Every single google image search result shows the display part in front of the eye, or so close above it you can't fail to focus on it when you look at someone wearing it, and the opaque part is close enough it will be an obstruction until you have the person's attention and they are looking right at you.
This new project puts the HUD projector behind the glass, to the right of the face. It will hopefully be less intrusive to the way humans normally interact face-to-face.
A human-factors thing that Google apparently didn't consider is that when you look someone in the eye you are almost always looking at them in the right eye. Even dogs know to look humans in the right eye (see PBS Nova episode "Dogs Decoded"). With Google Glass, the right eye is partially obscured by a camera/display, which is impossible to ignore.
These things look like the camera/display is more out-of-the-way. It may still be impossible to ignore if it's visible behind the glass, but it's got to be better than Google Glass.
It is, but every time I see a geeky community define who is and is not welcome by openly ridiculing conservatives, theists and everyone who enjoys mainstream things (the combination excludes most of their own culture), I, too, see "people working to make things worse." I do think you should spend your money on things that you value and not spend money on things that work against your values, but when you get upset with (or ridicule) people who don't share your values you have injured both yourself, by limiting your options and your appeal to most of your own society, and your cause, by making it unpalatable to people you'd like to convince.
People who shouldn't quit their day job don't generally get published. They don't reject all the shite, but agents and publishers currently do the vetting. Without them, someone else will have to do it, because there will be no market at all for books if only people with too much time on their hands can afford the time to find good books among the self-published.
My prediction is that if publishers disappear, Amazon will start "featuring" things they think won't frustrate their customers, and it will be as good a vetting as will be available so people will rely on it, and the idealistic will still bemoan the unfairness and cost of it. And we'll all be worse off because they won't be as good at it as publishers are.
As far as I'm concerned, the revolution in the book market isn't done until every single big 20th century publisher is out of businesses, and most authors sell and market their books themselves through convenient and inexpensive online services.
...and it's impossible to know if a "book" is total shite, hyped by phony reviews. The cost of a book will be not an hour's wage, but multiple hours trial and error.
But someone else does that for you. And with Calibre, you can do it yourself.
you cannot resell it
But you usually get it for less than the cost of the physical book, so you already took the price break of selling it later, up front.
you cannot read it on anything other than a Kindle.
Except a phone or a tablet or a computer.
And here are some things you can do with a Kindle eBook that you can't do with a physical book:
Own 4700 of them without taking up any shelf space or having to move heavy boxes. Take 4700 of them with you on vacation. Carry 4700 of them with you in your backpack. Have one delivered to you a minute after deciding you want it. Gain immediate access to a book you forgot to bring with you. Even if you didn't bring your Kindle. Have it delivered without a gas-guzzling truck pulling up to your door and a package to dispose of. Do a word search. Make highlights and have electronic access to the parts you've highlighted.
I, too, would like them to be cheaper, but they aren't directly comparable to physical books. Things change. Progress is made.
There's nothing in that list (with the possible exception of "being forced to use a specific technology") that wouldn't apply to just about any worker.
Programmers fear incompetence because they see it everywhere, even where it is not. They just don't recognize the value of thinking that isn't exactly like their own, or skills they don't have. So, this one applies to many, but to programmers more than anyone.
Programmers fear screwing up because they are in the business of automation. They can screw up many things all at once. Complete failure over a trivial error, because computers don't have common sense to ask, "are you sure you meant to do that?", or, "what does this mean?". This one also applies to anyone building something that can injure people, but not to most other people. Most people can only screw up one thing at a time, or have people receiving the product of their work, who can sanity check it.
Agreed. Detroit area and it rarely happens. I think the problem is over-blown by people who so can't stand to be inconvenienced by the presence of other people that they lose perspective.
