Slashdot Mirror

the Watergate break in was in 1972. Nixon resigned in 1974. 2 years.

Ken Starr was appointed special counsel in 1994. Clinton was impeached in 1998. 4 years.

Why make up dumb shit?

You appear to be correct about Watergate; but you are REALLY off on The whole Clinton saga:

https://www.theguardian.com/wo...

1) Any one go to jail for it? And stay there for a while? If not, the "inferno" was more of a tempest in a teapot. Same as when the torture story broke here in the United States, and rather than the torturers going to jail, they got get-out-of-jail-free cards instead. And now we have a torturer at the head of the CIA - thanks Obama!

2) WYP? Svartholm was wanted in Denmark, Assange is wanted in the United States. Sweden pursed Svartholm and as soon as they had him they interrogated him for weeks without a lawyer or any outside contact for the alleged crimes in Denmark, which means it was their plan to do so all along, and then deported him to Denmark. Now, just repeat all that, only substituting the two men and "Denmark" for "the United States".

3) See #2. Also Sweden doesn't have to hand Assange over to the US directly - they could deport him to his native Australia or to Ecuador, where he was granted citizenship but is now government by a right wing toady of the United States. Allowing Sweden to play the "who, me???" card a second time if Assange ends up in US custody from either of those two countries. What's further problematic is that while Sweden is known for hippie health care and free education, you are outright medieval in how police are allowed to treat suspects. Specifically, that you can hold them for long periods of time for interrogation without outside contact of any kind, even a lawyer. See again #2 where this was done to Svartholm. Suspects have confessed to murders they didn't commit in far less time than Svartholm was held incognito, so I would be surprised if Assange doesn't confess that Russia hacked the DNC, Podesta and that he colluded with Russia to spoil the election for Hillary.

4) They wouldn't sweep Assange into the back of a van as he was a well known public figure by this point, as opposed to those poor bastards seeking asylum in Sweden, the threat of the dead man's package being released if something happened to him (before they knew what it was) and because Assange can claim protections as a journalist. As far as being too outlandish, we could have said the same thing about a head of state having his plane forced down because Edward Snowden might have been onboard, but of course that actually happened.

The other important factor with libraries is that books don't suddenly disappear en-masse like they can with a virtual/centrally-controlled commercial entity... People should remember the particularly ironic case of Amazon removing copies of 1984 from everyone's Kindle, as reported in the New York Times and The Guardian.

What do you mean, what do I mean. The UK just blocked extradition of a suspect based on how the US treats suspects and prisoners - whereas Sweden directly handed asylum seekers over to the CIA to be tortured in 2001. In 2013 Sweden went to great lengths to arrest a founder of the Pirate Bay in a non extradition country, and upon his arrival in Sweden, immediately interrogated him for weeks without a lawyer or any outside contact for an unrelated crime in an unrelated country - and then later deported him to said country.

If you're really hung up on citizenship, just refer to the U.N. Convention Against Torture, which forbids transporting prisoners to where they may be tortured. Sweden and the UK are both signatories, as is the United States to this treaty - one it has been in flagrant violation of ever since Bush's first year in office. Bush of course had a worldwide kidnapping and torture program. Obama also violated the treaty when he refused to prosecute those who committed torture, and tortured Chelsea Manning with eighteen months of solitary confinement and then pronounced guilty in a textbook case of unlawful command influence. The current Secretary of State is a big fan of torture, and the head of the CIA is a torturer.

So both the immediate parties involved would have to break a law they agreed to if Assange ends up in US custody. But it wouldn't be the first time they have done so - Sweden had been a signatory to the convention for over 15 years when it handed over Mohammed al-Zari and Ahmed Agiza to the CIA at an airport. Also note that the CYA move Sweden tried by getting "assurances" from Egypt that they wouldn't torture the men, but that was found insufficient by the UN Human Rights Committee.

Apple have previous:
https://www.theguardian.com/bo...

On hardware too:
https://www.wired.co.uk/articl...

Might be harmless. Then again might not. Not that I am in favor of bulldozing the Himalayas, mind you. I'm just sayin'.

