Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment A bit misleading... (Score 5, Informative) 143

I just read the original post by the Polizei Hagen and the context is not so much about pedophiles but the emphasis is more on basic privacy concerns... A quick and dirty translation (usual caveats apply):

Please stop posting photographs of your children for all to see on Facebook and Co! - Even your children have privacy!
A snapshot naked on the beach or bathing in the pool: Many of you publish pictures of their little ones on Facebook and Co. And very often those are visible to everyone, without any appropriate safeguards in the privacy settings. Maybe you consider the pictures adorable today, but they might prove endlessly embarrassing for your children in a few years - or they might even get bullied! Even worse: pedophile inclined people may use such photos for their own purposes or publish them elsewhere. Your children have a right of privacy. We feel that pictures of children should not be published in social networks. Because the Internet never "forgets" anything. View your pictures of your little ones wtih grandma, grandpa, aunt, uncle, friends and acquaintances rather personally. Because: Isn't it so much nicer to talk and smile about them together?
Thank you!
Your Police Hagen

Submission + - Schrems vs. Facebook: US/EU Safe Harbour Decision invalidated

nava68 writes: The EU Court of justice has invalidated the Safe Harbour Decision between the US and the EU, forcing the Irish Data Protection Authority to investigate the compliance of data use by Facebook. Despite quite heavy lobbying by US officials the court followed the suggestions of the attorney general and declared that national states might demand Internet companies to follow European Data Protection guidelines whenever storing data in the US. Expect updated EULAs within the minute...

Additional reporting by the Telegraph and the NY. Times

Comment Re:The ruling is pretty scary (IANAL) (Score 1) 401

Some of the comments do refer to killing or harming the responsible persons:
  • [2] ... Proposal – let’s do as in 1905, let’s go to [K]uressaare with sticks and put [L.] and [Le.] in a bag
  • [14] ... As they sow, so shall they reap, but they should nevertheless be contained (by lynching as the state is powerless towards them – it is really them who govern the state), because they only live for today.
  • [17] ... Estonian state, led by scum [and] financed by scum, of course does not prevent or punish antisocial acts by scum. But well, every [L.] has his Michaelmas ... and this cannot at all be compared to a ram’s Michaelmas. Actually sorry for [L.] – a human, after all... :D :D :D

Comment Tip: Read the ruling... (Score 1) 401

I fear that not all posting here have read the ruling. There are a few things to consider:
  • 1. The Ruling was made by the ECHR, which is not a part of the EU but an instrument of the European Council which is based on the CPHRFF (European Convention on the Human Rights)
  • 2. The ruling only stated that the Estonian Law did not violate the human rights of the complainant and notes why the ruling by the Estonian court was held up.
  • 3. The Annex and Concurring Opinions of the ruling describe the interpretation of the court that "Delfi was [not] liable as it did not “prevent” the unlawful comments from being published, and its liability was aggravated by the fact that it did not subsequently “remove” the comments; ... [but] Delfi did not “prevent” the unlawful comments from being published, and as it did not subsequently “remove” the comments without delay, it was liable for them." The judges issuing the concurrent opinion urged the Court to clarify this important part of the ruling (and there is a big difference in those 2 interpretations...)
  • 4. The ruling makes clear that the original Estonian laws and ruling is within the "margin of appreciation afforded to the respondent State" and "the measure did not constitute a disproportionate restriction" on the human rights of the complainant.

So if any country within the European Council does issue a law that binds professional outlets to monitor comments and take down hate speech and comments incensing violence it may feel justified by this ruling, but vice versa no government within the European Council may be forced by this ruling to pass such laws.

The downside of all this is, that certain governments (I'm looking at you [name redacted]) will use this ruling to implement laws which will restrict the free expression of opinions online, but then there is still the ECHR to decide if such a law would violate Article 10.2 of the European Convention of Human Rights ...

Comment Re:Their software cost an arm and both legs yet... (Score 3, Informative) 35

No, but as soon as the Market leader does propagate a new data exchange format, the actual creators of the data (commercial companies as well as state agencies) will follow. ESRIs market share is dominating and unfortunately many GIS users are not interested in open tools. So if a more efficient and comfortable format will be available then the GIS community will willingly accept it - without even considering the problems of a further lock in. In addition to that, the Open Source Geo community is already providing the LASzip format for the same functionality and that format is far superior to the classic one and probably as efficient as the one ESRI is developing - plus it is open, documented and all, albeit so far not subjected to the process of standardization.

