Because Facebook is used as an identity provider for many other services. Being able to impersonate a FB login page is really bad.

The minute someone thought of erecting the "Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs" we should have all stepped back, looked around, wondering where it all went to shit.

The spam and Word macros are only the payload delivery. After that it's capable of running executables and downloading new payloads from control servers. You don't know what it's going to be capable of in the future.

With business, I know that a lot of third-party applications (like CRM, workflow) hook into MSO with toolbars, templates, and macros. I have no idea if OO's features are comparable to that.

Quick! Someone update the Standard Model!

Aimed wrong? Write to your representative about this, from WP:

European vehicle regulations require such headlamps to be equipped with lens cleaners and an automatic self-leveling system to keep the beams aimed correctly regardless of vehicle load and attitude, but no such devices are required on motorcycles, or where ECE regulations are inapplicable.

For that reason alone, xenon headlights are a blessing. At least around here. Not a single xenon-lit car blinds me, as opposed to those with halogen lights that don't even bloody know that they have a damn wheel/knob to adjust the headlights. Or some drive around with full beam because they can't actually tell the difference from within the car (I assure you, you can with xenon).

On motorcycles it's not ubiquitous enough, yet. That fake glaring blue crap you see on cars? That's just plain stupid and as explained below has nothing to do with xenon.

MS can place demands on the state in which the PC is delivered to customers in the OEM license agreement. It's possible that they will require home users to be able to choose, just as it is required that they must enter their name and product key (for small OEMs. I know that HP, Dell and the likes do not follow the latter policy, but they have their own OEM agreements).

For corporate use, end users usually don't have a choice but to follow company policy. Guess what that policy would be. Question: would an advertising agency enable tracking on its own corporate browsers?

It is indeed interesting to know how the choice is going to be enforced with OEMs, because you might as well alter the default user profile in a sleazy deal with $ADVERTISER$

And how exactly does that favor of those defending DNT, i.e. advertisers and site owners?

It also enables more complex graphics on a higher display resolution without sacrificing performance or battery life. Efficiency savings don't always translate to devices that consume less (Jevons paradox).

This. But there's nothing legal you can do about it.

When stories like "Cisco consumer products violate privacy" (maybe a bit juicier) start appearing in the news I hope they suffer a lot more damage than just the fines.

Has anyone investigated yet what data is actually transmitted to Cisco's backend?

But it doesn't account for the parting of the Red Sea. You see, that's because Nessie was a comet from outer space! Oh, and He brought life to earth.

I'm trying me best to please everyone, here.

The hacker(s) responsible for releasing the data probably laugh about statements like these. It doesn't change that sensitive data can be stolen by bad security policies, or simply when someone publishes something somewhere they shouldn't have.
The company should be fined for mistakes like these, because despite your very nice laws on intent and everything, people will find sensitive data when they're looking for it, and it shouldn't have been this easy. Technically, information this wide in the open is free game, and the publisher of the data didn't realize that. Hence the idiot tax.

This data is potentially visible for anyone looking for it. This is more like your physician's practice, or the bank manager, who doesn't really bother to lock up when he leaves for the day, with signs all across the office happily directing you to the filing cabinets. Nobody can steal the records, but they can look at them at will. It may well still be trespassing, but should the physician or bank manager get away with it?

It's stronger than that. The briefcase had references to the contents on it. Also, if you assume that they don't put locations of secure pages in the robots.txt because they're not accessibly anyway, but it had an entry for a confidential but unsecured page, then they should have been fully aware that this page was publicly accessible.

But... That's cheating!