerably from experience of how the business operates etc.
Care to point to any of these studies? One would assume that when you download content you would actually need to use some power to watch it and you'd also have the environmental impact of the storage resources required.
Google demonstrated the service running on devices including low end Chromebooks. Any PC capable of generating 4k60 content locally is going to have vastly higher power requirements, even when not doing intensive work, so even if Google's servers were more energy inefficient than a home rig while running you'd have to use them hard enough to counteract the power inefficiency of a local rig for an other less demanding work.
I can't help but see your argument as the logical equivalent of: I have a car and can afford taxis if I don't wish to drive thus this idea of public transport is a solution looking for a problem.
Frankly anyone shoehorning how they own a "top end gaming pc" into a post where it isn't vital information just comes across as insecure.
Printing money increases supply and drives deflation, I'd suggest you not knowing something that simple is a pretty good indicator of how seriously the rest of your rhetoric should be considered.
The EU can't viably support a military the size of America's and nor should it want to. First the EU's GDP is roughly the same as the USA's not "a lot larger". Secondly, Europe has (rightly in my opinion) considerable government spending requirements on priorities like universal healthcare that the USA doesn't. The USA spends around $450,000,000,000 (500 Billion dollars) more on it's military than the EU states (inc the UK). It would be incredibly difficult for the EU to find nearly $1,000 per citizen per year in additional taxation or cuts to government spending to fund that increase. Even if they did, tripling military spending in a way that is remotely effective would take a couple of decades.
And you know what the above shouldn't matter. Although the EU should probably be investing more in defence the world, and Europe itself, doesn't need another military of that scale. The relative differences between the EU and the USA are still quite small, and anyone suggesting that it's beneficial to either side for this not to be a close friendship is an idiot or shilling for a country that benefits from that relationship being harmed.
But this never exists as a complete absolute and it is harmful to dumb down that it has. People don't exist in isolation and a huge amount of what would constitute this freedom for one individual would restrict the freedoms or cause harm to others. The moment you accept that people aren't free to commit murder without consequence you are accepting that this freedom isn't absolute.
When your choice is between a world where people with immune deficiencies have to hide away because of the risk of catching a disease with a widely available vaccine that others are choosing not to take or requiring people who don't have the vaccine to stay away from society to make things safe for those more susceptible there is no option that satisfactorily gives complete freedom to all parties.
I can't help but think there will be some obvious answer, but for once this is a suggestion on Slashdot that does seem to make quite a lot of sense. You can put a lot of security in place, but a lot of the escalated response steps are often manual. If my firewall IPS detects something it can stop that traffic, but a larger response would need to be triggered by an employee and we don't have a24/7 IT Ops desk so it could be 10+ hours between the first IPS and someone acting. If you're typical attack happens over a day this isn't a big issue, but less than a couple of hours...
I can see some headaches about making sure your honeypots don't trigger lockdowns on unintended safe activity, and you'd have to ensure the honeypots were obvious enough they didn't get missed while also not being obviously honeypots which may be a hard thing to balance.
I've found that a very high exposure to water is surprisingly lethal for example, but I'm not sure banning it so people can't drown would be an improvement.
I think the reasonable point he is making is that it wouldn't have hurt to give some indication who might be considered highly exposed in the summary given that it's a pretty important point of distinction. If it means people who go anywhere near produce it was used on that's considerably different to, for example, it being the people who apply it. That doesn't mean it's ok that the people who apply it have increased risk, but that raises the possibility that changes in how it is handled and applied could decrease their risk rather than banning it entirely and replacing it with other products that may have equal or worse consequences.
Excrement is used on a basic food stuff, it doesn't mean it's part of a healthy and balanced diet.
This logic that the only way to back up claims something is safe to drink is to drink it anytime someone asks is ridiculous. If someone wants to sell a medical product that can cure a disease do they have to infect themselves with the disease each time someone asks just to prove they "really" believe it?
The counter argument to some of this, and I'm someone who thinks the higher rates of tax being discussed are excessive is that these ridiculous rates from the 70s etc were pretty ineffective. We currently raise more tax vs GDP than in the 70s, and that's because anyone who would have been paying 98% dodged it. To use some music examples: The rolling stones moved abroad for tax and the beatles set up a company to hold music rights and paid considerably less tax that way.
In the UK currently, by the time you account for national insurance, employer national insurance, income tax, and the loss of child tax credits then someone earning £50k+ whose company spends £10k more employing them might see around 30% of that. You then pay 20% on just about everything you buy, council tax for owning a home, stamp duty for buying a home, additional duty of alcahol, fuel etc. All accounted for they'd be lucky if more they could actually spend £1,500-2,000 of the £10,000 after taxes.
The figures really aren't as clear cut as that. You'll certainly be looking at more like 3 years for the break even between buying a perpetual license and an office 365 subscription in most businesses. If they're using Exchange Online or similar services which get bundled then that stretches the period even further.
Subscription models aren't just about milking more money, though obviously they can be, there can be plenty of other benefits for the provider including smoothing cash flow. It can also be that they think customers are less likely to make a decision to drop a subscription product than a perpetual product if the perpetual product involves making a very expensive and disruptive decision every few years (while keeping a subscription is a relatively cheap and easy decision).