Don't forget the bit about posting comments insulting religious or political views, and then potential employers not hireing you over it. The annoying thing is it can't be proven: If an employer looks you up and finds you've been insulting his religion, he isn't going to give that as the reason in your rejection letter
He doesn't have to, because that's not the only reason a rational adult wouldn't hire an internet warrior. He might choose not to hire you because you've made it clear that the majority of the people in your own culture are beneath contempt in your mind. That may not be a desirable quality in an employee, even if the potential employer doesn't disagree with your anti-religious views.
And you should be more concerned that once your "friend" has identified you to his life logging software, it will be able to automatically tag you in every video or photo.
You wonder of you are being recorded? You are, by the hundred cameres you walk past every day
And it's highly unlikely anything will come of it. To cameras on the street you are uninteresting.
I am less worried about some wierdo Google glassing me taking a piss
You should be concerned about some weirdo using you in an image meme, or of a "friend" incidentally capturing you everywhere you go, and another "friend" tagging you in the videos or photos, making your private business searchable.
The thing about geeks is their "look what I made" braggadocio is even bigger than their idealism, so *somebody* knows who created bitcoin. And the namedropping "I know who created bitcoin" also trumps idealism. So if somebody with resources wants to find out who created bitcoin, they will succeed.
Perhaps what was meant was don't incite panic making a false claim, as in don't yell "Fire!"
The department would like to fully assess what was said in the meeting. I am told that the meeting was far longer than the audio clip provided by SOCM and that Mr. Smith actually clarified his remarks.
If you're going to fight for privacy and rights and puppies and things, then do things toward that goal. Securing your own phone doesn't do that. It just makes work for you. Unless you really do have something of interest to them. Which you probably don't.
Use your efforts to write letters, keep informed so you can vote intelligently, educate people, publish something, or whatever. Securing your own phone is just "I got mine." Worse, it's probably wasted effort.
No, I believe he meant it as written. It appears that progressivism is about how one wants to be seen by other "progressive" people. The "progressive" people I know (they all think they're smarter than non-progressive people) do all the meaningless "progressive" things that look good to other "progressives", like changing their facebook profile pictures to equal signs when asked to do so, and posting progressive rants on the internet, but they all seem to have ordered their lives around never encountering the people they champion, they spend their money on toys and entertainment, and they spend their time being entertained. And posting progressive rants on the internet.
I've never seen that for sites that deal with sensitive information, like payment info. If someone manages to get one of my web forum passwords, what gain is there in exploiting it? It's an argument for not reusing passwords, but not a call for much alarm.
Last I read the ratio of autistic males to females was 4:1, which is still far less than the ratio of male to female tech workers in some fields, like IT. Also, the autistic ratio is probably over-stated, because there are social pressures to (1) give girls non-institutional social coaching, more so than boys, since social awkwardness is better tolerated in boys, and this allows coached girls to get by without institutional help and they are therefore less often diagnosed autistic, and (2) give boys institutional help in life and coping skills, since lack of success is less tolerated in boys, so they are more likely to be diagnosed.
Autism certainly plays a role in who works in the tech industry, but even autistic women are under-represented.
He's arguing that when gender stereotypes are reinforced at a young age, the effect cascades to adulthood and thus we have fewer women in technical fields.
That's a simplistic, cliche and tired explanation.
When I got into the field in the 80's there were more women and and there was less social dysfunction. A question more interesting that the cliche "women don't like tech", or the misogynist "women don't do difficult thinking", is "what happened in the 90's to make technical fields so hostile and so uniform?"
I'd suggest the internet happened, and gave a leaning toward social dysfunction a place to reinforce itself. Self-selection.
Slashdot Mirror
Every single google image search result shows the display part in front of the eye, or so close above it you can't fail to focus on it when you look at someone wearing it, and the opaque part is close enough it will be an obstruction until you have the person's attention and they are looking right at you.
This new project puts the HUD projector behind the glass, to the right of the face. It will hopefully be less intrusive to the way humans normally interact face-to-face.
