Slashdot Mirror

the quote that you pasted is a standard polititian answer. Later inte the article (or was it earlyer) there is a similar answer to another question. That's standard behaviour and tells you there's someone told them what to say and not to deviate from it.

Does the US control Germany's coal fields? North Sea oil? Do you actually think that the US is going to put up a flag and open a gas station selling Iraqi oil, taking all the money for the US treasury? Naturally major oil companies will be involved. There are already major oil companies in Iraq. They are French. Ever wonder why the French are so opposed to the war?

And I really don't believe Saddam has any plan to protect anyone elses but his own skin (and maybe his closest relatives). I'm not a Saddam supporter! He is a warmonger as good as they come, but so is his cousin the empty warhead G Dubya Bush.

I'm too tired and busy to continue this discussione but if you insist.. ;)

Cheers!

Here is a quote from Echelon Watch's FAQ:

Q - If ECHELON is so powerful, why haven't I heard about it before?

The United States government has gone to extreme lengths to keep ECHELON a secret. To this day, the U.S. government refuses to admit that ECHELON even exists. We know it exists because both the governments of Australia (through its Defence Signals Directorate) and New Zealand have admitted to this fact. (10)

This "wall of silence" is beginning to erode. The first report on ECHELON was published in 1988. (11) In addition, besides the revelations from Australia, the Scientific and Technical Options Assessment program office (STOA) of the European Parliament commissioned two reports which describe ECHELON's activities. These reports unearthed a startling amount of evidence, which suggests that Echelon's powers may have been underestimated. The first report, entitled "An Appraisal of Technologies of Political Control," suggested that ECHELON primarily targeted civilians.

So, what exactly is this article about? What have we won?

For the still-skeptical people amoung us, here is a warning from the EU government to e-mail users, originally stated in it's original form here. You can also find an EU resolution on the matter here

If you are not of the faint of heart, you can see the highly detailed 200 page report into the system here [pdf doc]. This report was originally reported in the news mid September, 2001. Obviously due to other news items, it wasn't widely reported and the whole affair was convienently swept under the carpet.

The EU has issued a recommendation for official government websites, and they encourage W3C compliance and such things. Pretty good stuff. The link above is a good starting point for more information.

This is how: Article 13, Directive 2002/58/EC.
When it was adopted, a /. report and its links made it crystal clear that this is the only workable approach.

It's been present for a long time. The European Union is also located under this domain (http://www.europa.eu.int/), as are various other organizations.

> [...] but the way the EU commission works [...] that individual MEPs can be bribed [...]

You are aware, that the European Commission and the European Parliament are two different entities?

The commission is appointed by the member states (the national goverments) and aproved of the parliament. They are usually not MEPs, but former minister of some national goverment. (source)

But, you are right with the laughable controls over the MEPs.
Still, in past, the parliament has been quite in favour to consumer rights.
(Maybe because they don't have any real power)

• More that 17 000 jobs lost due to counterfeiting and piracy
• 38 000 french jobs lost to counterfeiting
• 10% reduction in software piracy woud create 250 000+ EU jobs
• VAT (sales tax) losses from music piracy is 100 million euros (EU-wide)

• More that 17 000 jobs lost due to counterfeiting and piracy
• 38 000 french jobs lost to counterfeiting
• 10% reduction in software piracy woud create 250 000+ EU jobs
• VAT (sales tax) losses from music piracy is 100 million euros (EU-wide)

I have actually (Oh horror!) read the directive.

The directive does not legalise filesharing, or any other activity illegal under present copyright law. It deals solely with the enforcement of copyright law. A few highlights (or should i say lowlights?):

EU states must give anti-piracy alliances the right to apply for raids where they can seize infringing copies and related evidence. These raids can be granted without the presence or knowledge of the defendant, "in the event of an actually committed or imminent infringement"

It also demands that you must divulge information on the recievers and suppliers of "infringing goods" if you have yourself been pointed out as "a link in the network" of infringers.

Furthermore EU members must allow injunctions against "intermediar[ies] whose services are being used by a third party to infringe a right" (I wonder what exactly you'll have to do to prove that the resources you put the disposal of others will not be used for piracy...)

