Why did they call it Moonshot anyway? Do they mean it has the computing power that NASA used to send Neil and Buzz to the moon? I have a more powerful device in my pocket.

Big difference is that other developers besides Microsoft weren't allowed to embrace, extend, etc IE6. But here Google is allowing other opensource developers to do their own embrace and extend, so at worst the third part is likely to be a repeat of step 1: embrace, extend, embrace fork.

That's why my credit card has a low credit limit (I insisted the bank roll it back when they gave me a free upgrade), which I only use to pay for groceries and stuff I'm forced to buy online. I don't tie down my whole life to a single point of failure, and have at least three different payment methods for my bills and whatnot.

The summary is wrong, but I don't think it's FUD. It's more like trolling to get the clicks of all the Microsoft bashers and haters.

What's bad isn't the texting but the other things that person may be doing while he or she appears to be texting. A person texting in a restroom or public bath can use that as an opportunity to take naughty videos.

True. The cellphone in your pocket (it doesn't even have to be smartphone) already has all the privacy-invading features of Google Glass. How do you know that person who appears to be texting on another table isn't already recording a video of your tryst? Wouldn't you also be alarmed if you see someone using a cellphone inside a public bath? GooGlass should be banned in the very same places where the use of a cellphone is already considered improper or rude.

Well written response. You have a very good point. That circumvention only works well in governments with a rather democratic judicial system where circumvention is not in itself a crime.

Ironically the system is likely to be more useful in Japan, which recently enacted one of the the toughest laws against online copyright infringement in the (relatively) free world, punishing even mere downloaders with jail time.

The label "classical" is itself ambiguous. Just look at the so-called classical music charts. Classical music is a catch-all for movie soundtracks, recordings by groups led by wand-waving wizards (a.k.a conductor), songs sung or composed by Italians, and music too weird to put in any other category.

The average Ubuntu user won't go to another GNU/Linux distribution. They're more likely to move on to another OS altogether, maybe another Unix-like system like the Mac or even Chrome OS if their needs don't go beyond Twitter and Facebook. An Android system would also be attractive since it supposedly also runs Linux. I've just been to a local store (southeast Asia) where they're actually selling an Android 4.0 netbook by some no-name Chinese manufacturer. So full circle even if in a small way for Google's smartphone OS.

With its bigger screen, the $1000 Chromebook Pixel looks like a better table. Just be sure to close the notebook lid first.

Agreed. The problem is with the second link to the science-ficulation of an obvious Mac fanboy, not the most unbiased source. For the benefit of those with (chiefly mobile) browsers that hide links, here's the naked url of the blog post that puts a negative spin on the largely positive New Scientist article:

http://www.macgasm.net/2013/03/08/creepier-the-minute-google-glass-will-identify-people-clothing-choices/

This fashion ID technology sounds less creepy to me than the tracking already being done by the wireless devices you already can't live without.

The creepy part of p