"Well, I was going to ask you out to dinner, but now, I dunno..."

This. Everything costs extra, and the website is so badly (or well designed depending on how you look at it) that it's so easy to accidentally purchase ski insurance and a rental car on your trip to Denmark. And what's worse: it still ended up more expensive than Easyjet.

I use WizMouse, which seems to accomplish the same thing. With two monitors, this thing is a godsend

As OUBeaver mentioned, Lifehacker can have some really strange timing. Almost told my boss yesterday during a 1-on-1 that I was considering leaving. Decided against it, but I feel a little bad pursuing another job behind his back...

Having said that, I moved to Denmark and I'm pretty happy with that. I guess it's what you make of it.

Vote: Thule Gauntlet Envelope

Yeah, it's the laptop I recommend to friends, but it isn't anywhere near as bright a screen, so it's not anywhere near as useful in bright sunlight.

I've actually discovered the reason why there are no (or at least stupidly few) Haswell ultrabooks with matte screens. Intel owns the Ultrabook trademark, so they have a list of specifications that the laptop musts fulfill to be able to use the word ultrabook. One of those requirements in the latest (3rd) generation…

I generally recommend this laptop to my friends, BUT I can't quite get over how huge the screen bezel is. Of course, I'd probably forget about it pretty quickly, but still...

Why: Before we get started, I don't mean the Ativ series. I'm talking about the pre Haswell ultrabooks that Samsung produced. It's a little outdated and neigh-on impossible to buy new nowadays, but it is lightweight, pretty fast, with above-average battery life. But what makes this laptop the very best ultrabook is…

Except a MANPAD cannot shoot down a plane flying at 21,000 feet either. Their normal vertical range is about 12,000 feet. As you might say, "that's a huge distance when talking vertical directions (altitude?!)".

Wow, I think we've actually agreed! The separatists are most certainly the ones responsible for the tragedy, but I was only arguing that the airline was not without at least some part of the blame.

The most likely theory is that the BUK was captured (or at least used) without the command vehicle. The separatists had little if any training on use of the system, so relied solely on the RADAR on the launcher itself. They were most likely not intending to hit a civilian plane.

You seem to forget that only TWO days prior to MH17 being shot, another high altitude plane was shot down by Ukrainian separatists. And evidence has been mounting for weeks before this that they had a BUK missile system. (I feel as if I'm repeating myself?!)

The airline are at fault for flying through a dangerous area. If you require an analogy for it to finally get into your skull, try this: it WOULD be your fault if you decided to take a stroll through the middle of a warzone and were killed by a stray bullet.

But ultimately it is the airline who is in charge of the live of nearly 300 people, and therefore, they *too* are at fault. They are not the only ones, and you'll probably find the whole process of defining what is "safe" airspace is going to change, but the final decision of where the plane flies is down to each…

"As I said, BA and Qantas have been managing to avoid Eastern Ukraine even before th crash." (did you even read what I wrote?!)

As I said, BA and Qantas have been managing to avoid Eastern Ukraine even before th crash. And now all the airlines need to work out a way to avoid the zone. Do we really need to let 298 people die before we decide to spend a little extra?

Warnings were particularly strong last Monday, after separatists shot down Ukrainian high-altitude cargo plane, and there had already been a fair bit to suggest separatists had access to longer range BUK missiles even before that.

Whilst it was cleared as safe by the authorities, private security firms were warning that there was a high risk of such an accident. It was pretty common knowledge that Ukrainian separatists had BUK missiles that have a range of 77,000 feet, and they had only just shot down a cargo plane flying at a similar altitude…