True but I mean at some point you have to just take that risk that you might somehow end up there either accidentally or on purpose. The assumption is that it is likely to get back to you even if someone does record you. For every person who gets to be "Internet famous" through having their epic fail shared on YouTube there are thousands, maybe even millions, of others who are relegated to complete obscurity and I like those odds. But that's me.

There's always the stalker/weirdo/blackmail situation to consider but, again, not all that likely to happen to any given individual and again I personally just play the odds. I also keep my nose clean and so lower my chances further by remaining an unattractive target. I still think that inventions like Google Glass are more beneficial than they are destructive and I will wait to see how it develops before making judgments about it.

I just don't see any evidence that this iteration would present those problems. It would be a slight exacerbation of the current issues surrounding cell phones at most. I will personally give the technology a chance and see how it falls out. I think that, right now, the benefits and advancement outweigh the potential risks. Maybe the 2015 or 2020 model will give me more pause.

If you have proof that not only is it always recording and doing something with that data I'd welcome it. However from what I understand at the moment, you have to command it before anyone's privacy is potentially compromised. Even the analysis feature, I can't working without at least implied consent (implied consent being ownership of a Google account) on the part of the other party. If it's connected to something like Google+ then only what they publicly share on Google+ will show up on your AR vision.

I don't normally reply to ACs but what I'm getting at with this one is that those are exceptions, not rules. I already said that weirdos and jerks were going to stick around (I used the word "creepers" but I figure the sentiment is the same). I do not deny that those situations occur and deserve to be dealt with but people who do not do those things should not be punished or ostracized for the crimes of a relative few.

"Technophiles," rather not "technologists."

Yes, this guy has a right to ban whatever he wants in his business but that isn't really the issue. You have to speak out loud for the damn things to do anything (assuming the advertising is accurate) i.e. "Start recording" "Take a picture" so it isn't like they're active all the time. People are not going to record your stupid dalliances because (and this may shock you): NO ONE CARES. They're going to record their own lives and experiences and share those with their circles of friends (Google-related pun unintended) and if your own stupidity is captured in the background you can't say crap about it in basically any venue. Also, if the uploads work the same way that the Instant Upload feature on smartphones does then those images (and presumably videos) are private by default anyway they are not "posted for the world to see" without human intervention. Have some trust in your fellow man for Christ's sake.

There will always be creepers, but to assume that absolutely everyone is hell bent on capturing your behavior or ruining your life is paranoid and vain. If you aren't in your own home you have no expectation of privacy. It is just that damn simple. What's more is that you're getting up in arms over the inadvertent capturing of your image. I mean do you sue the evening news if they happen to catch you in frame? You people are being far too paranoid. This isn't some conspiracy to rob you of privacy. If you are inadvertently captured in someone else's video your anonymity is not gone. As technologists, we should embrace these things and do our part to help construct a new etiquette for their use rather than donning tin-foil hats and hiding from the change.

I bought a Chromebook to act as a secondary machine after my laptop died. I wanted something that had decent battery life, a keyboard and the ability to connect to the internet. I wasn't looking to play games (I have a phone, tablet and desktop for that), I wasn't looking to do heavy graphics work (I don't do it) or even my music hobby (again, desktop). The Chromebook boots up in seconds and lasts more than six hours on a charge (comparing 1.5 hours on my previous laptop). The use of the Google Apps on the Chromebook (or any webapp) is just so much easier. It's just another option to have. It's for people who want to use cloud services and need quick access anywhere that sits between a tablet and a full-fledged laptop.

I am quite content to break the law. Something about unjust laws and so on and so forth. On the other hand, after I can get my hands on an unlocked phone, I don't think I'll purchase a locked phone again.

I agree. Get a Chromebook for her. It's quite nice as a little thing to get some typing done, browse the web, play solitaire or whatever. I've written whole papers in Google Docs and if she totally insists on desktop software like MS Word you can get it through the InstallFree Chrome app (does cost money for the MS products though). My personal suggestion is the Samsung one. I've owned the Samsung 5 Series Chromebook (specifically the "uprated" 550 version) for a while now and they make a sturdy little device.

I have taken lectures' worth of notes on my phone and tablet. Swipe-based QWERTY keyboards really do help out a lot in that regard. At least I have found that to be true. I've also typed lengthy emails and Facebook posts that way. It gets tiring at about 500 words or so.

It can use a VPN though I have never tried. Right now, Chromebooks cannot share their screen remotely using anything that I know of (including Chrome Remote Desktop).

Maybe he's from Boston?