Duckduckgo is not powered by Bing. The FAQ states:

http://help.duckduckgo.com/customer/portal/articles/216399-sources

You can track the mini-installer.exe inside the Chromium windows repository manually (http://build.chromium.org/f/chromium/snapshots/Win_Webkit_Latest/) or use the helpful mini-updater provided by Dirhael to have an auto-tool (http://dirhael.dcmembers.com/cnu/)

It's a slashvertisement; the page linked to in the article is just the front page for the product. No news, no editorial, no review, no discussion (as you pointed out) of what it is. Nothing.

FTFS: "The numbers indicate that Titan's moment of inertia can only be explained if it is a solid body that is denser near the surface than it is at its centre"

FTFA: "It's also worth pointing out that there is another explanation for Titan's strange moment of inertia. The calculations assume that the moon's orbit is in a steady state but it's also possible that Titan's orbit is changing, perhaps because it has undergone a recent shift due to some large object passing nearby, a comet or asteroid, for example."

My understanding is that the wrote J++ with the specific intent to not allow JVM compatibility, but only with their own JVM implementation. That's a fair bit more than just adding language extensions, y'know? From the EU's research on this stuff

“[W]e should just quietly grow j++ share and assume that people will take more
advantage of our classes without ever realizing they are building win32-only java
apps.”
  —Microsoft’s Thomas Reardon

And from the NYTimes article on this:

Microsoft also licensed Java from Sun in 1996, but later began adding modifications to the code. The resulting Microsoft version of Java is tailored to run only on Windows, which negates the cross-platform purpose of Java. Sun has a civil suit pending against Microsoft on this issue, charging contract violation and unfair business practices.

I always assumed they were using an S3 backend, in which case it'd be the S3 public/secret key combination that wasn't being updated. There's an API to regenerate the key, but I know dropbox encrypts all of your files. I had always assumed that the simplest way to do that securely would be using the S3 secret key. If that's what they did, then regenerating the keys would become less trivial.

You're correct in just about everything you're saying :) The article is about the branding change that was calling "Free Software" by a different name. Software released under licenses compatible with the Open Source definition, though, is much older.

If you're ever looking for further information on this stuff, the book "Free as in Freedom" has a little on the further history of Free Software from the RMS viewpoint.

I might be totally misreading you here, but are you saying that you can't put a function prototype into a function definition?

"mm, you can fork and license under additional licenses that do not require or allow source code to be available."

Sure, but you still have to redistribute the BSD code *with the BSD license attached*. Nothing you do to BSD code removes your legal requirement to attach the required copyright notice. Ignoring that legal requirement is just as illegal as redistributing GPL'd code without adhering to the license. Just read the license, it's pretty clear on this.

You just can't compare the two. Coulter has a much bigger adam's apple.

It's not just social networking sites though. Virtually ANY site you use has one of these clauses, collects personal information about you that you expect to remain private. It's getting to the stage where if you want to use the internet (a large portion of it), you have to agree that the website can do whatever the hell they want with your data, even though they said they wouldn't.

Take slashdot for instance:

From http://geek.net/index.php/terms-of-use/

From http://geek.net/privacy-statement

Right, exactly. The use cases on the website are even all things like offices, schools, the kinds of places that aren't inhabited at night.

Is this really surprising? I mean, no shit people were aware that material violating copyright was being uploaded to youtube, and that they were aware of it. Do we really imagine that google bought youtube and then had to do a double-take and say "Wait a minute, there's COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL here? Oh my!"

No, I am not. I was replying to the parent message ;) This is a pretty nasty little system, and I think you're dead right that modal boxes for errors is design error.