Google also finds value in Chrome because Android has to have a browser, and at the time it was created, the only other browser that would have been usable as a mobile browser was Safari. Google worked with their direct operating system competitor to make WebKit a platform that was good enough as a mobile browser, and used that platform as the basis for Chrome.

The sad reality is that there is no money in web browsers. They're a money pit. Users won't tolerate browsers that inject ads, and for the most part, users won't pay for web browsers, so there's no viable funding source except for the money that browsers get from making Google the default search engine. As a result, Google basically funds development of Chrome, Firefox, and Safari, almost singlehandedly.

It isn't entirely selfless, of course. Without browsers, Google Search wouldn't be all that useful. So keeping browser development going does support Google's interests, but it has nothing to do with ads, except to the extent that ads pay the bills for Search.

I'm really not sure why the DOJ thinks anyone else would want Chrome. The best possible outcome would be Google spinning off Chrome into a separate company, but continuing to pay huge sums of money to that company for the purposes of keeping Chrome from instantly going bankrupt, and I'm really not sure what good that would do anyone. As long as Google is funding it, they'll still end up doing Google's bidding, and I don't see any realistic alternative, because almost nobody but Google has the deep pockets necessary to fund it, and almost nobody else has the motivation to do so, either, as evidenced by ~86% of Mozilla's annual budget coming from Google.

I mean... unless they think they can get Google to finance it with enough money that the resulting company can survive on the interest/stock market gains alone, who in their right minds would take Chrome? It would be as smart a business deal as buying 23andMe.

"We used to make slow cable, now we just make slow."

Sorry, I'm not clear what points you're referring to?

What would be better? If you mean more attack surface, I guess that's true if you prioritize being able to defeat DRM over being able to keep your own data safe.

I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not trying to hide things behind qualifiers like "primary". I said primary because there are many reasons. DRM hardening is not among them.

I'm not sure what you mean here? Set a vulnerable DRM against a secure what?

Interesting... what sort of abusive authority are you referring to? What's your actual concern?

What other motive is relevant to video DRM?

Roughly 25% are going to think the gov't is rigged and out to get them no matter what. Can't do zero just because nuts exist.

AIPAC has deep pockets and they ain't afraid to use them.

...in case the tinted Tribble-top breaks it.

Why would the red states want to keep us "faggy blue-haired commie woke-ster" states?

Torture? Okay, you have a point there. Troglodytes miss that Salem Trials stuff.

The inbred ones gallop or fly on their own.

The secret to peace, I didn't mean growth.

True, but Buddhists have a much better overall track record than Christians and Muslims. The secret is focusing on fixing yourself instead of others. Busybodies Break Blissful Balance.

The real question is will there be Civil War 2, or will both sides agree to split without a full conflict? Almost half the North felt they should have let the South go back then, seeing them as stubborn trouble-makers, and that looks about right to me.

> leaving for the same reason young people are leaving the amish world.

Most Amish youth stay, actually. It's why the Amish population is quickly expanding. They learned from the Catholics: if you can't recruit because your cult is too culty, then perform mass mitosis. However, they face multiple genetic diseases due to inbreeding.

"Our software is quite popular, in fact our usage is exploding!"

BiBiFone, get yours today via our grand fire-sale!

IF they had merged, they'd probably spread their shittiness to the other side and kill it also, like what McDonnell Douglass's bean counters did to Boeing engineering.

It also seems like a sensible move on DeepComputing's part. Framework parts aren't free; but compared to what it would cost to bang out some low-volume laptop bits to suit your dev board they are pretty attractively priced and widely accessible for minimal additional effort.

Not really a replacement for the sort of dev board that breaks out a zillion headers and DIP switches and things; but compared to just your basic rectangular bare board it presumably cost a pretty modest amount to make the board in a shape that allows people to slap it into a laptop format quickly and easily.