Which aspect of the current copyright laws don't you like? Fair dealing doesn't go far enough? Too much statutory damages? Double dipping in recovery? Or uncertainty as to when copyright infringement has actually taken place? (i.e. the works are similar enough to invoke copyright) Please be more specific in your criticism. I for one as a general rule don't have an issue with a content owner not wanting others to steal their content. I am not some kind of communist.

Some of the posters are saying that France produced this and that movie and Americans just ripped them off - and that somehow makes this culture tax justifiable. Well, if these movies "were" ripped off, then what you need are stronger copyright laws. The various countries have their own copyright laws that are connected with international treaties - lobby to have them strengthened. My "guess" is that while there may be a "few" movies that were "ripped off", this culture tax would try to "recover" much more than what was taken from these few movies. And what the hell does Google/youtube have to do with some American studio ripping off some French movie? These "stealing" American studios try to keep their produced content from youtube also and youtube has a good take down system. This whole episode reminds me of the blank DVD tax saga in Canada - where to support the Canadian music industry that are "negatively effected" by music piracy, the stupid government allowed a blank DVD tax where every blank DVD costs a few cents extra to go to the coffers of the Canadian music people. WTF. I don't even copy music. They tried to do the same nonsense with USB sticks - but failed.

Not going to lie. I drive faster than the regular driver on the road. But I do have fast reaction so I think I am "safer" than a lot of those drivers. Not only in terms of me "avoiding" accidents, but also making sure I don't induce others from causing accidents either... Whether it be making sure the guy behind me doesn't rear end me, the guy on the far lane doesn't merge-collide with me if both of us try to make a lane change, etc.. I am going to guess that with that all said and done, simply b/c I drive faster, I will get higher rates than the idiot who drives like a turtle simply b/c she can't drive faster, just "merges in" b/c she can't judge the flow of traffic, and makes a left turn as soon as the light turns yellow... just b/c well, she figures it's her right of way. Never mind the guy zooming down the straight road who doesn't have enough time to stop and can still make it before it turns red.. Until they can monitor all traffic simultaneously and do data analysis of your driving in relation to other cars beside you, these "measurements" will mean jack shit and will just be used by the insurance companies to make more money from those of us who have clean records, but may drive faster than normal - simply b/c we can.

If this is the worst that could happen with a Tesla, sign me up! The idiots have sold the stock, so maybe it's time for me to move in and buy it while it's on the lower side. Elon has designed so many safety features with the existing design that no one has gotten hurt. Imagine what he will do with the next iterations.. You KNOW he's holed up somewhere with the design team so that the next new models will NOT have even this kind of problem. Batteries are inherently safer than gas. As you say, it has taken DECADES for the ICE vehicles to reduce the occurrence of severe fire related occurrences. Elon will do it within a couple of years.

As the poster above (werrerra) said in a parallel thread: According to the US Bureau of Transportation,there are over 250 million cars on the road in the US. There are 150,000 fires in those vehicles a year __according to the OP__. There are 20,000 Tesla cars, with 3 fires. Relative risk = ( 3 / 20000 ) / ( 150000 / 250000000 ) = 0.00015 / 0.0006 = 0.25. Tesla is safer. Apples to apples.

A person can be smart. People are stupid.

We can look forward to another generation of mediocrity from the UK! More job security for the rest of us! Keep it up Telegraph!!

And the private sector has a way of correcting it. Look what happened to Knight. In the public sector, wasted government expenditure is rewarded with a higher debt ceiling.

Thanks to all of you that act as my test team. Your relentless pursuit to ensure that all the bugs are ironed out so that my system never has to brick is much appreciated. You will get a virtual cookie for your dedicated service.

If I wrote a computer program to do this, it wouldn't be special. If I submitted an article to slashdot that described how I wrote a C++ program to do this, I would probably get hate mail and possible death threats by some techie loon somewhere in Texas. Why is this story special simply b/c the process was done in a different environment? If this was a story about a new technique to manipulate codon sequences, that would be one thing. But it is not.

So that's where Bill Gates got the idea about having to reboot Windows every day back when. It's really a form of cleaning the computer. It's good for the system, don't ya know.

Too many hoops to jump through to get the same experience I get with Windows. Don't get me wrong - I loved (and still love) Linux since I was young. But, as I get older, want good user experience with minimum hassle. Until Linux gets the same 3rd party support (e.g. Netflix, etc.) as on Windows, I don't mind spending $40. That's less than what I spend going out on a single Saturday night.

On a related note, I am only using Windows 8 right now b/c it cost me $40 during their "initial sale period". You know what? When you are using it in desktop mode (using the various shortcuts that you should be using anyway), you don't actually get reminded that you are using the bastard child of Windows 7 and a phone OS. It actually feels like Windows 7.

oomer??! She is!! My first though when reading the headline was that this broad MUST be a baby boomer for requiring workers to come in just for face time. I was right. Idiot. Can't wait until our generation takes over.

You were making reasonable points, until the last two sentences. Lol wut? "And if GM ultimately wins and you can only buy a GM car from GM, I'm not certain I want to buy a GM car from them.". Elaborate please. What's wrong with buying a GM car if "you can only buy a GM car from GM".. Doesn't compute as to why this is a bad thing...