That entirely depends on how Google plans to implement it. From what I understood, Comcast took routers people already had and created a separate WiFi off of them. With all of the security vulnerabilities in routers these days, who's to say they couldn't gain access to the actual network? Then there's also the question of whether it shares the same external IP address, bandwidth cap, speed, etc.. Plus, if they were to put the public hotspots outside of the home but still attached to their equipment it would be a whole different story.
Personally I think it's kind of funny. The wireless giants decided to regulate us with bandwidth caps and nickel/dime us to death, now it's biting them in the ass. If they do pull this off then you know every ISP out there will try something similar, putting a huge strain on the wireless industry and maybe even forcing them into an infrastructure provider instead of service provider.
I say screw em, sign me up for the first alternative that works.
The problem is no one trusts the US anymore, they've been lying this whole time (NSA). The actions and media currently do not add up for it to be North Korea. For starters, what exactly would North Korea benefit? They had already publicly said that it was insulting, and there is no way they could prevent the movie from getting out.
Possible people that could benefit: - The makers of the movie (or maybe Sony screwed them) - "Anonymous", as in online activists that are pro net neutrality. The terrorist threat basically forced them to release it online, which is the first time that's happened from a major studio. - Google. Sony is a part of the MPAA and after the leaked emails they accused Sony of astroturfing. The MPAA is currently costing Google quite a bit of money in both wasted time and advertising. - The United States, any branch of the government could have played a role. Even contracting it out to a 3rd party. Easy excuse to blame it on NK. The FBI could also use the attack as a "cyber 9/11" in the sense that it could be used for cyber-security laws. - North Korea, if they were really that upset over the movie. Seems unlikely... they should know the power of a DDOS on them. - Another country that would benefit from us getting involved in a conflict with North Korea, which could be anyone.
That's just the ones I can think of, but NK just doesn't seem to make sense.
Programming isn't English. Pretty sure everyone at some point in time has changed their sentences up and overlooked a capital letter or single apostrophe, for whatever reason. That's also what syntax highlighting is for. How many software developers do you know use Notepad or equivalents? Sure it's doable, but why would you?
First, they aren't closing their stores. The cinemas refused to show the movie. They are still showing every other movie. As far as the $42 million, I'm sure they have insurance, and if anything they could change the character's name. At what point in the past have they used the name of someone that was still alive and in power in that negative of a way? I'm not pro NK by any means, but I am content with not unnecessarily provoking them by directly calling them out.
On the other hand, how much did the Target and Home Depot hack cost?
Target - Estimated by McAffee at $100 billion or more, but as of Oct 6th Target estimated $146 million. The cost of replacing the debit/credit cards alone supposedly exceeds $200 million. Home Depot - As of September 18th, they estimated the cost to be $62 million. This attack also affected people's cards and there is a pending lawsuit against them.
So much for that theory? Both have well exceeded the $42 million mark and it's not even the final sum. So how can you justify Sony deserving the attention and not the others that were hit?
As for being primarily located in Japan, it's understandable that they do most of their business in the states. However, Japan has been almost completely silent. Barely even a mention of it.
For the film, no. To sacrifice a film to be able to claim "Cyber 9/11" for a corporation that isn't even primarily located in the US? It wouldn't shock me. The general public (including politicians) will be afraid now and more likely to enact laws to benefit Sony.
Do I think it was Sony? No, but as others have said.. something isn't adding up. Seriously, they could of used a different name. Why did it have to be Kim Jong-un?
# Conspiracy past this line Sony was extremely quick to call it a Cyber 9/11. Almost makes me wonder if they were involved in the original 9/11... which also has a lot of questions attached to it. Who better to control the population than the politico-media complex that includes Sony. They have already shown the lengths they will go to with the likes of SOPA/CISPA/etc.. Obama has strong ties with Hollywood as well.
Thinking the same... I mean Target was hit, Home Depot, Chase, etc.. No one made a big deal about it until the MAFIAA got hit. Now it's suddenly a cyber 9/11? Sony is the only one to blame here.. They have been hit MULTIPLE times and still failed to secure their networks. It did however shed a lot of light on the questionable practices they're using to attack the internet and Google.
