Not to argue that the Crusades did not contribute (they clearly did), but your list omits the Mongol conquest of Baghdad in 1258, which is generally reckoned to be the end of the Arabic Golden Age.

Also a few entries on your list --e.g. the Wendish, Northern and Albigensian Crusades --probably had little influence on the Middle East.

Except, of course, that the name is somewhat of a misnomer; since they actually come from India, and are known as "Hindu numbers" in the middle east.

Except of course we lifted it directly from the Arabs (who use a system developed from Hindu numerals) as evidenced by the fact that we still write our numbers backward. (Ie. from small to large in Arabic right to left direction.) Which is the opposite of how we [used] to speak our numbers, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen ... four'n'twenty

I've just been highlighting this fact in teaching why *nix, r, w, x run 4, 2, 1 instead of the other way round (the first 8 binary numbers thus forming a truth table).

Please come up with an innovation that is less the MM [ftfy] years old please.

Just two off the top of my head for which we still use names derived from the Arabic, Chemistry and Algebra. There are plenty more of course.

Who are the anarchists defending, when they kill innocent lives?

Well Earth First's (who might reasonably be characterised as eco-anarchists) slogan used to be "no compromise in defence of the Earth," so that might give you a clue.

The Bible was not originally written in English and all Englsh translations should be take with a grain of salt.

Translation in an absolute sense is of course not possible, especially between two languages as different as English and Classical Hebrew. People often naively assume that two separate words in Hebrew will isomorphically map to two distinct English words, eg, HRG to kill and RTsCh to murder. It isn't that easy.

It's "thou shalt not MURDER"

Not necessarily, no. Had you bothered actually to read the page you cite all the way to the end you would have found the author arguing something very different, namely: tempting though it might be to translate RTsCh as 'murder' ...

Indeed ...

The real problem here, IMHO, is a desire to shoehorn the meaning of Hebrew words into a translation that will conveniently eliminate the apparent logical inconsistencies as to when the Tanakh proscribes and prescribes killing. But the Bible is not book, it's a library (and even each 'book' of the OT is not necessarily a book). Searching for logical consistency across an entire library is likely to be a thankless endeavour.

You're using the common definition, not the legal one.

Very funny, you tell a lawyer (albeit a non-practitioner) he is using the common defn and not the legal one and then you quote from an online dictionary. Now it may be the legal defn in the US, I would not want to venture an opinion.

How do you explain that at common law truth was an irrelevance in criminal libel? Moreover in my jurisdiction, NSW, until 2006, truth by itself was no defence to defamation. More to the point, the UK [sic] 1952 Act and the proposed Bill, are explicit about justification and truth respectively being defences.

The distinction between a tort (and also a crime) and a defence may seem like a fine one, but it relates to the mistake the "puppy-huffing kiddy-fiddler" made in observing that "all statements are presumed false."

My understanding is this: The onus of proof lies upon a plaintiff to make out that the elements of defamation, namely that the defendant published defamatory imputations. While the courts (and we here rely on British as well as Australian precedent) have come up with a number of tests, perhaps the most accepted is that the imputation would lower the estimation of plaintiff in the eyes of a reasonable member of the community, or some similar formulation.

It is open to the defendant to raise a defence. Because they are the party raising it the affirmanti principle applies, i.e. the onus of proof is on the defendant to establish the substantial truth of the statements. Hence it appears to the legally naive that statements are presumed false. As an analytical type you will perceive the difficulty inherent in the notion of a "defence of justification/truth" existing and the necessity of a plaintiff to establish untruth as an element of defamation, no?

The current Bill makes this situation clear:

My emphasis

If it merely meant "saying bad things" it would also include mere insults and vulgar abuse, which are not legally defamatory

I never said it meant "saying bad things". Simply put it means injuring the reputation of a natural person. Should you care for a real dictionary defn, (as opposed to my simplified legal one), the OED has "the action of defaming, or attacking any one's good name." If insults and vulgar abuse sufficiently damages an individual's reputation then they are defamatory of course.

As to why Scotland has a separate system, your guess is as good as mine.

That was not my question. My question was what distinguishes a UK General Public Act from either an Act of the Scottish Parliament or an Act of the English Parliament?

