It's not ambiguous but it's a lot easier for a human to parse something like the following:

for (node = list->ss; node; node=node->ss);

Another advantage of the latter is that if that section of code is buggy it's clear what the author intended whereas for the original anyone debugging the code will need to consider whether there's a simple 1 character typo e.g.

for (ss=ss->ss; ss; ss=ss->ss); could also make sense depending on context.

Why make it more difficult than it needs to be?

And the source code was used for what exactly? To create a graph perporting to be something else presented to the world? Or perhaps it was one of many analyses used internally as part of an investigation? I've had a look at some of the code and it's not clear - but perhaps you know more?

The raw data you are referring to is tree ring data that is known to be a poor proxy for temperature for certain periods - to me the correction looks like nothing more than trying to plot a best estimate of temperature over timescales where it is known that proxy data is unreliable.

Though I feel the content of the leaked emails, code and data raise enough questions to warrant an investigation (http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/dec/homepagenews/CRUreview), it does seem to me that there are some people who are keen to question the abundant evidence for climate change, but at the same time are perfectly willing to accept very inconclusive evidence to attack the CRU scientists.

True, but I'd have to say that electricity, and your understanding of electricity, are also two very different things.

I wouldn't regard it as slim. For a hash equal in length to an SMS (assume 160 characters) and a file size of 20GB, the number of collisions would be approximately (2^20000000000)/(2^1280). You can be pretty sure quite a few of those would be blu-ray movies!

In the UK we've gone over to the metric system - how many wasps is this?

I'd think a lot of kids would just click on a dolphin icon just because this represents something "good".

Shouldn't the icon be something that the average kid knows to be representative of "bad"? Like spinach or something?

If you decide to go to Greenwich, try taking the Docklands Light Railway (DLR) from near the Tower of London. They use computer-controlled, driverless trains and as it's mainly overground there are great views of Canary Wharf (the UK's financial centre).

The Docklands Light Railway, London, UK

It's because the UK's e-crime unit is part of the Metropolitan Police. I guess it doesn't make sense for each police authority to have it's own e-crime unit.

PCeU - Police Central e-crime Unit

But that workstation or netbook might be behind a corporate firewall on a network with 120 other users.

I agree - this separation is the norm in just about any corporate environment I've come across. There may be good reasons for staggering the roll-out of trusted software within an organization including: user training issues, ensuring compatibility with other software, making sure hardware is up to scratch etc.

This policy change removes the ability of admins to manage the roll-out of software to multiple users.

The recoil doesn't have the same energy, but it will have the same momentum.

I find it difficult to believe that people can take something like this so seriously to the point they will end their lives. If these people do exist it's very sad that there are people out there who have no way of evaluating information to decide what's real or not. It must make their lives very difficult.

Most of the solar radiation we collect will eventually end up as heat anyway - it's just that we'll use it to do something useful before it ends up as heat.

Though I don't disagree with the gist of what you are saying, the same could be said of any type of ownership. For example ownership of land is really just ownership of certain rights to use that land within a legal framework and in most countries those rights are limited, otherwise it would not be possible to force the compulsory purchase of land.

Like copyright, ownership of physical property and goods has no real meaning outside of a legal framework. The difference as I see it is that the legal framework regarding physical goods is one that the majority of people feel generally comfortable with, but even then there are still arguments about how long these rights should exist (e.g. the arguments for and against inheritance/estate taxes).