Perhaps you should know what terms are before you try and use them to mean what you think they do.
If you agree to work for me for $X per hour doing Y, that agreement itself constitutes a verbally agreed-upon employment contract. It's not as formal as a written contract of employment, but that doesn't mean it's not an employment contract at all.
But that's beside the point.
In some jurisdictions, quitting a job will typically affect one's eligibility to receive EI benefits afterwards, but if they quit for what EI terms "just cause", then it does not affect their eligibility to receive EI benefits at all. As it happens, "significant changes to one's job duties or responsibilities" is very much considered "just cause", and so people who are being suddenly asked to train their replacement would have entirely justified cause to quit without penalty with respect to EI (although they would still be forgoing any severance package that the employer might have otherwise given them).
It's not that it's constructive dismissal as much as it is a "significant alteration of work responsibilities and duties" which unless it was specifically stated in the hiring contract before starting the job, would be a violation of said contract and thus considered "just cause" for quitting without affecting EI qualification.
In general, it doesn't matter if a package is offered since any severance only causes EI benefits to take correspondingly longer to kick in. If you get 4 weeks severance, then your first benefits from EI are not received until 4 weeks after your EI would otherwise start (although you are still actually on EI at that point, despite having not received any benefits yet).
Ordinarily, quitting a job can affect your eligibility for employment insurance, but quitting would not affect your eligibility for EI in these circumstances, and although quitting would lead to you not getting any severance, any severance package you *did* receive would only delay when you started receiving those benefits by whatever duration the size of your severance is equivalent to based on your normal rate of pay. The *ONLY* way that severance packages are worthwhile when you are going on EI is when you will find a job so quickly after losing the previous one that you wouldn't have even started to receive EI benefits in the first place.
So make voter intimidation a crime with sevear [sic] punishment and take allegation of it seriously.
You can't reasonably take every allegation of it seriously when there is no evidence to support the allegation. Doing otherwise would result in baseless accusations being flung around at people who want to do nothing more than harass the other person. If no evidence of wrongdoing is found, you can't punish the accused, but that does not mean that the allegation was false, so you can't really punish the person reporting it either or else you end up in a situation where people might fear reporting such coercion because if no evidence is found, then *they* would face a punishment when they were the victim.
The proposed law doesn't prevent coercion it juts punishes the coerced
It prevents coercion indirectly because the person wanting to do the coercion could reasonably know that there is no way for the person they want to influence to get away with doing whatever it was that they wanted them to do anyways because it would be an illegal act in a public place.
The safest thing for all concerned is to simply make taking such photo's illegal.
It's not that it's dumb to force the government to follow the results of a referendum as much as it is, to focus on the first issue specifically, philosophically objectionable to obligate someone to agree to an action when they don't know what exactly that action is yet, and when focusing on the second issue, problematic to go through all of the procedure of legally being obligated to follow through with the change if the referendum should yield that result when the expense of making that legislation might have turned out to be completely unnecessary if the result of the referendum was "no". After the fact, we can see that since the vote was yes, such efforts would not have actually been wasted at all, but you can't reasonably expect them to have known that they wouldn't be in advance, and you can't further expect the government to be willing to invest those resources on the mere *chance* that they may be necessary, because that's not how legislation ordinarily works... at least not in the UK or in any country with similar parliamentary procedures. Exceptions may exist to this, but by and large, they are going to be quite rare.
It doesn't take much of an imagination to see how that could be totally abused to get people into trouble with the law who might not have done anything wrong. The safest thing for everyone is if it simply against the law to take pictures of your ballot.
I can see two potneial factors at play here that may make your suggestion problematic. The first is that generally speaking, any motion presented in parliament about a course of action that the government is to do generally going to need to be quite specific, If the results of a referendum are not yet known, the lack of specificity in a motion to generally just do whatever the referendum says could make it very difficult to take the motion seriously in parliament. At the very least, it's philosophically objectionable to compelled to agree to a course of action that you don't actually actually know what the course of action will be yet.
The other factor is that getting something into law is a lot of work, taking up a lot of government resources and time. It wouldn't make any sense investing the effort into forcing the government to be legally required to follow the results of a referendum whose results are not yet known when it may not even actually end up changing anything. The only way it makes sense at all in this regard is if the referendum vote is on a matter such that regardless of how the vote turns out, some change will be effected by it. I frankly don't know if such referendums are even ever actually done (I've never heard of it happening)... but I suppose they may be theoretically possible.
