You can't use the product yet but there is major potential there for a Rust based high speed engine built from the ground up for parallelism. They could very easily lag the competition for the next couple of years then leapfrog them.
This would never work. The idiot who didn't think I was passing fast enough because I wasn't going 20 over the speed limit would report me. A good percentage of the idiots on the road think the people driving by the rules are the assholes causing the problems.
Well yes, as the joke goes "everyone going faster than me is a maniac, everyone slower an asshole". But I suspect that given only 2 it would be saved for bad drivers not slow drivers.
As for the cost of 40k lives you do have a good point. That does justify a lot of expensive.
There is a problem with that. Law enforcement in the USA is dependent on most people pleading guilty they system isn't designed for people going to trial. If you lose your license for a month or a year, you have middle class defendants with means going to trial. Moreover let's not forget about the effects of push back. People who have negative experiences with police tend to be more suspicious of them and tend not to convict. So as you increase the level you decrease the conviction rate, further increasing the benefits of going to trial. Your cost of enforcement far exceeds the benefit.
I think the far better system is frequent small penalties. Something like every driver gets two send in up to 2 license plate "assholes" per day. You erase one per month. If you get to 3, $50 fine no. Limit that everyone can only report the same driver once per year.
Anyone understands how this works? There are a lot of data features of my phone that pair with driving. GPS being an obvious one with traffic updates. Another is podcast downloads. And if those data networks are open then I assume most texting services other than SMS work. SMS I figure for most people is a tiny percentage of their traffic at this point. So unless they are blacklisting particular services...?
And of course phone calls have to work: reliable phone while driving is the main reason I own a cell phone in the first place. I assume I'm not alone in this.
I think easy would be adding to automated responses for all messaging services, "Driving, need to give you a long response, call my cell."
Lots of companies and applications make use of the Amazon API. So that one I see in the wild a lot. OpenStack is implementing a compatibility layer for that reason. I'd assume the reason for an HP cloud is to allow IT department that have heavily outsourced to HP to pull Amazon based cloud applications back into the main administration. I.E. a war against rogue IT.
I think you should ask South America about whether you really want that. In any case were that true you wouldn't be worried about what USA courts rule about Microsoft now would you? It would just be irrelevant and of no concern.
Microsoft offer to keep customer data in a geographical region of the customer's choice. They may not offer this to U.S. customers, but they definitely offer it to European customers.
I think this is our core point of disagreement. I'm asserting this is 100% false.
a) What they say unambiguously under the security section of their website b) What is unambiguously true about their architecture c) That they offer another product that does do what you are claiming Microsoft is promising to do with Azure Cloud Service because Azure Cloud Service doesn't offer this sort of protection.
I think that's pretty good evidence you are dead wrong about them making the promises you are claiming they are making. Clearly if Microsoft is promising to European customers that their data can't move while running a system administered in the USA that's a real problem. That's simply fraud, forget about the disagreements regarding EU data laws.
the standard practice since at least the mid 19th century is to incorporate a foreign subsidiary, shielding the parent company from legal liability (much like corporations themselves exist primarily to shield their owners from legal liability) - the parent company isn't operating in a foreign jurisdiction, the subsidiary is.
And that's not quite what's happening here. MOIL is leasing a physical data center from another Microsoft subsidiary. They are purchasing port from a variety of network connections. MOIL is buying services from Microsoft USA but get them at a discount since they are bringing their own infrastructure. MOIL is selling a service to Europeans based on those things. MOIL is not the one offering the service however they are just offering to resell it. Same as when MOIL sells licenses for Microsoft Office and Microsoft Windows, neither of which they write.
MOIL does not operate Azure. I am an Azure channel partner. I can resell Azure. With other cloud services (not Azure) I could even white label them and sell them under my company's brand name. That doesn't mean I get to run them or set policy. MOIL just sells Azure and rents some physical infrastructure that Azure uses. Azure is not Irish, it doesn't claim to be Irish and it doesn't operate with European law. It is an imported good.
