How stupid CAN you be? They are vulnerabilities BECAUSE they can be exploited against you.

Actually I don't have any definition of GOD. I was using the generally accepted definition.

There is no actual evidence for a God and hence there is no need for me to believe in any divinity.

There's is no false dichotomy here. God, as in a "supreme, all knowing being", MUST have control and knowledge over how his/her commands will be interpreted.

The fact that we are having this discussion proves either the second point or else that God does not have control and hence is not a "supreme being".

If the "translation was wrong" and god was a supreme being, then that is what god's intent was in the first place.

If God was a supreme being and he/she meant it to be interpreted in the "best possible way" then this IS the way God meant it to be interpreted.

Just as us mortal beings, God can't have his/her cake and eat it too!

I'm sure that a contraption could be made to prevent any squirting of blood being witnessed. Would that be satisfactory to you?

Which means that either:

"God" has no control over how his commandments will be interpreted, or

"God" meant for it to be interpreted in the worst possible way

And how do you know Google hasn't exploited anything?

And should I now actively prevent any RF signals leaking out of my monitor as well? I guess it is common knowledge that these can be detected from the street. It is a simple thing to surround my house with an RF cage. If I don't do this, that means it was my choice to "stand naked in a room with open windows" and Google would be well within their rights if they choose to record my screen images, passwords, emails, etc.

Well isn't that the point? That people who have a wireless network at home have the same expectation of privacy? Just because they are not tech savvy doesn't mean that it is their intent to broadcast their internet browsing, email, chats, etc.

They absolutely do not think they are standing naked in a room with open windows. Google KNOWS that they don't know what they are doing and just goes ahead and exploits the situation.

So if Google can use directional microphones to listen in to my private conversations, I'm at fault since I didn't "sound-proof" my home. Or if Google can use thermal imaging to take pictures inside my closed doors, I'm at fault since I'm the one broadcasting all information on the IR band!

You really believe that?

So if I'm stupid enough or ignorant enough to not lock my doors, it is my problem and not that of Google should they decide to come in and have a look-see? Or if I didn't cover my windows with blinds or drapes, it is my problem that google peeks inside and takes high resolution images? Or if my electricity and gas meters are visible from the street, it is my fault that Google should take readings of my energy consumption every hour?

Substitute Google with something else to your liking (voyeur, peeping tom, pedophile, etc.) and see if this makes any difference.

Google IS at fault. Google has to know that most people using computers and wireless routers don't have a clue what exposure they are risking. Google has to know that if the same people understood the implications and if actually presented with a choice and a means to do so, they would clamp down their network.

At the very least, Google is guilty of exploiting the ignorance of an overwhelming majority of the population.

Do you think 99% of the population even knows what encryption is? Or that wireless routers by default are configured for unencrypted communication? Or that someone on the street can easily tap into what they are doing?

Just because they don't understand how computers communicate doesn't mean they are stupid.

Sailing might be ok from a recreational point of view, but unless we get warp drive, space exploration is a dead end. Speaking figuratively, that is.

Best we concentrate our energies in that direction.

What you say is right but not relevant to this discussion. The parent had commented on the comment of the GP that once you have a file in MS format, your ass belongs to them.

This may be true whether it is a file in Word format, PDF or an even more proprietary format from Apple. So it is not something unique to MS.

And as to your 25 year time frame, I can still read the oldest document produced by Word on the latetst MS Office. And lastly, who's stopping you from storing files in XML format in Office?