I'm not sure I get the Slashdot outrage against 'privacy invasion" at a site you choose to post stuff, vs. the automatic, non-opt-in extensive data gathering Google is doing on you across their services and advertising network (and cars).

I have a suspicion that if this was about computers instead of stock options; that someone suddenly realized that a computer solution he bought worked differently than he had expected, because he hadn't checked details beforehand. Then many here would not respond differently.

This number is repeated in many posts here. But are those users not using the Internet? Total number of Internet users, on any device, is estimated at around 2.1 billion. With 200 million users Opera should have close to 10% share of users, but statistics only have them at a third of that, around 3%, for desktop and mobile combined.

Two sources for numbers but have also seen other sources with about same numbers: http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm. http://marketshare.hitslink.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=0

If you actively run it and give it permission, yes. Since you mention fanboys, the Mac variety always claim malware doesn't count if users have to do that. Compared to XP it helps that Win7 have UAC, but the best defense against PEBKAC malware like this is running antimalware software like Security Essentials, which you also can do on XP.

If you really were interested, there is a lot of information out there about the security differences between XP and Windows 7, they are quite extensive (ASLR, DEP, UAC, improved firewall (with multiple active profiles), Windows Service Hardening, Protected Mode browser, etc.)

People get the politicians they deserve. Seriously. It might require making sacrifices in terms of getting really engaged, working for alternatives. But that is what democracy is about. I don't get this american attitude of making jokes about French people demonstrating in the streets (and affecting change), while sitting in their coach and complaining on the internet about the system not working as they think it should. There are not enough lobbyists to vote politician into office - you vote politicians into office (or if you don't vote, you are voting for your opponents).

The thing about vigilante justice though is that not everybody agrees with your view on who deserves it. Some could claim Apple deserved it, and decide to out personal and credit card info of every Apple user. Some could claim abortion clinics deserved it.. etc. Can get really messy, and I suspect people supporting it in instances they agree with, could be very morally outraged about people doing such things if it hits closer to home.

A very significant portion of remaining IE6/7 users are enterprise users not allowed to change their browser, due to internal apps not being certified. Cutting support like that will only cut traffic to the sites and piss off their users, the users wont be able to do anything about it. Heck, even Microsoft wants IE6/7 to die. About the only hope to kill of this IE6/7 user base is that corporations keep adopting Windows 7 - a project that include testing and updating for compatibility all around.

I know correlation does not imply causation, but it is interesting how much more popular Skype have become after this. In 2007 Skype had under 300m users, by 2010 they had more than doubled to over 600m.. Doesn't look like this parting of ways hurt Skype in any way, quite the opposite, the popularity growth makes it look like a blessing for Skype.

That is not the only solution (and not a complete one, as users will still be surfing the web leaving an attack surface, like how iOS was drive-by rooted and jailbreaked just by visiting a website). It is actually possible to provide users with a significant degree of "protection from themselves", without locking down the platform.

You can and should be running a full featured always-on anti-malware and anti-virus scanner. Though not stopping all, that helps significantly in preventing infections. In addition you have tactics like IE9s reputation filter, which was just reported to block 95% of all attempted malware downloads by users (!). Again, not 100%, but significantly contributing to reducing the risk and protecting a very significant number of users "from themselves". So it is possible, and needed, for software to address the PEBKAC. This problem won't go away, expect quite the opposite.

Or, they didn't care about size of Mac user base before now and are just getting started, as the recent development seems to indicate.

Why are then so many claiming that it was because the hackers wanted the Mac the most? (as the OP I replied too) I'm not saying you are wrong, but then the argument that they wanted the Mac the most becomes nonsensical.

I actually thought people meant it only as a joke when they said that, but in the context here it doesn't seem like it, so I'll bite. The winner of pwn2own takes home a 15.000 USD cash price. It makes no sense to risk that by not going after the easiest target first. (And btw. in pwn2own 2011 the Mac fell without any restrictions being removed, just from visiting a website - drive-by install with no user interaction)

Partly that, and partly the strange fact that only US (and recently UK I think) really have Bing. In other countries around the world it is the old crappy solution, plastered with Bing logo and a tiny "beta" tag. If I search on "Bing" in my country, the result is utter crap. If I search on US Bing I find it quite nice.

Why someone would do something like this to their brand is difficult to understand.

You are aware this was publically funded University research that was sabotaged? Isn't that exactly what would balance against the negative power you are attributing to Monsanto?