Slashdot Mirror

[...] by providing passengers with the possibility to undergo alternative screening methods, this Regulation, together with the specific implementing rules adopted pursuant to Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 300/2008, respects fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, including respect for human dignity and for private and family life, the right to the protection of personal data, the rights of the child, the right to freedom of religion and the prohibition of discrimination. This Regulation must be applied according to these rights and principles.

and

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Commission Regulation (EU) No 1141/2011 of 10 November 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 272/2009 supplementing the common basic standards on civil aviation security as regards the use of security scanners at EU airports

I believe you are totally unaware of the realities in the E.U. We have the Free Movement principle in the European Union:

http://ec.europa.eu/social/mai...

In fact, there was strongly growing emigration from countries like Spain and Greece (to stronger economies like Germany).

Source:
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/t...

I believe you are totally unaware of the realities in the E.U. We have the Free Movement principle in the European Union:

http://ec.europa.eu/social/mai...

In fact, there was strongly growing emigration from countries like Spain and Greece (to stronger economies like Germany).

Source:
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/t...

EFTA membership is important here I suspect:

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

FTFA: "He said that the airline told them that they would not be refunded the $13,340 cost of their flights. They were also forced to return everything they bought at the airport’s duty-free shops before being escorted from the airport."

EU law states that:
If you are denied boarding or your flight is cancelled or overbooked, you are entitled to either:

        transport to your final destination using comparable alternative means, or
        having your ticket refunded and, where relevant, being returned free of charge to your initial departure point.

http://europa.eu/youreurope/ci...

Can you give an example?

Like the EU Data Protection Directive, you mean?
In particular article 8, which specifically prohibits processing data that reveals political opinions, unless some very narrow criteria (including explicit consent unless prohibited by national law, or use by law enforcement) are met. A "voting likelihood" database for the purpose of contacting potential voters would clearly be illegal.

Links to the FACT that Intel was convicted of anti-trust against AMD keeps getting modded down.

So here it is again:

E.U. Commission press release detailing their conviction of Intel.

The European Commission has imposed a fine of €1 060 000 000 on Intel Corporation for violating EC Treaty antitrust rules on the abuse of a dominant market position (Article 82) by engaging in illegal anticompetitive practices to exclude competitors from the market for computer chips called x86 central processing units (CPUs). The Commission has also ordered Intel to cease the illegal practices immediately to the extent that they are still ongoing. Throughout the period October 2002-December 2007, Intel had a dominant position in the worldwide x86 CPU market (at least 70% market share).

Intel was CONVICTED of monopoly abuse. This is an irrefutable fact. There are a lot of people here either claiming that they were never convicted or downmodding those that are revealing the truth. The site I linked to is the official press release site of the E.U. Commission.

AMD settled one of their entirely valid lawsuits:

Fixed that for you.

In another lawsuit, Intel was convicted of anti-trust violations.

The European Commission has imposed a fine of €1 060 000 000 on Intel Corporation for violating EC Treaty antitrust rules on the abuse of a dominant market position (Article 82) by engaging in illegal anticompetitive practices to exclude competitors from the market for computer chips called x86 central processing units (CPUs). The Commission has also ordered Intel to cease the illegal practices immediately to the extent that they are still ongoing. Throughout the period October 2002-December 2007, Intel had a dominant position in the worldwide x86 CPU market (at least 70% market share). The Commission found that Intel engaged in two specific forms of illegal practice. First, Intel gave wholly or partially hidden rebates to computer manufacturers on condition that they bought all, or almost all, their x86 CPUs from Intel. Intel also made direct payments to a major retailer on condition it stock only computers with Intel x86 CPUs.

No, they weren't convicted.

Yes they were, and here is the courts press release of the conviction.

A settlement is not a conviction

A settlement is not a conviction for sure, and the fact that there was an unrelated settlement doesnt negate the fact that Intel was convicted of flagrant monopoly abuse and ordered to (among other things) "cease illegal practices" (a direct quote.)

Why are Intel shills such lying fucks?

