Actually, there have been previous judgments that have also allowed evidence improperly obtained to be admitted, based on the court's interpretation of the Canadian Constitution provision of "bring the administration of justice into disrepute. This is section 24:
24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.
(2) Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
You can see a list of admitted and excluded evidence cases decided by the Supreme Court of Canada under section 24(2) on pages 25-26 of this pdf. In some cases, NOT admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. Like most things Canadian, it's a compromise.
Forget about cosmic rays, etc. Think about what heat does. That is why I specified "environment". I've seen machines that go wonky intermittently because of heat, before they give up the ghost.
The ruling also said that, even if the evidence was obtained through an improper search of the phone, it's still admissible.
Fearon was convicted of armed robbery in a 2009 Toronto jewelry heist. Despite finding the search of his phone wasn't reasonable and breached his rights, the Supreme Court said the search was done in good faith.
The court kept the evidence found in the phone — a photo of a gun and a draft text message referring to jewelry that said "We did it."
Excluding the evidence, the court found, would undermine the truth-seeking function of the justice system. The minority disagreed and would have excluded the evidence because it was unconstitutionally obtained.
One of the problems is that most newspapers, in order to attract a more varied readership, added things like "Lifestye" and other "soft news/no news" content.
That worked in the 80s and 90s but it doesn't work any more because people can get the no-news stuff from anywhere, so in the end, by diluting their main content, they've lost their core audience - people who want news, editorials, and related stuff.
It's like slashdot adding Bennett whats-his-name's ruminations. Dilutes the product, alienates^Wp*sses off the core readership, and ends up being counter-productive.
I use my monitor rotated in portrait mode and rotated 270 degrees.
I've rotated my screen 360 degrees:-)
"The vast majority of computer-related tasks see no benefit from a screen that is longer than it is tall."
Seriously, most of todays screens are so big that you can fit 2 pages side-by-side, which is a lot more convenient than one page at a time in portrait mode. Ditto for individual windows. Rotating them into portrait mode will cause neck strain as you have to tilt your head back to properly see the top.
This is true, unfortunately. However, there's nothing stopping these smaller sites from buying ads... or giving google permission to index their sites for a nominal fee, say $1 a year (or in exchange for $X worth of advertising).
Internet search experts say the shutdown of Google News in Spain may be greater on smaller, less-well known news publishers than on name-brand news sites who are less reliant on the site to draw in readers
Obviously they have calculated that he loss of traffic from Google News will result in less revenue loss than the reduction in traffic due to smaller sites getting more of "their" traffic.
That could very well be part of their calculation - squeeze the little players out. Fortunately, the reality is that smaller players are usually less ossified, more flexible, lower fixed overhead, and more likely to take chances the bigger players wouldn't even consider. And people always sympathize with the underdog:-)
Most of the people going to any particular new site aren't local (maybe not even the same country), so how are they "losing"? If they use a news aggregator that serves up geo-related or user-related ads (such as google), they at least have the ability to make some coin, rather than showing ads that are totally irrelevant to someone in another country.
Newspapers aren't in the news business - they're in the advertising business. That's always been the case, with the exception of the old pamphleteers, which were more like editorials anyway.
They won't change their minds - not until it's too late (which, for many of them, it already is). It's already been tried elsewhere, with negative results:
FTFA
in November, Germany's largest publisher, Axel Springer scrapped a bid to block Google after an experiment by a consortium of about 200 German publishers caused online traffic to plunge. Internet search experts say the shutdown of Google News in Spain may be greater on smaller, less-well known news publishers than on name-brand news sites who are less reliant on the site to draw in readers
What do you expect? The guy who wrote this is just a marketing troll.
Olivier Thierry is the chief marketing officer of Zimbra, and has more than 30 years of experience increasing market visibility and developing go-to-market strategies for high-volume software organizations,
We can't even apply those "laws" to our own conduct. Anyone who thinks those "laws" are more than a plot device is already too far into an alternate universe.
