Given the political importance of Christianity in pre-enlightenment Europe where being the wrong ind of Christian was literally a matter of life and death, any Bible published before the 18th century can be expected to be politically slanted. The KJV certainly fits into that category but since it was an English Bible for the English form of Christianity, we can be sure it was politically slanted in the right direction - all other versions of Christianity being corrupt papist nonsense or something like that.

The trouble is that version control is fast becoming a monoculture. Soon git will be the only version control solution in town and it's a bit shit really. It's popular mainly because Linus Torvalds wrote it, not because it's actually technically a good program.

It is often unethical to do a placebo controlled trial because the people taking the placebo are effectively condemned to death.

The only thing homeopathy prevents is the marks spending their money on things that actually do something.

So we have somebody who thinks you need a gun in case of the government and somebody who doesn't. I think the one who thinks he needs to be armed is the one who is frightened of the government.

Not while it still suffers from the fragile base class problem.

I think the parent was assuming that x, y, z could be function calls with side effects.

x is modified twice in the expression without a sequence point. There are two ways code could be generated:

Set a temp variable to the value of x
Increment x
Assign the temp variable to x

or

Assign x to x
Increment x.

Both are legal. Actually, since the behaviour is formally "undefined behaviour", the compiler is free to generate code to do anything or nothing.

To be fair, the one liner didn't do any error checking either.

I had a look at their home page and it looks like some sort of technical blogging and news site. The fact that nobody who has commented on this story seems to know who they are (or were) is probably a clue as to why they have gone tits up.

No. It's always stood for "closed circuit".

Care to guess how much of N3200 as it is today was actually dug out of that beach?

It's practically a new aeroplane.

That's bullshit. The British knew exactly how to crack the four rotor problem: they needed bigger and faster bombes, but they didn't have the resources with which to build them. In fact, by using some tricks, they were able to have some success with the existing equipment, but a permanent solution was only arrived at when the USA joined the war. An agreement was reached to share cryptanalysis efforts and the Americans with their enormous resources and significant design input from the British were able to build the required bombes.

To be fair, the example gives the same output as would be seen in the example from TFA.

Actually, in your scenario, the source code does not lose its "freedom", but the derivative work never gets it. This means that the changes never get back to the community, but the original code is there as fee as ever.

It's important to note that I can take a piece of GPL software and modify it and still not give the changes back to the community. In fact, even if I distribute my modified software, I only have to give the changes to whomever I distribute it to. Of course, I can't then stop them from giving it away to anybody who asks.

Why did Apple ever bother with Unix certification then?