Things are so bad I can't tell which of these posts are satire.
Things are so bad I can't tell which of these posts are satire.
Hmm, I thought you truncated that text until I checked. I thought it read "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people or by the states.", and now I can't find why I thought so. But perhaps it should have read that way, so the states would have more vigorously contested the expansion of federal power.
I do agree that the current "official interpretation" of the meaning of the ninth amendment is a blatant power grab of the "you can't stop us" variety, and without honest legal basis.
I followed your link, and it seems to only apply to unicode characters in links. There's NO reason that this should affect the display of text. About as I thought.
If you want to argue that only ASCII chars should be allowed in links, I'd have no problems with that. Since most users of this site use predominately English, and most valid web sites have ASCII urls, that should rarely cause a problem. But text is a different matter, and unicode text should be displayed as given. If you want to be especially careful you could display any text outside the ASCII set in dark blue rather than in black, but that seems quite unlikely to be needed.
You are optimistic. That is one possible scenario, but there are many that are far less rosy. And one very likely one is that the government will dither for a long time, and during the entire time of dithering private companies will be avoiding any investment in Britain, and removing any investments that are mobile. Companies don't like uncertainty (as you pointed out).
Then, even when the matter is resolved, and even presuming that there is a free trade agreement, Britain's economy will not only be depressed, but have been depressed for so long that there's no viable infrastructure. So moving back will not be seen as a valid move.
The problem is that "Direct Democracy" doesn't scale. I think there are better ways around it than "Representative Democracy", but none of them have ever been implemented. But Britain is too large for Direct Democracy to work, but it seems to have "Representative Democracy" working better than does the US. Again this may well be a problem of scale.
It wasn't a narrow vote, but it also wasn't "nationwide". Scotland and Northern Ireland voted "remain" with sizable majorities. Scotland, at least, is likely to break off from the UK over this violation of the promises made a year ago that their membership in the EU would be protected if they voted not to split from the UK. And Northern Ireland might do the same, because it was the EU that was the peace treaty guarantor with (Catholic) Ireland.
So. Interesting times. You can't do just one thing.
You do realize that it was a "Non-Binding referendum" don't you?
It was, essentially, a sounding of public opinion. Some people are saying that it didn't do a good job of sounding public opinion, and that it should be redone. They may, or may not, have a valid point.
But even if there is no additional referendum, it doesn't start the timer until Parliament votes to send a request to the EU for withdrawal. The current Prime Minister though that was such a bad idea that he's promised to resign before October. Perhaps he will. And there are other legal considerations, so it may be that Parliament can't legally pass that request without the approval of the Parliaments of Scotland and Northern Ireland (and Wales, if I understand correctly, but they probably wouldn't object).
It's not over, it's barely started. Parliament has to notify the EU that it wants to withdraw. And it appears that it's going to need some legal changes made by the Parliaments of Scotland and Northern Ireland before it's allowed to do so. And both of those areas were staunchly "remain", so they may be reluctant to make the needed legal changes.
Also, Scotland appears to have started negotiations for remaining in the EU after Britain leaves. Who knows what the result will be, but if might need to vote to separate from Britain before the effective date of Britain's withdrawal...which might lead the Scottish Parliament to delay making the changes that Britain would need for it's withdrawal.
And, in addition, Britain had just negotiated a set of changes and exemptions from standard EU terms, but which were conditional on the BREXIT vote failing. Those have all been declared invalid, and the negotiators are not pleased. And they are high EU officials.
And the pound had lost 1/3 of it's value during last Friday. Perhaps it will recover, or partially. But many corporations are planning to move their headquarters out of Britain, or to not locate there, or to decline to make loans. Signs of this are already present, but actions probably won't be clearly in motion before Monday.
And the Prime Minister has promised to resign before October, leaving the request to withdraw to his successor. And nobody knows who that will be, though various people have made various unhappy guesses.
It's worth noting that the government denies that the Declaration of Independence has any legal status.
How certain are you *which* is the lesser evil?
When both are such liars, certainty seems unwarranted.
I question that unicode is a security risk. In fact I deny it. You do need to take a few precautions, but not many, it's simple. The major problem AFAIKT is that it can be used to generate links that don't go where you think they do, and that can easily be guarded against in multiple different ways...and is uncommon anyway. Besides, since TinyURL has so many fans there are lots of ways to do *that*.
It's not the only one, though I agree that it's rare. It's probably because when slashcode was first written unicode was uncommon.
Look at the second line of reasoning. I'm not lawyer enough (i.e., at all) to know whether their first line of reasoning, which you are discussing, is valid. But the second line of reasoning is vile, evil, and any other disgusting term of abuse you can think of. And the judge should be impeached for saying it.
The conviction is probably sound. I think the first line of reasoning is probably valid. But that addendum where he says they didn't need a warrant anyway should lead to his impeachment...and *should* also lead to his disbarment, though there's not much chance of either.
Large chunks of new code typically have lots of interactions that most people don't suspect. Some easter-eggs have remained hidden for over a decade. There's nothing unlikely about something unexpected hiding in systemd. What would be surprising was if there weren't. Now assuming that it was put there intentionally is a bit of a stretch, but not a huge stretch, because that, also, has happened before.
Diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggy" until you can find a rock.