View Full Version : Forget the vatican let's nuke Brussels
The international-socialism wants control over free press.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/leveson-inquiry/9817625/Leveson-EU-wants-power-to-sack-journalists.html#
Kralizec
01-29-2013, 22:43
The first thing I thought was that this was another distortion of facts or outright fabrication on part of the Telegraph, because that's been the case more than once. I've browsed over the summary section of he report it linked to, and I found this. Unless they did an awful job summarizing their own advice, it does sound like a bad idea.
Recommendation: All EU countries should have independent media councils with a politically and
culturally balanced and socially diverse membership. Nominations to them should be
transparent, with built-in checks and balances. Such bodies would have competences to
investigate complaints, much like a media ombudsman, but would also check that media
organisations have published a code of conduct and have revealed ownership details,
declarations of conflicts of interest, etc. Media councils should have real enforcement powers,
such as the imposition of fines, orders for printed or broadcast apologies, or removal of
journalistic status. The national media councils should follow a set of European-wide standards
and be monitored by the Commission to ensure that they comply with European values.
I'll read the whole thing later. It's still just an advice from a bunch of people with no actual decision-making powers.
Do you know who has the decisions powers? I don't. All I know is that the international-socialism is getting scarier each day, es muss sein no matter what it costs it seems.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-29-2013, 23:24
Hail the Commissariet!
Tellos Athenaios
01-30-2013, 00:07
Lovely bit of article, that:
“Having EU officials overseeing our free press - and monitoring newspapers to ensure they comply with "European values" - would be quite simply intolerable,” he said.
“This is the sort of mind-set that I would expect to find in Iran, not the West. This kooky idea tells us little about the future of press regulation. It does suggest that the European project is ultimately incompatible with the notion of a free society.”
Nigel Farage, the leader of Ukip, compared the proposals to “Orwell's 1984”. “This is a flagrant attack on press freedom. To hear that unelected bureaucrats in Brussels want the power to fine and suspend journalists is just outrageous,” he said.
But what it boils down to is that the whole thing reeks of British libel law with some fixes for the most glaring issues thrown in and some warts from other countries (i.e holocaust denial probably making it on the naughty list).
HoreTore
01-30-2013, 00:50
"International socialism" lol
Edit: Is it "let's fling terms we don't understand around"-day today?
I heard the EU stole the recommendations from the Leveson report, which was brought-in underneath a Eurosceptic Right-wing government in the United Kingdom...
HoreTore
01-30-2013, 01:19
I heard the EU stole the recommendations from the Leveson report, which was brought-in underneath a Eurosceptic Right-wing government in the United Kingdom...
Contrary to conservative British opinion, neither the world nor europe revolves around the british isles.
It doesn't really surprise me all that much that the british press and politicians are unaware that these proposed measures are aimed at the kind of media control enacted by Hungary. A press loyal to the ruling party is the beginning of a dictatorship, and not something the EU wants to see happen among their member states.
But meh, the Brits can live with their delusions all they want. Hopefully we'll be rid of them soon anyway.
"International socialism" lol
Edit: Is it "let's fling terms we don't understand around"-day today?
tsssssssssss THE international socialism. Can I also have my Godwins, superstatetists do it all the time. How about the 'fourth reich'
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-30-2013, 19:09
Lovely bit of article, that:
But what it boils down to is that the whole thing reeks of British libel law with some fixes for the most glaring issues thrown in and some warts from other countries (i.e holocaust denial probably making it on the naughty list).
Libel is one thing, that's when private individuals sue the Press. We established some time ago that in order to Sue for Libel you had to prove the thing written wasn't true. Press regulation by the State is quite something else - Holocaust denial is a big problem.
Libel is one thing, that's when private individuals sue the Press. We established some time ago that in order to Sue for Libel you had to prove the thing written wasn't true.
I thought it was the other way around, that you had to prove the thing was true, or "reasonable assumption"/intepretation given the facts , which is how you can avoid libel.
gaelic cowboy
01-30-2013, 22:27
Press regulation by the State is quite something else - Holocaust denial is a big problem.
is it really something people should try to prevent people thinking, where is the line on holocaust denial who defines and places the line.
Is it denial to say the death camps were real but less the 6000000 died, if one was to say more than 6000000 million died could you be prosecuted also??
HoreTore
01-30-2013, 22:33
is it really something people should try to prevent people thinking, where is the line on holocaust denial who defines and places the line.
Is it denial to say the death camps were real but less the 6000000 died, if one was to say more than 6000000 million died could you be prosecuted also??
Oh come on.
Nobody has ever been bothered about academic discourse on the death toll. The numbers game played by holocaust deniers have noting to do whatsoever with academic research.
I don't support legal action against them though, I believe they should be ridiculed to death.
gaelic cowboy
01-30-2013, 22:37
Oh come on.
Nobody has ever been bothered about academic discourse on the death toll. The numbers game played by holocaust deniers have noting to do whatsoever with academic research.
I don't support legal action against them though, I believe they should be ridiculed to death.
interesting would that be by any chance because you actually cannot be prosecuted yet cos the EUcrat laws aint in place yet??
who defines what a denier is though??
I think these kinds of things are slippery slope and best left alone, tis far better these denier loons were laughed at
HoreTore
01-30-2013, 22:57
interesting would that be by any chance because you actually cannot be prosecuted yet cos the EUcrat laws aint in place yet??
who defines what a denier is though??
I think these kinds of things are slippery slope and best left alone, tis far better these denier loons were laughed at
These laws are in place in several countries, including Germany and Austria, and people have been convicted because of them, like David Irving.
Differentiating between academic research and the mindnumbing stupidity of the pseudoscience we call holocaust denial is as easy as differentiating between a medical professional and someone who claims he can cure cancer with crystals and herbs.
Tellos Athenaios
01-30-2013, 23:15
I thought it was the other way around, that you had to prove the thing was true, or "reasonable assumption"/intepretation given the facts , which is how you can avoid libel.
More or less. In any case, the costs associated with the court case alone (and the slim chance of recovering them unless you can get the case tossed out as being frivolous or something) make the threat of a libel case quite enough to shut up almost anyone.
Strike For The South
01-31-2013, 01:23
Europe is ridiculous
Nigel Farage explains what the international-socialsm wants http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dOZz_VAb3eI
Greyblades
02-09-2013, 15:25
We can only ponder at the frightful headway that we could make if farage put that sort of energy into his job; improving the EU parliament, as he does trying to get out of it.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
02-10-2013, 02:08
We can only ponder at the frightful headway that we could make if farage put that sort of energy into his job; improving the EU parliament, as he does trying to get out of it.
A Lesson from history: Things don't go all that well when you let Cicero run the Republic.
Also - if you accept that Farage is a halfway-decent politician and thinker then you have to confront the possibility he might be right about the EU.
Greyblades
02-10-2013, 04:05
A Lesson from history: Things don't go all that well when you let Cicero run the Republic.
Also - if you accept that Farage is a halfway-decent politician and thinker then you have to confront the possibility he might be right about the EU.
Maybe, the likely-hood is that something this complex probably doesnt have an overall right choice. The obviousness of his agenda and that all three of the main party leaders disagree/ed with him, those men, while lacking compared to predecessors, are probably halfway-decent politicians and thinkers themselves gives reason to doubt that.
I cant help but think that the british public are wanting out through the same sort of anger that sparked the riots, being directed by UKip and others against the EU, than any particular failings of the EU, either way I'm no longer so sure leaving the EU is the best option.
