More likely an attempt to prevent more organizations switching to Linux as the first poster suggested (and in his sarcasm was modded down). Are they going to donate the computers that run them too? Looks like a lot of slashdotters have caught on to this wayward attempt to build users and acceptance.

If they are dumb enough to not know that the government was spying on them and looking for them. *government staggering - Must....catch...paedophiles...at...all costs (gasp)*

so as to feel so defensive about what they have done to dismantle the liberties and freedoms that we all hold dear? Listening to these bureaucrats quip is more than just a nuisance, these guys have power to summon the government to imprison or send a drone to your home. Maybe we should all wait patiently until the whole government collapses. *chill* if that is the only hope we have then that is a scary thought.

"Google is still the tech company that spends most lavishly to make its influence known in Washington, D.C." - you mean like laying fibre optic cables, introducing a new type of laptop, spending money "lavishly" on a new search algorithm...Yes Google sure is "making its influence known." Not arguing that Google has increased its lobbying, but maybe they came to a stark realization or sorts.

Comment...I would much rather buy a Toyota when it had Linux in it and was incompatible with Apple. I think instead if inking a deal with Microsoft which provides the "entertainment" system, they would have been much better off it they stayed with Linux. Now I think getting a car might just have to wait until they do something about this....I can already see update problems and freezing and the like, not to mention incompatibility with anything but a Windows phone. Ford does it too and were one of the early Microsoft adopters. Oh well, Jaguar Land Rover or high-end luxury car for me. This was a bad move on the part of Toyota. (I own a slightly older one, and I'm not sure "something" was better than nothing.

To be simpler: what if somebody kills and then uses as his defence "I read it in a book that we didn't have free will." which can be construed as "In this book it says that he doesn't have free will." That opens up many interesting questions. In my opinion, the goal is to heal not to punish, but in trying to heal, would we be punishing someone else. That may only take a shift in mental states as opposed to physical ones which might lead to a change in a physical state for someone else. My gosh, you could even consider a shift in a mental state to be a physical one.

"You scientist, are a heretic!". This is going to face a lot of opposition, but I completely agree. To put it in layman's terms, the more we know, the more we understand. Removing harm doesn't have to mean locking someone up, but doesn't preclude it. "We are all discovering, moment to moment, what is is to be ourselves". Great quote, leaves the future open, and that bit of information once embedded, even in a non-free will sense, can cause others to increase the adoption of a better society. ("can" means that not all others who get the information, will follow it - Not having the predisposition of free will will not stop us from behaving as though we have it and when it is used as an excuse "I killed the guy because I didn't have free will.", that doesn't stop us from saying to society "Don't kill". Now let's say that he read in a book somewhere that "we don't have free will" and uses that as his defence. The fact is that with or without without that information he may or may not have killed. There are four possibilities there. That is why this is an interesting topic that warrants further study. On the other hand, a person my use the excuse that "I read it in a book that we don't have free will" and use that to be kind to a person.)

How to make spying and finding terrorists profitable, so the government can hand it over to the private sector. Like almost everything the US government does these days, i.e. NASA, health care, jails, someone has to earn more money than the effort they put into it: profit.

...if he had invented a pencil eraser over the Internet

I am asking: what is the point?

Just like a business, people to have to start with some sort of initial investment before society can get a result as a part of their effort. Sure we can grow a kid, feed him/her and keep them alive, but sorry to say, what good does it do to creating flying cars, spaceships, whatever comes next if we just drop them from a parachute in the middle of New York and expect them to make it and be productive to society. Jobs needed $90,000, Bill Gates was already rich, and if you don't have a lot of money, you will have to borrow from your future to pay for the present. Also it is not like people are telling students that the only way to get a job is to go to college, it is the only way for all but a few who already have an investment. High School diplomas do not impart enough value. Steve Jobs took calligraphy and audited courses to get the knowledge he needed. Bill Gates did not get the programming knowledge he needed by a corporation interested in charity. Where would we be if we were all Jobs and there not enough Wozniaks? Hint: where did Wozniak get his education? Ans: University of California, Berkeley. It would be great one day if one could self-teach all this information, but this is where we are at, we need an investment.

It would be totally cool, and I am not sure the 20% consisted of this, but let the employees get together and use the 20% to fund projects that are bigger in scale. I wonder if Google has a process where an employee can submit a plan at a low level, then have it work its way up management, who then decides if a team will be created to work on that project. I would hate to see Google just giving its employees "goals" once a project is assigned and not based on the fear of being a slacker. Maybe an employee's performance needs to assessed not in numbers, but actually reviewed as to how effective they are in growing google. Or was this the old way?

Maybe, but there were two searches, you only mentioned one computer, the other one was his wife's. Seems to me the story implied that he was searching at home. Also, how does somebody suddenly "find a search on his work computer" after he had supposedly logged out or let his screensaver take over. If anything the guy's employer was monitoring the searches through software, the employer's or something else. Was he searching for searches?

To remain consistent Microsoft will have to reverse all names to keep it's brand strategy. CEO MerBall, who has taken charge of the One Xbox he is trying to sell, will still try not to be your typical DRM laden, Soft Micro computer dealer. He is hard as nails in charting his org and it is a surprise with the mainstay of his operations, Swodniw and all of the 365 Office subscriptions customers want to buy, instead of own, he is still on top. No real reason as to why he would rename Windows so close to the arch villan Snowden, maybe to show that he is still hip with the younger generation? Remember Soft Micro has changed. :/

...Is the mantra of the Harper government. This bill can be seen in the same light: Get real tough (millions of $'s) to punish the few, while still leaving it open for other non-intentional or honest people to get taken to court. If I had a business, I would not like having to ask people to send them emails, I would rather have an "opt-out" system where an initial contact was made with an easy way to say, no thanks. A simple link or button would do, which is less effort than it takes now to opt-out from most spammers and seems to be a more sensible approach.