Not to take issue with much of what you wrote, but ...

by definition a defamatory statement is untrue

No, by definition a defamatory statement is one which injures the reputation of a natural person. Justification is a defence.

Four, there's no such thing as "UK law"; Scotland has a different system to England and Wales.

Genuine question: Can you explain the difference between the various categories of primary legislation, such as UK Public General Acts, under which classification both the 1952 and 1966 Defamation Acts are found; UK Local Acts; Acts of the Scottish Parliament; Acts of the English Parliament; Acts of the Old Irish Parliament; &c.? Non-UK/English/Scottish/Welsh lawyers could be forgiven for some confusion.

The point is that the law is going to recognise that making a reasonable statement based on proper scientific data is demonstrably true, and as such cannot be libel.

The better view is that it makes "scientific or academic journal[s]" (one presumes bona fide journals, though the Bill doesn't make it clear how that might be assessed.) a privileged forum, much as courts and parliament already are.

The internationally recognised process of peer review will be considered the arbiter of "proper scientific data" (my phrase). It leaves the door open for cases involving poorly collected data

By s7(5), a "fair and accurate copy of, extract from or summary" of the article is also privileged (again as is currently the case for court and parliamentary reporting).

The problem, which you point to is that it somewhat misconstrues the role of peer review to understand it as a guarantee of finality (ie. the truth of the publication). Rather peer review is a threshold, a seat at the table of the expert debate. We, the ordinary "(wo)men in the street," need to put some time between publication and acceptance of the conclusions in order to allow the expert community to render their judgement.

The truth is an automatic defense against libel.

Not in all times and in all jurisdictions! Though I understand that current UK law 'justification' (truth) is already a complete defence without any additional requirement such as 'public interest;' and that s2 of the present Bill is merely reformulating (and renaming) rather than introducing a truth only defence. But them INAUKL, but an Australian one.

Until 2006 in a number of states in Australia, the older situation persisted, namely truth alone was not a defence to defamation. You had to show truth+X (where X is one of several criteria, usually 'public interest'), and since much of the news media published nationwide, this situation kept them somewhat in check. Then in 2006 all the states adopted a uniform code which created a Truth Only defence. A terrible mistake IMHO. But then I'm a judicial conservative, I realise most people disagree (as did I when I first learnt that truth was not an absolute defence).

... blame the ACMA for allocating that band for analog television signals.

The things your learn when you post wrong stuff on slashdot. Obviously I allowed my recent altercation with Telstra, whom I'm "forced" to use because of connectivity, to cloud my judgement. I'll just take my tin-foil hat off now.

Apple shouldn't be advertising 4G in Australia if it can't deliver 4G to Australia. It's entirely deceptive.

That's what I said.

As far as the "rest of the world," using something other than 1800, I stand corrected. My bad.

If they advertised it as "will let you play Angry Birds" and some quadriplegic would then sue because he can't play?

If they advertise to quadriplegics the 'fact' that they could and quadriplegics can't, then they would be in breach of the law. Whether the "some quadriplegic" could then sue, is a question of standing. Remember it isn't some iPad purchaser suing here, it's the ACCC.

The Crux of the matter here is that 4G is available in Australia, Apple just can't be bothered making the iPad compatible with the Australian Network

Actually the fault for incompatibility lies with Telstra who chose a different band in full knowledge that it would be incompatible with the rest of the world, presumably for their own anti-competitive strategies. This is not to excuse Apple, whose advertising in the Australian context certainly appears unlawful (enough for the ACCC to take action, and they tend to know their consumer law).

The crux of the matter is that Apple just can't be bothered making their advertising appropriate for Australian consumption.

This appears to be just the same: advertise 4G, and in the small print, point out that you will probably never get 4G. It's dishonest.

Moreover outright dishonesty is not an element the ACCC needs to prove. The claim need not even be false, it need only be misleading

The relevant provision in the new Australian Consumer Law which replaces the old s52 Trade Practices Act 1974 and which the legislature in its inimitable wisdom has chosen to bury in Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, reads:

Android has voice dictation too hasn't it ?

As does the iPad3, using I presume the same software on the iPhone 4s. What they both lack, OTOH, is SIRI. Say, do you remember when SIRI access of keyboard only?