Search Results

Search found 428 results on 18 pages for 'klicker eu'.

Page 1/18 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • EU Research for ICT - Call 7 - biggest ever at € 780 million

    - by trond-arne.undheim
    Under the Digital Agenda for Europe, the Commission has committed to maintaining the pace of a 20% yearly increase of the annual ICT R&D budget at least until 2013. The EU's flagship policy programme calls for doubling of annual public spending on ICT R&D by 2020 and to leverage an equivalent increase in private spending to achieve the goals of Europe's 2020 strategy for jobs and growth. Call 7 is one of the biggest calls ever launched for information and communications technology (ICT) research proposals under the EU's research framework programmes. It will result in project funding of € 780 million in 2011. This funding will advance research on the future internet, robotics, smart and embedded systems, photonics, ICT for energy efficiency, health and well-being in an ageing society, and more. The €780 million call for proposals is part of the biggest ever annual Work Programme under the EU's 7th Framework Programme for Research. Almost €1.2 billion has been budgeted for 2011. €220 million were made available already in July 2010 for public private partnerships focusing on ICT for smart cars, green buildings, sustainable factories and the future internet. Universities, research centres, SMEs, large companies and other organisations in Europe and beyond are eligible to apply for project funding under ICT Call 7. Proposals can be submitted until 18 January 2011, after which they will be evaluated by independent panels of experts for selection on the basis of their quality. Background: Digital Agenda: European Commission announces €780 million boost for strategic ICT research. Call text: ICT Call 7 Deadline: 18/01/2011.

    Read the article

  • Does the EU cookie law apply to an EU site that is hosted outside of the EU?

    - by mickburkejnr
    I have been reading up about this EU cookie law, and have also had in depth conversations with my girlfriend who is a solicitor/lawyer and with colleagues while building websites. While we are now working towards implementing a way to abide by the EU law, I have thought of something which no one really knows the answer to and has caused a few arguments. It's my understanding that any website in the EU must abide by these cookie laws, which is understandable. However, say if I were to have a .co.uk or .eu domain name pointing to a website which is hosted in America for example, do I still need to abide by the EU laws even though the website is hosted outside of the EU? One person I have asked has said that because the domain name is .co.uk or .eu (a European TLD) then the website is still accountable under EU law. Another person I have asked has said because the actual website is held outside of the EU, it doesn't actually have to bother with this law.

