Whilst the crux of your argument is correct, that's not completely true. Thousands of these cameras are going to be in mainline rail stations, underground stations and plenty of other high-risk areas like the West End, Oxford street etc. Granted, we're still talking a few square miles in the centre of London, but no-one really talks about the suburbs much with these statistics.

If you RTFA, you'd realise the link you just posted *is* TFA. It's the same Wired content reposted on Ars... :/

It seems that Nokia has a bit of a following on /., probably because their hardware is pretty decent, and key handsets like the N900 appeal to the demographic here. But the fact is in terms of an *ecosystem*, Nokia has nothing. They are in the gutter.
Nokia are at the point where they are actively having to pay developers to write apps. And we're not talking small apps here - big, branded apps for global companies, who are being approached by Nokia asking them if they'd like an app for Ovi. I couldn't tell you the number of clients I deal with day in day out during my day job who have already been rung up by Nokia. Even with an app developed at no cost, very few companies will take Nokia up on it.
It is simply not a space that people want to release software into right now. It doesn't get you press, and it doesn't get you sales. At least Blackberry have realised their previous app space strategy wasn't working, and are attempting to engage with mobile developers in a meaningful way. Nokia's left there without a clue.

It is in keeping with the current design language: my current gen MacBook Pro has a silver bezel - it's a custom order option if you get the high-res matte display. I actually think it's nicer than the black.

My Bravia TV running Linux says you're wrong. Sony want nothing to do with an *open* implementation of Linux. They use Linux all the time as an embedded OS on their own products.

Whilst the Dome was a huge waste of taxpayer's money the London Eye is a profitable private enterprise.

Yes, but Sky are also the major premium TV and content provider. Programmes broadcast on Freeview (free OTA digital terrestrial) are effectively free whereas you need to pay for Sky's TV, content and services. If people torrent programmes the biggest loser is Sky as you're less likely to subscribe, then the advertisers on commercial Freeview channels and the BBC who lose long-term DVD sales. If I can torrent a Sky-only show like House why would I be swayed to pay Sky £20/month for House with adverts?

Sky have an active interest in preventing people from torrenting, whereas most other ISPs are just ISPs and therefore have very little interest in restricting their customers. Virgin Media are another TV/ISP company and I remember them being fairly pro DEA too.

The submission is wrong. It's flash memory, not RAM. The TFA even says so.

Two words for you: Resistive touchscreen

I'll admit I haven't gone through Wikileaks, although these leaks don't specifically affect/interest me there are others where I might be interested.

For example, The Telegraph got the UK expenses list and they happened to publish the (partially redacted) data, similar to Wikileaks. I took this as an opportunity to research my own MP's ethics. This was actually an unusual case where the whole leak was published, although they actually used crowdsourcing to try and analyse the data!

This particular leak is a bit more awkward for someone to pick through, it's hundreds of thousands of documents. But, over time, I do believe that it will be gone through. If nothing else, this does help reduce the ability for a reporter to take something completely out of context as the context can be checked. How many times have you seen someone accused say "it was taken out of context" and from there are unable to make any conclusions as the full context is never released? Have they just brushed it off or was it misconstrued?

Exactly, instead it will go back to the newspapers/TV news as being the main avenue for releasing leaked information. Once they get their hands on it there's no knowing what they'll do to it in the process of editorialising it and publishing their POV on the incident.

With wikileaks you are able to see the original documents, so even though there may be bias added to some of their reporting (many complained about the shortened & commentated video of the helicopter attack), the original source is also available.

I don't know where you're getting the idea it's cheaper to shoot on film than digital, but in the vast majority of cases it's much, *much*, cheaper to shoot digitally than on film.

Film is costly for several reasons, including having a finite supply of it (when shooting a film you tend to shoot between 3-4x more footage than you end up using. On digital it's much closer to 15-20x more footage), having to scan it to work on it digitally in post production (optical effects and tints being very rare today), and increasingly in today's world, a lack of people trained to handle it.

Not to mention the fact that stock itself is very expensive, and for digital you're either shooting on magnetic media or SSD.

Finally, your assertion that "depth is a known problem with filming" is nonsense. You may be used to seeing films with a shallow field, but it's entirely possible to shoot films without any depth of field at all. There was a movment in the 1930s to this effect - some really classic films such as 'The Rules of the Game' are shot almost entirely in 'deep focus', where there effectively is no depth of field, and everything is in sharp clarity.

"C) With no restrictions on app development, the person who makes a $.99 fart application loses business to the teenager with an hour of free time and an SDK who makes his own one and releases it for free for his own amusement. With the iPhone that app might cost $50 or more to develop"

Ah, but that's not strictly true, is it? Because to get onto the Android Market you need to pay a $25 registration fee. Now, I'll admit the App Store requires a $99 fee, but I think it's worth noting both platforms require some form of payment to actually get onto the main storefront.

I think the other important difference was that during WWI and WWII we were in "total war" with quite literally all resources being devoted to winning the war (or at least Europe was). In times like that, with daily bombardments by the enemy, censorship and the associated positive propaganda is quite important.

However this "War on Terror" hardly affects anyone back home, it's not a vital war by any definition for those that are fighting it now and we should be questioning whether it's valid to be there. In which case, censorship really isn't a good place to be.

Which would be a good point, except it's not just about the screens. Have you read the Android documentation? *Technically*, you're not even guaranteed the device you're writing for will have a touchscreen.