If Microsoft Ireland stores data of EU citizens, it must follow Irish data protection laws.
MOIL has already told companies they can't follow Irish data protection laws so don't upload that stuff. Unambiguously and publicly.
"Uncle Sam made me do it" is not a valid defense in front of any European court.
MOIL employees don't do anything. It gets done by USA employees. The second you upload any data of any kind to Azure anywhere in the planet the USA administrators have access to it. The breach of European privacy laws doesn't happen when Microsoft hands the data over, it happens on upload. Which is what they say publicly. The defense is not going to be "Uncle Sam made me do it" the defense is going to be the people who uploaded the data exported the data to the USA as was clearly publicly indicated on Microsoft's website.
Now if you are correct (and again I doubt it) that MOIL Europe is making promises they can't keep about this data being private in these secret contracts you claim exist, then certainly they are going to answer to European courts for having made those promises. In which case MOIL gets fined and pays damages for having made promises that Microsoft USA, from whom they are buying the service, has no intention of honoring.
___
The problem as far as a lawyer goes is these secret contracts. That's the point of dispute. We aren't disagreeing about the laws. In practice I do agree a lawyer can help with how they are interpreted. What I suspect is that the laws are going to have to be weakened in practice since Europeans want to be pa
I don't know it would have worked, but I think it is likely. I don't see much downside if Cuba really is interested in increased trade. The embargo is already very unpopular (2::1 in the USA) even with Castro having a 95% disapproval rating. Lots of motions to engage more with Cuba have been suggested. So in 2009 when Obama is reaching out, Cuba reaches back. They make some reconciliation gestures. Obama and the Democrats now see a popular diplomatic win. The approval rating goes up. Most crucially Cuba does stuff to divide the Cuban community in Florida so it becomes politically safe for Democrats to ram through and end to the embargo and the embargo is gone.
As far as the degree of trade that's up to Cuba. They could easily go back to being the Las Vegas of the East Coast, Atlantic City is a poor imitation of what Cuba used to be.
China economically is not communist at this point. What's communist about the economy of china? It is a highly regulated state capitalism with lots of corruption.
Any complex economy has to get individuals to act against their short term interests in advance the long term interests of the society. Capitalism primarily uses negative reinforcement (removing bad things) and reward (giving good things). Communism in theory doesn't have an answer of how to get individuals to do this. That's not a small failing.
If it starts rewarding people then it turns into democratic socialism. If it starts using punishment effectively reimplementing slavery via. command and control then it meets resistance. That resistance needs to be overcome by state terror or else the system fails.
___
Let's take your example Albert and Hahnel's Parecon. They create an entire system of facilitation boards to set a price for wages in various industries. Which mostly just recreates pricing labor. A proven way of determine how bad or good a job is across all the difference preference profiles in the economy is how much you have to pay people who would be attracted to that type of work to do it. What does all that complexity buy the system that pricing doesn't have?
Almost everything they aim to achieve is more easily achieved in a capitalist society with a strong welfare state and progressive taxation.
Then on top of that, I had a discussion with Albert about black market economics. He admits his system creates tremendous incentives for individuals inside production facilities to divert production and trade on the black market. (Note: I'm using black market here in the technical not popular sense. Goods that are legal or only slightly discouraged but sold via. unapproved vendors). In America we mostly don't have a black market, proven by the point that I have to define it with some exceptions like internet escorts. The reason is there aren't incentives to divert production. Now how does paracon avoid diversion when they create these huge incentives without far reaching economic monitoring? And if they don't how do they avoid the next step of full on black market business forming inside the economy and being more appealing to high productivity members of the community? In other words how does paracon not end up just being a group of communes trading with one another? And if that is all it is, why not just set it up in the USA right now?
The USA I don't think ever forced markets open with violence. Japan there was a threat of violence but to the best of my knowledge that's the worst we've ever done. The British I agree forced markets open that way. Though I think you are missing a bit of context on the opium wars.
