WebKit != Safari
IO ports. The Beeb had millions of them
The are a good modern alternative (and cheaper than a BBC was, back in the day!). The LPC1768 has the same amount of RAM as the BBC and a bit more flash than the BBC had space on a floppy disk, and has analogue and digital I/O pins, as well as serial (which the BBC had with RS-423), and a few things the BBC lacked (Ethernet and USB).
I also use Safari, though I'm still pissed off with them for combining the URL bar and search box (which means that I keep typing one-word search terms and having it try to resolve them as domains, which then go in my history and so become the subject of autocomplete. The only way to avoid it is to get into the habit of hitting space at the end of a search, which is no saving on hitting tab at the start to jump to the search box). Chrome doesn't properly integrate with the keychain. I use Firefox on Android (self destructing cookies makes it the first browser I've used with a sane cookie management policy), but overall the UI for Safari does exactly what I want from a browser: stay out of the way.
TFS is nonsense though. Developers don't know what's going to be in the next version of Safari? Why don't they download the nightly build and see?
The GPL is "viral" in that if you use even a smattering of GPLed code, you are required to release ALL of your code as GPL as well.
Not true. Go back and re-read the GPL. You are required to release your code under a license that places no more restrictions on it than the GPL. You must also license the combined work under the GPL. It is, however, completely fine to take a few files of GPL'd code, combine them with some BSDL'd code files (as long as those files are not a derived work of the GPL'd code) and ship the resulting program under the GPL. If someone else takes only the BSDL'd files for use in another project then they are not bound by the GPL.
There are two ways in which the GPL is 'viral'. The first is that you cannot change the license of something that you do not own, so any derived works retain the copyright and license of the original. The second is that the GPL is a distribution license and, if you wish to retain the right to distribute it, then you must not distribute it in a way that does not pass on the freedoms listed in the license (meaning that the combined work must grant all of the permissions as the GPL'd parts).
If they were being pushed out of land they owned, you might have a point.
The problem is when the initial conditions are concentrated ownership. If the hypothetical impoverished country has a feudal system (or similar) where all of the land is owned by a few dozen lords. Now the Americans going over there buy land from the lord in relatively small parcels, allowing him to turn his wealth into liquid form and removing the land that his serfs lived on. So what do the serfs do? They didn't own the land and they're now displaced. They weren't lucky enough to be born owning land so they get nothing.
It's not like most of the people in the original poster's example chose not to own a house. They rent because they didn't inherit enough wealth to own somewhere to live.