Slashdot Mirror

Which is the agreed common interface?

On the basis of the Micro-USB interface, the companies have agreed to develop a common specification in order to allow for full compatibility of chargers and mobile phones. These specifications have been translated in European standards.

N.B.: The agreement allows for the use of an adaptor.

Plus the EC is fine if they simply include an adapter from USB, IIRC.

Well, no, the EC is not fine with that.

Well, yes, the EC is fine with that, unless they've changed the MoU since June 5, 2009. People who haven't read paragraph 4.2.1:

4.2.1 In order that compatibility of as many Mobile Phones as possible with a Common EPS may be enabled, if a manufacturer makes available an Adaptor from the Micro-USB connector of a Common EPS to a specific non-Micro-USB socket in the Mobile Phone, it shall constitute compliance to this article.

might not be OK with that, but that's another issue. (And "make available", for better or worse, doesn't necessarily imply "bundle with the Mobile Phone at no extra charge".)

Someone posted some interesting points in the linked article, I've pasted it here. ( Don't shoot the messenger who is an android fan.) Discuss... *** “Apple has reneged on that commitment to the European Commission to change to micro-USB”. This is simply false. Undertaking 4.2.1 states that “if a manufacturer makes available an Adaptor from the Micro-USB connector of a Common EPS to a specific non-Micro-USB socket in the Mobile Phone, it shall constitute compliance”. —http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise...

Here's a URL for the MoU that replaces "..." with something actually useful, and is an actual link to boot - http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newsroom/cf/_getdocument.cfm?doc_id=5274.

Annex II futher states that “An EPS provided with a detachable cable shall be equipped with a USB Standard-A receptacle. Above requirement also applies to detachable cables used as adaptor i.e. where the Micro-B is replaced by a proprietary plug” —http:// ec.europa.eu/enterprise...

Here's a URL for Annex II that replaces "..." with something actually useful, and is an actual link to boot - http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newsroom/cf/_getdocument.cfm?doc_id=5272.

Apple’s decision not to use a Micro-USB connector is in keeping with the agreement, as they also offer a Micro-USB to Lightning adaptor. Their charger also appears to be a common EPS,

Section 2 "DC Plug Connector Specification" of Annex II says "Standard detachable cable assembly, supplied for use with the EPS, shall have Standard-A and Micro-B plugs...". Does Apple provide such a cable standard with the Apple USB Power Adapter? If not, maybe they can still squeak past

4.3 Undertake, subject to the satisfactory completion of the work described in article 4.1, to ensure that each EPS equipped with a Micro-USB connector placed by them on the market for use with Mobile Phones is a Common EPS.
For the avoidance of doubt, this MoU does not preclude the supply of an EPS which has a specific non-Micro-USB connector provided the Mobile Phone with which it is intended to be used can also be charged with a Common EPS under Article 4.2.

in the MoU by not placing any external power supplies equipped with a Micro-USB connector on the market and ensuring that the iPhone 5 can be charged with a Common EPS (which it can, with the Lightning-to-Micro-USB adapter).

Someone posted some interesting points in the linked article, I've pasted it here. ( Don't shoot the messenger who is an android fan.) Discuss... *** “Apple has reneged on that commitment to the European Commission to change to micro-USB”. This is simply false. Undertaking 4.2.1 states that “if a manufacturer makes available an Adaptor from the Micro-USB connector of a Common EPS to a specific non-Micro-USB socket in the Mobile Phone, it shall constitute compliance”. —http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise...

Here's a URL for the MoU that replaces "..." with something actually useful, and is an actual link to boot - http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newsroom/cf/_getdocument.cfm?doc_id=5274.

Annex II futher states that “An EPS provided with a detachable cable shall be equipped with a USB Standard-A receptacle. Above requirement also applies to detachable cables used as adaptor i.e. where the Micro-B is replaced by a proprietary plug” —http:// ec.europa.eu/enterprise...

Here's a URL for Annex II that replaces "..." with something actually useful, and is an actual link to boot - http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newsroom/cf/_getdocument.cfm?doc_id=5272.

Apple’s decision not to use a Micro-USB connector is in keeping with the agreement, as they also offer a Micro-USB to Lightning adaptor. Their charger also appears to be a common EPS,

Section 2 "DC Plug Connector Specification" of Annex II says "Standard detachable cable assembly, supplied for use with the EPS, shall have Standard-A and Micro-B plugs...". Does Apple provide such a cable standard with the Apple USB Power Adapter? If not, maybe they can still squeak past

4.3 Undertake, subject to the satisfactory completion of the work described in article 4.1, to ensure that each EPS equipped with a Micro-USB connector placed by them on the market for use with Mobile Phones is a Common EPS.
For the avoidance of doubt, this MoU does not preclude the supply of an EPS which has a specific non-Micro-USB connector provided the Mobile Phone with which it is intended to be used can also be charged with a Common EPS under Article 4.2.

in the MoU by not placing any external power supplies equipped with a Micro-USB connector on the market and ensuring that the iPhone 5 can be charged with a Common EPS (which it can, with the Lightning-to-Micro-USB adapter).

