The main point here should be that Facebook protected, apparently, 1399 good people from evil hackers and 1 guy that is suspected to not be such a great person.

If preventing a terror attack by alerting the suspect that he is being monitored is the collateral damage we have to pay to protect "journalists, activists and government officials", I think that's a pretty good deal. Law enforcement can do their job and keep an eye on the guy later.

You have got to be shitting us! Saying "please" while being a troll doesn't cut.

Well known public facts don't need reference, if you lived under a rock since 2013, go do a google search on your reference terms before asking for reference.

Here, on google's first page for "nsa hardware backdoors":
Catalog Reveals NSA has back doors for numerous devices
Snowden: The NSA planted backdoors in Cisco products

This person is pushing towards totalitarianism like they have in China. Someone (or something) checking what you are doing every step of the way.
This is great for the powerful, bad for the people. Good for the copyright holders, bad for spreading culture. Good for dictators and spies (ie. hacking team), bad for Wikileaks.

The hackability and "lack of friction" is a feature, it gives the people a fighting chance. Good days when the engineers of the internet had good ideology on their code.

Chinese streaming services go for $1-3 (usd). Subscribing to a dozen isn't a problem then. You can find the some shows repeated on many of them, so picking a few services that best match your preferences isn't so hard.

The problem is that the US have a few big content owners that keep their content as an exclusivity, so you don't have dozens of streaming services to chose from, you have a few, very expensive choices (yes, $15/month for a fraction of what you'd like to see is too expensive).

It's time copyright's "limited time" of exclusive rights start reducing to the reasonable 5 years it once was.

More reason to regulate them like an utility. Also, prohibit them from looking into traffic.

They are now defending that it's ok for Apple to hide from the user that the devices had security problems.
Update notes should include what changed, specially security changes. It doesn't matter that most people would update anyway. The people not updating might read the notes and understand that it is just to slow their phones down so that they buy a new one (a very common complain on iphone users) when in reality there as a legit reason to update.

Letter from US House Representatives to President Moreno
That's a top Democrat and a Republican from the House of Representatives Committee on foreign Affairs telling Ecuador's president that Assange is a dangerous criminal that should be stripped from citizenship and handed over. Strong arming the other country, meddling with their internal affairs (human rights respect). Three days ago.
TFA is about JA suing over censorship in a "free" country after USA's vice-president visited said country.

How can such a stupid post, so far removed from reality, be modded insightful? Is this place filled with government crooks?

Google was keeping it for free in exchange of not allowing competition. Now, not only Google is forbidden of stopping competition, but it also decided to give them a push the other way.

With this, hopefully, smartphone makers will start giving the consumers a choice between the Goggle version and the Free version.

If it was "fair capitalism" the person that created the automation would be granted the rights over that automation for a reasonable amount of time and would, therefore, own the newly created means of production. If the employer wanted to use said automation he would have to pay for it, based on how much he uses it.

But this is not. Creation by the employee is considered employer property, this capitalism accepts only wealth concentration. If the only way to receive the profit for your ingenuity is to keep it a "trade secret" while providing services for your employer, so be it. No one would be complaining or calling it unethical if it was another rich guy, company owner, keeping the secret.

The ethical problem is in our society.

IMO, Google would have higher moral by censoring in China than it does by censoring in America.

In China, censorship is the law. The Chinese people chose their leaders and they approved censorship law. People's representatives also decide what should be censored and they have voluntary armies of people working on censorship. They also have the legislative means (although difficult) to change that (censorship or what should be censored). That's not to say it is democratic, as the representation of minorities and of opposing views is part of true democracy, but censoring in China would mean abiding by the rules and the prevailing morals of the people (over there), pushing the interests of their representatives (not the people's interests IMO).

In the US, when google censors or apply "the very same values of control over the populace", they are doing so to favor the interests of a very small minority, in opposition to the country's claimed values. They hide behind the flag of freedom (freedom to not make business) to effectively censor opposing views ("censorship is not illegal if it's not the government") and control the population to push policies and world views they want. I don't know how people in the US could have any say on what they will censor or stop private censorship.

I not only agree that they are not forfeiting any values in China, but also think that the shit they are pulling in the US should be cause for much more alarm, concern and response.

Decided to log in cause my previous AC comments have disappeared.

There is no indication that these people are dodging Russian spies. There is no proof Kaspersky was in fact used as a vector by Russian spies, just an accusation. It was accused by a foreign spy agency that it (kaspersky) was related to the spying of someone that should be spied on.
Contrary to US and UK intelligence, we don't know for a fact that Russia spies on every area and call everything "national security" (remember Petrobras, the oil company?). There is no indication that these companies that are changing AVs were being spied on to start with, and even less that this AV was being used. Besides that, since there is no indication that the AV is being used as a vector for spies, IF they are being spied by Russians, they probably will continue to be, there is no dodging at all.
This headline to say they are dodging Russian spies is to validate their unfounded fears, making them feel good in believing the FUD.

A decent person would headline this as "After US spread FUD, customers are leaving Kaspersky".

Slashdot was fine when I started here, as an AC a few years back, but I'm gonna leave for a while. Reading this kind of BS is stupid and irritating.

Synaptic?
If it runs Debian... That's what I use.

Capitalizing in events of this nature to implement ways to control what people see or think. To claim that theories that doesn't come from mainstream media are "conspiracy theories" that should not be believed.

At least they are going after their own clients. They successfully lobbied for DRM on HTML standards, that fucked up the Internet for everyone.
Netflix is no better than any cable company pushing for censorship online. I already canceled them all.

I'm more productive than a lot of people at my job, that's why I'm in the position I'm currently at, with no risk of losing it. Sometimes I can't sleep properly and when it goes on for several days it does affect my job.
But I'm still productive even on six hours a day. That's not being delusional. I'm not on my best performance, but still more productive than others.

The title could be right if it said "you are deluding yourself if you think you are your most productive on six hours of sleep" (that's a lot of yous). But it doesn't say that, so it's wrong. Also it is not what the expert said.
In the summary they quote the expert saying you're less productive in your work when sleep deprived. Being less productive is different from not being productive.
Then comes the delusional part:

He didn't correlate the productivity with people "deluding themselves". He was talking about health.
The author of TFA made up (wrong) affirmations in the name of the expert, none of the editors decided to call him on that.