I must admit I got the image of book burning, without the burning. The end result is pretty much the same, in the sense it is destruction of knowledge and culture. Then again I see a lot of common with Harper and a certain historic figure with a narrow moustache (not Charlie Chaplin).

The current Zelda offering for the Wii U is an 'HD' version of a previous generation game. Unless you were planning on replaying the game, it doesn't offer anything than 'HD'.

I am happy Mario World 3D came out, but Nintendo really needs to get their act together. They need to review their business model, possibly taking a page out of the tablet market. Non-game offerings are important too. In those terms Netflix and YouTube are the only offerings in Canada. Hulu is offered on the Console, but once you launch it (which requires an initial download) you get told it can only be used in the US - WTF!?

Nintendo generally succeeds on first party games, which aren't existing as a healthy selection at the moment. Nintendo also needs to get a third-party to make one serious outstanding title. Oh and they also need to improve their operating system.

Possibly, but many of the issues I see with the Wii U are software related, in other words ones that can be fixed without new hardware. Things I feel that could help:
    - making it easier for small Indy developers, in terms cost and ease of distribution. Android and iOS show the way of the future.
    - copying the Apple App Store pricing model
    - getting more content onto the console, including non-gaming stuff. Things like the AppleTV and XBMC are offering.
    - use network time (okay, may not fix anything, but an example of a limited OS)
    - get some good third-party games
    - improve the marketing. Sometime I feel the 3DS gets too much focus.

I take the attitude that you can show me commercials if I don't pay for TV, but if I am paying for TV thn I shouldn't see commercials. The problem is that if I have cable or IPTV I have to pay for the service and get commercials and every 10 minutes at that.

I prefer the antenna too, though it can be a challenge finding one with a clear signal in the city.

It is attitudes like this that encourages treating users like crap.

You didn't read what I said. Without the users they have zero value of what they have to offer the advertisers. Also people should have legal rights with what they should expect from a service and what can and can't be done. In Europe this is certainly the case.

While people using Facebook aren't necessarily paying customer, they are users of the service. Without users Facebook has no point of existing and therefore has no need of sponsors. For this reason we are using a service provided to us and in doing so there are expectations of fair treatment. Even cattle have certain rights.

Brushing users off as 'non-paying customers' is a port excuse, since they are both users and customer of the service. If we don't 'like' as sponsor's message, then they can't ask for a exchange of fees from the sponsor.

Many of them. The BRZ is rear wheel drive (I just checked).

It should be noted that both Audi and Sabaru both have plenty of experience of creating cars that are designed with good traction and speed, since they both build cars for rally racing - sure not all of the design elements go into production models, but the experience is there.

Though, given that steel rusts, is the lifespan of an aluminium ground based vehicle any shorter than that of a steel based one? Steel has been improved over time, such that it is less brittle than in the past; has there not also been similar improvements when it comes to aluminium?

It should also be mentioned that traditionally Europeans buy stuff to keep a long time. That means while a Land Rover is expensive (it is less expensive in Europe), it can be seen as an investment, since it will be kept for as long as possible.

An example of different buying decisions is that taxis in Belgium and Germany are typically diesel Mercedes Benz, since they are more fuel efficient, compared to petrol and tend to last a fair amount of time.

There are, but when you are likely to get brushed under the rug, other approaches need to be used. He essentially blew a hole through the rug, meaning there was no way to hide his message.

Was the way he did things the best way, it is hard to say, since I don't fully grasp the workings of the agency, but I suspect that there are too many people with vested interests in hiding their and the agencies failings? Sometimes in politics you need someone to put their neck on the line for the greater good, but it has to be done with care since otherwise to have collateral damage and possibly a miscommunicated message. IMHO Snowdon probably did something many people would have wanted to do, in the sense of causing change, but are too stuck in the political labyrinth to achieve anything. Don't underestimate the weight of government and bureaucracy to block real change. Too many stake holders who either have vested interests or don't want to experience change.

However you look at things, Snowdon was brave, but he did follow his convictions to the end. I think many of us would be too coward to do what he did.

I have to agree to that, though that doesn't mean that they shouldn't expect a public backlash. Free speech is not without consequence, but that consequence should not be arrest. The problem with free speech is that there will always be someone who decides they are offended by something said by someone else, but if we are don't exist in a society where we can debate the views of others, then it is very troubling.

I wonder what Orwell would have to say?

I can easily agree with 'race' here and probably replace it with 'genetic descent', but gender!? Physical difference in gender do make a difference. The male of the species are not capable of giving birth and the female of the species is not capable of producing a child without the male of the species providing semen (there may be exceptions, but I am having difficulty finding any evidence of the 0.0001%). How we handle the differences in appearance and gender is one thing, but there are still biological factors at play.

Maybe the best compromise would be to have phone booths, where you can go in and make your call? Anywhere else in the plane there would be no signal. Now how to make it so people share the space respectively?

There are two approaches:
    - limit the ratio to within the company
    - have the ratio based on minimum wage

I feel the first approach may be the better solution to start with, since this is an environment where a CEO controls the wage scale. If the CEO wants more money, then they would have to consider how much the staff is being paid and how to boost things overall. This means that they can't tell the staff there is no money, while allocating themselves more if the pie. If they can't afford to raise pay overall, then maybe they need to see how they are running the company. If they can only pay people more short term, then give them a bonus, since that does not need to be maintained the next year.

The second approach is a bit more complicated, since a company may be performing well, while the rest of the economy is not doing so well. There is a risk that even a non CEO in a successful company may pass the 20:1 ratio?

My issue with https is that unless you are willing to spend the money, it is expensive to get a certificate that is suitable for a small hobby website.

Don't get me wrong, https is a good thing, but it needs to be simpler and more affordable to get a legitimate certificate.

I'll certainly be following this and see if this works out to be 'not so bad'.