It's about which websites you're checking. On, say, cnn.com you might get a more IE-centric audience. On places like Slashdot, Linux would have a higher market share than IE. It's extremely difficult to make an accurate census of who is using what on their computers.
It's true in programming and its true everywhere else: don't optimize before you find the real bottlenecks. Otherwise you'll have a 1% gain but all sorts of unforeseen consequences start popping up.
Ctrl+B (or Command+B on the Mac, I assume) opens up a bar at the top (or at least it does in the Linux version) and you can drag your bookmarks between the bar and the "other bookmarks" folder.
I doubt Chrome (browser and OS) are going to become spyware platforms. Even if Google feels like data-mining you, it'll happen on the server side as you use Google search and your Google account and associated services.
I've never had anything like that. Chrome on my computer is, at worst, taking 5-10% CPU usage to maintain 10 tabs in 2 windows, and it doesn't slow anything else down. Perhaps your OS is the problem?
So when this slang-using generation grows up and joins the real world they will become the real world, and slang will become acceptable there and everyone will understand it. I fail to see the problem.
Yes, loans are useful, and being permanently in debt is useful if you have an investment with a higher return higher than your loan. But it has disadvantages - it's an obligation what you have to watch over lest it runs out of control. It creates instability, as we've seen in the recent economic crisis.
Avoiding debt is just as sensible as saving money; in a way it's the exact same thing. It's a slight pain now for a massive gain later. As for a house, whatever happened to getting the money BEFORE you buy it? It's a perfectly valid choice.
Fully integrated augmented reality. Once we get mind-machine interfaces working, we could have an application that looks at every object around you, checks which one you're focusing on and somehow the entire Wikipedia article on it is already in your mind.
When trying to look at a product you're thinking of buying, ignore the 5 star reviews. Those are always a mix of fanboys (whose posts amount to "<insert product here> is awes0me!!1!1"), people paid to rate it high and other people who like the product but don't tend to have much useful to say (you tend to already know all of the advantages of the product from the marketing department). Looking at the 1 and 2 star reviews is always better as you tend to get an idea of what the problems with the product are and why you might not like it. A balanced approach will always give you the most information.
Except maybe (insert 3-5 diminutive adjectives here) the diaper bowl, these are all extremely unviable. Wasting hundreds of dollars of machinery to collect the insignificant amount of heat energy given off by a human (especially in its resting state) is not very effective. As for plants, really? Plants are, being created by evolution for the purpose of spreading, not converting CO2 to O2, are not very efficient - there are machines that do the job much better. Also, the plants have to be fed food and water, making the thing extremely bulky and reducing fuel efficiency.
If you're talking about the dreidel, I don't think any other major religion or culture has a christmas-specific object like the dreidel (that is, a toy that you can build yourself out of paper). It's like berating someone for planting a Christmas tree in his garden but not a turban.
Mindlessly repeating internet memes for one (except in Soviet Russia, where meme repeats you). That's at least 50% of internet humor. Obscure references, as well. It's a type of humor that makes no sense unless you're immersed in the culture.
The basic pattern is that it's like trinary, but once you get to something ending in some 1s and finally a 2, the two starts to migrate upward, leaving 0s behind it (as in 10112, 10120, 10200, 11000) until the 2 disappears and you keep on going normally. The effect is that instead of digits flipping over all at once, as in 999998, 999999, 1000000, it happens one at a time. Very interesting number system.
It's not an absolute truth, but overhyping something is dangerous. Even if you do get it done, you'll be compared to much higher expectations, and your result will look worse in comparison.
I totally understand the concept of not reinventing the wheel. Reminds me of the time when I was overjoyed at the fact that I figured out how to implement a flood filling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_fill) algorithm and then the next day I found something 20 times faster on Wikipedia.
There's no substitute for experience. There's a difference between knowing that x,y and z are bad and understanding why they are bad from personal experience.
How does including information prevent me from finding other information? Sure, it makes the "random page" option (which really should have a bias toward popular articles) less interesting, but if you're looking for information on something, the article on it will be the first search result and you can go straight to it ignoring all the other ones. I have never in my life been incovenienced by insignificant articles getting in my way.
Search engines are completely different from downloaded software - you can't avoid reliance on the provider unless you feel like writing your own web crawler and waiting for it to gather web content (even though it will never catch up with the volume of new stuff constantly being put on the 'net).
"The Sherman Antitrust Act doesn't really apply here, as I understand it. Antitrust is when a company uses its dominant market position to make competition impossible."
I was thinking of the Microsoft antitrust trials where, IIRC, Microsoft was criticized pretty hard for its licensing scheme which made OEMs pay MS for every computer, not just those with Windows, if they wanted to pay less than the massive consumer per-license price. This is pretty similar, although Bing is the one trying to crawl into the market rather than stay in.
The problem with Microsoft's business tactics in the search area is that they're not improving their product - instead, they're literally paying people to use it. While moving your price down into the negatives may be legitimate price competition, paying Murdoch not to index his sites on Google is bordering on antitrust. I welcome competition to Google - even if I will never use Bing it will still force Google to improve its own search engine, but it should be real competition by making a superior product, not this.
What's so bad about the site in Chrome? I'm looking at the site in (Linux) Chrome and Firefox side by side and, aside from the extra 4 lines of vertical screen space that Chrome gives you, they look exactly the same.
That would be true if it weren't for the fact that the GPL requires distributors to publish source code as well as license their derivatives under the GPL. So it's not just a copyright-free zone, like Creative Commons Share Alike is.
This is a fairly serious issue in some free software places (eg. Slashdot). It seems that copyright when used by big corporations is evil and restrictions are good, but when the GPL gets weakened by them it's suddenly a bad thing. Unfortunately, you can't have it both ways, sometimes in life you need to take the bad with the good.