>Do you believe rehabilitation is impossible or do you want revenge?

I don't believe that someone who commits mass murder can be rehabilitated, no. It isn't about revenge; it's about public safety.

Someone once pointed out that hoping a rapist gets raped in prison isn't a victory for his victim(s), because it somehow gives him what he had coming to him, but it's actually a victory for rape and violence. I wish I could remember who said that, because they are right. The score doesn't go Rapist: 1 World: 1. It goes Rape: 2.

What this man did is unspeakable, and he absolutely deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison. If he needs to be kept away from other prisoners as a safety issue, there are ways to do that without keeping him in solitary confinement, which has been shown conclusively to be profoundly cruel and harmful.

Putting him in solitary confinement, as a punitive measure, is not a victory for the good people in the world. It's a victory for inhumane treatment of human beings. This ruling is, in my opinion, very good and very strong for human rights, *precisely* because it was brought by such a despicable and horrible person. It affirms that all of us have basic human rights, even the absolute worst of us on this planet.

This is precisely why I lost all interest in Oculus the instant I heard that it had been acquired by Facebook.

Firstly, I would look to see if there is a CoderDojo - http://coderdojo.com/ - in your area.
CoderDojo is a global volunteer-led community of free programming clubs for young people. These young people, between 7 and 17, learn how to code, develop websites, apps, programs, games and explore technology. In addition to learning to code attendees meet like minded people and get to show off what they’ve been working on.

Secondly, I would look at introductory language we use - Scratch - http://scratch.mit.edu/
Scratch has lots of tutorials aimed directly at kids, and are far better than any of the "type this line and then this one" from various books.

Those animated logos were bloody annoying. They are the modern day equivalent of Blinking Text.
I hope they are never incorporated into the page, regardless of how clever each of them was.

In Other News: Get off my lawn, you pesky kids.

If you really want to see weaseling and lying in action - it's the word "reasonable".
* Full-time employees and part-time employees may be required to work "reasonable" overtime and thereby qualify for overtime payments
* ,,, reasonable charges may apply
* The service provider must provide reasonable levels of support after hours

It's the word for defining an undefined amout, that changes on whom is interpreting it and how they want the situation to pan out.

Joy. I can see the high-range of options available:

Mission 1: Get Carl in the House
Mission 2: Get Carl into the next House
Mission 3: Get Carl into another House

Probably the part where you attribute education as equivalent to allowing you to watch youtube and obtain torrents, rather than equating it with learning how to think and solve problems. Maybe things have radically changed since i got a degree, but when you get into the Real World with your degree - you're expected to be able to use those skills and solve something you are unfamliar with - i.e. It's not on YouTube and there's never been a torrent for it.

You want to use these extra-curricula resources for your own study - buy a 4G dongle and pay for it. People doing other subject matters buy their extra-curricular resources - just ask Law students about book costs.

By hyper religious, I assume you mean that earlier on his life he entered Seminary, intending to be a priest but changed his mind. Or did you mean to refer to the fact he has strong catholic based beliefs. This is important because the term hyper-religious has massively different connotations to our American colleagues, where it could/would imply that he was a member of the literal truth of the bible pentacostal brigade. At least he's been honest enough to say outright was his beliefs are, and cope with the spin/misunderstaning - http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/27/2802389.htm

But if you really, really care - have a look at your local candidates and think who will do more for your area. We elect our representives, not our prime-minister. You can go and approach the candidates and ask them - "My friends and I want to know where you stand on Internet Filtering because it's major factor in choosing who we'll vote for" or "Will you oppose/support the internet filtering even against the rest of your party's position?"

Mate - If you don't tell them that this is an issue, then all they have to go off is the Media - and they really treat Internet comments with sooo much respect.

Okay - you should probably read the article before you do an analogy.

It's like going to a car dealership and picking up a demo model. You can drive it around and see if you like it. Now, after each week of using this "free car", it loses a feature. Say - it's 4 seat capacity drops to 2. then the colour paint-job changes to grey. Next the radio stops working, and the airconditioning, and so on. You're free to keep using this demo - but it will progressively lose all of it's features over time. You can stop using the demo car any time you want. If you liked the original experience, or some particular feature that stopped - then go buy the actual car.

The old "limited time" model is like going to the car dealership and picking a demo model. As you're driving down the street a couple of weeks later, it suddenly stops running and dumps you on your arse and refuses to run anymore.

Perhaps it's easier to think of it this way - Paying subscriber's weapons do not suffer decay. Those playing for free will find their weapons decay and will need to be replaced. Upgrade to your full subscription now....

Having read the article, it seems like a rather large whinge.

If you're receiving a royalty cheque for your books, then have whomever is paying you your royalty cheque opt-opt of google if you so desire.
Is it such a technical hurdle for a publishing company to indicate to Google that Books X, Y & Z are opt-out, or even that ALL books that they publish are to be opt-out?
Because if you're not receiving money for your books - why would you have any objections to it being available to all ?

Whom deserves the greater inconvenience? Those who actively publish books or those who can't find the authors (dead, recluse, one name among millions) to get permission. Which one of those two is doing it for a living and has the ability to do so? Imho we can't trust publishers to provide information/contacts for authors and books so permission can be sought, when it's a task that won't earn them money. It seems that slating it as an opt-out forces those who want to maintain their control must actively do so, and no amount of spin is going to make the complaint about having to do more as part of publishing seem anything more than a whinge.