Most non-tech people don't think that they need offline backups of what is in the cloud. Sure, they know that they need to backup their word documents, but most non-tech people don't think they need to back up things such as email or contacts.

It is probably because they don't want some malicious third party developer to trick you into allowing access and then deleting all of your contacts. Also, if a developer makes a syncing contacts application, what if it has a bug that screws up all of your contacts?

Disrupt other people's businesses??? So to be a "good guy", you can't be a competitive business? Are you saying that Mozilla is a "bad guy" because they disrupted Microsoft's IE business?

Lol. Google wasn't even around 15 years ago. It was founded in 1998.

I have a word of advice for you. Don't feed the troll

Then they must have pretty mild aspergers. I also know several autism and aspergers kids. A friend of mine works at a special needs school and deals with those kinds of kids on a daily basis.

No... because people with autism are terrible at dealing with people. Their social skills are horrible. I'll give you an example. Many autistic children have to be taught how to recognize and make facial expressions. They do not figure it out on their own.

Yes, high functioning autism people CAN be successful in the business world, but it is more of a exception rather than a rule. Not being able to communicate well or understand abstract ideas is a real problem in the business world. It does impair them from doing complex work. Everything for an autism person MUST be concrete. I can see why this would lead to success in programming, but they would fail at many other professions.

That is because mental retardation was an umbrella diagnosis that didn't convey any useful information. Most people with any kind of mental disability were given that diagnosis. As we learned more about these kinds of disabilities, we began specifying different kinds of mental problems. It's like the difference between calling a person educated and calling them a physicist.

This is a lot different than when Google went up against the email providers. This time, Google does not have the infrastructure (the cell towers) to give the service on their own. They must couple with an existing provider.

If they had to get $1000 per request, they would be profiting off of piracy. Many ISPs already forward the take down requests for free.

Yes, they need to find a new way to make money in the Internet age. But the question here is NOT whether they should attack piracy. This court case is debating whether ISPs should be responsible for fighting piracy.

I do not think that these plants would redirect a fresh water supply to feed into a salt water one. It said that these plants could be placed at the mouth of a river (where the fresh water mixes with the salt water, regardless of whether the plant exists).