You realize we're talking about source code and not human rights, right?

There is a distinction.

I wonder why your were targeted. Lenders are ridiculous. They push these ludicrous loan amounts (4X your salary is a good start) and then squawk over a ~$3000 increase in annual pay that's legit.

I bought my first house in 2000 with all the bank statement sniffing they required, up to a point. My credit score was similar, and I had some cash saved up for a 20% down payment. The wrinkle was my folks gave me a $10K gift to apply to the house, and the banks were NOT happy about that when they found it in the statements. They wanted a couple things: (a) a notarized statement from my folks saying it was a gift and they never want to be paid back for it, and (b) the lender wanted copies of my parents' bank statements to ensure they could cover that gift. IMO, this was asking too much, and (not e-bragging) I told them they could ignore my parent's information since they have nothing to do with this loan, or I'd be willing to start the lending process again with another lender. It worked, they backed away from that request.

I'm also surprised at how much they pestered your employer. My lender never contacted my employer.

The "quality" of the writing is the surprising bit, not the fact that an author uses bits of technology to aid writing.

It's the unvested shares, so percentage held doesn't enter into it.

It's their code to release, and they can release it simultaneously as a separate GPL project and as proprietary product.

However, if you think they have included contributed code (GPL'd) into their proprietary product, then write them and voice your concern, and ask about it. I don't think one letter will stifle future sharing, especially since they've already taken the step of killing the "free" GPL'd version.

Yeah, I don't see what the issue is in the summary. Company B bought company A which includes A's assets, then discontinues development of a GPL-covered variant. Well, B still owns the non-GPL version, so where's the confusion. Code can be dual licensed, and is, often. See QT for a project that has gotten lots of mentions lately for an example of this.

As soon as GPL'd code is out there, it's always "out there" at that point.

Swapping is rarely a problem. If one builds a highly memory-constrained machine on purpose (only installing 1GB RAM for a Android build machine, for example), then yeah, swapping will occur.

My Android build machine has 8GB, but the last time I benchmarked memory usage (froyo, summer 2010) I only saw about 2.2GB used at any time. Swap was zero.

The need for swap space on today's machines has become far less important than it used to be, solely because of the low price of memory.

I had that happen once, but I edited the dot files that TM uses (located in the root of your backup volume) and was able to get TM to continue on that disk. No history was lost.

It might have a shiny button on top, but underneath it all are still ASCII text files, steeped in the panicked cold sweat of a million UNIX hackers looking for a quick fix.

This $20 trillion figure caught my eye as a suspicious quote. So far, nothing of the sort has been distributed, yet.

In 2008, total bailout cost estimates ranged from $4.5T to $8T.
According to CNN in 2009, the bailout had $11T committed, but of that only $3T had actually been paid out.
The SIGTARP report was the source of the $23T committed figure, but even in that report only $3T was actually spent (also 2009).

Many sources are quoting each other, and it's hard to find more information into 2010 and 2011 about what monies have been disbursed.
According to the The Center for Media and Democracy's PR Watch website, as of April 2010 some $4.6T had been distributed.

So far, every cost estimate is based on the maximum, worst-case cost of each program (as it should be in most cases). But what is more interesting is how much is actually spent, and under what conditions the rest can be spent. But certainly, $20T has NOT been spent.

BTW, the bailouts make me sick, so don't confuse my questioning this figure with disagreeing with you.

So, the monkeys used pretty much the same tactic I used for term papers in English lit.

No. For two reasons. Like somersault above, I already have a tablet for tablet-y things. I've tried reading with the Kindle app, and while the presentation is good, the glow from the screen strains my eyes. Also, battery life sucks for this purpose.

The second and more important reason is I wanted an e-ink display for a reader. A touch screen isn't very useful, either.

So what I ordered was the previous generation Kindle Keyboard as they call it now, with no ads. Small, great battery life, /and/ they had a refurbished one for $40 off, making the price $100.

I know you used a subject of "If this is true", but I'm going to save my outrage until some facts rise to the surface here.

If this actually involved another iphone N prototype, the whole "lost iphone in a bar" shtick is played out. I'm surprised that tactic would be used again (and I'm making a cynical assumption that the original incident with N=4 was a ruse).

If the person contacted by the "police" was threatened or upset, let him file a complaint and come out in a more official way. Did people actually come to his house, and did they actually claim they were SFPD?

My conclusion so far is this whole story is bull.

Gee, I read it as a honest account of what he thought, then tried, at the time. I didn't see it as a complaint, but a statement of his experience down this path.

Guile is not Javascript, and Guile does not fully support Javascript.

Are you saying Guile is alive, prosperous, and popular? I'll agree it's alive, but only barely.

Sounds like his behavior is right.