Slashdot Mirror

7. The cooperation between online content-sharing service providers and rightholders shall not result in the prevention of the availability of works or other subject matter uploaded by users, which do not infringe copyright and related rights, including where such works or other subject matter are covered by an exception or limitation.
Member States shall ensure that users in each Member State are able to rely on any of the following existing exceptions or limitations when uploading and making available content generated by users on online content-sharing services:
(a)quotation, criticism, review;
(b)use for the purpose of caricature, parody or pastiche.

Furthermore

9. Member States shall provide that online content-sharing service providers put in place an effective and expeditious complaint and redress mechanism that is available to users of their services in the event of disputes over the disabling of access to, or the removal of, works or other subject matter uploaded by them.

Considering this, I looks like they already expect there to be plenty of "false positives". And just blocking all the uploads from inside the EU wouldn't be fine either in the eyes of the directive.
But what could they possibly do if you still block everything, including 'fair use' content, and you don't implement those complaint mechanism; because they cost you extra money?
If you're operating from outside of their jurisdiction are they going to block you for blocking them? Because that is the only thing they can do that I can think of right now (doesn't mean there are no other options).

I have zero interest in defending EU legislation and much less one about copyright (e.g., all my public activity can be considered public domain). But I think that there is a lot of misinformation online, perhaps even provoked by some interested parties. I found this Q&A from the European Parliament very informative.

Both sides have been using subsidies in the aeronautical industry for a very long time. Subsidies are used by many countries, everyone will stop when everybody else does.

Here you go. The EU already imposes extensive pricing controls. As we've been discussing elsewhere in this Slashdot story, currently there is still tolerance for differences in IP licensing in different places, but it's clear that eliminating such differences is one of the big goals of the digital single market project (though the degree to which they could legally force that issue given broader international agreements is apparently the subject of some debate).

That's wrong, the rules do allow different countries to have different content available. The EU even made an FAQ explaining this here: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-r...

The issue is that if someone takes out a Netflix subscription in their country of residence and then goes to a different EU country for work or a holiday, they need to have access to all the content from their home country.

That's not what TFA is about though, TFA is talking about the ability to buy games from other regions and have them work in your country. In the single market you should be able to buy a game cheaper from Romania and play it in Germany. Same for online services etc.

First of all new borns basically have no immune system. Vaccination before about 6 weeks is completely pointless

Nonsense. Newborns have a poorly developed immune system, but that's a far cry from "no immune system".

If you'd bothered looking at the list, the only vaccination given prior to 6 weeks is the Hep-B vaccine, and that's due to the high risk of developing chronic Hep-B. And despite your protestations, plenty of European countries also give the Hep-B vaccine at birth:

https://vaccine-schedule.ecdc....

The problem is not that it is the cause of accidents. The problem is that it increases the risk of fatalities for all user: https://ec.europa.eu/transport.... Hitting a pedestrian at 32km/h kills the pedestrian 5 times out of 100. Hitting a pedestrian at 64km/h kills the pedestrian 85 times out of 100.

Then get the pedestrians the fuck off the autobahn. Driving long distance ain't like driving in cities. Speed limiters won't help pedestrians or cars would be useless for long distance travel. Wrong problem. GTFO.

The problem is not that it is the cause of accidents. The problem is that it increases the risk of fatalities for all user: https://ec.europa.eu/transport.... Hitting a pedestrian at 32km/h kills the pedestrian 5 times out of 100. Hitting a pedestrian at 64km/h kills the pedestrian 85 times out of 100.

My son enjoy taking is bike to go ride with is friend. I sure hope it doesn't get involve in an accident but if it ever happens, I'd prefer that the car was forcing the driver to respect that 30km/h limit in the village. And if he bypassed the system then he would have to take the responsabilities for it. And by the way, I don't understand people speeding in densely populated area. Most of the time you're doing small distances in those areas. Here in Belgium the 30km/h zones are at most 2km long I'd say. It takes 4 minutes at 30km/h, why would you risk lives of people for earning at most 3 minutes. The speed limits are not there to annoy people, they are there to limit the inertia of your car when you'll hit that wall, people, what else, the day you have a problem. And we all make mistakes and accidents. And also for those "pilots", king of the roads, even if it's not you the problem, if you are speeding on the highway and I overtake someone forgetting to look in my mirror and you hit me, it will be my fault indeed, but we will both die, if you'd respect the speed limit, we'd still be alive so that you would be able to receive the money from my insurance.

