Re: Perhaps the person
Can I volunteer to run the one "somewhere near New Guinea"? Clear clean water, coral reefs, beautiful weather, untouched miles of sandy beaches..?
864 posts • joined 22 Dec 2014
I was referring to equality legislation where sex is a protected characteristic, covering both male and female provision for single-sex activities and spaces
That wasn't apparent from your post. Yes, the Equalities Act 2010 avoids favouring any protected groups above any others. Still, perhaps you've forgotten this: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11670138/Why-are-our-universities-blocking-mens-societies.html
But since I raised gender bias in the law, let's return to that.
Are you really trying to claim that women are equally violent to men, both in severity and occurrence of violent crime?
Are you going to pretend that women can't commit violent acts just as bad as men? There have been female mass murderers, women have tortured people, women stab people. Perhaps you missed the farcical sentencing of Lavinia Woodward, or maybe you agree with the judge that women should be allowed to stab other women without censure: https://uk.news.yahoo.com/eve-hewitson-cross-best-friend-stabbing-preston-170630451.html
Furthermore, the mitigating and aggravating circumstances surrounding offences could not be included in the statistical models.
But as I highlighted, what's an aggravating issue for a man becomes a mitigating circumstance for a woman. The models demonstrate this. You don't think mitigating circumstances account for an 88% difference in incarceration do you?
I'll assume you acknowledge that there may be genuine mitigating reasons for not imprisoning some people (mental health, disability, responsibility for children and family members, etc)
There are more men in prison with mental health issues in prison than women in prison. Not women with mental health issues, women. Full stop.
Responsibility for children and family members? Are you having a fucking laugh? Women get off because it would hurt their children, meanwhile London is full of kids stabbing each other because they're in single-parent households. Keeping men out of prison would reduce crime.
I assume you are off now to campaign for changes in sentencing or are you just going to post daft posts?
No, not a change in sentencing, just some basic equality in how the law is applied, and indeed, in the law not being fucking gendered. Have you seen the efforts by certain MPs to make the latest domestic violence bill explicitly gendered?
So, rape by a woman is now possible
It always was. Women demanded that the legal definition of rape be changed so that only men could be legally charged with rape, but women are capable of (and do) commit serious sexual assault, and I assure you that's no less serious or impactful on the victim than rape. Separating the two is an explicit gender divide in law that allows certain people to demand resources go into rape prevention, while hiding entirely the sexual abuses caused by women.
Meanwhile, compare the minimum sentence here https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/rape-and-sexual-offences-chapter-19-sentencing with the sentence given for the equivalent to statutory rape by a woman here: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8477231/Woman-22-sexual-contact-three-times-boy-14-avoids-jail.html
Now that is really going to mess up crime statistics and provisions for future incarceration. As worried about that? I suspect not.
If people commit crimes, they should face justice. I'm confused that you seem to think I wouldn't hold that view. Indeed, I'm very strongly promoting actual justice, without giving anybody an easier time because of their gender. Are you for or against such gender equality?
Now that's just utter fucking bullshit.
Man commits crime: being drunk is an aggravating factor.
Woman commits crime: being drunk is a mitigating factor.
Then there's the treatment under law of domestic violence. Official guidance to magistrates explicitly deems male offenders a higher risk than female ones, something intended to be reflected in the sentencing.
It comes through in the stats too. Even the Ministry of Justice accepts that "Under similar criminal circumstances the odds of imprisonment for males were higher compared to females" -- https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/571737/associations-between-sex-and-sentencing-to-prison.pdf
88% higher, if you were wondering.
Of course, it's worse in the US. Male victims of rape have to pay their rapist.
I interpreted the statement as 'people with non-heteronormative sexual preferences have a gender too', as supported by the revised suggested prevalence of men and women within the population.
It matters because the legal system explicitly favours some genders; you wouldn't want to accidentally be lenient to a man would you?
The wording quoted in the story can easily be read as the Ambassador commenting on the likely thought processes at Huawei. Any tech journalist could have written "Unfortunately, this will now be subject to uncertainties"; that's not a threat, that's a risk assessment.
While I'm very sure that the Chinese Government has substantial influence over Huawei, this is not the smoking gun other commenters are suggesting.
