If you're referring to systems like bitcoin, with financial incentive for 'mining' additional bitcoins, these regulations are aimed much broader than that,
to include systems that don't even feature any such 'incentive' to 'create money'... this is general regulatory overhaul to cover digital currencies.
In any case, "these people" are not instituting such sytems, but rather updating the mechanisms to regulate anybody building such systems.
Any problems you forsee in this class of activity is very likely an issue which regulation would seek to address.

Those US tech stocks are global businesses, not just US and EU, although they do account for portion of that EU GDP.
But what does that have to do with topic? This isn't about profit making venture, it's about regulating financial money system.
(even if the subject of such regulation, companies implementing digital currencies, EU based or not, do make a profit from it)
What other country has fully developed regulations of crypto or digital currencies? It's a new area for regulators everywhere.

Exactly my thought. I think the theory is anything tech related = random word jumble.
But real question is... How do you say 'blockchain regulatory sandbox' in French?

Only get election information from SLASHDOT.

Instead these product containers could just have form-fitted plastic "bag" that fits inside cardboard, but is not laminated/glued/etc so should trivially slide out of product or allow exterior cardboard to otherwise be removed. There just isn't a consumer benefit to having everything stuck together, or preventing the consumer from disassembling it. Similarly, seems like if they want metal base, that can be fitted cap that can be removed as easily as the top.

I mean, the higher amount of materials will tend to reduce recyclability no matter what, when consumers or regional recycling isn't willing or set up to separate the components, but if they do need multi-material containers it is just basic to have trivial dissassembly. Really baffling how mass market corporations are not fully liable for products and containers that are not recycled by design.

"Wouldn't it be the case that most people who wanted to buy online over a disc, already are?"

I think issue is on top of those people who bought digital even while their console had disc drive, now you will have people who were buying discs but can't resist getting a $200 discount on a console that doesn't have a disc, so now they are forced to buy digital. Although unmentioned aspect is the cheaper Xbox is also less performant, only targeting normal HD resolution instead of 4K. So people who want the full next gen experience will end up with disc drive.

  Another factor is customers who are most purchase price sensitive (but have OK credit rating) will be enticed by MS' "installment plan" that bundles console with their game subscription service. The game subscription service itself may reduce Gamestop sales potential, but as the "full 4K spec" version WITH disc drive is also available on installment plan (at $10 more per month or something) that might get some more disc drive models into consumers hands, to Game Stop's benefit.

Yeah, the standard company line "we can't because CGI is only in SD" doesn't really hold up IMHO. All the live shots and good part of model work is on 35mm, this being where most of detail people want to see is... I don't think there is point in only re-scanning some of 35mm frames, might as well do every frame. As far as CG goes, what is the high detail that necessitates rebuild from scratch? Odo doing his morph ball routine? Laser/explosion overlays? CG starship exteriors? All those are relatively formulaic and AI upscaling should handle them fine enough, to then composite with 35mm sources which can be rescanned at higher color depth. Actually re-doing CG from scratch would likely not even aim at direct quality upgrade, but yield "different" CG feel like seen in Star Wars... Look at people complaining about sets using live CRT monitors, as if that is problem for re-master, no reason that needs to be altered unless they want to destroy the period feel of the show.

I'm pretty sure it's not a large missile in the sense most people would take from the headline. As Russian press release makes clear, it's an air defense missile, i.e. a defensive measure against incoming missiles or aircraft. Not what an "early warning system for nuclear attack" is meant to detect. The only naval ship launching those kind of missiles would be a ballistic missile submarine (or test barge), not a destroyer whose missile armament will be either air defense missiles (against incoming missiles/aircraft) or cruise missiles which are more like a UAV drone than a giant rocket. Russia operates some short range ballistic missiles (Iskander, although the name is confusingly also used for cruise missiles) but they are land based, not launched from naval surface ships. The article's framing of this as "test" is also somewhat misleading, as nothing in it suggests this is a test of new developmental weapon (which wouldn't be tested in wider fleet excercise which this appears to be), it's more likely a normal fleet excercise where they practice usage of in-service weapons.

