Well, not to speak for ginko or non-science, but it's not like eating weeds that grow in exotic jungles hasn't helped save a life or two.

That's ISO - The International Organization for Standardization. You know, if we're playing Super-Pedant.

You don't know what x does. But you know what x= does. It sets x to the RHS value. If x is a field, all bets are off. x= can do anything, and it's not the same thing that y= does, even if x and y are (properties wrapping) the same datatype.

I agree that you don't write stuff like that if you're not an idiot. But sometimes you maintain code written by people who DO write code like that. And properties obscure that it's not just an assignment, it's a method call.

If you have a 4000 line file called program.cs, written 5 years ago by someone who was rightfully fired 3 years ago, it's a pain in the ass to check if something is a property or an actual member, and what that property may or may not do when assigned to.

By not implementing properties, and instead using getters and setters, you make it more obvious. It's a flag that says "Check this! It might be insane!"

That would be fine, if that was what was happening.

If you were changing the state of an integer with that = operator, it would be ok. But you're not, you're performing a separately defined action on that specific integer. Which may, or may not, merely change the state of the variable. And there's no blindingly obvious way to know if myObj.x is an int or a property that can be setted, or getted. (Somehow, set and gotten sounds wrong).

Of course properties are a terrible idea. They allow operator overloading on the instance level. That's insane.

int x = object.x;
assert(x == object.x); //works
int y = object.y;
assert(y == object.y); //works
object.x = x;
assert(x == object.x); //works
object.y = y;
assert(y == object.y); //fails

That's stupid and confusing.

No. Google TELLS you that they do it. If they told you that they didn't, well, they still might. If you assume that Google has some intent to invade your specific privacy, then you must make the same assumption of ALL search engines.

I'm not saying that Google isn't violating your privacy. I'm saying that with ANY search engine, when you make a set of queries to that search engine, you're giving them the ability to "invade your privacy" for some reasonable definition of that phrase. And the only thing that distinguishes them is that one search engine might tell you they don't save the data. But you have no particular reason to believe that fact.

No, it's not. It's impossible for Google to offer the services they offer without compromising your privacy. ANY search engine will know what you search for on it. ANY email service will know what email you send through it. ANY map service will know where you are trying to drive to. ANY photo service will have your photos. ANY news service will know what news you are reading. ANY RSS reader will know what you have subscribed to.

There is no legitimate reason for a police officer to frisk you for no reason. There is no alternative for a search engine to not care what you're searching for.