So it was FB itself that did it!

I'd be fine with that, then people could see how stupid the app reviewers are. I've had apps rejected because of: 1. A reviewer that failed to enter the correct password that was provided to them. Great, back into the queue to hopefully find a reviewer that posesses basic copy/paste ability. 2. A group in a social network that had the word "test" in the name, which apparently violates their policy of not allowing test content on an app, even though it was a group that was created by a real user, and wasn't test content, it just had the word "test" in the name. That one was rejected multiple times as I resubmitted it as-is, with the explanation that it wasn't test content, and it was still rejected for the same reason. I only got that second one through after creating a facebook group called "Test" and sending them the link with demands for them to pull the FB app. Fuck Apple reviewers. They're an unnecessary hurdle to getting shit done, their enforcement of policies is completely inconsistent with the smaller devs getting the shaft. Even this app, they have enough clout via Basecamp to get some media attention over this. Were I to build this app and they shut me down because of the same bullshit what's my recourse?

Not 2 hours after reading this, I just got another call from these scammers.

Seems to be the defacto standard almost everything these days. It's got everything you mentioned.

Except

Do basic test on the code (Syntax errors, pytest/nose/or alike with coverage (of tests), check coding style)

That's not really a function of version control

A/S/L?

Not sure why he's asshole, OP's question pretty much summarizes to "Somebody say github"

http://elgg.org/ A simple setup social network that can handle everything you've listed almost right out of the box. A couple of community plugins for additional features, slap a theme on there to make it look pretty and you're on your way. If/when you have a budget or some time to invest you can customize it pretty much any way you can think of.

October 21st by eldavojohn http://a.fsdn.com/sd/logo15_ueldav.png

Anecdotal of course, but I just switched from an iPhone to a Samsung. Knowledge of the potential injunction played a small but not insignificant part, though mostly it was a price vs functionality decision. The Samsung was just the better deal.

Palm trees and 8! I was stuck on that forever...

and take notice in that drive prices really aren't sky high - they're just where they were last year or the year before

A friend of mine had her hard drive fail last week. I told her to pick up a new one, told her where to get it and that it would be ~$60 as that's what I paid last year for the exact same drive. They're currently selling for $140. So yes, they are sky high.

The claim was rejected as such:

The proposed claim does not comply with the requirements for a disease risk reduction claim pursuant to Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006

Article 14 states:

In order to ensure that the claims made are truthful, it is necessary that the substance that is the subject of the claim is present in the final product in quantities that are sufficient, or that the substance is absent or present in suitably reduced quantities, to produce the nutritional or physiological effect claimed. The substance should also be available to be used by the body. In addition, and where appropriate, a significant amount of the substance producing the claimed nutritional or physiological effect should be provided by a quantity of the food that can reasonably be expected to be consumed.

Source

I fail to see how it doesn't comply...