If you read the linked-to page about the agreement, you'll see that the title is "One charger for all - Frequently asked questions", emphasis mine. The first FAQ, "What's the issue?", says:

Incompatibility of chargers for mobile phones is a major environmental problem and an inconvenience for users across the European Union. Currently, specific chargers are sold together with specific mobile phones. A user who wants to change his/her mobile phone usually acquires a new charger and disposes of the current one, even if it is in perfect condition. This unnecessarily generates considerable amounts of electronic waste.

and the second FAQ, "What is the solution envisaged?", says:

Harmonising mobile phone chargers will bring significant economic and environmental benefits. Following a request from the European Commission and in close co-operation with the Commission services, major producers of mobile phones have agreed in a Memorandum of Understanding (“MoU”) to harmonise chargers for data-enabled mobile phones sold in the EU. The industry commits to the provision of compatible chargers on the basis of the Micro-USB connector. Once the commitment becomes effective, it will be possible to charge compatible data-enabled mobile phones from any common charger.

The astute reader will note that a certain word that begins with "c" and ends with "harger" appears quite frequently in those items. This was not about "mobile phone accessories" in general, it was about a particular accessory, namely the charger, so "they have junked earlier iPhone accessories, forced a new industry in Apple-only accessories to arise" is 100% irrelevant to the MoU.

As for the charging part - the only part relevant to the "promise to the EC" - TFMoU explicitly says that "[making] available an Adaptor from the Micro-USB connector of a Common EPS to a specific non-Micro-USB socket in the Mobile Phone" is sufficient to ensure compliance. Perhaps Apple phones sold within the EU should ship with that adaptor, rather than selling it as an add-on, but that's another matter.

Now, TFMoU also says that the Signatories:

4.3 Undertake, subject to the satisfactory completion of the work described in article 4.1, to ensure that each EPS equipped with a Micro-USB connector placed by them on the market for use with Mobile Phones is a Common EPS.

where an "EPS" is an external power supply and

2.4 A ‘Common EPS’ is an EPS which meets the requirements of the specifications and standards which will be developed under article 4.1 and as may be revised under article 4.5.
The specifications are expected to include:

2.4.1 A Micro-USB B-Plug attached via a cable which delivers power to the device being charged.

so if, for example, the Apple USB Power Adapter sold in one EU country doesn't provide "a Micro-USB B-Plug attached via a cable which delivers power to the device being charged", then they're not conforming to that part of TFMoU. At least from the picture, it offers what appears to be a USB 2.0 Group 7 - Standard “A” Receptacle, rather than a "USB 2.0 Group 7 – Micro-USB B-Plug", so, unless it includes a cable that plugs into the Standard A-Receptacle and has a Micro-USB B-Plug, they aren't complying - and the Apple page says they include an "Apple Dock Connector to USB Cable", which plugs into the Standard A-Receptacle but has an Old Fashioned 30-Pin Apple Dock Connector, so no go.

So maybe the title should be changed to "Apple USB Power Adapter Scorns Standard Promise To European Commission", as the iPhone 5 does something that TFMoU considers OK.

LOL, am I reading this correctly? Let me paraphrase:

Compliance is using a standard, rather than proprietary, adapter*

*Note: Instead of one standard adapter, using two proprietary adapters to emulate a single standard adapter, shall constitute compliance.

If you read the June 5, 2009 Memorandum of Understanding regarding Harmonisation of a Charging Capability for Mobile Phones, you see that:

...the Signatories:

...

4.2 Undertake, subject to the satisfactory completion of the activities described in article 4.1, including successful standardisation as required, to ensure their Mobile Phones are capable of being charged at the Preferred Charging Rate by any EPS meeting the requirements of a Common EPS.

So "compliance" means "[ensuring] that [your] Mobile Phones are capable of being charged at the Preferred Charging Rate by any EPS meeting the requirements of a Common EPS.", where "EPS" is "external power supply" and

2.4 A ‘Common EPS’ is an EPS which meets the requirements of the specifications and standards which will be developed under article 4.1 and as may be revised under article 4.5.
The specifications are expected to include:

2.4.1 A Micro-USB B-Plug attached via a cable which delivers power to the device being charged.

So this means that if you have a power supply that has a Micro-USB B-Plug, it should be possible to use the B-Plug to charge the phone. It doesn't say that the phone must have a B-Plug receptacle built into it; in fact, it explicitly says, in the section to which you're responding, that one way to accomplish this is to have an adapter that plugs into the phone and accepts a B-Plug.

So, no, this doesn't "[use] two proprietary adapters to emulate a single standard adapter". It uses an adapter to plug into a proprietary connector and offer a standard socket, allowing you to charge an iPhone 5 with any external power supply that has a Micro-USB B-Plug.

