Yep, my Real Time Systems course tutors told me when we all graduated "We've not been trying to teach you things, we've been trying to teach you how to learn for yourselves". The point being that we'd got all the theory we needed to match the syntax of programming languages to the base theory, and run with it. Whatever we came across that was new, it would likely have similarities to the old that we could latch on to and have a valid frame of reference, letting us pick it up faster than most. That to me is vastly superior to being taught some product in the market, and just taught to use that tool; I'm using different tools now to the ones I did when I left Uni, so if they'd spent time teaching me things, that would all have been wasted time. However, I do pick things up very fast by knowing the areas of theory to apply to them so I can do the right thing.
Often, it's a role they have someone lined up for internally, but are forced to send out to advertisement due to policy (especially the case in the public sector). When setting up a job description, you tailor it to exactly the skillset of the person you're hiring; it'll be highly unlikely anyone else matching it would apply (or succeed even if they get to interview). The big problem is that HR just take out this old job description and send it out again once said person moves on, ending up with a morass of unlikely skills that are hard to fit to a single person.
Actually, Philosophy wouldn't be bad, as you could appeal to their logic. Philosophers are usually pretty decent at that. The problem is that HR is frequently filled with arts, media and 'communication studies' graduates who fervently believe that as long as they keep talking and passing paper around, it'll all be alright. They rarely have any idea of what the jobs they're advertising for are actually about, but hey, put a tick in the box, and what could possibly go wrong!
The biggest problem with HR is lots of power (they create the policies by which hirings and firings can be made), with very little accountability.
Try a good old roundabout to help out.
Very low cost, and really helps focus the driving; Doesn't get rid of all bad drivers, but helps.
If it's not a junction, then you're likely out of luck. Speeding is very rarely the cause of accidents. Bad and careless driving is; That doesn't conveniently show up on a cheap camera.
Yes, they know exactly what they were fighting for.. To get rid of Weapons of Mass Destruction that Saddam had poised to shoot at the West. Hang on a sec.. Those were all imaginary weren't they? Soldiers themselves, I'm behind. They're thrown into nasty places I'd struggle to imagine. The politicians that send them to die for a lie? That's another story all together.
Many think this, and it's good to see you qualify with the word "many". I'm one of those that fit in the "don't sleep much" category; I'm up about 06:30, in work by 8, out of work at anywhere from 17:00 onwards, at which point I head to the gym, go swimming, or head out for a wander for a couple of hours to blow off steam before coming back home. Sometimes I fit in a gym session over the lunchtime as well as something else in the evening. None of this makes a blind bit of difference. Hell, I once did a term as a builder's labourer back in the day when I was a student between terms to get in the money, and I still didn't sleep (generally, I'll go to bed about midnight, and be restless until 2am, at which point I'll fall asleep. Irrespective of the time I go to bed, unless I'm sick, it's never before 1:30 am when I finally drop off).
Personally I'd love to sleep longer. 4-5 hours doesn't feel like enough, and leaves me wishing I could nab an extra couple of hours to top up.. One thing that does help is a long, deep dive.. The nitrogen in the blood does wonders, but I can't do that every day, alas..
That being the case, I keep watching the sleep research to see if anyone's come up with anything that would help me get a good night's rest, without jamming the system with chemicals (and yes, I've tried meditation, yoga, relaxation therapy, and a horde of other things).
If you can lock out a service, and have things flagged that way, simple isn't quite so bad. You need to have access to the password source to brute force things (in which case, you may just have lost already by giving up that extremely sensitive file). Users like things nice and simple and memorable. If you force nasty constructs on them, they'll either:
1) Write things down on a piece of paper, or text doc on their desktop. Both are bad (though probably the desktop is worse). 2) Call the service desk every time they need to log in, after having forgotten their password. As long as you've got good checks in place, this isn't quite so bad, but can also open you up to social engineering attacks pretty easily. It is, however, incredibly resource hungry (and service desks rarely have infinite resources).
Having a simple, memorable password, and tracking the fails (locking out on multiple fails) is a reasonably decent way forward, unless you're in a super sensitive domain. In which case, your users should be of a higher calibre as far as familiarity with IT security and procedures are concerned.
