Actually, they did offer it to the public. This was an undocumented API. However, like the undocumented maps API, it was exposed to the public. As such, it was offered, just not documented.

Google actually encourages people to experiment with their public but undocumented APIs as part of their strategy. However, however experimenting with and releasing a product based on it are two different things. Google has a tendency to throw things against the wall and see what sticks. Maps, definitely stuck and they could even monetize it. Likely, this API also stuck, or it wouldn't be news. However, it probably was being used in ways that they couldn't monetize. Which, is why double-speeak of trying to protect the integrity of what it was originally designed for (aka Google Search).

Of course, it is their API and nobody was charged anything to use it, so Google is free to do as they wish with it.

On the other hand, if standards are not maintained, then quality will decrease. That is true whether machining a part or language and grammar.

If you send it to a laser printer or copy it on a copier there are watermarks. Doesn't matter the format used. Unlike the old fashioned typewriters where law enforcement could match the document to the typewriter based on how individual keys hit, in the digital age they had to find some other way. So, every laser printer and copy machine prints a tiny watermark that can trace the document to the machine that produced it.

Does it make a difference whether the software is doing this or your printer/copier does it? For a long, long time, laser printers and copiers have been doing the same thing to show where the document came from. Isn't this just the paperless version of what we've all been living with for a a very long time?

Hawking is already on record saying it is a bad idea to try and contact alien races. OTOH, checking to see if we can here them doesn't pose much threat.

The "study" of mathematics is a science in the broad sense, just like the "study" of theology is also a science. But mathematics itself, particularly as used in the context of this article, is a descriptive language.

I agree that usually if you are rear-ended that it is the other driver's fault (not always, but usually). However, there aren't a large number of google cars on the road, so I would be curious as compared to a random sample from the general population how many non-google cars were rear-ended in the same time period? In addition, it would be interesting to know if any of the google cars have been rear-ended more than once?

Nuclear bombs are not proactive. Nor are they reactive. Nuclear bombs are just that -- nuclear bombs. However, they can be used proactively or reactively, but it is the human person that makes that choice, not the bomb.

That's the point. It shouldn't be normal. As a consumer, you pay your ISP for x amount of bandwidth. It shouldn't matter that those bits are used for receiving video or text files. You are already paying your ISP for the data you use. With regards to Netflix, they pay their ISP for the bandwidth they are a sending. Would anybody seriously contend that Netflix should pay extra for the data that you are already paying for? No, of course not, so why should the consumer pay for the data that Netflix is already paying for?

Netflix is an easy target, but think this through. Amazon does a tremendous amount business on the internet. Should consumers pay a surcharge for the privileged of shopping there? What about Google? It is the leading search engine. Should there be surcharges to access it? Does it cost an ISP more to send a packet containing video versus a packet containing data? No. So why should they be allowed to charge more for it?

Mathematics is not a science. It is a language used to describe scientific principles and theories.

I believe that Logo was invented by MIT in 1967. With it, a child could give it simple commands to move a cursor to draw various shapes. I think it was called turtle graphics or something like that. It was demoed with five year olds drawing simple geometric shapes and older children producing Spirograph type drawings (although still pretty simple and crude by today's standards). By the mid-to late 70s, it was available on the Apple II, C64 and other microcomputers.

Being available for use and actually being used are obviously two different things. However, it definitely could be used if somebody chose to do so beyond MIT.

I was referring to the various programming languages for young children that have been around since the late 60s.

As for swiping versus building things, it's too soon to tell how that will developmentally manifest itself in the adult population. "Building things" is prevalent in many cultures and is probably an inherited trait in the human genome. Even other primates exhibit the trait to some degree. So, substituting tablets will be an interesting social experiment.

I would concur with that, at least structured programming. OTOH, young people do quite well with Logos and derivatives there of.

In the US, today, kindergarten is what 1st grade used to be. The emphasis is on reading and math. They aren't allowed to count on their fingers after pre-school. That said, the structures in the brain that allow for critical thinking aren't formed until around the age of 7, so it isn't really useful to attempt to teach critical thinking skills, except at a most rudimentary level, in kindergarten.

Reoptimizing is not the same thing as fixing a bug. For one thing, the software would need to know the bug is in fact a bug and what the correct behavior was supposed to be. Suppose your algorithm is coded as c = a - b, but it really is supposed to be c = a + b. Obviously that is a bug but how is the software supposed to know that? Or suppose you used an incorrect conversion factor, but the formula is otherwise correct (Didn't NASA have a lander crash because the program used feet instead of meters or something like that?).

Anyway, decompiling a program, which is no smal feat, and then optimizing it is not the same as bug fixing.