Slashdot Mirror

That's how Sweden, Japan and South Korea did it. They gave a shovel and a hundred yards of fiber to everybody.

First, that's not how they did it. Do some research on the subject and you'll understand why those schemes could never work in the USA (our population is far less urban, and we actually value individual property rights). Sweden only has 30% broadband penetration, so I cannot figure out why it is held up as some sort of shining example by the Slashdot crowd.

Don't be an idiot. It doesn't matter who does it as long as it's done. Companies, government, as long as joe schmoe gets his cheap fast fiber.

Yes, it really does matter how it's done. If it's not done economically, it will generate crippling debt. And why is cheap, fast fiber such a priority? If you ask most Americans, there are quite a few items higher up on the TODO list. If you want it, you pay for it. Don't be so cavalier with other people's money.

What law? The EU mandates monitoring and storing of all kinds of data. It grants the right, with consent (the small print in your contract), to use this data for marketing purposes:
  http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32006L0024:EN:NOT

"(3) Articles 5, 6 and 9 of Directive 2002/58/EC lay down the rules applicable to the processing by network and service providers of traffic and location data generated by using electronic communications services. Such data must be erased or made anonymous when no longer needed for the purpose of the transmission of a communication, except for the data necessary for billing or interconnection payments. Subject to consent, certain data may also be processed for marketing purposes and the provision of value-added services."

It may be in more ways than one. Sources in the EU says that approval of OOXML as an ISO standard may break a WTO agreement regarding technical barriers to trade, which says that overlapping standards should be avoided.

Which one has the greatest amount of clout, the WTO or the ISO?

Actually, per Article 15 (2) of Regulation 17, they can only issue fines up to a maximum of 10% of turnover, as well as a further 5% of turnover for every day the original fine is not paid. See the guidelines for fining.

however a civil suit like this one should be dealt with by the judiciary instead.

"You know, there are real dictators in the world, who are truly evil, and are working to oppress their people." The removal of powers from elected parliaments, by devious method, to an unelected and undemocratic executive, Council of ministers, which holds its meetings in secret, unelected commissioners, and a very weak parliament that is bought and paid for by the latter.

Too bad that your prejudice has kept you from keeping track of recent developments. This criticism has been levelled at the EU for a long time and was to an extent justified, but guess what? They have actually done something about it. The European Parliament, which is directly elected and no longer as weak as it used to be, has received new powers with every treaty revision since 1992 and plays an integral role in EU law-making. Meetings of the Council of Ministers are not secret, as you can see on its website, which states: "All Council deliberations under the co-decision procedure are open to the public. The Council's first deliberations on legislative acts other than those adopted by co-decision are open to the public. The Council regularly holds public debates on important issues affecting the interests of the Union and its citizens, as well as policy debates on the Council's programmes." FYI, the co-decision procedure is the most commonly used procedure in EU legislation. Granted, institutional reform is slow, the EU still has work to do in terms of its accountability and communication with citizens, but that hardly makes it an evil oppressive dictatorship, which is the point that you were trying to make. Apart from Belarus, you will indeed not find oppressive dictatorships in Europe at this time, and the EU was established precisely to keep it this way, which brings me to your next point.

Yes, Europe has a fine tradition historically to be able to ignore history and repeat past mistakes yet again. Europe's ability for arrogance is only matched by its fantastic ability for creating evil, two world wars, and hundreds of millions of dead. How could I possibly not trust a European elite running out of control, and with a massive cavern where democratic due process should exist, but doesn't.

