University grades are standardised already. This is useful because it allows people to work in other countries, digitally signing them prevents fraud.
This is just one use case for eIDAS, then you have things like interacting with different government institutions, banks, et cetera, et cetera.
There are a lot of people who live in/work/visit other EU countries as is their near absolute right. We should therefore standardise technology on the EU level to make their lives easier.
Since you obviously ignorant of how it works. When you get a degree you get a transcript where all local grades are translated to to ECTS, which you then would use to apply for jobs. Of course in the tech industry grades or even whole degrees are generally disregarded but in finance and other fields they of course, are.
Job applications in Europe typically list a degree that is required, rarely the score that an applicant is expected to have received. Nonetheless, ECTS scoring is nowadays awarded to every degree that is obtained in a country that is a signatory to the Bologna accord. To answer your question, it is an established standard.
The diploma comes with an explanatory supplement (at least mine does), so employers don't really need to know about it, they just need to read (and maybe they won't do that).
Alright, so I am not a security researcher so actual security researchers may not share my views. Also, as mentioned in the site, the full text of the new regulation is not public yet. And finally, I have only skimmed whatever text is available given that it's over 100 pages and I skipped over most of the EDIW stuff (it's a really complex system that I can't understand/audit in 20 mins).
But with that out of the way, no I don't have any other complaints, I think the regulation is generally a move in the right direction.
I mean the whistleblower (even if anonymous) probably ends their career by doing it. 30mm might not be worth it for a high-level exec so to me it makes sense to have it uncapped.
>And three whistleblowers, all represented by Jordan Thomas, were awarded a total of $83 million.
>Even now, does Merrill Lynch know who the whistleblowers were, who your clients were?
>THOMAS: No, they don't.
>GOLDSTEIN: Wow.
>THOMAS: The same with JP Morgan. If we do our job well, our clients can and do continue working at the organizations in which they reported even though they could buy an island. Some of them like working, so they keep working.
>GOLDSTEIN: I mean, not to be glib, but there is the, like, hey, Bob (ph), how'd you show up in a Lamborghini today? Well...
>THOMAS: (Laughter) Yeah. No, some people don't show their money.
>GOLDSTEIN: Yeah. Yeah.
>THOMAS: And this - they - yeah, I call them secret millionaires, you know, people who won a whistleblower award but choose to keep working.
>GOLDSTEIN: At the same firm.
>THOMAS: Yeah. It does happen. People's relationship with their work is in some ways like family after a period of time, and breaking it off is hard.
Adding to this some companies have connections with very thuggish and dangerous people. Snitching may result in that which can not be stitched. The whistleblower may have to leave the country, change identity and lay low. I say this having worked for a CEO that was also a mob boss and had to think this through.
I think you definitely end your career by blowing th whistle on your employer, past or present, with the SEC. Even more so if you at the higher levels of the org chart. After al, ypu didnitbonce, so ehy would any other employer trust you again? And thatbhas notjingbto with being rigjt or not, the saying "people like treason but hate traitors" is quite old after all.
So yes, I totally support the SECs whistleblower program. Explicitely including the fact people can fax their tips to them, or use attorneys for a layer of semi anonymity.
> then you will do well to stay out of that market.
Agree with you 100%.
I actually do this. I forbid non-U.S. access in my ToS, because I only do business in jurisdictions where I understand the law. Keeping track of 50 states is tricky enough, let alone all the other nations. So if you are in the EU I don’t really do business with you.
But I actually worry this isn’t sufficient. AFAICT the GDPR doesn’t require my consent to engage in a transaction with an EU citizen.
I can ban them in my ToS and they can use my service anyways subjecting me to GDPR. And I don’t understand GDPR well enough to properly implement it (like, don’t I need a registered agent in the EU or something?)
I can block the EU IP block and they can use my service anyways using a VPN, subjecting me to GDPR.
In fact, I’m not sure how to avoid doing business with an EU citizen. I’ve toyed around with putting liability for all damages, fines, and lawsuits on the user in an attempt to pass GDPR fines onto EU users who attempt to use my service without my consent, but I suspect that’s not going to stand.
I don't mean to be rude but certain aspects of Russian Culture make authoritarian rule inevitable. Some of has to do with Orthodox religious values and some of it has to do with perceived misrule of the country in times where things were more free.
And that's exactly what they have, specifically they have a unique form of corporate taxation that means that only dividends are taxed at the end of the FY.
It is not insane, far too many orgs are asking how can we shoehorn blockchain into X. The end-result is usually some vaporware, some weird commercialisation, or outright fraud. Libreoffice is a foundation, it should act in accordance with its charter. The public, likewise, should hold its officers accountable for acting in a way best serves these ends.
Britain's transition to becoming more like a British RT happened post Iraq/David Kelly/Hutton Inquiry and even then it happened fairly slowly - it took time to pension off all the good journalists who asked the difficult questions.
The BBC under Greg Dyke and Gavyn Davies was fiercely independent and objective though, until they were unceremoniously let go for not towing the party line on Iraq's WMDs.
People are stupid, so you should add links verifying your claims.
Also, noteworthy, is that most people can not remember, or talk about, the fact that certain nations lie to us so they can go to war. They also can't think about the whole actual reasons why what's happening is happening.
Always remember that 99% of all people only parrot what the mass media present to them, with no critical/analytical thought applied whatsoever.
Just because something is published does not make it fact. There is a definite bias at publishing houses to “be on the right side of history” and so some opinions will get squashed or not published.
Look at:
The mask paper that was talked about but was never published because the results were inconvenient.
Anytime statistics blow up a narrative.
The Swedes actually followed the science by listening to all the recommendations prior to the pandemic. The best example of this is the WHO or the CDC prior to the outbreak having published and peer reviewed papers that said lockdowns do not work.
Now the next comparison to do is that the approaches of all the other countries followed lockdown. Sweden did not. They then proceeded to have no significant death differences between countries. Seeing that, there will be significant mental differences and knock on effects from the different reactions.
Ultimately, the Swedes got it right by not panicking, followed the non politicized science, and keeping calm and carrying on.
Sweden did get things right, however it also got things wrong.
Lockdowns and masks are both largely non-effective, Sweden got that right, however what Sweden got wrong was the care for the elderly, many deaths that could have been prevented with proper care, but many of them never got to a hospital.
Not effective against a virus like this. It might be effective against something else, but at this point SARS-CoV-2 is the second fastest spreading pathogen in human history.
The paper argues that Sweden didn't get it right but could have easily gotten a better result by incorporating scientific methods better into their public health approach.
Just by advocating masks more and having better policy on trying to save people from dying via hospital care, they could likely have saved maybe a quarter of their total deaths.
>By scientific evidence, in the context of this paper, we refer to the advice of international authorities in infection control (including the World Health Organisation, (European) Centres for Disease Control and Prevention), and the body of peer-reviewed scientific papers.
The paper literally refers to WHO and CDC advice as "scientific evidence".
It's ludicrous. The whole thing is thinly veiled opinion piece.
It boggles my mind how far "science" as a term has been degraded and driven 8 feet under.
Lockdowns were never an option because the Swedish constitution guarantees free movement for citizens; the government cannot legally enforce a lockdown. The lack of lockdowns was not a result of "following the science", but rather a non-decision dictated by existing policy.
This is just one use case for eIDAS, then you have things like interacting with different government institutions, banks, et cetera, et cetera.
There are a lot of people who live in/work/visit other EU countries as is their near absolute right. We should therefore standardise technology on the EU level to make their lives easier.