They could be doing it not just for practical purposes but possibly for setting up a DeBeers of rare earth metals.

Maybe they've just produced more than they can use?

the People's Bank of China cut rates in the world's second largest economy for the second time this year. This was quite unexpected and shows that Chinese policymakers have become seriously rattled by the evident slowdown in their economy.

...once buoyant Western export markets are in ragged retreat, and just how much more investment can the Chinese economy take before knocking up against already manifest levels of industrial overcapacity?

Also discussed is the company's loyalty to Windows and Office, which induced a myopia that repeatedly kept Microsoft from jumping on emerging technologies like e-readers and other technology that was effective for consumers.

They'd be foolish not to be loyal to windows and office. Those were/are two fabulously successful products.

I think there is a strong case for MS ignoring any options for broadening their product range, and just focussing on their existing winners.

It is easier to grow an existing business than build one from scratch.

It's the absolutely poorest countries that have had birth rates of 6-7/women on average

Children are a pension plan. Family, churches, neighbours are welfare insurance.

the evil socialists in Europe who manages to do these things cheaper and more affordable using their communist-era ideology.

Nothing involving the British Government is done 'cheaper'. They strive to find the most expensive option. However perverse.

The Government says it needs £110bn of investment in new energy production plant to keep the lights on. That's slightly down from the £120bn figure the Department had cited earlier, but it needs to be qualified. That sum is "needed" to meet EU climate change target of a 20 per cent reduction in CO2 emission by 2020 using renewable energy production. Given the worldwide retreat from carbon dioxide mitigation policies, and the current financial situation within the EU, it's unlikely that a single European government will adopt a similar commitment, with a similar kind of energy mix.

So why the scare quotes around "need" - just how necessary is that £110bn? It's a good question. The cost of building new open-cycle gas-fired plant to meet the requirement is £13bn. What inflates the figure by a factor of eight is the commitment to do it using renewable energy and nuclear.

the majority of people who are *literate* in science and math (including, what, about 95% of climate scientists?) agree that global warming is real and we need to do something about it.

Not true.

A US government-funded survey has found that Americans with higher levels of scientific and mathematical knowledge are more sceptical regarding the dangers of climate change than their more poorly educated fellow citizens.

The! Science! Says!

Women drivers are more likely to be involved in an accident, according to scientists.

Researchers looked at 6.5million car crashes and found a higher than expected number of accidents between two female drivers.

The scientists also found that women were more likely than men to crash at a junction

The point is, the UK gov't cannot stop it, or change it.

It may well have been instigated by a previous UK gov't, but it is regulation from the EU.

The UK data retension legislation on this is set at the EU level.

I'm toying with the idea of dropping IE6 support, it's down to 2.8%.

What problems does IE7 cause you?

For markets to work, it is only necessary to punish bad behaviour. Belief in hell would satisfy that.

So why was alcohol made illegal?

Regulations are generally made with the best of intentions. That the consequences can be unpredictable, and not wholly positive is an argument for checks on government power, and minimal regulation, not conspiracy theories.

Then my memory was at fault. However, wikipedia reminds me that Lyons contributed finance to EDSAC.

Standingford and Thompson saw the potential of computers to help solve the problem of administering a major business enterprise. They also learned from Goldstine that, back in the UK, Douglas Hartree and Maurice Wilkes were actually building another such machine, the pioneering EDSAC computer, at the University of Cambridge.[1]

On their return to the UK, Standingford and Thompson visited Hartree and Wilkes in Cambridge, and were favourably impressed with their technical expertise and vision. Hartree and Wilkes estimated that EDSAC was twelve to eighteen months from completion, but said that this timeline could be shortened if additional funding were available. Standingford and Thompson wrote a report to the Lyons' Board recommending that Lyons should acquire or build a computer to meet their business needs. The board agreed that, as a first step, Lyons would provide Hartree and Wilkes with £3,000 funding for the EDSAC project, and would also provide them with the services of a Lyons electrical engineer, Ernest Lenaerts. EDSAC was completed and ran its first program in May 1949.[2]

Following the successful completion of EDSAC, the Lyons' board agreed to start the construction of their own machine, expanding on the EDSAC design.