From what I've read so far, they have gone out of their way to implement ChromeOS without using X Windows and instead going with something proprietary and in-house.

It just seems odd that they are also releasing a server that dishes out X Windows sessions remotely. This must not be meant to integrate with Chrome OS. I guess they could still have a client for it in Chrome OS, but it still just seems odd to me.

need... mod... points...

is that some type of ASSHAT?

Not sure where the bad attitude is coming from, I never suggested that these things *do* happen, just asking about the potential for them to happen. And my first question was just that, a question, if it absolutely relies on google's service to route your call through.

Additionally, it introduces ANOTHER variable of service into the mix. Now I rely on my telco to work, with this, I rely on my telco AND Google to work.

And Google's track record with gmail being up and down in my own personal experience is not great. Nothing major, but every so often its down for a minutes.

But my main concern is what would happen if they just decide to stop developing this service? Is it easy to go back to straight telco? I relied on Google Notebook quite heavily and a few months ago they just stopped developing it.

I want to use this service, I'm just asking questions about concerns that I have before deciding to use it or not.

You kind of came off as a bit dickish, and i'm not sure how it was warranted.

Can you please elaborate?

Just curious, if you are using a Google Voice number as your "one number to rule them all", and the service is down, what happens? Even if it goes down temporarily (as Gmail does constantly, ahem) does that mean incoming calls cant get to you?

Also, since Google is obviously able to hijack the voice audio, what's to say they aren't listening to / recording calls? I realize they "aren't evil" but, still.

I like the concept of this service, but don't want to have my incoming calls relying on Google's service to make it through.

So maybe everyone in rural Michigan drives a truck, and therefore it's a non-issue. But if more and more places start doing this, it really has an effect on people who have given up cars and taken to more environmentally-friendly motorcycles.

I agree that this guy probably wants to be homeless at this point in time.

But he's hardly off the grid if he's using Twitter, Facebook, et al!

Same here. I actually don't use it daily, but will bust it out and use it for a few weeks at a time when I get the urge. Back in the late nineties I came across a PS/2 one, so I promptly swapped it out for my old AT one. With PS/2 to USB adapters, I'm set :)

Apple's brand may be quite valuable now, but back in the aforementioned mid-nineties, it was quite a different story. They were on the verge of bankrupcy and brought Jobs in to try to sort things out (which he clearly excelled at). Allowing Mac clones was at the time an act of desperation, to try to squeeze out a little extra buck on OEM software sales and get more Apple software into the homes of consumers.

But I do agree that the clones were mostly junk, and as soon as Apple saw that it was hurting their brand more than anything, they immediately stopped licensing them.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

I remember back on Usenet, the masses were decrying the commercialization of the Internet. Everyone said it would ruin the internet, the minute big corporations figured out what this newfangled superhighway thingie was, and more importantly, how to profit off of it.

Such a paradox it created. "Hey great, I can click one button and a product shows up two days later! How convenient!" "But on the other hand, I don't want ads all over the web!" Hmm....

It started with banner ads. Then pop-ups. Then shady redirects. Now, anti-net neutrality, pro-DRM lawyers are being appointed to the cabinet and white house staff. So now, they will profit over who gets to even be on the internet, and to what extent their voice can be heard. I remember back in the mid-nineties (couldn't find the story on Google with a cursory search) when Toyota Corp forced a man named Toyota to give up the domain name he had registered long before, toyota.com. The courts figured Toyota was in the right. Toyota has the RIGHT to make money off the internet, and this man whose name is Toyota and had owned the domain for years, had no right to it. The guy was not even close to a squatter. That was a tipping point, in my mind.

Thanks a lot, corporate America, with your greed-driven money orgy. You ruined it for all of us.

Agreed, and also to your parent, also agreed.

I think part of the problem is that as Americans we're ENTITLED to a cushy job with very high pay and a luxury sports sedan. Anything less would not be like what TV has always told us we are supposed to have. (I do find some irony that you're beaming that propaganda to the next set of 'rugrats' when you leave with a smile, LOL) But anyway I like those nice things too, and luckily work a job where I can afford some of them. But obviously you need to have the TIME to yourself to enjoy them, so if you are an indentured servant it's hard to do that.

What makes most of us indentured? Health insurance. If it weren't for that one simple thing, Americans would be largely happier, as it would give us more flexibility to change jobs or careers, even if it meant no job for a few months. I could pull of six months of no or minimal income but the health insurance is the deal breaker. Esp if you have any recurring issues (aka prior conditions).

Anyway, I found the article to be quite poignant personally, because a lot of what he said is how i feel about my (and so many others') career right now. I commend you for doing what you did. A job where you see some tangible result at the end of a hard day must be really rewarding. I want to fall into that category.

The author made it a point to explicitly distinguish skilled trade labor from assembly line work.

I think a lot of people DON'T WANT choice. And what I mean by that is, they want there to be one way to do something, one app to use for this, one process for doing that. Apple has always marketed and positioned themselves as a platform for simplicity and an easy user experience.

Windows / Linux provide you with a billion choices for how to do everything. A lot of the software you need, doesn't come on the OS, you are forced to go out and research all the choices and choose one, usually uninformed (for the general public). With Apple, you get almost all of what you need (for most people, it's all you need) in the OS, and they make it such that there is only one right way to do something and it walks you right though.

And if you're not an old-school geek, you don't have the notion that a lack of complete flexibility and choice is a bad thing. You just want to get online, do what you need to do, and be done. You don't have to go through the analysis paralysis of choosing all your software, buying it, and hoping it's the right choice.

I don't think anyone's saying anything about scientists PUTTING lithium into the water. They went around and measured levels of lithium already in the water and found that the areas with higher levels had less suicides. Seems like other factors could be at play here too, considering that geographic areas are often different from one another in many societal aspects.