People freak out if I disappear for a day. They can't handle 2-3 years.:)
Honestly though, for most people, it's a very difficult pursuit unless they're fresh out of high school. Myself, I can't just stop working for the next 2-3 years. Besides the loss of income during the period, falling a few years behind with professional experience would hurt. Sure, I'd learn some things in school, but that's a lot of practical knowledge that becomes outdated.
I'm not trying to say people shouldn't try. It's just not practical for a lot of us.
I've thought about going back to school for a CS degree. I've been working the field for about 20 years, and I still don't have a degree. "fast, cheap, and high quality" would be exactly what I want. I don't have the time to spend 2 to 4 years pursuing a degree. It would just be a stupid choice for me right now. I can stop working, or reduce my hours to get my degree, so I can pretty much get right back into the job I already have at the same payrate, but then I'll have new student loans to pay off.
If I could test through a CS degree, and maybe take just a few classes on things I'm not great at (like an English lit class or something), it would be worth doing.
So far, when I've talked to schools, they do say I can test out of *some* to show I already have the knowledge, but it will still require too much time which is already a careful balance between work and rest/social.
My resume doesn't have any education listed on it either. It never has. Knowing the subject matter is far more important than the piece of paper saying I spent a few years at a school.
If they ask about it, I only discuss it loosely. Yes, I have gone to college. No, I don't have a degree. I started working, and stayed with working rather than school. I've never been pressed for any educational details, like what college/university, how long, etc, etc.
Usually, if I get in for an interview, I have the job. Some others, I interviewed and refused the job, just because I didn't want it after I saw the environment or the people I'd be working with. Employers seem just as likely to misrepresent the actual job, as candidates are to misrepresent their own abilities.
Maybe he was looking for an answer more like, this. It would be far faster and cheaper. You really can't beat 14 cpm (certificates per minute) with the more traditional routes.
Right, it would be silly to carry around a spare pair of glasses just so I could take off the Google Glass in... well... every situation where I'd interact with people.
So my option is still, don't buy Google Glass. Problem solved.:)
I think of them, the way I think of the video cameras I own. They sit on a shelf charging. When I need them, I use them at the event. When I'm done with them, I put them away. There's no good reason for me to keep the camera up and facing people I didn't intend to film.
I know people love using the "but my cell phone can record video!" excuse. The problem with that excuse is, you aren't holding it up facing them the whole time.
So yes, I won't own Google Glass, because it's simply going to piss people off. Problem solved.
I can think of a few reasons I might want them, but the cost and annoyance problems are still there. The only good reason I can think of to wear them is that I could have the camera in place. I can get a GoPro or whatever for those circumstances. Like, when I was driving car races, I went through some trouble mounting up a camera in the car. That was before GoPro was a thing, and duct taping a video camera to the side of my helmet wasn't really a practical option.:) Even still, if I got Google Glass to do that, there would be too many negative side effects. The last thing I want during a race is for an alert to come up in my vision with an email, facebook post, or phone call.
Come to think of it, the last thing I want to happen while I'm driving normally is for any of those alerts coming into my vision. I leave my phone in a suction cup holder on my windshield. I have the option of glancing over to see who the call is, when I've determined if it's safe (i.e., I've already stopped driving).
Somehow, I can't see any good reason to have Google Glass, except when I'm sitting on my couch waiting for a call or to do something online. I already have a lovely PC for that, and the screen is much larger than their monocle.
Did you even bother to read to the second line, where I said I don't own Google Glass, and farther down where I said I wouldn't unless it was priced down at novelty prices?
Like I said, If I *were* to get Google Glass, they'd have to be fitted to prescription glasses, so I'd either have to wear it all the time, not be able to see, or carry a second pair of glasses. The last option seems silly. So I'm going with the option that I don't want or need them.
And you could stream for a while via your phone. Mine makes a lovely wifi hotspot, and with my battery pack, I can stay on for over 8 hours.
Blinking LEDs are easily subverted also. Back in the day, with the huge VHS camcorders, I recorded concerts on the request of the musicians. To keep from distracting people, I had cut a small piece of electrical tape to cover the LED. Sure, they saw me with the camera, but the light wasn't on, so I "wasn't" recording. Even when you're shooting with permission, people act differently with the camera pointed at them. The best shots and videos have always been when it doesn't look like I'm shooting.
