However the Communcations Act of 2003 is interpreted, is seems. See Wikipedia:

Malicious communications

Section 127 of the act makes it an offence to send a message that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character over a public electronic communications network.[8] The section replaced section 43 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 and is drafted as widely as its predecessor.[9] The section has controversially been widely used to prosecute users of social media in cases such as the Twitter Joke Trial and Facebook comments concerning the murder of April Jones.[10]

On 19 December 2012, to strike a balance between freedom of speech and criminality, the Director of Public Prosecutions issued interim guidelines, clarifying when social messaging is eligible for criminal prosecution under UK law. Only communications that are credible threats of violence, harassment, or stalking (such as aggressive Internet trolling) which specifically targets an individual or individuals, or breaches a court order designed to protect someone (such as those protecting the identity of a victim of a sexual offence) will be prosecuted. Communications that express an "unpopular or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, or banter or humor, even if distasteful to some and painful to those subjected to it" will not. Communications that are merely "grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or false" will be prosecuted only when it can be shown to be necessary and proportionate. People who pass on malicious messages, such as by retweeting, can also be prosecuted when the original message is subject to prosecution. Individuals who post messages as part of a separate crime, such as a plan to import drugs, would face prosecution for that offence, as is currently the case.[11][12][13]

Revisions to the interim guidelines were issued on 20 June 2013 following a public consultation.[14] The revisions specified that prosecutors should consider:

whether messages were aggravated by references to race, religion or other minorities, and whether they breached existing rules to counter harassment or stalking; and
the age and maturity of any wrongdoer should be taken into account and given great weight.

The revisions also clarified that criminal prosecutions were "unlikely":

when the author of the message had "expressed genuine remorse";
when "swift and effective action ... to remove the communication" was taken; or
when messages were not intended for a wide audience.

You are assuming that parents would choose the embryo with the highest IQ. I'm wondering if a lot of people wouldn't be more likely to pick the one in the middle, because they don't want their child to be a "nerd".

I'm not sure whay "key" means in this context. If I encrypt a file archive, I need to enter a pass phrase, preferably over 20 characters and not easily brute forceable. This pass phrase is they key, as far as I know. What is the equivalent on Apple's devices? Are they encrypting with a 4 digit pin?

Somehow I think society would survive without new big-budget productions like Lord of the Rigs et al. The benefits from making all of the world's information readily available, by no longer treating it as property, would far outweigh that loss. However the question is somewhat academic, since it seems that there's roughly zero political interest in any country that I know of for trying out alternatives to ever increasing copyright terms and ever more draconian attempts to enforce it.

Not entirely reliable, because if a file becomes corrupt on your Mac, you'll copy the bad file to the backup drive.

Good advice, but I think calculating an SHA-1 hash would be more reliable and quicker than viewing them.

I suspect that forcing women to make their real names available to the Wikipedia "community" wouldn't be universally acclaimed either.

Assuming you are logged in.

Untrue. Take a look at the page history. Every edit has a "thank" link.

Looks like a bunch of blogs and other unreliable content by various trolls and people who don't know much. You'll need to find something in one of Rupert Murdoch's publications, or wait until Fox News cover it.

It is later claimed in the legal action that advice from fellow Whirlpool users had allowed âhomemadecookâ(TM) to avoid using WCS Group. Why does this sound wrong?

If I post some recipes on the forums, will I get sued by Australian restaurants for helping people make their own meals and avoid their services?

Conditions of entry don't have any effect on copyright law, as far as I know. Copyright will still be held by the person making the video, and any action by the organisers would need to be on some other grounds (such as contract violation.)

Entirely money. A few months in an expensive city (I could add Melbourne, Hong Kong, Berlin) would cost a fortune. I'm not good at making money, especially since I quit being an employee.

Various cities. New York and Paris would be a good start.

Agreed. Any program can be broken down into a sequence of mathematical operations. It's generally not the type of mathematics that would be of any interest to a mathematician, but it still falls within the domain.