What does IT spending have to do with military targets?
I didn't say they had. However it's a perfectly good example of why they might have the right to keep some information secret. I also ended my post with a reference to the contract and it's terms. I see you chose to ignore that?
I love how you "struck" back by calling my attitude arrogant and superior. That's about what I expected, or you would denounce my "socialist" ways.
I did not claim superiority, simply that we often are open in ways the US might not be.
For example you can search online and look up all tax forms for every citizen in my country. Or how about the email of the prime minister? All the incoming and outgoing documents for each and every public office?
I'm sure you have access to public information in the US too, but can you accept my claim that in some ways we do things differently?
So, tell me, where is the public information on military targets in the US? Or how about some information about the contracts with the military or the CIA? I'm not saying they have the right to hide everything, they do however have a certain discretion not to publish everything all the time.
If the terms stated that the contract was not to be made public - perhaps they had to stand by it?
I don't really see the problem here, granted some of us might have wanted to know more about the contracts. However it is the right of governments to decide what they make public and not. And for my American friends remember that we have a different view on things like this, usually European governments are MORE open than the US.
First of all, even if the second chamber does approve the law it also has to stand the test in the Court of Cassation (Cour de cassation). If the law is deemed unconstitutional there it will have to be changed.
P.S. Vi har ikke noe liknende i Norge, vi "tester" ikke om lovene er konstitusjonelle eller ikke på samme måte. Det er mer likt det amerikanske systemet hvor man også kan utfordre lover i Høyesterett (føderal).
Actually you could easily do this on the Norwegian Svalbard islands. Not only does it have Arctic conditions, reliable power supplies and high-speed fiber connections to main land Norway/Europe. But it's also a special status island group where citizens of any nation are free to live and work. Being part of Norway it's under a stable, free and democratic government.
Because of it's position close to the North Pole it's heavily used as a satellite communications site by NASA, JAXA and the European Space Agency.
Svalbard Satellite station (SvalSat) was established in 1997 and the rapid expansion of the ground station is changing this perspective. SvalSat is recognized, not only as the northernmost, but also the best-located ground station in the world. The extreme northern location on the Svalbard archipelago, at 78Â13' N, gives SvalSat its unique and favourable position. The satellite coverage at this latitude holds unique opportunities and SvalSat is the only commercial ground station in the world able to provide all-orbit-support (14 of 14 orbits) to owners and operators of polar orbiting satellites.
Of course we trade with the EU, but we are not members of the EU and they have no powers over us.
I should know having studied law and the EU at University. EFTA is a separate entity controlled by Norway, and we police our own compliance or non-compliance. The EU would have to complain to "our" own EFTA Court.
The EU is NOT protectionist, in fact it's focused on free trade. If you're American, you should be one to speak. The US even violates WTO rules to prop up everything from US steel to Boeing.
The EU courts have no jurisdiction in Norway because we are NOT members of the EU. And we don't want to become members thank you very much.
We have our own courts and want to remain a sovereign country.
In fact the trend has just started to change again, the transportation prices are rising making it increasingly profitable to produce closer to home.
Just the other day I read an article from the UK about companies moving manufacturing home from China. And don't forget that the same thing is happening in the US [in some areas].
And China is experiencing problems with higher labor costs following a real lack of available manpower. People in China are getting picky about what jobs they take and the wages they get.
We don't produce any of those things; we produce the plans for such things. Physical manufacture is largely done elsewhere.
Wrong yourself. You better tell my customers that they don't produce those products themselves right here in high-cost Northern Europe. You are making political "points" ignoring the truth or you are simply oblivious to it!
The economy of western Europe, therefore, is developing into one based entirely on producing reality TV shows and suing people for sharing them on the Internet. Hooray.
That is utter rubbish! You might be damn near incompetent and incapable of working but the rest of us are not. From Nokia to Alcatel, Western Europe is full of innovative companies! We produce things in all industries from chemicals, electronics, software to space technology!
It's a very good question that has been asked and answered over and over again in the news. Obviously no US court has the power to do anything in Europe. It's a waste of time and has no hope.
Wagner ("Homer") does not and has never worked for CERN.
The nut job lives in Hawaii, and has probably never even been to Europe. Let him tend his botanical garden and let's hope he gets convicted for his identity theft.
Might Be A Challenge
on
Is AMD Dead Yet?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Did apple's market share explode just recently?
