Slashdot Mirror

Apple makes so much money yet has such an ugly history of mistreating the people with whom they do business in a variety of ways large and small: Mistreatment of workers who build their products (continuing in 2015 only changing due to activist and journalists compelling them to), copyright infringement, ebooks that won't work on jailbroken iThings, turning a blind eye to environmental degradation, making it needlessly hard for owners to take apart their products, teaching store staff twisted psychological manipulation, avoiding US corporate tax (which is already quite low), and more. Now we can add conspiring to fix prices. Hardly surprising given how unethical, illegal, and pernicious Apple has been.

Location data and contact/address data are sensitive yet inextricably linked to how people use trackers (also known as cell phones and other portable electronic devices). Whether the device conveys GPS coordinates, can be tracked to a remarkably small area via cell tower triangulation, or unknown (to the user) parties get the information from a proprietor (such as Apple), the privacy loss inherent in ordinary tracker operation makes it impossible to "avoid storing sensitive data on the phone".

This is no accident. When societies face the combination of nonfree software (both in OS and programs people are encouraged to install later), devices that are as close to always-on as is possible for mobile computing, and a userbase as persistently distracted away from focusing on their civil liberties as most tracker users are (no thanks to sites like /. which carry stories like these without any ethical critique to go alongside the corporate-written stockprice-sensitive spin) results like these are the outcome. Add to that the unethical ways in which trackers are made (such as Apple turning a blind eye to the environment in China or expoiting workers at Pegatron even worse than at Foxconn but Apple is certainly not alone in any of this) and you have an ugly recipe for abuse from end-to-end. Many thanks to people including Richard Stallman for compiling useful information about all of this and for his many years of warning people against nonfree software.

Oh, you mean the very same EU Data Retention Directive that has been condemned by the EU's own data protection authority, slammed by legal experts and is currently under evaluation within the European Commission and which, after being found in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights in Romania and staggeringly overpowered in Germany, will probably be either restricted so severely it will not matter much anymore or, if enough political pressure can be built in time, completely taken back.

Yeah, looks like a winner to me to introduce into your country now.

There was a town in Euroland, German to be precise, a few years back which suffereed some very serious damage after beginning to use geothermal power. Some how that seems to be a pretty negative side effect.

Several additional German states have admitted to deploying spyware in order to investigate serious criminal offenses, according to regional media sources. The interior ministers of the states of Baden-Württemberg, Brandenburg, Schleswig-Holstein and Lower Saxony said that regional police had used the software within the parameters of the law. In Lower Saxony, the software has been in use for two years, according to the public broadcaster NDR. Authorities in Brandenburg, meanwhile, told the daily Berliner Morgenpost that they are currently using the spyware in a single, on-going investigation. Baden-Württemberg has also used such software to investigate "individual cases," according to the Badische Zeitung. The interior ministry in the western state North Rhine-Westphalia also admitted that police had used the software in two instances, both of which had been approved by a judge. The news agency dpa reported that both cases had involved serious drug crimes....

See the article (in English) for the full text.

More info (in English) on Digitask from Deutsche Welle news

If instead of trying to increase renewable capacity desperately - I'm doubtful about the execution of a very large ramp-up in renewable energy generation capacity in itself - the German government would try to decrease fossil fuel use, they'd save at least 25k lives per year as compared to shutting down nuclear plants and letting fossil fuel based ones operate.

Based on deaths per TWh(which includes Chernobyl for nuclear), it takes about 160 lives to generate one TWh by coal and 0.04 lives per TWh by nuclear fission. Germany in 2008 generated 291TWh of electricity from coal, that's about 47'000 lives lost in one year.

Keeping all the nuclear capacity and spending the ramp-up in renewables to shut down coal plants would save tens of thousands of lives. Shutting down nuclear plants forces Germany to open about 20 new fossil fuel based plants, because even with a substantial increase in renewable capacity they cannot meet demand.

This is nothing short of mass murder through ignorance.

The GP's comparison is over the top, but that link you posted is a ridiculous whitewash. Here some less happy pictures: link link link

Is FB doing everything? http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,15290120,00.html

Both organizations have as their business models, using their knowledge of YOU and everyone using their services to make money. Now, you tell me: might there be just a teensy weensy little temptation to just manipulate that data a bit? Hmmmm?

Google and MS have kept geo-located MAC addresses for WiFi connections about millions of people. They have fat databases to mine. I call that: motive and opportunity. Just 'cause you want behavior? RZ is a fascist in the making.

