Jokes aside, THIS.

Cup holders are essential. I can live without Twitbook integration, voice activation, in-car DVD and all that other bollocks but cup holders are a basic need in an automobile.

If you're going for a long drive, you'll need a bottle of water and this sits in a cup holder. Same with transporting a drink from where you buy it to where you drink it. Especially if its in a cup instead of a bottle.

I'm one of those people who instantly turn off whenever I get an Interstitial. If I dont get taken directly to the page I wanted I'll mash the back button.

The main reason is that if I'm going to a site, I want a specific page and when you dismiss an interstitial 9 times out of 10 instead of taking me to the content I want to view, it drops me on the sites main/landing page.

Its the same with popup/popover ads. On mobile these are a pain in the arse to close and they interfere with the content I'm trying to view, so again I'll just mash the back button until its gone.

Clothing is among the fundamental elements of civilization. Clothes make the man -- always hated this, but seems true enough: dress affects behavior, behavior determines performance. It certainly doesn't seem fair that those among us with poor taste should be punished for it, but nearly everyone I've ever encountered is very quick to judge based on incredibly short and shallow impressions. If one desires success in corporate career, one will make themselves more attractive, less offensive, and embrace a level of vane pageantry. Yet most prefer to dress how they feel, or as an adjustment to their attractiveness to increase or decrease the level of their social engagement.

If they are summaries of cases, they probably could be considered creative works and eligible for copyright. However, if they are being used by the courts to decide cases, we would have the odd situation where a private party was writing law... and if they were then considered "law" then probably not eligible for copyright.

Are the annotations creative works of a third party? If so, why are they being used to decide cases?
If they are "indexes" they are not eligible for copyright.

I was wondering... What are these "annotations"?
Are they creative interpretations of the law written by a third party? (probably copyright eligible but odd to have a third party creatively interpreting the law and having that used by the courts)
- Are they "indexes" (as some have stated)? (probably not copyright eligible since no "creative" work done)
- Are they "case law examples"? (probably not copyright eligible since these cases would be a product of the court system and therefore not copyright eligible)

Whilst I dont expect that Facebook, Google or Microsoft will deliberately steal money, they certainly wont make it as hard as the banks currently have to.

Beyond this, the possibilities for datamining and targeted advertising is just scary. Roseanne Barr and Margaret Thatcher erotic fan fic scary.

That being said, I'd still not keep money stuffed in a mattress, I'd buy some precious metals and keep them buried in the back yard as metals have the chance to appreciate.

No, of course not. In fact my bank requires me to remember 4 PINs, 3 passwords and one user ID. How idiotic is that?

For your bank.
That holds your money (or at least your debt). That you will hold responsible for anything that goes wrong.

Not stupid in the slightest.

Having a different PIN/Password for your card, telephone banking and internet banking as well as a second factor of authentication for internet banking transfers compartmentalises different attack vectors so that someone who overhears your telephone pin cant use that to access your netbank.

These measures are in place because if a scammer empties your bank account or tries to buy a flight in Belarus with your credit card, you'll be demanding the bank return YOUR money. As it is the banks responsibility to secure the funds and credit they hold, it is also the banks prerogative (and duty in many cases) to force you to follow effective security protocols even if you dont like it.

You've gone and provided an excellent example of what the summary was talking about. As a non-expert you are not aware (and are likely to go into denial) of the security risks associated with banking. As an expert I'm aware of why those measures are in place.

So two doctors being paid for the same job... The medical-industrial complex approves.

OK, would it help if we changed that to 99% of marketing is deceptive by nature.

For every marketing campaign that is honest, there are 99 that aren't. I cant even think of a marketing campaign that is global and honest. Every one tries to convey an impression that isn't true. Axe/Lynx deodorants wont make you irresistible to the opposite sex, drinking coke doesn't mean you're doing wacky things with attractive friends, every airline advertises flying as a pleasant experience in half empty cabins, not being crammed into a cigar tube with 300 others a recliner in your face, a kid kicking the back of your seat and some idiot cropdusting rows 34-47 every 20 mintues. Honesty in advertisement is a big problem because the honest truth is that products are not that good.

Would you buy a Mercedes if the ad said "Not much better than a Nissan, but twice the price" or coke if it said "We'll give you Type 2 Diabetes, but you're hooked on sugar anyway"? Of course not, honesty is an pariah for advertisers.

You ask why users break policies.

You will get excuses.

What it will always boil down to is the fact the user thought they could get away with it.

The most common excuse is the blanket "but it stops me from doing my work" and my response is "how". This is where 99% of the "it stops me from working" excuses fail. Most of the time it prevents them from doing things they way they're used to or would like to and its easier to complain than learn something new.

What a lot of people dont get is that many policies are in place to prevent them from doing something stupid and as a sysadmin I've had to attend many meetings where a user has done things their own way and lost data.

But I've seen strict policies that cost companies money and clients for the sake of being perfect.

I worked for a liquidator for about 6 months. I've seen many companies lose everything because they had no or extremely lax policies.

Many taxi companies have owner drivers who drive their own cars. In fact most chauffeur/town car systems are like this. London's minicab system is entirely owner-driver. Are they not taxi companies?

A taxi company is a company I employ to provide a private car to transport me from point A to B. The details of how it does this is inconsequential.

A tech company is a company I employ to provide me with a tech (meaning computer) solution.

This court ruling is a foregone conclusion, but bureaucracy must be served.

Drive by wire is not inherently bad. A lot of very good cars have DBW now.

The problem is that drive control systems are being connected to entertainment and communications systems that have links to the outside world.

There should be an air gap or at the very least a one way connection (as in the Tx pairs physically cut) between systems that have access to drive/engine controls and systems that have connections to the outside world. Sadly this wont happen until someone actually dies because of it (and even then they'll use every dirty trick in the book to avoid it) because there are too many vested interests (law enforcement, data miners, "services" like onstar) and auto makers are too lazy to do things properly.

Paying extra to keep an old mk IV Supra on the road seems like it's becoming a more attractive prospect every day.

For bonus points, get the credit card in your wife's name.

If she gets suspicious or finds out, start adding small amounts of LSD to her food.

I've never understood the obsession with threesomes, do you really want to disappoint two women at once?