"Let's plays" actively harm sales and everyone knows it. citation required

Is that the same thing as the way that pirates never pay for music?
Oh, wait. They're actually good customers.

I"m curious, do THAT many people out there base their purchasing decisions on if a product is packed in recycled materials or not?

I mean, is the number of people that would bother doing this statistically significant?

Not enough people, however it was exactly the ridiculous levels of packaging from supermarkets that drove me to my nearest organic box schemes. Since trying a few, I found one where the vegetables are so much better than anything else I can get that I stuck with it for the quality.

There have been a load of stories about this and I think people in the UK are begin to be aware with this Lauren Singer person having been on TV and had stories around various places but mostly supermarkets have to change and that will be slow.

Oh please. Citing a single case from 17 years ago as an excuse to completely flaunt the entire justice system of a country isn't even hyperbole, it's borderline tinfoil hattery. Get a grip man.

You're only insulting your own intelligence here. Remind us (and by us I mean you) who's the current head of the CIA? How many high level politicians have openly called for Assange's assassination? The number of whisteblowers persecuted in the previous administration's war on sources - three times as many as all previous presidents combined? The same president who had a foreign head of state's plane forced down because Edward Snowden might be aboard? All much more recently than 17 years ago. Hate Assange all you want, it's a free country, but to deny that his fear of Swedish complicity in US persecution is completely justified takes a powerful level of dumbfuckery.

Sweden could easily do a lot of things that breach the legal framework they have set in place. But in doing so they would confirm to do the very thing about which you just criticised them.

TSTRT

There were two women.

One said he raped her but she later revealed that she did, indeed, express a liking for rough sex.

The other woman only wanted to talk to Assange to inquire as to whether he had any sexually transmissible diseases, because a rubber broke.

That woman self-tested and was found to be OK.

Both women dropped the charges.

Sweden, on its own volition, issued an arrest warrant for Assange on the premise that they wanted to question him.

He said, "Fine. Let's meet and talk."

Sweden ordered him to come back there.

Fearing a trap, Julian declined.

Not quite.

The first woman was the one who experienced "rough sex" and the broken condom, which she thought Assange deliberately broke (he claimed he wasn't aware... which seems implausible).

The second women had repeatedly expressed her preference against unprotected sex and so they'd have protected sex. But later she fell asleep and awoke to find him having unprotected sex with her.

The first one seems like some sketchy behaviour on his part but I don't think there's a case on its own.

But the second one is definite rape, not only was she asleep (and unable to consent) when it started, but it was a form of sex she had expressly prohibited.

Yes and, in fact the British are the only people who want to arrest him since Sweden dropped the rape investigation.

https://www.theguardian.com/me...

That's not to say that Sweden would not take up the investigation again if Assange left the embassy.

I'n not sure what you think you've found there.

Presumably you think this somehow contradicts what I said. Well, it might, but almost certainly doesn't.

The regulation in question has as one of its first paragraphs:"These provisions state that fruit and vegetables which are intended to be sold fresh to the consumer, may only be marketed if they are sound, fair and of marketable quality and if the country of origin is indicated. In the interest of harmonisation of the implementation of this provision, it is appropriate to define these characteristics in providing for a general marketing standard for all fresh fruits and vegetables."

Like I said, it was basically about marketing - essentially it's not ok to mislead consumers about your produce.

As for "Some sources have claimed this to be an admission that the original regulations did indeed ban "bent bananas", or that it was accepted that it was "a farce"", you might not be aware that Boris Johnson was the Brussels correspondent for the Daily Telegraph between 1989 and 1994 (the period of the original legislation quoted in your wikipedia article). His anti-EU sensationalist tripe almost certainly played a large part in shaping public opinion regarding the EU, and, I might go so far as to say, laid the foundations for the ground work that led to the subsequent referendum result two decades later.

(What price sensationalism for the purposes of, what, self aggrandisement!? Shame!)

Assange could not "agree" to that

Of course he can. Not his fault that Sweden has ignored Assange's offer to be interviewed abroad, or his offer to return to Sweden if Sweden promises not to hand him over to the U.S.

