Going to be a lot if it is for each (individual) infringement. I imagine Facebook saves the email address, name, and sets up some kind of invisible profile with "guessed" friends etc. for each non-member that someone on facebook sends a join request to. That's a lot of people. Also it may even apply to those who later joined (a *LOT* more people).
I am not on facebook and regularly get their creepy emails that say "Hello 'Real Name', 'A Friend' wants you to join" and "You may know these people on Facebook: ".
It cannot come soon enough if they are prosecuted in Germany and I am reasonably sure what they are doing is illegal in other European countries, if not further afield also.
No, it's not the lowest tax of its kind in the world. A number of countries have lower rates, including neighbouring Ireland with 12.5%. Needless to say Northern Ireland has been looking for a similar rate within the UK as a whole or a special rate just for NI.
Yeah - what's especially creepy is Facebook having "virtual" profiles of people who haven't even joined, due to their friends sending you join requests (so Facebook have your email plus your circle of friends and can probably guess a lot just by your friends preferences, details etc. - nevermind photos that may have you in them).
I wonder if they do in fact keep separate records for people who they know "exist" but haven't joined?
Anyway, the join requests with "you may also know Person X, Y, Z" (and yes, you know them all, of course), with those people even from diverse social circles - it's pretty creepy.
If they do keep records for people who haven't joined it is surely illegal - even keeping your email address surely is, at least here in Europe. I wonder is there some kind of formal legal request you can make to request any details they may hold about you?
Actually one of the ISPs here in Ireland has a rolling cap - it is the last 30 days that apply, so you aren't at the mercy of calendars (and of course, neither is the ISP or other users who might otherwise have extra contention at start of month).
Second, if you hit the cap, your service is not suspended. Instead you are limited to about 128kB, so you can still email, browse ordinary webpages, etc., even download more (slowly, plus you'll keep it longer till you are back under cap).
The 400 million indirectly goes to us taxpayers in the EU in some form or another. Even net contributors to the EU are also recipients of EU money (e.g. third level research).
Also it means companies even if they continue these kinds of behaviour, are more likely to pursue it outside the EU (we don't have to be sufficiently tough to stop the behaviour, just tougher than elsewhere, e.g. US).
Finally, even if these fines don't stop this behaviour in the EU, the fines make for headlines that increase public awareness of such business practices, keeping up the pressure for proper regulation and oversight of business, as well as keeping customers wary and vigilent.
> I'm not generally a fan of that overly patriotic viewpoint, but if it means it creates pressure to keep the UK a little more independent from the US, then great.
I'm not convinced that theoretical greater independence makes up for the "Britain first" viewpoint! I think things will be better with the Lib Dems lessening the impact of that particular conservative attitude, but the problem is that sort of patriotism, though potentially boosting Britain's independent status, will be inclined to weaken the domestic Union. Indeed ironically it is specifically the Conservative party's Unionism (part of their "patriotism") that could further alienate sections of the public in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, not to mention even Northern England!
That's only true in genuine full PR systems. In many cases, having "proportional representation" really just means "more proportional". For this reason I think those in opposition to PR in the UK are being silly. They could keep their mostly 2+1 party system but have transferable vote to dispense with wasted votes and PR to allow a fairer link between vote share and seats (so Lib Dems would instead of about 10% seats would be a bit under 20%).
However, the crazy thing is that they are not even looking at introducing PR! The "Alternative Vote" that Labour propose would mainly just get rid of wasted votes. Indeed for this reason, it might mean that Labour are boosted most of all, not the Lib Dems. Why? Because increased voters might turn out knowing they can vote Lib Dem (or SNP, or whoever) and put Labour second to avoid the Conservatives getting in.
All AV will do is perhaps allow Lib Dems to take some seats they should already have but for voters not voting (thinking their vote will be wasted) or currently voting strategically for one of the other two parties (probably Labour).
In my opinion, the UK should take the Irish PR-STV method and in order to keep some aspects of the results of FPTP that they like, they could limit it to three-seat constituencies. This pulls up the bar for small parties and big parties still get a "seat bonus", just not as extreme as under FPTP. Indeed even with urban constituencies of up to 5 seats, Ireland has a seat bonus for the largest party due to all the rural three seat constituencies (the biggest party getting two seats, the second party getting one). This would probably result in a quite variable election outcome for the UK. Depending on the political climate, it could benefit Labour, Cons or Lib Dems more than the others, with the former two still getting boosts beyond their current vote share, just not as extreme as under FPTP, but if a sustained vote share increase for Lib Dems occurred in just one election, it would quickly translate to more seats and they could even quickly bounce ahead of Labour.
