What is the "normal Parliamentary process"? No act of Parliament is required for the government to sign or denunciate a treaty. I refer you to a court judgement in 1990 (Rayner v Dept of Trade and Industry). This judgement states that a treaty is not law until it's ratified by Parliament. Likewise, denunciating a treaty (invoking article 50) has no legal effect unless and until the appropriate legislation is repealed. The courts have no jurisdiction until the law is changed. Article 50 does not repeal or change British law in any way. It is merely notice to do so.
Every treaty we've entered into has been entered into under Royal Prerogative. It's true that legislation will have to be repealed in order to enact Brexit but it is not required for invoking article 50 (though this court judgement asserts that it is). If the Supreme Court upholds the judgement, I suspect all hell to break loose.
Except the treaty we signed back then is totally different to the situation now. We've had the Single European Act, the Maastricht Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty since - none of which were put to the people in a referendum.
What's the matter? Are you scared or something? I sense you have no stomach for it - that is to say, that you're too much of a cuck to try to raise yourself and help raise your country up.
I'm right aren't I? You really would sell your freedom for a bit of security.
Correct. This is yet another bullshit "study" to promote a political agenda - this time a side-swipe at fracking, paid for no doubt by your tax dollars.
I couldn't agree more. There's a giant wall of bollocks emanating from "tech" firms, especially their marketing bs departments. The reality is somewhat different.
You can do it with something called a Version Control System, which is actually quite easy to set up. Granted a lot of engineers find it tedious to have to commit their designs but you know, whatever.
It's actually worse than that. If there's a problem with the hardware, i.e. it's known to be failing to do what it's supposed to, it's the software people who're tasked with making a "workaround", i.e. frigging their own code to correct the error rather than the (often more expensive) hardware mod. I've got so many software projects behind me with hacks for hardware bugs you wouldn't believe. "isn't that what software is for?" is the inevitable bollocks you get from hardware engineers when confronted with the problem.
I'm not ignoring it. I'm simply suggesting that it's not possible to know the opportunity cost of something that is unknown. What, you think researchers should just be given tax-payers money for whatever they like, whenever they like? What controls do you propose to divvy up the budget and how are you going to decide who gets money and who doesn't? The supply isn't infinite, though I suspect the supply of idiotic unreplicatable research papers probably is.
Of course they are. That's because they no your latest "mere theory" is a load of utter bollocks, like most unreplicable scientific papers. The point still stands. Invest in your theory yourself. Sell your house, I couldn't care less. If you aren't going to back it, why should muggins tax payer with his infinitely adjustable wallet?
Why don't you, like me, pursue interesting things in your own time and with your own money, then bring them to your boss when you've got to the stage where you might, just possibly, have something interesting you can sell to a funding agency. If you're not willing to invest your own time and money in it, why should anyone else?
I totally agree that researchers should go down new and interesting paths, most of which will lead nowhere. The problem is the opportunity cost of letting them do so. Every $1 you spend down a dead end is $1 you haven't spent on something that will actually make a difference, like filling potholes in roads.
However I would say that a lot of funding is currently miss-allocated towards politically expedient research rather than something actually useful. About 90% of climate research funding, for example - a huge amount of money.
You have to realise that there are some people who over the years have gone or are going completely nuts working in an office 9-5, Monday to Friday. Given mortgage, bills, car and other completely idiotic responsibilities we've unfortunately taken on, the choices are (1) make quacking noises at desk or (2) take the rope you keep on top of your wardrobe, tie it around a beam in your garage, put the other end around your neck and jump off a chair.
Basically, it's the same forecast you'd get if you sat down with a bunch of weather records and chose the average weather for any given day based on them. i.e. yes, there's a greater chance it'll rain in April than December. 62% is laughable.
This is just plain bollocks. Its inaccurate forecasting now goes out to a year, whereas before they'd stop the inaccurate forecast after a few weeks. This is simple institutional bullshit publicity campaign to justify the £250,000,000 a year the British government gives this ridiculous organisation.
Slashdot Mirror
What is the "normal Parliamentary process"? No act of Parliament is required for the government to sign or denunciate a treaty. I refer you to a court judgement in 1990 (Rayner v Dept of Trade and Industry). This judgement states that a treaty is not law until it's ratified by Parliament. Likewise, denunciating a treaty (invoking article 50) has no legal effect unless and until the appropriate legislation is repealed. The courts have no jurisdiction until the law is changed. Article 50 does not repeal or change British law in any way. It is merely notice to do so.
