I was talking about my experience - rather than making sweeping generalisations. Here's an example: Not long ago I wrote a long report about some technical matters, 100 something pages. I used OpenOffice, and I always turn off spell check etc, because most of the words are not in the dictionary anyway. I handed it to a manager, who felt that he needed to put me down for whatever reason - so he ran a spell check and found 1 genuine spelling mistake. Just 1 - but this was apparently a major issue, and one of the brilliantly enlightening comment he made were "Surely you learned how to use a spell-checker when you wrote your thesis at uni?" - Except that when I did that, the IBM PC had only just come to market, and everybody wrote their theses by hand, using ink and paper. He would have realised if he had bothered with thinking, I'm sure.

I can of course shrug that sort of nonsense off, but it has done little to build confidence in the abilities of managers. I mean, one incident means he had a bad day, but this level of idiocy on an almost daily basis, what does that mean? It isn't just ignorance about technical matters - ignorance I can understand and tolerate, it's the scale of it combined with the bloated and mostly misplaced self-assurance, the "I'm richer than you, so I am evidently better and more intelligent".

I think, in many ways what you are doing by holding on to 'the old ways' is the right thing. A lot of these 'next big thing' gadgets are only fads, and anyway, what do you think lies under it all? The next big thing won't happen unless there is a lot of good old-fashioned computer skills happening somewhere, just out of sight. Hold on to what you are doing well, and keep yourself up to date with some of the new stuff, but don't let it take over - it is not worth it.

See, this is one of the reasons why we in Europe have public health care: your fate and health depends less on people that actually have an interest in not helping you when need it; ie, insurance companies.

I don't know about Larry Page - to me he is just another suit that got lucky. I have worked in software engineering for over 20 years, and I have never worked out why people like him are admired; they are always shallow, sometimes embarrasingly ignorant about things and a bit deficient, morally and otherwise. Which is why the got rich, really.

Perhaps not. I think the point they are trying to make is that the traditional diagnoses do not reflect any deep insight into the nature of the disorders - they merely describe a set of symptoms, and trying, like the American manual, to pin it out in ever more specific categories does little to help in that respect.

There is some research to suggest that the actual underlying disorder in the brain may be essentially the same for at least several of the common diagnoses (like schizophrenia and depression), while some disorders that are considered variants of the same may be caused by different, underlying problems. Current treatments are only directed at the symptomatic diagnosis, really, and it would be a lot better to understand the disorders well enough to treat the underlying conditions.

A remote control, so you could get it to make obscene gestures.

In China it is quite common to have something similar: the lights in communal areas, like on staircases in apartment buildings, switch on when you make a noise, like clapping your hands or stomping your feet. Or, as I can attest, if you fart loudly enough.

A small correction: it should have been "... more guns bought from members of the NRA's manufacturers..."

- accompanied by the words "Give your fucking wallet..."

Of course they don't understand - they are politicians. Show some charity.

Another question is whether it is feasible. It may be; but a lot of the point in banning something is simply to set up a set of rules so eg. the police or a regulator can go out and punish those who don't follow the rules. The police can't do anything about things that aren't explicitly against the law, even if those things are obviously wrong; so this is about empowering the police and the regulators, not directly about stopping porn from being accessible over public WiFi.

I'm not sure they are against pornography; this is the sort of thing that comes out of listening to your voters. The thing is, many people are concerned about internet porn, perhaps especially conservative voters, and perhaps especially parents who don't want their children to find that sort of things too easily.

Personally, I'd say 'Screw the children' - except, that sounds a bit wrong, doesn't it? What I mean is, porn is one of the things I just can't be bothered with, and the less chance I have of stumbling over it the better, as far as I am concerned; porn is too much like that idiotic advert for "Cillit Bang": some screeching idiot in a cheap suit trying to sell an indefferent cleaning product.

My, my, aren't you just a fountain of wisdom.

So, according to you:

- trying to reduce pollution is a scam
- being liberal (ie. having an open mind) is to hate America
- preparing for the consequences of climate change is fear mongering
- China is our enemy

As Robin williams once said: "Never have I seen a man in such dire need of a blowjob". Or perhaps a heavy dose of prune juice would do the trick.

I suppose you could say that - I certainly haven't been able to measure the impact mr Assange has had on technology. He was in the news, but so were the "megastars" from Big Brothel. And like them, he has now faded away into obscurity.

For a political party to be taken seriously, it must address the whole range of issues that a government is faced with, especially in the US, I think, where government is formed almost exclusively from one political block. You might get away with being a single-issue party in a Scandinavian country, where there are many parties in parliament, but only just.

This means that you have to have a well thought through economical policy - ie. more than just 'cut taxes', or 'reduce spending'; it will have to tell exactly how and you will have to present some plausible calculations that show what the consequences will be.

There will also have to be policies for everything else that goes on in society: military, criminal justice, social services, etc etc. Good government is not at all about exciting ideals, it is pragmatic and desperately boring, I'm afraid, unless you happen to like to be an executive manager of a whole bunch of things you don't understand and don't actually want to know about.

Microsoft may have many clever people, and it may be cheap to say "fire Ballmer", but at the end of day, the success of a company depends on the leadership being able to make the right decisions.The brilliant employees are important, of course, but if the leaders make the wrong the wrong decisions, all that means is that you go to hell brilliantly instead of incompetently.

As I understand it, it is because those in charge at Apple feel that gay sex is a real pain in the backside. Personally, I wouldn't know; it's not something I have experience with.