I'm Dutch, by the way... But the stuff that works against us often works equally against the Brits. And I am not talking about Europe making rules about the size of flowerpots, such things should be seen in the same light as setting up an EU patent office, and is in the interest of people in the business of making and selling flowerpots (and other stuff). No, the EU isn't all bad, that's why I called it a benign dictatorship. That's the problem: the EU is turning into something that is not "for the people" but for itself, i.e. the people running it. Most persons in power in the EU are appointed rather than elected, and there is very little (if any) direct democratic oversight. It's not about the EU being too big or imposing too much red tape, but about it becoming a goal unto itself instead of a means to an end, and being controlled by a cabal of bureaucrats rather than by the people.
There are enough examples of bad EU policies to be had, in monetary policy alone. Greece being dragged into the euro, for example. Experts warned against exactly the sort of things now going on. France and Germany repeatedly getting (i.e. giving each other) a pass on not meeting budgetary requirements during good times, then cracking down hard on smaller countries with similar issues during bad times. When we joined the euro, we got short-changed by about 10%, as pointed out by experts and later even by the minister of finance in charge at the time. Joining the euro was not a bad plan, but think about what it means if a minister of finance is willing to push through such a measure under such conditions. Our national governments, who are supposed to look out for our interests, are largely so blinded by their rosy vision of a united Europe that they are willing to make insane (and often unnecessary) sacrifices to make it happen.
All? Well, if you have any tips on how to accomplish that, I'm all ears. One of my country's parties sees the same issues but they want to try and fix things from within (i.e. working within the existing European political framework). Personally I fear it may be too late for that: the positions that reformers can be elected for are all but powerless, and the people currently running the show will ensure that real reformers will never be appointed to a position of influence. It's close to a dictatorship, even if it's a relatively benign and multiheaded one.
Many of us who are labelled "europhobic" are actually in favour of a Union, even a strong one. The problem we see in the EU is that it has become a bureaucratic, intransparent, undemocratic monster with a far too wide mandate. And if you look at the people building the EU, that is no accident. Considering what this EU might turn into, I think it would be better to not have it at all.
What the EU lacks first and foremost is a proper constitution: a simple document that describes what the EU does and doesn't do, who does what, how, and under what conditions, and what the rights are it grants to its citizens and national governments. Since we don't have one, the EU can grow in any direction and in any way its architects desire. And that direction might not be what's best for Europe or its citizens, but for those running the show in Brussels. As Juncker once said: "When it becomes serious, you have to lie". And that is sort of what they did with the thing that is called the European constitution. It's a huge document and you have to be a legal expert to make any sense of it. And that too is by design: when several countries voted against the "constitution", they took out one part (making "An die Freude" the European anthem) and rewrote the rest in impenetrable legalese.
There are many good reasons for having *a* union. And there are many more for not having *this* one.
You would think so, and you'd be right. Except that politicians beg (or rather: insist) to differ. Same here in NL, downloading was made illegal but the taxes remained in place. Over here they even renamed it to the "home copy levy". There's a levy on all storage media (hard disks, blank DVDs), which is for "compensating authors and artists for copies made of music and movies from legal sources for private use". And since downloading stuff from the internet is now illegal, this means that this fee is levied solely on CDs and DVDs that you already own. Fuckers.
We're doing poorly even by European standards:
* €1.70 / l (about $7.20 / gallon)
* About €800 - €1200 in road tax per year (regardless of milage, and this is per vehicle; we own several. There are some special exemptions for old-timers though)
* VAT (21%) + a special car "CO2" tax on purchase of new cars. For some cars, the VAT + CO2 tax exceeds the factory price of the car.
We may be a small and densely populated country, but as one clever blogger remarked: "We do not have too many cars in this country, but too many people who hate them". That's also reflected in the fact that our roads, though generally in good condition, take ages to build. Between planning a road and the ground being broken, there's zoning, environmental impact studies, protests, court cases, etc. One case: a very short extension on one highway that will provide tremendous relief in congestion and pollition around a major city, is oonly now being built after planners decided to go ahead... over 40 *years* ago.
I think we should be able to trust our government with such data under a few conditions:
1) There should be a reasonable balance between the privacy intrusion and the benefits derived thereof
2) Data security and access restrictions to that data should be in line with the sensitivity of that data
3) The data should in principle only be used in ways for which it was collected, with a few limited and explicitly stipulated exceptions (such as law enforcement having access to subsets of the data with a court order). And always: not compelled by law to share means *forbidden* to share, no data may ever be volunteered.
