The thing with open-source projects is that you do not need to have it documented to the extreme.. For run-time you need descriptions of all the configuration and usage, but for API's you can keep the documentation fairly basic since you have access to the source and can see exactly what is happening.

I have seen it many times in closed-source software where you need to init things in a very specific order and the order is only available in a few simple examples. When having the source you can run it in a debugger and actually see the full flow, and you can even modify it to take care of corner-cases the original developers did not think of..

Best of two worlds is to have a well-documented proprietary software with a source-code license.

10baseT??? .. that's not too long ago... i think of 10base2 when people say things like that...

Going from 10base2 to 10baseT was heaven.. :)

How much of the weight is plastic? Deduct that and you might be able to fit a few more in the car...

Hey... Just imagine the trouble of training the sharks to paint a bat-signal in the sky with their lasers......

Hey... We got this bunch of patents here... Pay us a fee for using them or else we will find some obscure patent to sue you over!

Quite a few of the images there includes technology that we use in transportation today...

I would more say that it's a case of MS complaining that it cannot do whatever they want, like they used to be able to...

Look at what MS have been doing with their previous versions of the application... I would myself start to be extremely strict on the TOS for any company that have blatantly ignored it from the beginning.

According to a "angry letter" posted on technet... If you do a simple search for this and read a few of the articles you can see a behavior from MS that is not ok... I can understand Google for forcing MS to follow the TOS to the letter after the crap they have tried to pull.

Even if Google is slow on providing MS with what they must comply with and how they can do this does not make it ok for MS to publish an application that still fails to meet the terms.

If MS is having issues then they can pay for some youtube experienced developer to come over and assist them with the stuff..... Can be from Google or other places...

Yes, i read the article and also a few more related articles about this... The link was to what Microsoft wrote on technet, ie their opinion of what is happening.. If you actually check a few more sources you can actually find a bit of history of how Microsoft have behaved since the start of this.
If a company blatantly ignores terms and continues to say that "we fixed it" without actually fixing the opposite party might become more and more strict on the terms specified for the service.

https://developers.google.com/youtube/terms
There you go.. It's for the publicly available API, not for the ad-enabled API but to get access to that you have to agree to a similar terms, and you have about the same level of documentation for that.

And just because they have not yet received the information does not make it ok for them to publish the application that fails to follow the terms. If they have problems to fulfill all the terms maybe they should pay google for a single person to do a simple "do we fulfill the terms now" test before they go public with the app.

Nope, not if you place them at a optimal distance between each other. Since all carts will have to pass the bend they will all slow down. So as long as the distance between each cart is at least the difference in distance a cart will go at the slower speed compared to full speed, and that is probably not that much and should probably fit the time it takes to unload/load passengers on each end.

I think i read that Google did not want to write an application currently because the Windows-Phone market-share was too small.

They can as long Microsoft fails to comply with the requirements-list.

Why should Google be forced to allow a platform with 3.3% smartphone market-share to bypass the rules they have set for other platforms?

Google are not being assholes, they are protecting their revenue from the ad's playing together with the videos..

They had 2 requirements that microsoft listed in the article.
- Not an HTML5 app. (requirement from Google maybe?)
- Google claims that the application does not show the AD's as it should in all instances.

Only time Microsoft can complain is if they fulfill all the listed requirements and Google still refuses them access.

From the article:

Why should Google allow any other company to develop their own application without following the requirements specified for the service?

If Google says "you gonna have to write it in Amiga E and then emulate a 68000 cpu on the phone to run it" that will be the terms of using the service... It's only google than can decide what the rules are and they are free to set them to any level they want and they can be as hard and as soft as they want towards anyone implementing it... Microsoft have a reputation of not playing nicely so then Google might just be a bit more string on the rules.

And if comparing this to how Microsoft behaved back in the day this is nothing..

Open web != Use our stuff any way you want.

Open web == Use our stuff for free as long as you follow or requirements.