It tells the creditors that the people don't/won't do what's necessary to repay the debts, and I don't think the creditors like that message because they won't get paid back.
There's a different interpretation here in Greece. That interpretation says that the measures presented in the European proposal would make it impossible to repay the debts, ever, because it continues tax increases and spending cuts without factoring in economic growth or debt sustainability. The creditors don't like that message because it's telling them their solution is wrong, just as they were wrong in their forecasts about the damage previous rounds of austerity would do to the economy.
So they voted for this "theory" of a better deal, but they will get what they fear most. They will be ejected from the euro, violence and suffering is on the way.
The country cannot be ejected from the euro. It is legally impossible, and deliberately so, for a country to be kicked out. They could certainly be forced into withdrawing, if Europe via the ECB decides to allow the Greek banking system collapse. But imagine the reaction if, for example, in the United States all the other states decided to cut off all flow of currency to, say, Washington State, to cripple its banks and force it to leave the country. Such a decision, taken deliberately by the creditor institutions, would harm not only the wider European economy and the stability of the Eurozone, but endanger the European project itself. It would be a deliberate step towards unravelling the Union, a process not easily stopped.
The problem is they're asking for handouts and free money from other governments who have to explain to their citizens Greek pensions are being funded by everybody else. Greece is essentially bankrupt, and wants more money. So either every other EU government is going to throw even more taxpayer money into the pit which is Greece's economy, or they're going to tell Greece to piss up a rope.
You could not be more wrong. The current Greek government—and I draw a line here, to separate it from the two parties that shared power back and forth for the previous 40 years—does not want more loans, or more debt. They are emphatic about this. Instead, they want to a) restructure the existing official-sector debt that is due soon, moving it from one European program to another with longer payment schedules, and b) have the ability to decide how they will meet the fiscal targets agreed upon with Europe, and not have measures dictated to them by the same people and institutions that imposed the last sets of measures which erased 25% of the country's GDP and led to widespread poverty. Sounds quite reasonable to me.
You could conceivably make the argument that low-interest loans with long repayment schedules constitutes "free money" from other European governments, and you would have a point. But there is also a certain cost to having a currency union that is intended to benefit all members, and that includes providing support to a member country that should be looked upon as a partner, rather than a prisoner.
In other words, it sounds like the Greek government is living in a fantasy where everybody else pays for their society.
Here's the thing. I live in Greece, and have for the last four years, all of which were under the heaviest of crisis conditions. I am not Greek; I'm Canadian, and coming from a relatively well-organized country, it makes me insane to see some of the laws and rules and conditions and taxes imposed in this country. I do not defend them at all: they are the products of 40 years of clientelistic mismanagement and corruption condoned and often instigated by the government. However, I have been listening to members of the current government—yes, the so-called radical leftists—for three years, to their proposals, their wishes to reform the country and its economy, their desire to remain a part of Europe and the Eurozone, and to become a constructive member of these institutions. Their integrity and commitment to democratic principles is unprecedented in modern Greek politics.
If you had written that comment even six months ago, during the reign of the previous government coalition, I might have agreed to some extent. Unfortunately, this perception has been generated worldwide by the duplicity of the previous government, which agreed to conditions and measures with Europe and failed to implement them at home. But at the moment, when allocated bail-out funding from Europe has been withheld for a year... when the new Greek government actually refuses to agree to measures it will not implement just for the sake of political expediency... when it is pushing for an agreement that cuts spending, increases taxes, imposes privatization, seeks to reform the economy and eliminate bureaucracy, restarts investment and economic growth, and makes the debt load sustainable and repayable... it's the height of either cynicism or ignorance to suggest that the Greeks are just looking for a free ride on someone else's dime.
Sadly, none of the media considers it worthwhile to report on what the Syriza government is actually saying, for two reasons, in my mind. One, because they've grown accustomed to the sight of (a different breed of) Greek politicians going back on their word, and assume from the get-go that all Greek politicians will try to duck reforms; and two, simply because the party's name literally translates to "Coalition of the Radical Left"—never mind that in Greek, "radical" still has the dictionary definition of "characterized by departure from tradition; innovative or progressive," with none of the associations of violence or extremism implied by the English word.
Note not just socialism, but socialism *AND* cutting taxes low.
Honestly, where do people get this from? Greece is not "socialist". It alternated centre-left and centre-right governments for 40 years before the current "socialist" government, which is 100% opposed to the clientelistic practices of its predecessors.
