It means that there is yet another web site that I arrive at at see an empty page or maybe a few items scattered apparently at random. I surf with javascript switched off by default. Most sites should work without javascript, OK some fancy features might be missing but I should generally see the page. Those that do not: I might look to see what javascript to enable, but all too often they are trying to pull in javascript from 1/2 dozen sites - so I guess a couple and then give up and go elsewhere.

Javascript should be used to make a page look nicer, not to make it work at all. Insisting on javascript is like insisting on flash.

I accept that a few special pages really do need special effects that need javascript, but not many of them.

what sort of encryption(s) were the cops unable to break - assuming that they were able to tell by looking at the files; failing that what were the ones that they succeeded in breaking? That might be useful as it would guide me in choosing which algorithms to use for encrypting my stuff.

Then is occurred to me that if the cops revealed it I must assume misinformation. They surely would not make their life difficult by telling me how to defeat them -- or would they answer the question honestly ? So: I could ever trust their answer -- is there any point in even asking them the question ?

Agreed, I worded it badly. How about: ''How long had the last energy saving bulb that you replaced been working ?'' Even then it is sloppy since some bulbs will be used a lot (eg in the kitchen) whereas others very little (in the garage or spare bedroom). But it is not intended to be a scientific survey.

Following on from the current poll: How long did your last energy saving bulb last ? 0-1 months; 2-4; 5-8; 9-14; 15-23; 2 years; 2-3 years; 4+ years

The reason for the question is that they are supposed to last many years of typical usage - I do not get that out of most of them, some only last 6 months. I want to know if others find the same ?

That is the whole point -- with an e-book you can sell it and still have/keep a copy to use, something that you cannot do with a paper book. This is what the publishers want to stop.

You might not want to read a novel more than once, but many books are not story books. Eg: an academic text book; a reference book - these you might read and want to keep so that you can look up points of detail later.

Having said that:: I have read 'Lord of the Rings' 3 times.

it is just a market place. ''the site operates on an honor basis.'' it expects that once you have sold your e-book that you delete it from your machines. If you do not then it is you who commits piracy. It is an issue of trust: the book publisher/author knows that it is all too easy for someone to sell a book once they have read it but still keep the copy. But just because it is easy does not mean that everyone will keep a copy. I do have to admit that many will sell and keep.

I do not know what the answer it, shutting down a market place or wrapping the book in DRM are not the answers.

What have the SWAT teams got to hide ?

Why was this modded down as 'troll' ? It is deliciously funny!

Mod parent up.

See: National Museum of Computing vs Bletchley Park Trust and Bletchley Park board member quits and Mexican standoff

The trouble is that facebook et al are subject to the patriot act - this means that all the govt of the USA needs to do is say ''give me this data'' and they have to do it. The data can be anywhere in the world, if they can access it they need to give it to the NSA/... upon demand and can be stopped from telling anyone what they have done.

This could result in these companies being put into an impossible position where they have to meet conflicting demands both of which they must absolutely obey. The only way that they will survive is to lie, either ''we do not have the data'' or ''we did not give it away''. I suspect that the NSA will, at least initially, win this and they will just lie to tell the EU regulators ''we did not give it away''.

It is not the market share of the video service that matters, it is the visibility of the artist's works that really counts. If another service will carry the songs and that other service is indexed by google then there is little loss. OK: punters won't be able to search in the Youtube search bar, but they will soon learn to do searches in google/bing/...

If another video service cannot carry the bandwidth then maybe they ought to pay more. This is where net neutrality, peering, etc comes into play -- I have to admit that size of video service does matter as the really small guys cannot afford content delivery services ... but plenty other than youtube can.

How come ? You can host your music/... elsewhere, somewhere where google (the search engine) will find it. So, if you don't like their terms, just move.

Do you have any evidence of google pulling sites that do not buy ads through Google ? If Google were to do something like that its quality as a search engine would drop and people would go elsewhere - it would be search engine suicide.