Swedish prosecutors have never proposed such silly idea

A "silly idea" they've done dozens of times since 2011. But not for Assange. Hmm, almost like the charges are a transparent pretext to hand him over to US custody, or at least interrogate him for weeks without a lawyer or any outside contact. They've done it before.

The case of Gottfrid Svartholm neatly answers the concerns of those who dismiss Assange's (perfectly justified) fears of being interrogated without a lawyer and being handed over to the U.S.

https://www.theguardian.com/co...

Parent is more correct than you are. Sweden may have hippie health care and higher education, but their justice system is still medieval in how it treats people suspected by the state of committing crimes. Swedish prosecutors are allowed to keep people in solitary confinement for weeks at a time, without outside contact of any kind, including access to a lawyer. People have confessed to murders they didn't commit in far less time.

The naysayers dismissal of Assange's entirely justified fears are easily addressed by how Sweden treated one of the Pirate Bay founders.

Sweden couldn't legally do that: if they extradite him from the UK via a European Arrest Warrant, they can't then extradite him to anywhere without applying to the High Court in London.

Sweden has handed people over to the CIA who were promptly tortured. Sweden has also gone to great lengths to extradite people from non-extradition counties, interrogated them for weeks in solitary confinement without a lawyer, and then deported them to other countries to face unrelated charges.

Because it would be so damn difficult to get him extracted from the UK?

Yeah, it would. See the recent denial of extradition for an alleged hacker based on how the U.S. tortures and abuses prisoners. Which is no exaggeration after Obama had Chelsea Manning tortured for 18 months with solitary confinement and then sentenced in a kangaroo court.

Corn seeds regrown from the current crop:

https://modernfarmer.com/2015/...

There was also a PBS documentary, but I can't find a link now. It was about farmers being sued by Monsanto because GMO pollen had got into their fields. They were essentially forced to switch to GMO corn and buy the seed new every year. With grains and beans the crop *is* the seed. Wouldn't it be kind of silly for professional farmers to buy new every year when they're the ones who grow the seed in the first place?

Sterile seeds: Why didn't you look this up yourself?
In general their seeds are designed to be sterile. To some extent they can sprout, but Monsanto won a court case against a farmer who tried to do just that:

https://www.theguardian.com/en...

The farmer bought up leftover seed from a grain silo to do a second planting in one season.

"Kagan... agreed with the company's argument that if it allowed farmers like Bowman to replant his seeds after just one season's use, it would have no business model"

You're assuming they got 5 days of work done in 4 which I don't see written anywhere in the summary

Maybe try reading it again?

job and life satisfaction increased on all levels across the home and work front, with employees performing better in their jobs and enjoying them more than before the experiment.

Maybe try reading it again, and notice the article never backs up those claims. It gives plenty of details figures for stress and job satisfaction, but no figures for worker productivity. It may be an oversite, but considering the same author did give figures for a similar attempt by a Swedish company in an early article about the same topic (which were pretty negative) the only assumption I think is warranted is there are no figures to back up your assumptions.

The workers could have performed better in those 32 hours, but got less done than in 40 hours, and those summarized comments by the professor would still be accurate.

What makes me think that? Well, reading what TFA suggests...

I'm not sure I can say this without coming off as overly negative (this is the second time I tried writing this comment), but you really need to reconsider how you consume news. If you see an article which provides significant facts and figures, but then makes suggestions that their own figures don't even try to back up, that should be a HUGE red flag. You should never, under any circumstances, just take those suggestions at face value.

If you look at a past article about the same topic by the same author, she did provide figures about the significant cost increases caused by a 6-hour work day at a Swedish company. So I'll give her the benefit of the doubt that she isn't intentionally hiding facts, but she is guilty of putting in unsubstantiated comments in the absence of facts. By put in summarized comments by a professor which says the employees performed better at their jobs without using the same rigor as she does with other claims, many readers are likely to have too much confidence in those unsubstantiated claims. That may be an intentional attempt to make you feel those comments are just as valid as the ones she provides evidence to back up, or it could be an accident. But either way you shouldn't give any credence to those comments.

Looks like they measured at least one of those three.

Not if they didn't provide any figures to back it up. If they didn't provide any figures at all I could consider it an oversight, but they did provide figures for employee satisfaction, stress levels, and a few others. What they missed is any actual figures measuring employer costs.

