We don't have a problem with teens viewing porn in the UK. It just doesn't happen any more. In fact, we've been remarkably effective at stopping it compared to half the other countries in Europe, which have seen a recent surge in porn viewing for reasons no-one can identify.

Me too, though of course in our day, the world was much less connected and much less reliant on the technology. The worst we could have done after getting root access to the entire IT infrastructure at my school would have been look at what our classmates had been drawing in Paint or something. Today these systems host much more important and sensitive information and security breaches would be a much bigger deal.

And on that note, am I the only one less concerned by the behaviour of an impressively curious seven-year-old and more concerned by an official, professionally-managed system holding potentially sensitive data that is so insecure that even a seven-year-old could hack it?!

"elevated levels" is FUD. Wheres the evidence there are harmful levels?

Yeah, If we and they were actually outsourcing almost exclusively to second and third world economies it wouldn't be a problem at all. /s

Wagie, wagie, get in cagie,
Put on the specs, obey the pagie.
Glowing screens before your eyes,
Voices whisper hums and lies.

Parcels beep their numbered fate,
The pace is timed, your path ornate.
The chains are soft, the leash is sleek,
A velvet yoke upon the meek.

Ten thousand doors, ten thousand gates,
But none are yours; you shift the weights.
The lenses gleam, the data streams,
Efficiency devours dreams.

Yet somewhere past that tinted glass,
A question flickers, sharp as brass:
If power shrinks to fit a lens,
Who truly drives, where will it end?

Cash is essential to liberty. When ALL dollars can be tracked (and the war on cash is getting us there) any individual or group can be selectively removed from the economy, punished individually with inescapable fines, soft punished through social credit schemes and otherwise abused. Which is exactly what the notorious They want. I'm not joking even a little bit. As evading money tracking is punished over and over by money laundering laws, which don't punish any other crime, we approach the day the tree of liberty needs to be watered.

If a little green man walked up to Curiosity and drew a dick on its chassis, they would see it not as proof of extraterrestrial intelligence so much as an anomaly to be photographed, cataloged, and subjected to endless peer review. Teams of engineers would spend months verifying that it was not dust, damage, or a prank. Entire conferences would be held to debate whether the âoegreen manâ was in fact a glitch in the roverâ(TM)s sensors, a reflection artifact, or some other failure of interpretation. Only after exhaustive testing, replication of findings, and careful wording of press releases would they dare to acknowledge even the possibility of alien life. Their fear of being wrong would delay even the most obvious revelation.

No, it's a distraction from their malice. Let me count just a few of the ways.

insider trading
voting themselves pay raises
patriot acts infidum.
slipping evil things into omnibus bills.
taking bribes.
legalizing the taking of bribes.
supporting the shadow government.
lying to constituents.
taking convenient breaks and vacations -- lots of them.

0 calorie steak when?

He didn't say middle income as a share of aggregate income hasn't plummeted. He said a "good deal" of the shrinkage went to people who became richer. I'm not sure he's right but if you're going to argue his point, please don't be disingenuous.

Isn't is sweet how Microsoft wants to give them a big hug, and extend that support until all doubt is extinguished.

Strict licensing of emerging technologies is often self-defeating, slowing adoption and inviting competitors to outpace you. In early stages, value lies in network effects, developer engagement, and iterative improvement, not raw technical advantage. Licensing throttles these dynamics by limiting who can use or build on your technology, reducing the combinatorial value that comes from broad participation. This pushes others to create open alternatives, making the originator irrelevant.

Philosophically, this reflects Metcalfe's Law, which applies beyond social networks: value scales with the number of participants, whether they are devices, apps, or developers. It also illustrates Schumpeterian Creative Destruction, which argues that markets advance through waves of innovation that dismantle incumbents. When firms try to protect a fragile lead with legal barriers rather than innovation, they often create space for rivals to bypass them entirely, leapfrogging with superior, more accessible designs. History shows that "creative destruction" punishes firms that cling to scarcity and control, rewarding those who embrace iteration and openness. Open innovation theory further reinforces this, showing breakthroughs thrive in porous, collaborative environments.

History supports this:
-IBM's open PC architecture enabled widespread cloning and adoption, while Apple's closed Mac stayed niche.
-Sony's Betamax licensing drove manufacturers to adopt VHS, which dominated despite weaker specs.
-Tesla's open patents accelerated EV infrastructure and cemented its leadership.
-QWERTY vs. Dvorak demonstrates that openness and early adoption can outweigh technical merit.

Restrictive control signals scarcity thinking and isolates companies. Openness builds ecosystems, standards, and staying power, while licensing walls create space for faster, more accessible alternatives. For a firm hoping to shape a market, early openness is a strategic advantage, not a concession. Charles Strauss called it.

I find that reassuring: It's the sort of thing billionaires do upon receiving a poor prognosis.

No no, not refusing to answer a question. Constantly dodging all the important questions. And inappropriate laughter is creepy for a reason: it demonstrates certain tenancies that have, when ignored, led to enough people dying or otherwise not reproducing that we've developed an INSTINCTIVE DISTRUST of it. I get that you want to make this about what's between her legs, but it really, really isn't.

It doesn't seem like a strong opinion to me, but here, let me repeat it for you.

You can be a woman and not laugh at weirdly inappropriate times, all while refusing to ever actually answer a question. She was just an awful candidate.