Yes you are. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) is a body that rules about European directives. A directive is not a law per see, but a guideline how national laws should be implemented. Once a directive is passed, each national Government needs to somehow integrate the directive into their local laws. So the net result the directive has no real meaning to the people, the national laws have, which are influenced by the directive.
In this case the ECJ ruled that the directive was invalid. The result is that the directive is meaningless, but the national laws are unchanged by the ECJ directive. Now the Swedish government (and other) must change their laws accordingly. What GP is alluding to is that the Swedish government will probably do nothing until someone contests the Swedish law in a Swedish court. The only way the ECJ comes into play is as a reference decision.
The only other option would be if Swedish citizens file a complaint at the European Human Rights Court, which could then pressure Sweden to change it's laws. But that only applies if the the citizen brought up the issue in Swedish courts first and failed.
Because the current YouTube ting has squat to do with DMCA. The current system is a move by Google to please the major content produces and as a sign that Google is dedicated to enforce copyright law. The current problem with the current system is that is so easily abused and that is what Google should work on.
This is a plain wrong assertion. The CO2 content of the atmosphere was significantly higher in pre-historical times and the temperatures where marginally higher. BUT the difference is that CO2 used to trail behind temperature changes. This is the first time that CO2 is apparently driving the temperature change. Then again if you look at real climate science nailing it down to only C02 emission is a fools errand. The actual science is a bit more complicated and previous models have not fared very well, but then again it is based on limited data and (at the time) limited computational resources. What drives me nuts is that in most layperson circles, including politicians, it is a "us vs them" rhetoric. You bring up valid criticism on certain models (by established climate scientists) and suddenly you are depicted as gas guzzling SUV driver. (Which is far from the truth, I don't own a car, I use almost exclusively public transportation.)
I can still create an Instagram account without FB. Although I don't particularly like the FB acquisition, chances are they will not botch the entire thing.
My guess is that FB (the company) is realizing that FB (the website) will become obsolete sooner or later (think MySpace). The company is trying to move out of their single revenue stream and diversify. You can probably see more acquisitions from FB that are not in line with the FB service.
It might/look/ like nothing, but you are keeping all the people who are actually playing music synchronized.
Except I have never seen a manager that can keep the timing required for the orchestra to not get out of sync. When GP said:
It's almost as if most executives have no fucking idea what they're doing...
I know exactly what he meant. There way to many companies, especially big ones, where individual contribution/vision/whatever of managers is scant to none.
Not legally. You give your Bank your money and own an asset called a savings or checking account. The Bank has money, why the hell should it not put it to good work?
If I licensed the software I am free to install each and every version that legally licensed. If I want to I can install Win95 on one my machines, why should I not be? The problem are the app stores with their control over the machine.
In the case of stuxnet, jumping the air gap was a piece of cake. What stuxnet did was propagate as a worm and look for a PCS7 / S7 / WinCC installation with a project that looked like a uranium refinery. This was easy because the system used to engineer the project was a normal PC, connected to the internet and all. Stuxnet then modified the project, it was just a MSSQL and Sybase call away. The modified project now contained the modified PLC program and obfuscation in the observation and maintenance system. This project was then zipped and put onto an USB drive and carried into the refinery and installed into the runtime systems. But this is nothing abnormal. As the plant was still under construction updated versions of project would be installed into the runtime as new components came online. The interesting thing about stuxnet was that the targeted nature of the attack and that data is not always data, altering the configuration can in some cases be as dangerous as executing code.
The frightening thing about this is not the existence of stuxnet, but the fact that there are still projects tainted with the stuxnet payload out there. We still occasionally see projects that need to be cleaned up, some of which are for critical infrastructure and this are only those cases where adverse behavior was detected by the operators. Who knows what the real damage is?
So? Who gave the IAU the authority? What legal power do they have? I can create my own list of names for planetary bodies. If I get most people to use my list instead of the IAU's, what id going to happen? Nothing.
Btw, I am currently accepting bids for this solar systems' planets. Get them while they are cheap.
The problem is that you mix tools and how they are used. Fractional reserve banking is not evil in itself. It basically creates, through credits the opportunity for economic growth. That being a company has a great idea, but not the capital to realize it. The bank has the capital, but not the idea. Through a credit it is possible to realize the idea and it is a win/win situation. The company makes a great product which it sells, the bank makes a profit through the credit and maybe even the people putting money into the bank make something off of it, though savings. This is all and well when you ensure that the bank makes proper risk analysis on the credits and on average comes out on top.
