I just bought "Defence Grid" for $2 on steam. It's not much money, but I wouldn't have paid any more, and wouldn't have even bothered to pirate it. I probably won't even play, but my brother uses my steam account and he might check it out.

My point is that $2 is a good impulse-buy price. I won't even bother to check a demo or reviews at that price. So that's $2 more than they would have gotten.

I'd be interested in seeing their total profit binned by price.

Not really, given the existing leaks which show the various governments doing some pretty bad things.

Please see the case of NEW YORK TIMES CO. v. UNITED STATES which examines this section and the surrounding ones, and found that the New York Times was not guilty under it for publishing classified documents:

  http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=403&invol=713

So, telling the world about the bad actions of the banks is unethical because it might hurt those banks?

> The dissemination of classified materials is.

No it isn't. The initial leak, not done by WikiLeaks, is illegal. After that it's legal to distribute.

See how newspapers are also publishing some of the leaks - they wouldn't be doing that if it was illegal.

Wikileaks hasn't even been legally accused of doing anything illegal.

Noah spent 100 years on it? O-O

Why does it take $24.5 million to build the ark, and has an image of dozens of people working on it?

Didn't Noah manage to do it all by himself?

The women themselves don't seem to actually want to persue this.

One woman said:

What makes her latest comments even more bizarre is that her team have gone to say that they are appealing the Swedish prosecutions decision not to pursue the rape allegations any further. Claes Borgstrom told AFP:

        I have asked a higher-ranked special department in the prosecution’s office of Sweden to reconsider the [prosecutor's] decision.

( http://politicalpundits.co.uk/articles/exploring-the-charges-against-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange/ )

One of the women told a Sweedish newspaper that in an interview. I don't speak sweedish so I can't give you an original source, but the translated quote is:

“I had never intended for Julian Assange to be charged with rape. It is quite wrong that we were afraid of him. He is not violent and I do not feel threatened by him.”

http://politicalpundits.co.uk/articles/exploring-the-charges-against-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange/

You can google the quote for more sources.

One of the women told the swedish newspaper:

“It is quite wrong that we were afraid of him. He is not violent and I do not feel threatened by him.”

One of the women specifically said:

“It is quite wrong that we were afraid of him. He is not violent and I do not feel threatened by him.”

How does that fit your idea that he "forced" them in any way?

Just in case some reads the comments and not the article..

The women themselves said they were not afraid of him, and he did not force them.

And you need to read up on the concept of git.

Seriously, this isn't SVN.

Typical work flow in git is:

1) Clone remote repository
2) Make branch of the clone's master (origin/master), say, and calling it "master".
3) Add your commits to your branch.
4) Continue until you're happy.
5) Merge your changes with any changes that other people have done.
6) Push your changes onto the remote server.

What Linus is saying is that step 5 can cause trouble. Instead of making a branch of clone's master, you should use the latest tag instead. This is not the way you'd do it on any small or medium project.

> I'm sorry but I've never been tempted to branch from an unstable point, and I'd be horrified if anyone on my time tried to do so.

What?

This would happen just checking out the latest version, then start writing some code. How is that a practise that you should be "horrified" by ?

So why aren't you doing that?