What if you have a job as a landscaper or construction worker or another outside job, and you have to work in the dark ?
These professions already optimize work by sunlight hours irrespective of clock time, so... not any fundmental difference.
But I'm baffled why people respond to this with all these hysterical "what if" and hyperbole. This isn't speculation. It's a real law that will be in effect in EU in a few years after preparations are done. Plenty of countries around the world already don't have any season time change. It's not theoretical, it's real. Just not in the (entire) USA and EU (for now).
Nope, the term is Summer Time. Of course Slashdot mouth breather Americans are incapable of using relevant terminology when discussing events in other countries.
Well there is official EU polling results which one can refer to as to the level of support/opposition to it. (80% support year-round time) The difference is also the body of scientific studies demonstrating failure to achieve original energy savings goal, and negative effects re: human health (medically and re: auto accidents etc) when adjusting schedules abruptly. But hey, maybe it's fun to ask people's opinion about a number instead.
In the EU poll of this topic, the only 2 countries without majorities supporting year-round time were Greece and Cyprus (and almost 1/2 did there). Italy and Malta had ~55%-60% support for it, the rest averaging closely around ~85% support with Poland and Finland nearly tied at 95% support. (Graph.jpg) https://eur-lex.europa.eu/reso...
More like political reasons, that originating during Nazi era with CET imposed on France and Benelux, and Franco wanted to join the party. In fact CET countries don't currently share business hours, these varying from West to East by an hour or more, negating that rationale. It basically comes down to inertia, which "forced" choice of "permanent summer vs standard time" removes (or at least makes it active choice).
Do you have book or paper to reference the negative economic and political effects of Spain/France/Benelux being in different time zone from Germany preceding Nazi era? Or the current negative effects of Spain and Portugal being on different time zones? Or the different time zones of American states, or Russian regions etc? As long as there is no variance in off-set (e.g. due to different application/dates of season time change) then it is a simple +1 adjustment. Countries within CET already tend to have different official business hours despite sharing same time zone. Even within a country different businesses will have different operating hours to suit their purpose. How does reverting to pre-Nazi-era West European Time actually constitute economic and political damage given that?
But what is actually happening is no countries are being "told by the unelected EU bureaucrats what to do". The topic of the story is in fact a VOTE OF ELECTED EU Parliament. The result of the vote is seasonal time change is ended across EU, as massively supported by polls across the EU: I believe only Cyprus and Greece barely failed to have majority support for it with basically every other country polling at ~85% support for it. Poll Result (Graph): https://eur-lex.europa.eu/reso... But each country gets to choose what time zone to keep and thus whether or not to apply the last seasonal time change in 2021 i.e. 'permanent summer time' or 'permanent standard time' (although these are indistinguishable from time zones per se).
But don't let me get in your way of invoking A COMMENT ON SLASHDOT as "the reason for Brexit". I didn't know/. was so important really.
I realized the original article wording is inaccurate and misleads posters to believe the proposal allows for individual countries to continue seasonal time changes. In fact, the proposal absolutely ends seasonal time changes, and the only choice for each country is 'permanent summer' or 'permanent winter' (which amount to choices of time zone, which was always within remit of countries to individually choose in the first place)
P8_TA-PROV(2019)0225 Discontinuing seasonal changes of time***I European Parliament legislative resolution of 26 March 2019 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council discontinuing seasonal changes of time and repealing Directive 2000/84/EC (COM(2018)0639 –C8-0408/2018 –2018/0332(COD))
since the introduction of summer-time there have been several initiatives that aimed to discontinue the practice. Some Member States have held national consultations and a majority of businesses and stakeholders have supported the discontinuation of the practice. The consultation initiated by the European Commission has come to the same conclusion.
it is necessary to put an end to the harmonisation of the period covered by summer-time arrangements as laid down in Directive 2000/84/EC and to introduce common rules preventing Member States from applying different seasonal time arrangements by changing their standard time more than once during the year.
The decision on which standard time to apply in each Member State needs to be preceded by consultations and studies which would take into account citizens’ preferences, geographical variations, regional differences, standard working arrangements and other factors relevant for the particular Member State.
Where is the 'return to chaos'? I believe only change is EU previously mandated yearly time change, and now mandates constant year-round time. No independent choice of whether and when to semi-annualy switch time. So not "pre-1996" in any way.
The framing of discourse focuses on countries choosing 'permanent summer time' or 'permanent winter time''. Whose results are functionally indistinguishable from the results of a choice of time zone. Which EU countries (as others) have always reserved for own independent designation, with only summer/winter shift mandated by EU.
