Because the one out of the box does this, and most people won't have the knowledge or time to change it. Google will probably not make it easy either and will add some cheap baubles for users of unmodified glasses, who won't know or care about their privacy. And this will impact you because Google can now argue that many or even most people use their services unmodified and therefore whatever way they destroy your privacy is acceptable under "community values" and should not be legally restricted.

Eh? How is RSA a Diffie-Hellman rip off? One is an asymmetric encryption algorithm, the other one a key-exchange protocol. While there are some things where you could use either of them, their capabitilies don't overlap completely. Or is it because they both work on groups of integers modulo n? But then they're both rip-offs of the table of multiplication!

Not, they aren't; it may be PC to say so, but it's just not true. No large modern civilization was built mainly on slavery, because slavery is just not efficient and productive enough. It's risky and expensive to educate slaves, so you can't build serious industrial capacity on slavery, their mobility as a workforce is minimal, you get lots of extra expenses for security, not to mention motivation.
 
Even in America, where slavery was much more prevalent and lasted more than in most other world powers, the productivity of the industrialized North (based mostly on immigrant labor) was far ahead of the productivity of the slave-owning South. Look at the 1850 census, especially here http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/1850c-06.pdf (table CXCV, on page 11) to see how the gross manufacturing production of non-slaveholding states dwarfs the GP of slave-holding states. Though the difference isn't as great, the agricultural production (http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/1850c-05.pdf) AND productivity was also larger in the North.
 
Of course, this doesn't mean the slaves didn't contribute, or had it easy, but, if you really want America to have been build on somebody's back, that back would belong to the immigrant laborer.

I have to call you on that: you complain about misinformation but declare Hitler an atheist, while linking to a page that repeatedly states, specifically and clearly, that Hitler was NOT an atheist. If you decide to lie for Jesus, at least don't post links that immediately refute your affirmation - what did you think, nobody was going to check your source?. For Chrissake, there is a whole section in the Wikipedia article named "[Hitler's]Statements against atheism"! Here are some choice quotes from this section:

It's beyond me how, after reading this, you can with a straight face declare Hitler an atheist, and avowed, no less.

Hmmm... Those living in glass houses shouldn't try nailing their paintings to the walls?

Bah, math failure, 1982 was only 31 years ago. Still more than the 30 the GP asked for.

Well, Microsoft Flight Simulator was launched in 1982, that is almost 35 years ago; Solitaire came with Windows 3.0, in 1990 (and believe me, there are many more people still playing Solitaire than ever played Colossal Cave or Zork). Minesweeper was originally part of the MS Entertainment Pack (also 1990) but was bundled with Windows I believe starting with Windows for Workgroups. Freecell came a bit later, can't remember exactly when, but was there before Win95, which makes it at least 18 years old, I'm sure there are more.

You're confusing the means with the end: it's like saying a fishing company has built its business around distributing free bait. The fishing company wants to catch fish, and Google wants to catch eyeballs; those are the products the companies sell. Both the bait and the code are just production expenses, and not part of the business model.

They never tell us how much dog is in our hot dogs either :(

Which makes Windows the freest platform of all by far.

I wonder if it may be easier to define Avogadro's number as a given constant and derive the kilogram as a fraction of a mole of a known isotope, like 1/12 of a kmole of C-12 (or maybe 1/4 of a kmole of He-4, to reduce the loss of energy in chemical bonds). Of course, this moves the difficulty to counting an exact number of similar atoms and measuring their mass precisely but at least it ties the kg to a physical value instead on an arbitrary metal lump.

I think you're a bit confused about whose interests the government is fighting for; it's only "our interests above all other countries", if you define "our" as pretty much overlapping with the one percenters. Most of the moves the US government made in the last 20 or more years have been very beneficial to the richest Americans, and neutral or harmful to the rest (just look at the evolution of the inequality index in the USA). The first to be affected were blue collar workers and the really poor, but the process continues, and the impact on the middle class in the USA is growing and I believe will do so for the foreseeable future.

The big losers in this are the middle classes in the developed countries (especially the USA). The US rich are doing great, as they have the US government fighting for them, and, interestingly, workers in other countries have gained quite a bit from the US policies. With the relaxation in trade and regulations, the lot of the average worker in China, Vietnam or some of the Eastern European countries (or even places like Bangladesh) has improved considerably. Of course, long term the economy is not a zero sum game, but short term, the increase of the quality of life for the average Chinese or Vietnamese comes at the expense of stagnant salaries, trade deficits and growing unemployment in the developed world.
 
So most people on Slashdot should expect their income to grow slowly (if not remain stagnant or even go down) during their lifetime, as globalization forces the worldwide equalization of incomes - which equalization will, for basic economic reasons, happen close to the lower end of the income spectrum. I expect the whole global economy will eventually grow enough for middle class incomes to get back to what the developed countries have enjoyed until recently, but i'm afraid for most of us it may be a rather long time.

Well, I tried understanding what you're talking about for more than thirty seconds and I'm sorry, but your post doesn't make sense. MS's decision to set DNT by default does not in any way remove the user's "voice about their preference". Any users who prefer being tracked or find it interferes with their browsing experience can disable the flag, so your argument is completely besides the point.
 
What you should perhaps think instead about for a few seconds (hopefully it won't even require 30) is the real issue: the fact that we were offered such a Catch 22 of a "standard", with no teeth, no way to enforce the user's choice, and not even a way for users to know if their option is honored. *That*'s the issue, and I'd like to understand why such a broken design is even seriously considered for a standard. The only reasonable explanation I could come up with is that the whole thing is just a PR exercise, a snow job whose purpose is to make Google and Mozilla seem user friendly; I'm surprised so many technical people have swallowed this whole, hooks and all - so much so that they complain when the whole thing is proven not to work.