Please explain first who you mean by "Europe" and who exactly is being "arrogant". Is it Britain, Germany, Russia, France, Greece, Spain, Poland, Hungary, Sweden? Does every single one of this country have a "fine tradition to be able to ignore history and repeat past mistakes"? Last time I checked, Germans are still making up for the crimes of the nazis and not exactly preparing a second Holocaust. The Scandinavians no longer send out marauding bands of pirates to rob frightened people in coastal places. In Spain acknowledgment is slowly growing for the abuses and oppression of the Franco dictatorship, even on the political right. Italy does not seem eager to resurrect the Roman Empire. You may note that none of these examples has anything to do with the other, which illustrates that you can't generalise across an entire continent. I could even go on and argue that the one country which seemed unable to learn from history (notably European colonial history) in the last few years, with an elite running out of control causing millions of dead, does not lie in Europe, but I don't want to ignite another flamewar. In any case, as I mentioned before, the EU was established to prevent repetition of the mistakes of the past. It has been rather successful at that, considering that France and Germany are unlikely to go to war with each other at any point in the near future. It obviously does not have a perfect record, as was shown in the fall of Yugoslavia in the 1990s. Still, I fail to see how you can see the current European elite as being "out of control" or suggest that it will cause millions of people to die any time soon.

This same EU that's failed 13 years of account audits?

What does failing 13

The news from today was merely Commission's way of saying that next time MS should not make them wait for three years that to happen (penalty announced today was for the last 16 months of non-compliance) http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/08/125&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/08/318&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

The news from today was merely Commission's way of saying that next time MS should not make them wait for three years that to happen (penalty announced today was for the last 16 months of non-compliance) http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/08/125&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/08/318&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

Because the European Union is a progressive liberal democracy, she is allowed to have more balls than her US opposite number.

Microsoft needs to get a move on. The fine is in Euros, and if the Euro continues to appreciate against the dollar when they eventually pay it may bankrupt them. (this is a joke. It is a feeble joke but a joke nonetheless.)

Incidentally, and this is quite true, one of the lawyers for Microsoft summarised their case like this: "We are Microsoft. We are the good guys. So what we want to do is right." Now compare that with HP, who have people based in Europe who talk to the Commission and say, in effect "We would like to do so-and-so. Is that all right?". Strangely, you don't hear about massive fines for HP over their dominance of the office printer market.

It has been clear to me for a number of years that Microsoft simply needs to grow up as a company, like small children who, if their parents do a half decent job, learn to get what they want by politeness and cooperation, not by kicking, screaming and stealing toys. But, in order to change, they have to recognise the need for change. I suspect that their technical people are well aware of this, but some of the management is still in "if it ain't broke don't fix it" mode. The MS XML saga is pretty conclusive evidence of this. I bet there are project managers in ISO who by now will do their best to sabotage any Microsoft standards project, simply because they have been so pissed off by them.

Some of the EU's decisions on competition

EU's Press release on this specific matter

And a FAQ of why MS is getting fined when they say they have complied in 2007

Some of the EU's decisions on competition

EU's Press release on this specific matter

And a FAQ of why MS is getting fined when they say they have complied in 2007

Some of the EU's decisions on competition

EU's Press release on this specific matter

And a FAQ of why MS is getting fined when they say they have complied in 2007

The EU would appear to disagree with you.

Seems like European Comission has learned something about Microsoft's previous four announcements. Excerpt:

The Commission would welcome any move towards genuine interoperability. Nonetheless, the Commission notes that today's announcement follows at least four similar statements by Microsoft in the past on the importance of interoperability.

ECIS's Thomas Vinje has also issued a statement that is worth reading.

this is what the EU had to say:
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/08/106&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

"The European Commission takes note of today's announcement by Microsoft of its intention to commit to a number of principles in order to promote interoperability with some of its high market share software products. This announcement does not relate to the question of whether or not Microsoft has been complying with EU antitrust rules in this area in the past. The Commission would welcome any move towards genuine interoperability. Nonetheless, the Commission notes that today's announcement follows at least four similar statements by Microsoft in the past on the importance of interoperability. In January 2008, the Commission initiated two formal antitrust investigations against Microsoft - one relating to interoperability, one relating to tying of separate software products (see MEMO/08/19). In the course of its ongoing interoperability investigation, the Commission will therefore verify whether Microsoft is complying with EU antitrust rules, whether the principles announced today would end any infringement were they implemented in practice, and whether or not the principles announced today are in fact implemented in practice. Today's announcement by Microsoft does not address the tying allegations."