You're talking about the US, right?

No. The U.S. isn't involved with this discovery, and the U.S. had shut down it's production previously due to environmental problems (which raise costs to address properly) and cheaper imports. (bashing the U.S. isn't insightful, especially when the facts don't back it up)

  "Currently, China supplies around 95 percent of the worldâ(TM)s demand for rare earth minerals. "

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,6563619,00.html

"China supplies more than 90 percent of the world's rare earth minerals and Japan is greatly dependent on the neighboring country for supplies of the strategically important resources..."

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/business/news/20110704p2g00m0bu038000c.html

The U.S. has mined rare earths from a remote California location in the past, but production had been stopped largely due to severe environmental issues.
Due to worldwide concerns following China cutting exports, operation is being resumed. When China cut year over year exports to 60% of the previous amount, Japan and others felt economically threatened. Rare earths are in high demand for many specialized applications including L.E.D.s (used for LCD backlighting) and the magnets in generators for wind power and those in motors for electric cars.

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/214938/us_rare_earth_mine_resumes_active_mining.html

We really should be pushing for ways to route ALL internet traffic around china and other repressive governments.

Yeah, maybe the main international routers should be moved to neutral countries such as Switzerland or the Netherlands. But then, what if the "repressive country" convinces us to let them listen in via a monitoring port of that giant router anyways?

All the hassle and costs to move the routers out of the repressive country for ... exactly what?

Thats not really true, at all, in any way. In fact, denying the holocaust is a crime in Germany.

The censorship I am aware of in Germany has to do with DMCA type restrictions; there used to be a default router password list hosted in Germany, which had to relocate due to their laws.

They can't win anywhere

One done in USA and the other a day later in Japan AT THE BEGINNING OF THE INCIDENT - and then extrapolated that over 14 days until they had amounts close or over those in Chernobyl.

http://newsroom.ctbto.org/
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,14938445,00.html

"The estimated source terms for iodine-131 are very constant, namely 1.3 x 10^17 becquerels per day for the first two days (US station) and 1.2 x 10^17 becquerels per day for the third day (Japan)," the institute said in a German-language statement posted on Wednesday on its website.

"For cesium-137 measurements, (the US station) measured 5 x 10^15 becquerels, close, while Japan had much more cesium in its air. On this day, we estimate a source term of about 4 x 10^16."

If they keep counting long enough they'll top Hiroshima as well. Then again, so will my room on the other side of the planet.

Wanna bet the author of this story is a "green scientist" ?

With electrophysiology as a specialty I presume.

Search Results:
Sort by: relevance|date Refine by: Subject Area

Health (437)
Life (126)
Environment (93)
Science in Society (82)
Opinion (25)
Tech (12)
Physics & Math (8)
Short Sharp Science Blog (7)

Refined by:
Author(s): "Debora MacKenzie"

As for the article... Whenever someone says something like "per day" and doesn't say how many days would that be - take that with a LARGE grain of salt. Iodized, if you like.

In this case... 1.2 to 1.3 × 10^17 becquerels of iodine-131 per day in Fukushima seem like a lot, particularly compared to Chernobyl's "1.76 × 10^18 becquerels of iodine-131" FOR WHOLE 10 DAYS IT BURNED.
Holy SHIT! Fukushima has been "on" since March 11th! That would mean that it is somewhere around 1.68 - 1.82 × 10^18 becquerels of iodine-131 by now!
THAT IS MORE THAN CHERNOBYL! QUICK! EVERYONE! PAAAANIIIC!!!

Except... From the site of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization mentioned in the article as the source of data:

“The estimated source terms for iodine-131 are very constant, namely 1.3 x 10^17 becquerels per day for the first two days (US station) and 1.2 x 10^17 becquerels per day for the third day (Japan),” the institute said in a German-language statement posted on Wednesday on its website.

“For cesium-137 measurements, (the US station) measured 5 x 10^15 becquerels, close, while Japan had much more cesium in its air. On this day, we estimate a source term of about 4 x 10^16.”

Note that the level measured IN JAPAN on the third day is lower than the level measured IN THE USA on the second day.
As in - readings are getting MUCH LOWER. And, it is the statistic for ONLY TWO DAYS at the beginning of the Fukushima incident. And we all know what they say about extrapolations.
Particularly the ones done from only two points.

Also, the Deutsche Welle article describes the whole "how many Chernobyls is that" thing a bit more conservatively as "at 20 percent of Chernobyl for iodine, and 20-60 percent of Chernobyl for cesium".

