Which is exactly what Google is using already...

What are the alternatives, really?

If you're worried about gaining two minutes a day by getting faster computer hardware, maybe you should first have a look at the coffee machine. I bet there's much more of a time saving to be found there.

The requirement of stuff like Google Apps account and having Google do your identity management, will be a huge turn-off for many corporations. Unless Google has an option to have these services all in-house.

Especially when it comes to sensitive data (and not just medical, my personal financial records for example I don't want out in the open either) I'd like to keep it at home. Not unencrypted on someone else's cloud. And definitely not in some foreign country, where organisations like an NSA are active.

Simple. Open the hatch, stick your head out. Enjoy the wind in your face, the whistling of the birds.

Wait a moment ... Birds? There are no birds in the desert!

Microsoft vs Google.

If that's the choice I'd still go for the second. Gut feeling says Google cares more about preventing NSA snooping than MS. And now I don't exactly like Google's snooping to target their ads better (they do a pretty shitty job there anyway), at least it won't get you on secret no-fly lists.

They're replacing a current stock of 4,300 of what used to be mid- to high-end hardware (when they were bought of course - after all they were designed to run Windows - replacement would mean current mid- to high-end stuff or Windows won't run well) with 2,300 low-end ones.

That cuts down the number of computers in half, and it cuts the per-unit hardware cost. I can't imagine them saving some 150 pounds per unit on license cost alone. Windows isn't that expensive in OEM licenses. The price difference between a typical Chromebook and a typical Windows laptop is more than the Windows license itself.

I take it you're Amish?

And why would someone go to their mobile network provider, and not the independent shop around the corner to buy a new one, or maybe a second hand one? Let along upgrading their contract, just because their phone is stolen? Just doesn't make sense.

So you report a bug the way you're supposed to, it barely gets attention, and you think re-reporting it the same way will suddenly do the trick?

Well repeated often enough it may - but it also shows the failure of devs to use their own bug tracking system.

The sad part is that it is a known bug, that got introduced breaking a perfectly working feature, and is still not fixed. It is not a new feature they're asking for, just to retain something that was always there.

This is programmers not doing their job - and it being FOSS that is distributed for free is irrelevant as it's more than a hobby-level tool we're talking about. It's production-level software, and essential to the operation of a large number of computer systems.

FTFY

Facebook provides all kinds of "privacy settings", allowing a user to set exactly who can see what. No-one, friends only, friends of friends, the world. So simply based on what Facebook tells their users, it's an informed decision to have expectations of privacy. It may even be called intelligent, where the girl reasons "the school won't like this, so I set it to have only my friends see the post, and there are no school teachers amongst those friends, so it's like talking to each other when we're out in the park."

Now most people with a bit more life experience than a 13yo know that Facebook may be lying. Those really in the know, know that Facebook is lying. Furthermore it's of course ridiculous for a school to ask her password (one more reason to have her use a password manager as a password like 50plZ5njlf%*g9Fp - just generated that one with LastPass as illustration - is impossible to remember and this way she can truthfully say "sorry I don't know my password for Facebook").

But I don't think it's reasonable to expect from anyone to spend hours upon hours of research on the quality of privacy settings offered by a web site. Like with what all other companies tell you about their products, you normally simply have to take their word for it. And that's exactly what most people do, most of the time. Only afterwards we may find out what was promised is not true. And then it's time to name and shame the company that lied, and in bad cases sue them. The first is often enough to put a serious dent in their business (e.g. a restaurant really hates people coming down with food poisoning after eating there, and having the world know about it), and may actually put a company out of business. That alone should be a good reason for a company to at least do their best to deliver what they promise.

Except for the part where the communications equipment was switched off. As I understand it, this must have been done manually. A pilot trying to recover from a mechanical error will probably not do this, instead they'd press the emergency button to call for help.