Try looking at The EU official website

The EU-15 zone is currently some 378.5 million people. There are another 10 countries currently under consideration for membership which will add a further 74.5 million people. This would make the US approximately 60% of the size.

Even Britain (approx the size of an averaged USA state) has some 59 million people...

Simon.

The press release is here (in various languages). Don't forget to read it, and the draft directive, in detail before entering into uninformed discussion based upon a possibly incorrect third-party news article.

The FAQ proposed on the site of the European commission does provide much more information than the linked article...
FAQ on proposed directive

Get the full text here.
The Commission also put up an FAQ

Get the full text here.
The Commission also put up an FAQ

"Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data" is the relavent bit of EU law.
Basically, all personal data is controlled, personal data being "any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person ('data subject')."
It restricts processing of personal data (which covers doing pretty much anything with that data) to when the individual has given their consent, or one of the following: processing is required to carry out a contract with the individual, to carry out any legal obligation, to "protect the vital interests of the data subject," "for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller or in a third party to whom the data are disclosed," or finally (a slightly odd one, imho) "for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the controller or by the third party or parties to whom the data are disclosed, except where such interests are overridden by the interests for fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject." I reckon the last is slightly odd because it's basically "do what you like, as long as it doesn't breach their right to privacy."
Also, the data subject has the right to a copy of any personal data about them that a copmany holds, and, perhaps most importantly in this case, restricts transfer of data to any counrty outside the EU, unless that country "ensures an adequate level of protection."

To sumarise, in answer to the "what info" question, anything about a person who can be identified, and to "what restrictions", the above is the simplist sumary I can come up with at hald pat midnight.

>that is scary about the EU is that its not a democracy

Stop trolling, and do some homework. The EU is a democracy.

In short the EU parliament is democratically elected by all EU citizens. The council (of ministers) who decide policy are national government ministers. Ie all the treasury ministers form the 'treasury council'. The EU commission is just a fancy name for Civil Service.

>there are no checks or balances

What about the Court of Justice, the Court of Auditors and the European Ombudsman? Not forgetting the citizens them selves who elect parliament and indirectly the council.

Look, we already do a fabulous job at recycling automobiles. Over 75% by weight is recovered, either as parts to be reused or material to be refined and used. We did this, moreover, not because of any specific environmental mandate, but because it was economically advantageous to do so.

US automakers are sweating it today because the European Union, in adopting a German political initiative of the early 1990s, has mandated that automakers increase the recycling of automobiles, with targets of 80% to 95%, depending on how you read the regulation (recycled versus recovered).

However you look at it, the mandate is a sop to the environmental lobbies that fails to consider the real environmental effects of automobiles. Consider this: by defining the recycling targets in terms of mass percentages, the automobile industry has been incentivized to increase automobile mass, since there is a significant fraction of the vehicle that cannot be economically recycled. (Note: in the end, everything is recyclable - it's just that it gets expensive to do so; remember, it all started as rocks, petroleum, etc.)

So, even though we might want to increase the fuel economy of an automobile (something that starts with reducing the weight of the car), these recycling mandates point the automakers in the other direction!!

If you want to read some specifics, check these out:

• Legislative history of the EU recycling mandate
• The mandate itself
• Background Materials On Vehicle Recycling Economics - a little dated, but largely accurate still

Look, we already do a fabulous job at recycling automobiles. Over 75% by weight is recovered, either as parts to be reused or material to be refined and used. We did this, moreover, not because of any specific environmental mandate, but because it was economically advantageous to do so.

US automakers are sweating it today because the European Union, in adopting a German political initiative of the early 1990s, has mandated that automakers increase the recycling of automobiles, with targets of 80% to 95%, depending on how you read the regulation (recycled versus recovered).

However you look at it, the mandate is a sop to the environmental lobbies that fails to consider the real environmental effects of automobiles. Consider this: by defining the recycling targets in terms of mass percentages, the automobile industry has been incentivized to increase automobile mass, since there is a significant fraction of the vehicle that cannot be economically recycled. (Note: in the end, everything is recyclable - it's just that it gets expensive to do so; remember, it all started as rocks, petroleum, etc.)