The only reason it isn't "legally binding" is because parliament didn't actually approve to pass the brexit vote yet. They couldn't approve it before the vote because the vote hadn't been made yet, and because of how parliament works, any attempt to try and legally validate the result of the referendum *before* the result had been known could be invalidated on the technicality that the actual result had not been known yet.
This would be equally true of any referendum, anywhere, since only the elected governing body has the ability to pass whatever the decision of the referendum was into law... which is what *MAKES* it "legally binding".
Saying it wasn't legally binding as if that somehow gives parliament a reason too not pass it into law is like saying that you can't make something illegal when it is not already against the law.
I have a child who is in his early 30's.... so, no.
But you can stop hyperventilating over the fact that I made a mistake... Slashdot does not allow me to go back and edit my posts or else I would fix it there, I know that Samarium-Cobalt and Yttrium-Cobalt magnets have indeed been around since the mid 60's. However, when I was growing up, I had only ever heard of these referred to under the general term of "Cobalt magnets" (which also happened to apply to Alnico), rather than "rare earth magnets", and so did not mentally associate the term "rare earth" with them, especially in the context of magnets, even though both Samarium and Yttrium are definitely rare earth.
But the application of Neodymium to make high energy permanent magnets was indeed discovered in the early 1980's, and I do not recall ever hearing the term "rare earth magnets" until then.
I wasn't suggesting that the entire system of democracy is pointless in the general sense, I meant that the point of one simply having a democratic system is entirely pointless if they aren't actually going to follow the democratic process and listen to what the people said that they want.
They are called rare earth magnets because they utilize one or more rare earth elements to achieve a high powered magnetization that was not possible before the 1980's, when their application for that purpose was discovered.
The elements are called "rare earth elements" because despite the fact that there is an awful lot of them in the earth's crust (even the rarest of them being far more common then silver, for instance), they are very dispersed throughout the crust, and not typically found in any large concentrations at any one site, which is typically necessary for any economically viable ore deposit.
The problem with that is that there will never be any proof that someone was compelling you to do it, and any suggesting that someone is compelling you would just be your word against theirs.
If it is legally permissible to prove, through photographic evidence, who exactly they supported, then it is entirely possible for people to intimidate someone else into providing such proof, because you have absolutely zero proof that they are taking that photo entirely of their own volition, and with no influence from anyone who wants to know how that person voted.
But the point of the referendum was to give parliament an indication of the direction that the people want it to take. If a referendum is taken and then parliament does not follow through with the results of that referendum, then the entire point of having a democratic system is pointless.
It's intrinsically more secure not because it's not windows, but because it's not built upon a paradigm where users without at least some system admin privileges can't do anything useful with the system.
... virus attack vector in the first place. While I realize that no OS is immune to viruses, it seems that switching to an OS that isn't as widely targeted should at least substantially reduce the likelihood they would be susceptible... and as most of the alternatives are a variant on Unix, usually have enough restrictions on what users are allowed to do that no one end-user with normal privileges can render the system unusable for anyone else.
Sure... a small child might, because only if they don't know English structure well enough to realize that you can't put the -able suffix on an intransitive verb and have it mean anything. The point of the '-able' suffix is that to create an adjective out a verb where what you are describing with the word is something that you can directly do that verb to. By the noun being the direct target of the verb, that means that the verb must be transitive. When you buy something or go to shop for something, you don't "shop" that thing... you shop *FOR* that thing. Outside of the British informal slang for giving information to the police about somebody or if preceded by an apostrophe, the verbification of the product Photoshop, "shop" has no legitimate definition as a transitive verb, and so "shoppable" cannot mean anything relative to the intransitive form of the verb shop.
Well slap me stupid... I just looked it up, and I've apparently been misinformed all these years. Geeze.... my grade 10 electronics shop class teacher lied to us.
if X is Y-able then you can Y X. This means that Y must be usable as a transitive verb
As a transitive verb, "to shop" means to either give information on the target of the verb to someone else, particularly to the police, or else as a verbed noun, could colloquially refer to the process of using photoshop on the verb's target, although that would more correctly necessitate use of an apostrophe at the beginning: 'shoppable.
While either could be argued to make sense when applied to people (someone who committed a crime that you know about and could report to the police, or else implying that a person either regularly has or so badly needs to have pictures of them photoshopped that you refer to the person as 'shoppable). but neither definition seems to fit how the word is being used here.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps you should know what terms are before you try and use them to mean what you think they do.