What you should really be afraid of the the credit bubble. What we are currently seeing is that individuals are given credits, which means they are now spending money and helping the economy grow, but this is at the cost that in the future this person will have less money to spend, since he is repaying the credit. So the economy slumps, as a result "to help the economy" more credit is injected. This has been going on since the 60s and in totally high ways since the 80s. The result is that the economic growth is propped up though credits and growing unnaturally. The economy is extracting money from individuals more than they can afford and the only way to keep the current pace is to increase individual debt. The situation is additionally aggravated by greedy bankers which gave out sub prime credits. There will be a point where the individuals dept is so grate that the scheme can't go on. This debt fueled economic growth is the ponzi scheme.
As an interesting anecdote for this, in Germany the minimum weekly demand of an individual is estimated by tasking average demand of products and services and representing it in a "shopping basket". This is then takes as a baseline for social service handouts. Since it takes real prices, this "shopping basket" is quite a good indication of "real inflation". The interesting thing is that in the last decade this shopping basket remained somewhat in sync with inflation. This being because the big rises where in things like fuel, which hit individuals and companies equally and as a result drove prices up and margins down.
They don't hate inflation, they love it at moderate levels. Imagine the following, there is no inflation at all. You own money, it will never lose value. This is good for you, but but banks and companies can not make anything from it. Add moderate inflation and your money slowly loses value. Now you need to do something about it so you don't lose all your money. The banks offer to work for you to preserve the value of your money, FOR A SMALL FEE. They invest the money into companies (credits) or the stock market and as a result also extract additional money. The result is that without inflation you will not even think of putting your money into stocks, bonds or similar financial instruments, cash will do the job of maintaining value. What they hate is when the inflation is so strong that is starts to eat into their profits. For example when inflation almost nullified a credit.
I am not saying you need social media. I for a fact do not have a facebook account. But I have my email account (google) linked in the device and that basically opens everything. By your logic, you are better off with a dumb phone and an ultrabook...
You know what. I don't own a car and rent one when I really need one. I live for rent in a decent but not expensive neighborhood. I normally buy good appliances that will last a while, instead of fancy crap. Coupled with my job as a software engineer I can save/invest around 1K EUR per month. In recent years I buy my luxury items, like a new PC fully from dividends. In a general term I don't incur dept. If things go as expected I will be able to retire with 40,10 years from now. (I probably won't, but that is a different story.)
What you are missing is that you are dearly paying out of your ass for the dept you are racking up. The rat race is a real thing and you are running it. You are sold on the idea that you can have all those luxury items. But you are ignoring the fact that you are paying for them AND the money you lowned. The longer the credit is going the more you pay for that money.
I am not basically against credits in general. If you need to own a car to get to work, get a credit, since your return on investment will cover for the cost of the credit. But do get the cheapest (total cost of ownership) vehicle that will do the job, not the brand new expensive car. I am especially not against credits in a business setting. If the gain is larger than cost of the credits, go for it; that is what powers our economy.
But what drives me crazy are people that buy expensive luxury items from their future selves and wonder why their bank balance is always low. You fail at basic economy.
I think what google, facebook and steam are recently doing is quite ingenious. When you logon from a different location than normally, you get asked additional security questions or additional email validation. Although not perfect, it helps migrate many abuse scenarios.
You mean like your mail and social media accounts? I think that sort of defies the entire part of the smartphone. The only two features remaining are phone and games.
Or a fake ID card? If there the prize if big enough making fake ID cards is not that hard. In most cases the clerk only look at the ID card and any electronic verification will (if any) be cheeked. (Electronic verification that phones home is the only really secure way that is almost unfoolable.)
Actually I agree with GP, only I would say more along the line of physical assets, like gold or "virtual" assets like stock. But yea, storing "cash" in any form is a bad idea.
But at the same time you can have a novice driver stalling her car. Being the car behind anybody, you must expect nothing about the car before you. Observe what is happening and react accordingly.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes you are. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) is a body that rules about European directives. A directive is not a law per see, but a guideline how national laws should be implemented. Once a directive is passed, each national Government needs to somehow integrate the directive into their local laws. So the net result the directive has no real meaning to the people, the national laws have, which are influenced by the directive.