Yes, it did. And in 2007 they shipped millions of machines. And most of them were laptops or uses laptop CPUs. And in the US laptop market Apple had some 20%! That is a considerable market share. I believe the OP was right in saying that AMD would be hard pressed to supply Apple with that many chips - and still serve the rest of their customers. But that's just my guess.
If we gave them all implants and the same percentage of people got cancer that's 30 to 60 MILLION people!
No, I said the OP claimed a HUGE percentage got cancer when in fact they don't. Secondly there was no research done on humans, and mice are not humans.
The fact that 1-2% could even possibly get cancer does not mean 30-60 million people will get it. Science is a bit more advanced than that. I'm not giving you any credit for your math skills. In fact it's probably unlikely they will get cancer at all from this "potential" threat. You are just making outrageous claims from no evidence what so ever.
I would take those odds, they're really quite good, but I don't want to be tagged none the less.
The fact that is might still cause or promote cancer means I'll sit the next round out.
The fact? The suggestion that it might is enough to make you avoid it? The OP claimed it caused cancer in a "high number" of cases. That was blatantly untrue in fact, there was no evidence to back up his claim.
I certainly won't bring up the discussion on what foods cause cancer and at what rate. Or how much sun you can take before you get skin cancer. The fumes from your house or ground gas might cause cancer. Or the petrol in your car. Never mind fried foods. Come on, there are risks everywhere. Some are smaller than others.
But if the possibility that it might is enough for you: don't eat anything.
implanted RFID have been known to cause a high incidence of cancer around the implantation area
Known? Implanting "subcutaneous foreign objects" might cause cancer, see the quote below. And the research done on mice indicates it typically happens in one percent or two.
"It's important to emphasize that those studies are not necessarily sufficient to view these implants as known hazards. The data suggest that the devices foster cancer by causing inflammation of the tissues that encapsulate them. There is a large amount of scientific literature linking cancer and inflammation (the National Cancer Institute has some information on the matter). RFID tags turn out not to be the only form of animal tagging that causes cancer through inflammation; standard metallic ear tags can do so as well. That paper also notes that there have been a number of case reports where human prosthetic implants have induced cancers in the surrounding tissues.", taken from Ars Technica
I'd be much more impressed with EU anti-trust efforts if they weren't pretty much aimed at non-EU companies
That's just bullshit, the EU regularly goes after European companies you just don't hear or read about it because they're not American companies. Typical American complaints.
Replace "press" with "search engine" in that and it applies quite well the Pirate Bay.
Yes, it does, doesn't it? And the government didn't act in either case.
And there have been cases in Scandinavia where even just linking has been enough to close you down. I would not rule it out even if you claim to be "just" a search engine.
The court isn't the Danish government?
Did you intentionally read that the wrong way? Because the sentence clearly says the IFPI is not a part of the Danish government. The courts are part of the Danish state, but they don't act on their own. The party that brought the case to the court is who's responsible for the issue.
kära granne, is this when I tell you norway is only a part of the swedish/norway union, ohh wait did they disolve the union in 1905, f**k
Come on, it was just a joke!:)
Of course, the fact that the company is Norwegian owned doesn't change much, but the management does what it's owners want. So I suppose Telenor might want Tele2 Denmark to appeal the verdict to sell more. Or it could be the management decided on their own they had to fight it so they don't loose customers. All the same, I was just joking.
And before that short period of the Swedish-Norwegian Union we spent 400-500 years with Denmark:D
Denmark... since they've clearly taken the first step of controlling the internet
You think this is the first such action? What do you call taking down Oink? Or Tv-links.co.uk? That happened in the UK a few months ago by the way. Or Sweden attacking ThePirateBay? This is not a new or innovative form of policy.
You are not looking at it from the right angle. I am obviously not saying that the entire EU ministry is agreeing on everything.
I think it's you who's not looking at it from the right angle. Europe and the EU is like the Eurovision Song Contest - everyone agrees within the regional subgroups, but are at odds with the rest of Europe.
Europe had no cases of internet censorship (except for child pornography, etc)
Sorry, but that's not true. In all the different countries in Europe there have been any number of cases. I especially find a ruling from my own country very interesting. Napster.no was convicted of simply linking to external sites where illegal MP3 files were stored. Or how about the French ruling on Nazi memorabilia on Ebay? There are loads of other cases.