True, but the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights has not achieved the status of a treaty yet and will only do so once the current reform treaty has been ratified, since it incorporates the Charter. See here for more information. By the way, ALL EU member states have to accept EU treaties as formal law with direct vertical application, even if they don't normally do so with treaties (like the Netherlands does). At the European Court of Justice stated back in the sixties, this is inherent to the European legal order which was created by the establishment of what later became the EU.

Well you can start here, if it's open for discussion http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/

The best thing to do is probably to write to you MEP. Their email and postal addresses are given. I will try and write at the weekend.

You are basing your assessment off us US law, where copyright is based on the "Promote the progress of the useful arts" clause of the Constitution. The EU contains no equivalent that I can find.

In fact, the EU specifically states in its directive that:

"(10) If authors or performers are to continue their creative and artistic work, they have to receive an appropriate reward for the use of their work..."

Thus implying that their copyright is not rooted in producing progress, but in protecting property.

This is reinforced elsewhere: "(9) ... Intellectual property has therefore been recognised as an integral part of property."

2. If the purpose is to give a life-long income to composers and musicians, then surely record companies and other companies should be excluded.

Again, their view is one of property protection first, progress as a result of protection.

3. If the purpose is to give a life-long income to composers and musicians, then we should say so.

While they don't make statements about life-long income, the EU is focused on return on investment: "(10) ... Adequate legal protection of intellectual property rights is necessary in order to guarantee the availability of such a reward and provide the opportunity for satisfactory returns on this investment."

Contact details for the commissioner's office are available here: http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/mccreevy/press_en.htm.
I'll be letting them know my feelings as an EU Citizen. If you decide to do so please make your opinions felt in an intelligent and reasonable manner.

Maybe EU residents should E-Mail the commissioner to tell him what they think.

His name is Charlie McCreevy; you can have a look at his bio/profile/portfolio etc here:

http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/mccreevy/index_en.htm

His E-Mail Address: Charlie.Mc-Creevy@cec.eu.int

Notice that this is *not* a call to spam him; that won't help anybody. Informed, thoughtful considerations about why a copyright extension is a good/bad idea might. Maybe he listens to what citizens are saying.

Ruddy hell there are some people who really do give the Irish a bad name....

Charlie McCreevy is an ex-Irish MP and a chartered accountant whose biggest role was as Minister for Finance in Ireland.

Currently has no registered special interests of note, but damn he has come up with a stupid proposal. Even something sensible like "until death" would have met the requirements for people living longer whereas 95 years is just about the corporations behind the people.

Try whois or go to European Union. We are an union of 27 countries in Europe which whole idea is to show USA that we are better than they are...
...and it seems that we are right, now the really rich guys from OPEC wants to use our money instead of USD.

The article in The Telegraph.
The research group
Funding from CORDIS of 1.16 million euros, total cost 1.29 million euros. [rja]

I don't know the ECJ's citation format, but the decision is announced and printed here: http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/gettext.pl?where=&lang=en&num=79919870C19060275&doc=T&ouvert=T&seance=ARRET From there, the [citation? docket number?] is given as C275/06

I suppose you wanted to say: "nobody is allowed to store your personal data without warning you and giving methods to correct and erase your data."
This is a principle of German "Recht auf Informationelle Selbstbestimmung".

Anyway, I agree with Germany's 'commissioner for data protection and freedom of information' Peter Schaar (wrong name in TFA) that an IP is public, but nevertheless personal data (better term in German: "personenbezogene Daten") because as the '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' (see Directive 95/46/EC) states:

Article 2
Definitions

For the purposes of this Directive:
(a) 'personal data' shall mean any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person ('data subject'); an identifiable person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identification number or to one or more factors specific to his physical, physiological, mental, economic, cultural or social identity;

Some prior commentators already agreed that a telephone number is personal data (though many don't seem to know the difference between private and personal data). Why not treat IPs the same way?

