What starkers says (truth btw) is relevant to the OS because if you can't trust google search, gmail, etc... (and you can't) then how are you supposed to trust their OS?

I dont think morals and ethics belong on the internet as a whole, keep it open to all bad or good, thats what have made it to what it is today. Sure enforce your morals and ethics on your site/community/forum/irc etc.. there they should apply where you are the king of your own island. Because not all have the same morals and ethics i mean why should we not follow a hardcore islamic activist's/kkk/conservative christian/buddhist monk/cartel leader ethic's instead of "yours".

If you have something you dont want anyone to know DONT post it on the internet...... simple...
If you write an opinion or info make sure you can stand tall for it.

Its the same as dont write your pin on your creditcard and leave it with your id.

If Google can access it then its the sites problem you can exclude pages from googles crawlers, its easy.

The robots.txt file can be used to stop a search engine spider from crawling all or part of your site. Create a robots.txt file in the main folder of your site which will direct the search engine spiders what they may and may not search. Spiders generally look for this file before doing anything.

So using a site that gives out confidential info could be equal to using a mechanic that puts diesel in your petrol car.. incompetent.

Orright, then, the Google OS can NOT be trusted because it's Google's practice to monitor your comings, goings and whereabouts, so it will phone home so that you can be targetted with ads.  Google's OS will most likely support ads somewhere within its GUI and there will most likely be no opt out because they will be hard coded so that programs like AdBlock Pro and NoScript are ineffective.

Also, Googles Chrome OS would become a lame duck when your internet connection was down and or when the 'cloud' was either undergoing maintenance or was experiencing tenchnical difficulties.  Furthermore, Google's cloud based OS could not host resource intensive programs for graphics creation/editing (Photoshop PSP) or anything that captures/edits video and or music, so people wanting to do some serious work on it would find it as useless as tits on a bull.

Better????

There might be a problem there... bull=male... so i guess it would be a belgian blue with commonly refered to as "bitch tits"??

And you take a bite first not me

http://desktop.google.com/

Expect this to be on the desktop of GoogleOS

It searchers and index files on your computer ...

Ahhh ok!    never had the pleasure of owning a pair so im not familiar with the terminology

Starkers I don't know why you are rehashing everything you have typed before. What happened to you with Google is not a typical situation.

In the end you are not going to change anyone's mind here. We will still continue to use Google search and Gmail.

Imagine if we quit using Windowblinds because one little thing about it wasn't right or made us angry and then never came back? Google still has a great search engine and Gmail is great.

And we will continue to sigh because you can't seem to drop it and admit that any search engine could have done the same thing.

Open your eyes. See the big picture. Google is just part of a bigger problem.

here ya go Zubuz

Exactly!  I mean, who in their right mind would give Google's phone home apps access to their files?  As it is, Google already has way too much power to intrude with its google-analytics every time your go on the net... a 'cloud' based OS with access to PC and personal files should be the last thing anyone would want, given Google's insatiable greed for data and the profit it derives from it.

Nor was what happened to my former brother-in law (not me) and isolated incident.  There have been numerous complaints over the years of Google overstepping the realms of decency regarding peoples privacy/personal information.  The fact is, Google is intrusive/invasive and it knows/accepts no boundaries.  There was no point... um, need for Google to collect that information on my former brother-in-law, then create a page on it.  It probably has interest to about half a dozen people at best, so what was the point... other than for Google to profit from the associated ads?

Sigh all you want!   The fact is, Yahoo did not produce those results, nor the sex toy ads.  It probably could have, but Yahoo refrained and didn't stoop so low.

Ah, finally, at least now you're admitting that Google IS a problem!  However, while Google is a part of the problem, as you say, Google exacerbates ithe problem considerably by going out of its way to collect as much data as it can (personal or otherwise, doesn't matter to them) to propogate more 'associated' ads to more people... the greater majority of whom are annoyed the crap out of by persistent (non-opt out of) ads popping up everywhere they go.

As for opening my eyes, well you need to do the same.  You pay more for products and services as a direct result of Google (and other) advertising... as do we all.  Contrary to popular belief... what Google will try to tell you, advertising does not significantly help improve sales/reduce prices. 

Need is the trigger to buy... not advertising, and being that most people are pissed at constant/frequent/in-your-face advertising, it is need that generates sales, not ads. For example, how many ads do you completely ignore because you have no want or need of the advertised product/service???  Exactly!  And you're not on your own there... billions ignore ads all the time... and many of those, like me, go out of their way to avoid them where ever possible.

Furthermore, the costs of advertising are horrendous (advertising execs are among the highest paid people in the World) and those costs are passed on to the consumer... you and I.  Does Google care about this... that associated advertising costs have priced us out of several consumer markets?  No, of course not, not while they're raking in 5 billion plus in net annual profit.

No, I disagree!  That may be the way it is, but once you compromise in one area of morality/scruples/ethics, then you lower the standard in all areas.  It effectively loewers our standards... and on the internet, that's when kiddie porn, terrorist and other criminal/anti-social sites can propogate/thrive with near immunity.  Given rising crime rates world-wide, muderers, rapists and child molesters being released from prison after grossly inadequate sentences, NO!  Our standards need lifting, not lowering.

Being as poor as I am that isn't possible. Top that off with Google ads are blocked.

As for your little comment about Yahoo you do know they are not as through on searches as Google right?

And once again you still don't get it. You blame Google for what happened to your ex brother in law. Guess what? Any other search engine COULD have done the same thing. This is NOT limited to just Google. Why can't you see that?

As I said though - your not going to change anyone's mind about using Google so you might as well give up.

As for the rest of your drivel your just beating a dead horse as we all know better. Your one bad experience dosen't make Google a bad company.

MS themselves have done bad things. Do you still use Windows even in spite of this?

Wise up. Admit this could have happened via another search engine.

Google STILL has the best search engine on the net. And earning money from ads is NOT a crime.

By the way I did a Google search on you. It came back with your personal info thanks to Wincustomize. No one to blame about data mining but yourself for posting it.

Ah, but you wouldn't be so poor if prices weren't hiked up as high through associated advertising costs... your dollar would go further without advertising cost.

Is that because your dollar doesn't go very far and you get green with envy at all them loverly things you can't afford ... or because you hate internet ads as much as I do???

Ah, but I do get it!  It's not about what they can do, but what they actually do. Sure, any other search engine could have produced those results... but none did.  That says to me that Google completely lacks integrity and is morally corrupt.

You know better, eh!  You know, then, that Google won't sell your information (something that is sensitive and possibly detrimental to your well-being) to the highest bidder... anyone willing to hand 'em a buck???  Don't be so naive as to think they never would... they're in the business of profitting from information.  Google is an evil Capitalist pig that cares nothing for your well being, nor anyone else's but its own.

Doesn't make it a good one, either. Once a company compromises its integrity, standards fall and it knows no boundaries. And I'll bet my lefty that my former brother-in-law's bad experience is only one of many, many more.

So it might be (depending on your point of view)... but at what cost?  At who's expense?  The results on my former brother-in-law (and the way they were portrayed) compromised his integrity.  To many they would have cast a shadow on his character.  Now tell me that's right!

No, it is not!  However, when a company lacks scruples, it becomes capable of doing anything... and when it neglects the privacy of others to derive profit, it becomes evil, pure and simple. Moreover, once it crosses one boundary, nothing is sacred and others soon fall due to the lure of the almighty dollar. 

So, kona, it's not about what Google is good at, it's about what it is bad at.  In Google's case, that is observing privacy, ethics and common decency.  Google puts profit above all else... robbing everybody (Peter) to pay (Paul) itself.