Just to back up CanHasDIY:
"In recent years we have seen a variety of measures introduced that undermine the right to protest and freedom of speech.
Laws intended to combat anti-social behaviour, terrorism and serious crime are routinely used against legitimate protesters.
Broadly drafted anti-terrorism offences of 'encouragement' and 'glorification' of terrorism threaten to make careless talk a crime.
Membership of certain organisations can be banned under anti-terror laws even if the organisation is non-violent and political.
Hate speech laws have been extended in a piecemeal way to ban ever-expanding categories of speech.
Broad anti-terrorism powers of stop and search have been used to harass and stifle peaceful protesters.
Protest around Parliament has been severely restricted by laws limiting and overly regulating the right to assemble and protest around Parliament."
Source: http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/free-speech/

It's really quite scary...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

I suspect the (very valid) reason they have withdrawal limits on exchanges is to provide some level of security; with withdrawal limits, they can limit the damage that a nefarious user can inflict upon the rest of the exchange's users by rolling back transactions. See https://support.mtgox.com/entries/20224998-Huge-Bitcoin-sell-off-due-to-a-compromised-account-rollback

I disagree.

In the UK, it is illegal to share internet without mandatory log in (registration can be free, but it *must* be required for the operator to stay out of trouble).

If registration were not required by law, I would be sharing my access already. Given that registration is "required to be required", and given that it is complex for a part-time geek such as myself to set up a registration system, I don't make the extra effort to share.

I do think, though, that there are plenty of people like myself who would be happy to share without setting up registration if they weren't then subject to prosecution.

90% of tablets not having features isn't trying to imply that they will have 90% market share

Aside from that, it could well end up with 10% share if they get it right. Business users. Microsoft office won't run on any other OS, and the tablet alternatives suck (I know, it's probably MS's fault they suck due to ever-changing standards, but that doesn't change the fact that for a business user, they suck).

Like your kids, I almost exclusively use cheap or very old PSUs. Sure, sometimes they blow up or cause instability, but when they work it's beautifully cheap. Same with RAM. Sometimes you get unlucky, but a lot of the time you don't need to spend a fortune. As long as you don't go *rock* bottom, they tend to work fine.

Like hard drives though, they should be viewed as a "consumable" item.

http://www.rogers.com/web/link/hispeedBrowseFlowDefaultPlans

"Up to 150 Mbps download speed available in select areas
Up to 10 Mbps upload speed available in select areas
250 GB monthly usage allowance
9 Emails and a suite of options

$122.99 per month"

(Note: this indeed appears to be for regular (wired) internet access, not mobile broadband)

So yes, it would probably take longer than 24 hours to use this up, but a 250gb limit is ridiculous for your fastest and most expensive package. In the UK, ISPs such as Sky or BT provide unthrottled access for c. £25 + £15 line rental per month; you can easily download more than 250gb using one of those puny 20Mbit ADSL connections (which in reality probably means

It's not water or oxygen, but it does enable a lot of cool things, and there's no reason for it to be so expensive compared to other Western nations.

I'd love to join, but I just committed to go out for dinner with the Mrs on Saturday (under circumstances that mean I really can't cancel...). Let me know how it goes!

There's trouble (a parking ticket with a $100 fine) and then there's trouble

The burden of proof for the latter (or any other life-ruining penalty) should be much higher. This is not proportionate, even if it is proven that she did it herself.

Blaming her for negligence doesn't make sense. IANAL, but poor / no security (e.g. a failure to encrypt an internet connection or encrypting it with WEP, leaving a car unlocked that is subsequently used to commit a crime etc.) is not an act of negligence that should result in penalties such as these in any rational legal system.

If anyone disagrees, can they please represent me against Sony for exposing my credit card details (as part of the PSN hack)?

No problem - good luck!