As best I can tell from wading through the delightfully obscure document, aircraft parts should be ROHS-exempt(either Article 2, section 4, one or more of subsections c, f, or g).

Have they tightened things further, or do you suspect that somebody in the supply chain got tired of stocking ROHS and non-ROHS versions and Airbus, or the Air Asia maintenance people, didn't browbeat their supplies hard enough to get what they wanted?

Ah, alcohol... What concentration?

The thing is that everyone seems to say different things about stability. this page suggests that when not in solution it's more stable. There's a guy here saying that storage in ethanol causes loss of potency. Here it's recommended to keep it dry and same here, but they're clearly having blotter in mind. This one says it's very unstable as blotter but can be kept in aqueous with preservatives.

Haven't really tried the 1P yet. Did a 50 mic test dose about 6 weeks ago and not much happened. Last week was a very intense mushroom trip, so I'm going to stay sober for at least 4 weeks or so before going for the 1P.

You act like the US is the only one that complains about this.

http://www.techeye.net/busines...
http://www.theguardian.com/bus...
http://www.theguardian.com/bus...
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/...
http://www.scmp.com/news/world...

Heck, it has been all over the news that Europe is flipping their shit about their companies moving to tax havens and offshoring profits.

There are no international norms, all countries (except the tax havens) are bitching about this happening.

Do you want to outlaw something traded under this agreement in your own country?
Nope! Your government will be tried in an international court!

It's not even a court. It's an ad-hoc panel that consists of private lawyers. Worse: very expensive lawyers that spend most of their time representing parties in front of similar panels. They can even rule over complaints filed by parties that they have previously represented.

I would strongly recommend to read the analysis of ISDS by the European Economic and Social Committee, as it appears in CETA (a TPP-style agreement between the EU and Canada that is now also in the ratification phase). It contains a lot of interesting information and citations of other documents.

>(of which there are none, they only apply to ISPs)

Nope:
The Court of Justice declares the Data Retention Directive to be invalid [...] The Court takes the view that, by requiring the retention of those data and by allowing the competent national authorities to access those data, the directive interferes in a particularly serious manner with the fundamental rights to respect for private life and to the protection of personal data.

MEPs seem to be almost 50-50. By comparison:

By 285 votes to 281, MEPs decided to call on EU member states to "drop any criminal charges against Edward Snowden, grant him protection and consequently prevent extradition or rendition by third parties, in recognition of his status as whistle-blower and international human rights defender".

Maybe they weren't.

The real vote wasn't 285 to 281. It was 342 to 274. Not "Close".

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

Look at the West now: no one is poor, not by any reasonable definition of the word. Barring drug addiction or mental illness, everyone has enough to eat, a roof over their heads, a mobile telephone, a television, and likely even a car.

Wow, can I have... uh... your blindfold?

"not by any reasonable definition of the word"

Maybe your own blindfold hid that line.

Not at all - BTW that line was in my quote.

Good to know that you & bradley13 are the reference on what is reasonable or not, tho.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in January 2012 annual point-in-time count found that 633,782 people across America were homeless.

Statistics on poverty in USA

Homelessness levels have risen recently in most parts of Europe. The crisis seems to have aggravated the situation.

Statistics for poverty in Europe

Statistics on homeless for Europe (PDF)

Look at the West now: no one is poor, not by any reasonable definition of the word. Barring drug addiction or mental illness, everyone has enough to eat, a roof over their heads, a mobile telephone, a television, and likely even a car.

Wow, can I have... uh... your blindfold?

"not by any reasonable definition of the word"

Maybe your own blindfold hid that line.

Not at all - BTW that line was in my quote.

Good to know that you & bradley13 are the reference on what is reasonable or not, tho.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in January 2012 annual point-in-time count found that 633,782 people across America were homeless.

Statistics on poverty in USA

Homelessness levels have risen recently in most parts of Europe. The crisis seems to have aggravated the situation.

Statistics for poverty in Europe

Statistics on homeless for Europe (PDF)

Not that the US business can be sued ....