This move is a step in the right direction.

Whatever one thinks of the law, it is good to understand how the European Parliament is promoting it, as at that link: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/...

This is not in any way to defend that law, just to say it is useful to try to understand the mindset and world view behind it -- and how it was spun and sold.

While I agree a tax to link to something risks breaking the web (or at least the European part), here are some positive spins from the article about other aspects of copyright reform in the EU probably used to help sell the rest of the restrictions that otherwise seem to favor big publishers: "Uploading protected works for quotation, criticism, review, caricature, parody or pastiche has been protected even more than it was before... It also stipulates that copyright restrictions will not apply to content used for teaching or illustration. Finally, the directive also allows copyrighted material to be used free-of-charge to preserve cultural heritage. Out-of-commerce works can be used where no collective management organisation exists that can issue a license."

Of course, what those sentences really mean in practice however they may seem to sound, I don't know.

In the EU poll of this topic, the only 2 countries without majorities supporting year-round time were Greece and Cyprus (and almost 1/2 did there).
Italy and Malta had ~55%-60% support for it, the rest averaging closely around ~85% support with Poland and Finland nearly tied at 95% support.
(Graph.jpg) https://eur-lex.europa.eu/reso...

Cool story.

But what is actually happening is no countries are being "told by the unelected EU bureaucrats what to do".
The topic of the story is in fact a VOTE OF ELECTED EU Parliament.
The result of the vote is seasonal time change is ended across EU, as massively supported by polls across the EU:
I believe only Cyprus and Greece barely failed to have majority support for it with basically every other country polling at ~85% support for it.
Poll Result (Graph): https://eur-lex.europa.eu/reso...
But each country gets to choose what time zone to keep and thus whether or not to apply the last seasonal time change in 2021
i.e. 'permanent summer time' or 'permanent standard time' (although these are indistinguishable from time zones per se).

But don't let me get in your way of invoking A COMMENT ON SLASHDOT as "the reason for Brexit". I didn't know /. was so important really.

I realized the original article wording is inaccurate and misleads posters to believe the proposal allows for individual countries to continue seasonal time changes.
In fact, the proposal absolutely ends seasonal time changes, and the only choice for each country is 'permanent summer' or 'permanent winter'
(which amount to choices of time zone, which was always within remit of countries to individually choose in the first place)

Here I include excerpts of the actual text adopted by EP... (full link here: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/...)

P8_TA-PROV(2019)0225 Discontinuing seasonal changes of time***I European Parliament legislative resolution of 26 March 2019 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council discontinuing seasonal changes of time and repealing Directive 2000/84/EC (COM(2018)0639 –C8-0408/2018 –2018/0332(COD))

since the introduction of summer-time there have been several initiatives that aimed to discontinue the practice. Some Member States have held national consultations and a majority of businesses and stakeholders have supported the discontinuation of the practice. The consultation initiated by the European Commission has come to the same conclusion.

  it is necessary to put an end to the harmonisation of the period covered by summer-time arrangements as laid down in Directive 2000/84/EC and to introduce common rules preventing Member States from applying different seasonal time arrangements by changing their standard time more than once during the year.

The decision on which standard time to apply in each Member State needs to be preceded by consultations and studies which would take into account citizens’ preferences, geographical variations, regional differences, standard working arrangements and other factors relevant for the particular Member State.

Hyperlinks to news articles, accompanied by “individual words or very short extracts”, can be shared freely

As sharing snippets of news articles is specifically excluded from the scope of the directive, it can continue exactly as before. However, the directive also contains provisions to avoid news aggregators abusing this. The ‘snippet’ can therefore continue to appear in a Google News newsfeeds, for example, or when an article is shared on Facebook, provided it is “very short”.
Uploading protected works for quotation, criticism, review, caricature, parody or pastiche has been protected even more than it was before, ensuring that memes and Gifs will continue to be available and shareable on online platforms.

