Are you sure they can be trusted with your money when not shielded under EU law.
Probably, your money will lose the deposit guarantee (I would not be surprised if the UK will make it only applicable to resident citizens). They will probably leave the SEPA framework completely, so all your transactions to the eurozone will be charged 30 GBP fees. Sounds like a good deal...
Note the "probably" here, that is the key in this thing, uncertainty. I am uncertain I will ever get my pension payed out if it stays in the UK after an exit, hence the funds will be relocated.
Even in the story, they quote text which can only be interpreted in a certain way and the story makes the opposite conclusion of what even a 5 year old would be capable of doing.
There is no proposal to force citizens to use their eID (which aren't universally available in any case), to be able to log in to any website. It is a preliminary letter about investigating whether there should be regulation or directives to mandate that websites support this as an alternative log in mechanism.
Again, bullshit, the letter simply talks about investigating what the impacts are of introducing an eID acceptance requirement on online services. These services are going to continue providing normal login systems would this even make it to a directive or regulation.
I worked in the UK for a couple of years. If "brexit" happens, my British pension funds will be moved out of the UK very quickly. Do you think I am the only one considering this? How many more are contemplating this?
> "consumers should be able to choose the credentials by which they want to identify or authenticate themselves"
This basically means that "it would be nice if online platforms accepted government eIDs for logging in", it does NOT mean "all citizens must comply and use government eIDs for using the Internet or online services". What they are talking about is mandating that online platforms such as facebook, google, amazon etc accepts eIDs as credentials. This is in an exploratory phase, and is likely that it will never fly and make it as a directive in the end.
In the UK, where the eIDs do not exist, for better or for worse, such a directive would in any case have zero impact on citizens. Maybe it would have an impact on online services (i.e. forcing a web developer to add the support for this way of logging in). Thus, such a directive may be criticised as being too much red-tape for web developer, but hardly as something Orwellian. This said, they havn't even proposed a directive yet, just written a public letter saying that they are investigating it. It may turn out that the investigation leads to status quo where no directive or regulations are proposed.
Regarding the Swiss, the deal is basically, they get access to the internal market (and Schengen) on the condition that they 1. allow for freedom of movement (also apply to Swiss who can move freely) and 2. they have to follow certain rules related to the internal market that the European authorities make up without input from the Swiss. Now that the Swiss voted against no 1, they are likely to be kicked out of the market as well.
Chile and South Africa is outside the EU and there will be tariffs. If you had ever had to deal with exports, you would have seen the use of the EU, even with free trade agreements, the paper work for sending a shipment of goods to outside the EU compared to within is quite staggering (export, import clearance documents, etc).
Two parties will not work it out themselves in the case of disputes, and as basically all treaties have some type of third party court or arbitration capability associated with it, you are disproven by facts! Your made up world where everyone gets along without independent courts or arbitration is kind of cute and would probably be a nice place to be in, but it really does not have anything to do with reality (look up ISDS as an example).
Assume you are country A, your language is Alish, you negotiating with country B about a trade agreement, in country B they speak Balish. You now start discussing how to settle these disputes. People from B are not interested in resolving issues in the courts of A in Alish, country A is neither interested in resolving disputes in the courts of B in Balish. Picking one of the languages over the other, would give the advantage to that country, so we start looking at whether we can resolve things in the local courts.
Secondly, the general procedures of the courts of A is better known for companies registered there, and vice versa. Thus, there are unfair advantages depending on where you file your cases. It is also virtually impossible to guarantee consistency between rulings in A and B if they run their own courts for settling treaty related issues.
So we have now established, the need for third party independent arbitration.
Not that simple, such system is open for abuse. Consider large company A complains (without justification) about company B receiving state subsidies the country where A is established now introduce tariffs on the products. B being small and dependent on the revenue from the country where A is established now goes under and was never allowed to appeal the decision and fight it in court or with an arbitrator.
Thus we have established that a system that you propose is prone for abuse. Also country a will not trust that country b takes fair decisions, so simply put to enforce the agreement and ensuring that the system is not abusable we need the trusted third party.
Again, we are back to the standard setup of an international agreement, secret arbitration courts without oversight. Consequently, you are better off with the EU where we have parliamentary oversight over the functioning of the courts and the general system.
