It comes with a case. But you can't fold the parts that go over the ears, so it is an awkward ase to carry with you.
More to the point for some of us, I have prescription lenses. Without them, I am not blind, but for any fine or detailed motor activity, I am useless. Without the Glass device, powered on or powered off, I can't see.
I am not taking my glasses off just to make you feel comfortable. I need them.
Simple modification: move the camera to a ring on the wearer's finger.
People think Google Glass is creepy because the camera in on the headset and automatically points at whatever the wearer is looking at, and it's not at all obvious where the camera aperture is, or whether it is recordiing at any given moment.
Put the camera in a ring on the user's finger, with a Bluetooth connection to the headset. Have a physical cover that covers the lens the vast majority of the time. Now it will be really obvious that recording is not happening the vast majority of the time, but the wearer can still grab an image of almost anything they want at any time.
Creepiness gone.
Your ignorance is showing.
Except, it is obvious when there is activity on the device. It isn't going to be clear which of the activities it is possible to that is actually taking place.
And one is enforceable in courts, while the other is not. And, depending on how far you go, you might, while defending your social expectations, be guilty of assault accompanied by battery.
Hands free. It can take pictures and videos hands free. That is a very useful thing, and that is why it is there. And we both know if it wasn't, it would have sold less because someone would have wanted/needed a camera on it.
I took some video of debris falling off a truck all over a state highway. Captured the truck number and the company's phone number.
And I kept my hands on the wheel, too.
And later, when I was in a better position to, I called the company and shared the issue.
I could have done the same with a phone, except the keeping my hands on the wheel part. Or the keeping of my eyes on the road part.
The prism lights up when "something" is happening with the device. It might be that it is starting up. Or it might be a notice from Vine that so-and-so just uploaded a 6-second video. Or it could be a notice of an SMS from your sister. Or an email to your Yahoo! account. Or your GMail account. Or somebody posted something to your Facebook wall.
Even though you won't know for sure which activity it is, you will be sure that there is activity. But that is it.
And by gosh, by gum, and by gollee, you're certain it's a picture being taken! A picture of you!
You may find it unacceptable, rude, or whatever. But photography is not a crime.
More importantly, just because I have the capability to take pictures, doesn't mean I am taking pictures.
So in effect, you want me banned from a public place. And you want me banned not because I am taking pictures, but because of the particular picture-taking device I have. I'm not to be banned because I have a cell phone with a camera, but because I have a Glass device with a camera.
That is so illogical that I'm laughing at you. Hell, my Glass device is laughing at you getting butt hurt over nothing.
You can't take a very good selfie with the Glass device. Well, maybe if you are looking in a mirror. But then in that case, I'm obviously not taking a picture of you.
It's also obvious when you're taking a picture or shooting a short video with a Glass device. (Or, at the least, that you're doing something with it.)
I think it's a little arrogant for anyone to assume that someone with a Glass device must obviously be taking pictures with it. And it's even more arrogant to presume that if I'm taking a picture, it's of you.
I don't want to advertise the fact that I'm wearing this thing. Google geeks may think it's the coolest status symbol ever. I don't. And I don't care. I want to use the map feature, get the weather report.
Yes, I know it can give me automatic Yelp reports, tell me who and what's around, get me dates, show me movies and deliver specs on my computer by looking.
I could care less. I'll use the maps. And the weather. Maybe news, if I'm waiting for a bus. If they want me to buy it, it has to be cheap and boring.
You have seen the frames for those needing prescriptions right? Only the US Armed Forces RCGs were less fashionable.
As long as there is a screen to light up, then it will be noticeable to a degree, with or without a camera.
So long as there are glassholes, google glass will not succeed.
.
Unfortunately, google cannot control the people who use google glass, so there will always be glassholes and google glass won't succeed.
As an explorer, my experience is that the real glasshole is the ignoramus who assumes something that is not in evidence.
For the record, I am not saying that some Explorers weren't assholes. There were. But way more people just plain over-reacted out of ignorance than had justification for their fear.
And in their fear and ignorance, they named an otherwise nice person a glasshole; they did so not because s/he was a glasshole, but because they wore a Glass device. And the Glass device was the talisman that generated their fear.
So, how about asking the person "Are you recording me right now?", or maybe something less bold, like "How would I know if something is being recorded?"
