Why not just extend it to years and be done with it?

"The policy would cover cases in which a site is involved in crimes covered under the Serious Crimes Act 2007, including fraud, prostitution, money laundering, blackmail and copyright infringement."

Always copyright infringement. Is it really a "serious crime"? And will this rule really have any effect?

I wanted to use Facebook without Facebook knowing what other sites I visit, and the solution is quite simple. I use Chromium for Facebook only, and for other surfing I use Firefox with NoScript which I've set to block anything Facebook-related.

Don't we have enough of these social services already?

And more importantly, when will we get our own SlashSpot?

Well, I've probably spent at least 100 hours on Minecraft and it is a sandbox game too. Not all sandboxes are like GTA.

That being said, I've always enjoyed games which have no real ending - not necessarily sandboxes though. I've probably spent 100+ hours on Mario Kart and 60 hours on Civ5 in just one year. NetHack has probably taken over 200. None of these are sandboxes, but all are open-ended.

True audiophiles listen to lossless though.

This is exactly why we should not allow internet censorship at all; the more sites are already censored the easier it is to add another one to the list.

Wikipedia lists the differences between Chrome and Chromium.

Mozilla has already changed to "Chrome numbering", they're currently developing versions 5, 6 and 7...

I have Chromium 12.0.742.91 on my computer. Have they really made hundreds of beta releases?

That's probably true. But if I understood this right, the point is to make the authors more visible on the internet - for example if I find a blog I like, I can easily find more writings by the same author, no matter what site they're on.

So there actually is a country where copyright holders don't rule the Internet!