Well, unfortunately then, the current MSH preview (drop 3) still uses the exact same cut-copy-paste model as the existing cmd.exe. So it's mark, copy, paste with right-click or the control box, or Quick Edit mode from the Properties dialog as before.
has the potential to be a lot more versatile than clunky old DOS shell commands, even if this particular example is basically just another way of saying
"The Hitch Hiker's Guide To The Galaxy. By Douglas Adams" followed by "Tertiary Phase" rather than "With Peter Jones as The Book".
Totally not right, on first listen in fact. Until tonight, it was always, from the very start, "with Peter Jones as The Book". A rather sad little moment.
Ah, now, you see, thing with Guinness, if it's stored right and served right it tastes absolutely gorgeous.
If it's stored wrong or served wrong it tastes like earwax.
Re:Sorry, I don't see what's so special
on
Cooking for Engineers
·
· Score: 2, Funny
The standard Recipe isn't even primarily meant to be a set of instructions at all. It's there so that the cook can explain to the employer (you *surely* aren't one of those common riff-raff who have no staff and have to cook their own food?) why they've bought 18 eggs this week, and what happened to the 2 lbs of butter you've paid for, and why on earth they spent your money on this 'coriander' stuff.
After a while, this Itemised Invoice From the Kitchen evolved into a set of instructions, but at heart, it's just an Invoice.
Until Google offers an API for services like this to access it (which I doubt they ever will), any system based on GMail will be quite unstable. So, for any serious blog, this wouldn't be an option. Since Google bought Blogger, and Blogger has its own Blogger API and is collaborating on the will-it-ever-release Atom API to eventually replace it, it seems very unlikely indeed that Google would offer a blogging API to their email service.
Of course, another benefit is that using Google's blogging API to access their blogging service is nicely in line with the TOS.
Terry Nation wrote the scripts and created the Dalek characters. The design was by BBC employee Raymond Cusick, and this lies at the root of the rights problems / confusion now resolved - the Nation Estate could licence the name Dalek and characteristic speech patterns such as "Resistance is Uselesss" and, of course, "Exterminate", but not the likeness. The BBC could licence, and use, the likeness, but not the name or behaviour.
Tim Hancock, Terry Nation's former Agent and boss of "The Nation Estate" for licensing purposes, tried to bump up the price above the agreed UKP250,000 for using the Daleks in the new series at the last moment, and the BBC called his bluff. The Estate wasn't going to make much money if the new series didn't use the Daleks at all.
Especially when said amusing video is based loosely on the work of a man who said, in a "Woody Sez" article for "People's World":
I AIN'T A GONNA KILL NOBODY
"I took a bath this morning in six war speeches, and a sprinkle of peace. Looks like ever body is declaring war against the forces of force. That's what you get for building up a big war machine. It scares your neighbors into jumping on you, and then of course they them selves have to use force, so you are against their force, and they're aginst yours. Look like the ring has been drawed and the marbles are all in. The millionaires has throwed their silk hats and our last set of drawers in the ring. The fuse is lit and the cannon is set, and somebody is in for a frailin. I would like to see every single soldier on every single side, just take off your helmet, unbuckle your kit, lay down your rifle, and set down at the side of some shady lane, and say, nope, I aint a gonna kill nobody. Plenty of rich folks wants to fight. Give them the guns."
A man whose sentiments were just a little too close to the bone, perhaps?
Everything else, including the copyright of the actual music, is life+70 years
Which makes the whole issue of "That's All Right" somewhat confused, in that Arthur Crudup, who wrote the song, died in 1974, so while it will be possible to sell the Elvis recording without paying the Presley estate, it will still be illegal unless the current rights-holders to Crudup's work get their cut until 2044.
So it's like the people at the table next to you sat down at your table and started yelling at you in Korean. No shit you're going to complain.
