altus

But the permissions you allow it enable it to take pictures whenever it likes. What triggers it is not the significant point - it could be a button press, another app, a timer, an incoming SMS containing a secret instruction that then gets hidden from the user, anything. If you look at denomis's posts in this thread, they don't say it does do that - just that it could. Under what circumstances the facebook app and it's custom camera app do take pictures we can't be certain but, because you allow the app to have those permissions, it is possible for it to do that. You, and others, have been claiming that it is not possible - that is wrong.

His dad is on tomorrow - that should be good for a giggle too.

Not at all. Pressing a button just triggers a 'button pressed' event in the app. A camera app would typically respond to that by taking a picture. But there's nothing to stop a camera app being programmed to take a picture when triggered by something else - such as another application. Your claim that you HAVE to press the shutter button to get the phone's camera to take a picture is nonsense.

Anything rather than justify your claim.

You made the claim - you get to justify it. No justification = we can only assume you made it up.

Is that an actual confirmed fact or have you just made it up. If the former, please post the Facebook camera app's AndroidManifest.xml so we can see that it doesn't have a 'take a picture' activity callable by other apps.

I suspect the answer might have something to do with the dog being described as a sheepdog. There are rabbits and other wildlife up there as well.

Or indeed the gullibility of people who want to lose weight without the putting in the required effort.

What you've said previously on this thread has changed from saying no one knew what the outcome of the election would have been beforehand and that the LibDems talked to Labour as well as the Conservatives, to complaining that nobody stated that the LibDems would definitely form a full coalition with the Conservatives and claim that people therefore didn't know what they were voting for. You seem to be changing your arguments when people present evidence to contradict your claims. Way to ignore the point again. Given the LibDems well known support for PR and the inevitable coalitions that would result, do you still maintain that the LibDems going into a coalition will have been a surprise to most of the people who voted for them?

Not entirely, but their increased support in the last election was largely disaffected Labour supporters who they were always likely to lose. Any comments on the other, more substantive, points in my post?

The LibDems said they'd work with the party that got the most votes. Given that the election hadn't happened, why would they say they'd go into a full coalition with either Labour or the Conservatives beforehand when it wasn't possible to know who was going to get the most votes? On top of that, announcing they would be willing to form a full coalition in advance would have reduced their negotiating power when it came to discussing it with the other parties. THE headline policy for the LibDems since they were formed is they want proportional representation. That would make coalitions pretty much essential as there would be very little chance of a single party getting an overall majority ever again. Anybody who voted LibDem without realising a coalition was likely clearly wasn't paying attention. LibDem support in the polls afterwards collapsed because all the Labour supporters who voted for them as a protest against Labour suddenly had a change of heart.

There used to be Motorail services in the UK but, a combination of reduced journey times (better roads and faster cars) and cheaper car use (in real terms) meant that it became unpopular and uneconomic in the UK. I don't think your Sheffield to Manchester example would be worthwhile:- drive through traffic to somewhere in Sheffield, wait for the next motorail train, wait for everyone to be loaded, be transported to somewhere in Manchester, wait for people to be unloaded, drive through Manchester traffic to get to where you want to get to. I doubt you'd same any time over waiting in Mottram. It's still practical for long distances, particularly with sleeper trains, and so is still used on the continent. It's unlikely to come back for in UK only journeys but there is scope for UK to European destination ones.

ALL adults act like little kids on bouncy castles/henges.

The software is still at an early stage and releasing the hardware now is really aimed at allowing people to get the software in a state for wider use. If you want something to run XMBC with minimal tinkering then you're probably best waiting until other people have done the donkey work and prepared an SD card image with everything set up on it. Consider that they hope to have an 'educational pack' ready for September. That should give to some idea of timescales to think of.

You'll be able to cancel that gym membership you mentioned at this rate.

And party political broadcasts.

This is the crux of it. The Daily Mail has a history of writing articles like this to get people to visit their website. More page hits = more money from advertisers. Next time you see an article like this, ignore it.

Most child abuse is by close relatives, so installing CCTV cameras in children's bedrooms with live links to police run monitoring centres would help prevent abuse and save children. Do you support the government implementing such a system?

Thought (some of) you might be interested in this analysis of Cardinal O'Brien's recent article on same sex marriage in the Daily Telegraph. Some of the points made may sound familiar to those who have been following this thread.

More to the point - they, and the LibDems, were against it when Labour tried implementing a similar thing towards the end of their last time in government.

You've got that wrong. It should be: Nothing to hide, no need to spy on.

Implanting tracking devices in us all would help catch criminals and potential terrorists but I doubt you think that would be a good thing - it's simply not a proportionate response to the threat. At the moment if the authorities want to track someone, they have to get a court order and provide some sort of justification for doing so - which in an emergency will take them hardly any time at all. With this, they don't - that means they can spy on whoever they like for whatever reason and without any oversight. This is completely disproportionate to what they will actually be able to use it for and others have pointed out how easy it is to avoid for their claimed intended targets.

I think they do understand it really - after all the parties they support are just coalitions of people with differing interests and concerns. They don't want to admit it because they wouldn't have an excuse for moaning about the current 'unelected government' and somehow seem to think that if there wasn't a coalition Labour would have somehow won the last election.

The closest thing to an official way of representing dates and times is the ISO 8601 standard. Given you're dislike of 24 hour clocks, you probably won't want to use it though.

You forgot any fertile married heterosexual couples who use any form of contraception will be automatically divorced. We wouldn't want people who don't want kids lying about it so they can get married.