Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
POLICE IN ITALY have recovered two Van Gogh paintings stolen in 2002 in Amsterdam.
The works - Seascape at Scheveningen (1882) and Congregation leaving the Reformed Church in Nuenen (1884/85) – have been recovered from the Naples mafia, the museum said today in a statement.
The Van Gogh museum in Amsterdam said the works were found during a “massive, continuing investigation” by Italian prosecutors and organised crime officials.
Museum director Axel Rüger said: ”After all those years you no longer dare to count on a possible return.
“We owe a great debt of gratitude to the Italian [authorities].
The paintings have been found! That I would be able to ever pronounce these words is something I had no longer dared to hope for.
The paintings were taken when thieves used a ladder and sledgehammers to break into the museum.
They were among assets worth millions of euros seized from the Camorra group by Italian authorities. The thieves broke into the museum through the roof during the night of 6-7 December 2002 and used sledgehammers to break a first-floor window.
The theft of the two works, described as priceless by art experts, led to criticism of security at the world’s major art museums.
The uninsured paintings, on loan from the Dutch government, were taken off the walls of the main exhibition hall, despite the presence of guards on patrol and infrared security systems.
The museum said it was so far unclear when the works would be returned to Amsterdam but said they appeared to be in “relatively good condition”.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Surely a petrol engine would be faster than a search engine?
No. Just don’t.
??
They already can do this with two people in the car. Plus human error kills many more in car accidents than drive-by shootings do. Even in the USA.
Hence why their report comes to the conclusion that they will likely reduce the number of fatalities on the roads.
And they needed a new report for this? They also fear that ‘terrorists might program the cars to drive with bombs inside them’. Again, we already do this, you just need a ‘holy’ book and a sexually repressed young male (add some social and political issues and numerous candidates will pop up).
Gee, the FBI are real ‘glass half empty’ guys, aren’t they?
“The good news is that the FBI report accepts that, overall, Google’s cars will likely reduce the number of accidents and fatalities.”
Neither glass empty or glass full kind of guys, but rather guys who tell you that the glass is full but has a risk of spilling drink everywhere kind of guys.
More like guys that identify, groom and equip marginalised individuals with a half-full glass to ‘attack’ high profile targets.
I’d imagine driverless cars would be subject to sticking within the speed limit. Would be pretty pathetic if someone tried to do a drive-by then speed away from the scene of the crime at 50kph!
Not as pathetic as commenting on an article you haven’t read! =D
“The fear is that criminals might hack the cars to override its safety features or that terrorists might program the cars to drive with bombs inside them.”
Just so you don’t have to search for it.
Yeah. I skipped over that bit admittedly. Thought didn’t even occur to me because to me its like arguing that bank accounts shouldn’t have been made accessible online simply because they would become hackable.
Measures can always be taken to mitigate these risks. A need for proper secure systems enforced through traffic security regulation and auditing is obvious. It would be foolish and niave to leave it up to google or any other company to regulate themselves in this area.
Why would driverless cars stick to the speed limit anyway? If all cars are driverless they’ll probably be travelling at very high speeds because GPS & algorithms will ensure that cars avoid each other. Speed limits are related to the speed your average driver should be able to handle depending on the conditions. A computer would be able to handle far higher speeds so there would be no reason not to increase limits greatly (outside residential zones or where pedestrians would be a factor).
Eventually when everyone has a driverless car, yes. Until then it would be a danger to conventionally driven cars. Imagine trying to merge into a motorway when the traffic is made up of driverless cars!
Also, I’d only see the removal of speed limits for motorways, there are pedestrians to consider as well.
Car sex is gonna become a regular occurrence.
I can just see all these cars buzzing around @ 25mph after the pubs close!!
Search for bank. Click -> I’m feeling lucky
If only Stringer Bell had thought of this……..
It would be computerised, I’m sure they would have a remote override option.
Anyway, if you wanted a getaway “driver” would you really want one that follows the speed limits and stops when it’s supposed to.
have your say