Of course this is a troll - and see my earlier post about the expected US criticism because he is French. But you do realise that Mandrake was a French company founded by a Frenchman, don't you?
I'll bet you're in the US. Do they have intelligence there? Let the flames begin.
Of course this is a troll - and see my earlier post about the expected US criticism because he is French. But you do realise that Madrake was a French company created by a Frenchman, don't you?
I'll bet you're in the US. Do they have intelligence there? Let the flames begin.
IANAL. There is no claim under trademark legislation as far as I can tell. It is unlikely that anyone would confuse a TV broadcast with software. IP is NOT protected under EU law per se. There can be copyright (which doesn't apply here) and patent (which also doesn't apply here). Bet he loses. And of course, being French there will be loads of US comment criticising his attempt. For once, it will probably be justified.
There is still a balance between Russia and the US, and that is what the Russians are referring to. You are absolutely correct there is no"balance of power" between the US and France, or England, or India, or Germany, or Japan, or Italy, or Israel, or etc., or etc., or etc..., but I never claimed that there was.
And I also pointed out that we have our own nuclear deterrent that we can use when, and if, those countries that the US claims to be defending us against actually has a weapon with the requisite range and a warhead to fit on it, and that we are part of Europe and were never conquered by the Nazis. I also explained that I was NOT countering his argument - although I do not agree with it - but I was taking issue with his arrogance and rude comments to the OP. I do not have to save face - I am not an American with an attitude. Now, if you can manage to read all the big words in the previous discussion and not just respond to one selected item without taking it in context, and without returning with profanities or childish comments such as "AHAHHA you got owned bitch!" you could also join in an adult discussion. Come back when you are adult enough and perhaps we can continue.
Well, you sure twisted that argument. I thought the US was claiming that the defensive missile shield would NOT be usable against Russian missiles. You are using the opposite to justify its deployment!
The countries that the article is claiming the system will be used against DO NOT HAVE nuclear missiles. When they do, my own country can use its own nuclear missiles as a deterrent just as easily as you can hope to shoot them down - in fact, our system is proven while yours is still experimental.
My country is part of Europe but was never defeated by the Nazis. So please be careful of any accusations that you wish to make against 'Europeans'.
And my criticism was not with your facts, which I do not agree with but I am not debating them here, but your attitude and rudeness. He was not being an 'ungrateful ass' but saying that he, personally, does not wish the US to deploy missiles using his safety as justification. He is entitled to that point of view. You getting all upset and becoming rude doesn't change that fact.
So the 'defensive missile system' COULD stop a selective launch by Russia. A selective launch is designed to demonstrate that the limit has been reached and the next step is all-out nuclear war. It is a single or very limited use of a nuclear weapon. It has always existed although it is not very often discussed but it emphasises that it is not always a case of fire one missile and we fire them all. So the proposed US system IS changing the balance of power in Russia's eyes.
No, the UK discovered huge quantities of natural gas in the North Sea. It made a lot of sense to use our its resources rather than buy them from elsewhere. Now the gas is almost gone, the coal mines were closed because they were 'uneconomic', and they are becoming dependent on energy from other countries. France never had anywhere near the same natural gas resources, although they have wisely used what they have. But I believe that they elected to use nuclear so that they would not become entirely dependent on energy from elsewhere.
No, you might be right about some things but not all.
Assuming that the USA _did_ save Western Europe from the Nazis it was not without the loss of almost 25 million Russians. How many Americans were lost during the entire Second World War? Assuming the the USA _did_ save Western Europe from communism, it was not without a contribution from those countries that make up Europe. How many countries make up NATO?
So you think that we are ungrateful? Was your sole purpose for 'saving Europe' simply so that we would be forever in your debt and would roll over a do your bidding whenever you want us to? No, it was also in your own interests to make sure that any war that was fought would be mainly over someone else's soil. Just how many times has the US been invaded or occupied? (I'm discounting the arrival of the Europeans and others that make up the vast majority of the US population.) We are grateful for what you have done and we have expressed that gratitude in many different ways. But it is not something that we should be expected to continue to do without question.