Please El Reg, don't follow your lesser competitors into posting articles that are merely a sequence of embedded tweets with some linking text.
On this occasion it's understandable, given the report is about Twitter, but even so I'd have preferred a link to the tweets with the relevant text quoted in a more traditional form.
At least you didn't quote the text then embed the tweet. I've left sites over that one before now.
How can the EU interfere in a situation both the UK and the EU were both intrinsically part of?
The EU were not part of the referendum. That was a UK domestic matter, within the UK.
The US, when asked, expressed views on trade
The US tried to interfere. Whether that was by invitation or not is irrelevant. Obama intentionally tried to stop us leaving the EU. That was direct interference, unlike Russia's media.
The BBC supposedly breaching it's Charter is entirely subjective
Which of my points is inaccurate?
The report said fuck all.
The EU interfered with the referendum.
The US interfered with the referendum.
The BBC breached its Charter to promote just one side of the referendum.
I have no issue with further debate, I'd just like it to be based on facts, not smear campaigns like "Leave voters didn't know what they were voting for" and "the Russians did it".
As for personal insults, describing my post as an emotive descent into ridicule is very clearly a personal attack. Your inability to cope with simple logic and naughty words doesn't make me ridiculous.
The extent of Russian involvement in the EU referendum was.. 200 articles in Russian media that were anti-EU.
As opposed to EU meddling in the referendum, with multiple EU leaders speaking out in public and hundreds of pro-EU articles in each of dozens of EU media outlets.
As opposed to US meddling in the referendum, with the US President himself making baseless threats to the British people at the behest of the UK Government.
As opposed to UK meddling in the referendum, with the Government misusing £9m of public funds to promote their own position in the referendum.
As opposed to the fucking BBC, breaching their Charter by posting thousands of articles that were pro-EU.
No, this report has nothing meaningful to say about the EU referendum, except to hopefully shut up the clowns bleating on about Russian interference for the past four bloody years.
As for MI5, after reading the report this morning I wrote to them directly to thank them for not interfering with UK elections. Thank fuck they recognise the dangers of that.
The continual expensive failure of Capita to provide reasonable service, let alone good and efficient service, really should have led to a multi-year ban across all public bodies from signing new services from them.
I'm not going to pretend that £130m/year all goes on the IT system - it'll include recruitment teams, marketing, assessment, career guidance and other things - but fundamentally this is a basic HR function. Companies with under £130m/year revenue, let alone HR spend, manage this just fine and it's trivial to scale.
Start giving smaller organisations some of these tasks. Boost the economy, not Capita shareholder dividends. Or if you really are going to be stupid enough to sign Capita, make sure the contract includes performance penalties. Lots of them. Shit, you'll make money on it.
Perhaps you missed the part of the article that mentioned that the proposed UPC "applies EU law and is bound by the CJEU", thus making it subservient to an EU body.
However, I believe the article was slightly wrong - even Mrs May only wanted to participate if it didn't draw the UK under EU control.
Strange that the EU keeps trying to do that. It's almost as though they want something from us..
It's tricky for the ICO though. They do need to assure that SMEs aren't misbehaving but they also need to avoid killing off UK business.
There's also the challenge that individual SMEs breaching the rules are likely to impact far fewer people than large businesses, so the ICO probably feels obliged to focus resources where they'll have the greatest benefit.
Have you fed back to the ICO your thoughts on their template? That does feel a sensible thing to assure is giving SMEs a good start point for compliance.
Yeah, it was an informal disciplinary offence to be caught using the break key to halt the Sparc workstations in our University lab but many of us did it anyway before logging on. That extra delay while it booted was felt worthwhile given the shenanigans we knew were happening around us.
I'm confused, What's the double standard that ITIF thinks is in place?
EU companies operating in the EU and processing personal data of EU citizens must obey GDPR.
EU Companies operating in the US and processing personal data of EU citizens transferred from the EU must obey GDPR.
UK companies operating in the EU and processing personal data of EU citizens must obey GDPR.
UK Companies operating in the US and processing personal data of EU citizens transferred from the EU must obey GDPR.
US companies operating in the EU and processing personal data of EU citizens must obey GDPR.
US Companies operating in the US and processing personal data of EU citizens transferred from the EU must obey GDPR.
I see no double standard going on here.