Judge yourself http://m.youtube.com/results?q=nigel%20farage%20compilation
He just sees things a bit better
Looks like we get a referendum as well about being in the EU, guess what I will say, probably the same as last time
Failpad won't let me edit for some reason. But here is a fascinating look into the mindset of an eurocrat, our own 'liberal' unelected Neelie Kroes, she is furious that the international-socialism gets less money, someone has to pay the 11.200 eurocrats who make more money than our MP after all, or soundscreens for cows in Poland or deserted airports in Spain, or fitness-centres for the dogs of the Swedish royal family.
'The EU is too important to leave to (democratically elected) politicians'
It's best if we abandon the EU so the corporations can continue their globalization policies of divide and conquer by blackmailing countries to offer them cheaper labor and lower taxes or move elsewhere. I'm sure quoting some guy from the NPD would also make a united and independent Germany under NPD rule look like a stupid idea; doesn't mean we should abandon Germany because of it.
Europe needs to grow together because it will get eaten otherwise. Noone said that's easy.
Nigel Farage is just a ranting fool. He may have a point sometimes but then he always drowns it in an overreaction because he can't stop seeing the EU as some beast that wants to take away his candy. And since he's from Britain that makes him a populist...
:soapbox:
InsaneApache
02-10-2013, 12:17
Nigel Farage is just a ranting fool. He may have a point sometimes but then he always drowns it in an overreaction because he can't stop seeing the EU as some beast that wants to take away his candy. And since he's from Britain that makes him a populist...
He's no fool and he doesn't rant.
The thing is this. We, in the UK, were told deliberate falsehoods and distortions when we joined in '73. These lies by traitors, yes traitors, were re-iterated in the '75 referendum. I'm into my sixth decade and even I was too young to vote in 75. If I had voted I would probably voted to stay in. Such was the scale of the deception back then.
Fast forward forty years and the British people can see that they were hoodwinked. Then they see the bloody mess the euro-politicians have made of it. A right dogs dinner. The referendum wont come in five years because that's more lies. 'Cast Iron' has form on this. The LibDems (who should be sued under the Trades Descriptions Act) promised a referendum in the 2010 election when they thought they had no chance of power but as soon as they get into government they obfuscate and deny.
Maybe a referendum from the Torys. No referendum from Labour, same with the Lib Dems.
All on the wrong side of history.
Watch the elections next year to see the LabConLibDem party get a right shoeing.
That is all.
Well I wish I could rant as well as him, but he is certainly no fool. If someone takes the time to watch his rants it's hard to say that he didn't outline what is happening now allready 5 years ago. Exactly. Got him only scorn from a Flemmish ferret who looks like an owl who just dropped from his tree, his Portugese waiter and a German booksalesman. He even got a fine.
InsaneApache
02-10-2013, 12:47
It's a good job they don't fine UK politicos for being beastly to other politicos. They'd all be skint.
Says it all when the EU wants to uphold EU values and fine/dismiss/prosecute journalists and bloggers for holding contrary views.
And the continentals (well some of 'em) wonder why the British don't like the EU. It's an anathema to our psyche.
Maybe it's because we were one of the few countries in Europe not to be occupied these last 100 years.
Not just prosecute them, they want the power to give critical journalists a berufsverbot, still in the making, but they want it. Because it's still in the making national parliaments have no acces to the specifics but it leaked.
It's a good job they don't fine UK politicos for being beastly to other politicos. They'd all be skint.
Says it all when the EU wants to uphold EU values and fine/dismiss/prosecute journalists and bloggers for holding contrary views.
And the continentals (well some of 'em) wonder why the British don't like the EU. It's an anathema to our psyche.
Maybe it's because we were one of the few countries in Europe not to be occupied these last 100 years.
I love you British in general but your island superiority complex is one of the reasons I don't trust any British person on matters regarding the EU. Please describe how exactly the EU is a mess. There are surely things that are wrong with it but you will hardly see a transition progress of any magnitude that is flawless. AFAIK you Brits even have a special contract which means you never really pay in more than you get out of the EU (I'm no expert, neither do I know the contract, but that's what people say). If you really want to work just for your own benefit and pander to your huge banking system for the lack of any other industry, I think it's actually better if you actually do leave and stop delaying the process of european integration.
However, the reason you don't do this is probably because you always want to meddle in European affairs and don't want the rest of Europe to unite, making you pretty insignificant in the process, a very historic and old concept of British politics that may be our undoing due to the growing unity and importance of other huge power blocks such as the USA and China.
Ok, scratch the USA, their internal divisions are their own undoing, no reason to follow them however. Their individual states are already bending over backwards to steal eachothers industries, something we've had here as well with Ireland, Luxembourg etc. offering dumping taxes to corporations and then going bankrupt over it anyway.
Economic integration without political integration does not work however, it just leads to problems like we have in Greece and so on now, where some people just use some systemic insufficiencies to milk others dry (referring also to the banks that sucked Greece dry).
Further pooling and integration of other resources such as military development could also lead to cost savings. Why do Britain and France need their own tank designs if the German tank is better anyway? And could the German tank perhaps be even better if French and British tank designers had helped its development with their own advice and solutions? Furthermore the larger production numbers for such defense assets would reduce the unit costs and allow the EU to set up an army that could finally beat the USA be an international contender and of more use, possibly NOT run out of useful bombs during a two week campaign in Libya...
This could even offset the additional costs of European politicians although honestly I don't feel any poorer because of them.
And don't forget about the good effects of the EU, such as on human rights issues, on energy and environmental issues (no more wasteful light bulbs, even the Americans copied us there and switched to lead-infested CFLs, but give it some time and they'll ban the lead in those as well). The new consumer regulations that raise the consumer protection standard in all EU countries close to German levels are also a great thing that everybody in the nations where customers were exploited can now benefit from. To say only bad things come from the EU is a gross oversimplification and nowhere near reality. :whip:
InsaneApache
02-10-2013, 14:06
Further pooling and integration of other resources such as military development could also lead to cost savings. Why do Britain and France need their own tank designs if the German tank is better anyway? And could the German tank perhaps be even better if French and British tank designers had helped its development with their own advice and solutions?
More tech trees? :creep:
:laugh4:
Says it all when the EU wants to uphold EU values and fine/dismiss/prosecute journalists and bloggers for holding contrary views.
Not just prosecute them, they want the power to give critical journalists a berufsverbot, still in the making, but they want it. Because it's still in the making national parliaments have no acces to the specifics but it leaked.
You surely can proof this accusations?
Fisherking
02-10-2013, 16:51
@Husar
You know the EU has not been all that great and the laws coming out of it are for the most part misguided at best and quite a few are downright corrupt.
Your light bulbs are a good example. Had they been a good product people would have flocked in to buy them. Instead they had to be government mandated and the old style removed. Many of the new types pose a danger of exploding and causing injury or property damage and environmental contamination from the broken light.
They obviously needed improvements before being placed on the market but thanks to legislation we are now forced to use them.
It doesn’t end there however, many of their laws are not well thought out and have resulted in some serious negative impacts.
Their new copy write law particularly was very poorly received in Germany and has had a broad reaching effect on the classical music industry.
It is not that the EU is a bad idea but definitely the parliament needs to be more accountable for its actions and member states as well as the people need more input into the legislation. Perhaps some ratification process needs to be installed.
InsaneApache
02-10-2013, 17:02
You surely can proof this accusations?
Bruno Waterfield, the Telegraph's man in Brussels, has uncovered a truly shocking story. Apparently, a "high level" EU panel has recommended the creation of "independent media councils" in every EU member state with wide-ranging, draconian powers.
"All EU countries should have independent media councils," the panel concluded. "Media councils should have real enforcement powers, such as the imposition of fines, orders for printed or broadcast apologies, or removal of journalistic status."
But if you think that sounds bad, wait till you hear the marmalade-dropper. In the words of the panel: "The national media councils should follow a set of European-wide standards and be monitored by the Commission to ensure that they comply with European values."
Comply with European values? Lord help us.