With film cameras, photographers were known to pretend to shoot rolls of film, just to get the model to loosen up and get used to the camera. It was usually around the 3rd roll of "film" that they'd actually put film in the camera. Now with digital cameras, it doesn't hurt so much to really take the pictures, even though you'll just delete them after. Worst case, you have to swap a few extra memory cards. Any decent photographer has a pocket full when they're out on a shoot anyways.
Ah. No, I only use techniques like that for legitimate reasons. Like if a lost phone is found, and we have no idea who to return it to.:) That, or doing it on a dare (i.e., with the owner's permission). People are very proud of their security, until someone like me defeats it in seconds.
I have lockpick sets for legitimate purposes also, like to open doors or cheap safes, where people lost the key. Just because I can pick a lock in seconds doesn't mean I'm going to break into someone's house. My last job, we had a mystery safe, that no one could find the key to. That one was tough, it took me 30 seconds to open, just to find some decade old backup tapes.
Well, he "take it off" option isn't necessarily practical.
I'm not a Google Glass owner. If I were, I still need my prescription glasses to see normally. Otherwise, people are just a fuzzy blob, and doing something simple like reading a menu in a restaurant is pretty close to impossible. I can kind of guess at what words are based on the general shapes of the blobs.
I guess the option would be to carry a pair of regular glasses along with the expensive Google Glass, which then seems very silly.
So in a social situation, taking them off wouldn't work too well.
As I understand it, the Google Glass interface is the way you'd interact with your cell phone too, so if my phone rings, I'd expect to see it on the Google Glass screen, which would then be in my pocket or where ever.
If they ever become a $25 novelty, I'd probably pick one up, so I could play with it, and I wouldn't feel bad that I rarely used it.
I've actually been looking for button cameras. I have a little RC helicopter that I want to put a very light weight camera on. It isn't very big, and can only lift about 4g, so any solution for that has to be small and light. Either I'm looking in all the wrong places, or the virtually impossible to detect button camera only exists on TV, kind of like the device you wave past a number pad to try every combination of numbers in seconds, and always just in time before [some tragic scenario].
You'll frequently see discernable patterns. But ya, if the last thing they did was play a game, it may make it harder. So if you want in, wait for them to make unlocking the phone the last drag action.
I'm not quite sure how you got that from my post. No, I don't go around recoding people without their permission. People ask me to do it a lot, because they want some nice pictures or video to put online. I've deleted perfectly good pictures I've shot, because someone who I didn't have permission from got in the shot.
And no, I won't own Google Glass, because... well... it's a waste of money. And I don't want to piss people off by making them think I'm recording them all the time.
There are reasons I'd like to have a wearable video eyepiece, but Google Glass doesn't fulfill those requirements.
People don't generally walk around holding up their phone like they're recording you. When they are, we have the opportunity to say "don't take my picture!" or "don't record me!'
Google Glass is always pointed at the person they're talking to, and always gives the impression that they're recording.
I like the pattern unlock. People's fingerprinted screens frequently give away their pattern, so the lock is worthless. Just look for the patterned smudge, and you're in.
Well.. It's been a long time. The chapter that I was a member of, they got their religious status. That was back in the early 90s, so I may be remember wrong, or it changed.
I'm pretty sure they'd fall into the 1.8 million. They definitely don't fall under the list of churches I'm a minister of. I'm not sure it's worth $20 to add to my religious portfolio.:)
You're tinfoil hat seems to be slightly out of adjustment. As luck would have it, I'm running a special sale on tinfoil hat adjustments this week. For the standard adjustment, the price is normally $400, but during this special it's only $325.
The black box holds the black inside. That's what runs the quantum singularity drive on modern aircraft. They color the exterior orange as a warning to never open it. In the case the black box exterior is compromised, it must be placed in a static bag and delivered to Area 51 immediately.
All that information is available in file [redacted], available from [redated] by contacting [redacted].
Wait.. You did have the security clearance to know the first part, right? I hope so.
I've given up on the name of most channels being accurate. None of them really show what they claim. Hell, even the guide channel isn't just a guide, it's a commercial with some guide information on it.
I go to Comedy Central for News, and Fox news for comedy. Syfy is B movies and wrestling, and Discovery/History/A&E have shows about guys who make duck calls, and wackadoodles talking about aliens. CSPAN is to see rich white politicians argue for their purchased opinions, if they bother to show up to work. Well, no other channel can you watch a mostly empty stage for hours on end. It's almost like reading Slashdot and expecting News for Nerds.
The only channel I ever expect to be as advertised is "Off", and I lose fewer IQ points watching it.
