One of the first reactors in Switzerland was in Lucens. Construction was plagued with delays and cost blowouts. And when it was finished, it ran for a short time and then had a meltdown. Some accounts place the Lucens accident at a 4 on the INES scale, some at 4 or 5.

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucens_reactor
Reference: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaktor_Lucens

Things work well in Switzerland, but they're not perfect either.

The project has a homepage: http://hpo.ornithopter.net/

Under "technical info", it says

      The key is to produce enough thrust with the wing to keep the aircraft flying at the required
      forward velocity. This thrust is produced by placing the wing at a lower angle of attack,
      relative to the local flow velocity, on the upstroke, and at a higher angle of attack on the
      downstroke. It can be seen in the figure below that this results in a large amount of lift
      and thrust on the downstroke and a small amount of lift and drag on the upstroke. The net
      result is positive lift and positive thrust.

      Throughout the stroke the wing must twist with the proper magnitude and phase to produce the
      proper angles of attack. This is accomplished passively by designing the structure in such a
      way that the aerodynamic and inertial forces produce the proper twist.

So, this is NOT merely a glider.

The up flap does NOT cancel out the down flap

The wings' movement is NOT purely vertical, there is a twist component.

It sounds like you've missed the latest turn in the sequence of the prosecutor flip flopping. Here's a recap:

    20. August 2010: Duty prosecutor Maria Häljebo Kjellstrand decides it looks like rape
    21. August 2010: Higher ranking prosecutor Eva Finné decides it doesn't
      1. September 2010: Chief prosecutor Marianne Ny decides actually it does look like rape

Source #1: http://www.thelocal.se/28704/20100901/
Source #2: http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/

> Rather, GPL is incompatible with anything else that can't be re-licensed as GPL, and
> that includes GPL v2 and v3, which can't even be mixed among themselves.

Saying that GPLv2 and GPLv3 "can't even be mixed among themselves" is wrong and
misleading.

Section 14 of GPLv2 specifically deals with the problem of later versions of the
licence and sets out the options. A copyright holder can choose to allow work to be used
with later versions, such as GPLv3, or can choose not to. There are also more
complex options. The licence itself doesn't force the choice one way or the other.

Matt