If you agree to work for me for $X per hour doing Y, that agreement itself constitutes a verbally agreed-upon employment contract. It's not as formal as a written contract of employment, but that doesn't mean it's not an employment contract at all.
But that's beside the point.
In some jurisdictions, quitting a job will typically affect one's eligibility to receive EI benefits afterwards, but if they quit for what EI terms "just cause", then it does not affect their eligibility to receive EI benefits at all. As it happens, "significant changes to one's job duties or responsibilities" is very much considered "just cause", and so people who are being suddenly asked to train their replacement would have entirely justified cause to quit without penalty with respect to EI (although they would still be forgoing any severance package that the employer might have otherwise given them).
It's not that it's constructive dismissal as much as it is a "significant alteration of work responsibilities and duties" which unless it was specifically stated in the hiring contract before starting the job, would be a violation of said contract and thus considered "just cause" for quitting without affecting EI qualification.
I'm guessing you didn't read the.... oh, never mind. This is Slashdot, what am I thinking?
In general, it doesn't matter if a package is offered since any severance only causes EI benefits to take correspondingly longer to kick in. If you get 4 weeks severance, then your first benefits from EI are not received until 4 weeks after your EI would otherwise start (although you are still actually on EI at that point, despite having not received any benefits yet).
Ordinarily, quitting a job can affect your eligibility for employment insurance, but quitting would not affect your eligibility for EI in these circumstances, and although quitting would lead to you not getting any severance, any severance package you *did* receive would only delay when you started receiving those benefits by whatever duration the size of your severance is equivalent to based on your normal rate of pay. The *ONLY* way that severance packages are worthwhile when you are going on EI is when you will find a job so quickly after losing the previous one that you wouldn't have even started to receive EI benefits in the first place.
You can't reasonably take every allegation of it seriously when there is no evidence to support the allegation. Doing otherwise would result in baseless accusations being flung around at people who want to do nothing more than harass the other person. If no evidence of wrongdoing is found, you can't punish the accused, but that does not mean that the allegation was false, so you can't really punish the person reporting it either or else you end up in a situation where people might fear reporting such coercion because if no evidence is found, then *they* would face a punishment when they were the victim.
It prevents coercion indirectly because the person wanting to do the coercion could reasonably know that there is no way for the person they want to influence to get away with doing whatever it was that they wanted them to do anyways because it would be an illegal act in a public place.
The safest thing for all concerned is to simply make taking such photo's illegal.
It's not that it's dumb to force the government to follow the results of a referendum as much as it is, to focus on the first issue specifically, philosophically objectionable to obligate someone to agree to an action when they don't know what exactly that action is yet, and when focusing on the second issue, problematic to go through all of the procedure of legally being obligated to follow through with the change if the referendum should yield that result when the expense of making that legislation might have turned out to be completely unnecessary if the result of the referendum was "no". After the fact, we can see that since the vote was yes, such efforts would not have actually been wasted at all, but you can't reasonably expect them to have known that they wouldn't be in advance, and you can't further expect the government to be willing to invest those resources on the mere *chance* that they may be necessary, because that's not how legislation ordinarily works... at least not in the UK or in any country with similar parliamentary procedures. Exceptions may exist to this, but by and large, they are going to be quite rare.
It doesn't take much of an imagination to see how that could be totally abused to get people into trouble with the law who might not have done anything wrong. The safest thing for everyone is if it simply against the law to take pictures of your ballot.
I can see two potneial factors at play here that may make your suggestion problematic. The first is that generally speaking, any motion presented in parliament about a course of action that the government is to do generally going to need to be quite specific, If the results of a referendum are not yet known, the lack of specificity in a motion to generally just do whatever the referendum says could make it very difficult to take the motion seriously in parliament. At the very least, it's philosophically objectionable to compelled to agree to a course of action that you don't actually actually know what the course of action will be yet.
The other factor is that getting something into law is a lot of work, taking up a lot of government resources and time. It wouldn't make any sense investing the effort into forcing the government to be legally required to follow the results of a referendum whose results are not yet known when it may not even actually end up changing anything. The only way it makes sense at all in this regard is if the referendum vote is on a matter such that regardless of how the vote turns out, some change will be effected by it. I frankly don't know if such referendums are even ever actually done (I've never heard of it happening)... but I suppose they may be theoretically possible.
This would be equally true of any referendum, anywhere, since only the elected governing body has the ability to pass whatever the decision of the referendum was into law... which is what *MAKES* it "legally binding".