    Read the article

  • EU Digital Agenda scores 85/100

    - by trond-arne.undheim
    If the Digital Agenda was a bottle of wine and I were wine critic Robert Parker, I would say the Digital Agenda has "a great bouquet, many good elements, with astringent, dry and puckering mouth feel that will not please everyone, but still displaying some finesse. A somewhat controlled effort with no surprises and a few noticeable flaws in the delivery. Noticeably shorter aftertaste than advertised by the producers. Score: 85/100. Enjoy now". The EU Digital Agenda states that "standards are vital for interoperability" and has a whole chapter on interoperability and standards. With this strong emphasis, there is hope the EU's outdated standardization system finally is headed for reform. It has been 23 years since the legal framework of standardisation was completed by Council Decision 87/95/EEC8 in the Information and Communications Technology (ICT) sector. Standardization is market driven. For several decades the IT industry has been developing standards and specifications in global open standards development organisations (fora/consortia), many of which have transparency procedures and practices far superior to the European Standards Organizations. The Digital Agenda rightly states: "reflecting the rise and growing importance of ICT standards developed by certain global fora and consortia". Some fora/consortia, of course, are distorted, influenced by single vendors, have poor track record, and need constant vigilance, but they are the minority. Therefore, the recognition needs to be accompanied by eligibility criteria focused on openness. Will the EU reform its ICT standardization by the end of 2010? Possibly, and only if DG Enterprise takes on board that Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs) have driven half of the productivity growth in Europe over the past 15 years, a prominent fact in the EU's excellent Digital Competitiveness report 2010 published on Monday 17 May. It is ok to single out the ICT sector. It simply is the most important sector right now as it fuels growth in all other sectors. Let's not wait for the entire standardization package which may take another few years. Europe does not have time. The Digital Agenda is an umbrella strategy with deliveries from a host of actors across the Commission. For instance, the EU promises to issue "guidance on transparent ex-ante disclosure rules for essential intellectual property rights and licensing terms and conditions in the context of standard setting", by 2011 in the Horisontal Guidelines now out for public consultation by DG COMP and to some extent by DG ENTR's standardization policy reform. This is important. The EU will issue procurement guidance as interoperability frameworks are put into practice. This is a joint responsibility of several DGs, and is likely to suffer coordination problems, controversy and delays. We have seen plenty of the latter already and I have commented on the Commission's own interoperability elsewhere, with mixed luck. :( Yesterday, I watched the cartoonesque Korean western film The Good, the Bad and the Weird. In the movie (and I meant in the movie only), a bandit, a thief, and a bounty hunter, all excellent at whatever they do, fight for a treasure map. Whether that is a good analogy for the situation within the Commission, others are better judges of than I. However, as a movie fanatic, I still await the final shoot-out, and, as in the film, the only certainty is that "life is about chasing and being chased". The missed opportunity (in this case not following up the push from Member States to better define open standards based interoperability) is a casualty of the chaos ensued in the European Wild West (and I mean that in the most endearing sense, and my excuses beforehand to actors who possibly justifiably cannot bear being compared to fictional movie characters). Instead of exposing the ongoing fight, the EU opted for the legalistic use of the term "standards" throughout the document. This is a term that--to the EU-- excludes most standards used by the IT industry world wide. So, while it, for a moment, meant "weapon down", it will not lead to lasting peace. The Digital Agenda calls for the Member States to "Implement commitments on interoperability and standards in the Malmö and Granada Declarations by 2013". This is a far cry from the actual Ministerial Declarations which called upon the Commission to help them with this implementation by recognizing and further defining open standards based interoperability. Unless there is more forthcoming from the Commission, the market's judgement will be: you simply fall short. Generally, I think the EU focus now should be "from policy to practice" and the Digital Agenda does indeed stop short of tackling some highly practical issues. There is need for progress beyond the Digital Agenda. Here are some suggestions that would help Europe re-take global leadership on openness, public sector reform, and economic growth: A strong European software strategy centred around open standards based interoperability by 2011. An ambitious new eCommission strategy for 2011-15 focused on migration to open standards by 2015. Aligning the IT portfolio across the Commission into one Digital Agenda DG by 2012. Focusing all best practice exchange in eGovernment on one social networking site, epractice.eu (full disclosure: I had a role in getting that site up and running) Prioritizing public sector needs in global standardization over European standardization by 2014.

    Read the article

  • Digital Agenda in the EU means open standards after all

    - by trond-arne.undheim
    European Commission Vice President Neelie Kroes speech on Openness at the heart of the EU Digital Agenda at Open Forum Europe 2010 Summit in Brussels refocuses the EU Digital Agenda on open standards. I say the speech scores a 90/100, smooth, smart, a little vicious at the fringes, maybe? Anyway, it shows the strategy might age and implement well. This is Dutch pragmatism at its best. The EU Digital Agenda (I give it an 85/100 score), while laudable, stops short of using the term. The next step for the European Commission is defining the term open standards. If they do that, and do it right, Vice President Kroes will go into history as having made a significant contribution towards global progress in e-government by possibly eradicating lock-in forever. Moreover, she will put Europe's SMEs in a better position to succeed in a global IT market filled with barriers to entry from players not fully understanding, using, or unpacking standards. Kroes' interesting suggestion that she will now explore a "legal proposal" on interoperability that will have an impact on all IT companies operating in the European market is more up for debate. An interoperability directive? One run by DG COMP or one run by DG INFSO, telecom style? Would something like that work? Would the industry like it? Would it help European governments? Possibly, if done right. The good thing was, Kroes pointed out that she will look for input from the industry. Kroes' track record is one of not being scared of taking on the Titans. She also wants to enact real, positive, lasting change. "I will not go anywhere", she said. All of that is good. And she does understand the importance of open standards. Let's now start discussing the details. Implementing the Digital Agenda is not simple. It requires collaboration across the various Directorates in the European Commission. Mounting a new Interoperability directive is also never attempted before. Getting it right is important. Even possibly finding out it cannot be done right and choosing a more light weight approach that is equally effective would be bold. Go Kroes!