So, even though we might want to increase the fuel economy of an automobile (something that starts with reducing the weight of the car), these recycling mandates point the automakers in the other direction!!

If you want to read some specifics, check these out:

• Legislative history of the EU recycling mandate
• The mandate itself
• Background Materials On Vehicle Recycling Economics - a little dated, but largely accurate still

Wow, you expect another extension of 25 years? You, my friend, are a true optimist.

I sincerely doubt what the EU would do in such a case. Unfortunately, EU has more or less followed the DMCA as well in the directive on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (provided here). I do hope this will not be a precedent but a mere momentary lapse of reason (C).

This is because Norway is not a member of the EU!

Actually the direktive has a large number of options in it - just read the directive.

Thr directive you can get it in other languages if you press the lanfuage you want on the right upper part of the web page.

All options are in article 5.

AFAIK Norway is not a part of the EU, so they do not have to adjust their laws an accordance of the EU.

They might implement it (in this case, I don't see why they should), but they certainly don't have to by any treaty.

I quite understand you're not sure about exactly what countries are and are not. For future reference:
EU map

Members are in yellow. In violet, the candidates. In dark violet, those about to enter.

Don't count on Turkey entering any time soon - it's an islamic country and recently an islamic party took the government.

As for Cyprus, the greek part was bound to enter, but having a turkish part they're gonna have it quite difficult.

Schweiz/Suisse/Svitzera (Switzerland), Norge (Norway) and Ísland (Iceland) are quite european, regardless not having applied mainly for economical reasons. Their politics and social trends are european. (Swiss banking system is illegal in the EU ; Iceland and Norway may enter some time).

Norway is not a member of the EU. The other nordic nations, that is Sweden, Finland and Denmark, are. European Union
Norway is a member of Nato. Nato

Get some real information on fusion:

European Community, Fusion Programme

U.S. Fusion Energy Sciences Program

International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor or (ITER) site

a special Canadian ITER site

This page has a lot of links to different fusion sites around the world. These websites probably contain a lot more useful information than the slashdotted article.

By the way, my university happends to have a research center on plasma physics. It's not as easy as "some basic engineering skills, this site and the inspiration necessary to make your very own 'fusor' produce more energy than it consumes" =)

PLEASE go read the Directive. It's short, as these things go, certainly much snappier than US legislation is - though the URL I have is long:

http://europa.eu.int/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi !celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=32001L0029 &model=guichett

Among other differences from the DMCA, it establishes a *right* to exercise the equivalent of "fair-use". My reading of the draft UK regulations implementing this Directive suggests, for example, that if I want to make a Braille transcript of Disney's next opus and it's encrypted, I can apply to the Home Secretary (=~ Minister for the Interior) for appropriate cracking tools to get the job done.

And my reading of the Directive itself is that once an encrypted work enters the public domain, it must open itself up. Cue "foom" sound of .PDFs blatting out plain text automatically 70 years after my death and mailing the Gutenberg Project to say 'hi'...

And, as others have pointed out, the fact that EU member states are late implementing the Directive doesn't mean it falls. It's not a US Constitutional Amendment, guys. Other legal systems are available, out here.

F'rexample, only five or six of 15 EU member states have implemented another Directive that says freelances can claim interest (at 7% over base) on invoices paid late by our clients. But even Greece will get round to it eventually - even if it takes a Greek suing her government in den Haag to make it do so.

I have been in direct contact with eGovOS too, but mentioning Openchallenge here as well cannot harm. We are trying to make this work for public authorities as well - the more the merrier :). We have already got some positive feedback:

I congratulate you with the practical and inspiring approach taken by Openchallenge. It is interesting that this scheme both stimulates the release of open source software and is also operated by people within the open source community itself. Perhaps such a "challenge posting" scheme is also of interest for public authorities to promote open source development." -- Erkki Liikanen European Commissioner for Enterprise and Information Society

...just contact us to discuss more and get things going :)

I have been in direct contact with eGovOS too, but mentioning Openchallenge here as well cannot harm. We are trying to make this work for public authorities as well - the more the merrier :). We have already got some positive feedback:

I congratulate you with the practical and inspiring approach taken by Openchallenge. It is interesting that this scheme both stimulates the release of open source software and is also operated by people within the open source community itself. Perhaps such a "challenge posting" scheme is also of interest for public authorities to promote open source development." -- Erkki Liikanen European Commissioner for Enterprise and Information Society

...just contact us to discuss more and get things going :)

Judging from this web site, quite a few.