It's kind of sad, but I'm more inclined to believe North Korea than our own government on this one. Sony isn't even in the US... It's primarily based out of Japan. Where is Japan's response? They've barely even mentioned the incident. Honestly, I wouldn't even put it past Sony or another MAFIAA member doing it. A cyber 9/11 would benefit them in the sense that it would provide the fear-mongering to enact exactly what Sony wants.
I apologize for doing other things while trying to respond and not getting the grammar 100% perfect, I didn't realize that a Slashdot comment was the same as publishing an article or book. lol.
You just proved my point though. You were more focused on whether or not 1-2 words were capitalized or pluralized correctly than what it actually said. Take the advice or don't, I promise I won't lose any sleep over it. Maybe next time you will reply with something that takes a little bit more thought behind it, not just skimming through it for typos.
I don't think they're advocating the minimum raise increase - seems like the complete opposite. I would have to agree, Increasing the minimum wage and making it 10 times more difficult to hire/fire people isn't the solution. It's a short sighted patch that's destined to fail. Tax rates also don't help. Surely they are aware that increasing the minimum wage also increases the tax revenue they bring in, since it can potentially bump people into higher tax brackets.
Anyway, point is the majority of the people that make minimum wage are uneducated. A good part of that may be their fault, but our education system is currently crap. I already mentioned this below in relation to the article, but long story short high school is a repeat of middle school and college is a gigantic scam that produces graduates that have 10,000-100,000 in debt. There are some schools/colleges that are exceptions but they are rare.
To start - I'm not an economist, however I am a software developer and have grown up with a technology and education background.
In the short term (5-10 years) I don't see this being that big of a threat. We may be capable of it soon but actual implementation takes a really long time, especially on a large enough scale to hit the entire economy. Hell, a lot of businesses are still using software that requires Java 6, or a really old version of IE. That doesn't even count how much software hasn't been updated from XP but just "hacked" to work with Windows 7. With that said, the jobs will not go away, just shift like they always have. The shift may be more substantial this time, but it's still a shift.
For example, Taxis.. I don't see people fully trusting taxi's to drive us around for at least another 8-15 years. The Taxi driver will just need to be educated on how to override it when/if it does mess up and they could slowly shift toward more of a personal assistant role or entertainment for the drive. I know it's almost unheard of now-a-days, but offering a certain level of (human) customer service will go a long way. For the economic side - people that repaired VHS and other outdated tech also had to adapt. You can't blame DVD or Blueray for it, it's adapt or die - aka life.
Personally I feel like the problem isn't the AI and robotics that are on the way, it's the crap that we call an education system. High school is a complete waste of time, literally a repeat of middle school with added bull@#$% complexities that don't actually help outside of high school. Teachers are often simply baby sitters and aren't allowed to teach outside of the pre-defined curriculum. On the other side, college is ridiculously expensive and doesn't guarantee a job when you graduate, nor a legitimate education depending on where you go. Hell, the closest university to me teaches intro to Java/Programming on PAPER, as in you have to write out your program with a pencil. All of this technology and change requires an education to keep up, but the baseline for education seems to be dropping. Sure, there is Youtube which has been more of a game changer than most people probably know. People spend a few minutes to an hour of their time to upload a video and suddenly millions can find it and learn from it. Want to learn C++? Youtube it. Want to learn how to bake a cake? Youtube it. I bet you can learn more in an hour online than 2-3 weeks in a college classroom.
TL;DR: We aren't doomed like they always want us to believe. Some things will have to change though or it will only get worse. It's going to actually take some teamwork for once and no more of this "I hate you because you're [Insert political party/religion/sexual orientation/etc. here]".
Side note: I would recommend picking up any kind of basic scripting language at the least, regardless of your current profession, consider it an insurance for the future and a tool to increase your own productivity for the present. Applies less to physical labor jobs, but still a good skill to have regardless.
Should be separate from schools anyway. What are the chances of a student actually making a career out of a sport? It does happen, but it's rare. I'm not saying get rid of athletics all together, but schools waste a ton of money on competing. Something that would be better done by a community league of some sorts, separate from the school system.