The panelists bent over backwards to praise Lord Leveson, particularly his proposal for "much more stringent institutional supervision" and "close monitoring" of the press.
The panel was convened by Neelie Kroes, the vice-president of the European Commission. She described Leveson's recommendations as "exactly what I was looking for".
So there you have it. If an independent press regulator is set up along the lines Leveson suggests (see an earlier blog post of mine describing the chilling impact this would have on press freedom) the EU apparratt would use it to enforce "European-wide standards" and make sure everything published in the British press complied "with European values".
The last word should go to Douglas Carswell, the estimable Conservative MP for Clacton, who is quoted in Waterfield's story:
This is the sort of mind-set that I would expect to find in Iran, not the West. This kooky idea tells us little about the future of press regulation. It does suggest that the European project is ultimately incompatible with the notion of a free society.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100199349/eu-officials-hope-to-use-levesons-proposals-to-ensure-british-press-promotes-european-values/
Chilling.
...and another...
THE European Court of Justice ruled yesterday that the European Union can lawfully suppress political criticism of its institutions and of leading figures, sweeping aside English Common Law and 50 years of European precedents on civil liberties.
The EU's top court found that the European Commission was entitled to sack Bernard Connolly, a British economist dismissed in 1995 for writing a critique of European monetary integration entitled The Rotten Heart of Europe.
The ruling stated that the commission could restrict dissent in order to "protect the rights of others" and punish individuals who "damaged the institution's image and reputation". The case has wider implications for free speech that could extend to EU citizens who do not work for the Brussels bureaucracy.
The court called the Connolly book "aggressive, derogatory and insulting", taking particular umbrage at the author's suggestion that Economic and Monetary Union was a threat to democracy, freedom and "ultimately peace".
However, it dropped an argument put forward three months ago by the advocate-general, Damaso Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, which implied that Mr Connolly's criticism of the EU was akin to extreme blasphemy, and therefore not protected speech.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1325398/Euro-court-outlaws-criticism-of-EU.html
For these criminals, for thats what they are, to get the Nobel Peace Prize is astonishing. Mind you look who got it before he sent his troops into war. Doublethink, doubleplus good.
Greyblades
02-10-2013, 17:11
I am of the opinion that the EU is benefitial enough that the UK should stay, I am also of the opinion that it needs some serious overhauling if it wants us to want to stay.
As for the whole "UK being manipulative" bit, it's probably because we have been told repeatedly that we should feel shame for our country's history, while being surrounded by allies who revel in celebrating thier pasts which are just as bad if not worse. This is our passive-agressive revenge.
Fisherking
02-10-2013, 17:12
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100199349/eu-officials-hope-to-use-levesons-proposals-to-ensure-british-press-promotes-european-values/
Chilling.
...and another...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1325398/Euro-court-outlaws-criticism-of-EU.html
For these criminals, for thats what they are, to get the Nobel Peace Prize is astonishing. Mind you look who got it before he sent his troops into war. Doublethink, doubleplus good.
Yes, and the reason they need it? They pass stupid laws and get criticized for it!
InsaneApache
02-10-2013, 17:19
It's not just the stupid laws, all governments make those. It's the democratic deficit. Not to mention the shoehorning of divergent economies into a single currency precipitating the worst financial disaster in Europe since the '30s.
Either they wer'n't listening when it was pointed out it had no way of working, or they cynically manipulated the crises to force through political union which has limited public support.
Not sure which one is worse.
Greyblades
02-10-2013, 17:21
Uh, the second one is obviously bad, but considering how batspit evil the UK tabloids are I dont see whats so chilling about the first of IA's articles outside of the connotations when taking the second article into account. I do kinda think it has gotten bad enough to the point that media councils are the preffered alternative.
InsaneApache
02-10-2013, 17:31
The 'problem' of a free press has exercised politicians minds for hundreds of years. What is the solution? Only last week a LibDem minister was urging the dismissal of a journalist who's views she found wanting. So who decides? The politicians hiding behind a quango?
Not sure I like the idea of the government, of whatever hue, deciding what can and can't be said in the media.
Be careful of what you wish for, it may just come true.
Fisherking
02-10-2013, 17:36
Yes the whole thing stinks. Stifle decent, control the media, outlaw criticism. They would seem that they are trying to prove the case that they are a threat to democracy.
These people lack accountability. Without that it is only going to get worse.
gaelic cowboy
02-11-2013, 02:08
there is an oul saying and it is the definition of the EU's problem
"Marriages are all happy; its having breakfast together that causes all the trouble"
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100199349/eu-officials-hope-to-use-levesons-proposals-to-ensure-british-press-promotes-european-values/
Chilling.
...and another...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1325398/Euro-court-outlaws-criticism-of-EU.html
For these criminals, for thats what they are, to get the Nobel Peace Prize is astonishing. Mind you look who got it before he sent his troops into war. Doublethink, doubleplus good.
So they already sneaked it in, more and more is the international-socialism becomming it's ultra-totalitarian true form
Naturally not a word on this in Dutch quality newspapers
Papewaio
02-11-2013, 23:39
If Gen X & Y ever had a reason in Europe to protest right now is the time.
To let media rights be stripped like that without a whimper well you will get what you deserve in the end.
To let a non representative government remove the right to criticism makes it a non benign dictatorship. It was bad enough the committies make stupid burecratic rules. Removing the right to criticize makes the state no longer legitimate. It also makes that courts legitimacy suspect.
Most just don't know this because they read quality-newspapers and watch state-channels. Only blogs report on this.
HoreTore
02-12-2013, 18:32
If Gen X & Y ever had a reason in Europe to protest right now is the time.
To let media rights be stripped like that without a whimper well you will get what you deserve in the end.
To let a non representative government remove the right to criticism makes it a non benign dictatorship. It was bad enough the committies make stupid burecratic rules. Removing the right to criticize makes the state no longer legitimate. It also makes that courts legitimacy suspect.
The proposed legislation is nothing more than standardization of the law.
Every european country has laws restricting the press in various ways. Publishing a certain story could be met with silence in Norway, fines in Denmark and jailtime in Austria. Different standards are of course a problem, just like any other business, especially now that we exchange newspapers and other media as much as we do now. Does the BBC have to answer to Austrian press laws, for example? What if the program the BBC aired was made by a french producer, does that mean french laws apply?
Most of the work the EU does is introducing common european standards, which is vital to trade. I'd argue it's just as important for the media to have a common set of laws to deal with. Now, people like Frags, IA and most of the british press preface all info coming from Brussels with "now they're going to screw us over with...". Contrary to their nonstop whining and bitching about things they are either clueless about or wilfully misrepresent(ie. lie), this legislation will not give the EU super-tyrant powers. It will simply begin the process of giving all of europe a common set of laws concerning media limitations. Naturally as a result of this, most countries will find that their press has some new limitations, while some old limitations will be gone. And to top it off, these laws both can and will change as any other law will, as a result of changing democratic winds.
In short, the world won't come to an end.
HoreTore
02-12-2013, 18:33
Most just don't know this because they read quality-newspapers and watch state-channels. Only blogs report on this.
99% of bloggers are either batshit insane, dumb as bricks or covered in tinfoil.
They are to be ignored like a stale fart.
99% of bloggers are either batshit insane, dumb as bricks or covered in tinfoil.
They are to be ignored like a stale fart.
Some are really dependable. But it's a blog's nature to be a one issue thingie. But that is not a bad thing
I like how say they 'European Values' as if it is a bogey word of alien origin, except these values actually spring out from the member states, such as freedom of religion, right to free speech... not really spectre of evil people are actually talking about.
Only actual EU value which isn't common to anti-Europeans is the concept of solidarity in the sense of "We are in it together, let's work together for a brighter future".