In 2009 Obama made massive changes to our policy losing restrictions. He reached out. A response thanking Obama, arguing for better relations and backing Obama in international forms would have worked. Cuba could have given Obama a diplomatic win and won an end to the poor relationship with the USA.
In practice the tablet market has completely forked.
Android owns the $75-150 market mostly in Asia where people use tablets as a form of personal television with some internet features Apples owns the $350+ market where people use tables to run tablet based software.
There is (in terms of tens of millions of units) no middle of the market.
I agree with you it seems like way too much. I'd want to know about the duration. Is this something like a 1 year or 10 year contract? Does it include things like free promotions from players: winning quarterback on why he did so well, "I always carry my Microsoft Surface with me in my car so I can study new plays to use against next week's team".
I do get the idea. We know from Mac vs. PC studies ( example http://cdn.redmondpie.com/wp-c... ) Windows users are: less liberal, older, more conventional in their tastes, late adopters. Which I suspect correlates fairly strongly with people who would be influenced by football and don't own an iPad but could afford one. "The NFL can afford any tablet it wants and they pick Microsoft. Sure Apple is good for artists and college students but the safe / conventional / practical choice is Microsoft"....
I don't think it is likely to be successful because people aren't that stupid. The reality is that Windows 8 is more innovative than iOS, less practical, less conventional and quite iconoclastic in terms of the userbase. The advertising and the product conflict.
Microsoft has the problem of trying to be all things to all people. Not an easy place to be.
iPad has reached that point that Kleenex (facial tissue) or Scotch tape (clear adhesive tape). People can say "I want an iPad but not one of those expensive Apple ones" and mean they want a tablet type device. I've never used "clear adhesive tape" in conversation even when I knew the brand wasn't Scotch. I'll still grab a box of Puff's brand Kleenex. Apple is so dominant in tablets that's the way this plays out.
OTOH I suspect the announcers will just correct themselves on air and give Microsoft a good 20 second free commercial to make up for the mistake next week.
What Microsoft is doing is standard US legal practice. They want an unambiguous appealed all the way up ruling. Everyone is agreeing to move forward this way. Which means the contempt fine will just be token. I think both the judge and the government see the problem. Were the government serious about wanting the data they would not accept a fine. Instead something like the court issues a warrant, the FBI would walk into the Azure USA hosting location and tell the employees to move the data now or face immediate arrest. Which BTW could happen the next time. Probably one of the reasons Microsoft is fighting this one is because the prosecutor doesn't care very much and everyone agrees this case is to set precedent. Remember America is a common law country not a civil law country like most of the EU. So I think you are reading much to much into Microsoft fighting this.
As for the article. The article is wrong on the facts. So I think the article is confusing Azure pack where what's said in the article is true with Azure cloud service where the whole system doesn't work that way.
Or another possibility is that contrary to European/.ers EU regulators are fine with US courts having the ability to seize documents because they don't like the privacy laws and think they interfere with law enforcement. We do know of other situations where European governments have used the USA legal system as an end run around their own courts and legal systems.
I don't think Microsoft would promise something they could never deliver in their contracts. I've never seen them do that. If this were EMC, then sure that would be possible. But Microsoft doesn't like to go into obvious breach of contract.
Well again I disagree that Azure ever claimed to be an EU datacenter. The claimed to be a global cloud service that used an EU datacenter for delivery. For example if I created contact in Italian I can upload it to Alkamai in the USA and it will distribute locally to Italy. On the other hand if someone in Mexico wanted to watch it and I allowed that, Alkamai would pass a copy over to them in Mexico. Alkamai is a global network.
But how is Microsoft going to know what customer data is legal to export and what is illegal? Holding Microsoft responsible for that is incoherent. Their policy is anything in Azure must be export legal because they freely move data all the time.
The EU's laws assumed a corporate owned data center for a one country company. They really don't make sense for global companies. They don't make sense for hosting companies with international backup and/or DR. They don't make sense for cloud companies. I think what's going to happen is best practices are going to emerge. And those best practices are likely going to say European companies have to use Europe only cloud, DR, backup, distribution services. They can't be on the global internet because they want protections that the global internet doesn't provide. Which means a European version of Azure. Which is fine, Microsoft licenses Azure's technology and there are Europe only hosting companies. Likely a Europe only version of Alkamai. OpenStack of course is no problem. Amazon doesn't sell their technology and won't but OpenStack has a rapidly developing AWS command set so European hosting companies can just use that. Etc...