Please note that not all is well in Europe since telephone numbers (already regarded as personal data) and IPs have to be stored by the associated carriers (ISPs for example) for later processing by law enforcement agencies (allegedly solely) in the course of investigating terroristic activities and other crimes (see 'Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks').
This is heavily disputed (see e.g. http://www.dataretentionisnosolution.com/ and Digital Rights Ireland challenge to Data Retention).
By the way, there are some proposed methods to disable logging of IPs regarding Apache webserver - et al..

For more information about 'EU Data Retention' see EU Data Retention - doqumentation and Electronic Privacy Information Center.

I suppose you wanted to say: "nobody is allowed to store your personal data without warning you and giving methods to correct and erase your data."
This is a principle of German "Recht auf Informationelle Selbstbestimmung".

Anyway, I agree with Germany's 'commissioner for data protection and freedom of information' Peter Schaar (wrong name in TFA) that an IP is public, but nevertheless personal data (better term in German: "personenbezogene Daten") because as the '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' (see Directive 95/46/EC) states:

Article 2
Definitions

For the purposes of this Directive:
(a) 'personal data' shall mean any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person ('data subject'); an identifiable person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identification number or to one or more factors specific to his physical, physiological, mental, economic, cultural or social identity;

Some prior commentators already agreed that a telephone number is personal data (though many don't seem to know the difference between private and personal data). Why not treat IPs the same way?

Please note that not all is well in Europe since telephone numbers (already regarded as personal data) and IPs have to be stored by the associated carriers (ISPs for example) for later processing by law enforcement agencies (allegedly solely) in the course of investigating terroristic activities and other crimes (see 'Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks').
This is heavily disputed (see e.g. http://www.dataretentionisnosolution.com/ and Digital Rights Ireland challenge to Data Retention).
By the way, there are some proposed methods to disable logging of IPs regarding Apache webserver - et al..

For more information about 'EU Data Retention' see EU Data Retention - doqumentation and Electronic Privacy Information Center.

Although this is far from as important as a vote on a EU directive, I think this is good news.

Unfortunately there is no information on exactly which amendments were rejected. In particular I was worried about amendment 80 (which TFA implies is rejected), amendment 82 (extension of protection time for related rights), and amendments 81 and 83 that looks like a requirement that educational institutions should proliferate the propaganda of MAFIAA.

As for the extension of copyright protection time: This is the same in Europe as in the USA. But in the EU the protection of recording artists and whoever makes the recording is limited to 50 years. There has been big pressure in particular in the UK to extend this, but this has been rejected as not being helpful to cultural development. I am glad that this first attempt by the copyright lobby to force EU member countries to adopt legislation they do not want has failed.

Oh, BTW here is a link to the prosed amendments voted on tuesday.

I don't think that's true. Microsoft has a clear monopoly in PC operating systems in the EU - but Microsoft is not illegal in the EU.

If a company has a dominant position in an EU market, under article 82, it has "a special responsibility not to allow its conduct to impair competition on the common market". This is not so different to US anti-trust law, although it is apparently defined and enforced a bit more vigorously than in the US.

http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/antitrust/overview_en.html

If I've misunderstood the law here, I'd be grateful for any references you can provide.

In 2005, more than 40000 people were killed and over 1.2 million were injuried in the European Union.

