they either end up being synchronized to one account or they are only local contacts on your phone which are lost when you reboot, right?
If by "reboot", you mean "factory reset", then yes. You can merge multiple accounts into the same contact (called "join contacts" in android), but if you factory reset those merges are not preserved. Google contacts and Google+ contacts are automatically merged though, at least in Jelly Bean. And to answer another point you make -- when you join contacts, data is not copied between the several accounts.
When you add a new contact, it will be automatically assigned to your main account, you can not chose to which phonebook it should belong, correct? In WP, you can have your live account, as many ActiveSync accounts as you like, Facebook, whatever. And when you add a contact it will ask you for which account it is.
No, it works the same way in Android. When you create a contact, it asks you to which account you want to save it to (Phone, SIM, Google, Exchange, etc.). I'm not sure what happens you delete an account as I'm not inclined to test it, but I suppose it's up to the account implementation whether to leave the data there unmanaged or to delete it.
In sum, there doesn't seem to be difference between Android and WP8 in this regard.
Since in WP8 each contact is associated to an account, the different accounts are never merged. That's the reason WP is afaik the first mobile phone system capable to properly manage multiple active sync accounts. If I want contacts to be only on my phone, I just configure a fake account with invalid server name and associate contacts with this account => they will not be synchronized
Not sure what you're saying here, but in Android you can synchronize data contacts from multiple accounts and have local, non-synchronized contacts without hacks. The same applies to other classes of data like events, tasks, e-mail, etc. Lookup account authenticators and sync providers in the android docs.
FreeBSD Project is now reporting that several machines have been broken
into. After a brief outage, ftp.FreeBSD.org and other services appear to be
back. The project announcement states that some deprecated services
(e.g., cvsup) may be removed rather than restored. Users are advised to
check for packages downloaded between certain dates and replace them,
although not because known trojans have been found, but rather because the
project has not yet been able to confirm that they could not exist.
Apparently initial access was via a stolen SSH key, but fortunately their
clusters were partitioned so that the effects were limited. The announcement
contains more detailed information — and we are left wondering, would
proprietary companies that get broken into so forthcoming? Should they be?
Link to Original Source
This comes in response to a policy change Red Hat had operated in early 2011 with the goal of undercutting Oracle and other vendor's strategy of poaching RedHat's customers. The Ksplice team says they've doing the work they're now making available since the policy was implemented; they claim to be now making it public because they "feel everyone in the Linux community can benefit from the work".
For Ksplice, we build individual updates for each change and rely on source patches that are broken-out, not a giant tarball. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be able to take the right patches to create individual updates for each fix, and to skip over the noise — like a change that speeds up bootup — which is unnecessary for an already-running system. We’ve been taking the monolithic Red Hat patch tarball and breaking it into smaller commits internally ever since they introduced this change.
At Oracle, we feel everyone in the Linux community can benefit from the work we already do to get our jobs done, so now we’re sharing these broken-out patches publicly.
Link to Original Source
Whether their they look similar or whether Samsung copied Apple's design ideas is completely irrelevant. There's no general protection against "copying ideas".
It's well established that "look and feel" are not protected by copyright (see Apple vs. Microsoft), so they've turned instead to these doubtful patents to stifle competition. Even if these trivial patents are in fact valid (and having one held invalid takes years and millions of dollars and relatively onerous standards of evidence), they're arguably an abuse of the system originally designed to protect other sorts of inventions.
In fact, reading the opinions, it would appear that all the justices (except maybe Sottomayor) would allow GPS devices installed without a warrant for short term tracking.
Of course, the Justice department usually prefers err on the safe side.