The funding of the EU bureocracy (including the EC) is about 5% of the EU budget (which in total is around 1% of the total EU GDP)... huge cut indeed... 0.05 % of the EU GDP.
Who enforces the elimination of tariffs and all that go with it (ensuring no state gives aid to companies or fields in a way that upsets the competition)? You would need some type of arbitration system for this which is binding and enforcing the treaty of free trade. As we have it now in the EU, the process and legislation that governs the Court of the EU are open, and proceedings are public. Arbitration courts often decide things without public visibility (in-fact, most international trade agreements come with these dispute resolution mechanisms, but they work in secret so you have no way to look back for precedent in their cases).
Another issue would be, the CAP which is a substantial part of the EU budget, you may argue against it (I don't particularly think that we should have these subsidies) but the fact is that that it is better to have a bad common CAP compared to 28 different ones. Or you need to start enforcing tariffs when the French subsidise their farm produce and ship it over to the UK.
Basically, the incentives can be seen as a sort of support for the EV manufacturer who will sell more cars, and therefore will be able to scale up the production and design cheaper consumer friendly cars. E.g. Tesla is working on the Model 3 which will be more affordable, this was only possible by going the route from the roadster and model S.
Yes, the incentives may go to rich people (excluding people buying a Nissan Leaf), but the long term benefit is to get affordable EVs to everyone.
The Hellenic economy has been shit since the 19th century, before WWII. Several other countries where also destroyed but recovered better, Poland suffered immensely, but is now doing a lot better than Greece.
The problem in Greece is primarily the culture of doing business, severe clientelism associated with the lack of will to change. Part of this is the lack of independence of authorities. For example, the head of the Greek tax office does not have the power to decide who will work at the tax office. The last guy in charge of the Greek tax office got sacked when he tried to enact serious reforms presumably because he stepped on the wrong toes in the government.
Entrance into the EU and the Euro is in the end approved by the European Council. Thus, your eurocrats is amusingly enough actually the national governments.
I find it amazing how the "eurocrats" (normally implying employees at the European institutions), are blamed for the decisions of the European Council and the Eurogroup (which is the gathering of Eurozone finance ministers).
CMake is a build system (ok, technically a meta build-system) like make i.e. it can build everything given the right rules and configuration. Most IDEs makes it painful beyond belief to build multi-language projects and especially projects where code is generated by custom tools.
It is not possible to compare CMake with VS, since the usecases are completely different.
CMake/autotools/make/etc is used when: - you care about portability - you have multiple languages in your application - you have a sufficiently complicated setup with lots of autogenerated source files - you want to have a debuggable build setup
VS/Xcode/Eclipse/Netbeans is usable when: - you don't care about portability - you don't care about being able to debug the build - you don't have complex dependencies in the project
For larger projects, you likely will grow out of even CMake et.al. in that case you can write your own build system using tools like shake.
There has been research into differences between US states. Some of them, predominantly the one sharing a border with Canada have murder rates similar to Europe.
This has among other things been attributed to the more prevalent honour-culture in the southern part of the US (which has been experimentally validated).
This is the case in many EU states. Higher education (master's level courses) are in general given in English in a lot of universities, including in France.
Do you have the slightest clue about how a parliamentarian system works? Governments are not elected by the people, they are elected by the parliament and they can be sacked by parliament. Apparently, in Ukraine the president can be removed by the parliament (if not, the disposed president should have raised the issue with the supreme / constitutional courts, but this has not happened).
We just had a referendum in our house, no one wants to be part of the country that claims the land we have the house on (there are also no native people living in our house). Can we secede? According to your logic, yes...
It does not matter whether there is a majority population of russian-speaking people in Crimea. Russia / USSR gave Crimea to Ukraine, they cannot take it back just like that. A civilized approach would have been to approach the Ukrainian government, asked them for it and offered a pile of money for it (e.g. free gas for 50 years or something like that...) and then had a discussion as civilsed persons. This never happened, and as the Russian logic goes at the moment, we can also argue that:
- St:Petersburg is built on occupied Swedish territory and should be handed back to Sweden.
