Or, you know... Microsoft has more than one person making decisions.

They're a big company. There are a lot of people making a lot of decisions, and I doubt that every one of those people see eye-to-eye.

The questions is: Are those trying to work with FOSS really trying to improve cooperation in contrast to the rest of the company, or are they just a little behind the rest of the company on the "embrace, extend, extinguish" plan?

Not "dominant OS", but "dominant desktop OS"

Servers are generally run and maintained by those with enough common sense that writing viruses to target those people are a waste of time. Desktops on the other hand are used by people of all technical caliber, and so there will always be some set of users that are dumb enough to run random pieces of software.

Remember that fake screensaver that was on gnome-look.org? When Ubuntu becomes the dominant desktop OS, we will see a lot more like that.

The Constitution??? That's just too liberal!

(If you are unfortunate enough to live in Alabama, the above would be funny)

https://code.google.com/apis/websearch/terms.html

I'm pretty sure Bing is breaking some rules in 1.4 and 1.5. I'm no lawyer though, so I have no idea what Google can do except make Bing stop.

They are profiting from Google's wheel, and taking from their profits, when Google is the one that puts and continues to put effort into improving their search results. In fact, Microsoft specifically started Bing to compete with Google, and on top of that, MS is using Google's work to do it.

So you are indifferent as to whether or not hundreds of innocents die with him?

Yes, I do chuckle at most Darwin awards, but that doesn't mean that I see little value to human life. People die every second, but we can't go around crying over every single one, or we would die ourselves from neglect of our lives where we put mourning in place of continuing to do what we need to.

In the case of suicide bombers, we can laugh about their failures even more so and share the same regard for their lives as they do themselves. The bomber was going to die either way, and clearly didn't care about it. When she failed, there was no loss of life; in fact, lives were saved.

While it may be sad that this person decided to commit suicide, it is joyous that the other lives were saved. If the situation in which they failed is humorous, all the better.

I have done many college papers using Wikipedia as my primary source, and citing the links at the bottom of the page (with a quick check to verify consistency between the article and the source). Whenever I tell someone else about this, they usually respond "Wow, I never thought of that"

I'd say it's at least marginally more humorous than what would happen should said bomber's detonation be on time.

Well if the people she (potentially) harmed would have themselves each killed hundreds of innocents, then how many lives were saved?

I'm sure the only place records of text messages are kept are on the recipient's phone.

This wasn't the original intention of this device. There was some confusion because the word "high" wasn't translated properly from English to Spanish

Who gives a damn? If it's good for the customers, it doesn't matter whether they were motivated by money, politics, ethics, aliens, or the FSM and his noodly appendage.

I couldn't really justify buying this... I could get a much more efficient emoticon keys with some simple macros, and never moving my hands from my proper keyboard.

That's an excellent alternative ending.

IIRC, something like that has happened before. The attacker managed to get RDP access to one of Microsoft's servers where they keep source code. However, when authorities were able to trace the connection back to his house, they entered to find he had died of a simultaneous heart attack, aneurysm, and stroke, with the Windows kernel source code open on his screen.