Too bad they had to pull it off the market. They were getting bad press for a select number of franchisees substituting the seaweed burger patty with the much fattier and cheaper beef patty without the customer's knowledge. Also I'm sure they were selling way more fattier burgers and found it hard to justify it staying on the menu especially in light of the controversy.
I wished they had just made that patty square instead.
Well, then 'what you have seen' is limited. How is that a flaw in my argument, rather than your own?
The reason being that your argument is based solely on the boogeyman, and the only scenario you presented was a fictional proposition of a consumer setting up a competing VOIP rather than being a user of a competing VOIP service.
Furthermore the quote:
This move enshrines Verizon and AT&T as gatekeepers to the expanding world of mobile Internet access, allowing them to favor their own applications while blocking, degrading or de-prioritizing others.
Supports my argument that net neutrality has always been about the consumer's ability to visit a site like Netflix or Skype, and the reason everyone is disappointed with the horrible ruling that the FCC gave today is because it allows Comcast and ATT to favor their own offerings at the expense of others.
Again this has nothing to do with operating a VOIP as you kept asserting.
The article reads like this power means GPS software, but it also includes network-wrecking things like bit torrent.
Now that you failed to win any points with your VOIP example, you've decided to bring out the old boogeyman bittorrent.
For most uses bittorrent actually helps the network, WoW client updates and linux distributions being an example. If a portion of a file is available on another node of AT&T's network then it actually saves AT&T money since AT&T doesn't have to pay any peer sharing fees with an outside network or backbone for that portion of the data file. Not to mention the changes that has been introduced to bittorrent to make it friendlier to the internet service provider. These changes resulted from an agreement between Bittorrent and Comcast back in March 2008.
Again, I'd absolutely love to see a network so robust as you could do absolutely everything the marketing number says you can do. LOVE IT. That service, though, wouldn't be the ones the new laws/rules would govern.
Being snarky doesn't make up for the lack of understanding you have for the subject...
It's right there:
interferes with use of AT&T's network or systems
hence:
I don't see it explicitly forbidden by their use policy. Let's say I did use a wireless data provider to operate my own VOIP operation (which seems very far fetched but I'm humoring you), if it did cause interference with their quality of service to other customers that same "Acceptable Use Policy" that was there at contract signing would still apply and ATT would have the right to deny me service.
Next:
Net neutrality, taken to the extreme, means the provider gets no say in the utilization of the stream. This is a great ideal to strive towards, but it would require a complete redesign of the infrastructure to accommodate it.
Sigh. Your straw man is getting a little tattered.
Again:
...this has absolutely nothing to do with net neutrality. Net neutrality means that I could use ATT wireless data to make Skype calls (which is permissible now) not that I can use a consumer data plan to create a Skype like service. All arguments for net neutrality that I've seen is to guarantee the consumer's ability to consume data and doesn't guarantee the consumer's ability to operate a service using a typical consumer data contract.
But that isn't the bandwidth you purchased. Again, in AT&T's example, you're riding along the 'extra' bandwidth for their already-IP Proprietary/SIP/what-have-you network.
They didn't sell me excess bandwidth. They sold me data access with an expectation of performance. I don't know what you are talking about. They spell it out in complete detail within their "Terms of Service"
Had they known you were going to run your own telco over it they would have presented you with an entirely different contract.
Lets look at AT&T Acceptable Use Policy:
General Prohibitions: AT&T prohibits use of the IP Services in any way that is unlawful, harmful to or interferes with use of AT&T's network or systems, or the network of any other provider, interferes with the use or enjoyment of services received by others, infringes intellectual property rights, results in the publication of threatening or offensive material, or constitutes Spam/E-mail/Usenet abuse, a security risk or a violation of privacy.
Failure to adhere to the rules, guidelines or agreements applicable to search engines, subscription Web services, chat areas, bulletin boards, Web pages, USENET, applications, or other services that are accessed via a link from the AT&T-branded website or from a website that contains AT&T-branded content is a violation of this AUP.
I don't see it explicitly forbidden by their use policy. Let's say I did use a wireless data provider to operate my own VOIP operation (which seems very far fetched but I'm humoring you), if it did cause interference with their quality of service to other customers that same "Acceptable Use Policy" that was there at contract signing would still apply and ATT would have the right to deny me service.