Well, he has a point. Forcing ANYONE to play either E.T. or (even worse) Friday the 13th on an Atari console would probably be classified as both cruel AND unusual.
Beginning in August 2011, download.com changed their own installer to add adware to the software that users wish to download.[3][4][5] Accusations have included the surreptitious installation of a trojan installer[6] and a browser hijacker.[7] In fact, CNET admits in their download FAQ that "a small number of security publishers have flagged the Installer as adware or a potentially unwanted application".[8]
In August 2011, Download.com introduced an installation manager called CNET TechTracker for delivering many of the software titles from its catalog.[9] The installation manager offers to install add-ons like browser toolbars and change default homepages before downloading the software the user wants. Users registered with Download.com can access files either with the Download.com installer or directly via "Download Direct Links".
In December 2011, Fyodor of insecure.org published his strong dislike[10] of the installation manager and concerns over the bundled software, causing many people to spread the post on social networks, and a few dozen media reports. The main problem is the confusion between Download.com-offered content[11][12] and software offered by original authors; the accusations included deception as well as copyright and trademark violation.[12]
Spigot
CNet uses Spigot to monetize the traffic to download.com. According to Sean Murphy, a General Manager at CNet, "Spigot continues to be a great partner to Download.com, sharing our desire to balance customer experience with revenue." [13]
Security Vulnerabilities in foistware
In 2014, The Register and US-CERT warned that via download.com's foistware, an "attacker may be able to download and execute arbitrary code"
And that's why you go to the first link, videolan.org. Download.com isn't exactly a reputable source any more, and their download pages will often trick people into installing all sorts of unwanted crap.
Slashdot Mirror
24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.
(2) Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
You can see a list of admitted and excluded evidence cases decided by the Supreme Court of Canada under section 24(2) on pages 25-26 of this pdf. In some cases, NOT admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. Like most things Canadian, it's a compromise.
Forget about cosmic rays, etc. Think about what heat does. That is why I specified "environment". I've seen machines that go wonky intermittently because of heat, before they give up the ghost.
Rotating them into portrait mode will cause neck strain as you have to tilt your head back to properly see the top.
You're sitting WAY too close.
I'm slowly going blind, you insensitive clod!
Fearon was convicted of armed robbery in a 2009 Toronto jewelry heist. Despite finding the search of his phone wasn't reasonable and breached his rights, the Supreme Court said the search was done in good faith.
The court kept the evidence found in the phone — a photo of a gun and a draft text message referring to jewelry that said "We did it."
Excluding the evidence, the court found, would undermine the truth-seeking function of the justice system. The minority disagreed and would have excluded the evidence because it was unconstitutionally obtained.
Then put the website you're reading in one 960px wide window and the document you're writing in another.
Or open a second browser if all you do with your computer is surf the web.
One of the problems is that most newspapers, in order to attract a more varied readership, added things like "Lifestye" and other "soft news/no news" content. That worked in the 80s and 90s but it doesn't work any more because people can get the no-news stuff from anywhere, so in the end, by diluting their main content, they've lost their core audience - people who want news, editorials, and related stuff.
It's like slashdot adding Bennett whats-his-name's ruminations. Dilutes the product, alienates^Wp*sses off the core readership, and ends up being counter-productive.
I use my monitor rotated in portrait mode and rotated 270 degrees.
I've rotated my screen 360 degrees :-)
"The vast majority of computer-related tasks see no benefit from a screen that is longer than it is tall."
Seriously, most of todays screens are so big that you can fit 2 pages side-by-side, which is a lot more convenient than one page at a time in portrait mode. Ditto for individual windows. Rotating them into portrait mode will cause neck strain as you have to tilt your head back to properly see the top.
This is true, unfortunately. However, there's nothing stopping these smaller sites from buying ads ... or giving google permission to index their sites for a nominal fee, say $1 a year (or in exchange for $X worth of advertising).
Internet search experts say the shutdown of Google News in Spain may be greater on smaller, less-well known news publishers than on name-brand news sites who are less reliant on the site to draw in readers
Obviously they have calculated that he loss of traffic from Google News will result in less revenue loss than the reduction in traffic due to smaller sites getting more of "their" traffic.
