Dun & Bradstreet got their start as a collections agency. (This is where the term "dun" and "dunning letter", for debt collector and collections notice, came from. They were persistent.)

They still do that as part of their everyday business.

Corporations live and die based on their Dun & Bradstreet rating. If there is ONE collections agency a large US/multinational corporation is NOT going to ignore, it is Dun & Bradstreet.

Give them a call.

See https://creditreports.dnb.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/SmbSubCategoryDisplay?storeId=11151&catalogId=71151&categoryId=40020

You might want to consider sending a "final warning" letter, CC: to both US and EU branches, advising them that you will place the debt for collection if they don't pay up within 30 calendar days, before you actually sic the Duns on them.

The GPL does not require that the source code accompany the binary, although that is the simplest way to comply with clause 3 of the GPL.

Clause 3 gives three options. Clause 3(a) allows one to distribute the source with the binary. Clause 3(b) allows one to offer to distribute the source to ANY third party. Clause 3(c) allows one to refer requests up the food chain. (Al puts the app out there. Bob grabs a copy, and gives it to Charlie. Charlie asks Bob for the source. Bob is allowed under clause 3(c) to tell Charlie "I got it from Al, he said you could get it from HERE".) Clause 3(c) is restricted to noncommercial distribution, and only works if all you got was a clause 3(b) offer. If you got the source with the binary (clause 3(a)), you are required to give it up on request.

Your Example #2 is SPECIFICALLY wrong. If you do not distribute your GPL source WITH your GPL binary in accordance with clause 3(a), you are required by clause 3(b) of the GPL to make your source code available to ANYONE who requests it.

No, developers must release the source code to ANYONE who requests it, regardless of whether they received the binary or not.

Read clause 3(b), the part where it says "any third party". The key word is "any".

Are you certain you have read the GPL?

Your statement that it requires one to give the source to anyone who gets the binary is INCORRECT.

Clause 3(b) of the GPL requires you to give the source to ANY third party (emphasis added). "Any third party" means any third party, whether they got the binary or not.

And you explicitly do NOT need to pay the scumbag's $3.99 binary fee before you can get his source.

Most of the airplanes in airline service do not carry anywhere near 250 people, and most of the legs flown are nowhere near 4 hours duration (door close to door open).

Embraer ERJ-145 carries 50 passengers. There are a LOT of ERJ-145s flying, and they are nowhere near the smallest of the regional jets.

Boeing 737 carries anywhere from 85 to 215 passengers. It is one of the most popular transport airplanes on Earth.

For historical perspective: Boeing 707 carried 140 to 189 passengers. As of 2011, there were still 10 airplanes in airline service. (Boeing builds good airplanes.)

McDonnell-Douglas MD-80 variants seat from 130 to 172 passengers. There are a LOT of these puppies flying, despite being older and more fuel-hungry.

Also note that there are two pilots in the front office on every flight. (If it is a long over-water flight, there will be more, and they'll rotate in and out of the cockpit, so that the guy (or gal) landing the airplane after 13 hours in the air is not exhausted.)

I originally came across the Pentel Slicci 0.4 mm in the stationery department in Tokyu department store, in MBK center, in Bangkok, Thailand. I bought a few then. I have since stocked up by mail order.

The line is as fine as a Pilot Razor Point, but not scratchy, and the tip is a ball tip as opposed to the Razor Point's fiber element, which can be broken if you drop it on a hard floor.

As far as I know, the Slicci is not available retail in the United States. Mail order through the Web, or eBay, seem to be your only options. (Or fly to Bangkok...)

They also make a 0.25 mm version, but I find that the line from that one is too faint and it feels scratchy.

No, web browsing will not benefit significantly from multicore. The vast majority of the slowdown in web browsing is downloading and running gigabytes and gigabytes of Flash garbage animations and TV ads. AND YOU CAN'T STOP OR PAUSE THE ADS!

This is not hypothetical. I bought a new machine earlier this year. It browsed like a bat out of hell with its tailfeathers on fire ... until ONE SITE I thought I needed to hit that day demanded I enable Flash. The moment I turned Flash on, all web browsing on that machine slowed to a crawl.

Supposedly, it has been DONE.

The story goes that, when DC sued Marvel over Captain Marvel allegedly infringing on Superman, Marvel responded by having a villain take out either copyright or patent on the letters A-Z, and then sue anybody who tried to write or print anything without paying royalties first.

Stratfor annual subscription is US$349/year, according to their website as of a few minutes ago.

I think that's about 3.5x what I used to pay for my Av Leak subscription, which I dropped a long time ago.

Something needs to be pointed out, quite loudly.

The REASON that "We didn't learn for years..." is that the containment structure WORKED AS DESIGNED. It contained the melt.

Sorry, but this is factually incorrect.

BASIC was developed by Kemeny and Kurtz at Dartmouth to make computer programming accessible to students. It was designed to be easy to use on the machines at that time.

The original implementation was actually compiler-based, integrated with an editor. Today you'd call it an integrated development environment. Interpreter implementations came later.

OK. From http://www.dar-us-salam.com/TheNobleQuran/index.html:

Sura 9:5. Then when the Sacred Months (the Ist, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikun (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and give Zakat, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

(I do not think you can argue with the word "kill" here.)

Sura 9:29. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

(A case may possibly be made that "fight" here should be considered as "struggle", implying nonviolence. Given the apparent propensity of Islam for violent means, I tend to doubt that much credence could be given to such a case. And of course see Sura 9:5, supra.)

There are also explicit commands against poisoning wells, and against killing noncombatants. Women and children are defined in the Koran as noncombatants, and off limits. However, these attacks are aimed directly at female children.

There's a big difference between contingency planning (and wargaming, and practice) and cranking up the War Machine in earnest.

By the middle of 1941, the US was cranking up the War Machine, for real, to go into Europe. What I read in "Popular Science" from that period didn't indicate whether they also expected trouble from Japan in the same timeframe.

Really?

Sura 9 of the Koran, the last Sura dictated by the Prophet Mohammed (pbuh, and all that) and hence not subject to revision or qualification by later Suras, seems to call for killing of infidels, in pretty explicit language, repeatedly.

I don't have time to dig out the exact quotes right now. Maybe tonight.

Yes and no.

The US was planning to enter World War II, and advance preparations were well underway, long before the Japanese carriers launched their airplanes. This is obvious from reading the popular press of the time.

Pearl Harbor pulled the trigger. At that point, a contingency plan for fighting simultaneous major wars in Europe and the Pacific was pulled off the shelf and put into operation. That plan called for fighting holding actions in the Pacific, winning in Europe, then winning in the Pacific. Perusal of the history books will reveal that this strategy worked.