Ah, but, as things stand at Orkut, and you might not realise it when you enter the putative Restaurant, what the analogy doesn't mention is that even though it started out as a Burger-and-Fries place, over the years it turned out that most of the diners were Korean and it's now, de-facto, a Korean restaurant with mostly Korean diners.
Still, population statistics notwithstanding the people at the next table shouldn't be yelling at you, in any language. That's a fair complaint. Unless of course you've been going out of your way to complain about all these bl*&dy Koreans in the restaurant, in which case it's probably frair enough.
Reading the article there is a quote from someone who objects to seeing Portuguese communities listed as it's not a Brazilian site.
What struck me reading this bit of the article was that it was talking about "when the average user looks at Orkut", while entirely missing the point that, at present, for most useful meanings of "average", the "average user" of Orkut is Brazilian, in which case Portuguese language is the obvious language of choice.
I do something similar except that I give each entity requesting an email address its own email address based on its domain name, and if I start to get spam on that address, all further email to the address gets redirected to "sales@[original domain name];postmaster@[original domain name];abuse@[original domain name]". If they want to add to the world population of spam using my address, then *they* can deal with the wretched stuff, and I'll take my business elsewhere.
one of the options on the registration page, under "what areas are you interested in", is "Linux interoperability". ... Microsoft are collecting information on how many of the people downloading this tool care about whether their code will be portable to Linux
I think this may be a slightly wishful interpretation, and the key lies in MS' use of the word "interoperability" and your use of the word "portable", which I don't think refer to the same thing at all. Depending on how Mono pans out, and how friendly MS remains towards it, this may be all wrong, but as things stand I see Interoperability referring more to technologies like Samba and SOAP, rather than Java-style write-once, debug-everywhere (sorry!) Portability.
If you know the Base Class Library well enough to carefully avoid any Framework 2.0 features, and the language you choose well enough to avoid using, for example, Generics in C#/VB.net, you might be able to use the new Express IDEs to write code that would compile with the 1.0 or 1.1 compilers. You'd have to tweak the manifests to target the 1.0 or 1.1 framework before compiling as well. The compiler would be a lesser issue in terms of legal distribution compared to the Framework, ISTM.
It might just work, but it seems rather a faff. If you're looking to use C# price-free with an IDE, SharpDevelop seems like a better option for now. Or, for web apps, there's a thing called Web Matrix available at asp.net which is price-free and fits on a floppy, if you remember those things.
There is that phrase, "the past is a foreign country". Long-running heroes have always been reinvented as the decades pass, for example taking on anti-Soviet sentiments during the Cold War and discarding them in the 1990s, to make them relevant (saleable if you like) to the audience of the time they're made.
I suspect they're more concerned about the speaker's accent than his residency.
Boring though it is, I suspect that, since this is a competition with a prize of non-trivial value, they're mostly concerned with the Gaming Act 1968 - the blurb about "open to UK residents over the age of 18" is very standard boilerplate text for similar competitions.
It depends if they're referring to maximum speed, in which case 220 is about right for a car about to brake at the end of the banking at Indianapolis, or average speed across a lap, in which case they're about right - the fastest lap to date, if I'm not very much mistaken, which I frequently am (ob-Murray Walker Tribute), Montoya's pole time of 1:20.264 at Monza in 2002, the fastest ever lap in F1, represented an average speed of 161.170 mph.
At Monaco, while the cars reach about 180mph just before the Nouvelle Chicane after the tunnel, Trulli's pole this year of 1:14.439 works out at 'only' 100.989mph. They said "on a curvy track" and it doesn't come any twistier than Monaco.
The speculation in last week's Autosport was, oddly enough, that Renault's big advantage at the moment may actually be down to their being around 50 bhp down on the other big teams. While this ought to reduce maximum speed and acceleration out of the corners, it may have two key counterbenefits: firstly, a rather smoother and more driveable torque curve, hence part of the better getaways, and, more significantly, better fuel consumption, giving a choice of longer stints between pitstops, shorter refuelling times during the stops, or running the car lighter for a stint of the same number of laps. In practice, they're likely to be compromising between these approaches, staying out for one or two laps longer than their rivals while spending a second or so less in the pits, and also putting a lighter car higher on the grid in qualifying and, of course, getting away more easily from a standing start.