In fact the prompted 'choice of summer/winter time' can easily be used to 'adjust' time zone boundaries, i.e. return to 'natural' (longitude) West European Time for Spain, France, Benelux as opposed to "Nazi Time" CET. Or not, if effective time zone designation is not given attention to in favor of arbitrary cultural sunlight-clock preferences (which by now have long been built around a very distorted-from-longitudinal norm clock time, particularly in case of Spain) it is equally possible to have random patchwork of effective national time zones without longitudinal coherency. But that isn't a change from status quo as EU countries have always been free to designate time zone irrespective of neighbors.
But 'paying attention to details' probably isn't quite as exciting in Hollywood thriller sort of way as 'head back into the chaos'. Alas.
Humans and other species which can be infected by bacteria? The orchards and run-off from them don't exist in alternate universe, the large scale exposure of antibiotics can trigger MSRA strains which can infect people who never touch a Florida orange in their life.
And more than that, everything you say is why focusing on it's Olympic status is a red herring and putting cart before the horse. E-sports don't need to be in the Olympics first, they can reform and organize themselves to international sporting standards without Olympics. They can demonstrate actually having a game not dependent on any one vendor, with fully open free rules for all. Even something as sleazy as motor-sports has plausibly independent organization allowing anybody to compete who meets spec. E-sports is "anybody can play XYZ's product". Except that isn't actually true. Many videogame companies are based in US (or it's minions), which imposes sanctions on more than a few countries. Olympics standard is full global competition, meaning Cuba and North Korea and Iran and whoever else the US doesn't like. Never mind basic issues like OK, we're doing E-Sports at Olympics, what game will be played for the next 30 years? That's just a little too serious for E-Sports proponents, right? (French entertainment corp's own major videogame corp's thus see it as venue for commercial promotion)
I'm responding because I had similar reason to start using Yandex, but I don't relate to why you stopped using it. How is it so abnormal to have multilingual results when searching internet, a global multinational phenomena? I have to imagine most of rest of world has similar experience re: overabundance of EN, so what is problem? IME, vast majority of (2%) "Russian" Yandex results (I'm searching with Latin alphabet English terms, after all) are merely Russian version of sites like Wiki, which is the result of those sites returning RU version to.ru search bot. (and the EN version is either directly linked when you click on search entry, or at most 1 more click away)
Anyhow, from what I understand, DDG results are merely pastiche of Google + MS search results anyways, so you aren't escaping their "bubble", you are merely getting the non-personally-targetted average version. The idea DDG is truly independent alternative seems ridiculous just on that grounds, never mind consider how well they have been effectively publicized vs alternatives like Yandex, DDG is even included on my latest Android.
About the phone, I had impression they were going with non-Android Sailfish OS, although this may just be temporary product on route to that goal?
"The broader problem is that California's micromanagement poses a risk to the rest of the country. After all, broadband is an interstate service; Internet traffic doesn't recognize state lines. It follows that only the federal government can set regulatory policy in this area."
Last I checked, the internet is a GLOBAL service, and much of California traffic may be dealing with networks in entirely different countries, under a wide variety of legal norms. Yet the internet doesn't break because of that. If the internet works just fine between New York and Tokyo and Beijing and Moscow and Frankfurt, San Francisco ISPs operating under slightly different rules than New York just doesn't matter.
Indeed, it seems pretty reasonable. Now if it was more contested, perhaps it would make to sense to consider a national-population weighted poll (akin to EP seat allocation), but in fact I think the poll returned consistently high support from ALL but 2 countries (Greece and Cyprus), so even if German votes were ignored the result would be same.
There seems some fuss about countries individually choosing summer/winter time, but that is perfectly appropriate and respectful of nations (or regions, like Corsica)... and isn't functionally different from countries choosing their own time zone, which they have always done, which I think many fail to grasp in focus on choice of winter vs summer. Curious to see if former WET re-emerges in at least some of Spain/France/Benelux.
It would be weird if the UK was 1 hour east of France at least half the year, but AFAIK support for dropping clock adjustment is equally high in the UK, and no reason to thing there would be stranger result than when countries designated this completely independently. Well, maybe that was bad luck to write that:-).
It's really not, the choice of 'permanent summer/winter time' is really functionally identical to choosing a different time zone. So the forced choice meaning there is no "default" inertia is simply opportunity for Spain, France, Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg tio return to their 'natural' time zone (by longitude) 1 hr west of Germany/Italy/etc, which was only altered due to Nazi occupation. On the other side, if Poland wants to be 1 hour east of Germany in same zone as Baltics, that is plausible policy too.
