Maybe it's because women are too practical, or have better things to do, than to code for free, as suggested by this comment on TFA:

So maybe this blogger should mind his own business.

...Up the water spout,
Down came the rain and washed the spider out.
Out came the sun, and dried up all the rain,
Wave did the spider to the surprised proctologist,
And the itsy bitsy spider went up the spout again.

Danger held your data hostage from the start and didn't provide backup. Then, when Microsoft took them over, it was clear that they were going to mess with the service and servers. No backup + Microsoft mucking with the servers = kiss your data goodbye.

But that's no more an indictment of hosted services or "cloud computing" than a Windows BSOD is an indictment of desktop computing. Microsoft screwed up, and quite predictably, too.

Orggre znlor vs lbh hfrq vt-cnl ngva-ynl svefg?

They forgot to throw in a connection to terrorism.

Mod parent up. Apple's advantage has never been the iPhone hardware - it's been software. Android reduces the software advantage in the same way that Win95 did when Apple finally lost the GUI PC war in the 90s. Comparing the Windows/MacOS 8 battle to iPhone vs. Androind is a bad comparison. Android is MUCH more capable than Windows was in it's early versions.

Because then Microsoft couldn't have IE in the default install.

Of course it could be done. I'd imagine a junior programmer in Microsoft could whip something up in their lunch break. An executable that is placed in the start-up folder by default, on opening gives a list of browsers with a brief neutral description, and a button saying install. Then it links to the website via ftp, and does the install for the user, which puts the icon on the start menu, the desktop and possibly the toolbar. Same as every bloody program that is available for Windows.

It isn't over engineered, it's under conceded. It's a lawyer generated solution. Personally, I'd have loved to see Microsoft stuck with their "well.. you can have it with no browser then!" EU version sulky offer of a few months ago, and watch them try to back-pedal when the drama queen option was accepted.

Of course not, because that money had already been paid along to the government.

You are talking like Amazon actually benefits from collecting higher VAT. They don't. VAT money is a tax, which is paid along to the government. Of course, if Amazon has been charging VAT while keeping the money, then we are talking about large scale tax fraud. Claiming that something is VAT on the receipt and than not treating it as such in accounting is highly illegal.

I don't understand why everyone is against metered data costs whether it be on phones or one their home connections. Electricity and other utilities are metered by use and it doesn't seem to provoke the outrage that metering of data connections does. Adding metered data usage could make the iPhone data plan cheaper for light users. The concept of metered usage is not inherently any less fair than unlimited usage plans, it all depends on what price structure they propose. If unlimited data is $30 but 1Gb/month is $15 then the average iPhone user is saving money, on the other hand if instead the pricing was $1/Mb obviously the users would be losing. It's clearly too early to be worried, why don't you wait and see what happens? Why shouldn't the people who use a little data on their iPhone pay less than the people who use a lot?

Maybe next will be a ballot for mail client.

Possibly you missed the part about LSE was going against the grain by using windows for this kind of system, when everyone else was using Unix or Linux, and the MilleniumIT system is proven.

I say let's give them their Nobel now.

Maybe not. The fact the most of the other exchanges use Linux indicates that they knew something that LSE didn't.

The PDFs for the press conference have pictures containing a white dot which are alledged to be the crater and the explosion.

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/392841main_SSC-data.pdf

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/360020main_LRO_LCROSS_presskit2.pdf

Some headhunters are not worth "keeping around."

I've had a few that repeatedly contact me to discuss completely unsuitable positions. After wasting 10 minutes on the phone trying to grasp how Position X is even remotely relevant to my skills or expectations, I finally realize that it's not me failing to understand something, it's that the headhunter has no clue what the keyword list provided by his client actually means. Then next month, same headhunter and same routine. I've even had one headhunter who would phone and email - repeatedly - about the exact same position. Based on my read of the situation it's because it kept coming available over and over again as a string of candidates were hired and quickly left in disgust.

Sometimes the very best thing to say to such people is "look, I don't really think you understand me or my job search. Maybe it's best if you just remove my name from your database."