And I didn't mean to downplay how big of a problem this may be for the many people who have a password-protected open network for guest access.

I'm just keeping in mind, though, that guest networks are typically isolated from the main network and the guest network would only be shared with friends-of-friends*... probably not an actual issue for the vast majority of people, so much as a theoretical one.

* Actually, come to think of it, would the password also go to friends-of-friends-of-friends? Friends-of-friends-of-friends-of-friends? How deep can this go? The whole six-degrees-of-separation thing comes to mind... could this end up pushing almost everyone's network passwords to the entire connected internet? Yeah, I'd like more info, and the sooner the better.

The way I read it, they probably don't.

The FAQ seems to imply that it is only applicable to open routers:

Still very questionable, but perhaps not nearly as pervasive. I'd think it would mostly apply to hotels, restaurants, and other places of business.

Unless you are Steve Jobs reincarnate, I doubt this position will get you as far in life.

And to be extremely clear, I never said "Google was being racist", in any form or fashion at all. Let's nip that in the bud before someone argues against that straw man.

This is kind of like being hit in the arm by a baseball as you are walking by your neighbor's yard. It's probably no big deal, probably didn't hurt much and is unlikely to have caused permanent damage of any kind. But it's still respectful for your neighbor to apologize.

Remember that Google gets money from this, primarily indirectly through advertising. Anything they do to help society also lines their wallets (which is pretty much the definition of how capitalism is supposed to work).

Don't fall into the trap of thinking Google's intentions are completely selfless. I'm beyond certain that they meant no harm, but considering they are getting something out of it, it would be very disrespectful for Google to brush it off.

It depends on what you mean "store". Dictionary.com provides this as a definition: "to accumulate or put away, for future use". (emphasis mine)

I don't think Facebook guarantees future retrieval, so it is probably not proper to classify it as storage.

In the future? Perhaps if the situation doesn't improve. Right now? Very doubtful... they just recently made a huge investment on making Windows 10 run on Windows Phone and the Universal Windows Platform capable of running the same binaries (with responsive UI) on all devices from phone to IoT to tablet to Xbox to PC to HoloLens and whatever else they dream up.

Also consider that in most markets, Windows Phone is closer in phone marketshare to iOS than iOS is to Android. That's not saying a lot. But WP is definitely at the #3 spot, and the way this market is... if they can find that itch to scratch, things could change within the course of two or three years.

The obvious solution is to just make sure they never go out of business. Too big to fail.

The company gets to keep profiting off of you, and you get to keep providing them with data that will help further their profiting off of you. Win-win!

DLL Hell is a known problem and measures are usually taken to prevent breaking too much software in the wild.

This seems more like replacing a crying baby with one that looks about the same but doesn't cry as much, and saying "same thing".

For that matter, at 1g for the entire duration of the ride (1g acceleration halfway, 1g deceleration the other half) it would only take a bit over 21 minutes.

And if we want to talk about human survivability, Wikipedia tells me that humans can generally tolerate up to 5g before blacking out. At that rate it would take about 9.5 minutes one way.

And if we're just looking to get there in an hour, 1/8 g would do the trick.

Yes I did. I still don't see how it can tell whether the person using it is a pregnant woman.

Hello kids, today we present you with the logical fallacy known as a Strawman argument.

Stay tuned, you're sure to discover some more logical fallacies below!

You seem to be under the impression that lowering consumer costs and increasing profits are mutually exclusive.

The reality is that advances in technology tend to do a little of both. Profits increase for a little while as an incentive to utilize the new technology. But competition eventually forces the prices lower until they stabilize, meaning lower costs.

If you don't see lower costs, it's probably because either the market has decided to utilize the tech to make products better rather than cheaper, or because there is no real competition in the market.

Windows has never required the use of a common installer platform. It was always possible for a developer to custom-build an installer to do whatever they wanted (within the constraints of security mechanisms like UAC). The installer could be a bunny hopping across your screen, opening Explorer, and pooing files into the install folders.

FWIW, Windows 10 is looking to improve that situation. Universal Windows Platform apps will only have one installer mechanism, AppX, which will highly restrict what the installer can do on the system. I believe it will also enforce a common application update strategy. This same installer mechanism will be available for all UWP apps, both on the Windows Store and sideloaded, and it will also be used for desktop apps on the Windows Store (Project Centennial).

I don't understand why anyone is talking about other countries; this topic is about our country. There is plenty of land available and plenty of rental properties, and plenty of opportunities to save money, to obtain loans, and to learn skills for all kinds of jobs that exist in all areas of the country.

The third world problem is different, and I tend to agree that it is a problem, but it doesn't pertain much to this conversation.