In any security process, there will always be flaws. The trick is trying to balance each stage sufficiently that a service is usable by the required users, and also that it is appropriate to protect the services and information desired.
Uses DAB+, which is far superior (makes better use of bandwidth, has a better quality etc.). I think uptake would be better if people went for the current tech (DAB+) rather than rely on the dated and poor quality DAB.
A matter of context. I think I get what the OP is trying to say; Most other professions lead on to the salaryman mentality, and you end up working as a salaried employee (always with a job). I worked contracting through my second degree (Computing for Real Time Systems), so by the time I graduated, I'd got a fair reputation, and some regular clients. This had me bouncing on and off into the 'currently employed' segment, as a fair part of the time I spent delving into books, building systems and breaking them, learning more that could be used commercially in upcoming contracts and so on.. But for that 'interim time', I wasn't classed as employed by anyone. When I landed the contracts, they were usually short, but very highly paid (enough that I could afford a fair bit of time 'not working', if research is counted as not working). It worked nicely for me, but I'd guess really played havoc with employment statistics.. I wonder if they've checked this in their analysis as a confounding factor..
Ooops, we got things wrong with our last calculations and almost caused a global meltdown. Now, we're being more sensible and taking a longer view of things. Like about 20 minutes.
Under the "old way", the benefits were lots of lectures that you got to go to on various subjects, plus the chance to network with other professionals. Useful stuff really; some of those lectures were great.
Under the 'new way', they've altered the way the "chartered" membership works; as it was in the old days, you could become a chartered IT professional without having to prove anything other than you'd stayed in the IT sector for 5 years. Now there are a series of exams to pass and frequent re-evaluation to maintain it (more in line with chartered engineer status from the engineering professions).
Really, I think a lot of the new changes are to make the BCS more relevant to what commerce wants to know, rather than being a comp sci enclave. The thrust has changed direction, though this isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Constitutional protection only applies to US citizens. The issues is that he's removed from his support network of friends and family who are effectively denied (for financial and logistical reasons) visitation, where this wouldn't be the case if he were tried and found guilty in the UK. This effective removal of visitation and support is the crux of the matter. This isn't actually like shooting someone across a border, as that would be a far higher level of crime, and actually fit in what extradition was intended for. It's more like reaching a hand across the border and taking someone's $100 bill from a table where it was left with nobody nearby, then being extradited for theft into a country 5000+ miles away from where you live.
No, his defence against extradition is that it's removing him from his psychological support network (for financial reasons; his family and friends can't afford to pay him the occasional visit, as they would be able to in a local jail where he'd otherwise be sent to in the UK after being found guilty under the Misuse of Computers Act). Adding that degree of seperation is a huge thing, and all for an offence which is relatively minor (extradition for 'cracking' a network that doesn't even have basic security implemented? Wow. That's.. Truly draconian).
Well, as someone who gets hit with depression now and then, I get what's going through his head. Yes, this will be exacerbated by a court case hanging over his head (which will be true if he's extradited or not; he'll be charged in the UK under the Misuse of Computers act, which carries a fairly stiff sentence of its own, and I don't think anybody, or at least any sane person, believes that he should get off without charge). The part that's really got people up in arms is that he's being extradited for something fairly minor (cracking is not a huge deal, especially when it's into a network that hasn't even been secured. A criminal offence for sure, but something to extradite over? That's usually reserved for murder, rape, terrorist offences and the like). Now, if he's extradited, this effectively removes his ability to have visitations from his friends, family and support network; he's in a far more vulnerable position psychologically than your average person that suffers the same things and doesn't get extradited. Removal of this support could very easily turn a middling depression into something deeper and far nastier. Part of justice is to see that any punishment fits the crime. Slamming him in jail for a while seems to be fitting. Carting him halfway across the world, to a country where he doesn't even have the rights of a citizen, and is effectively denied access to his friends and family (apart from those that choose, and can afford in the middle of a financial downturn, to spend a grand or so per trip to go and get some face time in as a visitation to the jail) doesn't really seem to fit the bill to me.
