Well if their home country parties are opposed, who exactly is in favor and continues the negotiations, and who continues to keep the negotiations secret? And who wrote the proposals made by the EU? Surely, the governments are not working completely outside of the normal "democratic" system?
I know the parliament now has the legal power to not ratify it, but do they have the willpower? The proportion of parties in the parliament is presumably quite close to those in their home parliaments, and since the majority of their home parties are obviously in favor in one way or another (if they weren't, the council of ministers would have put a stop to this a long time ago), do parliamentarians really care enough about the issue to stand up to their parties when it comes down to it? I wouldn't count on it.
The european parliament (albeit a slightly different one) passed the data retention directive as well as IPRED, I wouldn't put too much stock into their goodwill.
The "EU as a whole" did not reject ACTA, the European Parliament did. The council of ministers and the commission are the ones propagating ACTA, and the ones involved in the negotiations. Unfortunately, the European Parliament has a tendency to fold when it come down to it, and the council of ministers usually wins. The council of ministers is composed of national government ministers. The national governments are however rarely held responsible for any of the decisions of the council of ministers, hell most people probably have no idea what the council of ministers is. That needs to change.
Injunctions against "intermediaries"
on
Full ACTA Leak Online
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Well, it's great to know what our corrupt EU politicians over here have been up to. EU citizens: remember, this is what your government ministers have agreed to, it's not just some faceless EU bureaucracy. Hold them responsible for their actions in the EU, don't let them hide behind the bureaucracy.
Article 2.x, option 2 (EU) "Each party shall ensure that, where a judicial decision is taken finding infringement of an intellectual property right, the judicial authorities may issue against the infringer an injunction aimed at prohibiting the continuation of the infringement. The parties shall also ensure that right holders are in a position to apply for an injunction against intermediaries whose services are used by the third party to infringe an intellectual property right."
And as for your friends anecdotal casual observations, how about an actual study on the effect of light rail on crime in Los Angeles: http://www.its.ucla.edu/research/rpubs/pubdetails.cfm?ID=53 (I can use google too, but I obviously found a source quite a bit more credible than a right wing blog citing a mayor in an interview regarding a specific case, with no information whatsoever regarding other factors, or even if the situation was the same before light rail was built)
From the abstract: "At the end, the study establishes that the transit line has not had significant impacts on crime trends or crime dislocation in the station neighborhoods, and has not transported crime from the inner city to the suburbs."
Not exactly an unbiased source, and as anyone on slashdot should know, correlation does not equal causation.
Density around transit tends to be higher, meaning higher concentrations of crime, not necessarily more per population, but more per area. This is however not due to transit.
In any city (including suburbs) with an extensive transit network, poor high-crime areas are inevitably connected to wealthy low-crime areas. This does not make the low-crime areas unsafe in any way.
What do you mean lack of funding? Do you have any idea how many well-off anti-transit NIMBY organisations you have in the US?
As for transit between cities and suburbs, these are very well used, even in some parts of the US. The vast majority of suburban New York residents who work in Manhattan take commuter rail or bus to work, this does not in any way detract from the relative "safety" of these suburban areas.
Upper-middle-class people do not ride on public transit unless it is very, very clean, safe, and private. (This is partially because train lines seem to typically go from urban downtown to their pleasant neighborhoods, resulting in urban scum coming out to deal drugs and expand their turf in the relatively safe 'burbs.)
Ok, I know this not to be true, not only here in Europe, but in the US as well. I have lived in NYC, and I can tell you that there are *a lot* of upper middle class (and even wealthy) people who use the subway there, and it's not exactly clean, or private. (it's much safer than driving though)
Pure bullshit. The part about transit bringing criminals to suburbs too, can you point to *any* serious study that supports this?
How is this a troll? Moderators abusing their powers again... He's simply pointing out the other side of the argument. Why should people who walk to work pay for people who drive alone to work, when people who drive to work don't want to pay for people who take transit to work?
The whole point of taxes is to invest in infrastructure and services which benefits society as a whole. You can no more opt out of building transit because you don't use it than you can opt out of funding the fire department because you've never had a fire.
