Ok, so in Windows 8.1 all programs have the familiar X in the top right corner to close, both in desktop and metro mode (you can also swipe them down from top, and shouldn't really be concerned with "closing a program" to begin with when it is handled properly by the OS, but lets forget about this newfangled stuff). Same with minimize. And switching programs is the same old Alt-Tab as it has always been. Or if you want, mouse to top left corner to get a list (one of just a couple of things shown to you at Win8 install/upgrade). And if you like direct access to power user stuff Win-X (or mouse right click left corner) is a better friend than anything Win7 had to offer. But hey, if we don't want to we don't want to.

Something like this adopted for pod cars too.

During the 1990s the big browser war was between Netscape and IE, and by version 3 and 4 IE became the better browser of the two (yes, hard as that is to believe today), and Netscape was even worse in pushing their own standards.

ActiveX was a killer feature for developers of the day, that is why it was adopted so much, which later bit everyone in the ass -- and there is a learning here for today's developers that can't wait to implement non-standardized vendor specific prefix functions in production sites because of the nice functionality they offer..

I agree with you that IE then really fell behind other browsers in the age of modern AJAX and CSS web sites, which is quite ironic given that Microsoft actually invented the basis for AJAX (with XMLHttpRequest). But not very surprising, as they actually disbanded their IE team. They are catching up quite nicely now from IE11 and onward though, which is a good thing for the web and web developers.

Properly conducted double blind ABX tests are incredible insights into how perceptions influence our experiences. People who are just absolutely no questions about it convinced they have no problem whatsoever tasting or hearing a difference shockingly often lose that ability when they really don't know what they are tasting/listening to.

Symantec is mixing up stuff here to try to position themselves for the new hot profitable APT market. For one; the context of this quote about AV being dead was a WSJ interview with the CEO where he said it in the context if Symantec being able to increase their profit, as AV has become quite cheap and APT is getting all the nice profit margin - it was not said in a context of user need, but in a context of Symantec profit need.

Then they mix up some statistics about targeted advanced hacker attacks (APT), which of course isn't stopped by AV, but it doesn't make the treat from traditional malware any less. All reports and research show that regardless of APT, the threat from standard malware is increasing, not decreasing (just as those hit by Cryptolocker..).

Yes, AV is not 100%. There will be APT type attack that bypass it, and there will be time periods with brand new malware that bypass it. But that last point is often overblown. Well over 90% of actual real world infections are from known malware that would be stopped by a good AV program. Even a condom isn't 100% safe, that doesn't mean that it is meaningless to use a condom.

Not all of them. Malware writers go for the biggest targets for the least effort, and often just test against (and even have active intervention against) the best known/most used free AV programs (Microsoft, Avast, AVG, etc.), since a major volume of users use free solutions, and the major commercial (Symantec, Trend, Kaspersky, F-Secure, McAffee, etc.). It is actually a good bet that if you go with a lesser known commercial AV product you gain a significant protection advantage.

There is a lot of variation within this rule of size that often invalidates it. These babies for instance, will play better than much bigger speakers from well known and respected brands.

Or, the commercial $50K a year solution has the advantage of scale by spreading its cost on multiple customers. If the commercial provider has 1000 customers paying $50K a year, the economy of that is hard to beat by being lean on management overhead.

Oh, it was an attempt at answering a question Google most certainly was asking - how can we get some of those Facebook ad billions and additional user tracking info.

But it wasn't found by eyes, in the source. It was found by automated testing tool that would have just as easily found it in closed source.

The Hartbleed bug was found using automated testing by two researches from Codenomicon and one from Google, and they disclosed it with enough detail to replicate. Closed or open source wouldn't have made a difference in how this was discovered or reported. It might have made a difference in how it was responded to, but that is hard to prove.

I don't think he deserved troll at all, but I do think he is mistaken. Not about the dead accounts, they obviously exists in great volume, but the assumption that these are counted in quoted user numbers. Almost all large online services, and third party statistic sites like Comscore, use "logged in at least once last month" as the metric for their user count. Where there is inflation in user numbers are when multi-service companies are making sure that users that intended to go to one service also "visits" another (looking at you Google+).

Still, most research show that as much as 90% of real world infections are happening through already patched vulnerabilities, eg. could have easily been avoided without changing user behaviour - except the update or not behaviour (not only Windows, but Adobe, Java, browser, office, etc.). There are good cross-vendor patch & remediation solutions for business that solves this for you, I'm surprised this is not offered as a managed solution to consumers as well (or perhaps it is? I have not seen it).

I really don't understand what you are trying to say or accomplish. This is not about any side being "morally or ethically pure". You, like a lot of similar anti-science sentiments (evolution, homeopathy, moon landing, what have you), are trying to debate the scientific principle, without any support from actual scientists.

You really don't know much about science do you? Most scientists throughout history are known for loving the situation you describe. The love to poke holes in other scientists theories. To prove fellow scientists wrong. To be right, in face of opposition and disbelief. You are dismissing one of the primary driving forces of science throughout the history of science.