Governments should unite and force driverless cars as soon as possible. Automated driving has numerous advantages over manual one:

• the vast amount of money spent in treating the injured people and smashed cars could be diverted elsewhere.
• time spent driving could be spent in other activities.
• given a properly setup road information system, a computer can find the best route for a destination, minimizing/eliminating traffic and the annoyance that goes with it.
• computers can make optimum usage of a car; cars will last longer.
• cab drivers would not be needed. Calling a cab would be as simple as clicking a 'I want a cab' button on your PDA, which would transmit your location through wi-fi to the cab companies which will order the nearest free cab to come and pick you up. And the computerized cab driver will pay exact change.
• in case of an emergency, computers can divert traffic in such a way that paths are quickly opened (for ambulances, for example; or for the fire department, the police etc).

Of course driverless transportation requires a level of support that is not present in most countries. Even the traffic lights are not setup properly in most countries (if they exist, at all). Most roads are full of bumps and holes, so in case or repairing the road, the electronic maps should be instantly updated. Most signs are misplaced; they would have to be replaced with electronic ones anyway, so as that they can transmit signals about their purpose. Buildings' addresses should be carefully mapped as well, if one wants to visit some place, but some cities don't even have an address system (Tokyo, for example).

The most difficult aspect for driverless cars is that ALL roads have to be mapped; if not so, then a new race of drivers will be born: those who have a license, but they drive only once a year, when they go in a place that is not mapped for the car navigator. And we all know that if you don't drive, you gradually forget how to do it, which means more possibilities for accidents than before. And if roads are not mapped in 100% detail, more possibilities for accidents as well.

Still, with all these issues, I am optimistic. I don't think that I will be alive when driverless cars would be a reality, but it's inevitable, in the end...

This raises some issues with EU Data Protection Law. This protects private data about EU citizens. Turning over private data is a breach of EU law and this law is trans-national, applies anywhere in the world if the data is about EU citizens.

Therefore this raises the question, Can a US border guard compel somebody to break the Law of another country? If the answer is yes, then EU law would make it illegal to take a laptop containing personal data to the US in the first place.

>The UK and probably most EU countries do not have that,

Yes they do. Protection for computer programs are coverwed in the EU directive 91/250/EEC, which basically gives a lawful user (not necessarilly owner) of a computer program the right to do, for example compies needed for normal use which includes what you list such as installing and running the program. This is covered in article 5 of the treaty. I can't tell exactly how each member state have implemented the treaty but many have done it more or les exactly as the treaty says. For example Sweden which I am most familiar with has the same text granting such rights (or rather excludes them as being exclusive to the copyright holder) to the user without any authorication, permission or licese needed.

So yes, you are in most countries (if not all) of Europe allowed to install and run computer programs you have lawfully aquired.

Treaty:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&numdoc=31991L0250&model=guichett&lg=en

A document that anylises the implementation of the directive (as far as it was in 2000) but also provides some insight into how to interpret the directive:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2000:0199:FIN:EN:PDF

Note for example (in regard for the contract part):
"In the view of the Commission, what was intended by Article 5 (1) and recital 18 was that it
should not be possible to prevent by contract a "lawful acquirer" of a program doing any of
the restricted acts that were required for the use of the program in accordance with its
intended purpose or for correcting errors."

>The UK and probably most EU countries do not have that,

Yes they do. Protection for computer programs are coverwed in the EU directive 91/250/EEC, which basically gives a lawful user (not necessarilly owner) of a computer program the right to do, for example compies needed for normal use which includes what you list such as installing and running the program. This is covered in article 5 of the treaty. I can't tell exactly how each member state have implemented the treaty but many have done it more or les exactly as the treaty says. For example Sweden which I am most familiar with has the same text granting such rights (or rather excludes them as being exclusive to the copyright holder) to the user without any authorication, permission or licese needed.

So yes, you are in most countries (if not all) of Europe allowed to install and run computer programs you have lawfully aquired.

Treaty:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&numdoc=31991L0250&model=guichett&lg=en

A document that anylises the implementation of the directive (as far as it was in 2000) but also provides some insight into how to interpret the directive:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2000:0199:FIN:EN:PDF

Note for example (in regard for the contract part):
"In the view of the Commission, what was intended by Article 5 (1) and recital 18 was that it
should not be possible to prevent by contract a "lawful acquirer" of a program doing any of
the restricted acts that were required for the use of the program in accordance with its
intended purpose or for correcting errors."

