I hadn't noticed a difference.

Why is this surprising? Open access, which most scientists support in principle, is not the same as open source. It's about making sure that research outputs (particularly those that are government-funded) are made available for everyone to read, not just those with an expensive subscription. Access to that knowledge support innovation. It doesn't mean being able to reuse the original material however you like.

But you're not expected to read them all before becoming a citizen.

Nitpicky point, but Steam figures should never be used to represent the whole consumer market. Gamers are more likely to have new rigs or want to play games that already don't support XP. I suspect XP users a more likely to be users with simple needs who have a system that works for them and don't want to chance. For that matter, Photoshop isn't likely to sway them either. Google Apps maybe, if it includes Gmail -- but damn if that doesn't miss the point of using webmail in the first place.

The difference here is that you won't be required to make a new purchase. Many UK retailers will also dispose of your old stuff free if you buy something, although they're not required to.

If you follow the link, you'll see that was mentioned at the time.

That's exactly what's happening: "Costs will be met by the winner of a spectrum auction later this year."

We've known this since February.

Screw Jesus. I want Noah. Praise be Noah!

Does it use Vim or Emacs?

Warfare? Who'd go to war when they had a hoverboard at home?

They also invented talking cars.

I've read articles about this job before, but those reported on centres in the US where employees are given counselling to cope with the job. Is Facebook avoiding this moral duty by farming it out abroad?