The thing is, every country has ALWAYS been able to designate it's time zone, that was never controlled by EU, and even before EU/EC countries tend to either be in same zone as neighbor, or 1 hr offset from immediate east/west. If you approach this as subjective preference re: summer/winter you might imagine patchwork of variation, but functionally it is no different than choosing a time zone, which countries have always approached pragmatically in relation to their neighbors. The borders of time zones may change somewhat, but they've done so before (in fact, creating the un-natural time situation for Spain as well as FR/BE/NE/LUX) and that isn't really anything to worry about.
Love how Pai makes big deal of previous CIO being hired by previous administration... When he himself was hired by same previous administration.
Great stance suddenly denouncing the guy who is gone, when plenty of people have denounced FCC claims all along, yet Pai somehow couldn't reach the same conclusions those people did until now. Obviously his next step is politically empowering those who made this criticism all along. Not.
So to have significant effect, such a system would need to be installed on many flat-topped buildings in urban areas, or open ground. If you're going to do that, why not install solar power generators in the same places, which reduce need for dirty power generation? The system is de facto using clean power generation potential for air filtering, albeit in efficient manner (due to direct utilization of solar thermal energy), but I question it's total utility value. China is already pushing electric cars etc heavily so that source is not a long term problem.
I would supposition that plant based air cleaning systems, whethe normal plants like http://mashable.com/2017/02/09... or moss like https://futurism.com/4-citytre... can be installed even more places, even filling vertical walls, effect not dependent on large single areas to support 'chimney' etc, and actively clean the air in even more ways, as well as adding oxygen.
Although on the other hand, the chimney filter system can very well be applied where heat chimneys already inherently serve climate control cooling function for buildings, and designing buildings with this approach in mind reduces need for air conditioning etc thus reducing electric consumption.
Except this argument falls apart when one recognizes the result of EC has overwhelmingly been the exact same as 1:1 popular vote. If the latter is so horrible, the EC fails at delivering a result distinguishable from it.
The EC is based on Congressional representation which in total is heavily skewed to population proportion, equal Senators and minimum Representatives aside. So the EC isn't really a significant divergence from the population metric, which of course is consistent with it's results largely conforming to direct 1:1 popular vote.
If one wants to apply disproportional influence to low population states, one can do so by formal vote weighting, no EC needed. The people attracted to "EC helps small/rural states" would probably be unimpressed by the marginal effective weighting boost the EC actually achieves. You have to ask yourself, if you are promoting the EC as divergent from population proportion, why don't you actually bring up the numerical discrepancy? Why don't you even know the actual discrepancy? Commenters here have only mentioned the factors which contribute to that (equal # of Senators, minimum # of Representatives) without mentioning what that ultimately equates to in terms of "vote weighting". (hint: the actual vote weighting has varied in time, without any formal changes to EC system, making defense of that formal system on basis of vague invocation of weighting results vs high population states an utter joke)
But regardless of the effective weighting boost, the primary effect is NOT related to "small/rural state" distribution at all, and it does NOT boost the power of all voters in any state. It is simply another "first past the post" type of distortion. Because it's well known that many states are simply not in contention at all, meaning the vote of those whose vote isn't needed to support winning candidate is wasted. (that includes backers of losing candidates AND un-needed supermajorities for winning candidate) Those who tout EC as "against the coastal megacities" ignore that it is MORE against non-majority positions in their own small, rural states AND against non-majority positions in coastal megacities etc, and ultimately even also against potential supporters of the majority in states with supermajority norms who don't really matter even if they don't notice that.
It's literally trivial to implement some rural/small-state population/vote weighting that DOESN'T have those distortions, that allows every voter wherever they live to have a say in the ultimate result. If rural/small-state favoritism is desirable, then it doesn't matter if each voter is counted with different weight. Right now, many voters have ZERO weight.
And finally, rather than attempt to use dubious incoherent medieval system to achieve 'regional representation' at executive level, why not just empower the Senate to restrict the Presidency more? That IS the most effective nexus of non-democratic regional representation, yet it hasn't enforced it's maximal constitutional powers vs Presidency but has let them slide away in favor of executive priviledge theories etc. Fully by consent of "small/rural state" Senators and unchallenged by populace in those states.
It's BS and flies in the face of actual function of FCC.
FCC is not a court whose edicts are purely resolutions of existing law.
They decide policy which is ultimately an expression of opinions and choices.
Anybody who has purely legal opinion can express it by bringing the matter to court and judging FCC policy based on purely legal matters.
Pure public "opinion" is precisely what the FCC is legally supposed to take into account.
