Nice stuff. The robot needs tuning though.

It also doesn't indicate how many of these cameras have recorded incidents which the police then haven't been able to get the footage of. From talking to my friends in the police, it seems rather infuriatingly common that when they see that a camera's covered the area a particular crime was committed in, they find that it either wasn't recording, or has already recorded over the footage, or there's a big leafy tree in the way - and by the time they've got hold of the necessary video (if it does exist) and had it converted to a format they can actually play, weeks may have gone past.

A friend of mine has already had to bail a suspect for two weeks to get CCTV evidence. This, clearly, is not the way to effectively use the cameras and in some ways they might as well not be there (and some are of such poor quality that they really have no point at all).

That said, they are sometimes extremely helpful sources of evidence.

I'm not sure it's appropriate to expose a four-year-old to the culture in that game.

Hell, I didn't like it very much and I was 23 when I played it. I certainly wouldn't let my kids play it (if I had any, that is). In the UK it's rated 18, which seems a fair choice, but I would consider allowing it at a younger age if I was confident the child would understand its just a game.

That said, I'd be wanting them to play Half-Life 2 first. It's a game, sure, but it's not a very good one.

Thanks Xeni! I feel much less nauseous now.

Unfortunately the unicorn appears to have been misinformed that the audience needing their eyeballs washed is a group of feline models known for their regular appearances on lolcat sites.

I must agree with Thane. You've entered private property - private property filled with many interesting things of high value which quite a few people might want to steal. I don't think it's at all unreasonable that they want to see your receipt for any goods you're carrying to make sure you've paid for them before you leave. The author of this article didn't have to show ID to the store staff to get out, just the receipt for an easily-stealable item purchased from those private premises.

This is not an invasion of privacy. The receipt doesn't have your personal details on it. It doesn't have your card number on it (or at least it shouldn't - if it does, stop shopping there and make sure you burn the thing instead of throwing it away when you no longer require it). It doesn't have your sexual preferences encoded in the layout of the text. So what's the big deal? Some attempts to reduce or prevent crime to infringe on our rights, and these need to be considered carefully, but this doesn't - it's just an unfortunate sign of the times we live in.

That said, though, after the utterly pointless incident with the security guard which led to calling the police, the police officer really needs to get straight on whether there's a legal obligation to produce ID or not. Obstructing the police I can understand, but there's no justification for actually needing to know who someone is at that point. Since the author handed over the receipt to the police officer when asked, and the store manager confirmed nothing was stolen, that should have been the end of it - with a chat from the police officer about private property and the prevention of retail theft. The arrest does appear rather over the top, but the situation should never have arisen in the first place.