The UK already use PR-STV for Scottish local elections and Northern Ireland assembly elections, so they are not without experience in it. For the latter it is the opposite strategy of what I propose, they have six-seat constituencies to have much greater proportionality than even the Republic of Ireland has.
I assume that even voters in much of the UK or the main parties don't want great amounts more proportionality, just no wasted votes and some people/parties want a bit more proportionality.
Actually, I think in the UK you do tend to get plenty of stories about how the government should be better monitoring families or taking kids into care...
Despite the very real incidents that occur, I don't think that subjecting potentially every family to screening by the State is exactly a good means to an end!
Except LOTR making of, where you get to see the crazy amount of work just to make all the ring mail for the Orc extras and see them create a mock Hobbiton. There's also bucketloads of real genuine artwork to go through before one even considers the sets, some of which recreated artistic scenes very convincingly. The parts of the making of regarding computers are rather supplementary to the awesomeness of all the physical work that went on (it's kind of like, "and here's how we polished it off to look almost real").
Mind you, I suppose early 2000s is a while back now.
"the workers could quit(e) whenever they wanted" I think you mean "the workers could starve or get locked away to die whenever they wanted".
---- "Are there no prisons?" asked Scrooge. "Plenty of prisons," said the gentleman, laying down the pen again. "And the union workhouses?" demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?" "They are. Still," returned the gentleman, "I wish I could say they were not". ---- "I help to support the establishments I have mentioned-they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there." "Many can't go there; and many would rather die." "If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population" ---- "Man," said the Ghost, "if man you be in heart, not adamant, forbear that wicked cant until you have discovered What the surplus is, and Where it is. Will you decide what men shall live, what men shall die? It may be, that in the sight of Heaven, you are more worthless and less fit to live than millions like this poor man's child. O God! to hear the Insect on the leaf pronouncing on the too much life amongst his hungry brothers in the dust!". ----
From Charles Dicken's "A Christmas Carol". Unfortunately every bit as relevant, even to those in "developed" countries, today as it was when it was published. Attitudes have not changed even if circumstances have improved beyond all measure in our more "fortunate" lands. Indeed I would argue that for that reason, attitudes are regressing.
Not to mention that there is only one tunnel route between UK and continental Europe and none between UK and Ireland. Ireland may not seem that significant, but Dublin is the 14th busiest airport in Europe, so needless to say, just a smidgen of disruption from that!
As far as I know, much of the dust around Europe is below the cruising altitude of ordinary jets. The problem is however getting from the airports to that height (not to mention short-haul that wouldn't go so high in any case).
Kind of meaningless without national controls, it's not like this can be controlled at the city limits in the way a national border is maintained (and even that isn't entirely successful).
Plus even with national controls you would need decades of strict enforcement to see a difference.
The EU commission is nominated by the member state governments. Another executive branch is the Council of the EU (Council of Ministers) which consists of the relevant government ministers from member states (e.g. Agriculture ministers for decisions in Agriculture). Also general direction of the EU is set by the European Council (heads of governments in the EU).
The EU parliament is quite rightly a minor part of EU governance as pretty much all EU member state governments and public want the EU to remain a collaboration between member states, *not* some kind of federal state. The Lisbon Treaty that we voted for here in Ireland on the second opportunity (after the mainstream parties screwed up their first campaign, yet again expecting it to be automatically passed in the case of the disliked government, or using it for electioneering of candidates for upcoming local elections in the case of the opposition) does provide it with a more definitive role in oversight of the actions of the Commission, which is quite appropriate and sensible.
A more elected or directly democratic EU would not be compatible with leaving power in the hands of people's elected governments.
The UK government are very disingenious most of the time when bad-mouthing the EU and blaming it for decisions that a) the UK government negogiated and approved, or even instigated, and b) aren't EU policy at all but just over-zealous national implementations of EU directives (or even just entirely superfluous additions to the law) that the UK state government desires to further control their citizens. The EU has in fact on many occasions acted against the UK's attempts to control her citizens. The British media are anti-EU simply because the public are anti-EU due to the government's actions and criticism of EU, as well as national biases against European neighbours, and so the "EU is bad" stories sell more papers! However, it is a vicious cycle and so the media further contribute to this situation.