Instead, you just fear it without knowing why you fear it. Wow.
I understand that in this day and age it's almost necessary that you just carry on with hating something right from the start. Knowledge of the thing be damned, we must hate it!
But even after more than a year? It's really sad that some of the same stupid ignorance from day one is still in play. But that's your fault, you ignorant ambisexual walnut.
Sorry to say it captain ignorant, but if you bothered to educate yourself about the product you so loudly malign, then you would know that when recording a video, the right side, where the prism is, lights up. Did you know that before it does that, in order to record, you have to activate it? And did you know that to do that you either use voice commands, or tap the side of the device? ("OK Glass" [pause] "Record a video". After a moment, the prism will light up as it shows you what is being recorded in real time.)
Well, it is very true. And it's also very true that you don't know dick about Glass.
Also, just to try to further the removing of ignorance: Did you know that Glass has a default setting of only 10 seconds when recording video? That is also true. You can have it extend beyond those 10 seconds, but it involves tapping the right side of the device a couple of times. (Once to invoke the extend command, and once to confirm it.)
In other words, you can't invoke recording on Glass without being obvious. And it will also be obvious that something is happening.
Something else to consider: On a good day, with light usage (notifications, checking weather where friends and family are) I get 12 hours of usage before a recharge is needed. I have never done any heavy recording (why bother when I have had a Nexus 5, then a OnePlus One, and now a Nexus 6 to use), but I don't imagine I'd go very long before needing to recharge if I did record a lot of videos or even just stills.
The degree to which people fear their "privacy" is being invaded is much higher than the actual degree to which it is. (Speaking only of the Glass device.)
We can talk all day, until the cows come home or we are blue in the face, but the only strategy that Microsoft had with Windows RT was the one they went against. The secret, after all, is the apps, stupid. Microsoft opted to neither upsize Windows Phone nor to downsize Windows 7 for a tablet-sized environment. That came with a price, because Windows RT never had an app market to speak of. And apps is what makes a mobile OS.
What did Apple do when it released the iPad? It based it on the iPhone's OS, iOS.
What did Google do when they released the Android Tablet OS? They based it on the Android Phone's OS.
What did Microsoft do when it released Windows RT? They based it on nothing they had done before.
The problem for Windows RT is apps. Granted Windows Phone has fewer apps than iOS or Android have, but it at least had some. They could have been leveraged for a Windows tablet OS based on the Windows Phone OS. They weren't and RT was released with little in the way of apps. And even now, almost a year later, RT still has little in the way of apps.
Microsoft doesn't need to double down on dumb. RT is dead, now and forever. But, if they want to do a new OS based on Windows Phone on a tablet platform, maybe they'll have a chance.
Whether they do or not, the issue with RT is a moot one. It's not a question of whether RT will die. It's a question of when it will do so.
Homesite was an Allaire product that Macromedia got when they bought Allaire. When Adobe got hold of Macromedia, they kept DW and stopped updating Homesite.
I hate Adobe for so many reasons, but this one is still at the top of my list. Homesite never did anything to my code just because I opened it in the editor. DW did. FrontPage did.
Grrr.;)
From the article:
"schools can present what she termed 'critical thinking and creationism' in science classes"
As long as they are teaching critical thinking as it applies to creationism, then I'm OK with this. Otherwise, this is a waste of time. But then again, Louisiana has that Stackhouse chic and all them fangers and fangbangers, so what do I care if they're all a bunch of ignorant cusses?
First, as a retired soldier, I can tell you that the flag is often included even if not originally in the photo. There is probably a reg about it somewhere as a matter of protocol, and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if other photos released by DoD or the services have been similarly doctored. (You'd have thought they'd take a picture with the flag already in it. I know I spent a fair bit of time carting flags around for pictures in my time.)
Second, as a PR function, I doubt the services or DoD want to see grainy pictures being sent out. Was the picture doctored, yes. But as far as I can tell, it was mostly to clean up the image and then add the flag. I'm sure that in the annals of doctored photos this one won't win too many prizes since it is fairly minor. (The improvement is a major one to be sure, but everyone likes to see better photos, right?)
Paraphrasing the bard: Methink the AP doth protest too much.