It's an op-ed by senator Dianne Feinstein in the Wall Street Journal. Please let's keep things intellectually honest.

OK, how about the State Department, or 'diplomatic sources', or Homeland Security?

If we want to be intellectually honest, let's remember that the op-ed piece I cited was basically one of the highest results from Google, and that numerous sources have identified that the US could, in fact, be pondering trying him under the Espionage Act or somesuch. It's not like I pulled the notion out of my ass.

There's no shortage of sources saying they'd like to be able to do that. It was all over the news in December when the news first broke.

There are alternative sources if one looks. Some material may be objectionable, viewer discretion is advised.

Besides the U.S. commercial and cable broadcasters, there is news service on PBS stations with some streaming and podcasts available from http://www.pbs.org./ Many PBS and other public stations also carry the BBC which has much available on the web too.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/

A great many international newscasts are carried by the non-profit public satellite broadcaster MHz on their WorldView channel. (They have a number of other international channels also)

This guide is easier to browse than the one on their website:
http://proweb.myersinfosys.com/day.php?timezone=0&station=world&channel=MHz+Worldview&airdate=

They have free news and paid programs on-demand streamed through ROKU
mhznetworks.org/roku

Many of the news sources they carry have websites with some content available, here are some:

http://www.dw-world.de/ (Deutsche Welle from Germany)
http://www.euronews.net/
http://www.france24.com/en/
http://www.rt.com/ (Russia Today)
http://www.aljazeera.net/english
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=AlJazeeraEnglish#g/u
http://www.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/ (NHK Newsline)
http://www.youtube.com/taiwanmactv

Not sure where a country is? Here's a good but simple map.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/CIA_WorldFactBook-Political_world.svg

More info and a list of stations carrying WorldView:
http://www.mhznetworks.org/mhzworldview/

Sometimes a station has them on a secondary digital channel (Like KCET 28.4 Los Angeles) that isn't on cable. Ask your cable operator to add it if they're not carrying the feed.

Well, welcome to the 21 century you can now picket the business from the comfort of your own home.

And be arrested be in the comfort of your own home for "picketing". A distinction between them is that carrying signs and marching tends to be legal as long as yet let people through. DDOS, not so much.

On Saturday, a second Dutch teenager was arrested for having been part of a cyberattack that targeted the Dutch Public Prosecutor's website. Experts warn of legal action against WikiLeaks supporters
 

In Europe, all cell phones will need to be chargeable via micro USB interface starting January 2011. This might sound like manufacturers have become all green and nice and wanted to cooperate, but it was really the result of pressure put by the commission. They do a lot of bad shit, but some things they do are worth noting, like this one. Link to article.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,5852237,00.html

Still, there was a massive cost to the German reunification, see e.g. this article. The Bundesrepublik spent DM 1 trillion on this over the first 10 years. 20 years after reunification, eastern Germany is still struggling.

And that's with a society that was functioning reasonably before. North Korea won't be a market worth operating in for years because nobody can afford anything. There aren't many assets worth selling or investing in either.

It is all just a matter of being dependent on other countries natural reserves vs. funding it with tax money.

Bullshit!!! Coal gets more federal subsidies than any other energy source in the US. That is unless the cost of war is included, in which case it's petroleum. Nuclear power is second, unless farm subsidies for corn, which is a bad feedstock, based ethanol is included. Each receives multiples of billions of US dollars in taxpayer money. Yet until Obama became president all alternative source, except the fore mentioned corn based ethanol, had to share about $1 Billion. Rep Edward Markey brags "My Climate Bill 'Has Huge Subsidies For Clean Coal! Huge!'" In it he lists some of the subsidies various energy sources get. And Chevron CEO Dave O'Reilly agrees to lobby with Sierra Club to end coal subsidies. The article originally published in Reason: Free Minds and Free Markets" then published online by CATO Institute: Individual Liberty, Free Markets, and Peace titled "Nuclear Energy: Risky Business" starts with "Nuclear energy is to the Right what solar energy is to the Left: Religious devotion in practice, a wonderful technology in theory, but an economic white elephant in fact (some crossovers on both sides notwithstanding)." Another CATO article, Hooked on Subsidies, first published in "Forbes" says how the Nuclear Power industry is as the title says, "hooked on subsidies". Even in countries where nuclear power is big, China, France, India, and Russia it's state actors or the government and not the market that decides what gets built. In brief the US Department of Energy answers the question How much does the Federal Government spend on energy-specific subsidies and support? By fiscal year 2007 all forms of renewable energy got $4.9 billion in subsides, $3 billion of that for ethanol. All other sources had to share the other $1.9 billion. Now how much did coal get? Refined coal got about $2.4 billion and with another $854 million on other coal. And nuclear power got $1.267 billion.

