On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Frank Wilde wrote:
Continuations rule!
While continuations are a very interesting abstraction, the improvement
of structured programming was to be able to prove properties of your
programs in time linear to the size of the program instead of quadratic.
I don't see how giving arg
On Sat, 10 Jun 2006, Erik Max Francis wrote:
> Mallor wrote:
>
> > I know I'm coming late to the barbeque. In passing, I ask: do you have
> > an objective, impartial perspective on the subject of committing
> > crimes? Because libel is a crime.
>
> No, it is a tort.
>
Rather a lot depends on
On Sat, 10 Jun 2006, Erik Max Francis wrote:
> Philippa Cowderoy wrote:
>
> > Rather a lot depends on which legal system you're in, for a start. Including
> > the standards of proof and who the onus is on.
>
> Oh, no doubt. But I don't think there's an
On Sun, 11 Jun 2006, Mike Schilling wrote:
> I'm not aware of any definition of libel that includes "making statements
> that are not provably true".
>
I believe UK law uses one that's close to it.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Society does not owe people jobs.
Society owes it to itself to find pe
On Sat, 10 Jun 2006, Erik Max Francis wrote:
> Mike Schilling wrote:
>
> > If I were to write, say, that Tony Blair's tax policy will lead to higher
> > deficits, I could be convicted of libel? Even if that's true, it's not a
> > priori provable.
>
> I think what he was getting at is that, unl
On Sun, 11 Jun 2006, Erik Max Francis wrote:
> Philippa Cowderoy wrote:
>
> > It is. However, the onus is on the defendant to show that it's true, rather
> > than on the claimant to show that it's false.
>
> That also depends on the jurisdiction.
>
H
On Sun, 11 Jun 2006, Erik Max Francis wrote:
> Philippa Cowderoy wrote:
>
> > Hrmm, does that one differ in Scotland?
>
> I don't believe so.
>
My statement was intended in the context of UK law - I have to admit to
not knowing too much about what's different
