Chance would be a fine thing:. I have a two year old android phone so no chance of an OS update.

And that might be the push needed for me to try out IceCat (formerly IceWeasel) https://www.gnu.org/software/g...

I take it this also eliminates any existing ad blockers? Is there an alternative plugin mechanism that would allow for new ad blockers?

Causation is hard to identify in your example though: does smoking pot encourage teens to drop out; or are the teens that are on track to drop out, more likely to smoke pot?

That's part of the tragedy of the ISP filtering though. While the more tech-savvy parents will recognise that the filters are - at best - a partial solution, other parents will be given a false sense of security.

I've used BT as an ISP, and the filter option came up as a web page after signing in (I was signing in to watch their BT sport channel, but I assume if you signed in for e.g. the admin site, it would have appeared). I hadn't noticed any blocked sites prior to disabling it, but the option to enable or disable the filter may have appeared prior to it defaulting to being on. One click, and the filter was off, so disabling it really doesn't add much hassle to the end user. I don't doubt the implementation was a lot of hassle at their end, however.

It doesn't run in the browser - it's a standalone app. FWIW, it's using 5.7Mb on my computer at the moment - while emacs is using 41.2Mb. Your emacs analogy is perhaps more apt than you realise though: it's essentially emacs using HTML/javascript/CSS instead of lisp.

Wonder if he was including dial up ISPs?

App stores do this for apps installed via the store; the difference here is that Windows is doing it for every app being installed whether via an app store or not.

Could be that the 0.5b figure is there net patent income - they may be spending a fair bit on licencing from other companies.

I think the Lousiana schools are ignoring important documentary footage of the family of Nessie from the 80s, as described here.

Firstly, this is a Daily Fail story - take with a large pinch of salt. As shown in the Leveson inquiry, they're happy to run "Organisation wants to ban something" story one day, then "Our campaign has forced organisation to back down" the next - despite no such banning effort happening. In addition, they do have a "anything invented after 1900 is suspicious" agenda. Secondly, if the Red Cross actually are debating this, perhaps it's in an effort to revise International Humanitarian Law to keep up with the times, inasmuch as International Humanitarian Law actually exists.

Don't the human umpires rely on optical sensors?

Could you (or some other kind soul) send an invite to: hdyson@gmail.com Thanks!

I'd be grateful for an invite too. Thanks!