Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Pirate a pirate (Score 1) 268

The site doesn't belong to law enforcement. It's just a regular "registered organisation". Anyone can register one, it costs about 100EUR to do so.

What happened is that this organisation filed a crime report with police alongside evidence which police (that is actually law enforcement organisation) investigated.

Comment Re:strange (Score 1) 161

This isn't just about France. The problem is that this issue has been raised across the continent. Individual organisations are fairly weak because they're built to deal with things like magazines violating privacy of individual citizens.

However when they all push together, this is bound to start biting google hard, because a pan-european effort will get both to EU parliament as well as commission. And that means new legislative packages, even more ammunition for competition commissioner and in worst case scenario can push EU commission to draft and parliament to approve a directive that will specifically outlaw what google is doing on pan-European level.

Google looks to be playing chicken here. And it stands to win a lot if it wins, but it also stands to lose a lot of it loses.

Comment Re:LOzzz!!! (Score 3, Insightful) 161

Issue is that privacy laws are set based on two things:
1. Cultural expectations of privacy in the region.
2. Attempts at circumventing aforementioned expectations for various reasons such as profit.

Issue is that nothing like google existed when current laws were drafted. It does now and it's in a clear and direct opposition with 1. in EU. This means that privacy watchdogs will either have to find applicable laws that will be interpreted in a way that fits 1. and goes against what google does (and many laws in these areas are often drafted specifically to allow for this by executive organs without forcing legislation changes) or they will push new legislation to specifically outlaw what google is currently doing.

The conflict was pretty obvious even with old google services, but it was viewed as a tolerable one. When google unified its services, pretty much every privacy watchdog across the continent red flagged the changes and made inquiries to google as to what it intends to do to resolve this conflict. Google did the (apparently) stupid thing by going with "we're too big to care, fuck off" answer of "we're withing the scope of law". A really stupid answer when you're talking to organisations that have power to both interpret laws as well as wield heavy influence in legislative process through being specialists in their respective field that is essentially consulted and relied upon to maintain privacy rules.

I don't see a good outcome for google unless they intend to spend a lot of effort lobbying hard. Considering that I doubt stupidity being the thing behind decision here, as there are plenty of smart people at google, it's likely that google is hoping to push for paradigm shift and is going all-in.

This obviously means that if it loses, it stands to lose a lot.

Comment Re:Ah, I see there's a UK Daily Fail reader here. (Score 1) 380

Actually it does mean exactly that. What we should be investing in is material technologies which are needed to make solar even marginally functional, as well as better technology for electric grids. That means better and more efficient transformers, wire materials and so on. These are necessities for things like solar to actually work in addition to panel technology itself.

Investing in solar before these problems are solved is like investing in internal combustion engine technology before metallurgy necessary to handle the pressure involved is invented.

Finally in medium to long term, coal (and other combustibles) is in fact sustainable. It's the only sustainable base power we have at the moment in places where there is no chance for hydro and nuclear is off the table for political or geographical/geological reasons. We have more then enough of these fuels for hundreds of years. Coal alone, probably a half millenium at the very least. Then there's natural gas, biofuels and other forms of combustibles. Problem isn't sustainability, it's the pollution. Most specifically CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, as we have mostly eliminated particle, NOx and SO2 emissions which where the actual "pollutants" in the proper meaning of the word.

Essentially coal and other base power forms will remain a necessity until energy transfer and energy storage technologies progress to the point where we don't have to run power plants connected to the grid just because various unreliable renewables like solar and wind might suddenly stop feeding electricity into the grid, collapsing the entire grid. That is what needs to be "heavily invested in" before renewables like solar will have any chance of becoming "ready for the masses", no matter how efficient the technology of those renewables becomes.

Essentially you're making one of the more glaring layman errors. You're putting the cart before the horse.

Comment Re:You clearly didn't review the charts given. (Score 2) 609

You need to read what you're replying to. You're talking about minimizing losses from having to run on increased power (climb) by engine braking on direct injection engine. This will not actually save you fuel when driving on even terrain, as energy consumption from accelerating is significantly higher then energy savings when engine braking.

Same applies to electric and regenerative braking. This is simply because efficiency is always 100% alone, without adding any other factors in.

Comment Re:Wow (Score 1) 409

Corrected for more accuracy in the follow up. The meaning is that it de facto correct, even if not de jure. If you want to get money out of insurance company in Russia, you have to have perpetrator who hit you caught. That will rarely happen on your witness statement alone and police are generally unwilling and uncaring to start questioning others.

So you instead present them with dashcam video of perpetrator closing the loopholes and essentially forcing the insurance company to pay.

Comment Re:Scary idea (Score 2) 350

Having a lasting effect would be highly inadvisable. This is about suppressing one of the natural defense mechanisms of the body against certain type of toxin. The goal is not to actually disable this defense mechanism permanently, but to cause significant discomfort for the period of alcoholic trying to kick his habit. It's essentially an extra psychological factor that introduces "alcohol makes me sick" illusion to help combat the psychological aspect of dependency. After that, defense mechanism should restore itself ASAP.

This is why critics are worried that addiction would move to another subject in these cases. Because this basically makes one addiction feel terrible, but addicts psychological make-up, one that enabled the addiction in the first place remains untreated. I suspect this vaccine will be mainly used in treatments which also provide counseling to help combat the psychological aspect of addiction.

Comment Re:I'll take a shot... (Score 2) 350

This is about two things: dilution in stomach before it enters the bloodstream, slowing the absorption through stomach until it enters intestines and in blood and volume, less room in stomach for alcohol before stomach starts to tell your brain it's full and you should cut down on consumption.

Same thing is recommended for those on diet. When you are dieting and feel hungry, don't eat. Instead, drink water until you fill your stomach. The feeling of fullness removes (most of the) desire to eat.

Comment Re:Wow (Score 1) 409

In Russia, insurance company will pay nothing if you claim someone hit you, but he runs and police doesn't catch him due to lack of evidence. Sure, you can get insurance without dashcam, but if you want to actually get paid by your insurance company when something happens, you either have dashcam or a very airtight case. Else you're SOL.

This is very different from EU, where in most countries insurance will pay for your losses if something like this happens even without police finding the perpetrator.

Slashdot Top Deals

The following statement is not true. The previous statement is true.