Here again the EU court of justice pushes its agenda about free market obsession.
Its amazing how often upholding the law as written becomes "pushing an agenda" just because of the group making the ruling, or the group who are upset about it.
We can what-if strawmen all we want. Hungary can continue to pass legislation that it requires to oversee its economy or crime and can even require operators to do so. They just can't forbid operators because they don't want competition.
Would this kind of situation be forbidden by the EU? My hunch says no because Healthcare!
This is one of the problems with North American thinking. It's typically worse in the USA but Canada suffers from it too. There are very few absolutes, very little black and white, very little either or scenarios in much of the world.
In both Australia and where in the EU I live now we had public healthcare. We also had private healthcare. They lived side by side in unison, either overtly, or covertly. In Australia it was overtly: You had medicare coverage, you opted for private coverage. If you had a life threattening injury the ambulance took you to a hospital and after they ask how you wanted to be covered. If you had a non-life threatting issue you actively got asked beforehand. Had this myself when I had my hernia OP. I elected to go to a private hospital, they told me up front the fees and how much my private insurance covered,.... then I went back to the doctor and asked to be re-reffered to a public hospital.
As it is now I have public health insurance. To claim that insurance I need to see a public doctor for a referral. At any time I can go to any other doctor or hospital anyway, and there are private insurances which I could purchase to cover me there.
But I'm trying to figure out how this works with all other kinds of state monopolies be it in healthcare, transit, roads, utilities...
As I said above healthcare is easy. As for the rest of them: Transit is a greyer area. There are definitely private transit systems all throughout Europe. But the rest of the list tends towards natural monopolies rather than state protected monopolies. For example it's not the government saying "no you are not allowed to compete with me" for that new start-up sewer company, but "no you are not allowed to dig here" is a very different and quite defendable story. Most government run services end up being monopolies for reasons other than the government trying to keep them that way, and typically that is the result of not having the legal power to start the business.
E.g. You see very few private competitive train operators in city centres, but at the same time a lot of resource movement happens via private rail lines. The difference is the potential to make money as well as the ability to build a train line in the city vs on your own massive plot of land.
This comment brought to you by ignorance. But we can provide the same thought process in reverse: Why would anyone run Linux or Unix? I don't understand it, I won't research it, but from what I have seen the only thing it has ever done for us is let the dinosaurs out in Jurassic Park.
[...]. It seems that we get along just fine with these already-wide variations in operating hours
Maybe you should check precisely *why* those businesses chose those hours. I think you'll find that they do it specifically because it best suits the integration with society as a whole. You said it yourself " This is normal and it works as well as it needs to. "
So in order to change everything, those businesses would need to change too precisely in order to maintain the "normal" and "works as well as it needs to".
If you need daylight to perform your job, you're already adjusting your schedule based on the sun.
Literally none of what the GP said is related to requiring daylight to perform your job. You still think it would be easier sending society to the drawingboard and then re-doing a world of paperwork than to just change the clock.
But apparently this is psychologically too difficult to embrace
The shills on behalf of the Coalition of the Signs, Leaflets and Website Updaters are on fire today. Give up man. We won't bow to your masters or to autism and change the metric fuckton of documentation simply because you want noon to be time where the sun is highest in the sky. Time is an arbitrary construct and we are achieving the outcome as psychologically and socialogically responsibly as possible.
That's about the only part of your post that is relevant. The rest of your post comes across the same way as all the other pro / anti DST arguements such as the curtains fading, the cows getting upset and every other bit of bullshit.
An hour change in the morning won't affect humans in the slightest. You want a healthy sleep cycle? Sleep at healthy intervals. Your "body clock" is not your master and if you for some reason are its slave then get yourself some blackout curtains and sunrise alarm clock and let the rest of the human race enjoy the additional sunshine.
Sidenote: Only good things come from not having peak hour *during* sunrise. The accident rate is the highest at any point in the day right as the big bright ball crosses the horizon.
There was a time when cup holders in cars was the best innovation car makers could come up with. I think cell phones are there now.
And then came navigation, cruise control, zoned climate control, to say nothing of advances of regenerative breaking and ultimately electric / hybrid electric vehicles. What you're saying then is cell phones are about to blow our minds with innovation?
As it is now on my note9 I have to be careful not to touch the curved edge. Its super annoying.
