A preliminary assessment of the Normative Framework regulating MAR schemes in Europe: the EU Directives and their Implementation in nine National Legislations

The use of MAR schemes within the European Union is not a new phenomenon, on the contrary it dates back to the beginning of the XIX century. Despite being widely adopted and currently the object of extensive studies, this tool is not soundly regulated and so far very little research has been conducted on the normative framework regulating MAR at the regional and at the national level. This paper draws upon the findings of a Report which represents one of the deliverables identified by MARSOL, a EU FP7 project launched in December 2013 that aims at demonstrating that MAR shall be regarded as a viable approach to address the predicted water shortages over the long term. Through a survey which involved a number of national experts, the researchers involved in the drafting of the Report have collected relevant data concerning the national legal frameworks of nine EU countries that adopt MAR schemes. The results of the questionnaire have been processed using a qualitative and comparative approach and have been duly included in the legal analysis, which covers the implementation at the national level of the two EU Directives relevant for MAR Schemes, i.e. the Water Framework Directive and its "daughter", the Groundwater Directive. This paper shall be considered as the outcome of a preliminary investigation which covered only a limited number of European countries, it is expected that the research will be carried out as to include a larger number of EU Member States (MSs), alongside the most relevant extra EU countries

Clinical features and outcomes of elderly hospitalised patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart failure or both

Background and objective: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and heart failure (HF) mutually increase the risk of being present in the same patient, especially if older. Whether or not this coexistence may be associated with a worse prognosis is debated. Therefore, employing data derived from the REPOSI register, we evaluated the clinical features and outcomes in a population of elderly patients admitted to internal medicine wards and having COPD, HF or COPD + HF. Methods: We measured socio-demographic and anthropometric characteristics, severity and prevalence of comorbidities, clinical and laboratory features during hospitalization, mood disorders, functional independence, drug prescriptions and discharge destination. The primary study outcome was the risk of death. Results: We considered 2,343 elderly hospitalized patients (median age 81 years), of whom 1,154 (49%) had COPD, 813 (35%) HF, and 376 (16%) COPD + HF. Patients with COPD + HF had different characteristics than those with COPD or HF, such as a higher prevalence of previous hospitalizations, comorbidities (especially chronic kidney disease), higher respiratory rate at admission and number of prescribed drugs. Patients with COPD + HF (hazard ratio HR 1.74, 95% confidence intervals CI 1.16-2.61) and patients with dementia (HR 1.75, 95% CI 1.06-2.90) had a higher risk of death at one year. The Kaplan-Meier curves showed a higher mortality risk in the group of patients with COPD + HF for all causes (p = 0.010), respiratory causes (p = 0.006), cardiovascular causes (p = 0.046) and respiratory plus cardiovascular causes (p = 0.009). Conclusion: In this real-life cohort of hospitalized elderly patients, the coexistence of COPD and HF significantly worsened prognosis at one year. This finding may help to better define the care needs of this population

Artificial intelligence and the offense-defense balance in cyber security

This chapter provides an overview over the debate about so-called artificial intelligence in cyber security. It clarifies the concept of artificial intelligence, reviews the security-related applications of these technologies, and describes their impact on cyber security. It looks at how both the cyber offense and the defense may profit from new developments, and reflects on what that means in terms of governance

Intelligence artificielle et cybersécurité

L’intelligence artificielle (IA) modifiera très vraisemblablement le visage de la cybersécurité au cours des prochaines années. Elle devrait renforcer les cyberopérations offensives et défensives et contribuer à façonner le paysage des cybermenaces. Ces évolutions s’annoncent particulièrement délicates à contrôler, en particulier pour les acteurs de type étatique. Pour relever ces défis, ceux-ci devront adopter des cadres politiques et normatifs adéquats.ISSN:2296-022

Künstliche Intelligenz für die Cybersicherheit

Künstliche Intelligenz (KI) wird die Cybersicherheit in den kommenden Jahren voraussichtlich verändern. KI wird sowohl Angriff als auch Verteidigung im Cyberraum weiterentwickeln und die Landschaft von Cyberbedrohungen mitprägen. Der Umgang mit diesen Veränderungen fordert vor allem staatsnahe Akteure heraus, die einen angemessenen politischen und normativen Rahmen schaffen müssen.ISSN:2296-023

Artificial Intelligence for Cybersecurity

Artificial intelligence (AI) promises to change cybersecurity in the coming years. It will likely enhance both cyber offense and defense, and contribute to shaping the cyber threat landscape. Governing these changes is challenging, particularly for state-related actors. It requires them to adopt adequate policy and normative frameworks.ISSN:2296-024

National Cybersecurity and Cyberdefense Policy Snapshots: Updated Collection 2

This volume examines the cybersecurity policies and architecture of Austria, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Singapore and the United Kingdom. By doing so, it sheds light on how cyberdefense is embedded in these states’ cybersecurity postures. The authors find that these countries’ approaches have notable differences, including in their understanding of cybersecurity. However, the text also highlights common trends, including a move toward civilian leadership and oversight as well as the centralization of control and implementation responsibilities for cybersecurity and cyberdefense.Dieser Band untersucht und vergleicht die Politik und institutionelle Architektur im Bereich Cybersicherheit in Österreich, Finnland, Frankreich, Deutschland, Italien, den Niederlanden, Singapur, und dem Vereinigte Königreich. Dabei steht die Frage im Vordergrund, welche Rolle Cyberdefense in den Cybersicherheitsstrategien dieser Staaten spielt. Die Autoren stellen fest, dass in allen Ländern trotz unterschiedlicher Ansätze sowohl ein Trend zur zivilen Führung und Aufsicht als auch zur Zentralisierung der Kontroll- und Umsetzungsverantwortung für Cybersicherheit und Cyberdefense zu erkennen ist