I think the EC could argue that Apple should bundle that adapter with all phones sold in the EU, although the MoU just says that Apple has to "make available" the adapter to comply.

And, no, the MoU wasn't so broad as to be "aimed at reducing electronic waste resulting from mobile phone accessories." It was aimed at reducing electronic waste from a particular mobile phone accessory, namely the charger.

Technically, Apple IS compliant.

From the agreement at http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise

Said agreement being at http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newsroom/cf/_getdocument.cfm?doc_id=5274.

Technically, Apple IS compliant.

From the agreement at http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise

Said agreement being at http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newsroom/cf/_getdocument.cfm?doc_id=5274.

"The law wasn't a suggestion."

The law isn't even a law (or regulation, for that matter). It's a voluntary agreement ("Memorandum of Understanding").

Secondly, the agreement only covers phones which "Supports USB user data handling as defined in 'Universal Serial Bus Specification'". Although there are no details available on Apple's new connector, it's possible that it doesn't handle USB directly, but relies on a conversion chip in an external adapter. That would place Apple in compliance with the MoU.

The MoU also allows adaptors [sic] to be used - "An 'Adaptor' is defined as a device with a Micro-USB receptacle/plug connecting to a specific non Micro-USB connector. For clarification: an Adaptor can also be a cable."

The law also doesn't say what the summary claims it says.

It specifically allows for adapters to be used, and Apple has had a micro-USB adapter available for quite awhile now that complies with the standards that have been set.

Technically, Apple IS compliant.

From the agreement at http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise
Undertaking 4.2.1 states that “if a manufacturer makes available an Adaptor from the Micro-USB connector of a Common EPS to a specific non-Micro-USB socket in the Mobile Phone, it shall constitute compliance”. Annex II futher states that “An EPS provided with a detachable cable shall be equipped with a USB Standard-A receptacle. Above requirement also applies to detachable cables used as adaptor i.e. where the Micro-B is replaced by a proprietary plug”

Switching to just a micro-USB would have been stupid as you can't get analog audio or HD video through USB 2.0. Still I feel for all the people who've invested in accessories that use the standar Apple 30-pin. Expensive accessories like docks, iHome clocks, etc.

certainly not the stupid numbers some other people have been throwing around.

Not the same stupid numbers, but just as stupid as it is arbitrarily ignoring any cost you're ignorant of. Most obvious to me being raw materials. Fine, bring the manufacturing of every single part, and the assembly, to the US.
But where will you get the minerals?

China is pretty much the only extractor of many minerals that are required for electronics. If your factories are also in China, you don't have to deal with that headache or cost.

Electricity: China produces their electricity however the hell they want: coal & hydro being very popular. Its quite a bit more expensive here.

Taxes: Neither of you seem to be aware that payroll taxes effectively double the cost of every US employee. So take your $42k and make it $84k.

Healthcare: Obamacare! Apple, I'm sure, has enough employees to qualify for the healthcare requirement. Each and every employee gets it, or Apple pays the Feds for the privilege of providing it. Be sure to add that in since, well, China isn't too big on health care requirements.

But thats enough. Point being, neither of you have any clue wtf you're talking about. So claiming "his number is stupid but mine is better" is just retarded.

Here in Europe it is often called Bio food and is subject to EU regulation:
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/organic/consumer-confidence/logo-labelling_en

I'm going to highlight some parts of it because I know /.ers don't usually read TFAs.

When consumers like you choose to buy organic products, you need to know that you are getting exactly what you pay for. The organic logo and labelling system is the mechanism that makes this possible.
(...)
The production and placement of organic products with labels and logos on the EU market follows a strict certification process that must be complied with.

Conventional farmers must first undergo a conversion period of a minimum of two years before they can begin producing agricultural goods that can be marketed as organic. If they wish to produce both conventional and organic produce,
(...)
The EU organic logo and those of EU Member States are used to supplement the labelling and increase the visibility of organic food and drink for consumers.

So, consumers buying products bearing the EU logo can be confident that:

        at least 95% of the product's ingredients of agricultural origin have been organically produced;
        the product complies with the rules of the official inspection scheme;
        the product has come directly from the producer or preparer in a sealed package;
        the product bears the name of the producer, the preparer or vendor and the name or code of the inspection body

So yeah, I'm fairly confident that when buy organic food (honey, fruits, vegetables, wine, cereals, ....) in Europe, it has in fact no pesticides and the food was grown in a sustainable manner. There is nothing that replaces home grown vegetables and fruits but in the lack of those, organic food is probably the best replacement.

As a side note: If you never seen a documentary on how organic food is grown (at least in Europe, where is subject to regulation), then I suggest you have a look.

a manufacturer can be compliant by supplying an adaptor, which only has to charge the device

It's worse. They can actually "make available" an adapter. In my world that means they can sell it.