--
I will take an example how the media loves to paint the EU as evil. For those who don't know, we don't have the custom of eating Horse meat in Britain. There are recently a big scandal where Horse meat was found in all these beef and lamb products, and there has been public outrage with many supermarkets clearing out whole sections of processed meat. One headline today I saw was: "EU Ruling thought to be cause".
I cannot remember which headline it was, but I know the BBC was equally guilty (they changed it) and they have an article here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21430329). A link to older Dailymail article on the EU ruling here (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2125335/Is-end-cheap-burger-EU-diktat-low-quality-meat-means-prices-set-soar.html#axzz2KiD58XUt).
[Note: The BBC Article is poorly written, full of nonsense and seemingly conflicting information, I will explain it so it is actually easier and better to understand.]
Basically (and with pictures), European Food Standards turned around to the UK Food Standards and said that Desinewed Meat (DSM) (http://www.internationalfoodtraders.com/image_uploads/shop_images/big_6026927894e0491b5e0f96_24-06-2011-3mm-Desinewed-Turkey-Meat-0035.jpg) is a type of Mechanically Recovered Meat (MRM) (http://betweenshowers.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/Mechanicallyseparatedchicken.jpg), and cannot be packaged and sold as Meat (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-GEClzTQ1DYs/T6f2IIdbg9I/AAAAAAAAAJM/cjQC_gjleLk/s1600/Meat58.jpg) . I will explain why this is 'important'.
All these cheap-trash-produced foods use the worst off-cuttings from mechanically recovered remains from the carcasses, under food labelling guidelines, this "pink-slime" (MRM) cannot be labelled as 'Meat' on products. However, DSM is 'pink-chunky-slime', and as such, under the UK Food Agency, meant that supermarkets could label it as 'Meat' (it isn't). The European Food Standards which obviously makes sure that what is 'meat' in one country, is actually 'meat' in another country, turned around and said to fix the classification on DSM. This means all the Supermarkets could not get away is trying to pass off their cheap-trash-produced meals as containing meat.
So what do these Supermarkets do? Do they try to actually put some meat in their meals so they can continue to fit within the guidelines? Who are we kidding, of course they didn't. They decided to replace all the DSM with outsourced non-reputable MRM which is cheaper and far worse quality. Obviously, by going the non-reputable route, they ended up buying from food-fraudsters and criminals who labelled 'Mystery meat' containing all sorts of animals, as 'Beef' which ended up packed and sold as such in the United Kingdom.
I like how say they 'European Values' as if it is a bogey word of alien origin, except these values actually spring out from the member states, such as freedom of religion, right to free speech... not really spectre of evil people are actually talking about.
Only actual EU value which isn't common to anti-Europeans is the concept of solidarity in the sense of "We are in it together, let's work together for a brighter future".
Do you really don't see the problem with it
Do you really don't see the problem with it
I have got a list (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf) of European values here if you want to discuss them, please tell me which ones you disagree with and feel threatening to you. Which values is going to bring about Brave New Worlds dystopian future, or 1984.
Chapter 1 - Dignity
1. Human dignity is inviolable. It must be respected and protected.
2. Everyone has the right to life. No one shall be condemned to the death penalty, or executed.
3. Right to the integrity of the person (no eugenics, forced sterilizations, etc)
4. No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
5. Prohibition of slavery and forced labour
Chapter 2 - Freedoms
6. Right to liberty and security
7. Everyone has the right to respect for his or her private and family life, home and communications.
8. Protection of personal data.
9. Right to marry and right to found a family.
10. Freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
11. Freedom of expression and information.
12. Freedom of assembly and of association.
13. Freedom of the arts and sciences.
14. Right to education.
15. Freedom to choose an occupation and right to engage in work.
16. Freedom to conduct a business.
17. Right to property.
18. Right to asylum.
19. Protection in the event of removal, expulsion or extradition.
Chapter 3 - Equality
20. Equality before the law
21. Non-discrimination
22. The Union shall respect cultural, religious and linguistic diversity
23. Equality between men and women
24. Children shall have the right to such protection and care as is necessary for their well-being
25. Rights of the elderly to lead a life of dignity and independence and to participate in social and cultural life.
26. Right of persons with disabilities to benefit from measures designed to ensure their independence, social and occupational integration and participation in the life of the community.
Chapter 4 - Solidary
27. Workers' right to information and consultation within the undertaking.
28. Right of collective bargaining and action.
29. Right of access to placement services.
30. Protection in the event of unjustified dismissal.
31. Fair and just working conditions.
32. Prohibition of child labour and protection of young people at work.
33. family shall enjoy legal, economic and social protection
34. Social security and social assistance
35. Healthcare.
36. Access to services of general economic interest.
37. Environmental protection.
38. Consumer protection.
Chapter 5 - Citizens' Rights
39. Right to vote and to stand as a candidate at elections to the European Parliament
40. Right to vote and to stand as a candidate at municipal elections.
41. Right to good administration. (anti-corruption, against malpractice, etc)
42. Right of access to documents (Government Transparency) (example: Freedom of Information Act)
43. Ombudsman
44. Right to petition
45. Freedom of movement and of residence.
46. Diplomatic and consular protection.
Chapter 6 - Justice
47. Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial
48. Presumption of innocence and right of defence
49. Principles of legality and proportionality of criminal offences and penalties.
50. Right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence.
I have got a list (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf) of European values here if you want to discuss them, please tell me which ones you disagree with and feel threatening to you. Which values is going to bring about Brave New Worlds dystopian future, or 1984... [removed list from quote]
Read topic?
Tellos Athenaios
02-12-2013, 20:28
Papewaio the reason you don't see people on the streets is not, because as Fragony contends that it was kept quiet in the media. It is because on the one hand the actual contents of the report align fairly closely to what is already established practice (write letter, demand apology/retraction/amendments and either get it or be told to grow up) - only more formally sanctioned. The really bad stuff (i.e. the power to "mete out" justice) remains firmly in the court of law. So there is a lack of urgency, especially when you consider that what the report amounts to appears to be little more than a formal nod to a complaints council. At least in the Netherlands that is more or less established practice: reputable press acknowledges the "Raad voor de Journalistiek" which was setup IIRC to address shoddy and intrusive journalism in the hope that might lift the image of "proper" journalism.
Papewaio the reason you don't see people on the streets is not, because as Fragony contends that it was kept quiet in the media. It is because on the one hand the actual contents of the report align fairly closely to what is already established practice (write letter, demand apology/retraction/amendments and either get it or be told to grow up) - only more formally sanctioned. The really bad stuff (i.e. the power to "mete out" justice) remains firmly in the court of law. So there is a lack of urgency, especially when you consider that what the report amounts to appears to be little more than a formal nod to a complaints council. At least in the Netherlands that is more or less established practice: reputable press acknowledges the "Raad voor de Journalistiek" which was setup IIRC to address shoddy and intrusive journalism in the hope that might lift the image of "proper" journalism.
Somebody recognises the Raad van Journalitiek? That's new to me.
Kralizec
02-12-2013, 21:16
...and another...
[snip]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1325398/Euro-court-outlaws-criticism-of-EU.html
For these criminals, for thats what they are, to get the Nobel Peace Prize is astonishing. Mind you look who got it before he sent his troops into war. Doublethink, doubleplus good.
A civil servant who works and Downing Street #10 and who repeatedly insults Cameron and Clegg in news outlets would be out of a job pretty soon, too. Cry me a river.
And losing a job does not amount to "persecution".
...reputable press acknowledges the "Raad voor de Journalistiek"...
That's the crux - the RvJ has no actual powers, and some media institutions like Elsevier and Telegraaf habitually ignore it. Even so it appears the Dutch media has by and large avoided using KGB or Gestapo methods like phone hacking, but the same can't be said for some other countries.