No federal agency required to consider public opinion has ever claimed this interpretation AFAIK.
(and if FCC believes this is legal requirement, would it not overturn all past federal regulations which illegally took into consideration public opinions which are not strict legal arguments?)
Never mind that FCC has not enunciated a clear objective standard to discern "legal argument" from non-legal "opinion". There just isn't such a sharp distinction when one considers the philosophical fundamentals of judicial process. Courts consider opinions ALL THE TIME which are not strict functions of law, even if the latter is prioritized.
The fact that they now openly admit refusing to consider public "opinion" that is not legal argument is in fact a great legal argument to overturn their NN decision for not following legal requirement to consider public OPINION.
Of course, they can re-run process and say they came to same conclusion while taking into account the public opinions, but at least that delays them by some years and messes them up.
Babylonian Base 60 used zeros, initially as empty space but eventually with symbolic representation.
They just didn't place zeros on the END of numbers which is technically not necessary information,
given the scale of 'unit' used is always separate from the number itself.
And Tesla autopilot's "superior safety" has nothing at all to do with those environment-caused damages.
The only potential difference is re: driver caused damages. Which is Tesla autopilot's case, are Tesla's fault.
So other than the superficial angle of Tesla just having deal with insurers to share profits of customers they attract,
the only substantial question I have on this is the clauses Tesla includes in this, re: own liability.
Enforced arbitration under corporate-friendly parameters is almost standard aspiration these days,
so Tesla being involved in car owner-insurance relationship seems highly likely to be net beneficial
to reducing Tesla's own ultimate legal liability for cases of accidents where autopilot was liable for accident.
MS has already admitted their willingness to do this, that if US law and EU law are in conflict they will follow US law. Now if they wanted to, they could structure their business so there is no ability for US to influence things. If they wanted to they could structure their business so it no longer is primarily based out of the US at all. MS and similar companies use all sorts of shenanigans to evade national tax liability, but MS isn't willing to take equivalent steps to evade US jurisdiction over-reach. US tech is is undeniably in the pocket of the US state and intelligence apparatus, they have billion dollar deals flowing from that and are comfortable cooperating within US intelligence control regime. That's what they're loyal to, pure and simple.
It's just more BS, fed by natsec goons and their IT camp followers who see an opportunity to steal market share from competitor who actually has best AV product. Taking the anonymous story at face value, it still tells a story about how not just Russian FSB but Israeli intelligence hacked Kaspersky. Yet there is no concern over this Israeli hacking, despite long history of such Israeli spying including against Iran nuclear negotiations trying to use that info to feed back to collaborators in US to sabotage process. ANY AV product could potentially be hacked, if FSB wants to it can do that to any AV company not just Kaspersky, just as Israeli intel hacked Kaspersky. That they need to hack Kaspersky to get what they want (again, taking story at face value) suggests Kaspersky is a normal AV company focused on detecting threats because if they were a FSB operation they wouldn't need to be hacked by FSB... Again there is no clear distinction here between claims of FSB hacking Kaspersky and Israeli intelligence hacking them. Yet we are not bombarded with media cries for need to exclude Israeli high tech companies.
Kaspersky has great record of actually detecting threats, which is the purpose of using AV software. Yet half of the complaint is them detecting NSA malware. I.e. doing their job. Clearly that, and their history of revealing US, UK, Israeli state intelligence malware which has affected broad sectors of users as well as state users like Iran rubs some people the wrong way, some people being those who prioritize intelligence agency agenda over doing the job that AV products are supposed to do, detect and stop threats. It's utterly clear that companies like MS, Symantec, Google, etc, will prioritize cooperation with NSA intelligence over closing backdoors in their product, that even if they eventually address an NSA hack they might be prone to sitting on it for a while rather than inconvenience NSA. Anybody who just wants an effective AV solution, and doesn't care who wrote the malware it catches, would be well served by Kaspersky. Which is why we see German government saying they see no problem with Kaspersky, Singapore government investing in Kaspersky research, etc. This "regime loyalist media" hype is just that, for those who do what they are told and don't concede any divergence between objective self-interest and loyalty to regime mandate.
That shows the moronic premise of the article. If the government doesn't make it a crime, it isn't a crime. "IP rights" are nowhere considered "natural law", they are specific government policy with aim for certain economic outcome.That Iran happens to differ from US law is unsurprising, MANY countries differ from US re: IP law (e.g. software patents). Hard to take article seriously when 99% of it is misguided and superfluous. But "OMG IRAN" plays well in Zionist States of America, so...
Slashdot Mirror
What if you have a job as a landscaper or construction worker or another outside job, and you have to work in the dark ?
