It's unquestionably a well-known brand, but a key part of branding is creating an identity that customers feel positively towards. And in terms of being trusted and liked by customers, Facebook is probably one of the worst brands in the world. The reason that Facebook can be successful despite this is because the company has a monopoly in this market. You can't easily leave and join a different social networking site, unless you could somehow figure out how to convince all your friends to join that site at the same time. So Facebook can act with complete disregard to consumer demands for privacy, because the customer really doesn't have the choice. In short, a lot of people use Facebook only because they like their friends more than they dislike Facebook. Or think of it as Zuckerberg throwing a party on a Saturday night- maybe he's an obnoxious jerk you wouldn't want to hang out with, but if he got all your friends to agree to go, then that's still gonna be the party you go to.

Facebook will continue to thrive, simply because people will continue to join and stay with the social network that has all their friends. But once customers actually have a choice between the Facebook brand and another brand- say, in choosing a smartphone- I think Facebook's brand will hurt them.

Here's the start of the actual article:

It goes on like that. I hate to say anything nice about Fox News, but this is actually a well-written and informative piece of journalism. The problem is the title of the article, which is idiotic and sensationalistic. Given that the article itself is a decent piece of work and the title seems like it was written by someone who likes to stick crayons up their nose, my guess is that the writer did a careful job on the piece and their editor wanted a title that would get people's attention, and changed the title. Of course, given that we're all discussing the article now, a cynic could argue that this was the right call...

How does admitting to Stuxnet change anything? Check out the history of Stuxnet on Wikipedia- Stuxnet escaped into the wild and started running free on the internet in June 2010. People noticed it, took it apart, and put the story together from there. It became apparent that it was an extremely sophisticated piece of malware put together by a nation-state to attack industrial equipment, and meanwhile Iran's centrifuges were blowing up... so by September 2010 it was already being reported in the media that (a) Stuxnet was designed to attack the Natanz uranium enrichment facility, and (b) that the only people with both the means and motives to do so were the Israelis and the Americans. Analyses of the software suggested two different countries worked together, so by 2011 the consensus was that Stuxnet was a joint American-Israeli operation, and a year ago, Iran actually came out and accused the U.S. and Israel of being behind Stuxnet. And the U.S. has never denied responsibility, either.

Anyway, from reading the article it's clear the guy has talked to Obama administration people, and had the administration's help in producing this book. So he clearly does have the real scoop- or at least, he's got the version that the Obama administration would like him to have.

I think you're being a bit of a troll here, but I actually agree with your take on things. The level of detail in the article is really striking, and suggests that the author talked to people who were closely involved in the decision-making process. To release this kind of information about a classified intelligence project without authorization would be a serious breach of security, if not treason. Given that the Obama Administration hasn't made a huge deal about this article, or gone on a witch-hunt looking for the leaker, it seems safe to say that this story was released with the blessing of the White House, and that this was done for political purposes.

As for the political angle, I can think of two possibilities. One is that taking credit for this (the article goes out of the way to minimize the role of the Israelis) is a way of showing off U.S. power and threatening Iran and other nations who pursue W.M.D. They're saying, "it doesn't matter how clever you are in burying your program, we can still shut it down". That threat could come in handy in future negotiations with Iran and North Korea.

The other angle, as you note, is the election year angle. The article goes out of the way to emphasize Obama's role here. The key line here is "'From his first days in office, he was deep into every step in slowing the Iranian program — the diplomacy, the sanctions, every major decision,' a senior administration official said". Biden is depicted as "fuming", while the president is cool and collected and making tough calls. It paints a very flattering picture, which is hardly surprising given that it's a bunch of Obama Administration guys speaking to a New York Times reporter. However, as the article describes it, the program was actually begun during the Bush Administration and was well underway by the time Obama took office. All Obama did was continue with Bush's program, but it sounds like he's trying to take a lot of the credit, which doesn't quite seem fair. I think Bush was a disaster as a President. But still, you can't have it both ways, and claim that you inherited a bad economy from Bush, but then turn around and take credit for a program that he started and put into action.

I hear the latency is pretty high, though.

To the user, "the cloud" may as well be "the website" or "the internet" or "the server". They interchange all freely, when talking about the desktop, their word processing package, the printer, the coffee machine, the keypad for the front gate...

Yes, your ID card doesn't work because there is a virus in the reader, and nothing to do with the fact that it looks like you folded it in half to fit it into your purse.

The popular phrase you're looking for here is "A + B + C = X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one."

It's the way big business has always been.

I live in the state of England, where it is simply not possible to override your statutory rights with contracts or waivers.

Further, Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations anyone? This passage simply does not exist, as far as the UK is concerned. You folks over the pond should get something like this; It's quite handy.

"... if US officials are at the airport..."

I'm doing this more often, nowadays. I need to spend less time around knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers.

Julian has never been to the US. His extradition to the US from the UK would not be possible, even with the "special relationship" status we have.

I wouldn't be surprised if US officials aren't at the airport in Sweden waiting for him, with a page of trumped up waffle with a scary looking TLA agency seal on the top of the page.