Another article about this company six months ago (by the same author) mentions a Swedish company that tried 6 hour work days and saw a 20% increase in costs. That is about what most people would expect from reducing their hours by 25%. A slight increase in productivity but a far greater loss in total output. There could certainly be differences in approach, corporate culture, or other factors that make Perpetual Guardian's approach more successful but nothing in this story except the vague and unsubstantiated remark you highlighted gives any insight into this.

Keep in mind that the workload, the expectations, the things that needed to get done, those did not change. This is a pretty major point since being overworked or not getting tasks completed is a major contributor to stress.

That could certainly be true, but nothing in the story suggests that. I made no comment about whether or not this company has been successful in implementing a 4-day work week. I only said the story doesn't give even the most basic information necessary to rate its success.

For all we know, they had to hire 20% more people to make up for lost productivity. For all we know, projects that would have taken 8 months are taking 10 months instead, and perhaps their management doesn't have good enough project metrics to notice. There is another article that mentions a similar Swedish company that enacted a 6 hour work day which concedes that while sick leave was reduced and job satisfaction increased, total costs to the company rose 20%.

I happen to think that people who are worked less are more productive, and that excessive overtime is not productive. However I personally doubt people can get as much done in 32 hours as they can in 40. I do think it is possible that improved retention and easier recruiting could make up for that gap though, so I am very interested to see these kinds of metrics from companies like this one. But this news story is nothing but a feel good piece; it does nothing to back up its claim that this practice has been a success. I hope this New Zealand company was more successful than the Swedish company I mentioned earlier but it will take a better news source to determine that. It looks like the company is open to giving their data to other companies who are curious about the 4-day work week.

Not counting the $1 billion in Facebook shares that they bought through Gazprom.
That doesn't include the ~5.4% of Facebook they already owned.

Russia funded Facebook and Twitter investments through Kushner investor

Nothing at all since the EU also fined VW

https://www.theguardian.com/bu...

Here's a clearer summary of what Google have been up to as reported by The Guardian.

EU Competition commissioner Margrethe Vestager says:

Google required manufacturers to pre-install the Google search and browser apps on Android phones, otherwise they wouldn't be allowed to use Google Play (its app service).

We need the browser and search engine for guaranteed compatibility with the app store; it is the only way to give the user a consistent experience.

Google paid manufacturers and network operators to make sure that only the Google search app was installed on devices.

Giving marketing dollars for co-branded advertising is an old and well accepted practice across the world. Just look at Intel!

Google has restricted the development of competing mobile phone operating systems, which could have provided a platform for rival search engines.

Restricted? Positive steps to better compete in a crowded marketplace is now illegal?

Google has used Android as a vehicle to cement its dominance as a search engine.

We provide users with a consistent predictable experience on devices issued by HUNDREDS of different providers. Tight integration is a simple necessity to make that happen.

These practices have denied rivals a chance to innovate and to compete on the merits.

Providers have simply recognized the benefit to their customers by using our services. They are completely free to contract with whomever they please.

They have denied European consumers the benefit of effective competition in the very important mobile sphere.

You have a very narrow definition of 'competition' when you choose to ignore a company with one of the highest market caps in the world!

And this is illegal under EU antitrust rules.

We clearly disagree with your interpretation and look forward to vindication on appeal

Todayâ(TM)s ruling states:

Google has prevented device manufacturers from using any alternative version of Android that was not approved by Google (Android forks).

By definition, the operating system would no longer be Android. We must be able to assure consumers that our products can provide a consistent experience. We can't simply allow any hack with a compiler to claim compatibility with our carefully built up brand.

In order to be able to pre-install on their devices Googleâ(TM)s proprietary apps, including the Play Store and Google Search, manufacturers had to commit not to develop or sell even a single device running on an Android fork.

Again, they would not be selling Android. We can't simply surrender one of our core competencies to a competitor because reasons.

The Commission found that this conduct was abusive as of 2011, which is the date Google became dominant in the market for app stores for the Android mobile operating system.

Consumer demand made us the dominant app store provider with the encouragement of governments across the globe.