Cutting taxes low? Try these on for size: 23% sales tax. 26% corporate tax, which the current government wants to raise to 29%. High income tax, with the self-employed being taxed from the first euro of earnings. Massive employee and employer contributions for health and pension plans. An emergency "solidarity" tax introduced to raise money during the crisis. An emergency property tax levied on electricity bills, with the result that those who couldn't pay the tax had their electricity cut off. Greece is a heavily taxed nation, and with the burden of those taxes falling most heavily on the economically weakest, it is far from socialist.
2) Greece has always been somewhat left-leaning and rather than curtail spending during low income years, they actually increased spending by incurring more debt
Wow. That's an impressive ideological bias you're carrying there. True, Greek governments have increased spending in low-income years, and in high-income years, but Greece, like many countries, has alternated between left-leaning and right-leaning governments since the end of its dictatorship in 1974. It's a problem caused by a clientelistic state that got in the habit of purchasing votes, not by "lefties". It's worth noting that the current government, the one everyone rushes to label as "radical left", is the first and only to promise to tackle the clientelism and corruption, to commit to a balanced budget, and to deeply reform the way the economy works, taking advice from the OECD. But everyone's too busy talking about how "left" they are to notice.
3) The government (with the help of some banks) "hid" their massive deficit spending through the use of credit default swaps. This made Greece appear to be a better investment than they actually were when other banks provided loans.
So if I'm unemployed, but borrow a suit and tie and comb my hair before going to the bank to ask for money, it makes me a better investment? Do you think the banks and the Eurozone were unaware of Greece's financial trickery? Do you think maybe they should have looked into it a little deeper before lending billions? I really don't think there can be talk of reckless borrowing without a corresponding conversation about reckless lending.
All of the above contributed to the present crisis, not just "bad greek loans".
Yes and no. All of the above contributed to what would have been a Greek crisis. It had a rotten state and economy for 35 years when the global financial crisis happened, and when the bubble burst the problems were completely exposed. The piling of the largest loan in history onto the shoulders of an insolvent nation, accompanied by one of the harshest fiscal adjustments ever made, is what turned it from a Greek crisis into a European crisis. The willful denial of this by the Eurozone and other European leaders is what has contributed to making it a never-ending crisis.
Sorry, but you're out of date. The Greek government's primary surplus disappeared shortly after the election of the Syriza government.
Sorry, but you're... inaccurate. The Greek government's primary surplus for Q1 2015 was €1.74 billion against a target of €119 million. This was achieved by collecting €1 billion more in tax in the month of March than had been expected.
http://www.thetoc.gr/eng/econo...
I'm not sure if I have the newest Firefox on my mac, but the one I have doesn't even create a window.
I'd be surprised if someone hasn't pointed this out already, but from the Known Issues section of the Firefox 0.9 Release Notes:
If Firefox will not display a browser window on MacOS X, quit Firefox using Cmd+Q and open ~/Library/Application Support/Firefox/Profiles/default.abc/ and remove localstore.rdf. Restart Firefox. Any toolbar customizations you have made or window placement will be lost.
Bit of a pain perhaps, but they know it's there so it might not be by the time the next release rolls out.
anything not specifically allowed should be considered as forbidden.
anything recommended should be considered required.
I disagree. I believe there's a reason for the inclusion of the usual definitions of terms like "must/shall" and "may/should" in the final recommendation (see http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#defs).
In this way, the XML declaration issue is not like the quote issue, because the XHTML spec says quite clearly: "Attribute values must always be quoted" (section 4.4). There is a difference between a recommendation and a requirement. I would recommend that developers use XHTML 1.0 Strict at the very least, but in practice that's still relatively rare, because it's not required for the web to work.
As to professionalism, I believe that a "professional" who creates a document which will not render for 90% of the target audience will not remain a professional for long.
From the linked page in the parent post on XHTML 1.1 document conformance:
Note that in this example, the XML declaration is included.
An XML declaration like the one above is not required in all XML documents. XHTML document authors are strongly encouraged to use XML declarations in all their documents. Such a declaration is required when the character encoding of the document is other than the default UTF-8 or UTF-16. [http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/conformance.html; emphasis added]
Recommended: yes. Required: not in all situations. The W3C specs are filled with compromises on implementation limitations; they don't often demand that developers fly in the face of established browsers to validate their code. And given that the vast majority of the browser population is the vastly broken IE, it seems an acceptable compromise to send UTF-8 encoded XHTML without an XML declaration.