That is one of the problems mentioned by the EU court:

Likewise, the Court observes that legislation not providing for any possibility for an individual to pursue legal remedies in order to have access to personal data relating to him, or to obtain the rectification or erasure of such data, compromises the essence of the fundamental right to effective judicial protection, the existence of such a possibility being inherent in the existence of the rule of law.

Source

He's not "joking around", the rant is like a page and a half long, describing it as vastly more dangerous than Pu-239, with a long line of superlatives for how to describe its incredible "danger".

Either you and I have very different ideas about what Andy Weir wrote, or else your copy of the book is different from mine. Since mine is an ebook, I can search it, and the string "239" has zero hits in my copy of the book.

Here's what my copy says:

...[NASA] never used large RTGs on manned missions until the Ares Program.

Why not? It should be pretty damned obvious why not! They didn't want to put astronauts next to a glowing hot ball of radioactive death!

I'm exaggerating a little. The plutonium is inside a bunch of pellets, each one sealed and insulated to prevent radiation leakage, even if the outer container is breached.

In fairness to your complaint, there is dialog later that goes like this:

"How dangerous is it?" Teddy asked.

"As long as the container's intact, no danger at all. Even if it cracks open, he'll be okay if the pellets inside don't break. But if the pellets break, too, he's a dead man."

Emphasis added by me, not in the original.

From what you have said, it's not nearly that dangerous.

I still say that The Martian is the best "hard" science fiction novel I have read in years, and the "hardest" science fiction novel I have read in years. And I predict that his next novel will have fewer mistakes; this one he wrote and gave away for free, and while he has said that he did go back and rewrite sections when he got feedback that he had screwed something up, I guess nobody told him that the RTG was less dangerous than he thought. On his next novel, he will be able to get stuff fact-checked because he's making new friends everywhere. (In an interview he said people asked him who he knew at NASA and he said nobody... before he wrote it.)

Back to joking around... one of my favorite bits from the book:

Only an idiot would keep [the RTG] near the Hab. So anyway, I brought it back to the Hab.

Either it'll kill me or it won't. A lot of work went into making sure it doesn't break. If I can't trust NASA, who can I trust?

Whatever you think about Andy Weir's safety rants on RTGs, he did have his main character using it just to take a hot bath, and at no point does the main character have any actual trouble with it.

Microwave communications are based on photons, aka chargeless particles, aka no Lorentz force, aka no deflection.

I didn't intend to imply that a magnetic field would stop photons, but rather that the hab canvas might have a layer of something that made the hab into a Faraday cage. Maybe a layer of a low-temperature superconductor or something.

I hadn't actually thought much about the geometry of the superconducting coils that would be needed to make a magnetic shield to deflect charged particles. Now that I think about it, a layer in the Hab's outer skin is unlikely to be the right shape...

I Googled a bit and found this article with diagrams. On the plus side for my theory, if something like that was on the Hab to deflect radiation, I do think it would act as a Faraday cage. On the minus side, the Hab as described in the novel didn't have anything like that.

http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/news/shields-manned-space-exploration

By the way, I also had to Google for GCR. You know more about this stuff than I do. GCR == "Galactic Cosmic Rays"

So how common are stray gamma rays, and since you brought them up, stray neutrons on the surface of Mars?

Also, there is an old trope from science fiction about burying an exploration base to provide it with thermal and radiation shielding. If some

It's been around for a while. It has the block power of zinc oxide without being white.

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

This article is not clear about which nanoparticles they are using, but we already have effective sunblocks using nanoparticles.

Drinking water is a big one, particularly in eastern European EU countries:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tra...

For a more general source (including Northern and Western European violators:

http://ec.europa.eu/environmen...

At this rate, I don't see anything suggesting that we're really seriously taking the steps needed to get off of fossil fuels before it gets ugly.

Maybe you should try researching what's going on before posting then.

Most terror incidents in the US aren't committed by Muslims either, not that there are all that many to begin with. The same can be said for Europe, in which about only 5% of a decreasing number of incidents each year are religious in motive.

Go look it up.

OK.

http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-...

http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-...

Go look it up.

