Το διαδίκτυο στην Κύπρο 2010, Τελική Έκθεση

Για την αναπαραγωγή αυτής της έκθεσης σε κάθε άλλη μορφή πέραν της χρήσης συνοπτικών αποσπασμάτων απαιτείται ρητή γραπτή άδεια από το World Internet Project Cyprus.Χρηματοδοτούμενη από το ΤΕΠΑΚ, το δεύτερο κύμα της έρευνας «The Cyprus World Internet Project» διεξάχθηκε κατά το διάστημα Μάιος- Ιούνιος 2010 μέσω προσωπικών συνεντεύξεων ενός δείγματος 1000 ατόμων από την Ελληνοκυπριακή και 600 ατόμων από την Τουρκοκυπριακή κοινότητα. Το πρώτο κύμα της έρευνας πραγματοποιήθηκε το 2008 και αφορούσε μόνο τους Ελληνοκύπριους.Τεχνολογικό Πανεπιστήμιο Κύπρο

Evaluation of individual and ensemble probabilistic forecasts of COVID-19 mortality in the United States

Short-term probabilistic forecasts of the trajectory of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States have served as a visible and important communication channel between the scientific modeling community and both the general public and decision-makers. Forecasting models provide specific, quantitative, and evaluable predictions that inform short-term decisions such as healthcare staffing needs, school closures, and allocation of medical supplies. Starting in April 2020, the US COVID-19 Forecast Hub (https://covid19forecasthub.org/) collected, disseminated, and synthesized tens of millions of specific predictions from more than 90 different academic, industry, and independent research groups. A multimodel ensemble forecast that combined predictions from dozens of groups every week provided the most consistently accurate probabilistic forecasts of incident deaths due to COVID-19 at the state and national level from April 2020 through October 2021. The performance of 27 individual models that submitted complete forecasts of COVID-19 deaths consistently throughout this year showed high variability in forecast skill across time, geospatial units, and forecast horizons. Two-thirds of the models evaluated showed better accuracy than a naïve baseline model. Forecast accuracy degraded as models made predictions further into the future, with probabilistic error at a 20-wk horizon three to five times larger than when predicting at a 1-wk horizon. This project underscores the role that collaboration and active coordination between governmental public-health agencies, academic modeling teams, and industry partners can play in developing modern modeling capabilities to support local, state, and federal response to outbreaks

The United States COVID-19 Forecast Hub dataset

Academic researchers, government agencies, industry groups, and individuals have produced forecasts at an unprecedented scale during the COVID-19 pandemic. To leverage these forecasts, the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) partnered with an academic research lab at the University of Massachusetts Amherst to create the US COVID-19 Forecast Hub. Launched in April 2020, the Forecast Hub is a dataset with point and probabilistic forecasts of incident cases, incident hospitalizations, incident deaths, and cumulative deaths due to COVID-19 at county, state, and national, levels in the United States. Included forecasts represent a variety of modeling approaches, data sources, and assumptions regarding the spread of COVID-19. The goal of this dataset is to establish a standardized and comparable set of short-term forecasts from modeling teams. These data can be used to develop ensemble models, communicate forecasts to the public, create visualizations, compare models, and inform policies regarding COVID-19 mitigation. These open-source data are available via download from GitHub, through an online API, and through R packages

Judicial discretion and contempt power: two elements of equity that would benefit the EAPO and future EU-wide provisional and protective measures

A person filing a civil claim faces the risk of being unable to enforce a favourable judgment. This is because their opponent may dissipate his assets and consequently be unable to satisfy a judgment given against him. Several mechanisms seek to alleviate this risk by preserving the defendant’s assets pending judgment. These are predominantly the civilian in rem order and the common law freezing order. Fundamental differences between the common and civil law traditions may be observed in the freezing order and its civilian counterpart. Primarily, these are to be found in the margin of discretion given to the judge and the sanctions against non-compliance. The latter issue is closely related to the entity against which an order is directed: in the common law it is directed against the person, while in the civil law, against the asset. The significantly diverse approaches in these areas show the different course each of the legal families has taken in the administration of justice. The problem of preserving assets pending judgment becomes more complicated when the assets are not located in the same country as the courts with jurisdiction on the merits. The recently introduced European Account Preservation Order (‘EAPO’) regulation is a pre-judgment instrument which enables a litigant to obtain an order preventing the transfer of funds held by the respondent in a bank account within the EU. It is the first of what may become several EU-wide provisional and protective measures. At first glance, the EAPO resembles the continental model rather than its common law counterpart, and, thus, brings into the open the differences between the two traditions in the area of provisional and protective measures. This work examines whether the features of the common law tradition—which in fact derive from the law of equity—ie judicial discretion in granting or refusing relief and contempt of court sanctions, could improve the EAPO as well as other EU-wide provisional and protective measures that may follow. It is argued that greater judicial discretion and a contempt sanction, provided that they are kept within certain limits, would improve the EAPO and similar measures in terms of efficiency and fairness.</p

