Can you call Google with this sort of problem with a Chromebook, or would you be calling the vendor?

Our office went 100% Google Plus for communications, and we did have a rep, but I was not aware that they supported the touchscreen devices.

I remember about a year ago that Apple and IBM announced that they would be coordinating in Enterprise and adopting IBM solutions. So I'd say that there may be big progress in the near future in this space. IBM has a lot of strengths where Apple is weak.

As someone who has done some tech support for schools using touch devices, I can say that your "enterprise management" wish list while important, isn't likely a big issue except for all but the largest school systems. In addition, some of the largest school systems seemed to have the most problem with technology. Most schools don't even have their WIFI set up in a reliable way.

The most important factor is reliability and robustness of the device. Our number one support call was clearing the cache on an iPad. People ran these things without ever clearing an app out of memory -- for years. I don't know of any other computing device in consumers hands that runs for years without a reset -- but apparently, iPads do it all the time in schools.

Not having a keyboard, being able to easily lock them down, and the quality of the build is what is making the iPad the defacto standard. Budget sensitive schools have of course TRIED using Android and Chrome and other bargain devices -- and they've gotten burned. Only the Palm and the iPad seem to have a reputation for lasting more than a year. But most of them will not be using enterprise anything for a few more years (I don't disagree that Apple needs to get their act together in that regard).

Sure, you can afford to buy two Chromebooks for the price of an iPad -- and you will have to.

There was panic over Ebola and fewer people in the US have died from it than have been killed by rubber ducks in bath tubs. We've spent at leas $4 Trillion going after terrorists for 9/11 which killed around 3,000 people. We've had more deaths from the flu or collateral damage from SWAT teams. Threats don't seem to be commensurate with their real effect on human life, but in how they manipulate public opinion and divert us from self empowerment. Humanity landed a craft on an asteroid and all most people knew was Kim Kardashian showed her butt on a magazine. Is this really about making money on advertising dollars or do we at some point wonder if there isn't a concerted effort to keep everyone ignorant and fearful?

If we spent our money making America better or the world a better place, we'd be more secure and the average American would be better off. Yes, terrorism is a jobs program -- but one that produces drag on the economy. Scanning each other with metal detectors doesn't teach a kid, it doesn't fix a bridge, it doesn't put a solar collector on a roof. In short; it's yet another way to suck money out of the economy and create support for that waste. Most people are convinced their jobs are vital, and are not created by regulation or makework -- but as we automate more, that's true of more and more people.

And this industry demands fear and insecurity -- if there is terrorist, they have to create one. I'm sure our drone strikes which happen far away from any oversight are creating a new crop of "people who just hate us for our freedom" (and not a lack of opportunity and living under fear and exploitation).

The path we are on is towards a dystopian future. We have to chance course, the same disease that is destroying our prosperity and disenfranchising 3rd world countries is killing the environment and basically making life suck for all but a few. The good news is that we can decide as a people to change this, the bad news is the media and the black box voting machines are owned by the same cabal that profits from the terror industry.

We live in a representative Democracy -- we are NOT SUPPOSED TO TRUST OUR GOVERNMENT. We are supposed to be informed and we decide. If I can't handle the truth -- then the truth is that someone got out of hand and was doing the wrong thing.

Security is when people have hope and opportunity -- the only reason you need to spy on people is if you plan to cheat and manipulate them. Unenlightened people think that everyone is untrustworthy and cannot handle the truth -- because they are projecting their own issues. It is obviously a controversial thing; but if America treated other people the way we wanted to be treated, we wouldn't need so much military and espionage. Of course, we invade countries for security purposes because they don't like being cheated out of resources. The same thing that harms other countries and causes a wealth gap and destruction of the environment is the same global cancer that is making America a miserable country to live in.

I think there is a significant turning point that is arriving and it's NOT the singularity that Kurzweil imagined with artificial intelligence. It's computers and robots that are "good enough" to replace most human jobs. There are still going to be jobs for the people who fix the robots, but we are well on our path to diminishing jobs in return for progress in technology. The shovel-ready jobs are going to go away. Checkout lines, fast food, security, transportation -- there are many fields where an automated "drone like" device would be good enough. It frees up labor to do other tasks; like fill out unemployment forms.

For some time, many jobs have really depended on "make work." Regulation is the #1 provider for jobs. How many jobs would we lose if Taxes became merely a percent of income above 1 million and the rest tariffs that only importers paid? Overnight, accountants, clerks and ancillary jobs related to tax would disappear. There'd still be a few jobs in the rarefied world of "really smart" to allow companies to skir their tax burdens.

Most of us are not paid on merit -- and never have been. Most income is related to where you stand in the bottleneck of money -- not your value to society, the sweat of your brow, or your intelligence (though nominally, you can truly fail in some tasks without it). Income is a policy and society decision -- and our current public awareness, political landscape and "free market" driven oligarchy are not even on the same page with what to do.

Our current system of "growth" is unsustainable -- as is our Free Market. A lot of people have not understood it and some people will never allow themselves to come to terms with that because they've been weened on the "miracle of the invisible hand" -- which only existed because of Socialist reforms and wealth transfer to the poor in the first place.

What do we do when 80 to 90% are unemployed and they still live in a "work or die" country? It seems to me that our laws are ready to treat everyone as a bad guy and crush them. There is no middle ground between public assistance and starve to death. So do people opt out or do the fight? That's the future I worry about and I see no clear resolution.

