One of my biggest issues with referendums like this is that they are so unbalanced. If remain had won then leave supporters could, and would, push for another go at leaving if there was support for it; however leave get a slight majority and the rest of the country is forced to go along with an irreversible decision with no chance at another vote.
In most systems with binding referendums you cannot simply submit the same referendum again and again until you win: if a referendum fails there is usually a number of years of "waiting period" before you can submit a similar question.
Again, there is no such thing as an "irreversible decision" the country is "forced to go along with": the referendum is non-binding. It's entirely the government's decision to actually leave the EU and they are only forced by their own weakness and incompetence.
Right a 2/3 majority should have been required to stay in the EU.
See that is the problem with super majority decisions, it gives disproportionate power to whomever decides the question's wording.
Think of it this way: what would happen if a super majority was necessary to change elected officials? They would have the position for life.
That's not how super-majority usually works. Typically super-majority is required to accept a change and if the vote fails the status quo is preserved. You cannot simply re-word the question to get around this.
really for a referendum of such a constitutional importance, a higher threshold than a simple majority should be required for any vote-to-change to be valid.
The referendum is non-binding: there is no such thing as a "threshold" required for the vote to be valid because "valid" is meaningless when the government is still the one ultimately deciding how to interpret the result and what the consequences of the result will be, if any.
Even if the door is open if you have no authorization it's still trespassing and this shows pretty well the issue the EFF is raising.
it's pretty clear you are authorized to enter a restaurant and it's pretty clear you are not authorized to enter a random private home which happens to have the door left open.
What about an anonymous FTP server? It could be argued it's like an open restaurant, or it could be argued it's like a private home with the door left open, so if you apply the "trespassing" analogy it's not clear at all whether you are "authorized" or not.
They are actually discussing about dropping x86_32. This is from the original post which got "resurrected" at the beginning of the thread in their mailing list (the quoted text at the bottom):
At some point we are going to want drop x86_32 kernel support and just have 32-bit compatibility libraries, but I don't know when that makes sense.
Apple's probably one of the best examples as their "EU Tax" is low - take the US model, add AppleCare (to satisfy EU warranty), add in the requisite VAT (20-25%) and convert to Euros, and you come out pretty close to the cost in Europe.
You usually come out cheaper with EU model and no Apple Care. This is actually correct since Apple Care covers *more* than the mandatory 2 years EU warranty, so it makes sense for it to be more expensive.
Except Windows 10 is not a security update: the computer in question had Windows 7, which is still in extended support and will still get "proper" security updates until 2020.
if you have the luxury of dodging it, you could have braked to stop hitting it.
That's definitely *not* always the case. If you are going at 50 km/h you have around 10 meters braking distance before you get to a full stop (ignoring reaction time). This means that if your obstacle is at 5 meters you will hit it, but if the obstacle is relatively narrow, 5 meters could be well enough to completely dodge it.
Of course simply braking in a straight line could be much easier and safer than a dodge maneuver, but this is exactly the issue: should you chose the safest option for yourself or the safest option for whatever you are going to hit? And if this decision is left to an algorithm, what should it do, especially given that it can rely on milliseconds reaction time and potentially much sharper execution capabilities of a difficult maneuver?
Most manual cars don't have any safety and are pretty happy to start and jolt forward if you turn the ignition with the gear engaged and no clutch pressed.
Was your car a Suzuki? I don't know Suzuki cars but on motorbikes they are known to require the clutch being pressed to start the engine, which is usually not the case with other brands.
That's more a problem of the voters not using their power with the due responsibility than with referendum themselves. Note that dumb voters are screwed no matter what because they wouldn't be able to elect good representatives anyway... At least with a referendum they cannot blame "the government" like usual.
Technically from what I've read the vote was advisory, if the politicians don't want to invoke Article 50 they don't have so. Go sell them your idea of supermajorities...
That's correct: the results of the referendum are not legally binding.
I think the simple majority is justified since the referendum is non-binding. The ultimate decision is still in the hands of the government which can legally ignore the results.
In a brick and mortar environment; the store can cancel the purchase or dishonor the advertised price Up to and until the customer completes the transaction.
If you mean the monetary transaction, this is wrong in many EU countries. Here the advertised price is considered a binding contractual offer and the contract is considered sealed the moment the buyer informs the seller of his intention of buying (not the moment of actually paying). From that moment changing the price would be breach of contract, as it would be breach of contract refusing the sale.