A lawyer isn't going to add much. European hosting and cloud companies are just going to experience a ton of new employees.
EU Directive 95/46/EC is a directive to countries in the EU to implement laws. It isn't a directive for Microsoft. What it does say is that the countries need to implement laws which protect privacy. So first off it is the laws that come from the directive not the directive that have anything to do with Microsoft. Now if we tried to apply the directive directly to Microsoft one of the exceptions is law enforcement which would apply in this case, so I'm not even sure there is an issue at all under that directive. But assuming there is an issue rules that govern companies preventing them from exporting data to countries not bound by such laws. The USA is clearly a country that doesn't support European privacy laws. So Microsoft by announcing that all data uploaded to them is exported would be a non-complying company and thus it would illegal for other companies in the EU to share personal data with them.
Which is to say applications that store personal data can't use Azure as their backend. Which is precisely what Microsoft is telling their customers.
I'm complaining about a weak spot and how the BSD licensed induced this. You keep trying to run away from the simple fact that we had multiple systems and the single biggest failure was the result of a BSD induced license. The MIT wrote a bad license and as a result in 2014 Linux still is behind in graphics. The kernel guys wrote a good license and as a result in 2014 Linux has arguably the best kernel around.
I'm done repeating myself. You are just denying the obvious.
Apple makes a nice laptop. Linux is on 2 billion containers at Google alone. In server Linux has replaced almost all the proprietary Unixes. In embedded it is far and away the biggest player, all the open source players combined are probably around 1/50th the percentage for Linux. In cellular and tablets huge chunks of Android are GPLed. Huge chunks are proprietary. Less comparatively is BSD licensed.
So if your criteria of success is usage your assertions about the failures of free software aren't supported by the facts. The goal of the GNU project was to create a free Unix comparable to the commercial Unixes. It went beyond that and created a free Unix so good it killed off most of the commercial Unixes.
Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla has their own billion dollar corporation, Samsung: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
You can't use the product yet but there is major potential there for a Rust based high speed engine built from the ground up for parallelism. They could very easily lag the competition for the next couple of years then leapfrog them.
Well yes, as the joke goes "everyone going faster than me is a maniac, everyone slower an asshole". But I suspect that given only 2 it would be saved for bad drivers not slow drivers.
As for the cost of 40k lives you do have a good point. That does justify a lot of expensive.
There is a problem with that. Law enforcement in the USA is dependent on most people pleading guilty they system isn't designed for people going to trial. If you lose your license for a month or a year, you have middle class defendants with means going to trial. Moreover let's not forget about the effects of push back. People who have negative experiences with police tend to be more suspicious of them and tend not to convict. So as you increase the level you decrease the conviction rate, further increasing the benefits of going to trial. Your cost of enforcement far exceeds the benefit.
I think the far better system is frequent small penalties. Something like every driver gets two send in up to 2 license plate "assholes" per day. You erase one per month. If you get to 3, $50 fine no. Limit that everyone can only report the same driver once per year.
Which ones?
Anyone understands how this works? There are a lot of data features of my phone that pair with driving. GPS being an obvious one with traffic updates. Another is podcast downloads. And if those data networks are open then I assume most texting services other than SMS work. SMS I figure for most people is a tiny percentage of their traffic at this point. So unless they are blacklisting particular services...?
And of course phone calls have to work: reliable phone while driving is the main reason I own a cell phone in the first place. I assume I'm not alone in this.
I think easy would be adding to automated responses for all messaging services, "Driving, need to give you a long response, call my cell."
Lots of companies and applications make use of the Amazon API. So that one I see in the wild a lot. OpenStack is implementing a compatibility layer for that reason. I'd assume the reason for an HP cloud is to allow IT department that have heavily outsourced to HP to pull Amazon based cloud applications back into the main administration. I.E. a war against rogue IT.
