That is what various small business subsidies are for. In modern world, small business is already largely unviable without them due to effects of globalization on the economy and impact of large international conglomerates.
They do comply with them when they work in there. I have several friends who work for oil refinement industry who had to work there. They tell amazing stories of the hoops companies jump through to be able to operate in the Kingdom.
I'm saying the exact opposite. It takes a warped mind to interpret my words in the exact opposite way that they are intended.
If you look at EU, it's choke full of examples of exact opposite of what you're claiming, and most of the examples that are actually like you're claiming are found on the national level.
Completely ok as long as these people do business in EU, as far as it pertains to business in EU. Same applies to all states, including US.
In other words, I think that some of the US approach to the same situation is over the top because it concerns business done outside US.
I have absolutely no problem for the same rules applying to one man operations and large business, so long as they are fair for consumers and states those consumers live in. In fact, one of the biggest problems in business/state relations today is that business tends to use the "but small business would suffer" in the same way that power hungry politicians use "think of the children". That is to circumvent the common good and allow them to profiteer at expense of everyone else.
In a democratic society, recourse becomes available after majority of population is informed of harm caused by the issue and pressure their representatives to change the law.
As a result, information and its presentation in mass media is important. Regardless of the fact that US is more of an oligarchy than democracy today.
That was my argument, yes. The old bullshit argument used by several companies, including google (which was the most visible one, but far from the only one) was that if they do not have an office or a datacenter in the country but they serve the local customers, they don't have to obey local laws.
This argument has been shot down in flames and in fact the new commission under Juncker as well as large member states will highly likely push for more limits on such operations (according to his official agenda list), as well as more inclusive legislative control (such as the current large business taxation changes that are passing various stages of approval across many member states).
If you have any customer relations in the region, you do in fact operate there. The argument you are trying - that if you don't have a direct office in the region you don't have to obey the local law has been tried in the court of law and shot down in flames across EU many times.
Blocking servers is currently on the table in EU, it's just not implemented yet. Juncker has made it very clear that one of parts of his IT agenda is to push for actions like those to prevent US monopolies from both serving EU customers to US intelligence on a silver platter as well as completely chocking life out of all competition through monopolistic action.
There are many other implementations, such as fines however.
Other nations are not currently superpowers, nor do they have targeted killing programs, or conduct wars far away from their borders.
That naturally places US on top of the "existential threats" list to essentially all other countries on the globe, and as a result it faces much tighter scrutiny.
Incorrect. EU directives are not about "EU companies" but "companies operating in EU". I.e. companies that store information about EU citizens.
These measures appear to be more broad in their storage requirements, but they closely mirror European regulation in terms of who they are directed at.
Actually, as we have seen in China, this is bullshit. All that happens is you get similar companies rise in your own country, take the market freed by leaving foreign companies, build up the solid R&D without being oppressed by anti-competitive incumbent and then come to challenge those foreign companies in third markets.
That is, for example, why Microsoft wants Chinese to pirate windows instead of leaving the country. Unlike many others, they understand that if they do, in a matter of few years there will be a powerful competitor to all Microsoft products born in China out of necessity.
Same thing that happened to Google in China (Baidu) and Facebook in Russia (Vkontakte). Many US companies are currently desperately trying to keep the information in Europe to meet similar EU demands, and their business is slowing here massively because of NSA/privacy issues, while European companies are rising to pick up the slack.
"Unlike the global warming climate model" citation needed. Desperately, considering just how many scientists and how much compute power is given to the task.
We're finishing building a new nuclear power plant (it was supposed to have been ready a couple of years ago, but Areva messed up) and another one is in the works. Most of the shortfall is because Olkiluoto 3 plant was supposed to have been finished, and the fact that we have a long term deal to help finance Sosnovy Bor nuclear plant on Russian side and Narva shale rock plants on Estonian side by buying power from those states in long term.
So no, not at all. If anything, we're looking at less imports once Olkiluoto 3 is finally finished.