• 50-80% of "e-waste" is shipped to Asia (China, India, Pakistan)
  
• The US has NOT signed the Basel Convention (1994) on hazardous waste (the convention signatories agree to not ship hazardous waste overseas/out of the country w/o some basic pre-processing of the waste)
  
• The US electronics industry accounts for 2% of world's annual lead consuption. The majority of this is for lead in solder for printed Wire Boards (PWB) manufacturing and assembly. However this does not account for overseas manufacturing which is done for a huge # of US companies (i.e.: assembly offshore makes this 2% look low, but if you tracked the % tied to all US based/HQ'd firms, you'd probably see closer to 50% - this is just a SWAG onmy part here, no data).
  
• The EU passed the Restriction of Use of Hazardous Materials directive (RoHS) which prohibits the use of lead from manufacturing & assembly of PWBs. This comes into effect in 2006. This means any electronics sold into EU on Jan 1 2006 must be 100% lead-solder free.
  
• EU is also pushing Waste Electrical and Electronic (WEEE) directive. If passed, EU member countries can in fact put in place more restrictive laws.
  
• HP has a publicly stated position on the issue of RoHS and WEEE that puts almost all of the onus on their supply chain partners to meet the directives.
  

Why am I giving you all this information? Because this is not a simple recycling problem, period. This goes all the way back to the root: electronics manufacturing and assemblt of PWBs. The EU is flexing their muscles by pushing the RoHS and WEEE directives. HP has been planning for these two directives since they were scheduled for a vote in the EU (and RoHS has since been passed). The entire time their plan has been to push it down to the supply chain parnters. This has not changed in over a year, nor will it going forward. Why should it? With HP's purchasing power, they say "jump" and their suppliers say "how high, SIR!"

• 50-80% of "e-waste" is shipped to Asia (China, India, Pakistan)
  
• The US has NOT signed the Basel Convention (1994) on hazardous waste (the convention signatories agree to not ship hazardous waste overseas/out of the country w/o some basic pre-processing of the waste)
  
• The US electronics industry accounts for 2% of world's annual lead consuption. The majority of this is for lead in solder for printed Wire Boards (PWB) manufacturing and assembly. However this does not account for overseas manufacturing which is done for a huge # of US companies (i.e.: assembly offshore makes this 2% look low, but if you tracked the % tied to all US based/HQ'd firms, you'd probably see closer to 50% - this is just a SWAG onmy part here, no data).
  
• The EU passed the Restriction of Use of Hazardous Materials directive (RoHS) which prohibits the use of lead from manufacturing & assembly of PWBs. This comes into effect in 2006. This means any electronics sold into EU on Jan 1 2006 must be 100% lead-solder free.
  
• EU is also pushing Waste Electrical and Electronic (WEEE) directive. If passed, EU member countries can in fact put in place more restrictive laws.
  
• HP has a publicly stated position on the issue of RoHS and WEEE that puts almost all of the onus on their supply chain partners to meet the directives.
  

Why am I giving you all this information? Because this is not a simple recycling problem, period. This goes all the way back to the root: electronics manufacturing and assemblt of PWBs. The EU is flexing their muscles by pushing the RoHS and WEEE directives. HP has been planning for these two directives since they were scheduled for a vote in the EU (and RoHS has since been passed). The entire time their plan has been to push it down to the supply chain parnters. This has not changed in over a year, nor will it going forward. Why should it? With HP's purchasing power, they say "jump" and their suppliers say "how high, SIR!"