The Data Protection Act 2018 is still in force. You know, the updated UK legislation that supplemented existing data protections with some additional rules to comply with GDPR.
If you think it's being breached then don't write to your MP, write to the company that's breaching it. If they fail to provide an adequate response then raise a case with the ICO.
Agreed. On top of that, Oracle licence costs are entirely irrelevant: what matters are how much money your organisation transfers to Oracle, and how much of that money the sales team can (legally) siphon off in commissions.
If the £2m hadn't gone on cloud licences other Oracle products would have been needed, or would have been discounted less, or would have been discovered running unlicenced... that £2m was gone anyway.
I'm sure that Cedric would join me in decrying any unfounded claims of sexism.
I absolutely do want software engineers to discuss with the customer what they actually want, because we all know that it certainly isn't what they asked for.
Does being a man mean a software engineer can't do that? Only a sexist would suggest such silliness.
I've been told that women are equal to men, and can do anything a man can do. So how could two equally competent software engineers pass or fail a test entirely because of their gender?
Whiteboard coding tests are nonsense. Getting someone to draw a diagram on the board - a design diagram, a toolchain flow, anything really - is reasonable but only a muppet would expect a software engineer to write code on a whiteboard.
But they're not sexist. Stop pretending they are. Especially stop reporting that they are without providing data like 'how many men actually passed' which would tell us whether this headline grabbing misreporting is based on a rounding error.
Honestly, what is the use of Gartner ?
"We need a new system in this space. Who are the key players?"
Gartner will give you a list, provide some suggestions on how to differentiate between them and, if you ask really nicely, help you find an existing user willing to talk about it.
"What should we be doing that we aren't?"
Gartner will give you insight into the technologies likely to go mainstream in the next 2-5 years, giving you time to plan ahead and look into whether they're going to be a threat, an opportunity or a distraction.
This isn't to say that Gartner are worth their fee, or that they're the only source of such information and input, but if you use them cynically they can be of use.
Banks don't move money. Banks are IT and data services company whose job is transferring and storing valuable data.
The data happens to often represent money.
To be fair, most of the actual bankers I know do realise this and their finance departments absolutely do. Just don't ask me about the Treasury teams.
Disclosure: Used to work at the bank mentioned in the article, so not commenting on their specific systems.
No. They tried that and found that women have worse recruitment outcomes when gender is hidden.
See the foreword of https://behaviouraleconomics.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/projects/unconscious-bias.pdf (and try not to cry when you realise they think reducing discrimination is a bad thing).
Nothing, although since many developers of open source software are also in full time employment (and quite often employed to write that open source software) it's going to be an unduly expensive support fee.
Better to build the in-house capability or contract with a third party able to provide it. The third party may well be employing some of the developers anyway.
I disagree. Too many words fall out of use for fear of offending people, and it's entirely unnecessary.
Lynching is bad, no matter who the victim is, or how much they may or may not deserve it. Using the term is appropriate, not least specifically because it isn't always just.
No free trade? Even though we've signed 19 trade deals already, are in advanced negotiations on 17 more and that doesn't include the ongoing trade negotiations with Australia, New Zealand, Japan, the USA and the EU? Not to mention the work towards joining the CPTPP.
It's amazing how much you can get done when you don't have 27 other countries pulling in different directions.
Oh dear, still sore that the British people have faith in their own country? Upset that we have left the EU?
Tough. We've left the EU. We did so for good reasons and now we're going to enjoy the advantages of free trade across the world, unhindered by the protectionist continental political control. Better yet, we have a head start on all of the remaining EU nations who will have to join us when the EU collapses.
It's already on its way. I'm finding this all very entertaining.
Cummings? Entirely irrelevant. I was campaigning to leave the EU in the 90s. The only people that care about him are the people upset that they lost the referendum, lost the General Election, lost the European Elections and lost the other General Election. Why, it's almost as though the British people have consistently and repeatedly voted to leave the EU, which is why we have left the EU.
Enjoy being part of a strong independent nation.
Oh please. We get information from US police, from Australian police, from Swiss police and from Moroccan police.
Why wouldn't we continue to get information from French police?
Perhaps before drawing such silly conclusions you should look into the law enforcement exclusions with GDPR and also the difference between ECHR and ECR.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020