Slashdot Mirror

Somewhere along the line, Slashdot got taken over by people who have no trouble making authoritative statements about subjects on which they are totally ignorant. Very tragic.

As explosives age, they become less stable, and thus more likely to explode. Especially if they're not properly stored. Unexploded ordinance from WW II is still a big problem in many places.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,584091,00.html
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-05/04/content_439409.htm

The French still have problems with unexploded ordinance from World War I, which was mostly fought on their territory.

Do you think this would have prevented Chia Obama https://www.chiaobama.com/flare/next or Obama Fingers http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,612684,00.html?

No, and it's not supposed to. Neither of the products you linked to had any implication of endorsement by the President, which is what we're actually talking about here.

Do you think this would have prevented Chia Obama https://www.chiaobama.com/flare/next or Obama Fingers http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,612684,00.html?

Nothing has to be done. In the past, most presidents have simply ignored things like this. Obama has a very thin skin, and this is more evidence. The president should be above such things, and for example should not be responding to talk show personalities either directly or through any staffers. Obama apparently has not been in politics to learn how to deal with criticism properly.

Actually, they changed it a pretzel. And only on the flags shown outside the theater, inside (where it's clearly and unambiguously art) I believe they're showing the real thing.

Here's the official website with some footage from the actual performance:

http://www.admiralspalast.de/the_producers.aspx

And here are some pictures:

http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-42562-5.html
http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-42562-6.html

And those are the pretzel flags used for advertising:
http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-42562-10.html

You can't deny that there are substantial limitations on FOS in Germany.

So? At least we can say "fuck", "shit", and of course "Scheisse" on the radio and on TV and not get fined half a bajillion bucks by the governmental communications authority.

Actually, they changed it a pretzel. And only on the flags shown outside the theater, inside (where it's clearly and unambiguously art) I believe they're showing the real thing.

Here's the official website with some footage from the actual performance:

http://www.admiralspalast.de/the_producers.aspx

And here are some pictures:

http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-42562-5.html
http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-42562-6.html

And those are the pretzel flags used for advertising:
http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-42562-10.html

You can't deny that there are substantial limitations on FOS in Germany.

So? At least we can say "fuck", "shit", and of course "Scheisse" on the radio and on TV and not get fined half a bajillion bucks by the governmental communications authority.

Actually, they changed it a pretzel. And only on the flags shown outside the theater, inside (where it's clearly and unambiguously art) I believe they're showing the real thing.

Here's the official website with some footage from the actual performance:

http://www.admiralspalast.de/the_producers.aspx

And here are some pictures:

http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-42562-5.html
http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-42562-6.html

And those are the pretzel flags used for advertising:
http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-42562-10.html

You can't deny that there are substantial limitations on FOS in Germany.

So? At least we can say "fuck", "shit", and of course "Scheisse" on the radio and on TV and not get fined half a bajillion bucks by the governmental communications authority.

And before you complain: compare the maps - don't blindly believewhat your high priest Watts preaches you.

Don't know why this is marked troll, its based on facts...

Organ harvesting in China

Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China refers to the practice of removing human organs and tissue from the corpses of criminals executed in China and using these organs for organ transplants.

Families billed for bullets in China

In the past, capital punishment was carried out by a single shot to the back of the head at execution fields outside Chinese cities and families of the dead were sent a bill for the bullet.

Slavery in China

It's a story that has made headlines around the world: Slave laborers have been found in Chinese brick factories. The authorities have freed many of them, but some fear there could be hundreds more being imprisoned, beaten and starved. Some parents have begun searching for their sons on their own.

