1) germany apparently forbid anything above 700 bq/Kg , whereas otehr country do it at 3000 Bq/Kg.

2) Average contamination in 2009 was 7000 Bq/Kg in the highiest contaminated area.

I wish the article could have told that.

What are we speaking of ? 2 time the normal acceopted level (aka, really low but still declared unfit under the linear model , but way less than living in a granite mountain ?), or are we speaking very high ? Also what is the isotope here ? The linked article certainly is as uninformative as it gets.

They are not seizing the data directly , jsut like they would not go crack the safe themself in europe, they are compelling the company under perjury to provide the data themselves in an US court, just like they could compel an american on US soil to provide the content of a safe in europe. This is slightly different because US judge have sway over an US company over US soil. No european juridiction is involved.

Look this is a question of cost. Self driving car must be able to detect the end of road or a hole or whatever so if google did not already install a radar or similar to check the road status ahead, it would be incredibly dangerous. And a radar or similar detection device would be far better at detecting :
1) pothole
2) slowdown speedbump
3) whatever the state of the road
better than human say, at night. Or in the fog. Or distracted.

By that weak standard any death threat against a creationist makes creationism "true" and proves his point. This is a stupid irrational response by people. Death treat or rape threat do not prove a point. facts and evidence demonstrate or at least consolidate a point. She does not have that. Her video have been shown to be ill researched and she ignored fully what went against her point. Still threatening her only proves there are idiot which get a kick of threatening other people. It does not prove at all anything about videogame and damsel in distress.

What I would call gamer is somebody which dedicate quite a sizable part of his life to play video game (whether you see that negatively or positively). If you reduce it "playing some video game sometime" you get a pretty vaccuous statistic where pretty much everybody is inside. It is equivalent to calling "gambler" anybody which made a bet of any sort (casual or not) at *ANY* point in 2014. Pretty much not what is named a gambler , and so that should not be used for gammer either.

ALso video game are severly segmented. They target by segment. Dude-bro setgment (COD, battlefield), sport segment, FPS twitch competition , MOBA segment, MMO segment, single player and "retro" segment, etc... None of those segment have the same appeal to everybody. As such saying 52% of gamer are girl is utterly useless as 1) this says nothing about targeted segment 2) you lowered the "is gamer" definition until everybody is in, so it is useless to targeting.


The fact remain is that even among my numerous nephew and niece, the young segment, *girl* in average might play a game more, but disparage and persiflage against boy which still play a lot more. Sure it is anecdotal, but that's more people than some small scale psychological study use. They do not see themselves as gamer, because most of them rightfully recognize it not as "has played a video game ocne in 2014" but rather "has made a major hobby of playing video game".


That said the proportion of "gamer" aka people making it a hobby and playing numerous hours during the week, is increasingly populated by women. I welcome that because I have been tired of the AAA game for a decade or so (too many which are dude-bro shoota-shoota , women with extremly skimpy clothing, white dude with surging muscle, damsel in distress and male hero which snaps the finger and get the girls ---- where are the beyond good and evil and the world with an heroine ?) and hope to see a surge in different gaming type as women rise to be the fabled 50+%. True to be said there is a much more diverse gaming offer today than there was 10 years ago thanks to indy.

"Why should it be illegal that I do?" because some culture set a point at which they do not want some content to be watched. Look in the US there was an incredible fuss over some breast being uncovered, fines being dished etc... This sound absolutely mad to me. On the other hand letting video of people killed just sound as mad. But other culture will resort to scream against forbidding them because "censorship is bad".

*shrug* we all have different culture and reson to forbid some information being shown. There is no culture on earth which allow *all* and *every* content freely on all media. None. Not even the US.

"Patrick Lin writes about a recent FBI report that warns of the use of robot cars as terrorist and criminal threats, calling the use of weaponized robot cars "game changing." "

Only if the potential terrorist have never learned to drive. Because otherwise :
1) for criminal you will be far better off with a car which do not respect speed limit/red lights/stops if you want to run away
2) a terrorist can simply drive the bomb somewhere then set it to explode one minute later and go away. What is the difference if he drove it himself or not ?