"4.2.1 In order that compatibility of as many Mobile Phones as possible with a Common EPS may be enabled, if a manufacturer makes available an Adaptor from the Micro-USB connector of a Common EPS to a specific non-Micro-USB socket in the Mobile Phone, it shall constitute compliance to this article."

Oh.

"all other manufacturers agreed to standardize on microusb some 5 years ago(and it's finally starting to be used on pretty much all, non-apple, devices now)."

Apple signed the agreement as well.
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/magazine/articles/single-market/article_10942_en.htm

Yes, actually, I did. I in fact demonstrated with quotes and links directly to the treaty texts that your assertion that "Sweden could temporarily surrender him without an extradition request" was false. The only way a temporary surrender can be made is in the context of an extradition request - no temporary surrender can be made without one. Furthermore, the UK and Sweden are BOTH signatories to the US/EU extradition treaty, which contains a clause which is almost a word-for-word replica of the language in the US-Sweden treaty. Go read Article 9, and try to explain to me again how Sweden's the only country who can do this?

I also demonstrated that the UK could extradite him just as easily as Sweden, in direct contradiction to your assertion that they "could not" extradite him legally. All it requires is a valid extradition request.

Click "Parent" a few times - see those points you ignored when I cited text from the treaties? Yeah, that was me, giving you evidence, which you deliberately ignored because it clashed with your pathetically juvenile world view.

Have fun telling yourself you've made some good points here. I'm getting a great big laugh out of your attempts to paint yourself as some sort of rational thinker.

Well, you can't be helped.

First off all your conception of poor is very wiered. It is well known that the lower classes of the USA are far far more than in any other first world country.

I doubt there are many europeans that by any standard are considered poor.

In 2009, Germany emitted 750 Mt CO2 to produce 1478 TWh of energy, or 0.5 Mt CO2/TWh (and imports another 2360 TWh). The US emitted 5195 Mt CO2 to produce 19613 TWh of energy, or 0.26 Mt CO2/TWh (and imports 6501 TWh). That not only makes US energy production more efficient than Germany's, it also shows that Germany is fond of exporting its problems elsewhere and then pretending it didn't cause them.

Regarding your numbers, I don't get from where you pick such nonsens numbers. Even as this is in german you should easy be able to pick the tables with "export" and "import" mentioned ... http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energiemarkt

A note to your previous posts, reducingf CO2 footprint has no relation to your economy, No idea why US guys think that.

A aluminium plant needing 5 GW the next 8h does not care if that power comes from a nuclear plant, a coal plant or a wind plant. It needs the 5 GW regardless. So switching from coal to wind reduces CO2 exhaust.

A car produced and sold does not care if the manufactor needed 4GWh to produce the car or 2.5GWh to produce it. The less he needs the cheaper the car is. Investing into saving energy should be a now brainer. Also the customer buying cars does not care how much energy was used. So reducing the energy needed in construction reduces the CO2 emitted during construction, makes the car cheaper and more competitive.

As the USA is not really doing anything to reduce CO2 in their industry production, the current state of the economy has nothing to do with CO2 reduction anyway. So your claims regarding this are complete nonsense.

Here you can read a bit about the EU / China trade: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/09/375&type=HTML or here http://ec.europa.eu/trade/creating-opportunities/bilateral-relations/countries/china/
Perhaps this cures you from your stupid braindead idea germany had reduced its CO2 footprint be "exporting CO2 heavy industries" to China.

Sorry, to say it bluntly: your picture of the world, especially about poverty, economics and energy is pretty dumb and retarded.

One of the reasons Germany's unemployment is nominally so low is because lots of people are engaged in unproductive activities in order to keep them off the streets. Sentences like this and this: given Germany's violent history, this is still probably a good arrangement. prove this. Do you even have any clue since when the last war is over? Definitely you have no clue about employment and unemployment in germany and the EU.

Regarding "germany exporting its CO2 production": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
Even if germany would export 100% of its CO2 production it would not significantly increase Chinas ...

In one older post you used the median to compare "poverty" or "wealth" of the USA with Europe.

Sorry, again you behave utterly retarded. The following two lists of numbers have the same median:
1, 2, 8, 8, 19, 32
3, 4, 16, 99, 1000

If you would care to read how the median is defined in this wikipedia article you would realize that using it to compare two countries is completely pointless: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income

In fact if you would understand a little bit ab

Well, you can't be helped.

First off all your conception of poor is very wiered. It is well known that the lower classes of the USA are far far more than in any other first world country.

I doubt there are many europeans that by any standard are considered poor.

In 2009, Germany emitted 750 Mt CO2 to produce 1478 TWh of energy, or 0.5 Mt CO2/TWh (and imports another 2360 TWh). The US emitted 5195 Mt CO2 to produce 19613 TWh of energy, or 0.26 Mt CO2/TWh (and imports 6501 TWh). That not only makes US energy production more efficient than Germany's, it also shows that Germany is fond of exporting its problems elsewhere and then pretending it didn't cause them.