You say you're in Germany. The article Spain slashes solar energy subsidies laments that Berlin decided to continue to use nuclear power. And that Madrid slashed solar subsidies. Another says the same in Germany, Germany to cut subsidies for solar energy .

Personally I'd rather see all energy subsidies eliminated. ALL!!! Let a freer market decide winners and losers not government. What governments can do is make sure the markets are kept open as long as they can compeat, and they pay all their costs including external costs.

Falcon

It is all just a matter of being dependent on other countries natural reserves vs. funding it with tax money.

Bullshit!!! Coal gets more federal subsidies than any other energy source in the US. That is unless the cost of war is included, in which case it's petroleum. Nuclear power is second, unless farm subsidies for corn, which is a bad feedstock, based ethanol is included. Each receives multiples of billions of US dollars in taxpayer money. Yet until Obama became president all alternative source, except the fore mentioned corn based ethanol, had to share about $1 Billion. Rep Edward Markey brags "My Climate Bill 'Has Huge Subsidies For Clean Coal! Huge!'" In it he lists some of the subsidies various energy sources get. And Chevron CEO Dave O'Reilly agrees to lobby with Sierra Club to end coal subsidies. The article originally published in Reason: Free Minds and Free Markets" then published online by CATO Institute: Individual Liberty, Free Markets, and Peace titled "Nuclear Energy: Risky Business" starts with "Nuclear energy is to the Right what solar energy is to the Left: Religious devotion in practice, a wonderful technology in theory, but an economic white elephant in fact (some crossovers on both sides notwithstanding)." Another CATO article, Hooked on Subsidies, first published in "Forbes" says how the Nuclear Power industry is as the title says, "hooked on subsidies". Even in countries where nuclear power is big, China, France, India, and Russia it's state actors or the government and not the market that decides what gets built. In brief the US Department of Energy answers the question How much does the Federal Government spend on energy-specific subsidies and support? By fiscal year 2007 all forms of renewable energy got $4.9 billion in subsides, $3 billion of that for ethanol. All other sources had to share the other $1.9 billion. Now how much did coal get? Refined coal got about $2.4 billion and with another $854 million on other coal. And nuclear power got $1.267 billion.

You say you're in Germany. The article Spain slashes solar energy subsidies laments that Berlin decided to continue to use nuclear power. And that Madrid slashed solar subsidies. Another says the same in Germany, Germany to cut subsidies for solar energy .

Personally I'd rather see all energy subsidies eliminated. ALL!!! Let a freer market decide winners and losers not government. What governments can do is make sure the markets are kept open as long as they can compeat, and they pay all their costs including external costs.

Falcon

Unlike most of Europe where citizens 18-20 have to go into the army or other duty for two years

That's not true. In the European Union, out of 27 member nations, the only ones that have conscription are Germany, Austria, Finland, Greece and Estonia, and in Germany, the scales have just tipped towards its abolition, something that's all over the news right now. So, if you'll allow me to remove Germany from the equation already, that's 4 nations left out of 27, representing barely more than 26 million people out of 500+ million.

That's hardly "most of Europe".

Outside of the EU, conscription still exists (with no plans to get rid of it) in Norway and Switzerland in western Europe, and Belarus and Moldova in Eastern Europe. Still not exactly "most of Europe".

The point I was (vaguely) alluding to is that you can't give people freedoms; they need to make their own freedom. Italy is a mess financially(possibly worse than Greece), human-rights wise, and racially. Italians don't seem to care or even want to fix their problems.

It's great when the US defends people that can't defend themselves, but they don't do it to give non-Americans more freedoms ( and I don't think they should ). Trying to credit the US military for fostering freedom and rights in other countries is dangerous; in reality, they both hurt and help.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,5101348,00.html (race)
http://www.businessinsider.com/european-debt-maturity-profile-2010-5 (debt)

"Tactically in a moving / shooting war I doubt these are useful as they are easily destroyed on the ground after satellites and enemy surveillance drones pick them out of the other targets."

Didn't work with Scuds, and these little things would fit in an ISO container if the wings fold.

