This is good news. Now we know the underlying cause for 65% of cancers, Big Pharma can start the necessary research on creating a drug to prevent Bad Luck.

I'm sure any viable drug would be a best seller (for those lucky enough to be able to afford it).

Remembering back to the dim and distant past, yes us boys read the Hobbit (and the Lord of the Rings itself) when that age. Also, as I remember, reading interest was kept alive by the works of such authors as Sven Hassel and Ian Fleming. Just about readable with just enough sex and violence to keep us interested!

Of course, we got to know of these latter authors from older boys, not from teachers!

Three stars in the Observer and four stars in the Guardian.

I'll still be going to watch it with friends between Christmas and the New Year.

Not sure why this is being modded 'Funny'. Quite a few 'environmentalists' are starting to revisit Nuclear Power, e.g. George Monbiot (A regular columnist in the Guardian newspaper).

Personally, I can't help thinking that technology may have advanced since we last built nuclear reactors. Certainly I think any IT would be more advanced - just don't connect to the internet!

I agree. There is no-one thinking 50 to 100, or even 200 years ahead. Short term is the order of the day. It will be the future generations that suffer.

I don't have children, but if I did I would be intensely concerned with the environment I would be leaving them - and their children in turn. Yet as far as I can tell, those I know who do have children seem unconcerned. It is the immediate future that interests them ("new shiny") rather than the long term.

It didn't used to be like this. The old European cathedrals were planned and built over decades, if not centuries (Cathedral Building in the Middle Ages).

In 50 to 100 years time when fossil fuel resources start to run out, our children's children will have to do what we should be doing now, and develop renewable resources. They will have to do so with a (most likely) more hostile environment (due to climate change) and without the reserves of fossil fuel to help kick-start the change.

Maybe using all these fossil fuels won't cause catastrophic climate change, and the naysayers are wrong. However, it seems to me to be a gamble, the stakes of which are the future lives of our children and their children. Unfortunately it seems to be a gamble many are willing to make.

I would rather we didn't make this gamble. I would rather we "bite the bullet" now. Take the hit, make sacrifices to our lifestyle and go hell-bent for long-term sustainable renewables. For the sake of our children (and their children).

We won't, which I find heartbreakingly sad. The only consolation I have - and it is an empty consolation at that - is that my descendants won't be affected, as I don't have any children.

I get prompted to download this regularly by my bank. However I use Linux, and they don't produce a Linux version. No idea if they plan to do so either.

Strangely, I'm not that concerned. I would download and use if I used Windows though, even with the new EULA.

Reading the blog, he would not have been fired for using the gendered pronoun, but for refusing to accept it being changed.

It's important. If you don't think it is, try looking for any gendered pronoun in (say) the Eclipe Documentation (Think IBM) or in the Java Tutorial (think Oracle).

And no, I haven't looked at it in depth, but I trust both IBM and Oracle to use gender neutral pronouns (except for the rare cases when they want to specify the gender of a person, as in "Alice" or "Bob"). What is good enough for IBM and Oracle (and every other corporation out there) is good enough for Joyent.

Sorry, can't share your outrage. Using gender-neutral pronouns for documentation seems reasonable to me, especially if viewable by the public, and if that documentation is linked to your company. To refuse to correct gendered pronouns just seems perverse.

From the first review I stumbled upon;

Eh?

You forgot to mention "graph-plotters". Absolutely fascinating to watch in action. Around in the late '80s and early '90s for drawing A4 diagrams. Run from an old-style IBM PC.

(But then I also remember punched cards!)

I like physical books - there are people like me who still buy them. I like dead-tree newspapers - I, like many, still get theirs daily. I like dead-tree magazines - easy to flick-through and just browse. So that's why.

Oh, and yes, I am a subscriber to Linux Voice.

(So to the magazine and its staff - thanks).

Maybe consciousness isn't dependent on a physical body. However a physical anaesthetic when applied to a physical body can certainly "un" it! (albeit temporarily).

Can computers become conscious? How would you anesthetise a conscious computer?

Today octopodes, tomorrow computers. See - relevant!

Ho hum. Some actual data:

Mean Central England Temperature Annual Anomalies, 1772 to 8th November 2014

Global-average temperature records (Global average temperature anomaly 1850 - 2012) One data set from a part of the UK, and one a global data set. The last few years are interesting in the UK set, and the trend in the global set is clear. By the way, note the ".gov.uk" moniker. This is an official UK government organisation, independent of party politics.

Thank you

I wasn't accusing you of lying. What I wanted was some examples. (I've no particular agenda).

May I be permitted to make some observations?

Firstly making an incorrect prediction isn't lying as such, especially if the mistake is admitted.

Secondly, I'm not sure Al Gore is a scientist (I believe him to be a politician), so I'm not sure I would take his prediction seriously. (Now if he was quoting a scientist or scientists, that would be different. Was he?) (I should add that I'm not a US citizen, so forgive me if I have a tendency to disregard what politicians on either side of your political divide say. I don't particularly trust what my politicians say either, whatever their politics).

Thirdly, I'm curious as to where they say that you would face numerous hurricanes more powerful than Katrina. I would expect a scientist (as opposed to a politician) to make a statistical statement. Not to say that you are wrong - it just sounds like a peculiar statement for a scientist to make.

Fourthly, whenever I see predictions on ocean level rise, the timescale is usually hundreds of years (i.e. "by 2100 ..."), so I'm intrigued as to where the statement that beach houses in Florida should be under water comes from. When is this meant to be by?

Finally, as to "NO WARMING", there is a difference between climate and weather. As to weather, we've just had the driest (and one of the warmest) Septembers in the UK on record, and have just had the warmest Halloween on record. As this is weather rather than climate, I am happy to leave it to the climate experts (i.e. scientists, and not politicians) to come to conclusions.

One thing I can predict, when we find out for certain whether our current activities cause climate change (i.e. in a couple of hundred years or so, when all the fossil fuels have been used up and the consequences of using them as we have are better understood, not just by scientists but by politicians and the population at large), it won't affect me. I'll be long gone. As I don't have (and now won't have) children, it's not going to affect any of my descendents either.

Unlike us, those who are around however will know (experience) the truth. You are certain of your position on this matter. As I don't think humanity will change it's behaviour, I hope for their sake you are right.