People are loosing faith in googles 'Do No Evil' claim, especially since they are becoming so big. Go to Google news and type in "Google Monopoly" to see the effect:

Newspapers:
German Justice Minister Criticizes Google 'I See a Giant Monopoly Developing That's Reminiscent of Microsoft'
      http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,671426,00.html
Bloggers:
"I have come to the conclusion that Google has evolved into what economists call a "natural monopoly"."
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/28/google_monopoly/
Even the FTC:
http://it-chuiko.com/internet/1887-googles-anti-monopoly-office-is-under-scrutiny.html

Google knows it is under scrutiny. Just look at google trends. http://www.google.com/trends?q=google+monopoly

Now you have the Nexus issue, and Google's name is being drug through the mud. Their name needs some work, and taking care of their biggest black eye will help if it is published widely enough.

Monsanto did the research in 2000 and 2001, and obviously knew the outcome.

You can't say "and obviously knew the outcome" unless you're Monsanto. I believe that GMO crops undergo far fewer tests for safety than pesticides. From the Wikipedia page on one of the three crops in question (MON 863):

In 1989 a 90-day rat-feeding trial done by the FDA, 40 rats that were fed the Bt corn developed multiple reactions typically found in response to allergies, infections, toxins and diseases. Gilles-Eric Seralini reviewed the study as part of the French Commission for Biomolecular Genetics and said that the response by the rats were similar to reactions caused by pesticides. Although the Bt-toxin is a pesticide, he points out that animal research on pesticide-producing corn is nowhere as thorough as that required for approval of pesticides. Follow-up studies on these serious findings were demanded from organisations worldwide. None were conducted and the corn was approved.

MON 863 is even approved for use in the EU which is surprising considering the long history of European countries denying crops imported from other countries like the US where GMO crops are allowed on the off chance that said crops were cross pollinated with GMO plants in other fields. Very recently I believe Germany banned cultivation of GMO plants. If you want your data don't look toward Monsanto or even the underfunded FDA. Look to the European Union, I hope more studies follow in the path of this research but unfortunately it's hard to think of a source for major funding if it's not our tax dollars.

I think an "infotainment" system for the car is fine for passengers, but if it tempts drivers to take their eyes off the road, it should be accompanied by a collision avoidance system that counteracts the increased distractability factor.

"Eyes off the road" like this: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/B0014BYKVO/ref=dp_otherviews_1?ie=UTF8&s=automotive&img=1

I think an in-car cocktail bar should have priority over a "collision avoidance system": http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-41146.html

I'm concerned that dorky drivers might come to *rely* on their collision avoidance system:

"It's OK, I can twitter now, I don't need to keep my eyes on the road . . . I got me a collision avoidance system!

Last year BMW made some noise about FOSS for their cars, but they seem to have since stopped talking about it.

I can't imagine why: http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-41146.html

And on that human timescale, things are changing very fast indeed.

Yes. Yes they are. In fact, if the current trend continues, we'll be buried in ice in 50 years! OMG WTF BBQ!

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,664753,00.html

The Earth isn't following the climate models, it missed the memo. Truth is we're at 1930s level of average global temperatures with the recent fall.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html

It's time to start listening to real geophysicists and not "climatologists", whatever the hell those are. I didn't see degree in that field offered when I began my physics degree. The truth is that while the Antarctic Peninsula has warmed, it's 0.5% of the land mass there while the other 99.5% of Antarctica has been *cooling* since the 1960s. That's real science, folks. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007JD009094.shtml

"The sea levels are rising!". The sea levels have been rising for over 10,000 years, and for most of that at a rate of over a meter per 200 years, thankfully it's slowed down the past 2,000 years!

"Carbon dioxide levels are at record high, it's a dangerous greenhouse gas!". The dominant greenhouse gas on planet earth is water vapor, its effect far outweigh the effects of all other greenhouse gases combined! Carbon dioxide is reactive, it increases after the earth warms. horse. cart. Warm some soda pop the the stove and see what happens. Carbon dioxide levels about the pan increase!

Note how the world leaders are rushing to get climate protocols in place before the real truth gets out, that the earth is cooling in response to Sun output at record low in last three years compared to last 50+ years. Solar output at record high in late 90s. Sun driving climate, what a shocker.