I just did a traceroute to Youtube of my own from my home computer. I was routed through a few of my ISP's routers until I came upon this: sto-cr3.google-gw.bahnhof.net (Bahnhof is my ISP) After which I was sent off to Mountain View, CA without any intermediate steps (I would have thought they would use a more locally situated server...), and then routed through a few of their routers until finally I arrived at a Youtube websever. Similar results were acheived from one of my servers, I was routed through my server host's ISP to "some.stockholm.router.google.com" in Sweden, after which I was routed directly to Mountain View, CA.
Re:The whole secrecy only adds to the resistance
on
Making Sense of ACTA
·
· Score: 1
I don't count on the riksdag to do that, they are a bunch of sheep. The FRA law proved it. As you probably know, those who opposed it were coerced by the administration to vote contrary to their own opinion.
Of course, if those with differing opinions actually had any principles whatsoever they would have stuck to their guns and ignored the party whip and fellow party-members. I'm convinced that most politicians that get as far as parliament never really had any principles whatsoever to begin with, they just like the posh job with a great "retirement" scheme, and so don't have any desire to upset those who could endanger their positions (ie. party leaders). What we need in Sweden is an expulsion of all current politicians from parliament, and some new provisions in our constitution to make sure the parliament actually has to consider the legality of the laws they are passing (like a constitutional court, or some other means of balancing the power of the parliamentary majority).
It's certainly not a new idea, but ITER (tokamak) is under construction in southern France. Of course, it won't be completed for some 10 years, and then the project is expected to run over 20 years after that. The plan is to sustain 500MW for up to 1000 seconds. Of course, they don't generate any electricity either, it's purely research. I'm afraid we won't see any actual fusion power plants for quite a while barring something revolutionary.
But then what was the point of even entering the Chinese market? If they really had these high ideals, they would stop catering to other restrictive markets as well. In Germany, Nazi websites are censored by Google for instance. We may not like the Nazi websites, but if they really believed in the ideals that they say they do, they would leave Germany as well.
An automatic fee of say, $100 000 should be awarded anyone who disproves a DMCA takedown notice. That way, companies like Universal may actually think twice before sending the notice, and lawyers will have an incentive to keep the system fair.
Most of those who voted against legalizing it did so based on their beliefs and faith. Homosexuals complain heterosexuals are not tolerant but homosexuals believe they should get their way and do not want to tolerate the decisions and beliefs of heterosexuals.
But isn't the state supposed to be separate from the church? How can there be any non-religious argument against gay marriage? And why should homosexual bow down to the prejudice of heterosexual majority any more than black people should bow down to the prejudices of the white majority?
And regarding your sig.. What is so bad about universal healthcare exactly? That it's socialist? Do you really have that much of an irrational fear of socialism that you reject anything associated with it? And who should pay for it if not the upper class? That's the entire point of universal healthcare, or any other government service, those who can afford it contribute more, those who can't contribute less. If everyone contributed equal amounts, that amount would have to be what the poorest person can reasonably afford and still survive. This would not leave much in the way of government services.
The US technically has separation of church and state, but not in practice. Congress holds prayers, the "pledge of allegiance" (what is that thing intended for anyways? brainwashing?) contains the phrase "under god", the currency states "in god we trust", etc.
Though I agree that the US tends to take the freedom of expression more seriously. Over here they tend to make illegal anything that is sufficiently unpopular. I certainly don't support racists or homophones, but I don't think they should be prosecuted for their beliefs unless they explicitly threaten a group of people.
Religious fanatics misusing their powers to moderate...
Re:We would probably have Gnu with another kernel.
on
Happy Birthday, Linus
·
· Score: 1
I don't know about Apache, but there are several proprietary products based on Eclipse that likely have not contributed any source back to the main project.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that Western culture has watchdogs like the SEC that will bring massive fraud lawsuits against you when you try to cheat and steal.
Hah!
Not running kids over is not part of the whole "won't someone think of the children" culture, it's common sense.
Well if their home country parties are opposed, who exactly is in favor and continues the negotiations, and who continues to keep the negotiations secret? And who wrote the proposals made by the EU?
Surely, the governments are not working completely outside of the normal "democratic" system?
