a factory sized bakery is FAR more stringently controlled

Factory sized bakeries are more stringently controlled, both by governmental regulation and for QA purposes. However, because of the magnifying effects of the economies of scale, cheaper ingredients are used wherever possible. Additionally, due to the need to maximize shelf-life, automate production lines, and reduce waste, components that would not normally be added to baked goods by smaller bakers are added in an industrial setting. Finally, while many so-called organic products are not free of contaminants, products produced using normal methods also contain many of these contaminants.

[I]t's just a label change without a quality change.

Paying more for a label is silly, but at least some of the higher end cupcake places I've visited were superior to the standard supermarket cupcakes, both in taste and decoration. Probably not $4 superior, but enough that I would consider paying more for the once or twice a year I buy a cupcake. But then again, I tend to consider cupcakes like this gourmet, so my taste might be suspect.

A "gourmet" cupcake is made in exactly the same oven with exactly the same ingredients as a regular cupcake...

Just like a computer contains the same silicon and rare elements as any other computer, the devil is in how they're assembled and put together, and the skill with which someone makes them. A "working" program is made in exactly the same compiler with exactly the same syntactical constraints as a segfaulting program

I have always preferred RH's system-V-like way of doing things.

While there are slight differences, Debian has been using SysV as a default for a very long time. [Probably even since the beginning.] We also have file-rc and various other init systems available as options; while they may be the default at some point in the future, they're not the default now.

but homeostasis is not perfect.

No, but it's fairly good when we're talking about internal body temperatures... and when it does fail and your temperature goes much beyond 42C, you die.

Put a one cm2 sample in sunlight in the summer and check the heat gain vs exposing the same size sample to a milliwatt em source of your choosing.

This would be a measurement of average heat gain, which isn't what I'm talking about. Obviously there's not enough energy in a typical cell phone transmitter to produce an appreciable average heat gain in a volume of water the size of a human. However, with an increase in localized intensity via focusing you may be able to increase the incidence and severity of inflammation.

I personally don't think that the radiated power of most common devices is going to be high enough to introduce a high enough relative risk to offset the advantages of cell phones (or probably even to have a study with enough statistical power to be detectable), but that doesn't mean that scientists shouldn't go out and do the tests to verify that this is in fact the case.

Is there more cancer in warm areas then in cold ones? I would guess that then few milliwatts of RF would produce less heat than say living in the south or west?

External temperatures don't influence internal temperatures much, so long as humans can maintain homeostasis. That said, I would expect (after controlling for skin pigmentation) to find more skin cancers in warmer areas... but that's not what you're asking about.

It's not the power itself that is the issue, but the intensity. A few mW over a few um^2 is more likely to be problematic than a few W over a few meters^2.

does it not make sense that electromagnetic radiation below visible light should also not cause cancer

Non-ionizing radiation shouldn't directly cause cancer by the inducement of DNA damage. However, non-ionizing radiation could conceivably cause inflammation due to localized increase in heat. Increased inflammation can increase the risk of cancer. [That's basically why asbestos causes cancer, even though asbestos itself is spectacularly inert.]

It's certainly unlikely that cell phones produce enough energy to cause enough inflammation to cause an appreciable increase in risk of cancer, but the possibility is large enough that it's reasonable to study.

I can easily use city streets and the (private) railways to supply my needs.

Except for the fact that almost all of the highways and railways have had federal subsidies. Good luck disentangling them.

Sure, suing for linking to it is pretty stupid, but US government seems to be closing sites that link to TV series too.

Lets at least get real here. Real Alternative is trivially googleable. If you were actually looking for it and couldn't find it, something's wrong with you.

I think the valid interpretation (which is why people merely seek coming into compliance with the terms...) for the GPL/LGPLv2 for reinstatement is to re-obtain a new copy and fully comply with the terms.

Coming into compliance really works because the copyright holders grant a new license to the violator after compliance is obtained; the copyright holder is not limited to the terms of the GPL in granting new licenses. That said, it is possible that a violator would attempt to claim that they re-obtained a new license from another sublicensor, but that would add evidence that they knowingly were in violation of the license; that's one reason why we've not seen anyone with an action brought against them try to reinstate it by themselves, even if they disagree with my (IANAL) interpretation of what GPLv2 section 4 means.

There is no "you lose your rights forever" clause in the GPLv2 license.

Section 4 is that very clause. If you "copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under" the GPLv2, your rights are "automatically terminate[d]." There is no mechanism to regain a license under the GPLv2. And if you think that you regain such a license under GPLv2 section 6, the end of section 4 takes care of that: "parties who have received [..] rights [..] from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long [as they] remain in full compliance.

If this wasn't the case, the GPLv2 itself would have no force, because any past violation could be pasted over by merely being granted a new license from some other sublicensor. GPLv3 fixes this problem by adding reinstatement language to section 8.

To use a car example, it's like a car with high torque and excellent gas mileage, but ugly to look at and the instruments are labelled differently and in the back seat.

No, it's more like a car whose steering wheel looks like an F1 steering wheel and a dash panel which looks like a 747 flight engineer's station. Difficult for someone used to driving a normal car or flying a piper cub to master, but capable of generating incredible performance for those who understand its function.

Most everyone who uses vimperator has their browser configured to not use an URL bar. I personally don't miss it at all.

Oh, you mean the stuff inside that laptop you're posting with?

And in just about any piece of electronic equipment, yes. Its commonality doesn't make it any less toxic or undermine the point that even alternative energy sources produce waste and problems which should be considered when determining whether they are economically and environmentally feasible.

What toxic chemicals are used to make solar panels?

cadmium, copper-indium, gallium arsenide, polyvinyl fluoride, etc.