OK.

http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-...

http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-...

http://ec.europa.eu/social/mai...

I think you missed that,

The EUâ(TM)s Working Time Directive (2003/88/EC) requires EU countries to guarantee the following rights for all workers:

        a limit to weekly working hours, which must not exceed 48 hours on average, including any overtime
        a minimum daily rest period of 11 consecutive hours in every 24
        a rest break during working hours if the worker is on duty for longer than 6 hours
        a minimum weekly rest period of 24 uninterrupted hours for each 7-day period, in addition to the 11 hours' daily rest
        paid annual leave of at least 4 weeks per year
        extra protection for night work, e.g.
                average working hours must not exceed 8 hours per 24-hour period,
                night workers must not perform heavy or dangerous work for longer than 8 hours in any 24-hour period,
                night workers have the right to free health assessments and, under certain circumstances, to transfer to day work.

As you can see, your idea kind of doesn't work in EU.

Anybody else reading this in Europe ?

I suggest you do what I did. Contact the EU Data Commission and demand they take action against Microsoft spying on their users. This is not acceptable in any way, shape or form and is illegal in Europe.

Seriously. If enough people get off their arse, complain, and keep complaining this shit will get thrown out of Europe. We still have some notion of the respect of an individuals privacy and aren't ruled by corporations to quite the same extent as the US.

Why are you still reading this ? Go and make a formal complaint NOW.

Natural reserves of tritium do not exist on Earth, but it can be made easily from lithium. In fact, tritium can be made using the high-energy neutron released from the fusion reaction and offers the possibility of making tritium in situ in a fusion reactor. The neutron is absorbed by the lithium to produce tritium.

In English, Irish, Latvian, and Maltese, the Euro symbol is placed before the value. This is actually encoded in official European Union usage guidelines.

Greek town switched to LibreOffice

Methinks Microsoft has observed significant penetration by open course office suites and is ramping up for a PR war.

"last year the organization decided to switch back to Microsoft and use its cloud productivity suite Office 365"

What were the terms of the financial deal Microsoft made with the municipality?

What was the name of the company tasked with the Open Office migration?

Free software advocates heckle town of Pesaro

In Europe we have been reducing out energy consumption (down 9% from the peak in 2006) while increasing our quality of life. That is despite population growth, and the admission of new rapidly developing nations to the EU.

It's cheaper to save energy than it is to install new capacity, and doing so improves your life. Why waste energy heating and cooling your home when you can insulate it once and then enjoy a pleasant, temperate environment with minimal effort? Air conditioning gives you the chills and heating dries the air out. Insulation is much better.

Why drive a really inefficient car? You are just wasting money on fuel and polluting the environment that you live in, which then damages your health. Thanks to manufacturers being forced to improve modern engines are much more efficient while still delivering plenty of power. You can bet that without regulation they wouldn't be - just look at other products such as vacuum cleaners and hair dryers - the market created products with massive, inefficient motors instead of good cleaning/drying ability until regulations fixed them.

Ever increasing energy consumption is a nightmare scenario. I want my phone to last a week on a tiny light weight battery, that's progress. I want my environment to be clean. I want products that don't produce waste heat that I then need to vent in the summer or crank up the AC to compensate for. I want a stable population because the infrastructure can only take so many personal vehicles before I end up wasting half my life in traffic jams.

Many of the biggest improvements we can make now involve reducing energy consumption.

Thanks, I will read those links in detail.

I came across Cx quite some months ago, but I recall dismissing it because I found it not production ready.

On a side note, I do happen to work closely with systems requiring DO-254 certification, mostly FPGA and ASIC. Not sure most HLD will easily fit in, but I'm always open to explore and suggest if feasible.

EASA SWCEH-001 memo is probably more detailed on requirements than DO-254. You should read it if you're interested in this area.

Alvie

That's why there are EU programs to compensate for that.

IOW, Greece is paid extra money to cover the negative saldo.

See here. Greece gets from EU ~7Bln Euro, out of which 57% go to the "regional policy".

If you do it by creating money out of thin air - yes, it shouldn't count as much. And that's what Germany and France were essentially doing all along.