Until the eco-nuts come up with a solution that actually works and is economically feasible, it's all just a pipe dream. Solar and wind have been used to generate power for DECADES, yet there are very few of them. Why?? The land required is huge, no one wants a noisy wind farm in their back yard, solar cells are expensive, and there are very few places that have the space for a solar/thermal conversion plant.

Or rather (from here:

But if it is all so simple, then why do countries with enough solar radiation build expensive and dangerous nuclear power plants, instead of investing in this simple technology? Are there not deserts in the US? Why are Americans not freeing themselves from their oil dependence through solar power? And why has no one really started to exploit the technology?

"After the solar thermal power plants were built in California and Nevada, people lost interest in solar thermal power because fossil fuels became unbeatably cheap," says Müller-Steinhagen. Solar power was neglected even though the US was in the advantageous position, compared to the MENA region, of being a single political entity rather than a conglomerate of countries with differing interests. The US could achieve energy self-sufficiency through solar thermal power plants in the sunny south-west. But it was only recently that scientists writing in the respected magazine Scientific American unveiled a "Solar Grand Plan" for the US.

Once again, the crowd that wants us to cut back our carbon emissions comes up with things we can't do rather than some suggestions. And their alternatives aren't viable for 10 years or more when they finally get all the kinks worked out, or electricity becomes so expensive they become economical.

Solutions are readily available and have been for a long time. From here:

But if it is all so simple, then why do countries with enough solar radiation build expensive and dangerous nuclear power plants, instead of investing in this simple technology? Are there not deserts in the US? Why are Americans not freeing themselves from their oil dependence through solar power? And why has no one really started to exploit the technology?

"After the solar thermal power plants were built in California and Nevada, people lost interest in solar thermal power because fossil fuels became unbeatably cheap," says Müller-Steinhagen. Solar power was neglected even though the US was in the advantageous position, compared to the MENA region, of being a single political entity rather than a conglomerate of countries with differing interests. The US could achieve energy self-sufficiency through solar thermal power plants in the sunny south-west. But it was only recently that scientists writing in the respected magazine Scientific American unveiled a "Solar Grand Plan" for the US.

And they only look expensive when you neglect environmental impact and risks associated with other energy sources, including nuclear.

And lets be honest here-wind, solar, these techs simply haven't reached the stage where they can replace current tech for the amount of power generation required to allow us to keep even our current lifestyle, much less continue to advance.

Let's try to really be honest like you suggest and admit that solar energy could get rid US and EU of fossil-fuel dependency right now (from here):

But if it is all so simple, then why do countries with enough solar radiation build expensive and dangerous nuclear power plants, instead of investing in this simple technology? Are there not deserts in the US? Why are Americans not freeing themselves from their oil dependence through solar power? And why has no one really started to exploit the technology?
"After the solar thermal power plants were built in California and Nevada, people lost interest in solar thermal power because fossil fuels became unbeatably cheap," says Müller-Steinhagen. Solar power was neglected even though the US was in the advantageous position, compared to the MENA region, of being a single political entity rather than a conglomerate of countries with differing interests. The US could achieve energy self-sufficiency through solar thermal power plants in the sunny south-west.

I submitted article with the real truth, wonder if slashdot will post it?

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html

If you look here it seems temperatures have been alternately going up and staying flat (or even cooling slightly) for 30 years or so, and we're about at the end of 30 years of "going up". Maybe the warming is on hold until around 2040?

Hey, that could mean that 2038 really is the end of the world -- the 2012 people have the right idea, they've just been working from the wrong calendar.

I submitted article with the real truth, wonder if slashdot will post it?

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html

This just in: physicists have a pro-gravity bias. Geologists have an anti-flat-earth bias. Astronomers have a pro-heliocentric bias.

Yes, and following that, legitimate climate scientists would have a pro-climate bias. Not a pro-warming, pro-cooling, or pro-stable climate change bias. Because science is about data confirmed by successful predictions of theory, and AGW is presently very weak in this area.