Comment Re:Risk Management (Score 3, Informative) 737

That is not entirely true; the procedure takes the following steps - The door is normally pre-locked and can only be opened from inside - Crew trying to enter from outside have first to contact the cockpit via intercom and then press a code on a pad. The cockpit gets a visual and aural signal and has a time period to confirm the entry. - When the crew finds that the cockpit is not responding to a request they (mostly the Purser) can enter a security code on the pad which will unlock the door after a time period - but the cockpit can still override the opening request within 20 seconds. So whenever a pilot or crew is not able to enter a cockpit for an extended period, then somebody in the cockpit is denying them the entry by an action (flipping a switch). That is why some airlines allow a cockpit member to leave the cockpit only while two crew members are in the cockpit for that time (4 eyes principle).

Comment Re:The tomb of Geryon! (Score 4, Informative) 164

Since Roxana (Alexanders wife) and his son Alexander IV were killed in Amphipolis by one of the Diadochen it could be either one of them or the Diadochen (Cassandos) who was buried in that tomb. Btw the excavation is running now for more than one year - hardly news except that Samaras went there for a visit and archeologist plan to enter within the next few months...

Comment Great plan for "businessmen" (Score 3, Insightful) 518

Oh yes and this would give rise to a new species of business plan: Groom the favelas and ghettos of this planet for the illiterate and hopeless, get them to sign a binding agreement, harvest the organs and then export them to the U.S.. If not legal in the country of origin, just fly them to whatever clinics they may have a contract with, harvest there and dump the human trash back where it belongs. This would solve the organ donor problem for just a nominal fee - and give all those valuable business students a great way to earn money... On the other hand those entities could promote organ donor-ship and try not to mess it up like in Germany (where hospitals manipulated the lists to get their patients/the highest bidder to the top of waiting lists and where organ donations have now dropped to an all-time low as a consequence of the scandal).

Comment Re:day base price consumer price (Score 1) 226

The prices are not inflated for all industries - some companies (at the moment app. 1700, until the end of 2014 another 1000 - all of them industries with high energy input) are exempt from some fees AND are able to procure energy directly at the electricity trading exchange. The strange situation at the moment is, that german companies with high energy intake (>40 GWh/a) pay less than the european average and that future prices for 2015 or 2016 are well below lets say dutch or french prices (36€/MW for D, 42 €/MW for F, 44€/MW for NL). German utilities do love wind power, but only as far as small and medium customers with no access to EEX or PHELIX are concerned...

Comment day base price consumer price (Score 4, Informative) 226

Please note that those prices are day to day EPEX spot prices and have as much in common with the rate you get charged as a consumer/business. Even less than brent spot prices influence fuel prices at your gas station, since most electricity consumers have a yearly price agreement. The huge variation is due to the over-capacities of German networks during high wind/ sun times. This overload has to be sold to other meta consumers if necessary at a negative price. This is one of the reasons why a lot of companies here in central europe are investing in transportation (high voltage DC networks) and means to store the overproduction (water/salt/batteries).

Comment Re:Germany sells nuclear tech to Iran (Score 5, Informative) 280

Just remember Seimens (a German company) has sold nuclear tech to Iran.

The Iranian nuclear program was actually started by the US "Atoms for Peace" program, Siemens (actually KWU which was part of Siemens at that time) was a major supplier for the Busher programme which was cancelled - ironically - by Khomeini who thought all weapons of mass destruction as un-islamic. The contracts were terminated with the islamic revolution in 79 and the Russian government (via Rosatom) helped build that reactor and other nuclear facilities. A lot of western companies did supply parts for that, not only Germans but also american companies since many contracts went through Rosatom puppets.

I have no problem with what Bush and then Obama did.

And if Seimens were to sell to North Korea, I say we start bombing.

The French supplied Pakistan with the technology (CEA), the US helped the Indian program (notably with Uranium and Thorium delivered by the Bush administration), so go and bomb France and your hometown...

Slashdot Top Deals

In every non-trivial program there is at least one bug.