Okay, fast forward 10 years. Suppose Google begins to dominate on the desktop OS market. Do they automatically get to support other browsers on the originally "kernel-and-one-browser" operating system as their market share increases? What if there are no APIs published for ChromeOS, i.e. it doesn't support installing locally any software at all besides the Chrome browser and stuff signed by Google?
What's more interesting: Google's going to release Chrome OS later this year. Will it be ordered by antitrust regulations to give its users the choice to replace the Chrome browser with Opera, Firefox or MSIE?:) And how are they going to explain to EU authorities that the latter is not going to work under a Linux system natively no matter what?
As unbelievable as it may seem, most of the professions you have mentioned (and some that you haven't) already have their professional holidays in Russia...
My good robotic overlord, why are you tossing that paltry cell phone for three hours in a row already? *Sigh* I guess my inquiries aren't welcome here, sir...
Chromium is the name we have given to the open source project and the browser source code that we released and maintain at www.chromium.org. One can compile this source code to get a fully working browser. Google takes this source code, and adds on the Google name and logo, an auto-updater system called GoogleUpdate, and RLZ (described later in this post), and calls this Google Chrome.
It's like calling Firefox proprietary because you've been shipped an actual binary that uses their TM'd logo, not the one you'd get by default when compiling it from source. And the auto-update mechanism is Windows-only as far as I know (my Debian install of Chrome correctly integrates into the APT system, as it should be) so it shouldn't worry you a lot if you're an Ubuntu user.
You're damned right, it's not open to me the consumer. However, if the company making safes has published their blueprints for anyone to make their own safes of the same kind and purpose, I would definitely call such a safe (or rather, its blueprints) open to fellow safe manufacturers, despite the fact that all such safes would share its rather unfortunate trait to limit their owners' ability to operate them.
Well, lacking access to hardware and barely getting some doesn't look like a viable explanation, now does it? Otherwise, the OLPC project would have generated a tremendous influx of Peruvian and Congolese software engineers, had it succeeded:P. Where is no or little software industry and no advanced CS research departments, there is nobody to teach the kids.
P.S. Actually, USSR (as opposed to modern Russia) had some pretty decent computer industry for a long while. Until they began copying American technology, that is. Still, there have been many Soviet minicomputers and PCs; most of them expensive as hell, but I doubt that in the rest of the world computers were cheaper by any significant amount at the time.
If you look at the history of IOI winners (especially multiple winners, found at the Wikipedia entry, most of them originate from former Soviet republics and Soviet-aligned countries (i.e. Eastern Europe). I currently fail to provide an adequate explanation for this phenomenon: yes, there are plenty of talented programmers in Russia, but as far as I can tell, software industry per se is virtually non-existent there (at least compared to the US).
Although it would be difficult to produce a reflective material that could withstand the influence of the atmosphere during launch, it might turn out to be effective to pulverize some substance opaque for that laser frequency around the missile (either by spreading it from auxiliary projectiles launched a second before the real ICBM, or from a device mounted on the top of the missile itself)...
Exactly my point. However, we're speaking here of the difference "This is our DRM method and we're not telling anyone how we've done it" and "This is our DRM method but any other developer can use the algorithms and substitute their own encryption keys". A piece of content crippled by either scheme remains crippled for the consumer, but the second case allows for reimplementations of the same thing by companies other than Sony. Have I made my point clearer?
And no, it is hard to consider OOXML "open" even by such a loose definition, because it isn't even possible to reimplement it due to poor documentation!
I think it can be considered open/documented for other companies to use in their own devices, not open for users to access any content in this format whenever their heart desires. As evil as DRM is, consider this analogy: openssl doesn't magically allow everyone into your system, but it doesn't make it less deserving to be called "open".
I'm not sure about Bulgarian, but in Russian "Olympiad" (or, rather, Olimpiada) is the word for such a contest, be it school-, city- or worldwide. I perfectly understand that it conflicts the original meaning of the word, but hey, languages do evolve, and sometimes they do due to common misunderstandings or lack of comprehension...
What if you saw a BSOD shot there, too? That wouldn't change anything: you could claim (and be perfectly in your right, btw) that he had probably found a random BSOD pic on Google and just put it there. So sometimes, you just have to blindly believe (or blindly reject) something you read, just because proving it right or wrong is a complete waste of your time (you can't be professionally interested in and capable of verifying anything in the world, nor is that necessary).
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, fast forward 10 years. Suppose Google begins to dominate on the desktop OS market. Do they automatically get to support other browsers on the originally "kernel-and-one-browser" operating system as their market share increases? What if there are no APIs published for ChromeOS, i.e. it doesn't support installing locally any software at all besides the Chrome browser and stuff signed by Google?
What's more interesting: Google's going to release Chrome OS later this year. Will it be ordered by antitrust regulations to give its users the choice to replace the Chrome browser with Opera, Firefox or MSIE? :) And how are they going to explain to EU authorities that the latter is not going to work under a Linux system natively no matter what?
As unbelievable as it may seem, most of the professions you have mentioned (and some that you haven't) already have their professional holidays in Russia...
Did Gagarin get injured or killed? No. This means that he landed safely. If your opinion is different, please provide information supporting it.
And that's exactly the same reason America launched the a satellite and manned spacecraft to orbit first!
Oh. Wait.
If Soyuz has a severe problem during landing, it ends up in another country.
Usually it ends up in another region of Russia, just due to the size of the latter.
My good robotic overlord, why are you tossing that paltry cell phone for three hours in a row already? *Sigh* I guess my inquiries aren't welcome here, sir...
Ouch, sorry. Bad link. Here's. the correct one.
Chromium is the name we have given to the open source project and the browser source code that we released and maintain at www.chromium.org. One can compile this source code to get a fully working browser. Google takes this source code, and adds on the Google name and logo, an auto-updater system called GoogleUpdate, and RLZ (described later in this post), and calls this Google Chrome.
It's like calling Firefox proprietary because you've been shipped an actual binary that uses their TM'd logo, not the one you'd get by default when compiling it from source. And the auto-update mechanism is Windows-only as far as I know (my Debian install of Chrome correctly integrates into the APT system, as it should be) so it shouldn't worry you a lot if you're an Ubuntu user.
In Japan, only old people vote.
Mod parent up! Damnit you mod points, where are you when I need you...
Don't forget to play the Terminator theme as you drop the hard drive into a pool of molten metal.
Nuke your old hard drive from the orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
You're damned right, it's not open to me the consumer. However, if the company making safes has published their blueprints for anyone to make their own safes of the same kind and purpose, I would definitely call such a safe (or rather, its blueprints) open to fellow safe manufacturers, despite the fact that all such safes would share its rather unfortunate trait to limit their owners' ability to operate them.
Well, lacking access to hardware and barely getting some doesn't look like a viable explanation, now does it? Otherwise, the OLPC project would have generated a tremendous influx of Peruvian and Congolese software engineers, had it succeeded :P. Where is no or little software industry and no advanced CS research departments, there is nobody to teach the kids.
P.S. Actually, USSR (as opposed to modern Russia) had some pretty decent computer industry for a long while. Until they began copying American technology, that is. Still, there have been many Soviet minicomputers and PCs; most of them expensive as hell, but I doubt that in the rest of the world computers were cheaper by any significant amount at the time.
If you look at the history of IOI winners (especially multiple winners, found at the Wikipedia entry, most of them originate from former Soviet republics and Soviet-aligned countries (i.e. Eastern Europe). I currently fail to provide an adequate explanation for this phenomenon: yes, there are plenty of talented programmers in Russia, but as far as I can tell, software industry per se is virtually non-existent there (at least compared to the US).
In order for that to work, it would be required to bring the ICBMs to New England as well. Which is precisely what they are working to prevent.
Spinning is not likely to be useful: the laser impulse is going to be pretty short. I agree with the rest of your comment, though.
Although it would be difficult to produce a reflective material that could withstand the influence of the atmosphere during launch, it might turn out to be effective to pulverize some substance opaque for that laser frequency around the missile (either by spreading it from auxiliary projectiles launched a second before the real ICBM, or from a device mounted on the top of the missile itself)...
...how do they plan to target and shoot down ICBMs on a cloudy day, of which in a certain large northern country (but not Canada) there are plenty? :)
DRM is by design and by law not user modifiable
Exactly my point. However, we're speaking here of the difference "This is our DRM method and we're not telling anyone how we've done it" and "This is our DRM method but any other developer can use the algorithms and substitute their own encryption keys". A piece of content crippled by either scheme remains crippled for the consumer, but the second case allows for reimplementations of the same thing by companies other than Sony. Have I made my point clearer?
And no, it is hard to consider OOXML "open" even by such a loose definition, because it isn't even possible to reimplement it due to poor documentation!
I think it can be considered open/documented for other companies to use in their own devices, not open for users to access any content in this format whenever their heart desires. As evil as DRM is, consider this analogy: openssl doesn't magically allow everyone into your system, but it doesn't make it less deserving to be called "open".
I'm not sure about Bulgarian, but in Russian "Olympiad" (or, rather, Olimpiada) is the word for such a contest, be it school-, city- or worldwide. I perfectly understand that it conflicts the original meaning of the word, but hey, languages do evolve, and sometimes they do due to common misunderstandings or lack of comprehension...
What if you saw a BSOD shot there, too? That wouldn't change anything: you could claim (and be perfectly in your right, btw) that he had probably found a random BSOD pic on Google and just put it there. So sometimes, you just have to blindly believe (or blindly reject) something you read, just because proving it right or wrong is a complete waste of your time (you can't be professionally interested in and capable of verifying anything in the world, nor is that necessary).
Assume that DK stands for Dungeon Keeper, and the tone of the interview suddenly becomes much more sinister... :)