Decoys are easy enough to do:

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,5796289,00.html

EU, US sign SWIFT terror finance deal, overcoming privacy worries

The European Union and the United States have signed a deal allowing the banking data of ordinary Europeans to be sent to the US for investigation. Washington hopes the agreement will help it track terrorist financing.

This is not the change you're looking for...

STRENGTH IS PEACE AND PEACE; STRENGTH, SIR!

EU, US sign SWIFT terror finance deal, overcoming privacy worries

The European Union and the United States have signed a deal allowing the banking data of ordinary Europeans to be sent to the US for investigation. Washington hopes the agreement will help it track terrorist financing.

This is not the change you're looking for...

The Germans and Dutch have been removing road signs and lights from roads for a few years now in experiments based on the theory that making roads more "dangerous" forces drivers to be more careful.

e.g. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.12/traffic.html

From http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,2143663,00.html, "When you don't exactly know who has right of way, you tend to seek eye contact with other road users,'' he said. ''You automatically reduce your speed, you have contact with other people and you take greater care."

Yeah. But then you're talking in a certain political climate, not real prices.

You don't see the real price from the power company either. They are all subsidized. At least in the US, and I'd imagine even more in other countries. Here's where the CEO of Chevron agrees to lobby with Sierra Club to end coal subsidies. And here Rep Edward Markey crows "My Climate Bill 'Has Huge Subsidies For Clean Coal! Huge!'" He doesn't tkl just about coal subsides but subsides for nuclear and other power sources. Coal, corn based ethanol, and nuclear power get billions of dollars in subsidies. Yet if you add up all the subsidies for geothermal, solar, wind, and other alternative/renewable energy sources it doesn't add up to $1 Billion.

Quite simply coal, nuclear, and other energy sources individually get way more in subsidies than geothermal, solar, wind, and other alternative/renewable energy sources. Without subsides nuclear power plants would not be built, and power from coal would cost way more than it does.

It's the same in germany; it's profitable for a home-owner to install solar-cells on his roof. But that's only true because there's a state-guaranteed lowest-price that he gets for the electricity produced, and this price is substantially higher than the real market-value of electricity.

Wow! A quick google and I find this: Breakthrough Deal May Eliminate German Coal Subsidies :
"After months of negotiations, politicians and leaders from the coal industry reached a breakthrough Sunday night. Government subsidies -- not jobs -- are to be cut back drastically and may be history as early as 2018." Actually that was the first result googling germany coal subsidies. Now let's substitute nuclear for coal... and the first result is Subsidies and Public Support for Energy. It doesn't have much but it does say ways in which nuclear power is assisted. BusinessWeek reports a split in Chancellor Angela Merkel's government about extending the lifespan of nuclear power. Some plants there are approaching the end of their lifespan, so some want to extend the lifespan. One member of the coalition says "The nuclear power plants are designed for 40 years -- not 60, but 40 years".

It doesn't look like business determines what exists but government in Germany too.

Falcon

I'm fucking sick of people comparing the US government to the Chinese government. Get a fucking clue. The US government has made some mistakes but the Chinese government killed 30 MILLION of its citizens, it attacks protesters with tanks, executes the mentally retarded, and jails those who protest their own children's deaths at the hands of the government corruption.

Are you paid by the Chinese government to write these posts or just ignorant?

I think you'll find that very often speed limits are completely idiotic and don't have any connection to the real world, because whoever sets them for a given road can have several reasons not to maintain this relationship. This could be a municipality trying to cash in on speeding tickets, which has been shown to be pretty effective in many cases. Somebody could be playing the "think of the children" and safety cards by blindly lowering the speed limits everywhere - this sounds good to your average person, statistics be damned. Then there's the environmental angle, which is apparently how the retarded 55mph limits were set on US highways. This actually covers both cases, though there are other examples of course. And last but not least, the people responsible could be incompetent or just not care.

Following the limits can be stupid and dangerous if everybody else is breaking them as well for the above reasons. By driving below the average traffic speed, you're creating more of a hazard than if you just stay with the flow and keep the speed difference low. Also keep in mind that in all but a few exceptional cases, the speed limits don't reflect the actual conditions on the road. It's the middle of the night, there's a huge blizzard and you can't see shit, but the sign will still say 130km/h, just like it does when it's dry and sunny. Therefore, this leads me to conclude that statements such as "if you can't follow the speed limits and whatnot - you are a bad driver" are simply incorrect.