The text also specifies that uploading works to online encyclopedias in a non-commercial way, such as Wikipedia, or open source software platforms, such as GitHub, will automatically be excluded from the scope of this directive. Start-up platforms will be subject to lighter obligations than more established ones.

From the official press release http://www.europarl.europa.eu/...

The issues that you may have to face is how much of your work would be free to use by platforms like google. After all, the press release says nothing about images. It only talks about hyperlinks, which are allowed and short texts. But of course for your case that won't be helpful. You'd like previews of your art to be displayed. What category would that fall under? I can't say. If you're in doubt you'd probably have to declare somewhere that all your stuff is free to use by anyone.

Article 11
Protection of press publications concerning online uses

1. Member States shall provide publishers of press publications established in a Member State with the rights provided in Article 2 and Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/29/EC for the online use of their press publications by information society service providers. These rights shall not apply to private or non-commercial uses of press publications carried out by individual users.

The protection granted under the first subparagraph shall not apply to acts of hyperlinking.

The rights referred to in the first subparagraph shall not apply in respect of uses of individual words or very short extracts of a press publication.

It typed that by hand, so excuse if you find a couple of typos. Look up the original here: http://data.consilium.europa.e... page 63.

I understand a bit of legalese and can only say that this is a god awful ambiguous mess.
For example what do they mean with: "The protection granted under the first subparagraph shall not apply to acts of hyperlinking"?

What protections are they exactly talking about? The only thing that reads like a protection is the first paragraph is the 2nd sentence. Which could mean that Wikipedia wouldn't simply be allowed to use hyperlink references to their sources without asking the sources for permission first. It sounds too stupid to be true, especially since all previous draft explicitly stated hyperlinking itself was exempt. But who can be sure without further clarification from the Council?
So what did they mean here? If they followed convention for legal texts they would have had to define exactly what the mean by "protections" here by either using the same term in the subparagraph above or by direct text reference.

Thank you for the effort. Unfortunately those are very old text and do not include any information about the final text that the EFF article talks about.

Don't get me wrong, EFF is a reputable source. But before I start sharing that link I have to do my due diligence and check their source materials.
So far this is the most up to date version of the proposal that I can find myself: http://data.consilium.europa.e...
I found this on https://eur-lex.europa.eu/sear... a source that is as official as it can get. However the document is from 2019-02-20 which is over a month old and might be outdated.

Thank you for the effort. Unfortunately those are very old text and do not include any information about the final text that the EFF article talks about.

Don't get me wrong, EFF is a reputable source. But before I start sharing that link I have to do my due diligence and check their source materials.
So far this is the most up to date version of the proposal that I can find myself: http://data.consilium.europa.e...
I found this on https://eur-lex.europa.eu/sear... a source that is as official as it can get. However the document is from 2019-02-20 which is over a month old and might be outdated.

Wikipedia's article about the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market has useful information and pointers, such as the procedure file, itself pointing (in section "documentation gateway") to many documents, including:
  - Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading (PDF in top right corner of frame)
  - Text adopted by Parliament, partial vote at 1st reading/single reading

Wikipedia's article about the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market has useful information and pointers, such as the procedure file, itself pointing (in section "documentation gateway") to many documents, including:
  - Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading (PDF in top right corner of frame)
  - Text adopted by Parliament, partial vote at 1st reading/single reading

Wikipedia's article about the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market has useful information and pointers, such as the procedure file, itself pointing (in section "documentation gateway") to many documents, including:
  - Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading (PDF in top right corner of frame)
  - Text adopted by Parliament, partial vote at 1st reading/single reading

"no apparent risk to consumers was identified"
https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/5263

"The Meeting concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to be genotoxic at anticipated dietary exposures. Several carcinogenicity studies in mice and rats are available. The Meeting concluded that glyphosate is not carcinogenic in rats but could not exclude the possibility that it is carcinogenic in mice at very high doses. In view of the absence of carcinogenic potential in rodents at human-relevant doses and the absence of genotoxicity by the oral route in mammals, and considering the epidemiological evidence from occupational exposures, the Meeting concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet. The Meeting reaffirmed the group ADI for the sum of glyphosate and its metabolites of 0–1 mg/kg body weight on the basis of effects on the salivary gland. The Meeting concluded that it was not necessary to establish an ARfD for glyphosate or its metabolites in view of its low acute toxicity."
https://www.who.int/foodsafety/jmprsummary2016.pdf?ua=1

