Is "the EU debating it", or is it just this one loon who has suggested it to the media? Has this suggestion made it to any committee, showed up in any directive proposal from the commission, been discussed in any meeting of the council of ministers?
If one single parliamentarian doing a mouth-fart is the same as the entire institution he's in "debating it" then the EU is also debating reinstating the death penalty, banning the building of mosques, abandoning the inner market, patenting business methods, etc etc etc.
As the other poster said, it depends on the nationalist party. The Welsh and Scottish nationalists are fairly pro-Europe because neither country is really viable as a totally independent entity, but both are larger than some other EU member states and could work as members of the EU, rather than members of the UK.
Also, the Welsh and Scottish national parties aren't really the same type of "nationalists" as most others across the EU, who are mostly just trying to pass racism and anti-immigration off as "nationalism". You can't compare SNP to Front National, BNP, Sverigedemokraterna or Dansk Folkeparti.
How can you know how a given patent will be interpreted by a court?
You don't. You hire very expensive lawyers and ask them. They don't know either, but when someone sues you even though your lawyers said they wouldn't, you can fire the lawyers.
...but if the ESA wanted to, they could have just told the US to get back to them when they had an actual situation where Galileo might be used for military purposes against the US, and they would have a look at it and, maybe, degrade the signal themselves. Unless they disagreed with the assessment. The way they did it now means that the US can make those decisions entirely on their own.
From the start Galileo was designed to be even more "GPS independent", for example it was going to use the same frequency band as GPS so that the US couldn't use ground-based interference signals to block it without also blocking their own GPS in the same region. But someone scared them out of that.
Are you saying that they should remove all the negative options from the survey to make it simpler to use, since only a very small percentage will actually need them?
They are not taken down. The site was down a couple of days after the raid that started the whole thing (back in June 2006!), but has been up ever since with the odd downtime for planned maintainance or technical screwups. It's just run by different people.
...which is the only reason why one of the four was prosecuted to begin with, the guy who was a decade of two older and basically just owned the ISP that employed one of the others. He is rich, the other three, who were the ones actually involved with The Pirate Bay, have no money. Guess who will have to pay the damages if the supreme court appeal fails?
Being independent was never an option, since committee positions, speaking time and other resources in the EP are mainly allotted to party groups, not individual MEPs. There is an "independent" party group of otherwise unaffiliated parties, but it consists mainly of racists and loons that no one else want to have in their group.
The plans of the Pirate Party, as they were announced before the last election, were to negotiate with any of the serious party groups and join the one that made them the best offer in terms of resources and positions. As far as I understand they were in negotiations with both the Greens and the liberal group ALDE, and apparently the Greens made the best offer.
Since then, it's been increasingly clear that it probably was the best choice politically as well. ALDE often joins the conservative groups in voting for more draconian copyright laws, more surveillance and so on.
That's not the proposal in the Greens' position paper though. It says that you need to register after five years if you want an extension (to 20 years, I assume). It doesn't mention any requirement to allow derivative works.
Or that they will just vote against their party's stance in copyright issues for no apparent reason, like Swedish Green MEP Isabella LÃvin did when she voted in favour of the Gallo report last year. Her fellow MEP from the Swedish Green party, Carl Schlyter, indicated that there had been a lot of pressure from lobbyists on that issue (but didn't explicitly mention LÃvin).
If a Green MEP had voted against their own party in an environmental issue it would almost certainly had made headlines. Now no one cared, and most of her voters probably still don't know about it even though the Greens in Sweden have used their stance against draconian copyright laws in the campaigns in the last few national and EU election cycles.
The European parliament is definitely not "pretty decent overall". The members of the large party groups (the two conservative ones and the social democratic one) are just as bought as the commission and the national governments. For some reason the lobbyists just don't bother that much with the smaller party groups.
No, the article is about the copyright policies adopted by the Green group with 56 elected representatives in the highest legislative body of the European Union. Which happen to coincide to a large degree with the copyright policies of the Swedish Pirate Party, probably because they have a MEP who is a member of the Green group.
Slashdot Mirror
Is "the EU debating it", or is it just this one loon who has suggested it to the media? Has this suggestion made it to any committee, showed up in any directive proposal from the commission, been discussed in any meeting of the council of ministers?