I know this is Slashdot, so there's no requirement to read an article before posting, but I thought people might at least read their references before posting....
Lawyer for the prosecution: We realize, your honour, that the defendent's illegal file sharing totalled only $1,206.59, but we intend to prove that this is, in fact, equivalent to $2,892.61 in price-fixed-- ahem, value-added RIAA products, and therefore request the greater sentence....
Slashdot Mirror
It tells the creditors that the people don't/won't do what's necessary to repay the debts, and I don't think the creditors like that message because they won't get paid back.
There's a different interpretation here in Greece. That interpretation says that the measures presented in the European proposal would make it impossible to repay the debts, ever, because it continues tax increases and spending cuts without factoring in economic growth or debt sustainability. The creditors don't like that message because it's telling them their solution is wrong, just as they were wrong in their forecasts about the damage previous rounds of austerity would do to the economy.
So they voted for this "theory" of a better deal, but they will get what they fear most. They will be ejected from the euro, violence and suffering is on the way.
The country cannot be ejected from the euro. It is legally impossible, and deliberately so, for a country to be kicked out. They could certainly be forced into withdrawing, if Europe via the ECB decides to allow the Greek banking system collapse. But imagine the reaction if, for example, in the United States all the other states decided to cut off all flow of currency to, say, Washington State, to cripple its banks and force it to leave the country. Such a decision, taken deliberately by the creditor institutions, would harm not only the wider European economy and the stability of the Eurozone, but endanger the European project itself. It would be a deliberate step towards unravelling the Union, a process not easily stopped.
The problem is they're asking for handouts and free money from other governments who have to explain to their citizens Greek pensions are being funded by everybody else.
Greece is essentially bankrupt, and wants more money. So either every other EU government is going to throw even more taxpayer money into the pit which is Greece's economy, or they're going to tell Greece to piss up a rope.
You could not be more wrong. The current Greek government—and I draw a line here, to separate it from the two parties that shared power back and forth for the previous 40 years—does not want more loans, or more debt. They are emphatic about this. Instead, they want to a) restructure the existing official-sector debt that is due soon, moving it from one European program to another with longer payment schedules, and b) have the ability to decide how they will meet the fiscal targets agreed upon with Europe, and not have measures dictated to them by the same people and institutions that imposed the last sets of measures which erased 25% of the country's GDP and led to widespread poverty. Sounds quite reasonable to me.
You could conceivably make the argument that low-interest loans with long repayment schedules constitutes "free money" from other European governments, and you would have a point. But there is also a certain cost to having a currency union that is intended to benefit all members, and that includes providing support to a member country that should be looked upon as a partner, rather than a prisoner.
In other words, it sounds like the Greek government is living in a fantasy where everybody else pays for their society.
Here's the thing. I live in Greece, and have for the last four years, all of which were under the heaviest of crisis conditions. I am not Greek; I'm Canadian, and coming from a relatively well-organized country, it makes me insane to see some of the laws and rules and conditions and taxes imposed in this country. I do not defend them at all: they are the products of 40 years of clientelistic mismanagement and corruption condoned and often instigated by the government. However, I have been listening to members of the current government—yes, the so-called radical leftists—for three years, to their proposals, their wishes to reform the country and its economy, their desire to remain a part of Europe and the Eurozone, and to become a constructive member of these institutions. Their integrity and commitment to democratic principles is unprecedented in modern Greek politics.
If you had written that comment even six months ago, during the reign of the previous government coalition, I might have agreed to some extent. Unfortunately, this perception has been generated worldwide by the duplicity of the previous government, which agreed to conditions and measures with Europe and failed to implement them at home. But at the moment, when allocated bail-out funding from Europe has been withheld for a year... when the new Greek government actually refuses to agree to measures it will not implement just for the sake of political expediency... when it is pushing for an agreement that cuts spending, increases taxes, imposes privatization, seeks to reform the economy and eliminate bureaucracy, restarts investment and economic growth, and makes the debt load sustainable and repayable... it's the height of either cynicism or ignorance to suggest that the Greeks are just looking for a free ride on someone else's dime.
Sadly, none of the media considers it worthwhile to report on what the Syriza government is actually saying, for two reasons, in my mind. One, because they've grown accustomed to the sight of (a different breed of) Greek politicians going back on their word, and assume from the get-go that all Greek politicians will try to duck reforms; and two, simply because the party's name literally translates to "Coalition of the Radical Left"—never mind that in Greek, "radical" still has the dictionary definition of "characterized by departure from tradition; innovative or progressive," with none of the associations of violence or extremism implied by the English word.