Some excellent improvements suggested there, but I'd add re-introducing turbos and rather than removing pitstops make them optional.
No problem with turbos, it all fits in with raising the power to grip ratio. And I wouldn't ban pitstops, not at all. Tyre changes are all part of the fun for me - I still remember the excitement of old-school McLaren 4.2 second tyre changes. But at the moment, the pitstop timing is basically about fuel loads, and is predetermined by the time the race starts. When the car pits fo fuel, the team may as well put on some fresh boots. But without refuelling, tyre changes depend on circumstances, and a driver like Prost could gain massively by mechanical sympathy, looking after the tyres so he needed fewer stops than other drivers, or so that he could really burn them in the closing laps to take the flag.
Don't get me wrong, with every change I'd make, I still think Schumacher would win plenty of races, becasue he is a race-driving genius. But I'd enjoy his wins more, and I suspect he might, too.
One key factor here is the drag which comes with aerodynamic downforce. To get through the twisties fast, an F1 car has enough downforce to run upside-down. The payoff is the drag which limits the top speed on the straights. It's very much horses for courses, in that CART was running in the 240s on Ovals a couple of years ago, while the F1 cars peak at about 200 as they're about to brake on the banking at Indianapolis. However, the f1 car would slaughter the Champcar in the infield at Indy.
It might be interesting to see how fast an F1 car could run with the wings trimmed to a minimum on an Oval, although they still wouldn't get much benefit from their lightness, agility and deranged brakes in that situation, so the dedicated oval-racer might well still win. At Monaco, OTOH, no contest.
The difficulty with this approach, well-intentioned as it is (I adore F1 but my god it's been dull the last few years), is that if a team has a huge budget it will spend it on something. Whatever areas the FIA clamps down on may be levelled, but there will always be something else, be it half a dozen new windtunnels, a team of 1000 aerodynamicists, more supercomputers, vast amounts of simulation to bypass limitations on on-track testing, and so on, and so on.
Half of me loves the competitive engineering aspect of F1, but the other half really wants to see the return of the possibility of human error, the old skill of pressuring an opponent for lap after lap until he misses a gear-change, or forcing him to drive too hard early in the race so his car won't last the distance. But with semi-automatic gearboxes and rev-limiters, traction control and so forth, it just doesn't happen like that anymore.
Personally, I'd slash the aero grip in favour of mechanical grip from big fat slicks, put in a control ECU (as the FIA is threatening) to eliminate TC, ban the auto gearboxes (also in the pipeline), raise the power to grip ratio, and above all ban refuelling to eliminate the current 2 or 3 sprint races in favour of a single race from start to finish, where it's worth looking after the car and the tyres, where you can't just sit behind another car waiting to gain a place at the pitstops, where you have to think and you have to race.
The budgets are definitely a bit squeezed at the moment, partly due to worldwide recession, and partly because (it pains me, I love this sport above any other) because the racing is so staggeringly dull in recent years. Nonetheless, F1 claims (over the season) a TV audience only matched by the World Cup and the Olympics, in the region of 3.5 billion people watching at least one race each year. While the figures are all kept very secret, and vary from team to team, a couple of years ago the word was that a Williams rear wing was worth about UKP30 million in sponsorship, the front wing about 15 million, and the sidepods 10 million each. This, ISTM, is probably the real reason why the aerodynamic characteristics which destroy proper racing by making slipstreaming impossible, and destroy visual excitement by eliminating the powerslide, aren't going anywhere, even as the team owners themselves complain that the downforce has to be slashed.
Schumacher is a genius, but it is about time that he put his foot down and demanded that the team get a second driver of close to his caliber, so we can see some actual racing.
