"not doing much to help women. Or anyone really"
Not entirely true. Clearly did something for a sociology student, for what that's worth.
16449 posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
As the saying is, circumstances alter cases. If the sharing was contrary to the business's explicit rules then that's one circumstance. In the case of the overbearing boss that would be another - it would be quite reasonable to convict the boss and not the employee.
Medical research is not incompatible with following proper data protection procedure. Has this been done here? If it has, all well and good but questions about successful anonymisation have been around for a good while, even when the likes of Google weren't involved. It isn't unreasonable that such a project should receive careful scrutiny along these lines.
"Yes, precautions need to be taken"
This is the crux of the matter. Have adequate precautions been taken? Was patient consent asked for, let alone given? Is there sufficient information to prevent Google de-anonymising the data? What legal steps and real checks exist to ensure they don't try?
The fact that it might benefit some patients is not at issue but it's not a valid excuse for not strictly adhering to the requirements of the DPA. "It's for your own good" is exactly the justification used by the Mays of this world. Legitimising it by means of benign medical research is not a good idea.
"If you remove the cost of pre-installed Windows 10 you can save approximately 10%"...and also lose the money that comes from paying for all the pre-installed free trial crap which invariably depends on Windows. I don't know if it's still the case but that used to be worth more to the manufacturer than the cost of Windows so the cheapest route to a Linux PC was to buy a Windows PC and blow away Windows.
"What would happen if someone ran for PM on a platform of NOT invoking article 50?"
Not quite the same thing but I can see us having an autumn general election on this question by which time the voters of Sunderland etc will have been clearly informed that after the immigrants return to eastern Europe your jobs will follow them and you won't be allowed to but if you move to Lincolnshire you can have some seasonal outdoor work picking potatoes and cabbages.
@ H in The Hague
One thing you didn't explicitly mention is that a good number of businesses represent foreign investments made in the UK specifically to provide an EU manufacturing facility. These include a number of car plants which are in areas which seem to have supported Leave. We once had a largely native motor industry. Its employees pretty well destroyed that. Foreign investment gave us another. It now looks as if that's also being destroyed by its employees. Does anybody think anyone will give us a third?
"Instead of relying on oral history or tradition or whatever the heck it is you lot are relying upon here."
As has been said in other comments the British constitution is very largely written in a variety of documents from Magna Carta onwards, through the Bill of RIghts, various Reform Acts and Common Law.
What we have here is an unprecedented situation and when that happens there needs to be an evaluation of what is the best constitutional way forward. One way of doing that is via the court system. Doesn't the US also rely on its Supremes to interpret the constitution when the necessity arises?
"Something which the population of the capital seem to have trouble comprehending"
Something you seem to have trouble in comprehending is that some of us making comments against Brexit don't live in London.
I'm not sure what some of those who voted in favour are going to think when not only do the immigrants go back to eastern Europe but their foreign owned car factories follow them.
"the government was elected with the referendum as part of their manifesto."
The referendum as held wasn't binding. If the government treats it as it was I don't see that it would be outside the HoL's role to send it back to the house, especially given the small majority for change. This ability to impose a cooling-off period is an important one.
"Like around 75% of the population I live in a safe seat so right from the off my vote is basically worthless."
People keep coming up with this nonsense. In as far as a seat is safe it's only so because of the people who vote. If sufficient of you who aren't content with your MP actually go out and vote in elections you might effect a change (you don't say whether you voted or not but, assuming you did, I'm sure you realise that there will be a good many constituents who didn't "because it won't count").
FWIW the constituency where I live has returned MPs of all three major parties in my lifetime.
"The European commission is appointed by elected governments and approved by the European parliament."
In practical terms, is anyone ever going to be appointed by their elected government if they're not sufficiently communitaire? And even if they did what would their influence be?
'It would be a brave new PM indeed who took up the job and said, "er, well, I'm not going to do what you asked, I'm going to do what I want to do, instead."'
It would also be a brave PM who took up the job and said "I'm going to go ahead with what you voted for even though most of you are against it now you've discovered what the consequences will be.".
52% falls well short of what you'd have to consider a "expressed will" for a change of this magnitude. First past the post might be reasonable for putting someone into Parliament to be your MP for a maximum of 5 years. It should take a lot more than that for what would be effectively an irreversible change in constitutional and economic affairs with a massive impact.
"If parliment voted on it, then voting to remain would be literial, and not metaphorical suicide because ignoring the people on this issue would cause severe social unrest on a level we haven't seen in the UK since 1642"
That's pitching it a bit strong. It certainly wouldn't be the entire population rising up against Parliament given that there have already been demos against the result. You'd also have to take into account the individual strengths of feelings about those who voted Leave - which seem to extend right down to "OMG what have I done?" and "Was that for real?" and probably including "meh".
"Cheap lightweight Netbooks still have a place as computers to take on holidays"
They're also handy to take into libraries and archives if you're a researcher. Then there are the Atom mini-ITX boards that make quite nice quiet MythTV etc. boxes.
However, given that this is open source there'll be people prepared to continue building 32-bit versions.
"It is clear that the personal data above provides a detailed profile of the data subject’s social and political views"
Of the data sources listed the only ones which would provide this information are the social media ones - i.e. those where the data subject has actually proclaimed those views. I don't see how even voting in the general and local elections could provide any significant data: the most they could tell is whether the subject supported one of the parties standing in that particular constituency and as that almost invariably includes all the main parties it's not exactly a very specific piece of information.
Nevertheless the use of a supplier in a country with such a lackadaisical (I'm being generous) approach to privacy is a major concern.
"As I said, if the retention of growth control genes between archeoforms and more modern organisms has been proven, which it has, then it is an eminently reasonable hypothesis to state that it is likely other gene systems would have evolved once and been retained since."
This assumes that such systems evolved before the lines separated. That's not a given. Results like this serve to tell us how ancient such systems are. That's new information.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019