In this case the ECJ ruled that the directive was invalid. The result is that the directive is meaningless, but the national laws are unchanged by the ECJ directive. Now the Swedish government (and other) must change their laws accordingly. What GP is alluding to is that the Swedish government will probably do nothing until someone contests the Swedish law in a Swedish court. The only way the ECJ comes into play is as a reference decision.
The only other option would be if Swedish citizens file a complaint at the European Human Rights Court, which could then pressure Sweden to change it's laws. But that only applies if the the citizen brought up the issue in Swedish courts first and failed.
Because the current YouTube ting has squat to do with DMCA. The current system is a move by Google to please the major content produces and as a sign that Google is dedicated to enforce copyright law. The current problem with the current system is that is so easily abused and that is what Google should work on.
This is a plain wrong assertion. The CO2 content of the atmosphere was significantly higher in pre-historical times and the temperatures where marginally higher. BUT the difference is that CO2 used to trail behind temperature changes. This is the first time that CO2 is apparently driving the temperature change. Then again if you look at real climate science nailing it down to only C02 emission is a fools errand. The actual science is a bit more complicated and previous models have not fared very well, but then again it is based on limited data and (at the time) limited computational resources. What drives me nuts is that in most layperson circles, including politicians, it is a "us vs them" rhetoric. You bring up valid criticism on certain models (by established climate scientists) and suddenly you are depicted as gas guzzling SUV driver. (Which is far from the truth, I don't own a car, I use almost exclusively public transportation.)
I can still create an Instagram account without FB. Although I don't particularly like the FB acquisition, chances are they will not botch the entire thing.
My guess is that FB (the company) is realizing that FB (the website) will become obsolete sooner or later (think MySpace). The company is trying to move out of their single revenue stream and diversify. You can probably see more acquisitions from FB that are not in line with the FB service.
It might /look/ like nothing, but you are keeping all the people who are actually playing music synchronized.
Except I have never seen a manager that can keep the timing required for the orchestra to not get out of sync. When GP said:
It's almost as if most executives have no fucking idea what they're doing...
I know exactly what he meant. There way to many companies, especially big ones, where individual contribution/vision/whatever of managers is scant to none.
Ok I hope is is over before next fall. I am not so sure that we (West Europe) can survive this long without Russian gas.
+1 I like this.
Not legally. You give your Bank your money and own an asset called a savings or checking account. The Bank has money, why the hell should it not put it to good work?
If I licensed the software I am free to install each and every version that legally licensed. If I want to I can install Win95 on one my machines, why should I not be? The problem are the app stores with their control over the machine.
In the case of stuxnet, jumping the air gap was a piece of cake. What stuxnet did was propagate as a worm and look for a PCS7 / S7 / WinCC installation with a project that looked like a uranium refinery. This was easy because the system used to engineer the project was a normal PC, connected to the internet and all. Stuxnet then modified the project, it was just a MSSQL and Sybase call away. The modified project now contained the modified PLC program and obfuscation in the observation and maintenance system. This project was then zipped and put onto an USB drive and carried into the refinery and installed into the runtime systems. But this is nothing abnormal. As the plant was still under construction updated versions of project would be installed into the runtime as new components came online. The interesting thing about stuxnet was that the targeted nature of the attack and that data is not always data, altering the configuration can in some cases be as dangerous as executing code.
The frightening thing about this is not the existence of stuxnet, but the fact that there are still projects tainted with the stuxnet payload out there. We still occasionally see projects that need to be cleaned up, some of which are for critical infrastructure and this are only those cases where adverse behavior was detected by the operators. Who knows what the real damage is?
You mean a place like Tsaritsyn... um no Stalingrad... um no Volgograd... or Constantinople... um no Istanbul. Yes Names of places never change, ever.
So? Who gave the IAU the authority? What legal power do they have? I can create my own list of names for planetary bodies. If I get most people to use my list instead of the IAU's, what id going to happen? Nothing.
Btw, I am currently accepting bids for this solar systems' planets. Get them while they are cheap.
The problem is that you mix tools and how they are used. Fractional reserve banking is not evil in itself. It basically creates, through credits the opportunity for economic growth. That being a company has a great idea, but not the capital to realize it. The bank has the capital, but not the idea. Through a credit it is possible to realize the idea and it is a win/win situation. The company makes a great product which it sells, the bank makes a profit through the credit and maybe even the people putting money into the bank make something off of it, though savings. This is all and well when you ensure that the bank makes proper risk analysis on the credits and on average comes out on top.
