Both of you have your facts wrong: 30% of overall Google's employees are female and 17% if we only consider tech positions. Source: https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2014/05/getting-to-work-on-diversity-at-google.html

Dude, if you want to drive a car manually you are the shit that will happen to other people on the road.

Ah, the irony of using "security and privacy" to argue in favour of old unencrypted HTTP/1.1 and against always-encrypted SPDY (which HTTP/2.0 is based on).

This actually decreases security. Browser caching is strictly necessary to make the web work fast, disabling it for HTTPS means discouraging websites from using secure connections for anything where it's not strictly necessary (like money). And $DEITY knows we live in a world where every website should be secure by default. You wouldn't use telnet even for a completely non-sensitive server, so why accept unencrypted HTTP to post on slashdot or anywhere else?

A shared computer should not let users see other users' private files (and browser caches are most definitely not world-readable). This is what happens with Android multi-login, Chrome OS and traditional Linux distros. I'm fairly certain the same is also true for Windows and Mac OS X.

If I temporarily let someone use my computer with my account, I sure as hell keep an eye on what they are doing, because the thing contains stuff about me that's much more sensitive than anything that paypal or my bank will ever know.

This is BS. If an attacker has access to your files in your local disk, they have already won.

"Rooting" means exploiting a security flaw to get root privileges in a device that is designed to prevent users from doing that (e.g. the iPhone or the Android phones sold by some US network operators).

Bootloader unlocking and root access was available and well documented on the first Android device designed by Google (the Nexus One), simply by running the command "fastboot oem unlock".

The same command worked on the second Android phone by Google, the Nexus S, and all subsequent devices, including tablets: Galaxy Nexus, Nexus 4, Nexus 7 and Nexus 10. Unsurprisingly it also works on Glass.

It's just a well know feature of all the devices created by Google. Details: https://plus.google.com/112413860260589530492/posts/jYHhKHYwUJ2.

Google's documentation on how to "root" your Android devices: http://source.android.com/source/building-devices.html.

Google is one of the few big "social" companies around that never resell users' data to any third party. Read those big legal blobs before clicking "I accept".

In Italy, like the rest of the EU, public money must usually be spent through transparent public contracts awarded to the lowest bidder that satisfies all requirements.

To make sure that Linux or LibreOffice don't cause problems the trick is very simple: they put e.g. "Windows 7" or "Microsoft Office 2010" in the requirements and pretend to have open competitive bids by comparing offers from different resellers for Microsoft software.

Another common trick is to let the situation degenerate until it becomes an emergency. At that point the law allows contracts to be awarded directly to a company arbitrarly chosen by a politician. This explains "emergencies" that last decades like the garbages crisis in Naples.

How many games support it? Unless it has wide support it's just not worth it.

Are you sure? ARM advertises it as part of all architectures from ARMv5 to ARMv8: http://www.arm.com/files/downloads/ARMv8_Architecture.pdf.

Getting back on topic: the last ARM architecture, ARMv8, is far from what was called "RISC" back in the '70s. E.g. it can run instructions of different sizes (16 vs 32 bit), it has 4 specialized instructions for AES, registers with different sizes (32, 64 and 128 bits), instructions for running a subset of the Java bytecode, a rich set of SIMD operations and specialized instructions for SHA-1 and SHA-256.

Similarily the architecture supported by the new Atom chips (which is AMD64/x86-64 BTW, IA32 is only present for backward compatibility) is almost universally run on RISC-like processors that have instruction translators. Considering that the increased density of the x86-64 instructions usually allows to save more cache transistors than the ones required for decoding the instructions themselves, I think that the power consumption differences that we see are more due to the implementation and different traditional focus areas of ARM vs Intel/AMD than inherent differences in the instruction sets.

You seem to think that HTML 4.01 is a subset of the HTML (a.k.a. "the standard formerly known as HTML5"). That's not the case, HTML 4.01 is a completely different and incompatible HTML dialect. When I say incompatible I mean that 4.01-compliant browsers (which obviously don't exist and never did) would not be able to correctly display ANY of the following website: slashdot, Wikipedia, Google, Yahoo, BBC, CNN, eBay, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and many, many others. If you want an HTML 4.01 browser, you can't just limit existing browsers to a subset of their functionality, you have to write one yourself because 4.01 was so utterly broken and incompatible with the actual web that exists in this reality that no browser vendor ever implemented it. Even lynx is more similar to HTML than to HTML 4.01 when it comes to parsing web pages, otherwise it would be completely unusable. HTML 4.01 was promoted to a "standard" only because the W3C rules at the time were very lax, with the current rules that require two independent complete implementations, it would still be a "working draft".

The web browser interoperability in the last few years (after IE6) is a product of the WHATWG standard, that started in 2004 (it wasn't called HTML back then). Just an example: HTML 4.01 doesn't specify a way to parse HTML that actually works and doesn't specify at all how to handle errors. The result is that every browser had a slightly different and incompatible parsing algorithm. Let me make this clear: no browser ever implemented HTML 4.01. Not a single one of them. Because HTML 4.01 was extremely buggy and unmaintained. It caused the IE6 era. The HTML5 draft on W3C is less buggy but still severely incomplete, stopping making major changes just means that all browsers vendors are completely ignoring the HTML5 from W3C and going instead for the HTML standard that's actively maintained and updated.

Ian Hickson is the editor of both docs (he's actually the editor of the main HTML standard, the WHATWG one; the draft hosted by the W3C is really nothing more that an old and incomplete copy that nobody among browser vendors takes seriously).

He explained very clearly the past and current situation: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-whatwg-archive/2012Jul/0119.html

And, yes, the WHATWG has done an excellent job so far, bringing much needed features to the web and creating an era of faster and more interoperable browsers. If they had just waited for the W3C we would still be stuck with HTML 4.01, IE6, Flash and other plugins.

Also this is not a new development, HTML (from WHATWG) has started gradually leaving the HTML5 (from W3C) behind a long time ago. Where the two differ, all major browsers (including IE) either already follow HTML or plan to. See this post from more than a year ago: http://blog.whatwg.org/html-is-the-new-html5

When people talk about HTML5 features in browsers and websites, they actually refer to the HTML standard. The HTML5 "working draft" on the W3C website doesn't even support the old 2D canvas API, which is implemented by all browsers!