The people at Google believe that if something can be quantified and identified, it MUST mean sometime. In the example given in the article summary, the only reason Google would assume that certain shots are "special" is that it happens to have the capability to identify certain locations, so OBVIOUSLY those would matter. Right? No, not at all. Google doesn't know what I want. Google doesn't know what I think is special. Google doesn't know what I think. The ONLY way it can have any hope of even making intelligent guesses about those things is to become more and more intrusive in the data it gathers about me. I don't want that. I don't want some collecting that much information about me. I don't even want some algorithm trying to figure out what matters to me. I like the idea of certain things being programmable. I like making the UIs to those things easier to understand. But I want to be in control. I don't want Google or any other company doing things because it thinks it understands me and what I want. That's prelude to Big Brother, at best.

All T-Mobile has done is separate the cost of the phone from the cost of the service. You can quit using the service at any time, but you still have to finish paying for the hardware you've purchased. How is that deceptive?

There will be a few real-world uses for Glass that are positive and cost-effective. For the vast majority, this device is a non-starter at any price, IMO. If you want to walk around pretending you're in a sci-fi movie, yeah, it's probably great if you're a 14-year-old, but most people aren't going to have a use for this AND they're not going to want to be seen wearing it AND it's not going to be socially acceptable. Once again, this is technology desperately in search of a problem to solve to justify its existence.

If you have a Mac, there's a standard user account called Guest. This account has privileges to do normal user things, but can't install apps or make other changes to the computer. (And the account has no access to other users' data.) No matter what the guest user does in that account, it can't hurt you —and the entire Guest account is in a fresh state each time you log in to it. It's designed exactly for something such as this, and it works very, very well in real use.

It's hard to tell whether you're truly ignorant or you're just trolling. Apple was never a part of the KHTML project, so they never worked with those guys. They simply picked up their code and started using it when they wanted to launch a browser. Apple and Google have been working together on WebKit for years now, and Google is splitting off to go its own way. The two situations aren't even close to analogous if you actually know what happened. This would only be similar if Google had never had a browser of its own and never contributed to WebKit and then announced that they were going to create an engine of their own based on WebKit. There's nothing WRONG with it, but I'm amazed at how fanboys treat the two companies very differently and have "selective" memories about the past.

If Apple had done this, people would be shouting about Apple trying to do something "proprietary" and making sure they were incompatible. Or some such idiocy. But people who love Google are willing to make up whatever excuse they need to make up to support almost anything their beloved company does. Some Apple users have been insufferable apologists for everything the company does, but the Google apologists are just as bad, if not worse, these days.

Chrome is a technology looking for a problem to solve, at least for me and for most people. Yes, Google (and maybe some other companies) would be happy if they were constantly controlling the apps you were using, but I so no advantage in that approach to me. (And I see serious disadvantages.) I have a MacBook Air that I'm very, very happy with. It's simple to use and manage. It's small and light. Why would I possibly be better-served by comparable hardware running a browser-based OS? It makes no sense from my point of view. I don't want it and I'm not buying it. If it happens to suit your needs, great. But for most people, native apps running completely without an online connection when necessary are the way to go.

The headline says, "Microsoft Mulling Smaller Windows 8 Tablets," but the truthful headline would be, "Many people are speculating that Microsoft is considering smaller Win 8 tablet." The headline as its written has no credibility, because nobody involved with the story has a clue what Microsoft's plans are.

If the government says it's illegal to make this information available — which seems like a clear First Amendment violation — it won't matter, because nobody is going to be able to stop the plans from floating around for people to find. Governments are having trouble understanding that they can't control digital "things" as they could easily control physical goods.

If you think that a government that kills and imprisons people for wanting to choose something different is a "similar philosophy" to a company which makes a product in a way that you wouldn't choose, you're as stupid as he is. That's the whole freaking point. It's not a "similar philosophy." One philosophy is, "You will do what we tell you." The other is, "Here's what we think is the best product possible; we want you to choose to buy it."

You're a moron who's just unhappy that he can't convince everyone to make the same decisions that he does. People make choices. You're just irritated that more people don't agree with you — and that you can't force them to do what you prefer.

This is one of the most idiotic comments ever posted here, but some people hate Apple so much that it's currently modded as "insightful." To compare Apple to a totalitarian government isn't just ignorant, but it's offensive, not offensive to Apple or its customers, but to the millions and millions of people around the world who truly DON'T have a choice. If you don't like what Apple sells, you simply don't buy the product. If you want something other than what they Chinese government allows you to have, you can be put into prison or killed for asking for it. In a market economy, you have choices. Whatever Apple makes in a category is a choice. You have others. If you truly think you have no choice because Apple provides A DIFFERENT CHOICE THAN THE ONE YOU WANT, you're an idiot and a fool.

You're not only a moron, but you're rude as well. Interesting.

As an iPhone user, I can't see why I'd possibly want Firefox. We've really reached the point that browsers are commodities for almost every user. I know some people are so in love with the idea of user-selectible choice that they can't imagine that a unified user experience is a good thing, but for the vast majority it's the best way to go. If you truly have some specialized need for a browser function that doesn't come with the WebKit-based Safari, you're probably already using another platform anyway. This just isn't the big deal it was back in the day when some companies thought they could control the web by controlling the browser. But some people haven't figured that out.

Unfortunately, a lot of nerds are under the impression that great products can be built and sold for almost nothing. These same people believe that if a product is more expensive, you're "obviously" just paying for high profit for the maker and paying extra for a brand name. It's bizarre that such delusions continue to be so relatively widespread. The sort of person who believes these things buys according to specs and laughs at the notion that one product can provide a better experience than another because of better components and better design. (Hint: Design doesn't just mean what a product looks like, but rather everything about it.)