Again this has absolutely nothing to do with net neutrality. Net neutrality means that I could use ATT wireless data to make Skype calls (which is permissible now) not that I can use a consumer data plan to create a Skype like service. All arguments for net neutrality that I've seen is to guarantee the consumer's ability to consume data and doesn't guarantee the consumer's ability to operate a service using a typical consumer data contract.
The real point is: Given the recent election, could Obama afford to actually put up a fight against this? I don't like it, but it's the best we can hope for given the current political climate.
There's a difference between doing something because you believe it's the right thing to do, and doing something because you think it's popular. It takes a leader to do the former, and a poll watching politician to do the latter. I think recent history offers enough evidence toward Obama being a poll watching salesman.
I think with Obama's caving on tax cuts for the wealthy and Obama's caving on net neutrality, I'm beginning to see a trend. Now that's change I saw coming...
I'd shudder to see what the pricetag for such a data plan would be on AT&T's wireless network, for example. You can run your own VoIP, for example, and not use their phone services? Data prices would have to go up to compensate. That's the way the world works, as far as I know...
Not true. They don't have to give you the fastest possible speed, and they shouldn't prioritize your packets based on the fact that you are not using one of their preferred services.
Your premise assumes unlimited bandwidth, which isn't part of the net neutrality argument. The idea behind net neutrality is that you should be able to use the full extent of that bandwidth that you purchased regardless of what the packets contain.
In September 2003, toxic hydrogen fluoride was released in an accident. Three months later, seepage of mildly radioactive gas sent four people to the hospital and prompted the evacuation of nearby residents. Now a recent safety inspection by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission found that temporary workers brought in by Honeywell weren't properly trained and were cheating on tests, and that Honeywell had neglected to report liquids that were released into the air.
I see benefit in collective bargaining, but I am against unions as they have made themselves today.
I dislike the fact that in quite a few places if a union gets in at your work place you have to join or quit - you cannot remain outside of the collective agreement and retain your job.
A lot of states, including the one I live in, has laws in place that establishes that all shops shall be "open" shops. This means that membership in a union can never be a requirement for a job.
I dislike the fact that in quite a few places a union can call a unionization vote year after year after year until they get in.
The workers are allowed to vote no each and every time. Most of these yearly votes are due to a few disgruntled workers trying to "stick it to the man" and inviting union organizers to meet with the rest of the work force. The work force can still vote no.
I dislike the fact that in quite a few places unionization can stagnate a workforce rather than improve it - seniority based on nothing more than time spent in the job, rather than merit based seniority? What rubbish.
Like it or not this protects more innocent workers than bad. If the employee was not performing his duties well enough then he should have been fired a long time ago. However, a senior employee is more expensive than a new hire so this rule is to prevent economic incentive from being the sole reason for ending an employee's career at a plant.
I dislike the fact that the unionized workforce can withdraw their labour at any time, by following certain rules, while the employer has no equal ability - they have to wait until the contract is no longer in force before they have the right to lock out the workforce, while the union can call strike action whenever it likes.
Not entirely true. Labor has to hold up their end of the collective bargain. An employer can lock out the workforce if there is enough evidence that labor isn't honoring the contract. But you are right, there are a few restrictive contracts that USED to exist that gave workers too much power. Economic realities have forced both sides of the agreement to make compromises. A local union used to have a rule against training for multiple job titles, which meant that if a person didn't show up for work the rest of the manufacturing shift couldn't fill in for the missing worker. That rule hasn't existed in their contract for at least a decade.
On the other end of the spectrum, we have state laws that are ironically named "Right to Work" laws. These laws give the employer the right to fire any employee for any reason with the exception of reasons that unlawfully discriminate against the worker. To make matters worse, the employers in my state are not required to disclose the reason for the termination. This provides legal cover.
I have seen far far too many examples of unions being the worst of two choices for all involved, I have seen far far too many examples of unions seeking to simply hurt the employer because the employer wouldn't give in to their demands lock stock and barrel.
