Degrees and ratios, the engineer in me is happy :D. How about "scrolling"? Is reading text horizontally more "efficient" and vertically? I think most of the written languages are written horizontally, but also know that some are vertical, could that also be a clue?

This is just a guess, but has anyone considered that the human vision might have been "horizontally optimized"? I mean our two eyes are placed so we have greater horizontal viewing angle so perhaps horizontal scrolling of the eye causes less of a "blur" effect than vertical scrolling. If so, it could mean that the vertical model was actually the flawed one (demotivator reference here). Just a though I would like to see proofs for or against.

Actually, I recall an article on Anandtech that states the various differences between the latest iPod Touch and iPhone. They didn't just drop the phone part, they also have a different casing which could indicates different internal structure, lower quality display, speaker, camera and no GPS. Are these worth the £270, probably not, but it means it might not be as bad as it looks.

I'm really disappointed guys, nobody made any references to Spaceball yet...

Unfortunately, most people want feature over security. Many people don't even think about security for themselves and only complains when it bites them in the ass. "What do you mean I shouldn't write my PIN on my debit card? You should just have made your system more secure!"

Wow, who would have thought of that? Yes I do understand that security is an issue hard to cope with, but with that mentality we could also just stop progress because it might have risks ...

I like the overall idea, but I think they could introduce some "Mythbuster"-type experimentation. First it helps understand the "Hypothesis-Methodology-Test-Conclusion" scientific approach and it also encourages them to be critical of pre-conceived ideas.

By "not an aggravating factor" I didn't mean it wasn't worst, I meant the "aggression" will be considered a separate offense and I think both must be considered independently since one cannot be punished twice for the same crime. I'm no lawyer so I might get this wrong.

The distinction between "armed robbery" and "aggravated robbery" is actually the lethality of the weapon so it could make sense.

I'm trying to see if there are any other examples/counter-examples that I can think of beside the "premeditated" argument that was already mentioned in the thread. I'm unable to find any so I guess creative use of common commodity cannot be punishable by law :P.

But if the criminal actually injures the victim, it's another crime, not an "aggravating factor".

The assault was a bad example because is probably hurt more with a weapon, but how about robbery? Why is there an "armed robbery" or even "aggravated robbery"?

I just feel something should be done otherwise criminal life just keep getting better and better without much to counterbalance.

I actually never said anything about citizenship, I simply meant that being born and raised in an advanced society is a privilege that should not be abused.

As for the risk factor (additional year of punishment vs low probability of being caught + ...), I have to agree that there is so little chance of getting cough in the first place, it might not change a thing. However, doing nothing to discourage the use use of a tool while that tool can provide an advantage would tip the balance the other way (reduce the "risk" even more).

As I said in another reply, why isn't anyone questioning "armed robbery" over simple "robbery"?

If used to commit a crime, why not?

People seem to find unbelievable to punish someone based on how he committed a crime, but this has been around for ages. Doesn't the justice system have different punishment for aggressions committed with bare hands, a knife or a gun...

Although the approach they took seems stupid, I think it somehow makes sense in a way that it might discourage some to try. Technology and science can be used in bad ways, most people know that; to us it's common sense, but to us so in civility (as in not robing/attacking people). Therefore I assume they make "dumb laws" for dumb people that could probably be dissuaded by such measures. What were they supposed to do? Ban the technology? Make every piece of tech go through some comity to see if can be used for wrongdoing? Assume people are wise and smart? To me technology is a privilege, not a right and abusing a privilege should be punished.

That is probable one of the biggest piece of false-science I have ever seen in years. The exact same thing could have been done with any compromised wireless device; the fact that the chip is under his skin is completely irrelevant. People helping to carry computer viruses have been around for decades, remember those floppies of shareware with virus on them??? Come-on!