Julian Assange has been the subject of a lot of debate recently. He is the one responsible for leaking sensitive US documents through a site known as WikiLeaks. I have not seen the website, so I don't know exactly what material he released. Apparently he released a document recently that showed how NATO had secretly decided to defend Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. These documents seem to be aimed at Russia, whose ambassador to NATO demanded that NATO drop the agreement.
This document strains US relations with Russia, and could lead to a massive problem worldwide.
Should the site be allowed to continue, though? I don't really know. This country was in fact founded on free speech, so can they make him keep his mouth shut?
But on the other hand, he is releasing documents that weren't meant to be seen by the world. So the real problem here, in my opinion, is how he's getting these documents. Obviously there's a lack in security somewhere, so perhaps that needs to be fixed first.

Edit: This article was just posted and it seems to be closer to how I look at the situation:
http://tinyurl.com/37a3fy4

Microsoft has elected to allow users to have free antovirus sofware. A bold move by Microsoft considering their usual tactic of squeezing users for all their worth. But is it a good idea? It's very basic protection made very accessible. It's not like top notch or anything, but it's a good start. It's easy for users to get ahold of, and it doesn't have all the features of other programs.
So Trend Micro and Panda Security want to complain about it, saying that it will monopolize the security industry simply because it's by Microsoft. I believe this may be the case for some users, but others will realize the program's limitations very quickly and gladly pay for better programs.
In all, it seems like a pretty good move for the internet community as a whole. It's going to help protect the everyday user who doesn't need an expensive antivirus suite to fend off basic threats. But for other users, it simply won't be enough. Users will continue to pay for the antivirus programs they've been using for years. And new users will be able to make a choice between basic protection and something better.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20021437-264.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody;3n
I don't really know what to say about this article. Android has that many security risks? I had no idea.
But in reality, what do people do with their android phones? Access vaults with secure information inside? I haven't seen anything like this. People use their android phones for casual conversations and playing games. Occasionally one will use their android phone for productivity apps, like spreadsheets and such, but how often?
Android, being open source, is bound to have some issues, yes. But it runs very well considering the number of developers who try to put their ideas into it.
Another thing, it has a lower defect density than the industry average. Not just lower, but less than half of the average. That's also pretty impressive considering the Android OS is less than two years old. Companies like Apple and RIM that have been on the scene for years have the same problems. But why haven’t they shown up in the media? That’s what I want to know.

So I get on Google Trends to see what's popular today. The results were quite unsurprising.
What's popular today? The same things that are always popular. That's right. Sports, celebrities, and TV. How does Google Trends tell us what's popular anyway? The answer to that is simple: It reads a lot. Google knows what's popular because it's a very widely used search engine and remembers what it searches for. Also it checks social networking sites, like Twitter, to see what is currently being mentioned.
Google Trends is actually pretty intelligent. The results are updated constantly, they change automatically when the trends change. Which in turn keeps us, the consumers, updated as to what's popular. It's really pretty convenient. Why does it matter what's popular, though? Why do we need to be updated constantly? I don't understand why we can't just figure out what's popular on our own instead of being told by Google. But I still think it's pretty cool that Google can keep track of all this information.

After reading the Wikipedia article about The Social Network, all I have to say is this:
Wow.
500 million users and they make a movie about the guy? Even better, a movie that is inaccurate for the most part? I just don't understand. It even seems like he himself didn't approve of the movie being made about him. That's just kind of strange.
The movie seems to have a lot of action considering what it's actually about. Mark Zuckerberg himself says that he worked a lot harder than it shows in the movie. The reason for this is a guy sitting in front of a computer and coding all day would make for a very boring movie, but they should have included at least some scenes of him working in the movie.
The response to the movie is apparently really good. All the controversy leading up to the movie has made it very successful.
I will most likely be seeing the movie, as it seems very interesting.