As far as I'm concerned, the greatest threat to Europe as a whole is the direction that the UK chooses (I cannot see the Tories being good for either Union, the European one or the domestic one, and the current lot are about out of ideas in fixing the country). Indeed the UK's economic footing is of more concern than Greece in my opinion, the scale is so much greater and the situation is almost as bad. Flexibility offered by the pound may help short-term but in the long-term it is those short-term fixes as well as not having "bail-out partners" due to being in with others on a currency that may mean the UK's downfall. They are very exposed if the pound crashes due to speculators or domestic crisis.
Actually I would argue that you have made a strawman argument (it isn't what the parent actually argued) and even if you are merely trying to use a metaphor for their argument, as far as I'm concerned you could link the reverse of the position you've argued to their argument. I.e. Classified information that should remain classified being made public is akin to convicting an innocent, while Classified information that should not be classified remaining classified is like the guilty going free.
In general though I think your response to the parent rather unnecessarily "pooh poohs" their position.
All very useful for both everyday use (particularly the latter) and political research (although it would seem our journalists aren't that interested in searching the parliamentary debates to dredge up interesting material - there's a *lot* there but it doesn't appear in the media!)
I can see how the proposed US legislation if properly implemented might help (but might be completely unworkable). In the Irish case, those three websites are the tip of the iceberg as there are a plethora of official sites (even if for example citizensinformation collates and presents much of the pertinent information in one place). Most or all government departments for a start have their own sites. For a lot of government services, people have to act through their local county council - each of these has its own website (some are very proper and comprehensive, others are less so).
The EU *is* member state's governments apart from the democratic European parliament. The members of the "undemocratic" European Commission (essentially executive branch) that anti-EU scaremongerers harp on about are actually nominated by national governments, while the Council of the EU (another legislative branch) *is* member state governments (in the sense that for e.g. agriculture policy, the members are the member state government ministers for agriculture). Additionally there is the European Council that kind of sets the overall direction of the EU - this is the heads of government of the EU. The Euroskeptics want to have their cake and eat it, as they want member states to remain in control of the EU, yet criticise the very institutions that allow that as being undemocratic.
There are plenty of flaws with the EU, but some of these are precisely because it remains beholden to the member state governments.
EU "law" mostly consists of "directives" that national governments implement as they see fit (they only have to satisfy the aim of the directive). Now some governments (e.g. UK) use these as an opportunity to implement over-the-top national law and blame it on Europe. Certain other governments (e.g. Ireland) don't even succeed in implementing all the directives (or ignore enforcement of national law), which shows that EU law isn't some dire threat. Of course in the instance of Ireland, it also shows how EU law isn't a bad thing (the laws concerned are things like "don't pump raw sewage onto your beaches"). Of course Ireland (and other states) do run the risk of fines, but I think Greece has been the only country fined to date (again afaik for something dumb like allowing refuse dumps to be sited where they pollute ground water).
There have also been plenty of cases of the EU criticising and acting against national restrictions on people's freedoms, again for example in the case of the UK (but also other countries restricting people's ability to live/work in other member states, or having broken legal remedies for their own citizens, or not doing anything about infringing on rights of minorities).
Some of the "freedoms" people in certain member states want are the freedom to act as they see fit including infringing on the freedoms of others, and indeed to some extent they can get away with this and merely object to even being criticised for their actions.
I wouldn't be so pessimistic. It is hard to generalise about Europe as despite the cohesion offered by the European Union, each country is in quite a different situation. In general Germany and Scandinavian countries, and indeed to an extent France, provide a firm stable core to Europe that has a stable social democratic tradition, with elements of socialism and a reasonably properly regulated market. Other countries while more unstable, do prevent the core from becoming too stagnated. In general it is very true that Europe is stronger together, even if in many ways it isn't a single unit.
In Europe my main worry is not in fact Greece or debt crisis. I think the biggest issue of instability that may arise is if things deteriorate further in the UK. Politically it is not a happy choice there (current lot, or another lot who would look to England first, be pro-Union but divisive and look to pull the UK out of the EU). Economically they in some ways aren't so different from Greece (but with greater clout and confidence in them to allow larger debt to be held with less issue for now - but of course then the scale is far far larger too) but with the exposure that having an independent currency brings and no-one to bail them out (or necessarily able to with the scale). They may be able to fiddle with devaluation, etc. but they are exposed to the issue of currency speculation and if tomorrow everyone decided the UK was in trouble (e.g after an election with dodgy outcome) then sterling could crash.