I was wondering when one of the "oh the new start menu is great, it's just misunderstood and needs to be relabeled" goblins crawls out of his cave to poop his bullshit on this thread. Did the epic failure of 8 teach you nothing? We WANT the proper tree menu in start menu. Not your shitty catastrophe that can't even have a proper tree structure. An actual, usable start menu.
Go back to your cave. Eight is dead as is (hopefully) start screen. Even microsoft is apparently starting to get it.
Bullshit. This is the original statement with important part bolded:
I live in city of Tampere, and buy electricity from provider in Kouvola (https://www.kssenergia.fi/). The distance between our cities is several hundred kilometers, but this works because electric grid is unified, and what actually happens is that provider feeds a certain amount of energy into the grid, and whatever energy I take out is billed according to our contract. Provider is required to feed this much power (+ certain surplus for transmission) into the grid at its local exchange.
At no part was there a suggestion that consumer dictates who generates their electricity. All that is claimed is that there is a common pool, and you can decide who to pay to fill the pool for the amount you're taking out of it.
Thing is, we are very sheltered from global effects, because none of the major symptoms of global warming are visible in Fennoscandian region due to persistent environmental factors, such as rising land that is rising much faster than sea levels, or the fact that Gulf Stream effectively amortises us from most of the extreme weather effects.
The main things that they see are things like price fluctuations, many of which are in fact beneficial to farmers who produce the good that is going to be increasingly scarce.
Slashdot Mirror
That is what various small business subsidies are for. In modern world, small business is already largely unviable without them due to effects of globalization on the economy and impact of large international conglomerates.
They do comply with them when they work in there. I have several friends who work for oil refinement industry who had to work there. They tell amazing stories of the hoops companies jump through to be able to operate in the Kingdom.
You seem to view "increased costs to customers" as a greater evil than "not obeying local laws".
I find your view downright appalling.
There are other choices than those two. Including choice of reducing usage of natural gas and oil in the first place because they become too costly.
I'm saying the exact opposite. It takes a warped mind to interpret my words in the exact opposite way that they are intended.
If you look at EU, it's choke full of examples of exact opposite of what you're claiming, and most of the examples that are actually like you're claiming are found on the national level.
Completely ok as long as these people do business in EU, as far as it pertains to business in EU. Same applies to all states, including US.
In other words, I think that some of the US approach to the same situation is over the top because it concerns business done outside US.
I have absolutely no problem for the same rules applying to one man operations and large business, so long as they are fair for consumers and states those consumers live in. In fact, one of the biggest problems in business/state relations today is that business tends to use the "but small business would suffer" in the same way that power hungry politicians use "think of the children". That is to circumvent the common good and allow them to profiteer at expense of everyone else.
In a democratic society, recourse becomes available after majority of population is informed of harm caused by the issue and pressure their representatives to change the law.
As a result, information and its presentation in mass media is important. Regardless of the fact that US is more of an oligarchy than democracy today.
Can't do it "yet". That's the important part. There's no demand for second service with same capabilities when first one delivers those already.
If first service is blocked, demand appears and within a short time, someone fills the void.
That was my argument, yes. The old bullshit argument used by several companies, including google (which was the most visible one, but far from the only one) was that if they do not have an office or a datacenter in the country but they serve the local customers, they don't have to obey local laws.
This argument has been shot down in flames and in fact the new commission under Juncker as well as large member states will highly likely push for more limits on such operations (according to his official agenda list), as well as more inclusive legislative control (such as the current large business taxation changes that are passing various stages of approval across many member states).
If you have any customer relations in the region, you do in fact operate there. The argument you are trying - that if you don't have a direct office in the region you don't have to obey the local law has been tried in the court of law and shot down in flames across EU many times.
Blocking servers is currently on the table in EU, it's just not implemented yet. Juncker has made it very clear that one of parts of his IT agenda is to push for actions like those to prevent US monopolies from both serving EU customers to US intelligence on a silver platter as well as completely chocking life out of all competition through monopolistic action.
There are many other implementations, such as fines however.