Why is it so hard for the test track to be outside the place where they're manufactured? When a car is done it would drive through a "course" by itself, since it is autonomous... or at least they want us to be believe it is. Can see the job description now: Driver required for autonomous vehicle test course, must be able to maintain the stability of the vehicle with automated cars on the road that may occasionally divert from their intended path. Comes with great benefits.
but seriously, Tests could be simulated with the same kind of course a drivers ed student supposedly goes through, and there's no reason these things shouldn't be able to drive themselves to an offsite storage facility, even if it is controlled roads or roads with caution signs. Simulations don't account for faults in the design or manufacturing.
I mean, as computers have gotten more advanced so has programming. There are multiple "layers" to it, some examples in order from low level to high level: assembly, c, c#/java/etc., html5/javascript/css. That doesn't even count the advancements in the IDEs that have come about because of it. So what's the next logical step? Javascript can already interpret other programming languages, like LUA... it's an endless cycle.
Text-to-speech and gesture recognition are still too slow, and drag-n-drop with shapes is still too inefficient and gets incredibly complex. Drawing on the other hand, probably mostly thanks to OCR and the endless desire for people to try to break CAPTCHAs, can be interpreted fairly well. It would give programming languages an entirely new form and be similar to drawing schematics.
Not saying it would be easy, but by using a digital pen pad or tablet the IDE could simplify it with reminders and yes, even auto-complete. It's digital. It's also not going to be for everyone. I personally would prefer to type.. but only because it's how I learned. I'd make a simple application out of it to try it, but that's probably as far as it'd get.
Exactly. It's actually a well known fact that Google sucks at marketing their own stuff. A perfect example is their Nexus One phone.
The leader of marketing (and brainwashing) is (IMHO) Apple, because no matter what it is, they can spin it to get people to buy it. Apple could probably find a way to successfully market dog shit if they wanted to.
I hope this does pass, just so that when one of the people pushing it call the IT guy for a computer problem that could be critical to their job they can respond with: "Sorry, I've already worked all my hours, and you made overtime illegal. I'll be back in next week."
So does this mean games could get easier when I'm about to throw the controller at the wall? because that seems counter productive to Sony, who makes money when I have to go buy a new controller.
I can confirm this. I just went to WoW's site and signed up for a free trial and it did not ask for a credit card or anything. Although, I think it used to at one point in time.
Anyway, there is a major difference in how Blizzard, Netflix, and other sites that offer "free trials" work compared to Video Professor. When you sign up for a free trial at Netflix, it makes sure you are aware that it is a 2 week trial and that afterwards you will be billed. I went to Video Professor's website, and the only time it even mentions the word trial is in the fine print on the left side. If you are aware that it will bill you then it should not be considered a scam, but Video Professor doesn't even make it sound like a subscription, let alone a trial. Then again, who needs Video Professor anyway? eHow and Youtube have tons of videos on how to do pretty much whatever. Its just getting the word out to the non-tech-savvy crowd that free alternatives do exist.
Do you have any idea why they released Chrome Frame in the first place? Its because Google got tired of Microsoft not meeting web standards. Google will be releasing Wave soon and the majority of the population would not be able to use it because IE does not support HTML5. Chrome Frame is just as secure as IE if not more, not to mention, if a bug or exploit is found with Chrome or Chrome Frame, it takes Google hours to days to push out a fix.
"There's just no reason to get this installed in corporate networks where IE6 is being used"
Do you have any clue what Chrome Frame even does? It does not force EVERY website to use itself. Only websites that request it or websites that you told to use it. And believe it or not, there are a lot of newer applications in the business environment that do not work with IE6 or even IE7/8.
"anyplace where IE8 is being used (surface of attack expanded in exchange for little benefit)"
I guess you are unaware of exactly how much IE8 does not include compared to Firefox/Safari/Chrome, and your obviously not a web developer. Most of the time websites have to have code dedicated for IE otherwise the website will not work right. Google is sick of Microsoft not following standards and them as well as everyone else having to waste their time to make patches so it will work in IE.