Same goes for the signs. There are at least real-world case studies that showed that removing all, or most, signs actually increased safety for all involved, here are the two I've been previously aware of: one in the Netherlands and one from Germany, which is actually a more recent follow up to the part that mentions that the Germans are also planning this change. In both cases, there has been no increase in accident rate, but actually a significant decrease.

I'm not going to argue completely against predictability on the roads, however blindly following whatever's written on those small metal disks isn't necessarily the best thing for the safety of those involved, as I have hopefully demonstrated clearly enough.

What good is a higher number of bookstores if people don't actually read?

http://www.dw-world.de/popups/popup_printcontent/0,,4792024,00.html

http://money.cnn.com/2004/07/09/news/bookreading/index.htm

From having traveled to Germany, my impression is that German society is not particularly literary or intellectual.

My question is this: What is the EPA _really_ trying to accomplish with this? Covering CO2 under the Clean Air Act would completely hamstring American businesses, forcing them to severely cut CO2 emissions

This is completely and utterly false. In other words, it isn't true. Case in point: Germany, like many other EU states has implemented a carbon tax to limit CO2 emissions. It's working in that Germany's emissions are now below the Kyoto accord requirements. All this, yet Germany's economy is recovering from their recession, and the recovery is faster than the U.S. recovery is. Lastly, the carbon taxes have all been projected to increase the number of jobs, not "hamstring" businesses like you say:

The positive effects of the ecological tax reform were highlighted by the Federal Environmental Bureau (Umweltbundesamt) in early 200210 when it stated that by the end of that year, its projections showed that ecotaxes would have reduced CO2 emissions by more than 7 million tonnes while at the same time creating almost 60,000 new jobs. Other researchers 11 were even more positive, saying that between 176,000 and 250,000 new jobs would be created. These figures were based on the assumption that the trade unions would moderate their wage demands by linking any increases in gross pay to changes in prices and productivity.

So when you look at the actual evidence, carbon taxes do pretty much precisely exactly the opposite of what you said. Do yourself a favor and stop reading talking points written by Exxon.

You have the same privacy-eliminating laws all over the EU, mainly because they are largely EU mandated, yet in most other countries, right-wing parties that call for even tighter monitoring and regulation won across the board.

The problem is the low voter turnout/voter apathy, which always favors right-wing parties (whose followers vote with religious like fervor): http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4310212,00.html
It is of course in their interest to keep voter turnouts low in coming elections too, a job made easier now they have majority in the EU parliament.

And the next step after that will be to ban computer games where you pretend to play a paintballer...

Actually though, there have been calls to ban computer games too ("other ideas include a violence quota for television"). All in the name of "parents of victims" - never underestimate the political power of a grieving parent. I've seen it happen here in the UK too. It seems like if someone you know dies, you get national media attention for whatever political cause you want to lobby for. Personally I think it's sick to use a murdered person's name in order to push your own political agenda - if I should get murdered, I hope no one ever dares try to use my name.

What I want to know though is does this ban on paintballing also cover water pistols - I mean, does this image from Doctor Who not "trivialise violence"???

Obama's solution to eliminate nuclear weapons: Curtail or eliminate defenses against nuclear weapons,

Really? "He said the United States will maintain a safe, secure and reliable nuclear capability to deter adversaries and reassure its allies. He also indicated that the United States would "go forward" with a controversial missile defense system planned for the Czech Republic and Poland." [1]

End result of Obama's plan: Defenseless US

Nuclear weapons' primary function is striking against civilian targets - no military target is large enough to warrant such massive destruction [citation needed]. If North Korea were to attack NATO using nuclear weapons, I postulate that the NATO member nations would care more about that North Korean civilian population than the North Korean government does [2]. Rather, your first goal would be to eliminate their launch capability, for which conventional weapons are sufficient. [citation needed]

It's not just nationalism. It's hubris. That has been a part of Russia's collective psyche for at least the past 100 years. They're not going to let anyone tell them what to do, and they balk at receiving help from anyone - it's a sign of weakness. They have a strong "us and them" mentality which has not faded away one bit since the end of Communism.

I can't really fault Russians or Putin for that, other countries are loud and proud of themselves and can also be a bit protectionist from time to time. But in Putin's case, it could be incredibly self-destructive, although I would bet that his people will support him even if it means economic disaster.

I'll probably get modded troll for that second paragraph, but just remember, in post-Soviet Russia, troll mods YOU.

