So it isn't really Microsoft that can lock you out, it's device manufacturer. Likewise they could lock you out of Windows if Linux was the OS that came with computer. Why don't we see a headline like "How Linux Can Lock Windows Off PCs"? Oh right, this is slashdot. We're here to bash Microsoft.

Boot rootkits are a real problem. Microsoft is improving security here. In fact, Linux has had the capability to use (U)EFI for years. Now Microsoft is just making it default in their system, because quite frankly most people aren't that intelligent with computers and the OS needs to decide some security for them. It's funny how in other news Microsoft gets bashed for bad security, and then in other news they get bashed for implementing those security features.

If you don't get the key when buying your computer, complain to your manufacturer. It's their fault. I don't know why you're buying a computer with Windows to begin with if you're going to install Linux anyway, you're just throwing away money. And nowadays there's lots of computers available without Windows, or you can just build it yourself.

Completely forget about Netflix and Hulu? And the countless amount of TV channels that use Silverlight on their websites, even in my country. Silverlight offers DRM while Flash doesn't, and that's why it will stay relevant even with Flash and HTML5 video.

Google is in the same situation elsewhere - they're spending LOTS of money to try to gain market share in Russia and China, but so far they're being crushed by the local giants Yandex and Baidu. These companies see it as a long-term campaing and have the means and money to do it. After all, it's still a lot easier to try to gain market share now than it will be in 20-30 years. Even if things are quite laid down now, they will be even more so all the time when time passes.

It's also just corporate finances. Even if Microsoft's online division loses money, it gains them recognizition and sales elsewhere. The one good thing about Microsoft is that they tend to stick to what they started. It's not like Google who might just cancel the product you're using the next day.

So if they don't keep investing to it now, they're basically letting Google have 99% of western search engine market. I really don't want that happen either - competition is good.

Google bought of Blogspot, they didn't make it. If Google wants to succeed in social networks market, they need to buy off Facebook, and that isn't going to happen.

And how you think they will inject that javascript into the webpage, exactly? They cannot.

MySpace only had teens or musicians on it, and it was really crappy otherwise too. Facebook is on completely different level now, and there's not much you can improve it as a general purpose social network. It's basically like Google is in search engine land now - it's just too big and used to kill off.

So what happens when teenagers have taken nude pics of themselves for their boyfriend/girlfriend, like many do? They're uploading those pictures to the internet, and now Google is hosting child porn and whoever happens to watch over their shoulder while they log on to Google+ (or someone hacks in) sees their nude pictures.

Yes, awesome and not even slightly privacy violation feature to have on by default.

Do you seriously think that Google+ took its look from some project that no one actually uses instead of mimicking Facebook's look which everyone is familiar with?

Besides, Facebook always kind of had circles, it was just buried under. Many people saw a problem with that, and I'm pretty sure Google would had seen it without Diaspora too. It's just common sense.

RTFA. It says for viagra and other pharma stuff.

That initial crowd was mostly just curious users. I wanted to see it too, but after that it hasn't seen pretty much any usage.

What comes to sane defaults, Google+ has exactly the same problems. By default all your data is very open, and because it's tightly integrated into Google, your details go public the very second you just register to Google+, because everything is public by default. When you run some game or app it also asks all the same kind of permissions that Facebook apps do. Google+ apps can also spam your whole friend the very same way that Facebook apps can.

Well, you better hope Google doesn't ban you for not using real time or if they even think you're not using your real name - Google+ ban isn't only to Google+, it's to all the other Google services like Gmail and YouTube too.

But probably not in the way they wanted it to be. It was a success in making Facebook to improve their service. Facebook has now taken all the good things Google+ offered - including improving their games platform streams and just last week they added circles (and it goes both ways, Google+ also completely ripped off Facebook's look and feel)

What's even more worrysome for Google, and not just for Google+ but their entire search engine usage and YouTube, is that this week Facebook will announce a huge upgrade with among others music and video services inside Facebook. This means less time spent on YouTube listening to music (yes, people actually do that, a lot) and more time spent on Facebook. When you're listening to music on Facebook, your friends also see what you listen to - a feature teens especially love. Google+ is missing these things entirely, among the other ones Facebook has had for ages.

Now that Google opens up the beta it means they've lost the PR effect of being somewhat mysterious social network. And frankly, it's quite dead there. I've said about this before too on slashdot, and then people suggested some random people who to follow (mostly IT geeks). The thing is, I don't want to follow those random people. It's not interesting. I want to follow my friends and relatives, and maybe some pages of my interest (like games, tv shows, bands etc). Which is yet again another aspect that Google+ is missing - pages. And event planning, and countless amount of other features.

They had a good PR idea of keeping it mysterious in the beginning, but I really wouldn't want to be the guy who decided it's a good idea to go compete against Facebook with an unfinished product. They killed all the potential Google+ had.

You can't secure everything. Not in the real world and not on the internet either. There's always way to go around security, both in the real world and internet. Laws exist so that people don't do something just because they can.

The funny thing is that the different Vmware products seriously kicks VirtualBox's ass. It's almost like comparing GIMP and Photoshop. VirtualBox might be enough for a home user, but no one uses it to do any serious virtualization in data centers or their corporate networks.

So all they did was give even larger incentive for rich people to start playing games with taxes. Remember that tax planning isn't illegal, nor is forming offshore companies. It's unlikely to change as well, because foreign companies are needed too. As long as you keep the money in the offshore company accounts and not your personal ones, you don't need to pay taxes from them. The people making over one million dollars a year have all the means to do this - normal working people don't.

You know what, maybe start looking if the huge companies pay taxes? For example Google does a insane amount ($60 BILLION) of tax dodging.