Why in the hell they want to ruin Google+? I hate Facebook for two reasons:

1) It is annoying as hell to have those game requests. And if you don't block all applications, then you have to "enjoy" the constant stream of shit, when your friends request new tools in Farmville or want to share a pony.

2) Gaming becomes a sole purpose for using social networking site. Most of my friends don't bother to use Facebook for keeping touch or sharing interesting news or stories. They just spend time playing and filling their page with useless game-related crap.

I lost hope with Facebook long ago and recently joined Google+ hoping that it would be different. It seems I was wrong :(

Not with JavaScript, but with Java. Using Java Applets is an old idea for implementing automatically loaded website-based distributed computing. Although, I haven't seen these clients anymore in a long time, so maybe the idea wasn't received so well.

I tend to keep my old hard drives around several years and time to time I take a hammer and a big nail and render one or two oldest ones by hitting a nail through the case and platters. Excellent way to destroy data and vent frustrations.

What you are saying, reminds me of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egg_of_Columbus

Why they even bother salting roads when there is -12 degrees Celsius? Salting is only sensible when there is about -4 degrees (at least that is a rule of thumb here in Finland). Also, using fertilizers is so completely boneheaded move because that's plain and simple polluting. I guess that someone made a risk analysis and decided that polluting groundwater supplies causes less deaths than icy roads. But I can't help but wonder what the long-term effects are for environment and groundwater.

My eeePC does that same thing. The eeePC 901 jumps to GRUB in about second (haven't actually measured it, but it is fast).

But how dim they get over time? It's pretty pointless to have a LED light that lasts 19 years, if the light gets so dim after few years that it is practically unusable.

I only have one tip: label cables clearly at both end.

So it is not socially acceptable to just fork the code?

I can understand the aspect of upsetting people and alienating the community, but the whole concept of "people might not like taking their code" confuses me here. I have always assumed that when something has been released under open source license, that act in itself is some kind of agreement that the code can be forked at some stage.

Personally I have never forked anything, but I have released few pieces of code to public and I have always assumed that if someone likes my work and wants to take it and improve it or take it to some new direction, then by all means, just take the code and start a new project. Granted, I don't have a thriving community behind me, so there isn't this social aspect to consider.

It's interesting to see that there can be this whole social protocol around the open source software development world. For me this is interesting, because I have always assumed that programmers in general seem to swear on following the OS licence literally regardless on social impact.

Not necessarily commenting this particular case, just wondering in general...

Why is it that when someone is pondering on forking a project, quite often we see these questions asked? Is the OSS community so polite that we have to ask permission from peers to fork a project? Why not just fork it and see, if the project takes off? Or is it about insecurity? Are we just afraid of negative feedback from anti-forking people?