That could very well be part of their calculation - squeeze the little players out. Fortunately, the reality is that smaller players are usually less ossified, more flexible, lower fixed overhead, and more likely to take chances the bigger players wouldn't even consider. And people always sympathize with the underdog :-)
Maybe for online use, eSpeculation makes sense??? :-) Makes it clear that the source is online, and not print or radio or tv?
Most of the people going to any particular new site aren't local (maybe not even the same country), so how are they "losing"? If they use a news aggregator that serves up geo-related or user-related ads (such as google), they at least have the ability to make some coin, rather than showing ads that are totally irrelevant to someone in another country.
Newspapers aren't in the news business - they're in the advertising business. That's always been the case, with the exception of the old pamphleteers, which were more like editorials anyway.
Or people in Spain can just use Google Search, and get news stories from elsewhere (search isn't being shut down).
They won't change their minds - not until it's too late (which, for many of them, it already is). It's already been tried elsewhere, with negative results:
FTFA
in November, Germany's largest publisher, Axel Springer scrapped a bid to block Google after an experiment by a consortium of about 200 German publishers caused online traffic to plunge. Internet search experts say the shutdown of Google News in Spain may be greater on smaller, less-well known news publishers than on name-brand news sites who are less reliant on the site to draw in readers
How do you know there's a real vat?
How do I know YOU are real?
For that, use storage encryption.
Olivier Thierry is the chief marketing officer of Zimbra, and has more than 30 years of experience increasing market visibility and developing go-to-market strategies for high-volume software organizations,
Unless you're using encryption, it doesn't matter, since there are many points of 'interest" between the sender and receiver.
Actually, we have already spent more than a $Billion to create spiderman.
"Every program literally does exactly what it is programmed to do."
Only on perfect hardware. In a perfect environment.
Self-interest is a consequence of every kind of evolution
No it isn't. Living things are self-interested because they must survive to reproduce. Robots don't reproduce. They are made in factories.
Yet ...
You''re clearly either trolling or nuts. I'm not interested in finding out which.
We can't even apply those "laws" to our own conduct. Anyone who thinks those "laws" are more than a plot device is already too far into an alternate universe.
Well, he has a point. Forcing ANYONE to play either E.T. or (even worse) Friday the 13th on an Atari console would probably be classified as both cruel AND unusual.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Eaten by a grue is the least of his worries. The father's more likely to get a visit by Child Protection Services.
Download.com is reputable enough anyway, right?
You're a bit behind the times
Adware
Beginning in August 2011, download.com changed their own installer to add adware to the software that users wish to download.[3][4][5] Accusations have included the surreptitious installation of a trojan installer[6] and a browser hijacker.[7] In fact, CNET admits in their download FAQ that "a small number of security publishers have flagged the Installer as adware or a potentially unwanted application".[8]
In August 2011, Download.com introduced an installation manager called CNET TechTracker for delivering many of the software titles from its catalog.[9] The installation manager offers to install add-ons like browser toolbars and change default homepages before downloading the software the user wants. Users registered with Download.com can access files either with the Download.com installer or directly via "Download Direct Links".
In December 2011, Fyodor of insecure.org published his strong dislike[10] of the installation manager and concerns over the bundled software, causing many people to spread the post on social networks, and a few dozen media reports. The main problem is the confusion between Download.com-offered content[11][12] and software offered by original authors; the accusations included deception as well as copyright and trademark violation.[12] Spigot
CNet uses Spigot to monetize the traffic to download.com. According to Sean Murphy, a General Manager at CNet, "Spigot continues to be a great partner to Download.com, sharing our desire to balance customer experience with revenue." [13] Security Vulnerabilities in foistware
In 2014, The Register and US-CERT warned that via download.com's foistware, an "attacker may be able to download and execute arbitrary code"
And that's why you go to the first link, videolan.org. Download.com isn't exactly a reputable source any more, and their download pages will often trick people into installing all sorts of unwanted crap.