This was certainly one of the reasons I didn't use Google+, or indeed 90% of Goggle's offerings. I have no interest in other people being able to track my life over multiple environments. I know that Google can follow me, that's unfortunately unavoidable, but what possible benefit is there to me that everyone else, (particularly total strangers, spammers, companies, work colleagues), can also follow me? Unless I am set on becoming some kind of internet celebratory, why would I want that?

But for most people, the main reason Google+ failed is because they already had Facebook and Google+ was just a me-too product. No reason to switch and too much hassle to operate both.

You lead a very sheltered life and rarely read slashdot. Am I right?

Did you read what the statement said?

It's nothing to do with him being "an alleged criminal", it's to do with him being currently a fugitive from justice. And they aren't "simply listening to them". They are attending a conference where he is addressing them.

I can't imagine any circumstances where it's ok for a wanted person to evade capture, while at the same time being given a platform to deliver a lecture to judges.

You are making the mistake of allowing them to dictate the direction of the conversation. The reply for any and all opening questions is "No thanks". Doesn't matter what the question is, doesn't matter if your reply on the surface makes no sense. Your reply is "No thanks (I do not wish to talk with you)" I don't count being this abrupt as rudeness. When you are replying to a devious and manipulative question, or a flat out lie, it's all good.

"Can I interest you in..." (Straight to the point.)
"No thanks."

"How has your day been?" (Hi, I want you to think I'm just being friendly.)
"No thanks."

"Do you want to save money?" (Particularly devious, who's going to say no to that?)
"No thanks."

"I'm doing a survey, I'm not selling.. " (Liar)
"No thanks."

You can add a "goodbye" at the end of any of the above, to suit the situation or taste.

This is about as bad as software development can get, never mind software that's supposed to have basic security. It all points really to a package written by rank amateurs who had no idea what they were doing designing software, far less having the beginnings of a clue about hardening their software to attack.

I mean, hard coded passwords? Really? Hard coded passwords that are this obvious? It's staggering incompetence. Was this written by a self-taught hobbyist over the course of a weekend?

You don't know which species had "human-like" intelligence 3.3 million years ago. There were a number of "human-like" species that aren't our ancestors.

Yeah. What do IT professionals need recruitment advice for? It's not like they work in a job market, or even need a job or a wage or anything.

It's different because it's like coding with ;
  - a dozen smart-asses looking over your shoulder telling you you're doing it wrong.
  - another dozen noobs asking dumb questions about the basics because they can't be bothered to RTFM.

Sounds like hell.

If modern technology, medicine, government and religion all "somehow interfere" then they simply become part of the evolutionary process. They don't put an end to it.

Evolution just doesn't pack its suitcase and go home because it's no longer applicable. It's always applicable as long as there's life.

How do you know they aren't US gov managed?

The cynic in me suspects this might just be Microsoft's next step. Implement OPF capability, but make it so awkward to use, with such poor results, that users avoid it.

The rest of the world has no problem believing this. And they don't like it.

Isn't everyone missing the real issue here? It's not that someone mis-addressed an email. It's not that Outlook helped them mess up. It's not that it was leaders' information.

It's the fact that they were sending this kind of information about anyone in clear text, on an email, at all, to anyone.

No-one will "win", and it's not helpful to represent the issue as if it's "winnable" by either side.

Malware, viruses, trojans and other malicious behaviour of yet unheard methods will always be around, and we'll always be inventing new ways of counteracting them. Which will in turn be circumvented, and so it goes on.

Dear amaurea,

This is the BBC. Our hearts are warmed by your love for our broadcasts, and your wish to gift it to the rest of the world. You are both gracious and generous.

Now that we no longer sell it abroad, but provide it for free, you will have two options next year;

- Pay a 20% increase in your licence fee to replace this lost revenue.
- Not get another series.

Thanking you.