Regarding your numbers, I don't get from where you pick such nonsens numbers. Even as this is in german you should easy be able to pick the tables with "export" and "import" mentioned ... http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energiemarkt

A note to your previous posts, reducingf CO2 footprint has no relation to your economy, No idea why US guys think that.

A aluminium plant needing 5 GW the next 8h does not care if that power comes from a nuclear plant, a coal plant or a wind plant. It needs the 5 GW regardless. So switching from coal to wind reduces CO2 exhaust.

A car produced and sold does not care if the manufactor needed 4GWh to produce the car or 2.5GWh to produce it. The less he needs the cheaper the car is. Investing into saving energy should be a now brainer. Also the customer buying cars does not care how much energy was used. So reducing the energy needed in construction reduces the CO2 emitted during construction, makes the car cheaper and more competitive.

As the USA is not really doing anything to reduce CO2 in their industry production, the current state of the economy has nothing to do with CO2 reduction anyway. So your claims regarding this are complete nonsense.

Here you can read a bit about the EU / China trade: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/09/375&type=HTML or here http://ec.europa.eu/trade/creating-opportunities/bilateral-relations/countries/china/
Perhaps this cures you from your stupid braindead idea germany had reduced its CO2 footprint be "exporting CO2 heavy industries" to China.

Sorry, to say it bluntly: your picture of the world, especially about poverty, economics and energy is pretty dumb and retarded.

One of the reasons Germany's unemployment is nominally so low is because lots of people are engaged in unproductive activities in order to keep them off the streets. Sentences like this and this: given Germany's violent history, this is still probably a good arrangement. prove this. Do you even have any clue since when the last war is over? Definitely you have no clue about employment and unemployment in germany and the EU.

Regarding "germany exporting its CO2 production": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
Even if germany would export 100% of its CO2 production it would not significantly increase Chinas ...

In one older post you used the median to compare "poverty" or "wealth" of the USA with Europe.

Sorry, again you behave utterly retarded. The following two lists of numbers have the same median:
1, 2, 8, 8, 19, 32
3, 4, 16, 99, 1000

If you would care to read how the median is defined in this wikipedia article you would realize that using it to compare two countries is completely pointless: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income

In fact if you would understand a little bit ab

Go ahead and check for yourself.

France has been doing the same thing, but that's not the same WEEE. The one you're talking about is this one, dated from 2003. The "eco-tax" has been applied since 2005, IIRC.

The main difference, as I understand it, is that the 2003 WEEE left it up to the member state to define which scheme to implement, in order to recoup the costs of recycling electronic goods:

From this website:

It is important to note that the WEEE Directive does not stipulate how its aims should be achieved and the system therefore currently varies between member states. A new WEEE Directive is proposed for publication in early 2012 that should solve this problem, among others.

So first of all, where did I say separately?

Not explicitly, but I wanted to avoid a discussion involving the absorption of sunlight by air (e.g. low pressure on a mountain top). As a physicist I don't see how air pressure variations in the range 80-110 kPa would have any measurable effect on the PV efficiency, assuming all other parameters being kept equal. The same for 'humidity' which you mention in this post.

And I have yet to see an inverter last for more than 5 years without any sort of defect

Maybe you have been unlucky. I have a small (600 Wp) PV system on the roof, which is 12 years old now, without inverter problems. So, there is my anecdote.

The insolation values used are questionable.

I assume that you refer to the 1700/1000 kWh/year for South and Middle Europe? According to the official EU data for insolation, this doesn't look unreasonable. Why do you think it is? (Note: the insolation on that map is per horizontal square meter; for example at 1510 kWh/(m2 a) insolation in Northern Spain, an inclined solar panel will do 1730 kWh/(m2 a) and a 2-axis tracking panel will do even 2240 kWh/(m2a).)

panels are actually made in South-East Asia where dirty coal plants without air filters are still in common use.

That may be possible, but that is not the point of our discussion. I appreciate that you have taken the time to clarify your original unreferenced statements, but I still see handwaving arguments that I cannot argue aboutg, such as:

You know very well what I mean.
Obviously temperature is the most important factor, and even that one is often left out of the equation when they do these sort of calculations
the efficiency of the manufacturing process is also significantly lower

Not to defend Dropbox, but over my time as a maintenance programmer at agencies, I've routinely had to export email addresses from user account lists so they could be imported into third party mailing systems for newsletter runs etc - sometimes even large companies don't do all of this inhouse, especially if they are involving a dedicated advertising agency thats doing complicated AB testing or targeted advertising.

That's illegal under European data protection law, if performed without specific (including the advertising agency's customers!) and informed consent (in addition to all the other requirements)

Infact, right this second I have email addresses (infact, significant demographic and personal information directly identifiable to the persons) for roughly 10 million UK social housing people, right here on my personal dev server at home.

And that's even more illegal, unless you have explicit, informed consent and sufficient security.