A human-factors thing that Google apparently didn't consider is that when you look someone in the eye you are almost always looking at them in the right eye. Even dogs know to look humans in the right eye (see PBS Nova episode "Dogs Decoded"). With Google Glass, the right eye is partially obscured by a camera/display, which is impossible to ignore.
These things look like the camera/display is more out-of-the-way. It may still be impossible to ignore if it's visible behind the glass, but it's got to be better than Google Glass.
It is, but every time I see a geeky community define who is and is not welcome by openly ridiculing conservatives, theists and everyone who enjoys mainstream things (the combination excludes most of their own culture), I, too, see "people working to make things worse." I do think you should spend your money on things that you value and not spend money on things that work against your values, but when you get upset with (or ridicule) people who don't share your values you have injured both yourself, by limiting your options and your appeal to most of your own society, and your cause, by making it unpalatable to people you'd like to convince.
People who shouldn't quit their day job don't generally get published. They don't reject all the shite, but agents and publishers currently do the vetting. Without them, someone else will have to do it, because there will be no market at all for books if only people with too much time on their hands can afford the time to find good books among the self-published.
My prediction is that if publishers disappear, Amazon will start "featuring" things they think won't frustrate their customers, and it will be as good a vetting as will be available so people will rely on it, and the idealistic will still bemoan the unfairness and cost of it. And we'll all be worse off because they won't be as good at it as publishers are.
As far as I'm concerned, the revolution in the book market isn't done until every single big 20th century publisher is out of businesses, and most authors sell and market their books themselves through convenient and inexpensive online services.
...and it's impossible to know if a "book" is total shite, hyped by phony reviews. The cost of a book will be not an hour's wage, but multiple hours trial and error.
Yeah, can't wait.
you cannot lend to as many people as you'd like
How often do you actually do that?
you cannot keep a personal backup copy
But someone else does that for you. And with Calibre, you can do it yourself.
you cannot resell it
But you usually get it for less than the cost of the physical book, so you already took the price break of selling it later, up front.
you cannot read it on anything other than a Kindle.
Except a phone or a tablet or a computer.
And here are some things you can do with a Kindle eBook that you can't do with a physical book:
Own 4700 of them without taking up any shelf space or having to move heavy boxes.
Take 4700 of them with you on vacation.
Carry 4700 of them with you in your backpack.
Have one delivered to you a minute after deciding you want it.
Gain immediate access to a book you forgot to bring with you. Even if you didn't bring your Kindle.
Have it delivered without a gas-guzzling truck pulling up to your door and a package to dispose of.
Do a word search.
Make highlights and have electronic access to the parts you've highlighted.
I, too, would like them to be cheaper, but they aren't directly comparable to physical books. Things change. Progress is made.
There's nothing in that list (with the possible exception of "being forced to use a specific technology") that wouldn't apply to just about any worker.
Programmers fear incompetence because they see it everywhere, even where it is not. They just don't recognize the value of thinking that isn't exactly like their own, or skills they don't have. So, this one applies to many, but to programmers more than anyone.
Programmers fear screwing up because they are in the business of automation. They can screw up many things all at once. Complete failure over a trivial error, because computers don't have common sense to ask, "are you sure you meant to do that?", or, "what does this mean?". This one also applies to anyone building something that can injure people, but not to most other people. Most people can only screw up one thing at a time, or have people receiving the product of their work, who can sanity check it.
You didn't mention engineering software licenses. Those can be ridiculously expensive.
But if you are spending the bulk of 8% of your *engineering* budget on computing hardware, then yes, you probably are spending too much.
Agreed. Detroit area and it rarely happens. I think the problem is over-blown by people who so can't stand to be inconvenienced by the presence of other people that they lose perspective.
