Why doesn't Twitter count as a social network? I realize the CEO has claimed it's not, but you create a profile and network socially with other users.

I don't think Google has the same kind of motivations that Microsoft did, though the final effects may be the same. Microsoft was about forcefully expanding their market presence to ensure success, while Google's is to provide free services in order to track more and more personal data and deliver more ads. For what it's worth, I doubt this initiative from Google to create their own web platform will be successful.

Unfortunately, most people have been conditioned to accept that they have no rights.

It's not about evil intentions. It's about Google's track record of privacy "accidents" and a general lack of respect for privacy rights. Would you trust Microsoft antispyware software? No, because Microsoft's track record is pretty shitty in that regard. So why should you trust Google to generate your passwords, one of the most private pieces of data you own?

The Robots Exclusion (robots.txt) is also an honor system. Google is the only holdout on Do Not Track. Every other major browser vendor has adopted. Google also happens to financially benefit from there being no Do Not Track. Makes you think, doesn't it?

Let's trust an ad-serving company with a track record of intentional privacy violations and a publicly hostile attitude toward privacy rights to generate our passwords for us.

Ever wondered why Chrome bundled Flash despite dropping H.264 in the name of openness? Advertiser Flash cookies. Chrome is also the last major browser not to support the Do Not Track privacy feature. Google wants access to all your data because you are their product, and advertisers are their users.

Of course, trolls will probably accuse me of being a shill again, even though the facts are staring everyone in the face. I'll stick with Firefox and the PwdHash addon for secure password generation, thanks.

What the? Where did I say iTunes was the first video player to have a single window? I mentioned iTunes because the Mac version now has a shaded source list on the left filled with media sources, like iTunes.

Gone is the two window design! Now it's got an iTunes-like single window, but with its own VLC stylings (e.g., the playback controls on the bottom). I dig!

There's no evidence at all, because I'm not employed by a "public relations firm", and I doubt anyone else on that list is either. But note that the post been getting modded up to +5 all day regardless of that fact. This is how absurd the comments section has become on Slashdot--you can just list a bunch of accounts you don't like, call them shills, and people will mindlessly mod you up because they think, "OH HEY IT'S A HYPERLINKED LIST THEREFORE IT MUST HAVE BEEN RESEARCHED".

But I'm sure you're right, I'm sure keeping AMD out of all of the major OEMs(except to some extent HP) had nothing to do with it.

You're reciting Intel's tactics to me as if I don't know about them. The article also mentions that Intel paid AMD a settlement over the issue. None of it changes AMD's poor decision-making and product releases since the release of the Core Duo. You can't blame it all on some evil Intel monopoly.