- Karelia is Finnish (ok Finland is actually Swedish), and should be handed back to Finland.
- Kalingrad should be handed over to Germany, after all it was the center of Prussia, the most german of the german states...
- The Åland islands (who actually had a referendum about joining Sweden, voting 95 % for joining) and is part of Finland should be handed over to Sweden immediately.
- Anschluss was morally justified as the territories that Adolf annexed was "ethnic german".
- Ireland is english-speaking, so England has claim...
- US is English speaking and the Spanish speaking are "oppressing" the English speaking and the UK has moral justification to protect "the English" in the US.
- There are Dutch-speaking people in Belgium, so the NL should invade, they are oppressed by the French-speaking Belgians.
- Three are Flemmish-speaking people in the Netherlands, so Belgium should invade NL to protect the Flemmish/Dutch speaking people from the Frisians.
Where do you draw the line?
The fact is also that Russia signed an agreement leading to the dismantling of the Ukrainian nukes in order for a promise of respecting the integrity of the Ukrainian territory, no one can argue that Russia has not violated this pledge. The fact is that no Russians or Russian-speaking people where oppressed by the government in Ukraine.
There is NO casus belli whatsoever in this case, the Russians are blatantly ignoring international law, their own international commitments (to respect the Ukrainian borders) and are in principle acting like Germany in the 30s.
The issue aside (Mac Pro is not a laptop), a modular laptop is very important for many reasons. Especially when it comes to upgrading RAM and replacing disks when you realise that your initial diskspace is not enough. I don't think there are that many other things you need to replace yourself in a laptop though.
The interesting thing is that the goodwill losses in reputation for the movie or Nordisk Film is probably a lot higher from the verdict being public, pissing people off, than it was from 100 people downloading the bad quality rip.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, it would likely stop a lot of shootings, but obviously not all of them.
Murder rate US: 3.9 / 100k
There is only one place worse in the EU: Lithuania with a whopping 5.5 / 100k, on average the EU is a lot less than the US.
Taking the listed countries you end up with the following.
Austria: 0.5
Belgium: 1.8
France 1.2
UK 1.0
Germany: 0.9
All which are significantly lower than the average of the US.
Are you sure they can be trusted with your money when not shielded under EU law.
Probably, your money will lose the deposit guarantee (I would not be surprised if the UK will make it only applicable to resident citizens). They will probably leave the SEPA framework completely, so all your transactions to the eurozone will be charged 30 GBP fees. Sounds like a good deal...
Note the "probably" here, that is the key in this thing, uncertainty. I am uncertain I will ever get my pension payed out if it stays in the UK after an exit, hence the funds will be relocated.
Even in the story, they quote text which can only be interpreted in a certain way and the story makes the opposite conclusion of what even a 5 year old would be capable of doing.
There is no proposal to force citizens to use their eID (which aren't universally available in any case), to be able to log in to any website. It is a preliminary letter about investigating whether there should be regulation or directives to mandate that websites support this as an alternative log in mechanism.
Again, bullshit, the letter simply talks about investigating what the impacts are of introducing an eID acceptance requirement on online services. These services are going to continue providing normal login systems would this even make it to a directive or regulation.
I worked in the UK for a couple of years. If "brexit" happens, my British pension funds will be moved out of the UK very quickly. Do you think I am the only one considering this? How many more are contemplating this?
> "consumers should be able to choose the credentials by which they want to identify or authenticate themselves"
This basically means that "it would be nice if online platforms accepted government eIDs for logging in", it does NOT mean "all citizens must comply and use government eIDs for using the Internet or online services". What they are talking about is mandating that online platforms such as facebook, google, amazon etc accepts eIDs as credentials. This is in an exploratory phase, and is likely that it will never fly and make it as a directive in the end.
In the UK, where the eIDs do not exist, for better or for worse, such a directive would in any case have zero impact on citizens. Maybe it would have an impact on online services (i.e. forcing a web developer to add the support for this way of logging in). Thus, such a directive may be criticised as being too much red-tape for web developer, but hardly as something Orwellian. This said, they havn't even proposed a directive yet, just written a public letter saying that they are investigating it. It may turn out that the investigation leads to status quo where no directive or regulations are proposed.