Absolutely. Ferrari's dominance in recent years is similar to McLaren's in the mid-late 1980s, but with the crucial difference that in McLaren's most dodminant season, 1988, although the team won 15 of the 16 races with John Barnard's revolutionary MP4/4, and took 199 Constructor's points to second-placed Ferrari's 65, since Ayrton Senna took eight of their wins and his team-mate Alain Prost took seven, the season was gripping to the very end, Senna finishing with 90 points to Prost's 87. You knew a McLaren was likely to win each race, but as to which one...
Meanwhile, it's staggering to see what *can* be achieved by teams with a tenth of the budget of the frontrunners, and what *can't* be achieved, yet, with Toyota's budget, rumoured to be even bigger than the half-billion dollars Ferrari are said to spend each year.
But how is this different for kids? Rape and assault laws apply equally to adults as kids.
If you see a picture of someone obviously adult in a situation which resembles rape or torture, there is still some degree of doubt as to whether it might, perhaps, have been consensual in reality. If it was, then it may well not have been illegal.
If you see a picture of somone who is obviously not yet an adult involved in sexual activity, then there is no doubt, no question whatsoever, that the activity was illegal, was criminal, that the other party to the act is a cirminal, that the photographer is a criminal, that you are looking at a picture of a crime being committed, and under UK law, by the very act of looking at it, intent notwithstanding, you, too, are a criminal. And can be locked up for a long time and placed on a Sex Offenders' register for the rest of your life.
Pictures of adults being genuinely raped are every bit as unacceptable, but without knowing the specific circumstances, for any given picture, there's *some* room for doubt. *That* is the difference.
I'm waiting for 'Colossus' the movie, starring a daring team of americans at Bletchley who single-handedly invent Colossus, run Ultra and crack the codes just in time
One vital detail missing there, the bit where handsome Texan stud Alan Turing gets the girl at the end;-)
Looks to me like just the sort of design the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation would come up with for "your plastic pal who's fun to be with". Any Sirius product that doesn't look infinitely tacky in the film will represent a missed opportunity, IMO.
Slashdot Mirror
OTOH, stuff likehas the potential to be a lot more versatile than clunky old DOS shell commands, even if this particular example is basically just another way of saying.
It was a bit weird, hearing the opening
"The Hitch Hiker's Guide To The Galaxy. By Douglas Adams" followed by "Tertiary Phase" rather than "With Peter Jones as The Book".
Totally not right, on first listen in fact. Until tonight, it was always, from the very start, "with Peter Jones as The Book". A rather sad little moment.
Overall, though, I rather liked it.
Ah, now, you see, thing with Guinness, if it's stored right and served right it tastes absolutely gorgeous.
If it's stored wrong or served wrong it tastes like earwax.
The standard Recipe isn't even primarily meant to be a set of instructions at all. It's there so that the cook can explain to the employer (you *surely* aren't one of those common riff-raff who have no staff and have to cook their own food?) why they've bought 18 eggs this week, and what happened to the 2 lbs of butter you've paid for, and why on earth they spent your money on this 'coriander' stuff.
After a while, this Itemised Invoice From the Kitchen evolved into a set of instructions, but at heart, it's just an Invoice.
Until Google offers an API for services like this to access it (which I doubt they ever will), any system based on GMail will be quite unstable. So, for any serious blog, this wouldn't be an option.
Since Google bought Blogger, and Blogger has its own Blogger API and is collaborating on the will-it-ever-release Atom API to eventually replace it, it seems very unlikely indeed that Google would offer a blogging API to their email service.
Of course, another benefit is that using Google's blogging API to access their blogging service is nicely in line with the TOS.
Still a cool hack, mind.
Terry Nation wrote the scripts and created the Dalek characters. The design was by BBC employee Raymond Cusick, and this lies at the root of the rights problems / confusion now resolved - the Nation Estate could licence the name Dalek and characteristic speech patterns such as "Resistance is Uselesss" and, of course, "Exterminate", but not the likeness. The BBC could licence, and use, the likeness, but not the name or behaviour.
