You have problems understanding an argument. I recommend brain amputation, it can only get better.

Nope, you won it. Yours is infinitely less well-constructed.

But carry on battling privacy for the sake of billionaires, without any argumentation at all. I suspect you are not a lobbyist, but just a mere complete and total idiot.

And Google is in your slashdot, modding your and mine comment to oblivion (you troll!), while minifying/laughing away/ridiculing any concerns and placing insightful comments about how all is well.

Spammers gather email addresses from the open internet. According to your argument it is ok to spam millions of email addresses. Also, I could stand across the street and watch you leave the house and take notes. The government could also do this, watching thousands of civilians in a gigantic operation. According to your simple pro-google argumenation, this is ok. Why is it exactly you are defending an ad broker that needs more profit every year selling your private data to the highest bidder, and which works with an army of lobbyists to make sure your rights are not defended? Are you a lobbyist?

Google, as a for-profit corporation, acts in the best interests of its owners - its share holders. The rest is PR and marketing, i.e. they tell you what you want to hear. For some reason people seem to realize this kind of audience targeting when its not them being targeted, i.e. a conservative presidents using Christians to get elected - not to serve their interests but just as an election vehicle, but when it's Obama using an election vehicle for the left ("change", "yes we can") or Google says it does no evil (yet it censored Tank Man for market and opportunity) they suddenly are blind and deaf. Fan boys. They are half of the problem, not just the corporations and their politicians. Become more critical. It's ok. You are not payed to protect Google against the evils of people who are critical of companies making money out of their privacy, unless you're on of their sock puppets always popping up in these topics.

Yes, excellent argument, Sir, and so elaborate too. It is a good thing you shine your wisdom on us. Forget all I said. Carry on then, go kill some more civilians and cover it up. In the name of Normality.

What are the new international rights for Americans?

Now let's suppose a group of Canadian terrorists bombs a building a China. You couldn't complain if the Chinese consequently invaded the USA because you are harboring Canadians. The Chinese could march up to Washington, catch Bush, Obama and friends from pits in the ground, and execute them after a fake trial. While hunting the terrorists, they could kill innocent civilians with a ratio 5:1. These events, they could hide them actively from the media and from being ever discovered, because it is the patriotic thing to do and to protect the Chinese freedom fighters. If your family was killed at a checkpoint, you could witness people on Chinese internet forums discussing that it is irresponsible to have information about this incident released, that this would be anti-Chinese and evidence of a strong bias and sensationalism of the person of organisation releasing that secret info. There will be much torture, and those who expose it will be branded traitors, while the torturers walk. Many Americans and Canadians will be shipped to a remote prison. The new Chinese ruler who will keep everything the same will get the Nobel Peace Price.

You put a spin on all this crap that just isn't quite right. You work the sensationalism angle pretty hard. I like what you do, I just don't like your angle on things. And, guess what? I can say all that and don't provide the actual evidence of such. Was that an Argumentum ad hominem smoothem? What was the spin? What was the sensationalist part? If you can't provide this, you are the only one spinning.

Was this prior or after Windows Vista?

Let's not be shy.. Like half of the commenters here: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/10/14/2220209/Wikileaks-Donations-Account-Shut-Down

If you are in there accusing wikileaks of killing people, you have now been officially documented as an idiot and an easy target of propaganda.

It is not about what it adds to the movie, or not. It is about what it adds to the marketing process. Avatar was a mediocre movie if you take away the 3D and hype surrounding the movie. It was a very well played marketing event, where the masses just felt they had to see this movie. The 3D movies after that did not play this game as well. Jackson, of course, has proved he knows exactly how to play it. So this movie will be a big event, that everybody has to watch, and they will discuss the 3D, whether it is good or bad, and it won't matter, like Avatar, because those people discussing it already payed for the movie. Personally, I'm gutted Guillermo isn't going to make it, but "just" Jackson. The LOTR was excellent, but had its failings, mostly with the characters and story telling. It was a series of rollercoaster events with no depth. Jackson's weak points are Guillermo's strong points. Since the Hobbit is a smaller movie (in the sense of less rollercoasting) it would have been perfect for Guillermo, and at least very interesting considering the movies he had made in the past. I hope the Hobbit turns out well, but frankly I expect a 3D King Kong/Avatar type of movie with little depth, which, of course, will make huge amounts of money nevertheless. The 3D of course suggests Jackson will still not be concentrating on depth. I'll be happy if he manages to avoid jumping the shark. He came close sometimes in LOTR, with Legolas surfing the enormous CGI elephants, and an CGI army of the undead flooding a battle field.

Well, at least he is a guy with his own opinion, unlike some folks here who seem to be parroting a certain source with all kinds of information and opinion about Assange produced after the leak, a certain source which incidentally is the US government and which is of course complete objective and independent. Or was it you, who researched Mr. Assange? If not, you are a parrot.

Excellent. You start trying to make me look bad because you lack an argument, reverse the argument, and continue with another ad hominem. Meh. Here's mine: Your excellent argument was to call an extremely experienced web developer an inexperienced child. So you are a complete idiot with no class whatsoever and you sound like a baby. I wish you good luck as a target for the publishing business for idiots. (These lame "books" are only written because lame idiots buy them, little boy, a well-known industry "secret")

Meh, argumentum ad hominem. In other words: game over.

If you need someone to hold your hand to learn HTML, you are in the wrong business.