Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Submission + - Digital Agenda: Turning government data into gold (europa.eu)

juhaz writes: "Your data is worth more if you give it away", said EU Commission Vice President Neelie Kroes, who announced a new Open Data Strategy for Europe this morning, with the hopes of positioning the EU as the global leader in the re-use of public sector information.

The Commission proposes to boost the existing 2003 Directive on the re-use of public sector information by:
  • Making it a general rule that all documents made accessible by public sector bodies can be re-used for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, unless protected by third party copyright;
  • Establishing the principle that public bodies should not be allowed to charge more than costs triggered by the individual request for data (marginal costs); in practice this means most data will be offered for free or virtually for free, unless duly justified.
  • Making it compulsory to provide data in commonly-used, machine-readable formats, to ensure data can be effectively re-used.
  • Introducing regulatory oversight to enforce these principles;
  • Massively expanding the reach of the Directive to include libraries, museums and archives for the first time; the existing 2003 rules will apply to data from such institutions.

The Open Knowledge Foundation blogs more about the good news from Brussels.

Your Rights Online

Submission + - Dutch copyright group caught downloading illegally (geenstijl.nl)

BloodyNO writes: A computer in the IP range of Dutch copyright protection agency Buma/Stemra was caught downloading illegally Entourage and Battlefield 3 via youhavedownloaded.com. The agency reacts by claiming [dutch] the IP address was spoofed. Judge the situation for yourself; what do you think about copyright activists downloading illegally?

Comment Re:This is a SIGNIFICANT problem (Score 1) 246

And I'm not talking about extinction, just the loss of radio technology for instance.

"Just" the loss of radio technology? Are you kidding? Radio is such an elementary technology it could only be lost if effectively ALL knowledge on the friggin' planet simply vanished into thin air overnight.

I can't think of anything short of extinction that would make that happen, care to point out a credible way?

Comment Re:In future news... (Score 1) 332

Here is a question though: I think you can buy heavy water, so what would happen if someone built a powerful particle accelerator in their garage and smashed some charged heavy water molecules into a cup of heavy water?

You can use that sort of system to initiate fusion - of few atoms. What you're describing is very similar to a Fusor, they're Mostly Harmless and in fact many people do build such devices in their garages.

Got to be a mighty big particle accelerator to compress a cup of heavy water to the same extent as a fission bomb primary, though... fusion isn't a chain reaction, you can't just fuse two deuterium atoms in a cup and expect the rest of the D2O to emulate the trick, so it's useless as a weapon. I suppose you could kill someone with one if you put it under their bed for a few years and they get cancer from the neutron radiation.

Comment Re:Fukushima (Score 2) 537

It's all Iodine and Caesium. These are highly dangerous radioactive materials ... for an incredibly short period of time.

Stop parroting this shit, for crying out loud! It's almost as bad as the media hyperventilating in the opposite direction. I'm as pro-nuke as they come, and this just makes all of us look like ignorant fools.

Repeat after me: Cs-137 has a half-life of 30 years. Maybe that's an incredibly short period of time in comparison to the natural radioisotopes that decay on geological timescales, but it sure as hell isn't for the people.

Comment Re:Exactly. (Score 1) 204

Atmosphere-vegetable-animal-atmosphere is a closed loop.

Citation needed. None of the referred articles or anything else I've ever seen even imply the existence of atmosphere->"vegetable" part of a "loop" for methane. Plants fix CO2 from atmosphere for growth, not methane. If something, be it microbial or animal, then turns some of the carbon in plants into methane there has to be positive contribution of methane (and negative contribution to CO2).

Comment Re:Remember (Score 1) 143

Unless someone flipped the magical "free energy" switch, there's no unless. Producing hydrogen and oxygen uses a shitload of energy that comes mostly from getting rid of those annoying fossil fuels. Not to mention that the vast majority of hydrogen is produced by steam reforming the aforementioned annoying fossil fuels, not electrolysis.

Comment Re:Says the guy with no flying experience... (Score 1) 546

however considering that these beams are usually powered by 5/1000ths of a watt or so

Well, why don't we start by considering this to be a ridiculous assertion? There's absolutely no reason to assume that anyone trying to blind a pilot on purpose would be using puny off-the-shelf 5mW laser, when there are devices up to at least 1W trivially available.

Comment Re:Yes, PLEASE ban cars! (Score 1) 546

Countries need to keep to themselves and stop trying to establish empires. It never turns out well; just look at the history of Rome.

Rome stood over a thousand years. Over two if you count the Byzantines as Romans. Which non-expansionist countries would you say "turned out well" in comparison, by, for example, lasting longer?

Comment Re:The meaning of random (Score 1) 654

It also occurs to me to wonder... what would be so BAD about another "Medieval Warm Period", making *practical* arable and habitable places like the Greenland coast, central Canada, and parts of Siberia? Yeah, you might sacrifice a relatively smaller area elsewhere as desert, but wouldn't it be a net gain for human habitability?

It might be a net gain for human habitability, if only there was a way of moving humans without them slaughtering each other. Unfortunately, we're stuck with silly things like national borders, and if bajillions of Chinese and Indian coastal dwellers decide they want to move to newly habitable Siberia due to rising sea levels and Russia objects, shit will hit the fan and nukes start falling.

As to species preservation, all well and good, but species come and go all the time; that's the nature of a non-static biosphere.

So they do, but never before they have gone this fast, and it's not as if replacements just pop into being overnight even if punctuated equilibrium is given. And we still don't understand the biosphere fully, we may not know until it's too late which species were of vital importance to us.

Seems to my our job is to adapt as needed like any other viable species, not to attempt to freezeframe nature at some theoretically optimal point, lest the nonviable perish. What happens when your freezeframe inevitably collapses and you're stuck with a biosphere that's not *had* to adapt, and is now a large Fail?

There's no practical difference between "freezeframe collapsing" and a rate of change too fast for biosphere to adapt to, which is already happening.

Slashdot Top Deals

Kleeneness is next to Godelness.

Working...