I think you should ask South America about whether you really want that. In any case were that true you wouldn't be worried about what USA courts rule about Microsoft now would you? It would just be irrelevant and of no concern.
I think this is our core point of disagreement. I'm asserting this is 100% false.
a) What they say unambiguously under the security section of their website
b) What is unambiguously true about their architecture
c) That they offer another product that does do what you are claiming Microsoft is promising to do with Azure Cloud Service because Azure Cloud Service doesn't offer this sort of protection.
I think that's pretty good evidence you are dead wrong about them making the promises you are claiming they are making. Clearly if Microsoft is promising to European customers that their data can't move while running a system administered in the USA that's a real problem. That's simply fraud, forget about the disagreements regarding EU data laws.
And that's not quite what's happening here. MOIL is leasing a physical data center from another Microsoft subsidiary. They are purchasing port from a variety of network connections. MOIL is buying services from Microsoft USA but get them at a discount since they are bringing their own infrastructure. MOIL is selling a service to Europeans based on those things. MOIL is not the one offering the service however they are just offering to resell it. Same as when MOIL sells licenses for Microsoft Office and Microsoft Windows, neither of which they write.
MOIL does not operate Azure. I am an Azure channel partner. I can resell Azure. With other cloud services (not Azure) I could even white label them and sell them under my company's brand name. That doesn't mean I get to run them or set policy. MOIL just sells Azure and rents some physical infrastructure that Azure uses. Azure is not Irish, it doesn't claim to be Irish and it doesn't operate with European law. It is an imported good.
MOIL has already told companies they can't follow Irish data protection laws so don't upload that stuff. Unambiguously and publicly.
MOIL employees don't do anything. It gets done by USA employees. The second you upload any data of any kind to Azure anywhere in the planet the USA administrators have access to it. The breach of European privacy laws doesn't happen when Microsoft hands the data over, it happens on upload. Which is what they say publicly. The defense is not going to be "Uncle Sam made me do it" the defense is going to be the people who uploaded the data exported the data to the USA as was clearly publicly indicated on Microsoft's website.
Now if you are correct (and again I doubt it) that MOIL Europe is making promises they can't keep about this data being private in these secret contracts you claim exist, then certainly they are going to answer to European courts for having made those promises. In which case MOIL gets fined and pays damages for having made promises that Microsoft USA, from whom they are buying the service, has no intention of honoring.
___
The problem as far as a lawyer goes is these secret contracts. That's the point of dispute. We aren't disagreeing about the laws. In practice I do agree a lawyer can help with how they are interpreted. What I suspect is that the laws are going to have to be weakened in practice since Europeans want to be pa
I don't know it would have worked, but I think it is likely. I don't see much downside if Cuba really is interested in increased trade. The embargo is already very unpopular (2::1 in the USA) even with Castro having a 95% disapproval rating. Lots of motions to engage more with Cuba have been suggested. So in 2009 when Obama is reaching out, Cuba reaches back. They make some reconciliation gestures. Obama and the Democrats now see a popular diplomatic win. The approval rating goes up. Most crucially Cuba does stuff to divide the Cuban community in Florida so it becomes politically safe for Democrats to ram through and end to the embargo and the embargo is gone.
As far as the degree of trade that's up to Cuba. They could easily go back to being the Las Vegas of the East Coast, Atlantic City is a poor imitation of what Cuba used to be.
China economically is not communist at this point. What's communist about the economy of china? It is a highly regulated state capitalism with lots of corruption.
Any complex economy has to get individuals to act against their short term interests in advance the long term interests of the society. Capitalism primarily uses negative reinforcement (removing bad things) and reward (giving good things). Communism in theory doesn't have an answer of how to get individuals to do this. That's not a small failing.
If it starts rewarding people then it turns into democratic socialism. If it starts using punishment effectively reimplementing slavery via. command and control then it meets resistance. That resistance needs to be overcome by state terror or else the system fails.