    Read the article

  • CEN/CENELEC Lacks Perspective

    - by trond-arne.undheim
    Over the last few months, two of the European Standardization Organizations (ESOs), CEN and CENELEC have circulated an unfortunate position statement distorting the facts around fora and consortia. For the benefit of outsiders to this debate, let's just say that this debate regards whether and how the EU should recognize standards and specifications from certain fora and consortia based on a process evaluating the openness and transparency of such deliverables. The topic is complex, and somewhat confusing even to insiders, but nevertheless crucial to the European economy. As far as I can judge, their positions are not based on facts. This is unfortunate. For the benefit of clarity, here are some of the observations they make: a)"Most consortia are in essence driven by technology companies making hardware and software solutions, by definition very few of the largest ones are European-based". b) "Most consortia lack a European presence, relevant Committees, even those that are often cited as having stronger links with Europe, seem to lack an overall, inclusive set of participants". c) "Recognising specific consortia specifications will not resolve any concrete problems of interoperability for public authorities; interoperability depends on stringing together a range of specifications (from formal global bodies or consortia alike)". d) "Consortia already have the option to have their specifications adopted by the international formal standards bodies and many more exercise this than the two that seem to be campaigning for European recognition. Such specifications can then also be adopted as European standards." e) "Consortium specifications completely lack any process to take due and balanced account of requirements at national level - this is not important for technologies but can be a critical issue when discussing cross-border issues within the EU such as eGovernment, eHealth and so on". f) "The proposed recognition will not lead to standstill on national or European activities, nor to the adoption of the specifications as national standards in the CEN and CENELEC members (usually in their official national languages), nor to withdrawal of conflicting national standards. A big asset of the European standardization system is its coherence and lack of fragmentation." g) "We always miss concrete and specific examples of where consortia referencing are supposed to be helpful." First of all, note that ETSI, the third ESO, did not join the position. The reason is, of course, that ETSI beyond being an ESO, also has a global perspective and, moreover, does consider reality. Secondly, having produced arguments a) to g), CEN/CENELEC has the audacity to call a meeting on Friday 25 February entitled "ICT standardization - improving collaboration in Europe". This sounds very nice, but they have not set the stage for constructive debate. Rather, they demonstrate a striking lack of vision and lack of perspective. I will back this up by three facts, and leave it there. 1. Since the 1980s, global industry fora and consortia, such as IETF, W3C and OASIS have emerged as world-leading ICT standards development organizations with excellent procedures for openness and transparency in all phases of standards development, ex post and ex ante. - Practically no ICT system can be built without using fora and consortia standards (FCS). - Without using FCS, neither the Internet, upon which the EU economy depends, nor EU institutions would operate. - FCS are of high relevance for achieving and promoting interoperability and driving innovation. 2. FCS are complementary to the formally recognized standards organizations including the ESOs. - No work will be taken away from the ESOs should the EU recognize certain FCS. - Each FCS would be evaluated on its merit and on the openness of the process that produced it. ESOs would, with other stakeholders, have a say. - ESOs could potentially educate and assist European stakeholders to engage more actively and constructively with FCS. - ETSI, also an ESO, seems to clearly recognize these facts. 3. Europe and its Member States have a strong voice in several of the most relevant global industry fora and consortia. - W3C: W3C was founded in 1994 by an Englishman, Sir Tim Berners-Lee, in collaboration with CERN, the European research lab. In April 1995, INRIA (Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et Automatique) in France became the first European W3C host and in 2003, ERCIM (European Research Consortium in Informatics and Mathematics), also based in France, took over the role of European W3C host from INRIA. Today, W3C has 326 Members, 40% of which are European. Government participation is also strong, and it could be increased - a development that is very much desired by W3C. Current members of the W3C Advisory Board includes Ora Lassila (Nokia) and Charles McCathie Nevile (Opera). Nokia is Finnish company, Opera is a Norwegian company. SAP's Claus von Riegen is an alumni of the same Advisory Board. - OASIS: its membership - 30% of which is European - represents the marketplace, reflecting a balance of providers, user companies, government agencies, and non-profit organizations. In particular, about 15% of OASIS members are governments or universities. Frederick Hirsch from Nokia, Claus von Riegen from SAP AG and Charles-H. Schulz from Ars Aperta are on the Board of Directors. Nokia is a Finnish company, SAP is a German company and Ars Aperta is a French company. The Chairman of the Board is Peter Brown, who is an Independent Consultant, an Austrian citizen AND an official of the European Parliament currently on long-term leave. - IETF: The oversight of its activities is by the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), since 2007 chaired by Olaf Kolkman, a Dutch national who lives in Uithoorn, NL. Kolkman is director of NLnet Labs, a foundation chartered to develop open source software and open source standards for the Internet. Other IAB members include Marcelo Bagnulo whose affiliation is the University Carlos III of Madrid, Spain as well as Hannes Tschofenig from Nokia Siemens Networks. Nokia is a Finnish company. Siemens is a German company. Nokia Siemens is a European joint venture. - Member States: At least 17 European Member States have developed Interoperability Frameworks that include FCS, according to the EU-funded National Interoperability Framework Observatory (see list and NIFO web site on IDABC). This also means they actively procure solutions using FCS, reference FCS in their policies and even in laws. Member State reps are free to engage in FCS, and many do. It would be nice if the EU adjusted to this reality. - A huge number of European nationals work in the global IT industry, on European soil or elsewhere, whether in EU registered companies or not. CEN/CENELEC lacks perspective and has engaged in an effort to twist facts that is quite striking from a publicly funded organization. I wish them all possible success with Friday's meeting but I fear all of the most important stakeholders will not be at the table. Not because they do not wish to collaborate, but because they just have been insulted. If they do show up, it would be a gracious move, almost beyond comprehension. While I do not expect CEN/CENELEC to line up perfectly in favor of fora and consortia, I think it would be to their benefit to stick to more palatable observations. Actually, I would suggest an apology, straightening out the facts. This works among friends and it works in an organizational context. Then, we can all move on. Standardization is important. Too important to ignore. Too important to distort. The European economy depends on it. We need CEN/CENELEC. It is an important organization. But CEN/CENELEC needs fora and consortia, too.

