RTFA and you'll see that Roman took full responsibility for a huge security mistake that should never have occurred. How many banking executives at Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Chase, BofA, CitiBank or Wells Fargo have done anything like that?
What huge security mistakes did those banking executives do again?
If you've ever worked in power generation, bringing up a turbine when you hadn't initially planned on running it is not a 5 minute process. Likewise, shutting it down or reducing load is definitely not something you do on a whim.
I don't understand the justification behind the penalties being more costly than the fee of the electricity that was not consumed, It's been paid for, so why attach an extra fee on top which encourages wasting electricity further?
An employer for example cannot abusively force you to work more than 48hrs a week
They can and it still does happen (often in Poland), please stop confusing law with reality. It's also illegal in most countries to accept bribes, yet this is common business practice in Poland (An European member state) to get things done - I suspect there are other European member states that does this too, but my personal experience does not cover the entirety of Europe.
consumers are guaranteed to be allowed to get a replacement/refund/repair on goods that should last 2 years
Not quite, some manufacturers begin their warranty the day it leaves their factory, not when the end user purchases the equipment (Seagate did this on some of their harddrive models). Had the UK kept it's original laws unmodified, this would have not been acceptable.
There are many other fine examples of the EU protecting citizens better than their own member state would by itself.
There are also fine examples of things like 'arrest warrants' that remove founding principles like Habeas Corpus from functioning in existing legal systems, leading to massive abuse, which is in my opinion, more important than a silly warranty. Or even example of overfishing and territorial hell issues caused by the common fisheries policy.
If it ever got to the point where it was genuinely scary then we could simply pull out, problem solved.
You mean like how Greece tried to pull out and then their government was replaced by a puppet? Or how Ireland kept having a referendum on laws they didn't want until they accepted the EU's proposal?
In the meantime though, it's actually rather nice knowing there is an authority who does a better job of looking after my rights than even my own government would by itself because it's more easily influenced by vested interests and lobbyists.
The EU is run by a parliament - who is ELECTED by votes in all the member countries.
I am an European, I was never given, nor was any other common European citizen given the choice to vote in or vote out the following people who run it:
Herman Van Rompuy Jose Manuel Barroso Demetris Christofias Martin Schulz
These people do not necessarily represent the interests of European people as they are unelected by the European people.
But in reality, they aren't the problem as much as the advertisers.
Them them fight it out with Google on how exactly they're going to do that.
Google isn't violating the laws and doesn't appear to care, much like all the other advertising services out there.
In summary, the laws implemented in the UK is stupid and doesn't deliver. The best thing about this is that another EU country's implementation of this mandate may have entirely different requirements and then the website that complies with UK laws would be in violation of that country's laws and be unable to do business with that EU country.
Thanks EU mandate for increasing the amount of stupid laws that can be inherently incompatible with each other. It's yet another Euro project mess that Mr. Barroso will claim is working perfectly fine and that we should pay no attention to facts because those are 'negative'. Clearly we can't have any reality when it comes to law making, can we?
Because website owners are the ones serving ads, and so they are the ones most directly responsible.
Pretty sure when I see google adsense ads, they're served up by Google, not the website owner. The website owner only linked to it in their HTML.
The advertisers will have to follow suit, though.
And yet Google has done nothing and what we see is webmasters making hacky workarounds that aren't following the letter of the law. Such as saying the user gave them implied consent for advertisement tracking when the law says the user must give implicit consent.
No-one is going to allow them to show ads if those ads can make them liable.
And yet the reality is that even the BBC (implied consent), BT (implied consent) and Sky (implied consent and don't offer even a proper opt out system)'s websites don't comply properly.
Slashdot Mirror
What bitcoin authority would do that and have the governance to determine when bitcoins are 'bad'?Are you proposing Bitcoin add a regulatory body?
What bitcoin authority could do that?
What huge security mistakes did those banking executives do again?
Doesn't work on my iPad.
I don't understand your point. What does this have to do with having >300ppi prior to the iPhone 4?
Please elaborate.
Excellent motivators?
"The State" isn't listed in the US Military enemy list.
I don't understand your comment. Could you provide more context to explain how this makes America 'Nazi'?
Do you think Linus will port Linux to Romney if they release the specs?
Are you trying to say I am not part of the Linux community because I run headless servers?
See Slashdot's tag line.
See what happened with Ireland's referendums. Don't agree? We'll keep asking until you agree!
I don't understand the justification behind the penalties being more costly than the fee of the electricity that was not consumed, It's been paid for, so why attach an extra fee on top which encourages wasting electricity further?
They can and it still does happen (often in Poland), please stop confusing law with reality. It's also illegal in most countries to accept bribes, yet this is common business practice in Poland (An European member state) to get things done - I suspect there are other European member states that does this too, but my personal experience does not cover the entirety of Europe.
Not quite, some manufacturers begin their warranty the day it leaves their factory, not when the end user purchases the equipment (Seagate did this on some of their harddrive models). Had the UK kept it's original laws unmodified, this would have not been acceptable.
There are also fine examples of things like 'arrest warrants' that remove founding principles like Habeas Corpus from functioning in existing legal systems, leading to massive abuse, which is in my opinion, more important than a silly warranty. Or even example of overfishing and territorial hell issues caused by the common fisheries policy.
You mean like how Greece tried to pull out and then their government was replaced by a puppet? Or how Ireland kept having a referendum on laws they didn't want until they accepted the EU's proposal?
Cool story.
I am an European, I was never given, nor was any other common European citizen given the choice to vote in or vote out the following people who run it:
Herman Van Rompuy
Jose Manuel Barroso
Demetris Christofias
Martin Schulz
These people do not necessarily represent the interests of European people as they are unelected by the European people.
But in reality, they aren't the problem as much as the advertisers.
Google isn't violating the laws and doesn't appear to care, much like all the other advertising services out there.
In summary, the laws implemented in the UK is stupid and doesn't deliver. The best thing about this is that another EU country's implementation of this mandate may have entirely different requirements and then the website that complies with UK laws would be in violation of that country's laws and be unable to do business with that EU country.
Thanks EU mandate for increasing the amount of stupid laws that can be inherently incompatible with each other. It's yet another Euro project mess that Mr. Barroso will claim is working perfectly fine and that we should pay no attention to facts because those are 'negative'. Clearly we can't have any reality when it comes to law making, can we?
Pretty sure when I see google adsense ads, they're served up by Google, not the website owner. The website owner only linked to it in their HTML.
And yet Google has done nothing and what we see is webmasters making hacky workarounds that aren't following the letter of the law. Such as saying the user gave them implied consent for advertisement tracking when the law says the user must give implicit consent.
And yet the reality is that even the BBC (implied consent), BT (implied consent) and Sky (implied consent and don't offer even a proper opt out system)'s websites don't comply properly.
He did better, he talked to a government agency commissioner in person.
So why did the directive in the UK end up putting UK website owners at risk instead of the advertisers?
Where is your Slashdot subscription?
APK does not understand this. Also, expect more TL;DR type posts from him now.
AC posts tend to be ignored.
You're AC, it only takes one person to mod you down to -1.
Why this day and not the previous days when BSD and GPL licensing dramas occur between the BSD and Linux communities?
APK, couldn't or wouldn't?
I see, so APK has Multiple Personality Disorder now.