___
Let's take your example Albert and Hahnel's Parecon.
They create an entire system of facilitation boards to set a price for wages in various industries. Which mostly just recreates pricing labor. A proven way of determine how bad or good a job is across all the difference preference profiles in the economy is how much you have to pay people who would be attracted to that type of work to do it. What does all that complexity buy the system that pricing doesn't have?
Almost everything they aim to achieve is more easily achieved in a capitalist society with a strong welfare state and progressive taxation.
Then on top of that, I had a discussion with Albert about black market economics. He admits his system creates tremendous incentives for individuals inside production facilities to divert production and trade on the black market. (Note: I'm using black market here in the technical not popular sense. Goods that are legal or only slightly discouraged but sold via. unapproved vendors). In America we mostly don't have a black market, proven by the point that I have to define it with some exceptions like internet escorts. The reason is there aren't incentives to divert production. Now how does paracon avoid diversion when they create these huge incentives without far reaching economic monitoring? And if they don't how do they avoid the next step of full on black market business forming inside the economy and being more appealing to high productivity members of the community? In other words how does paracon not end up just being a group of communes trading with one another? And if that is all it is, why not just set it up in the USA right now?
The USA I don't think ever forced markets open with violence. Japan there was a threat of violence but to the best of my knowledge that's the worst we've ever done. The British I agree forced markets open that way. Though I think you are missing a bit of context on the opium wars.
In 2009 Obama made massive changes to our policy losing restrictions. He reached out. A response thanking Obama, arguing for better relations and backing Obama in international forms would have worked. Cuba could have given Obama a diplomatic win and won an end to the poor relationship with the USA.
Fair enough. Thanks for pointing that out. I'll learn to read one of these days :)
In practice the tablet market has completely forked.
Android owns the $75-150 market mostly in Asia where people use tablets as a form of personal television with some internet features
Apples owns the $350+ market where people use tables to run tablet based software.
There is (in terms of tens of millions of units) no middle of the market.
I agree with you it seems like way too much. I'd want to know about the duration. Is this something like a 1 year or 10 year contract? Does it include things like free promotions from players: winning quarterback on why he did so well, "I always carry my Microsoft Surface with me in my car so I can study new plays to use against next week's team".
I do get the idea. We know from Mac vs. PC studies ( example http://cdn.redmondpie.com/wp-c... ) Windows users are: less liberal, older, more conventional in their tastes, late adopters. Which I suspect correlates fairly strongly with people who would be influenced by football and don't own an iPad but could afford one. "The NFL can afford any tablet it wants and they pick Microsoft. Sure Apple is good for artists and college students but the safe / conventional / practical choice is Microsoft"....
I don't think it is likely to be successful because people aren't that stupid. The reality is that Windows 8 is more innovative than iOS, less practical, less conventional and quite iconoclastic in terms of the userbase. The advertising and the product conflict.
Microsoft has the problem of trying to be all things to all people. Not an easy place to be.
I wrote the same comment below but your's is wittier.
iPad has reached that point that Kleenex (facial tissue) or Scotch tape (clear adhesive tape). People can say "I want an iPad but not one of those expensive Apple ones" and mean they want a tablet type device. I've never used "clear adhesive tape" in conversation even when I knew the brand wasn't Scotch. I'll still grab a box of Puff's brand Kleenex. Apple is so dominant in tablets that's the way this plays out.
OTOH I suspect the announcers will just correct themselves on air and give Microsoft a good 20 second free commercial to make up for the mistake next week.
What Microsoft is doing is standard US legal practice. They want an unambiguous appealed all the way up ruling. Everyone is agreeing to move forward this way. Which means the contempt fine will just be token. I think both the judge and the government see the problem. Were the government serious about wanting the data they would not accept a fine. Instead something like the court issues a warrant, the FBI would walk into the Azure USA hosting location and tell the employees to move the data now or face immediate arrest. Which BTW could happen the next time. Probably one of the reasons Microsoft is fighting this one is because the prosecutor doesn't care very much and everyone agrees this case is to set precedent. Remember America is a common law country not a civil law country like most of the EU. So I think you are reading much to much into Microsoft fighting this.