So have I, and this isn't necessarily a bad thing. This hurts the union workers more than the company. The company will simply move its plant somewhere else. The union's freedom to determine their working conditions isn't guaranteed to be risk free. This in theory should keep them honest. If the employer can't pull up stakes and take their business elsewhere what incentive is there that keeps the unions "honest"?
Companies risk paying too much for labor and Labor risk asking too much from companies. The point of collective bargaining is to establish a balance between the two. There needs to be a risk associated with giving too much to one side in order to incentivize the negotiations. Otherwise why bother?
Not all railroad strike occur on a corridor. We had a labor dispute at a railroad company that only serves to deliver railcars from the local waterfront to the mainline being operated by CSX. The national railroad infrastructure was never being threaten, but the federal government stepped in and prevented the workers from striking.
Oh yea we have these vehicles that run on interstates that compete with railroads. We call them trucks.
No I didn't fall for the advertising. The hazards that are present during operations do not completely go away when operations stop. I assume that the chemicals are being stored somewhere on premise. Who's monitoring it?
The word radiation doesn't scare me. If the safety regulations are to be believed then I should be glowing in the dark by now. However in the case of the Honywell plant, how are the chemicals being stored and what about the radioactive fuel that is no longer inert yet not delivered? Meltdown isn't a risk, but pollution is and it's toxic as well.
Yea we shouldn't be wasting money on livable wages and a safe work environment. Perish the thought that we had some process in place to verify that workplace rules were being followed. The process benefits the company just as much as the union. The process is what makes sure that both sides are doing what they agreed to do.
You don't actually believe that either side can be trusted?
The union can argue that the job and it's pay and benefits exists because of the collective bargaining that they performed. I'm always suspicious of people who work at a union plant, but choose to not participate in the union. They obviously benefit from the collective bargaining, but they don't want to give up any of their wage toward the cause.
I'm not saying that the union bosses can be trusted since there's been more than a few criminal cases that suggest otherwise. However, this isn't the Sopranos (or whatever your favorite mafia show maybe) and it's a little unfair to paint all unions with that stereotypical brush.
I've learned from personal experience (I'm not a union employee) that if I'm against being part of a collective agreement then I should make sure I work in a non-union shop. Especially during strikes or lockouts...
Wrong. The employer is playing hardball and chose to lockout the employees. They could have agreed to continue working without a contract but still under the old contract terms until an agreement is reached for a new contract.
Someone needs to look up what "locked out" means.
I'm not assuming that the union workers are being reasonable. I just think that placing blame solely on the unions and make an argument against their existence is just as much bullshit as to blindly accept everything a union says as gospel. The truth is somewhere in the middle.
So it's safe to assume that you are against unions in general and see no benefit in collective bargaining?
Anyway it appears you are placing blame completely on the workers who perform the work, and none on the company that actually controls the work, the pay, the safety of the operations, and the working conditions. How dare the employees ask for better working conditions or negotiate a contract! They should be happy with what they get..
Doesn't take a conspiracy to notice that its "only" 200 temporarily locked out, in an era of multi-thousand permanent downsizings everywhere else.
Except maybe the tiny fact that these 230 workers are being locked out of a nuclear plant with a less than stellar safety record. Who's monitoring the radioactive materials during this lockout?
Funny the government can prevent a union from striking if the industry is considered too important to our nation's infrastructure (eg. Railroads, Air Traffic Controllers), but this same government won't get involved in a labor dispute that may put a community at risk like at a nuclear plant. Funny how government intervention seems to favor the employer and not the employees.
Based on my experience, Chrome is a solution in search of a problem.
When I hear "[product] is a solution in search of a problem", I believe that person really doesn't understand that product and wants to sound intelligent when they dismissed the idea. Most of the time these people are completely wrong with their assessment and move on to the next big idea to dismiss. They either suffer from "not invented here syndrome" or "my way is the best way syndrome".
As a business tool, it's all but useless. Google provides no mechanism for installing even standard Linux VPN software which most companies provide for their remote employees. Or any other software, for that matter. Also, no company with a brain in their head is going to allow employees to be storing internal data on another company's servers. This might be a little more useful if a company could customize it to use internal servers rather than Google's, but as far as I've been able to tell, that option just doesn't exist.