This is part of the point that everyone seems to be missing. Not only does the OS get upgraded, but the hardware does too. I bet when win2k was released it was moderately fast on moderate hardware. Windows XP did the same when it came out.
When you try to install Vista on your XP machine with 512mb to 1gb of memory and a 1.5-2ghz processor then yeah, its going to be slower.
I have Windows 7 installed on both my laptop and my desktop, and I noticed a performance increase on both. XP -> Vista had a larger performance gap, but once hardware caught up (and SP1 fixed a few things) the OS ran fairly smoothly.
I work for an IT department and if I remember correctly, when XP came out, we didn't upgrade for a long time and mostly had windows 98 or 2000 because XP ran slower.
Stop trying to use an up to date OS with way out of date hardware and you may notice that it isn't so slow after all.
(No, I'm not a Microsoft fanboy, but I'm sick of people complaining and expecting the latest software to run on their old school hardware)
Its simple. They want market-share for their browser so they will allow extensions such as AdBlock. If people are going to go through the trouble of blocking ads then they are going to do it whether its through a proxy or an extension.
So yes, you will most likely see out of the box compatibility with AdBlock for Chrome.
Originally Google Chrome used the WinHTTP library, which is native to Windows. In the currently dev build (2.0.156.*) it now has its own implementation of the HTTP network protocol so it will compile on mac and linux.
If they are going to be capping the monthly usage what about services like NetFlix that offer (now unlimited for some plans) video streaming? These videos are obviously going to be a good size (probably 300mb-1gb, haven't tried it personally). I also heard that iTunes is letting you rent movies via download. All these new services are coming out that require heavy bandwidth, and the ISPs response is to cap it? If they do cap it, what kind of cap are we talking about. I currently have a 10mbps connection and pay $70/mo for it.. if its capped at 10-20gb/mo (although I probably would never use that). That pretty much limits you to what you can do... I didn't pay extra for a faster line so I could download less...
Slashdot Mirror
With the same bandwidth Google Fiber offers? Good luck.
That entirely depends on how Google plans to implement it. From what I understood, Comcast took routers people already had and created a separate WiFi off of them. With all of the security vulnerabilities in routers these days, who's to say they couldn't gain access to the actual network? Then there's also the question of whether it shares the same external IP address, bandwidth cap, speed, etc.. Plus, if they were to put the public hotspots outside of the home but still attached to their equipment it would be a whole different story.
Personally I think it's kind of funny. The wireless giants decided to regulate us with bandwidth caps and nickel/dime us to death, now it's biting them in the ass. If they do pull this off then you know every ISP out there will try something similar, putting a huge strain on the wireless industry and maybe even forcing them into an infrastructure provider instead of service provider.
I say screw em, sign me up for the first alternative that works.
The problem is no one trusts the US anymore, they've been lying this whole time (NSA). The actions and media currently do not add up for it to be North Korea. For starters, what exactly would North Korea benefit? They had already publicly said that it was insulting, and there is no way they could prevent the movie from getting out.
Possible people that could benefit:
- The makers of the movie (or maybe Sony screwed them)
- "Anonymous", as in online activists that are pro net neutrality. The terrorist threat basically forced them to release it online, which is the first time that's happened from a major studio.
- Google. Sony is a part of the MPAA and after the leaked emails they accused Sony of astroturfing. The MPAA is currently costing Google quite a bit of money in both wasted time and advertising.
- The United States, any branch of the government could have played a role. Even contracting it out to a 3rd party. Easy excuse to blame it on NK. The FBI could also use the attack as a "cyber 9/11" in the sense that it could be used for cyber-security laws.
- North Korea, if they were really that upset over the movie. Seems unlikely... they should know the power of a DDOS on them.
- Another country that would benefit from us getting involved in a conflict with North Korea, which could be anyone.
That's just the ones I can think of, but NK just doesn't seem to make sense.
Programming isn't English. Pretty sure everyone at some point in time has changed their sentences up and overlooked a capital letter or single apostrophe, for whatever reason. That's also what syntax highlighting is for. How many software developers do you know use Notepad or equivalents? Sure it's doable, but why would you?