No, he'll just be tried in the UK (and found guilty under the Misuse of Computers act, with a bit of jail time thrown in). Extradition for this level of offence is, quite frankly, ridiculous. The part that is cruel is that when you extradite someone, certainly the distance to the US, it makes it FAR harder for friends, family and the support network to get face time visitation. Removing that from someone is a huge deal, especially when they're not exactly the most stable in the first place. The part that really gets the goat of most of the UK people is that while the last (Labour) government happily signed their side of the deal, the US conveniently forgot to sign their side (which is still waiting signature), so that the US can happily extradite UK citizens, while the reverse is not true.
Funny, but you miss the point that it's all about being extradited for a minor offence. He faces a court case in the UK if he doesn't get yanked half way round the world to face a hostile country, and a jail full of patriotic nut cases who'd love nothing more than to get one over on the Brit for playing with their country. No visitations from friends or family, who'd have to stump up the price of a plane fare to get to see him. That's the cruel part; not being able to see friends, family and the support network.
Right, so you walk into a china shop, and kick over the shelves. Next thing you're told is that those items are still the property of the company, which happens to be based in some country which had recently declared it an offence which could be tried as a terrorist offence to kick over shelves in china shops, and which your home country had signed up to an extradition treaty which the other country decided not to bother to do. Now this other country turns round and says to your country that it wants to extradite you for breaking the china in the shop, despite the fact you could be fairly tried in your own country.
Does this clear things up a bit as to why he's fighting the extradition attempt? I'm just absolutely stunned that most people on here don't actually seem to understand it's all about the extradition, not an attempt to dodge a court case (which he'd have to face in the UK).
He's not disputing the offense. He's complaining that it's not an extraditable offense, and he should be tried in the UK (where he's a citizen, and where he committed the offence) under UK law (which has stiff penalties for the activity) and placed in a UK jail. Dragging him halfway across the world for something that's relatively minor really just seems like crass stupidity when he will most likely get the same sentence in his home country.
You entirely miss the point. He's not saying he should get off without charge; he's saying he should be tried in the UK for a criminal offense committed in the UK, and go to a UK jail as a UK citizen. What the US is trying to do is extradite him (supposedly something done for very serious crimes), and try him for possible terror charges. This is not what the extradition agreements were meant to be for, and the UK populace is pretty up in arms about it as the last (Labour government) rolled over and drooled at the chance to sign an extradition treaty without the US signing up to its side (it still hasn't, sensibly enough). So, we currently have a treaty whereby a relatively minor crime can have the US extraditing UK citizens, with nothing reciprocal (if a US citizen ran riot through the UK defence computers in this fashion, the UK could NOT extradite them).
In theory, he could be charged with terror offences, and banged up for an awful long time. He probably wouldn't be, but hey.. What he's really fighting for is to be tried in his home country, and the country where the offence was committed (he was misusing a computer while based in the UK, which carries quite a penalty; easily sufficient to cover the term you think is sensible for him to be banged up for).
An aspect of my job is disaster recovery (IT).. Does this mean that as soon as something breaks, I can say it's time for my break (as I'm pretty sure the machine will register me as highly stressed)?
Because if you leap to the legal system, you miss out the essential middle ground. Claiming that the principal was a paedophile was probably something you could send to court. However, the choice was made to be sane, tell the student off, and suspend them.
To teach, you need to maintain discipline. The ability to publish works in a public forum (yes, many searches may be able to see this profile, as will people in the school) deriding, and undermining the authority of the teachers is NOT conducive to being able to teach. If you follow the 'free speech' mantra, students should be able to shout abuse at a teacher all lesson long, and deny anyone the ability to learn. There are many cases, some of which have been covered on Slashdot about internet bullying. Ridiculing teachers on the 'net in plain view is nothing short of bullying; this is why society developed etiquette, so we could have this divergence of opinion on people, and still be able to function around them (i.e. you may hate someone, but you need to work with them. Thus you act neutrally around them, never give them a personal glimpse of the 'real you', and do the job at hand). Somehow, over the last couple of decades, etiquette seems to be completely ignored and the concept that you can always shout about something if you believe you're right (even if you're not, and your yelling does a lot of needless damage to people who also have the right not to be abused, which the shouter does, but doesn't care they're trampling someone else's rights).
By all means, ridicule in the class. Mobile phones, being private are also acceptable. Scrawling stuff on paper in the classrooms used to give you detentions and possibly suspensions if you were really malicious, so why should the 'net suddenly be fine to publish what you want on? With freedom comes responsibility. People should be self policing. If they're not, then at some point someone WILL come along and restrict them, removing essential freedoms from all in the process.