So you actually think that unemployment compatible to ours is a good thing? Do you think our economy would not be impacted by a lose of 1.7 billion anally for every two bases closed? Do you understand exactly how many based we have in Germany? We currently have around 19 bases there with between 20,000-40,000 soldiers with disposable income and the immediate families of about one third of those solders living in Germany and contributing to the economy.

Now, do you think that would instill havoc on the US economy if all that vanished over night or within a year or so? Now compare the German economy to the US's. In 2007, Germany had a GDP of 2.8 trillion. The US had a GDP of 13.78 trillion. It's going to hurt Germany just like it would hurt the US but worse because it would be a lot larger impact.

Now, don't get too excited about your Wikipedia numbers. They don't tell you the entire story. Most of the unemployment reduction has to do with repositioning US troops to other based and their families moving back to the US opening up jobs for unemployed Germans. But look at the numbers, they are all way out of line with the US's and yes, they are already adjusted for differences in unemployment accounting systems.

Your fooling yourself if you think their economy is in good shape or that it is capable of surviving a complete US withdraw. Hell, the first link I gave showed protesters begging the US to keep a base open that it was moving to Turkey while they were bitching about our war in Iraq. Personally, I say Fuck Germany, let them suffer. But we will see them suffer no matter how you pretend to want to slice it.

I'd like to see this technique applied to the supposed bones of JS Bach, of whom the surviving pictures are unreliable and unconvincing.

Done. The Haussmann portrait is basically corroborated.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,3784225,00.html The news is not that generic blocks didn't previously exist. It's that Lego is unable to retain the trademark.

Don't need software. People do just fine

Or if they've set up near a culturally significant mosque. For political reasons, you don't want to drop a JDAM on their equipment.

Yeah, the US military is known to respect culturally significant buildings. Right.

When have you seen a 24 year old female gymnast, much less a 40 year old one?

How about this 33-year old who won a silver? Yeah, it doesn't happen often, but no less often than the 40 year old female swimmer you mention.

It is not that I don't like the idea but it is essentially flawed.

A) It still requires human input. No one reporting the disease does not mean that it is not there.
Looking at former Yugoslavia and seeing only 1 case of meningitis while here in Bosnia everyone knows about (and it is on TV, radio and in the papers) the brucellosis epidemic that has been going on for months or even years maybe.

B) That input must be made over the internet.
Look at Africa. It is practically squeaky clean. There is one case diarrhea in the entire Botswana. And everyone is completely healthy up in the North.
Could it possibly be due to the lack of internet-based inputs instead of due to the lack of diseases?
Check out UK or the East Coast of USA. They are crawling with diseases.

C) It should preferably be in English. Can the crawler read any of these articles:

http://www.zzjzfbih.ba/content/view/66/13/
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,3259389,00.html?maca=bos-rss-bos-all-1475-rdf
http://www.slobodnadalmacija.hr/BiH/tabid/68/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/14733/Default.aspx
http://www.dnevniavaz.ba/dogadjaji/panorame/bruceloza-prepolovila-prodaju-livanjskog-sira-
http://www.blic.co.yu/repsrpska.php?id=44508

Basically, what they come to is that there is a SHITLOAD of cases of brucellosis among the various cattle in Bosnia.
And that it is going to stay that way for a long time, cause nobody is really doing anything about it.

It is a fine idea, but unless you have every square kilometer of Earth covered with internet access and people who will report it in a language that the crawler understands - it is beyond useless.
Even dangerous.
Zoom out over Asia and turn on the Google in Chinese under Feeds. China's disease count jumps from around 40 to around 140.

No. You can't fix all the problems by "putting it on the internet".

Speed limits are a political thing mostly. You can do 250mph on German Autobahns in a good modern car. Most other countries limit speed to 70mph, but that's not really a technology issue, more an issue of politicians limiting people's rights to protect them from accidents. Which is actually nonsense, since the Autobahns have the same safety record as roads with speed limits, presumably since people are smart enough to drive at a speed which is safe for the road.

Of course there are always new dangers to protect people from and now environmentalists want to impose a speed limit on the Autobahns too, to reduce Germany's CO2 emissions by a whopping 0.5%
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,3085749,00.html

I'd be much more impressed with EU anti-trust efforts if they weren't pretty much aimed at non-EU companies. They're mostly a trade barrier rather than a legitimate regulatory body.

I now plan only to fly with this German tour operator, which will use an innovative alternative to standard security screening procedures:

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,3094108,00.html

Not to mention the latest study of the German gov. which says that Living close to a nuclear power plant gives you a much higher chance(or at least your children) of cancer. see: http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2994904,00.html

Not true. Just for starters, (and at the risk of repeating myself)..

