If only there was a way to select employees based on something other than a requirement to fill minority quotas, mistakes like this might not happen.
Some kind of merit based system, maybe?
349 posts • joined 28 Feb 2012
If only there was a way to select employees based on something other than a requirement to fill minority quotas, mistakes like this might not happen.
Some kind of merit based system, maybe?
"The simple fact is that yelling 'FIRE!' in a crowded theatre most assuredly is protected speech."
I understand this is conceptually theoretical, but I'm pretty sure if you cause panic in a public place (and potential harm to others) by falsely and knowingly yelling "FIRE!", the free speech protection no longer applies.
At least, that's according to:
"if a court can prove that you incite imminent lawlessness by falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, it can convict you."
"And in fact the line from Justice Holmes in Schenck v. United States is "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.'"
"In that situation, you aren’t being punished for your speech; but for creating a commotion that violated the rights of other people."
"The most commonly used example of disorderly conduct is yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater when you know there is no such threat. Because people in the theater can suffer injuries as they trample over one another to escape, the criminal charges can be pretty serious."
Granted, any punishment is for public disorderly conduct, or endangering life, etc... but if the right to falsely yell "FIRE!" was protected, you would assumedly be immune from any prosecution.
I was told I'd get 40Mbps, and I get 40. That's fine.
But I'd be rightfully pissed off if I was getting anywhere near what my previous provider could muster, a mere 0-4. I think in those circumstances (ie: sold 40 but getting no more than 10% of what I pay for) I should have the guaranteed right to pay only 10% of the bill.
I get some factors may affect the ability to get the max advertised speed, but a tenth of the projected speed? Nope, that's blatantly lying and mis-selling!
One wonders how previous occupiers of Starship Earth viewed eclipses before without their eyes melting, or whatever.
Before I accept any candidates as being our sun's twin, I'll need some pretty hard evidence.
I have Jeremy Kyle on speed-dial to do a DNA test when required.
"What do you prefer, huge black bars taking up two thirds of the screen, or pan and scan so that the top and bottom third are not visible?"
Is this a trick question?
"I'm sure we've all seen people with 16:9 TVs watching stretched 4:3."
Such people don't deserve wide-screen, the troglodytes!
Why not link it to your FarceBork profile, where your friends can post a thumb-up to confirm the bag is yours?
There are some things that shouldn't even get past the anonymous suggestion box at corporate HQ.
"What's NASA going to do when China or SpaceX or Apple bring back a ton of moon rocks"
Knowing how patent law in in America works, probably just claim patent on owning moonrock. Isn't that how things like this are solved?
Of course, if Apple manage to land on the moon, they'll retroactively patent it anyway, and call it iMoon. Then sue everyone who's ever looked at it.
They can presumably be given away, just not sold. Or indeed stolen, which might be the case if Armstrong was telling the truth that he didn't give moonrock to anyone personally.
"collect images and information on policeman"
Was made criminal a few years agi in England.
Evidence of this? Meanwhile, in the real world, the Mets own website categorically tells us: Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel.
I would assume, if a police officer saw a member of the public engaging in criminal activity, they would be bound to take steps to intervene. Since they have no power to prevent people filming them, it can be logically assumed that the filming of police officers is not in and of itself illegal.
"One or two catching fire may well be down to a defect in a component and not an inherrent design problem as was clear in the Note 7"
Cool story, bro! Needs more shilling.
"Organisations perpetuate themselves"
As soon as I saw that, I thought TV Licensing Authority... weird!!!
"where lads (and it is pretty much always lads, although not always) gang up on someone"
I call bullshit. In my school of about 80-85% boys, those 20% of girls routinely crushed me. The boys, meh!
You're mileage may differ, but a blanket statement like that is nothing better than codswallop!
"I just ask myself the simple question as to why it is that you can't prevent the texting of sexually explicit images by people under the age of 18, if that's a lock that parents choose to put on a mobile phone contract. Because there is technology that can identify sexually explicit pictures and prevent it being transmitted."