You're slightly missing the point here; you could never share your personal information or DNA with anyone, and still end up with it being known because other people share the information or share their DNA (voluntarily or not) which provides insight into your DNA. The issue with a lot of this is that if you can't persuade almost everyone then you're fucked even if you yourself don't go along; and being realistic means you aren't going to persuade almost everyone.
I'm not sure on the right to be forgotten but you are missing it's claimed primary purpose.
In America some content is illegal. Individual Americans may or may not agree with those laws but they exist and a content provider needs to adhere to them. In America's case because it is such a large market and so much of the infrastructure is based there or run by companies under that jurisdiction it means that the vast majority of casually find-able content conforms to American law. In Europe that isn't necessarily the case so the right to be forgotten was implemented to cover scenarios where content that isn't acceptable by their laws can be blocked; this is a trade off to handle the fact that getting content that is legal by, for example, American standards and hosted in America removed or updated can prove impossible.
The above isn't intended to explain this individual cases merits; but if the information this site includes was judged to be inaccurate or misleading then this isn't as simple as European vs American free speech. Try living in American jurisdiction and posting false information about medical products or service providers who are also in the US and see how long your right to free speech protects you from considerable fines or even criminal charges.
By wondering what a panal was. Putting spelling mistakes aside it would depend on the context; the fact even you need to point out "by rule" says a lot about why. Panels have been mostly male only without rules for so long in the tech sector that a rule requiring it would seem pointlessly backwards. If you see an all male panel in many fields you don't even notice it. If someone was holding an event on primary school teaching and decided to have a session with an all male panel I could understand that as men only make up 15% of primary teachers. Obviously it'd be nice if the session had at least some tangential relationship to diversity or encouraging more men into teaching etc.
My biggest issue with this logic is that equating some level of compliance with an unjust system with being a co-conspirator can only rationally lead to us all being infinitely guilty of uncountable evils.
To pick on Americans, although it would work for just about any nation. You're government has ordered deeply immoral things, not least the rendition and torture of individuals without any access to a fair trial; when they became aware of these things the vast majority of Americans didn't respond by refusing to pay taxes that they know fund that behaviour; likely in no small part because although many will have disagreed with it they didn't want to suffer considerable personal discomfort (having to stop earning, or get arrested for tax evasion).
It's easy to say someone is complicit, or has no right to complain, or is co-conspiring when you're judging others. Very few people can do that credibly because they haven't have been put in a similar situation where they would have had to sacrifice something incredibly important to them by not making a similar decision.
Of course it doesn't annoy them; the issue isn't realism, it's that a game manufacturer dared to do something inclusive for other demographics and this is highly upsetting for a fortunately small subset of gamers.
Because allowing people who want to play as a character without an X chromosone completely ruins a game, but balancing weapons by making them entirely unrealistic is making a playable game. There might be a few snowflakes out there who genuinely can't handle the idea of female characters in a multiplayer game, but I hope I'm not being naively optimistic in believing that the majority of the population couldn't care less. I did laugh when I saw the box and knew immediately that an entire portion of the internet would be raging and crying into their cornflakes about it.
Bullshit. If someone threatens to burn your house down unless you give them money, you aren't equally at fault for the consequences if you refuse and they burn your house down.
Trump is using the budget, and the damage this is doing to people's lives and the country, to try and blackmail congress into giving him something he wants. Ignoring politics, this is owned by him because he has decided the thing he wants is worth the consequences. Politically it's even worse. At best he knows the way he is handling this won't get a deal, but is happy with that because his priority isn't a deal because it's all posturing for his base. At worst he really does want a deal but he's so politically inept that he's been making it completely impossible for the Democrats to agree to one on anything approaching reasonable terms.
It's scary how many people are blatantly lying or completely ignorant about what Trump says when defending him. He said repeatedly that Mexico would pay for it directly; it takes about 5 seconds to google search and find video evidence. He spoke to the Mexican President and told him that he'd have to pay for it (which of course they refused to do). At this point I think a chocolate teapot would have considerably more credibility than most of the people defending Trump.
Elections do have consequences, and the consequence of electing more Democrats to the house than Republicans is that Trump can't just demand what he likes and get it anymore.
The Democrats, and the majority of Americans, don't support the wall. How is it acting like Children for them to refuse to sign something they don't agree with? A parent isn't acting like a child if they refuse to give their toddler more dessert every time they start having a temper tantrum; and depressingly that's a close analogy to the current President and his typical behaviour.
I'm really not sure on the point of this post. Your home insurance will include requirements about how the property is secured, and a sign asking people to take your stuff would invalidate cover that only covered theft or damage as you'd struggle to argue it was either; all of which has sweet f.a. to do with cyber liability insurance.
Clearly some more informed people are surprised that Mondelez payout was refused; which at least implies that it isn't simply clear breaches of the terms of the agreement, or that industry practice had been to previously pay claims in similar circumstances.
If I was you I'd be more embarrassed about being so out of touch that I don't realise people doing effectively the same thing manually has been going on for millennia and that given the value of the beauty product market it will almost certainly find users.