Every treaty we've entered into has been entered into under Royal Prerogative. It's true that legislation will have to be repealed in order to enact Brexit but it is not required for invoking article 50 (though this court judgement asserts that it is). If the Supreme Court upholds the judgement, I suspect all hell to break loose.
IANAL!
Except the treaty we signed back then is totally different to the situation now. We've had the Single European Act, the Maastricht Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty since - none of which were put to the people in a referendum.
What's the matter? Are you scared or something? I sense you have no stomach for it - that is to say, that you're too much of a cuck to try to raise yourself and help raise your country up.
I'm right aren't I? You really would sell your freedom for a bit of security.
You complete fucking moron. What are you talking about?
"I may lose the election what shall I do? I know, I'll accuse Trump of being a pedo".
Yea, that'll work. Speaking of rapists, who the fuck is that stupid bitch married to again? Bill Clinton? You stupid fuck.
Sure. Fracking causes tremors. There are hundreds of natural tremors per year. Even in my sleepy part of the world (UK).
It's probably fairer to say his mortgage payments don't depend on it being true, unlike the people who have studied it all their lives.
It's been a very long time since Slashdot did that. You must be new here.
Correct. This is yet another bullshit "study" to promote a political agenda - this time a side-swipe at fracking, paid for no doubt by your tax dollars.
I couldn't agree more. There's a giant wall of bollocks emanating from "tech" firms, especially their marketing bs departments. The reality is somewhat different.
You can do it with something called a Version Control System, which is actually quite easy to set up. Granted a lot of engineers find it tedious to have to commit their designs but you know, whatever.
It's actually worse than that. If there's a problem with the hardware, i.e. it's known to be failing to do what it's supposed to, it's the software people who're tasked with making a "workaround", i.e. frigging their own code to correct the error rather than the (often more expensive) hardware mod. I've got so many software projects behind me with hacks for hardware bugs you wouldn't believe. "isn't that what software is for?" is the inevitable bollocks you get from hardware engineers when confronted with the problem.
I'm not ignoring it. I'm simply suggesting that it's not possible to know the opportunity cost of something that is unknown. What, you think researchers should just be given tax-payers money for whatever they like, whenever they like? What controls do you propose to divvy up the budget and how are you going to decide who gets money and who doesn't? The supply isn't infinite, though I suspect the supply of idiotic unreplicatable research papers probably is.
Of course they are. That's because they no your latest "mere theory" is a load of utter bollocks, like most unreplicable scientific papers. The point still stands. Invest in your theory yourself. Sell your house, I couldn't care less. If you aren't going to back it, why should muggins tax payer with his infinitely adjustable wallet?
Why don't you, like me, pursue interesting things in your own time and with your own money, then bring them to your boss when you've got to the stage where you might, just possibly, have something interesting you can sell to a funding agency. If you're not willing to invest your own time and money in it, why should anyone else?
I totally agree that researchers should go down new and interesting paths, most of which will lead nowhere. The problem is the opportunity cost of letting them do so. Every $1 you spend down a dead end is $1 you haven't spent on something that will actually make a difference, like filling potholes in roads.
However I would say that a lot of funding is currently miss-allocated towards politically expedient research rather than something actually useful. About 90% of climate research funding, for example - a huge amount of money.
Please mod me down. Thanks.
Be honest. Why did you choose the quack name Milton? Is there an amusing cartoon I've been quack missing?
Slashdot should really stop publishing this rubbish. It's bringing science into disrepute.
You have to realise that there are some people who over the years have gone or are going completely nuts working in an office 9-5, Monday to Friday. Given mortgage, bills, car and other completely idiotic responsibilities we've unfortunately taken on, the choices are (1) make quacking noises at desk or (2) take the rope you keep on top of your wardrobe, tie it around a beam in your garage, put the other end around your neck and jump off a chair.
I am one of those people.
Thank you for your understanding.
Basically, it's the same forecast you'd get if you sat down with a bunch of weather records and chose the average weather for any given day based on them. i.e. yes, there's a greater chance it'll rain in April than December. 62% is laughable.
This is just plain bollocks. Its inaccurate forecasting now goes out to a year, whereas before they'd stop the inaccurate forecast after a few weeks. This is simple institutional bullshit publicity campaign to justify the £250,000,000 a year the British government gives this ridiculous organisation.
I would like this answer too, please, someone...
When you put it like that, it certainly is a violation. That's precisely the correct analogy. Someone needs to sue.
This would be against the law in the UK.
Oh, web servers get compromised all the time. Are you suggesting that in fact, no, Linux isn't all that secure compared to Windows?