Slashdot Mirror

To prevent such random risks to people earning money in the eu there will be laws to protect the common people.

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health...

However i think this is about personal accounts. If you want a bank account for a porn business you might have to shop arround.

The EU law (not passed) referenced in the article you link to is a good example of IP rent-seeking, corporations trying to suppress competition to their patented products by writing laws and getting legislators to pass them.

The best way to get the gist of the proposed EU law, is to read the FAQ the law proponents wrote to defend it. Critics hardly need to add much to the "defense" to show how damning it is.

Basically it states that no commercial operation (unless small enough to be a "micro-enterprise") can sell any seed that is not "registered" under the law, which costs something like 3000 Euros per seed variety to do. Wild seed, natural seed, heirloom varieties, newly bred or selected varieties by seed savers - all banned from sale unless "registered".

Of course it claims this is a Very Good Thing and amazingly claims that it will "grant more responsibility and flexibility to businesses dealing in plant reproductive material" and will "cut red tape and costs by making the rules more flexible and efficient across the EU".

The idea is to replace the mirrors with cameras and have a display, and that may be a way to cover the "dead angle" problem as well.

However cameras and displays are a lot more sensitive than a simple mirror and they are also adding to the cost of a vehicle. It may be worth for the car developers to look for other options as well, most of the aerodynamic designs today basically only considers the laminar flow of air around a vehicle and not much when it comes to the application of for example a trapped vortex.

How about ships instead? There are LNG carriers.

Looking at this report (figure 1 on page 2), I estimate that the EU consumed about 16-17 million cubic meters of natural gas. In comparison, the average LNG carrier now under production moves about 120 thousand cubic meters of natural gas. So it's around 150 trips of such LNG carriers from wherever to support the EU's needs.

I think you are misinformed. The workers voted down the UAW union at VW and not the works council. For some strange reason you need a union in the USA to form a works council (see National Labor Relations Act. My guess is the Act was enacted to strengthen unions in America, but is backfiring now because for some reason the VW workers does not want to join a union.

Also I don't understand why you think a works council is a result of "Germany's fascist and totalitarian history". Forms of a works council were introduced in 1900, by liberal owners of companies. Then the Weimar Constitution (1919) codified the works council. Under Nazi Germany works council were forbidden, and were introduced as law again in 1952.

And it's also not unique to Germany. In 1994 the EU passed the Directive (94/45/EC) on the establishment of a European Works Council (EWC). See European Works Councils. "The EWC Directive applies to companies with at least 1,000 employees within the EU and at least 150 employees in each of at least two Member States." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...

http://www.reuters.com/article...
"Frank Fischer, chief executive of VW Chattanooga and manager of the plant, emphasized on Friday night that while the workers voted against the UAW they did not vote down the idea of a works council. "Throughout this process, we found great enthusiasm for the idea of an American-style works council both inside and outside our plant, " Fischer said. "Our goal continues to be to determine the best method for establishing a works council in accordance with the requirements of U. S. labor law. "

http://www.autonews.com/articl...
"Now that Volkswagen workers here have turned away the UAW, labor leaders within VW are going back to the drawing board to achieve their broader goal: setting up a works council to give workers a say in corporate decisions. "

Wait, isn't this the SECOND time this standard was imposed, and didn't apple get a pass last time?

Why will it be different this time?

I'm betting Apple will issue another "E-waste" adapter to their ridiculous 30pin, and thumb their nose at this rule just like the last time.

Apple this time are going to have to tow the line no one is frightened any longer by apples bully boy tactics they Are a bunch of Ass wipes with a bit of luck mind you they will hold out and end up being banned a very fitting termination of a scrag assed coNpany..

Wait, isn't this the SECOND time this standard was imposed, and didn't apple get a pass last time?

Why will it be different this time?

I'm betting Apple will issue another "E-waste" adapter to their ridiculous 30pin, and thumb their nose at this rule just like the last time.

You are aware that by using the native adapter, Apple is able to operate outside the power ranges which the power-over-USB folks were willing to support because it would have been more expensive to make the power adapters smart enough to negotiate amperage with the device up to the levels Apple runs at, right?

In other words, the power-over-USB standard is pretty stupidly low powered, if you want to support faster charge cycles, so using this universal adapter and the "E-waste" adapter dongle is just going to mean Apple devices charge a lot slower in Europe than they do in the rest of the world. Just like all non-Apple devices don't tend to support fast charging, for lack of the ability to negotiate a much higher amperage between the charger and the device.

So it's not "thumbing their nose", so much as it is "can't you power-over-USB people ever agree on a useful standard?".

Wait, isn't this the SECOND time this standard was imposed, and didn't apple get a pass last time?

Why will it be different this time?

