To'o man'y intru'sive apo'strophe's.

Let's look at it this way.

Say, for instance, it has been suggested a popular soft drink gave you cancer. The company who make the drink have investigated this, found it to be true, but are spending millions covering up, denying and rubbishing the suggestions. We're talking a massive scale lie and fraud here. They are being so successful at doing this that you are convinced, and are happily continuing to consume the drink. You've got a can of it by your computer right now.

A few years from now you're going to discover you've been lied to, and it's almost certainly going to kill you.

Still think you'll have nothing to complain about? Did they force you to buy that can? Are they putting it to your lips? Nope, it's all your decision. The fact that you are being tricked doesn't matter. Man up, sucker.

Well the problem there is you're drunk, not that you can drive. C is a great language, and it gives its programmers a great deal of power and flexibility. But with that comes responsibility not to code like an idiot. If you're going to wield its power carelessly, of course you're a danger.

Perhaps C's greatest weakness is that it places too much trust in the coder, where other languages don't.

I'd rather not bare this MP at all, in mind or otherwise.

But I'll bear your suggestion in mind.

Examples?

The BBC is regularly berated by the current government. And by all other political parties. Which is usually a good indication that they're getting it right.

No, I think you'll find that was written in all seriousness. Not all writers and readers of Conservapedia may agree whole-heartedly on its sentiments, but Conservapedia has never had a problem with contributors bringing their own personal opinions into edits. (As long as they don't markedly differ from the owners of Conservapedia.)

You really are new at this marriage thing, aren't you? Start constructing your man-cave, it will be the only acceptable location for your gaming. Half way solutions, no matter how well they address they claimed problems, is just wasting your time before the inevitable.

Aren't you the entitled one? It isn't your stuff.

Well that seems like a reasonable request, but companies are not obliged to help you fix the situation you've got yourself into. You in a situation where you am 100% to blame, but somehow you get to demand that the company assist you?

If I bought a Blueray and lost the case, so I no longer knew who appears in it, are the company obliged to run a service where I can buy an empty case to replace it? After all, I already have the disk, and my licence, they have no right to force me to buy them again!

Or if I bought a pack of cards, do I get to demand that the manufacturer of the cards also sells single cards, for when I lose one? What use is a pack missing one card? I demand the manufacturer provides this service because I am a customer who has already purchased 51 cards!

There comes a point when there is no profit to be made in helping out customers who are in a position of their own doing. Companies have no obligation to provide additional services that don't benefit them.

I believe a great many criminal acts get discussed on the streets on London. What is Boris Johnstone and the London councils doing about it, or are they providing a self haven for these people?

Your license to play the movie is on the disk. Sony wants to verify this license. If you break the disk, you have destroyed your license. If you copy the disk without the license on it, you cannot prove you have a license.

Unless you're expecting Sony to keep a record of all those who have purchased a licence, by whatever means through millions of retail channels, you need to be the one who retains the licence. If you destroy the license, or keep it elsewhere, what proof do you have that you are licensed?

I'm not saying it isn't a pain, but it's perfectly logical and reasonable.

Keep up. We're discussing Bluray and Cinavia.

I'm not seeing the problem with a company, if that is how they wish to conduct their business, making it hard for people to duplicate their output without payment. Exactly what is "consumer hostile" about ensuring consumers have paid for what they consume? Hint for you; if you didn't pay for it, you are not a customer of the company, and why should they care if you are inconvenienced?

If you buy a BluRay disk and ruin it, then that's your problem and you should take more care. Why should the company who sold you it be obliged to do anything about it?

Seriously, are people still on about this?

The root kit scandal was a case of corporate ham-fisted ignorance dabbling in something they knew too little about. A ransomware attack on a different arm of the company, 9 years later, affecting people who had absolutely nothing to do with the root kit, is a criminal act.

If you're wearing a smile because of this you have very strange ideas about what's morally right, and really should be finding something more positive in life to make you happy.

Which federal government?