All he is saying is that if you want complete privacy you shouldn't be using the cloud or internet services. Everyone already knows this. Apply a real world scenario:
You are a criminal, and you don't want to be found. Intuitively you would not open a checking account under your real name, get a membership at the local fitness club, or do anything else that someone looking for you will use to find you.

How is Google any different? They have to abide by laws, that means surrendering user data when required legally by law enforcement (illegally is an entirely different matter). If you want complete privacy, don't use google. I never ever for one second think that what I type and send across the internet is private, unless it is explicitly said so and the connection is encrypted. I think that its pretty common sense to assume so.

I am a Computer Engineering student and for the past few years I have been interning at a Fortune 500.
Don't act like an Intern. If you act like an Intern, you will always be looked at as an Intern. Remember, the goal of your internship is to possibly land a job at that company, or at least to have them recommend you to a new employer. You don't want everyone always telling you to do their odd jobs and shit, so show that you are more valuable than that. For the first few months or so, find someone that likes to teach, and become their student. Learn as much about corporate life as you do about technology. Then, start taking on projects of your own. Show that given a assignment, you can complete it and compile a report to present to your boss. Once they see that you are independent, you will be a valuable asset even though your technical skills may still need to develop. And 8$/hr, wtf? I made more than that stocking cans at the local grocery store. Sorry to be such a dick but you are worth more than that. Are you working in China or India by any chance?

Amdahl's law is not like Moore's "law". Amdahl's law is an observation of mathematics. You can't ever get around the fact that if you increase the performance of 90% of the instructions in a program, you still have to deal with the other 10%. Even if you increase the performance of 90% of the instructions by 100x or something large, if the other 10% take a long time (like disk access) its going to kill your performance.

You can't divide by zero because it is irrational. Take a set of objects in you home and divide them into 0 groups. You are correct, however, that as you take the limit of x as it approaches zero, 1/x goes to infinity. Taking limits as numbers approach zero or infinity (positive or negative) is a fundamental of differential calculus. Limits is how we work around the cant divide by zero problem. BTW, if you get a correct answer about the nature of the universe, let me know. I don't believe we have determined that yet.

I didn't RTFA or This one, but it looks similar.

finalize() is what the GC called to destroy an object. Every object inherits it from the Object class (duh), so if you want to do some memory management yourself, go ahead and give finalize() a call.

A0:Big news corp. tells public they must pay for content. GOTO A1

A1:Consumers don't want to pay for sub-par content. Consumers tell (by not giving big news corp their $$) big news corp. they will pay if content is worth paying for. GOTO A2

A2:Big news corp. tells consumers they must pay for content because big news corp. must pay "journalists" to create better content. GOTO A1

Thats just how I see the situation.

Yes, you can. Although you may have to apply a "let" suffix.

See:Natural Satellite. "There is no established lower limit on what should be considered a moon. Every body with an identified orbit, some as small as a kilometer across, has been identified as a moon, though objects a tenth that size within Saturn's rings, which have not been directly observed, have been called moonlets. Small asteroid moons, such as Dactyl, have also been called moonlets."

Obama said he would oppose any bill that granted immunity to the telecoms.

For all who think Obama stands for change, YOUR WRONG.He voted yes. Yes to the immunity that he said he would oppose. He is just as useless as Bush.