Judicial discretion and contempt power: two elements of equity that would benefit the EAPO and future EU-wide provisional and protective measures

A person filing a civil claim faces the risk of being unable to enforce a favourable judgment. This is because their opponent may dissipate his assets and consequently be unable to satisfy a judgment given against him. Several mechanisms seek to alleviate this risk by preserving the defendantâs assets pending judgment. These are predominantly the civilian in rem order and the common law freezing order. Fundamental differences between the common and civil law traditions may be observed in the freezing order and its civilian counterpart. Primarily, these are to be found in the margin of discretion given to the judge and the sanctions against non-compliance. The latter issue is closely related to the entity against which an order is directed: in the common law it is directed against the person, while in the civil law, against the asset. The significantly diverse approaches in these areas show the different course each of the legal families has taken in the administration of justice. The problem of preserving assets pending judgment becomes more complicated when the assets are not located in the same country as the courts with jurisdiction on the merits. The recently introduced European Account Preservation Order (âEAPOâ) regulation is a pre-judgment instrument which enables a litigant to obtain an order preventing the transfer of funds held by the respondent in a bank account within the EU. It is the first of what may become several EU-wide provisional and protective measures. At first glance, the EAPO resembles the continental model rather than its common law counterpart, and, thus, brings into the open the differences between the two traditions in the area of provisional and protective measures. This work examines whether the features of the common law traditionâwhich in fact derive from the law of equityâie judicial discretion in granting or refusing relief and contempt of court sanctions, could improve the EAPO as well as other EU-wide provisional and protective measures that may follow. It is argued that greater judicial discretion and a contempt sanction, provided that they are kept within certain limits, would improve the EAPO and similar measures in terms of efficiency and fairness.</p

Search orders and Anton Piller relief: past, present, and future

The need to tackle infringement of intellectual property rights prompted judges to develop a remedy that allowed rightholders to enter the infringers’ premises for the purpose of retrieving and preserving evidence. This remedy was called the ‘Anton Piller’ order, after the first case that allowed it in a higher court. Very soon, this remedy became popular and started being used as a means to obtain evidence in many different types of proceedings outside of the scope of intellectual property (IP) and in other common law jurisdictions which followed the English practice. It then received a statutory form under the Civil Procedure Act 1997 and was renamed a ‘search order’ by CPR 25.1(1)(h). In general, such an order is available to an applicant who has a cause of action against another person in possession of vital evidence which substantiates the applicant’s cause of action, and there is good reason to assume that such evidence may be destroyed if the other person becomes aware of any legal action against him. Nevertheless, the order has been notoriously known for its oppressive nature, and was in fact characterised by Donaldson LJ in Bank Mellat v Nikpour as one of the law’s two nuclear weapons, the other one being the Mareva injunction. This thesis first discusses the basic features and origin of the Anton Piller jurisdiction. It then examines the conditions to be satisfied for a search order to be granted under the current legal framework in England and Wales, and asks whether these conditions are adequate for the protection of the parties. Emphasis is also given to the execution of a search order, which is another very controversial issue.</p

Judicial discretion and contempt power: two elements of equity that would benefit the EAPO and future EU-wide provisional and protective measures

A person filing a civil claim faces the risk of being unable to enforce a favourable judgment. This is because their opponent may dissipate his assets and consequently be unable to satisfy a judgment given against him. Several mechanisms seek to alleviate this risk by preserving the defendant’s assets pending judgment. These are predominantly the civilian in rem order and the common law freezing order. Fundamental differences between the common and civil law traditions may be observed in the freezing order and its civilian counterpart. Primarily, these are to be found in the margin of discretion given to the judge and the sanctions against non-compliance. The latter issue is closely related to the entity against which an order is directed: in the common law it is directed against the person, while in the civil law, against the asset. The significantly diverse approaches in these areas show the different course each of the legal families has taken in the administration of justice. The problem of preserving assets pending judgment becomes more complicated when the assets are not located in the same country as the courts with jurisdiction on the merits. The recently introduced European Account Preservation Order (‘EAPO’) regulation is a pre-judgment instrument which enables a litigant to obtain an order preventing the transfer of funds held by the respondent in a bank account within the EU. It is the first of what may become several EU-wide provisional and protective measures. At first glance, the EAPO resembles the continental model rather than its common law counterpart, and, thus, brings into the open the differences between the two traditions in the area of provisional and protective measures. This work examines whether the features of the common law tradition—which in fact derive from the law of equity—ie judicial discretion in granting or refusing relief and contempt of court sanctions, could improve the EAPO as well as other EU-wide provisional and protective measures that may follow. It is argued that greater judicial discretion and a contempt sanction, provided that they are kept within certain limits, would improve the EAPO and similar measures in terms of efficiency and fairness

Determination of material Hardening and anisotropy in Al-6061-T6 Sheet metal

International audienc

Determination of anisotropy and material hardening in Al-6061-T6 sheet metal

International audienc