I've been told by several different people that in the Finnish service you are trained to battle against a nuke by first using your 'nuclear cloak' to wait for the fallout. After that, you are told to take a pruce branch and use it to clean others' cloaks from the fallout. Then you keep on fighting.
I'm guessing in about 20 years you'll start seeing propaganda to force it.
But that's just the beginning. After that you'll start seeing some kind of kill switch being mandatory. Then you'll start seeing more regulations to dissuade people from even owning cars, autonomous or not. And then of course the final step is to impose "sign ups" for when you want to use some government vehicle (all in the name of global warming, or whatever name they'll switch to by then).
Unlike in the United States, where freedom of expression is a fundamental right that supersedes other interests, Europe views an individual’s privacy and freedom of expression as almost equal rights.
Except everybody knows that the right privacy is not the reason. EUrocrats needed to use subterfuge as an opening salvo for the beginnings of censorship, so this is what they came up with.
But there's no surprise that NYT would give the EU the benefit of the doubt, since they tend to fawn all over whatever wacky EU policies are implemented anyway.
The data protection directive was passed in 1995, almost two decades ago. Google didn't exist back then. That would have been the EU playing a very long game, not to mention requiring amazing precognitive powers.
On the merits of the case, the ECJ's judgement was about the narrowest judgement that was possible given the text of the directive.
The part of the judgement that created the issue we're looking at now was that the ECJ decided that Google was subject to jurisdiction of other EU member states for purposes of data protection if it did business there (e.g., by selling advertising there). While there are some tricky legal issues involved here, that was hardly an outrageous ruling, given the goals of the common market.
Suddenly Google couldn't hide behind the Irish courts anymore, but people with a complaint were able to bring suit in their own country.
You can make a good argument that the outdated data protection directive is in dire need of revision, but claims of subterfuge by EU bureaucrats are tinfoil hattery in this case.
as you can see, the naivety of the avg hn ready confirms the points you made by down voting. if they'd live in the eu or at least open their swollen-by-intellect minds, they'd see through the charade.
having said that, i also have an issue with your comment: everybody does NOT know.
Another user already replied to your parent so I won't repeat the argument but just a note: I downvoted him and I'm English, not everyone (or even most) in the EU think like you, and it's misleading to imply to Americans/others that we do.
This is a step in the right direction. I'm always looking for new tools that help in understanding code bases and streamline workflows.
The inline table is cool. I like the idea of embedded documentation like that, as long as its structured in a way that can be turned on-off.
The Scala plugins for Intellij and Eclipse both have worksheets, which I think as of REPLs on steroids.
The one thing I'm still missing from most mainstream development environments though is interaction of live, running programs - the kind seen in Common Lisp and Smalltalk.
Java has it kindof, then enhanced more with JavaRebel (a commercial tool). .NET edit-n-continue is still frustratingly crippled in many ways.
I still feel like I'm programming in a batch environment instead of "molding" my code though.
Yeah, she was way too gung-ho about potentially forcing this stuff on people via the water supply. But I'm not surprised that an academic would want to social-engineer this way.
So essentially you agree that at least a quasi-totalitarian world will be needed in order to "protect" the environment.
Of course, your premise is that people will just roll over and take it. A more likely scenario is a world war that would make WW II look like 3rd graders throwing sticks at each other.
A second faulty assumption is that a totalitarian regime would in fact protect the environment. Even if it we're put into place for that purpose, who watches the watchers? China is a good example... Nominally communist until the elite there gave up on communism and decided to get rich. A generation or two can change a lot.
True. I think the thing that a lot of the do-gooder types who wish for totalitarian government to solve some problem or other don't realize is the sort of people that kind of power attracts. Even if the people put in charge at first are the most wonderful, benevolent people the world has ever seen, it won't stay that way for long. Such people are just not ruthless and determined enough to stay in power in such a system for long. Somebody who cares for nothing but their own power will eventually find a way to bump off whoever's in charge and take control. Just the existence of those power structures are irresistible to such people.
It's kinda like the old regex quote - You have what you think is a serious problem, and you want to use a totalitarian government to solve it? Soon, you will have 2 problems - the original problem is still there, because nobody in charge really cared about it in the first place, only now you will be throw in the Gulag for daring to question what your new totalitarian leaders are doing.
I think China shows us that a totalitarian regime can in many cases be worse for the environment than even the most unrestrained laissez-faire capitalism. That's because totalitarian regimes will apply forcing functions to things like industrial activity and will make wasteful malinvestments for political purposes at scales far beyond the froth you see in market economies. Google China's ghost cities.
The majority of people who just want to live safe, comfortable, predictable lives have a right to use government to protect themselves from the (very substantial) minority of people who are shitbags.
Predictable? There's autocratic regimes out there where life is much more predictable. We probably more laws to keep government and other autocratic shitbags in check.
Doesn't really need to be "strict" in this case. Texts could come back with a context from the recipient. Say you text someone, they're driving, you get a status of "In motion," or "In a movie," or something based on the data coming back from the phone.
They're not necessarily unable to respond to you, as in not locked out of their phone by the carrier, but the carrier knows they're moving at 30+mph, and gives that data to the sender.