Tim Hancock, Terry Nation's former Agent and boss of "The Nation Estate" for licensing purposes, tried to bump up the price above the agreed UKP250,000 for using the Daleks in the new series at the last moment, and the BBC called his bluff. The Estate wasn't going to make much money if the new series didn't use the Daleks at all.
Especially when said amusing video is based loosely on the work of a man who said, in a "Woody Sez" article for "People's World":
I AIN'T A GONNA KILL NOBODY
"I took a bath this morning in six war speeches, and a sprinkle of peace. Looks like ever body is declaring war against the forces of force. That's what you get for building up a big war machine. It scares your neighbors into jumping on you, and then of course they them selves have to use force, so you are against their force, and they're aginst yours. Look like the ring has been drawed and the marbles are all in. The millionaires has throwed their silk hats and our last set of drawers in the ring. The fuse is lit and the cannon is set, and somebody is in for a frailin. I would like to see every single soldier on every single side, just take off your helmet, unbuckle your kit, lay down your rifle, and set down at the side of some shady lane, and say, nope, I aint a gonna kill nobody. Plenty of rich folks wants to fight. Give them the guns."
A man whose sentiments were just a little too close to the bone, perhaps?
Everything else, including the copyright of the actual music, is life+70 years
Which makes the whole issue of "That's All Right" somewhat confused, in that Arthur Crudup, who wrote the song, died in 1974, so while it will be possible to sell the Elvis recording without paying the Presley estate, it will still be illegal unless the current rights-holders to Crudup's work get their cut until 2044.
So it's like the people at the table next to you sat down at your table and started yelling at you in Korean. No shit you're going to complain.
Ah, but, as things stand at Orkut, and you might not realise it when you enter the putative Restaurant, what the analogy doesn't mention is that even though it started out as a Burger-and-Fries place, over the years it turned out that most of the diners were Korean and it's now, de-facto, a Korean restaurant with mostly Korean diners.
Still, population statistics notwithstanding the people at the next table shouldn't be yelling at you, in any language. That's a fair complaint. Unless of course you've been going out of your way to complain about all these bl*&dy Koreans in the restaurant, in which case it's probably frair enough.
Reading the article there is a quote from someone who objects to seeing Portuguese communities listed as it's not a Brazilian site.
What struck me reading this bit of the article was that it was talking about "when the average user looks at Orkut", while entirely missing the point that, at present, for most useful meanings of "average", the "average user" of Orkut is Brazilian, in which case Portuguese language is the obvious language of choice.
I do something similar except that I give each entity requesting an email address its own email address based on its domain name, and if I start to get spam on that address, all further email to the address gets redirected to "sales@[original domain name];postmaster@[original domain name];abuse@[original domain name]". If they want to add to the world population of spam using my address, then *they* can deal with the wretched stuff, and I'll take my business elsewhere.
one of the options on the registration page, under "what areas are you interested in", is "Linux interoperability".
...
Microsoft are collecting information on how many of the people downloading this tool care about whether their code will be portable to Linux
I think this may be a slightly wishful interpretation, and the key lies in MS' use of the word "interoperability" and your use of the word "portable", which I don't think refer to the same thing at all. Depending on how Mono pans out, and how friendly MS remains towards it, this may be all wrong, but as things stand I see Interoperability referring more to technologies like Samba and SOAP, rather than Java-style write-once, debug-everywhere (sorry!) Portability.
If you know the Base Class Library well enough to carefully avoid any Framework 2.0 features, and the language you choose well enough to avoid using, for example, Generics in C#/VB.net, you might be able to use the new Express IDEs to write code that would compile with the 1.0 or 1.1 compilers. You'd have to tweak the manifests to target the 1.0 or 1.1 framework before compiling as well. The compiler would be a lesser issue in terms of legal distribution compared to the Framework, ISTM.
