Wouldn't that be "womennequin"? ;)

...and of course, the moment I hit save, I start thinking of exceptions. "Never" was too strong a word there. There are times donations and even gifts can be legitimately counted as expenses. This, however, is not one of them...

So they were trying to lie to another department within their own company, instead of trying to lie to the taxman. Possibly still a crime, although you're right, it's not the crime OP implied.

When it's not actually an expense, perhaps? If you have to falsify paperwork to justify the "expense" for a service that you already received for free... well... see your next comment...

Assuming you actually tried that, you might want to look up what "expense" means, since you either didn't think, or don't understand the term. Money paid out is not necessarily an "expense". It's a bit more complicated than that, but a donation is never an expense.

He's no Steve Jobs, true. That aside, there are millions of well-schooled salesmen, and at least thousands of them smart enough to know they need to hire talented people. But most of them you've never heard of, and will never hear of, unlike Elon Musk. So there's more to it than just that...

You may very well think that, but market forces dictate success, as noted, and the market seems to think it's better to have an app store where you can actually find useful applications because they're not buried under a mountain of crap.

Actually, a free market is a market that is not manipulated by any powerful organization. Large concentrations of economic power (e.g. monopolies) can impede the operation of free markets too. In fact, it requires government regulation to establish a free market. They cannot exist in the absence of law, and law that is enforced, to ensure their freedom. Just like individuals are not free in the absence of government -- anarchy strips away freedom from nearly everyone but the powerful few to enslave everyone else. Governments are not the only organizations that must be limited in power to protect the freedom of people, or of markets.

What you are in fact promoting is dictatorship and slavery -- you just pretend its neither when the people in charge aren't called "government".

Russia existed, but it was a very different country. For that matter, the British Empire existed, too. Neither of the countries in the comparison sprang up out of nothing, but that isn't relevant to the point being made. The USSR was radically different from the government and economic system of what came before. (And although the USA was organized somewhat differently from the parliamentary democracy is broke away from, it retained much of the same system, laws, and basic concepts -- in reality, the USA had a much, much bigger head start than OP implied...)

Only a tiny bit-brain concludes that if there is tension between two concepts then they are mutually exclusive.

I didn't go there. Too young I guess. I do remember when you could be arrested for refusing to spy on your fellow citizens in the Soviet Union when asked, so that's where my mind went. There's a difference, of course. That was the KGB, this is the NSA. Not a single letter in common...

Your superiority over the straw men in your self-constructed world is assured...

The practical upshot of this is, Firefox's way is better if you enjoy security theatre, and Chrome's way is better if you think it's best for the browser to not fool its users into thinking they're more secure than they actually are.

Are you saying if it was IE, you wouldn't be arguing what you're arguing? I know Google is the new Microsoft on /. these days, but Microsoft is still Microsoft, too. People would be just as quick to pile on IE as they are on Chrome here, and I'd be just as compelled to point out the flaws in the arguments, because bad information is bad, even if the person using it is using it to attack something I don't like. If it was Firefox, now, then you're right, we wouldn't be having this conversation, but only because the blogger would never have written the article with it's incoherent attack in the first place, and if they did, the /. editors would have been critical enough to not run it. But MS or Google? Sure, the argument's incoherent, but someone wrote Chrome/IE/whatever-the-new-favorite-whipping-boy-is is bad, let's pile on!

It points out what apparently isn't obvious to a lot of people: those passwords in the other browsers aren't safe, either (otherwise Chrome wouldn't be able to easily import them). Chrome just doesn't hide the fact that the passwords are available to anyone who can sit down in front of your logged in computer. The blogger is upset that Chrome doesn't hide the truth of the matter...

Poor analogy. Although breaking into a vault isn't impossible, it does add significant difficulty to obtaining the money, even after breaking into the bank. Indeed, breaking into the bank is the easy part compared to breaking into the vault.

In your analogy, you're adding a significant barrier (breaking into the vault) on top of a much less significant one (breaking into the building). In the case of my browser passwords, someone who's gotten physical access to my computer while I'm logged into it has already scaled a much bigger barrier than hiding the "show passwords" button presents. It's taking the money already in the vault and saying putting it in a child-proof plastic bin is making the money safer than simply keeping it in the vault. Possibly technically true, but really not worth the hassle at that point. The attacker that's in the vault is going to get the money if they want it, the plastic bin isn't actually helping...