Don't be so careful. It sounds like you're not giving palm detection the opportunity to work. I have one of the earlier Edge devices and happily hold the curved section while using the device. It can tell the difference between you holding it and your actual keypresses.
And how is this relevant? Every time you have a question about the country do you directly address only the queen or prime minister? These very actions are what make them look like muppets. Feel free to issue an official summons at some point too by the way, rather than a jointly written letter with no legal weight signed by no government authority in particular.
The job of a multinational CEO when shit publicly (and potentially criminally) hits the fan is pretty much to fly around and explain things.
Not at all. The job of a CEO is to run a company. There are people in the employ of the company specifically for the purpose to fly around and explain things every time someone says please.
Then the UK Parliament must keep whatever assumptions they have about Zuck without him having a chance to defend himself or his company, and legislate accordingly.
Interesting. The UK parliament passing judgement on a person and therefore legislating away their business. That sounds rife for legal challenges. Now if they are talking about Facebook I'm sure there are people in the UK office who would happily be able to answer questions they may have.
It does have legal binding. Parliamentary committees have the power to summons people.
Nope. Parliamentary committees have the power to request the parliament to summon people. They have no power directly. This specific committee is not even exclusively representing the British parliament, it's a joint committee investigating on behalf of 5 different governments, none of which have made a legally binding request to appear, and none of which have any juristiction over a citizen of none of the countries in question.
No, no power. Except to totally ruin your business model.
Not quite. That none the less is a democratic process that needs to be followed. The parliament can't unlaterally decide I don't like *insert specific company* and destroy them.
And, yes, they do have power. Failure to answer a subpoena is a criminal offence.
Which would be an issue if they subpoenaed him. They did not. Even if they did it would be a step away from their rehtoric given they are angry at Facebook and a subpoena against a company does not call out a specific person. There are local employees and local legal teams precisely to deal with the local matters in question.
Mind you all of that is completely irrelevant. This isn't the UK parliament. This is a joint parliament subcommittee representing 5 different countries. They have no parliamentary powers to subpoena or otherwise and being a joint committee from multiple nations their don't have legal juristiction in any. Would you hand over all your dirty secrets to a private investigator who wrote you a letter saying "please" ?
He has sold personal information to agents of a hostile power that has launched multiple chemical warfare attacks against Britain. What sort of trial do you think he'd get?
You tell me, by all accounts everyone including the parliament is talking exclusively about fake news. The people calling him to testify are a committee on fake news. Your unrelated case has no bearing on this what so ever.
You post is chock full of assumptions and possibilities which are not in any way related to the subject at hand. While all you said is true there's nothing at all in your post that has any impact on Zuckerberg's current decision to not go to the UK. I would strongly advise you to read up on what it is that is being discussed, who is making the requests that were rejected, and why before you continue.
and before going nuclear with penalties, fines, and extraditions they wanted to give the CEO opportunity to defend his company's actions.
And defend he would. To the courts, and to the legal challenges against him. On the other hand this is a shitty parliamentary inquiry without legal binding what so ever. There is literally no benefit to him given the allegations against him to talk to these people.
That's not a citation. When was the last time you hacked NTIDs, or for a more direct approach provide examples of cases that show Bitlocker can be fundamentally decrypted. I mean It's been around since Vista so by your assertion it should have more holes than Swiss cheese.
Also, backdoors, non-open source code that can't be audited.
Interestingly the only open source security product that has been audited is now completely defunct and the only version audited was several versions behind the last active one. Security through obscurity isn't that different than security through hopes and dreams.
BitLocker is no better than built-in drive encryption
And with that comment you've shown you didn't actually read my post.
Slashdot Mirror
Here again the EU court of justice pushes its agenda about free market obsession.
Its amazing how often upholding the law as written becomes "pushing an agenda" just because of the group making the ruling, or the group who are upset about it.
We can what-if strawmen all we want. Hungary can continue to pass legislation that it requires to oversee its economy or crime and can even require operators to do so. They just can't forbid operators because they don't want competition.
Would this kind of situation be forbidden by the EU? My hunch says no because Healthcare!
This is one of the problems with North American thinking. It's typically worse in the USA but Canada suffers from it too. There are very few absolutes, very little black and white, very little either or scenarios in much of the world.