If one single parliamentarian doing a mouth-fart is the same as the entire institution he's in "debating it" then the EU is also debating reinstating the death penalty, banning the building of mosques, abandoning the inner market, patenting business methods, etc etc etc.
I don't actually know French, but I think I get the gist of that info comment.
Also, the Welsh and Scottish national parties aren't really the same type of "nationalists" as most others across the EU, who are mostly just trying to pass racism and anti-immigration off as "nationalism". You can't compare SNP to Front National, BNP, Sverigedemokraterna or Dansk Folkeparti.
But Norway is a ESA member state.
Why would you have to buy a new satnav? The GPS satellites aren't going anywhere.
You don't. You hire very expensive lawyers and ask them. They don't know either, but when someone sues you even though your lawyers said they wouldn't, you can fire the lawyers.
Did they make it round with square corners?
You get back what it says on your balance with Bitcoin as well. It's a currency, not a banking system.
Yes, for-profit USES.
Why couldn't they just have required that for GPS rather than spending billions on new satellites?
...but if the ESA wanted to, they could have just told the US to get back to them when they had an actual situation where Galileo might be used for military purposes against the US, and they would have a look at it and, maybe, degrade the signal themselves. Unless they disagreed with the assessment. The way they did it now means that the US can make those decisions entirely on their own.
Did the immigrants come over and steal all your jobs, women and punctuation marks?
From the start Galileo was designed to be even more "GPS independent", for example it was going to use the same frequency band as GPS so that the US couldn't use ground-based interference signals to block it without also blocking their own GPS in the same region. But someone scared them out of that.
Are you saying that they should remove all the negative options from the survey to make it simpler to use, since only a very small percentage will actually need them?
But in most cases, in many legislations, you _do_ need permission to store personal information about someone.
Wouldn't just pointing the webcams at the sky and do md5sums of the frames also be a true RNG, but without the radiation?
It does not. Patents cover for-profit uses only, unlike copyright and trademarks.
They are not taken down. The site was down a couple of days after the raid that started the whole thing (back in June 2006!), but has been up ever since with the odd downtime for planned maintainance or technical screwups. It's just run by different people.
...which is the only reason why one of the four was prosecuted to begin with, the guy who was a decade of two older and basically just owned the ISP that employed one of the others. He is rich, the other three, who were the ones actually involved with The Pirate Bay, have no money. Guess who will have to pay the damages if the supreme court appeal fails?
Being independent was never an option, since committee positions, speaking time and other resources in the EP are mainly allotted to party groups, not individual MEPs. There is an "independent" party group of otherwise unaffiliated parties, but it consists mainly of racists and loons that no one else want to have in their group.
The plans of the Pirate Party, as they were announced before the last election, were to negotiate with any of the serious party groups and join the one that made them the best offer in terms of resources and positions. As far as I understand they were in negotiations with both the Greens and the liberal group ALDE, and apparently the Greens made the best offer.
Since then, it's been increasingly clear that it probably was the best choice politically as well. ALDE often joins the conservative groups in voting for more draconian copyright laws, more surveillance and so on.
That's not the proposal in the Greens' position paper though. It says that you need to register after five years if you want an extension (to 20 years, I assume). It doesn't mention any requirement to allow derivative works.
Her name is Isabella Lövin. Slashdot, please join the rest of the world in UTF-8 land.
Or that they will just vote against their party's stance in copyright issues for no apparent reason, like Swedish Green MEP Isabella LÃvin did when she voted in favour of the Gallo report last year. Her fellow MEP from the Swedish Green party, Carl Schlyter, indicated that there had been a lot of pressure from lobbyists on that issue (but didn't explicitly mention LÃvin).
If a Green MEP had voted against their own party in an environmental issue it would almost certainly had made headlines. Now no one cared, and most of her voters probably still don't know about it even though the Greens in Sweden have used their stance against draconian copyright laws in the campaigns in the last few national and EU election cycles.
The European parliament is definitely not "pretty decent overall". The members of the large party groups (the two conservative ones and the social democratic one) are just as bought as the commission and the national governments. For some reason the lobbyists just don't bother that much with the smaller party groups.
No, the article is about the copyright policies adopted by the Green group with 56 elected representatives in the highest legislative body of the European Union. Which happen to coincide to a large degree with the copyright policies of the Swedish Pirate Party, probably because they have a MEP who is a member of the Green group.