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=46415

Summary: Australia plans to build a 154MW solar plant which powers 45,000 homes. No info on cost or scalability (the government is contributing $120 million, but we're not told how much the total cost is). Is 154MW max energy, or average/expected energy?

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/08/worlds_largest_4.php

I don't go to "treehugger.com" for unbiased news about energy, but okay. Summary: They announced they would build an experimental 500MW plant over a 20 year period. Once they've built 1MW they'll see if it works, and if it does they'll continue to ramp it up to a potential 500MW in 20 years time. And is 500MW max energy, or average/expected energy? It's interesting, but it's not available here and now, and I question the 6c/kWh price too (which is coming from the people seeking investment).
See Wikipedia for information on why no-one is rushing to invest in the Stirling Engine.

Nuclear power, by contrast, is here now; ready, and waiting, and capable of taking on the entire burden of our energy needs.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/06/21/BUG9VJHBLB1.DTL

Summary: A company is investing $100 million in another experimental solar technology that hopes to solve the problem of our limited silicon resources. No mention of efficiency, timeline, or why we haven't heard anything about the technology since the article was published, as they said they would be pumping out "200 million" cells by 2007.
Again: Nuclear power is not an experimental dream or the idea of a gambler looking for investors; it's a tried, tested, readily available technology.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1321857,00.html

Summary: The worlds largest solar plant in 2004. $26.5 million, 33k cells * 150W/cell = 495KW = 5MW. It also uses silicon, which we don't have enough of to make enough of these to contribute a significant chunk of power. Is 150W/cell max energy, or average/expected energy?

http://www.pvresources.com/en/top50pv.php

A list of solar sites, no mention of costs. Topping the list is a solar site that generates 20MW (max energy, or average/expected energy?). Your average nuclear reactor generates 1000MW (max energy, but it can be maintained at max energy, unlike solar/wind power which depends on sunlight/wind). Did I mention nuclear is scalable, and ready now?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/6031995.stm

Wind farm. 300MW *max energy, or average/expected energy?), $300million. It beats the $30 million for 5MW for the German plant you gave above, but it won't work too well in places which aren't as windy as Scotland. Nuclear power can be used anywhere, and in any amount. Things like hydroelectric power are good where there are canyons, and wind power is good where there's wind, and solar may possibly be good if you're a small town in the middle of a desert, and geothermal is good if you live near a volcanic site, but nuclear is good everywhere.

All of Americas power needs could be supplied by (for example) covering 100x100 km of the Nevada Desert with PV cells. Why not just bite the bullet and do it?

Because we don't have the silicon required, and it would be massively expensive even if we d

Ok, additional info to my original post..

You would need to build a solar plant of about 100 x 100 Miles in the Nevada desert to generate the USAs electricity. USA had around 743 GigaWatt (0.743 TerraWatt) installed generating capacity in 1998 - I will dig out a newer figure, but lets say about 1 TerraWatt today.. This scheme in Nevada:

http://www.reuk.co.uk/Nevada-Solar-One.htm

Delievers 64 Mw for 350 acres = 45 watts per sqr meter.
100 x100 miles = 26 000 000 000 m2.
* 44 (watts) = 1.17 TerraWatt supply. Is 100x100 miles too much? How does it compare to coal-strip mining?
It is true that the sun doesnt shine at night - so in reality you would have a mix - wind power, tidal, etc - backed up with ready-to-roll capacity, pumped hyroelectric storage, and new tech like very large SuperCapacitors. Technology is moving all the time..

Cost? Figures vary, but Nevada Solar quote about $0.07/Kwh, wind and others maybe a little less. With oil hitting $80 a barrel this looks good, its hard to compare to Nuclear because of the huge hidden subsidies it recieved, both in terms of research and hidden unknown costs like waste disposal and decomissioning..

More links on power schemes..

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=46415
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/08/worlds_largest_4.php
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/06/21/BUG9VJHBLB1.DTL
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1321857,00.html
http://www.pvresources.com/en/top50pv.php
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/6031995.stm

As for Three Mile Island, read this link. Years later, when they could actually inspect inside the reactor, they were horrified to see just what a mess it was in - a huge glob of melted reactor fuel nearly breached the containment vessel - it was very very close to a Chernobyl type meltdown..

http://americanhistory.si.edu/tmi/tmi03.htm