Posts by Cederic 1953 publicly visible posts • joined 22 Dec 2014
Where the *crime* was committed should be entirely irrelevant.
If the act was a crime in the UK then prosecute him in the UK.
If the act was not a crime in the UK then he did not break the law and should not be extradited.
I held that stance regarding Gary McKinnon and I extend it to include this guy, albeit it's a bit late for that.
Trump is the racist candidate (with multiple convictions)
Please cite one of those convictions please, because I've never heard of any criminal convictions against Donald Trump.
that is the only thing that matters to his base.
Given the constant racism I hear from people vehemently against him, maybe racism is just an American thing.
I don't mind walking simulators - Dear Esther was a joy - and I do like games that let me zone out - something like ETS2/ATS (Euro / American Truck Simulator) offer the same meditative state that a good long drive will. I can cope with games that have periods of nothing happening; several hundred hours of Fishing Planet testify to this.
But the review and descriptions of this game just don't make it sound fun. MGS:V Phantom Pain was described here as a mess but it had world class game play supported by excellent graphics and a story that, whether it made sense or not, was at least consistent within itself. I found it coherent too.
I'm sure the story in this is engaging, but the game itself? Sorry, just not appealing to me.
I concur. However I also recognise that a very high salary comes with very high expectations. If I need to stay on a call to our team in California until 1am, then I need to stay on the call. If I'm up at 3am on Monday morning to brief the team in Malaysia, it's an early start on Monday.
What matters is work/life balance. I might be up at 3am, I might even still be working at 1am. I'll have had a four hour lunch break in-between and there's a good chance I'll be available via email only on Thursday, and expect delays even then.
If I want 9-5 security with no responsibility then I can only expect a 9-5 no responsibility wage.
The moment I see anything like this it's straight on the phone to my card provider to tell their fraud department that any transactions with that site did not come from me.
From that point on the Financial Services industry wheels will start to grind the site into oblivion. Which is how it should be.
A company can as a whole be tremendously successful and still have non-performing divisions or owned entities, so making them profitable can require cost cutting even though the broader organisation is making a lot of profit.
Similarly one reason a company may be making good profits is that it's conscientious about eliminating unnecessary cost and duplication; each acquisition will have come with its own HR, Corporate Comms, Finance, Marketing, Sales, IT Support, Billing, Collections and other departments. Salesforce probably don't need seven of each of those departments and would be mismanaged if they continued it.
So it's easy to understand why they feel the need to make changes, and they do appear to be doing it in a relatively sensible way.
It's just a shame that some good technologies (e.g. Mulesoft and Tableau) are being subsumed by Salesforce. Although I guess the alternative would've been Oracle, SAP, Microsoft or IBM.
No tank is invulnerable but I'd just point out that the Challenger II may be the single safest place to be in the middle of a firefight.
one British Challenger near Basra which survived being hit by 70 RPGs
-- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2905817.stm
It's reasonable to assume that they weren't all fired at the front armour.
Hopefully you're also aware that the Challenger II has never been defeated by enemy fire.
It's obsolete, but it's still one of the most imposing presences on a modern battlefield. If you have air superiority.
200 tanks is quite enough. Wittman et al would be entirely buggered by a cheap helicopter these days.
The problem comes when the technologies I've used have been bought and had their names changed. I can't honestly put SAP HANA on my CV but I've deployed Sybase, I worked for an ERP company, I've designed and governed the implementation of multiple Microsoft, Oracle and Amazon cloud database implementations, I've designed and built SaaS solutions, used dozens and, incidentally, I've selected a SAP cloud application for the business I worked for and guided its implementation.
But no, they're filtering on SAP HANA for a role that should never actually touch the technology.
If only recruiters could be smart enough to understand what they actually need, rather than just looking for an in-depth technology expert for a non-hands-on role.
I was turned down for a role because my CV didn't explicitly mention a given technology, even though the role never goes hands-on with the tech, the underlying principles match multiple other cloud services I've successfully introduced to multiple organisations and I have actually brought in that vendor's software in exactly that role.
But no, I didn't list one specific technology (which wasn't mentioned in the job advert) so no job for me. Maybe I should add 18 pages to my CV to cover all of the programming languages build toolchains, databases, integration tools, applications, services and SaaS, IaaS (infrastructure), DaaS, IaaS (integration) and other technologies I've used during my career.
But no, foolishly I focus on the value I can add to an employer, the things I can help them achieve and do better, and the reasons they should employ me, instead of playing buzzword bingo. Sigh.
Well, there's SaaS and IaaS and DaaS (data) and 'Cloud' and sometimes it's better to ignore the buzzwords and focus on the specifics.
I would though challenge the "don't require patching, maintenance and general overhead". Those burdens change but don't disappear, and it's important that project sponsors and business leaders understand this.
Remind me again, who was DPP when a CPS lawyer chose not to prosecute two of the men eventually found guilty of child rape in Rochdale?
Although I agree that he certainly wasn't trying to protect the men because of their gender; he initiated the grotesque change in approach that led to a quarter of rape convictions being declared a likely miscarriage of justice.
Perhaps you feel that's all in the past and that we should judge him by his actions and policies. Sadly all he ever tells us about those is what he'd have done three months ago, never what he'd do now let alone his plans for the future.
But then, this is the clown that knelt in obeisance to the baying mob in support of marxist racism. No, I'm not a fan of the millionaire Sir Keir Starmer.
Do point to where Trump says his children aren't eligible to run for president using the same standard as Kamala Harris. I'll wait.