WTO has all the appropriate clauses for "national security reasons" (put there by US no less) and NSA has provided all the necessary proof.
This is a double whammy of past actions catching up.
Other nations are not currently superpowers, nor do they have targeted killing programs, or conduct wars far away from their borders.
That naturally places US on top of the "existential threats" list to essentially all other countries on the globe, and as a result it faces much tighter scrutiny.
"But it's okay, because here's a Russian service that can do all the same things, enjoy".
Injected below if they are nice.
And if they are not, it's just going to redirect to it automatically.
Or did you not learn anything from what happened to Google and Baidu?
Incorrect. EU directives are not about "EU companies" but "companies operating in EU". I.e. companies that store information about EU citizens.
These measures appear to be more broad in their storage requirements, but they closely mirror European regulation in terms of who they are directed at.
"Few countries" amount to pretty much entire world outside anglo countries.
Actually, as we have seen in China, this is bullshit. All that happens is you get similar companies rise in your own country, take the market freed by leaving foreign companies, build up the solid R&D without being oppressed by anti-competitive incumbent and then come to challenge those foreign companies in third markets.
That is, for example, why Microsoft wants Chinese to pirate windows instead of leaving the country. Unlike many others, they understand that if they do, in a matter of few years there will be a powerful competitor to all Microsoft products born in China out of necessity.
Same thing that happened to Google in China (Baidu) and Facebook in Russia (Vkontakte). Many US companies are currently desperately trying to keep the information in Europe to meet similar EU demands, and their business is slowing here massively because of NSA/privacy issues, while European companies are rising to pick up the slack.
"Unlike the global warming climate model" citation needed. Desperately, considering just how many scientists and how much compute power is given to the task.
It was peer reviewed and found to be incorrect within a month of publication.
How on earth can you compare this to global warming?
We're finishing building a new nuclear power plant (it was supposed to have been ready a couple of years ago, but Areva messed up) and another one is in the works. Most of the shortfall is because Olkiluoto 3 plant was supposed to have been finished, and the fact that we have a long term deal to help finance Sosnovy Bor nuclear plant on Russian side and Narva shale rock plants on Estonian side by buying power from those states in long term.
So no, not at all. If anything, we're looking at less imports once Olkiluoto 3 is finally finished.
Talking about current implementation of it obviously, as is referenced in the topic.
In case you're buying a new PC, you may wish to get 9 instead of 7 if it turns out to be good.
If you're a business, you may wish to upgrade to 9 instead of 7 from XP. And maybe eventually to 9 at some point if you're already on 7.
I was wondering when one of the "oh the new start menu is great, it's just misunderstood and needs to be relabeled" goblins crawls out of his cave to poop his bullshit on this thread.
Did the epic failure of 8 teach you nothing? We WANT the proper tree menu in start menu. Not your shitty catastrophe that can't even have a proper tree structure. An actual, usable start menu.
Go back to your cave. Eight is dead as is (hopefully) start screen. Even microsoft is apparently starting to get it.
Bullshit. This is the original statement with important part bolded:
I live in city of Tampere, and buy electricity from provider in Kouvola (https://www.kssenergia.fi/). The distance between our cities is several hundred kilometers, but this works because electric grid is unified, and what actually happens is that provider feeds a certain amount of energy into the grid, and whatever energy I take out is billed according to our contract. Provider is required to feed this much power (+ certain surplus for transmission) into the grid at its local exchange.
At no part was there a suggestion that consumer dictates who generates their electricity. All that is claimed is that there is a common pool, and you can decide who to pay to fill the pool for the amount you're taking out of it.
Thing is, we are very sheltered from global effects, because none of the major symptoms of global warming are visible in Fennoscandian region due to persistent environmental factors, such as rising land that is rising much faster than sea levels, or the fact that Gulf Stream effectively amortises us from most of the extreme weather effects.
The main things that they see are things like price fluctuations, many of which are in fact beneficial to farmers who produce the good that is going to be increasingly scarce.