    Read the article

  • Is Openness at the heart of the EU Digital Agenda?

    - by trond-arne.undheim
    At OpenForum Europe Summit 2010, to be held in Brussels, Autoworld, 11 Parc du Cinquantenaire on Thursday 10 June 2010, a number of global speakers will discuss whether it indeed provides an open digital market as a catalyst for economic growth and if it will deliver a truly open e-government and digital citizenship (see Summit 2010). In 2008, OpenForum Europe, a not-for-profit champion of openness through open standards, hosted one of the most cited speeches by Neelie Kroes, then Commissioner of Competition. Her forward-looking speech on openness and interoperability as a way to improve the competitiveness of ICT markets set the EU on a path to eradicate lock-in forever. On the two-year anniversary of that event, Vice President Kroes, now the first-ever Commissioner of the Digital Agenda, is set to outline her plans for delivering on that vision. Much excitement surrounds open standards, given that Kroes is a staunch believer. The EU's Digital Agenda promises IT standardization reform in Europe and vows to recognize global standards development organizations (fora/consortia) by 2010. However, she avoided the term "open standards" in her new strategy. Markets are, of course, asking why she is keeping her cards tight on this crucial issue. Following her speech, Professor Yochai Benkler, award-winning author of "The Wealth of Networks", and Professor Nigel Shadbolt, appointed by the UK Government to work alongside Sir Tim Berners-Lee to help transform public access to UK Government information join dozens of speakers in the quest to analyse, entertain and challenge European IT policy, people, and documents. Speakers at OFE Summit 2010 include David Drummond, Senior VP Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer, Google; Michael Karasick, VP Technology and Strategy, IBM; Don Deutsch, Vice President, Standards Strategy and Architecture for Oracle Corp; Thomas Vinje, Partner Clifford Chance; Jerry Fishenden, Director, Centre for Policy Research, and Rishab Ghosh, head, collaborative creativity group, UNU-MERIT, Maastricht (see speakers). Will openness stay at the heart of EU Digital Agenda? Only time will show.

    Read the article

  • Trainee programs for foreigner in EU [closed]

    - by user63970
    Maybe this is the wrong site for asking that, but I didn't find better. I heard a lot about programs for young IT specialists in EU from other countries, my residence is Ukraine. We have several organizations that provide info about them, but you must pay quite a lot for them to only show you the list of vacancies. Maybe someone knows about companies in EU that are willing to take young programmers for trainee or junior vacancies from non-EU countries? I am interested in C++ development.

    Read the article

  • Ping.eu

    - by Sarang
    Found an interesting resource thanks to a close friend. Ping.eu is a free service which would let you test various aspects related to networks which would typically be pain inducing doing it on your own. For seasoned network professional having a MAC address of their own instead of a name :) this might not be that useful. However for a layperson like me this an invaluable resource. These guys provide you with following services: Ping – Shows how long it takes for packets to reach host Traceroute – Traces the route of packets to destination host from our server DNS lookup – Look up DNS record WHOIS – Lists contact info for an IP or domain Port check – Tests if port is opened on specified IP Reverse lookup – Gets hostname by IP address Proxy checker – Detects a proxy server Mail relaying – Tests relaying capabilities of specified mail-server Bandwidth meter – Detects your download speed from our server Network calculator – Calculates subnet range by network mask Network mask calculator – Calculates network mask by subnet range Country by IP – Detects country by IP or hostname Unit converter – Converts values from one unit to another   Taken straight from their site. Thanks Ping.eu

    Read the article

  • Where to store users consent (EU cookie law)

    - by Mantorok
    We are legally obliged in a few months to obtain consent from users to allow us to store any cookies on the users PC. My query is, what would be the most effective way of storing this consent to ensure that users don't get repeat requests to give consent in the future, obviously for authenticated users I can store this against their profile. But what about for non-authenticated users. My initial thought, ironically, was to store given consent in a cookie..?

