Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:But now part of the historical narrative? (Score 1) 621

Exactly: what people fail to understand is that by making referendums much more difficult to be successful they would actually place even more power in the government and reduce their own power to affect it. These kinds of decisions are very dangerous since once the government gets more power it's very difficult that it will renounce it and it's the kind of decisions which will soon or later bite back

Comment Re: But now part of the historical narrative? (Score 1) 621

So what supermajority was required for the UK to join the EC back in the 70s?

None, but no majority requires leaving the EU today either. In any case the whole debate of a popular vote being required to join the EU in the first place is a huge can of worm by itself.

Comment Re:But now part of the historical narrative? (Score 1) 621

Ok. If you impose a very high supermajority to one side, you've effectively already chosen for everyone. The vote becomes farcical. Why should people participate in meaningless pretend elections?

The side getting the supermajority is the status quo. I don't like it much, but the idea of requiring a higher majority or a quorum to change the status quo makes sense on paper, but then you have governments like Italy which plan bothersome referendums at super-impractical dates to try to deter participation and basically try to "win by default"...

Comment Re:you don't get do-overs until your side wins. (Score 1) 621

The UK is made up of REGIONS, each REGION voted in the MAJORITY to STAY in the EU.

That's actually how important referendums in Switzerland work: they are legally binding but to be successful they require support of 50%+1 of the voters and support of at least half of the "states" forming the confederation.

Comment Re:But now part of the historical narrative? (Score 1) 621

For the record, it is routine in essentially all countries bar the UK who allow constitutional plebiscites that the bar is much higher than a simple majority.

If the results are binding, sure. In the UK referendums are non-binding, so a "higher bar" would be meaningless.

Comment Re:But now part of the historical narrative? (Score 2) 621

One of my biggest issues with referendums like this is that they are so unbalanced. If remain had won then leave supporters could, and would, push for another go at leaving if there was support for it; however leave get a slight majority and the rest of the country is forced to go along with an irreversible decision with no chance at another vote.

In most systems with binding referendums you cannot simply submit the same referendum again and again until you win: if a referendum fails there is usually a number of years of "waiting period" before you can submit a similar question.

Again, there is no such thing as an "irreversible decision" the country is "forced to go along with": the referendum is non-binding. It's entirely the government's decision to actually leave the EU and they are only forced by their own weakness and incompetence.

Comment Re:But now part of the historical narrative? (Score 1) 621

Right a 2/3 majority should have been required to stay in the EU.

See that is the problem with super majority decisions, it gives disproportionate power to whomever decides the question's wording.

Think of it this way: what would happen if a super majority was necessary to change elected officials? They would have the position for life.

That's not how super-majority usually works. Typically super-majority is required to accept a change and if the vote fails the status quo is preserved. You cannot simply re-word the question to get around this.

Comment Re:But now part of the historical narrative? (Score 1) 621

really for a referendum of such a constitutional importance, a higher threshold than a simple majority should be required for any vote-to-change to be valid.

The referendum is non-binding: there is no such thing as a "threshold" required for the vote to be valid because "valid" is meaningless when the government is still the one ultimately deciding how to interpret the result and what the consequences of the result will be, if any.

Comment Re:A question of definitions? (Score 1) 165

Even if the door is open if you have no authorization it's still trespassing and this shows pretty well the issue the EFF is raising.

it's pretty clear you are authorized to enter a restaurant and it's pretty clear you are not authorized to enter a random private home which happens to have the door left open.

What about an anonymous FTP server? It could be argued it's like an open restaurant, or it could be argued it's like a private home with the door left open, so if you apply the "trespassing" analogy it's not clear at all whether you are "authorized" or not.

Comment Re:32-bit != i386 (Score 4, Informative) 378

They are actually discussing about dropping x86_32. This is from the original post which got "resurrected" at the beginning of the thread in their mailing list (the quoted text at the bottom):

At some point we are going to want drop x86_32 kernel support and just have 32-bit compatibility libraries, but I don't know when that makes sense.

Comment Re:warranty length (Score 1) 189

Apple's probably one of the best examples as their "EU Tax" is low - take the US model, add AppleCare (to satisfy EU warranty), add in the requisite VAT (20-25%) and convert to Euros, and you come out pretty close to the cost in Europe.

You usually come out cheaper with EU model and no Apple Care. This is actually correct since Apple Care covers *more* than the mandatory 2 years EU warranty, so it makes sense for it to be more expensive.

Slashdot Top Deals

Five is a sufficiently close approximation to infinity. -- Robert Firth "One, two, five." -- Monty Python and the Holy Grail