Just pointing out that there are many different ways to frame a position.

Here's a clearer summary of what Google have been up to as reported by The Guardian.

EU Competition commissioner Margrethe Vestager says:

Google required manufacturers to pre-install the Google search and browser apps on Android phones, otherwise they wouldnâ(TM)t be allowed to use Google Play (its app service).

Google paid manufacturers and network operators to make sure that only the Google search app was installed on devices.

Google has restricted the development of competing mobile phone operating systems, which could have provided a platform for rival search engines.

Google has used Android as a vehicle to cement its dominance as a search engine.

These practices have denied rivals a chance to innovate and to compete on the merits.

They have denied European consumers the benefit of effective competition in the very important mobile sphere.

And this is illegal under EU antitrust rules.

Todayâ(TM)s ruling states:

Google has prevented device manufacturers from using any alternative version of Android that was not approved by Google (Android forks).

In order to be able to pre-install on their devices Googleâ(TM)s proprietary apps, including the Play Store and Google Search, manufacturers had to commit not to develop or sell even a single device running on an Android fork.

The Commission found that this conduct was abusive as of 2011, which is the date Google became dominant in the market for app stores for the Android mobile operating system.

For the benefit of the mods who think the above is a troll, I'm referring to an incident on Sunday in which Musk accused the diver who saved the kids trapped in caves in Thailand a pedophile because he said Musk's submarine wouldn't have helped. It was a bizarre baseless attack on a legit hero.

Some of these people are imprisoned purely for the purpose of becoming organ donors for the new elite.

https://edition.cnn.com/2016/0...

https://www.theguardian.com/wo...

Given that you've resorted to deflection, rather than an honest recognition of the problem at this point I don't particularly expect this to sway you, but here you go, on the off chance, you might find it interesting:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk...

Still think Musk is in it for anything other than his ego in this case? Really?

To expand upon this, Nigeria does have pretty substantial oil reserves that are actively being exploited, yet one of this weeks' headlines was that it surpassed India as the country with the most people living in poverty. Score one for the unregulated free market!

Als, GP should probably read up on the resource curse. Norway is possibly the first country to entirely avoid it; how they did it makes for an interesting study.

Perhaps you fail to understand that calling someone a paedophile can get people killed. Indeed there are so many morons around that even a paediatrician can be driven out of her house.

Musk may be a far-sighted genius but he also looks like a deeply unpleasant character with plenty of flaws of his own.

The majority of comments here reveal that US ignorance of football continues to be deep and broad. Rest of world is happy for things to remain that way, the US can hold its "World Series" of its cute local games while the rest of us enjoy a true global passion. Kudos also to Fox Sports for doing their bit to keep US viewers clueless

Pah it just lost my comment.

I do suggest you listen to some women and radical feminists for their views, listening hurts no one and the world is a better place when people with divergent views can share them openly without fear. Most of the radical feminists I've met seem welcoming enough if you can manage polite conversation.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplep...
https://www.theguardian.com/so...
https://nordicmodelnow.org/201...

It is not 'violence against women', it is 'Male Violence against women', there is a subject the violence is not committed by the passive voice. I criticise men because I think most men have something to be sorry for, whether it be hands where they were not wanted to rape and murder. I certainly have things I am sorry for. I did at least learn the lessons as a teenager and not repeat them as an adult. Male violence and male socialisation have also caused me worry and pain. So when the house of men is in order I can then feel in a position to criticise others. Until then I will continue to speak out on male violence. You may see it as anti-men rhetoric but you know when you read of a domestic murder, either it was a violent man killing his partner or those rare occasions when a woman abused for years finally snaps and kills the man. You see those same stories in the papers I do. Also male violence affects men too, more than 50% of reported victims of violent crime in the UK are male (90+% committed by males). Yes I get 'not all men' I do, I try to be one of the not all group, don't really need to say it, prefer to do something about the Problem. 100% of rape is committed by men (in the UK at least), it has something like a 2% conviction rate. I don't think men are particularly worried about it. As rape seems to be on the increase data suggests they are not overly concerned with being caught.

Also speak to your female friends, see if they would agree if male violence is a topic men should discuss.