    Read the article

  • The EU Commission's Digital Agenda Plan

    <b>Groklaw:</b> "I can't help but think of Microsoft's recent bragging about not being fully interoperable with Google Docs. I think they're not yet on the interoperability train that is already leaving the station, and I hope they hop on board before it's too late."

    Read the article

  • Resize image on ViewSonic CD3200-EU

    - by JohnLBevan
    My ViewSonic CD3200-EU monitor doesn't seem to have an option to scale the image vertically. I've tried all the buttons which look promising and even went as far as browsing the manual (possibly my first time). http://www.viewsoniceurope.com/uk/assets/004/9269.pdf Does anyone know if this can be done? I'm connecting with an android hdmi stick (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B008XX29WS/ref=oh_details_o00_s00_i00) so if there's any way to change screensize that way that would also be appreciated. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • European Interoperability Framework - a new beginning?

    - by trond-arne.undheim
    The most controversial document in the history of the European Commission's IT policy is out. EIF is here, wrapped in the Communication "Towards interoperability for European public services", and including the new feature European Interoperability Strategy (EIS), arguably a higher strategic take on the same topic. Leaving EIS aside for a moment, the EIF controversy has been around IPR, defining open standards and about the proper terminology around standardization deliverables. Today, as the document finally emerges, what is the verdict? First of all, to be fair to those among you who do not spend your lives in the intricate labyrinths of Commission IT policy documents on interoperability, let's define what we are talking about. According to the Communication: "An interoperability framework is an agreed approach to interoperability for organisations that want to collaborate to provide joint delivery of public services. Within its scope of applicability, it specifies common elements such as vocabulary, concepts, principles, policies, guidelines, recommendations, standards, specifications and practices." The Good - EIF reconfirms that "The Digital Agenda can only take off if interoperability based on standards and open platforms is ensured" and also confirms that "The positive effect of open specifications is also demonstrated by the Internet ecosystem." - EIF takes a productive and pragmatic stance on openness: "In the context of the EIF, openness is the willingness of persons, organisations or other members of a community of interest to share knowledge and stimulate debate within that community, the ultimate goal being to advance knowledge and the use of this knowledge to solve problems" (p.11). "If the openness principle is applied in full: - All stakeholders have the same possibility of contributing to the development of the specification and public review is part of the decision-making process; - The specification is available for everybody to study; - Intellectual property rights related to the specification are licensed on FRAND terms or on a royalty-free basis in a way that allows implementation in both proprietary and open source software" (p. 26). - EIF is a formal Commission document. The former EIF 1.0 was a semi-formal deliverable from the PEGSCO, a working group of Member State representatives. - EIF tackles interoperability head-on and takes a clear stance: "Recommendation 22. When establishing European public services, public administrations should prefer open specifications, taking due account of the coverage of functional needs, maturity and market support." - The Commission will continue to support the National Interoperability Framework Observatory (NIFO), reconfirming the importance of coordinating such approaches across borders. - The Commission will align its internal interoperability strategy with the EIS through the eCommission initiative. - One cannot stress the importance of using open standards enough, whether in the context of open source or non-open source software. The EIF seems to have picked up on this fact: What does the EIF says about the relation between open specifications and open source software? The EIF introduces, as one of the characteristics of an open specification, the requirement that IPRs related to the specification have to be licensed on FRAND terms or on a royalty-free basis in a way that allows implementation in both proprietary and open source software. In this way, companies working under various business models can compete on an equal footing when providing solutions to public administrations while administrations that implement the standard in their own software (software that they own) can share such software with others under an open source licence if they so decide. - EIF is now among the center pieces of the Digital Agenda (even though this demands extensive inter-agency coordination in the Commission): "The EIS and the EIF will be maintained under the ISA Programme and kept in line with the results of other relevant Digital Agenda actions on interoperability and standards such as the ones on the reform of rules on implementation of ICT standards in Europe to allow use of certain ICT fora and consortia standards, on issuing guidelines on essential intellectual property rights and licensing conditions in standard-setting, including for ex-ante disclosure, and on providing guidance on the link between ICT standardisation and public procurement to help public authorities to use standards to promote efficiency and reduce lock-in.