Here in the southern UK we've had solar LED road studs for years - they are used on some A roads and mark line dividers, road edges and turn-offs in place of the usual cats-eyes. Work pretty well too (though I find them a bit 'stroby', like some vehicle brake lights).
I thought the point was clear, but to attempt to make it more so:
Eric Schmidt stated if there was stuff we didn't want people to know, we shouldn't be doing it. (this was way before the Snowden leaks).
He made it a clear position - don't do anything you don't want to be made public (search back for the old discussion on here about it, as I recall he didn't come out of it well).
So now he's saying the opposite - that we can trust him with stuff we don't people to know (i.e. everything Google knows about us).
Our opinions in how much trust to him are clearly divergent.
This would be the same Eric Schmidt who said "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."?
And now we're expected to believe him, when he says he's keeping us safe from letting anyone know what we're doing?
He killed a lot of trust with the original comment.
He just killed a whole lot more.
Which is great! It gives people with a clue a competitive advantage.
It was more a band of very strong wind (for the UK) - the damage track is several miles wide, nothing like a tornado. Not too severe, about one tree down every 2 miles (rough calculation from seeing about a dozen trees down on a 25 mile local trip). We lost 2, both ripped off about 10 feet from the ground (in from the edge of a small wood - apparently others have seen a similar pattern).
Notice how this is a curb on the *use* of the collected data - not on collecting it in the first place.
In other words, politicians have realised how much power this level of information can give them - and that is why control of it is far too important to be left in the hands of the NSA.
So what we have is just a power struggle over the strings of control - and not over the real issue of overbearing intrusion into the private lives of the people of this planet.
No, not terrorists or drug smugglers or other ne'er do wells.
The target market is politicians, sheriffs departments, lobbyists, corporations, bankers and sundry others who worry about their dodgy dealings coming to light.
It'll be like aviation - the makers of the craft in question will pay lots of mney to lawyers to put the crash down to "pilot error".
Aside from which, let's see, law enforcement will want a 'kill switch' and every politician will want a 'Zil lane' button.
A quick synopsis (so may contain stuff to quibble over) but the meat appears to be the action list (read the original document - link in article - for the rest):
Action 1: Adopt the data protection package
Action 2: Set up an overall agreement ensuring 'proper redress mechanisms' for EU citizens where data is passed to the US for law enforcement purposes.
Action 3: Suspend 'safe harbour' (covering personal data) until the US comply with 'EU highest standards'
Action 4: Suspend the 'TFTP' (Terrorist Finance Tracking Package) until a) Action 2 complete b) the EU have looked into it
Action 5: Worth quoting in full: "Protect the rule of law and the fundamental rights of EU citizens, with a particular focus on threads to the freedom of the press and professional confidentiality (including lawyer-client relationships) as well as enhanced protection for whistleblowers".
Action 6: Develop a european strategy for IT independence (that'll send cold shivers down the spine of certain US companies).
Action 7: Develop the EU as a reference player for a democratic and neutral governance of the internet (my translation: currently it's a US party, we want in on that).
Haven't read the report, have we?
Could it be they are now going to (as often suggested on here) deliberately leak something pretty serious (possibly about some past actual harm, with a nicely polished backstory) and attribute it to Snowden? Effectively, by saying "we don't know what he's got" , it leaves the door open for them to attribute *anything they like* to him.
Absolutely; for large, fast (and short-term) storage we use servers with 6 fast disks in RAID 0, and when that's not enough we use big RAM disks. SSD's have been played with (without any problems) but don't seem to add anything to our particular (admittedly unusual) set-up.
Oh, I see, a ramping-up of press releases about 'exploits' against XP prior to the cut-off date.
Didn't see that coming.
One of the best comments, deserves to be modded up.
Let's face it, linux isn't easy to hack now; the corporates are winning (complexity is their friend, if it was simple no-one would need a support contract). Why release a simple system, when you can bloat it with a zillion tweaks of dubious value and then charge money to keep the whole mess working?
Mind you, it's a strategy that's worked well for Microsoft (well, up till now anyway).