What you should really be afraid of the the credit bubble. What we are currently seeing is that individuals are given credits, which means they are now spending money and helping the economy grow, but this is at the cost that in the future this person will have less money to spend, since he is repaying the credit. So the economy slumps, as a result "to help the economy" more credit is injected. This has been going on since the 60s and in totally high ways since the 80s. The result is that the economic growth is propped up though credits and growing unnaturally. The economy is extracting money from individuals more than they can afford and the only way to keep the current pace is to increase individual debt. The situation is additionally aggravated by greedy bankers which gave out sub prime credits. There will be a point where the individuals dept is so grate that the scheme can't go on. This debt fueled economic growth is the ponzi scheme.
As an interesting anecdote for this, in Germany the minimum weekly demand of an individual is estimated by tasking average demand of products and services and representing it in a "shopping basket". This is then takes as a baseline for social service handouts. Since it takes real prices, this "shopping basket" is quite a good indication of "real inflation". The interesting thing is that in the last decade this shopping basket remained somewhat in sync with inflation. This being because the big rises where in things like fuel, which hit individuals and companies equally and as a result drove prices up and margins down.
They don't hate inflation, they love it at moderate levels. Imagine the following, there is no inflation at all. You own money, it will never lose value. This is good for you, but but banks and companies can not make anything from it. Add moderate inflation and your money slowly loses value. Now you need to do something about it so you don't lose all your money. The banks offer to work for you to preserve the value of your money, FOR A SMALL FEE. They invest the money into companies (credits) or the stock market and as a result also extract additional money. The result is that without inflation you will not even think of putting your money into stocks, bonds or similar financial instruments, cash will do the job of maintaining value. What they hate is when the inflation is so strong that is starts to eat into their profits. For example when inflation almost nullified a credit.
True that, but I was referring to:
If you've done a factory reset, then the phone owner doesn't need to worry about their data anymore...
Which is a faulty assumption.
I am not saying you need social media. I for a fact do not have a facebook account. But I have my email account (google) linked in the device and that basically opens everything. By your logic, you are better off with a dumb phone and an ultrabook...
You know what. I don't own a car and rent one when I really need one. I live for rent in a decent but not expensive neighborhood. I normally buy good appliances that will last a while, instead of fancy crap. Coupled with my job as a software engineer I can save/invest around 1K EUR per month. In recent years I buy my luxury items, like a new PC fully from dividends. In a general term I don't incur dept. If things go as expected I will be able to retire with 40,10 years from now. (I probably won't, but that is a different story.)
What you are missing is that you are dearly paying out of your ass for the dept you are racking up. The rat race is a real thing and you are running it. You are sold on the idea that you can have all those luxury items. But you are ignoring the fact that you are paying for them AND the money you lowned. The longer the credit is going the more you pay for that money.
I am not basically against credits in general. If you need to own a car to get to work, get a credit, since your return on investment will cover for the cost of the credit. But do get the cheapest (total cost of ownership) vehicle that will do the job, not the brand new expensive car. I am especially not against credits in a business setting. If the gain is larger than cost of the credits, go for it; that is what powers our economy.
But what drives me crazy are people that buy expensive luxury items from their future selves and wonder why their bank balance is always low. You fail at basic economy.
I think what google, facebook and steam are recently doing is quite ingenious. When you logon from a different location than normally, you get asked additional security questions or additional email validation. Although not perfect, it helps migrate many abuse scenarios.
Except the revealing pictures of your girlfriend on the SD card...
You mean like your mail and social media accounts? I think that sort of defies the entire part of the smartphone. The only two features remaining are phone and games.
Or a fake ID card? If there the prize if big enough making fake ID cards is not that hard. In most cases the clerk only look at the ID card and any electronic verification will (if any) be cheeked. (Electronic verification that phones home is the only really secure way that is almost unfoolable.)
Actually I agree with GP, only I would say more along the line of physical assets, like gold or "virtual" assets like stock. But yea, storing "cash" in any form is a bad idea.
Then don't buy them simple as that.
But at the same time you can have a novice driver stalling her car. Being the car behind anybody, you must expect nothing about the car before you. Observe what is happening and react accordingly.