Your response would have been kinder if you'd pointed out that "FOI" is the appropriate term in the UK. And then we could have judged the magnitude of the parent poster's error. (Miniscule would be my opinion.)
All the quotes in various media releases come from already constructed quotes in the Norfolk Constabulary's press release.
http://www.norfolk.police.uk/newsevents/newsstories/2012/july/ueadatabreachinvestigation.aspx
Is there no substantial publicly available report behind this?
“However, as a result of our enquiries, we can say that the data breach was the result of a sophisticated and carefully orchestrated attack on the CRU’s data files, carried out remotely via the internet. The offenders used methods common in unlawful internet activity to obstruct enquiries."
This suggests there is some evidence of "methods common". But no information as to what this evidence is.
“There is no evidence to suggest that anyone working at or associated with the University of East Anglia was involved in the crime.”
And can we infer there is also no evidence to to suggest anyone not working at or associated with the University of East Anglia was involved either?
Either the police know more than they are letting on, or they know pretty much nothing at all.
And probably a similar percentage of homeopathic practitioners are convinced of the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies.
I'm agnostic on the existence, causes, and effects of global warming, and I hope my opinions won't be influenced by a consensus among a largely self-defined group of experts.
"liberties are being systematically removed"
"To fix this problem,"
"we can only enforce them at our borders"
You seem to be saying that liberty is about enforcing laws at the border. That's an interesting take. But it strikes me as weird.
I personally am a fan of trying people where the victims are.
I guess you'll be cheering then when they extradite you to Anaplosia where it is a crime to write the word "blurring" as it is believed to cause anyone reading it to get hives.
The previous poster didn't specifically mention libel, and I think laws of defamation go a little wider than just libel. For example, if you write in a blog that the owner of a shop wears incontinence pads and he loses business because of that, you can be sued, irrespective of whether he wears such items or not. (revealing private information for the sole purpose of defaming)
But even in libel cases, "the truth" is not a well-defined concept. In England, the assumption is that the claimant's claim about the facts are correct, and many cases boil down to just the issue of defamation (or reputation management as it is called these days). It's far more difficult for me to prove to a court that homeopathy is hocus pocus than it is for a claimant to show he was damaged by my claims.
No, you don't have it right. You got it wrong at this point:
-- The EC says "Yeah, you're right! Ok MS, take out the bundled browser"
They said something along the lines of "Offer users a choice of browser."
Slashdot Mirror
"you can't prove a negative"
The sun sets in the west.
The sun doesn't rise in the west.
These are equivalent statements presumably requiring the same level of proof to substantiate. I think you need to be clearer about what you mean.
Your response would have been kinder if you'd pointed out that "FOI" is the appropriate term in the UK. And then we could have judged the magnitude of the parent poster's error. (Miniscule would be my opinion.)
All the quotes in various media releases come from already constructed quotes in the Norfolk Constabulary's press release. http://www.norfolk.police.uk/newsevents/newsstories/2012/july/ueadatabreachinvestigation.aspx Is there no substantial publicly available report behind this? “However, as a result of our enquiries, we can say that the data breach was the result of a sophisticated and carefully orchestrated attack on the CRU’s data files, carried out remotely via the internet. The offenders used methods common in unlawful internet activity to obstruct enquiries." This suggests there is some evidence of "methods common". But no information as to what this evidence is. “There is no evidence to suggest that anyone working at or associated with the University of East Anglia was involved in the crime.” And can we infer there is also no evidence to to suggest anyone not working at or associated with the University of East Anglia was involved either? Either the police know more than they are letting on, or they know pretty much nothing at all.
It has a pretty good horse racing section, or so I'm told.
And probably a similar percentage of homeopathic practitioners are convinced of the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies. I'm agnostic on the existence, causes, and effects of global warming, and I hope my opinions won't be influenced by a consensus among a largely self-defined group of experts.
"liberties are being systematically removed" "To fix this problem," "we can only enforce them at our borders" You seem to be saying that liberty is about enforcing laws at the border. That's an interesting take. But it strikes me as weird.
I personally am a fan of trying people where the victims are.
I guess you'll be cheering then when they extradite you to Anaplosia where it is a crime to write the word "blurring" as it is believed to cause anyone reading it to get hives.
I have also noticed that atheists have never run a soup kitchen or built a single hospital.
Could the reason you haven't noticed be that atheists such as Bill Gates don't add the word "Atheist" to the names of the hospitals they fund?
The previous poster didn't specifically mention libel, and I think laws of defamation go a little wider than just libel. For example, if you write in a blog that the owner of a shop wears incontinence pads and he loses business because of that, you can be sued, irrespective of whether he wears such items or not. (revealing private information for the sole purpose of defaming) But even in libel cases, "the truth" is not a well-defined concept. In England, the assumption is that the claimant's claim about the facts are correct, and many cases boil down to just the issue of defamation (or reputation management as it is called these days). It's far more difficult for me to prove to a court that homeopathy is hocus pocus than it is for a claimant to show he was damaged by my claims.
No, you don't have it right. You got it wrong at this point: -- The EC says "Yeah, you're right! Ok MS, take out the bundled browser" They said something along the lines of "Offer users a choice of browser."