(Communication, p.7)" All in all, quite a few good things have happened to the document in the two years it has been on the shelf or was being re-written, depending on your perspective, in any case, awaiting the storms to calm. The Bad - While a certain pragmatism is required, and governments cannot migrate to full openness overnight, EIF gives a bit too much room for governments not to apply the openness principle in full. Plenty of reasons are given, which should maybe have been put as challenges to be overcome: "However, public administrations may decide to use less open specifications, if open specifications do not exist or do not meet functional interoperability needs. In all cases, specifications should be mature and sufficiently supported by the market, except if used in the context of creating innovative solutions". - EIF does not use the internationally established terminology: open standards. Rather, the EIF introduces the notion of "formalised specification". How do "formalised specifications" relate to "standards"? According to the FAQ provided: The word "standard" has a specific meaning in Europe as defined by Directive 98/34/EC. Only technical specifications approved by a recognised standardisation body can be called a standard. Many ICT systems rely on the use of specifications developed by other organisations such as a forum or consortium. The EIF introduces the notion of "formalised specification", which is either a standard pursuant to Directive 98/34/EC or a specification established by ICT fora and consortia. The term "open specification" used in the EIF, on the one hand, avoids terminological confusion with the Directive and, on the other, states the main features that comply with the basic principle of openness laid down in the EIF for European Public Services. Well, this may be somewhat true, but in reality, Europe is 30 year behind in terminology. Unless the European Standardization Reform gets completed in the next few months, most Member States will likely conclude that they will go on referencing and using standards beyond those created by the three European endorsed monopolists of standardization, CEN, CENELEC and ETSI. Who can afford to begin following the strict Brussels rules for what they can call open standards when, in reality, standards stemming from global standardization organizations, so-called fora/consortia, dominate in the IT industry. What exactly is EIF saying? Does it encourage Member States to go on using non-ESO standards as long as they call it something else? I guess I am all for it, although it is a bit cumbersome, no? Why was there so much interest around the EIF? The FAQ attempts to explain: Some Member States have begun to adopt policies to achieve interoperability for their public services. These actions have had a significant impact on the ecosystem built around the provision of such services, e.g. providers of ICT goods and services, standardisation bodies, industry fora and consortia, etc... The Commission identified a clear need for action at European level to ensure that actions by individual Member States would not create new electronic barriers that would hinder the development of interoperable European public services. As a result, all stakeholders involved in the delivery of electronic public services in Europe have expressed their opinions on how to increase interoperability for public services provided by the different public administrations in Europe. Well, it does not take two years to read 50 consultation documents, and the EU Standardization Reform is not yet completed, so, more pragmatically, you finally had to release the document. Ok, let's leave some of that aside because the document is out and some people are happy (and others definitely not). The Verdict Considering the controversy, the delays, the lobbying, and the interests at stake both in the EU, in Member States and among vendors large and small, this document is pretty impressive. As with a good wine that has not yet come to full maturity, let's say that it seems to be coming in in the 85-88/100 range, but only a more fine-grained analysis, enjoyment in good company, and ultimately, implementation, will tell. The European Commission has today adopted a significant interoperability initiative to encourage public administrations across the EU to maximise the social and economic potential of information and communication technologies. Today, we should rally around this achievement. Tomorrow, let's sit down and figure out what it means for the future.

    Read the article

  • PEAR mail not sending to .eu email addresses

    - by andy-score
    I have a PEAR mailing script that is used to send newsletters from a clients website. I've used the same code before to produce another newsletter system and it has worked well and been used to send emails to various addresses, however our latest client has email addresses ending .eu and this seems to cause a problem. When the newsletter is sent from the site to the various subscribers, including gmail, hotmail, yahoo and our own company emails, the emails are received correctly by all but the clients email addresses, the ones ending in .eu. As there is nothing different between their mailing system and our own, which is run from the same hosting company, I have to conclude that it is something to do with the domain name. The emails are being sent to the addresses from the system, as I have a log file storing the email addresses when the mail out function is called, but the newsletter never appears in the inbox. I have created a new email account for the domain and that too isn't receiving the emails. It's not going into a spam folder as the webmail system marks spam by adding SPAM into the subject. I've tried to log if there are any errors using the following foreach($subscribers as $recipient) { $send_newsletter = $mail->send($recipient, $headers, $body); // LOG INFO $message = $recipient; if($send_newsletter) { $message .= ' SENT'; } elseif(PEAR::isError($send_newsletter)) { $message .= ' ERROR: '.$send_newsletter->getMessage(); } $message .= ' | '; fwrite($log_file,$message); } However this simple returns SENT for all recipients, so in theory there isn't anything wrong with the mailing function. I don't know a great deal about PEAR or the mailing function so I may be missing something important, but I'd have thought seeing the last thing to happen is sending the email out, and that seems to work, then it should reach the clients inbox. Is this something to do with the PEAR mailing function not liking .eu addresses or is it more likely to be something wrong in my code or with their domain? Any help is greatly appreciated as the client and myself are getting both confused and frustrated by the whole thing. Cheers