The buzzword "Web 2.0" amuses me most - it's like all but calling it dot-com rerun. A lot of it is driven solely by Google's opaque advertising money machine and others hoping to do the same or hoping to find some way to monetise web services with large numbers of "consumers" (freeloaders).
In my experience the cost is a much more significant issue outside the USA. My brother recently bought a Windows laptop for gaming for only €400 (ATI HD 2400 dedicated graphics, Core 2 Duo, etc). A basic MacBook with similar graphics/processor (Nvidia 9400M on-board, Core 2 Duo) will set you back €950 here in Ireland! The MacBook is of course smaller at 13", but I would say the 15" laptop is better for gaming and indeed work, and still portable!
Of course it's your business. You are living right next to your neighbour. Now there is plenty of scope for debate in how far someone is free to do what they like, as opposed to how they are constrained by society, but it's not a sensible viewpoint to simply say that it is *none* of your business.
In this case I would argue it is the specific restrictions that are the problem, not the inherent concept. It would seem that in the US people seem to have a lot of problem with this concept - improving government rather than ditching it. And I would argue that the reason for so much bad governance in the US is specifically because so many are focussed on doing away with it rather than improving it.
I had a Nokia screen smashed (cover still intact, just the internal screen) and because it was a less cheap and nice reliable phone, I just got a replacement screen off ebay for 15 including postage half-way across the world. Came complete with the two tools needed (special screw driver and a plastic lever). Disassembly seemed fairly straightforward but if I'd been stuck, first Google hit was a Youtube video for the screen replacement of that exact model.
Slashdot Mirror
Going to be a lot if it is for each (individual) infringement. I imagine Facebook saves the email address, name, and sets up some kind of invisible profile with "guessed" friends etc. for each non-member that someone on facebook sends a join request to. That's a lot of people. Also it may even apply to those who later joined (a *LOT* more people).
I am not on facebook and regularly get their creepy emails that say "Hello 'Real Name', 'A Friend' wants you to join" and "You may know these people on Facebook: ".
It cannot come soon enough if they are prosecuted in Germany and I am reasonably sure what they are doing is illegal in other European countries, if not further afield also.
No, it's not the lowest tax of its kind in the world. A number of countries have lower rates, including neighbouring Ireland with 12.5%. Needless to say Northern Ireland has been looking for a similar rate within the UK as a whole or a special rate just for NI.
Yeah - what's especially creepy is Facebook having "virtual" profiles of people who haven't even joined, due to their friends sending you join requests (so Facebook have your email plus your circle of friends and can probably guess a lot just by your friends preferences, details etc. - nevermind photos that may have you in them).
I wonder if they do in fact keep separate records for people who they know "exist" but haven't joined?
Anyway, the join requests with "you may also know Person X, Y, Z" (and yes, you know them all, of course), with those people even from diverse social circles - it's pretty creepy.
If they do keep records for people who haven't joined it is surely illegal - even keeping your email address surely is, at least here in Europe. I wonder is there some kind of formal legal request you can make to request any details they may hold about you?
Actually one of the ISPs here in Ireland has a rolling cap - it is the last 30 days that apply, so you aren't at the mercy of calendars (and of course, neither is the ISP or other users who might otherwise have extra contention at start of month).
Second, if you hit the cap, your service is not suspended. Instead you are limited to about 128kB, so you can still email, browse ordinary webpages, etc., even download more (slowly, plus you'll keep it longer till you are back under cap).
Seems the best policy.
Or File Mangler as we called it in our days of innocence before the advent of Windows Exploder.
Consider: two monologues don't make a dialogue!
The 400 million indirectly goes to us taxpayers in the EU in some form or another. Even net contributors to the EU are also recipients of EU money (e.g. third level research).
Also it means companies even if they continue these kinds of behaviour, are more likely to pursue it outside the EU (we don't have to be sufficiently tough to stop the behaviour, just tougher than elsewhere, e.g. US).
Finally, even if these fines don't stop this behaviour in the EU, the fines make for headlines that increase public awareness of such business practices, keeping up the pressure for proper regulation and oversight of business, as well as keeping customers wary and vigilent.
> I'm not generally a fan of that overly patriotic viewpoint, but if it means it creates pressure to keep the UK a little more independent from the US, then great.
