@ImprobableJoe: Yeah, I can see that. Though, as far as I can tell, they have not chosen a lower-powered processor. I would love to see them get large battery life gains, but I can't imagine an Atom is it.

I've said this before, but now that it is official I will say it again: I don't get it.

@rnrxtreme: I hadn't thought about it that way, but that is a good observation. A complete reliance on web apps does effectively turn the tab bar into a task bar.

I am currently finishing up graduate study in a department with a highly renowned imaging specialist who happens to have a fine aesthetic taste (I guess it comes with the territory).

@Captian_Caveman: Let's not forget McDonalds. The coffee is not bad (and cheap!), the wifi is free, and it is usually far less crowded than Starbucks.

@ShepSmithsLoveChild: It is more of a meltdown after the diplomatic cables. His earlier leaks about the war were not denounced nearly as heavily (by civilians anyway).

@mikemikemotorbike: I've always heard it referenced as just "high winds in the area", but the idea that the buildings funnel that air up is much more exciting.

I wonder what their per capita power is based on. Is it the backbone systems that deliver that data, the servers that serve it, or the personal computers that access it (or any combination thereof)?

Too bad a tree fell on my car a few days a ago. I had been thinking about adding a USB power port for a while.

@jbouklas: That is true. Google OS on ARM=Android. Which raises further questions about the need for Chrome OS.

I can't really say I understand. If it uses an Atom, which is powerful enough to run Chrome (the browser) just fine from within a full OS, why would I want to run an OS that can only run Chrome?

Many people mention the Cortexiphan as the reason Olivia made a permanent transfer this time, but I also connected it with location.

This is a big win for Google. The reason they did not just settle is because of those extra charges (which were dismissed).

@tekwiz: While I absolutely agree with you on a theoretical sense, on a practical level we will probably be unable to do a thorough check of every planet.

@Nephelim: Far less optimal was most certainly an understatement on my part. It is a good night if I can get through a Netflix streaming movie, many nights I cannot. I am sure any connection that can stream video will stream this just fine.

@Se7en_speed: I know, and I have heard many great things about it. Of course, as someone who finds it important to check every ATM for bugs, you might be right in assuming I do not want to put my bank information into an online service.

Ever since these started popping up, I have been pulling on the card readers at ATMs before I use them. Sometimes I field a little paranoid, but then articles like this come up and I feel better about it. I also only use bank ATMs.

I admire their intentions, however unpractical the plan sounds to me. I would like to see them succeed.

@tekwiz: Well, if we find an environment that seems habitable (even if only to such extremophiles), but has no phosphorus, we can still look for life if we find arsenic.

That is pretty neat, but not all that amazing.