And yes, I do have actual data to prove it: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/s...

If you check the numbers in details, it turns out that almost half of the German economic growth during the 2002-2008 period is solely because of this debt export to the periphery.

Yes. That was 40 years before any talk of the Euro. So what's that got to do with "designing a currency"?

The EU disagrees with you

Winston Churchill calls for a "kind of United States of Europe" in a speech he gives at the University of Zurich.

Perhaps you would like to learn about it ?

http://europa.eu/index_en.htm

  Or are you going to say you can have a united states circa 1945 without a national currency ?

Did New York and Detroit benefit equally from the same national monetary and trade policies ?

Probably not, but what's that got to do with "designing" a currency, or Greece?

LOL I have to wonder if you are stupid or trolling ? If you are this dense

Here
https://www.google.com/search?...

Go to town. If you're a troll well at this point I am done feeding you.

Greece has a press in Athens to print 20 euro notes and has recently started talking about using it to make up their Euro shortfall.

My understanding is that Greece only prints 10 Euro notes. Source: The ECB.

First of all, Greece has steadfastly refused to implement a majority of the measures demanded during the last five years. Their tax system is still in shambles (most of their economy did and is running on the black market), and their government is the most corrupt in Europe (source: The EU Anti-corruption report). Second of all, they cooked their books. Yes Goldman Sachs helped them and people there should go to jail for it, but you're making it out like the greek government doesn't understand basic economy and/or are financial addicts and should be held not guilty. I don't really feel that kind of people are fit to run a country.

Thirdly, the debt is owned by the ECB and IMF, not private banks. Private banks pulled out a long time ago. If the Greeks default, that means they're not repaying the loans owned to the EUs taxpayers, not the banks.

..and he got terminated from all of his positions.

He resigned from an honorary position at University College London. His day job is Principal Scientist at Cancer Research UK. As far as I can find out, he still has that job.

For the record, the unemployment rate in the EU is 9,6% on average.

Source: Eurostat

Probably not a reply to me... but I knew that (hence my earlier sarcasm). Even so it's still not the full picture. Europe supports a higher percentage of immigrants (whereas the USA has a very large number of invisible immigrants integral to their economy who don't figure in the official statistics), has less working hours per week (figures based on full time work - which doesn't account for the large number of working poor in the USA, e.g. the staff at Costco, Wallmart, Waffle House, and just about anywhere you buy fast food - that work two jobs). From that I strongly suspect that for the vast majority - not being employed in Europe is a lot better than not being employed in the USA.

Retirement
USA
Currently, the full benefit age is 66 for people born in 1943-1954, and it will gradually rise to 67 for those born in 1960 or later.

Country Ave State
France 59.4 60
Greece 60 65 (m) 60 (w)
Italy 60.4 65 (m) 60 (w)
Germany 62 65
Spain 62.1 65
Portugal 62.6 65
UK 62.6 65 (m) 60 (w)
Netherlands 63.9 65
Ireland 64.1 66
Norway 64.4 62

Av = Average retirement age, State = State pension age

It's far from "unrelated" to the EU.

After the accession to the Treaty of Amsterdam in 2004 (after a popular referendum in 2003), Estonia was obliged to be a member in good standing of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the court of which (ECtHR) is only nominally independent of the European Union.

The ECtHR and ECHR are administered by the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE, see below), which is dominated by EU member-states and in which since the Treaty of Lisbon the EU's institutions themselves directly participate. The explicit goal of the EU is ever closer cooperation with the COE, specifically that means greater subsidiarity, as in courts across the EU that are local or specialist in nature, and legislative assemblies at all levels, will take into consideration the previous decisions of the ECtHR, and the guiding principles laid out by the PACE with respect to human rights law. The reasoning is that this will lead to less litigation and fewer appeals (which benefits individuals), and facilitate the progression to higher courts (including the ECtHR) with novel or difficult human rights questions.

This is what the Commission of the European Union says about the ECtHR:

http://europa.eu/legislation_s...