I'm not convinced that theoretical greater independence makes up for the "Britain first" viewpoint! I think things will be better with the Lib Dems lessening the impact of that particular conservative attitude, but the problem is that sort of patriotism, though potentially boosting Britain's independent status, will be inclined to weaken the domestic Union. Indeed ironically it is specifically the Conservative party's Unionism (part of their "patriotism") that could further alienate sections of the public in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, not to mention even Northern England!
That's only true in genuine full PR systems. In many cases, having "proportional representation" really just means "more proportional". For this reason I think those in opposition to PR in the UK are being silly. They could keep their mostly 2+1 party system but have transferable vote to dispense with wasted votes and PR to allow a fairer link between vote share and seats (so Lib Dems would instead of about 10% seats would be a bit under 20%).
However, the crazy thing is that they are not even looking at introducing PR! The "Alternative Vote" that Labour propose would mainly just get rid of wasted votes. Indeed for this reason, it might mean that Labour are boosted most of all, not the Lib Dems. Why? Because increased voters might turn out knowing they can vote Lib Dem (or SNP, or whoever) and put Labour second to avoid the Conservatives getting in.
All AV will do is perhaps allow Lib Dems to take some seats they should already have but for voters not voting (thinking their vote will be wasted) or currently voting strategically for one of the other two parties (probably Labour).
In my opinion, the UK should take the Irish PR-STV method and in order to keep some aspects of the results of FPTP that they like, they could limit it to three-seat constituencies. This pulls up the bar for small parties and big parties still get a "seat bonus", just not as extreme as under FPTP. Indeed even with urban constituencies of up to 5 seats, Ireland has a seat bonus for the largest party due to all the rural three seat constituencies (the biggest party getting two seats, the second party getting one). This would probably result in a quite variable election outcome for the UK. Depending on the political climate, it could benefit Labour, Cons or Lib Dems more than the others, with the former two still getting boosts beyond their current vote share, just not as extreme as under FPTP, but if a sustained vote share increase for Lib Dems occurred in just one election, it would quickly translate to more seats and they could even quickly bounce ahead of Labour.
The UK already use PR-STV for Scottish local elections and Northern Ireland assembly elections, so they are not without experience in it. For the latter it is the opposite strategy of what I propose, they have six-seat constituencies to have much greater proportionality than even the Republic of Ireland has.
I assume that even voters in much of the UK or the main parties don't want great amounts more proportionality, just no wasted votes and some people/parties want a bit more proportionality.
Actually, I think in the UK you do tend to get plenty of stories about how the government should be better monitoring families or taking kids into care...
Despite the very real incidents that occur, I don't think that subjecting potentially every family to screening by the State is exactly a good means to an end!
Except LOTR making of, where you get to see the crazy amount of work just to make all the ring mail for the Orc extras and see them create a mock Hobbiton. There's also bucketloads of real genuine artwork to go through before one even considers the sets, some of which recreated artistic scenes very convincingly. The parts of the making of regarding computers are rather supplementary to the awesomeness of all the physical work that went on (it's kind of like, "and here's how we polished it off to look almost real").
Mind you, I suppose early 2000s is a while back now.
You do!
I think it is one of the banks in Northern Ireland, perhaps Northern Bank? They issue a plastic £5 note.
"the workers could quit(e) whenever they wanted"
I think you mean "the workers could starve or get locked away to die whenever they wanted".
----
"Are there no prisons?" asked Scrooge.
"Plenty of prisons," said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
"And the union workhouses?" demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"
"They are. Still," returned the gentleman, "I wish I could say they were not".
----
"I help to support the establishments I have mentioned-they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there."
"Many can't go there; and many would rather die."
"If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population"
----
"Man," said the Ghost, "if man you be in heart, not adamant, forbear that wicked cant until you have discovered What the surplus is, and Where it is. Will you decide what men shall live, what men shall die? It may be, that in the sight of Heaven, you are more worthless and less fit to live than millions like this poor man's child. O God! to hear the Insect on the leaf pronouncing on the too much life amongst his hungry brothers in the dust!".
----
From Charles Dicken's "A Christmas Carol". Unfortunately every bit as relevant, even to those in "developed" countries, today as it was when it was published. Attitudes have not changed even if circumstances have improved beyond all measure in our more "fortunate" lands. Indeed I would argue that for that reason, attitudes are regressing.