    Read the article

  • European e-government Action Plan all about interoperability

    - by trond-arne.undheim
    Yesterday, the European Commission released its European eGovernment Action Plan for 2011-2015. The plan includes measures on providing deeper user empowerment, enhancing the Internal Market, more efficiency and effectiveness of public administrations, and putting in place pre-conditions for developing e-government. The Good - Defines interoperability very clearly. Calls interoperability "a pre-condition for cross-border eGovernment services" (a very strong formulation) and says interoperability "is supported by open specifications". - Uses the terminology "open specifications" which, let's face it, is pretty close to "open standards" which is the term the rest of the world would use. - Confirms that Member States are fully committed to the political priorities of the Malmö Declaration (which was all about open standards) including the very strong action: by 2013: All Member States will have incorporated the political priorities of the Malmö Declaration in their national strategies. Such tight Action Plan integration between Commission and Member State priorities has seldom been attempted before, particularly not in a field where European legal competence is virtually non-existent. What we see now, is the subtle force of soft power rather than the rough force of regulation. In this case, it is the Member States who want Europe to take the lead. Very refreshing! Some quotes that show the commitment to interoperability and open specifications: "The emergence of innovative technologies such as "service-oriented architectures" (SOA), or "clouds" of services,  together with more open specifications which allow for greater sharing, re-use and interoperability reinforce the ability of ICT to play a key role in this quest for effficiency in the public sector." (p.4) "Interoperability is supported through open specifications" (p.13) 2.4.1. Open Specifications and Interoperability (p.13 has a whole section dedicated to this important topic. Open specifications and interoperability are nearly 100% interrelated): "Interoperability is the ability of systems and machines to exchange, process and correctly interpret information. It is more than just a technical challenge, as it also involves legal, organisational and semantic aspects of handling  data" (p.13) "standards and  open platforms offer opportunities for more cost-effective use of resources and delivery of services" (p.13). The Bad Shies away from defining open standards, or even open specifications, the EU's preferred term for the key enabler of interoperability. Verdict 90/100, a very respectable score.

    Read the article

  • is redirecting mydomain.eu & mydomain.net to mydomain.com using .htacess spammy?

    - by sam
    a client has asked my to develop their site, they already own 3 domains, mydomain.eu, .net and .com they want all the traffic from .eu and .net to redirect to .com, ive explained to them that it is not that relevant as people will search for them in search engines rather than typing in the domain, but they still would like me to do it. As far as i know this is fine to do from an Seo point of view but i thought id just double check ..

