Nocturium

Delete my account. Thank you

Down votes and/or reports are appreciated

I apologize, just down vote me and/or report me and the admins will take care of it.

> Also Nocturium a ban won't affect your old comments.

I think you're wrong. Only two of my old comments have survived as far as I can tell.

Delete my account!

Down votes and/or reports are appreciated

Delete my account!

Also any down votes are appreciated.

Just delete my account!

Down votes and/or reports are appreciated! Thanks!

You're "trying" not to delete account histories.. So you admit it's possible to delete an account and its history?

That's great! That's what I want.

EDIT: If I was malicious, I could've spammed a lot more threads by now

How do I delete my account?

BTW: Down votes are appreciated

I disagree. The bill is about securing software.

Companies who earn a lot of money should have a legal obligation to spend money to secure their software. Reverse engineering, debugging, etc.. is already legal in the EU to fix a problem a company isn't able or willing to fix.

We read a lot on this website that someone reported vulnerability. Sometimes it gets accepted and fixed. Sometimes the company threaten the reporter with law suits. If this law gets passed, the reporter can point to this law and say the company is responsible of fixing it.

I get that people are nervous about this "law". But the EU isn't a country. Various countries need to adopt this into their local law. If I take into account how the myriad of laws work in my country, a small open source developer with limited following and resources will not be targeted. And even if they are, judges will throw it out because it's a waste of everyone's time. On the other hand, an open source project, like let's say blender, might receive a request if they refuse to fix a vulnerability.

Wouldn't it be easier if they published a list where they scraped their data from in the first place. Filling out forms, scanning id and sending it only to learn they didn't capture any of your data seems like such a waste of time.

On the other hand, they already know which sites they used to scrape data. So publish it, maybe with a handy lookup portal where you can enter urls to see if it got scraped.

I prefer an opt-in model, but that's not likely to happen any time soon, so this seems reasonable while this gets legally sorted out. Just because something is transmitted publicly doesn't mean it's without copyright. Otherwise any song broadcast on radio is up for grabs to be resold by anyone receiving it.

The article goes into detail about the experimental setup. According to the article they are going to use cuprates mounted on a balance. The deviations in the balance are going to be read using laser interferometry. They are using cuprates so they can easily switch between a superconducting phase and an insulating phase. This is to measure if the virtual particles have a buoyancy force.

The reason why they want to test this is explained in the paragraphs above it. It also explains why this method was chosen and what the difficulties are.

I have no idea why you would categorize this as a human interest story.

They are currently sanctions, not an embargo.

If someone wants to trade with Turkey or the UAE, they are free to do so. I admit I'm not current on the most recent sanctions list, but as far as I know, both those countries and companies aren't on it.

On the other hand, suppose they are. Why should it be a given that we trade with whatever country? I'm asking this honestly because I've seen that argument thrown around a lot lately. As in: "the EU should buy Russian gas because it's cheap"... Well, no we don't. We can buy it from whoever we like.

Same here. We had coding guidelines, not rules.

The first entry even stated that they were guidelines and if you have a valid reason to deviate: discuss it and you'll get an exception.

The discussion thing was mainly for new coders. We had a library part of the code that was used by many programs. Optimizing parts of it for their use case, could make it unusable for the others who used it.

Communication is key. If you discuss, before implementing it, why you're making certain design decisions then everything goes a lot smoother. If there are objections, keep in mind that the worst case isn't throwing away your design and starting over. The worst case is implementing it and screwing over your fellow coders.

> I was very clear: Russia can’t blackmail the EU with energy if they don’t have a way to deliver it

Only three of the four nord stream pipelines were destroyed. Either the US screwed up or forgot about the fourth one... Whatever the case, Russia still had leverage.

That's for me the main point. The fourth pipeline. There are a lot of actors who would want to destroy the first three pipelines, but I need have a reason why the fourth one wasn't destroyed.

This is _highly_ speculative and take it with a grain of salt:

- There were rumours of the Russian forces using chemical weapons in Mariupol... A couple of days later the flagship moskva goes boom.

- Nord stream blows up... A couple of days later the kerch bridge goes boom.

That's true if you assume the only things that fly are enemies unless they're identified as friendlies. That's not always the case.

I remember reading an interview with a pilot who flew in the Iraq war after major hostilities were over. He described a situation, iirc, where he got a radar contact. He notified his superiors (can't remember the exact term he used) and they said they no friendlies should be flying there. It was ok for him to shoot it down. Something felt off and decided to try to id the plane first. It turned out to be a civilian plane carrying contractors or dignitaries (can't remember which).

I can try to find the article again if necessary. The main point is that there are some cases where you do need to "ask questions first" (ie. id the plane) and then shoot.

If you're in the EU, you could use EU Directive 2009/24/EC. Someone with a better grasp of the law should check this, but you should be allowed to decompile & fix parts of the program which causes "interoperability" problems. It doesn't matter what EULA says or if it's copyrighted code.

EDIT: appartently there was a ruling in the Court of Justice of European Union on this

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=f5b1193c-f423...