But porn is not healthy sexual relationships. It's mostly abuse of women for men's pleasure. It is normalising the abuse of women in relationships. There is no alternative source of healthy sexual relationships available to many. Data seems to suggest abusive relationships are starting in teenage years and the growing asexual numbers who don't enjoy the pornified sex that is portrayed and know nothing else so avoid it all. There are many differing views on porn, I don't think it helps and the normalisation of porn into mainstream culture seems to be damaging some women and men. You can actually act out legally most things in porn so it's not quite the same as video games (I really like shooting things in the head sometimes). But I used porn for many years (never bought sex, never could I see that as personally moral) but started listening to women a couple of years ago. They make a lot of good points and I've not been able to find arguments against them. But a middle aged man can only give you a certain view, listen to others who are not like you, see what they think and then consider the whole.

But men are the ones most profiting from porn from mostly the labour of women. It's all pretty exploitative. You can't just look at the product but how it's made too.

If you also look up the nordic model and how it has actually worked https://nordicmodelnow.org/wha... locking up the Johns does indeed solve the problem, providing help to the women, helps the women. If there were not such data on how you can reduce the problem I could see your point. But unfortunately there is data and it mostly shows what to do. If we di

Are there Russian Nazis?

Oh yes, and they have the full support of the Russian government.

https://www.theguardian.com/ne...

Apple works to protect the environment and gay rights, and tries not to use raw materials supplied by child labor. That's good.

I hope some day Apple will also care some day about human rights, like free speech.

At an Apple shareholder's meeting:

"When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind, I don’t consider the bloody ROI," Cook said, adding that the same sentiment applied to environmental and health and safety issues.

Ok, when will Apple apply the "I don’t consider the bloody ROI" philosophy, when it comes to selling Apple devices in China?

Personally, I could give a shit if my doctor is an arrogant asshole, as long as he's a top notch surgeon, he can autograph is work of art for all I care..

Surgeon got in a *lot* of trouble for doing just that.

You sir are an idiot, there are plenty of campaigners for prostitute rights in the UK, they even have their own Union.

https://www.theguardian.com/pr...
https://www.iusw.org/
https://www.independent.co.uk/...

The key to extradition between countries is that the accusation needs to be for a crime for which an extradition treaty exists. Between the US and NZ, here is a listing (which is typical of other country treaties with the US): https://internationalextraditi... ... I did RTFA, but did not find a link to the NZ court ruling to confirm the extent to which this bilateral extradition treaty was the basis for the ruling.

Dotcom is accused of racketeering and money laundering, which would seem to be covered in the treaty section on fraud: "16. Obtaining property, money or valuable securities by false pretenses or by conspiracy to defraud the public or any person by deceit or falsehood or other fraudulent means, whether such deceit or falsehood or any fraudulent means would or would not amount to a false pretense." The definition of racketeering is something like, "dishonest and fraudulent business dealings."

International extradition treaties are part of why plaintiffs and prosecutors seek such high crimes, in their charges. The article links to the US court filing, if you want to see the full list. Another reason is that, in the US, criminal charges are made at the highest possible level of seriousness, so that there will be a plea bargain for a lower charge, rather than bringing a case all the way to the end. Federal prosecutions in the US very rarely result in Not Guilty or in charges being dismissed (under 5%).

That EU law that got struck down yesterday was part of an industry effort to add copyright infringement to the set of laws that would let enforcement cross national boundaries. For copyright, there is no current international extradition (at least, not with the US -- the EU has been doing its own thing). The Berne Convention, and associated treaties under WIPO, are the applicable international treaties for copyright, and do not make provisions for extradition or international enforcement for copyright violation. The fact that international boundaries are usually very easy to cross via Internet traffic is a big concern for publishers, media companies, etc., and they have been trying for a long time to extend reach of copyright laws beyond national boundaries.

One of the earliest such cases was in 2000, and involved a US copyright law forbidding reverse engineering of encryption. The DeCSS case, https://www.technewsworld.com/..., was to bring charges against Jon Johansen in Norway for posting a decryption program. Nowadays, I would expect charges in US courts would also include crimes for which extradition treaties apply, like fraud and larceny. This is easily achieved by stipulating large $ damages (due to lost revenue, piracy, etc.).

