It would be legal for him to have sex with her or even marry her. It would not be legal for him to possess sexually explicit pictures of her. We call it "joined-up government", the rest of the world calls it British irony.
I'm all for you not being able to sue when you've made information public and search engines index that. But she doesn't have commericial interest in her own name? Really, now? Seeing how many employers, etc. google a candidate's name before the interview, I think that everyone has commercial interest in their own name
If you Google for my name you'll get a pile of results that are me and a pile of results for other people who have the same name. If I have a commercial interest in my own name, so do they. If they don't like what I'm posting because it happens to have their name on it, I don't see why they should be able to sue me for doing it in my own name, and vice versa. Have people really not learned yet that a name is not a unique identifier?
On the other hand, encrypting the information has it's own issues. How do you protect (and update) the decryption keys when it's a likely safety issue for any aircraft or any air-traffic control centre worldwide (including the more -- er -- interesting countries) not to be able decrypt the information?
That just looks like a bid by the syntacticians to take over all of linguistics:-)
Doesn't the semantic structure of the Lexical-Functional grammar just describe how meaning is formed, rather than describing what the meaning is? The sentence in question has a meaning whether it has "gall" or "Gaul" (albeit a rather surreal one in the second case). The s-structure will help you identify how those meanings arise, but it won't tell you which one the writer intended.
I don't know which is more sad: Google thinking "lolita" needs to be protected or that the people keeping the list only know it as a reference to a film and never mention the book.
This is/. -- we all know it as a Haskell natural language processing engine.
But why do you have to? The supposed justification is that it protects you from stuff you might not want to see (or be seen seeing), but if you've typed "bisex" then there's no mistaking where you're going anyway so it's protecting you from nothing.
Etymologically, yes...but it's used (or at least is supposed to be used) to describe small applications downloadable to phones.
Supposed by whom? I've been calling programs "Apps" since the mid-1970s, long before there were mobile phones that you could download software to. Just because you want to change the language doesn't mean anybody else has to follow.
But he did admit that he had passed it on to others, and got annoyed and refused to cooperate when he was pressed on the question of who the others were. If this were anything but Wikileaks then we'd expect that to be a disciplinary matter. Because this is Wikileaks, of course, Assange shouldn't be surprised that the team don't take leaks of information seriously. I think he's yet to learn the lesson of the goose, the gander, and their respective sauces. It's not a management-style failure, it's a sense-of-irony failure.
No, the idea is that Assange has suddenly become intolerably narcissistic at just the same time as big players want to discredit him. Now, it is possible that the publicity has gone to his head, but it's a slightly more complex idea than yours.
Secondly, if it wasn't for the biased tax system, there wouldn't be a demand for finding tax loopholes, lobbying for tax changes, or shipping your money out of the country.
Do you really believe that if tax were a fixed percentage of income, or even a fixed sum, that nobody would try to get out of paying it or try to get the amount reduced?
Now any income they derive from the UK is a different story, but shouldn't officials in the UK have access to someones salary information or income if derived in the UK without having to resort to bank statements?
This won't be as simple as salary paid by an employer. This will be money that is shuffled all over the world through a tangled web of holding companies in order to hide it from the taxman. If the accountants are doing it right then the taxman won't be able to see it, but would be very interested to check whether all of those shuffles are legal.
If the GP is anything like most of the people who spout this philosophy, then chances are, he's not actually in a high tax bracket. For some reason, the bulk of defenders of the upper class rich (in the US at least) are not particularly well to do working class. For some reason, they want to defend their money from taxes when, inevitably their genius leads them to join the ranks of the rich.
I suspect it's something to do with hope and aspiration. They like to think that the path to the wealthy and glamorous life they see on TV is open to them and unobstructed, even though for most of them personality and/or circumstances and/or luck mean that it isn't really.
Slashdot Mirror
17 is legal in Scouseland.
It would be legal for him to have sex with her or even marry her. It would not be legal for him to possess sexually explicit pictures of her. We call it "joined-up government", the rest of the world calls it British irony.
I'm all for you not being able to sue when you've made information public and search engines index that. But she doesn't have commericial interest in her own name? Really, now? Seeing how many employers, etc. google a candidate's name before the interview, I think that everyone has commercial interest in their own name
If you Google for my name you'll get a pile of results that are me and a pile of results for other people who have the same name. If I have a commercial interest in my own name, so do they. If they don't like what I'm posting because it happens to have their name on it, I don't see why they should be able to sue me for doing it in my own name, and vice versa. Have people really not learned yet that a name is not a unique identifier?