See 95/46/EC:

1. Member States shall provide that personal data must be:

(a) processed fairly and lawfully;

(b) collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes and not further processed in a way incompatible with those purposes. Further processing of data for historical, statistical or scientific purposes shall not be considered as incompatible provided that Member States provide appropriate safeguards;

(c) adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purposes for which they are collected and/or further processed;

(d) accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date; every reasonable step must be taken to ensure that data which are inaccurate or incomplete, having regard to the purposes for which they were collected or for which they are further processed, are erased or rectified;

(e) kept in a form which permits identification of data subjects for no longer than is necessary for the purposes for which the data were collected or for which they are further processed. Member States shall lay down appropriate safeguards for personal data stored for longer periods for historical, statistical or scientific use.

Why do all these claims about "only American companies" keep popping up all the time, when it is so easily disproven by official statistics?

Because they assume everything that happens is in American news.

That wouldn't be because you are using mostly US news sources would it? Which you would expect to focus on things involving the US and US companies.

Like the 900 million euro fine for Saint Gobain, the 300 million euro fine for Air France, and so on. You can count the number of US versus the number of european companies that have had actions taken against them by digging through http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm?fuseaction=dsp_result&policy_area_id=1&case_title=

Why do all these claims about "only American companies" keep popping up all the time, when it is so easily disproven by official statistics?

Here you go:
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/sectors/ICT/microsoft/index.html

It's not the same set of circumstances.

Apple isn't a monopoly and it has not abused a monopoly position, no where near the same market share as microsoft

The choice people have now regarding browsers could be argued is a result of this litigation by the EU. A good over view is here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Microsoft_competition_case

More specifically here

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/09/15&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

and here

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/04/382&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

I'm probably gonna get modded Troll or something

It's not the same set of circumstances.

Apple isn't a monopoly and it has not abused a monopoly position, no where near the same market share as microsoft

The choice people have now regarding browsers could be argued is a result of this litigation by the EU. A good over view is here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Microsoft_competition_case

More specifically here

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/09/15&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

and here

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/04/382&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

I'm probably gonna get modded Troll or something

The EC members, since 2009, consist of the head of states of every EU countries. Hardly "political appointees". In some countries in Europe the head of state is elected directly by the people.

Actually no. Have a look at the members of the current Commission. Not a head of state among them. Or anybody who was actually voted for by their national electorate.

To put it another way: "4. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, 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."

Aka, it still comes down to whether a British court would approve an extradition request from the US according to British law. So either way it's up to British courts to decide on an extradition request for Assange unless Sweden wants to be blatantly and explicitly in violation of its treaty obligations on one of the highest profile cases out there. The Swedish prime minister has already publicly pointed out that it couldn't extradite Assange to the US if it wanted to without British courts handling the US request according to their own law.

The only difference between Assange being in the UK and Assange being in Sweden is that he doesn't have to stand trial for rape in the UK. Despite all of the bluster to the contrary.

The DNA in certain immune cells can be damaged by terahertz radiation if they're removed from the blood first.

FWIW, the available research is pretty clear that terahertz radiation poses little or no threat to the body under biological conditions. There's lingering concern that it may have a small ability to affect lipid bilayer permeability (which could imbalance how cells pass messages, receive nutrients, and eliminate waste), but over all, a THz exposure is a lot like being bombarded with visible or infrared light: it will warm you up if left on for too long, but it's not really dangerous on its own. The radiation is too high-frequency to excite any of the electrons orbiting the atoms in the human body (which is how UV causes damage), and much, much too low-energy to knock an electron onto a different atom (which is how X-rays and gamma radiation cause damage.) Any effects it does have must be extremely subtle—and the body is very good at handling subtle problems, since we replace almost every cell every ten years on average.

JooJoo Tablet came out before the iPad was even announced I believe.

Well, no, the JooJoo never came out. It was never shipped, you could not buy one. And the iPad was designed long before it came out, look at this Community Design patent from 2004 and tell me this "Handheld computer" isn't the iPad.

Uh-oh, I don't know how I read that into this link. Apologies. But refer to the law instead:

Art. 36. (*) (1) European Arrest Warrant shall be issued for persons who has committed offences, which carry as per the legislation of the requesting country not less than one year imprisonment sentence or a measure requiring detention or another more severe penalty, or if the imposed penalty imprisonment or the requiring detention measure is not shorter than 4 months.

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/polju/en/EJN711.pdf

Well he may have gotten the source wrong, it's not in Interpol's constition, but he was correct about the facts: a European Arrest Warrant requires that the fine for the crime is at least one year of jail time: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/07/st10/st10975.en07.pdf

This is the second time in this thread you've wrongly accused pro-Assange posters of getting the facts wrong, and I've read like 10% so far.

Try looking at ongoing cartel and anti-trust cases inthe Commission's official case database.
Of course, DSD, Europay, Scandlines Sverige, Ã-sterreichische Banken and similar companies are all as genuinely American as one can be.