They need to go here and sue their country if it isn't correctly adopted.

In one sentence: the EU giveth, the memberstates can take away *from their own members*, but not from the members of other states.

So every memberstate has to respect EU law for all EU citizens in so far as rights are granted *except* for their own citizens who they may discriminate against.

I'm not sure what the situation is when it comes rights granted by your own government being trumped by a more strict EU law, but in practice local laws are usually far more strict than local laws, and off the top of my head I would not know of an example.

The original article is a direct consequence of the opening up of the market for the 'local gema/buma/whatever', who are now free (or will be free soon) to license their content with third parties for countries other than the one of their origin. Another driver is the fragmentation of the market here, a single stop for negotiations would facilitate things greatly for the smaller labels.

This is significant for content creators because the percentages paid out to artists/rights holders differ quite a bit from country to country due to the varying 'overhead'.

The DRM was relevant when this plan was first put forward, but with more and more companies switching to DRM free downloads and the speed at which the EU moves I doubt that that part of it (and the subsequent technical implementation and distribution) will happen in time to plug the holes.

I was at a presentation of the dutch BUMA last year where they were doing their best to impress on people that there was no need to switch when the time came but you can be sure they're pretty nervous about this development.

If there is going to be a free market wrt rights negotiations (and it looks like that is inevitable) then I don't doubt in the long term there will be only one such agency left standing.

lots of interesting reading on this subject here:

http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/index_en.htm

and for an idea how complicated the swamp really is:

http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/69349

Alcohol is addictive.

Cocaine on the other hand is not.

Glad that someone said it.

I'm no doctor, but I am certain that there is a lot of misunderstanding surrounding the word "addiction". Sometimes when we say something is addictive, we mean that it is exceptionally fun and we want to do it again and again... this is psychological addiction. You can get psychologically addicted to anything, including sugar, or salt.

On the other hand, chemical addiction is what happens when a certain chemical that you ingest causes long-term changes to how your body works. Your body literally demands more of that chemical in order to feel like it's functioning properly. These drugs tend to include long periods of withdrawal symptoms when you stop taking them. Opiates, such as heroin, as well as nicotine and (I believe, to a degree) alcohol fall into this category.

In fact, I've been told by a professor (of media, not a doctor) that cocaine does _not_ fall into this category. Most people who do cocaine are occasional users. People often ignore this fact because they've heard stories through friends and through the media about individuals getting highly addicted to cocaine use. But you cannot draw conclusions like this based on individual stories! You have to look at the statistics.

And I mean purely at the statistics, because 'war on drugs' style publications and web sites constantly misrepresent them. In looking for some statistics to back up what I'm saying here (I just visited about 10 websites), I discovered that it's actually very difficult to find information about drug use that is not surrounded by anti-drug rhetoric.

I am not trying to encourage drug use here, only proper dissemination of truthful information. Almost every website I have just visited mentioned the number of people reported to have tried cocaine, but never mentioned the percentage that subsequently became addicted.

Aha, here we go. This survey reports that about 1% of the adult population has tried cocaine, and that, "among the general population, cocaine use seems to be occasional, occurring mainly at weekends and in recreational settings (bars and discos), where it can reach high levels."

Is this surprising? No. Is this worrisome? Sure. No one argues that cocaine is healthy. Is it worthy of being called a highly addictive substance? Personally I don't think so, but I'm not a clinical researcher.

