What vanity is there in doing it right in the first try? It is a very interesting achievement, one that relies not on the blind luck of evolution but on the application of a limited set of rules.

If evoultion worked like this, perhaps our retinas wouldn't be turned inside out as the currently are (for example).

Impressive is a subjective quality: while you may only find a whale-size elephant impressive, I find it quite impressive that someone has managed to do from scratch what evolution might only do after a relatively long time and probably with lots of inefficiencies and side-effects.

Yes, you have... as long the new code keeps being BSD.

There is a simpler explanation: BSD is about freedom of the code, GPL is about freedom of the user.

Actually I think you can't have both kinds of freedom at the same time: the freedom to do whatever you want with the code (and its license) allows you to limit the freedom of your users to do the same. This can be considered a minor problem (as BSD does) or a major one (as GPL does).

You can ask me to release the source code. But there is a problem: if everything we are talking about was completely made by me, then I own the rights to it. It doesn't matter whether I create new versions of it and don't publish the source code to them: it is my code. GPL applies to people who don't own the copyright to the work (that is you and everyone else in this case). So you can ask until you are blue in the face and I may ignore you as it suits me. Nothing personal to it, mind you.

Of course, if I try to close my version of someone else's source code which is licensed under the GPL, then you would be entitled to obtain it from me if you bought a copy of my binaries... and I should comply.

I'm sure the new security theater measures in USA airports have helped a lot in finding and killing bin Laden. Sorry, but military actions aren't usually considered security in normal parlance.

It's called cherry-picking: he only picks the data that support his hypothesis.

Man=1000, right?

When you get that defence, answer: "Well, since nobody cares I'll keep criticizing your writing" :)

And the reason might be the invisible teapot orbiting Jupiter. Given the options, I will stay with the one that has real proof backing it up: vendor lock-in.

You are asking him to apply logic, not empathy, so it is a self-fulfilling prophecy ;)

Getting back to the point, not automatically trusting new people doesn't mean automatically distrusting them. You may just have a wait-and-see attitude. But perhaps I'm overanalyzing this and go with your hunch :)

While I can't really comment on the search bars because I don't know it you are complaining about the extra bars in the browser (which are not Microsoft's responsibility AFAIK), I can comment on the activation problems, and I fear it's a case of PEBKAC: I have had no problems activating Windows 7 Home or Pro when using legit keys. Were you doing that? On the file saving from, I have never had any of the browsers I use put those files anywhere but where they are supposed to be put by configuration options, i.e., at some predefined directory like Downloads or where they ask me to.

Actually, there were two suggested effects of excessive water extraction:

1. Descent of the soil, which changed the stresses affecting the fault that ultimately produced the earthquake. Thus there was an effect on the timeline of the earthquake, which would have happened later if not so much water had been removed
2. Localized growth of the fault stresses bringing them closer to living areas. Thus an earthquake that could have had its epicenter farther from Lorca had it near the town

I hope this helps you understand that massive water extraction acted as a catalyst for the impending (for some values of impending) earthquake and as a magnifier of its destructive power by bringing it nearer to populated areas.

Ultraviolet radiation _is_ ionizing. But not all UV is made equal: UVC (the more energetic part of the UV spectrum) is ionizing on its own right, UVB and UVA are able to ionize some materials... which include DNA.

Actually, chimpanzees also get cancer, even if at a much lower rate. Perhaps it has to do with accumulated evolutionary mutations, an hypothesis that has been tested more than once and which finds out differences in the apoptosis mechanism between chimpanzees and humans. Why these differences show up and what are they useful for can be debated: it could be a way for not killing too many of our brains' neurons.

No no, they don't don't ;)