I wouldn't give too much weight to this article. First, this is by far a pre-release TEST version of a product that will undoubtedly go through many changes before the final release. But more importantly, unless your machine pretty closely matches the configuration he tested on, your results will perforce vary. (Which may mean your results could be better or worse.)
As James Kendrick over at JKontherun (http://www.jkontherun.com/2008/04/the-shortcoming.html) has said, "The reality is that there are too many factors in play on modern systems for raw power benchmarks to give an accurate indication of how well a given system can perform them. Today's complicated systems are affected by many factors, CPU power, hard disk speed, memory and HDD caches, graphics subsystems, total installed memory, operating system version, and internal components which all play a role in how well a system performs overall. Individual benchmarks don't reflect this in my opinion and this is why I don't publish them."
Kevin C. Tofel, also at JKontherun (http://www.jkontherun.com/2008/10/windows-7-on-a.html), had this to say about his installation of the pre-release on his MSI Wind: "Like LAPTOP Magazine, I like what I see so far."
Benchmarks won't tell you much (at least that is useful). But real-world, hands-on usage such as what Kevin and James often report on at JKontherun are.
Just point your browser to OpenDNS at http://www.opendns.com/. Sign up with them and you'll use their DNS servers as opposed to your ISPs.
When I mistype something in my browser, they provide assistance in the form of attempting to send you to the site with the correct spelling.
It's free, so there's no barrier to using them.
Woadan
Slashdot Mirror
But not a $179 upgrade.
3D Printing "on a truck" has got to be as novel as writing an invoice "on a computer".
It comes with a case. But you can't fold the parts that go over the ears, so it is an awkward ase to carry with you.
More to the point for some of us, I have prescription lenses. Without them, I am not blind, but for any fine or detailed motor activity, I am useless. Without the Glass device, powered on or powered off, I can't see.
I am not taking my glasses off just to make you feel comfortable. I need them.
Simple modification: move the camera to a ring on the wearer's finger.
People think Google Glass is creepy because the camera in on the headset and automatically points at whatever the wearer is looking at, and it's not at all obvious where the camera aperture is, or whether it is recordiing at any given moment.
Put the camera in a ring on the user's finger, with a Bluetooth connection to the headset. Have a physical cover that covers the lens the vast majority of the time. Now it will be really obvious that recording is not happening the vast majority of the time, but the wearer can still grab an image of almost anything they want at any time.
Creepiness gone.
Your ignorance is showing.
Except, it is obvious when there is activity on the device. It isn't going to be clear which of the activities it is possible to that is actually taking place.
The prism lights up.
If I was to be banned, and it was because of wearing a Glass device, I would sue the owner if he doesn't also ban cell phones.
And one is enforceable in courts, while the other is not. And, depending on how far you go, you might, while defending your social expectations, be guilty of assault accompanied by battery.
What will happen when the device is a contact lens?
Hands free. It can take pictures and videos hands free. That is a very useful thing, and that is why it is there. And we both know if it wasn't, it would have sold less because someone would have wanted/needed a camera on it.
I took some video of debris falling off a truck all over a state highway. Captured the truck number and the company's phone number.
And I kept my hands on the wheel, too.
And later, when I was in a better position to, I called the company and shared the issue.
I could have done the same with a phone, except the keeping my hands on the wheel part. Or the keeping of my eyes on the road part.
Your hatred is irrational and illogical.
It isn't. You just "fear" it is.
The prism lights up when "something" is happening with the device. It might be that it is starting up. Or it might be a notice from Vine that so-and-so just uploaded a 6-second video. Or it could be a notice of an SMS from your sister. Or an email to your Yahoo! account. Or your GMail account. Or somebody posted something to your Facebook wall.
Even though you won't know for sure which activity it is, you will be sure that there is activity. But that is it.
And by gosh, by gum, and by gollee, you're certain it's a picture being taken! A picture of you!
Argh! Insanity ensues!
You may find it unacceptable, rude, or whatever. But photography is not a crime.
More importantly, just because I have the capability to take pictures, doesn't mean I am taking pictures.
So in effect, you want me banned from a public place. And you want me banned not because I am taking pictures, but because of the particular picture-taking device I have. I'm not to be banned because I have a cell phone with a camera, but because I have a Glass device with a camera.
That is so illogical that I'm laughing at you. Hell, my Glass device is laughing at you getting butt hurt over nothing.