Having a pig's valve in the heart count as a hybrid? What about anyone born elsewhere who's had animal genome spliced into them to give advantageous traits in the future? Silly..
Ever worked in the NHS? I have. Many people carry the title "Manager" because of a historic pay band issue. As soon as you reached a certain pay level (circa £30k), you were classed as management, and most of the titles included that. However, many of the "managers" are actually people at the coal face doing a job, and not line managers (the general idea was that when you had responsibility for something, you didn't just turn up and do things by rote, you managed the aspects of a service, planned, and were often autonomous within a wider plan). That being said, there is a fair bit of waste in the NHS in the administrative wing, because many of the people employed to collate the reports and generate figures don't actually understand data manipulation, and simply do manual work on Excel and Access (because they've never learned any other way, don't want to, and it's one step short of prying those apps from their hands with a crowbar). Not all by any measure; I've seen some highly competent people in those areas, but too many to be comfortable. Yes, it's all a matter of training and architecting. But until recently, not much of the NHS has invested in systems architecture (and it's still very patch in most places). Overall though, many Trusts really are understaffed in many areas, and running on a shoestring. I'd really advise you to spend some time in the place before throwing around those urban myths. I think you'd get a rude awakening.
It had long been thought by everyone (other than the last government, who just got sent packing) that the ID cards just wouldn't work the way they were meant to (i.e. they don't protect anyone, and are just infringements on privacy and civil liberty, costing the citizenry money they shouldn't have to pay). The £800 million was supposed to be recouped by the Government by charging to have the card (they were intended to be mandatory eventually with every passport). In other words, another tax to fund a scheme that wouldn't work as advertised and gave the populace no benefit while giving even more personal info to the government. It'd been a promise since the early days (years back) by every other party to scrap this waste of time and money if they ever came into power. Labour were hoping to have it in place and active (making it much harder to scrap) before they were voted out. Thankfully they failed.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep, my Real Time Systems course tutors told me when we all graduated "We've not been trying to teach you things, we've been trying to teach you how to learn for yourselves".
The point being that we'd got all the theory we needed to match the syntax of programming languages to the base theory, and run with it. Whatever we came across that was new, it would likely have similarities to the old that we could latch on to and have a valid frame of reference, letting us pick it up faster than most.
That to me is vastly superior to being taught some product in the market, and just taught to use that tool; I'm using different tools now to the ones I did when I left Uni, so if they'd spent time teaching me things, that would all have been wasted time. However, I do pick things up very fast by knowing the areas of theory to apply to them so I can do the right thing.
Often, it's a role they have someone lined up for internally, but are forced to send out to advertisement due to policy (especially the case in the public sector).
When setting up a job description, you tailor it to exactly the skillset of the person you're hiring; it'll be highly unlikely anyone else matching it would apply (or succeed even if they get to interview).
The big problem is that HR just take out this old job description and send it out again once said person moves on, ending up with a morass of unlikely skills that are hard to fit to a single person.
Actually, Philosophy wouldn't be bad, as you could appeal to their logic. Philosophers are usually pretty decent at that.
The problem is that HR is frequently filled with arts, media and 'communication studies' graduates who fervently believe that as long as they keep talking and passing paper around, it'll all be alright.
They rarely have any idea of what the jobs they're advertising for are actually about, but hey, put a tick in the box, and what could possibly go wrong!
The biggest problem with HR is lots of power (they create the policies by which hirings and firings can be made), with very little accountability.
Try a good old roundabout to help out.
Very low cost, and really helps focus the driving; Doesn't get rid of all bad drivers, but helps.
If it's not a junction, then you're likely out of luck. Speeding is very rarely the cause of accidents. Bad and careless driving is; That doesn't conveniently show up on a cheap camera.
Yes, they know exactly what they were fighting for.. To get rid of Weapons of Mass Destruction that Saddam had poised to shoot at the West.
Hang on a sec.. Those were all imaginary weren't they?
Soldiers themselves, I'm behind. They're thrown into nasty places I'd struggle to imagine. The politicians that send them to die for a lie? That's another story all together.
Many think this, and it's good to see you qualify with the word "many".