More recently, we know that Julian Assange is concerned about being extradited to the US under a secret indictment in the US courts. The rape charges in Sweden were sufficient for extradition from the UK (https://www.government.se/government-of-sweden/ministry-of-justice/international-judicial-co-operation/extradition-for-criminal-offences/), but Ecuador has an approach that gives higher priority to avoiding torture than the bilateral treaties. The Guardian has a nice short cheeky piece about why Edward Snowden was also thought to be en route to Ecuador, before he ended up staying in Russia: https://www.theguardian.com/wo...

We are getting the picture, right? The US isn't the only country that seeks very high-level crimes in what are basically copyright cases, nor are they the only country where moneyed business interests are able to get the ear of criminal courts for issues that are, essentially, civil cases (a distinction that matters a lot in countries that follow common law... less so for countries with different legal heritage, like Ge

If you're serious about climate change then you need to support nuclear power. James Hansen, Kerry Emanuel, and others outline why nuclear is the only viable path forward on climate change. Nuclear power will make the difference between the world missing crucial climate targets or achieving them

In case anyone is wondering about the hypocrisy, read this article https://www.theguardian.com/wo...

> When CDs were introduced, they were hailed as the ultimate audio format

No, they weren't.

In theory it should be sufficient, but in practice 2-channel, 16-bit @ 44 KHz is NOT the ultimate format -- it was simply "good enough" and "cheap enough".

Not all Hi-Fi audio is equal, as Malcolm Hawksford, emeritus professor of electronic systems engineering at Essex University, and author of more than 250 papers on music reproduction, points out:

"There is witchcraft in hi-fi, yes," he said. "People often try experimental designs and get spectacular results, but there are no equations, so it's pseudo science. They don't really know how they've done it. But I doubt that Stradivarius wrote down equations or solved the wave structure in the materials he used. He would have made violins by experiment and finding techniques that work."

There, I have now doubled the number of times that "France" has been mentioned in a discussion that includes extravagant statements about the unaffordability of nuclear power, how it only survives by huge subsidies.

None of these people ever explain how France has not gone broke, relying on it for 75% of power generation for over 40 years. The power utility has separate books, so you're presumably including a vast nuclear-wing conspiracy to steal trillions from French taxpayers, decade after decade, right-wing and left-wing governments alike keeping the dread secret... of the money smuggled over to the electrical utility to fake up a profit.

Or we could go with Occam's and figure they really produce power with nukes at about a mid-range price for Europe, far cheaper than Germany and Belgium:
https://1-stromvergleich.com/e...

As for safety and all that, this is France, fercrissake; they take to the streets in crowds of black masks, smashing windows, in support of disgruntled train drivers:
https://www.theguardian.com/wo... ...so I really think they would have called their government on the malfeasance if there had been any with nuclear reactors.

It totally blows me away how aggressively Americans preserve their lack of interest in other countries. The fact that something worked somewhere else never makes any impression on them. Everybody else has universal health insurance? Still can't actually work. (On the right.) France runs the country on nukes since Disco was cool? It's still technically and financially impossible. (On the left.)

If enough people start wearing anti-surveillance clothing:

https://www.theguardian.com/te...

it just might reduce the success rate below "justifiable cost"

Tariffs are matching what other countries are already doing to us.

So your solution is escalation? We've already done that remember and it didn't turn out well.

Free trade is like socialism,

Oh dear. Free trade is actually capitalism. This is how stupid American politics has become, the far right are backing a leftist agenda then criticising the left for trying to be more right.

. Meanwhile entire cities here in the USA are losing factory after factory and closing down small stores and restaurants which in turn reduces tax payers, etc.

So you solution is to make that worse? Like how Trump said he would drain the swamp when in fact in just made the swap larger?

I don't want lower price tags in the USA, in fact I want the opposite. Higher price tags and more people who can afford those higher price tags.

Which is fine, I agree that paying a higher ticket price to ensure some level of quality is a good thing overall. But this is not a capitalist ideal. It seems with Trump the Republicans have thrown every ideal they had out the window because winning is more important than being sticking with your beliefs

You don't get that by losing jobs to chop shop/kid labor overseas.

