Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:The justification (Score 1) 290 290

Lose completely? Mostly no. Suffer severe constraints on many of your guaranteed freedoms? Yes. That's the entire point of judicial system. You lose many of your guaranteed freedoms based on your illegal actions that harmed the community.

Unless you think that all those people in jails are having many of their constitutional rights directly violated by the state as well.

Comment Re:Under what authority? (Score 3, Informative) 290 290

Except that you're expecting police to act like a judge in a very difficult, legally debatable issue that could go either way in court.

That's not going to happen. Granted slashdot is full of idealistic people who think this one is clear cut. Far from it.

Comment Re:Under what authority? (Score 2) 290 290

Not at all. Soldiers are expected to obey the order, then report their superiors through chain of command.

Soldier is not expected to have extensive legal training to recognise complex "on the fence" issues. And disobeying the order gets you in military court where it will be really hard to prove the legality of the order as judges will inherently be on the side of your commander, and in war time it will be a kangaroo court after which you will likely be summarily executed to make an example. Discipline in ranks will always trump concerns like these.

Comment Re:Why? (Score 1) 467 467

Right. Prices of electricity are magical, managed by overlords in their respective capitols. They have nothing to do with actual costs of production.

In other news, did you remember that we live in a real world with limited resources, not one where electricity comes out of the socket?

P.S. Nuclear energy remains the cheapest energy source available to date per produced energy unit. That is why states that don't have to care for psychological bullshit pushed here in the West by people like you on their impressionable and ignorant public are investing heavily in them. Think China. Some of the best and toughest negotiators in the world, and people with some of the greatest power needs in the world. And they're massively investing in nuclear. If you were even close to reality with your "nuclear is expensive" claims, they simply wouldn't be doing it.

Comment Re:3%? Where did you get that from? (Score 1) 467 467

There is no shifting of goalposts. All there is is dirt throwing on your part hoping some of it will stick. He clearly stated what he was talking about, you went to great pains to intentionally misunderstand what he was actually saying.

And then you proceeded to throw dirt at those who pointed your error out to you.

Comment Re:Greeks surrender: no restructuring (Score 1) 485 485

I don't get it. You dig for singular problems in other states just to pretend that massive corruption and theft ingrained at all levels in your culture is somehow not as bad as it is.

No, they're still just as bad. And the people you are trying so hard to look for flaws at are poorer than you. And they're still paying for your thievery and corruption.

Comment Re:Greeks surrender: no restructuring (Score 1) 485 485

This is related to worker taxation. Not company taxation (what we actually call tax haven).

Essentially what happens is that you hire a worker, have him work in Finland and register his taxes in Estonia. That lets you pay your worker less because of lesser taxation, social benefits and standard of living.

This was a problem mostly back in the early days of the crisis, when people were looking for a way out. That's why news you quote is dated 5 years ago. Around 2012 we passed a reform which closed the relevant legal loophole and enabled checks by both tax officials and worker's union officials, as well as mandated that every foreign worker in relevant sector must register with tax office and carry a tax certificate when he's working.

So no, it's a completely different problem. And no, Estonians still paid taxes to their own state in that case. That was the initial issue. They chose to pay taxes back home rather than with us, which is what they were supposed to do.

Comment Re:Why? (Score 1) 467 467

How about no? Costs in Germany and Denmark are high because production is expensive. They have to both use very expensive forms of generation as well as buy foreign electricity (which means both paying for electricity and long range transfer across international exchange) to provide spinning reserve for it.

Germany and Denmark prices were much lower back when they were using cheaper forms of generation, such as nuclear.

And when talking about subsidies, you cannot miss the fact that German subsidies are far higher than anyone in Europe right now. And their price is still far higher than French.

Comment Re:Insane government (Score 1) 467 467

The obvious problem being costs. Germany is a net exporter when its renewables are producing at maximum and electricity price is zero or negative because of overcapacity issues.

Poland sells to Germany when renewables are not producing and spot price is massively inflated due to lack of production that cannot meet demand.

As a result, while Germany is a net exporter in terms of electricity, it's a net importer in terms of value of electricity.

If you have difficulties grasping this, let me put this another way. Poland would do just fine if they cut off all their interconnects with Germany. Germany would have severe problems with reliability of their electric grid if this occurred however.

Comment Re:It's their plan, and yes, it's questionable. (Score 1) 467 467

50% is realistic considering increase of exports to Germany, even if French industry declines. German long term policy has been largely about outsourcing their power production, and reliable high volume interconnects remain a pipe dream in central Europe.

That means Western and Southern Germany will continue being supplied from France for foreseeable future, just like Eastern and Northern is currently supplied from Poland.

Comment Re:In other news... (Score 1) 467 467

You do not know how grid works. We know it already from your previous idiocy from relevant threads.

Renewables that are at risk of losing 100% of their capacity have to have 100% spinning reserve. That is the reality. If you don't, you risk cascade failure across the entire grid.

It has nothing to do with "vanishing wind". Biggest cut-off issues with wind power are related to too strong winds rather than too weak ones, as that causes near-instant cut-off rather than slow decay of feed in.

How much net work could a network work, if a network could net work?