I just ask myself the simple question as to why the Health Secretary is poking his beak into the remit of the Culture Secretary (or whatever that job title is nowadays), instead of just sticking to his own job, that he doesn't even do well. Because the method of identifying and blocking inept politicians is already in place. It's called an 'election'.
"I ask myself why we can't identify cyberbullying when it happens on social media platforms by word pattern recognition, and then prevent it happening."
Again, I ask myself why you are still in government, local or national, when you simply don't have a clue!
Just saying, but, however bad the software is...
If only there was a way that the people responsible for physically recording the judgements handed, to actually do their fucking jobs, instead of just telling some speccy zitty 14year old trainee clerk to do it.
"It's supposedly a true story, but impossible to prove given the state of Roman record keeping."
"Ah, so they were using Odyssey as well!"
The judge said everyone involved was to be exonerated... Odyssey's poor data entry layout caused some peon to accidentally put 'executed'.
Wonder if I can find a long enough reel of Cat5e? 150km should do it.
And here was I thinking this Government wanted the UK to be a financial business hub of some kind. Makes you think that successive months of post EU Referendum job losses et all, really would have happened when those same businesses should have been leaving at this announcement anyway!
What bank (for example) would host its business on these shores knowing now, when its customers transactions are going to be put in the public domain, or left on buses on unencrypted memory sticks. That was a problem before this, but now with data encryption effectively becoming illegal, you may as well use plain text and sign a waiver allowing your bank to posting your transaction history on Facebook.
If only there was a way to prevent that!!
I normally blast the horn a few times on the approach to a corner, and similarly if some idiot is on the phone in my way regardless.
"Oh, sorry, your grandmother had a heart attack due to the fright of a load horn over the phone while you were talking to her? The best way to avoid that in future is to fuck off to the staff room for non work related calls!"
Quote: It is clear that for this user, the iPhone does things an Android can't, else he would be using an Android phone.
It's clear that an Android phone does things he wants that he can't do in an iPhone... yet he buys the product that doesn't suit his needs.
I'm curious why your defending his stupidity in buying products he can't use?
What the actual fuck are you talking about?
Your appear to have tried using sarcasm against the OP, when in actual fact, you come across as implying the only phone that disabled people should use is iPhone? This suggests that, despite your obvious attempt, it is YOU and not the OP who think disabled people SHOULD be excluded from telecommunications, since it is YOU saying they should only use phones that don't help them communicate.
Spectacular fail, well done! Those billy-goats are safe for now.
Only way to find out, OpenBox!
Oh, damn. I was about to comment on the irony of Microsoft, those stalwart overseers of Internet security, being responsible for the global average decline in secure use of the Internet, thanks largely because of its Internet Exploder browser.
But the headline and e-mail flier imply the fact that nobody other then them still use that shit, an implication clearly incorrect in the article!
Dammit, El Reg, you got me!
Just a small aside regarding mobile device figures.
I for one set my tablets User Agent to a 5 year previous string. I do this even on my newest and sparkliest of devices. If I don't, every website I visit comprises 1k of content, and insists on sending 20 fucking megabytes of flash adverts. And even IF I can be bothered to wait for it all to be rendered, the lag those adverts cause simply by being displayed after downloading is barely tolerable.
This, sadly, appears to be a universal constant. And while I'm not suggesting your own web server is guilty, it's unlikely that users in my particular mindset (meaning, they prefer content over irrelevant advertising) will reset their UA to access your server.
Short version: Your logs only list the UA of accessing devices, which might not represent the ACTUAL device used.
I thought I was under the impression that the deliberate spreading of malware was a criminal offence?
Quote: "GPS tagging really should be off by default, but this option has a future use (possibly). 40 years from the moment the picture was taken, someone might like to try recreate it."
More likely, 40 years after it was taken, Apple will patent it and sue the original artist retroactively.
