He was targeting and harassing people via a telecommunications system. Part of our telecommunications laws specifically deal with that situation.

I can't see how that is anywhere near being a technicality.

Yes, my comment was a little tongue in cheek but the fact remains that it's also far from the sharpness and detail that TV salesmen are using to sell HDTV.

The point of HD is high quality, right?

So, in which fantasy land do these streamed or downloaded films match the 20-30Mb/s data rate of playing a film off Blu-Ray? Or have they managed to invent some magical new codec that's ~10x as efficient as what you find on disk without losing quality?

Enjoy downloading your high resolution but blocky and fuzzy mess. I'll stick to a high quality, sharp picture thanks.

Wrong. there is one big difference.
It['s a thing that is becoming more and more fashionable to ignore and pretend doesn't exist. It's called responsibility.

Looking after my copies of my games bought from GOG is my responsibility. I have all the tools at hand to protect against any loss of data. If one copy is lost or damaged, I have a backup copy (which I can then use to make another copy just in case I have another accident). If something happens to that data, it's my fault and my problem.

If Steam (or whatever other service) goes away or is taken away, it's someone else's fault but my problem.

The pirates will find a way around that. Either by patching out the code that continually checks for the servers or runs a dummy 'Ubisoft Server' on your local system - more likely some combination of both.

The last one was here

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/tvlicensing/enquiry/ofcom_bbc.pdf

Not too sure what is actually going on with the second round yet.

This is a second consultation because OFCOM have already told the BBC where to go over this.

This consultation is about the infrastructure of by far the biggest broadcast TV network in the UK. The BBC have a massive amount of power here should they choose to use it.

Play by the rules or have very little exposure in the UK. Simple as that.

The problem isn't that the BBC is planning to 'block open source', it is that the BBC is planning to block open access. It's a subtle but important difference.

The BBC is different from almost any other company, it is a bizarre mash-up of private and public sector and as such it's primary concern is not profit but value to British citizens.

The first question that should be asked (and the one I think OFCOM asked the first time around) is 'how does this benefit the British consumer?'. It is quite clear that the encryption does not bring any benefit over not encrypting it to the average British consumer. In fact the opposite is true as there are then artificial restrictions and limits on the equipment that people can buy.

mostly fairly minor consequences of the vast majority of non-mission critical computers thinking it's the wrong date

Taken individually and in isolation, it is true that the problem with many such systems is trivial. Howevr many of these trivial systems feed into or from other trivial systems and this makes the system viewed as a whole rather complex. It is extremely difficult to predict the outcome of even a simple looking system (see Conway's game of life for example) so there was no telling what would or could happen with all of these non-critical systems suddenly hitting faulty data. As close to feasibly possible to 'all of it' had to be fixed because otherwise there would be too many unknowns that could come back to bite us later.

When clocks struck midnight on January 1st and the dreaded Y2K bug turned out to be nothing but a mild irritant, it proved once again that the experts often don’t know what the heck they’re talking about.

No. The Experts were the ones working many, many hours in the preceding years fixing and updating things so that when the clock did turn, the problems were - for the main - no longer present. A job damned well done and the people fixing it should be praised, not ridiculed.

The people who don't know what the heck they were talking about are the media types like this guy who are quick to jump on catastrophic failures but rarely (if ever) give due praise when things are planned and done right. "Everything's fine" doesn't make good headlines for these people.

If they don't want to play by the rules, we won't miss them. If they do, then they will find a great resource and profit from mutual cooperation.

I've been using multiple screens for years, though mostly under Ubuntu on nVidia cards. I can simply drag windows from one screen to another - not exactly difficult. Maximised windows will even resize themselves as my tow monitors do not have the same resolution.

Given that, if you really waanted keyboard control...

alt-space, down arrow, down arrow (to un-maximise), return
then

alt-space, down arrow, down arrow, down arrow (move)

use arrow keys to move window to wherever on your desktop you want it.

... as will Symphony.

Symphony (as you would expect) was able to read LWP files a lot earlier than OO.o was able to (I have only just noticed that Version 3.0 can do so). I basically used to use Symphony as a LWP > ODF converter.