These professions already optimize work by sunlight hours irrespective of clock time, so... not any fundmental difference.
But I'm baffled why people respond to this with all these hysterical "what if" and hyperbole. This isn't speculation.
It's a real law that will be in effect in EU in a few years after preparations are done.
Plenty of countries around the world already don't have any season time change. It's not theoretical, it's real.
Just not in the (entire) USA and EU (for now).
Nope, the term is Summer Time.
Of course Slashdot mouth breather Americans are incapable of using relevant terminology when discussing events in other countries.
Well there is official EU polling results which one can refer to as to the level of support/opposition to it. (80% support year-round time)
The difference is also the body of scientific studies demonstrating failure to achieve original energy savings goal,
and negative effects re: human health (medically and re: auto accidents etc) when adjusting schedules abruptly.
But hey, maybe it's fun to ask people's opinion about a number instead.
In the EU poll of this topic, the only 2 countries without majorities supporting year-round time were Greece and Cyprus (and almost 1/2 did there).
Italy and Malta had ~55%-60% support for it, the rest averaging closely around ~85% support with Poland and Finland nearly tied at 95% support.
(Graph.jpg) https://eur-lex.europa.eu/reso...
More like political reasons, that originating during Nazi era with CET imposed on France and Benelux, and Franco wanted to join the party.
In fact CET countries don't currently share business hours, these varying from West to East by an hour or more, negating that rationale.
It basically comes down to inertia, which "forced" choice of "permanent summer vs standard time" removes (or at least makes it active choice).
Do you have book or paper to reference the negative economic and political effects of Spain/France/Benelux being in different time zone from Germany preceding Nazi era? Or the current negative effects of Spain and Portugal being on different time zones? Or the different time zones of American states, or Russian regions etc? As long as there is no variance in off-set (e.g. due to different application/dates of season time change) then it is a simple +1 adjustment. Countries within CET already tend to have different official business hours despite sharing same time zone. Even within a country different businesses will have different operating hours to suit their purpose. How does reverting to pre-Nazi-era West European Time actually constitute economic and political damage given that?
Cool story.
But what is actually happening is no countries are being "told by the unelected EU bureaucrats what to do".
The topic of the story is in fact a VOTE OF ELECTED EU Parliament.
The result of the vote is seasonal time change is ended across EU, as massively supported by polls across the EU:
I believe only Cyprus and Greece barely failed to have majority support for it with basically every other country polling at ~85% support for it.
Poll Result (Graph): https://eur-lex.europa.eu/reso...
But each country gets to choose what time zone to keep and thus whether or not to apply the last seasonal time change in 2021
i.e. 'permanent summer time' or 'permanent standard time' (although these are indistinguishable from time zones per se).
But don't let me get in your way of invoking A COMMENT ON SLASHDOT as "the reason for Brexit". I didn't know /. was so important really.
I realized the original article wording is inaccurate and misleads posters to believe the proposal allows for individual countries to continue seasonal time changes.
In fact, the proposal absolutely ends seasonal time changes, and the only choice for each country is 'permanent summer' or 'permanent winter'
(which amount to choices of time zone, which was always within remit of countries to individually choose in the first place)
Here I include excerpts of the actual text adopted by EP... (full link here: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/...)
P8_TA-PROV(2019)0225 Discontinuing seasonal changes of time***I European Parliament legislative resolution of 26 March 2019 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council discontinuing seasonal changes of time and repealing Directive 2000/84/EC (COM(2018)0639 –C8-0408/2018 –2018/0332(COD))
since the introduction of summer-time there have been several initiatives that aimed to discontinue the practice. Some Member States have held national consultations and a majority of businesses and stakeholders have supported the discontinuation of the practice. The consultation initiated by the European Commission has come to the same conclusion.
it is necessary to put an end to the harmonisation of the period covered by summer-time arrangements as laid down in Directive 2000/84/EC and to introduce common rules preventing Member States from applying different seasonal time arrangements by changing their standard time more than once during the year.
The decision on which standard time to apply in each Member State needs to be preceded by consultations and studies which would take into account citizens’ preferences, geographical variations, regional differences, standard working arrangements and other factors relevant for the particular Member State.
Where is the 'return to chaos'?
I believe only change is EU previously mandated yearly time change, and now mandates constant year-round time.
No independent choice of whether and when to semi-annualy switch time. So not "pre-1996" in any way.
The framing of discourse focuses on countries choosing 'permanent summer time' or 'permanent winter time''.
Whose results are functionally indistinguishable from the results of a choice of time zone.