It might just work, but it seems rather a faff. If you're looking to use C# price-free with an IDE, SharpDevelop seems like a better option for now. Or, for web apps, there's a thing called Web Matrix available at asp.net which is price-free and fits on a floppy, if you remember those things.
There is that phrase, "the past is a foreign country". Long-running heroes have always been reinvented as the decades pass, for example taking on anti-Soviet sentiments during the Cold War and discarding them in the 1990s, to make them relevant (saleable if you like) to the audience of the time they're made.
I suspect they're more concerned about the speaker's accent than his residency.
Boring though it is, I suspect that, since this is a competition with a prize of non-trivial value, they're mostly concerned with the Gaming Act 1968 - the blurb about "open to UK residents over the age of 18" is very standard boilerplate text for similar competitions.
It depends if they're referring to maximum speed, in which case 220 is about right for a car about to brake at the end of the banking at Indianapolis, or average speed across a lap, in which case they're about right - the fastest lap to date, if I'm not very much mistaken, which I frequently am (ob-Murray Walker Tribute), Montoya's pole time of 1:20.264 at Monza in 2002, the fastest ever lap in F1, represented an average speed of 161.170 mph.
At Monaco, while the cars reach about 180mph just before the Nouvelle Chicane after the tunnel, Trulli's pole this year of 1:14.439 works out at 'only' 100.989mph. They said "on a curvy track" and it doesn't come any twistier than Monaco.
The speculation in last week's Autosport was, oddly enough, that Renault's big advantage at the moment may actually be down to their being around 50 bhp down on the other big teams. While this ought to reduce maximum speed and acceleration out of the corners, it may have two key counterbenefits: firstly, a rather smoother and more driveable torque curve, hence part of the better getaways, and, more significantly, better fuel consumption, giving a choice of longer stints between pitstops, shorter refuelling times during the stops, or running the car lighter for a stint of the same number of laps. In practice, they're likely to be compromising between these approaches, staying out for one or two laps longer than their rivals while spending a second or so less in the pits, and also putting a lighter car higher on the grid in qualifying and, of course, getting away more easily from a standing start.
Some excellent improvements suggested there, but I'd add re-introducing turbos and rather than removing pitstops make them optional.
No problem with turbos, it all fits in with raising the power to grip ratio. And I wouldn't ban pitstops, not at all. Tyre changes are all part of the fun for me - I still remember the excitement of old-school McLaren 4.2 second tyre changes. But at the moment, the pitstop timing is basically about fuel loads, and is predetermined by the time the race starts. When the car pits fo fuel, the team may as well put on some fresh boots. But without refuelling, tyre changes depend on circumstances, and a driver like Prost could gain massively by mechanical sympathy, looking after the tyres so he needed fewer stops than other drivers, or so that he could really burn them in the closing laps to take the flag.
Don't get me wrong, with every change I'd make, I still think Schumacher would win plenty of races, becasue he is a race-driving genius. But I'd enjoy his wins more, and I suspect he might, too.
One key factor here is the drag which comes with aerodynamic downforce. To get through the twisties fast, an F1 car has enough downforce to run upside-down. The payoff is the drag which limits the top speed on the straights. It's very much horses for courses, in that CART was running in the 240s on Ovals a couple of years ago, while the F1 cars peak at about 200 as they're about to brake on the banking at Indianapolis. However, the f1 car would slaughter the Champcar in the infield at Indy.
It might be interesting to see how fast an F1 car could run with the wings trimmed to a minimum on an Oval, although they still wouldn't get much benefit from their lightness, agility and deranged brakes in that situation, so the dedicated oval-racer might well still win. At Monaco, OTOH, no contest.
The difficulty with this approach, well-intentioned as it is (I adore F1 but my god it's been dull the last few years), is that if a team has a huge budget it will spend it on something. Whatever areas the FIA clamps down on may be levelled, but there will always be something else, be it half a dozen new windtunnels, a team of 1000 aerodynamicists, more supercomputers, vast amounts of simulation to bypass limitations on on-track testing, and so on, and so on.