Please, let him know that what he is doing is wrong and that the european people do not want this. Here is his contact information: http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/degucht/contact/

Karel De Gucht
Member of the European Commission
BE-1049 Brussels
Belgium

By mail: Karel.DE-GUCHT@ec.europa.eu
By fax: (+32-02) 29 80899

ACTA isn't quite dead yet, it's just "a little sick".

There's the up/down vote on it in the Parliament scheduled for the 6 July, but the recommendation from the international trade committee is "no".

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/pressroom/content/20120614IPR46889/html/Parliament-should-say-NO-to-ACTA-says-International-Trade-Committee

Why does such a thing as a secret ballot even exist in what is supposed to be a democracy? Democratic controls in Europe are tenuous at best, but at least we can see how the guys we voted into office are voting. Except when they don't feel like being held accountable, apparently (only 1/5th of MEPs need to agree to voting in secret)

I'm a pro-Europe constituent, but it's crap like this that casts serious doubts on the way we've implemented "Europe".

Last time it was child porn, now it's the terrorists. This gets old fast.

If by that you mean that the next step will be "infringing content" you are absolutely correct... oh wait...

This could for instance include defamation terrorism related content, IPR infringements, illegal online gambling, child abuse content, misleading advertisements or incitement to hatred or violence on the basis of race, origin, religion, gender, sexual orientation etc.

It was probably the UK that put "defamation" in the same list. All hail the Web STASI!

That's only for consumers sales.

The EU directive in question is 1999/44/EC. The full wording is contained here (open the word documtent and scroll to page 7) but the important bit is this: 'A two-year guarantee applies for the sale of all consumer goods everywhere in the EU. In some countries, this may be more, and some manufacturers also choose to offer a longer warranty period.'

Google that quote :-)

the problem isn't germany, the problem is that governements consistently and structurally spend more then their income, which means their debt keeps rising.

figures can be found here, info dating back to 1995, which gives us the following info:

- out of the 27 countries listed there 2 big exceptions: Norway and Bulgaria. Both have been paying of their debt
- 2 more honorable mentions: Denmark and Sweden, who have atleast had a number of consecutavie years of debt going down (but still have an overall rise)
- every other country, including Germany, has the same structural problem: they consistently spend more then theire income.

In other words it's a lack of basic common sense in politicians (or more like an attitude of 'why should I care I'll be long gone by the time it becomes a problem')

The law doesn't prevent looking forward. The law prevents the prohibition of building in areas that may be in danger based on the wildest of predictions that may have been exagerated or simply wrong.

Believe it or not, sometimes, the models are wrong. You will notice, however, that the scientists always say, "we were wrong in our last model, but this time, we are correct!" For example:

As someone with family on the coast of NC, I can tell you that anything preventing people from developing there is a good idea.

Putting aside your claim that sea level predictions are exaggerated (I'd dispute this, but it's irrelevant), you still have to deal with the fact that you're often building on shifting sand, quite literally.

The whole area of coastal NC is full of examples of developers wanting to destroy pristine ecology, to build infrastructure that will be destroyed anyway with the next hurricane. I'd say to hell with the developers--let their buildings get destroyed; I've seen it before. However, they're not the ones dealing with the aftermath, it's the people they con and the environment they've destroyed.

Even if the sea level rises are exaggerated, anything that would be in that disputed prediction range is at risk anyway currently, without any sea level change.

If the developers cared at all about safety or the environment, they'd back off for all sorts of other reasons.

An actual law to prevent looking forward. For North Carolina Republicans, the entire world is in the rear view mirror.

The law doesn't prevent looking forward. The law prevents the prohibition of building in areas that may be in danger based on the wildest of predictions that may have been exagerated or simply wrong.

Believe it or not, sometimes, the models are wrong. You will notice, however, that the scientists always say, "we were wrong in our last model, but this time, we are correct!" For example:

We conclude that most climate models mix heat too efficiently into the deep ocean and as a result underestimate the negative forcing by human-made aerosols. Aerosol climate forcing today is inferred to be 1.6 ± 0.3 W m2, implying substantial aerosol indirect climate forcing via cloud changes. Continued failure to quantify the specific origins of this large forcing is untenable, as knowledge of changing aerosol effects is needed to understand future climate change. We conclude that recent slowdown of ocean heat uptake was caused by a delayed rebound effect from Mount Pinatubo aerosols and a deep prolonged solar minimum. Observed sea level rise during the Argo float era is readily accounted for by ice melt and ocean thermal expansion, but the ascendency of ice melt leads us to anticipate acceleration of the rate of sea level rise this decade..

-- J. Hansen, M. Sato, P. Kharecha, and K. von Schuckmann

In other words, we can't accurately predict heat distribution because we don't understand the effect aerosols have on the climate, but we still predict an acceleration of sea level rise.

I really like the EU "law" / guide that the UK law was made from (found here).

Let me quote part 25 (with some added emphasis):

However, such devices, for instance so-called "cookies", can be a legitimate and useful tool, for example, in analysing the effectiveness of website design and advertising, and in verifying the identity of users engaged in on-line transactions.