If you want to know more about this resolution,

- The Directive

- Explanation (scroll to page 54 for intellectual property)

If you want to know more about this resolution,

- The Directive

- Explanation (scroll to page 54 for intellectual property)

EU directive 95/46/EC is the current EU data protection law.

Your congress(wo)man

Not sure they would pay much attention to a letter from a British citizen living in France. Which of course is one of the problems with attacking the people sending the spams.

The U.S. economy has got a lot to lose vis-à-vis UK & France either: being considered a spam haven jeopardizes every country's role as a trading partner of Europe since Directive 95/46/EC: This is an issue that does matter to the US, and the administration is taking it very seriously, because losing Safe Harbor status (which was not easy to obtain in the first place, given the state -or in many sectors rather: lack- of U.S. privacy law) simply means this:

(56) Whereas cross-border flows of personal data are necessary to the expansion of international trade; whereas the protection of individuals guaranteed in the Community by this Directive does not stand in the way of transfers of personal data to third countries which ensure an adequate level of protection; whereas the adequacy of the level of protection afforded by a third country must be assessed in the light of all the circumstances surrounding the transfer operation or set of transfer operations;
(57) Whereas, on the other hand, the transfer of personal data to a third country which does not ensure an adequate level of protection must be prohibited;

So, do write your letters/make your calls (up to the equivalent of $20, everyone!) to the representatives and senators now (even more so as a U.S. citizen of course) and I'm pretty sure you will get a reply, and get the right people concerned about the problem (it also seems to have worked the other way round as e.g. Americans announced to spamblock European sites when the a misguided committee of the European Parliament prepared to legalize spam by adopting an "opt-out" scheme earlier this year).

It isn't a crime in most places.

Condoning spam actually encourages spammers, not just to continue their business at everyone else's expense, but sometimes even to sue people who refuse to pay for receiving the pitches for their scams.
This means that as long as spam is considered a legitimate business, fighting it can be dangerous, even though it is spying out your personal data and usage patterns as well as inundating your entire families' inboxes (including those of children!) with UCE for all sorts of fraud and porn.

Fortunately the voices of reason are finally being heard, therefore much of this is changing:
Spam has just become illegal (article 13) in the entire European Economic Area.

Soon spam will swamp everything else. (...)
OK, spam is not a good thing, but aren't we getting a little carried away here?

The one point you're forgetting could actually be seen as implied in your own statement: Spammers spam everything, everyone, every address, everywhere, all the time. If it's legal, their numbers will continue to rise.

Digital convergence brings eMail addresses to phones, and pagers have also had them for a long time (now tell me how you click "opt out" on any of these!). If the phone or pager of a doctor becomes unusable due to this "perfectly legal activity", it won't be long before people are dying. If the same happens to the device of a firefighter, a hospital's or an airport's system administrator, people are dying all the same, in the name of spam.

If you think this threat is greatly exaggerated, Japan is a few years ahead in mobile technology (page 3), and with spam making up more than 80% of all messaging, their experience with what will globally become everyone's future of electronic communications is just devastating.

Make sure there will be a federal law against spam - and you'd better speak up before it's too late...

Your congress(wo)man is waiting for your mail.
Just now. And tomorrow. And all week/month/year through, until they finally stop the spam.

The power of waves is also being used in some countries. While it doesn't generate as much power as tidal dams do, it still makes sense for smaller coastal towns, because the plants are not too expensive.
They basically work by building a large (concrete) tube a few neters into the water right at the coast. As the water rises and falls with each wave, air is pushed out of and sucked into the other end of the tube, where a turbine is installed that generates power with an air current in both directions.
Obviously, another disadvantage is having the ugly plants right on the shore.
Infos and other methods of using wave power here:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/energy_transport/atlas/h tmlu/wavint.html

I congratulate you with the practical and inspiring approach taken by OpenChallenge. It is interesting that this scheme both stimulates the release of open source software and is also operated by people within the open source community itself. Perhaps such a "challenge posting" scheme is also of interest for public authorities to promote open source development. -- Erkki Liikanen European Commissioner for Enterprise and Information Society.

