"Tilting AT windmills". Darn it. First rule of internet pedantry - any pedantic post will inevitably contain at least one howling error that isn't spotted until the post has been irretrievably committed....

Um. You mean "Tilting against windmills". It was Don Quixote who was doing the tilting, not the windmills.

(To "tilt", in this context, is an archaic verb meaning to joust with a lance. Knights on horseback, and all that.)

If recent history teaches anything about technology, it's that if something is technically possible - and it seems highly improbable that automated lip-reading isn't - someone WILL do it. Further that, if it's not actually illegal to do so, someone will make it commercially available in the civil domain. And that if it's made illegal in the civil domain, that's very unlikely to stop the security community, in all its sundry forms, from weaponising it (sorry, my Orwellian paranoia is on clearly overdrive; that should, of course, have been "deploying and using it for the overall good of society"). And even if it's illegal in some jurisdictions, it won't be illegal worldwide anyway.

OK - not an archaeologist here. But the new picture seems to be dangerously close to a wish-fulfilment fantasy based on 'expert' interpretation of patterns in the data - and I'd be interested to know just how universally accepted amongst other experts that interpretation is. Because if I learned one thing from watching "Time Team", it was how often the experts' interpretation of geophys data turned out to be quite different to what was found when the site was actually dug...

I mean - do you mean, as opposed to your own made-up word, 'kinda'? Or your made-up phrase, 'made up', come to that?

(Ob pedantry: Actually, of course, as language seems to be hard-wired into people, but the actual words clearly aren't, every word we ever write or say is ultimately 'made-up' - it's just that groups of people who speak the 'same' language tend to be more-or-less in agreement on what words to use. 'Scenarii' is an abnormal plural that's almost certainly down to a misunderstanding of the singular word's origins; but it's clear what it means, and if enough people start using it, it will gain enough traction to be seen as 'correct'.)

((How the heck does something like the parent get up-voted 'Insightful'?))

Think three times before talking about, or using, anything that you learn accidentally in the course of doing your job.

You'll undoubtedly take note of office politics (although you don't necessarily talk to others about the detail, or how you came about it); office politics may well affect how you go about your job anyway, and it often helps to know where the potential traps and difficulties are, so that you can attempt to step around them.

You never, under (almost) any circumstances, discuss anything confidential that you came upon by accident and weren't entitled to know, if you do so, you are likely to find yourself looking for a new job very quickly - and quite right, too. The only exception I can think of to that would be if you were to come across something that the law or your employer would expect you to bring to an appropriate person's attention, where not doing so could land you in serious trouble if it subsequently came out that you hadn't done so. If unsure, consider covering yourself by questioning it, confidentially but in writing. Escalate, with care and tact, if not happy with the reply. And understand that, in doing so, you're not so much doing so doing so out of duty, as covering your own position.

(Putting things in writing is a good policy anyway, for almost all aspects of almost any job - NEVER assume that people will choose to remember things the way that you do, or that "nice" people won't attempt to hang you out to dry at a later date, if it serves their purpose. When you agree something verbally with someone, if it's even remotely important, drop them a note confirming YOUR understanding of what was agreed.)

Yes, and the buggy-whip makers won't be pleased, either.

That argument does not pass the "So what?" test, and never has. Technology advances, and society changes; it's why we're not still all running around dressed in skins, hunting down our food with rocks. When it does, some types of job inevitably become less-sought, or even redundant. If that job's what you do, or me, that's just tough; the world doesn't owe anyone a living. If your job goes away, you go look for another. Yes, there's a social argument for cushioning the transition, if things are moving so fast that lots of people are going to find themselves out of work in the same place at the same time - but that's rarely what actually happens.

Really? Personally, I keep a spare tyre. Plus a few energy drinks, for when I tire.

Getting the world to equate being anti-Israeli with being anti-semitic was a central strategy in the new Israeli state's international policy - one of Israel's first ambassadors (I *think* Israel's first ambassador to the US, Eliyahu Eilat) openly admitted as much when interviewed on the BBC by Michael Parkinson, saying that he regarded his success in that field as the crowning achievement of his career. And in the US in particular, that's hardly exactly been weakened by the degree to which the influential Jewish lobby has consistently demanded that successive governments of every political persuasion back Israel to the hilt, whatever its excesses and however odious its behaviour.