Regarding the Swiss, the deal is basically, they get access to the internal market (and Schengen) on the condition that they 1. allow for freedom of movement (also apply to Swiss who can move freely) and 2. they have to follow certain rules related to the internal market that the European authorities make up without input from the Swiss. Now that the Swiss voted against no 1, they are likely to be kicked out of the market as well.
Chile and South Africa is outside the EU and there will be tariffs. If you had ever had to deal with exports, you would have seen the use of the EU, even with free trade agreements, the paper work for sending a shipment of goods to outside the EU compared to within is quite staggering (export, import clearance documents, etc).
Two parties will not work it out themselves in the case of disputes, and as basically all treaties have some type of third party court or arbitration capability associated with it, you are disproven by facts! Your made up world where everyone gets along without independent courts or arbitration is kind of cute and would probably be a nice place to be in, but it really does not have anything to do with reality (look up ISDS as an example).
Assume you are country A, your language is Alish, you negotiating with country B about a trade agreement, in country B they speak Balish. You now start discussing how to settle these disputes. People from B are not interested in resolving issues in the courts of A in Alish, country A is neither interested in resolving disputes in the courts of B in Balish. Picking one of the languages over the other, would give the advantage to that country, so we start looking at whether we can resolve things in the local courts.
Secondly, the general procedures of the courts of A is better known for companies registered there, and vice versa. Thus, there are unfair advantages depending on where you file your cases. It is also virtually impossible to guarantee consistency between rulings in A and B if they run their own courts for settling treaty related issues.
So we have now established, the need for third party independent arbitration.
Exactly my point, you need to have a third party provide either formal court proceedings or arbitration to determine this.
Not that simple, such system is open for abuse. Consider large company A complains (without justification) about company B receiving state subsidies the country where A is established now introduce tariffs on the products. B being small and dependent on the revenue from the country where A is established now goes under and was never allowed to appeal the decision and fight it in court or with an arbitrator.
Thus we have established that a system that you propose is prone for abuse. Also country a will not trust that country b takes fair decisions, so simply put to enforce the agreement and ensuring that the system is not abusable we need the trusted third party.
Again, we are back to the standard setup of an international agreement, secret arbitration courts without oversight. Consequently, you are better off with the EU where we have parliamentary oversight over the functioning of the courts and the general system.
The funding of the EU bureocracy (including the EC) is about 5% of the EU budget (which in total is around 1% of the total EU GDP)... huge cut indeed... 0.05 % of the EU GDP.
Who enforces the elimination of tariffs and all that go with it (ensuring no state gives aid to companies or fields in a way that upsets the competition)? You would need some type of arbitration system for this which is binding and enforcing the treaty of free trade. As we have it now in the EU, the process and legislation that governs the Court of the EU are open, and proceedings are public. Arbitration courts often decide things without public visibility (in-fact, most international trade agreements come with these dispute resolution mechanisms, but they work in secret so you have no way to look back for precedent in their cases).
Another issue would be, the CAP which is a substantial part of the EU budget, you may argue against it (I don't particularly think that we should have these subsidies) but the fact is that that it is better to have a bad common CAP compared to 28 different ones. Or you need to start enforcing tariffs when the French subsidise their farm produce and ship it over to the UK.
You didn't notice what has happened with the Russian economy, did you?
That is the short sighted version, but...
Basically, the incentives can be seen as a sort of support for the EV manufacturer who will sell more cars, and therefore will be able to scale up the production and design cheaper consumer friendly cars. E.g. Tesla is working on the Model 3 which will be more affordable, this was only possible by going the route from the roadster and model S.
Yes, the incentives may go to rich people (excluding people buying a Nissan Leaf), but the long term benefit is to get affordable EVs to everyone.
The Hellenic economy has been shit since the 19th century, before WWII. Several other countries where also destroyed but recovered better, Poland suffered immensely, but is now doing a lot better than Greece.
The problem in Greece is primarily the culture of doing business, severe clientelism associated with the lack of will to change. Part of this is the lack of independence of authorities. For example, the head of the Greek tax office does not have the power to decide who will work at the tax office. The last guy in charge of the Greek tax office got sacked when he tried to enact serious reforms presumably because he stepped on the wrong toes in the government.