I congratulate you with the practical and inspiring approach taken by OpenChallenge. It is interesting that this scheme both stimulates the release of open source software and is also operated by people within the open source community itself. Perhaps such a "challenge posting" scheme is also of interest for public authorities to promote open source development. -- Erkki Liikanen European Commissioner for Enterprise and Information Society.

Not so, the EU will fine anyone who breaks the rules Eg:

5 German banks fined at total of 100 million Euro for price fixing.
DaimlerChrysler and Volkswagen AG fined over 100 million Euro.

MS will probably get an EU wide fine of x million per day until they comply.

The European Commission isn't actually very large and does not actually have a very large budget. Finding 250000 euros isn't necessarily that easy.

Nice story. I guess I spoke too soon... I should probably learn the difference between the "European Commission" and the "European Council" at some point. Especially as I'm about to marry in to EU citizenship... :-) (Czesc Kohanie!)

and the EU isn't even democratically elected!

ok, I'll bite.

The EU is run by five institutions, each playing a specific role:

* European Parliament (elected by the peoples of the Member States);
* Council of the Union (composed of the governments of the Member States);
* European Commission (driving force and executive body);
* Court of Justice (compliance with the law);
* Court of Auditors (sound and lawful management of the EU budget).

I trust that you'll believe me if I told you that the goverments of the member states are democratically elected.

The comission "has a college of 20 members. The President, the two Vice-Presidents and the 17 other Members of the Commission are chosen for their general competence, and all present guarantees of independence. They have all held political positions in their countries of origin, often at ministerial level.

The Commission is reappointed every five years, within six months of the elections to the European Parliament. This interval gives the new Parliament time to approve the Commission President proposed by the Member States, before the President designate constitutes his future team, in collaboration with the governments of the Member States. Parliament then gives its opinion on the entire college through a process of approval. Once accepted by the Parliament, the new Commission can officially start work the following January. "

That's ok for me, so let's go on to the Court
The judges and the advocates-general are appointed by joint agreement of the governments of the Member States for a renewable term of six years, with partial reappointment every three years. These are members of the highest national judiciary or jurisconsults of recognised competence presenting all the guarantees of independence.

Again, it sounds good to me

Finally, The Court of Auditors comprises 15 members appointed by the Council for a renewable term of six years, ruling unanimously after consultation with the European Parliament.

So the main bodies of the EU are either elected by the people or appointed by elected officials. I really don't see what your problem is.

and the EU isn't even democratically elected!

ok, I'll bite.

The EU is run by five institutions, each playing a specific role:

* European Parliament (elected by the peoples of the Member States);
* Council of the Union (composed of the governments of the Member States);
* European Commission (driving force and executive body);
* Court of Justice (compliance with the law);
* Court of Auditors (sound and lawful management of the EU budget).

I trust that you'll believe me if I told you that the goverments of the member states are democratically elected.

The comission "has a college of 20 members. The President, the two Vice-Presidents and the 17 other Members of the Commission are chosen for their general competence, and all present guarantees of independence. They have all held political positions in their countries of origin, often at ministerial level.

The Commission is reappointed every five years, within six months of the elections to the European Parliament. This interval gives the new Parliament time to approve the Commission President proposed by the Member States, before the President designate constitutes his future team, in collaboration with the governments of the Member States. Parliament then gives its opinion on the entire college through a process of approval. Once accepted by the Parliament, the new Commission can officially start work the following January. "

That's ok for me, so let's go on to the Court
The judges and the advocates-general are appointed by joint agreement of the governments of the Member States for a renewable term of six years, with partial reappointment every three years. These are members of the highest national judiciary or jurisconsults of recognised competence presenting all the guarantees of independence.

Again, it sounds good to me

Finally, The Court of Auditors comprises 15 members appointed by the Council for a renewable term of six years, ruling unanimously after consultation with the European Parliament.

So the main bodies of the EU are either elected by the people or appointed by elected officials. I really don't see what your problem is.

and the EU isn't even democratically elected!

ok, I'll bite.

The EU is run by five institutions, each playing a specific role:

* European Parliament (elected by the peoples of the Member States);
* Council of the Union (composed of the governments of the Member States);
* European Commission (driving force and executive body);
* Court of Justice (compliance with the law);
* Court of Auditors (sound and lawful management of the EU budget).