Which EU countries (as others) have always reserved for own independent designation, with only summer/winter shift mandated by EU.
In fact the prompted 'choice of summer/winter time' can easily be used to 'adjust' time zone boundaries,
i.e. return to 'natural' (longitude) West European Time for Spain, France, Benelux as opposed to "Nazi Time" CET.
Or not, if effective time zone designation is not given attention to in favor of arbitrary cultural sunlight-clock preferences
(which by now have long been built around a very distorted-from-longitudinal norm clock time, particularly in case of Spain)
it is equally possible to have random patchwork of effective national time zones without longitudinal coherency.
But that isn't a change from status quo as EU countries have always been free to designate time zone irrespective of neighbors.
But 'paying attention to details' probably isn't quite as exciting in Hollywood thriller sort of way as 'head back into the chaos'. Alas.
Humans and other species which can be infected by bacteria?
The orchards and run-off from them don't exist in alternate universe,
the large scale exposure of antibiotics can trigger MSRA strains
which can infect people who never touch a Florida orange in their life.
You ever hear of this thing called rain?
And more than that, everything you say is why focusing on it's Olympic status is a red herring and putting cart before the horse.
E-sports don't need to be in the Olympics first, they can reform and organize themselves to international sporting standards without Olympics.
They can demonstrate actually having a game not dependent on any one vendor, with fully open free rules for all.
Even something as sleazy as motor-sports has plausibly independent organization allowing anybody to compete who meets spec.
E-sports is "anybody can play XYZ's product". Except that isn't actually true.
Many videogame companies are based in US (or it's minions), which imposes sanctions on more than a few countries.
Olympics standard is full global competition, meaning Cuba and North Korea and Iran and whoever else the US doesn't like.
Never mind basic issues like OK, we're doing E-Sports at Olympics, what game will be played for the next 30 years?
That's just a little too serious for E-Sports proponents, right?
(French entertainment corp's own major videogame corp's thus see it as venue for commercial promotion)
I'm responding because I had similar reason to start using Yandex, but I don't relate to why you stopped using it. .ru search bot.
How is it so abnormal to have multilingual results when searching internet, a global multinational phenomena?
I have to imagine most of rest of world has similar experience re: overabundance of EN, so what is problem?
IME, vast majority of (2%) "Russian" Yandex results (I'm searching with Latin alphabet English terms, after all)
are merely Russian version of sites like Wiki, which is the result of those sites returning RU version to
(and the EN version is either directly linked when you click on search entry, or at most 1 more click away)
Anyhow, from what I understand, DDG results are merely pastiche of Google + MS search results anyways,
so you aren't escaping their "bubble", you are merely getting the non-personally-targetted average version.
The idea DDG is truly independent alternative seems ridiculous just on that grounds, never mind consider how
well they have been effectively publicized vs alternatives like Yandex, DDG is even included on my latest Android.
About the phone, I had impression they were going with non-Android Sailfish OS, although this may just be
temporary product on route to that goal?
"The broader problem is that California's micromanagement poses a risk to the rest of the country. After all, broadband is an interstate service; Internet traffic doesn't recognize state lines. It follows that only the federal government can set regulatory policy in this area." Last I checked, the internet is a GLOBAL service, and much of California traffic may be dealing with networks in entirely different countries, under a wide variety of legal norms. Yet the internet doesn't break because of that. If the internet works just fine between New York and Tokyo and Beijing and Moscow and Frankfurt, San Francisco ISPs operating under slightly different rules than New York just doesn't matter.
Indeed, it seems pretty reasonable. Now if it was more contested, perhaps it would make to sense to consider a national-population weighted poll (akin to EP seat allocation), but in fact I think the poll returned consistently high support from ALL but 2 countries (Greece and Cyprus), so even if German votes were ignored the result would be same. There seems some fuss about countries individually choosing summer/winter time, but that is perfectly appropriate and respectful of nations (or regions, like Corsica)... and isn't functionally different from countries choosing their own time zone, which they have always done, which I think many fail to grasp in focus on choice of winter vs summer. Curious to see if former WET re-emerges in at least some of Spain/France/Benelux. It would be weird if the UK was 1 hour east of France at least half the year, but AFAIK support for dropping clock adjustment is equally high in the UK, and no reason to thing there would be stranger result than when countries designated this completely independently. Well, maybe that was bad luck to write that :-).