"Ah, you may have managed to justify the $1M price tag after all: it's taking into account the number of ruined iPhones in the process to perfection, and even in bulk they don't come cheap."
Indeed, if it wasn't for the 1 damaged iPhone, it really would have cost $100.
And of course, even manure has its uses.
Quote: "Not having a television is no longer sufficient reason to not have a TV licence. You have to also not watch live streams over the Internet."
You also have to not watch BBC iPlayer at all, live or not.
Personally though, I never had a problem getting a "license not required" statement.
I've long been an advocate of getting unemployment benefits on a card, which can be used in certain retail outlets or for certain products and services. This has a huge advantage over the current system, where benefits can go on lottery tickets and 20 B+H, or on a piss up at the local, only for the claimant to go cap in hand to the JobCentre and claim for a Hardship allowance.
The additional price of a ticket to an interview can be added before or after the time, and the card be queried as to whether it was used to actually buy that ticket. This will help in fraud cases, where someone "says" they need a £20 ticket, but just gets a lift with their mate.
Why should people who pay a subscription for sky fund the BBC if they don't watch it?
Well, bully for you and your wonderful rose tinted view of internest service provision.
As for me, I pay the same as other people on the same "up to" speed plan with the same provider, but get about a quarter of the speed even though I live in the same post code.
I'd get a better price if I paid by the MB.
I think it would be better to gouge out their eyes, or something else that will make it hard for them to actually continue doing this shit.
"The fact a set happens to be showing a given programme does not tell you how many (if any) people are watching it."
Sadly not relevant. The exact wording of the TV licence is that it is a licence to receive TV broadcasts
To be fair, that comment was referring to a previous comment about how requiring a licence number to even recieve the iPlayer stream, would help with accurate viewing figures rather than them just plucking an estimate out of thin air. It wasn't actually attempting to argue that an unwatched TV was exempt from the licence fee requirement at all, which is what you appear to think it was saying.
Personally, I think the argument the BBC is neutral, and must remain neutral, and that is why they must be funded in this fashion, is old, tired and irrelevant. It gives them licence to produce a never ending stream of vomit with no reason to improve because they know they don't need to... they get paid, whatever happens.
They should bloody well be forced to produce quality programming, and if that means them having to source income on an equal footing as other broadcasters, then so be it. Sure, I understand that ITV, C4, and Five all get a percentage of the fee nowadays. But the fact that they didn't originally, and all of them thrived using advertising instead of TV licensing, should be enough to prove that it's a viable option.
Of course, at least under this current system, those without a TV have a good enough excuse no to pay. Which is better than the way the BBC wants and was floated in parliament by the Culture Secretary of the day. They wanted to scrap the TV licence entirely, in favour of a broadcast tax, which would be administered to every household regardless of if you even had a TV, similar to the broadband investment tax that BT wanted to introduce.
Yeah, because that just seems so much better...
"STMs are not known for their speed"
Last time I got an STM, my girlfriend ran at a bloody fast rate...
Quote: "52 to 48 isn't a "popular vote". It's a draw, near as damn it."
But, this is a referendum, not a neverendum...
Quote: "Something you seem to have trouble in comprehending is that some of us making comments against Brexit don't live in London."
And you seem to have trouble comprehending that some of us making comments for Brexit aren't racist, xenophobic, thugs.
But, what do I know, I'm only a racist, xenophobic, thug because I make comments for Brexit... right!
Glass houses, stones, etc...
Quote: "If it's only 4:1 in favour of Brexit that's practically a vote of confidence in Angela Merkle."
There was a vote with every eligible person being given a single choice on whether we should leave or stay. The majority voted to leave.
You can slice it however you like, it doesn't change the result one iota. 52% of the British citizenship wish to leave the EU.
Quote: "The clearly expressed democratic will of MY people is clearly different to that of yours..."
You had an opportunity to change THAT state of affairs 2 years ago. Remember to take that chance next time, instead of complaining (by inference) that the rest of the UK is an impediment to you.
