Not really. If Microsoft keep winning their patent suits then from their point of view the patent system is hunky dory and they will continue supporting it and using it themselves, to stifle their competition. If Microsoft lose and it hurts enough, then it might force them to rethink their patent strategy. If the US software patent system hurts them enough and keeps hurting them, they might start lobbying to change it.

Just to clarify - the "researcher" is employed by a private company that he founded himself. There is no tax money involved. This is not your tax dollars/pounds at work, this is a private individual, working for his own private company generating some publicity for himself. Take a look at his website. http://www.williamtp.com/ Once again - there is no public money involved.

This is not "scientists hard at work at Cambridge". As a scientist who actually works in Cambridge doing real research, it's pretty offensive to see this phrase attached to a story about a single person (who is not a scientist) drumming up some publicity by releasing a press release about some random old cobblers he's supposedly calculated using his super duper computer program. Can we just all try to be a little less gullible please?

It's the NHS - you don't get a bill.

Good lord! How DARE they want to ride their bikes wearing clothes that are comfortable. They should be persecuted until they stop, or you feel better about yourself - whichever happens first.

Everybody who gives even the smallest shit about the way Sky treat their customers should immediately unsubscribe to all Sky services.

But that would mean that they couldn't watch football. Oh well. It was a nice idea. Carry on screwing everyone with impunity Sky.

Sounds to me like a good source of cheap screens to hack and use with your favourite microcontroller.

"If he’s a boy, he could have been born any day except Tuesday. (Otherwise this case would already have been counted in the first scenario: the older child a boy born on Tuesday)."

So that is ruling out another boy born on a Tuesday, so there can be only one, so the word "only" is implied, which is a restriction that is not explicit in the original question.

It would be a bit clearer if the question was rephrased "I have two children, ONLY one of whom is a boy born on a Tuesday..." Then the answer is a bit more obvious.

Was I the only one that read his shirt as saying "Herpes without capes" due to the placement of his name tag strap? Oh god, it was just me, wasn't it? I'm sick.

And bloody Mandleson and the other wonks in the UK. He'll be reading about what China are doing and drooling at the thought of replicating it here.

It used to be the case that trends in the UK followed from the US, but when it comes to the internet, China is the clear leader.

I got one of their ME1 multimedia enclosures. It's great, and uses Busybox. I can't find the source code anywhere on their web site.

http://www.emprex.com/03_support_02.php?pg_no=10&group=84&kind=1

This is to reduce piracy. Seems reasonable.

"Introduce fixed fines of £750.00 minimum
Introduce statutory damages of £750.00 as a minimum for each act of copyright infringement (such provision exists presently in the United States);

ISPs to provide names of internet account holders
Make all Internet Service Providers produce, on request of a copyright owner or licensee, the identities of the account holders of the internet connection used for illegal file sharing of their copyrighted material. The cost of producing such information would be met by the copyright owner requesting it;

Strict liability for internet account holders
Make the account holder of the internet connection strictly liable for infringements where their connection was used for illegal file sharing

Simplify the court process
Streamline, simplify and speed up the court process of a copyright owner applying for the identities of the account holders from ISPs (this is presently a complex and time-consuming procedure); and

Standardise letters of claim and court documents
Secure approval and consensus for standard-form letters, documents and claims making the process of notification and prosecution of an identified infringement clear and easy to understand, with the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven."

Sorry, did I say reasonable, I meant horrifying.

You might have a point there.

IF there wasn't a huge history of racists calling black people monkeys. If black football players (both in the UK and in europe) weren't greeted with chants of "ooh ooh ooh" and didn't have bananas thrown at them, you might have had a point. As things stand, it is a very common racist insult to liken a black person to a monkey. And let's get this clear - it is a RACIST insult, not an insult about a single person, but an insult about their race.

But I'm sure the person who made the picture was absolutely horrified to discover all this, right?

OK then, what IS the implication? That she's stupid in the same manner as George Bush? Come on. I don't think so. It's obvious to anyone who's not in total denial, that the intention IS to be racist.