I'm betting Apple will issue another "E-waste" adapter to their ridiculous 30pin, and thumb their nose at this rule just like the last time.

Seemed simple at first. Everyone can just go with micro USB, right?

Then I realized that batteries are getting bigger (and able to handle faster charge rates), and it's way, way past due for cell phones to start supporting USB3.

So can they make two standards, USB2 micro and USB3 micro?

Also, here's the original EU press release: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/...

I don't see any mention of a specific standard...?

That chart does no such thing. According to that chart Greece, Ireland, and Latvia have over double the productivity of France and nearly triple that of the US. You cite that, did not read it, and then go on to say the figures are worthless. Then modded up to +4 insightful. It is as if no one bothers to think or even try to learn something about the world.

RE:

That chart does no such thing

That chart does no what such thing?
I say the two charts conflict and that furthermore both charts are not useful for the comparison the OP we're responding to who said "France has higher hourly per capita productivity" and the person who essentially said "it's the opposite"

I think that you fail at reading comprehension in regards to my post.
I did read both charts and the original web sites (The Conference Board and stat.ee) that they are referenced from.
I cite the second chart only to show how the two charts conflict. I said it agrees with ebbo-10db. AT NO PLACE DID I SAY THAT I AGREE WITH EITHER CHART NOR DID I AGREE WITH ebbo-10db.
I am not ebbo-10db. That is a different person.

RE:

According to that chart Greece, Ireland, and Latvia have over double the productivity of France and nearly triple that of the US.

Which is, of course, ridiculous and would be exactly my point if it were correct. I quote myself: "I say neither chart is useful."
BTW, neither chart shows Greece, Ireland, Latvia having double/triple productivity over France/US. I can't see how you concluded that unless you had confused the chart that shows "change over previous year" with the productivity/hour charts. Your point is supported by Lativia's having 122 vs US 104.8 in 2009 in the 2005=100 relative chart (or similar years), but that's about 20%, not nearly 300%.

FWIW, I thought for sure that someone would call me out for using Estonia's economic reports.
For that reason, I suspect that you, AC, did not actually look at what I offered.

BTW, The EU has their own web site http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.... for the same kind of tables with different numbers.

M2M cellular contracts are really simple these days. You can buy embedded SIM cards that are "cold" and cost free (in terms of air time expenses) until you need them, you can remotely enable/disable them thereby switching air time costs on and off as required. The hardware required to put a simple GSM MODEM in place that phones home and checks for updates if it's SIM goes hot is fairly small.

Not to mention that ALL new cars in Europe will soon be fitted with MODEMs designed to phone the authorities if the car has a crash http://ec.europa.eu/digital-ag... so the lack of hardware in the car won't be a factor in Europe at least.

All-in-all this is not technically difficult to do, but my experience of the motor industry is that they are a bunch of cyber-peasants with very little will to implement any standard communication interfaces into their vehicles, they prefer brand-differentiating home grown solutions for in-car gadgetry and they're very slow to change.

Good analysis. If you look at the following graphics, http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.... you find massive (in some countries up to 20%) changes in Homicide rates within less than five years. I just don't see how genetics would be of any help if you want to understand these trends.

Define 'protected'.

Well, according to the Visa and MasterCard contracts you sign, you, the consumer, are not liable for fraudulent or unauthorized usage of your credit card credentials. Here's Visa's statement and here's MasterCard's. Just for fun, here's Discover and American Express's, both of which promise zero liability if you act like a rational human being. And since 1998 the FDIC covers about $250,000 in losses relating to your bank account, including unauthorized use of your ATM card. So looking at all of those liability statements, since the data breach was not the result of gross negligence on the part of the cardholder, the cardholder is not liable for any fraudulent charges made in their name.

Furthermore if anyone steals my credit card, bank card, ATM card or card information, or if something happens to the bank, like a robbery or the bank folds (provided my bank is FDIC insured, of which nearly 7,000 banks are): I, the consumer, am not liable. Either my credit card company knocks it off my bill (in the case of credit card fraud) or the Federal Government covers the losses up to $250,000 per bank (in the case of ATM card fraud or bank losses).

Those are all legally binding contracts in the United States. The European Union has similar systems in place, and has had deposit insurance since 1994, though that just covers the minimum coverage mandated under EU regulations (current minimums are €50,000, as of 2008, more information here). Most countries cover up to €100,000, including Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and Slovakia (among others). The UK covers up to £85,000 in a rather complicated scheme of percentages, and the Irish government will guarantee all the money in your bank accounts.

Certainly seems safer than putting your money in an escrow account controlled by a marketplace known for its illicit drug trade, and whose predecessor was taken down amidst a murder-for-hire scandal.

Define 'protected'.