Said that, there is an exception when the wrong price could be recognised as an error: this is because contracts must follow the "good faith" principle and if you had the reasonable suspect that there was an error in the displayed price you were not in good faith.
I read a more detailed article on the matter and the prosecutor's line of defence is definitely more about the first charge, which is "dealing in currency without a money transmitter license" and pretty clearly requires bitcoins to be considered "currency" to stand, which is a legal grey and definitely not "of course" so. The money laundering accusation is weak no matter the legal status of bitcoins but likely there to put pressure on the defence to plead guilty on charge that matters, just as the other guy involved did (and got the money laundry charge promptly dropped).
Then why is the prosecutor not using that argument to support his charge? The prosecutor is countering the defense's attempt by arguing that bitcoins *are* money instead. Also, of the 2 charges the money laundering one seems to be pretty weak anyway: the other charge is "dealing in currency without a money transmitter license" and I guess it's where the legal status of bitcoins actually matters.
It's definitely relevant: his bitcoin sale might still be illegal for other reasons but this doesn't mean the money laundering charge is appropriate. If you steal an apple you are breaking the law, but this doesn't mean you should be charged with arson...
Actually I don't think a massive taxation increase would be required. The reason is that in Switzerland there is already welfare support for people under the poverty line, which is exactly those 2500$ per month. The idea is basically to get rid of the "usual" welfare, including all the bureaucracy and costs involved and replace it with this "no question asked" basic income. This would basically affect only those under the poverty line, which is a very small percentage of the population, and it would in most cases just replace money they already get, only with a different label.
Please, do realise that $2500 a month is not actually part of the law being voted: this is the *complete* text of what would get effective if the vote is successful:
The Constitution has been modified as follows:
Art. 110a (new) Unconditional basic income
The Confederation shall ensure the introduction of an unconditional basic income.
The basic income shall enable the whole population to live in human dignity and participate in public life.
The law shall particularly regulate the way in which the basic income is to be financed and the level at which it is set.
The 2500$ comes from the actual *poverty line* in Switzerland: believe me if you have such a low income in Switzerland you are not going to be happy, even if you do nothing to get it.
Slashdot Mirror
One of my biggest issues with referendums like this is that they are so unbalanced. If remain had won then leave supporters could, and would, push for another go at leaving if there was support for it; however leave get a slight majority and the rest of the country is forced to go along with an irreversible decision with no chance at another vote.
In most systems with binding referendums you cannot simply submit the same referendum again and again until you win: if a referendum fails there is usually a number of years of "waiting period" before you can submit a similar question.
Again, there is no such thing as an "irreversible decision" the country is "forced to go along with": the referendum is non-binding. It's entirely the government's decision to actually leave the EU and they are only forced by their own weakness and incompetence.
Right a 2/3 majority should have been required to stay in the EU.
See that is the problem with super majority decisions, it gives disproportionate power to whomever decides the question's wording.
Think of it this way: what would happen if a super majority was necessary to change elected officials? They would have the position for life.
That's not how super-majority usually works. Typically super-majority is required to accept a change and if the vote fails the status quo is preserved. You cannot simply re-word the question to get around this.
really for a referendum of such a constitutional importance, a higher threshold than a simple majority should be required for any vote-to-change to be valid.
The referendum is non-binding: there is no such thing as a "threshold" required for the vote to be valid because "valid" is meaningless when the government is still the one ultimately deciding how to interpret the result and what the consequences of the result will be, if any.
Even if the door is open if you have no authorization it's still trespassing and this shows pretty well the issue the EFF is raising.
it's pretty clear you are authorized to enter a restaurant and it's pretty clear you are not authorized to enter a random private home which happens to have the door left open.
What about an anonymous FTP server? It could be argued it's like an open restaurant, or it could be argued it's like a private home with the door left open, so if you apply the "trespassing" analogy it's not clear at all whether you are "authorized" or not.
At some point we are going to want drop x86_32 kernel support and just have 32-bit compatibility libraries, but I don't know when that makes sense.
I use Paper by 53.
Apple's probably one of the best examples as their "EU Tax" is low - take the US model, add AppleCare (to satisfy EU warranty), add in the requisite VAT (20-25%) and convert to Euros, and you come out pretty close to the cost in Europe.
You usually come out cheaper with EU model and no Apple Care. This is actually correct since Apple Care covers *more* than the mandatory 2 years EU warranty, so it makes sense for it to be more expensive.
Except Windows 10 is not a security update: the computer in question had Windows 7, which is still in extended support and will still get "proper" security updates until 2020.
if you have the luxury of dodging it, you could have braked to stop hitting it.