Gravity - lots of theory, so lots of ways to predict, lots of uses of those predictions in tests, solid confirmation of the predictions in turn, hence lots of validations of the theory. Hence, gravity is data rich, massively (ha) uniform in its result WRT the predictions of theory, and recognition of that data is widespread. Round earth, same thing - lots of theory, lots of predictions, lots of confirmation, hence, we acknowledge the data. Orbit around the sun, exactly the same thing.

AGW, however, is very far from settled science, and it is disingenuous to compare it to the things you do here. Some predictions have been made. Of those, some have failed (for instance, the current stall/reversal contradicts the models); some predictions have yet to come into the time when the prediction can be tested (will the seas rise the way they're predicted? Will temperatures go up as predicted? Would reducing CO2 counter this?) and finally, at least in the public eye, some of the rationales underlying AGW are really very weak, such as the claim that CO2 rising in the past has driven warming, when in fact if one simply looks at the historical graphs of temperature vs. CO2, the very first thing that leaps out at an interested observer is that CO2 spikes occur in the cooling phase subsequent to warming periods, rather than prior to, or coincident with, the actual warming.

AGW is not theory based on past cycles in history we can look at and simply say, "Oh, that's how it always goes." It is new theory, based on new conditions that are now coming into effect for the first time, and it is theory about events that take input from all manner of areas: solar, geological, atmospheric, pollution, plant activity, ocean behavior, CO2 reserves, hydrological issues, the evap/precip engines, and a lot more. The failure of the models to predict near term behavior is something to warm the heart of any interested scientist, because it means there's more research to be done, more to learn, etc. It doesn't mean AGW is wrong or right, it just means the science is inadequate to the task of producing accurate predictions, thus far.

But it does mean that AGW isn't in the same class with gravity, orbits, and the objective fact of our favorite oblate spheroid at this point in time.

Are you claiming that the Red Army didn't rape millions of German women? Would you feel better if I cited NPR, spiegel or Wikipedia?

How about this, for example :

"Mehr Bürde als Ehre"

(translates to : "more a burden than an honor")

Let's take a paragraph from it :

"The prize was not awarded today to a real life American president, who has to make difficult and sometimes unpopular decisions. It was awarded to the symbol of the 2008 election campaign in which the world* has placed it's trust. But Obama demanded to be seen as a superhuman in the campaign. Now he has to satisfy those expectations in the real world, a task which will prove impossible. The award from Oslo will not help him there. It is a burden, much more than an honor."

After this, the next 3 paragraphs talk about 3 "failures" of Obama : he hasn't implemented any healthcare and it seem unlikely it's ever going to happen. The war in Afghanistan has gotten worse and there are grave concerns for the evolution of the situation in Iraq after Bush's surge was de-facto recalled by Obama.

* I take exception to these assholes speaking for me, by the way

Cyclists are assholes everywhere. Why yes, Mr Fixed-gear bike riding douchebag, please go ahead and squeeze up to the light we're all waiting for, and then take off while the light is still red. This way, you'll be in the middle of the intersection when cars take off, making them unable to pass you. The only other thing about bikes that pisses me off about as much are the assholes slowly crawling up steep hills on narrow curvy country roads with lots of blind turns. Thanks for signaling for me to pass you, jackass, but I'm not going to risk a head-on collision just because you can't be bothered to pull over for a second and let me through.

Erm, enough with the ranting. Not all of them ride like that of course, and I have no problems with them hurting themselves while jumping off cliffs or stairs. Anyway, I don't think biking has much to do with obesity to be honest. I am in Europe, and nobody that I know rides their bike to work or school, and the hordes of bikers are nowhere to be seen during the morning rush hours. I suspect that more people ride recreationally than in the US, but still nowhere near enough to explain the differences in obesity.

Even if you look at Denmark, with the highest biking km/person/year in the EU, biking only accounts for around 12-13% of km traveled. This figure is somewhat smaller for the Netherlands, but then a bit lower is Germany at about 4%, while Spain is 0.4%. Yet, the Spanish are actually significantly thinner. Italians don't rely on their bikes as much as the Dutch, buth again they're the thinner ones.