However. There's a biblical saying about reaping what you sow (New Testament, mind - so not necessarily familiar to Israeli politicians, which is perhaps a pity). Put otherwise: equations work two ways. If you want the unthinking, great unwashed to think of "Israel" and "Jewish" as the same thing when the consequences suit you... ...good luck with trying to convince them that's not the case when you'd rather they understood the distinction.

Lovely to see that the Loony Left is still alive and well in remoter parts of the country. I thought they'd pretty much gone extinct by now.

Firstly, precisely what's actually on the block list has nothing to do with politicians; that's one of the huge iniquities of the legislation - lack of transparency and democratic oversight. Secondly, politicians of ALL persuasions have been falling over themselves to show themselves "tough" on anything that has the slightest chance of playing to the (pretty much non-existent, but that doesn't seem to bother them) gallery - when last in power, in its need to try and out-macho the Tories, Labour put spurious and gratuitous new criminal offences on the statute books at the rate of more than one a DAY.

This farago had everything to do with PR and spin, and NOTHING to do with party politics. Or, indeed, reality,

In other news, "Fire burns".

I care. But I can't do anything alone. Unless everyone changes behaviour, all that happens if I change mine unilaterally is that I end up paying more for my standard of living, or with a lower one, or both. Impact on climate change - effectively zero. All my effort can buy me is a clearer conscience - and frankly, that's not high on my list of priorities.

I'd also question whether the usual arguments against "security by obscurity" apply in a case where the software is being used "single shot" and infrequently, with massive potential impacts in the event of a breach. The software needs to work right, once, rather than almost right over a continuous period. Frankly it's a case where, gut reaction, I'd prefer the potential bad guys to have no opportunity to spot a potential vulnerability, rather than rely on the overall community spotting and exposing all such loopholes ahead of time. Too much at stake to get it wrong; too much likelihood that a potential vulnerability will remain exposed and unpatched.

"If you show me
That, say, homeopathy works,
Then I will change my mind
I'll spin on a fucking dime
I'll be embarrassed as hell,
But I will run through the streets yelling
It's a miracle! Take physics and bin it!
Water has memory!
And while it's memory of a long lost drop of onion juice is Infinite
It somehow forgets all the poo it's had in it!"

A brilliant number, start to finish. See (e.g.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?..., at about 6'45"

...that the reasons why I and the public in general might have a use for a smart watch are not, as yet, obvious to me. It seems to me that a smart watch inherently cannot do more than my smart phone is already capable of; just redestribute precisely how it's done. So - which are the apps that would work better sitting on a tiny screen on my wrist than on my phone? I have to say I can't (offhand, as it were), think of one. Niche applications, maybe - but niche isn't going to turn smart watches into the next big technological "thing". Oh - and a personal foible. I don't actually wear a watch at all right now, except on those few, special occasions when I know I'm really going to need it. I'd been wearing one for so long that I'd forgotten just how much more comfortable it is not to have one on. I wouldn't easily go back for the sake of a little electronic bling. I have a perfectly serviceable, cheap digital casio in my pocket that I can put on when I need to, and I have my phone. So to get onto *my* wrist, whatever that smart watch is going to do, better not only be something useful, but something I need sufficiently often for it to justify the annoyance of wearing a watch again. Frankly, it seems unlikely to me that that's going to happen.

It may suit your agenda to do so, but do everyone the courtesy of NOT deliberately conflating two related but very different meanings of the word "believe", please.

1) I will routinely admit that I "believe" (small "b") any number of things. In that usage, I mean simply that something is my opinion (one that I may hold very strongly in some cases, but that I still recognise for what it is). Based on such facts as I know, the balance of probability seems that something is the case. But I recognise that my opinion may be wrong - something that causes me not the slightest degree of difficulty, discomfort or internal conflict. If presented with reasonable conflicting evidence, I will weigh it to the best of my ability to do so impartially and honestly, and adjust my opinion accordingly if required.

2) I most definitely do NOT "Believe" (capital "B") in ANYTHING, in the sense that the word is used in religion - to cling dogmatically to a particular viewpoint in the absence of testable evidence (or, worse, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary), secure in the "knowledge" that I already "know" the "true" answer, and that anything that conflicts with that can be ignored because it is "wrong".**

So:

Do I believe in evolution? Of course I do. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming.

Do I Believe in evolution? Of course I don't. If I'm presented with a scientifically sound, alternative explanation that embraces the existing evidence, yet points to a different conclusion, I'll give it due consideration. And if the evidence for the new theory versus the old is sufficiently compelling, I'll happily change my opinion.