Entrance into the EU and the Euro is in the end approved by the European Council. Thus, your eurocrats is amusingly enough actually the national governments.
I find it amazing how the "eurocrats" (normally implying employees at the European institutions), are blamed for the decisions of the European Council and the Eurogroup (which is the gathering of Eurozone finance ministers).
CMake is a build system (ok, technically a meta build-system) like make i.e. it can build everything given the right rules and configuration. Most IDEs makes it painful beyond belief to build multi-language projects and especially projects where code is generated by custom tools.
It is not possible to compare CMake with VS, since the usecases are completely different.
CMake/autotools/make/etc is used when:
- you care about portability
- you have multiple languages in your application
- you have a sufficiently complicated setup with lots of autogenerated source files
- you want to have a debuggable build setup
VS/Xcode/Eclipse/Netbeans is usable when:
- you don't care about portability
- you don't care about being able to debug the build
- you don't have complex dependencies in the project
For larger projects, you likely will grow out of even CMake et.al. in that case you can write your own build system using tools like shake.
There has been research into differences between US states. Some of them, predominantly the one sharing a border with Canada have murder rates similar to Europe.
This has among other things been attributed to the more prevalent honour-culture in the southern part of the US (which has been experimentally validated).
This is the case in many EU states. Higher education (master's level courses) are in general given in English in a lot of universities, including in France.
Do you have the slightest clue about how a parliamentarian system works? Governments are not elected by the people, they are elected by the parliament and they can be sacked by parliament. Apparently, in Ukraine the president can be removed by the parliament (if not, the disposed president should have raised the issue with the supreme / constitutional courts, but this has not happened).
This is not a coup, it is democracy in play.
We just had a referendum in our house, no one wants to be part of the country that claims the land we have the house on (there are also no native people living in our house). Can we secede? According to your logic, yes...
It does not matter whether there is a majority population of russian-speaking people in Crimea. Russia / USSR gave Crimea to Ukraine, they cannot take it back just like that. A civilized approach would have been to approach the Ukrainian government, asked them for it and offered a pile of money for it (e.g. free gas for 50 years or something like that...) and then had a discussion as civilsed persons. This never happened, and as the Russian logic goes at the moment, we can also argue that:
- St:Petersburg is built on occupied Swedish territory and should be handed back to Sweden.
- Karelia is Finnish (ok Finland is actually Swedish), and should be handed back to Finland.
- Kalingrad should be handed over to Germany, after all it was the center of Prussia, the most german of the german states...
- The Åland islands (who actually had a referendum about joining Sweden, voting 95 % for joining) and is part of Finland should be handed over to Sweden immediately.
- Anschluss was morally justified as the territories that Adolf annexed was "ethnic german".
- Ireland is english-speaking, so England has claim...
- US is English speaking and the Spanish speaking are "oppressing" the English speaking and the UK has moral justification to protect "the English" in the US.
- There are Dutch-speaking people in Belgium, so the NL should invade, they are oppressed by the French-speaking Belgians.
- Three are Flemmish-speaking people in the Netherlands, so Belgium should invade NL to protect the Flemmish/Dutch speaking people from the Frisians.
Where do you draw the line?
The fact is also that Russia signed an agreement leading to the dismantling of the Ukrainian nukes in order for a promise of respecting the integrity of the Ukrainian territory, no one can argue that Russia has not violated this pledge. The fact is that no Russians or Russian-speaking people where oppressed by the government in Ukraine.
There is NO casus belli whatsoever in this case, the Russians are blatantly ignoring international law, their own international commitments (to respect the Ukrainian borders) and are in principle acting like Germany in the 30s.
And the battery.
The issue aside (Mac Pro is not a laptop), a modular laptop is very important for many reasons. Especially when it comes to upgrading RAM and replacing disks when you realise that your initial diskspace is not enough. I don't think there are that many other things you need to replace yourself in a laptop though.
The interesting thing is that the goodwill losses in reputation for the movie or Nordisk Film is probably a lot higher from the verdict being public, pissing people off, than it was from 100 people downloading the bad quality rip.