However, YOU could have been considerably more polite in the way that you made your argument - it matters not whether you are right or wrong. And that is the problem.... The US has taken it upon itself to dictate to many what they should do. You feel that we should all agree with your own particular point of view because of our shared history. Some in the US now think that, because it is the only viable superpower, that it can now throw its weight around and everyone will kowtow and shower you with their gratitude. It is not so. You have not been elected the world's police. Some countries, my own included, will stand alongside you in the fight against terrorism because we feel it is the right thing to do. My own countrymen are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan. We do not do this in order to make you indebted to us, nor because we expect you to demonstrate your own undying gratitude until eternity. No, we do it because it is the right thing to do. Just as you were involved in WW2 and the Cold War. However, your claims of 'ungrateful ass', your suggestions that we should all act as surrogate US states, that YOU, as an American, must always be right, are what I was criticising.
YOU remain the single cause of the US losing so much of its support around the world. Its your condescending attitude. Not the millions of other Americans whom I have fought alongside, worked with, or count amongst my friends. Just YOU and the small number of others like you.
Your posts in this thread indicate that you are precisely what the rest of the world dislikes most about Americans. The vast majority are decent people - I have fought alongside them, worked with them, and count many Americans among my closest friends. Unfortunately, you do not fit into any of these groups.
The Russian argument is that, although the US might claim that the defences are intended solely for use against Iranian missiles, they could have a role against Russia's own missiles which would destabilise the existing balance of power. The radar system is also capable of observing activity inside Russian airspace. Of course, the US will claim that they wouldn't use it like that, but there are many threads on/. which point out that, if a system can be abused, then at some point it will. US actions around the globe can appear to some to be expansionist and bullying. Now a lot of this is Russian rhetoric - i.e. 'they would say that, wouldn't they?' but with the US recently withdrawing from at least one treaty with Russia, with its current propensity of using force to resolve issues that could, and should, be resolved diplomatically and with Western forces having established a significant presence on many of Russia's borders, you should at least try to consider the situation from their point of view. No, I don't think that they are correct, but I can understand how they might feel.
From TFA -
Google has been told that it may be breaking European privacy laws by keeping people's search information on its servers for up to two years.
A data protection group that advises the European Union has written to the search giant to express concerns. Doesn't seem to matter where you argue that Google is based, the DPG believes that EU laws are being broken. That, and asking whether US laws could benefit from being changed, is what this thread is about.
The nuclear weapon that I flew with not made in the US. It was not under US control. That's why it was an independent nuclear deterrent. Please do not try to claim that everything positive that ever happened is because the US made it happen.
I'm arguing they are a US company incorporated in the state of Delaware and have the same rights as a normal citizen would. They have an expectation of privacy. Even in Europe, they have this too. And while they are in Europe, expecting to have their privacy honoured, they are obliged to obey European law. If they get stopped for speeding they will be charged under local law, not under US law. And, in Europe, companies do not have the same rights as individuals.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by your penultimate paragraph. Honestly, this is a genuine confusion on my part. Are you claiming that European law is only enforceable in a US court?
Google.co.uk, Google.de, Google.fr are NOT US companies. They are obliged to obey EU law. You may not like it. Sorry.
The title of this thread is based on an 'EU' perspective. Your law is irrelevant, unless we are discussing whether it should be changed.
Should the US change its laws? as suggested in the opening remarks? Your decision. But you cannot change ours...
I have over 1000 hours (yes, not a lot, I know) flying our nuclear deterrent. The 'West' won the Cold War, not the USA! And if that is your best counter then you have already lost this argument. (Is your dad also bigger then my dad?, is your house bigger than mine? have you got a big brother who will beat me up?)
Would you care to quote where your law is expressed 'by treaty' with regard to the European Law regarding the holding of data? No, I thought not.....
OK, an example. If I give my date of birth to someone maintaining a database they must protect that information. My date of birth is probably also available in the public domain. Nevertheless, that item of data has the same protection as any other. It CANNOT be used by that company in an unacceptable way nor can it be traded, exchanged or used in any other fashion according to EU law. Furthermore, if there is no clear justification for company X retaining my date of birth as information they must, by law, remove it from their database.