It's really not, the choice of 'permanent summer/winter time' is really functionally identical to choosing a different time zone. So the forced choice meaning there is no "default" inertia is simply opportunity for Spain, France, Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg tio return to their 'natural' time zone (by longitude) 1 hr west of Germany/Italy/etc, which was only altered due to Nazi occupation. On the other side, if Poland wants to be 1 hour east of Germany in same zone as Baltics, that is plausible policy too. The thing is, every country has ALWAYS been able to designate it's time zone, that was never controlled by EU, and even before EU/EC countries tend to either be in same zone as neighbor, or 1 hr offset from immediate east/west. If you approach this as subjective preference re: summer/winter you might imagine patchwork of variation, but functionally it is no different than choosing a time zone, which countries have always approached pragmatically in relation to their neighbors. The borders of time zones may change somewhat, but they've done so before (in fact, creating the un-natural time situation for Spain as well as FR/BE/NE/LUX) and that isn't really anything to worry about.
Love how Pai makes big deal of previous CIO being hired by previous administration... When he himself was hired by same previous administration. Great stance suddenly denouncing the guy who is gone, when plenty of people have denounced FCC claims all along, yet Pai somehow couldn't reach the same conclusions those people did until now. Obviously his next step is politically empowering those who made this criticism all along. Not.
So to have significant effect, such a system would need to be installed on many flat-topped buildings in urban areas, or open ground. If you're going to do that, why not install solar power generators in the same places, which reduce need for dirty power generation? The system is de facto using clean power generation potential for air filtering, albeit in efficient manner (due to direct utilization of solar thermal energy), but I question it's total utility value. China is already pushing electric cars etc heavily so that source is not a long term problem.
I would supposition that plant based air cleaning systems, whethe normal plants like http://mashable.com/2017/02/09... or moss like https://futurism.com/4-citytre... can be installed even more places, even filling vertical walls, effect not dependent on large single areas to support 'chimney' etc, and actively clean the air in even more ways, as well as adding oxygen.
Although on the other hand, the chimney filter system can very well be applied where heat chimneys already inherently serve climate control cooling function for buildings, and designing buildings with this approach in mind reduces need for air conditioning etc thus reducing electric consumption.
Except this argument falls apart when one recognizes the result of EC has overwhelmingly been the exact same as 1:1 popular vote. If the latter is so horrible, the EC fails at delivering a result distinguishable from it. The EC is based on Congressional representation which in total is heavily skewed to population proportion, equal Senators and minimum Representatives aside. So the EC isn't really a significant divergence from the population metric, which of course is consistent with it's results largely conforming to direct 1:1 popular vote. If one wants to apply disproportional influence to low population states, one can do so by formal vote weighting, no EC needed. The people attracted to "EC helps small/rural states" would probably be unimpressed by the marginal effective weighting boost the EC actually achieves. You have to ask yourself, if you are promoting the EC as divergent from population proportion, why don't you actually bring up the numerical discrepancy? Why don't you even know the actual discrepancy? Commenters here have only mentioned the factors which contribute to that (equal # of Senators, minimum # of Representatives) without mentioning what that ultimately equates to in terms of "vote weighting". (hint: the actual vote weighting has varied in time, without any formal changes to EC system, making defense of that formal system on basis of vague invocation of weighting results vs high population states an utter joke) But regardless of the effective weighting boost, the primary effect is NOT related to "small/rural state" distribution at all, and it does NOT boost the power of all voters in any state. It is simply another "first past the post" type of distortion. Because it's well known that many states are simply not in contention at all, meaning the vote of those whose vote isn't needed to support winning candidate is wasted. (that includes backers of losing candidates AND un-needed supermajorities for winning candidate) Those who tout EC as "against the coastal megacities" ignore that it is MORE against non-majority positions in their own small, rural states AND against non-majority positions in coastal megacities etc, and ultimately even also against potential supporters of the majority in states with supermajority norms who don't really matter even if they don't notice that. It's literally trivial to implement some rural/small-state population/vote weighting that DOESN'T have those distortions, that allows every voter wherever they live to have a say in the ultimate result. If rural/small-state favoritism is desirable, then it doesn't matter if each voter is counted with different weight. Right now, many voters have ZERO weight. And finally, rather than attempt to use dubious incoherent medieval system to achieve 'regional representation' at executive level, why not just empower the Senate to restrict the Presidency more? That IS the most effective nexus of non-democratic regional representation, yet it hasn't enforced it's maximal constitutional powers vs Presidency but has let them slide away in favor of executive priviledge theories etc. Fully by consent of "small/rural state" Senators and unchallenged by populace in those states.
