Easy for IT geeks to say...

I've never had a technician fix any of my PC's as I've been around computers since the age of 8. However, I have one friend in his late 40's who wanted to get online despite the fact that he did not know how to double-click the mouse button. His mother was terribly upset when her rotary dial telephone was replaced by a push button model. Why? It reminded her of the bank's ATM which she simply does not understand.

Neither of these people are stupid - she is a retired English teacher and he is a motorcycle mechanic who has read more books than I've had breakfasts. Tech savvy people find it hard to see just how big the gap can be between the "knows" and the "know-nots". You simply can't assume people will feel comfortable doing anything more than checking that the PC is plugged in.

@Bilby

Languages evolve. Shakespeare would probably cry if he had the chance to read your "correct" re-phrasing of the article. But he can't because he's dead.

Fair Competition?

I can see why this has brought about a lawsuit - it's one thing to say that Google are simply providing competition, but imagine trying to run a business where most of your customers had to walk through your competitors store to get to yours.

Hang him!

So the author should go back to living in a cave if he wants to question the value of a science experiment?

I'm a geek and I think the LHC is great, but it sounds to me like some of the others posting are a little quick to react

The article was taking a bit of a dig at what might still become a monumental flop.

@Well,

You list one supposedly "glaring hole" in evolution and fail to mention that it is one of the most successful theories in science, supported by vast bodies of evidence. I would suggest that the Peacock does use it's tail feather to attract a mate (it's not the only example of such an evolved trait.) But please tell us what you think the difference is between an excuse and a reason - it might help me to understand your last paragraph, where you seem to make an _excuse_ for believing in God.

@multipharious

"Until their little ears can equalize they are in excruciating pain"

What? I've flown enough times in cattle class to have been subjected to a few crying babies - none of them gave the impression of being in excruciating pain. Also, the number of times I've sat across from a perfectly quiet baby sleeping through a whole flight would suggest that a lot of parents out there must have easy access to ice-pick-in-skull strength pain-killers.

As for mobile phones - they will cost a fortune to operate, so the average moron is not going to use them anymore than they use the in-flight phones that have been in planes for years. And this HANG UP law proposes that text messaging be allowed? I remember sitting on a train next to a teenager who received and responded to about fifteen SMS messages to carry out a conversation which presumably would have taken two minutes with a voice call. The fifteen bee-beep tones were much more annoying in my view.

Why do big corporations inspire so much emotion in some people?

It's interesting to see how many people plan to abandon Yahoo if this take-over happens. Do you really care which billion dollar corporation runs the servers on which your web based emails, hotel maps and porn searches are stored?

Plumbers?

I'm sure the brilliant business minds that came up with this idea have already thought about this, but what happens when a plumber needs to unblock a sewer pipe? or when one needs to be dug up because it is broken.

Does this mean that every time a pipe leaks and needs to be dug up there must be a crew of technicians present to ensure the fibre optic link is not damaged? and to repair it if it is.

What about when Joe Bloe plumber sticks an electric eel down a sewer pipe to unblock it and wipes out the internet connection for an entire street? Forget about rats - are the cables going to be strong enough to handle an enormous drill bit churning away at them?

@@Anonymous Coward

I thought only George Bush supporters could rant xenophobic bullshit like that.

These comments should be shot down - not just dismissed as racist

My problem with the way Watson's comments have been dealt with is that they have simply been dismissed as racist instead of being tackled head on and seriously debated. Some will argue that you give credibility to a flawed position when you dignify it with a response, but I would argue otherwise.

There is a large part of the population who believe that Watson is being dismissed purely because of 'Political Correctness.' In other words, they think he is right, but that he is being ignored because his statements are not socially acceptable. These are the people who need to be shown the scientific evidence that Watson is wrong.

A few points like the following would help:

* Childhood nutrition plays a major part in mental development and combined with education levels, can explain away any racial or geographical difference in 'measured intelligence'

* The measurement of intelligence is extremely subjective - contrary to popular belief, there is no 'standard IQ test'

* Comparisons with sporting capability are irrelevant - nobody has ever suggested that a person should not have the right to stand for parliament because he can't run fast, but a perceived lack of intelligence has been used to justify disenfranchisement throughout history.

* The same tests which purport to show that Africans have lower intelligence also show that Asians have higher intelligence. This is not really relevant, but its fun to see the reactions of white supremacists when you point this out.

The Bowen lawsuit IS frivolous

I see a few comments supporting the lawsuit by Bowen believing the judges decision was wrong, but banning words like 'rape' from trials is common - and rightly so.

In "A tale told by an idiot," Chris refers to the judges decision as a 'travesty of justice.' This is nonsense. Refering to the woman as a victim implies that the defendant is guilty, as does refering to their encounter as a rape. And your mention of murder trials? Should we introduce the defendant as 'the Murderer'? I suppose if we could just assume a verdict then it would save us the cost of actually holding trials.

It is impossible to expect people to be completely rational and unbiased in a case involving alleged sexual assault, and the media is well aware of the public outrage these cases generate, giving publicity to allegations without any regard for the reputations they might ruin. The decision to ban the use of words like 'rape' was clearly an attempt by the judge to afford the defendant some measure of the principle: 'innocent until proven guilty.'

Why are people taking this seriously at all

I see comments about the stupidity of the human race and vexatious lawsuits. But looking at the handwritten complaint all I can picture is some drunk guy conjuring up a lawsuit using the contents of his wallet as exhibits. I bet he's laughing his ass off at all the fuss he's caused.

RE: Hang on a sec

It is all well and good to argue that the law has been broken.

The problem I have with this story is that ANY amount of law enforcement resources are being used to persue this man, when we all know damned well that if one of us is mugged in the street then the chances of a conviction (let alone a 30 month prison term) are practically zero.

Protecting corporate profits should not be the priority of law enforcement agencies, at least not while there are real crimes being commited against people all the time.

No more EuroStar for me

Living in South West London near the mainline I can get to or from Waterloo in ten minutes. St. Pancras, on the other hand, is a pain in the arse. Its a shame because I did like the EuroStar.

Ten quid says this judge is about to publish a book

Do they seriously expect to take DNA from visitors to the UK? What will this do to the tourism industry? Just picture the queues at Heathrow, and the indignation of foreigners being treated like criminals.

And how will they get DNA samples from residents? Are they going to round us all up and stick swabs in our mouths?

It's interesting to hear just how many people would blindly accept this, but the whole debate about whether it violates our rights is irrelevant because the idea (at least in its present form) is simply unworkable.

Waste of time?

It's not worth writing but it's sure as hell worth reading and complaining about. But then you get that with any research article which is reported in the mainstream media.