Well you can if you play it right. America is in decline because it didn't adapt quickly enough to globalisation. Globalisation means some jobs will no longer be cost effective, while others will be more profitable If you cling to the old way and just expect things to work you'e in for a surprise.
Trumps policies are clinging to the odd way. There is no vision or plan of how this will lead America to a brighter future. Tariffs don't work and everyone knows it

Bob Monkhouse. https://www.theguardian.com/uk...

Who is doing the whining though? As far as I can tell it's just us first world countries whining and complaining that we can no longer just dump our trash in China anymore. Why was that even a thing in the first place?

Who is doing the whining though? As far as I can tell it's just us first world countries whining and complaining that we can no longer just dump our trash in China anymore. Why was that even a thing in the first place?

Cool story Bro. China kinda took that stuff to recycle in the first place. There were horror stories about computer recycling, With computer reccling being a cottage industry - backyard burning the PVC insulation off wires to get the copper, some horrifying process to get the gold off of the contacts, and in the end the boards were burnt as well. https://www.theguardian.com/li... . There was some money to be made, so they made it. As likely as not, the real reason that China isn't taking plastic any more is because their earlier recycling efforts was so incredibly toxic and unregulated that the Chinese Government, which has been working at cleaning up opllution in the past few years, hasn't found a good way to do it yet, and besides, they have a huge problem with their own plastic waste without adding more waste to it..

But the idea that this is first worlders whining? It makes for a problem when someone in any process stream drops out of it. Just like if a electronic device is all ready to go to build, and one of the component manufacturers stops producing a needed component. It takes a while to find a new solution, and being annnoyed about it is not against the law.

I refuse to do any banking over the Internet. If I need to know a balance I go to an ATM or a real human teller. I get printed statements every month in the mail.

Anybody can refuse web banking. It's not difficult.

Not sure if you include "credit card payments" here but it's becoming impossible to use the internet without a credit card and an email address. Trusting trust --if you want to have some kind of paypal account then you need to provide a credit card (or a bank account IIRC --and there's no offline way of populating that, so you're effectively doing banking by proxy)

But I digress. The reason I replied was to remind you that no matter what you do, your information will be leaked --if it's not YOU, it will be one of the companies you choose to use... But it doesn't stop there --if you live in the US, a coinflip chance determines whether scammers already got your information last year. So in a crowded stadium, one in two is a considerable amount to leave to random chance... half of the people you see are statistically likely to be one of those 150 million people out of 300 million total population attacked by the Equifax hack. Even if you never walk thru their corporate headquarters doors --you have no choice. Funny, I put the wrong name in a websearch and saw news that Experian (the other non-optional credit union out of now 4 standard bodies) also got hacked, though that one went under my radar -- https://www.theguardian.com/bu...

That one was "only" 15 million marks. Sad to think that something that large is discounted to the point of never being mentioned during Equifax's raking over the coals last year, just because it reduces the stadium illustration from 50% to a 10% of those 50% odds, which is still a respectable 1 in 20 people in that stadium instead of 1 in 2.

We are in deep trouble. If someone got your social security number and you keep it for life with no exceptions, then it's game over --we just don't know when or how we're going to get the surprise once the credit union hackers start trickling the data to high-payers. Worse yet, even legit companies share our data with impudence. It's only a matter of time before "private" data from that breach ends up tainting muddy sources like those gossipy involuntary aggregation | blackmail sites of the likes of Spokeo Inc.

They should switch to...robot players

The world cup of robot football was just held in Montreal, and has been going for more than 20 years.

Won't somebody PLEASE think about The Bacon! Pork is actually red meat, does this mean no more Bacon if bit?

"Sufferers may not react every time they eat red meat, and some treatments of it, such as bacon, ham and prosciutto, can often be safely consumed." -- The Guardian, 7 Oct 2016

Yes. The USA has a huge drug problem. Most of the drugs are coming from Mexico.

No, dumbshit. The opioid epidemic in the Trump states is home grown.

https://www.theguardian.com/us...

https://www.theguardian.com/us...