DasIch

Several countries in the EU aim for neutrality. A common front on defense issues is and will always will be difficult to pull of because of that. Additionally some countries have very high barriers for military interventions. Every time the German military does anything outside of German territory they're on questionable ground constitutionally. You either have the EU always be neutral or it will be split on matters of defense. Neither is necessarily bad.

The EU was created to ensure peace within Europe. The economic aspects are secondary and merely enable that to happen by binding the economies together, so that you cannot start a war or leave the EU without significant harm to your own economy.

There is a European Defense Agency and there are EU battlegroups that sort of form a standing EU army. The EU definitely is a military union and there are quite a few people pushing for even more cooperation on that front.

EDIT: For those people down voting I would suggest reading the preamble of the Paris treaty[1], which essentially started the EU. It's not exactly subtle or ambiguous about the goal.

[1]: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:...

It's also the purpose of NATO. NATO was created not only to provide defense during the cold war but also to prevent conflict between European countries and ensure US military dominance.

There is not and never was a plan for the US not to be dominant.

You're right. The problem is that rich people don't spent much money, they tend to already have most of their needs met.

Poor people on the other hand are much quicker to bring their income back into circulation. If you want a lot of money to be spent domestically, you need to redistribute the money to the poor.

Apple is profitable but it certainly not competitive on pricing. Monopolies also tend to be profitable, competitiveness isn't even a concern there.

The receiver now has to figure out what is missing from a stream of data of which anything could be missing. That's equivalent to dealing with missing packets only on a byte level. If anything, that's harder and less efficient to deal with.

This is not a new feature.

They don't even have current data on who is currently in parliament for many countries and in the case they do that data is essentially worthless. I really don't see the point of this.

If you want to bother at all, you should have data on the level of http://abgeordetenwatch.de (for Germany only but surely similar projects exist in other countries). So how they voted, which committees are they part of, which jobs (beside being a politician) do they have. If you can get it, even which lobbyists they've met with (http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/).

In german gib is not slang or a shortening of anything. It's the third person singular imperative of geben.

The only implication here is that above 100 GB sharding becomes something that's reasonable to consider.

The TZ database has versions and you could at least in theory expose that at a higher level in libraries.

I'm not sure I would call Maya particularly pythonic and just like all the other libraries it's API seems to be focused more on fixing issues in other libraries than actually thinking through the problem.

It does make sense to separate teams who do different things but these teams do have to align and communicate occasionally. Meeting up in person in a meeting room is an incredibly convenient way to do that.

You can work decentralized but it's not particularly great, especially because remote communication isn't a solved problem. You communicate a ton of stuff in an actual face to face conversation through a variety of different ways and even video calls don't really capture that.

What would be the alternative anyway? Imagine a DJ playing a set and suddenly having Windows force an update on them. Linux during some periods barely played audio for regular use cases.

If you want good hardware and a reliable operating system, you go with a Mac. A few annoyances with adapters it might require won't change that at all.

Or it could be that Apple just really doesn't care and most Apple customers don't either.

Hearing aids compensate for a health problem, the goal here seems to be to improve hearing even for those that don't have hearing problems.

If hearing aids are glasses, these are binoculars/telescopes/microscopes.

Indeed parents have a duty to their children. Clearly this cannot and should not mean that they're allowed to treat their children however they want or that they're allowed to educate them on what and how they want. There can be a space for them to make decisions but the rights of the children always have to take precedence.

It's only natural for the government to step in and determine exactly what this means. Allowing the government to do this without limits is problematic, so you balance that out with rights assigned to parents.

It's not an easy question to determine where the line should be drawn but I don't think it's really all that totalitarian to prohibit home schooling. It ensures that children are educated, that they socialize with other children, get confronted with different points of view and gives them the freedom and ability to safely explore the world and themselves in an environment where there parents have much less influence over their lives. It should not be forgotten that not all parents are included to provide that without force.

Germany prohibits profit from ride-sharing already and has for a long time. It hasn't stopped BlaBlaCar, Mitfahrgelegenheit and so on.

The end-game you propose has a problem in that they're already companies in that space. It might still make sense for Uber to enter that space, they have the brand recognition others lack. I don't really see how this will generate enough growth and profit to make their investors happy though.

The concerned citizens do pool their funds together to pay for their own defence, they do this with a system called "government".

You can't seriously think cities in Europe are all rich enough to be able to afford large infrastructure projects? In Germany at least such projects also involve funding from the state, federal government and possibly the EU, usually those funds make up the majority of the money.

Without such funds nothing would get done at all.

You're seriously overestimating how powerful managers are and how difficult it is to change the culture of an organization.

I have and it doesn't get more accurate. The current plan was in place before Fukushima.

What happened is that under Merkel, they increased the timeframe for abandoning nuclear energy after Fukushima, that was reversed after Fukushima.

Germany decided to get rid of nuclear power long before Fukushima and had massive protests against much for much longer still.

Perl might have a lot of operators but Haskell's ability to define your own operators leads to a ton of operators in the standard library and third party packages.

Hate speech is not illegal. Incitement of hatred is. This requires disturbing the public peace by inciting hatred, calling for violence or attacking human dignity (a human right in Germany).

There is also no law against nazi symbols specifically. Symbols of unconstitutional organizations are illegal, this is one of the aspects of being a militant democracy. The goal here is to prevent a failure of the democracy in the way it did with Hitler. Nazi symbols are illegal because of that but they're not the only ones. Communist, socialist and jihadist organizations are affected by this as well.

Oh, yes this does sound familiar, it sounds like you're a holocaust denier and a nazi as well, I should have guessed.

It's rare but presidents to occasionally not sign laws or defer it to the constitutional court. Horst Köhler famously did this with the law that was supposed to allow the Luftwaffe to shoot down civilian airplanes in case of a 9/11 scenario. The court of course ruled against the law.

The police in Germany falls under the authority of the states and not the federal government. Some of them, like Berlin, do require individual number tags.

Additionally you have a constitutional right to fight a government that violates the constitution by any means once legal avenues are exhausted.