It's easy : chromium (http://www.chromium.org/) is the open source project. It's licence is open source and can be found at http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/LICENSE?revi... it looks like a "BSD with attribution" licence.
Chrome (google.com/chrome) is the "closed-source" distribution to loads of platforms (includes a few closed source components. E.g. it can play .mp3 files). It's got a standard closed source licence.
There are other distributions, for example "fedora" chromium, that doesn't have any codec support. There are versions that are not release-engineered (ie. nightly builds, but still released by some distro), ...
If that is true, then in a multicultural or multi-religion group no rights exist at all after time passes. Because in such a group the only possible rights would be lowest-common-denominator, which would decrease if new groups are added to the whole. The more different or antagonistic the new group, the more it has to decrease individual rights.
(death toll from that fire, explosions around it and people locking themselves in their homes, then getting enveloped by the smoke, was over 200. It was not the only oil disaster during the earthquake)
The fun thing about this argument, is that it's pro-nuclear. Nuclear fission reactors are the only thing on this planet that reduce radioactive emissions. By quite a bit even.
Of course, after that reduction, we massively concentrate what is left and then store that absurd concentration in a really small spot, where "nothing can ever go wrong".
The problem with radioactivity is not nuclear power, it's the idiotic way we do nuclear disposal.
We should do what coal power plants do : simply process it into building materials. 10x thinner than background levels and just use it for anything and everything.
There are plenty of places on this planet where natural radioactivity levels are more dangerous than inside a modern nuclear reactor (Ramsar in Iran being the canonical example). A city built straight on top of radioactive rock, 200-500 times normal background radiation levels (like a constant dental scan, a little more than you'd get swimming in the primary coolant circuit of a nuclear reactor, 3 meters from an active fission reaction, without any separation between you and the reaction other than the water that sustains the reaction), yet you will not find a single trace of a nuclear power plant. And yes, they have a history of higher cancer rates (though not nearly as high as our radiation disease models predict they should be).
What about members of that culture living in America ? Is it racism to "point out the spade" ? It is beyond obvious that this hateful islamic culture is not going to stay contained, whatever Americans' thoughts on the issue.
It is painful to see that the only "moderate" reaction is a few tweets. Everybody seems to be too afraid of these backward muslim morons to point out that they are backward islamic morons.
I'd love to live in a world where live and let live works, but that's not this world. Islam started with massacring Jews, atheists and Christians by the thousands, and the only advancement since has been increasing numbers.
And please keep in mind that 10th century Egypt was >95% Christian, when evaluating their "tolerance" (and frankly a reading of either Egyptian or Spanish archives from during the relevant periods easily reveals that muslims were not, at all, tolerant during those periods).
We're defending the rights of the oppressed minority against the Jews, and that oppressed minority that unites under the party "conquest" ? Seriously ?
If this is your name, how the hell would you defend the idea that palestinians are just trying to live independantly ?
You might want to google "mughal" and read through the first few links. If you're into comparing death tolls.
If not, why don't you scientifically get yourself the factual answer to a few simple questions:
-> what is the difference between islam and sharia ?
-> does allah literally says women are half a man's worth ?
-> does islam allow slavery ?
-> does islam allow a slave owner to kill slaves on a whim ?
-> does islam allow forcible rape of slaves ?
-> starting at what age ?
I've been meaning to ask someone that. If you switch from java to go, is it really such an improvement in non-trivial cases ?
In Go, you'll be doing the C thing : you'll be reimplementing every datastructure from scratch (or use void, also known as interface{}), and have the same memory allocation problems as java. The problem with that is obvious : only experienced C library authors stand any chance of getting complicated trees right the first time (and I still only seen one person get red-black trees insert right first time once*, 3 other university professors and several assistants failed).
And the fact that you need to write those things from scratch everytime means you've got to debug that extremely finicky and difficult code every single time ... and then a junior programmer comes in and says "hey I can get to the internal fields easy, why don't I just" and you're in for an 8 hour debugging session because that causes a crash in the normal insert code, not the actually wrong code.
One thing I did in go that really, really bugged me was sorting a list (sorting a list of strings). I was making it as short as I possibly could without violating style rules ... 70 lines of code. That's ... well that's just not reasonable.
ArrayList<String> x = Lists.newArrayList("b", "c", "d", "a");
Collections.sort(x);
System.out.println(x);
Give me the Go equivalent, in less than 50 lines of code. Please. That just has got to have a short solution, right ?
As it stands, I believe Go is good at being a fast conduit for nearly-ready data. A way to write asynchronous servers. If you need complicated algorithms or quick ways to change data operations ... maybe I'm wrong but it just looks like Go is really not going to be your friend.
I shudder to think how much app-specific code this would require in C, though. I am not a C programmer, but I don't think I'm missing something saying that in C you have one of 2 choices :
1) you re-implement the datastructure for every case (person). Which explains why you'd use a datastructure like a linked list, because anything else would be way too much work.
Since you're likely to search through a "Person" list by name, a linked list would be close to the worst possible option. Even an unsorted array would be better, even if only for practical "doesn't destroy the cache" reasons, unless you have massive numbers of weird inserts.
You see that a lot, in C programs. People using suboptimal datastructures, not because they don't see why it's suboptimal, not because they don't know how to create the optimal one, but because they don't want to tackle the complexity of rewriting a real datastructure for this specific case, and don't want to use macro-hell libraries.
2) you use macros to abstract over strings, and hope that your string expansions work correctly. At this point I would argue that it's actually more complex than the C++ solution.
Both of these options suck.
I would also argue that for these sorts of problems (anything involving business rules pertaining to database objects) you'd want to use a more high-level language, or just a straight-up database schema if you wish to guarantee correctness and constraints without coding for a week. I'd probably prefer python, but there's plenty of options.
Even if you do geo lookup on a per /24 basis, surely that doesn't detract that badly ?