Saying it wasn't legally binding as if that somehow gives parliament a reason too not pass it into law is like saying that you can't make something illegal when it is not already against the law.
I have a child who is in his early 30's.... so, no.
But you can stop hyperventilating over the fact that I made a mistake... Slashdot does not allow me to go back and edit my posts or else I would fix it there, I know that Samarium-Cobalt and Yttrium-Cobalt magnets have indeed been around since the mid 60's. However, when I was growing up, I had only ever heard of these referred to under the general term of "Cobalt magnets" (which also happened to apply to Alnico), rather than "rare earth magnets", and so did not mentally associate the term "rare earth" with them, especially in the context of magnets, even though both Samarium and Yttrium are definitely rare earth.
But the application of Neodymium to make high energy permanent magnets was indeed discovered in the early 1980's, and I do not recall ever hearing the term "rare earth magnets" until then.
I wasn't suggesting that the entire system of democracy is pointless in the general sense, I meant that the point of one simply having a democratic system is entirely pointless if they aren't actually going to follow the democratic process and listen to what the people said that they want.
They are called rare earth magnets because they utilize one or more rare earth elements to achieve a high powered magnetization that was not possible before the 1980's, when their application for that purpose was discovered.
The elements are called "rare earth elements" because despite the fact that there is an awful lot of them in the earth's crust (even the rarest of them being far more common then silver, for instance), they are very dispersed throughout the crust, and not typically found in any large concentrations at any one site, which is typically necessary for any economically viable ore deposit.
That argument doesn't work against people who want to punch out people who wear devices like google glass.
The problem with that is that there will never be any proof that someone was compelling you to do it, and any suggesting that someone is compelling you would just be your word against theirs.
If it is legally permissible to prove, through photographic evidence, who exactly they supported, then it is entirely possible for people to intimidate someone else into providing such proof, because you have absolutely zero proof that they are taking that photo entirely of their own volition, and with no influence from anyone who wants to know how that person voted.
But the point of the referendum was to give parliament an indication of the direction that the people want it to take. If a referendum is taken and then parliament does not follow through with the results of that referendum, then the entire point of having a democratic system is pointless.
For comparison, current rechargeable lithium ion has anywhere from 100wh/kg almost 300wh/kg. Heck, even Ni-Cd is about 70wh/kg...
It's neat that it's got a fast recharge capability, but the energy density is still too low to be practical for anything major in this day and age.
It's intrinsically more secure not because it's not windows, but because it's not built upon a paradigm where users without at least some system admin privileges can't do anything useful with the system.
... virus attack vector in the first place. While I realize that no OS is immune to viruses, it seems that switching to an OS that isn't as widely targeted should at least substantially reduce the likelihood they would be susceptible... and as most of the alternatives are a variant on Unix, usually have enough restrictions on what users are allowed to do that no one end-user with normal privileges can render the system unusable for anyone else.
Sure... a small child might, because only if they don't know English structure well enough to realize that you can't put the -able suffix on an intransitive verb and have it mean anything. The point of the '-able' suffix is that to create an adjective out a verb where what you are describing with the word is something that you can directly do that verb to. By the noun being the direct target of the verb, that means that the verb must be transitive. When you buy something or go to shop for something, you don't "shop" that thing... you shop *FOR* that thing. Outside of the British informal slang for giving information to the police about somebody or if preceded by an apostrophe, the verbification of the product Photoshop, "shop" has no legitimate definition as a transitive verb, and so "shoppable" cannot mean anything relative to the intransitive form of the verb shop.
The correct term is "purchaseable" or "buyable".
Can somebody please explain to me the logic here?
Well slap me stupid... I just looked it up, and I've apparently been misinformed all these years. Geeze.... my grade 10 electronics shop class teacher lied to us.
if X is Y-able then you can Y X. This means that Y must be usable as a transitive verb
As a transitive verb, "to shop" means to either give information on the target of the verb to someone else, particularly to the police, or else as a verbed noun, could colloquially refer to the process of using photoshop on the verb's target, although that would more correctly necessitate use of an apostrophe at the beginning: 'shoppable.
While either could be argued to make sense when applied to people (someone who committed a crime that you know about and could report to the police, or else implying that a person either regularly has or so badly needs to have pictures of them photoshopped that you refer to the person as 'shoppable). but neither definition seems to fit how the word is being used here.
What the fuck is happening to English?