Your view of the EU legislation, and I suspect the UK's implementation of it, is very pessimistic. The current law has been upheld in court. I am a UK citizen but I have chosen to no longer live in the UK hence my reluctance to quote UK law in this thread.
Aggregation is irrelevant - the current law applies to ALL collections of data, regardless of the source. If you shouldn't be holding it you are probably breaking the law if you do.
You are looking at this with a US viewpoint? That isn't the thrust of this thread, which is based on something other than a US viewpoint (in this case EU).
A business does NOT get to decide what is 'necessary': they must obey the law and convince a judge when someone decides that the law has been contravened. It might not be the American way - but fortunately most of us do not have to accept the American way.
Quoting the 15th amendment is also irrelevant in Europe. You have looked at a map of the world recently, haven't you? Try counting the countries on it - very few of whom are in the slightest bit concerned with US law.
Google is NOT a US company. If it were, then my attempts to access www.google.com would not be diverted to www.google.co.uk, or www.google.fr, www.google.com.gi, www.google.de. Each of these countries are in Europe, in which case - it must OBEY OUR LAW.
Information about me is NOT in the public domain. Nor is it the most interesting information about me. And in Europe (which IS the subject of this thread) information cannot be held in a database without the person concerned being able to challenge it - it doesn't matter whether it is in the public domain or not, you cannot aggregate information unless you have consent. Of course, I am sure that various intelligence agencies will ignore this but Google is not not an IA, not does it have my consent, therefore IN EUROPE this is a valid concern.
You do realise that we are debating the fact that the EU has challenged this - not the US. What is the point of quoting US law: it is irrelevant to this discussion - and the majority of the world's population!
No. It has to be correct, BUT it must be protected, the individual has a right to know what is being kept and, if it is wrong, can have it corrected. They must also declare what exactly is being held, so your comment "It does nothing to stop them collecting information that you unwittingly make available, directly or otherwise" is patently untrue.
I am a data custodian. Are you?
Slashdot Mirror
Of course this is a troll - and see my earlier post about the expected US criticism because he is French. But you do realise that Mandrake was a French company founded by a Frenchman, don't you?
I'll bet you're in the US. Do they have intelligence there? Let the flames begin.
Of course this is a troll - and see my earlier post about the expected US criticism because he is French. But you do realise that Madrake was a French company created by a Frenchman, don't you?
I'll bet you're in the US. Do they have intelligence there? Let the flames begin.
IANAL. There is no claim under trademark legislation as far as I can tell. It is unlikely that anyone would confuse a TV broadcast with software. IP is NOT protected under EU law per se. There can be copyright (which doesn't apply here) and patent (which also doesn't apply here). Bet he loses. And of course, being French there will be loads of US comment criticising his attempt. For once, it will probably be justified.
There is still a balance between Russia and the US, and that is what the Russians are referring to. You are absolutely correct there is no"balance of power" between the US and France, or England, or India, or Germany, or Japan, or Italy, or Israel, or etc., or etc., or etc..., but I never claimed that there was.
And of course - don't post as AC, it only confirms that you are a coward....
And I also pointed out that we have our own nuclear deterrent that we can use when, and if, those countries that the US claims to be defending us against actually has a weapon with the requisite range and a warhead to fit on it, and that we are part of Europe and were never conquered by the Nazis. I also explained that I was NOT countering his argument - although I do not agree with it - but I was taking issue with his arrogance and rude comments to the OP. I do not have to save face - I am not an American with an attitude. Now, if you can manage to read all the big words in the previous discussion and not just respond to one selected item without taking it in context, and without returning with profanities or childish comments such as "AHAHHA you got owned bitch!" you could also join in an adult discussion. Come back when you are adult enough and perhaps we can continue.
Well, you sure twisted that argument. I thought the US was claiming that the defensive missile shield would NOT be usable against Russian missiles. You are using the opposite to justify its deployment!
The countries that the article is claiming the system will be used against DO NOT HAVE nuclear missiles. When they do, my own country can use its own nuclear missiles as a deterrent just as easily as you can hope to shoot them down - in fact, our system is proven while yours is still experimental.