"the Agency reevaluated the human carcinogenic potential of glyphosate, which
included a weight-of-evidence evaluation of data from animal toxicity, genotoxicity, and
epidemiological studies. This evaluation was presented to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Scientific Advisory Panel (FIFRA SAP) and was subsequently updated based on their
review. The Agency concluded that glyphosate should be classified as “not likely to be
carcinogenic to humans.”
https://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0361-0068&contentType=pdf

So the issue that American companies are getting hit with fines by European governments isn't a thing? Seriously?

It is a thing, but only inside your own head. The size of the anti-trust fine is based on several factors, A fine of even 1% of revenue for a large company = "record" fines. But in actuality, its a pittance given the abuse of the market that Google has gotten away with for all these years.

Somehow the EU's vaunted investigations never find anything when it's their own companies.

Telefonica, Asahi, Saint-Gobain, Volvo, Daimler are not american companies AFAIK

http://ec.europa.eu/competitio...

To Recap:
1) You're a moron
2) You're wrong on the facts
3) You're morally and ethically bankrupt

The EU now requires US citizens to get visas,

Regulation 2018/1806 says something quite different.

This isn't the EU, it's individual member states' governments not complying with EU data protection rules.

To be fair, Cookiebot did not do any testing on europa.eu or other official EU sites for this report. That we lack evidence of tracking (because no testing was done) does not mean that those sites lack tracking. But because I was curious, I had Cookiebot fire off a compliance test on europa.eu while I quickly perused it to see if I could find anything that loaded third-party resources from the usual bad actors. Sure enough, it didn't take me long to land on a page that attempted to load images from Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, and other social networks. While their doing so may be in compliance with the GDPR, anyone here is likely aware of just how easily images can be used to track individuals.

Right as I was typing the above up, the results of the compliance test hit my inbox. According to Cookiebot's e-mail, europa.eu is "Not compliant" with EU regulations due to its failing at "Prior consent on other than strictly necessary cookies (ePR)".

I'm not arguing against anything else you're saying, other than the notion that it's only the member states who have non-compliant sites.

Just think about how wrong your view of the EU is that you leapt to this conclusion without apparently even reading the summary, which clearly states that it is member states' web sites at issue.

Again, to be fair, the Key Insights page in the report itself says "82% of official EU government websites are harbouring Google marketing trackers" right after saying "89% of official government websites of EU member states contain 3rd party ad tracking". Given the difference in language, it's easy to see how even someone reading the report could misinterpret the two phrases to indicate that the former includes EU sites. Again, it doesn't, but I can see how someone could easily misinterpret it that way.

No, that would involve thinking that Putin doing it isn't so bad. Instead, given that I live in the EU, excuse me if Putin being open about doing Bad Things sees me worry about our own politicians pulling the same stuff on us. Because they rather joyfully are doing just that. They do seem to intent to be a bit less obvious about it though, given gems such as this: "Through this Communication the Commission seeks to promote a more transparent, trustworthy and accountable online environment (...). More specifically, signatories of the Code of Practice should agree to deprive “impostor” websites and websites hosting disinformation of advertising revenues. The signatories should also agree to (...) the development of indicators of trustworthiness of content sources, dilute the visibility of disinformation by improving the findability of trustworthy content and provide users information on prioritisation of content by algorithms." The only difference is that it might still be stoppable for a time here.

Not even close, douche bag.
In 2000, USA was #7 with 20.60. Since then, USA has been dropping constantly. They are at 15.56 and are at # 16. They have dropped 25% per capitia.
EU lost 25% from 1990 to 2016.
Compare that to your nation, China, that has gone from 1.97 to 7.45. That is almost 400% increase. You emit much more than my nation and you will soon pass the yanks in per capita. In 2016, you were #41. I will wager that you have gone up to 30s, or possibly 20s, in 2018.
Bloody gobshite like you are causing the real emissions.