First, they aren't closing their stores. The cinemas refused to show the movie. They are still showing every other movie. As far as the $42 million, I'm sure they have insurance, and if anything they could change the character's name. At what point in the past have they used the name of someone that was still alive and in power in that negative of a way? I'm not pro NK by any means, but I am content with not unnecessarily provoking them by directly calling them out.
On the other hand, how much did the Target and Home Depot hack cost?
Target - Estimated by McAffee at $100 billion or more, but as of Oct 6th Target estimated $146 million. The cost of replacing the debit/credit cards alone supposedly exceeds $200 million.
Home Depot - As of September 18th, they estimated the cost to be $62 million. This attack also affected people's cards and there is a pending lawsuit against them.
So much for that theory? Both have well exceeded the $42 million mark and it's not even the final sum. So how can you justify Sony deserving the attention and not the others that were hit?
As for being primarily located in Japan, it's understandable that they do most of their business in the states. However, Japan has been almost completely silent. Barely even a mention of it.
For the film, no. To sacrifice a film to be able to claim "Cyber 9/11" for a corporation that isn't even primarily located in the US? It wouldn't shock me. The general public (including politicians) will be afraid now and more likely to enact laws to benefit Sony.
Do I think it was Sony? No, but as others have said.. something isn't adding up. Seriously, they could of used a different name. Why did it have to be Kim Jong-un?
# Conspiracy past this line
Sony was extremely quick to call it a Cyber 9/11. Almost makes me wonder if they were involved in the original 9/11... which also has a lot of questions attached to it. Who better to control the population than the politico-media complex that includes Sony. They have already shown the lengths they will go to with the likes of SOPA/CISPA/etc.. Obama has strong ties with Hollywood as well.
Thinking the same... I mean Target was hit, Home Depot, Chase, etc.. No one made a big deal about it until the MAFIAA got hit. Now it's suddenly a cyber 9/11? Sony is the only one to blame here.. They have been hit MULTIPLE times and still failed to secure their networks. It did however shed a lot of light on the questionable practices they're using to attack the internet and Google.
It's kind of sad, but I'm more inclined to believe North Korea than our own government on this one. Sony isn't even in the US... It's primarily based out of Japan. Where is Japan's response? They've barely even mentioned the incident. Honestly, I wouldn't even put it past Sony or another MAFIAA member doing it. A cyber 9/11 would benefit them in the sense that it would provide the fear-mongering to enact exactly what Sony wants.
I apologize for doing other things while trying to respond and not getting the grammar 100% perfect, I didn't realize that a Slashdot comment was the same as publishing an article or book. lol.
You just proved my point though. You were more focused on whether or not 1-2 words were capitalized or pluralized correctly than what it actually said. Take the advice or don't, I promise I won't lose any sleep over it. Maybe next time you will reply with something that takes a little bit more thought behind it, not just skimming through it for typos.
I don't think they're advocating the minimum raise increase - seems like the complete opposite. I would have to agree, Increasing the minimum wage and making it 10 times more difficult to hire/fire people isn't the solution. It's a short sighted patch that's destined to fail. Tax rates also don't help. Surely they are aware that increasing the minimum wage also increases the tax revenue they bring in, since it can potentially bump people into higher tax brackets.
Anyway, point is the majority of the people that make minimum wage are uneducated. A good part of that may be their fault, but our education system is currently crap. I already mentioned this below in relation to the article, but long story short high school is a repeat of middle school and college is a gigantic scam that produces graduates that have 10,000-100,000 in debt. There are some schools/colleges that are exceptions but they are rare.
To start - I'm not an economist, however I am a software developer and have grown up with a technology and education background.
In the short term (5-10 years) I don't see this being that big of a threat. We may be capable of it soon but actual implementation takes a really long time, especially on a large enough scale to hit the entire economy. Hell, a lot of businesses are still using software that requires Java 6, or a really old version of IE. That doesn't even count how much software hasn't been updated from XP but just "hacked" to work with Windows 7. With that said, the jobs will not go away, just shift like they always have. The shift may be more substantial this time, but it's still a shift.