I'm one of those that fit in the "don't sleep much" category; I'm up about 06:30, in work by 8, out of work at anywhere from 17:00 onwards, at which point I head to the gym, go swimming, or head out for a wander for a couple of hours to blow off steam before coming back home.
Sometimes I fit in a gym session over the lunchtime as well as something else in the evening.
None of this makes a blind bit of difference. Hell, I once did a term as a builder's labourer back in the day when I was a student between terms to get in the money, and I still didn't sleep (generally, I'll go to bed about midnight, and be restless until 2am, at which point I'll fall asleep. Irrespective of the time I go to bed, unless I'm sick, it's never before 1:30 am when I finally drop off).
Personally I'd love to sleep longer. 4-5 hours doesn't feel like enough, and leaves me wishing I could nab an extra couple of hours to top up..
One thing that does help is a long, deep dive.. The nitrogen in the blood does wonders, but I can't do that every day, alas..
That being the case, I keep watching the sleep research to see if anyone's come up with anything that would help me get a good night's rest, without jamming the system with chemicals (and yes, I've tried meditation, yoga, relaxation therapy, and a horde of other things).
If you can lock out a service, and have things flagged that way, simple isn't quite so bad. You need to have access to the password source to brute force things (in which case, you may just have lost already by giving up that extremely sensitive file).
Users like things nice and simple and memorable. If you force nasty constructs on them, they'll either:
1) Write things down on a piece of paper, or text doc on their desktop. Both are bad (though probably the desktop is worse).
2) Call the service desk every time they need to log in, after having forgotten their password. As long as you've got good checks in place, this isn't quite so bad, but can also open you up to social engineering attacks pretty easily. It is, however, incredibly resource hungry (and service desks rarely have infinite resources).
Having a simple, memorable password, and tracking the fails (locking out on multiple fails) is a reasonably decent way forward, unless you're in a super sensitive domain. In which case, your users should be of a higher calibre as far as familiarity with IT security and procedures are concerned.
In any security process, there will always be flaws. The trick is trying to balance each stage sufficiently that a service is usable by the required users, and also that it is appropriate to protect the services and information desired.
Uses DAB+, which is far superior (makes better use of bandwidth, has a better quality etc.).
I think uptake would be better if people went for the current tech (DAB+) rather than rely on the dated and poor quality DAB.
A matter of context. I think I get what the OP is trying to say; Most other professions lead on to the salaryman mentality, and you end up working as a salaried employee (always with a job).
I worked contracting through my second degree (Computing for Real Time Systems), so by the time I graduated, I'd got a fair reputation, and some regular clients.
This had me bouncing on and off into the 'currently employed' segment, as a fair part of the time I spent delving into books, building systems and breaking them, learning more that could be used commercially in upcoming contracts and so on.. But for that 'interim time', I wasn't classed as employed by anyone.
When I landed the contracts, they were usually short, but very highly paid (enough that I could afford a fair bit of time 'not working', if research is counted as not working). It worked nicely for me, but I'd guess really played havoc with employment statistics.. I wonder if they've checked this in their analysis as a confounding factor..
Well, bad phonetically for those of us that've read the Lovecraft books.. Somehow having a Mi-go in the phone may not be such a great thing!
Ooops, we got things wrong with our last calculations and almost caused a global meltdown.
Now, we're being more sensible and taking a longer view of things. Like about 20 minutes.
Under the "old way", the benefits were lots of lectures that you got to go to on various subjects, plus the chance to network with other professionals. Useful stuff really; some of those lectures were great.
Under the 'new way', they've altered the way the "chartered" membership works; as it was in the old days, you could become a chartered IT professional without having to prove anything other than you'd stayed in the IT sector for 5 years. Now there are a series of exams to pass and frequent re-evaluation to maintain it (more in line with chartered engineer status from the engineering professions).
Really, I think a lot of the new changes are to make the BCS more relevant to what commerce wants to know, rather than being a comp sci enclave. The thrust has changed direction, though this isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Constitutional protection only applies to US citizens.
The issues is that he's removed from his support network of friends and family who are effectively denied (for financial and logistical reasons) visitation, where this wouldn't be the case if he were tried and found guilty in the UK.