This is what the UK Parliamentary all-party website says about the PACE. Much of the "tear up the UKHRA, withdraw from ECHR, Brexit if necessary!" faction in the UK Parliament are well aware of the work that their benchmates (and sometimes they themselves) do in PACE, which is almost always much more constructive and progressive than their public positions would suggest:

http://www.parliament.uk/mps-l...

So, it's not "unrelated" because it [a] all of the member-states of the EU participate in it at all levels, [b] the EU's principal organs (the Commission, the Council, the Courts and the Parliament) and the court in question have had a formal partnership since 2012, and [c] while there are other non-EU members and observers of the COE, the COE strongly reflects the consensus of the EU and its member-states by virtue of numbers (which makes sense, as the EU itself forms the largest part of the human-geographical area with which the COE is most directly concerned).

It is only barely safe to say that the ECtHR is independent of the EU; that's still true formally, but the lines have been deliberately blurred by the EU and the COE deliberately in recent years, because that makes for more efficient administration of human rights law in the EU itself, and opens up greater access to the ECtHR by non-EU-member-states (i.e., the idea is that UK or ES cases won't clog up the ECtHR to the point where cases from UA or TR have difficulty being considered).

there is the EUCD, but that doesn't apply in England either - it's a European directive.

What we have is loosely based on the EU E-Commerce Directive, Article XIV: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal...

"(14) The protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data is solely governed by Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data(19) and Directive 97/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the telecommunications sector(20) which are fully applicable to information society services; these Directives already establish a Community legal framework in the field of personal data and therefore it is not necessary to cover this issue in this Directive in order to ensure the smooth functioning of the internal market, in particular the free movement of personal data between Member States; the implementation and application of this Directive should be made in full compliance with the principles relating to the protection of personal data, in particular as regards unsolicited commercial communication and the liability of intermediaries; this Directive cannot prevent the anonymous use of open networks such as the Internet."

There is no set process to order the removal of copyrighted material in English Law, beyond the copyright HOLDER (NOT an agent, agents have NO STANDING in English Civil Law) making a civil complaint and obtaining a court order. Aside from that, I could publish every single front page of the Times ever published on a blog and there won't be fuck all NC could say about it if I commented on every one of them. If they can't prove commercial profit motive on my part (like say blatantly offering reprints on placemats), they don't even have a case.

No, it is not !

Under the Data Protection Directive , collecting and processing the personal data of individuals is only legitimate in one of the following circumstances laid down by Article 7 of the Directive:

- Where the individual concerned, (the 'data subject'), has unambiguously given his or her consent, after being adequately informed; or - if data processing is needed for a contract, for example, for billing, a job application or a loan request; or - if processing is required by a legal obligation; or - if processing is necessary in order to protect the vital interest of the data subject, for example, processing of medical data of a victim of a car accident; or - if processing is necessary to perform tasks of public interests or tasks carried out by government, tax authorities, the police or other public bodies; or - if the data controller or a third party has a legitimate interest in doing so, as long as this interest does not affect the interests of the data subject, or infringe on his or her fundamental rights, in particular the right to privacy. This provision establishes the need to strike a reasonable balance between the data controllers' business interests and the privacy of data subjects.

It shall be noted that Article 8 prohibits the processing of personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, trade-union membership, and the processing of data concerning health or sex life unless one of the exception criteria is met.

First of all: this is a directive (it is more than 2 decades old, and it become -some of its provisions- law in my country Greece just a couple of years ago), plus... read the the part in bold.

No, it is not !

Under the Data Protection Directive , collecting and processing the personal data of individuals is only legitimate in one of the following circumstances laid down by Article 7 of the Directive:

- Where the individual concerned, (the 'data subject'), has unambiguously given his or her consent, after being adequately informed; or
  - if data processing is needed for a contract, for example, for billing, a job application or a loan request; or
- if processing is required by a legal obligation; or
- if processing is necessary in order to protect the vital interest of the data subject, for example, processing of medical data of a victim of a car accident; or
- if processing is necessary to perform tasks of public interests or tasks carried out by government, tax authorities, the police or other public bodies; or
- if the data controller or a third party has a legitimate interest in doing so, as long as this interest does not affect the interests of the data subject, or infringe on his or her fundamental rights, in particular the right to privacy. This provision establishes the need to strike a reasonable balance between the data controllers' business interests and the privacy of data subjects.