Here's a good insert in the article I linked to that is relevant to the TFA:

In contrast to heroin addiction, which can be treated with agonists such as methadone or antagonists such as naltrexone, there are currently no medical treatments available for cocaine addiction. The reason for this would appear to be the mechanism of action through which cocaine exerts its effects on the brain neurotransmitters dopamine and serotonin. Whereas heroin binds to brain opioid receptors, such as the mu receptors, and therefore mimics the action of the brain's own endorphins, cocaine inhibits the reabsorption of dopamine (and indeed serotonin) from the neuronal synapse once it has had its effect, leading to a build-up of the transmitter, thus prolonging and strengthening its effect.

This does not necessarily mean that it is not possible to develop a medical treatment for cocaine addiction, only that it may be more difficult to do so and may involve different concepts from those used in the development of treatments for heroin dependence.

One exciting strand of research is the use of immunotherapy, i.e. the development of a vaccine that would effectively 'neutralise' the action of cocaine by preventing the drug from reaching the brain. The basic concept has undergone limited testing. A vaccine developed in the United Kingdom was tested in a small number of cocaine addicts, 18 in total, over a period of 14 weeks. It was found

US courts cannot order them to save information that is not required by European law
Further; Collecting, storing or turn over personal data would be illegal. US Courts cannot order them to break EU law by violating the "Directive on the protection of personal data and privacy in the electronic communications sector." http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/privacy/index_en.htm

Your observation is underappreciated in too many circles. Though the EC also recognizes the need and called upon member states to get their act together, very little has actually happened on either side of the pond despite widely available, easy to use encryption technologies.

(Links and bold are added for emphasis)

on the existence of a global system for the interception of private and commercial communications (ECHELON interception system) (2001/2098(INI))
29. Urges the Commission and Member States to devise appropriate measures to promote, develop and manufacture European encryption technology and software and above all to support projects aimed at developing user-friendly open-source encryption software;
. 30. Calls on the Commission and Member States to promote software projects whose source text is made public (open-source software), as this is the only way of guaranteeing that no backdoors are built into programmes;
. 31. Calls on the Commission to lay down a standard for the level of security of e-mail software packages, placing those packages whose source code has not been made public in the "least reliable" category;
. 32. Calls on the European institutions and the public administrations of the Member States systematically to encrypt e-mails, so that ultimately encryption becomes the norm;

Further, what's kind of funny is that though businesses make all kinds of noise and bluster about security, many go ahead and put business plans and meeting minutes on servers which (not counting holes and back doors) explicitly sign over access to their competitor(s). However, see if M$ makes it easy for businesses to see what their so-called tech support is agreeing to.

Your observation is underappreciated in too many circles. Though the EC also recognizes the need and called upon member states to get their act together, very little has actually happened on either side of the pond despite widely available, easy to use encryption technologies.

(Links and bold are added for emphasis)

on the existence of a global system for the interception of private and commercial communications (ECHELON interception system) (2001/2098(INI))
29. Urges the Commission and Member States to devise appropriate measures to promote, develop and manufacture European encryption technology and software and above all to support projects aimed at developing user-friendly open-source encryption software;
. 30. Calls on the Commission and Member States to promote software projects whose source text is made public (open-source software), as this is the only way of guaranteeing that no backdoors are built into programmes;
. 31. Calls on the Commission to lay down a standard for the level of security of e-mail software packages, placing those packages whose source code has not been made public in the "least reliable" category;
. 32. Calls on the European institutions and the public administrations of the Member States systematically to encrypt e-mails, so that ultimately encryption becomes the norm;

Further, what's kind of funny is that though businesses make all kinds of noise and bluster about security, many go ahead and put business plans and meeting minutes on servers which (not counting holes and back doors) explicitly sign over access to their competitor(s). However, see if M$ makes it easy for businesses to see what their so-called tech support is agreeing to.

Intrinsically safe circuits can ignite gasoline when they are hit by lightning. The concern in aircraft applications isn't that the fuel ignites in normal operation. Rather, it is suspected that some airplanes have exploded after being hit by lightning.