Do point to where Trump says Kamala Harris isn't eligible to run for president.
the orange clown
Oh look, attacking someone for the colour of their skin. We call that racism.
I'm going to withdraw from this conversation. I've made my point, I stand by it, I've supported it by proving you wrong and you've responded with a racist attack.
Incidentally, which skin colour are Trump's children?
https://twitter.com/nightlypolitics/status/1057456380532178944
Oh dear. Bit of a bugger for your claim of racism, that. Indeed, your supposed coincidence appears looks even more suspect on the projection front than it did before.
I don't have to be original when I'm right.
Please, stop screaming racism when it's not a matter of race. The claims are related to citizenship, not skin colour.
I know the narrative is that Trump and his supporters are racist, and I'm sure that some of them are. Just like Joe Biden, with his "you ain't black" idiocy. But try calling out actual racism, rather than devaluing the word by throwing it around casually when it's not appropriate.
"Real people often prefer ease of use and a multitude of features to perfect unbreakable security"Of course, we do Amber, of course we do. /s
Well, yes. We do. The popularity of insecure but easy to use software is strong evidence for this, but if you want proof, I can provide it: For unbreakable security switch off your mobile phone, put it in an industrial blender for five minutes then burn the remains.
Or would you prefer to prove Amber correct by retaining its current features?
It's good, but it's not great. I use it because I'm too cheap to pay for a text editor.
Visual Studio Code however.. "VS Code automatically sends telemetry data and crash dumps to help us improve the product."
Yeah, I want Microsoft reading the dodgy erotica I write in a text editor. How about no.
liar I did, I gave what I and the tribunal considered evidence, you just dismiss it as "not evidence".
Nothing you quoted referenced actions taken (or not taken) because of the sex of the individuals involved. Nothing. None of it. Not a single bit.
Too right I dismiss it as 'not evidence' of sex discrimination.
you do not accept a finding by elimination
You've provided evidence of nothing that would support a claim of sex discrimination. She claimed racial discrimination too but that was found not to be true because.. there was no evidence of racial discrimination.
Just because there isn't evidence of non-sex-discrimination doesn't mean that a lack of evidence for sex discrimination means there's been sex discrimination. This ruling stinks.
there is no evidence possible to satisfy you, and that you are really basically saying
Please, stop making things up.
"We think this term is belittling and wouldn't be used against men" is not evidence. It's bias, and not by the respondents. You'll have to forgive me for hoping that there's stronger evidence available.
Perhaps you'd be kind enough to help me understand the actual evidence that the tribunal used to determine that sex discrimination had occurred?
Let's discuss your interest in rape another time.
Who is this 'cedric' and why are you writing to him?
As for the PDF you linked, where do you think the two sentences I quoted came from.
Conscious or unconscious, I like to see actual evidence that there was bias. "She's a woman so there was unconscious bias" might get you an A in your Gender Studies class but if that's how employment tribunals are going to be run then they'll lose all credibility.
I'm willing to put my name to an admission of confusion that this was deemed sexual discrimination.
That doesn't mean that there wasn't any, but the write up includes gems such as, "We find it hard to imagine that a high earning male sales representative would have been treated in this way" without any explanation of why, or "In terms of language, we find the term ‘hand-holding’ belittling. Although it is conceivably possible that such a term would be used about a man, in our experience, it is one that
is far more frequently used of a woman."
So basically the judges are using their own gender bias to ascribe gender motives to the respondents, and using that to find against them.
Was it bad management? Yes. Was there a discrepancy in pay? Yes. Was it constructive dismissal? I think so. Was there any actual fucking evidence that there was sex discrimination? I don't know, which also tells you that I haven't actually found any.
Sorry but a 2013 academic paper - that doesn't at any point examine the _tone_ of the reporting - doesn't tell us anything about post 2016 BBC bias. The BBC took a sharp turn following the referendum, going from subtle support for Labour ("the corridors of Broadcasting House were strewn with empty champagne bottles") to the current anti-Leave anti-Trump bias that permeates the entire corporation.
As for your link to Loughborough University, I'm not sure how to quantify negativity intensifying, or assess whether that's better or worse then negative coverage doubling. Perhaps you could share some sources that support your argument?
Incidentally, even the BBC don't call Guido 'far right'. I mean, that site's further right than Stalin I guess, but perhaps you could highlight what informed your analysis of its position on the political spectrum?
Well, they will struggle to find positive elements when they banish from their platforms anybody that wanted to leave the EU.
Over 50% of voters wanted to leave the EU but over 80% of Question Time invitees wanted to remain. That's over a multi-year period since the referendum. That's not an absence of positive reasons to leave, that's an absence of people to explain them.
It's interesting that you blame the Government for this when just as much of the same behaviour comes from people in unions, people in the civil service, etc.
Shit, Priti Patel had numerous off-the-record briefings against her, all reported in the media.
So join me in disparaging the media for doing this instead of picking out just one of the people that they work with.
Are you having a laugh? The Government has been pro Brexit since 2016. The BBC has categorically not.
Here's an example of left-wing complaints about the BBC:
https://www.thenational.scot/news/17631396.bbc-has-explaining-to-do-over-record-farage-question-time-appearance/
Here's the reality:
https://iea.org.uk/media/iea-analysis-shows-systemic-bias-against-leave-supporters-on-flagship-bbc-political-programmes/
Is the Judge being threatened? Surely Uber are merely saying, "If you rule that we must not continue to operate with our current practices and conditions then we will cease operating with our current practices and conditions."
I'd have hoped the Judge would welcome that acceptance of the ruling.
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?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