I'd feel mostly okay about the advice mentioned in the OP, drawn up by people with no decision making powers (this isn't for TA's benefit, but for some other .org members who have chronic reading problems) if these media councils were truly independent. The advice does state however "The national media councils should follow a set of European-wide standards and be monitored by the Commission to ensure that they comply with European values." Which raises the question:
- what they mean by "European values"
- what they mean by "monitored by"
The advice does state however "The national media councils should follow a set of European-wide standards and be monitored by the Commission to ensure that they comply with European values." Which raises the question:
- what they mean by "European values"
- what they mean by "monitored by"
Values - See my reply on these. It basically means not persecuting people for things like race, like pogoms against the "jude", etc. Freedom to expression is also covered as a value, so there is no dictatorship style censoring in the slightest.
Monitored by - as in, monitored by the Raad voor de Journalistiek, for example, to make sure they follow fair practise. Same goes for the Press Complains Commission in the UK.
Kralizec
02-12-2013, 21:47
Values - See my reply on these. It basically means not persecuting people for things like race, like pogoms against the "jude", etc,
Monitored by - as in, monitored by the Raad voor de Journalistiek, for example, to make sure they follow fair practise. Same goes for the Press Complains Commission in the UK.
It's possible (and probable) that they meant that, but a lot of those items on the list you posted are basic human rights. In one sense they could be considered "European" but since we complain whenver countries like Iran or China don't observe them, it wouldn't do to label them as such. Besides, it was entirely predictable that the wording in this advice would be seized by bloggers and papers like the Telegraph to suggest that the EU wants to punish eurosceptic news outlets.
The text says that these independent media councils themselves should be monitored by the Commission. This could mean A) the Commission watches wether the member states have instituted independent councils that function as intended, or B) the Commission has actual power over them, and the councils are not actually independent.
I don't have serious issues with A), allthough I'm unsure wether I'm comfortable with the idea of them being more than a moral authority, i.e. having enforcement powers.
I don't have serious issues with A), allthough I'm unsure wether I'm comfortable with the idea of them being more than a moral authority, i.e. having enforcement powers.
I am 99.999% sure that it would be A) and it was meant as such.
As you put it, "this advice would be seized by bloggers and papers like the Telegraph to suggest that the EU wants to punish eurosceptic news outlets". I am from Britain, so I am used to them twisting information all the time about the EU, which strangely has the opposite effect which the news outlet intend as they say the worse, then you read the facts, and you go "Oh, that was a good idea by the EU...".
I still don't see any proof that this actually is meant for or would allow to persecute critical journalism towards EU politics. This ist at best paranoia and at worst propaganda.
HoreTore
02-12-2013, 22:15
I would certainly support these councils having more than just moral authority.
Currently, the sanction our version(pressens faglige utvalg) has is to order media in question to publish the guilty-verdict of the council. The council has a few problems. Firstly, the deck is stacked against the one making a complaint, as the council is made up of (experienced) media people. That may not be so easy to do something about, however. Secondly, the sanction isn't that much to talk about. Don't get me wrong, it works great in medium-sized and below complaints, but in the major cases it usually just becomes a few extra words in a lsrge media storm. A proper fine might be appropriate in these cases.
As for "european values" being human rights, that is of course correct. Terms like "x values" have no meaning whatsoever, and if you want to give any substance to it, then you have to reach for the human rights. Culture and values are for potheads and other hippies who should get their heads out of their behinds and get a job. We can name anything and everything and say it's "european values" or "norwegian values" or whatever, and you ciuld argue for it just as easily as against it. If "european values" is to have any meaning, it must refer to the Europe we want to live in rather than the one we actually live in. Thus, european values is a rewritten human rights charter.
HoreTore
02-12-2013, 22:16
This ist at best paranoia and at worst propaganda.
Sums it up nicely.
@Husar
You know the EU has not been all that great and the laws coming out of it are for the most part misguided at best and quite a few are downright corrupt.
How is that any different from national or even local laws?
I hear there's a even a country where corporations are people...
Your light bulbs are a good example. Had they been a good product people would have flocked in to buy them. Instead they had to be government mandated and the old style removed. Many of the new types pose a danger of exploding and causing injury or property damage and environmental contamination from the broken light.
No argument about the somewhat lacking safety, although it's not exactly an epidemic of exploding lights.
But on the other hand these safety dangers only became widely known once the CFLs became mandated...
The argument about consumer choice is a funny one, it weighs about as much as all the AA+ fonds these same consumers put their money into prior to 2008...
A lot of consumers resisted CFLs on purely personal reasons, like they don't like change, or they imagined that the light was worse or whatever, nothing that's necessarily rational.
They obviously needed improvements before being placed on the market but thanks to legislation we are now forced to use them.
That's a fair point, but before we were forced to use them, nobody was crying for their improvement.
It doesn’t end there however, many of their laws are not well thought out and have resulted in some serious negative impacts.
Their new copy write law particularly was very poorly received in Germany and has had a broad reaching effect on the classical music industry.
I'm not aware of that but was the impact as bad as the one of the new legislation regarding the GEZ or the new rules from the GEMA regarding night clubs? And those were purely national.
It is not that the EU is a bad idea but definitely the parliament needs to be more accountable for its actions and member states as well as the people need more input into the legislation. Perhaps some ratification process needs to be installed.
There are certainly some problems with the EU, but in a historical sense it's a very new thing and new things often take time to become really good. It's not as bad as the quoted Torygraph and some bloggers make it out to be.
That's a fair point, but before we were forced to use them, nobody was crying for their improvement.
Probably because people would just buy the better light bulbs, there was no reason to complain.
Probably because people would just buy the better light bulbs, there was no reason to complain.
But they aren't better! 90% of the energy they consume is not turned into light, which is a huge waste of energy.
A 75 Watt incandescent light bulb can be replaced by a 14 Watt CFL, that's a huge difference!
People also bought incandescents because of the lower purchase price, which just shows that they don't think long-term.
HoreTore
02-13-2013, 12:31
Let's recap how "consumer choice" can force through standardization, eh?
Why did the VHS become a standard instead of the betamax? It wasn't beause of technical superiority, it wasn't because of costs. It was simply because Sony wouldn't make porn movies, while JVC would. As porn was only available in VHS, everyone wanted VHS.
The same happened again with the Bluray. This time, Sony not only allowed porn on their format, they seeked out the porn industry and paid them to sell their movies on bluray instead of hd-dvd. This, combined with covertly placing a bluray player in every home through a cheap ps3, meant that we dropped the hd dvd-format.
So, who do you want to decide what standard you use? The EU parliament, or Vivid Entertainment Group?
InsaneApache
02-13-2013, 12:32
Or maybe they don't have a lot of money.
HoreTore
02-13-2013, 12:36
Or maybe they don't have a lot of money.
If they don't have a lot of money, they would go with the new bulbs, as their total is cheaper.
Unless they're idiots, of course. But legislation shouldn't cater to peoples stupidity.
InsaneApache
02-13-2013, 14:57
IIRC old incandescent bulbs @50p.
New bulbs @£3.
:coffeenews:
To be fair, what they should really push are LED lights.
I already wanted to get some the last time I needed new light bulbs but there weren't any that would fit, or that's what they told me in the stores. :shrug:
http://www.designrecycleinc.com/led%20comp%20chart.html
They save even more energy and come without the hazards and drawbacks of CFLs. I just keep hearing that they aren't ready for mainstream use and wouldn't give enough light and stuff, yet they can be found in flashlights and so on. It really seems like a technology they should develop in favor of the other two though.
Tellos Athenaios
02-13-2013, 22:03
IIRC old incandescent bulbs @50p.
New bulbs @£3.
:coffeenews:
Monthly electricity bill >>> £3,-.
InsaneApache
02-13-2013, 23:10
Well when you're skint, as I've been in the past, you tend to live from day to day. A sixfold increase in the cost of bulbs isn't going to make that life easier.
Papewaio
02-13-2013, 23:19
You can buy LED down lights here in Aus. So shop around. They are expensive though.
HopAlongBunny
02-13-2013, 23:47
Same here in Canada.
Just bought some replacements for a 4 socket: LED was $22.00/per; regular halogen was $17.00 for a 6-pack. The LED needs to outlast me to make it worthwhile :p
Further, the design of the LED sheds less ambient light. So where a light is not specifically directed, will remain in darkness. That may be a function of this design and not generally true of LED's; will need to look at more examples.
Tellos Athenaios
02-14-2013, 00:22
Further, the design of the LED sheds less ambient light. So where a light is not specifically directed, will remain in darkness. That may be a function of this design and not generally true of LED's; will need to look at more examples.
No that's a fundamental property of the conductor material. As a result photons can only exit the LED circuitry in a relatively narrow cone angled 90° from the conductor. So that's why LEDs work well for projecting an intense light "beam", but not so much for general lighting as most of the light is wasted on illuminating a very small surface area.
Additionally, LEDs don't take kindly to high currents. For example a bog standard 5mm LED won't tolerate much more than say 10mA continuous, at ~1 to 1.5V DC potential difference between anode and cathode. That means such a LED will only dissipate about 10 - 15mW. So that doesn't take well to 230V RMS AC, or 110V RMS AC for that matter. So let's say after the various inefficiencies are factored out you lost 10% on converting AC to DC, you still have to dissipate 1 to 3W to prevent the LED from dying (1 to 1.5W if you have 100V DC, 2 to 3 if you have 200V DC). That's an efficiency of about 0.5%.
Obviously that's not how a real LED lighting "bulb" would work, since not only is it hugely inefficient but it also requires a fair bit of cooling. 3W of waste electrical power is 3W that gets converted into 3W of heat.
Tellos Athenaios
02-14-2013, 00:26
because ceiling heat is the most retarded idea ever
Yes, yes it is. The second most retarded idea is to use electricity to power your heating when you could be using gas to heat water.
Tellos Athenaios
02-14-2013, 00:53
I live in a crowded apartment complex built in the '60s. The less gas (or anything else explody) around the better.
But the current draw you need for any electrical heating is simply insane. Plus chances are it was originally energy stored in chemical bonds of methane, coal or oil which was converted into kinetic energy by burning it, then used to drive turbines to induce that electricity.
Benefits of gas are that it burns cleanly (no gunk to clean out afterwards), and gas is a carrier with high energy density (don't need a whole lot of it for a nice warm feeling). Heck an apartment blocks from the 60s could've been smart about it, as the nice thing about apartment blocks from the 60s (relatively simple designs) is that they scale well in terms of energy needed to heat the whole thing and can offer economies of scale by using a single boiler (more efficient than many small ones). Single big gas powered boiler + metered access to hot water for the tennants and charge to the tennants according to use. Works even when the grid is down, works cheaply, works reliably, and no need for huge power draws from mains so the wiring can be considerably cheaper/safer.
Here's an interesting thing for you to consider. Your heat (in W) is generated using: I²R. I.e current squared times the resistance of the wires it is being fed through. A washing machine heats the water it uses, and does this using electrical heating as well as for the motors (other means are a tad impractical if you can't plan on where the thing is going to end up. You're easily looking at 800 - 1200W for a consumer unit (especially older kit).
That's just the volume of one washing machine at no more than maybe 90°C.
gaelic cowboy
02-14-2013, 01:08
I live in a crowded apartment complex built in the '60s. The less gas (or anything else explody) around the better.
Can you get some dryliner on it for extra insulation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xnl0p-FzfVo
gaelic cowboy
02-14-2013, 01:25
Underfloor heating Electric systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underfloor_heating)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iH7ZHtMBk78
gaelic cowboy
02-14-2013, 01:33
There are lots of solutions to poor home heating solutions or you can go low tech and just invest in one of these :clown:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xZp-GLMMJ0
HoreTore
02-14-2013, 02:11
The discussion has wandered off to ways to save energy, and you're talking about underfloor heating....?
I'd rate that in the same category as "instead of using 134 lamps to vaporize the snow - electrify your driveway instead!"
Papewaio
02-14-2013, 02:31
Because heat rises underfloor heating is a fairly elegant and cost effective solution.
You can also use them to cool a place... But cooling should be done at or above head height.
gaelic cowboy
02-14-2013, 02:37
The discussion has wandered off to ways to save energy, and you're talking about underfloor heating....?
I'd rate that in the same category as "instead of using 134 lamps to vaporize the snow - electrify your driveway instead!"
because we know he can only heat his apartment with electricity so he should try an find sensible electrical solutions.
HoreTore
02-14-2013, 02:44
Having the house freeze over is the proper way to heat a house in the winter.
If your house is above 10 degrees when you wake up on a cold winter day, I'm going to call you Warren Buffet from now on.
Woolen socks are incredibly cheap.
Tellos Athenaios
02-14-2013, 03:03
Having the house freeze over is the proper way to heat a house in the winter.
I think I'll pass, thank you very much. I like my plumbing to stay intact and keep working; I don't much fancy having the apartment become a giant petri dish with various fungi.
But they aren't better! 90% of the energy they consume is not turned into light, which is a huge waste of energy.
A 75 Watt incandescent light bulb can be replaced by a 14 Watt CFL, that's a huge difference!
People also bought incandescents because of the lower purchase price, which just shows that they don't think long-term.
Sorry I wasn't trying to argue in favor of incandescent light bulbs, I was just pointing out that the reason people didn't complain about CFLs in the past was because they had other options if they didn't like them.
Well when you're skint, as I've been in the past, you tend to live from day to day. A sixfold increase in the cost of bulbs isn't going to make that life easier.
This is a good point. Being poor is expensive sometimes, I know from experience.
Sir Moody
02-14-2013, 14:49
As someone who recently changed to LED lights just thought i would clear a few things.
1) They come in 2 forms - spotlights which as mentioned focus the entire light on a small area and Wide angle (usually not referred to as such) which approximate a traditional bulb - even with wide angle bulbs you don't get the same level of lighting as traditional bulbs but it isn't far off (LED spotlights actually provide better lighting than traditional spotlights) - from a cursory glance it seems they do this by having multiple arrays of LEDs pointing in differing angles ie \\||// to provide wider angles
2) They are expensive... very expensive however on paper they have lifetimes which make CFL's look like matches - whether or not it turns out to be true I will find out but 6 months in I haven't had to replace any yet (give me a few years and I will let you know :laugh4:)
3) they are much much cheaper to run - the electric bill has been noticeable smaller since the switch
Personally I prefer the lower level of light but then I have always been somewhat of a Night Owl - I can imagine most people wouldn't
Personally I prefer the lower level of light but then I have always been somewhat of a Night Owl - I can imagine most people wouldn't
Same, my bulbs last for ages. I think last time I changed a light bulb was a year ago.
gaelic cowboy
02-15-2013, 01:56
2) They are expensive... very expensive however on paper they have lifetimes which make CFL's look like matches - whether or not it turns out to be true I will find out but 6 months in I haven't had to replace any yet (give me a few years and I will let you know :laugh4:)
the life rating is as far as I know worked out using a 23/24 hr day or summit like that, apparently turning them on and off shortens the life
HopAlongBunny
02-15-2013, 02:03
The test will be if it lasts 10x's longer to justify it's existence. I would actually be happy with a lil less just because the standard halogens burn out so quick.