Not even close, douche bag.
In 2000, USA was #7 with 20.60. Since then, USA has been dropping constantly. They are at 15.56 and are at # 16. They have dropped 25% per capitia.
EU lost 25% from 1990 to 2016.
Compare that to your nation, China, that has gone from 1.97 to 7.45. That is almost 400% increase. You emit much more than my nation and you will soon pass the yanks in per capita. In 2016, you were #41. I will wager that you have gone up to 30s, or possibly 20s, in 2018.
Bloody gobshite like you are causing the real emissions.

I wouldn't be so harsh on people for using the term "GMO" incorrectly, as the term itself is unspecific, and is often broadened to include anything that has had its genes altered[1], even by nature.[2] [3]

It would be so much simpler if people just referred to the specific technologies being utilized, as they all suffer from risk/reward issues, and there aren't clear ethical borders. An incomplete list of the technologies used include:
* Nature's own technique of random mutations with a natural selection filter on top
* Artificial selection by humans, which in ~10,000 years gave us massive, delicious mutants like the modern wheat and corn crops, and docile cows, pigs and dogs
* Cloning started around the 1800s in order to perpetuate popular varieties of e.g. apples, oranges and bananas, whereby a branch of the tree is cut off and re-planted
* Forced hybridization has been around the 1900s, where two distinctly inbred parental lineages are perpetually bred to produce sterile offspring (e.g. seedless watermelons, or mules for use by the British Empire as amazing pack animals)
* Radiation-induced mutation breeding (mutagenesis) has been around since around the 1930s, which forcefully increases the mutation rate and splits chromosomes in order to allow breeding with other species -- a technique the EU even calls GMO (see [1])
-- a lot of western staple crops are based on, or hybridized from, crops produced from this technique
* Chemically-induced mutation breeding is a more modern version of mutagenesis that's doesn't cause as much DNA damage -- still a GMO in the EU though (see [1])
* Transgenic modifications, where specific genes can be takes from unrelated species, was invented in the 1970s
* Cisgenic modifications, where the specific genes are taken from a species where it would have been possible to acquire it naturally through conventional breeding,[4] have been a classification of GMOs since around the year 2000

So GMO debates could be untangled massively if people just spoke about the specific technologies. For instance, I suspect based on your comment that you would be against transgenic GMOs and mutagenesis, but for cisgenic GMOs... while being on the fence about forced hybridization?

"You don't know much, then"

That's exactly what I said, didn't you notice?

Thank you for your links... while the first ones didn't offer light to the issue (back to 2018), this one is quite clear: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/d...

On those grounds, the Court (Full Court) hereby rules:

Article 50 TEU must be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State has notified the European Council, in accordance with that article, of its intention to withdraw from the European Union, that article allows that Member State â" for as long as a withdrawal agreement concluded between that Member State and the European Union has not entered into force or, if no such agreement has been concluded, for as long as the two-year period laid down in Article 50(3) TEU, possibly extended in accordance with that paragraph, has not expired â" to revoke that notification unilaterally, in an unequivocal and unconditional manner, by a notice addressed to the European Council in writing, after the Member State concerned has taken the revocation decision in accordance with its constitutional requirements. The purpose of that revocation is to confirm the EU membership of the Member State concerned under terms that are unchanged as regards its status as a Member State, and that revocation brings the withdrawal procedure to an end.

If only I could source my claims. Oh, wait: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-r...

At least one of us has managed it.

Already doing this, manually, in part as a protest of the price hiking practice, effectively nullifying it. Don't want to spend too much time on any specific streaming service anyway. Pausing all streaming services is helpful to concentrate on book reading too, for those of us daring to try to make a dent in the reading list.

What I'd really like to see happen though is for the content to become entirely disconnected from the distribution channels, i.e. streaming service brands, DVD & Blue-Ray manufacturers and sellers etc., so that we can get real competition for each level of the products and their delivery, rather than the current walled gardens (also known as vertical integration) where every streaming service put out seriously flawed player apps, for example (any competent software developer will understand). The barrier to market entry for new players is now artificially high, which further weakens the market and slows the rate of innovation.

We have much better competition in other markets, most notably perhaps in the mobile phone system. For digital content, though, few of the hard-earned lessons from making the other markets work properly have been applied so far.

Eventually the EU will fix this, too, as it always does. Maybe we then can actually deliver the full potential of the technology we developed, with full multi-lingual subtitle translations and optional dubbed audio of all content, without regional limitations.