4) Data retention should not be longer than needed for the purpose for which the data was collected.
5) There must be appropriate oversight to enforce these rules, with trustworthy audits and real consequences for those responsible in case of transgressions.
In many cases I do not in principle have issues with the goverment obtaining certain private data about me. However, in almost all cases, the reasonable conditions listed above are not met. In most cases, *none* of them are met.
In any case, you ought to be happy that your government at least set some limits on how and when this data can be used. When my country's government proposed a similar road pricing scheme, privacy was not addressed at all, on the contrary. No limits, any government agency would be allowed to use the data, and retention was pretty much forever. Politicians were already floating some alternative uses for the data: the police could use it to track suspicious movement, and the tax office could use it to catch fraudsters (such as catching people making private use of a company car and not declaring the milage, the way they recently did by requesting and receiving data from pay-by-smartphone parking providers). If our government sees no issue in buying data that was stolen from Swiss banks in order to catch undeclared offshore savings, they will certainly not stop short of abusing data they already own.
Only if you follow the "Austrian School" line of thinking, and then it becomes largely a matter of definitions and values. Even the article you link to admits that: "What is objected to here is not that the free market has flaws, but that the term “market failure” is a persuasive definition (see How to Think Straight, para 5.47), seeming to say more than it really does by improperly applying the emotive word failure.". They recognize the phenomenon but object to the chosen label.
Not that I agree with that article. Another quote: "Market failure, if the term is to mean anything useful, must mean that there are fundamental defects in the nature of human ability to achieve certain goods through voluntary, as opposed to coercive, institutions. With this definition, the case for market failure is synonymous with the case for government intervention.". Economists like Friedman argue against this line of thinking, and even many statists recognize that where market failure exists, state intervention isn't always the solution and may make matters worse.
I think that government should not try and compete in a functioning market, but they definitely should have the right (and the inclination) to step in when the market fails. Set a reasonable minimum service, e.g. allow muni broadband if there are less than 3 market players having offered a plan with x Mb/s with an allowance of y GB/month for at most €z/month in the last 12 months or whatever. The incumbent telcos then have a choice to join the 21st century, or compete against the municipality.
Also, if local government is using public funds to run fiber, allow other telcos the use of that fiber at cost. Same as many countries forced the incumbent, formerly state owned telcos to open up part of their infra to newcomers on the market.
Phalanx-like systems are set up for fast inbound targets and have excellent radar tracking and accurate (and self correcting) firepower. What's the issue to reprogram these for slower drones? Maybe it's overkill, but the system's already installed.
Exactly. For some years we've had a blissful interbellum between two loudness wars, when most site owners thought that simple, mostly static banner ads were fine. And they were fine: easily ignored, quick loading. But things have degenerated quite a bit; that Canvas ad thing is a good example of the next level of "loudness" to catch the viewer's attention.
Back in the days of banner ads, I didn't know anyone who'd go out of their way to block them. Now, adblockers are common and they are increasingly being promoted and used not just to get rid of annoying ads, but also to make browsing a faster and safer experience. Advertisers (and indirectly site owners like Bryant) simply crapped the bed they sleep in.
Men might still be prevalent in positions of power and influence, but there are developments on this issue that worry some people (not all of them men either). Not because man's position of power is threatened, but because in some cases the pendulum swings a bit far the other way. For instance, primary schools (and increasingly high schools as well) are thoroughly feminized institutions these days, and it isn't helping education. Political correctness spurred by feminists gets picked up by mainstream media and politics, and sometimes taken to ridiculous lengths. And I do not doubt that this sort of thing has its influence on Hollywood as well. Bill Maher said it right when claiming that it has become somewhat politically incorrect to be a man.
Without arguing the rights and wrongs of each of these examples, it's not a surprise that a "men's rights" movement has sprung up. And it's also not a surprise that this group apparently mirrors the feminist movement: with some level-headed people bringing real issues to the public's attention, and with some moronic cretins who see social injustice in everything
Women in the UAE are allowed to drive, and can dress (more or less) as they would at home. On the other hand, if you (as a woman) get raped, do not report it! Chances are that you'll be charged with "extramarital sex", a serious offence, and with some other charges piled on top like consumption of alcohol in a public area. The UAE is actually quite liberal compared to most other countries in the area, but they aren't quite there yet.
