There's an excellent article about how the signs work in Stockholm with some technical details.

Well, that might not be exactly true. From the Dreamhost referrals page:

Antitrust issues? I don't think Microsoft currently need to worry about that right now, neither on the desktop nor on the phone side. We've come a long way since the 90's. Internet Explorer has fierce competition (Chrome, Firefox), so has the desktop (Apple) and we aren't all using Windows Phone mobiles, right?

The irony is that unions that were not controlled by the communist party, were prohibited in the Soviet Union. Solidarity was the first independent trade union in the eastern bloc, and was a contributing factor of the fall of the Berlin wall.

I wouldn't say it's a trojan. A trojan tricks the user into running some code which does something nasty the user doesn't expect. The user expects that his phone will be jailbroken, not that a PDF is displayed. After all, the web page says "this will jailbreak your Iphone". It doesn't matter what kind of exploit is used.

To paraphrase Einstein:

IMHO, one should use as high level language as possible, but not higher. One should never choose a lower level language than necessary only because it is hard core, the choice has to be based on something more substantial.

I've met several C programmers having the knee-jerk reaction when they hear the word C++ that it's bloated and slow and hard. And tell me what, they haven't read Stroustrup's FAQ lately. C++ can be very lean and mean indeed. As can C# (which I'm mostly using right now).

Yes, they do (well, actually just laser color printers).

Not really.
First, why not just release the software with no DRM at all and just require that the software never gets shared on the pirate bay in order to donate to this charity?
Second, Ubisoft would in some ways takes the cancer research organization as hostage. Basically Ubisoft would say: "you might not like us, but do you really want people to get cancer? Then don't pirate our games." They could actually just donate the money no matter what instead.

I agree. I just don't understand is why Greenpeace opposes nuclear power.

Experience from the Chernobyl disaster seems to tell us that even a worst scenario disaster has little impact on nature. And what's more important, the damage done is fairly local. The alternative to nuclear power for many nations are coal burning power plants, producing CO2 which has a global impact.
What's best for the planet? A potential local disaster or a global one?