What? I wish Microsoft was as forthcoming with their faults as these guys. At least you know they're trying to fix the crashes.

But we are being paid for it. With google's services, for instance. Our product is our information and I think Google pays us handsomely for it with their search engine alone.

Well, I had never heard of Charles Lindbergh before. I'm in no way a cross section of everything except myself, but as for google results, Amelia Earhart has 52,000,000 while Charles Lindbergh has 700,000.

Using quotes (which should reduce the results for both), google yields 5.8 million for Amelia Earhart, 2.6 million for Charles Lindbergh.

Let me add a couple of names who get lower results than Amelia Earhart (using quotes): Chuck Yeager and the freaking Wright Brothers.

Many of the new features are invisible to the user and therein lies their usefulness, since the user doesn't need to do anything (or even be aware of them) for them to work.

Go tell that to Charlie Sheen

I just don't get it. How will this help? It's not that people can't generate random paswords (see, here's one: !wef112SFAWffx9). It's just that they can't be bothered to even try to remember such things. People choose "1234" because they don't want to make the effort to remember long, complicated passwords. So what does this tool by google accomplish?

Now, the article is not clear about it, but I think there's gonna be a chrome-embedded tool to manage all passwords. While this is cool, kde and gnome already do it by default in ubuntu (and I assume in other distros that use them). I don't know about windows, but there should be one or two around. If there aren't (or if you really like chrome and wish to grant it control over your passwords), I just don't see how having a explorer-specific tool to manage passwords is a particularly good idea. A OS-wide password manager is much better, like the aforementioned kde and gnome implementations, because it works with whatever you're using, not just your choice of internet navigation software.

Here's an idea: make a piece of software that doesn't even try to create great random passwords that are very difficult to crack with a computer. Instead, make it create simple passwords that are just a string of dictionary words, easy to remember by a person, hard to guess by another person and, since it's a string of words (and not just the one), hard to crack with a computer.

You can just switch to paper bags. They're good for the environment too!

It takes people who know about technology to spot the ways a technology can be abused.

You know, I'm sick and tired of all these articles about "studies" proving this and proving that, where that "study" refers to a fucking poll! That is NOT science, that is not a study, that is not a good way to draw conclusions. Period.

Let's also ban talking to your passengers and thinking about food while you drive.

They way I see it, it's still possible for parents to educate their teens in any way they see fit, for if they want to allow their son/daughter to play after midnight, all they have to do is create an account with the parents' names on it.

I think this law is only providing a good tool for parents to control their children's addiction. Of course, if it's as simple as creating an account using your parents' info (without them requiring to sign up on anything), then the whole thing is kindda useless, but the article doesn't say.