The same inequities and bad planning that are killing the planet are the same ones that cause most of the misery for most people. I'm amazed that in a short time "most" people on Slashdot have moved from a Libertarian mindset to a Progressive -- likely because the goldmine days of Programming have dried up and now they can't feel like the "world is my oyster" wunderkind. They've got limits, responsibilities and problems they cannot surmount on their own. So I don't think it's impossible that people take the next logical step.

The "Singularity" that I see is that point at which the world has to change or devolve into Chaos. The age of the Free Market is coming to a close. The age of un-managed resources is coming to a close. And some people aren't going to like not having their toys. There are two choices; quickly remove all the population that is unnecessary or share stuff and people work if they've got something of value to offer -- like in Star Trek.

I'm already annoyed at having to explain these simple and obvious realities but that's life.

Mod parent up to +11. Then mod them down -2 for swearing.

I think it's necessary to state the obvious that trolling is not stalking + INTERNET. Then sneak a dunce tag on the back of Congress weasels and Senator stooges who repeat this because their backers are large communications companies who want to kill net neutrality one "save the children" at a time.

I think in some regard that a Troll is in the eye of the beholder.

Someone saying "You are all a bunch of Nazis!" may be considered a troll, but if it's on a NeoNazi website talking about the 2000 Year reign -- well, the boot might fit.

To me a troll is someone who is provoking a negative reaction on purpose -- it's a subtle difference between someone just angry and ranting -- which I have done. Then again, it can be annoying sense of humor, and the person getting "tweaked" is over-reacting. So there we get into intent.

There are also corporations who pretend to be unconnected and push back on ideas or plant memes. Is that considered a Troll too?

As soon as we pass a law that can't really be fairly enforced, we invite arbitrary enforcement.

Who DOESN'T think such a law will be abused to give power and cover to the same people who already abuse power to give themselves cover?

Well if you've got a neckbearded old man posing as a young girl is that "intent" or is that mistaken identity? Should we crush the person with harsh police state laws because they wanted to hurt the feelings of a young girl, or do we crush the guy who pretends to be a young girl, or do we crush the young girl for letting someone steal her identity like the banks do and then she goes to court to prove she didn't make those posts and those purchases that someone gave them credit to do -- like investing in a sketchy stock, but you're a bank and you've made both bankruptcy and defending your identity impossible -- so screw 'em all!

All I know is someone will be crushed and the world won't get any better -- but more funding for the Po-Po so it's all good. Would you like air in that jail cell? That will cost you...

I like this quote;
"which expands what constitutes online harassment, could help put the pressure on harassers."/I.
Someone is going Hurray -- who doesn't realize that the only people who can actually afford to go after online harassment are corporations and trust fund babies.

I fear our justice system far more than ali Cakes or the latest blowback; it's either Ebola or Icicle -- I'm too busy ignoring the TV news to know for sure.

"So is he still alive, or is his body buried in concrete?"

So instead of showing the security flaws, they need to abscond with enough money to pay for a few candidates.

Hackers; share the wealth!

Put me down for a trillion-ish, and I won't see anything wrong.

Just like copyright. When a few Disney characters come near being free to market, they'll extend copyright beyond Walt Disney's "sell by date" for his frozen head.

What I learned today;
So instead of embarrassing abusive power hungry security morons, it's better to just "stand your ground" -- in a Florida kind of way?

The "Supply Side" I mention is an EXAMPLE of Reaganomics. If you want to quote Reagan on government, taxation and the economy, it's FUCKING IMPORTANT to note that; he tripled the debt. He lowered taxes on everyone (especially the wealthy) and then doubled them on the self-employed, increased SS taxes and created the homeless problem in America.

Oh, and Reagan grew the government, supported intrusion into your life (Moral Majority giving support), sold out to the banks and the Mid-east Oil cartels. Should I go on? A few people made a good deal on the stock market and for that it was "a Miracle." Never mind that Clinton did a much better job growing the stock market and investment increased when taxes on stocks increased -- they decreased when Bush reduced them and resulted in more foreign investment.

I'm a bit reactionary because I live in a country of morons like you who say; "I'm a fiscal conservative" and act like they are the smartest person in the room -- then they can't make one comment to support your economic ideas. THAT is my point -- did you read it? My reaction to the Reagan quote was to point out that it was nonsense, and it's coming from a high tax, government growing hypocrite who supported Supply Side economics -- the biggest robber baron piece of crap the world has ever invented. And nobody quotes what Obama "supporters" think -- they quote what Reaganites say to each other that Obama supporters think. Real Democrats think Obama is a Republican but he's better than the alternative -- that's NOT a compliment. It's just our system is too corrupt with Oligarchy to do any better.

I think the other side of the problem here is because people read or hear a few stories like this -- they feel persecuted. There''s 24 hour news and 24 hour blogs and writers have to get people to notice them.

it's just filler -- and it will be until the mainstream media stops making news a profit center. There are important issues in this world and our media is studiously avoiding them. So what's safe to talk about that doesn't risk hurting the economic interests of an increasingly influential series of interlocking companies? Rehash the same stale discussions that we've been gnawing on for 30 years.

There are men who listen to talk radio and think they are persecuted, there are women who think they are being ignored -- and the rest of us who are sane and wise know that everyone is being ignored and persecuted because we live in a hostile free market world that isn't handing out any free passes unless your dad's name is on the building.