Not to mention that there is only one tunnel route between UK and continental Europe and none between UK and Ireland. Ireland may not seem that significant, but Dublin is the 14th busiest airport in Europe, so needless to say, just a smidgen of disruption from that!
As far as I know, much of the dust around Europe is below the cruising altitude of ordinary jets. The problem is however getting from the airports to that height (not to mention short-haul that wouldn't go so high in any case).
Kind of meaningless without national controls, it's not like this can be controlled at the city limits in the way a national border is maintained (and even that isn't entirely successful).
Plus even with national controls you would need decades of strict enforcement to see a difference.
The EU commission is nominated by the member state governments. Another executive branch is the Council of the EU (Council of Ministers) which consists of the relevant government ministers from member states (e.g. Agriculture ministers for decisions in Agriculture). Also general direction of the EU is set by the European Council (heads of governments in the EU).
The EU parliament is quite rightly a minor part of EU governance as pretty much all EU member state governments and public want the EU to remain a collaboration between member states, *not* some kind of federal state. The Lisbon Treaty that we voted for here in Ireland on the second opportunity (after the mainstream parties screwed up their first campaign, yet again expecting it to be automatically passed in the case of the disliked government, or using it for electioneering of candidates for upcoming local elections in the case of the opposition) does provide it with a more definitive role in oversight of the actions of the Commission, which is quite appropriate and sensible.
A more elected or directly democratic EU would not be compatible with leaving power in the hands of people's elected governments.
The UK government are very disingenious most of the time when bad-mouthing the EU and blaming it for decisions that a) the UK government negogiated and approved, or even instigated, and b) aren't EU policy at all but just over-zealous national implementations of EU directives (or even just entirely superfluous additions to the law) that the UK state government desires to further control their citizens. The EU has in fact on many occasions acted against the UK's attempts to control her citizens. The British media are anti-EU simply because the public are anti-EU due to the government's actions and criticism of EU, as well as national biases against European neighbours, and so the "EU is bad" stories sell more papers! However, it is a vicious cycle and so the media further contribute to this situation.
As far as I'm concerned, the greatest threat to Europe as a whole is the direction that the UK chooses (I cannot see the Tories being good for either Union, the European one or the domestic one, and the current lot are about out of ideas in fixing the country). Indeed the UK's economic footing is of more concern than Greece in my opinion, the scale is so much greater and the situation is almost as bad. Flexibility offered by the pound may help short-term but in the long-term it is those short-term fixes as well as not having "bail-out partners" due to being in with others on a currency that may mean the UK's downfall. They are very exposed if the pound crashes due to speculators or domestic crisis.
Actually I would argue that you have made a strawman argument (it isn't what the parent actually argued) and even if you are merely trying to use a metaphor for their argument, as far as I'm concerned you could link the reverse of the position you've argued to their argument. I.e. Classified information that should remain classified being made public is akin to convicting an innocent, while Classified information that should not be classified remaining classified is like the guilty going free.
In general though I think your response to the parent rather unnecessarily "pooh poohs" their position.
I don't know that we have such a law in Ireland despite a *lot* of online information. Some Irish examples:
Irish Statute Book: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/
Oireachtas (Houses of Parliament): http://www.oireachtas.ie/ (including all past parliamentary debates)
Citizens Information: http://www.citizensinformation.ie/
All very useful for both everyday use (particularly the latter) and political research (although it would seem our journalists aren't that interested in searching the parliamentary debates to dredge up interesting material - there's a *lot* there but it doesn't appear in the media!)
I can see how the proposed US legislation if properly implemented might help (but might be completely unworkable). In the Irish case, those three websites are the tip of the iceberg as there are a plethora of official sites (even if for example citizensinformation collates and presents much of the pertinent information in one place). Most or all government departments for a start have their own sites. For a lot of government services, people have to act through their local county council - each of these has its own website (some are very proper and comprehensive, others are less so).
Examples of the 36 or so council websites (you might check these e.g. for waste/recycling facilities, contact details for water or local road problems):
Dublin City: http://www.dublincitycouncil.ie/
Cork City: http://www.corkcity.ie/
County Cork (rural south): http://www.corkcoco.ie/
County Mayo (rural west): http://www.mayococo.ie/
County Meath (Dublin commuter/eastern): http://www.meath.ie/
The EU *is* member state's governments apart from the democratic European parliament. The members of the "undemocratic" European Commission (essentially executive branch) that anti-EU scaremongerers harp on about are actually nominated by national governments, while the Council of the EU (another legislative branch) *is* member state governments (in the sense that for e.g. agriculture policy, the members are the member state government ministers for agriculture). Additionally there is the European Council that kind of sets the overall direction of the EU - this is the heads of government of the EU. The Euroskeptics want to have their cake and eat it, as they want member states to remain in control of the EU, yet criticise the very institutions that allow that as being undemocratic.
