What you say is true, but the consequences of MSIE domination are quite different than Chrome's. MSIE's purpose was to defeat or delay the cross-platform nature of the web - until such time as MS figured out how to compete with it. Just as MS-Java's purpose was to defeat the cross-platform nature of Java, and C# was their attempt to render Java irrelevant - as if having 'the best' Windows-only language were the point in the first place. Chrome may want to absorb everything in it's path, but it's purpose in that is to keep the web cross-platform while improving its performance. A worthy goal, however conveniently it syncs up with Google's other priorities.
I don't know whether MS has actually dropped this 'Windows must dominate' business model, but I suspect not. Thankfully, Firefox and yes, now Chrome have won that battle - and IE is now much more 'just another browser' that it would've been had Firefox not done the heavy lifting. Microsoft's 'open' XML office formats have managed to fend off the threat of truly open formats much better. Say what you will, but the supposed superiority of MSOffice over the competition has nothing to do with it's native file formats. MSOffice's main superiority (thought there are others) is it's ability to use MSOffice's file formats, duh.
If anything is being preempted, it's the still present threat that developer resources will be diverted into application rewrites for Windows 8 Metro - locking users into Windows-only apps for another generation. Whatever qualms you may have about Google, Chrome is about the best supported large multi-platform app, and there's nothing about Chrome (the browser) itself that locks you into Google apps or services. It's primary purpose is to keep the open web open and available on all devices, living up to its full potential. That just happens to fit well with Google's business plan, but it also fits well with what most people use computers for these days.
I would imagine that this new "Android in Chrome" capability will end up most commonly used to play Candy Crush on Windows systems. And that's fine. The nicest thing about Chrome (the browser) is it's (largely realized) potential as a meta-platform that works on just about every device out there - except iOS. And if Apple would allow it, it'd be on iOS too. That was the initial promise of Netscape before Microsoft got scared and started with their dirty tricks. It was never the promise of IE, which was primarily built to prevent Netscape from realizing that potential.
Granted. But good enough to pay for - if all you want to do is stuff you can do on a Chromebook? If you need or want to run Windows apps, Windows is the best solution for you. If you don't, and don't want to keep paying for Windows, Office and their endless upgrades, a Chromebook is a great alternative. Cheap hardware that still performs well - and free applications. If they do what large numbers of people need them to do, why do you feel the need to insist they're wrong? And If they don't do what you need, well there are options for you too - including desktop Linux, which "works pretty good these days" too...
Get rid of your dictator and adopt a representative democracy and it will be over. Indeed, nobody could have thought it would go on this long.
I agree that sharing a copy of a book in a library is fair use. But simultaneous sharing among multiple readers is not fair use. A library can stock multiple copies of a popular book and share them among thousands of users. But one reader per copy at a time. Otherwise your 'good trade off for society as a whole' becomes out and out appropriation. I agree that libraries would be great places if every book you wanted were always 'in the stacks', but you're not talking about a small loss of revenue any more.
I made touch powder in chemistry and put it up around the school on filter paper attached to noticeboards labeled "Scratch and Sniff"
You say this like it's a good thing. Sure, if you want to advance your career, you have no choice but to do a lot of job jumping (at least in the beginning). But it didn't used to be that way, and ultimately this dynamic is harmful to the products we work on. The fact that you're going to jump in 2 years just makes that worse. And, one of these days you're gonna hit 50 and find that next jump really hard to make. I'm 62 and have stuck around. Other than hating the way management views the company as it's toy for serial mergers and buyouts, I've had a pretty rewarding time of it. But I'm one of only two who survived the outsourcing push - and are doing all the work to cover the asses of the idiots that thought outsourcing would work. There's nobody in the pipeline to replace either of us, and the latest LBO guys think they're gonna go public in 2 years. Sheesh...
That's all true - until some manager fails to make his numbers and attempts to blame it on poor programmer productivity. The solution: outsource the whole damn thing to a 'major outsourcing firm' that can 'shift resources at will' to attain optimal productivity.
You end up out of a job, and the company ends up with poorly trained workers that have no depth of knowledge of the software they're supporting - and who are rotated out every 18 months so they're guaranteed never to have any depth. Plus nobody in the organization is acquiring the ability to replace the key people that weren't outsourced when they ultimately change jobs (or retire).
But that manager? He probably got a big bonus and found a new job before the shit hit.
This is actually really interesting technical problem that the Tor and Debian people have spent some time working on. In practice, with most compilers today, if you compile a program twice you get different binaries. There are a variety of reasons for this, from embedded time stamps to non-deterministic shared library reference ordering to embedding the host name of the build machine.
Here's the Debian project's wiki page on the problem that goes into much more detail:
Okay. Once and for all. Is it "Here here" or "Hear hear". (or "Hear here"...)
Chromium under KDE on linux nags you to set up a kwallet for passwords - I assume Gnome has a similar facility. So I guess it takes the same approach as on Windows - i.e., use the password storage facility provided by the OS. Not a bad approach. Kwallet makes you provide a password to access it the first time (presumably each app that accesses your wallet will ask for this the first time you grant it access. That's not the same as giving your passwords to anything you run as the GP suggested (thought maybe it works that way on Windows...)
So then I guess Christianity has to be forever tarred as evil because of the genocides committed on its behalf.
Not all Marxism is bad, and not all Capitalism is good. Is that so hard to understand? Social Security and highways are Marxist - you'd have to be a pretty absolutist capitalist to find them 'bad' (social security may have some demographic issues, but it's certainly not evil). Enron and Countrywide Financial are Capitalist and far from 'good'.