It is entirely outside of the EU until it's a member country. Serbia doesn't have any special status like Switzerland or Norway that are closer to the EU even if they are not members, and anyway the leadership of Serbia is currently closer to Russia than to the EU.
Though my point was that as someone who's moved into a EU country, it might not be entirely clear that it's not inside EU, given it's proximity and that they might have read about it in an EU context given its status.
Heck I'm in Norway and had to check to make sure I was right.
I moved from Ireland to the US and kept my Irish number active - the cost was a €5 topup every 6 months.
Going in reverse is much harder - a lot of the budget phone providers in the US don't have any roaming offering. Best I can tell, you really need to have an account with a real provider, and that realistically looks like $20/mo (Google Fi), 20x more expensive than the reverse.
Poster said "rocky _previously_ poor outcrop". If you take a look at any of the economic indicators before the early 90s, you'll see a very different picture.
There is absolutely no doubt that the policy of encouraging foreign-direct-investment has transformed Ireland into a modern and wealthy nation. The question is whether we sold our souls to the devil to achieve that. My personal take is no, but I respect the opposing opinion.
The issue today is indeed CoL, but that is a function of the government's failure to build. We were poor before the celtic tiger, we got addicted to property, the financial crisis hit us incredibly hard, and we are not building housing nearly quick enough today, especially with the (welcome!) influx of continental europeans to Ireland as multilingual workers servicing the european market for these US companies. There's a fresh batch of emigration happening now for this very reason.
If you take copyrighted material and put it on a daycare mural, then you _intended_ to put copyrighted material on a daycare mural. It is not about intent to damage, it's just pure intent.
They intended to make referential work to characters in our modern common culture/mythology, as people have done since time immemorial. Some rent-seekers merely think they get to own ideas now.
> Some rent-seekers merely think they get to own ideas now.
are you quite serious? Disney doesn't think they own coming of age tales or intrepid children feeling out of place. Disney thinks they own the things they paid to create during the operation of their business.
the daycares Aren't making up their own stories, theyre directly benefiting by using Disney's products without licence or permission. this is the exact opposite of seeking.
The point is Disney shouldn't really be able to "own" the image of Mickey Mouse for over a hundred years just because they paid for the creation of some initial image.
What you're saying is that action = intent. Meaning intent is immaterial; the action is proof of intent. I.e., the opposite of caring about intent.
To prove intent you'd have to prove the daycare knew the works were copyrighted (i.e., the distinction between public domain Snow White, and Disney's Snow White), knew the copyright law sufficiently to know this was infringing (i.e., painting on the interior of a daycare where you're clearly not economically benefiting), and to choose to do it anyway.
Hence why copyright law doesn't take intent into account; 'ignorance of the law is not a defense'.
This isn't the intent being referred to. They aren't referring to "intent to violate copyright law".
If your intent is to comment on Shakespeare, and it happens that what you produced, when run through some process, produces something under copyright, but the thing you intended to express doesn't, I don't think that would violate copyright law? Or at least, no one would convict you.
Also, my understanding is that if you can prove that your creation of something was independent of someone else’s creation of the same thing, it isn’t a copyright violation?
For one, the videos keep stopping and pointing out trees/greenery on the "desired" path, but ignore trees on the "fastest" path.
Also, the route along Marlborough Street shows walking on a street versus walking down an alleyway. The "detour" is a half block on either side of the route. I live in Boston and wouldn't even consider those alleys to be streets - they only exist for garbage trucks and parking for the people who live in those buildings.
Sorry to hear you're suffering through this experience. I can emperically recommend Moana (the pixar movie) for perfect familiar background noise - it was my go-to on red-eye flights for a long time.
It's so sad to hear about mom/mother/maternal so much in that article, and so little about the father's side of things. I want to believe that I can be an emotionally-nurturing influence on my kids, it feels like such a shame that there was zero mention that a male can fulfill this role - does the science say it's not possible at all?
Otherwise a great article and some sections certainly did resonate.
There was a halfhearted attempt to remind that this figure doesn't have to be the mother:
"By contrast, children of unresponsive or insensitive caregivers form insecure attachment. They become anxious and easily distressed by the smallest sign of separation from their attachment figure... Finally, children with abusive caregivers become disorganised: they switch between avoidant and anxious coping, engage in odd behaviours and, like Cora, often self-harm."
So this is an implicit acknowledgement that the gender of that early caregiver matters less than that they are nurturing.
But I agree, the article is remiss in explicitly making mention that the gender of the early caregiver does not matter - especially given that the other half of the article is devoted to a male-female relationship (Cora and her therapist) which clearly contradicts the assumption that this needs to be a mother-child.
Personally, I would have loved to see mention that even those with one stable caregiver can still develop issues when the other caregiver is not stable, or worse: that the other caregiver does not care. That often results in a person forming good relationships with their friends, but having a different (worse) standard of conduct towards their romantic partner - e.g. a child who sees their same-gendered parent [physically or verbally] abused, and once an adult, enters into an abusive relationship because that is what is normal to them in regards to the "other" gender.
I've been significantly "involved" in this area in the last few years, and as far I see it, it's pretty much the standard blend of gender roles and nature-vs-nurture.
Most of the western societies are still based on the mother educator and father provider model. On top of this, I personally agree that mothers tend to have the qualities that makes it easier to deal with children (in a wide sense), which creates a positive feedback (or negative, depending on the POV).
None of this is out of reach for fathers. My opinion is that with some effort and an equal amount of dedication, binding and influence on children are equal (although of course, different in nature). However, it's generally uphill.
Keep in mind that once you start to notice the gender role, even more than hearing little about fathers, you'll see the negative stereotypes: check out how are the separated fathers are depicted in the cinema - it's something that "can't be unseen".
Having said that, there's movement of course, primarily in/from the Scandinavian countries. Generally speaking, gender equality increases towards the north of Europe. American countries are, I suppose, a bit of a patchwork (definitely some countries are very "behind").
I'm not sure how much time, and if ever, genders will equalize, in particular in the literature/arts depiction. Ultimately, it's also a choice - fathers being providers is not implicitly negative, it's a cultural choice (in the context of a country). Laws, they definitely need to adapt, though!
> Serbia is not part of the EU
> Racial profiling is everywhere. Also in the EU.