Well, according to the Visa and MasterCard contracts you sign, you, the consumer, are not liable for fraudulent or unauthorized usage of your credit card credentials. Here's Visa's statement and here's MasterCard's. Just for fun, here's Discover and American Express's, both of which promise zero liability if you act like a rational human being. And since 1998 the FDIC covers about $250,000 in losses relating to your bank account, including unauthorized use of your ATM card. So looking at all of those liability statements, since the data breach was not the result of gross negligence on the part of the cardholder, the cardholder is not liable for any fraudulent charges made in their name.

Furthermore if anyone steals my credit card, bank card, ATM card or card information, or if something happens to the bank, like a robbery or the bank folds (provided my bank is FDIC insured, of which nearly 7,000 banks are): I, the consumer, am not liable. Either my credit card company knocks it off my bill (in the case of credit card fraud) or the Federal Government covers the losses up to $250,000 per bank (in the case of ATM card fraud or bank losses).

Those are all legally binding contracts in the United States. The European Union has similar systems in place, and has had deposit insurance since 1994, though that just covers the minimum coverage mandated under EU regulations (current minimums are €50,000, as of 2008, more information here). Most countries cover up to €100,000, including Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and Slovakia (among others). The UK covers up to £85,000 in a rather complicated scheme of percentages, and the Irish government will guarantee all the money in your bank accounts.

Certainly seems safer than putting your money in an escrow account controlled by a marketplace known for its illicit drug trade, and whose predecessor was taken down amidst a murder-for-hire scandal.

Except, unlike anywhere else in the first world, you do not have the right to have an attorney present while being interrogated by police or prosecutors.

Got a citation? Because this site seems to say the opposite:

Who will be present at the questioning?
You will be questioned by the police. One or more police officers may carry out the questioning. The prosecutor will not normally be present at the questioning. If you are suspected of a crime for which you are entitled to have a lawyer, you can request that a lawyer is appointed for you and is present at the questioning.

Can I see a lawyer?
If you are arrested, you have the right to ask for a public defence counsel to be appointed for you. This will be done by the district court at the request of the prosecutor.

If he is in Sweden, having been surrendered, then the UK's permission will be needed to extradite him further. That's in Article 28(4) of the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant:

...a person who has been surrendered pursuant to a European arrest warrant shall not be extradited to a third State without the consent of the competent authority of the Member State which surrendered the person. Such consent shall be given in accordance with the Conventions by which that Member State is bound, as well as with its domestic law.

It doesn't matter if Sweden drops the charges or accusations, they couldn't extradite him to the US without permission from the UK.

On the Agiza and al-Zery issue, to me that is an argument against extraordinary rendition happening from Sweden; it was well over a decade ago, and caused such a huge scandal nationally and internationally, with changes to rules and laws, that it is unlikely to happen again, in an even higher profile situation, with a new government. Iirc there was likely to be a major investigation with legal action against the relevant Swedish officials, but that wasn't likely to go anywhere as the foreign minster at the time was murdered between the renditions and the scandal breaking.

Were Sweden to break the law and extra-judicially surrender Assange to the US, there would be a major international scandal, as they would be almost certainly breaking Swedish, EU and ECHR law, to help the US in what is probably already an unpopular situation. I don't think it would end well for the Swedish government - not least because they'd struggle to ever get an extradition or surrender warrant in similar circumstances ever again.

What a careless comment. Many were terminated for much less. He's now a target of US regime.

If by "he" you mean "the European Union's digital agenda chief", if the US government looks for a "he", then Ms. Kroes is safe.

It is. This was tested in a eurobarometer by replacing "astrology" with "horoscopes" http://ec.europa.eu/public_opi... . The percentage of support dropped from 41% to 13%, indicating that most people do indeed mix them up.

Licenseing is explicitly handled differently, but it has to be clearly noticeable that the underlying contract is a licensing contract and not a sales contract.

In the European Union, if you "buy" a software license online, it is not handled differently. According to the Court of Justice of the EU, the "the downloading of a copy of a computer program and the conclusion of a user licence agreement for that copy form an indivisible whole" (Judgement of 3 July 2012, C128/11, para. 44).

reference? I can find some proposed projects but no current producing installations.

According to this:

The study of 106 possible sites for tidal turbines in the EU showed a total potential for power generation of about 50 TWh/year. If this resource is to be successfully utilized, the technology required could form the basis of a major new industry to produce clean power for the 21st century.

According to this Europe produced about 3200 TWh of electricity. The 50 TWh that could be replaced by ocean current power in Europe only amounts to 1.6%. That is not a significant number.

It's very odd to issue a ruling based on whether blocking TPB was effective or ineffective. The only question a judge should ponder is whether the block was justified legally.

