Have a recent BMW? There is a known vulnerability where you can copy an actual key inside the car, using the data in the car's computer and the car's own transponder. BMW has not fixed this and won't fix it. The vulnerability is that BMW relied on being the only source of blank, programmable keys and having all the programming equipment in house.

Note that "in house" actually ment "at every BMW dealership" rather than "only at BMW HQ in Munich". They may well have not made any of the parts of the system themselves.

Once someone reversed the key system (the car itself contains unprotected, unencrypted key strings), they found out what electronics to put in the key and made blank keys and software to program them using the keys found in the car's computer. This is a massive problem that was out for probably at least a year before there was enough public attention to the enormous theft of BMWs with that system. I think that the number of BMWs stolen had quadrupled in that period. Right now, since BMW won't fix it, getting a BMW that suffers from this vulnerability is prohibitively expensive to insure, making their second hand value very low.

It isn't uncommon for car makers to refuse to fix faults unless force to by a regulator. Since this fault does not affect safety it may well be outside the remit of any regulator in Europe.

Right now, there's no indication that VW can and will fix this problem once it gets out.

It may already be "out" so far as car thieves are concerned. Wonder how many parts suppliers VW and BMW have in common.

And they call that a democracy, once, every 4 years, I have a choice between an evil one and a more evil one.

Maybe that's why in Classical Athens (where the concept of "democracy" was invented) they used "legislative juries" rather than elected representatives. The US Government very much modelled on that of Imperial Rome.

The people that wrongly declare that there were only two choice are a major part of the problem. Thats you, a major part of the problem.

I live in the state of Connecticut. We have a history of taking "the third choice" in local and statewide elections. The two most major cases include when the Republicans nominated John G. Rowland over Lowell P. Weicker as candidate for Governor of the state. Weicker ran independent and won the election.

Interestingly, Weicker was running for Governor because he lost his Senate seat to Joe Lieberman. Years later, Joe Lieberman failed to get the Democrat nomination for the seat he was holding. The Democrats instead nominated Ned Lamont, so Lieberman ran independent and won that election.

Both of your "third choice" examples are very much "career politicians". Especially as even when rejected by their political parties chose to try and stay in politics. When did Connecticut last elect someone who had never been a member of either these political parties?

And in the future years it will also include sites critical of the government, large corporations, etc.

Only if you have taken a very large dose of the potion described in the short story "The New Accelerator", by a certain Mr Wells.

I have children, and IMNSHO David Cameron is a technologically challenged idiot.

Personally I'd have a hard time naming an MP (or wannabe MP) who could be called anything else :)

At the end of the day, it's a variant of AB fallacy. "x is bad. (law/policy) y helps stops x. Therefore y is good." Doesn't factor in what we're sacrificing for y and whether that is good, and is often accompanied by two collieries: "people who disagree with y are bad" or "people who disagree with y support x".

It also tends to ignore how effective y would be at stopping x. The people advocating y may want it for entirely different reasons. Politics typically dosn't follow any logic,
Is there something which could do the job far better than y? But is politically incorrect, including for such trivial reasons as the "wrong" people came up with it.
That's before even considering if x actually is bad, even what x actually is. The current "debate" in the UK can't appear to make up it's mind if it is about "children" viewing "porn" or "child porn".
Finally there's the issue of even if y actually does "stop" x (without much "collateral damage") what are the "unintended consequences" and what if they are far worst than x?

I want sites blocked telling people actively to be violent.

Does that include *.mod.uk? How about anywhere which allows user comments, including slashdot?

I want to make a commercial about censorship and it sould go like this: There is a debate between two people arguing about censorship. The first is arguing for censorship about saving children blah blah. When its time for the detractor, he says one word and gets his mic cable audibly removed. You see him talking, but no words.

Or how about whilst the first is midway through the second pulls out some wire cutters and snips the first's cable.
Then maybe saying something like "Alas per $first, he never read Hamlet."

I work with children. In my extensive experience, they are vile creatures indeed. Ill-mannered, inconsiderate, uneducated and ignorant. They lack the most basic common sense, and what they do have is overridden by their susceptibility to peer pressure and the forces of advertising. They have a compulsion to destroy all that they touch, leaving me to spend my working day endlessly repairing equipment which has been vandalized - past highlights include throwing a switch from a window, placing a power cable in a stapler and impaling a laptop keyboard on a pen.

IME such abuse of hardware is not confined to children. Even in education it's possible to find teachers who are more destructive than students. (As well as those who don't appear able to understand the concept of "supervision".)

They are transparent HTTP proxies. All the router needs to do is check each packet against a list of suspect IPs, and pass the matching ones down a different interface to the box that does the real work.

Thing is that HTTP dosn't need to be over TCP/80, nor does TCP/80 need to be HTTP.
Where things are more of a concern is that "transparent proxying" of HTTPS requires a Man In The Middle attack. Regular proxying, even using a "filtering proxy" does not.

I used to piss people off this way. Everyone would be in auto-awesome mode, and I'd be thinking "what will defeat this?". Then I'd open my yap, and they'd get really annoyed. Most people who weren't used to me just assumed I was being pessemistic, until a few predicted failures happened. Unfortunately in some cultures only optimism is allowed, yes only answers, nothing that doesn't agree that the idea is the best thing since sliced bread.

This sounds like what people such as Bruce Schneier refer to as a "security mindset". In practice it's quite possible for people to be overly optimistic in trying to do this.

If the Queen goes to visit the Royal Baby and abdicates the throne to become a full time grandmother, Charles will reign in her stead.

The baby in question is her great grandchild. Also were she to abdicate the next in line would be her nephew, David Armstrong-Jones.

However, 6.3" just seems like a deadzone. Too big to hold in a hand and use effectively, unless you're Shaq, but smaller than a 7 or 8" tablet like the Nexus 7

Don't forget that the correlation between screen size & device size is not neccessarily linear. Samsung managed to increase the screen size of the S4 (over the S3) by 1/5 of an inch while (slightly) reducing the phyiscal dimensions of the phone.

The Nexus 7 has a massive bezel, these devices do not & will be smaller than the 0.7 inches you'd expect placed side-by-side with a Nexus 7.

Fining the NHS is pointless, it only harms the NHS itself...

Fining any public body tends to be at best pointless, at worst counter productive. (Another common example of this kind of daftness is fining police forces when prosecution of police officers would be more appropriate.)

Those responsible don't care because its not their money. They should fine the contractor instead, as it was his laziness/incompetence that caused this.

The most obvious thing to do would be for NHS Surrey to sue the contractor for all of their costs, including the fine. (Possibly something more like £300k.) But the former may well mean they won't bother.

According to the age, Snowden has withdrawn that request. Mr Snowden withdrew his Russian asylum request because of a demand that he stop harming US interests by leaking documents