That is just too funny. In the same spirit, I suggest we send up Celine Dion and Justin Bieber on that asteroid buster mission. They won't be of any help when things go wrong, but if the primary mission succeeds, we will not only have won back out world, we will have made it a better place.
I am often in the opposite situation: I am trying to buy something and being in a small market (the Netherlands) it can be tough to find a local source for things like electronic components or gun parts. Search results often only yield spec sheets or discussions on a forum, so I frequently add the word "kopen" (buy) to my search queries. It helps but only to some degree, and I too would like to see Google to treat the word "buy" (or the absence of it) with special care.
Well, "square lattice of superconducting qubits" just rolls of the tongue, doesn't it. It sounds like something you'd find on the menu of an avant-garde restaurant.
I offer 2 rules to improve your software development project (and surprisingly they work for a lot of other business activities too)
1) Pay attention to who you hire and who you select for your team. Software development is about people.
2) Do not replace thinking with process and methods.
Process and methodologies provide useful structure and standardization but it will not turn crap employees into good ones. They do however have the potential to turn great employees into mediocre ones.
Islam is nothing like christianity. Christ (the new testament) at least teaches love and forgiveness. In islam it is the very prophet that incites and orders followers to commit those atrocities. Those muslims are not ignoring the words of their prophet but acting in accordance with god's command, which is exactly the problem.
Indeed. And for those who cannot cope with this idea, I say in the tradition of Rousseau: "Let them drink bottled water". By all means offer them a choice, but at their expense.
It will happen. Cars get smarter but people remain as stupid as they are now. Someone will stick a baby in their self driving car, the car will stop before reaching grandma because it runs out of power and the nearest charging station Is out of commission. It is a hot day and the baby will die. The parents will of course sue. And from there on in our cars will come with a warning sticker not to let infants or mentally incompetent persons ride unattended.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm Dutch, by the way... But the stuff that works against us often works equally against the Brits. And I am not talking about Europe making rules about the size of flowerpots, such things should be seen in the same light as setting up an EU patent office, and is in the interest of people in the business of making and selling flowerpots (and other stuff). No, the EU isn't all bad, that's why I called it a benign dictatorship. That's the problem: the EU is turning into something that is not "for the people" but for itself, i.e. the people running it. Most persons in power in the EU are appointed rather than elected, and there is very little (if any) direct democratic oversight. It's not about the EU being too big or imposing too much red tape, but about it becoming a goal unto itself instead of a means to an end, and being controlled by a cabal of bureaucrats rather than by the people.
There are enough examples of bad EU policies to be had, in monetary policy alone. Greece being dragged into the euro, for example. Experts warned against exactly the sort of things now going on. France and Germany repeatedly getting (i.e. giving each other) a pass on not meeting budgetary requirements during good times, then cracking down hard on smaller countries with similar issues during bad times. When we joined the euro, we got short-changed by about 10%, as pointed out by experts and later even by the minister of finance in charge at the time. Joining the euro was not a bad plan, but think about what it means if a minister of finance is willing to push through such a measure under such conditions. Our national governments, who are supposed to look out for our interests, are largely so blinded by their rosy vision of a united Europe that they are willing to make insane (and often unnecessary) sacrifices to make it happen.
All? Well, if you have any tips on how to accomplish that, I'm all ears. One of my country's parties sees the same issues but they want to try and fix things from within (i.e. working within the existing European political framework). Personally I fear it may be too late for that: the positions that reformers can be elected for are all but powerless, and the people currently running the show will ensure that real reformers will never be appointed to a position of influence. It's close to a dictatorship, even if it's a relatively benign and multiheaded one.
Many of us who are labelled "europhobic" are actually in favour of a Union, even a strong one. The problem we see in the EU is that it has become a bureaucratic, intransparent, undemocratic monster with a far too wide mandate. And if you look at the people building the EU, that is no accident. Considering what this EU might turn into, I think it would be better to not have it at all.
What the EU lacks first and foremost is a proper constitution: a simple document that describes what the EU does and doesn't do, who does what, how, and under what conditions, and what the rights are it grants to its citizens and national governments. Since we don't have one, the EU can grow in any direction and in any way its architects desire. And that direction might not be what's best for Europe or its citizens, but for those running the show in Brussels. As Juncker once said: "When it becomes serious, you have to lie". And that is sort of what they did with the thing that is called the European constitution. It's a huge document and you have to be a legal expert to make any sense of it. And that too is by design: when several countries voted against the "constitution", they took out one part (making "An die Freude" the European anthem) and rewrote the rest in impenetrable legalese.
