That is not the only solution (and not a complete one, as users will still be surfing the web leaving an attack surface, like how iOS was drive-by rooted and jailbreaked just by visiting a website). It is actually possible to provide users with a significant degree of "protection from themselves", without locking down the platform.

You can and should be running a full featured always-on anti-malware and anti-virus scanner. Though not stopping all, that helps significantly in preventing infections. In addition you have tactics like IE9s reputation filter, which was just reported to block 95% of all attempted malware downloads by users (!). Again, not 100%, but significantly contributing to reducing the risk and protecting a very significant number of users "from themselves". So it is possible, and needed, for software to address the PEBKAC. This problem won't go away, expect quite the opposite.

Or, they didn't care about size of Mac user base before now and are just getting started, as the recent development seems to indicate.

Why are then so many claiming that it was because the hackers wanted the Mac the most? (as the OP I replied too) I'm not saying you are wrong, but then the argument that they wanted the Mac the most becomes nonsensical.

I actually thought people meant it only as a joke when they said that, but in the context here it doesn't seem like it, so I'll bite. The winner of pwn2own takes home a 15.000 USD cash price. It makes no sense to risk that by not going after the easiest target first. (And btw. in pwn2own 2011 the Mac fell without any restrictions being removed, just from visiting a website - drive-by install with no user interaction)

Partly that, and partly the strange fact that only US (and recently UK I think) really have Bing. In other countries around the world it is the old crappy solution, plastered with Bing logo and a tiny "beta" tag. If I search on "Bing" in my country, the result is utter crap. If I search on US Bing I find it quite nice.

Why someone would do something like this to their brand is difficult to understand.

You are aware this was publically funded University research that was sabotaged? Isn't that exactly what would balance against the negative power you are attributing to Monsanto?

So does my desktop PC :-)

Why iPad is almost as unsuited as e-reader to me, is

1) Size and weight. I can hold my Kindle with one hand for hours while reading without getting tired, it is lighter than a small paperback, and can be carried in my jacket pocket.

2) E-ink screen vs glowing LCD screen unreadable in sunlight. For extended reading - and outdoor reading, like at the beach - Kindle screen is extremely comfortable to read.

3) Battery life measured in hours on iPad vs. weeks on Kindle. Travelling a lot, using iPad the way I use Kindle would means bringing charger and having to to plan charging.

What I do agree with is that for anything else than reading, iPad is superior to the Kindle, but I have other devices for that I'm happy with.