Wha?

"Honestly, how fucking embarrassing that some of you are gullible enough to buy into these notions that YouTube, Facebook and MySpace provide the citizenry with a louder, more vibrant voice."

Eh? Who on earth thinks that? I use YouTube for watching things that are funny, informative or that I missed on telly. I use Facebook to keep in contact with my friends and keep my parents up to date with pictures and videos of their grandson. I am a heterosexual male. I truly have no idea what you're talking about.

Oh dear...

>I wonder what evidence of lung cancer there was to the first smoker or liver damage for wine drinkers in Roman times.

None, but I'm still glad that cigars and wine exist as a result of that ignorance.

>Common sense says, Radiation cannot be good for you.

Actual sense says that without it we wouldn't exist - it's an inherent part of our environment which we're adapted to. You just try avoiding it :-)

But...

I've just read this at work...which means...my productivity has suffered...which according to Jason Lloyd means...my employer can accuse me of downloading porn.

Brilliant.

Well done.

It's Mike Coughlan

The engineer in question is Chief Designer Mike Coughlan (although Chief Designer does not mean 'the guy in charge of design' at McLaren like you might think).

Regarding "This is what is wrong with sports these days...", I just think that's a frankly ridiculous statement to make in such a close season, with multiple manufacturers producing the most sophisticated, fast and safe cars ever built, when the entire field was separated by only 2 seconds(!) after quali in Indianapolis, when some teams spend 100s of millions of dollars but still get beaten by teams with a fraction of that budget. Formula 1 *is* serious, that's what we love about it. All the best sports have depth and interest at strategic, tactical and operational levels - what would Cricket be without selectors and field placings? Football without signings and formations? If you only appreciate the operational, you're really missing an awful lot.

What *is* confusing is what this article is doing on the Reg in the first place...

Jurisdiction?

Guys,

when you put articles up about legal rulings could you mention which jurisdiction you're talking about? Here in the UK, as in many other parts of the world, internet activity is governed under several layers of often competing legal frameworks, e.g. national and supranational (EU) jurisdiction for both the host and client locations - it's sometimes difficult to work out which of those you're referring to. You've got a global audience, just as some of the sites have that feature in your articles, so 'section 230 of the Communications Decency Act' is really a local ordinance in those terms (although its effects are obviously far wider).

Much obliged :-)

CD