Just about every day I notice to my dismay that some content on cable TV that might otherwise be worthy of my time has been dubbed and the original soundtrack deleted rather than kept as an option. I frequently switch off instead. The similar problem exists on eg. Netflix, who leaves out seasons from the European market, although they are available from Netflix for the U.S. market - it makes no sense. An example of this on Netflix is the series The Good Place, where only season one is available in the EU. Season 2, while available in the U.S. now, was briefly available in the EU, but removed for some unexplained reason. Perhaps Netflix has some reason for this, such as not wanting to dub or translate the subtitles for a number of languages, but given that I don't even care about the translation for most shows anyway, and I am hardly alone in this, just let customers pick content from any language or region as they see fit instead of reimplementing the tower of Babel in digital imprimatur form for audiovisual content.

The big picture is that this harms free movement in the EU by forming a kind of double cultural lock-in. You can't easily, in advance, familiarise yourself with a foreign language on a daily basis despite that the technology itself actually allows for it, and when you move to another region for studies or work, you are suddenly shut out from the content languages you know from before. It's all counter-productive, not to mention counter to the spirit of EU Fundamental Rights that include, in Article 45, the Freedom of movement and residence.

Already doing this, manually, in part as a protest of the price hiking practice, effectively nullifying it. Don't want to spend too much time on any specific streaming service anyway. Pausing all streaming services is helpful to concentrate on book reading too, for those of us daring to try to make a dent in the reading list.

What I'd really like to see happen though is for the content to become entirely disconnected from the distribution channels, i.e. streaming service brands, DVD & Blue-Ray manufacturers and sellers etc., so that we can get real competition for each level of the products and their delivery, rather than the current walled gardens (also known as vertical integration) where every streaming service put out seriously flawed player apps, for example (any competent software developer will understand). The barrier to market entry for new players is now artificially high, which further weakens the market and slows the rate of innovation.

We have much better competition in other markets, most notably perhaps in the mobile phone system. For digital content, though, few of the hard-earned lessons from making the other markets work properly have been applied so far.

Eventually the EU will fix this, too, as it always does. Maybe we then can actually deliver the full potential of the technology we developed, with full multi-lingual subtitle translations and optional dubbed audio of all content, without regional limitations.

Just about every day I notice to my dismay that some content on cable TV that might otherwise be worthy of my time has been dubbed and the original soundtrack deleted rather than kept as an option. I frequently switch off instead. The similar problem exists on eg. Netflix, who leaves out seasons from the European market, although they are available from Netflix for the U.S. market - it makes no sense. An example of this on Netflix is the series The Good Place, where only season one is available in the EU. Season 2, while available in the U.S. now, was briefly available in the EU, but removed for some unexplained reason. Perhaps Netflix has some reason for this, such as not wanting to dub or translate the subtitles for a number of languages, but given that I don't even care about the translation for most shows anyway, and I am hardly alone in this, just let customers pick content from any language or region as they see fit instead of reimplementing the tower of Babel in digital imprimatur form for audiovisual content.

The big picture is that this harms free movement in the EU by forming a kind of double cultural lock-in. You can't easily, in advance, familiarise yourself with a foreign language on a daily basis despite that the technology itself actually allows for it, and when you move to another region for studies or work, you are suddenly shut out from the content languages you know from before. It's all counter-productive, not to mention counter to the spirit of EU Fundamental Rights that include, in Article 45, the Freedom of movement and residence.

In the West only the US - the largest cumulative emitter of CO2 in the world - is opposed to comprehensive CO2 reduction policies. The EU has managed a significant decrease over the last two decades, and is going on with more efforts in the next two decades. Even China is on board with reduction measures.

There is absolutely no need for risky "geoengineering" bullshit, when there are proven CO2 reduction strategies that work.

I live in the European Union, where the policies of reduction, which I support, have lowered the CO2 emissions by more than 20 percentage points since the early 1990s. The US, on the other hand, has seen no reduction of CO2 in that time. It is therefore a fact that reduction of CO2 emissions is both a possible and affordable course of action. That is, you're lying.

Only greed and obstinacy prevent similar policies from working elsewhere in the developed world.