I agree that having a native remote desktop client and VPN would make this a enterprise hit, but these features are outside the realm of Google's target market. Google is aiming for the older adults that use their computers almost exclusively for web browsing and playing web based games. However even without those two features, ChromeOS is not dead on arrival for the enterprise.
I have two ways to access my intranet websites at work: VPN and SSL. VPN is great when I need to access multiple internal machines that are not secure enough to be exposed to the internet, but it is overkill when accessing a single web portal. We have corporate only websites that our staff in the field can access with their remote RSA keys and SSL (https) that do not require VPN. In fact I only use VPN to maintain those servers, everybody else can just use HTTPS.
Of course someone could simply make a version of ChromiumOS that has those two features. Remember it is open sourced.
It also appears that you missed the portion of the ChromeOS roll out presentation where the lead designer talked about corporations running their own private clouds possibly powered by Google server hardware.
As a striped down Linux distro, it isn't bad, but the lack of a mechanism for loading 3rd party software negates even that benefit. So you have to ask - who would use this, and why? There isn't even a cost advantage for the software. You can download a standard Linux distro that has all the features of Chrome, and a wealth of standard productivity tools to boot for the same price as Chrome - free.
Your first mistake was thinking that its a stripped down Linux distro, and your second was that you ignored Google's Web App Store that they demonstrated during thier unveiling of Chrome 9 and ChromeOS. I think it would be more appropriate to consider this as a consumer friendly web based thin client that allows them to access their web based applications without booting up a more powerful (and more power hungry) computer.
The other mistake you made was that you considered this OS as something you install rather than being something that is purchased as a net appliance. This makes a big difference.
I see "cloud computing" as a potential minefield for the average consumer. ChromeOS is first and foremost designed to give Google more data collecting during your day-to-day activities. However, I see these web browser appliances as being the "next big thing" in enterprise where a dumb terminal makes it easier for the IT staff to control what is installed and run on your workstation.
Virtual Machines? I think you're thinking of "Chromoting" which I believe is a remote desktop-type feature.
"Chromoting" is not a word and should never become a word.
What the GP was thinking of was using a network device running a thin client. While I don't agree with consumers willfully moving their personal data to the cloud, I can see a very good case for it in enterprise computing using a private "cloud".
Of course I remember the days when we casually talked about running our multiuser OS on one or more machines in our central office and having remote terminals connected via a network on each employee's desk. We even had dedicated X-Windows terminals. Next thing you know the marketing and management people came along had to introduce buzzwords to make the technology sound hip and show how, under their management, the company was using new and futuristic technology to stay ahead of the competition. Next thing you know someone will think it's a good idea to use a product name to describe this distributed computing technology that is several decades old as "Chromoting".
Hell back in the day we put our data on servers, and the cloud was what appeared after the IT staff ate mexican food for lunch.
No I do not mean the stock Android. I mean a version of Android that does not include Google Apps which can be found preinstalled on a carrier provided phone.
I assume stock Android means without SenseUI or other handset manufacturer modifications...
Anybody who posts any information to Facebook without the expectation that everybody in the world will eventually be able to access it is an idiot. And please stop posting pictures of me taking bong hits, ok? Michael Phelps
Wow, you pretty much said the equivalent of "Just look at how she was dressed, she was asking to be raped." or "All people should expect to get ripped off when purchasing a product, therefore we should not hold the seller responsible."
These companies promised a bill of goods. What you believe the customer should have expected does not diminish the companies' responsibility to deliver said goods as promised.
You did prove my assertion that cloud based services should not be trusted. Thanks to your assertion not only should they not be trusted, but don't expect society to hold them accountable since you should have known better to use them in the first place.
When I [hand my credit card to a waitress at a restaurant], who knows what could happen without my knowledge or consent.
People never seem to think of the meatspace equivalents - why?
Well in theory, the waitress has broken a law and will face jail time if caught. Facebook can change its privacy policy at will without legal consequences.
Not to mention that a waitress scanning your card requires physical interaction with the victim, and Facebook treats all of its customers as anonymous beings that are a great distance away. Oh yea, my credit card company is required by law to offer consumer protection from such theft.
Slashdot Mirror
Too bad they had to pull it off the market. They were getting bad press for a select number of franchisees substituting the seaweed burger patty with the much fattier and cheaper beef patty without the customer's knowledge. Also I'm sure they were selling way more fattier burgers and found it hard to justify it staying on the menu especially in light of the controversy.
