Symbolic links are used, just not often-- theres rarely a need. I have myself used them, however.
File locks are supported by many filesystems, and generally its not Windows doing the locking, its an application.
Read speed-- even on Linux with ntfs-3g-- is apparently better than both ext3 and HFS+. Generally, as a journalled filesystem, NTFS isnt going to be quite as fast as unjournalled systems like ext2 and FAT32, but AFAIK its actually one of the faster filesystems out there:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.p...
NTFS @ 127MB/s vs EXT3 @ 75 and EXT4 @ 130

It really sounds like you dont know what you're talking about (and Im not sure what you mean by "stat"). There are some things NTFS does well, some it does less well, but all around its a pretty decent filesystem, and if you think its horrendously slow you're doing something very wrong.

It is the point. You are not entitled to employment by anyone. They dont need a contract to "not hire you".

Sounds like you have an unreasonable axe to grind. Everything I've read indicates that Google and Microsoft programmers both tend to be highly skilled.

You're doing it wrong. Filesystems are largely invisible to userland applications. The only reason FAT32 would send a program for a loop is if the characteristics of FAT32 made it unsuitable for that use (ie, file name support).

You'd probably get laid off again for calling Mr Nadella "Ballmer"-- sort of a big screw up when you get the CEO's name wrong.

Im pretty sure Microsoft can choose to hire or not hire whomever they wish. If they want to instruct HR not to hire former employees, thats their prerogative.

Yea, thats not what I said. My comment was apolitical; it was a comment on a poor line of reasoning. Any political angle you read into that is created wholly in your imagination.

You do realize that authorities have ALWAYS been able to "look in medicine cabinets and underwear drawers", if they had probable cause and were issued a warrant by the courts?

Yall need to go home, this isnt the "government overreach" story you're looking for.

The warrant in question describes the gmail account to be searched, based upon probable cause.

The Bill of Rights ensures due process, it doesnt say that you can use Gmail as a shield for illegal activity.

Or, the judge in this case would have set that precedent using the same reasoning that judge years ago did.

I dunno, the judge is right that warrants are granted for things like "Contents of X", including when X is a hard drive. Why is this materially different? Gmail holds ~7GB of email, I know people with PST files over 7GB.

Disclaimers dont magically make liability for fraud disappear.

Not to pull this down to a political argument, but just on a logical reasoning level, this is the WORST argument I've heard regarding regulation.
Regulation is working badly! Clearly we're better off with regulation than no regulation!

Anyways, ICANN is not government regulation in the sense of "US Government". Its an organization that has rules, and noone is arguing that "rules" are, as a whole, a dumb idea-- except maybe anarchists, and there are precious few true anarchists out there.

As has been explained numerous times, there are gigantic differences between a company-provided email and what the NSA did.

1) MOST employers have an employee conduct agreement, or a computer-specific Acceptable Use Policy. This usually lays out the reality that you will be monitored.
2) The NSA does not have ownership rights over the servers hosting your personal email or comms. The company does have ownership rights.
3) Often companies have a legal liability if they do not monitor the communications-- for instance, if PII is transmitted in violation of HIPAA, both the employer and the employee could be legally liable.
4) Often companies have technical liability if they do not monitor the communications-- for instance, you could find your domain blacklisted if the email leaving your network is spam or virus-laden.

You really cant compare the two.

No.

Theres generally no expectation of privacy; the email account is company property, sitting on a company server, on company storage. In what universe would the company not have rights to it?

Not only that, but most sane companies have an acceptable use policy that generally indicates "no expectation of privacy, and we are likely snooping on everything".

The only exceptions I've heard thrown around (not sure if these would even hold up in court) are if there is personal stuff in there, and the company is aware of it but snoops anyways.