If enough power hits just the right wire, and the tanks are near empty (with lots of explosive fuel vapors), and enough planes get hit by lightning in flight in a sensitive location, then potentially disaster can happen. The accident data says fuel tank explosions occur, and this might be a possible cause. Safety problems demand a precautionary approach. Hence the desire to eliminate the wire going to the fuel tank.

Further resources:
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-GENERAL/1997/April/Day-03/g8495.htm
http://easa.europa.eu/doc/Events/fueltanksafety_24062005/easa_fueltanksafety_24062005_large_transport_ppt.pdf [pdf]

Note: a widespread consensus exists that many possible ways for fuel tanks to ignite exist. As such, most of the focus is on minimizing the likelihood of ignition, rather than one specific cause, like the fuel tank wires themselves.

Microsoft should consider the merits of submitting XML formats to an international standards body of their choice;

you mean like this one? http://ec.europa.eu/avpolicy/docs/reg/minors/workshop_singers.pdf google scholar is pretty handy, or can be atleast http://scholar.google.com/scholar?num=100&hl=en&lr=&q=global+%22media+violence%22&btnG=Search

Where I live, it has to be labelled:

The EU recognises the consumers' right to information and labelling as a tool for making an informed choice. Since 1997 Community legislation has made labelling of GM food mandatory for:
* products that consist of GMO or contain GMO;
* products derived from GMO but no longer containing GMO if there is still DNA or protein resulting from the genetic modification present;
http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/gmfood/labelling_en.htm

However, I am not so sure whether Joe Sixpack cares.

CC.

Here is the text of the actual EU Directive:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2006/l_105/l_10520060413en00540063.pdf
The interesting part for this discussion is Article 5 - Categories of data to be retained (starting on page 4)

Note that member nations can go further than the Directive, when implementing it into national law.

What a bull crap. EU (as in European Union, as in former EEC - European Economic Community) started long before Putin ever dreamed to be in power (started right after WWII, in 1945 and in 1950 EEC was created). And yes, EU does work with Russia (mainly we import energy from them... you still buy oil from Iran don't you? So now you can comment on this relation so we can know who the hypocrite is), it does work with China (as said before, EU is responsible for 40% of it's technology imports)... Middle East? Thought that was US department.

And regarding Russia, yeah, EU is guilty of that... we have an awful habit ever since WWII to try to get along with the rest of the world, specially our neighbors (try, but there are some cases where that doesn't happen). US should try it some times and probably if this administration hadn't undone the work done by the previous administrations in foreign politics, maybe there wouldn't be such a bad public opinion regarding US. USA will never be destroyed by any foreign influence, but from inside out. The inability to adapt to the new worlds market is apparent. Either change politics, or you be looking into a dark future ahead. Subprime crisis, international debt, dollar devaluation... wait until Chinas market start correcting itself from the speculation it had on the past months. It wont be the end of the world, but it wont be a walk in the park for you either.

oh, and by the way, we try to be as objective and transparent as possible (sort of like your stock market rules, but actually working), so we have dossiers open to the public regarding social, economical and political life in EU... this one is regarding EU/Russia relations

'Fortunately' for the idiot flying into the ski lift cables, he was cleared of charges by the US military court. Guess not only Blackwater protects their own incompetents.

The EU was pretty pissed off about this:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:51999IP0272:EN:HTML

Wrong, Europe is not under the bear. In fact what you don't seem to realize is that Europe's relationship with Russia is more complex. As for energy policy one European country, Norway, is the world's third largest exporter of oil and gas. In the south North-African countries are just beginning to supply Europe. But we are keeping tabs on how Russia behaves, not giving into their tantrum politics (Ukraine). EU-Russia relationship And Europe is doing plenty to encourage development of democratic institutions and free press in Russia. But fighting a tyrant like Putin, his friends and KGB troops is not exactly easy. I don't see a massive US campaign helping the oppressed Russian journalists?! At least in Europe we are aiding the democratic Russian forces in the European Court of Justice. Oh, and where's your comment on US censorship?