for a while now. Apparently it's been in production for around four or five years.

Nothing could ever persuade me to 1) plug an ethernet cable into a washing machine or 2) give the washing machine my wifi password.

A "smart" washing machine is a classic example of a solution in search of a problem (unless you just can't use a normal one for whatever reason).

The article was posted on the Guardian website on the morning of 30th March, so I don't think it's an April fool's joke.

You can use it without a keyboard--if you tab into an input box which is off the bottom of the screen, the screen will scroll up. Then when you reach the end press tab until the "Done" button is highlighted and press space to activate it and load the next page. I did several pages without touching the mouse.

As for using the tab to move between input boxes, that is pretty standard in a web form. If you've got two hands it's trivial, just use your left hand to press tab. If you're one-handed then yes, it's a bad interface.

If you're smart enough to know a word like paean, surely you're smart enough to spell it correctly. It only takes a moments to check the spelling of a difficult word. You don't want to look silly do you?

http://grammarist.com/usage/pa...

The government doesn't need a "natural" right, it just needs a legal right. There's no such thing as a "natural" right - who would endow it? Go and live in the jungle and you'll see what your "natural" rights are.

Violent fantasies are completely harmless by themselves. Also, you wouldn't insist on showing a four year-old child graphic images of bite victims before giving them a toy T-Rex.

But you'd be jeopardising your job. That's as very strong disincentive. And yet you aren't protesting for the freedom to be rude to your boss. But according to you, not having that freedom is an outrage! So why aren't you protesting for that freedom? There are restrictions on your speech, admit that there are, but you haven't done anything about it, you haven't even complained about this restriction, or even recognised it as such. But I though you were an ardent advocate of free speech?

Say you started a new job and met your new boss, and he had a hideous wart on his face which looked disgusting. Would you say "Hi, boss, gee that's a disgusting wart on your face"? No, you wouldn't. What happened to your treasured freedom of speech? Really, some topics of speech don't need protection. Some do, of course. But some don't. It really isn't as inconceivable as you imagine to be able to distinguish between these topics.

We don't have free action, so why do we need free speech? You aren't permitted to inflict physical harm with violence (as much as I'm sure many people would adore being able to do that), so why should you be permitted to inflict psychological harm with words? The American ideal of free speech being amazingly noble is fallacious, romanticized nonsense. Actions have consequences, and should be moderated. We should have respect for others. Say what you want in the privacy of your own home, but in public, you can be nice. It's not draconian, any more than other laws circumscribing action towards other people are draconian. Americans just have a distorted viewpoint due to associating free speech with patriotism feelings, and with their love of individualism, self-determination, libertarianism, and such self-centred, self-righteous attitudes.

Re. promotion, I've bought 10 albums in the last month or so, after listening to them on Spotify and deciding I liked them. Without Spotify allowing me to listen to the albums, I wouldn't have bought them. So Spotify does generate sales. I guess the question is, what proportion of people do buy stuff after hearing it on Spotify?

Also mouse gestures.

The poster doesn't need a licence if he only uses catch-up services like iPlayer. Source

A licence is only needed if you watch TV as it is being broadcasted. You don't need one if you watch it later on iPlayer.

Source