In TidBITS, we limit ourselves to that which is actually known (and hopefully useful). Why? Because trafficking in rumors adds unnecessarily to the hubbub of our lives - and now we have some numbers to back that up. The Stupid Apple Rumors site tracked rumors on numerous different Apple-related Web sites and found that, overall, the rumors are false more than 75 percent of the time. Or, to put it another way, they're mostly just making stuff up. We prefer better plot lines and character development in our fiction.follow link
Find Text Leading from Acrobat PDF
Ever have to recreate a document from an Acrobat PDF? You can find out most everything about the text by using the Object Inspector, except the leading. Well, here's a cheesy way to figure it out. Open the PDF in Illustrator (you just need one page). Release any and all clipping masks. Draw a guide at the baseline of the first line of text, and one on the line below. Now, Option-drag the first line to make a copy, and position it exactly next to the original first line at baseline. Then put a return anywhere in the copied line. Now adjust leading of the copied lines, so that the second line of copy rests on the baseline of the second line of the original. Now you know your leading.
Or you could buy expensive software to find the leading. Your choice.
Why We Don’t Cover Rumors
However, I remember that in the early days of TidBITS you often used the attribution Pythaeus (aka firstname.lastname@example.org) for anonymously sourced info. Back in those times when news spread in simpler and slower ways (e.g., MacWeek), that was a classy way to acknowledge unofficial info that we wouldn't have heard otherwise.
Now that any idiot can spread rumors on the net (and most do), I miss those Pythaeus appearances and the responsible way you handled them. But your current approach is an excellent one. Thanks.