In both Australia and where in the EU I live now we had public healthcare. We also had private healthcare. They lived side by side in unison, either overtly, or covertly. In Australia it was overtly: You had medicare coverage, you opted for private coverage. If you had a life threattening injury the ambulance took you to a hospital and after they ask how you wanted to be covered. If you had a non-life threatting issue you actively got asked beforehand. Had this myself when I had my hernia OP. I elected to go to a private hospital, they told me up front the fees and how much my private insurance covered, .... then I went back to the doctor and asked to be re-reffered to a public hospital.
As it is now I have public health insurance. To claim that insurance I need to see a public doctor for a referral. At any time I can go to any other doctor or hospital anyway, and there are private insurances which I could purchase to cover me there.
But I'm trying to figure out how this works with all other kinds of state monopolies be it in healthcare, transit, roads, utilities...
As I said above healthcare is easy. As for the rest of them: Transit is a greyer area. There are definitely private transit systems all throughout Europe. But the rest of the list tends towards natural monopolies rather than state protected monopolies. For example it's not the government saying "no you are not allowed to compete with me" for that new start-up sewer company, but "no you are not allowed to dig here" is a very different and quite defendable story. Most government run services end up being monopolies for reasons other than the government trying to keep them that way, and typically that is the result of not having the legal power to start the business.
E.g. You see very few private competitive train operators in city centres, but at the same time a lot of resource movement happens via private rail lines. The difference is the potential to make money as well as the ability to build a train line in the city vs on your own massive plot of land.
Addition had a direct link to local crime.
I'll have to tell my partner she's part of the problem. She really should find a profession other than Maths teacher.
This comment brought to you by ignorance. But we can provide the same thought process in reverse: Why would anyone run Linux or Unix? I don't understand it, I won't research it, but from what I have seen the only thing it has ever done for us is let the dinosaurs out in Jurassic Park.
I'd say if these guys are providing a service that further avoids switching environments back and forth, maybe it's worth it
I think the point the GP was making was that openSUSE and Ubuntu for example already run in WSL and provide precisely that functionality.
[...]. It seems that we get along just fine with these already-wide variations in operating hours
Maybe you should check precisely *why* those businesses chose those hours. I think you'll find that they do it specifically because it best suits the integration with society as a whole. You said it yourself " This is normal and it works as well as it needs to. "
So in order to change everything, those businesses would need to change too precisely in order to maintain the "normal" and "works as well as it needs to".
If you need daylight to perform your job, you're already adjusting your schedule based on the sun.
Literally none of what the GP said is related to requiring daylight to perform your job. You still think it would be easier sending society to the drawingboard and then re-doing a world of paperwork than to just change the clock.
Screw your midday. It's not our fault you were silly enough to buy one of these: https://thelocalbrand.com/the-...
But apparently this is psychologically too difficult to embrace
The shills on behalf of the Coalition of the Signs, Leaflets and Website Updaters are on fire today. Give up man. We won't bow to your masters or to autism and change the metric fuckton of documentation simply because you want noon to be time where the sun is highest in the sky. Time is an arbitrary construct and we are achieving the outcome as psychologically and socialogically responsibly as possible.
#eyeroll
That's about the only part of your post that is relevant. The rest of your post comes across the same way as all the other pro / anti DST arguements such as the curtains fading, the cows getting upset and every other bit of bullshit.
An hour change in the morning won't affect humans in the slightest. You want a healthy sleep cycle? Sleep at healthy intervals. Your "body clock" is not your master and if you for some reason are its slave then get yourself some blackout curtains and sunrise alarm clock and let the rest of the human race enjoy the additional sunshine.
Sidenote: Only good things come from not having peak hour *during* sunrise. The accident rate is the highest at any point in the day right as the big bright ball crosses the horizon.
Sorry normally I would get behind such requests but that phone sound horrible.
Also what do you mean by "real GPS" ?
There was a time when cup holders in cars was the best innovation car makers could come up with. I think cell phones are there now.
And then came navigation, cruise control, zoned climate control, to say nothing of advances of regenerative breaking and ultimately electric / hybrid electric vehicles. What you're saying then is cell phones are about to blow our minds with innovation?
As it is now on my note9 I have to be careful not to touch the curved edge. Its super annoying.
Don't be so careful. It sounds like you're not giving palm detection the opportunity to work. I have one of the earlier Edge devices and happily hold the curved section while using the device. It can tell the difference between you holding it and your actual keypresses.
and do in fact know who is in charge of facebook.
And how is this relevant? Every time you have a question about the country do you directly address only the queen or prime minister?