I know the parliament now has the legal power to not ratify it, but do they have the willpower? The proportion of parties in the parliament is presumably quite close to those in their home parliaments, and since the majority of their home parties are obviously in favor in one way or another (if they weren't, the council of ministers would have put a stop to this a long time ago), do parliamentarians really care enough about the issue to stand up to their parties when it comes down to it? I wouldn't count on it.
The european parliament (albeit a slightly different one) passed the data retention directive as well as IPRED, I wouldn't put too much stock into their goodwill.
The "EU as a whole" did not reject ACTA, the European Parliament did. The council of ministers and the commission are the ones propagating ACTA, and the ones involved in the negotiations. Unfortunately, the European Parliament has a tendency to fold when it come down to it, and the council of ministers usually wins. The council of ministers is composed of national government ministers. The national governments are however rarely held responsible for any of the decisions of the council of ministers, hell most people probably have no idea what the council of ministers is. That needs to change.
Well, it's great to know what our corrupt EU politicians over here have been up to. EU citizens: remember, this is what your government ministers have agreed to, it's not just some faceless EU bureaucracy. Hold them responsible for their actions in the EU, don't let them hide behind the bureaucracy.
Article 2.x, option 2 (EU)
"Each party shall ensure that, where a judicial decision is taken finding infringement of an intellectual property right, the judicial authorities may issue against the infringer an injunction aimed at prohibiting the continuation of the infringement. The parties shall also ensure that right holders are in a position to apply for an injunction against intermediaries whose services are used by the third party to infringe an intellectual property right."
Which is why they're going to look at what they've written previously. The same rules should apply to "news organziations".
Is this journalism? http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Music/03/03/jessica.simpson.oprah/index.html?hpt=T2
Anandtech has become the only source I trust on SSDs: http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3757&p=5
Decent performance, certainly better than hard drives, but nowhere near Intel and top shelf OCZ.
And as for your friends anecdotal casual observations, how about an actual study on the effect of light rail on crime in Los Angeles: http://www.its.ucla.edu/research/rpubs/pubdetails.cfm?ID=53
(I can use google too, but I obviously found a source quite a bit more credible than a right wing blog citing a mayor in an interview regarding a specific case, with no information whatsoever regarding other factors, or even if the situation was the same before light rail was built)
From the abstract:
"At the end, the study establishes that the transit line has not had significant impacts on crime trends or crime dislocation in the station neighborhoods, and has not transported crime from the inner city to the suburbs."
Not exactly an unbiased source, and as anyone on slashdot should know, correlation does not equal causation.
Density around transit tends to be higher, meaning higher concentrations of crime, not necessarily more per population, but more per area. This is however not due to transit.
In any city (including suburbs) with an extensive transit network, poor high-crime areas are inevitably connected to wealthy low-crime areas. This does not make the low-crime areas unsafe in any way.
What do you mean lack of funding? Do you have any idea how many well-off anti-transit NIMBY organisations you have in the US?
As for transit between cities and suburbs, these are very well used, even in some parts of the US. The vast majority of suburban New York residents who work in Manhattan take commuter rail or bus to work, this does not in any way detract from the relative "safety" of these suburban areas.
Upper-middle-class people do not ride on public transit unless it is very, very clean, safe, and private. (This is partially because train lines seem to typically go from urban downtown to their pleasant neighborhoods, resulting in urban scum coming out to deal drugs and expand their turf in the relatively safe 'burbs.)
Ok, I know this not to be true, not only here in Europe, but in the US as well. I have lived in NYC, and I can tell you that there are *a lot* of upper middle class (and even wealthy) people who use the subway there, and it's not exactly clean, or private. (it's much safer than driving though)
Pure bullshit. The part about transit bringing criminals to suburbs too, can you point to *any* serious study that supports this?
How is this a troll? Moderators abusing their powers again...
He's simply pointing out the other side of the argument. Why should people who walk to work pay for people who drive alone to work, when people who drive to work don't want to pay for people who take transit to work?
The whole point of taxes is to invest in infrastructure and services which benefits society as a whole. You can no more opt out of building transit because you don't use it than you can opt out of funding the fire department because you've never had a fire.