It is ignorant of you to believe that a country cannot have an effect on the rest of the EU
No, I am not saying that people cannot be affected by reading about it. But it has no effect on the legal systems of the different countries. The EU has not harmonized all the different legal systems and courts of Europe. We are still too far away from each other for it to easily cross borders. It's split along historical lines from the Northern European states, Roman Law to Common Law in the UK. There's a huge variety that does not accept foreign verdicts easily. Politicians on the other hand are receptive.
the reason the EU exists is because there are in fact a lot of agreements within the EU.
The reason the EU exists is a well known historical fact. A forced marriage. Now, you might agree on a few things - yet it has proven increasingly difficult to agree on new and important issues such as the Constitution. A few trade laws are not as hard to pass. How about the proposed North African-Mediterranean area Sarkozy wants? Or allowing Turkey into the fold? A European President?
I am actually quite in favor of a federal European Union - but at the moment it's just a dream. You/we are really not that united yet.
In that case, when do we see Google banned (specifically, Google cache)?
I did say probably because it would have to proved in a court of law. Not everything is as clear cut as you or I would like it. Even if I am a lawyer.
blocking such things is done in deference to the victims
I only mentioned it to give you some insight into the way our countries work. It's certainly not done out of deference - it's simply censorship regardless. No court ever ruled the sites on the list are illegal. "First they came for..."
IP and copyright violations are civil acts, not criminal ones
Sorry, that's only in the US. European law can be very different to what you are accustomed to.
TPB, even if all it ever did was IP violation, contains zero evidence of any crime
Again that's not really true according to the example I just told you about (napster.no). Even linking is considering illegal here now. Not that I personally agree with it. They have yet to challenge access to The Pirate Bay here in Norway, but they have a law firm working on it.
create bad precedents
Nope, that's not the way the Scandinavian Civil Law system works. The way precedents work in the Anglo-American Common Law system is not applicable here. It's not really a significant ruling, it's not even a High Court ruling. It can easily be overruled and interpreted away by the higher courts.
...would I be equally guilty if I merely posted a user-modifiable map of where these trunk-selling bootleggers are located?
Well, since you asked, yes, you would probably be guilty here in my country, Norway.
Danish and Norwegian law is quite similar, and we also happen to be subjects of the same EU laws.
A few years ago we had a case against a simple linking site called napster.no. No files were ever stored on the server. Just simple links to other sites where the material was. Not only did they find the person behind it guilty - it went all the way to the Supreme Court.
The point however was that regardless of what your views are on The Pirate Bay if the Danish courts rule that they are violating copyright laws (or other laws) they have the right to take away access to the site. Also did I mention that both in Denmark and Norway we have a government prescribed child pornography censorship and filtering system? All the major ISPs volunteered to join it.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't say they had. However it's a perfectly good example of why they might have the right to keep some information secret. I also ended my post with a reference to the contract and it's terms. I see you chose to ignore that?
I love how you "struck" back by calling my attitude arrogant and superior. That's about what I expected, or you would denounce my "socialist" ways.
I did not claim superiority, simply that we often are open in ways the US might not be.
For example you can search online and look up all tax forms for every citizen in my country. Or how about the email of the prime minister? All the incoming and outgoing documents for each and every public office?
I'm sure you have access to public information in the US too, but can you accept my claim that in some ways we do things differently?
Really? So the public should be able to view your tax returns?
We already have that in Scandinavia, you can search them online or visit the tax office and request them.
The newspapers usually make quite a deal out of it, showing the highest earners for each county and so on.
So, tell me, where is the public information on military targets in the US? Or how about some information about the contracts with the military or the CIA? I'm not saying they have the right to hide everything, they do however have a certain discretion not to publish everything all the time.
If the terms stated that the contract was not to be made public - perhaps they had to stand by it?
I don't really see the problem here, granted some of us might have wanted to know more about the contracts. However it is the right of governments to decide what they make public and not. And for my American friends remember that we have a different view on things like this, usually European governments are MORE open than the US.
I wonder how this "discussion" will develop..
First of all, even if the second chamber does approve the law it also has to stand the test in the Court of Cassation (Cour de cassation). If the law is deemed unconstitutional there it will have to be changed.
P.S. Vi har ikke noe liknende i Norge, vi "tester" ikke om lovene er konstitusjonelle eller ikke på samme måte. Det er mer likt det amerikanske systemet hvor man også kan utfordre lover i Høyesterett (føderal).