As for the article. The article is wrong on the facts. So I think the article is confusing Azure pack where what's said in the article is true with Azure cloud service where the whole system doesn't work that way.
Or another possibility is that contrary to European /.ers EU regulators are fine with US courts having the ability to seize documents because they don't like the privacy laws and think they interfere with law enforcement. We do know of other situations where European governments have used the USA legal system as an end run around their own courts and legal systems.
I don't think Microsoft would promise something they could never deliver in their contracts. I've never seen them do that. If this were EMC, then sure that would be possible. But Microsoft doesn't like to go into obvious breach of contract.
Well again I disagree that Azure ever claimed to be an EU datacenter. The claimed to be a global cloud service that used an EU datacenter for delivery. For example if I created contact in Italian I can upload it to Alkamai in the USA and it will distribute locally to Italy. On the other hand if someone in Mexico wanted to watch it and I allowed that, Alkamai would pass a copy over to them in Mexico. Alkamai is a global network.
But how is Microsoft going to know what customer data is legal to export and what is illegal? Holding Microsoft responsible for that is incoherent. Their policy is anything in Azure must be export legal because they freely move data all the time.
The EU's laws assumed a corporate owned data center for a one country company. They really don't make sense for global companies. They don't make sense for hosting companies with international backup and/or DR. They don't make sense for cloud companies. I think what's going to happen is best practices are going to emerge. And those best practices are likely going to say European companies have to use Europe only cloud, DR, backup, distribution services. They can't be on the global internet because they want protections that the global internet doesn't provide. Which means a European version of Azure. Which is fine, Microsoft licenses Azure's technology and there are Europe only hosting companies. Likely a Europe only version of Alkamai. OpenStack of course is no problem. Amazon doesn't sell their technology and won't but OpenStack has a rapidly developing AWS command set so European hosting companies can just use that. Etc...
A lawyer isn't going to add much. European hosting and cloud companies are just going to experience a ton of new employees.
EU Directive 95/46/EC is a directive to countries in the EU to implement laws. It isn't a directive for Microsoft. What it does say is that the countries need to implement laws which protect privacy. So first off it is the laws that come from the directive not the directive that have anything to do with Microsoft. Now if we tried to apply the directive directly to Microsoft one of the exceptions is law enforcement which would apply in this case, so I'm not even sure there is an issue at all under that directive. But assuming there is an issue rules that govern companies preventing them from exporting data to countries not bound by such laws. The USA is clearly a country that doesn't support European privacy laws. So Microsoft by announcing that all data uploaded to them is exported would be a non-complying company and thus it would illegal for other companies in the EU to share personal data with them.
Which is to say applications that store personal data can't use Azure as their backend. Which is precisely what Microsoft is telling their customers.
Employees of Microsoft working in, living in and generally citizens of the USA.
I'm complaining about a weak spot and how the BSD licensed induced this. You keep trying to run away from the simple fact that we had multiple systems and the single biggest failure was the result of a BSD induced license. The MIT wrote a bad license and as a result in 2014 Linux still is behind in graphics. The kernel guys wrote a good license and as a result in 2014 Linux has arguably the best kernel around.
I'm done repeating myself. You are just denying the obvious.
Well put. I'm not sure why the European /.ers are having such a hard time with this.
Apple makes a nice laptop. Linux is on 2 billion containers at Google alone. In server Linux has replaced almost all the proprietary Unixes. In embedded it is far and away the biggest player, all the open source players combined are probably around 1/50th the percentage for Linux. In cellular and tablets huge chunks of Android are GPLed. Huge chunks are proprietary. Less comparatively is BSD licensed.
So if your criteria of success is usage your assertions about the failures of free software aren't supported by the facts. The goal of the GNU project was to create a free Unix comparable to the commercial Unixes. It went beyond that and created a free Unix so good it killed off most of the commercial Unixes.