My country is part of Europe but was never defeated by the Nazis. So please be careful of any accusations that you wish to make against 'Europeans'.
And my criticism was not with your facts, which I do not agree with but I am not debating them here, but your attitude and rudeness. He was not being an 'ungrateful ass' but saying that he, personally, does not wish the US to deploy missiles using his safety as justification. He is entitled to that point of view. You getting all upset and becoming rude doesn't change that fact.
Link http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB159/inde x.htm (www.gwu.edu)
So the 'defensive missile system' COULD stop a selective launch by Russia. A selective launch is designed to demonstrate that the limit has been reached and the next step is all-out nuclear war. It is a single or very limited use of a nuclear weapon. It has always existed although it is not very often discussed but it emphasises that it is not always a case of fire one missile and we fire them all. So the proposed US system IS changing the balance of power in Russia's eyes.
No, the UK discovered huge quantities of natural gas in the North Sea. It made a lot of sense to use our its resources rather than buy them from elsewhere. Now the gas is almost gone, the coal mines were closed because they were 'uneconomic', and they are becoming dependent on energy from other countries. France never had anywhere near the same natural gas resources, although they have wisely used what they have. But I believe that they elected to use nuclear so that they would not become entirely dependent on energy from elsewhere.
No, you might be right about some things but not all.
Assuming that the USA _did_ save Western Europe from the Nazis it was not without the loss of almost 25 million Russians. How many Americans were lost during the entire Second World War? Assuming the the USA _did_ save Western Europe from communism, it was not without a contribution from those countries that make up Europe. How many countries make up NATO?
So you think that we are ungrateful? Was your sole purpose for 'saving Europe' simply so that we would be forever in your debt and would roll over a do your bidding whenever you want us to? No, it was also in your own interests to make sure that any war that was fought would be mainly over someone else's soil. Just how many times has the US been invaded or occupied? (I'm discounting the arrival of the Europeans and others that make up the vast majority of the US population.) We are grateful for what you have done and we have expressed that gratitude in many different ways. But it is not something that we should be expected to continue to do without question.
However, YOU could have been considerably more polite in the way that you made your argument - it matters not whether you are right or wrong. And that is the problem.... The US has taken it upon itself to dictate to many what they should do. You feel that we should all agree with your own particular point of view because of our shared history. Some in the US now think that, because it is the only viable superpower, that it can now throw its weight around and everyone will kowtow and shower you with their gratitude. It is not so. You have not been elected the world's police. Some countries, my own included, will stand alongside you in the fight against terrorism because we feel it is the right thing to do. My own countrymen are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan. We do not do this in order to make you indebted to us, nor because we expect you to demonstrate your own undying gratitude until eternity. No, we do it because it is the right thing to do. Just as you were involved in WW2 and the Cold War. However, your claims of 'ungrateful ass', your suggestions that we should all act as surrogate US states, that YOU, as an American, must always be right, are what I was criticising.
YOU remain the single cause of the US losing so much of its support around the world. Its your condescending attitude. Not the millions of other Americans whom I have fought alongside, worked with, or count amongst my friends. Just YOU and the small number of others like you.
Your posts in this thread indicate that you are precisely what the rest of the world dislikes most about Americans. The vast majority are decent people - I have fought alongside them, worked with them, and count many Americans among my closest friends. Unfortunately, you do not fit into any of these groups.
The defensive system has no capability against cruise missiles - which is precisely what Putin has said he will use.
The Russian argument is that, although the US might claim that the defences are intended solely for use against Iranian missiles, they could have a role against Russia's own missiles which would destabilise the existing balance of power. The radar system is also capable of observing activity inside Russian airspace. Of course, the US will claim that they wouldn't use it like that, but there are many threads on /. which point out that, if a system can be abused, then at some point it will. US actions around the globe can appear to some to be expansionist and bullying. Now a lot of this is Russian rhetoric - i.e. 'they would say that, wouldn't they?' but with the US recently withdrawing from at least one treaty with Russia, with its current propensity of using force to resolve issues that could, and should, be resolved diplomatically and with Western forces having established a significant presence on many of Russia's borders, you should at least try to consider the situation from their point of view. No, I don't think that they are correct, but I can understand how they might feel.