Actually you could easily do this on the Norwegian Svalbard islands. Not only does it have Arctic conditions, reliable power supplies and high-speed fiber connections to main land Norway/Europe. But it's also a special status island group where citizens of any nation are free to live and work. Being part of Norway it's under a stable, free and democratic government.
Because of it's position close to the North Pole it's heavily used as a satellite communications site by NASA, JAXA and the European Space Agency.
There's even a University there.
Svalbard Satellite station (SvalSat) was established in 1997 and the rapid expansion of the ground station is changing this perspective. SvalSat is recognized, not only as the northernmost, but also the best-located ground station in the world. The extreme northern location on the Svalbard archipelago, at 78Â13' N, gives SvalSat its unique and favourable position. The satellite coverage at this latitude holds unique opportunities and SvalSat is the only commercial ground station in the world able to provide all-orbit-support (14 of 14 orbits) to owners and operators of polar orbiting satellites.
Of course we trade with the EU, but we are not members of the EU and they have no powers over us.
I should know having studied law and the EU at University. EFTA is a separate entity controlled by Norway, and we police our own compliance or non-compliance. The EU would have to complain to "our" own EFTA Court.
The EU is NOT protectionist, in fact it's focused on free trade. If you're American, you should be one to speak. The US even violates WTO rules to prop up everything from US steel to Boeing.
The EU courts have no jurisdiction in Norway because we are NOT members of the EU. And we don't want to become members thank you very much. We have our own courts and want to remain a sovereign country.
In fact the trend has just started to change again, the transportation prices are rising making it increasingly profitable to produce closer to home.
Just the other day I read an article from the UK about companies moving manufacturing home from China. And don't forget that the same thing is happening in the US [in some areas].
And China is experiencing problems with higher labor costs following a real lack of available manpower. People in China are getting picky about what jobs they take and the wages they get.
We don't produce any of those things; we produce the plans for such things. Physical manufacture is largely done elsewhere.
Wrong yourself. You better tell my customers that they don't produce those products themselves right here in high-cost Northern Europe. You are making political "points" ignoring the truth or you are simply oblivious to it!
The economy of western Europe, therefore, is developing into one based entirely on producing reality TV shows and suing people for sharing them on the Internet. Hooray.
That is utter rubbish! You might be damn near incompetent and incapable of working but the rest of us are not. From Nokia to Alcatel, Western Europe is full of innovative companies! We produce things in all industries from chemicals, electronics, software to space technology!
It's a very good question that has been asked and answered over and over again in the news. Obviously no US court has the power to do anything in Europe. It's a waste of time and has no hope.
Sure, blame the countries involved in the research. But what if it is those American parts used in the project that fail? ;)
P.S. CERN employs people from every country in the world, however Europeans might be in the majority.
Just to make the point perfectly clear:
Wagner ("Homer") does not and has never worked for CERN.
The nut job lives in Hawaii, and has probably never even been to Europe. Let him tend his botanical garden and let's hope he gets convicted for his identity theft.
Yes, it did. And in 2007 they shipped millions of machines. And most of them were laptops or uses laptop CPUs. And in the US laptop market Apple had some 20%! That is a considerable market share. I believe the OP was right in saying that AMD would be hard pressed to supply Apple with that many chips - and still serve the rest of their customers. But that's just my guess.
No, I said the OP claimed a HUGE percentage got cancer when in fact they don't. Secondly there was no research done on humans, and mice are not humans.
The fact that 1-2% could even possibly get cancer does not mean 30-60 million people will get it. Science is a bit more advanced than that. I'm not giving you any credit for your math skills. In fact it's probably unlikely they will get cancer at all from this "potential" threat. You are just making outrageous claims from no evidence what so ever.
I would take those odds, they're really quite good, but I don't want to be tagged none the less.
The fact? The suggestion that it might is enough to make you avoid it? The OP claimed it caused cancer in a "high number" of cases. That was blatantly untrue in fact, there was no evidence to back up his claim.
I certainly won't bring up the discussion on what foods cause cancer and at what rate. Or how much sun you can take before you get skin cancer. The fumes from your house or ground gas might cause cancer. Or the petrol in your car. Never mind fried foods. Come on, there are risks everywhere. Some are smaller than others.
But if the possibility that it might is enough for you: don't eat anything.
Known? Implanting "subcutaneous foreign objects" might cause cancer, see the quote below. And the research done on mice indicates it typically happens in one percent or two.
