In the UK, we have the Privacy In Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 and the Data Protection Act 1998, which, between them, legally guarantee a certain expectation of privacy from nosy sysadmins or managers. There are some good laws here, thankfully; employees should always know their rights.

/initiates magic force field and bounces the bullet 360 degrees, right back at HairyFeet/

Why do they call it the Xbox 720? Because when you see it, you'll turn 720 degrees and walk away.

First Kernel.org and now this? Has someone got it in for FLOSS at the moment?

I had a feeling that was going to be the case, which is why I put the question mark in; I haven't been keeping up on the minor details for a long time.

Aren't the odd decimal places development branches? Hence 2.4 -> 2.6. Ergo 3.1 is the ongoing development branch that will one day be released as 3.2.

Exactly what I was going to say, practically word for word.

"While Google+ will soon do all the things Twitter does, Twitter can't support a long list of the things Google+ supports"

Since when has featureset been Twitter's strong point?! It's managed to own all other competition while staying remaining in and of itself a platform that you can post 140 characters of text on, nothing more.

I believe most (if not all?) of the "hacking" was via default voicemail PINs that were never changed. Even easier!

Well, no, firstly Lulzsec will have done it "for the lulz" not for "an eye for an eye". They also had beef against The Sun after the Ryan Cleary arrest, and The Sun's appaling coverage of it. Any other reason one might throw into the mix is just gravy.

As a viewer, one can find the whole episode deliciously ironic without needing to take either side of the moral argument.

I agree with this; similarly if a game is too hard then a player might find they have purchased content (later levels) to which they are denied access. Granted, this is through their own mediocrity or lack of commitment to attain the relevant skill level, but i think that every player should have the opportunity to play through all the content that they have paid for within the context of how much work that particular person are prepared to put in to achieve it.

Dara O'Briain makes the same point on Charlie Brooker's Gameswipe here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG3aHvPG6H8

Not true at all. While these notes are technically not legal tender in England (technically they are promissory notes from external banks), they are treated as such by banks and retailers, and any note that is a denomination of pounds sterling is universally accepted. So "for all practical purposes", they are indeed useful.

You just gave me a horrible vision of unlockable content appearing only after a certain number of ad-views, or worse still, click through on ads/purchase of sponsor item.

Maybe because the browsers Google, Apple, KDE and Gnome include by default are all built atop third party, open source rendering engines that try to comply to web standards; the OS providers themselves have no hand in forcing or attempting to force (whether deliberate or accidental) the propriety or direction of the web and their rendering process is completely transparent. (!whoosh, fwiw; it just seemed appropriate to reply here)