I have a PRS-T1. I've never bought anything from Sony's store (it only existed in the UK for a bit over two years, compared with the eight or so in the US!). To my knowledge, the device supports ADEPT only, and once the content is decrypted once it is forever accessible on that device unless you revoke it (there is no online checking). So, uh, at least content already readable will remain as such on devices already authorised.

Also note that ADEPT has long been broken (it's got a good cryptographic basis, but there's almost no obfuscation in the system, so it's pretty useless as DRM), so it's /really not difficult/ to break content out.

Quickly Googling makes it sound like customers had their accounts transferred over to Kobo (thereby losing no content), unless they opted out (and I haven't looked closely to see what happened in that case).

The Apply for your first adult passport page tells you what documentation you need, which makes it pretty clear. The common case of British-born-of-British-parents is your birth certificate (to establish you are, well, you) and one of your parents' certificates (to establish you are indeed a British citizen).

It's all in the definition of "processing" and "controller", which are both very vaguely defined. (The web was scarcely in mind in the early 90s when the Directive was written; it's planned to be reviewed to deal with such cases but there's nothing finalised yet.) My memory was that the ruling brought specific attention to Google's cross-referencing of the index to advertising it sells, but that's not correct. So, uh, ignore me. :)

(Disclaimer: I haven't actually looked at the law in about a couple of years. My memory may not be entirely correct. You can look this up for yourself, the act in question is the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.)

One may declare a spent conviction on an application; an employer may ask about any spent convictions but the employee is under no obligation to give the truthful answer (i.e., one can always answer, "I have no spent convictions"), and any knowledge of spent convictions cannot (in general) be held against the person seeking a job.

Note that there are a number of professions where one is always obliged to declare prior offences, regardless of whether spent or not, including your example of a child sex offender applying for a job at a day care centre. I believe that in such cases they are legally obliged to refuse the job application.

The restrictions are far harsher as to when spent convictions are admittable before any judicial authority (which in this case has a very broad definition), where they legally cannot ask, and if asked one is exempt for perjury for failing to truthfully admit. The exemptions here are primarily pertaining to adoption and firearms.

Records of convictions are always on the public record; however, they do not (ordinarily) appear in their criminal record. (A police caution is not a conviction but is on the complete criminal record; a caution is spent immediately upon being given.)

My understanding of the judgement is such that it is pretty clear that the original source would equally be obliged to remove it (but they weren't party to the case).

Also note that not all search engines are necessarily bound by this; the whole thing is dependent on the "processing" of data (which thereby binds you to the Data Retention Directive), and it was held that Google as an advertiser processes the crawled dataset.

Bizarrely, listed separately, is Internet Explorer 11 for Windows 7. IE11 runs on Win 7, Win 8.1, and Windows Server 2008 R2. That's 56% per the above figures, a far cry from 6%! Also, another 6% can freely upgrade (from 8 to 8.1) to a supported version. Note the 25% of users on Windows XP have no security updates, and the 6% on Windows 8 have until 1 December 2016 to upgrade to 8.1 (or later) to continue receiving security updates.

Then why do you even have crosswalks, or zebra crossings or whatever you call them? That's stupid. Not only can't you figure out what side of the road to drive on, but you can't figure out that roads are for vehicles?

Because at crossings (of whatever sort) vehicles are *required* to yield to pedestrians. The only requirement on pedestrians at zebra crossings is they look to ensure they don't walk out in front of a car unable to stop in the distance to the crossing (i.e., if you walk out 10m away from a car travelling at 30mph, you're at fault when it hits you; if you walk out 100m away from a car travelling at 30mph, the car is at fault when it hits you).

Aside from crossings, you are permitted to cross where it is safe to do so without impeding the flow of traffic. (A common case where such things end up impeding the flow of traffic is where a vehicle is not indicating that it is turning, and a pedestrian walks over the end of the road where the vehicle intends on turning. In such cases the vehicle is at fault for not indicating.)

From my experience in America, crosswalks are frequently more dangerous than jaywalking is here, with cars speeding round right-on-red, and then having to slam on brakes when they find a pedestrian on the crosswalk at the junction; another case that I remember is a crosswalk just beyond a blind crest cars where were doing 50mph over, where they likely couldn't have stopped in the distance from seeing the pedestrian to the crosswalk. If that were here I'd simply have crossed at the crest where I could see the road is clear before crossing.

After the fall of the Soviet Union Russia didn't send bombers to probe NATO and US defenses until the last few years. When and how that is done can also be a signal.

2007. That's seven years ago now, and long before any dispute over Ukraine, though is around the time of the Russo-Georgian war. (And "NATO and US" defences is a bit redundant, given the US is part of NATO. AFAIK these incurious are typically dealt with by the RNoAF and RAF alone, with the USAF having nothing to do with them, and as such they don't probe US defences.)

Disregarding him as nothing more than a marketer is disingenuous at best --- Chris Beard was one of the early guys working on porting Linux to PA-RISC in the late 90s. He most certainly has experience of software engineering, and not just marketing it.

At least Flash Lite has been ported by third parties (the Wii's port was done by Opera), so it's not per-se clear that a already-supported platform was needed for the sake of Flash compatibility.

The constant, massive, torque from idle would surely be massively useful for a vehicle weighing multiple tons and needing quick acceleration?

And while Google are obviously willing to license usage of this to some extent (e.g., Presto-Opera's geolocation used the Google coarse location API), relying on licensing something from a third party (and one whom is frequently a competitor, given the number of markets Google are now in) is risky, especially given Google has fairly aggressively deprecated APIs before, at times without replacement.

My MBP is a mid-2007 model: it has a replaceable RAM and battery, which appears to be what the OP cares about --- it predates Apple slimming them down further (later MBPs had replaceable hard drives, too, at the same thickness). Side by side you can see the T410's opening above the full height of the MBP, as it's almost 50% thicker.

Compared with the MBPs, though, it's a brick. My T410 is almost double the thickness of my older MBP.

And in the UK, the T410 was only available with a 1280x800 screen --- which is crazy low for a 14.3" laptop. I don't know if that's changed since, though.

Opera tried changing to blocking third-party cookies by default, and had it break a lot of major Russian sites. Needless to say, the change lasted from 10.50 to 10.51 --- with less than a week between those releases.