Speaking of "early warning system for nuclear attack", I recall those also detected what was a meteor landing in the far north, whose IR signature appeared similar to missile launch or explosion. Good thing those things are not hard-wired on a hair trigger, or there would be more to worry about than meteor fragments falling on the heads of some people in far north.

Good post.

I am interested in how the hydrogen fuel cells fit into this. Although less on hydrogen itself, and more alternative fuel cells. I think the subtle advantage is with it's fuel density making energy capacity a non-issue, that removes need for regenerative braking and related electronics which increases cost of battery EVs (both having electric motors). That's one less system that needs maintenance, and could be more amenable to extended life-cycle i.e. used car market. As to why I'm not interested in hydrogen itself, current H2 production can be vastly improved on (e.g. extremophile bacteria processing) , but it's handling/storage characteristics remain. Ammonia based fuel cells keep largely the same benefits, but is much more easily handled and stored, while having similar prospects for bioproduction etc.

One thing not mentioned here is the $10 higher price for PS5/XSX version is for a unique new game engine, with the PC version based on legacy version that will share a code base with PS4/XOne(3). Obviously the latter has much larger install base to recoup development costs compared to the former. That said, plenty of the development is probably shared between them to a large extent, and of course EA doesn't charge less for each year's installment that recycles the underlying game engine with much less development costs, although that is really an indictment of the baseline cost of their product, not the $10 increase specifically. Realistically, if they can get away charging $10 more for the PS5/XSX version now they are inclined to lock in that price increase even after the install base there has grown or when they decide to use same code base for PC (when they decide requiring SSD and modern GPU doesn't reduce their customer base excessively).

If true, that's probably much bigger news, that Apple is actually considering itself in same market as PCs where generic objective performance metrics structure the market. Until I see evidence of that, I'd rather not go down that rabbit hole though.

Almost sounds convincing, what are they doing, don't they know there is proper channels?!?
Except I happen to know Hamburg is it's own federal state so you just sound like a chump.

So... They figure Firefox users are a lost cause if they already won't drink Google's Kool-Aid? Or their features just don't support Firefox? Bit of both?

OK, so the claim is:
"From the result of their blood survey, the German team estimated the death rate in the municipality at 0.37% overall,
a figure significantly lower than what's shown on a dashboard maintained by Johns Hopkins, where the death rate in Germany among reported cases is 2%,"

Wow, huge discrepancy there...
Oh wait, they aren't comparing similar figures: "overall" =/= "among reported cases".
English may be vague and complicated language sometimes, but I don't think anybody can claim that here, American education isn't THAT bad.

"Scientists found that 2% of residents were actively infected by the coronavirus and a total of 14% had antibodies, indicating a prior infection."

I'm not sure if that is intended as inclusive or exclusive, so I will just split the difference and count that as 15% combined total...
If we want to know the death rate "amongst reported cases" in this town, we need to factor out the 15%.
Doing so (dividing by 0.15) gives a result of... 2.46667% death rate amongst reported cases.
Which is MORE than the cited death rate amongst reported cases for Germany as a whole... the EXACT OPPOSITE of what is claimed.

How much more evidence do "we" (cough) need to acknowledge that BeauHD is a Russian-Shia-Communist "fake news" saboteur?
Obviously the only response any decent person can support is Slashdot lowering it's advertising rates for patriotic freedom lovers like
Lockheed, Exxon, Disney, Citibank, and any NGO or "think tank" they donate to according to their "conscience" (cough cough).

It's that simple: People should use Firefox by default. Why the hell not?
Is there some specific reason everybody feels they must be loyal Google serfs? (I'm sorry, that's Alphabet serf)
If we remove that assumption, why isn't Firefox exactly suitable as "default"?
There's plenty of other reasons why Firefox is a good browser to use. Why is this hard?