That's a lot of dogma to carry around pal!!!
You can't take a very good selfie with the Glass device. Well, maybe if you are looking in a mirror. But then in that case, I'm obviously not taking a picture of you.
It's also obvious when you're taking a picture or shooting a short video with a Glass device. (Or, at the least, that you're doing something with it.)
I think it's a little arrogant for anyone to assume that someone with a Glass device must obviously be taking pictures with it. And it's even more arrogant to presume that if I'm taking a picture, it's of you.
(shrug)
Preferably in black, unstylish eyeglass frames.
I don't want to advertise the fact that I'm wearing this thing. Google geeks may think it's the coolest status symbol ever. I don't. And I don't care. I want to use the map feature, get the weather report.
Yes, I know it can give me automatic Yelp reports, tell me who and what's around, get me dates, show me movies and deliver specs on my computer by looking.
I could care less. I'll use the maps. And the weather. Maybe news, if I'm waiting for a bus. If they want me to buy it, it has to be cheap and boring.
You have seen the frames for those needing prescriptions right? Only the US Armed Forces RCGs were less fashionable.
As long as there is a screen to light up, then it will be noticeable to a degree, with or without a camera.
So long as there are glassholes, google glass will not succeed.
.
Unfortunately, google cannot control the people who use google glass, so there will always be glassholes and google glass won't succeed.
As an explorer, my experience is that the real glasshole is the ignoramus who assumes something that is not in evidence.
For the record, I am not saying that some Explorers weren't assholes. There were. But way more people just plain over-reacted out of ignorance than had justification for their fear.
And in their fear and ignorance, they named an otherwise nice person a glasshole; they did so not because s/he was a glasshole, but because they wore a Glass device. And the Glass device was the talisman that generated their fear.
So, how about asking the person "Are you recording me right now?", or maybe something less bold, like "How would I know if something is being recorded?"
Instead, you just fear it without knowing why you fear it. Wow.
I understand that in this day and age it's almost necessary that you just carry on with hating something right from the start. Knowledge of the thing be damned, we must hate it!
But even after more than a year? It's really sad that some of the same stupid ignorance from day one is still in play. But that's your fault, you ignorant ambisexual walnut.
Sorry to say it captain ignorant, but if you bothered to educate yourself about the product you so loudly malign, then you would know that when recording a video, the right side, where the prism is, lights up. Did you know that before it does that, in order to record, you have to activate it? And did you know that to do that you either use voice commands, or tap the side of the device? ("OK Glass" [pause] "Record a video". After a moment, the prism will light up as it shows you what is being recorded in real time.)
Well, it is very true. And it's also very true that you don't know dick about Glass.
Also, just to try to further the removing of ignorance: Did you know that Glass has a default setting of only 10 seconds when recording video? That is also true. You can have it extend beyond those 10 seconds, but it involves tapping the right side of the device a couple of times. (Once to invoke the extend command, and once to confirm it.)
In other words, you can't invoke recording on Glass without being obvious. And it will also be obvious that something is happening.
Something else to consider: On a good day, with light usage (notifications, checking weather where friends and family are) I get 12 hours of usage before a recharge is needed. I have never done any heavy recording (why bother when I have had a Nexus 5, then a OnePlus One, and now a Nexus 6 to use), but I don't imagine I'd go very long before needing to recharge if I did record a lot of videos or even just stills.
The degree to which people fear their "privacy" is being invaded is much higher than the actual degree to which it is. (Speaking only of the Glass device.)
IE will be deprecated in Windows 10 and a new browser introduced. Let's worry about the new browser.
The Surface Pro has always been a full Windows OS install, from the very first incarnation to the current one.
The Surface, and its predecessor the Surface RT, is the Windows OS on a chip. And that's the one that "competes" with iOS and Android tablets.
This is a non-starter from the get-go!
I paid for the original qi nexus charger, about $70 or so. As others have pointed out, it kinda sucked due to not being flat.
I bought another qi charger when I ordered my Nexus 5. his is at Amazon for $30, and may be less expensive at other places:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00C40OG22/ref=oh_details_o08_s01_i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
It works with the Nexus 4, Nexus 5, and Nexus 7 FHD/2013. I believe it would also work with the nexus 10. Charges up good, but it is not fast.
But Google's latest is not their first, so somebody missed something with the title. (Hence my updated one.)