For example, Taxis.. I don't see people fully trusting taxi's to drive us around for at least another 8-15 years. The Taxi driver will just need to be educated on how to override it when/if it does mess up and they could slowly shift toward more of a personal assistant role or entertainment for the drive. I know it's almost unheard of now-a-days, but offering a certain level of (human) customer service will go a long way. For the economic side - people that repaired VHS and other outdated tech also had to adapt. You can't blame DVD or Blueray for it, it's adapt or die - aka life.
Personally I feel like the problem isn't the AI and robotics that are on the way, it's the crap that we call an education system. High school is a complete waste of time, literally a repeat of middle school with added bull@#$% complexities that don't actually help outside of high school. Teachers are often simply baby sitters and aren't allowed to teach outside of the pre-defined curriculum. On the other side, college is ridiculously expensive and doesn't guarantee a job when you graduate, nor a legitimate education depending on where you go. Hell, the closest university to me teaches intro to Java/Programming on PAPER, as in you have to write out your program with a pencil. All of this technology and change requires an education to keep up, but the baseline for education seems to be dropping. Sure, there is Youtube which has been more of a game changer than most people probably know. People spend a few minutes to an hour of their time to upload a video and suddenly millions can find it and learn from it. Want to learn C++? Youtube it. Want to learn how to bake a cake? Youtube it. I bet you can learn more in an hour online than 2-3 weeks in a college classroom.
TL;DR: We aren't doomed like they always want us to believe. Some things will have to change though or it will only get worse. It's going to actually take some teamwork for once and no more of this "I hate you because you're [Insert political party/religion/sexual orientation/etc. here]".
Side note: I would recommend picking up any kind of basic scripting language at the least, regardless of your current profession, consider it an insurance for the future and a tool to increase your own productivity for the present. Applies less to physical labor jobs, but still a good skill to have regardless.
Should be separate from schools anyway. What are the chances of a student actually making a career out of a sport? It does happen, but it's rare. I'm not saying get rid of athletics all together, but schools waste a ton of money on competing. Something that would be better done by a community league of some sorts, separate from the school system.
I feel like the robots would reason with each other before humans would. Sad but seemingly true.
Why is it so hard for the test track to be outside the place where they're manufactured? When a car is done it would drive through a "course" by itself, since it is autonomous... or at least they want us to be believe it is. Can see the job description now: Driver required for autonomous vehicle test course, must be able to maintain the stability of the vehicle with automated cars on the road that may occasionally divert from their intended path. Comes with great benefits.
but seriously, Tests could be simulated with the same kind of course a drivers ed student supposedly goes through, and there's no reason these things shouldn't be able to drive themselves to an offsite storage facility, even if it is controlled roads or roads with caution signs. Simulations don't account for faults in the design or manufacturing.
Manual Override
I mean, as computers have gotten more advanced so has programming. There are multiple "layers" to it, some examples in order from low level to high level: assembly, c, c#/java/etc., html5/javascript/css. That doesn't even count the advancements in the IDEs that have come about because of it. So what's the next logical step? Javascript can already interpret other programming languages, like LUA... it's an endless cycle.
Text-to-speech and gesture recognition are still too slow, and drag-n-drop with shapes is still too inefficient and gets incredibly complex. Drawing on the other hand, probably mostly thanks to OCR and the endless desire for people to try to break CAPTCHAs, can be interpreted fairly well. It would give programming languages an entirely new form and be similar to drawing schematics.
Not saying it would be easy, but by using a digital pen pad or tablet the IDE could simplify it with reminders and yes, even auto-complete. It's digital. It's also not going to be for everyone. I personally would prefer to type.. but only because it's how I learned. I'd make a simple application out of it to try it, but that's probably as far as it'd get.
Exactly. It's actually a well known fact that Google sucks at marketing their own stuff. A perfect example is their Nexus One phone.
The leader of marketing (and brainwashing) is (IMHO) Apple, because no matter what it is, they can spin it to get people to buy it. Apple could probably find a way to successfully market dog shit if they wanted to.