Couldn't agree more. Using drones will only lead to more innocent people getting killed.
And really, troll? I guess being against war as the solution to every problem is defined as trolling by some war hawk mod.
I just did a traceroute to Youtube of my own from my home computer.
I was routed through a few of my ISP's routers until I came upon this:
sto-cr3.google-gw.bahnhof.net (Bahnhof is my ISP)
After which I was sent off to Mountain View, CA without any intermediate steps (I would have thought they would use a more locally situated server...), and then routed through a few of their routers until finally I arrived at a Youtube websever.
Similar results were acheived from one of my servers, I was routed through my server host's ISP to "some.stockholm.router.google.com" in Sweden, after which I was routed directly to Mountain View, CA.
I don't count on the riksdag to do that, they are a bunch of sheep. The FRA law proved it. As you probably know, those who opposed it were coerced by the administration to vote contrary to their own opinion.
Of course, if those with differing opinions actually had any principles whatsoever they would have stuck to their guns and ignored the party whip and fellow party-members.
I'm convinced that most politicians that get as far as parliament never really had any principles whatsoever to begin with, they just like the posh job with a great "retirement" scheme, and so don't have any desire to upset those who could endanger their positions (ie. party leaders).
What we need in Sweden is an expulsion of all current politicians from parliament, and some new provisions in our constitution to make sure the parliament actually has to consider the legality of the laws they are passing (like a constitutional court, or some other means of balancing the power of the parliamentary majority).
It's certainly not a new idea, but ITER (tokamak) is under construction in southern France. Of course, it won't be completed for some 10 years, and then the project is expected to run over 20 years after that. The plan is to sustain 500MW for up to 1000 seconds. Of course, they don't generate any electricity either, it's purely research.
I'm afraid we won't see any actual fusion power plants for quite a while barring something revolutionary.
But then what was the point of even entering the Chinese market? If they really had these high ideals, they would stop catering to other restrictive markets as well. In Germany, Nazi websites are censored by Google for instance. We may not like the Nazi websites, but if they really believed in the ideals that they say they do, they would leave Germany as well.
An automatic fee of say, $100 000 should be awarded anyone who disproves a DMCA takedown notice. That way, companies like Universal may actually think twice before sending the notice, and lawyers will have an incentive to keep the system fair.
This should not be a problem with the tag. You can use javascript to apply all sorts of transformations live to the streaming video.
Check this one out for instance: http://www.zachstronaut.com/lab/isocube.html (Firefox 3.5)
And this video demonstration of Firefox 3.5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tLBLVtIk3A
Most of those who voted against legalizing it did so based on their beliefs and faith. Homosexuals complain heterosexuals are not tolerant but homosexuals believe they should get their way and do not want to tolerate the decisions and beliefs of heterosexuals.
But isn't the state supposed to be separate from the church? How can there be any non-religious argument against gay marriage?
And why should homosexual bow down to the prejudice of heterosexual majority any more than black people should bow down to the prejudices of the white majority?
And regarding your sig.. What is so bad about universal healthcare exactly? That it's socialist? Do you really have that much of an irrational fear of socialism that you reject anything associated with it? And who should pay for it if not the upper class? That's the entire point of universal healthcare, or any other government service, those who can afford it contribute more, those who can't contribute less.
If everyone contributed equal amounts, that amount would have to be what the poorest person can reasonably afford and still survive. This would not leave much in the way of government services.
I spotted the mistake right after posting, but I guess that's what the preview is for...
Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god, not necessarily the belief that there is no god.
The US technically has separation of church and state, but not in practice. Congress holds prayers, the "pledge of allegiance" (what is that thing intended for anyways? brainwashing?) contains the phrase "under god", the currency states "in god we trust", etc.
Though I agree that the US tends to take the freedom of expression more seriously. Over here they tend to make illegal anything that is sufficiently unpopular. I certainly don't support racists or homophones, but I don't think they should be prosecuted for their beliefs unless they explicitly threaten a group of people.
Religious fanatics misusing their powers to moderate...
I don't know about Apache, but there are several proprietary products based on Eclipse that likely have not contributed any source back to the main project.