I don't have any research on this, but I'd say walking affects the obesity rates much more than biking does. While walking accounts for even less distance traveled than biking, this is mainly because walking is fucking slow and you can't actually go further than a few blocks in a reasonable amount of time. At the same time, many more people walk than ride bikes, and I think this is what makes the difference. I don't know if the data supports this, but at a glance there doesn't seem to be much of a correlation, though maybe that's partially because the variation in walking is much lower between the countries (115 km range vs 915 for biking).

In the 40's and 50's there was a real risk of folks who were Nazi sympathizers restarting the party and using it to take over the fairly democratic government of West Germany. So the laws against swastikas made perfect sense. Now, any German politician who proposes repealing those laws could easily be accused of trying to bring back the policies of the Third Reich and (thankfully, in my opinion) be promptly voted out of office.

Nazi-ism is and will probably always be a very touchy subject in Germany. Sort of how Confederate symbolism is a very touchy subject in the US. For instance, look at this piece about The Producers getting produced in Berlin.

There's some truth to that. Here's another source. A lot of the pirates were originally fishermen. Somalia had one of the most diverse and productive waters prior to the dumping and overfishing by foreigners.

Oh.. the chinese.. Ahh.. yes.. of course.... riiiight.....

http://wissen.spiegel.de/wissen/dokument/dokument.html?id=13501796&top=SPIEGEL

Radioactivity was released, 90 millions bequerel to be exact. Have not found the technical description of how it happened, but it is not difficult to imagine that hot helium would evacuate the circuit, air would rush in, be heated by the core, and get out again carrying radioactivity.

PBR are built without containment as a safety measure, so that heat can be removed and a core meltdown cannot occur. This makes this kind of accident easier, though.

Poland has an unfortunate history both during and directly after the war, extending into the 60s. The embarassing reaction to the relatively recent release of Jan T Gross's book (hereby incorporated by reference) in which the former Kaczynski, the former Primitive Polish Prime minister even tried to prosecute the author.

It's important to remember that during the war the Poles had much harder situations for rescuing Jews than in most other countries (you risked your entire family going to a concentration camp; elsewhere you risk only yourself and only prison) and many still did. It's also worth remembering that the reason Jews were in Poland was because they were historically treated better there than elsewhere. Poland is much further along coming to terms with and apologizing (though with reservations) for it's former anti-semitism (even Kaczynski has made efforts to return passports to the victims of the 60s) than a number of surrounding countries.

Essentially anyone who tells you that Poles are all good is a Holocaust revisionist. As is anyone who tells you that they are all bad.

In all cases where I referenced Wikipedia, all references in the page references are incorporated by reference as material to read. There; is that enough citations for you?

These guys already figured this out several years ago. (Sorry, I couldn't find a non-subscription link.)

During the pilgrimages to Mecca, one of the things that people are supposed to do is go into a large stadium and cast rocks at three pillars. Zillions of people attend this event, and there have been numerous trampling deaths at the entrance to the stadium. These guys showed that having obstructions near the entrance improves traffic flow, and so they recommended to officials in Mecca to install such obstacles there, resulting in far fewer trampling deaths near the entrance. Other means of traffic calming were used to mitigate deaths elsewhere in the stadium.

It's already working in germany.

The piratenpartei there got just approved to be part of national elections, which will take place in about 2 months in 15 states. After the german government had decided on a stupid domain-blocking scheme against (so they say) child porn, the piratenpartei got 0.7% at the european elections a short while ago.

The Spiegel (an important german weakly) and other media are reporting about the issue and discussion about regulation of the net is starting in the mainstream media and also within the various parties, forcing the parties to develop a clear position on things before election.

Up until recently the issue was not taken seriously by the german parties and security freaks like Wolfgang Schaeuble were allowed to install more and more legislation to control and observe citizens more closely and broadly (his party is actually using the following slogan in it's election campaign: "we're strong enough for both freedom _and_ security", which is of course bullshit, as we all know (Jefferson anyone)).

