Most technical and social structures are designed in a way to maximize performance of the average case. If they wanted to improve worst case performance they had to sacrifice average performance. Or in non-technical terms: They typically cannot just add resources to better support the minority, they would have to pull the resources from somewhere else, where the same resources would help many more people. Is it worth it? Maybe sometimes, but certainly not always.

We do not accept the religious bullshit from extremist, but here we do exactly the same thing: We attack people only because they do not follow the official doctrine of decent american behavior. Which in fact is even worse than religious bullshit, because many (most?) Americans are just hypocrites here. Those booth-girls don't hurt or offend anybody. And no, it's not an offence just because somebody claims it is. In fact even here, among all those pathetic voices, it's hard to find anybody who even claims that he/she is personally offended. Rational people would just go for the easiest solution of this problem: Just ignore it, and let those booth-girls have fun. There wouldn't be any problem if everybody just ignored it.

The basic idea here is freedom and tolerance. Why can't people just ignore what they don't like? Can anybody explain how a woman can possibly be offended by the behavior of other, completely unrelated women? It's not like they attack or hurt anybody personally. Those booth-girls have fun, many people looking at them have fun, and those who don't have fun can just ignore them.

You dodged the most important question: What is it good for? If I just want to get a job done, is there any kind of "job" beside "having fun setting up a strange OS" where NetBSD would be the appropriate choice?

This gives him away, because it's hardly objective. Too bad he doesn't tell which company he actually does trust, because then we'd know who's paying him.

It's obvious that both Boost and C++ come mostly from an academic environment. In a sense it's very general, but this makes it sometimes hard to apply to practical problems. For example, try to create a random number from 0 to 1. Any other language has a function for that. Not so C++, here you have to create two objects before you can generate a random number. Which makes it more versatile, but also more cumbersome. Same goes for the reference documentation: mostly incomprehensible because of all the template arguments, and a library is only as useful as it's documentation.

6 teens killed in Ohio SUV crash is the next article on the same site. Quite consistent, both articles show that reckless driving is high priority for the people in Ohio.

In principle this kind of lobbying is OK. Then it's the job of the politicians to accept only the proposals that are beneficial for the society, and to dismiss anything else. This particular proposal certainly belongs to the latter category, because it's just destructively aimed at competition. Even without that law schools are free not to use Google docs.

You just repeat what everybody already knows and make it sound bad. Where have we seen this perfidious tactics before? Hint: not from Google. This is why people trust Google more than Microsoft. And, of course, with Chrome OS you exactly know what is being send and where. Good luck finding out what Windows sends home.

Nobody ever came up with a single patent that applies here. So "patent encumbered" is just the usual MS crap.

Something else would be worse from a privacy point of view. With Google at least you know what kind of data they collect. Apple or Microsoft don't tell. Oh, and you can use your Android device without any data transmission to Google. Try that with a similar product from a different vendor.

Webkit is open source and completely free software, so by definition it cannot be a monopoly.

Of course it is about convenience, in fact convenience is always goal, and standards are just one way to get there. Having a common implementation is a much faster way to get there. In fact you compare Apples and Oranges here. IE was proprietary and MS had a monopoly. Webkit is both open and free. And when three competing companies (Microsoft, Google, Apple) are working together on Webkit it's hardly a monopoly.

They call themselves Independent Centre for Privacy Protection, so they hardly have an unbiased opinion here.

With Microsoft you have worse privacy than with Google. They collect at least the same amount of information, and because everything is closed you never know what else they transmit and collect.