The governments in some of those countries are also thoroughly corrupt, which doesn't help things any.

There is apparently a "custom install" that asks all the questions. Are you saying that was inadequately tested, since and Express that kept settings would be just the same as a Custom that had screens to keep all those settings?

Of course, I've seen processes called "no-brainers" on Slashdot that will stymie the average user long enough so it doesn't seem worth it. Slashdot has a lot of people who are really good with technical systems and can't spell "empathy".

Yeah, right. Where can I get a non-Windows machine that runs Microsoft Office, SolidWorks, Outlook and Visual Studio, not to mention our internally developed CAD system based on C++ with MFC? That's my minimum requirements for work around here. (There are actually other requirements, but I can satisfy them on any desktop OS. I need a decent editor, but you can easily get vim and emacs on Linux, Mac OSX, and Windows.)

With the exception of Vista and 8, I've liked each new OS as much or better than the last one I tried, although I slightly prefer XP's UI to 7's. (I missed ME, if you're wondering.) Seriously, the old desktop interface was very usable and wasn't ugly, unlike what Microsoft's been doing since. (Have you looked at newer versions of Office and Visual Studio, with the ALL-CAPS MENU NAMES and ugly color schemes?)

98% of the complaints I've seen about Windows 8 are about the user interface. If Microsoft had had an option "make it look and act like Windows 7", it would have been a winner.

For somebody who just uses their computer for email, web surfing, and Facebook, I'd recommend Mint or some other easy-to-use Linux distro. For somebody who has particular requirements, and they work on Linux, I'd recommend Linux (I use Ubuntu for those purposes).

There's a lot of people between those two populations, people who have computers so they can run Windows-compatible software that does not have complete replacements on other operating systems. Perhaps they need Microsoft Office (LibreOffice, for all of its virtues, is not an acceptable substitute in many business-related cases), or want to play certain games, or want to use iTunes, or need to use a particular CAD program, or.... They're not moving to Linux, probably not to Mac OSX, and no amount of preaching is going to change that. I think you'll find that most people fall into this category.

Which is pretty much equivalent to serving out their term of probation. It doesn't mean that, if they do the same old thing, they're not going to face the same sort of lawsuit.

Pouring oil into the correct hole is something that's physical and obvious, it's pretty clear that you're doing it right, and if you're a little off it won't harm the car noticeably. Changing settings in a control panel is an intellectual action with poor feedback, and if you get it wrong you can do nasty things to your system.

Apple has maybe 20% of the market where iOS competes. An Android phone can do pretty much anything an iPhone can do. Apple does not have a monopoly.

Microsoft Windows is on 90-95% of the world's desktops and laptops. A non-Windows system cannot do nearly everything a Windows system can do (in particular, run Windows-compatible software reliably). Microsoft does have a monopoly.

If you don't like an iOS restriction, you can buy an Android equivalent, maybe rebuy some apps, and you're in business. If you don't like a Windows restriction, you can't move to Mac OSX or Linux and rebuy all your software, because much of it that you are likely to need for business or entertainment simply doesn't run off Windows.

You'll notice that Google is comfortable with having google.fr subject to French laws, also. Google is claiming that it's not bound by Chinese laws outside of China, or French laws outside of France.

: It isn't a thing, as far as I know. It's a taunt, and it is "food trough wiper". I'm not claiming it's a good taunt, mind.

You don't seem to have much experience.

Have you ever been turned down for a job with a reason like "we Googled you and we found somebody once posted a nude picture of you"? In my experience, they usually just don't tell me anything, or they say something like "had a better qualified applicant" or something. Even if you've got strong evidence that they denied somebody a job for illegal reasons, it doesn't go anywhere. I have an example, somebody who was apparently denied a job for age reasons (the person was from 40 to 65, and this was in the US), whose complaint was denied despite the evidence.

In this case, we have a company looking at the history of accusations against you, including rape, mopery and dopery in the spacelanes, illegal import of extraterrestrial fruit, whatever. Somebody without that history is a safer bet. If it turns out you are a criminal, and harm co-workers, and it turns out that the company was aware of those accusations, the company could be in a bad position. The company could do a further background check on you, but if there's lots of applicants that would be expensive. The company doesn't owe anything to you until you are an employee, including fairness. If they actually hire you, they may find they've got a valuable employee and you may be working for a good company.

Moreover, a woman who doesn't go out with you because she Googled something unfavorable about you is not necessarily a vicious shrew. If the record shows a rape accusation, or a juvenile act of violence, or a really misogynistic comment, she may feel unsafe going out with you. Date rape happens, and lots of people advise women not to get into situations where they feel threatened. (Heck, if I were a woman of appropriate age, and you asked me out after posting what you did, I'd be reluctant.)

People do not have perfect information, so they will consciously try to work with what they've got, knowing it's unreliable. They aren't going to take many risks to give you the benefit of the doubt, and there's no reason why they should.

The only way to avoid having your teenage idiocies influence the rest of your life (mine left few embarrassing traces) is to have some way to stop it from being associated with you.

While the DMCA is a US law, it's an implementation of (IIRC) the WIPO treaty, which is ratified in a lot of countries.

Google is in a position here where it can't back down, since that would cost it a lot more than the French business, and they've shown they'll leave a country if they have to (China).

I assume that the French part of Google is a separate corporation owned fully or in part by the US part of Google, because that's how multinationals do things. Google's operations in France are important, since apparently they deliver enough value to French advertisers that French advertisers are willing to pay a lot of euros to deal with Google.

The French courts can issue orders to Google France. They can issue orders that Google France can't follow, since it doesn't have authority over the rest of Google. They can shut down Google France..

At that point, the French start using google.com or some other google site that doesn't have to obey "right to forget" orders, French companies lose customers, and France in general suffers. The French can push things that far, but it isn't a good idea for them.

Google overall can't yield to the French on this and keep operating, and most of Google is immune to French court judgments. It's partly a game of seeing who backs down, and Google won't.