The richer countries don't have to do anything, it is a process that happens naturally over time. See Ireland.
What we have now is a specific problem caused by the financial crisis. It's not the normal way the system us supposed to work. I'd also point out that it isn't as bad as some people think it is. Remember when the pundits were saying that the Euro was dead?
Marriage is a standard contract that society has an interest in defining. Rather than each couple writing their own, society has set a standard that includes inheritance rights and so forth, and is supposed to be the ideal. For that reason it carries a certain weight and attraction for people.
Of you don't want to use it, there should be systems in place to facilitate that. Of course if you do want it, you should have access to it regardless of sexual orientation.
The sad thing is that publishing the vulnerability anonymously, in 2600 or on one of the disclosure mailing lists, is now the responsible thing to do. Not great for the company involved, but it protects the researcher and it protects the user in some cases.
At this point I'd only even consider warning the company before anonymously publishing the vulnerability if they had a bug bounty programme. Not because I want money, but because it's the only way to be sure they will actually be thankful and not call the cops right away.
Similarly I think those from the UK who often travel to Europe or vice versa would see merit in the UK joining the Schengen Area (even though again our current administration are probably strongly against it).
A bigger concern would be the loss of freedom of movement. A couple of million skilled and motivated workers would leave the UK, and a million retired or otherwise benefit dependent British people would return. It is likely that the government would try to negotiate some kind of deal where such people can stay where they are, but it will cost us a lot when we have to start contributing more and more to the welfare of those people who retired to sunnier parts of the world etc.
The problem we see in the EU is that it has become a bureaucratic, intransparent, undemocratic monster with a far too wide mandate.
You say that, but I challenge you to point to some EU directives that have actually worked against UK citizens. I bet most if not all of it is either a myth or was actually a benefit to us. Vacuum cleaners perhaps, or the classic "water doesn't cure dehydration" maybe?
As for being a monster, it's about twice the size of Brimingham city council. For 500,000,000 people.
The EU was originally started to avoid another European war, which twice became world wars. It worked extremely well. With regards to Russia, they wouldn't dare invade an EU country. The EU actually does collective defence quite well, it just doesn't get involved with things happening in other countries very much.
Yes. That's what we signed up for: economic and trade relations. Everything that has come after that has never been asked for or voted for here (or in many other EU member states, for that matter).
People who voted in the referendum tell me that it was made clear at the time that it wasn't just a trade agreement, it was a larger project. That was in fact one of the main points of the "no" campaign, particularly emphasised by the Morning Star newspaper and Tony Ben MP.
Why is this a problem? It worked fine for years, and good trade relations are mutually beneficial.
If it is working well why quit?
But the UK isn't asking for a free lunch. It's suggesting that if, say, Germany makes good bread and the UK farms good cows, they trade so everyone can enjoy a tasty burger-in-a-roll for lunch. Plenty of nations outside the EU have this kind of relationship with plenty of nations within the EU today. The UK has, and wants to develop, these kinds of relations with other global trading partners as well.
That isn't correct. Such free trade agreements only work if both countries are on an equal footing, otherwise there will be conditions to keep things fair. For example, Sweden has to abide by most EU rules even though it isn't in the EU, because it wants a free trade agreement. If it didn't abide by those rules it would be free to, for example, treat employees significantly worse and thus give companies an economic advantage, or have the government support failing industries which EU governments cannot. Thus there would be conditions to enable EU businesses to compete fairly and not be undercut.
So our choice would be to either accept most of the EU rules without having any say in them, and thus not be able to get rid of one of the most hated (and also beneficial) aspects of membership, or to forget about free trade and pay duties on products and services exported there. UKIP kind of acknowledges this and claims that the benefit of being able to trade with fewer restrictions with other countries would make up for it.
Note also that when people say the UK wants to develop relationships with other global trading partners, what they mean is that they want to reduce conditions and wages for employees to the same levels as those economies. Why should they pay you more than some guy doing the exact same job in China? How can they compete with that?
The UK is a net importer with most of its major trading partners within the EU. Financially speaking, there is probably more benefit to those nations if they preserve good trade relations with the UK than the other way around, but both sides benefit greatly.
Doubtful. There is the matter of principal, but more practically other countries will see it as an opportunity to improve their own positions. That's what the UK wants to do, it should expect the EU to do the same. Clearly there won't be a simple continuation of the existing arrangement because as you point out, the UK wants to ditch many of the rules on which that arrangement is reliant.
Britain is one of the few countries within the EU that exports more to countries outside it than to ones in it, albeit by a small margin. One of the arguments for leaving is that the regulations required by the EU (which may have protectionist origins) make it harder to compete outside of it with faster growing world economies.
It does make it harder to compete, but let's be absolutely clear why. It's things like employee rights, environmental protection rules, anti-monopoly rules, data protection rules and the like. Basically stuff that benefits the citizens but slightly reduces corporate profits.
How do you think they will compete with "growing world economies"? By paying you growing world wages, and paying growing world levels of tax.
Don't think for a moment any of it will benefit you. It will benefit corporations and the already extremely rich people who own then or have large interests in them.
3kW is too slow for destination charging. Who wants to wait 8+ hours for a charge?
The sweet spot is 22kW. That will charge a Leaf 80% in about an hour. It doesn't put too heavy demand on the infrastructure and so you can have a few of them in one place, and they are not too expensive either. That makes them ideal for destination charging at say shops or tourist attractions.
Down from that 7kW can be connected to a standard 32A circuit in Europe so is another popular and practical choice. A full charge needs 4 hours but typically no-one runs down to 0% before charging. Again, they are ideal for destination charging where you might stop for 3 hours to do some shopping or see an attraction.
Or maybe the police will use it to blackmail/persecute people they don't like: http://www.theguardian.com/com...
I wouldn't trust the police to investigate any kind of sex related crime: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-328...
So basically all the crappy bits you don't want on mobile anyway are missing. What a shame.
The search results thing is not the right to be forgotten. Some stupid journalists got confused and called it that, but that was actually just existing data protection rules dating back to the mid 90s.
The right to be forgotten is still being looked at, but basically will allow EU citizens to require companies to delete data supplied by them (accounts, uploaded photos etc.) on request. The data must really be deleted, not just marked as dormant or whatever.
You could do things like splitting email addresses off into a different database on a different server and just keeping a hash in the main one, but it's only mm marginally better. Basically you can't be both secure and provide this kind of service.
As well as the terrible male to female ratio (16:1) the other big issue here is that deleted accounts were not really deleted. The European Right to be Forgotten is designed to force companies operating in the EU to really delete accounts, and this illustrates why it is needed.
TOR worked pretty well for Snowden.
It boils down to how interesting you are. Unless you are already on their radar and doing something extremely bad they probably won't even try, and certainly won't want to reveal their capabilities just to get at you.
The system was down for backups from 5am to 10am last Saturday.