Where such devices, for instance cookies, are intended for a legitimate purpose, such as to facilitate the provision of information society services, their use should be allowed on condition that users are provided with clear and precise information in accordance with Directive 95/46/EC about the purposes of cookies or similar devices so as to ensure that users are made aware of information being placed on the terminal equipment they are using.

Users should have the opportunity to refuse to have a cookie or similar device stored on their terminal equipment. This is particularly important where users other than the original user have access to the terminal equipment and thereby to any data containing privacy-sensitive information stored on such equipment.

Information and the right to refuse may be offered once for the use of various devices to be installed on the user's terminal equipment during the same connection and also covering any further use that may be made of those devices during subsequent connections.

The methods for giving information, offering a right to refuse or requesting consent should be made as user-friendly as possible. Access to specific website content may still be made conditional on the well-informed acceptance of a cookie or similar device, if it is used for a legitimate purpose.

So if they refuse to have a cookie or similar device stored on their device, we need to know that the user opted out for that and following connections. Since it's a legitimate purpose, we can store that information. But only if the user does not opt out to storing that information, which .. he already has .. What is this I don't even .. Are those fuckers completely clueless to basic logic?

Too bad neither Microsoft nor Google makes a search engine for you to go search for stuff like this huh?

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/cartels/cases/cases.html

Don't forget, IPRED is already in force, so the announced revision is not a 'new law' nor a 'treaty'.

Unless I'm mistaken, the relevany EU document is this and the relevant paragraph is:

Third parties may wish to store information on the equipment of a user, or gain access to information already stored, for a number of purposes, ranging from the legitimate (such as certain types of cookies) to those involving unwarranted intrusion into the private sphere (such as spyware or viruses). It is therefore of paramount importance that users be provided with clear and comprehensive information when engaging in any activity which could result in such storage or gaining of access. The methods of providing information and offering the right to refuse should be as user-friendly as possible. Exceptions to the obligation to provide information and offer the right to refuse should be limited to those situations where the technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user. Where it is technically possible and effective, in accordance with the relevant provisions of Directive 95/46/EC, the user’s consent to processing may be expressed by using the appropriate settings of a browser or other application. The enforcement of these requirements should be made more effective by way of enhanced powers granted to the relevant national authorities.

In other words, the directive says that when a service tracks users, it should provide clear and comprehensive information about that in as user-friendly way as possible... And specifically says that methods such as users being able to select this in browser settings are fine... and that you don't need to explicitly tell them that you track them the way they expect such a service would track them.

Looking voer your links, link one comes from a report by 'Coalition for GM-Free India,' which I suppose I'd have to look over, but given that those claims contradict data and those organizations with GMO Free in the title rarely have a reputation of honesty (which I know is a poor argument but giving their report a quick look over doesn't really blow me away), it isn't high on my to do list. Link two is about resistance, and that has more to do with cultivation issues, in not unique to any strain of resistant plant, GE or not, so to call it a failure is not very nuanced or accurate. Third links is the same source as the first, and the fourth mentions that there has been a downward trend from earlier years, and even mentions Bt cotton as a reason.

Huber's work was never published. He made some pretty extraordinary claims, then never published his data, so if you are calling that important research, well, that isn't good. I can't really comment on it besides pointing out some of the absurdity and inaccuracy of his claims because there is nothing but claims, no fact, to talk about. You can not disprove him because he has nothing solid to disprove. The CSMonitor link isn't too hot either, failing to consider a number of important details. The Séralini study in the next link has been widely criticized for shoddy methodology and unsupported conclusions, including by the EFSA, FSANA, and the French HCB. Citing him does not advance your position among those who closely follow this topic, nor does citing Huber.

As for the next two links, it would not hesitate to believe them. I do not mean to imply that Monsanto does no wrong, especially with some of the chemicals they have produced in the past. The EPA link looks like they made made a mistake (since companies don't normally not brand their premium products). The bribery link is bad, although hardly unique for a company, and usually is unfortunately required to do business in certain places (not that this excuses it, just that you are talking about big business, not solely Monsanto). As for the last link, biopiracy is a stupid crime designed to get money from companies, and IIRC (it would be akin to me saying that because I live in an area where mayapple naturally grows that I deserve a cut from the profits of a company using the podophyllotoxin in mayappe to produce cancer drugs), Monsanto filed the proper paperwork, and someone else made the mistake elsewhere. Not really damning. The link in you second post looks like a mix of fact, science by jury (and a French one at that), and hot air (and naturally doesn't mention them doing things like compensating farmers in South Africa for their wrongly hybridized corn seed).

So, I stand by what I said. Most of the things out there about Monsanto are baseless. If they are so bad, base the accusations on fact. Also, since you bring up biodiversity, GE is a way of improving plants, biodiversity is what you grow. Two different things, and while you could accuse companies of reducing biodiversity, that is what agri