    Read the article

  • MySQL 5 multiple JOIN syntax not working in MySQL 4

    - by draco
    Hello all, the current SQL query works fine locally on MAMP 1.8.4 running MySQL 5.1.37. SELECT EL.log_actions, EL.log_date, EL.log_value, EL.log_type, EA.admins_name, EU.users_name, EU.users_matric FROM events_log EL JOIN events_users EU USING (users_id) JOIN events_admins EA USING (admins_id) ORDER BY EL.log_id DESC LIMIT 0, 10 However, when I bring this query live to production server which is running MySQL 4.1.22-standard, the following error occurred (whether or not there are data in the entry). A Database Error Occurred Error Number: 1054 Unknown column 'sceclub_exclaim2007.EU.admins_id' in 'on clause' SELECT EL.log_actions, EL.log_date, EL.log_value, EL.log_type, EA.admins_name, EU.users_name, EU.users_matric FROM events_log EL JOIN events_users EU USING (users_id) JOIN events_admins EA USING (admins_id) ORDER BY EL.log_id DESC LIMIT 0, 20 This is based on CodeIgniter 1.7.2 and both production and development are running the same set of database. Database tables events_users: users_id users_name users_credits users_matric users_redeem events_admins: admins_id admins_email admins_name admins_pass admins_date admins_modified admins_last_login events_attendance: attendance_id users_id events_id events_events: events_id events_name events_venue events_time events_desc events_pass events_log:log_id admins_id log_actions log_date log_value users_id log_type I'm new to MySQL so I'm not aware of any difference in versions or what could be a possible cause, thank you in advance! Tried googling for MySQL4 difference to no avail too. Also tried using SELECT EL.log_actions, EL.log_date, EL.log_value, EL.log_type, EA.admins_name, EU.users_name, EU.users_matric FROM events_log EL JOIN events_users EU where EL.users_id = EU.users_id JOIN events_admins EA USING EL.admins_id = EA.admins_id ORDER BY EL.log_id DESC LIMIT 0, 10 But then I got the error in both production and development. A Database Error Occurred Error Number: 1064 You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use near 'JOIN events_admins EA USING EL.admins_id = EA.admins_id ORDER BY' at line 8 SELECT EL.log_actions, EL.log_date, EL.log_value, EL.log_type, EA.admins_name, EU.users_name, EU.users_matric FROM events_log EL JOIN events_users EU where EL.users_id = EU.users_id JOIN events_admins EA USING EL.admins_id = EA.admins_id ORDER BY EL.log_id DESC LIMIT 0, 20 If you can point me to some resources where I can read up more on MySQL 4 syntax to achieve the same thing effect like I did with MySQL 5 syntax, please let me know. Thanks again!

    Read the article

  • Why does iChat Server keep connecting to proxy.eu.jabber.org?

    - by Tom Hamming
    I have OS X Server 10.6.5 running on a new Mac Mini (server model), serving several functions among which is iChat Server (iChat and Pidgin on Windows as clients). In the iChat log in Server Admin, I kept seeing entries about connecting to proxy.eu.jabber.org. It's for our office network and I wasn't excited about external access to it, so I disabled server-to-server XMPP federation and now the connections just time out. But why is it doing that in the first place? Sample log entry: (datetime) (servername)jabberd/resolver[portnum]: [xmpp-server._tcp.proxy.eu.jabber.org resolved to 208.68.163.220:5269 (300 seconds to live) then: sending dialback auth request for route '(full server hostname)/proxy.eu.jabber.org' A couple minutes later, it comes back with: dialback for outgoing route '(full server hostname)/proxy.eu.jabber.org' timed out

    Read the article

  • Why does iChat Server keep connecting to proxy.eu.jabber.org?

    - by Tom Hamming
    I have OS X Server 10.6.5 running on a new Mac Mini (server model), serving several functions among which is iChat Server (iChat and Pidgin on Windows as clients). In the iChat log in Server Admin, I kept seeing entries about connecting to proxy.eu.jabber.org. It's for our office network and I wasn't excited about external access to it, so I disabled server-to-server XMPP federation and now the connections just time out. But why is it doing that in the first place? Sample log entry: (datetime) (servername)jabberd/resolver[portnum]: [xmpp-server._tcp.proxy.eu.jabber.org resolved to 208.68.163.220:5269 (300 seconds to live) then: sending dialback auth request for route '(full server hostname)/proxy.eu.jabber.org' A couple minutes later, it comes back with: dialback for outgoing route '(full server hostname)/proxy.eu.jabber.org' timed out

    Read the article

  • Mozilla repousse le blocage par défaut des cookies tiers de son navigateur , l'industrie publicitaire a-t-elle eu raison de son projet ?

    Mozilla repousse le blocage par défaut des cookies tiers de son navigateur , l'industrie publicitaire a-t-elle eu raison de son projet ? Au début de cette année, Mozilla annonçait sa volonté de désactiver par défaut les cookies tiers de son navigateur. Cette annonce a reçu les éloges des défenseurs de la vie privée tandis que l'industrie de la publicité n'as pas manqué de manifester sa farouche opposition. Selon les plans de Mozilla, ces changements devaient être intégrés à la version 22 de...

    Read the article

  • Google aurait eu une attitude irresponsable avec Buzz qui révèlerait son mépris de la vie privée, se

    Mise à jour du 18/03/10 NB : Les commentaires sur cette mise à jour commencent ici dans le topic Google aurait eu une attitude irresponsable lors du lancement de Buzz Qui révèlerait son mépris de la vie privée, selon une officielle américaine de la FTC Google n'en finit pas de s'attirer les critiques depuis l'affaire Buzz. L'Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) avait ouvert les hostilités en déposant une plainte pour violation de la vie privée devant la Federal Trade Commission.

    Read the article

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >