Evolution can mean to develop or improve. It has come to mean gradual adaptation through mutation, because Darwin chose the term Evolution to refer to that but that added a new meaning to the term. It didn't replace it.
How I am suppose to know about that super injunction?
You aren't. It's up to the prosecution to prove that you did.
However, Ryan Giggs still has a right to privacy. You can't twitter about intimate details of his relationship and if you do then he can legitimately sue you for damages.
You're allowed to talk about the footballer. You're just not allowed to talk about any alleged activities that the injunction prevents you from talking about.
Since the only people who know about the alleged activities are those who know about the injunction and those who have learned from those people, then you should probably know about the injunction. Very few people know of Ryan Giggs' activities but aren't aware of the injunction preventing them from revealing the information.
How am I, Joe Public, supposed to know this super-injuction even exists?
You aren't.
The BBC is. And the BBC moderates the discussion. If they don't remove your posts, they're liable. Of course, if you don't know, how do you know about Ryan Giggs in the first place?
I don't know what your business is and would have no idea what the best platform is if I did. What I do know is that getting a product or service out there is more important than it being perfect.
It's not really a problem that needs to be solved for those though. Most of those are a couple of hours, so there's hardly even enough time to see a whole movie.
Statue of Anne considered the first copyright statute dates back to 1709. Strictly speaking the term predates the first complete copyright act, rather than any form of copyright restriction such as printing guild rules and the like, so apologies for imprecision in my language.
Super injunctions are actually fairly new, and on the whole, people don't really understand them.
To the best of my knowledge, the law says that people are entitled to their privacy. If you violate his privacy then you may well be liable for damages caused by that breach. It's up to the court to decide whether they were entitled to privacy and whether you violated it.
Unlike the US, the courts can apply prior restraint. That is, if a publication is going to breach privacy, you can get a court injunction preventing them from doing so. Violating this is contempt of court and so punishable as such. Of course this would implicitly allow a workaround where the media implicitly reveals details by revealing that the celebrity has applied for an injunction, so the injunction has language explicitly preventing that.
If you genuinely aren't aware there's an injunction then it doesn't actually apply to you and you can only be sued for damages after the fact. If you are aware (and it seems pretty certain that you are aware) then revealing this is contempt of court.
They are not trying to "emulate" the term Pirate -- The pro-copyright corporations began using the term as a derogatory label (hopefuly having negative connotaion), the term stuck, and so we throw it in their faces.
The term "pirate" for an unauthorised copy predates copyright. Hardly something we can blame on the modern media cartels. And why would they use that term? The public perception of a pirate is Jack Sparrow or the Dread Pirate Roberts. Even the piratical villains like Long John Silver are pretty damn suave.
Try looking at it this way - What's the cheapest you could live in reasonable comfort? $80 a week in rent and $20 on food? That's $5000 a year. That 10% tax is actually 20% on what they have left over after paying for essentials.
The guy earning $1 million a year spends $500 a week on food, and spends $2500 on accommodation. That leaves them with $850000 leftover, so 10% income tax would mean only 12% or so of the surplus is paid in taxes.
Doesn't matter. We don't need a perfect solution. Just an improved solution. Optimal code optimisation is NP complete but optimisers still exist. The shortest path algorithm is NP complete but satellite navigation systems manage to do a decent enough job.
For something like the travelling salesman problem, a fairly simple nearest neighbour approach will typically get a path just 25% longer than optimal.
Yes. And none of them match the profile of a terrorist in any way except religion. The first ones didn't even match that since at the time the profile of a terrorist wasn't Islamic.
Can you tell someone's religion by looking at them? Demonstrably not.
So, you would propose profiling that would have explicitly excluded the three you mentioned.
Which everyone was pleased about because the Muslim, like millions of others, was simply travelling on business and like most people would be shocked at the idea that he might commit an act of terrorism.
Apply international pressure on the government of Somalia to clean up its act and clear things out. Offer them incentives (foriegn aid, support to eliminate the warlords and guns or whatever else) if they are willing to clean up their country and stop the pirates.
Does Somlia have a government? I thought that this was the problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Evolution can mean to develop or improve. It has come to mean gradual adaptation through mutation, because Darwin chose the term Evolution to refer to that but that added a new meaning to the term. It didn't replace it.
How I am suppose to know about that super injunction?
You aren't. It's up to the prosecution to prove that you did.
However, Ryan Giggs still has a right to privacy. You can't twitter about intimate details of his relationship and if you do then he can legitimately sue you for damages.
You're allowed to talk about the footballer. You're just not allowed to talk about any alleged activities that the injunction prevents you from talking about.
Since the only people who know about the alleged activities are those who know about the injunction and those who have learned from those people, then you should probably know about the injunction. Very few people know of Ryan Giggs' activities but aren't aware of the injunction preventing them from revealing the information.
Only if city hall are aware of the injunction, and have a policy of moderating what people shout in the park.
How am I, Joe Public, supposed to know this super-injuction even exists?
You aren't.
The BBC is. And the BBC moderates the discussion. If they don't remove your posts, they're liable. Of course, if you don't know, how do you know about Ryan Giggs in the first place?
I don't know what your business is and would have no idea what the best platform is if I did. What I do know is that getting a product or service out there is more important than it being perfect.
It's not really a problem that needs to be solved for those though. Most of those are a couple of hours, so there's hardly even enough time to see a whole movie.
Thanks for the explanations and clarifications.
Certainly.
Online Etymological dictionary entry for pirate: 'Meaning "one who takes another's work without permission" first recorded 1701;'
Statue of Anne considered the first copyright statute dates back to 1709. Strictly speaking the term predates the first complete copyright act, rather than any form of copyright restriction such as printing guild rules and the like, so apologies for imprecision in my language.
True, but hardly anyone actually calls it that because it's a silly name for a game where you don't use your feet.
I think that's the point. It's basically a tribal thing to establish a difference between locals and non-locals, at least according to many theories.
Super injunctions are actually fairly new, and on the whole, people don't really understand them.
To the best of my knowledge, the law says that people are entitled to their privacy. If you violate his privacy then you may well be liable for damages caused by that breach. It's up to the court to decide whether they were entitled to privacy and whether you violated it.
Unlike the US, the courts can apply prior restraint. That is, if a publication is going to breach privacy, you can get a court injunction preventing them from doing so. Violating this is contempt of court and so punishable as such. Of course this would implicitly allow a workaround where the media implicitly reveals details by revealing that the celebrity has applied for an injunction, so the injunction has language explicitly preventing that.
If you genuinely aren't aware there's an injunction then it doesn't actually apply to you and you can only be sued for damages after the fact. If you are aware (and it seems pretty certain that you are aware) then revealing this is contempt of court.
Not exactly "commonly". But cockney rhyming slang is often used in Britain.
They are not trying to "emulate" the term Pirate -- The pro-copyright corporations began using the term as a derogatory label (hopefuly having negative connotaion), the term stuck, and so we throw it in their faces.
The term "pirate" for an unauthorised copy predates copyright. Hardly something we can blame on the modern media cartels. And why would they use that term? The public perception of a pirate is Jack Sparrow or the Dread Pirate Roberts. Even the piratical villains like Long John Silver are pretty damn suave.
Aside from that, good explanation.
(probably pirated) version of windows ce.
Why do you say that? A licence for CE is actually quite cheap. Not sure about current pricing but CE 5 started at $3.
It's not like they're actually going to get the money from him.
Try looking at it this way - What's the cheapest you could live in reasonable comfort? $80 a week in rent and $20 on food? That's $5000 a year. That 10% tax is actually 20% on what they have left over after paying for essentials.
The guy earning $1 million a year spends $500 a week on food, and spends $2500 on accommodation. That leaves them with $850000 leftover, so 10% income tax would mean only 12% or so of the surplus is paid in taxes.
Uhm... My reading of the GP was that any benefit to the winners would likely cause resentment.
You can't benefit the rich without causing resentment. You can't benefit the poor without benefiting the rich.
Doesn't matter. We don't need a perfect solution. Just an improved solution. Optimal code optimisation is NP complete but optimisers still exist. The shortest path algorithm is NP complete but satellite navigation systems manage to do a decent enough job.
For something like the travelling salesman problem, a fairly simple nearest neighbour approach will typically get a path just 25% longer than optimal.
Nuclear has seriously been considered for extremely long duration flights. The weight issue is the reactor and shielding rather than the fuel.
N. It's Belgium. The write-up was wrong or the solar plane was so advanced that it could move Brussels several hundred miles to another country.
Yes. And none of them match the profile of a terrorist in any way except religion. The first ones didn't even match that since at the time the profile of a terrorist wasn't Islamic.
Can you tell someone's religion by looking at them? Demonstrably not.
So, you would propose profiling that would have explicitly excluded the three you mentioned.
The 9-11 hijackers,
Boarded before "middle easterners" were associated with terrorism, so there wouldn't have been any profiling of muslims.
the shoe bomber,
Caucasian/Jamaican with an English accent.
the diaper bomber,
Black African with a Nigerian accent.
So racial profiling would have caught none of them.
Which everyone was pleased about because the Muslim, like millions of others, was simply travelling on business and like most people would be shocked at the idea that he might commit an act of terrorism.
Apply international pressure on the government of Somalia to clean up its act and clear things out. Offer them incentives (foriegn aid, support to eliminate the warlords and guns or whatever else) if they are willing to clean up their country and stop the pirates.
Does Somlia have a government? I thought that this was the problem.