If I stand in my front yard and shout into a megaphone, is it "reasonable" for me to believe that my words are private? Does it make a difference if I don't know what a megaphone is?

The difference is, nobody intentionally "broadcasts" their heat signature or has any choice in the matter. On the other hand, a wireless router's entire function is to broadcast a signal with the explicit intention that other devices out there will receive it. It's the entire nature of the product. Furthermore, all routers provide a variety of options for controlling connections as well as the nature of the broadcast. You can turn off the SSID advertising. You can enable MAC filters. You can turn on encryption. If a user is ignorant of the fact that a wireless router is a radio, well, maybe that should become a bit more informed before diving into new (to them) technology. What do they think makes it wireless in the first place? (And, yes, as politically incorrect as it may be, I firmly believe people should be responsible for their own actions.)

If you operate a wifi router without employing any of its encryption/filtering options, then you "did not undertake reasonable efforts to conceal something from a casual observer". Anyone coming within range of your radio broadcast with pretty much any laptop/netbook made today can "casually" observe your broadcast.

First, if it's an open wifi, then you didn't break into it. If you got a connection to it, it's because they advertised the connection as available and accepted you. If you then used the connection to commit a crime, that crime is what will concern the judge, NOT the connection you used. Additionally, there are numerous people that intentionally leave their wifi open explicitly because they want to let their neighbors use it without needing to ask first. So, it would be completely reasonable to assume an open connection was just that. You know, OPEN.

This story would be different if Google had parked themselves in neighborhoods, capturing large streams of data and maybe going as far as breaking encryption, then I could completely understand and agree with the "outrage". But in this case, it seems all they did was capture openly broadcast packets in order to record the MAC address (i.e., the hardware address) to use as another data point for geolocation use. Apparently, the software they used by default kept all of the information gathered, which included the payload data (fragments of whatever traffic existed as the car drove by).

When they realized it, they could have simply deleted the data and likely nobody would have ever known the difference. This wasn't some nefarious plot that was discovered and revealed by someone outside of Google. This was Google outing themselves and leaving it up the individual governments to decide if they should destroy it, or what.

Google did nothing truly wrong. Most of this case is about massive numbers of people, some in government, sadly ignorant of technology they are using, running around screaming, "The sky is falling, the sky is falling!"

I remember reading a story in Car & Driver magazine back in the 80's in which they tested the effect marijuana consumption had on driving ability (and, no, I don't remember exactly how they managed to conduct the test, given the legal status of the substance). They found that initially, on small doses, driving ability actually increased, with more focus on the job of driving. However, as dosage increased, the subjects driving ability would eventually begin to drop off, eventually getting worse than their sober ability.

In other words, based on their test, a light buzz is actually good for driving, but getting really stoned isn't.

Personally, I find the people that can't survive without downing handfuls of Valiums (or equivalent) multiple times a day far more frightening as drivers than someone that smoked a joint.

(I knew someone, a coworker, about 35 years ago that was taking 6 blue Valiums about 4 times a day, prescribed by his doctor, just to stay "normal". I remember being told the blue ones were the larger dosage. He was moved to Thorazine shortly before I moved away and lost track of him.)

I wonder how many traffic accidents are the direct result of a driver's intoxication on a legally prescribed drug? Because I don't recall ever hearing about someone being tested for that, the way they will test for alcohol.

I have also heard that a big problem the law has with marijuana and driving is the fact we have no test that shows present intoxication. The current tests merely show that you consumed at some point in the (presumably) recent past (testing for the compounds that remain after your body has processed it). So, if marijuana use was legal in itself, you'd have no way of legally proving someone had driven intoxicated, since they could have legally consumed a few weeks before with no impact whatsoever on their driving. Not that I see this as a reason to continue this unconstitutional prohibition, but it does mean I can see why those in traffic enforcement might have concerns.

And if there's anyone questioning why I said unconstitutional prohibition, I point to the alcohol prohibition in the early 20th century and the constitutional amendment that was required because the original constitution did NOT provide the authority. As that amendment was later repealed, and there have been no other amendments providing any similar authority, there is absolutely zero constitutional authority for any drug laws. And the asinine stretching of the "interstate commerce" clause has as much validity as claiming 2+2=5 because we want it to.

However, most people would expect inductions to start with the most significant people first. I believe the point people have been making here is that your list completely misses that mark. For example, the Xbox design team? I would think the developers of, say, the first successful console, first successful handheld, etc., would be first. You know, the people that actually created the industry? What, exactly, did the Xbox create? At least you didn't pick the hardware disaster that is the Xbox 360 (my grandson is on his third!).
I don't think anybody would really expect every worthy name on the first list. But they did expect every name on the first list to clearly be the most worthy. As a few have commented, your list reads more like a sponsors list.

I received my Wii for Christmas the year it was released. It's never been modded and has had every update ever offered. My wireless router doesn't do DNS or DHCP, it's only used as a wireless router. All DNS and DHCP functions are provided by my server. The Wii is set to auto, no specific address configured on it at all. I've never had a single issue with my Wii's connectivity (or anything else). And, yes, I still use it. Received a new game (Final Fantasy:Crystal Bearers) for Father's Day as a matter of fact.

Don't know what broke for you, maybe it was specific to the router model? I know my daughter's Wii had pretty much no internet connectivity originally, unless you turned off the Linksys cable modem/wireless router's firewall. Apparently, there were issues with the type of firewall it used. An update or two later, and it's now 100% (although they don't use theirs much anymore).

There is an option for "Always show the tab bar," but it's not checked by default, and I don't know why anybody would want to check it....

Personally, I always check it. For one, I don't like the bar coming and going. And it's easier to open a new tab, if the tab bar is already there. I really don't like interfaces where parts of it appear/disappear by themselves. Just like anytime I'm stuck using Windows, I'll turn off the "personalized menus". And the hiding of file extensions (never have understood why anyone would find that useful, much less why it's a default).

Discoverability is usually cited as one of the main strengths of GUI over CLI, yet hiding elements (making them harder to discover) is considered an improvement?