Don't forget the bit about posting comments insulting religious or political views, and then potential employers not hireing you over it. The annoying thing is it can't be proven: If an employer looks you up and finds you've been insulting his religion, he isn't going to give that as the reason in your rejection letter
He doesn't have to, because that's not the only reason a rational adult wouldn't hire an internet warrior. He might choose not to hire you because you've made it clear that the majority of the people in your own culture are beneath contempt in your mind. That may not be a desirable quality in an employee, even if the potential employer doesn't disagree with your anti-religious views.
...and contact us at our secret phone number, we *really* want you.
And you should be more concerned that once your "friend" has identified you to his life logging software, it will be able to automatically tag you in every video or photo.
You wonder of you are being recorded? You are, by the hundred cameres you walk past every day
And it's highly unlikely anything will come of it. To cameras on the street you are uninteresting.
I am less worried about some wierdo Google glassing me taking a piss
You should be concerned about some weirdo using you in an image meme, or of a "friend" incidentally capturing you everywhere you go, and another "friend" tagging you in the videos or photos, making your private business searchable.
The thing about geeks is their "look what I made" braggadocio is even bigger than their idealism, so *somebody* knows who created bitcoin. And the namedropping "I know who created bitcoin" also trumps idealism. So if somebody with resources wants to find out who created bitcoin, they will succeed.
Perhaps what was meant was don't incite panic making a false claim, as in don't yell "Fire!"
The department would like to fully assess what was said in the meeting. I am told that the meeting was far longer than the audio clip provided by SOCM and that Mr. Smith actually clarified his remarks.
If you're going to fight for privacy and rights and puppies and things, then do things toward that goal. Securing your own phone doesn't do that. It just makes work for you. Unless you really do have something of interest to them. Which you probably don't.
Use your efforts to write letters, keep informed so you can vote intelligently, educate people, publish something, or whatever. Securing your own phone is just "I got mine." Worse, it's probably wasted effort.
I don't own the code I create for my employer. I am not free to post it on the internet, publish it, give it away or sell it.
No, I believe he meant it as written. It appears that progressivism is about how one wants to be seen by other "progressive" people. The "progressive" people I know (they all think they're smarter than non-progressive people) do all the meaningless "progressive" things that look good to other "progressives", like changing their facebook profile pictures to equal signs when asked to do so, and posting progressive rants on the internet, but they all seem to have ordered their lives around never encountering the people they champion, they spend their money on toys and entertainment, and they spend their time being entertained. And posting progressive rants on the internet.
I've never seen that for sites that deal with sensitive information, like payment info. If someone manages to get one of my web forum passwords, what gain is there in exploiting it? It's an argument for not reusing passwords, but not a call for much alarm.
It's more a problem in places where getting a gun is more difficult than it is in the USA.
Last I read the ratio of autistic males to females was 4:1, which is still far less than the ratio of male to female tech workers in some fields, like IT. Also, the autistic ratio is probably over-stated, because there are social pressures to (1) give girls non-institutional social coaching, more so than boys, since social awkwardness is better tolerated in boys, and this allows coached girls to get by without institutional help and they are therefore less often diagnosed autistic, and (2) give boys institutional help in life and coping skills, since lack of success is less tolerated in boys, so they are more likely to be diagnosed.
Autism certainly plays a role in who works in the tech industry, but even autistic women are under-represented.
Judging from the local "fandom" community, which of course is anecdotal, there are lots of geeky women. Most of them aren't in tech, either.
Go to the top of the thread.
Karma inferno. Burn, baby, burn!
He's arguing that when gender stereotypes are reinforced at a young age, the effect cascades to adulthood and thus we have fewer women in technical fields.
That's a simplistic, cliche and tired explanation.
When I got into the field in the 80's there were more women and and there was less social dysfunction. A question more interesting that the cliche "women don't like tech", or the misogynist "women don't do difficult thinking", is "what happened in the 90's to make technical fields so hostile and so uniform?"
I'd suggest the internet happened, and gave a leaning toward social dysfunction a place to reinforce itself. Self-selection.