Why would you think that it's only about tracking cookies? The legislation is quite clear:

(1) Subject to paragraph (4), a person shall not store or gain access to information stored, in the terminal equipment of a subscriber or user unless the requirements of paragraph (2) are met.

(2) The requirements are that the subscriber or user of that terminal equipment -
(a)is provided with clear and comprehensive information about the purposes of the storage of, or access to, that information; and
(b) has given his or her consent

(3) Where an electronic communications network is used by the same person to store or access information in the terminal equipment of a subscriber or user on more than one occasion, it is sufficient for the purposes of this regulation that the requirements of paragraph (2) are met in respect of the initial use.

(3A) For the purposes of paragraph (2), consent may be signified by a subscriber who amends or sets controls on the internet browser which the subscriber uses or by using another application or programme to signify consent.

(4) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the technical storage of, or access to, information -
(a)for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network; or
(b)where such storage or access is strictly necessary for the provision of an information society service requested by the subscriber or user.

The whole law is about storing and/or accessing data stored on a user's PC. Please tell me where 'tracking cookies' are mentioned?

It was found down the back of the sofa - it's the first place one should look for missing things.

"Petrol is a metal tank attached to your car"

"Ink is the stick you use to write on paper with"

"Music is the big square boxes attached to your amplifier"

Close enough it may be, but to definitively state something as fact which is quite clearly not fact (or, even if it is, only in a limited number of cases) when describing why legislation applies is just wrong.

They could quite simply have said, "Cookies are small pieces of text which your computer may choose to store." - there, simple. It also has the plus that it tells the user it's up to them whether they're stored.

But then we're not very hot on taking responsibility for what our computers do.

Ho hum.

...when the people creating the law have no understanding of the subject they're legislating on.

"[cookies] are text files placed on your computer"

Say no more.

...given that you can buy ipod breakout boards on ebay with the serial connectors clearly marked, it doesn't seem to be a particularly well kept secret.

See http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Enhanced-Breakout-Board-Ipod-Iphone-Ipad-/370447835814?pt=UK_CE_MP3Access_RL&hash=item56406962a6 for an example.

Reading this and thinking back, I can't help but think of the Kuebler-Ross model. Back in 2001 MS were in denial. We've been through anger, bargaining and (arguably) depression. Is this now acceptance?

I've got to ask the question, but... why?

I mean, if you don't want anybody to find this stuff when you're dead, why bother collecting it when you're alive?

And for the 'pictures' of the wife, what's wrong with a Truecrypt store?

And you would know this..... how?

Presumably Google have found a way to tag each electron with targetted advertising.

Plug your washing machine into a Google Energy supply and your shirts will come out of the machine covered in ad-words suggestions.

I hate to think what you'll get adverts for when you wash a three day old pair of gruds.

...I can't help but think that the terrorists have won.

However...

1 - The police were plain clothes and did not show any ID
2 - The police were (reportedly) yelling somebody else's name
3 - They caught him, so why shoot him?

To me, the shooting of an innocent man (and remember, at the point he was shot he had been caught and most definitely wasn't running) in such circumstances sounds like a complete over-reaction brought about by terror induced by the government's constant screaming at us about the terrorist threat.

Agreed.

Nope. That's more likely to cause it. The best way of stopping terrorism is to stop sticking your nose into what goes on in other countries. Let them lead their own lives and stop telling them what to do. Of course, I'm not saying that facilitating education isn't a good thing, but start preaching to other countries about how their citizens should live and what they should do and you're no better than the nutter at the mosque/synagogue/church directing their congregation to do evil.

Your argument would hold water if we were actively doing things to protect against future events.

However, we're not.

Somebody takes a shoe bomb in so we ramp up security to check everybody's shoes.

Then somebody takes a liquid bomb in so we restrict which liquids can be carried.

Then somebody takes a knife in so we restrict blades.

Then... and so we...

ad nauseum.

Everything we are doing is reactive. It does nothing to stop future events, nothing at all.

The only benefit to implementing the assinine restrictions we have in place are solely to the politicians who then look like they're doing something about the problem. Of course, they're not. They're doing something about the effects of the problem, not the problem itself.

The problem is how we (or more accurately, the US) is percieved by the rest of the world. That's the problem which needs solving.

Personally, I'd be quite happy to fly with the security checks which were in place 20 years ago. I mean, come on, let's face it, if somebody wants to bring a flight down, they'll do it. Statistically I have about a 5000 times greater chance of being involved in a road traffic accident. The risks are miniscule. Stop worrying about it and enjoy your life.

That's an easy one.

From the Channel 4 remit as laid out in the statement of programme policy, attached to the Channel 4 licence:

“[channel 4 shall] foster the new and experimental in television. It will encourage pluralism, provide a favoured place for the untried and encourage innovation in style content perspective and talent on and off screen”.

Nick.

It would be nice if you got your facts in order before mouthing off.

There is no fine/tax on the purchase of a new TV (I don't think I know a single person who calls them 'tellys' any more).

There is a licence fee - GBP142.50 a year. For that, we get many TV channels, umpteen national radio stations and even more local radio stations.

All of it without adverts.

News quality is absolutely superb. I think it's the biggest news broadcaster in the world which is not owned by some media billionaire or controlled by government. Personally, I'd trust the BBC news over any other source (note I'm not saying they're perfect though).

As a Brit, I'm proud of the BBC. Having visited many many countries, I can safely say there is absolutely no competition. None at all.

Nick.