No, no, no. It's not odd at all, it's part of the law (at least in Europe). Article 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union states:

Any limitation on the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by this Charter must be provided for by law and respect the essence of those rights and freedoms. Subject to the principle of proportionality, limitations may be made only if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others. (emphasis mine)

The judge explicitly cited this in the ruling and stated that the objective of general interest here could only be the reduction of copyright infringement. This objective was not met because the blocking TPB was ineffective. The law was applied, nothing else.

People should start reading the actual judgments before jumping to conclusions about judges, in the ones I've read so far (only dutch ones, YMMV) the judges go a long way explaining how the came to there conclusions and whats the legal basis for this (and proportionality is often part of the equation).

It appears that The Telegraph is just making this stuff up. They often do this to increase the anti-EU crowd in the UK.

The biggest fact that this story is false is the fact there are no secret EU bodies at work here.

http://europa.eu/about-eu/inst...

Journalist are also known to make up stories.

http://www.theguardian.com/med...
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US...
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...

Here are some EU myths busted.

http://youtu.be/oqVJEZnYiZo

This story is mostly nonsense.

There's a thing called ENLETS (or European Network of Law Enforcement Technology Services), which is meant to be "the leading European platform that strengthens police cooperation and bridges the gap between the users and providers of law enforcement technology." From what I can tell it is a sort of advisory committee of law enforcement technology experts, working through Europol, who brainstorm how to use technology to help law enforcement stuff. Currently it gets about €600k in funding, mostly from the EU, some from the UK and the Netherlands. They're asking for that to be increased to €915k. Most of that seems to be in hiring some new full-time advisers; from their personnel costs, they want about 8 people working full time; a leader, a policy officer, and admin person and 5 senior advisers. So if they don't get their budget increase, there's a good chance none of this stuff will happen.

This article is based on a "secret" document (which I think is this one), which is a (draft?) work programme for the group for 2014-2020; so what they're supposed to be looking at.

This document stems from a recommendation by the Council of the European Union that ENLETS look into this kind of thing - the instructions etc. can be found here (or if that doesn't work, search for document 12103/13 on their search page). They asked ENLETS to monitor and coordinate the development of new technologies.

The actual "secret" document is listed on the Council's website (do a search for 17365/13) as "Law Enforcement Technology Services (ENLETS) 2014 - 2020 - Work programme", but the document itself isn't accessible. I don't know whether that's because it's such a minor report (and not really an official EU thing) that they haven't bothered uploading it, or if they are claiming it should be withheld; I'm tempted to make a formal request for it to see what they say.

The five short-term goals they have been asked to look at are in some places a bit scary:

1. Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) - ANPR is well established in many MS. In 2013/14 ENLETS will support those MS who feel the need to enhance their capabilities by sharing best practices. The ANPR systems will be measured by its maturity, capabilities and their deployment.
2. Open Source Intelligence - Open source intelligence is a prioritized topic due to the evolving internet and wireless communication systems. For law enforcement it is a source of information as well as a method of communication. Open source intelligence relates to frontline policing (events, crowd control) and criminal investigations (search for evidence, monitoring and surveillance). In this project the handling of open sources will be assessed and ranked.
3. Signal Intelligence - Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) deploy many kinds of sensors, mostly connected to their IT systems. The sensors need to enhance the operational capability of the LEAs, but often the integration of these sensors and IT systems cause technological problems. Frequently sensor data cannot be integrated, stored or displayed due to the design, protocols and construction of IT systems. What kind of signal intelligence is the most operationally effective and open for integrating the sensors in the EU? What kind of concept will be needed as ever more data is forwarded for processing and more information needs to be analysed?
4. Surveillance - Surveillance uses many types of technology. In this topic focus will be on sharing the best video systems (quality, performance in several scenarios). The purpose of this topic is to match the best standards in video used by the industry to the end user requirements. Privacy enhanced technology and transparency are key issues.
5. Remote St

This story is mostly nonsense.

There's a thing called ENLETS (or European Network of Law Enforcement Technology Services), which is meant to be "the leading European platform that strengthens police cooperation and bridges the gap between the users and providers of law enforcement technology." From what I can tell it is a sort of advisory committee of law enforcement technology experts, working through Europol, who brainstorm how to use technology to help law enforcement stuff. Currently it gets about €600k in funding, mostly from the EU, some from the UK and the Netherlands. They're asking for that to be increased to €915k. Most of that seems to be in hiring some new full-time advisers; from their personnel costs, they want about 8 people working full time; a leader, a policy officer, and admin person and 5 senior advisers. So if they don't get their budget increase, there's a good chance none of this stuff will happen.

This article is based on a "secret" document (which I think is this one), which is a (draft?) work programme for the group for 2014-2020; so what they're supposed to be looking at.