That's definitely *not* always the case. If you are going at 50 km/h you have around 10 meters braking distance before you get to a full stop (ignoring reaction time). This means that if your obstacle is at 5 meters you will hit it, but if the obstacle is relatively narrow, 5 meters could be well enough to completely dodge it.
Of course simply braking in a straight line could be much easier and safer than a dodge maneuver, but this is exactly the issue: should you chose the safest option for yourself or the safest option for whatever you are going to hit? And if this decision is left to an algorithm, what should it do, especially given that it can rely on milliseconds reaction time and potentially much sharper execution capabilities of a difficult maneuver?
Most manual cars don't have any safety and are pretty happy to start and jolt forward if you turn the ignition with the gear engaged and no clutch pressed.
Was your car a Suzuki? I don't know Suzuki cars but on motorbikes they are known to require the clutch being pressed to start the engine, which is usually not the case with other brands.
That's more a problem of the voters not using their power with the due responsibility than with referendum themselves. Note that dumb voters are screwed no matter what because they wouldn't be able to elect good representatives anyway... At least with a referendum they cannot blame "the government" like usual.
Technically from what I've read the vote was advisory, if the politicians don't want to invoke Article 50 they don't have so. Go sell them your idea of supermajorities...
That's correct: the results of the referendum are not legally binding.
I think the simple majority is justified since the referendum is non-binding. The ultimate decision is still in the hands of the government which can legally ignore the results.
In a brick and mortar environment; the store can cancel the purchase or dishonor the advertised price Up to and until the customer completes the transaction.
If you mean the monetary transaction, this is wrong in many EU countries. Here the advertised price is considered a binding contractual offer and the contract is considered sealed the moment the buyer informs the seller of his intention of buying (not the moment of actually paying). From that moment changing the price would be breach of contract, as it would be breach of contract refusing the sale.
Said that, there is an exception when the wrong price could be recognised as an error: this is because contracts must follow the "good faith" principle and if you had the reasonable suspect that there was an error in the displayed price you were not in good faith.
Usually "recognizable errors" are exempt from the sale obligation and the price being 0.00 is pretty clearly an error.
I read a more detailed article on the matter and the prosecutor's line of defence is definitely more about the first charge, which is "dealing in currency without a money transmitter license" and pretty clearly requires bitcoins to be considered "currency" to stand, which is a legal grey and definitely not "of course" so. The money laundering accusation is weak no matter the legal status of bitcoins but likely there to put pressure on the defence to plead guilty on charge that matters, just as the other guy involved did (and got the money laundry charge promptly dropped).
Then why is the prosecutor not using that argument to support his charge? The prosecutor is countering the defense's attempt by arguing that bitcoins *are* money instead. Also, of the 2 charges the money laundering one seems to be pretty weak anyway: the other charge is "dealing in currency without a money transmitter license" and I guess it's where the legal status of bitcoins actually matters.
It's definitely relevant: his bitcoin sale might still be illegal for other reasons but this doesn't mean the money laundering charge is appropriate. If you steal an apple you are breaking the law, but this doesn't mean you should be charged with arson...
Failure to consummate the marriage is grounds for annulment in some religious institutions...
In many forms of non-religious marriages too.
You underestimate the idiots' ability to outbreed any natural selective pressure thrown at them.
Actually I don't think a massive taxation increase would be required. The reason is that in Switzerland there is already welfare support for people under the poverty line, which is exactly those 2500$ per month. The idea is basically to get rid of the "usual" welfare, including all the bureaucracy and costs involved and replace it with this "no question asked" basic income. This would basically affect only those under the poverty line, which is a very small percentage of the population, and it would in most cases just replace money they already get, only with a different label.
The Constitution has been modified as follows:
Art. 110a (new) Unconditional basic income
The Confederation shall ensure the introduction of an unconditional basic income.
The basic income shall enable the whole population to live in human dignity and participate in public life.
The law shall particularly regulate the way in which the basic income is to be financed and the level at which it is set.
The 2500$ comes from the actual *poverty line* in Switzerland: believe me if you have such a low income in Switzerland you are not going to be happy, even if you do nothing to get it.
$2500 per month before taxes in Switzerland is the "poverty line". Note that less than 7% of the Swiss population earns less than that.
Uhm, maybe it's Reek's Anti-Adblock Killer which does the trick: I'll try with it.
On top of that their site is worthless if you have an adblocker. Slashdot should ban such sites from being eligible as article links.