Tellos Athenaios
02-15-2013, 02:49
turning them on and off shortens the life
Yes that would. Specifically the turning on bit as that's when the electromotive force implied by the Vs force the 'connection' between cathode and anode, turning the LED into a conductor.
Still it's not much to worry about, really. I mean you can switch them on-off with 50Mhz frequency for quite a bit of time without too much ill effect.
But what was wrong with lightbulbs besides that the EU says VERBOTEN, got a few artdeco lamps that are now unsellable because the specific thick bulbs can't be replaced. 12.000 euro down the drain, thanks EU!
But what was wrong with lightbulbs...
The efficiency?
The efficiency?
Screw that. These energy friendly ones are more polluting to produce and break down, they don't give any warmth so you use more gas to warm up the place, and they can also cause cancer by prolonged exposure. Prestige-project of the Green Khmer and €€€€ for lobby-groups. They are also just ugly and most of all, my art-deco lamps worth thousands of euro's are now useless because the specific fitting of the bulbs they used in the thirties cannot be replaced. Thanks EU, fuck you and die
cancerous http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/8462626/Energy-saving-light-bulbs-contain-cancer-causing-chemicals.html
Oh, don't drop one by the way, poisenous gasses
gaelic cowboy
02-15-2013, 12:14
Screw that. These energy friendly ones are more polluting to produce and break down, they don't give any warmth so you use more gas to warm up the place, and they can also cause cancer by prolonged exposure. Prestige-project of the Green Khmer and €€€€ for lobby-groups. They are also just ugly and most of all, my art-deco lamps worth thousands of euro's are now useless because the specific fitting of the bulbs they used in the thirties cannot be replaced. Thanks EU, fuck you and die
cancerous http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/8462626/Energy-saving-light-bulbs-contain-cancer-causing-chemicals.html
Oh, don't drop one by the way, poisenous gasses
This is a website with all the pros and cons
Which Light Bulb is Right for Me? (http://www.lutron.com/en-US/Education-Training/Pages/Tools/RightLightBulb.aspx)
I don't object to incandescent bulbs as every situation requires a different solutions, by picking the right one for the task you arrive at the most efficient solution.
But what was wrong with lightbulbs besides that the EU says VERBOTEN, got a few artdeco lamps that are now unsellable because the specific thick bulbs can't be replaced. 12.000 euro down the drain, thanks EU!
But what was wrong with the thread that Fragony asked questions for which the answers were already posted?
This not Jeopardy is.
This is a website with all the pros and cons
Which Light Bulb is Right for Me? (http://www.lutron.com/en-US/Education-Training/Pages/Tools/RightLightBulb.aspx)
I don't object to incandescent bulbs as every situation requires a different solutions, by picking the right one for the task you arrive at the most efficient solution.
The ones I need aren't on it. I need the ones they made in the thirties. All of these are useless for me as they don't have the proper fitting. But since it is the EU they will probably remind me of Europe's darkest days, the ones that started in the thirties.
This is a website with all the pros and cons
Which Light Bulb is Right for Me? (http://www.lutron.com/en-US/Education-Training/Pages/Tools/RightLightBulb.aspx)
I don't object to incandescent bulbs as every situation requires a different solutions, by picking the right one for the task you arrive at the most efficient solution.
That guide is weird, why does it matter whether it's a screw-in or not and why is a screw-in CFL not fit for living spaces (I only have screw-in sockets everywhere...) while a long one is somewhat suitable and a pin CFL is great for them?
That guide is weird, why does it matter whether it's a screw-in or not and why is a screw-in CFL not fit for living spaces (I only have screw-in sockets everywhere...) while a long one is somewhat suitable and a pin CFL is great for them?
Because it can give you skin-cancer if you have an energy-high one. We so green yay
Fisherking
02-15-2013, 13:48
Also if one breaks you will spend about 100 years worth of light bulbs for your whole block worth of money cleaning the place.
As it is mercury, you would need a cleanup crew (read that a hazmat team) and lose the use of your apartment/home for a few days as well. If not you just spread it throughout the place. That way it just never goes away.
Didn’t they do a good job saving energy with that one?
gaelic cowboy
02-15-2013, 14:16
That guide is weird, why does it matter whether it's a screw-in or not and why is a screw-in CFL not fit for living spaces (I only have screw-in sockets everywhere...) while a long one is somewhat suitable and a pin CFL is great for them?
i assume because it's an American company and people probably use a bayonet in domestic situations in the USA
Also it would be seen as safer to use a bayonet than screw in most situations
And pin CFLs can't break or what? Does the pin in the socket magically make the glass unbreakable?
Screw sockets don't need any tools, you can just carefully screw the bulb in using only your hands.
gaelic cowboy
02-15-2013, 16:16
And pin CFLs can't break or what? Does the pin in the socket magically make the glass unbreakable?
Screw sockets don't need any tools, you can just carefully screw the bulb in using only your hands.
screw sockets use the screw part itself to transfer the electricity to the bulb part, that's a danger some people might prefer not to have especially if there is a problem with wiring.
Basically It's not about glass breaking it's about which mode to transfer the electricity is seen as safer in a domestic situation.
And a baoynet needs no tools either I have changed them by hand loads of times
Fisherking
02-15-2013, 16:55
The last place in the states I worked CFLs were banned. They did a hazmat study and found they had high levels of mercury just about everywhere. It cost them a lot to clean it up. They made most everywhere mercury exclusion areas.
Xenon bulbs are another matter. Where I saw those used, before replacing a bulb you had to suit up in body armor and face shield, just like bomb disposal uses. The bulbs were housed in a special case. Once in place a protective cover was installed. Then they were mandated and released to an unsuspecting public.
I saw no dire warning on the packages when they came out nor what type of light it was, until one exploded in my bathroom when it was switched on. Keep in mind it was a small bulb with low wattage. It sounded as though a 12ga. Shotgun went off. Our ears rang for quite some time. It destroyed the light shade and the fixture. It pitted tiles and gave us cut and we were not that near when it went off.
Had I known what they were I would never have bought them.
These things pose a risk to health or injury. It was irresponsible to mandate them and not to give people an alternative. Is energy more important than people? The EU parliament seems to think so.
It was a feel good measure on the surface that had to do with money. Just like replacing Freon with more hazardous substances, and not it made not difference in the hole in the ozone layer. That too was money.
Had these been good ideas with cost savings to the public there would have been no need to mandate them. The public would have flocked to them. People are not near as stupid as officials think they are. On the contrary, look who does are the dumb things.
And when governments mandate something chances are very good that there is a big problem with it and it is more about money changes hands than about benefit to the public.
gaelic cowboy
02-15-2013, 17:11
Most people in industry and service sectors are moving to LED anyway despite the large setup costs. Of course a lot of it is about avoiding penalties or availing or green subsidies. The long payback should in theory be offset by less waste (but the jury is out for me on that)
Tellos Athenaios
02-15-2013, 20:25
Fragony: the point of the coating on the CFL is to capture the UV. Being outdoors in the sun gives you skin cancer, too. :shrug:
Xenon bulbs are another matter. Where I saw those used, before replacing a bulb you had to suit up in body armor and face shield, just like bomb disposal uses. The bulbs were housed in a special case. Once in place a protective cover was installed. Then they were mandated and released to an unsuspecting public.
Well, that's the risk with halogen bulbs: the halogens or Xenon are in there so you can do things with the wire in operating ranges that would otherwise result in disintegration of the wire (melt-down). More energy being handled in a smaller package does however increase the risks of "funny" accidents, like explosions.
Of course the fact that in the USA you use a much lower voltage for mains would add to the fun, because with light bulbs it's all about the current, and lower voltage means higher current draw for the same power ratings. So higher current draw means more risk of things going off with a bang.