There are many good reasons for having *a* union. And there are many more for not having *this* one.
Also, that is not a "youth club". It looks like a regular hackerspace.
You would think so, and you'd be right. Except that politicians beg (or rather: insist) to differ. Same here in NL, downloading was made illegal but the taxes remained in place. Over here they even renamed it to the "home copy levy". There's a levy on all storage media (hard disks, blank DVDs), which is for "compensating authors and artists for copies made of music and movies from legal sources for private use". And since downloading stuff from the internet is now illegal, this means that this fee is levied solely on CDs and DVDs that you already own. Fuckers.
We're doing poorly even by European standards:
* €1.70 / l (about $7.20 / gallon)
* About €800 - €1200 in road tax per year (regardless of milage, and this is per vehicle; we own several. There are some special exemptions for old-timers though)
* VAT (21%) + a special car "CO2" tax on purchase of new cars. For some cars, the VAT + CO2 tax exceeds the factory price of the car.
We may be a small and densely populated country, but as one clever blogger remarked: "We do not have too many cars in this country, but too many people who hate them". That's also reflected in the fact that our roads, though generally in good condition, take ages to build. Between planning a road and the ground being broken, there's zoning, environmental impact studies, protests, court cases, etc. One case: a very short extension on one highway that will provide tremendous relief in congestion and pollition around a major city, is oonly now being built after planners decided to go ahead... over 40 *years* ago.
I think we should be able to trust our government with such data under a few conditions:
1) There should be a reasonable balance between the privacy intrusion and the benefits derived thereof
2) Data security and access restrictions to that data should be in line with the sensitivity of that data
3) The data should in principle only be used in ways for which it was collected, with a few limited and explicitly stipulated exceptions (such as law enforcement having access to subsets of the data with a court order). And always: not compelled by law to share means *forbidden* to share, no data may ever be volunteered.
4) Data retention should not be longer than needed for the purpose for which the data was collected.
5) There must be appropriate oversight to enforce these rules, with trustworthy audits and real consequences for those responsible in case of transgressions.
In many cases I do not in principle have issues with the goverment obtaining certain private data about me. However, in almost all cases, the reasonable conditions listed above are not met. In most cases, *none* of them are met.
In any case, you ought to be happy that your government at least set some limits on how and when this data can be used. When my country's government proposed a similar road pricing scheme, privacy was not addressed at all, on the contrary. No limits, any government agency would be allowed to use the data, and retention was pretty much forever. Politicians were already floating some alternative uses for the data: the police could use it to track suspicious movement, and the tax office could use it to catch fraudsters (such as catching people making private use of a company car and not declaring the milage, the way they recently did by requesting and receiving data from pay-by-smartphone parking providers). If our government sees no issue in buying data that was stolen from Swiss banks in order to catch undeclared offshore savings, they will certainly not stop short of abusing data they already own.
What if this pile of crap is the *only* surviving archive after 200 years?
Nice, I will try that! How many do you have to hang up (per tree) for it to be effective?
Only if you follow the "Austrian School" line of thinking, and then it becomes largely a matter of definitions and values. Even the article you link to admits that: "What is objected to here is not that the free market has flaws, but that the term “market failure” is a persuasive definition (see How to Think Straight, para 5.47), seeming to say more than it really does by improperly applying the emotive word failure.". They recognize the phenomenon but object to the chosen label.
Not that I agree with that article. Another quote: "Market failure, if the term is to mean anything useful, must mean that there are fundamental defects in the nature of human ability to achieve certain goods through voluntary, as opposed to coercive, institutions. With this definition, the case for market failure is synonymous with the case for government intervention.". Economists like Friedman argue against this line of thinking, and even many statists recognize that where market failure exists, state intervention isn't always the solution and may make matters worse.
That's market failure caused by government failure. Why do you think those laws to limit competition were put in place?
I think that government should not try and compete in a functioning market, but they definitely should have the right (and the inclination) to step in when the market fails. Set a reasonable minimum service, e.g. allow muni broadband if there are less than 3 market players having offered a plan with x Mb/s with an allowance of y GB/month for at most €z/month in the last 12 months or whatever. The incumbent telcos then have a choice to join the 21st century, or compete against the municipality.