These very actions are what make them look like muppets. Feel free to issue an official summons at some point too by the way, rather than a jointly written letter with no legal weight signed by no government authority in particular.
Funny, he seems to have the time to court nearly every country's MARKETS
No he doesn't, he employs people to do that. Just like each of those countries has people in Facebook's employ to handle requests for information.
if he doesn't answer to parliament because parliament has the power to increase funding to the people who investigate him
Only in the US are criminal investigative outcomes determined on a funding level.
It's rare people in Zuckerberg's position reject such a request, precisely because the long term cost will likely be high.
Maybe you should look at who is requesting, how, and for what purpose. Then you'll find it's not rare at all.
They can start by making an actual legal summons rather than just a pretty-please letter from a parliamentry subcommittee.
The job of a multinational CEO when shit publicly (and potentially criminally) hits the fan is pretty much to fly around and explain things.
Not at all. The job of a CEO is to run a company. There are people in the employ of the company specifically for the purpose to fly around and explain things every time someone says please.
Then the UK Parliament must keep whatever assumptions they have about Zuck without him having a chance to defend himself or his company, and legislate accordingly.
Interesting. The UK parliament passing judgement on a person and therefore legislating away their business. That sounds rife for legal challenges. Now if they are talking about Facebook I'm sure there are people in the UK office who would happily be able to answer questions they may have.
It does have legal binding. Parliamentary committees have the power to summons people.
Nope. Parliamentary committees have the power to request the parliament to summon people. They have no power directly. This specific committee is not even exclusively representing the British parliament, it's a joint committee investigating on behalf of 5 different governments, none of which have made a legally binding request to appear, and none of which have any juristiction over a citizen of none of the countries in question.
No, no power. Except to totally ruin your business model.
Not quite. That none the less is a democratic process that needs to be followed. The parliament can't unlaterally decide I don't like *insert specific company* and destroy them.
And, yes, they do have power. Failure to answer a subpoena is a criminal offence.
Which would be an issue if they subpoenaed him. They did not. Even if they did it would be a step away from their rehtoric given they are angry at Facebook and a subpoena against a company does not call out a specific person. There are local employees and local legal teams precisely to deal with the local matters in question.
Mind you all of that is completely irrelevant. This isn't the UK parliament. This is a joint parliament subcommittee representing 5 different countries. They have no parliamentary powers to subpoena or otherwise and being a joint committee from multiple nations their don't have legal juristiction in any. Would you hand over all your dirty secrets to a private investigator who wrote you a letter saying "please" ?
He has sold personal information to agents of a hostile power that has launched multiple chemical warfare attacks against Britain. What sort of trial do you think he'd get?
You tell me, by all accounts everyone including the parliament is talking exclusively about fake news. The people calling him to testify are a committee on fake news. Your unrelated case has no bearing on this what so ever.
You post is chock full of assumptions and possibilities which are not in any way related to the subject at hand. While all you said is true there's nothing at all in your post that has any impact on Zuckerberg's current decision to not go to the UK. I would strongly advise you to read up on what it is that is being discussed, who is making the requests that were rejected, and why before you continue.
Maybe in the 1800s they did, though you'll find that modern farmers work by a clock.
and before going nuclear with penalties, fines, and extraditions they wanted to give the CEO opportunity to defend his company's actions.
And defend he would. To the courts, and to the legal challenges against him. On the other hand this is a shitty parliamentary inquiry without legal binding what so ever. There is literally no benefit to him given the allegations against him to talk to these people.
criminal investigation in the UK, he might want to defend it.
But doing so would do no such thing. Defending a legal challenge is done in a different place in front of a different group of people.
Cool story. Matches mine though.
*Posted from my work computer, with our wonderfully encrypted drive from our trusted partner Microsoft.
Microsoft's BitLocker is insecure.
[Citation needed]
It's fricking MICROSOFT for gods sake.
That's not a citation. When was the last time you hacked NTIDs, or for a more direct approach provide examples of cases that show Bitlocker can be fundamentally decrypted. I mean It's been around since Vista so by your assertion it should have more holes than Swiss cheese.
Also, backdoors, non-open source code that can't be audited.
Interestingly the only open source security product that has been audited is now completely defunct and the only version audited was several versions behind the last active one. Security through obscurity isn't that different than security through hopes and dreams.
BitLocker is no better than built-in drive encryption
And with that comment you've shown you didn't actually read my post.