This effective removal of visitation and support is the crux of the matter. This isn't actually like shooting someone across a border, as that would be a far higher level of crime, and actually fit in what extradition was intended for.
It's more like reaching a hand across the border and taking someone's $100 bill from a table where it was left with nobody nearby, then being extradited for theft into a country 5000+ miles away from where you live.
No, his defence against extradition is that it's removing him from his psychological support network (for financial reasons; his family and friends can't afford to pay him the occasional visit, as they would be able to in a local jail where he'd otherwise be sent to in the UK after being found guilty under the Misuse of Computers Act).
Adding that degree of seperation is a huge thing, and all for an offence which is relatively minor (extradition for 'cracking' a network that doesn't even have basic security implemented? Wow. That's.. Truly draconian).
Well, as someone who gets hit with depression now and then, I get what's going through his head. Yes, this will be exacerbated by a court case hanging over his head (which will be true if he's extradited or not; he'll be charged in the UK under the Misuse of Computers act, which carries a fairly stiff sentence of its own, and I don't think anybody, or at least any sane person, believes that he should get off without charge).
The part that's really got people up in arms is that he's being extradited for something fairly minor (cracking is not a huge deal, especially when it's into a network that hasn't even been secured. A criminal offence for sure, but something to extradite over? That's usually reserved for murder, rape, terrorist offences and the like).
Now, if he's extradited, this effectively removes his ability to have visitations from his friends, family and support network; he's in a far more vulnerable position psychologically than your average person that suffers the same things and doesn't get extradited. Removal of this support could very easily turn a middling depression into something deeper and far nastier.
Part of justice is to see that any punishment fits the crime. Slamming him in jail for a while seems to be fitting. Carting him halfway across the world, to a country where he doesn't even have the rights of a citizen, and is effectively denied access to his friends and family (apart from those that choose, and can afford in the middle of a financial downturn, to spend a grand or so per trip to go and get some face time in as a visitation to the jail) doesn't really seem to fit the bill to me.
No, he'll just be tried in the UK (and found guilty under the Misuse of Computers act, with a bit of jail time thrown in).
Extradition for this level of offence is, quite frankly, ridiculous.
The part that is cruel is that when you extradite someone, certainly the distance to the US, it makes it FAR harder for friends, family and the support network to get face time visitation.
Removing that from someone is a huge deal, especially when they're not exactly the most stable in the first place.
The part that really gets the goat of most of the UK people is that while the last (Labour) government happily signed their side of the deal, the US conveniently forgot to sign their side (which is still waiting signature), so that the US can happily extradite UK citizens, while the reverse is not true.
Funny, but you miss the point that it's all about being extradited for a minor offence. He faces a court case in the UK if he doesn't get yanked half way round the world to face a hostile country, and a jail full of patriotic nut cases who'd love nothing more than to get one over on the Brit for playing with their country.
No visitations from friends or family, who'd have to stump up the price of a plane fare to get to see him.
That's the cruel part; not being able to see friends, family and the support network.
Right, so you walk into a china shop, and kick over the shelves.
Next thing you're told is that those items are still the property of the company, which happens to be based in some country which had recently declared it an offence which could be tried as a terrorist offence to kick over shelves in china shops, and which your home country had signed up to an extradition treaty which the other country decided not to bother to do.
Now this other country turns round and says to your country that it wants to extradite you for breaking the china in the shop, despite the fact you could be fairly tried in your own country.
Does this clear things up a bit as to why he's fighting the extradition attempt? I'm just absolutely stunned that most people on here don't actually seem to understand it's all about the extradition, not an attempt to dodge a court case (which he'd have to face in the UK).
He's not disputing the offense. He's complaining that it's not an extraditable offense, and he should be tried in the UK (where he's a citizen, and where he committed the offence) under UK law (which has stiff penalties for the activity) and placed in a UK jail.
Dragging him halfway across the world for something that's relatively minor really just seems like crass stupidity when he will most likely get the same sentence in his home country.
You entirely miss the point.
He's not saying he should get off without charge; he's saying he should be tried in the UK for a criminal offense committed in the UK, and go to a UK jail as a UK citizen. What the US is trying to do is extradite him (supposedly something done for very serious crimes), and try him for possible terror charges.