They'd get less than that. There are roughly 18 different denominations. So an hour long broadcast (with no ads, intro or credits) would give 3.33 minutes/ea.
You can't just group "Christian" together, as there are many major denominations. It gets simpler if you combine them farther back in their history. I'm pretty sure if a block of time was given to "Abrahamic religions", that would cause a holy war, as that includes Judiasm, Christianity, Islam, and Bahai.
You can't just base it on major denominations. There are roughly 313 groups of religions, which would cut the 60 minute show down to about 11.5 seconds each.
But not every church of every sect agrees on everything. So we may have to break it down to the IRS recognized religious organizations. All 1.8 million of them. So each one would get a whopping 0.002 seconds. So not even a single frame.
The author of the article may want his church included, but so will the Westborough Baptist Church, Church of Scientology, Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Church of Euthenasia, and Church of the Subgenius. (I think those last two are still recognized as religious organizations for tax purposes) .
As an ordained minister of the First Church of Smythe, the Universal Life Church, and others I printed out online, I will need multiple timeslots to represent the beliefs of my followers, which may or may not be consistent with any other organization.
Or, they can all just go do their own thing on their own dime.
The FCC could force religious broadcasting channels to give equal time to well founded scientific shows. Like, science without any sort of religion involved at all. Every television show with religious content can be forced to contain an equal part science, presented by a person with a scientific background and no theology is allowed in that part.
That would pretty much derail every religious show broadcast.
I know what they want though. They want half of the Cosmos show, so they can preach during it. I wouldn't watch it, if half the content is ancient mythology.
I wonder if we could extend this to everything on television (cable or broadcast). Then we could have a perfect clusterfuck.
Actually, the answer is "yes", but isn't very efficient. It sounds like he's stumbled upon the idea of peltier coolers (or TEC). It could convert the released heat energy into electricity. It would work great, if we could build a wall roughly the size of the planet.:)
Slashdot Mirror
People freak out if I disappear for a day. They can't handle 2-3 years. :)
Honestly though, for most people, it's a very difficult pursuit unless they're fresh out of high school. Myself, I can't just stop working for the next 2-3 years. Besides the loss of income during the period, falling a few years behind with professional experience would hurt. Sure, I'd learn some things in school, but that's a lot of practical knowledge that becomes outdated.
I'm not trying to say people shouldn't try. It's just not practical for a lot of us.
I'm fairly confident the later is more important to the schools.
I've thought about going back to school for a CS degree. I've been working the field for about 20 years, and I still don't have a degree. "fast, cheap, and high quality" would be exactly what I want. I don't have the time to spend 2 to 4 years pursuing a degree. It would just be a stupid choice for me right now. I can stop working, or reduce my hours to get my degree, so I can pretty much get right back into the job I already have at the same payrate, but then I'll have new student loans to pay off.
If I could test through a CS degree, and maybe take just a few classes on things I'm not great at (like an English lit class or something), it would be worth doing.
So far, when I've talked to schools, they do say I can test out of *some* to show I already have the knowledge, but it will still require too much time which is already a careful balance between work and rest/social.
My resume doesn't have any education listed on it either. It never has. Knowing the subject matter is far more important than the piece of paper saying I spent a few years at a school.
If they ask about it, I only discuss it loosely. Yes, I have gone to college. No, I don't have a degree. I started working, and stayed with working rather than school. I've never been pressed for any educational details, like what college/university, how long, etc, etc.
Usually, if I get in for an interview, I have the job. Some others, I interviewed and refused the job, just because I didn't want it after I saw the environment or the people I'd be working with. Employers seem just as likely to misrepresent the actual job, as candidates are to misrepresent their own abilities.
Maybe he was looking for an answer more like, this. It would be far faster and cheaper. You really can't beat 14 cpm (certificates per minute) with the more traditional routes.
That sounds like a job for C-4. :)
More like a cheap fire safe that takes a key.
Lockpicks don't work very well against a knob. :) That takes a different method, unless it has a key backup. :)
Right, it would be silly to carry around a spare pair of glasses just so I could take off the Google Glass in ... well ... every situation where I'd interact with people.
So my option is still, don't buy Google Glass. Problem solved. :)
I think of them, the way I think of the video cameras I own. They sit on a shelf charging. When I need them, I use them at the event. When I'm done with them, I put them away. There's no good reason for me to keep the camera up and facing people I didn't intend to film.
