pap

Ooh. There's a stickler. Are Jewish people a race, or just a bunch of different racial groups that subscribe to the same religious beliefs, like Christianity? The term "Yid" is derived from Yiddish, which is the language that was employed by Ashkenazi Jews.

Don't know about Hannah Minx, but getting a strong Daryl Hannah -> BladeRunner vibe off this one.

An XBOX 360 owner on Twitter was giving it large because he got the FIFA demo before the PS3 crowd. I replied to him. Said I remembered when I was poor enough to be a fanboy. That's basically all it is, although I find the phenomenon more prevalent with phones these days. Most serious gamers I know have at least one of every machine. Gotta catch 'em all.

SuperMikey spent too much time getting into bother at school, as this image, when he was simply known as "Mikie" illustrates. He'll be exactly the same in the call centre.

Very good video. So basically a load of people not comfy in their own skin? CJ of Eggheads is a member of MENSA

Good luck on trying to hang those opinions on me, sir. I've already said that I'm fully aware that Russians have their own agenda. Thing is, they haven't been going around invading or striking Middle Eastern countries. It is frankly amazing with their p!ss-poor reputation from the likes of us, who actually remember when they were the Cold War enemy, that they're able to present themselves as peacemakers. That's on US foreign policy, and the number of people who have died as a result. It's not like the Russians have set up a fluffy bunny petting zoo and organised free travel for the world's fluffy bunny aficionados. They're just not as aggressive as the US. However, the "crimes" you accuse them of are nothing but. Would I be a criminal if I denied the use of my car to someone who wanted it, even if they were willing to pay? Nope, I'd just be someone withholding a resource. It might inconvenience the potential traveller, but then it's not my job to provide transport for strangers, just as it isn't Putin's job to provide energy security for countries who lack capacity.

Temporarily, yes. I don't expect the Russian solution to the Syrian crisis to be the end of it, though. It doesn't segue with the general plan to dominate and balkanise the Middle East. The US only has itself to blame for the general lack of trust in its foreign policy.

Had a look at the article. It's an interesting read, but has little to do with the agency of Russia and China ( we'll get back to those in a bit ). There are a number of problems. The author begins with the point of truth that US intervention is somehow a benevolent thing for the world, something I'd have a hard time agreeing with. For the benefit of Israel and it's own corporations, possibly. I spend a lot of time with Americans. The article quotes that even though 75% of US citizens believe Assad to be responsible, the vast majority are still against military intervention. That's got bugger all to do with Russia and China, and a great deal to do with US Foreign Policy over the last decade. I'm not running to embrace Russia or China, but neither do I think that we should be emulating the US. The "slightly scared of nukes" ten year old version of myself would be amazed to learn that Russia would be the chaps trying to sort out a peaceful solution. Yes, I know they have their own agenda; I'm not ten any more. It's not like Russia is without its problems either. It's been called a mafia state, we repeatedly chortle about the semi-regular job-swap between Putin and Medvedev and we're aware that when its own interests are threatened, it can be a brutal state regime. Russia hasn't increased its standing through good deeds. Aptly enough, their handling of the situation has been akin to judo, which Putin is reported to be a fan of. They sit back, wait for the US to make it's move, and then use the momentum of that move against them. In other words, they're fully aware that with enough rope, the US will hang itself on the gallows of its own foreign policy.

Going to hold out for the PC version of this one. I'll have Saints Row 4 to keep me busy for a bit.

The plus side of the present system is transparency. I'm not sure I'd like the idea of courts operating in secret, only to suddenly pop up and say "oh yeah, so and so's a paedo". The points about the media are well made, there is almost a Heisenberg principle at work, but I think most juries would be able to constrain themselves to the evidence. If defendants were anonymous, would there be as much press scrutiny of these events if the press were forbidden from reporting on events until the conclusion? The problem with such proposals is that they could very easily become de-facto secret courts, and we have too many actual secret courts as it is. Serious charges need to be in the open. I know it must be incredibly uncomfortable for those that are innocent, but as Dave Jones has shown, it is possible to be completely exonerated and continue with a career. The case ultimately came down to his word against hers. In Le Vell's favour, these sort of cases are extremely difficult to prove to a judicial standard. He was likely to get off from the start. The flip side of that is that some people will always wonder, particularly because the bloke is an actor by trade.

I stand by everything I said. I'm not comparing Apple with Android here re: build quality. I'm comparing Apple vs Apple. The build quality is worse; it's using cheaper material than its predecessors and the whole point is to hit a group of customers who are currently priced out of Apple's market. Fair to say that budget is a big consideration? Whatever. You've always had the comfort of knowing that even though they were expensive, the iPhones ( debacle with initial iPhone4 not actually being able to receive phone calls aside ) were built nicely. No longer. The 5C is like Ferrari banging out a Fiat and putting their name on it.

Much worse build quality. It's a budget phone.

I'm probably going to get the Nexus 5 when it comes out, even though I've a year's contract left on the one I have. The attractive thing about that is you can buy it outright fairly cheaply. When you consider that a good part of your phone contract is hire purchase on the phone, makes a lot of sense.

doubleTwist is my music player of choice on Android too. It's a very good fit for someone used to iPod-like music controls.

I bunged a 64Gb SD card into my S3 and have never looked back. I buy most of my music from 7digital these days. Have done since around 2007.

We don't often agree, but here we do (apart from your claims of having a girlfriend, obviously ). Seriously though, it is partially about cost, but not the way whelk might mean. Time was, you'd pay the premium for an iPhone because it really was the best phone on the market, both in terms of build quality and overall experience. Think I saw my first one in the US in 2008, and I was blown away. I had the chance to go to an iPhone5 last year, but after getting my iPad, the iPhone really was just a phone and music player, occasionally filling the void as an internet device of last resort. I said that Apple became a me too company when the iPad Mini was launched. With the launch of the 5C, you really are just paying for the brand, the walled garden and the customer services (which I'll happily admit are great when you need them).

Stop picking on Alps ta. Some of my rl mates are much worse.

VW, just for the benefit of clarity, who are you referring to when (ahem) "talking to Hanzie"?

The US and UK needed to provide proof to the UN to justify their actions under the terms of the existing resolution ( they couldn't get a new one, remember ). They had no proof because they had no case. They can't even claim that they were acting in good faith. The facts were bludgeoned to suit the policy of war. Bush, Blair and all the other hawks that fabricated the case for war with Iraq should be up before the Hague.

Incorrect. It just means that the red line that Obama has created can no longer be crossed. There's no need to put it through Congress. Even if the vote is defeated, Obama can still conduct the campaign he is after. Could have done all along. Obama is either seeking democratic legimitacy (which I agree, probably won't get) or a means of passing the buck to someone else if things get out of hand. e.g. You voted for action, Congress. Except the US didn't have authorisation to go into Iraq, or at least, not to wage war. They went in on the back of our lies, not a UN resolution.

The Russians are playing a blinder on this one. From day one, the options, parroted here by the gormless, have been "strike" or "do nothing". John Kerry gave them a chink of light yesterday and they've barrelled in with a third way.

The big difference, hypo? Conducting an op on your own soil is far easier than trying to start sh!t under the gaze of the international community, as Syria and Benghazi have shown (oddly enough, thwarted by two unwitting NAVY Seals doing their patriotic duty )

I dunno, Alps - I just live here, see the actual papers, read the editorials and listen to a sh!tload of Radio 4. Still, whip it out - let's see "most" of the British press. Funny thing is that after the Parliament vote, most of the papers spouted the same opinions as you are now.

You're a fool if you believe any network. It's all propaganda. Don't make the mistake of thinking we're any different.