In Europe there is no 'right' to distribute browsers. You have a choice to do so IF YOU WISH. You are obliged to obey the law. Was that clear enough, this time?

Oh good! I can pay online - providing I've not been given '3 strikes and out' without the chance to prove my innocence. Online is only usable if it becomes a right with which the Government cannot interfere. After all, they cannot prevent you from using a post office or a bank to make a payment if you are complying legally with all other requirements of life. But the internet is not the same. The ISPs will be tasked to carry out deep packet inspection - which implies that they will also be able to collect your bank details which, of course, will be entirely secure and never leaked or misused -, you could be disconnected because someone else hacked into you network, one member of a household carried out something deemed suspicious (i.e. downloading an Ubuntu CD?), or the 'Government' doesn't like the fact that you support an opposition party.

'The only laws that need to be followed -- in any country -- are just laws: laws that protect us against theft, assault, murder, contract-breaking, etc.'

And the laws are 'just' if they are put in place by the people who are responsible in a democracy for doing such a thing. Deciding that you will obey some laws and not others is not at your whim. The laws are there to protect the majority and not to suit you as an individual. Your right is to be able to choose (i.e. elect) those that you want to be responsible for writing the laws. Even if you have elected someone, you do not have the right to obey some of their laws and ignore others. Well, that is certainly not the case in Europe anyway.

'but the state *is* forcing companies to do business their way or bust, which is unjust'

As you correctly pointed out, Microsoft do not have to do business in Europe if they do not wish to do so. I feel that they would be stupid to turn their back on such a large potential market but they are free, nevertheless, to do as they wish. However, IF they choose to do business in Europe then they MUST comply with the laws that are applicable in Europe. I cannot understand how you can see this as being 'unjust'.

NRLA != NLRA

What is wrong with 32-bit systems? I have 8 computers running here, only one of which is 64bit. They can all do word processing, compile programs, run a spreadsheet, surf the web, manage email, edit photographs......

Now please give me a sensible answer as to why I should want to upgrade any of them. Because of marketing hype? No. Because I cannot do something that you deem to be important? No, again. Because they cannot do it as fast as you think is necessary? No, for me and my users they are perfectly adequate and meet our needs perfectly. So please tell me why I should spend money to upgrade my computers.

Having read this and other posts in this thread I am amazed that some posters cannot understand the following:

The EULA is worded differently in different countries. It is no use quoting what is written in the American, Italian or Chinese version of the EULA - what is relevant is the Danish version.

Laws differ from country to country. Again, it is pointless to quote the law a country other than Denmark in trying to decide the most appropriate outcome for this case.

You can see this. I can see this. Why do some people believe that their little world is the only world that exists?

And why shouldn't someone install their software to a non-native partition? It should work. Before Vista you could quite easily install to ext2/ext3 under Windows but, now, Microsoft have blocked that course of action. See other threads (http://linux.slashdot.org/story/09/07/02/1317229/Linux-Patch-Clears-the-Air-For-Use-of-Microsofts-FAT-Filesystem) for further discussion.

Not so - they are suppose to comply with all of the DPA unless they have previously claimed a waiver which, in most cases, they haven't because they cannot justify it. You are correct in the implication that the Government rarely get taken to task when they do not comply with the DPA whereas others do, but that is not because they are exempt from it. I have worked in a Government department and I have had responsibility for data protection as part of my job. The Data Protection Registrar has also publicly criticised the Government for its poor compliance record although I don't think that the Government will lose much sleep over it.

"It is not that Michael Jackson died. It is that he died suddenly and unexpectedly."

People of around his age, particularly those who might be on continual medication, are dying 'suddenly and unexpectedly' all the time. Although he is at the young end of the coronary heart disease spectrum he is by no means the only 50 year old to die of heart failure. The only reason that this made the news is because of who he was. And, as many of us have pointed out, how important or influential he might be considered to be is an individual thing. Will I wake up in a month's time thinking 'Oh no - Michael Jackson is dead'? Nope - nor do I often think of John Lennon or Elvis. I acknowledge their contribution to the music industry but there are many, many, many things far more important in day-to-day life than the death of a popular musician.

Its a bit of a leap to say the 'whole country was brought to its knees' when actually the direct effects of the attack were much less severe. The indirect effects, i.e. those introduced by the Government in the wake of 9/11, were much more noticeable but I would not describe the Government as '19 men armed with box cutters'. Most of the problems resulting from 9/11 are self-induced and, as many have commented elsewhere numerous times before, they do little to change the probability of a terrorist attack actually occurring again in the future.

Look at the total number of deaths caused by 9/11 and then compare it to the number of deaths caused by traffic accidents or coronary disease, or the damage caused by floods resulting from by hurricanes.

You might not have RTFA, but the Greeks are NOT complaining about the filming per se, but they want to be reassured that the data collected will be protected in accordance with current European law. For example, police recordings are protected or, at least, they have made a case for how they will protect the data which has satisfied the appropriate legal bodies. However, Google has not convinced the Greek authorities that it will provide adequate protection of its data.

Now this might not worry you. But in Europe, collecting the data is only the start of it. Personal data (and that includes identities, addresses, personal habits and traits, a person's car details etc), if stored on computers, can be collected only for a specific purpose and must then be protected from unauthorised use i.e. from being used for any other purpose. Google must state what they intend the authorised use to be (which they have) and then state how they intend to protect the data from any other unauthorised usage (which they haven't yet done). How will they prevent criminals from accessing the data for unauthorised purposes? The claim that it is all in the public domain is a bit of a red herring - criminals don't usually have such a mass of data at their fingertips and, in any event, it is for Google to show how they will comply with the current law not to argue the case for why the current law should be changed. How will they prevent individuals from accessing the data for a purpose other than that intended by Google?

I don't criticise Greece for its actions but I do criticise many other European countries which have simply ignored European law and allowed the data collection to continue. Google might be able to comply with the current legislation and, if they can, they will be allowed to continue.

What is this troll trying to say in English???

You've spelled it out for me - and I still haven't got a clue what you are talking about. Is it a child's program, a hip-hop DJ, or what?

But, if I've understood your analogy correctly, you're claiming that the US has paid for all of the internet infrastructure? That is incorrect. Many nations around the world have invested in their own internet infrastructure, and more than just the US has been instrumental in providing technical innovation and progress to the network that began with ARPANet. To claim that it is an entirely US funded and developed resource is simply wrong. It began with an idea that originated in America, but it has grown because of the contribution of many nations and individuals.

No, he is the father of Corporal Punishment and Private Land, which is probably where you have heard his name .....