So yes, what the UK Pirate Party is trying to do is very much viable and makes sense. It'll raise awareness of the political cast to a problem unsolved and to the fact that people will not let their freedom be taken away so easily.

Don't worry, absolutely nothing can go wrong.
I lived close by the place and went to see it, most of the old houses have cracks from top to bottom, and seen by the dated marks on the walls the cracks were still getting bigger. According to the building engineers there is no risk of collapsing yet, but it just doesn't look all too safe. And the drills made here were just small-sized testing drills.

I see your point now but I think it is largely already accounted for.

The extra protections, then safety switches and procedures, actual lock out tag out and demanding on site compliance is all an expense that can be built into the plant and operating costs rather then account for a disaster. So I guess what we could ask in addition would be could any of the expense of handling something like a Chernobyl scale disaster be either accounted for with the extra safety protections or would those protections be in addition to any disaster. If I could guarantee that when X, Y, and Z are followed, no accident on that scale would happen, then would that be in addition to the costs of an incident if it did happen or could the costs of it not happening be considered the costs of it happening.

I guess that pretty important because from a cost benefit analysis, it would seem the prevention would be the most beneficial route. Most of Chernobyl is tolerable as far as radioactivity is concerned as long as you stay away from the concrete and metal. Well, maybe not exactly at ground zero but there are people living since one year after the disaster less then 8-10 miles away with no obvious effects. The original evacuation zone was 30km or about 18 miles in diameter. They evacuated about 200,000 people, now I believe the total number is more around 330,000. The Ukraine claimed to have spent about $100 billion US by 200 and planed on another 6 billion in 2000 with 6.4 of it's annual budget allocated thereafter. This doesn't include the almost 1 billion dollars in donations from other countries and private aid organizations or the costs of direct assistance given during and immediately after the incident. Also not included in that is 1 billion US in changed to other plants in either safety mechanisms or training brought about with foreign aid or the costs of the new containment domes planned to be placed over the failing concrete domes made in the heat of the issue. I don't have links but I believe one is supposed to costs of around 505 million US for the one containment dome and 200 million for the other. As rough guess would be something close to around 3-6 billion dollars total not counting the costs of lands lost. Personal and real property losses, health treatment from the effects of radiation and relocation costs.

However, it should be stressed that something like Chernobyl can't really happen today because of differences in core designs as well as physical safety measures built into the plant that cause a safe fail shutdown instead of a run away reactor. It's one of the requirements of the IAEA which is followed by almost every country now. Section 5.40. of IAEA SAFETY STANDARDS (PDF warning) states that:

"The principle of fail-safe design shall be considered and incorporated into the
design of systems and components important to safety for the plant as appropriate: if
a system or component fails, plant systems shall be designed to pass into a safe state
with no necessity for any action to be initiated."

6.2 states, "The reactor core and associated internal components located within the reactor
vessel shall be designed and mounted in such a way that they will withstand the static
and dynamic loading expected in operational states, design basis accidents and external
events to the extent necessary to ensure safe shutdown of the reactor, to maintain the
reactor subcritical and to ensure cooling of the core."

This design consideration has been designed from the start or has been or is in the process of being retrofitted into almost every nuclear plant. We can talk about if an incident could happen or it this design would fail on the premise of a terrorist strike or war or something of the sort but we would have bigger problems then a Chernobyl type incident when that comes around.

Microsoft *never took that away* from the user. Ever. Nothing EVER stopped you from installing Mosaic, or Netscape, or Opera, or Firefox, or Safari. Never in the history of Microsoft have they taken away the "choice of a different browser."

But they significantly decreased the likelihood of the user making that choice when they started bundling Internet Explorer with Windows.

You're either completely full of shit, or completely delusional. I don't know which.

I hope they'll bleed. And stop whining about the EU only wanting to make money because their fines are a tiny drop in the financial ocean.

