I don't think this policy will ever see the light of day. I expect it to be as successful as plan cigarette packs and minimum price alcohol and will be postponed due to the practical issues involved in implementing it (some of which have already been mentioned). If it does come in, it will be as half-hearted and flawed as we're expecting it to be. Parents will still need to supervise their kids and they will still have access to whatever they want to see. The best this filter will achieve is to make it a bit more difficult to find certain material but I don't think it will put anyone off.

Although this seems like a sensible approach, it really isn't. When you choose a database, there are many factors that will affect your decision. One of those will be features. Your approach would basically prevent you from using the features for which you're paying. If you ignore those features, all you're doing is reducing your database to a simple data store.

I was surprised to read some of your comments. When I've dealt with database performance problems, it's often not an inefficient piece of SQL that's the cause but the back and forth of vast quantities of data between the database and the app layer that is the problem. Only a change to the law of physics is going to fix that, or doing the processing in the right place. All modern databases are a lot more than simple data stores, they are also data processing engines.

Sorry, although I can't say I'm a fan of the word either, it is what manufacturers are calling them, at least that's the case with my car. And, again, although it's a horrible word, it's name is fairly appropriate. In my car the system manages the radio, cd changer, ipod, sat nav and various other configuration elements for the car (do the mirrors fold in when the cars locked, how long do the interior lights stay on, etc). What would you call it if not infotainment?

You may be right for Science Fiction but I suspect the record will go to something written by Shakespeare, Jane Austin or Dickens.

Where can I get such lighting systems?

Although I'm sure there is some truth to your comments, it really is not that simple. Firstly, the days of a supplier swaying a decision through sweetners is pretty much over. I can't say it doesn't still happen but it doesn't happen as much as you might thing. If you look at the database engine alone, then there are some valid and reasonable alternatives to Oracle - IBM DB2, Sybase SQL Server, MS SQL Server, PostgresSQL. Superficially they provide similar functionality. Large organisations quite often use more than one of them. However, anyone who knows much about databases know how substantially different they are. Oracle for example has it's own flavour of the SQL language as well as PL/SQL. Worth mentioning that you can also execute JAVA inside the database as well should you want to. Each of the DBs will have some alternative and it's not so easy to move that code between engines. Clustering is a good way to see the differences between the products. Oracle has something called RAC which attempts (sometimes pretty well) to make a database simultaneously available on several (potentially many) hosts at the same time. DB2 also supports clustering but does so by partitioning the data between different nodes. MS SQL Server supports basic failover clustering. I can't comment on Postgress or Sybase but it's clear that everyone has their own way of doing things. Another area where Oracle differentiates itself is through a number of other features - ASM for storage management, Oracle Application Server for application development and deployment. After all that, there is also products like Exadata.

I'm not suggesting for a moment that Oracle is superior (although it's the DB I know the best), but there are numerous substantial differences that dictate the decision an organisation makes, beyond cost or golf outings. More importantly, you'll find that the reason why a company will stay with a product is because of their investment in that product. It's not easy to lift and drop an application from Oracle into Postgress if you've taken advantage of the features. Making the move from one product to another could take a large organisation a decade to achieve and still find itself with pockets using the 'old' product.

I don't think you would. In principle, MS want you to have a decent internet connection because they want you to see the Xbox as more than just a games console. At the very least, they want you to take advantage of multi-player gaming but most likely they also want you to take advantage of the non-gaming aspects of the console. To be frank, I think they're pretty much saying that if you don't have a reliable internet service, they don't want you as a customer. Pretty arrogant I agree but I think that's along the right lines.

Is it really though? Whilst there's some similarities between the two, as well as a fairly well publicized legal case, the similarities are with only a few plot elements. There is an awful lot about the two that are different. At best, you might Soldier as the 'short story' on which Terminator was based but it's pretty clear that the writer of the film used the story as a jumping off point. In reality, it's much more likely that Cameron hadn't even considered Soldier when he wrote Terminator. Chances are he was influenced as much by any number of other time travel stories.

I read the book a few weeks before seeing the film. In the book there's no suggestion that Deckard was a replicant and the same goes for the original cut of the film. Not only that, the continuity isn't a problem, despite the origami unicorn being found at the end. I've enjoyed all the versions of the film though and I don't think that Deckard is a replicant, despite the very subtle implications that he might be. I won't go into it all now but :- 1. His boss had known him for a while, he certainly wasn't new. 2. He apparently had a life 3. He had a home 4. He had a history including the photos etc. 5. Deckard displays no obvious Nexus abilities. Whilst each of these elements might have been a part of a set-up, could that be said for them all? You're talking about cooperation from a whole load of people, including the LA police. Would they really allow someone who had the potential to do such damage into the force?

I'm glad someone mentioned this as I was just about to. Speaking as someone living outside the US, it struck me that the reason is at least partially socialist. I know that many US citizens hate the idea that their country might have such socialistic leanings but this is just one example. It's not the only reason, but one reason for supporting the present system is that dealers are pillars of the community.

I couldn't agree with your more. But this is an argument that has been used for quite some time now as a reason for people to support GMO's. As with so many things though, people have to take a for or against stance. In general, I support scientific progress, including genetics. In principle I would like to support the genetic modification of foodstuffs if there are positives that could be achieved. My main concern is that GMO crops are being introduced too quickly and without environmental consideration. We already know that there have been instances of harm to insects as a consequence of GMOs. Given that impact can take time to be noticed, the testing needs to be longer and more thorough. In addition, there are some clearly irresponsible plans that make no sense. Although I believe Terminator technology is currently on the shelf, it doesn't mean that it won't come up again. Introduction of plants that are incapable reproduction is very dangerous and simply should not be allowed. We need to consider the Earth as a single ecosystem. We are already aware of our ability to damage the environment without intending to do so. With the knowledge we have now, we should be more careful about things like GMOs than we are.

If gun control was responsible for saving just one life then it would be worth it. Violence isn't going away and you're right to suggest that the impact might be limited but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done. In the 5-10 years you suggest this law might be effective, more needs to be done. I don't see the short term potential as a reason for doing nothing though.

I think if they'd had the monopoly then Itanium would have been a success. It's largely because AMD came up with a way of making X86 into a 64-bit processor (to a degree) that undermined Itanimum.

No. They were simply making a point. When the car has run out of power, you can't just refuel it in a few mins.