Before you freak out, you should read the license that's been in place on Stack Overflow since it was founded.
Guess what: it requires attribution.
It's not totally clear how that's supposed to work when applied to code, but it's crystal clear about the requirement itself. The proposed MIT change is aimed at making this more obvious, but... If you aren't already giving credit where it's due, then that's on you - the license has always demanded that.
You might wanna read up on the "share alike" bit too...
P.S. I work for Stack Overflow.

Chrome's biggest threat != Google's biggest threat.

A browser funneling traffic to Google is Google's friend, regardless of the name that appears on it.

Yup...

But here's the concept:

Programmers seem to have stopped reading books. [...]

Instead, they happily program away, using trial-and-error. When they can't figure something out, they type a question into Google. [...]
-- Joel Spolsky, stackoverflow.com (several months prior to the site actually existing)

Does that scare you? Bother you? Leave you a depressed shell of a man, thinking seriously about that potato-farming slash fracking job you left behind back in Idaho?

Well, it probably should. But regardless, that's reality: and that's the audience Stack Overflow was created to serve. So that the apps we're using every day aren't being cobbled together by folks who think DynamicDrive.com and W3Schools are the last word in programming knowledge. If nothing else, this little chart indicates it's working...

Of course, there's a difference between keeping anthrax in your freezer because you're researching treatment and prevention... and keeping anthrax in your freezer while looking for someone who'll pay to create a panic.

No. Hence its sterling reputation...

And... So what? Enabling Dev Mode doesn't give running apps root access, it enables root terminal connections via the USB interface. Y'know, physical access.

The key difference is that you aren't forced to void your hardware warranty in order to reconfigure the software. Something also possible with Android devices, but sadly far from ubiquitous.

Close enough: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/9549/

Wait... So my choices are:

1) a poor public speaker
2) a poor public speaker (with subtitles)
3) a poor public speaker (with pictures and sound effects)

Shucks... Those all suck. But...

With #1, you can do your best to focus. Take notes, use a recorder or memorization tricks... You'll probably miss some portions, and misunderstand others, but with a bit of luck you'll manage to come away with the gist of it.

With #2, you can try to get a copy of the presentation and just read it later, so even though your time has been wasted at least you can still get the information. If you can print out a copy before hand, you can take notes in the margins, or just use the time to read it, thus avoiding some of the waste and potentially allowing you to ask questions.

With #3, you're screwed. There's no verbatim print-out, and now you have flashing images and sounds to compete for your attention span.

A good presenter uses the tools available - whether software, whiteboard, or merely his own voice - to complement the material he's trying to communicate. A bad presenter takes the same tools and distracts himself and his audience. The problem isn't powerpoint - it's thinking that sprinkling powerpoint on a dull, dense presentation magically makes communication happen, expecting that the same folk who couldn't manage to streamline their verbal communication will somehow manage to extract the key points when faced with a dizzying array of new tools for amplifying and emphasizing whatever garbage is fed into them...

Yes, it is THE most trusted publication among people who don't trust publications.

It's the principle of the thing. You go to a doctor, and you expect to see him wash his hands and/or put on gloves before examining you. Never mind that it's unnecessary most of the time; it should be a habit for him, simply because sometimes it matters, and when it matters it matters a lot.

Seeing a security company take a cavalier attitude with your information - even when that information probably isn't terribly sensitive and probably won't get intercepted anyway doesn't inspire confidence in their dedication to protecting your information in the scenarios where it does matter.

He's complaining that an email from the vendor of a AV product he tried three years ago is shouting assertions as to the status of his AV protection. This is just a little different from an AV vendor reminding you to renew your subscription - it's probably a safe bet that he's moved on to a different AV product.

The day/week/month after the subscription expired? Maybe. But three years later? That's getting disturbingly close to those sketchy telemarketers who call up to warn you that the warranty on your automobile is expiring. Whether or not you have a warranty. Or an automobile.

Is it somewhat unrealistic to expect advertisers to reign in the hyperbole? Yeah, sadly, it is. But at the same time, it does speak rather poorly of a company that purports to be a legitimate vendor of security software, when they're using tactics very similar to those used by the producers of software they should be protecting you from.

Er, nevermind. Misread what I was replying to... D'oh!