I wished they had just made that patty square instead.
The reason being that your argument is based solely on the boogeyman, and the only scenario you presented was a fictional proposition of a consumer setting up a competing VOIP rather than being a user of a competing VOIP service.
Furthermore the quote:
This move enshrines Verizon and AT&T as gatekeepers to the expanding world of mobile Internet access, allowing them to favor their own applications while blocking, degrading or de-prioritizing others.
Supports my argument that net neutrality has always been about the consumer's ability to visit a site like Netflix or Skype, and the reason everyone is disappointed with the horrible ruling that the FCC gave today is because it allows Comcast and ATT to favor their own offerings at the expense of others.
Again this has nothing to do with operating a VOIP as you kept asserting.
Now that you failed to win any points with your VOIP example, you've decided to bring out the old boogeyman bittorrent.
For most uses bittorrent actually helps the network, WoW client updates and linux distributions being an example. If a portion of a file is available on another node of AT&T's network then it actually saves AT&T money since AT&T doesn't have to pay any peer sharing fees with an outside network or backbone for that portion of the data file. Not to mention the changes that has been introduced to bittorrent to make it friendlier to the internet service provider. These changes resulted from an agreement between Bittorrent and Comcast back in March 2008.
Being snarky doesn't make up for the lack of understanding you have for the subject...
hence:
Next:
Sigh. Your straw man is getting a little tattered.
Again:
I need more coffee. I'm still trying to figure out what "this" is...
They didn't sell me excess bandwidth. They sold me data access with an expectation of performance. I don't know what you are talking about. They spell it out in complete detail within their "Terms of Service"
Lets look at AT&T Acceptable Use Policy:
General Prohibitions: AT&T prohibits use of the IP Services in any way that is unlawful, harmful to or interferes with use of AT&T's network or systems, or the network of any other provider, interferes with the use or enjoyment of services received by others, infringes intellectual property rights, results in the publication of threatening or offensive material, or constitutes Spam/E-mail/Usenet abuse, a security risk or a violation of privacy.
Failure to adhere to the rules, guidelines or agreements applicable to search engines, subscription Web services, chat areas, bulletin boards, Web pages, USENET, applications, or other services that are accessed via a link from the AT&T-branded website or from a website that contains AT&T-branded content is a violation of this AUP.
I don't see it explicitly forbidden by their use policy. Let's say I did use a wireless data provider to operate my own VOIP operation (which seems very far fetched but I'm humoring you), if it did cause interference with their quality of service to other customers that same "Acceptable Use Policy" that was there at contract signing would still apply and ATT would have the right to deny me service.
Again this has absolutely nothing to do with net neutrality. Net neutrality means that I could use ATT wireless data to make Skype calls (which is permissible now) not that I can use a consumer data plan to create a Skype like service. All arguments for net neutrality that I've seen is to guarantee the consumer's ability to consume data and doesn't guarantee the consumer's ability to operate a service using a typical consumer data contract.
Which is why the "National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)" is part of the Department of Commerce.
There's a difference between doing something because you believe it's the right thing to do, and doing something because you think it's popular. It takes a leader to do the former, and a poll watching politician to do the latter. I think recent history offers enough evidence toward Obama being a poll watching salesman.
I think with Obama's caving on tax cuts for the wealthy and Obama's caving on net neutrality, I'm beginning to see a trend. Now that's change I saw coming...
Not true. They don't have to give you the fastest possible speed, and they shouldn't prioritize your packets based on the fact that you are not using one of their preferred services.
Your premise assumes unlimited bandwidth, which isn't part of the net neutrality argument. The idea behind net neutrality is that you should be able to use the full extent of that bandwidth that you purchased regardless of what the packets contain.
Normally I'd agree except for this:
Emphasis mine.
A lot of states, including the one I live in, has laws in place that establishes that all shops shall be "open" shops. This means that membership in a union can never be a requirement for a job.
The workers are allowed to vote no each and every time. Most of these yearly votes are due to a few disgruntled workers trying to "stick it to the man" and inviting union organizers to meet with the rest of the work force. The work force can still vote no.
