Yes, the cost of producing a secure operating system is pretty high. Hence the price of the product.

There is no hypocrisy in this.

Linux and Android provide a common "floor" that everyone can build from, in the same way that there is a massive base of shared public knowledge in science and engineering that we all tap into when we start making physical products.

The makers of Apache understood that the software they were all contributing to would offer benefits to private companies as well as the universities they worked for, and they understood that they were contributing to creating a shared knowledge base that had potential to make everyone's lives better -- their software went on to become more important to the entire world than they could ever have possibly dreamed. Even where people use servers other than Apache itself, the base level of performance was defined by Apache. Apache built the world we know, and its permissive license is part of the reason it could.

The makers of Android chose the Apache license knowing full well what it meant (was it Android Inc. who open-sourced it or Google?) and to use it exactly as the makers intended is in no way hypocritical.

Unless you think it's hypocritical that Android apps charge money having been built on a free platform and making extensive use of free APIs rather than talking direct to the hardware (which is impossible for an Android app to do anyway).

The only way a derivative work of an Apache-licensed package is unauthorised is if you neglect to credit the named copyright holders of the code you derived your version from. But if you credit the original authors, you are allowed to slap literally whatever license you like on it. As long as you are not claiming credit for having written code you haven't, object files are yours to distribute however you see fit.

Touché, Monsieur Pussy Cat.

Not really. He was right in thinking that having him as a figurehead would have undermined a lot of what the idea was meant to achieve.

That's irrelevant. First up, because everything in Wikipedia is sourced, you don't need to cite Wikipedia -- you can pick up the source and look it up in the library. Secondly, Wikipedia isn't disregarded as a citation source because it's normally inaccurate, but for two reasons: 1) it changes frequently, so it's too much work to verify it as a source and 2) the student could theoretically change it to say whatever they want to put in their essay.

Banning citing Wikipedia actually makes Wikipedia more reliable in the long term.

The move to the invariant "there's" is a legitimate and logical change in English. "There are..." originates in the Germanic verb-second rule that gives rise to archaic sentences such as "rarely do people write like this now" and "Old King Cole was a merry old soul and a merry old soul was he."

It has been quite a few centuries since verb-second ceased to be a productive rule in English, and the few remaining fossilised exceptions have slowly dropped out of use since.

Furthermore, we now have "it's me", "it's you" and "it's us", where the verb does not encode number, and this is really no different to switching to "there's"/"there is" as a fixed singular expression.

What is your evidence of this? There's a lot of incompatible theories about "ain't".

Shullbit. All languages are fault tolerant to a similar degree, although the areas they are most tolerant in might vary. English has its limits -- for example, there is no way of resolving "I will do it yesterday" without directly asking for clarification (assuming you're not talking to Marty McFly, that is).

On this side of the Atlantic, this whole thread is marvellously ridiculous.

Comma splice! Please see me during my office hours for a review of your writing portfolio.

There are tits everywhere. There are yellow tits and blue tits, there are dusky tits and sombre tits, and the Philippines even have "elegant tits". There are also several species that seem somewhat meta, like the red-breasted and stripy-breasted tits.

Page free, m8.

It was a silly generalisation because it was in response to a silly statement by an AC. Your point, however, I completely agree with. Guido kids himself on there are no block delimiters in Python, when every single block is preceeded by a colon. Python has start delimiters for blocks, but no end delimiters, which I think is madness.

But the language is still well suited to my needs so I use it.

I hate semantic whitespace, but even then, your argument could be parameterised as "Who wants to use a programming language where deleting a {char_name} at {position} will prevent the code from running?" for many different char_names and positions, covering every single language.

But despite the nuisance of semantic whitespace, Python is still my main language at the moment because no-one has yet pointed me to a language that handles lists as cleanly, and all my programming tasks these days involve lists of data.