Yes, unfortunately, I believe we shouldn't be removing those final couple of checks and balances, technically she still has to sign every bill into law.

How early are we talking, the first document that forms the UK constitution is the Magna Carta in 1215 it does specify the right to representation, it also specifies the basis of a trial, though still this is a court entirely appointed by the crown. In practice this meant the local landlord (original meaning the Lord who owned the Land) was your representative, and a group of those were chosen by the king to be magistrates in a court. With lower level disputes resting solely with the local Lord. Finally the document specifies the crowns' duty to defend the nation. Later other documents have been added to it which amend it in various ways to the constitution the UK has today.

No they don't own any of the airwaves, that is under the purview of Ofcom (was the Radio Telecommunications Agency). They are given bands just like the FCC gives them to your broadcasters, however BBC doesn't have to bid for them and Ofcom is not allowed to revoke the BBCs broadcast licence.

You forgot the Church of England....

Oh and the dictator we ended up with that was Cromwell was a lot better. We invited the monarchy back, though that was when we wrote the The Bill of Rights 1688.

Yes we do, it's just not a single document or set of documents. It's several documents that interoperate to give fairly similar protections and systems as the US constitution, infact it's those rules that the US constitution was built from. The first of the documents is the Magna Carter, other important ones are The Bill of Rights 1688, the Petition of Right, Habeas Corpus Act 1679 and Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949. Together they form the UK constitution. And were formed and agreed on over centuries.

Yes, and no, it's ingrained in the UK's constitution and how we are an autocratic monarchy. The BBC is setup by royal charter directly by the monarch and therefore is not any real business of the government, who are there to technically advise the monarch through the privy council, however other than in certain circumstances (times of war, changing a royal charter, ignoring a royal charter) the monarch is to take their advice. There are certain points in the charter where it allows for the BBC to charge the television licence fee, and that the foreign office has to pay towards the running of BBC world service (the foreign office gets to use it for propaganda and sending encrypted messages at times of war, see the BBC weather report in WWII). But mostly the government has no direct control over the BBC and if they tried to impose it the monarch has a duty to disband and reform the government.

Yeah, I'm sure there was a big argument with oracle threatening to sue when Intel said they were dropping Itanium architecture several months ago.

"material assistance" aka, money, paper, lending printers or video cameras... Not that they can't walk around and put flyers through doors.

Well, in the UK we have police commissioner elections with similar problems at the moment.

Are Source engine, or a variant of it.

"could turn out to be the high-profile game that brings a AAA game engine to the growing Mac and Linux gaming communities"
Is he trying to make out CryEngine 3 will be the first AAA game engine on Mac and Linux? I guess the Quake, ID Tech, Unreal and Source (been on Mac for a while, Linux is in Beta now) engines done count?

Or the imprint was forged, or at least able to be. We don't know how the files were imprinted as no defence was made, he didn't try to refute the evidence. All we know is that the prosecution told the court: “Plaintiff has proprietary software that assigns a unique encrypted code to each member of Plaintiff’s paid websites. In this case, every time the Defendant downloaded a copy of a copyrighted video from Plaintiff’s website, it inserts an encrypted code that is only assigned to Defendant. In this case, the encrypted code for Defendant is: ‘xvyynuxl’,”

Therefore this case was open and shut, the defendant didn't even show.

Better not use the Oyster cards as they are MIFARE classic 1K and are well cracked already.

Head on collision slowed down as much as possible damages the bow sonar dome and possibly the first 2 hull plating, though the triangular shape would help strengthen this section of hull so damage to the cruiser is limited also the triangular shape is sloped to push objects down under the boat (usually it's water being pushed out of the way). So a few days to weeks in dry dock.

If one starts to turn instead and still hits the submarine it now scrapes down the side of boat putting dents in the hull plating as it bounces along it. Now it's weeks to years in dry dock as they replace half the hull.

The sub probably wouldn't get off so lucky.

I expect commendations for the actions of the cruiser crew as the submarine was at periscope depth and therefore only a shadow (possibly) and the periscope above the water to detect it by and they took fast and appropriate action.

Anyway 1) Why on earth didn't the sub crash dive when the sonar operator heard the noisy screws go full back? and 2) What the hell was the sub doing surfacing to periscope depth right ahead of another ship and that close to it?