Like it or not this protects more innocent workers than bad. If the employee was not performing his duties well enough then he should have been fired a long time ago. However, a senior employee is more expensive than a new hire so this rule is to prevent economic incentive from being the sole reason for ending an employee's career at a plant.
Not entirely true. Labor has to hold up their end of the collective bargain. An employer can lock out the workforce if there is enough evidence that labor isn't honoring the contract. But you are right, there are a few restrictive contracts that USED to exist that gave workers too much power. Economic realities have forced both sides of the agreement to make compromises. A local union used to have a rule against training for multiple job titles, which meant that if a person didn't show up for work the rest of the manufacturing shift couldn't fill in for the missing worker. That rule hasn't existed in their contract for at least a decade.
On the other end of the spectrum, we have state laws that are ironically named "Right to Work" laws. These laws give the employer the right to fire any employee for any reason with the exception of reasons that unlawfully discriminate against the worker. To make matters worse, the employers in my state are not required to disclose the reason for the termination. This provides legal cover.
So have I, and this isn't necessarily a bad thing. This hurts the union workers more than the company. The company will simply move its plant somewhere else. The union's freedom to determine their working conditions isn't guaranteed to be risk free. This in theory should keep them honest. If the employer can't pull up stakes and take their business elsewhere what incentive is there that keeps the unions "honest"?
Companies risk paying too much for labor and Labor risk asking too much from companies. The point of collective bargaining is to establish a balance between the two. There needs to be a risk associated with giving too much to one side in order to incentivize the negotiations. Otherwise why bother?
Not all railroad strike occur on a corridor. We had a labor dispute at a railroad company that only serves to deliver railcars from the local waterfront to the mainline being operated by CSX. The national railroad infrastructure was never being threaten, but the federal government stepped in and prevented the workers from striking.
Oh yea we have these vehicles that run on interstates that compete with railroads. We call them trucks.
No I didn't fall for the advertising. The hazards that are present during operations do not completely go away when operations stop. I assume that the chemicals are being stored somewhere on premise. Who's monitoring it?
The word radiation doesn't scare me. If the safety regulations are to be believed then I should be glowing in the dark by now. However in the case of the Honywell plant, how are the chemicals being stored and what about the radioactive fuel that is no longer inert yet not delivered? Meltdown isn't a risk, but pollution is and it's toxic as well.
Well maybe I did give him too much credit. Anyway it's always good advice to look at both sides and make up your own mind.
Yea we shouldn't be wasting money on livable wages and a safe work environment. Perish the thought that we had some process in place to verify that workplace rules were being followed. The process benefits the company just as much as the union. The process is what makes sure that both sides are doing what they agreed to do.
You don't actually believe that either side can be trusted?
The union can argue that the job and it's pay and benefits exists because of the collective bargaining that they performed. I'm always suspicious of people who work at a union plant, but choose to not participate in the union. They obviously benefit from the collective bargaining, but they don't want to give up any of their wage toward the cause.
I'm not saying that the union bosses can be trusted since there's been more than a few criminal cases that suggest otherwise. However, this isn't the Sopranos (or whatever your favorite mafia show maybe) and it's a little unfair to paint all unions with that stereotypical brush.
I've learned from personal experience (I'm not a union employee) that if I'm against being part of a collective agreement then I should make sure I work in a non-union shop. Especially during strikes or lockouts...
Wrong. The employer is playing hardball and chose to lockout the employees. They could have agreed to continue working without a contract but still under the old contract terms until an agreement is reached for a new contract.
Someone needs to look up what "locked out" means.
I'm not assuming that the union workers are being reasonable. I just think that placing blame solely on the unions and make an argument against their existence is just as much bullshit as to blindly accept everything a union says as gospel. The truth is somewhere in the middle.
So it's safe to assume that you are against unions in general and see no benefit in collective bargaining?
Anyway it appears you are placing blame completely on the workers who perform the work, and none on the company that actually controls the work, the pay, the safety of the operations, and the working conditions. How dare the employees ask for better working conditions or negotiate a contract! They should be happy with what they get..
Except maybe the tiny fact that these 230 workers are being locked out of a nuclear plant with a less than stellar safety record. Who's monitoring the radioactive materials during this lockout?
