"requires"

?

That's what I'm saying; you don't need to read the EULA.

If you have to install software for something that has no business requiring you to install software, game over.

If a bank/CD/whatever other crazy thing requires you to install software to use it, take your business elsewhere.

Because misdemeanors can prevent you from having a felony expunged.

Since September 2012 (earlier, it was even stricter), Ohio allows consideration of expungement by a court if a person "has not more than one felony conviction, not more than two misdemeanor convictions if the convictions are not of the same offense, or not more than one felony conviction and one misdemeanor conviction in this state or any other jurisdiction."

No, but you can host your own copy of http://timecube.com/

Yes, it really is so different.

With both the recent openssl and bash bugs, in addition to fixing the bug, careful investigation was done by the respective communities and additional problems were/are being addressed. I submit that this would likely not have been the case with closed source software.

He not only makes the unrelated point, but then goes on with nonsense about when you do need to choose a password:

Bzzzt. Failure to understand the meaning of the word "random" rules you out as an authority on passwords.

No, we need such a command line tool or possibly library with a command line tool wrapped around it. The GUI is entirely optional and certainly shouldn't be bundled.

You lost me at "Windows".

So, you think the trade publishers would be fine with exclusivity and their only beef is the money? I think differently.

There are so many indie books because, AIUI, you cannot choose to have a book included in Kindle Unlimited unless you are providing it to Amazon under the KDP Select program. This program gets you higher percentages and free marketing and promotional tools. The tradeoff is that whatever books you have in the program be available exclusively from Amazon. This is a tradeoff that is going to make sense for many authors, but is just horrible for readers. And in the long run, the lock-in this inspires is bad for the authors too.

See Chris Wright's rant.

CNN seems to be very confused; in what way is this additional whistleblower a "mole"?

I agree with your first part, but then you go off on a tangent ("By distributing the code...") that seems inapplicable??

The audit of the source is complete. The next phase of the audit is cryptanalysis.

Yes, it seems pretty clear to me that this is a warrant canary.

It may still be that they triggered it (or let it self-trigger via inaction) out of lack of desire to continue the project.

In any case, the presumed goal of the canary - making sure that no one trusts any future TrueCrypt version released via the normal channel - has certainly been successful.