What's worse is that the new Times website is vastly inferior to the old, free, one.

The new website mandates the use of JavaScript. You cannot do anything with the website using a non-Javascript web browser. Thus I regard the site as dysfunctional.

I've been motivated to stop purchasing print copies of The Times. Why? Because if they don't have quality IT staff (who know that different browsers are in use on the Internet), then it is likely their journalistic staff are just as incompetent.

I'm personally amazed the Internet has lasted as long as it has. It is about the only electrical/electronic standard that is common between the USA and the rest of the world.

So this was a fun experiment. How did it work out for you, USA? How did it feel not to require an adaptor every time you go overseas? How did it feel to freely communicate with citizens outside your borders?

It is inevitable that the Internet in the USA cannot last. Everyone in the world uses the same standards! Time for a new USA-only standard, USA! That's right, A-law companding wasn't good enough for you was it. You couldn't run your power at 220/230V like the rest of the world could you. God forbid your mobile phones should ever work outside the USA. Hell, you can't even drive on the correct side of the road.

Isn't that the case in society?

You don't assault people. You don't toss your refuse anywhere you choose. You don't drive dangerously. You don't take public transport with your phone playing mp3s through the tinny speaker.

Why? You have something to lose. Courts know this. If you get caught for a minor infraction you'll lose money, time, freedom.

There are three classes of people who don't care and break whatever rules they want:
- children, who are immune from the law
- very poor, who have nothing to lose
- illegal immigrants, who demonstrate their disregard of the law every day they fail to leave and re-enter the country legally

All anonymity does is give those with something to lose a level playing ground with those who have nothing to lose.

The truth is most of us hate each other in this world.

You can pretend racism doesn't exist in the USA or UK but if you talk to a person of the wrong colour in the streets of London your physical safety is at extreme risk.

Half the people feel compassion for the never-ending barrage of beggars. Half the people would like to jail them.

A lot of people drive dangerously, probably several of your co-workers, and you'd likely kick them if you found out who they were for endangering lives.

Everyone is afraid of being exposed because the truth is few of us agree with each other's opinions and thoughts.

..yes, but only sometimes, and probably much rarer than you think. But while appearing to "care" might score you points with friends the resulting behaviour from such encouragement can be extremely destructive to whole societies. But that's what you want, right? Moral hazard? No consequences?

Not so funny as you think.

With all the Royal Mail strikes in London I had a chequebook stolen (probably by a Royal Mail worker) who has consequently gone running around the UK and Europe handing out ten-thousand-pound cheques in my company's name. Fortunately there's been a block put on my account.

There's a lot of smokers who just toss their cigarettes on the ground as litter. I guess demanding the government to care is fashionable when the people don't care - but there's no moral imperative.

I will! Homeless? It's about time we did actual case-studies of homeless and people who claim police negligence. Because I think it's fear-uncertainty-doubt: there's no evidence from homeless people of what circumstances lead to their position.

There's a saying: a triumph is a series of successes. A tragedy is a series of failures. How does one become homeless? Certainly not through one or two instances of bad luck. One has to make determined choices to make it to the bottom.

I don't think I've ever seen a black person being arrested by the Police in London without his black mate filming the whole thing on his video camera shouting "racist! racist! racist!".

The English invite accusations of racism. They love it. The socialist left has made it a hate crime to have white skin. Thus in an area like London, which is predominantly non-white, there will be a much greater rate of complaints. The fact that the complaints are filed by non-whites make those complaints entirely "valid".

Incredible. I also read terms and conditions thoroughly, in fact I've lost weeks I could have been working on contracts because I disputed one or two conditions.

There are two problems. 1. You cannot be expected to keep on top of CHANGING conditions. When EVERY BANK and EVERY PHONE COMPANY is sending you leaflets every two months with changing conditions how is any ordinary person supposed to keep track of all conditions? 2. When a company has 100 lawyers working full-time drafting pages of complex terms how is a single non-legal-trained individual supposed to digest and contest unfair conditions? Where can an individual find the time to digest that enormity of legal clauses?

You might think you're on top of everything but if you were you would have no time to work or play.

Whilst this is a great loop-hole the fact is few, if any, of us have the time and energy to be trying to keep 100% on top of these things.

These companies count on inertia. They count on the fact you're not a lawyer. They count on the fact that the book-size terms and conditions drafted by hundreds of in-house lawyers cannot possibly be digested by a single individual customer in anything less than eight continuous hours.

Essentially law does not free people, it enslaves them, for the same reason that science creates weapons of war: it is not the tool at fault but the people who seek to use it for evil and corrupt purposes. Governments and legal students COULD free people with simple laws. They choose instead to manipulate, bully, and coerce instead.

Wow, talk about your extreme racists. Who would think that there were white people in South Africa! I guess minorities don't count, right? Well that's your opinion - as long as you are consistent and don't start suddenly supporting minorities in your own country. Wouldn't want to be a hypocrite would you?

One the thing Australians do very well at sports broadcasts is immediate live replays and being able to slow down the action even to a frame-by-frame level which would have been welcome during some questionable incidents in the World Cup already. Unfortunately the Australian TV channels also jam in adverts excessively. So while watching ITV and BBC broadcasts is like stepping back into the 80s (technology-wise) the freedom from adverts is welcome.

100% agreed - the very first thing I thought when I heard those trumpets was - wow - they're all within about 3 semitones.. give me a notch filter! Something very junior about the coverage. Perhaps the good operators decided to keep away from crime-ridden South Africa for this World Cup.

You're kidding, right? Really? I mean, I understand in Australia free Wi-Fi would be impossible to get - hotels routinely charge AU$30/day access. But hotels in Japan offer Wi-Fi for free, so are you saying that it's only hotels that offer free Wi-Fi (well actually Japanese hotels don't do Wi-Fi, they do Ethernet access, but we're talking about internet access)?

You'd have to be a moron to think the USA "English" is the "correct one".

USA "English" ought to be given another name, it's certainly not English.