So are you telling me you actually opted out using P3P? If so, you must be one of the 10 people on earth who actually knew what this was before the story broke. P3P is a broken system, has been a broken system forever, and has been deprecated as a standard since 2007. This is the privacy protection you are relying on? A system that even Microsoft exploits in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY as Google did?

They aren't implementing the P3P standard as it tells them to, because the standard says if the P3P statement can't be parsed, it should assume the worst, not allow it through. Did you even read the standard?

No, they aren't. In the Safari case, the default setting in Safari is to block third party cookies. No one made that choice, unless it was to go in and unblock them. Seeing as how Safari is the only browser that blocks them by default, most people probably don't even realize they ARE blocked. And in this specific case, the 'work-around' was to provide tracking cookies to people logged in to G+ who specifically opted in to targeted ads. How this can possibly be spun into Google doing evil is really amazing to me. They did exactly what their customers asked for, and got thrashed for it. Lets not forget also that the cookies in question were non-specific, and had no personally identifiable information in them. Did anyone even read the article on that?

In the IE case, Microsoft is relying on an optional, trust based system deprecated 5 years ago as a method of protecting your privacy. Once again, Google used a perfectly legitimate part of that standard to bypass it, for the express purpose of giving users who were logged in to G+ and opted in to targeted ads, those targeted ads. Explain the evil here, if you would?

Yes, it probably is. Except Google doesn't sell personal information at all. They sell aggregated information, and more specifically, targeted ads based on aggregate information, and targeted ads based on personal information they hold. At no point is that data sold to others.

I'm still trying to figure out how a broken implementation of P3P in IE is Google's fault. Of course, I'm also still trying to figure out why basing your 'privacy protection' on a system that was deprecated almost 5 years ago is considered privacy protection at all, no matter who tries to get around it. I'm also a little confused about how using that mechanism to provide their own customers with targeted ads they specifically opted in to is invading anyone's privacy at all, no matter what they did to get the information there.

unless they're forced to live in the most expensive parts of California or in Manhattan:

And where do you think the doctors making that high end salary live? There's a reason they make that high salary. Also, your figures appear to be a bit misleading on the debt part. The average medical school debt is 156,456$, according to the American Medical School Association. That 'average debt' you listed appears to be all debt, but is in fact only related to their cost of schooling, and does not include housing, credit card debt, or any other consumer debt incurred during their school time. I can guarantee you no one just getting out of med school is pulling down the high end salary, more likely the low end. For a pediatrician, that means $125,000, which is by no means peanuts, I'd like to make that myself, but it doesn't make them rich. Most will defer that loan during residency, meaning 3 years of interest added on, which leave most owing more than $250,000, making their monthly payments twice what you quote.

Actually quite a few do have trouble, and are most definitely NOT rich. You see, the ones doing the vaccinations would be family practice doctors, or pediatricians, neither of which earn those giant salaries, which are reserved for brain surgeons, heads of surgical centers, and the like. This is the giant myth of our health care system, that doctors and practitioners are raping us all, it isn't the insurance companies, really.....

And to throw some reality at the 1% part, to qualify by most methods as being in the 1% of wage earners, you must make between 503,000$ and 536,000$. The average family practitioner makes$204,000, according to several sources. This puts them a pretty far distance from 1% territory. The highest salary reported in a recent survey for a family practitioner was $299,000. They aren't all struggling, by any means, but still not 1%. Pediatricians, by comparison, reported salaries between$125,000 and $231,000, with the average at $174,000. They make even less.

These figures also only take into account those doctors who make a salary, as opposed to those who may be in private practice, and living on the profits from their business. They usually make much less.

It isn't "said" at all, when the actual figure is 66%, and I claimed 60 some percent, is it? I also imagine the FTC would have gained much from your insights, and how you 'aren't buying' the accidental thing. I am sure they could have used you during the investigation. I am sure you could explain to them how it was unbelievable that a device designed to record all kinds of telemetry data might accidentally save too much.

Your anecdote about a friend being upset about youtube ad prices was very informative though. I'm just not sure what it was informing us of.