There are plenty of flaws with the EU, but some of these are precisely because it remains beholden to the member state governments.
EU "law" mostly consists of "directives" that national governments implement as they see fit (they only have to satisfy the aim of the directive). Now some governments (e.g. UK) use these as an opportunity to implement over-the-top national law and blame it on Europe. Certain other governments (e.g. Ireland) don't even succeed in implementing all the directives (or ignore enforcement of national law), which shows that EU law isn't some dire threat. Of course in the instance of Ireland, it also shows how EU law isn't a bad thing (the laws concerned are things like "don't pump raw sewage onto your beaches"). Of course Ireland (and other states) do run the risk of fines, but I think Greece has been the only country fined to date (again afaik for something dumb like allowing refuse dumps to be sited where they pollute ground water).
There have also been plenty of cases of the EU criticising and acting against national restrictions on people's freedoms, again for example in the case of the UK (but also other countries restricting people's ability to live/work in other member states, or having broken legal remedies for their own citizens, or not doing anything about infringing on rights of minorities).
Some of the "freedoms" people in certain member states want are the freedom to act as they see fit including infringing on the freedoms of others, and indeed to some extent they can get away with this and merely object to even being criticised for their actions.
I wouldn't be so pessimistic. It is hard to generalise about Europe as despite the cohesion offered by the European Union, each country is in quite a different situation. In general Germany and Scandinavian countries, and indeed to an extent France, provide a firm stable core to Europe that has a stable social democratic tradition, with elements of socialism and a reasonably properly regulated market. Other countries while more unstable, do prevent the core from becoming too stagnated. In general it is very true that Europe is stronger together, even if in many ways it isn't a single unit.
In Europe my main worry is not in fact Greece or debt crisis. I think the biggest issue of instability that may arise is if things deteriorate further in the UK. Politically it is not a happy choice there (current lot, or another lot who would look to England first, be pro-Union but divisive and look to pull the UK out of the EU). Economically they in some ways aren't so different from Greece (but with greater clout and confidence in them to allow larger debt to be held with less issue for now - but of course then the scale is far far larger too) but with the exposure that having an independent currency brings and no-one to bail them out (or necessarily able to with the scale). They may be able to fiddle with devaluation, etc. but they are exposed to the issue of currency speculation and if tomorrow everyone decided the UK was in trouble (e.g after an election with dodgy outcome) then sterling could crash.
The buzzword "Web 2.0" amuses me most - it's like all but calling it dot-com rerun. A lot of it is driven solely by Google's opaque advertising money machine and others hoping to do the same or hoping to find some way to monetise web services with large numbers of "consumers" (freeloaders).
In my experience the cost is a much more significant issue outside the USA. My brother recently bought a Windows laptop for gaming for only €400 (ATI HD 2400 dedicated graphics, Core 2 Duo, etc). A basic MacBook with similar graphics/processor (Nvidia 9400M on-board, Core 2 Duo) will set you back €950 here in Ireland! The MacBook is of course smaller at 13", but I would say the 15" laptop is better for gaming and indeed work, and still portable!
Of course it's your business. You are living right next to your neighbour. Now there is plenty of scope for debate in how far someone is free to do what they like, as opposed to how they are constrained by society, but it's not a sensible viewpoint to simply say that it is *none* of your business.
In this case I would argue it is the specific restrictions that are the problem, not the inherent concept. It would seem that in the US people seem to have a lot of problem with this concept - improving government rather than ditching it. And I would argue that the reason for so much bad governance in the US is specifically because so many are focussed on doing away with it rather than improving it.
I had a Nokia screen smashed (cover still intact, just the internal screen) and because it was a less cheap and nice reliable phone, I just got a replacement screen off ebay for 15 including postage half-way across the world. Came complete with the two tools needed (special screw driver and a plastic lever). Disassembly seemed fairly straightforward but if I'd been stuck, first Google hit was a Youtube video for the screen replacement of that exact model.