Quote: "Let me remind you that the petition was started by a Brexit campaigner pre-referendum in case his side lost by a couple of percent the other way. And that Farage was the first to suggest a second referendum if his side were to lose by a couple of percent. So Leave campaigners wingeing about people wanting this to this happen when the vote went the other way are being, to say the least a bit hypocritical."
They are about as hypocritical as Remain campaigners who shot down any suggestion of a 2nd vote if the Remain win margin were small. The same ones that now, after losing by a few percent, seek to renege on their assertion that there should only be one vote.
But lets brush that under the carpet, shall we? Along with the wishes of the larger majority, because... you know... democracy!
Quote: "Your vote is not worthless, it is instead worth the same as everyone else's. That you live in an area where the majority of people disagree with your point of view does not make your vote worth less."
Funny, I think exactly this can be said of the referendum.
1/3 of the voting population is still higher than less than 1/3 of the voting population.
Last I knew, a tie was a result without a clear winner. Unless percentages are worked out in 104 points, 52 percent is a win.
Or am I mistaken?
"Yet lighting up a ciggie isn't?"
Depends if minors are in the car or not...
In that case, I believe you.
Unfortunately it's the other people who can't see the sarcasm that won't!
Interesting, and somewhat valid point, to highlight the difference between wants and needs of a connection speed. The only problem is that, while someone may only NEED a speed of a few kb to read a web sites text, because web sites consist of a few mb of picture, animation, advertising, flash, audio, 3rd party plugins... it needs some beefy speed just to get past all the cruft to get to the text in the first place.
For such an industrial city, and with an ever increasing student driven economy, Southampton is probably the worst place I have experienced for internet. Even now, I get less speed than I did in Rotherham over 10 years ago, and I'm paying 3 times as much adjusted for inflation.
Honestly, when (if) Virgin pull their finger out and actually offer my address fiber, I reckon I could probably get by with the lowest package they offer and still get a better service.
The headline seems to indicate an increase in average speed, but the article implies that the headline (advertised i presume?) "up to" speed has increased. I mean, sure, an increase in advertised "up to" speeds should naturally mean the actual speed has increased. But as we all know, an advertised speed of "up to" 80mb means jack shit when your actual speed hovers at ~0.4 - 0.8.
For those who's speed is practically zilch, an average increase of any advertised up to speed means nothing. And besides, what use is averaging "up to" speeds anyway, when there's STILL no requirement for companies to actually supply it. Unless it's suddenly become law to supply an advertised speed since I last looked, a company can advertise speeds of up to 150tb (terabytes), and not need to supply more than the speeds gotten via dial up. Sure, it'd be stupid because nobody would believe it or pay for the package if not getting it, but it certainly increases average headline speeds, just like OFCOM are harping on about here.
All in all, a pointless study exercise taken out by OFCOM to deflect from the fact they are toothless or incompetent.
And all those billions of pieces of torrented music, films and software contained a text file with a disclaimer saying that using such music, film and software without an appropriate license is unlawful... so I have been told.
Yet big business was able to get entire web sites taken down, change legislation worldwide, and successfully sue individuals for millions because of a single illegal distribution, just to protect their IP.
So I'm not sure a disclaimer absolving the online publishing of independant reviews is going to hold that much sway.
Having had no experience with Enigma OR Bleeping Computer, it seems to me that if the review is even remotely accurate, that SpyHunter deserves to be in the same boat as McAfee was at one point and probably still is... recognised as malware by other anti-malware vendors.
So, the gov, police force etc... want to introduce legislation to legalise the force, the gov, local councils, foreign law enforcement etc... to access anyone's personal data, whenever they want, wholesale and for any reason they want, yet they get uppity that one copper used the system already in place to access one persons data.
I'm sure there's logic in there somewhere. This seems less like them following their own code of conduct, and more like them trying to convince us they can be trusted with our lives at their fingertips. This officer did nothing that they wouldn't be legally allowed to do if May gets her way.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017