Funny the government can prevent a union from striking if the industry is considered too important to our nation's infrastructure (eg. Railroads, Air Traffic Controllers), but this same government won't get involved in a labor dispute that may put a community at risk like at a nuclear plant. Funny how government intervention seems to favor the employer and not the employees.
Is that contraversial enough for you?
I think he may have suggested that you look at both sides and make up your own mind.
When I hear "[product] is a solution in search of a problem", I believe that person really doesn't understand that product and wants to sound intelligent when they dismissed the idea. Most of the time these people are completely wrong with their assessment and move on to the next big idea to dismiss. They either suffer from "not invented here syndrome" or "my way is the best way syndrome".
I agree that having a native remote desktop client and VPN would make this a enterprise hit, but these features are outside the realm of Google's target market. Google is aiming for the older adults that use their computers almost exclusively for web browsing and playing web based games. However even without those two features, ChromeOS is not dead on arrival for the enterprise.
I have two ways to access my intranet websites at work: VPN and SSL. VPN is great when I need to access multiple internal machines that are not secure enough to be exposed to the internet, but it is overkill when accessing a single web portal. We have corporate only websites that our staff in the field can access with their remote RSA keys and SSL (https) that do not require VPN. In fact I only use VPN to maintain those servers, everybody else can just use HTTPS.
Of course someone could simply make a version of ChromiumOS that has those two features. Remember it is open sourced.
It also appears that you missed the portion of the ChromeOS roll out presentation where the lead designer talked about corporations running their own private clouds possibly powered by Google server hardware.
Your first mistake was thinking that its a stripped down Linux distro, and your second was that you ignored Google's Web App Store that they demonstrated during thier unveiling of Chrome 9 and ChromeOS. I think it would be more appropriate to consider this as a consumer friendly web based thin client that allows them to access their web based applications without booting up a more powerful (and more power hungry) computer.
The other mistake you made was that you considered this OS as something you install rather than being something that is purchased as a net appliance. This makes a big difference.
I see "cloud computing" as a potential minefield for the average consumer. ChromeOS is first and foremost designed to give Google more data collecting during your day-to-day activities. However, I see these web browser appliances as being the "next big thing" in enterprise where a dumb terminal makes it easier for the IT staff to control what is installed and run on your workstation.
"Chromoting" is not a word and should never become a word.
What the GP was thinking of was using a network device running a thin client. While I don't agree with consumers willfully moving their personal data to the cloud, I can see a very good case for it in enterprise computing using a private "cloud".
Of course I remember the days when we casually talked about running our multiuser OS on one or more machines in our central office and having remote terminals connected via a network on each employee's desk. We even had dedicated X-Windows terminals. Next thing you know the marketing and management people came along had to introduce buzzwords to make the technology sound hip and show how, under their management, the company was using new and futuristic technology to stay ahead of the competition. Next thing you know someone will think it's a good idea to use a product name to describe this distributed computing technology that is several decades old as "Chromoting".
Hell back in the day we put our data on servers, and the cloud was what appeared after the IT staff ate mexican food for lunch.
Now get of my lawn!
No I do not mean the stock Android. I mean a version of Android that does not include Google Apps which can be found preinstalled on a carrier provided phone.
I assume stock Android means without SenseUI or other handset manufacturer modifications...
You're absolutely correct! Now which phone carrier offers a phone with this special version of Android OS already installed? Oh yea - none.
Wow, you pretty much said the equivalent of "Just look at how she was dressed, she was asking to be raped." or "All people should expect to get ripped off when purchasing a product, therefore we should not hold the seller responsible."
These companies promised a bill of goods. What you believe the customer should have expected does not diminish the companies' responsibility to deliver said goods as promised.
You did prove my assertion that cloud based services should not be trusted. Thanks to your assertion not only should they not be trusted, but don't expect society to hold them accountable since you should have known better to use them in the first place.
Well in theory, the waitress has broken a law and will face jail time if caught. Facebook can change its privacy policy at will without legal consequences.
Not to mention that a waitress scanning your card requires physical interaction with the victim, and Facebook treats all of its customers as anonymous beings that are a great distance away. Oh yea, my credit card company is required by law to offer consumer protection from such theft.