And they both have been exposed: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/246424

Yeah, from Afghanistan. I read that. Same thing.

No, you were not. The Taliban were (are) some crazy nut-jobs but the US wasn't attacked by them. It was a bunch of arabs (most of them from Saudi Arabia), led by an Egyptian and financed by OBL et al.

Afghanistan, the country, had nothing to do with.

But OBL was (is?) living there and the Taliban government refused to hand over a suspect without some kind of a proof, so yeah, they made themselves (and the almost 30 millions of Afghanis) a fair target... How is that fight on the terrorists going? Is America more or less terrorized nowadays?

I've to the States before and after the 9/11 and I've also been to third world countries with real security problems. People seem more frightened in America. I understand them, they live surrounded by people with big guns looking for an excuse to use them.

Wow, rereading this, it does look a bit trollish, but I can't fight the truth, apparently that's the job of the USA ;)

Maybe, but I meant no offense to any citizen of the UK or the Commonwealth. I just wanted to point out that many more people care about the band than about the Royal Family ;)

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."

Meanwhile, the 'Queen' that matters has had a Facebook page for ages.

Well, the thing is that Apple endeavor regarding the approval process for Apps may be seen as anticompetitive because it uses its dominant position to stifle competition (duplicate functionality, etc). It's the same thing as when people say Google should be investigated in case they promote their own products using their search monopoly, demoting their competitors. If such things happen, they should be investigated. There is nothing wrong with monopolies achieved by being better than the rest, but using a dominant position in one market to gain traction in another is a big no-no.

All this is highly speculative, but I'd expect it to be like Automator on OS X, and the "apps" not being submitted to the store, but used but executed inside an apple made app. Easy way for power users to scratch their own itches, and a nice mousehole in the walled garden... Pure speculation though.

This is the actual statement by Apple.

Also, I've read some rumors about the next iLife '11 having a new program for creating iOS apps in a similar way to the Android's AppInventor. This new statement seems a like a pointer in that direction, otherwise they would have a hard time arguing about antitrust issues on the App Store...

This is the actual statement by Apple.

Also, I've read some rumors about the next iLife '11 having a new program for creating iOS apps in a similar way to the Android's AppInventor. This new statement seems a like a pointer in that direction, otherwise they would have a hard time arguing about antitrust issues on the App Store...

Well, I guess you can, but I've been told the games on the Wii aren't on par in the graphics are with the PS3 and the 360. I'm also guessing that there are a lot of people that own one of them plus a Wii. Nintendo is no saint at all, but I don't think it has reached the same Evil Overlord status as MS and Sony.

Well, the single reason I can think of is hating Microsoft more than Sony. It's tough call though.

Who do you hate more, the guy that killed mommy or the guy that killed daddy? (Think of this as a lyrical exaggeration, of course)

When he says "free", he means "free of patents threats". Of course you can do it "for free", but they will eventually come after you.

Ah, and when you "pass it to the OS", you need to have paid for and OS from a vendor that has paid the licensing...

They should view this kind of situations as a way to gain some positive mindshare. Banks and Oil companies spends tons of money in ads, some CEOs have nominal pays of just a dollar a year... They all try to look good, more so if it's cheap to do so. (The RIAA is just evil and doesn't need to care about PR.)

And the next batches of users? You may be sacrificing all of their freedoms... (and saying they don't have to use a proprietary version is... how could I express it... "a ridiculous notion"? :P)

Yeah, I do understand that, it's just that sometimes it bothers me that some people don't value the common good as much as it deserves ;) I guess it's not truly free but freer for humankind than anything else...

You don't like the code's licence, you are free to write your own. You are free to look up the code itself so you can come up with a different implementation and license it however you want :)

I think you are getting it wrong. It forces you to share your modifications if you distribute them. You are absolutely free to do whatever you what with that code, for yourself. If you go public, the writers of the parent code chose a license that gives freedom (the four fsf freedoms) to all the users downstream.

Why do you want to private your users/customers/neighbors from that freedom?
Why would you like to infringe upon them (the possibility of) a closed source version of your BSD code?
Why do you think the people that use the GPL shouldn't try to make their own code to remain free?