I know people love using the "but my cell phone can record video!" excuse. The problem with that excuse is, you aren't holding it up facing them the whole time.
So yes, I won't own Google Glass, because it's simply going to piss people off. Problem solved.
I can think of a few reasons I might want them, but the cost and annoyance problems are still there. The only good reason I can think of to wear them is that I could have the camera in place. I can get a GoPro or whatever for those circumstances. Like, when I was driving car races, I went through some trouble mounting up a camera in the car. That was before GoPro was a thing, and duct taping a video camera to the side of my helmet wasn't really a practical option. :) Even still, if I got Google Glass to do that, there would be too many negative side effects. The last thing I want during a race is for an alert to come up in my vision with an email, facebook post, or phone call.
Come to think of it, the last thing I want to happen while I'm driving normally is for any of those alerts coming into my vision. I leave my phone in a suction cup holder on my windshield. I have the option of glancing over to see who the call is, when I've determined if it's safe (i.e., I've already stopped driving).
Somehow, I can't see any good reason to have Google Glass, except when I'm sitting on my couch waiting for a call or to do something online. I already have a lovely PC for that, and the screen is much larger than their monocle.
Did you even bother to read to the second line, where I said I don't own Google Glass, and farther down where I said I wouldn't unless it was priced down at novelty prices?
Like I said, If I *were* to get Google Glass, they'd have to be fitted to prescription glasses, so I'd either have to wear it all the time, not be able to see, or carry a second pair of glasses. The last option seems silly. So I'm going with the option that I don't want or need them.
According to Google, the 10 second limit is just the default, not the max time.
https://support.google.com/glass/answer/3079296?hl=en
And you could stream for a while via your phone. Mine makes a lovely wifi hotspot, and with my battery pack, I can stay on for over 8 hours.
Blinking LEDs are easily subverted also. Back in the day, with the huge VHS camcorders, I recorded concerts on the request of the musicians. To keep from distracting people, I had cut a small piece of electrical tape to cover the LED. Sure, they saw me with the camera, but the light wasn't on, so I "wasn't" recording. Even when you're shooting with permission, people act differently with the camera pointed at them. The best shots and videos have always been when it doesn't look like I'm shooting.
With film cameras, photographers were known to pretend to shoot rolls of film, just to get the model to loosen up and get used to the camera. It was usually around the 3rd roll of "film" that they'd actually put film in the camera. Now with digital cameras, it doesn't hurt so much to really take the pictures, even though you'll just delete them after. Worst case, you have to swap a few extra memory cards. Any decent photographer has a pocket full when they're out on a shoot anyways.
Ah. No, I only use techniques like that for legitimate reasons. Like if a lost phone is found, and we have no idea who to return it to. :) That, or doing it on a dare (i.e., with the owner's permission). People are very proud of their security, until someone like me defeats it in seconds.
I have lockpick sets for legitimate purposes also, like to open doors or cheap safes, where people lost the key. Just because I can pick a lock in seconds doesn't mean I'm going to break into someone's house. My last job, we had a mystery safe, that no one could find the key to. That one was tough, it took me 30 seconds to open, just to find some decade old backup tapes.
Well, he "take it off" option isn't necessarily practical.
I'm not a Google Glass owner. If I were, I still need my prescription glasses to see normally. Otherwise, people are just a fuzzy blob, and doing something simple like reading a menu in a restaurant is pretty close to impossible. I can kind of guess at what words are based on the general shapes of the blobs.
I guess the option would be to carry a pair of regular glasses along with the expensive Google Glass, which then seems very silly.
So in a social situation, taking them off wouldn't work too well.
As I understand it, the Google Glass interface is the way you'd interact with your cell phone too, so if my phone rings, I'd expect to see it on the Google Glass screen, which would then be in my pocket or where ever.
If they ever become a $25 novelty, I'd probably pick one up, so I could play with it, and I wouldn't feel bad that I rarely used it.
I've actually been looking for button cameras. I have a little RC helicopter that I want to put a very light weight camera on. It isn't very big, and can only lift about 4g, so any solution for that has to be small and light. Either I'm looking in all the wrong places, or the virtually impossible to detect button camera only exists on TV, kind of like the device you wave past a number pad to try every combination of numbers in seconds, and always just in time before [some tragic scenario].
You'll frequently see discernable patterns. But ya, if the last thing they did was play a game, it may make it harder. So if you want in, wait for them to make unlocking the phone the last drag action.