This document stems from a recommendation by the Council of the European Union that ENLETS look into this kind of thing - the instructions etc. can be found here (or if that doesn't work, search for document 12103/13 on their search page). They asked ENLETS to monitor and coordinate the development of new technologies.

The actual "secret" document is listed on the Council's website (do a search for 17365/13) as "Law Enforcement Technology Services (ENLETS) 2014 - 2020 - Work programme", but the document itself isn't accessible. I don't know whether that's because it's such a minor report (and not really an official EU thing) that they haven't bothered uploading it, or if they are claiming it should be withheld; I'm tempted to make a formal request for it to see what they say.

The five short-term goals they have been asked to look at are in some places a bit scary:

1. Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) - ANPR is well established in many MS. In 2013/14 ENLETS will support those MS who feel the need to enhance their capabilities by sharing best practices. The ANPR systems will be measured by its maturity, capabilities and their deployment.
2. Open Source Intelligence - Open source intelligence is a prioritized topic due to the evolving internet and wireless communication systems. For law enforcement it is a source of information as well as a method of communication. Open source intelligence relates to frontline policing (events, crowd control) and criminal investigations (search for evidence, monitoring and surveillance). In this project the handling of open sources will be assessed and ranked.
3. Signal Intelligence - Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) deploy many kinds of sensors, mostly connected to their IT systems. The sensors need to enhance the operational capability of the LEAs, but often the integration of these sensors and IT systems cause technological problems. Frequently sensor data cannot be integrated, stored or displayed due to the design, protocols and construction of IT systems. What kind of signal intelligence is the most operationally effective and open for integrating the sensors in the EU? What kind of concept will be needed as ever more data is forwarded for processing and more information needs to be analysed?
4. Surveillance - Surveillance uses many types of technology. In this topic focus will be on sharing the best video systems (quality, performance in several scenarios). The purpose of this topic is to match the best standards in video used by the industry to the end user requirements. Privacy enhanced technology and transparency are key issues.
5. Remote St

Mann referred to himself as a Nobel prize recipient - which the IPCC has stated he's not allowed to do. Why are you posting obvious falsehoods in his defence throughout this thread?

Care to elucidate what these falsehoods were? Are you saying the sequence I described (That is, some denialists mistook a certificate that Michael Mann had on display for a Nobel peace prize, claimed it was fake, only later to find it wasn't a Nobel Peace prize, but a real certificate he really received from the IPCC, thanking him for his contributions to winning the Nobel Peace Prize) did not actually occur?

Dr. Mann is a climate scientist whose research has focused on global warming. In 2007, along with Vice President Al Gore and his colleagues of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize

https://www.facebook.com/Micha... [facebook.com]

He WAS awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, along with Vice President Al Gore and his colleagues of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

It is one thing to engage in discussion about debatable topics. It is quite another to attempt to discredit consistently validated scientific research through the professional and personal defamation of a Nobel prize recipient.

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/... [typepad.com]

Presumably this was written by a legal counsel, not by Mann himself. Perhaps he had an opportunity to correct the wording and didn't, when he should have. Perhaps not.

Notably, this piece of paper, which appears to the heart of your concern, was tested via an appeal against the lawsuit in question. The appeal was thrown out, because Steyns lawyers admitted it had no substance: see here.

Accordingly, your own argument is spurious and without substance.

PS: I'm also a "Nobel laureate" if Mann is:

A peace prize made possible by the people has now been passed on to the people. The EU won the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize, but the European Parliament believes this honour belongs to everyone. During a special ceremony in Strasbourg, the prize was symbolically handed over to 20 citizens of different ages and nationalities to represent the people of Europe.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/... [europa.eu]

Well, this is a matter of discussion between yourself and the Nobel Peace Prize committee.

Mann referred to himself as a Nobel prize recipient - which the IPCC has stated he's not allowed to do. Why are you posting obvious falsehoods in his defence throughout this thread?

Dr. Mann is a climate scientist whose research has focused on global warming. In 2007, along with Vice President Al Gore and his colleagues of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize

https://www.facebook.com/Micha...

It is one thing to engage in discussion about debatable topics. It is quite another to attempt to discredit consistently validated scientific research through the professional and personal defamation of a Nobel prize recipient.

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/...

PS: I'm also a "Nobel laureate" if Mann is:

A peace prize made possible by the people has now been passed on to the people. The EU won the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize, but the European Parliament believes this honour belongs to everyone. During a special ceremony in Strasbourg, the prize was symbolically handed over to 20 citizens of different ages and nationalities to represent the people of Europe.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/...

May I ask, from where you have thise numbers?
Regarding to this: http://ec.europa.eu/clima/news/articles/news_2013111901_en.htm the EU will spend roughly 20% of its budget to work against/with climate change. A lot of it in third world countries as developing aid.
The original question was: how much is spent for "climate research". I doubt the EU pays anything in the range of a billion for that (not the EU, but all EU countries combined).

