> I don't know about the quality of the English translations of his books
I don't know about the quality of the original Polish, but ... some of his heavier works are well, heavy in the English version. I'm thinking of "Solaris", "His Master's Voice", "Memoirs Found in a Bathtub". They are good books - but so are Dickens, Tolstoy etc. which require a bit of effort from the modern reader.
However the Cyberiad is an absolute pleasure to read. I read it when I was in my early teens and I ate it up - it challenged my mind, made me laugh and was very easy to read. Other lighter ones - "Tales of Pirx the Pilot", "The Futurological Congress", "A Perfect Vacuum" are easy to read too.
And taken on those terms - not on the cost accounting of cloud vs local - it makes sense to me. Is it a convincing "no matter what" argument against cloud hosting in all cases? I'd say no - there will be cases where sheer scale or fluctuations in scale make cloud hosting more attractive. as the article admits.
> By your logic, if the Iranian government accuses someone of sluttiness, spying or apostacy, we should extradite the accused to Iran.
If they were accused of sluttiness while they were in Iran, by an Iranian citizen or two, then there might just be a case to answer. Like what happened to these two unfortunates: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7673046.stm
Conspiracies are pretty rare, but opportunistic behaviour by governments is not hard to believe. Pissing off governments is like running for president; your transgressions will be dug up and used against you.
Are you finding it hard to believe that the US government is trying to disrupt Wikileaks by unusual means, outside of any potential legal proceedings? But this is not theory, it's known fact - both Visa and Amazon dropped Wikileaks after pressure. It's been successful too.
I agree that lack of email is mad. But how big a decision can this be? If it can run programs, it can run an mail client. Even an exchange client. "it won't have an email client" is not part of the hardware design, it's just that the software hasn't been written/ported yet.
The reality is that there's no such thing as CSS4, and no such thing as CSS3 either: starting with CSS3 the spec was "modularized", meaning it was broken up in a bunch of separate and mostly-independent "modules", which are grouped in a "level" but are specified on their own.
So the situation is that TFA talks not about CSS4 but about "Level 4 Selectors" (a draft), talking about "CSS4" is language abuse. The specs I linked are Level 3 specs, but independent of selectors and of one another (columns are a CR, grid is a working draft).
To sum up, your question does not really make sense. Grids and columns are part of "CSS4" insofar as they are part of "CSS3" through being Level 3 specifications, but that's completely meaningless. Level 4 selectors could become recommandations before (level 3) grids reach that state, or not. There's no dependency. (columns are already supported by all modern browsers except MSIE).
I'd recommend using (and abusing) http://caniuse.com/ to see the implementation state of each spec, it's become especially important with modular level 3 specs as implementors are free to add one level 3 spec and ignore an other.
 You can see a list of specs at http://www.w3.org/TR/#tr_CSS, note how some Level 3 specs are Recommendations, others are Candidate Recommandations, yet others are Last Calls or Drafts.
In summary: no, they're in CSS3; but it's all modular and might not be implemented at the same time.
There is incentive for MS Grids to go forward soon, they're important to MS for use in Windows 8.
Also, they're cool, or rather they're a sane layout scheme and it's awful that CSS hasn't had one up to now.
The irony is that Firefox and Chrome will implement them at about the same time that they become official. But we won't be able to use them widely until IE7,8 and 9 have faded from the web. MS giveth, MS taketh away.
It shows that the DMCA and Patriot act were not an aberration, were not an anomaly that would be rolled back; but the shape of things to come, part of a trend. Note the use in the title of the words "back" and "worse than ever". This is not a one-off.