It shall be noted that Article 8 prohibits the processing of personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, trade-union membership, and the processing of data concerning health or sex life unless one of the exception criteria is met.

Operate: yes Breaking the law in individual countries: no

I agree, BUT "the law in individual [EU member] countries" is the European Union's law!

Unless you can provide a link to what you're talking about and how it applies to the privacy laws in Belgium *and* the EU, this is a he says, she says situation.

Ha... if i could provide a link to make this clear, then much of the critisism of us Europeans about our Union would cease to exist...

Anyway, you can try this (good luck my friend!): http://ec.europa.eu/justice/ci...

'The Greens in the German parliament want the Foreign Ministry to revert back to open source software solutions on its workstations. The ministry in 2010 abandoned its open source desktop strategy, pressured by staffers struggling with interoperability problems. The Greens are now asking the ministry to justify the proprietary licence costs it has made since then.'

2030 commitment implies 2020 commitment (as you are not expected to get there overnight)
Besides, there already is 2020 commitment (EU):

The Renewable Energy Directive sets rules for the EU to achieve its 20% renewables target by 2020.

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en...

Germany is already beyond that, though, with 30%+ of electricity coming from renewable sources (as of 2014).

... you cherry-picked a quote out of it:

Of the two forms of pollution, the carbon dioxide increase is probably the more influential at the present time in changing temperatures near the earth's surface (Mitchell, 1973a).

While completely ignoring the very next sentence:

"If both the CO2 and particulate inputs to the atmosphere grow at equal rates in the future, the widely differing atmospheric residence times of the two pollutants means that the particulate effect will grow in importance relative to that of CO2."

If, Jane. If both the CO2 and particulate inputs to the atmosphere grow at equal rates in the future. But that didn't happen after ~1975 in the U.S.A. or in Europe.

... In the context of the recent GLOBAL COOLING, it states:

While the natural variations of climate have been larger than those that may have been induced by human activities during the past century, the rapidity with which human impacts threaten to grow in the future, and increasingly to disturb the natural course of events, is a matter of concern....

Now, I know you are completely inept when it comes to context, but that statement is the overarching context of their later comments (given above) about CO2 and aerosols. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-04]

Even if I'm completely inept when it comes to context, it seems to me like those statements apply to both carbon dioxide and aerosols. And they were right about both. Globally, we just stopped emitting so much SO2 after ~1975 but kept emitting CO2 even faster.

... They clearly express concern that man's influence is increasing, and suggest that aerosols could very well overwhelm CO2 if the current trends continued. So don't try to give me crap about what I understand and what I don't. I'm not cherry-picking, YOU did. I just gave the LARGER context of the statement that you cherry-picked out of it. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-04]

If the current emissions trends in 1975 had continued, the global dimming caused by aerosols could have overwhelmed warming by CO2. That's a perfectly reasonable if statement. But since global aerosol emissions declined after ~1975 (see fig 1), that if statement doesn't apply to our universe.

As I have stated so many times in the past, this is exactly the kind of behavior I have come to expect from you, and why I do not engage you in debate. I may make mistakes, but at least I am honest. I have pointed out many times where you were clearly were not. And that was one of them. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-04]

Good grief, Jane. It's bizarre to be accused of not being honest because I didn't quote an if statement from a report that doesn't apply to our universe where aerosol emissions declined after ~1975.

I quoted the 1975 NAS statement that CO2 warming could be "about 0.5C between now and the end of the century" because it applies to our universe. The 2007 IPCC estimate of radiative forcing up to 2005 shows that aerosol emissions roughly cancelled al

hey dumbass
"Special precautions need to be taken when personal data is transferred to countries outside the EEA that do not provide EU-standard data protection"
"Whereas the difference in levels of protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals, notably the right to privacy"
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUr...