"Open" does not mean without copyright. The fact is those working on a compatible BIOS had the IBM source code with comments to work from in order to define what a compatible system needed to do. That is a huge advantage compared to disassembling binaries. The fact remains that IBM published the source code to the embedded firmware, that is by definition open. The fact that it is copyrighted and may not be distributed without permission does not change this.

There are two parts to the clean room approach. One is the specification phase where one team defines the necessary behavior for a compatible system. This team may look at the copyrighted material. In the IBM PC case the fact that this team was looking at commented source code rather than disassembled binaries was a big advantage, it made their job far easier.

The second phase, which is performed by an entirely different team with no connection to the specification team (other than their output, the specification), is the implementation. Whether the specification they received came from disassembled binaries or source code makes no difference. Well, other than if the spec is source code based it is probably more compatible. So in the IBM PC case we may have had fewer incompatibilities in the spec which made implementation easier too, fewer bug hunts later on.

IBM published the source code to their BIOS. That is pretty open and greatly facilitated the creation of a compatible BIOS.

Compaq et al were able to create clones because the IBM PC was an open platform.

"Lowe presented a detailed business plan that proposed that the new computer have an open architecture, use non-proprietary components and software, and be sold through retail stores, all contrary to IBM tradition"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...

Not necessarily. Like Google, IBM once created an open platform and Microsoft got into a serious fight with them. Microsoft won. And IBM was a 500lb gorilla in those days like Google is today, a very different IBM than today.

The PC vs Mac platform fight was separate from the fight within the PC platform over the operating system. Similarly the Android vs iOS platform fight may be separate for an operating system fight within Android.

If Microsoft can do something to better integrate Cyanogen based devices into the corporate workflow they might have some leverage. Plus an operating system that gets bug fixes and security updates might warrant some attention.

The fact that an exchange offers both online wallets and merchant services means nothing. Two different services, as your own quote points out they provide services to *both* merchants and consumers. What a consumer does on an exchange is irrelevant to a merchant.

The fact remains that a merchant does not need a bitcoin wallet, does not need to see or touch a bitcoin, does not need to take on any bitcoin price fluctuation risk, and gets paid out daily in fiat. Which has been my point and stands independently of your tangents.

My use of "professional" was in the context of being the provider chosen by Google, Dell, Paypal, etc.

Perhaps you should look at the link I provide and note its a professional operation being used by various large corporations.

https://www.coinbase.com/merch...

You seem to misunderstand the merchant services I am referring to. A merchant does not need an online wallet. The merchant never sees or touches a bitcoin, the payment address is the exchange's, the exchange pays out the merchant daily in fiat.

You are confusing people trading and using online wallets at exchanges with merchant services at an exchange. They are two very different things.

To get familiar with the sort of thing I am discussing see https://www.coinbase.com/clien...

Merchants can "accept" bitcoins without ever seeing or touching a bitcoin. Doing all their pricing and accounting in fiat, receiving only fiat.

They simply contract with a 3rd party bitcoin exchange that provides a payment address to the user, accepts the coins, converts to fiat and pays the merchant. The exchange operates like the credit card companies, processing the buyers payment.

Bitcoin's lack of fees is temporary. As the awards for mining become less and less miners will need to make more and more off of transaction fees. Miners are essential to the Bitcoin ecosystem, they don't just generate new coins, they also create and validate the block chain. Without sufficient miners the block chain becomes untrustworthy and the system collapses.

As block awards diminish and mining hardware and overhead costs increase fees will have to increase.

Even better tip: While you are still in college take the negotiations class. A good negotiations class that covers the art (psychology, etc) and science (game theory, etc) over a quarter/semester timeframe (readings, homework, in-class negotiation practice emphasizing recent reading/lecture topics -- i.e. applying different negotiating strategies) is incredibly valuable and a hell of a lot of fun when done right.

Or perhaps Earth and Theia.

IIRC earth's atmosphere was different. Our current atmosphere the result of life polluting that environment with oxygen. Causing an environmental catastrophe at the time.

Since you specified domestic calls, to be clear those "records" are basically what is on your phone bill. Date/time, phone number, duration.

Actually we know what they are doing. Building a connection network for a person(s) of interest. The FBI has publicly demonstrated such software, using only phone company records to develop such networks as part of organized crime organizations. They showed the topology of the discovered network and pointed out how it revealed middle men and meeting places that had previously been unknown.

To be fair, they could simply order AT&T, etc to retain their records. Same data set. So without collection they could still get a warrant and explore the network of connections to the party of interest, as they had done with their (FBI not NSA) organized crime investigations. And what is the rejection rate of FISA warrant requests, 0.05% last I heard.

Now think back to that FBI work. How did they do their analysis? Most likely they had AT&T etc deliver complete data sets for various regions and they searched that data for connections. Basically, possession of the data does not require collection. One warrant can most likely cause bulk deliveries from telcos.