Half of me loves the competitive engineering aspect of F1, but the other half really wants to see the return of the possibility of human error, the old skill of pressuring an opponent for lap after lap until he misses a gear-change, or forcing him to drive too hard early in the race so his car won't last the distance. But with semi-automatic gearboxes and rev-limiters, traction control and so forth, it just doesn't happen like that anymore.
Personally, I'd slash the aero grip in favour of mechanical grip from big fat slicks, put in a control ECU (as the FIA is threatening) to eliminate TC, ban the auto gearboxes (also in the pipeline), raise the power to grip ratio, and above all ban refuelling to eliminate the current 2 or 3 sprint races in favour of a single race from start to finish, where it's worth looking after the car and the tyres, where you can't just sit behind another car waiting to gain a place at the pitstops, where you have to think and you have to race.
The budgets are definitely a bit squeezed at the moment, partly due to worldwide recession, and partly because (it pains me, I love this sport above any other) because the racing is so staggeringly dull in recent years. Nonetheless, F1 claims (over the season) a TV audience only matched by the World Cup and the Olympics, in the region of 3.5 billion people watching at least one race each year. While the figures are all kept very secret, and vary from team to team, a couple of years ago the word was that a Williams rear wing was worth about UKP30 million in sponsorship, the front wing about 15 million, and the sidepods 10 million each. This, ISTM, is probably the real reason why the aerodynamic characteristics which destroy proper racing by making slipstreaming impossible, and destroy visual excitement by eliminating the powerslide, aren't going anywhere, even as the team owners themselves complain that the downforce has to be slashed.
Schumacher is a genius, but it is about time that he put his foot down and demanded that the team get a second driver of close to his caliber, so we can see some actual racing.
Absolutely. Ferrari's dominance in recent years is similar to McLaren's in the mid-late 1980s, but with the crucial difference that in McLaren's most dodminant season, 1988, although the team won 15 of the 16 races with John Barnard's revolutionary MP4/4, and took 199 Constructor's points to second-placed Ferrari's 65, since Ayrton Senna took eight of their wins and his team-mate Alain Prost took seven, the season was gripping to the very end, Senna finishing with 90 points to Prost's 87. You knew a McLaren was likely to win each race, but as to which one...
Meanwhile, it's staggering to see what *can* be achieved by teams with a tenth of the budget of the frontrunners, and what *can't* be achieved, yet, with Toyota's budget, rumoured to be even bigger than the half-billion dollars Ferrari are said to spend each year.
But how is this different for kids? Rape and assault laws apply equally to adults as kids.
If you see a picture of someone obviously adult in a situation which resembles rape or torture, there is still some degree of doubt as to whether it might, perhaps, have been consensual in reality. If it was, then it may well not have been illegal.
If you see a picture of somone who is obviously not yet an adult involved in sexual activity, then there is no doubt, no question whatsoever, that the activity was illegal, was criminal, that the other party to the act is a cirminal, that the photographer is a criminal, that you are looking at a picture of a crime being committed, and under UK law, by the very act of looking at it, intent notwithstanding, you, too, are a criminal. And can be locked up for a long time and placed on a Sex Offenders' register for the rest of your life.
Pictures of adults being genuinely raped are every bit as unacceptable, but without knowing the specific circumstances, for any given picture, there's *some* room for doubt. *That* is the difference.
I'm waiting for 'Colossus' the movie, starring a daring team of americans at Bletchley who single-handedly invent Colossus, run Ultra and crack the codes just in time
;-)
One vital detail missing there, the bit where handsome Texan stud Alan Turing gets the girl at the end
Looks to me like just the sort of design the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation would come up with for "your plastic pal who's fun to be with". Any Sirius product that doesn't look infinitely tacky in the film will represent a missed opportunity, IMO.