Also, if local government is using public funds to run fiber, allow other telcos the use of that fiber at cost. Same as many countries forced the incumbent, formerly state owned telcos to open up part of their infra to newcomers on the market.
Phalanx-like systems are set up for fast inbound targets and have excellent radar tracking and accurate (and self correcting) firepower. What's the issue to reprogram these for slower drones? Maybe it's overkill, but the system's already installed.
What kind of goldfish? An African one, or a European? Or a demented goldfish living in a bowl of cheap tequila?
Exactly. For some years we've had a blissful interbellum between two loudness wars, when most site owners thought that simple, mostly static banner ads were fine. And they were fine: easily ignored, quick loading. But things have degenerated quite a bit; that Canvas ad thing is a good example of the next level of "loudness" to catch the viewer's attention.
Back in the days of banner ads, I didn't know anyone who'd go out of their way to block them. Now, adblockers are common and they are increasingly being promoted and used not just to get rid of annoying ads, but also to make browsing a faster and safer experience. Advertisers (and indirectly site owners like Bryant) simply crapped the bed they sleep in.
Men might still be prevalent in positions of power and influence, but there are developments on this issue that worry some people (not all of them men either). Not because man's position of power is threatened, but because in some cases the pendulum swings a bit far the other way. For instance, primary schools (and increasingly high schools as well) are thoroughly feminized institutions these days, and it isn't helping education. Political correctness spurred by feminists gets picked up by mainstream media and politics, and sometimes taken to ridiculous lengths. And I do not doubt that this sort of thing has its influence on Hollywood as well. Bill Maher said it right when claiming that it has become somewhat politically incorrect to be a man.
Without arguing the rights and wrongs of each of these examples, it's not a surprise that a "men's rights" movement has sprung up. And it's also not a surprise that this group apparently mirrors the feminist movement: with some level-headed people bringing real issues to the public's attention, and with some moronic cretins who see social injustice in everything
Women in the UAE are allowed to drive, and can dress (more or less) as they would at home. On the other hand, if you (as a woman) get raped, do not report it! Chances are that you'll be charged with "extramarital sex", a serious offence, and with some other charges piled on top like consumption of alcohol in a public area. The UAE is actually quite liberal compared to most other countries in the area, but they aren't quite there yet.
That is just too funny. In the same spirit, I suggest we send up Celine Dion and Justin Bieber on that asteroid buster mission. They won't be of any help when things go wrong, but if the primary mission succeeds, we will not only have won back out world, we will have made it a better place.
I am often in the opposite situation: I am trying to buy something and being in a small market (the Netherlands) it can be tough to find a local source for things like electronic components or gun parts. Search results often only yield spec sheets or discussions on a forum, so I frequently add the word "kopen" (buy) to my search queries. It helps but only to some degree, and I too would like to see Google to treat the word "buy" (or the absence of it) with special care.
Well, "square lattice of superconducting qubits" just rolls of the tongue, doesn't it. It sounds like something you'd find on the menu of an avant-garde restaurant.
I offer 2 rules to improve your software development project (and surprisingly they work for a lot of other business activities too)
1) Pay attention to who you hire and who you select for your team. Software development is about people.
2) Do not replace thinking with process and methods.
Process and methodologies provide useful structure and standardization but it will not turn crap employees into good ones. They do however have the potential to turn great employees into mediocre ones.
Islam is nothing like christianity. Christ (the new testament) at least teaches love and forgiveness. In islam it is the very prophet that incites and orders followers to commit those atrocities. Those muslims are not ignoring the words of their prophet but acting in accordance with god's command, which is exactly the problem.
Engineers tend to design for themselves; not for others
Some engineers design for Satan. Ever used SAP?
Indeed. And for those who cannot cope with this idea, I say in the tradition of Rousseau: "Let them drink bottled water". By all means offer them a choice, but at their expense.
It will happen. Cars get smarter but people remain as stupid as they are now. Someone will stick a baby in their self driving car, the car will stop before reaching grandma because it runs out of power and the nearest charging station Is out of commission. It is a hot day and the baby will die. The parents will of course sue. And from there on in our cars will come with a warning sticker not to let infants or mentally incompetent persons ride unattended.