This is not what the extradition agreements were meant to be for, and the UK populace is pretty up in arms about it as the last (Labour government) rolled over and drooled at the chance to sign an extradition treaty without the US signing up to its side (it still hasn't, sensibly enough). So, we currently have a treaty whereby a relatively minor crime can have the US extraditing UK citizens, with nothing reciprocal (if a US citizen ran riot through the UK defence computers in this fashion, the UK could NOT extradite them).
In theory, he could be charged with terror offences, and banged up for an awful long time. He probably wouldn't be, but hey.. What he's really fighting for is to be tried in his home country, and the country where the offence was committed (he was misusing a computer while based in the UK, which carries quite a penalty; easily sufficient to cover the term you think is sensible for him to be banged up for).
An aspect of my job is disaster recovery (IT).. Does this mean that as soon as something breaks, I can say it's time for my break (as I'm pretty sure the machine will register me as highly stressed)?
Because if you leap to the legal system, you miss out the essential middle ground.
Claiming that the principal was a paedophile was probably something you could send to court. However, the choice was made to be sane, tell the student off, and suspend them.
To teach, you need to maintain discipline. The ability to publish works in a public forum (yes, many searches may be able to see this profile, as will people in the school) deriding, and undermining the authority of the teachers is NOT conducive to being able to teach.
If you follow the 'free speech' mantra, students should be able to shout abuse at a teacher all lesson long, and deny anyone the ability to learn. There are many cases, some of which have been covered on Slashdot about internet bullying.
Ridiculing teachers on the 'net in plain view is nothing short of bullying; this is why society developed etiquette, so we could have this divergence of opinion on people, and still be able to function around them (i.e. you may hate someone, but you need to work with them. Thus you act neutrally around them, never give them a personal glimpse of the 'real you', and do the job at hand). Somehow, over the last couple of decades, etiquette seems to be completely ignored and the concept that you can always shout about something if you believe you're right (even if you're not, and your yelling does a lot of needless damage to people who also have the right not to be abused, which the shouter does, but doesn't care they're trampling someone else's rights).
By all means, ridicule in the class. Mobile phones, being private are also acceptable. Scrawling stuff on paper in the classrooms used to give you detentions and possibly suspensions if you were really malicious, so why should the 'net suddenly be fine to publish what you want on?
With freedom comes responsibility. People should be self policing. If they're not, then at some point someone WILL come along and restrict them, removing essential freedoms from all in the process.
Having a pig's valve in the heart count as a hybrid? What about anyone born elsewhere who's had animal genome spliced into them to give advantageous traits in the future?
Silly..
Ever worked in the NHS? I have. Many people carry the title "Manager" because of a historic pay band issue. As soon as you reached a certain pay level (circa £30k), you were classed as management, and most of the titles included that. However, many of the "managers" are actually people at the coal face doing a job, and not line managers (the general idea was that when you had responsibility for something, you didn't just turn up and do things by rote, you managed the aspects of a service, planned, and were often autonomous within a wider plan).
That being said, there is a fair bit of waste in the NHS in the administrative wing, because many of the people employed to collate the reports and generate figures don't actually understand data manipulation, and simply do manual work on Excel and Access (because they've never learned any other way, don't want to, and it's one step short of prying those apps from their hands with a crowbar). Not all by any measure; I've seen some highly competent people in those areas, but too many to be comfortable. Yes, it's all a matter of training and architecting. But until recently, not much of the NHS has invested in systems architecture (and it's still very patch in most places).
Overall though, many Trusts really are understaffed in many areas, and running on a shoestring. I'd really advise you to spend some time in the place before throwing around those urban myths. I think you'd get a rude awakening.
It had long been thought by everyone (other than the last government, who just got sent packing) that the ID cards just wouldn't work the way they were meant to (i.e. they don't protect anyone, and are just infringements on privacy and civil liberty, costing the citizenry money they shouldn't have to pay).
The £800 million was supposed to be recouped by the Government by charging to have the card (they were intended to be mandatory eventually with every passport). In other words, another tax to fund a scheme that wouldn't work as advertised and gave the populace no benefit while giving even more personal info to the government.
It'd been a promise since the early days (years back) by every other party to scrap this waste of time and money if they ever came into power. Labour were hoping to have it in place and active (making it much harder to scrap) before they were voted out. Thankfully they failed.