The parent post is correct, but Greenpeace does not dictate government policy in Australia.

Australia has 31% of the world's uranium reservers (the world's largest) and has in recent years declined production slightly (probably due to Germany's and Japan's 'efforts' that increase greenhouse gas emissions across Europe and Japan). Australia does not use nuclear power for energy generation or for military use or for icebreakers or any use other than ANSTO (small research lab that produces radioisotopes for medical use).

Australia could have gone nuclear ages ago, but didn't. Similarly to how it cut space research and plans to build rocket launch platforms, it is a country of little physics achievements that haven't been done by overseas people. The problem is that is also a county full of coal, and with other countries running out of coal, it might well be the place for coal globally over the next 50 years if policy doesn't change domestically.

Already the highest greehouse gas emitting OECD country in the world in the future if the coal extractions can be seen large from space (like tar pits in Canada) then it might become the biggest contributing country to global warming on a global scale indirectly (due to use of its coal and nonuse of uranium, not to mention thorium).

"There's very little evidence of benefits tourism actually taking place within the EU"

With this relaxed immigration rules in the UK, you cannot make this statement.

Maybe you should have pointed to some of the evidence, then?

The EU had a look for some evidence and didn't find any, and the UK government didn't present any when asked for it (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24522653 , http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/empl_portal/facebook/20131014%20GHK%20study%20web_EU%20migration.pdf (page 163 onwards)). For working age benefits, 16.4% of working age UK citizens were claiming it compared to 6.7% of non-UK citizens: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/233032/nino-statistical-bulletin-aug-13.pdf . It looks like 2.3% of claimants are EU immigrants from that data....the best number I can find for EU nationals in the UK is 2.6% in 2009 (but that's the whole population not working age). Add to that the net fiscal contribution by EU migrants and, on the face of it, it looks like you can't just claim that it's 'obvious' and present no evidence.

Emigrating is really not an easy (or cheap) thing to do - new culture, long distances to visit family, new languages, new laws, cutting of social ties etc - and UK benefits are really not that generous or easy to access (~£70/$115 per week, plus low quality housing (which must be shared if you're under 35)). It'd hardly be a big surprise if most people who can be bothered to do it are doing it for work, not laziness.

A quick synopsis (so may contain stuff to quibble over) but the meat appears to be the action list (read the original document - link in article - for the rest):

Action 1: Adopt the data protection package

Action 2: Set up an overall agreement ensuring 'proper redress mechanisms' for EU citizens where data is passed to the US for law enforcement purposes.

Action 3: Suspend 'safe harbour' (covering personal data) until the US comply with 'EU highest standards'

Action 4: Suspend the 'TFTP' (Terrorist Finance Tracking Package) until a) Action 2 complete b) the EU have looked into it

Action 5: Worth quoting in full: "Protect the rule of law and the fundamental rights of EU citizens, with a particular focus on threads to the freedom of the press and professional confidentiality (including lawyer-client relationships) as well as enhanced protection for whistleblowers".

Action 6: Develop a european strategy for IT independence (that'll send cold shivers down the spine of certain US companies).

Action 7: Develop the EU as a reference player for a democratic and neutral governance of the internet (my translation: currently it's a US party, we want in on that).

False. There is an obligation on US citizens, but there is ALSO a new requirement on the foreign banks under FATCA.

That only applies to banks choosing to do business in the US, whether or not the US says otherwise. Though as you point out, most banks do choose to do some of their business in the US.


Actually, the EEA hasn't said that at all. Many foreign banks are choosing to not do business with US citizens since that is an easier solution.

Nonbinding at this point, but yes, they have said exactly that.

ou mean scientists like Árpád Pusztai

No, I mean scientists that know how to design a decent experiment. See this for example (p 16): "he main conclu- sion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies."

including a familiarity with the methods by which GMO crops are evaluated for safety, I've decided they are not sufficiently rigorous to convince me of the crops' safety.

ok, this could be interesting. Are you worried that starch in GMO corn is different than starch in non-GMO corn? What exactly is your problem with the current methods?

Three seconds with Google.

The actual EU site for it is here but doesn't you have to dig for specifics. Basically a company doesn't have to worry about each state's tax rules, they just go by the common EU rules and the EU distributes the money based on where the company did business. As a side effect it no longer matters where the company is registered for funnels its profits to, it still has to pay in the EU.

http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/ecall-automated-emergency-call-road-accidents-mandatory-cars-2015

FYI, MIR162 was approved for use by the EU.
Of course, this might be because it was developed by a Swiss company (Syngenta)...