I hope this does pass, just so that when one of the people pushing it call the IT guy for a computer problem that could be critical to their job they can respond with: "Sorry, I've already worked all my hours, and you made overtime illegal. I'll be back in next week."
So if there's ever a security breach or data loss or privacy concerns or whatever else could go wrong, they can blame it on Microsoft.
So does this mean games could get easier when I'm about to throw the controller at the wall? because that seems counter productive to Sony, who makes money when I have to go buy a new controller.
I can confirm this. I just went to WoW's site and signed up for a free trial and it did not ask for a credit card or anything. Although, I think it used to at one point in time.
Anyway, there is a major difference in how Blizzard, Netflix, and other sites that offer "free trials" work compared to Video Professor. When you sign up for a free trial at Netflix, it makes sure you are aware that it is a 2 week trial and that afterwards you will be billed. I went to Video Professor's website, and the only time it even mentions the word trial is in the fine print on the left side. If you are aware that it will bill you then it should not be considered a scam, but Video Professor doesn't even make it sound like a subscription, let alone a trial. Then again, who needs Video Professor anyway? eHow and Youtube have tons of videos on how to do pretty much whatever. Its just getting the word out to the non-tech-savvy crowd that free alternatives do exist.
Do you have any idea why they released Chrome Frame in the first place? Its because Google got tired of Microsoft not meeting web standards. Google will be releasing Wave soon and the majority of the population would not be able to use it because IE does not support HTML5. Chrome Frame is just as secure as IE if not more, not to mention, if a bug or exploit is found with Chrome or Chrome Frame, it takes Google hours to days to push out a fix.
"There's just no reason to get this installed in corporate networks where IE6 is being used"
Do you have any clue what Chrome Frame even does? It does not force EVERY website to use itself. Only websites that request it or websites that you told to use it. And believe it or not, there are a lot of newer applications in the business environment that do not work with IE6 or even IE7/8.
"anyplace where IE8 is being used (surface of attack expanded in exchange for little benefit)"
I guess you are unaware of exactly how much IE8 does not include compared to Firefox/Safari/Chrome, and your obviously not a web developer. Most of the time websites have to have code dedicated for IE otherwise the website will not work right. Google is sick of Microsoft not following standards and them as well as everyone else having to waste their time to make patches so it will work in IE.
This is part of the point that everyone seems to be missing. Not only does the OS get upgraded, but the hardware does too. I bet when win2k was released it was moderately fast on moderate hardware. Windows XP did the same when it came out. When you try to install Vista on your XP machine with 512mb to 1gb of memory and a 1.5-2ghz processor then yeah, its going to be slower. I have Windows 7 installed on both my laptop and my desktop, and I noticed a performance increase on both. XP -> Vista had a larger performance gap, but once hardware caught up (and SP1 fixed a few things) the OS ran fairly smoothly. I work for an IT department and if I remember correctly, when XP came out, we didn't upgrade for a long time and mostly had windows 98 or 2000 because XP ran slower. Stop trying to use an up to date OS with way out of date hardware and you may notice that it isn't so slow after all. (No, I'm not a Microsoft fanboy, but I'm sick of people complaining and expecting the latest software to run on their old school hardware)
Its simple. They want market-share for their browser so they will allow extensions such as AdBlock. If people are going to go through the trouble of blocking ads then they are going to do it whether its through a proxy or an extension. So yes, you will most likely see out of the box compatibility with AdBlock for Chrome.
Originally Google Chrome used the WinHTTP library, which is native to Windows. In the currently dev build (2.0.156.*) it now has its own implementation of the HTTP network protocol so it will compile on mac and linux.
If they are going to be capping the monthly usage what about services like NetFlix that offer (now unlimited for some plans) video streaming? These videos are obviously going to be a good size (probably 300mb-1gb, haven't tried it personally). I also heard that iTunes is letting you rent movies via download. All these new services are coming out that require heavy bandwidth, and the ISPs response is to cap it? If they do cap it, what kind of cap are we talking about. I currently have a 10mbps connection and pay $70/mo for it.. if its capped at 10-20gb/mo (although I probably would never use that). That pretty much limits you to what you can do... I didn't pay extra for a faster line so I could download less...