I in no way claimed Google were saints. In fact, Google is an amoral, greedy corporation driven by desire for money. Which makes them exactly the same as any other corporation. I just don't see why they are being vilified for things they aren't doing, or are completely upfront about.

This is going to be one of those moments where I wonder why I bothered, but...

Yes, Google was investigated for the wifi data collection. The FTC investigated, and determined that nothing had been done intentionally, and Google agreed to improve their privacy policies accordingly. You can read that here, should you choose to actually know what's going on.

Yes, Google required real names on G+, and used it as an 'identity service'. What I fail to understand is how that differs than every website in the cosmos requiring me to log in via Facebook. It sucks, but they all do it.

Microsoft used a 90+ percent monopoly in the desktop market to try and dominate the web. Google uses a 60 some percent dominant position (but hardly 'monopoly', given there are several hundred other search engines that could be used) to fund development of a free phone OS no one is required to use. People use it because it works. If Microsoft had provided a browser, but not bundled it in, but given it away for free, there would have been no case against them, just like there isn't against Google now. You aren't required to use Android, there are other options, and you aren't handed a free phone when you visit their search page.

Yes, they injected G+ results in their search results. They did NOT however block results from anyone else like Twitter or Facebook from appearing. They were still in the results. Were G+ results returned with higher rankings? I don't know, never turned that on, and never used G+. Because of that, I never got back search results relating to G+ at all, and as far as I know you can still turn that off, so you don't get them either. I can see why Twitter and the others were butt-hurt about this, it cuts directly into THEIR money, but why are you? Don't like it, SWITCH IT OFF. It hardly constitutes evil to allow you to opt out of something.

Yes, Apple surpassed Android in market share at the end of the year, primarily due to them releasing a new phone. If you want reporting on how the front runner changes every 12 seconds, I am sure there are places for that, but I personally don't care to read how a new vendor 'owns' a half a percent higher share of the market every single day. The first time someone passes the front runner its news. The 27th time they change places, it just isn't.

Perhaps you get modded down on posts like these because you engage in name-calling, present a closed-minded position, assume a victimized attitude, lash out with hate, and refuse to present a reasoned, well argued position? Just a thought.

Yes,and I could wallpaper this page with link after link saying it isn't. Once again, the fact that you can't get it to work doesn't mean others can't. Linking to a joke site certainly proves your point though, thank you for that. I'm sure that clears it up for everyone. Oh, and here's another hint for you genius, the same thing holds true for Windows.

The link to theinquirer.net also certainly proves your point. Dell shipping a laptop with non-functioning drivers or software (and really old software at that) is certainly Linus's fault, cause everyone knows Dell would never even be ABLE to do that with Windows, right? Like here or here or, say, here.

As for Asus, the first article you linked explains exactly why they 'abandoned' Linux. To help you out, since reading that much text must really be hard, I'll repeat it here: “People bought the original seven- and eight-inch Eee PCs for a computer to give to the kids,” Kerr said seriously.

The last article is even funnier. Did you even read it? Did it say anything about linux being broken? Bad drivers? Things not working? Nope, none of those. Why are return rates so high? Again, let me paste it in, since reading is so challenging for you:

“Unclear selling is happening, typically online. The customer will get their netbook sent to their home and they imagine to find something like a Microsoft desktop, but they see a brown Ubuntu version. They are unwilling to learn it and they were expecting to have Windows.” Carr stressed that, in these cases, it doesn’t even matter how good or bad the Linux OS is. These customers just don’t want to try something new.

So it turns out, the return rate is so high because folks like you are too lazy or stupid to even give something a try. Go figure.

In the future, if you want to prove how the driver model is broken, or it crashes constantly, or the entire thing is 'shit', you might want to actually find some supporting articles that say that, and not something else. It's how people do this whole 'debate' thing. Argue their side, provide supporting evidence...

Just for the record though, no, I don't think Linus is 'smarter than every single OS designer in the world'. I do think he's a pretty brilliant guy (when did you write your last OS?), and I think the other THOUSANDS of people who work on, and contribute to, the Linux kernel are also by and large pretty bright guys. Brighter than you, certainly. Just the fact that you think Linus is the only person controlling kernel development proves that.

