I'm in the test group, too. The very first time I saw it, for a split second my brain wanted to think the ads were part of the organic results due to the lack of background color differentiation. Since then, I've not been at all tempted to accidentally click the ads, so I think it will make no difference a few days after they transition people over to the new layout (if they ever do).

That's the way I do it, actually, but it's not very discoverable for new users, so it's probably best to not assume they'll do it that way.

If you click the title bar to move the window around, the area you have to hit would be smaller (must avoid menus) and would vary from one application to another due to differing number of menus. I don't know if that's the "official" reason; it's just a hypothesis.

Advertising dollars spent on Facebook may be detrimental for companies buying "likes" through Facebook (even directly, not 3rd party). When advertisers figure that out, Facebook is done.

I think the riddle he/she was trying to remember was this one:

There are two people, one always lies and one always tells the truth, but you don't know which one is which. What would you do?

The answer: Pick one, and ask him/her which way the OTHER person would tell you leads to riches and power, then go the opposite way.

The option to turn the ads off finally popped up for me on a different page, so I've got them disabled now. I just wonder how long they will continue to honor it when stupidity like this causes the majority of people to use it.

Three VIDEO ADS on the homepage, and for FASHION THEATER (whatever that is), no less? Are you completely out of your minds?

And, where is the link allowing people with good karma to disable ads? I've always tolerated the ads in the past to support the site, but this nonsense is ridiculous. I cannot have a bunch of worthless video ads sucking bandwidth away from my VoIP. Either get rid of this nonsense or I won't be coming here anymore.

Except that their charts show the price of the stock/fund without adjusting for dividends, i.e. there is no way to graph "adjusted price" or "growth of a $1000 investment." So, when a mutual fund makes a big capital gain payout, which has no economic significance (they hand you a check for $X per share and the share price drops by $X), the chart shows a big dip. If you try to chart two securities together to compare them it is totally misleading because of the economically meaningless dips when there is a dividend or capital gain payout. They have the data to do this right, it is displayed as the "Adj Close" in the "historical prices" table, but they don't make it available in the charts. When they've been doing something that dumb for over a decade in spite of complaints, how can you trust anything they do?

Probably because many of the people that have Windows 8 did not choose Windows 8 -- they got it because it is virtually impossible to buy a computer without it, so the number of computers running Windows 8 is not a measure of its popularity (i.e. how many people actually want it). In contrast, anyone with Linux on their computer made an effort to put it there. Hence, as Anne put it, there is no meaningful way to compare the data.

Did you really delete your Facebook account, or just deactivate it?

Verizon Wireless has a 41% profit margin

You would never be able to use it on an airplane -- the seat in front of you would keep you from getting it open far enough for a decent viewing angle.