The modification made to MIR162 (insertion of a gene from Bacillus thuringiensis aka Bt which creates the Vip3Aa protein) is in some ways the complement to what was known as BtCorn (which is the generic moniker for many varieties of corn which inserted one of the other genes from Bt and created a different protein Cry1Ac and was developed by the non-European company Monsanto). Apparently, many pest have developed a resistance to the Cry1Ac expression BtCorn.

There is another GM-corn which was called Starlink (owned by Bayer-Aventis, a French company) which used yet another protein from Bt (Cry9C), and there were problems in testing (the protein is apparently not broken down as easily and testing got prohibitively expensive as it showed some possibility for human allergic response) and it was eventually withdrawn from the market.

Actually, let me give you a stat.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-24998497

Kids today are slower than their parents. Let me give you another thought, when did video games become popular? Interestingly the heyday of tv did not cause kids to become slower or fatter. Driving a car? Well that has been a grand American tradition since the 50's. There is only one thing left... Video games! I am not putting all of the blame on it, but it is too much of a coincidence. And please don't start quoting Correlation does not imply causation, kids are not moving around enough today largely due video games!

Now about older people being fat? Actually yeah that is how it always has been. Look at this stat: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Overweight_and_obesity_-_BMI_statistics

See the interesting trend? As you get older you get fatter. Now here is the problem, young kids are fat, and they are only going to get fatter as they get older.

As you suggested I checked Google for facts and I was indeed wrong on some points, sorry. Germany gets most of its electricity from coal, not gas. And I thought the import/exports where on a daily basis instead of a yearly basis (I didn't write it though, so you probably implied it somehow).
However my point still stands : Germany export expensive fossil fuel power when demand is high and imports cheap nuclear power when demand is low.

Here are the facts about Germany :
- Coal : 45%
- Renewables : 22%
- Nuclear : 16 %
- Gas : 11%
- Exports are higher during winter (high demand) and imports are higher during summer (low demand)
- Renewable electricity production is at the lowest in winter
- Coal electricity production is at the highest in winter
- Germany is a net exporter globally, France is also a net exporter globally. Germany is a net exporter for France.
Source : http://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/de/downloads/pdf-files/aktuelles/stromproduktion-aus-solar-und-windenergie-2013.pdf (+ others)

Another thing : according to this http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/images/7/75/Half-yearly_electricity_and_gas_prices.png household electricity for s1 2013 in Germany is 0.29€/kWh, that's more than 0.40$/kWh and among the most expensive in Europe. Are you taking everything into account when you are talking about 0.18€ (taxes, subscription...) ?

Really? They're not importing a significant part from it's neighbors?

And prices are pretty close to what I said.

This attitude is the intended result of them spamming useless CYA garbage. Mission accomplished.

As far as Belviq goes, it's application for approval has been withdrawn in Europe:
"Although a modest benefit in terms of weight loss was seen in the main studies, the Committee was concerned about the potential risk of tumours, particularly with long-term use, based on the results of laboratory tests. The CHMP also had other safety concerns, including the potential risk of psychiatric disorders (such as depression) and valvulopathy (problems with the heart valves), which were seen in some patients during the studies. Therefore, at the time of the withdrawal, the CHMP was of the opinion that the benefits of Belviq did not outweigh its risks."

Yes, it goes to the sewage treatment plant. And /then/ it (or some of it) goes in to the ocean: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16709045 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/272na2.pdf (you'll find more with Google).

Whatever it is, that's what we've come to. And it's no surprise. For all the reasons that broadcasts have ever been appropriately restricted, so should the internet be.

Now, you can certainly complain with the way that it's done. You can be upset at the sheer number of false positives. You can be correct in saying that it may actually be impossible or unfeasible to enforce. But then that becomes the debate, not the need for the restriction in the first place.

Not quite. The way it's done resembles blowing up that downtown building because they don't accept what's painted onto its side. By "complaining with the way it's done" I'd understand saying something like they should have used carefully placed dynamite charges rather than air-to-ground missiles. Instead, I want to say they really should leave the building in place. By design, there is no proper way to restrict the Internet! Safe browsing —for those who don't want to inadvertently see those sites— is a different story. The minister is not trying to safeguard people who cannot accept the publication. He targets those dangerous extremists who are actively looking for it, not reckoning that such technique is neither effective nor legitimate.

There's an EU opinion published a few days ago. (Oddly enough, no English version there, you may want to read The Telegraph instead.) The means for blocking which the EU advocate mentions are DNS blocks, not compatible with DNSSEC, and routing blocks, which are even worse. The advocate also says those blocks can be easily circumvented even by unexperienced users —e.g. using Tor— while they require a good deal of work to be set up. Nevertheless, he finds them not disproportionate. Here again, they consider that the copyright law must be protected, without reckoning that the Internet has a larger impact than printing industry, after which the copyright law started in the early 1700s.