I trust that you'll believe me if I told you that the goverments of the member states are democratically elected.

The comission "has a college of 20 members. The President, the two Vice-Presidents and the 17 other Members of the Commission are chosen for their general competence, and all present guarantees of independence. They have all held political positions in their countries of origin, often at ministerial level.

The Commission is reappointed every five years, within six months of the elections to the European Parliament. This interval gives the new Parliament time to approve the Commission President proposed by the Member States, before the President designate constitutes his future team, in collaboration with the governments of the Member States. Parliament then gives its opinion on the entire college through a process of approval. Once accepted by the Parliament, the new Commission can officially start work the following January. "

That's ok for me, so let's go on to the Court
The judges and the advocates-general are appointed by joint agreement of the governments of the Member States for a renewable term of six years, with partial reappointment every three years. These are members of the highest national judiciary or jurisconsults of recognised competence presenting all the guarantees of independence.

Again, it sounds good to me

Finally, The Court of Auditors comprises 15 members appointed by the Council for a renewable term of six years, ruling unanimously after consultation with the European Parliament.

So the main bodies of the EU are either elected by the people or appointed by elected officials. I really don't see what your problem is.

and the EU isn't even democratically elected!

ok, I'll bite.

The EU is run by five institutions, each playing a specific role:

* European Parliament (elected by the peoples of the Member States);
* Council of the Union (composed of the governments of the Member States);
* European Commission (driving force and executive body);
* Court of Justice (compliance with the law);
* Court of Auditors (sound and lawful management of the EU budget).

I trust that you'll believe me if I told you that the goverments of the member states are democratically elected.

The comission "has a college of 20 members. The President, the two Vice-Presidents and the 17 other Members of the Commission are chosen for their general competence, and all present guarantees of independence. They have all held political positions in their countries of origin, often at ministerial level.

The Commission is reappointed every five years, within six months of the elections to the European Parliament. This interval gives the new Parliament time to approve the Commission President proposed by the Member States, before the President designate constitutes his future team, in collaboration with the governments of the Member States. Parliament then gives its opinion on the entire college through a process of approval. Once accepted by the Parliament, the new Commission can officially start work the following January. "

That's ok for me, so let's go on to the Court
The judges and the advocates-general are appointed by joint agreement of the governments of the Member States for a renewable term of six years, with partial reappointment every three years. These are members of the highest national judiciary or jurisconsults of recognised competence presenting all the guarantees of independence.

Again, it sounds good to me

Finally, The Court of Auditors comprises 15 members appointed by the Council for a renewable term of six years, ruling unanimously after consultation with the European Parliament.

So the main bodies of the EU are either elected by the people or appointed by elected officials. I really don't see what your problem is.

2002-10-30 16:37:04 European Commission Fines Nintendo (articles,news) (rejected)

Here's the link I referred to which is straight from the horses mouth.

Wait, I think I figured it out! I forgot to bash Microsoft and the RIAA in my post even though they have nothing to do with the story. When I saw the rejected status, I instantly thought it might be that idiot, Michael who only does reposts, crap very few people care about, and anti monopoly postings. Hmm, look who posted this article.

-Lucas

The number is EUR 149 million.
Read the press release from the European Commission.

The EU is in the process of giving in to the mega--multi-euro film&music industry as well.

INFOSOC in English

That'll be the end of legal reverse engineering in the EU as well.

http://europa.eu.int/ , .int being ."international"

The .eu domain is going through european parliament at the moment, most people think it's a great idea, and they're taking the time to do it properly, apparently with ICANN cooperating!

No mention yet of splitting this domain: looks like it will remain .eu, rather than separating .gov.eu, .com.eu, .org.eu, etc.

Prices expected to be on the high side (£60+ per year?), indicating that it's aimed at large organisations. Presumably european politics will stay inside europa.eu, once it loses its .int suffix.

The .eu domain name is currently in the process of being created by the European Union: see The Registers story and the EU's own poorly formatted paper about the issue.