Note not just socialism, but socialism *AND* cutting taxes low.
Honestly, where do people get this from? Greece is not "socialist". It alternated centre-left and centre-right governments for 40 years before the current "socialist" government, which is 100% opposed to the clientelistic practices of its predecessors.
Cutting taxes low? Try these on for size: 23% sales tax. 26% corporate tax, which the current government wants to raise to 29%. High income tax, with the self-employed being taxed from the first euro of earnings. Massive employee and employer contributions for health and pension plans. An emergency "solidarity" tax introduced to raise money during the crisis. An emergency property tax levied on electricity bills, with the result that those who couldn't pay the tax had their electricity cut off. Greece is a heavily taxed nation, and with the burden of those taxes falling most heavily on the economically weakest, it is far from socialist.
2) Greece has always been somewhat left-leaning and rather than curtail spending during low income years, they actually increased spending by incurring more debt
Wow. That's an impressive ideological bias you're carrying there. True, Greek governments have increased spending in low-income years, and in high-income years, but Greece, like many countries, has alternated between left-leaning and right-leaning governments since the end of its dictatorship in 1974. It's a problem caused by a clientelistic state that got in the habit of purchasing votes, not by "lefties". It's worth noting that the current government, the one everyone rushes to label as "radical left", is the first and only to promise to tackle the clientelism and corruption, to commit to a balanced budget, and to deeply reform the way the economy works, taking advice from the OECD. But everyone's too busy talking about how "left" they are to notice.
3) The government (with the help of some banks) "hid" their massive deficit spending through the use of credit default swaps. This made Greece appear to be a better investment than they actually were when other banks provided loans.
So if I'm unemployed, but borrow a suit and tie and comb my hair before going to the bank to ask for money, it makes me a better investment? Do you think the banks and the Eurozone were unaware of Greece's financial trickery? Do you think maybe they should have looked into it a little deeper before lending billions? I really don't think there can be talk of reckless borrowing without a corresponding conversation about reckless lending.
All of the above contributed to the present crisis, not just "bad greek loans".
Yes and no. All of the above contributed to what would have been a Greek crisis. It had a rotten state and economy for 35 years when the global financial crisis happened, and when the bubble burst the problems were completely exposed. The piling of the largest loan in history onto the shoulders of an insolvent nation, accompanied by one of the harshest fiscal adjustments ever made, is what turned it from a Greek crisis into a European crisis. The willful denial of this by the Eurozone and other European leaders is what has contributed to making it a never-ending crisis.
Sorry, but you're out of date. The Greek government's primary surplus disappeared shortly after the election of the Syriza government.
Sorry, but you're... inaccurate. The Greek government's primary surplus for Q1 2015 was €1.74 billion against a target of €119 million. This was achieved by collecting €1 billion more in tax in the month of March than had been expected. http://www.thetoc.gr/eng/econo...
I'd be surprised if someone hasn't pointed this out already, but from the Known Issues section of the Firefox 0.9 Release Notes:
Bit of a pain perhaps, but they know it's there so it might not be by the time the next release rolls out.
I disagree. I believe there's a reason for the inclusion of the usual definitions of terms like "must/shall" and "may/should" in the final recommendation (see http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#defs).
In this way, the XML declaration issue is not like the quote issue, because the XHTML spec says quite clearly: "Attribute values must always be quoted" (section 4.4). There is a difference between a recommendation and a requirement. I would recommend that developers use XHTML 1.0 Strict at the very least, but in practice that's still relatively rare, because it's not required for the web to work.
As to professionalism, I believe that a "professional" who creates a document which will not render for 90% of the target audience will not remain a professional for long.
From the linked page in the parent post on XHTML 1.1 document conformance:
Recommended: yes. Required: not in all situations. The W3C specs are filled with compromises on implementation limitations; they don't often demand that developers fly in the face of established browsers to validate their code. And given that the vast majority of the browser population is the vastly broken IE, it seems an acceptable compromise to send UTF-8 encoded XHTML without an XML declaration.
I know this is Slashdot, so there's no requirement to read an article before posting, but I thought people might at least read their references before posting....
Lawyer for the prosecution: We realize, your honour, that the defendent's illegal file sharing totalled only $1,206.59, but we intend to prove that this is, in fact, equivalent to $2,892.61 in price-fixed-- ahem, value-added RIAA products, and therefore request the greater sentence....