I'm fairly sure even straight forward murder cases take quite a while to investigate, get to court and count as solved. Considering these stats are taken on the last day of that year, I'd be surprised if many of the murders in the preceding days, weeks, even months had yet been officially solved. In fact the document has some statistics about time taken to solve cases, with 100 days being a timeframe used for comparison - so no wonder all those murders on 30th December hadn't been solved by the end of the year!

Exactly this.

Didn't they promise not to share WhatApp data with Facebook to please regulators previously? Only to then do just that.

Agree the mice and keyboards have been pretty good, and keep working (my current Intellimouse Explorer is over 20 years old).

Anything else might well be good hardware, but when they don't bother to write drivers for the very next version of Windows they release, it's not much use for long. I've had to bin 2 MS webcams and at least one fingerprint scanner for lack of updated Windows drivers.

If your definition of rich is a half-decent salary and being able to own a house, I feel sorry for you. Still, it is a scientific fact that gen z have it harder than anyone in human history before and should rightfully feel very sorry for themselves and hate everyone else.

In addition, under the NHS pension scheme the pot gets an annual revaluation. The increase in value can contribute to your annual limit, resulting in an annual tax bill (not deferred) based on money already paid in as well as your actual payments in the year.

Sounds about the same we can contribute to a pension tax free, but we pay income tax in our pensions later. But there are limits to how much tax free allowance you get per year, and also the size of the pot, which includes the growth of the pot, not just what you put in. So if pension grows very well you can find yourself with a tax bill. I think that's about the gist of it.

Reasonably well off, but not rich. And it not just about how much you put in your pension, but also it's growth. The main driver has been the fact that most senior doctors will hit this limit before the end of their careers. Suddenly in the last few years doctors have been hit with such massive extra tax bills, out of the blue, that many of them have simply decided it's no longer economical to keep working. The health service is already on its knees, this was an unnecessary unforced error adding to the exodus of staff.

Interesting, different to my experience - eBay is my goto place to buy. When I look for a seller off eBay, their products are often more expensive direct from them (after factoring in shipping) than buying them through eBay. Not always of course, but more times than not. I never buy normal products on amazon from a third party seller, direct from amazon can be a decent price (if on offer), but most of the time and for everything else I can always find it cheaper via eBay. And the search is a lot better on eBay, amazon makes it impossible to find what you really want. Basic keyword matching doesn't even seem to work on amazon if you try and sort by price.

They briefly broke the updater, then fixed it.
Least exciting news story in a while.

The is case isn't really about ANPR, though obviously that's the trigger that exposed it, but about different police failings/ surveillance overreach. And according to the summary the police were told they were in the wrong for this use of the ANPR system, by the watchdog. Things have obviously changed since, clearly not everyone who has ever been of the slightest interest to the police is flagged on ANPR, otherwise with 11k cameras, the police would be doing nothing else but chasing these flagged cars. So, not sure this is really a case against ANPR, if that was your point. 2005 is a long time ago, I suspect ANPR was fairly new and guidance on its use clearly not as established as it is now - this was my point, these lessons have been learned elsewhere, there is no reason for new users to start from scratch.

UK police have over 11,000 ANPR cameras making over 50 million reads a day (https://web.archive.org/web/20200118140655/https://www.police.uk/information-and-advice/automatic-number-plate-recognition/). They are regularly used to help investigate crimes, arrest people, etc. Haven't heard of any misuse, but then a) perhaps we wouldn't have and b) we tend to have much better laws around data use and misuse than the US. But the point is, while it may seem like a new things where it's being used, it's widely deployed, and I'm sure studied, elsewhere. The arguments for and against aren't new and there would be plenty for all parties to learn from other places where this has been standard practice for some time.

Dementia is a disease, it is not normal aging. It is also a very slow way to die, with increasing disability over many years, horrible for the patient (at least while they are aware of it) and for their families till the end. It also places a massive burden on families, health systems and care services.
Yes, this is more prevalent now due to increasing age, but that's because increasing age is a risk factor, not the cause. The fact more people are able to get dementia shows the success of treatment of other conditions. Yes, people will eventually die of something, but this is not the thing what you want to die of. There are few better targets for medical research and future treatments right now.

It's generally reassuring to know they are now using scanners capable of seeing through 3mm of neoprene cover!

Yes. Price to NHS for typical dose per month of generics: donepezil £1.16 (usually first line) - most likely what your friend's dad had, rivastigmine £4.88, galantamine £31.80 (not sure why this one is so expensive). Also, memantine £2.63 (later disease, used more for agitation, etc). So a big price difference with the new one, but that's always the case, and by the time it's off patent we'll probably know if it's actually any good or not!

"Could" would be right, because the trial was only 18 months long, so they are extrapolating benefits longer than their entire trial. And not just a month longer than their trial showed, I'm not convinced they've actually shown any real world benefit yet at all - this was given to people very early in their illness (earlier than most people would get diagnosed), where they would expect to be able to live independently anyway. I'm not familiar with the CDR-SB, never come across it in the UK, but a benefit of 0.4 on a scale of 18 doesn't sound very impressive.

We've been promised a lot before (I'm an old age psychiatrist so this is very much on topic for me, though not really for slashdot) and they rarely deliver. And let's not forget the 26% side effect rate, including 17% with some form of brain haemorrhage. To be fair, I haven't got a copy of the paper yet but I suspect I won't be much more positive after I've read it vs. the abstract. As usual I'll wait to see the real world results, while getting asked about this "miracle cure" from desperate patients on a daily basis.