The only press we in the US see about the EU summarizes as:
* EU sues highly-successful American company for dubious reasons, imposes gigantic fines.

What are we supposed to believe the motive is?

"EU fines European company" isn't going to sell newspapers in the USA, is it? Do you want me to dig up the list of European companies that have been fined massive amounts by the EU, or will you just take my word for it? (You could search for it, it's on europa.eu somewhere.)

Consider reading some non-USA media if you want a more balanced world view. I read Spiegel as well as news from my own country.

There was a practical study conducted by the town government of the German municipality of Rheine. The article here in Der Spiegel mentions this. Despite turning off much of the town's night lighting, night crime incidence rates remained low.

It seems that the modern streetlight is little more than the grown-up's version of the night light. I say it's high time we all grow up and learn to live with the dark. It's really not that frightening.

Cheers,

Unfortunately, in several cases the Europeans did not learn the lesson from the private rail systems in the US and more recently the UK. For example the Germans are actually still trying to privatize their relatively efficient railway system (typing from a packed german commuter train now). I'm not completely up-to-date, probably the economic crisis suspended the privatization for a while.

Speigel is available in English so there is no need to use Google's hilarious language masher. http://www.spiegel.de/international/ This item will not appear for a few days since it is bit of electioneering to a very violence-sensitive nation and not really international news. You can read alternative German opinions on the subject in Thelocal http://www.thelocal.de/opinion/20090317-18073.html.

It probably comes as a surprise that Germany is a democracy and has many different opinions on a variety of subjects. The nation has a remarkable number of elderly people compared to the rest of the world and most of them think the internet comes in a box. This sort of thing appeals to them. They don't allow ordinary citizens to carry handguns either and they do provide healthcare for all of their citizens and even non-citizens who are employed. Abortion, contraception and education, including sex education, are available to all and their is a clear separation between what are considered religious ideas and what are scientific concepts.
They also have some of the fastest cars in the world and the safest roads on the planet where you can travel at sub-light speeds legally.

As slashdot's regular defender of all things German ( I have a Bavarian family) and rebutter of this sort of FUD, I am not too worried about ./ propagating ridiculous stereotypes about this country and its very open, liberal and democratic society, because it means fewer people with those daft opinions will come here and spoil it all for me. It's a beautiful part of the world as well and dare I mention how similar the Germans are to the ... Americans!

Free market purists always seem to portray Europe as some sort of example of the failure of limited socialism and mixed markets, but frankly I've never understood this.

Try this. My sister's a CPA, Certified Public Accountant who along with friends started her own accounting business several years ago. Back then I was chatting with someone in Germany and mentioned that. He told me that if an accountant wanted to start an accounting business there they would have to have a lawyer start it. My sister didn't need one. Employment laws there also make it hard to fire an employee whether they're bad employees or not. If my sister hires a bad employee she can easily fire him or her too. Years ago when the government in France debated on whether to make it easier for employers to fire people youth rioted. The idea was supposed to be so employers would take more risks in hiring the young. If employers can't easily fire employees they won't hire then.

Falcon

Here is an example for canned beer:

http://einestages.spiegel.de/external/ShowTopicAlbumBackground/a1876/l20/l0/F.html#featuredEntry

Supposedly we had a surcharge on cans which drove them off the market until 2006 when they changed the law again. I don't buy beer frequently, so I really have no clue about our beer market. Maybe I should check whether I can find any plastic beer bottles.

Market-based solutions like cap and trade have been effective in other areas, and are probably the most reasonable precautionary measure with regard to CO2.

I'm not so sure about your first assertion. Wind Turbines in Europe Do Nothing for Emissions-Reduction Goals -- see about halfway through the article for the way 'cap and trade' has been working out.

Just connect the dots. What is the criteria?

1) The company is big
2) The company is essentially a monopoly
3) The company is American

I'd say Google. Maybe Oracle.

