Amen. Dave Fancella wrote: > I like the direction, don't get me wrong. I'm dreaming of the day > when I have enough money to scatter a few inexpensive tablets with web > browsers around my house. With a web interface to MythTV, and a myth > client, of course. Then, home finance will be web-based (I'm using > mint.com right now, even though I hate it), grocery lists, etc. I'd > love to take one with me to the grocery store, in fact. I'd even > happily write a web-based recipe manager that built my grocery lists > (I've got a whole plan for it, but I need to finish my web-based > personal finance app first). > > I can think of all sorts of ways my life would be easier if I had a > small, inexpensive tablet to carry around that had 10 hours or so on a > battery and booted up within a few seconds. This is definitely the > right direction, and the only software it *needs* is a web browser. > The ability to download the data you need for a given task (or group > of tasks), work with it, then sync it (the PalmOS workflow :) ) would > be a nice way to deal with the fact that there isn't net access > everywhere. But for the ones I leave on the coffee table, kitchen > counter, and bathroom counter (for reading while um, er, nvm, for > reading), they'll have net access, or at least LAN access to the stuff > I need at home. > > What I don't like is the trend to store everything on google's > servers. If google gave me a way to back it up locally, it might be a > different story (some automated way, not "do all your backups by > hand", we all know that's no backup plan). If google was providing > the software so I could setup my own cloud server, fine. But they're > not doing that, are they? > > However, I trust the courthouse more than I trust Google, primarily > because there's several hundred years of legal precedent on what the > county clerks can and can't do with your private information. We're > still fighting to establish privacy rights with electronic data stored > with private companies under varying contracts (or click-through > EULAs). So in case of disaster, it's clear whose responsible when > it's the county courthouse. > > Dave > > Visit my website! > http://www.davefancella.com > > Also, I'm currently looking for a job. So while you're at my website, > look at my resume! > http://www.davefancella.com/resume/dave.html > > > > On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 5:16 PM, Paul<[email protected]> wrote: > >> Steven, >> >> My guess is in a few years you wont need to install ubuntu or Vista or >> X version of an OS. I think Google is setting themselves up to be the >> OS and storage for you. So basically you would be purchasing a 'dumb' >> piece of hardware which when connected to the internets will find all >> your information. I both excited and afraid of this vision. This is >> very similar to corporate networks where the desktop system are loaded >> with high memory and processors but the smallest harddrives available >> to force the user from storing local copies of files and to push >> everything to the network storage. This makes backups and management >> easier in some respects. I think if anyone can pull this off it will >> be Google. Though worry about people referring to Google as the hated >> Micosoft (or IBM) of the new Millinium. >> >> Another real pending issue we seem to have forgotten about here in >> Austin is the potential that our respective network providers will >> eventually start implementing usage caps per month. How is that going >> to effect what you push to the cloud? >> >> Just my thoughts. Than again I'm on meds but the colors are tasty! >> >> P- >> >> >> On Jul 8, 2009, at 5:00 PM, Steven Harms wrote: >> >> >>> I don't get the fuss. >>> >>> Today I can buy a laptop, install ubuntu, install chrome. >>> >>> What's the improvement >>> >>> I can buy a laptop, the OS is hidden, it runs chrome. >>> >>> >>> Goog says: "we aim for netbooks". Well, netbooks are tracking >>> towards laptops, what's the fuss. >>> >>> Goog says: "users want less startup time". Well, OK, that's fine, >>> but between 10 seconds and 1 minute I'm pretty forgiving and with a >>> netbook battery i'm never at power off to boot, i'm usually at de- >>> hibernate to use. If that's sufficiently small, I'm OK. Even on my >>> macbook that's tolerable at the moment. >>> >>> Press says: This will have MS shaking in their shoes. Uh, no. This >>> has no traction in the enterprise. >>> >>> Now, launching this, on a branded netbook, with a support structure, >>> with the Google app stack, with a way to get a secure cloud app stack, >>> that would be an MS death blow (roll saving throw!), but this is sort >>> of a "Oh, so you want to kill off the linux distributions?". >>> >>> Steven >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jul 8, 2009, at 4:38 PM, Adam Theriault wrote: >>> >>> >>>>> password storage >>>>> >>>> if I trust my bank to store a copy of my banking password on their >>>> own servers, I can probably trust google with my facebook password. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> personally identifiable data >>>>> >>>> ...such as using your full name to post a negative opinion of a >>>> company using their groups app? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> sensitive legal documents >>>>> >>>> Again, I probably trust google's datacenter more than the county >>>> courthouse. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> files with family members' photos >>>>> >>>> which are then posted online for everyone to see..... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> identifiable information >>>>> >>>> which is somehow different than the personally identifiable kind. I >>>> guess cause it's information and not data. I'm just going to take a >>>> leap of faith here and assume by "identifiable" we mean "porn". >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> medical records >>>>> >>>> which are stored off-site and accessible by medical employees around >>>> the world. >>>> >>>> >>>> I tend to go with Scott McNealy: "You have no privacy anyway, get >>>> over it." >>>> >>>> Aside from having some weird EULA that says "by signing this you >>>> agree to let us sell your medical records and family photos to >>>> whatever sleazy guy in an alleyway we want to", I fail to see what >>>> any company's motivation would be to get a massive market hooked on >>>> a product, and then completely disable access to it and/or trigger >>>> the most epic PR disaster in history. >>>> >>>> What really confuses me though is if people don't like it, they >>>> don't have to use it...why is it important if anyone else is nervous >>>> about it or not? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> > > > >
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Our Web site: http://www.RefreshAustin.org/ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Refresh Austin" group. [ Posting ] To post to this group, send email to [email protected] Job-related postings should follow http://tr.im/refreshaustinjobspolicy We do not accept job posts from recruiters. [ Unsubscribe ] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] [ More Info ] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Refresh-Austin -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