Terrorism is the least worry with robot car.


As for point 1 , laws and insurance will be setting your car "ethics" and not you personally.

but that would be callous because , unfortunately potentially the looter might contaminate other innocent people and worsen the epidemic. And also they are making it worst by destroying the (already strapped) existing infrastructure to treat epidemic. Unfortunately with some people thinking the doctor spread Ebola, and the funerary practice and belief winning over simple science and hygiene, my expectation of the locals are low. Fortunately due to our own procedure ebola is unlikely to become an epidemic in our region.

At least in UK orwell book will not be removed from public library anytime soon. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07...

The black market for radioactive material is crushingly predominately for military or civilian usage of country which have difficulty of getting the material by normal means for a variety of reason. Not terror. In fact let us count the incidents :
1) two incidents with the Chechen burying something in Russia in both case it was source which were orphaned.

2) 2 counts of some intelligence source pretending al quaeda or similar wanting to do radiological bomb (among them Jose padilla which was not even charged for that ! It tells you how much evidence or even capacity the guy had for that).
3) Russia Killing somebody using polonium. Oh wait that's not terror that's assassination by a major country

That's it. NONE of those involved scientist smuggling radioactive material. So why the heck such story come up on regular basis , when it is quite certain that the black market for radioactive material is NOT for terror.

A person which was arrested (even if it does not appear in their judicial case) or involved in a local scandal would in the past still find a job since no firm for a normal job would go as far as to send somebody to search their private life (your average job). But now a days , if you smoked pot and it is noted somewhere even if you have no judicial file, you get double whammy punished because people at job interview will avoid you. And that count for all sort of controversial shit. You get gay marrier ? published the ban ? Google do not forget. A job interviewer or neighbors googling could find out, even after you moved to anotehr town. In the past not so.

In all case, because now at job itnerview people can google your name, any transgression against the "middle way" can and will be reacted negatively by part of the society. But before google and search engine, it was relatively easy to correct (moving to the otther side of the country). Nowasayd not so much. This is the aprt about not forgiving. Because your transgression can be found out once documented *EVEN* much later , and still punished by society. And since society as an average middle way is nearly always either much more liberal to some of the "edge" (imagine finding out you are in a neo nazi party) or more conservative than the other edge (imagine people finding out your borderline sexual behavior) then you get fucked for your "trangression". Or even if you did something idiotic like that PR wioman and her twitter idiotic action ? You think anybody will hire her in a PR job now ? She is radioactive material because google *never* forget. But without google, she could maybe wait it out a year or two, then try somewhere else. With google ? not so much.

Hire older programmer which learned a lot and do less buggy code in average, rather than every few year a generation of youngling which suffer from NIH and must relearn everything the older knew, just because you can underpay them for long hours (or even instead of outsourcing). Yeah I know, controversial shit.

People apparently forget, that before google we all enjoyed a right to be forgotten. The *original* article were and are still available. They are simply not made conveniently extremly easy to get. And this was as it was before google. This is not censorship, as the original article are still available. Now with google you cannot ever be forgotten. A society which cannot forget , is a society which cannot forgive, is one where freedom are reduced. Understand this : freddom is not at what society willingly accept. Freedom is to be found at the edges what society may not like, like gay mariage, like smoking pot, or whatever legal or borderline legal variety of things. If you get caught and society never forget you have a much harder time, and people will simply forgoe their freedom rather than get fucked for life.
paradoxically if you remove the right to be forgotten you reduce the freedom of people because they know if they get caught in the gray zone, then society will never forget and they get fucked

Google is an asshat for reporting intentionally and I hope the european regulator whoop their ass for that. And most people do not understand that with their cry of censorship they are actually removing freedom to us all.

"It has been empirically shown that boys who had a history of high physical aggression, from age 6 to 12, were found to have lower testosterone levels at age 13 compared with boys with no history of high physical aggression. The former were also failing in school and were unpopular with their peers. Both concurrent and longitudinal analyses indicate that testosterone levels were positively associated with social success rather than with physical aggression"

Which put a crimp in "testosterone is baaaad".