We can talk all day, until the cows come home or we are blue in the face, but the only strategy that Microsoft had with Windows RT was the one they went against. The secret, after all, is the apps, stupid. Microsoft opted to neither upsize Windows Phone nor to downsize Windows 7 for a tablet-sized environment. That came with a price, because Windows RT never had an app market to speak of. And apps is what makes a mobile OS.
What did Apple do when it released the iPad? It based it on the iPhone's OS, iOS.
What did Google do when they released the Android Tablet OS? They based it on the Android Phone's OS.
What did Microsoft do when it released Windows RT? They based it on nothing they had done before.
The problem for Windows RT is apps. Granted Windows Phone has fewer apps than iOS or Android have, but it at least had some. They could have been leveraged for a Windows tablet OS based on the Windows Phone OS. They weren't and RT was released with little in the way of apps. And even now, almost a year later, RT still has little in the way of apps.
Microsoft doesn't need to double down on dumb. RT is dead, now and forever. But, if they want to do a new OS based on Windows Phone on a tablet platform, maybe they'll have a chance.
Whether they do or not, the issue with RT is a moot one. It's not a question of whether RT will die. It's a question of when it will do so.
It's interesting how Apple is more profitable, but it seems that Google is the one getting the attention. Apple was highlighted by the NYT in April of 2012: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/business/apples-tax-strategy-aims-at-low-tax-states-and-nations.html?adxnnl=1&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1353677512-m5vLQkPH5461NGq9bcQvqw
Homesite was an Allaire product that Macromedia got when they bought Allaire. When Adobe got hold of Macromedia, they kept DW and stopped updating Homesite. I hate Adobe for so many reasons, but this one is still at the top of my list. Homesite never did anything to my code just because I opened it in the editor. DW did. FrontPage did. Grrr. ;)
From the article: "schools can present what she termed 'critical thinking and creationism' in science classes" As long as they are teaching critical thinking as it applies to creationism, then I'm OK with this. Otherwise, this is a waste of time. But then again, Louisiana has that Stackhouse chic and all them fangers and fangbangers, so what do I care if they're all a bunch of ignorant cusses?
First, as a retired soldier, I can tell you that the flag is often included even if not originally in the photo. There is probably a reg about it somewhere as a matter of protocol, and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if other photos released by DoD or the services have been similarly doctored. (You'd have thought they'd take a picture with the flag already in it. I know I spent a fair bit of time carting flags around for pictures in my time.)
Second, as a PR function, I doubt the services or DoD want to see grainy pictures being sent out. Was the picture doctored, yes. But as far as I can tell, it was mostly to clean up the image and then add the flag. I'm sure that in the annals of doctored photos this one won't win too many prizes since it is fairly minor. (The improvement is a major one to be sure, but everyone likes to see better photos, right?)
Paraphrasing the bard: Methink the AP doth protest too much.
I wouldn't give too much weight to this article. First, this is by far a pre-release TEST version of a product that will undoubtedly go through many changes before the final release. But more importantly, unless your machine pretty closely matches the configuration he tested on, your results will perforce vary. (Which may mean your results could be better or worse.)
As James Kendrick over at JKontherun (http://www.jkontherun.com/2008/04/the-shortcoming.html) has said, "The reality is that there are too many factors in play on modern systems for raw power benchmarks to give an accurate indication of how well a given system can perform them. Today's complicated systems are affected by many factors, CPU power, hard disk speed, memory and HDD caches, graphics subsystems, total installed memory, operating system version, and internal components which all play a role in how well a system performs overall. Individual benchmarks don't reflect this in my opinion and this is why I don't publish them."
Kevin C. Tofel, also at JKontherun (http://www.jkontherun.com/2008/10/windows-7-on-a.html), had this to say about his installation of the pre-release on his MSI Wind: "Like LAPTOP Magazine, I like what I see so far."
Benchmarks won't tell you much (at least that is useful). But real-world, hands-on usage such as what Kevin and James often report on at JKontherun are.
Woadan
Just point your browser to OpenDNS at http://www.opendns.com/. Sign up with them and you'll use their DNS servers as opposed to your ISPs. When I mistype something in my browser, they provide assistance in the form of attempting to send you to the site with the correct spelling. It's free, so there's no barrier to using them. Woadan