pop up a request to access the other permissions at the time when they are needed

Because that worked so well for Vista?

You're either confused or trolling.

This is not some fine print hidden in the bowels of the EULA, that you accept just by using a cell phone.

You have to explicitly enable the feature. When you do, there's a popup that says, and I blockquote:

Allow Google's location service to collect anonymous location data. Some data may be stored on your device. Collection may occur even when no apps are running.
Agree | Disagree

If you Agree, this feature is one of the things your anonymous data is used for.
If you Disagree, you can still use positioning, it just doesn't use Google's server side assisted positioning and anonymous user data.

You:

they are gathering the exact same information, and unlike the NSA, don't have any rules restricting their use

The article:

Google gets permission to do this kind of tracking when Android users opt in

Do you really not see a difference between an experimental, opt-in location system and an international, clandestine spy program?

I believe that users should have some responsibility in not divulging their passwords to third parties, yes.

Users gave away their gmail and facebook credentials to Adobe, without Adobe even requesting them. What kind of stewardship is that from the user?

Do you honestly believe it's fair for both users and services that any breach or malevolent admin in any service the user ever visits will compromise the entirety of the user's online identity on all services?

We should not be allowing and especially not encouraging this. Browser level, two-factor oauth everywhere.

Let's try to sell this from a slashdotter's angle:

Imagine having a rash from sitting on a filthy chair in your basement, showing it on camera to a certified physician, and then have two bag of cheetos and some fungal cream delivered hours later.

Normal people, meanwhile, sometimes do pay money for various services that don't necessarily require physical presence. It's arguable whether they should or not, but they do.

These include personal trainers and dietitians, IT support, psychologists, life coaching, pet trainers, travel agents, and (sadly) alternative medicine, feng shui advisors and psychics.

With some guarantee of legitimacy, also psychiatrists, some medical services, law and real estate.

I can actually see this being useful.

It wouldn't matter if users just followed best practices for password selection.

Maybe you want to be able to control whatever is running in the VM. How do you propose to do that [...]?

The deployment system should be responsible for the configuration. The hypervisor should be responsible for starting and stopping VMs when the monitoring system determines that they're misbehaving.

SSHing in and changing config files, killing process and deleting unused logfiles or whatever is not a scalable solution.

If you're just going to spawn a new VM for every single program you might as well just run all those programs on the physical machine.

"The" physical machine? You mean the ten thousand machines across half a dozen data centers where jobs from a thousand different entities are constantly being spun up and shut down in response to load and hardware changes?

Yes, you could do that. This is just an easier way of doing it quickly, transparently and securely.

Just because you've only got "one app", it doesn't mean that you've only got one process.

If you have multiple, semi-related tools, you currently wouldn't run them as different threads in the same process. Why put all your eggs in one basket, having to restart them all at once, letting one rewrite the memory of another, when starting a new process is so cheap?

Now, if you have multiple, semi-related tools, you wouldn't run them as different processes in the same VM. Why put all your eggs in one basket, having to schedule them all on the same hardware, letting one misbehaving VM affect all of them at once, when starting a new VM is so cheap?

We don't use separate processes because it's the best imaginable model of systems design. We use it because it's been the best compromise between separation and efficiency.

The quality of this article did make me suspect that, yes.

Somehow it claims it's "a sort of Ctrl-Z for the entire Internet".

Come back when it lets me undo posting Slashdot comments with mipselled words.

The summary should read "Several browsers let you press Ctrl-Shift-T to reopen a closed tab. That is all."

Why this is deserving of an article I don't know.

If you'd read TFA, you'd have seen the bug reports.

The first was a proof of concept that just didn't work.

The second was one was an explanation that was very difficult to understand, and was interpretted as a feature working as intended.

The reason why they won't pay now is obviously that they don't want all future exploit reports to come in the form of posts on Zuckerberg's timeline. People would love to do that with impunity, and it would not look good for Facebook.

Seriously, does the fact that some random web surfer took the time and effort to click a button really have any real-world value?

The "Like" button is actually just a marketing term for "Subscribe and recommend". The counter is just a tiny side aspect.

"Liking" something subscribes you to the news feed of whatever you "like", so that you will see show's promotions later. It actually allows you to advertise directly to people who have explicitly expressed an interest in your product. This is incredibly valuable.

If several "friends" in your network "like" something, Facebook will recommend it to them. A recommendation from several friends has a much greater impact on people than that of strangers.

So yes, it has a very high real-world value. Fake likes, though, much less so.

In a Twilight Zone revelation, the authorities do exactly what the people want them to do.

They're showing a "tough and uncompromising stance on terror" which gets you public support. What if? Think of the children! (except the ones you jail, obviously). If he did happen to have something they could pin on him, they've "stopped a terrorist", gaining more public support.

If they had done nothing and nothing happened, no one would have cared either way. If they had done nothing and something happened, there would be public outrage, mass firing and countless inquisitions.

Arresting him was the logical thing.

Have you tried Windows 8 on a tablet?

While Surface Pro is bulky and has a terrible battery life, the Windows 8 tablet experience is actually really good. It's powerful enough to run Visual Studio when docked, lighter than many laptops for carrying around, and has a good touch interface and stylus for using it on the subway or in meetings.

And there is no separation. If you want to fix a bug on the subway or navigate Youtube left-handed by touch while eating lunch at your desk, you can.

I used to be a .NET consultant, and I would have loved a Surface Pro.

Of course, I'm one of those freaks who thought Maemo phones were awesome because you could write a shell script in vim if you wanted to. YMMV.