Here is what I found about this incident : https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesaf... , also the EU-wide analysis https://ecdc.europa.eu/sites/p...

I could not find clear conclusions.

Also the fact that Sweden settled with 10M SEK per individual is a terrible idea since it makes people think they admit the vaccine is at fault, where in fact they just don't want to waste their time battling a PR disaster.

If you're still inside warranty, then at least that'll be free but from what I saw from the warranty process on a colleagues Macbook, that's gonna be a pain. And if your hardware is older than a year, you're SOOL?

Move to Europe, EU law guarantees 2 years of warranty.

And yes when I think of France a country that had the lowest energy prices in Europe

Only an ignorant who doesn't live here could say bullshit like that. "Lowest energy prices in Europe", my ass!

And yes when I think of France a country that had the lowest energy prices in Europe

Gee Amazing how you keep proving my points for me, I call you illiterate you demonstrate you can't differentiate between present and past tense

I say renewables are a cult that can't accept anything that contradicts their position, you try to brush off that price of power in europe is directly correlated to use of renewables (Particularly solar and wind).

Well I am done. It's pretty clear my points have been proven especially since you could present a chart that clearly shows just which nations have high costs and think it proves your point about the inevitability of solar. (Hint Norway is really poor for solar it's especially bad when your night's can last for days.)

Gee, amazing how the more expensive power is in a country, the more motivated the country is to install renewable generators. See how it works both ways? And yes when I think of France a country that had the lowest energy prices in Europe

Only an ignorant who doesn't live here could say bullshit like that. "Lowest energy prices in Europe", my ass!

Every 1km/h speed increase created an average 3% increase in accidents.

That figure just doesn't pass the smell test, so I googled for it and came across https://ec.europa.eu/transport...

On that site, it also stated the following, which sounds like complete nonsense. Effectively, they're claiming that going 6mph faster is the equivalent of drunk driving. I call BS.

This study indicates that exceeding the speed limit of 60 km/h by 5 km/h is comparable to the risk of a BAC of 0.05. The risk of exceeding the 60 km/h speed limit by 10 km/h is higher than driving with a BAC of 0.08.

I don't know which little European Commission website use Matomo has they should use PIWIK ( http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/servic... ).

This directive. Article 4, parts 4, 8, 10 & 11 in particular.

How about the lawmakers themselves?

From "What is personal data?" we get an answer. It clearly states in "Examples of personal data" that it includes "an Internet Protocol (IP) address" as personal data.

As to whom it applies, it does include companies outside the EU.

A web server sending static pages with no cookies, JavaScript, or other active content from a server in the Brazil and owned by a company in Brazil is still subject to GPDR according to the EU. If any EU citizen ever visits because the IP Address is needed technically to service any access of those pages, then that triggers data protection requirements. Brazil may differ on this interpretation and it might be difficult to prosecute someone in this scenario, but the words from the EU are specific and clear.

How about the lawmakers themselves?

From "What is personal data?" we get an answer. It clearly states in "Examples of personal data" that it includes "an Internet Protocol (IP) address" as personal data.

As to whom it applies, it does include companies outside the EU.

A web server sending static pages with no cookies, JavaScript, or other active content from a server in the Brazil and owned by a company in Brazil is still subject to GPDR according to the EU. If any EU citizen ever visits because the IP Address is needed technically to service any access of those pages, then that triggers data protection requirements. Brazil may differ on this interpretation and it might be difficult to prosecute someone in this scenario, but the words from the EU are specific and clear.

Prior Tesla vehicles used a modified type 2 connector which had DC charging without the additional combined charging DC pins. It was a neat design but it's not the mandated minimum so I assume their cars will support either form.

The only way I could see Tesla not accepting other vehicles at their charges is if they claimed their charge points were part of private club or something but that probably wouldn't fly in court. Personally I don't see why Tesla would turn away revenue regardless of whose car it was.

Ever since IMDB dumped down the drain all the accumulated invaluable information about old/obscure/non-Holywood movies you could find on their forums I stopped visiting/using them.
Most of the other information can be now looked up on Wikipedia and other sources.

Region-restricted ad-infested streaming? Meh...
At least EU condemns geo-blocking:
https://www.consilium.europa.e...