You get a 1.5 out of 3. The first item is likely true, in part because smaller cases are probably either handled at the national level (do not need to involve the EU) or perhaps such cases exist but do not get the same media coverage. But OK, I'll give you that one.

As to item 3: the EU also regularly heavily fines large European companies. For example, Siemens got fined for 400 million euro for forming a price cartel. Also see here: "The total fines slapped on 11 companies based in the EU and Japan amount to some 750.7 million euros. [..] The total penalty for the cartel is the second-highest imposed by the commission [as of 2007], following a record 790.5 million euros for fixing vitamin prices in 2001".

Oh, and before you ask, that vitamin cartel involved Hoffman-La Roche of Switzerland, which got fined 462m euros, and BASF of Germany, which got fined to the tune of 296m.

As to 2: the company doesn't have to be a monopoly either, although such fines do indeed commonly concern oligopolies (since forming cartels is a very lucrative prospect in such an environment, for obvious reasons). See above examples. Because of such cartels you could perhaps call this "essentially a monopoly", so ok, half point there.

I'd have assumed you where just trolling, but since you are getting upmodded and I've seen such sentiments in other discussions as well, I thought I'd point this out.

This is in the news here since two days ago and basically backfired big time allready, with even the police union turning to the CDU and saying 'totally hairbrained stupid idea'. Particularly hilarious is the reaction of one of those supporting the programm in an spiegel-online interview from yesterday (it's in the last fourth of the video - in German though - but you can catch the tone nonetheless). The guy loses his cool the instant he is asked about it, having been bugged the entire day about it. Very funny indeed and the comentary of the video doesn't stint on snide and whitty remarks on this political botch either.

. . . especially the bit about the police, which I just read here: http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/gesellschaft/0,1518,623530,00.html

I think that this law would get, excuse me, "shot down" at the German Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof).

I read a while ago about a German guy who invented a way to make farmable land out of desert:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,551152,00.html

But the project also consumed vast numbers of worms -- 3,000 per square meter, to be exact -- which eventually made the project too costly for its sponsors."

Respectfully, I suggest that 3,000 worms per meter is not planting cucumbers in sand, but in worms. Cheaper to buy dirt and import that directly than wait for the live worms to die and become soil...

I read a while ago about a German guy who invented a way to make farmable land out of desert:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,551152,00.html
(He moved on to make a radar camoflaging paint):

"The project seemed promising at first, as cucumbers, radishes and beans thrived on Nickel's test fields on the outskirts of Abu Dhabi. But the project also consumed vast numbers of worms -- 3,000 per square meter, to be exact -- which eventually made the project too costly for its sponsors."

I wonder what the costs between the two projects are or if they could be used in conjuction with each other (to lower costs) somehow.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,615608,00.html

Accourding to the german news site spiegel, they DID test raw material, but didn't find the offending DNA in the samples. If only a small fraction of the swabs are contamined, it can take a long time until you find one.

Sadly, even modern day archives get wrecked. See http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,611311,00.html

This is just precious - the Stasi in the GDR (east germany to most) did exactly the same thing with their suspects.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,484561,00.html
http://scent-lab.blogspot.com/2008/07/body-odor-preserved-and-exhibited-at.html

People being interrogated would frequently be asked to sit with their palms face down on a piece of cloth, usually stuck to the chair. After the interrogation, the cloth would be removed and placed in a jar for later analysis. I don't believe it's ever been admissible as evidence in any western court, but that's obviously what the whole DHS "proof" is all about.

Quite why one would invest so many resources in this when fingerprints and DNA are already reliable forms of identification I don't know, and I strongly suspect that the "indicator" of deception will be flawed for much the same reasons the results of a polygraph are flawed - I can understand how someone who's stressed might well emit a different sort of sweat than someone who's just hot, but trying to define a "liars sweat" reeks (hohoho) of pseudoscience to me.

Who knows, maybe there's something in it, maybe the article is making too much of things, maybe I've got my paranoid hat on. But it still seems worryingly like the whole "this man is the serial killer cos his writing is all weird" argument to me.