"Intercepted" is a loaded term, but widely used is right.
On the other hand, encrypting the information has it's own issues. How do you protect (and update) the decryption keys when it's a likely safety issue for any aircraft or any air-traffic control centre worldwide (including the more -- er -- interesting countries) not to be able decrypt the information?
I bet most of them are using some open-source, too.
And just how is software going to help you learn what hydrogen sulphide smells like?
Why not just beam up to an orbiting vessel powered by dilithium crystals?
More choice is not necessarily a good thing.
That just looks like a bid by the syntacticians to take over all of linguistics :-)
Doesn't the semantic structure of the Lexical-Functional grammar just describe how meaning is formed, rather than describing what the meaning is? The sentence in question has a meaning whether it has "gall" or "Gaul" (albeit a rather surreal one in the second case). The s-structure will help you identify how those meanings arise, but it won't tell you which one the writer intended.
I don't know which is more sad: Google thinking "lolita" needs to be protected or that the people keeping the list only know it as a reference to a film and never mention the book.
This is /. -- we all know it as a Haskell natural language processing engine.
You're not the only one. "Rusty Trombone" was new to me.
But why do you have to? The supposed justification is that it protects you from stuff you might not want to see (or be seen seeing), but if you've typed "bisex" then there's no mistaking where you're going anyway so it's protecting you from nothing.
Then you need to start using your other thumb. That was a semantic error, not a grammatical one. The grammar was fine (at least until the comma).
That would mean I was wrong, because I said " it is possible that the publicity has gone to his head". I don't think that is wrong, though.
Yes -- better start planning now for the heat-death of the universe!
My money is still on "not".
Etymologically, yes...but it's used (or at least is supposed to be used) to describe small applications downloadable to phones.
Supposed by whom? I've been calling programs "Apps" since the mid-1970s, long before there were mobile phones that you could download software to. Just because you want to change the language doesn't mean anybody else has to follow.
Oh yes, the people working with him won't have noticed something like that until they read it in the press, would they?
But he did admit that he had passed it on to others, and got annoyed and refused to cooperate when he was pressed on the question of who the others were. If this were anything but Wikileaks then we'd expect that to be a disciplinary matter. Because this is Wikileaks, of course, Assange shouldn't be surprised that the team don't take leaks of information seriously. I think he's yet to learn the lesson of the goose, the gander, and their respective sauces. It's not a management-style failure, it's a sense-of-irony failure.
Wow the idea that Assange is narcissistic
No, the idea is that Assange has suddenly become intolerably narcissistic at just the same time as big players want to discredit him. Now, it is possible that the publicity has gone to his head, but it's a slightly more complex idea than yours.
Perhaps you missed the word "most" in my posting, or didn't understand what "personality and/or circumstances and/or luck" covers?
Secondly, if it wasn't for the biased tax system, there wouldn't be a demand for finding tax loopholes, lobbying for tax changes, or shipping your money out of the country.
Do you really believe that if tax were a fixed percentage of income, or even a fixed sum, that nobody would try to get out of paying it or try to get the amount reduced?
Now any income they derive from the UK is a different story, but shouldn't officials in the UK have access to someones salary information or income if derived in the UK without having to resort to bank statements?
This won't be as simple as salary paid by an employer. This will be money that is shuffled all over the world through a tangled web of holding companies in order to hide it from the taxman. If the accountants are doing it right then the taxman won't be able to see it, but would be very interested to check whether all of those shuffles are legal.
If the GP is anything like most of the people who spout this philosophy, then chances are, he's not actually in a high tax bracket. For some reason, the bulk of defenders of the upper class rich (in the US at least) are not particularly well to do working class. For some reason, they want to defend their money from taxes when, inevitably their genius leads them to join the ranks of the rich.
I suspect it's something to do with hope and aspiration. They like to think that the path to the wealthy and glamorous life they see on TV is open to them and unobstructed, even though for most of them personality and/or circumstances and/or luck mean that it isn't really.
Time for you to start learning to read proper, grown-up writing and stop sounding out all the words, then.