48% say "50% more battery efficient".

Part of the problem was one of precedence: many holders of domains under .co.uk, .org.uk and several other existing subdomains were happy with the idea of getting a shorter domain - but very unhappy with the thought that they might lose it to a competing domain owner with the same name in a different sub-domain - or even to a trademark holder with no exact equivalent at the moment.

Another part of the problem was Nominet's proposal for "security". In the name of building "trust and confidence in .uk" Nominet had proposed to extend itself from traditional registry options to scanning websites for malware, and using its power to suspend domains to enforce clean-up. Not surprisingly, this was controversial.

Note also that Nominet has said it might come back with some variant of these proposals later, perhaps extending its "security" scheme to all the existing .uk domains.

I've been reading since a friend referred me to an interesting rant site called Chips and Dips. I guess he must have found it on "What's new on the Internet" or something. So, to CmdrTaco and all the team that followed, a big Thank You for one of three sites I still check every day.

Let's set aside the quibbles, and for the sake of argument just roll with the notion that these writers are mere shills for the Oracle and Google, respectively (after all, that's the notion that clearly lies behind this ruling).

Isn't the right to speak anonymously protected by the First Amendment? Doesn't that protection extend to Oracle and Google too?

(I know corporate speech isn't as vigorously protected under the First Amendment, but it is still protected somewhat. And this speech isn't advertising (as with most limitations on corporate speech), it's closer to legal/political commentary).

I would be most interested to see this in SCOTUS.

2kW is an "average home"? Seriously?

My induction cooktop has a rated load of 11kW!

Rated loads on some other devices:
PC power supply: 800W
Plasma TV: 420W
Home cinema amp: 870W
Stereo amp: 800W

I also have an electric oven (two actually), a washer-dryer and a dishwasher. It is by no means inconceivable that all these devices would be running simultaneously. And that's without counting the multiplicity of relatively low power devices, which will all add up.

In common with most British people I don't have air-con. The heating is gas powered, but for many people in apartments it will be electric.

Now I know a lot of people will cook with gas, and my entertainment system is more than many people may have (although I imagine it's not unusual amongst slashdotters). And of course this gear won't draw the full rated load in normal use. Nonetheless, it seems pretty clear that a 2kW supply certainly couldn't power my home. Am I so atypical?

I agree. You're trying to solve a commercial issue (and possible mistake) with a (poor) technical solution.

As you describe it, the original contract wanted the data destroyed at the end of the contract term. You've just had the contract *renewed*, which is another word for "extended". Why exactly would anyone want the data destroyed in mid-contract?

Your contact negotiators ought to have realised that the government didn't need you to destroy the data until the end of the new contract, and written that into the new contract, thereby over-riding the old one. More than saving you the money, it was one of your advantages as the incumbent contractor: compared with a competitor, you could perform the second contract term at lower cost simply because you could off-set the data destruction cost for which you were already contracted simply by writing into the new contract permission to defer that destruction! This would allow you to underbid any potential competitor - or if there is no likely competitor, writing deferral in would be a straight profit to you at no cost to the customer. That kind of win-win is *exactly* what your contract negotiators are paid to spot and capitalise on.

As poster above says, your contract office can still possibly rescue this by simply writing and asking for permission to not destroy the data until the end of the renewed contract term. All the same, missing this at contract negotiation time is something that should come up in somebody's annual performance assessment.

Wipe the contents of the user location database? We need an app for that!

OP said

While ISPs have to hand over log details for free in criminal cases, they are free to charge in civil cases

Actually, ISPs routinely charge the cost of obtaining, processing and handing over log details when asked for it by law enforcement authorities under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, including when the data is needed for criminal investigations.

ISPs aren't allowed to make a profit from providing this data, whether for civil litigation or criminal investigations, just recover their costs. However ISPs' costs can be substantial: ISPs don't just spend time fishing out the records and handing them over, there are also significant overheads in training and systems to ensure this data is only handed over when it should be, to make sure the requesting authority is genuine and the ISP isn't being subjected to an imposter trying a social engineering attack, and so forth. Larger ISPs/telcos run dedicated units to cope with the high volumes of request from public authorities (in total, hundreds of thousands of RIPA requests are made each year, although most of these are for telephony data rather than Internet accounts).

For confirmation see Chapter Four of the relevant Code of Practice.

Holder said US District Judge Vaughn Walker, who is handling the case, was given a classified description of why the case must be dismissed so that the court can 'conduct its own independent assessment of our claim.'"

Would any (real) lawyers on Slashdot care to comment on how the Federal Rules of Procedure regard ex parte communications between the respondent and the judge, held secret from the plaintiff?

As usual, being English, I'll be waiting for Guy Fawkes night next week.

Remember, remember the Fifth of November,
The Gunpowder Treason and Plot,
I see no reason
Why Gunpowder Treason
Should ever be forgot.
Guy Fawkes, Guy Fawkes, t'was his intent
To blow up the King and Parli'ment.
Three-score barrels of powder below
To prove old England's overthrow;
By God's mercy was he catch'd
With a dark lantern and burning match.

Of course, some unfamiliar with the custom will think it horrendously anti-Catholic (and originally it was - still is in Lewes) but time and centuries of peace can take the sting out of the most blood-thirsty customs. So in England it's just a traditional bonfire and fireworks night.

I wouldn't expect it in Ireland though...

I'm guessing many Americans know of Guy Fawkes from a recent film.

This doesn't even work in licensing with proper commercial corporations like the record labels and film studios. It will fall foul of "Hollywood Accounting". Normally this is applied to rip off artists who are promised a percentage of profits (they find the company they've dealt with has made no profits, they've all been moved into a different company). This is slightly harder with gross revenue, but not much.

Will this achieve anything more than raise funds for the ACLU?

Of course certain extreme kinds of speech are not protected by law. But there are criminal standards for incitement, harassment etc and this appears to go well beyond them. It's so overbroad not only doesn't it stand a hope of surviving constitutional scrutiny, it won't even persuade a unduly deferential junior court to ignore/deny that there is a constitutional bar.