It's BS and flies in the face of actual function of FCC. FCC is not a court whose edicts are purely resolutions of existing law. They decide policy which is ultimately an expression of opinions and choices. Anybody who has purely legal opinion can express it by bringing the matter to court and judging FCC policy based on purely legal matters. Pure public "opinion" is precisely what the FCC is legally supposed to take into account. No federal agency required to consider public opinion has ever claimed this interpretation AFAIK. (and if FCC believes this is legal requirement, would it not overturn all past federal regulations which illegally took into consideration public opinions which are not strict legal arguments?) Never mind that FCC has not enunciated a clear objective standard to discern "legal argument" from non-legal "opinion". There just isn't such a sharp distinction when one considers the philosophical fundamentals of judicial process. Courts consider opinions ALL THE TIME which are not strict functions of law, even if the latter is prioritized.
The fact that they now openly admit refusing to consider public "opinion" that is not legal argument is in fact a great legal argument to overturn their NN decision for not following legal requirement to consider public OPINION. Of course, they can re-run process and say they came to same conclusion while taking into account the public opinions, but at least that delays them by some years and messes them up.
Babylonian Base 60 used zeros, initially as empty space but eventually with symbolic representation. They just didn't place zeros on the END of numbers which is technically not necessary information, given the scale of 'unit' used is always separate from the number itself.
And Tesla autopilot's "superior safety" has nothing at all to do with those environment-caused damages. The only potential difference is re: driver caused damages. Which is Tesla autopilot's case, are Tesla's fault. So other than the superficial angle of Tesla just having deal with insurers to share profits of customers they attract, the only substantial question I have on this is the clauses Tesla includes in this, re: own liability. Enforced arbitration under corporate-friendly parameters is almost standard aspiration these days, so Tesla being involved in car owner-insurance relationship seems highly likely to be net beneficial to reducing Tesla's own ultimate legal liability for cases of accidents where autopilot was liable for accident.
MS has already admitted their willingness to do this, that if US law and EU law are in conflict they will follow US law. Now if they wanted to, they could structure their business so there is no ability for US to influence things. If they wanted to they could structure their business so it no longer is primarily based out of the US at all. MS and similar companies use all sorts of shenanigans to evade national tax liability, but MS isn't willing to take equivalent steps to evade US jurisdiction over-reach. US tech is is undeniably in the pocket of the US state and intelligence apparatus, they have billion dollar deals flowing from that and are comfortable cooperating within US intelligence control regime. That's what they're loyal to, pure and simple.
It's just more BS, fed by natsec goons and their IT camp followers who see an opportunity to steal market share from competitor who actually has best AV product. Taking the anonymous story at face value, it still tells a story about how not just Russian FSB but Israeli intelligence hacked Kaspersky. Yet there is no concern over this Israeli hacking, despite long history of such Israeli spying including against Iran nuclear negotiations trying to use that info to feed back to collaborators in US to sabotage process. ANY AV product could potentially be hacked, if FSB wants to it can do that to any AV company not just Kaspersky, just as Israeli intel hacked Kaspersky. That they need to hack Kaspersky to get what they want (again, taking story at face value) suggests Kaspersky is a normal AV company focused on detecting threats because if they were a FSB operation they wouldn't need to be hacked by FSB... Again there is no clear distinction here between claims of FSB hacking Kaspersky and Israeli intelligence hacking them. Yet we are not bombarded with media cries for need to exclude Israeli high tech companies. Kaspersky has great record of actually detecting threats, which is the purpose of using AV software. Yet half of the complaint is them detecting NSA malware. I.e. doing their job. Clearly that, and their history of revealing US, UK, Israeli state intelligence malware which has affected broad sectors of users as well as state users like Iran rubs some people the wrong way, some people being those who prioritize intelligence agency agenda over doing the job that AV products are supposed to do, detect and stop threats. It's utterly clear that companies like MS, Symantec, Google, etc, will prioritize cooperation with NSA intelligence over closing backdoors in their product, that even if they eventually address an NSA hack they might be prone to sitting on it for a while rather than inconvenience NSA. Anybody who just wants an effective AV solution, and doesn't care who wrote the malware it catches, would be well served by Kaspersky. Which is why we see German government saying they see no problem with Kaspersky, Singapore government investing in Kaspersky research, etc. This "regime loyalist media" hype is just that, for those who do what they are told and don't concede any divergence between objective self-interest and loyalty to regime mandate.
That shows the moronic premise of the article. If the government doesn't make it a crime, it isn't a crime. "IP rights" are nowhere considered "natural law", they are specific government policy with aim for certain economic outcome.That Iran happens to differ from US law is unsurprising, MANY countries differ from US re: IP law (e.g. software patents). Hard to take article seriously when 99% of it is misguided and superfluous. But "OMG IRAN" plays well in Zionist States of America, so...