"It's important to emphasize that those studies are not necessarily sufficient to view these implants as known hazards. The data suggest that the devices foster cancer by causing inflammation of the tissues that encapsulate them. There is a large amount of scientific literature linking cancer and inflammation (the National Cancer Institute has some information on the matter). RFID tags turn out not to be the only form of animal tagging that causes cancer through inflammation; standard metallic ear tags can do so as well. That paper also notes that there have been a number of case reports where human prosthetic implants have induced cancers in the surrounding tissues.", taken from Ars Technica
That's just bullshit, the EU regularly goes after European companies you just don't hear or read about it because they're not American companies. Typical American complaints.
Yes, it does, doesn't it? And the government didn't act in either case.
And there have been cases in Scandinavia where even just linking has been enough to close you down. I would not rule it out even if you claim to be "just" a search engine.
Did you intentionally read that the wrong way? Because the sentence clearly says the IFPI is not a part of the Danish government. The courts are part of the Danish state, but they don't act on their own. The party that brought the case to the court is who's responsible for the issue.
Sorry, I am Norwegian, it's not my government.
Come on, it was just a joke! :)
Of course, the fact that the company is Norwegian owned doesn't change much, but the management does what it's owners want. So I suppose Telenor might want Tele2 Denmark to appeal the verdict to sell more. Or it could be the management decided on their own they had to fight it so they don't loose customers. All the same, I was just joking.
And before that short period of the Swedish-Norwegian Union we spent 400-500 years with Denmark :D
You think this is the first such action? What do you call taking down Oink? Or Tv-links.co.uk? That happened in the UK a few months ago by the way. Or Sweden attacking ThePirateBay? This is not a new or innovative form of policy.
I think it's you who's not looking at it from the right angle. Europe and the EU is like the Eurovision Song Contest - everyone agrees within the regional subgroups, but are at odds with the rest of Europe.
Sorry, but that's not true. In all the different countries in Europe there have been any number of cases. I especially find a ruling from my own country very interesting. Napster.no was convicted of simply linking to external sites where illegal MP3 files were stored. Or how about the French ruling on Nazi memorabilia on Ebay? There are loads of other cases.
No, I am not saying that people cannot be affected by reading about it. But it has no effect on the legal systems of the different countries. The EU has not harmonized all the different legal systems and courts of Europe. We are still too far away from each other for it to easily cross borders. It's split along historical lines from the Northern European states, Roman Law to Common Law in the UK. There's a huge variety that does not accept foreign verdicts easily. Politicians on the other hand are receptive.
The reason the EU exists is a well known historical fact. A forced marriage. Now, you might agree on a few things - yet it has proven increasingly difficult to agree on new and important issues such as the Constitution. A few trade laws are not as hard to pass. How about the proposed North African-Mediterranean area Sarkozy wants? Or allowing Turkey into the fold? A European President?
I am actually quite in favor of a federal European Union - but at the moment it's just a dream. You/we are really not that united yet.
I did say probably because it would have to proved in a court of law. Not everything is as clear cut as you or I would like it. Even if I am a lawyer.
I only mentioned it to give you some insight into the way our countries work. It's certainly not done out of deference - it's simply censorship regardless. No court ever ruled the sites on the list are illegal. "First they came for..."
Sorry, that's only in the US. European law can be very different to what you are accustomed to.
Again that's not really true according to the example I just told you about (napster.no). Even linking is considering illegal here now. Not that I personally agree with it. They have yet to challenge access to The Pirate Bay here in Norway, but they have a law firm working on it.
Nope, that's not the way the Scandinavian Civil Law system works. The way precedents work in the Anglo-American Common Law system is not applicable here. It's not really a significant ruling, it's not even a High Court ruling. It can easily be overruled and interpreted away by the higher courts.
Well, since you asked, yes, you would probably be guilty here in my country, Norway.
Danish and Norwegian law is quite similar, and we also happen to be subjects of the same EU laws.
A few years ago we had a case against a simple linking site called napster.no. No files were ever stored on the server. Just simple links to other sites where the material was. Not only did they find the person behind it guilty - it went all the way to the Supreme Court.
The point however was that regardless of what your views are on The Pirate Bay if the Danish courts rule that they are violating copyright laws (or other laws) they have the right to take away access to the site. Also did I mention that both in Denmark and Norway we have a government prescribed child pornography censorship and filtering system? All the major ISPs volunteered to join it.