That's the intent at least, but it's nearly impossible to capture just that in a right-to-be-forgotten law, so the result ends up being a law that has all sorts of goofy implications and creates a mess. If you're a public performer and don't like a review someone did of your show, just claim that the review is personal data and demand the review be removed (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/10/31/pianist-asks-the-washington-post-to-remove-a-concert-review-under-the-e-u-s-right-to-be-forgotten-ruling/).

The EU's GDPR proposal used the definition of "any information concerning an identified or identifiable person" (see https://eur-lex.europa.eu/lega...), which is broad enough to cover just about anything. What matters is more than just the bits of information, but the context and the intent.

There exist many copies of a high school yearbook with a picture of me that I really don't like. That's personal data, right? So do I have some right to demand that those yearbooks be destroyed? What if someone posts online a picture from that same page and inadvertently don't crop out the part that includes my picture. Do I have a right to demand it be taken down?

If my picture was in the local newspaper 20 years ago, do I have a right to demand that they go back and remove it from their archives? What if I wrote a scathing letter to the editor and then after they published it, I regretted my decision. Do I have a right to demand they remove that from their website and all record of it?

In all of these cases, the answer is 'no', and yet these are exactly the kinds of scenarios that get created by right-to-be-forgotten laws. You can say that the purpose of the law is simply "to stop any old Tom, Dick, or Harry broadcasting your personal data for ever and a day" but translating that into the text of a good law is really hard (or impossible).

Here is a primary source: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/...

And here one more news article: https://www.eubusiness.com/new...

Even if you only read Slashdot, you would only need to look back 2 days for this example.

For a more comprehensive list of EU research projects you would have to look at their web site.

But sure, the EU has failed miserably to accomplish such useful and productive things like starting wars in foreign countries.

Just some additional things for clarification.

There are alternatives to arsenic doped semiconductors. Only for applications like high performance photovoltaics those gallium arsenide junctions appear to be indispensable. And those appliances are more likely to orbit Earth or go further into space than being put on roofs.

There's also lead free solder. Various countries like California or other organizations like the EU have strong regulations for lead in consumer products. Of course just banning something does not make it go away. But if your electronic parts are manufactured in one of those places, odds are that they won't contain lead.
If you import them from Asia for example or get your hands on something that was manufactured in the 2000's or even before that, it may be a different story.

Furthermore the EU Commission did their own risk assessment of LEDs in 2011. They used various LEDs bought in the US. If the tests they conducted are trustworthy, they found no arsenic and lead in white LEDs, which are most commonly used to replace CFLs, light bulbs, or other electrical light sources.

Other than that we have to keep in mind how those semi conductors in LEDs are isolated from their environment.
Your usual LED and high power LED has their semiconductor parts encased in epoxy often with silica mixed in. COB modules, which can be seen as high power LEDs also mix some phosphorus into that.
These cases are pretty durable and should not easily break or degrade on their own. Especially if we consider how easy a fluorescent lamp can break and release (a small amount of) mercury in its environment.

Uhh... going pretty strong. Prices have been gradually coming down and there is a lot of interest from industry. However, since batteries have also improved in the meantime, the focus is moving away from consumer applications (cars) to larger ones (ships, buses, trucks, trains, even regional planes), so they are not so visible to the man in the street.

I do work in hydrogen & fuel cells, and in the last 2-3 years we have seen a surge in industrial interest we can barely handle. We know that FC manufacturers are tooling for mass production, at which point prices will fall a lot faster. At this point we are where batteries were about 15 years ago, with some applications ready for deployment (buses, home CHP, trucks, trains) and plenty of others in advanced development—maritime is likely the next big thing.

So just because you don't hear about it in the 9 o'clock news it does not mean it has been abandoned. It has simply dipped down from the hype peak and started maturing.

Ae aegypti carry yellow fever virus, dengue virus chikungunya virus and Zika viruses. Interestingly Ae aegypti are considered invasive species originally native to Asia. So eradicating them, really shouldn't impact the environment.

So eradicating them, really shouldn't impact the environment.

If they carry all those diseases, and we eradicate them, then it will impact the human population. The human population impacts the environment. Ergo, eradicating them will impact the environment.