Iodine is very much the same. While there's not a huge amount in the Earth's crust, relative to some elements, it's relatively abundant in seawater and relatively easy to extract – for anyone who really needs it.
Apple's approach since 1997 has shown where Apple thinks "Advanced Technology Group" technology should be developed: small startups. When Apple need that type of technology, they acquire smaller companies.
Apple made just 5 acquisitions in 20 years to 1997. In the 17 years since, they've made 49.
And that's not counting open source adoptions or developer hirings like LLVM, KHTML, CUPS, etc.
This makes sense when you think about it. Large companies are too expensive, too inefficient, too concerned about their existing market and too risk averse to lay the groundwork in interesting technology. But large companies do have lots of money and can afford to pay small, innovative researchers and developers handsomely when they need the technology.
Then you could argue that any embedded device that runs the Linux kernel is not Linux because it doesn't use the GNU userland. I think its splitting hairs, anything that runs the Linux kernel is by definition, Linux. You can replace the GNU userland with anything you want, it doesn't suddenly make it a completely new operating system.
Sounds like the argument is a question of definitions - does "operating system" mean kernel, userland, or both? You argue that changing the userland doesn't change the OS. I could counterargue that Debian/kFreeBSD is the "same operating system" with a different kernel.
RMS believes that userland makes an OS, because he wrote a userland. Linus believes that kernel makes an OS, because he wrote a kernel. Calling Android "Linux" is like calling Windows 8 "Windows NT", i.e. correct if you're talking about kernels and wrong otherwise.
What's the point of this post? If you're unfamiliar with "goto fail" in C code... it's a very common error handling pattern.
I'm working on some ffmpeg code at the moment. ffmpeg 2.0 contains 554 occurrences of "goto fail".
Edit: okay, it appears that the point of OP's post is that someone appears to have copy/pasted an extra "goto fail" at line 631, short circuiting the remainder of the SSLVerifySignedServerKeyExchange function and needlessly jumping to fail. I assume this was the code that Apple needed to patch in iOS 7.0.6 today?
We should advice you that our preliminary findings indicate that your onboard Apple computer is in error predicting the fault. I say again, in error predicting the fault. I know this sounds rather incredible, but this conclusion is based on the results from our twin Apple computer. We are skeptical ourselves, and we're running cross checking routines to determine reliability of this conclusion. Sorry about this little snag, fellas. We'll get this info to you as soon as we work it out.
I don't think you're a luddite. With any technology like this, it's important to ask: what applications does this really enable and will those applications simply be a waste of time.
This is an unveiling of a technology but the "applications" they show in this video are probably a waste of time to most users. Google have not shown a killer app that uses this tech. Maybe they're working on something (they hint that they may be planning to integrate indoor mapping into Google Maps which might be interesting) but they're not showing it in this video.
That doesn't mean the tech is bad. But we haven't seen enough to judge it as useful to end users.
Google has acknowledged that their vision of where this is going is, at best, partial: "While we may believe we know where this technology will take us, history suggests we that should be humble in our predictions. We are excited to see the effort take shape with each step forward."
...and to someone in tech who isn't intimately familiar with the Windows logo's color scheme these days, it could be easily mistaken for some Google thing (though at closer inspection I can tell that the colors are slightly different - but what I'm describing is not a close inspection).
The "Windows" logo is no longer the four-colour pane, but an all-blue slanted version. Just looking at ms.com at the moment, it seems that 'microsoft' is the only multicolour logo now, with all their other services having monochromatic logos.
This isn't really surprising though as a Windows Everywhere strategy seems to prevail. Even when it shouldn't. Some of the products with the name mashed onto them don't even have windows in the sense that the name presumably meant. It seems to me like the Blackberry/RIM naming thing.
Edit: just noticed that the logo is the Microsoft logo. The sentiment behind my comment stands, but in this instance parent comment and this one are incorrect.