Oh, I understood you just fine, and there is nothing wrong with my reading skills. I run linux just fine, every single day, on 9 different systems. I have no problems with any of them. The fact that you can't seem to get one to do anything but crash, or don't like the add-ons some companies have put forward, doesn't in any way make linux a less viable option. I imagine it's a problem with you, in particular, given the challenges you obviously also face with things like punctuation.

Thanks also for wasting our time with your bullshit anecdotes about how nothing in linux works, and all distros are crap.

Why, I believe you are right, Ubuntu IS the only Linux distro available now. I thought there were more, that didn't involve Canonical at all, but after absorbing your wisdom, I went and looked, and sure enough, all gone! Red Hat, Mint, Fedora, Arch... Gone!

No, they certainly don't OWE us the ability to buy exactly what we want, for the price we want. Not being able to buy what we want for what we consider reasonable is, however, a market failure. Market failures are known for producing things like... black markets. It's the exact reason a black market and piracy exist, and points not to a failure of the public to suck it up and spend half their income on crappy movies, but from a failure of the current business model for selling those goods. The reality is, those goods will be available, so you have two choices: Adapt your business model to meet the needs of the market, or accept that you will lose profit to secondary markets.

To some extent, the music industry has gotten the hint, and allowed reasonably priced, DRM free songs to be sold via iTunes/Amazon/Google/et al. Since that point, the sales of those mp3s has skyrocketed. People ARE willing to pay a reasonable price for the content they want. Several studies have even shown that they more than make up for in sales what they lose to people copying those DRM free files, precisely because people will pay for what they perceive as having value.

If the product is unavailable to them because of geography, or crazy DRM schemes, or is unavailable at a price that is reasonable, they will seek secondary markets for that product. It really is that simple.

Back when CDs were in the 15$ range, and DVDs were in the 10-15$ range, many asked why that 1 hour of music cost more than 2 hours of video, when the cost of producing the physical DVD was higher. CD sales were dismal. Music sales in general tanked. As soon as that music was available in a DRM free form, and a la cart instead of packaged on a CD, and reasonably priced, things made a drastic turn around.

In the meantime, Hollywood, noting that yeah, why IS a DVD cheaper than a CD? Decided to shoot themselves in the foot and raise prices on all DVDs, made Blu-Ray movies twice as expensive, and 3d video even more expensive. They then sit around, scratching their heads, and wondering why they can't get the public hooked on Blu-Ray, and why they only sell 10 3d TVs a year. If they priced Blu-Ray movies at or near the price of standard DVDs, since lets face it, the difference in costs of producing either format is negligible, they would have put a nail in the coffin of the standard DVD format 18 months ago.

And I will guess that you learned each language in a couple months, then started out with simple projects, and built up your experience, yes? So now you are offended by someone else asking how best to do the same thing? I didn't read anything in the question where she said she wanted to be making six figures tomorrow.

I know 3 software engineers, two of which have masters degrees as well. One of them is a damn fine coder. The other two have master's degrees.

Again, this applies to every single corporation, at least the western ones, who are all focused on next quarter, not next year or next decade. I fail to see why Google should look forward to failure, but Apple shouldn't, IBM shouldn't, Microsoft Shouldn't, Facebook shouldn't, Twitter shouldn't....

I also fail to see where you showed how fast an innovative culture can be shattered, let alone how Google qualifies. The "innovative" Google services you seem to have once loved weren't innovative then either. Gmail? Pretty sure I could do web email quite a while before it came along. Reader? We all had RSS feed readers before that. Search? I'm sure at the time, no one thought Google could possibly dethrone Yahoo, since they owned search. By your arguments, Google should NEVER have been successful, since all they did was take other things that existed, and improve them. But then, Bic seems to be doing just fine, doing nothing but improving ink pens, no? Facebook didn't invent social networking, but they own it now. Google didn't invent search, but they own it now. They stay ahead by improving what they have, and trying new things as well. Those new things don't always have to be innovative. They don't have to be never before seen ideas, only better than what everyone else is doing.