Sure... Quote only part of my post out of context, and state that you disagree with it as if it stood alone, all the while completely omitting the part where I said it would only matter if the site were located in the USA in the first place.

Obviously if the site is not hosted in the USA then there is no issue that the USA could have with the site... although the uploader of such content, *if located in the USA*, could still be held accountable for said export if they were able to identify them.

Sort of. The desire not to cannibalise sales was a key factor in the design of the PC, but these were also features that IBM didn't think would be missed.

IBM knew what multitasking was for: it was to allow multiple users to use the same computer with administrator-controled priorities. Protected memory was for the same things. Why would you need these on a computer that was intended for a single user to use? A single user can obviously only run one program at a time (they only have one set of eyes and hands) and you can save a lot in hardware (and software) if you remove the ability to do more. And, of course, then no one will start buying the cheap PCs and hooking them up to a load of terminals rather than buying a minicomputer or mainframe.

Which of course was itself neither caused nor amplified by the underlying financial strains within the EU and particularly the Eurozone, right?

My father's company got their first Windows 3.0 install because they bought a diagram tool (Meta Design, I think), that came with a free copy. The company that made it had decided that bundling a copy of Windows 3.0 was cheaper than writing (or licensing) a graphical toolkit for DOS and an associated set of printer drivers. I don't know if they were the only company to do this, but after a year or so they stopped bundling Windows and just expected their customers to either have a copy already or go and buy one.

Facebook buying it means absolutely dick all if the guy really did misappropriate another company's IP. Facebook would fully be entitled to absolutely all of their money back and then some. Backers of the Rift on kickstarter would unfortunately probably be out of luck.

If this guy really used Total Recall's confidential IP, which I'm not saying necessarily happened, but it seems like it may be possible, then Facebook's acquisition would be void... and they could sue the person they bought it from for no less than every single cent that they spent buying it out, probably with interest, and punative damages thrown in for good measure.

This company is working within what I understand is the legally permissable 5-year limitation on NDA's in the high technology industry (albeit only just barely), so if OR is really based on misappropriated IP from that company, then Facebook is no more authorized to use the tech without Total Recall's permission than this guy was authorized to sell it.

I was a backer. Were you? Or do you feel compelling to complain on behalf of other people?

I got the main thing I backed it for - a dev kit.

Facebook buying them means an investment in learning to program for the Rift is probably 1000x more useful than it would have been otherwise.

I understand people are wary of Facebook, and for good reason. But I have seen huge upsides with pretty much no downside since Facebook bought the company.

... then Facebook is not really permitted to freely use that technology either, and they would have a case against the person they bought it from as well. Certainly they would at least be entitled to any monies they had already given the founder for rights to Occulus Rift, and punative damages could even be applicable.

Total Recall could, of course, license the tech to Facebook, and probably make a tidy profit while doing so.

It has plenty to do with the Common Market.

It has very little to do with the rest of the stuff the EU added on top of that Common Market.

There is no reason why in the long term that should not be the case. It worked before, something similar works today with the EFTA nations, and it is still in everyone's interests for a separated UK and the nations still in the EU to remain effective trading partners.

Where did that "and privileges" come from? What privileges are these, and why do you keep adding extra one-sided straw men to the discussion when no-one else is suggesting them?

If EU skeptics have come to power elsewhere, why does the EU have any right to try to prevent them from leaving? You could hardly blame, for example, the Greek, for having second thoughts. Though of course the general population in Greece seems to be consistently in favour of trying to make the Euro work rather than going back to their old currency anyway, so this is just another straw man.

And the same number of people are actually suggesting each of those deals here: zero. You seem to be making up random straw men for reasons I don't understand, and I don't see how that is furthering any useful debate here.

No, it's not. One of the strategies requires everything to work almost immediately or it almost immediately starts building up to a failure that undermines the economies on both sides. The other strategy can be used over arbitrarily long timescales, with full integration determined by when everyone is ready instead of artificial pressures because of unwanted economic side-effects, and in fact full economic integration not necessarily ever being required at all.

What referendum and what agreement?

The beginning of the European Union as we know it today was the Maastricht Treaty in 1991.

The last referendum on major European integration in the UK was held in 1975, and it was about membership of the European Economic Community, which was explicitly about trade -- in fact, it was widely known as the Common Market.

This went as far as some provisions for freedom of movement, but was long before the kind of centralised government and economic integration we see with today's European Union.

For those keeping score at home, yes, that means no-one under the age of 57 in the UK has ever voted in a referendum on European integration at all.

Because the EU today doesn't just have the useful trade agreements, but also a lot of other baggage.

An interesting perspective, considering how unequal the footing is between different EU member states today, and how much this is responsible for many of the serious problems facing Europe recently.

Now you're just making things up and fear-mongering again.

For example, one of the widely reported pre-leaving business comments recently was from some of the senior executives at JCB, which is a large organisation that makes engineering vehicles and the like. They made a reasonable point that there is relatively little demand for such vehicles within Europe under the current economic conditions, while there is a great deal of demand and even more potential in rising global economies like China, to which the vehicles can be exported in large numbers. Limiting potentially beneficial trade agreements with those developing economies for the sake of keeping the EU happy simply isn't in the interests of a business like that, and in turn of that sector of the UK economy. This has nothing to do with the kind of exploitation of the workforce you're alleging.

The numbers are what they are. The UK has a healthy balance in trade with most of the more economically advanced EU member states, but overall it is the non-UK side that tends to export slightly more at the moment, so they have more to lose if the bureaucrats throw their toys out of the pram instead of dealing with any UK exit like adults.

And there is no particular reason to assume the trade rules would change dramatically in any new agreements anyway. As I said before, the trade agreements are one of the areas where everyone saw common ground long before the EU was around, and they are one of the areas where there is still a lot of common ground today. You're just fear-mongering, again.

It hasn't really worked out very well for anyone over the past few years. That's the point: closer integration between partners who aren't starting from a broadly similar position is often a lose-lose proposition. The visionary sees the potential for what might be a better future for everyone, but the pragmatist also asks how we're going to get there starting from where we all are today.

Sorry, but that is just unfounded fear-mongering.

There is no reason that skilled and motivated immigrants should have to leave the UK, for the same reason that roughly half our immigrant population comes from outside the EU today. However, the UK could impose stricter controls on those with less to offer and/or who don't speak the local languages or share the local culture entering the country. Given widespread -- and at least somewhat justified -- popular concern about less productive immigrants taking advantage of the social security system in the UK and about isolated communities that never integrate significantly, that seems one of the most likely outcomes in the event of a UK/EU split.

Similarly, the average UK ex-pat retiree now living elsewhere within the EU probably isn't a benefits scrounger. With things like the cost of housing being so low in much of continental Europe compared to the UK, these people are probably sufficiently wealthy to look after themselves for as long as they need to, contributing to the local economy in the process, and simply enjoy the more laid back culture and local environment in their later years. Again, there would be little reason to force such people out just because of a UK/EU split.

So you provide international development aid before you integrate, and you only allow the tighter integration when the weaker nations are ready for it. This story plays out on a global scale and with much wider gaps in current economic strength all the time, but the EU has spectacularly mismanaged it within Europe, unfortunately with all-too-predictable consequences.