I'm not quite sure how you got that from my post. No, I don't go around recoding people without their permission. People ask me to do it a lot, because they want some nice pictures or video to put online. I've deleted perfectly good pictures I've shot, because someone who I didn't have permission from got in the shot.
And no, I won't own Google Glass, because ... well ... it's a waste of money. And I don't want to piss people off by making them think I'm recording them all the time.
There are reasons I'd like to have a wearable video eyepiece, but Google Glass doesn't fulfill those requirements.
People don't generally walk around holding up their phone like they're recording you. When they are, we have the opportunity to say "don't take my picture!" or "don't record me!'
Google Glass is always pointed at the person they're talking to, and always gives the impression that they're recording.
I like the pattern unlock. People's fingerprinted screens frequently give away their pattern, so the lock is worthless. Just look for the patterned smudge, and you're in.
It could be entertaining. Maybe I should launch a kickstarter for "The Batshit Crazy Network"
Nah, I own one. It makes somewhat decent background noise occasionally. That, and what else am I going to watch all my old VHS porn on? :)
Well.. It's been a long time. The chapter that I was a member of, they got their religious status. That was back in the early 90s, so I may be remember wrong, or it changed.
I'm pretty sure they'd fall into the 1.8 million. They definitely don't fall under the list of churches I'm a minister of. I'm not sure it's worth $20 to add to my religious portfolio. :)
You're tinfoil hat seems to be slightly out of adjustment. As luck would have it, I'm running a special sale on tinfoil hat adjustments this week. For the standard adjustment, the price is normally $400, but during this special it's only $325.
The black box holds the black inside. That's what runs the quantum singularity drive on modern aircraft. They color the exterior orange as a warning to never open it. In the case the black box exterior is compromised, it must be placed in a static bag and delivered to Area 51 immediately.
All that information is available in file [redacted], available from [redated] by contacting [redacted].
Wait.. You did have the security clearance to know the first part, right? I hope so.
I've given up on the name of most channels being accurate. None of them really show what they claim. Hell, even the guide channel isn't just a guide, it's a commercial with some guide information on it.
I go to Comedy Central for News, and Fox news for comedy. Syfy is B movies and wrestling, and Discovery/History/A&E have shows about guys who make duck calls, and wackadoodles talking about aliens. CSPAN is to see rich white politicians argue for their purchased opinions, if they bother to show up to work. Well, no other channel can you watch a mostly empty stage for hours on end. It's almost like reading Slashdot and expecting News for Nerds.
The only channel I ever expect to be as advertised is "Off", and I lose fewer IQ points watching it.
They'd get less than that. There are roughly 18 different denominations. So an hour long broadcast (with no ads, intro or credits) would give 3.33 minutes/ea.
You can't just group "Christian" together, as there are many major denominations. It gets simpler if you combine them farther back in their history. I'm pretty sure if a block of time was given to "Abrahamic religions", that would cause a holy war, as that includes Judiasm, Christianity, Islam, and Bahai.
You can't just base it on major denominations. There are roughly 313 groups of religions, which would cut the 60 minute show down to about 11.5 seconds each.
But not every church of every sect agrees on everything. So we may have to break it down to the IRS recognized religious organizations. All 1.8 million of them. So each one would get a whopping 0.002 seconds. So not even a single frame.
The author of the article may want his church included, but so will the Westborough Baptist Church, Church of Scientology, Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Church of Euthenasia, and Church of the Subgenius. (I think those last two are still recognized as religious organizations for tax purposes) .
As an ordained minister of the First Church of Smythe, the Universal Life Church, and others I printed out online, I will need multiple timeslots to represent the beliefs of my followers, which may or may not be consistent with any other organization.
Or, they can all just go do their own thing on their own dime.
I'd *love* to see that.
The FCC could force religious broadcasting channels to give equal time to well founded scientific shows. Like, science without any sort of religion involved at all. Every television show with religious content can be forced to contain an equal part science, presented by a person with a scientific background and no theology is allowed in that part.
That would pretty much derail every religious show broadcast.
I know what they want though. They want half of the Cosmos show, so they can preach during it. I wouldn't watch it, if half the content is ancient mythology.
I wonder if we could extend this to everything on television (cable or broadcast). Then we could have a perfect clusterfuck.
Actually, the answer is "yes", but isn't very efficient. It sounds like he's stumbled upon the idea of peltier coolers (or TEC). It could convert the released heat energy into electricity. It would work great, if we could build a wall roughly the size of the planet. :)