I'm a Finnish high school student who uses computers a lot. People would expect me to do most studying on a computer too, but no, I don't do that. One reason is that computers have a habit of not working when you need to write a really important paper. But that's a completely different thing.

I've always been very successful at school, and I think it's mostly because I read books so much. I learned to read really early (at age 3), and I've always enjoyed visiting the library and going home with a pile of books. I spent countless nights reading books years ago. You can read on a computer, of course, but that just doesn't feel the same - even with an e-book reader like Kindle.

I still often read school books for hours without realizing that it's already 2am and I should be asleep. There's no way I would ever read anything useful on a computer for that long unless I really had to.

I like how with books you can just grab one and start reading. On a computer you have to start the program and then search for the file, which, as I'm messy person, can sometimes take a while. Files can also get corrupt and compability problems aren't rare, especially as I use Linux.

We all have netbooks in school, but I don't use mine much. Most teachers don't even know what you could do with them and most students only use theirs for writing notes. I find it just a distraction, so I prefer a pencil-and-paper system.

Of course computers are still useful for some things. It's easy to look up facts, like if I want to know what "schneiden" means. Chatting with people from other countries is only useful for learning languages. A tablet or netbook is lighter to carry than a pile of books, but as we still use books, the result is just the opposite.

Still, I believe that computers could be useful, but often they're used just because technology is cool. Most teachers don't really know what to do with them.

Infinite years I mean. Slashdot didn't seem to understand the sideways-8 symbol.

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!