Fisherking
02-15-2013, 21:58
But I live in Europe. That happened with 230v 50hrz. It was an EU mandated bulb...
Tellos Athenaios
02-15-2013, 22:38
But I live in Europe. That happened with 230v 50hrz. It was an EU mandated bulb...
Exploding stuff isn't a USA exclusive. ~:)
Says the Viking.
I heard things were heating up (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21482313)for the Norwegians in the latest TV drama.
HoreTore
02-20-2013, 12:40
National Wood Evening was a blast! Quality.
It's like a national practical joke that nobody wants to admit they understand.
cairdead
07-22-2013, 22:56
Really? It certainly seemed to for 500 years. If Norway disappeared off the face of the planet no-one would notice. Apart for the grateful few who recognise the sacrifice of the British in order that that nation could remain free (unlike the current-day UK). And Hungary? What has that country ever done? No, we will be rid of you, and not before time.
Great, the international-socialism increasingly aquiring it's true form, the unelected Flemish ferret who looks like an owl who just dropped from his tree, his unelected Portugese waiter and and unelected German booksalesman want to use spy-drones on European soil. Nothing to see here, move along. What's next, a European army that outrules national military
Europe in theory is the place of wonders. Combining the best of our nations.
The French are the chefs
The Italians are the lovers
The British are the police
The Germans are the mechanics
And the Swiss make everything run on time
Unfortunately, the European Union ended up like this:
The British are the chefs
The Swiss are the lovers
The French are the mechanics
The Italians make everything run on time
And the Germans are the police
Tellos Athenaios
07-27-2013, 17:20
Well at least we got the police thing right, then. Wouldn't want the British Met doing the crowd control, eh?
Well at least we got the police thing right, then. Wouldn't want the British Met doing the crowd control, eh?
:laugh4:
Same thought here, looks more like an improvement this way in the police category.
The one thing from Britain that I really like is the language, minus the weird accents that is.
Making British the language that all Europeans have to learn next to their local/national one would be a good thing IMO.
Sarmatian
07-27-2013, 21:12
Making British the language that all Europeans have to learn next to their local/national one would be a good thing IMO.
Isn't that how it already works, though?
Isn't that how it already works, though?
It's developing slowly but you can learn French and Spanish instead here I think.
I'd make English more or less compulsory as a second language and third and fourth people can choose as they want.
Maths being the language of nature is already compulsory but it's hard to talk about your breakfast in maths for most people.
Nope, absolutily not international-socialism http://www.linkedin.com/influencers/20130809113308-239623471-did-we-really-learn-the-lessons-of-the-crisis?_mSplash=1
Could you wait a year at least, I kinda need the library over there.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10605328/EU-has-secret-plan-for-police-to-remote-stop-cars.html
How do they want to do this if they don't know exactly where you are? Somall cars will get a chip, how else. more and more is the canc-Brussels shaping into it's true form.
Sarmatian
01-30-2014, 13:16
It will only be installed in Jewish cars, don't fret about it.
Montmorency
01-30-2014, 13:20
Don't worry, America's way ahead of you.
At least you can vote there for who you want to run the place, in great contrast with the ultra-undemocratic EU.
Can't believe this doesn't worry you.
At least you can vote there for who you want to run the place, in great contrast with the ultra-undemocratic EU.
Can't believe this doesn't worry you.
We actually vote for EMPs.
Eitherway, the technology seems a good idea in theory. In practise, blackmarket 'stoppers' could make things ugly, or even as the article put it, accidents:
"I would be fascinated to know what the state's liability will be if they put these devices in all vehicles and one went off by accident whilst a car was doing 70mph on a motorway with a truck behind it resulting in loss of life," he said.
EMP's are kept out of the loop, things like this are done behind closed doors. It's dangerous, and well dangerous.
HoreTore
01-30-2014, 15:47
We actually vote for EMPs.
Eitherway, the technology seems a good idea in theory. In practise, blackmarket 'stoppers' could make things ugly, or even as the article put it, accidents:
I think we should keep our criticisms of the non-existant technology at a sane level.
An engine stopping while doing 70 on the highway is completely unproblematic. Engines can stop working for all sorts of reasons, and if you're driving behind someone that's something you should expect can happen. You are required by law to keep a distance where a sudden stop won't result in a crash. Failure to keep such a distance is your fault alone, noone else is responsible for that situation.
I think we should keep our criticisms of the non-existant technology at a sane level.
It is a perfectly sane level ?
Technology is not even that non-existent either, the actual mechanics to pull it off can be done rather easily. It is actually developing a functional system which works at a range and is installed on the vehicle. Most modern cars do have on-board computers which fire up the ignition at a touch of the button and maintain the engine, to have the system turn the engine off and not switch back on is perfectly plausible feat to do. The issue is the delivery method, most likely way would be having a road-side 'kill signal' sent to the vehicle.
Then there are the obvious dangers of exploitation, especially in the less savoury parts of the European Union where you find yourself alone in on a country lane in the middle of no-where to get mugged/burgled by neo-Highwaymen.
An engine stopping while doing 70 on the highway is completely unproblematic. Engines can stop working for all sorts of reasons, and if you're driving behind someone that's something you should expect can happen. You are required by law to keep a distance where a sudden stop won't result in a crash. Failure to keep such a distance is your fault alone, noone else is responsible for that situation.
That is rather silly, as engines typically just don't go poof in the middle of driving without some kind of warning, and when you are in the middle of a driving manoeuvre and your car engine suddenly stops, you will begin to quickly de-accelerate and there may not be ample opportunity to quickly get into the side lane, which can leave a car dangerously stranded in the motorway. It is a situation you never want to be in as a driver.
HoreTore
01-30-2014, 17:34
That is rather silly, as engines typically just don't go poof in the middle of driving without some kind of warning, and when you are in the middle of a driving manoeuvre and your car engine suddenly stops, you will begin to quickly de-accelerate and there may not be ample opportunity to quickly get into the side lane, which can leave a car dangerously stranded in the motorway. It is a situation you never want to be in as a driver.
You never want to be in an unfortunate situation, but it is one you should expect to be in eventually. If you can't handle situations lie that, you shouldn't be driving.
My objection, however, was the silly MP's focus on the car/truck coming from behind - and the car coming from behind should expect the car in front to do a full stop at any time, and leave sufficient space between the two cars to handle such a situation. Failure to keep sufficient distance results in the loss your drivers license.
My concern is the trackmania, because of course it's about being to track where you are first and furemost, that's why it's no doubt being done behind closed doors, to silently implement it. I don't like it when people are monitoring my whereabouts. What's next, a chip in your skull? They will find a reason to make it sound reasonable, heart attack, something like that. But it's really about surveillance and control. Eurocrats are terrified of of the citizins. Democracy and privacy is an inconvenience.
Seamus Fermanagh
01-30-2014, 19:09
... What's next, a chip in your skull? ....
Of course not. OUTSIDE the skull just above the mastoid bone. Inside is too costly.
My objection, however, was the silly MP's focus on the car/truck coming from behind - and the car coming from behind should expect the car in front to do a full stop at any time, and leave sufficient space between the two cars to handle such a situation. Failure to keep sufficient distance results in the loss your drivers license.
I agree with that point. I am a careful driver myself, but I often see idiots on the road and as you said yourself, it is their responsibility to ensure they are safe. But as with all technology, there needs to be safeguards because no amount of being careful can prevent some incidents.
Seamus Fermanagh
01-30-2014, 22:20
I agree with that point. I am a careful driver myself, but I often see idiots on the road and as you said yourself, it is their responsibility to ensure they are safe. But as with all technology, there needs to be safeguards because no amount of being careful can prevent some incidents.
Isn't that called life? Cannot live constantly swaddled in bubble wrap and emerald colored glasses if you want to get out and live.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.