IMHO, it's governments who are turning old-fashioned.

Right. I'm the submitter and also later realized that Slashdot had eaten the character. The person's correct name can be read from his EU Commission homepage.

My mother has retired. My father is the same age and can not draw his pension.

Yes, as I explained it is because when they started paying NI it was based on the old rules, and changing them now would be both unfair to them and create a deficit.

Maternity leave is stupidly superior to paternity leave, don't even pretend otherwise.

Care to cite specific examples? Ignoring the unchangeable biological aspect for a moment the father is entitled to equal amounts of time off work after the birth, which is shared with the mother.

Every time I walk into an NHS establishment I'm bombarded by posters about 'well women clinics' pre/post natal care, breast/cervical cancer screening. Where are the posters inviting men for cancer screening, offering drop-in opportunities to discuss their health issues, regular healthy checks?

In the case of pre/post natal care obviously men don't need it. In the case of cancer screening there is no equivalent periodic check for male cancers, beyond self-testing by feeling for lumps regularly. Precisely what regular tests for cancer do you think men should get that they are currently not getting?

The posters I do see that are targeted at men? "Feeling suicidal? Call.."

More men than women commit suicide... What was your point?

Finally, the ongoing myth about women's pay. I have yet to see solid fucking evidence that women get paid less than men for doing the same job with the same experience, the same skill level, the same working hours and the same level of negotiation for rewards.

Start here.

I do see girls getting better grades in exams because the whole education system switched to a female friendly mode of measurement.

Exactly what do you mean by that?

Picked from 1995 here but it at least wasn't becoming much worse:
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/euro-area/gdp-growth

Then again never amazing either.

(Sweet page but not useful for this: http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/11/european-economy-guide
Lots of downloadable data: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?page=2
Employment numbers: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php?title=File:Employment_rate,_age_group_15-64,_2001-2011_(%25).png&filetimestamp=20121030182934 http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Employment_statistics)

Picked from 1995 here but it at least wasn't becoming much worse:
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/euro-area/gdp-growth

Then again never amazing either.

(Sweet page but not useful for this: http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/11/european-economy-guide
Lots of downloadable data: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?page=2
Employment numbers: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php?title=File:Employment_rate,_age_group_15-64,_2001-2011_(%25).png&filetimestamp=20121030182934 http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Employment_statistics)

Europe sure as heck doesn't *need* the middle east for oil, we have huge oil fields in the north sea, which is quite capable of sustaining us should shit hit the fan.

That's just plain bullshit.

the EU’s increasing dependency on energy imports from non-member countries. Indeed, more than half (54.1 %) of the EU-27’s gross inland energy consumption in 2010 came from imported sources.

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Energy_production_and_imports

Apparently rules against phones being on during flight isn't an FAA thing, it's an FCC thing. You pass from cell tower to cell tower so fast it confuses and stresses the system.

More to the point: Not only is the summary wrong, the TFA is wrong too. A different (and somewhat contrasting) Press Release from the European Aviation Safety Agency clearly states:

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) will publish by the end of November 2013 guidance which will extend to all phases of flight the possibility to use personal electronic devices (PED) such as tablets, smartphones, e-readers and mp3 players as long as the devices are in ‘Flight Mode’ or ‘Airplane Mode’. [...] In the long term, the Agency is looking at new ways to certify the use of mobile phones on-board aircraft to make phone calls.

RT.

The Court of Justice interprets EU law to make sure it is applied in the same way in all EU countries. It also settles legal disputes between EU governments and EU institutions. Individuals, companies or organisations can also bring cases before the Court if they feel their rights have been infringed by an EU institution.

Find an EU law that the UK government has broken (shouldn't be too hard!), and then file a case. If the case is from an individual, then the European Court of Human Rights may be an alternative. (IAANL, so YMMV)

No it isn't. You may have noticed how people have become less healthy as they removed saturated fats from their diet. You may however missed the vast body of evidence that has replaced the crappy epidemiological evidence that wrongly implicated saturated fats in the 70s.

Really. Let's see a few more recent studies, then.

No. This is the thoroughly debunked consensus. It is not longer consensus.

Well then, let's see what major medical and health associations say, then:

• The American Heart Association: (1)
• The Center for Disease Control: (1)
• The European Food Safety Authority: (1)
• The World Health Organization: (1) (2)

It's ketogenic. The metabolic pathways that make this true are fully understood.

Okay, cool beans. Feel free to explain the pathways and why more ketones is a good thing.

I'm attempting to figure out what Google has done that has functioned as an antitrust-type of scenario...

Ok, so your way of figuring that out is to speculate in a list of things that are in no way relevant for this case, instead of trying to find sources that answer your question?