Under US law maybe. But this is Russian law. Are you sure that your assertion is still valid?
I know what you mean - but a thermite charge would actually be way hotter.....
The nuclear weapon that I flew with not made in the US. It was not under US control. That's why it was an independent nuclear deterrent. Please do not try to claim that everything positive that ever happened is because the US made it happen.
I'm arguing they are a US company incorporated in the state of Delaware and have the same rights as a normal citizen would. They have an expectation of privacy. Even in Europe, they have this too. And while they are in Europe, expecting to have their privacy honoured, they are obliged to obey European law. If they get stopped for speeding they will be charged under local law, not under US law. And, in Europe, companies do not have the same rights as individuals.I'm not quite sure what you mean by your penultimate paragraph. Honestly, this is a genuine confusion on my part. Are you claiming that European law is only enforceable in a US court?
Google.co.uk, Google.de, Google.fr are NOT US companies. They are obliged to obey EU law. You may not like it. Sorry.
The title of this thread is based on an 'EU' perspective. Your law is irrelevant, unless we are discussing whether it should be changed.
Should the US change its laws? as suggested in the opening remarks? Your decision. But you cannot change ours...
I have over 1000 hours (yes, not a lot, I know) flying our nuclear deterrent. The 'West' won the Cold War, not the USA! And if that is your best counter then you have already lost this argument. (Is your dad also bigger then my dad?, is your house bigger than mine? have you got a big brother who will beat me up?)
Would you care to quote where your law is expressed 'by treaty' with regard to the European Law regarding the holding of data? No, I thought not.....
OK, an example. If I give my date of birth to someone maintaining a database they must protect that information. My date of birth is probably also available in the public domain. Nevertheless, that item of data has the same protection as any other. It CANNOT be used by that company in an unacceptable way nor can it be traded, exchanged or used in any other fashion according to EU law. Furthermore, if there is no clear justification for company X retaining my date of birth as information they must, by law, remove it from their database. Your view of the EU legislation, and I suspect the UK's implementation of it, is very pessimistic. The current law has been upheld in court. I am a UK citizen but I have chosen to no longer live in the UK hence my reluctance to quote UK law in this thread. Aggregation is irrelevant - the current law applies to ALL collections of data, regardless of the source. If you shouldn't be holding it you are probably breaking the law if you do.
You might be correct if I lived in the UK......
You are looking at this with a US viewpoint? That isn't the thrust of this thread, which is based on something other than a US viewpoint (in this case EU). A business does NOT get to decide what is 'necessary': they must obey the law and convince a judge when someone decides that the law has been contravened. It might not be the American way - but fortunately most of us do not have to accept the American way. Quoting the 15th amendment is also irrelevant in Europe. You have looked at a map of the world recently, haven't you? Try counting the countries on it - very few of whom are in the slightest bit concerned with US law. Google is NOT a US company. If it were, then my attempts to access www.google.com would not be diverted to www.google.co.uk, or www.google.fr, www.google.com.gi, www.google.de. Each of these countries are in Europe, in which case - it must OBEY OUR LAW.
Information about me is NOT in the public domain. Nor is it the most interesting information about me. And in Europe (which IS the subject of this thread) information cannot be held in a database without the person concerned being able to challenge it - it doesn't matter whether it is in the public domain or not, you cannot aggregate information unless you have consent. Of course, I am sure that various intelligence agencies will ignore this but Google is not not an IA, not does it have my consent, therefore IN EUROPE this is a valid concern.
You do realise that we are debating the fact that the EU has challenged this - not the US. What is the point of quoting US law: it is irrelevant to this discussion - and the majority of the world's population!
Ah, so we are debating another US problem.....
No. It has to be correct, BUT it must be protected, the individual has a right to know what is being kept and, if it is wrong, can have it corrected. They must also declare what exactly is being held, so your comment "It does nothing to stop them collecting information that you unwittingly make available, directly or otherwise" is patently untrue. I am a data custodian. Are you?