This is the kind of thing where I'd have expected them to say "here's the successor to the SR-71, and oh by the way it's been operational for 20 years." (And that they'd only be saying it now because the next black project is coming online and it's obsolete.)
But instead they're saying they actually didn't have anything in-use during that time? I'm disappointed!
No. I have one halfway-viable option for high-speed internet (the other two literally do not work -- and I know because I tried them both), it's about twice as expensive as it ought to be, and it's provided by the most evil, customer-hating company since '70s Ma Bell.
It IS, in fact, too big given our current way our telecommunications infrastructure is paid for. The only incentive telecom companies have is a profit motive, and spending $10 million to pull a high-capacity fiber or build a digital microwave relay to a place like Burns, Oregon to only service a few hundred subscribers doesn't return the kind of investment today's stockholders want
Under the current incentives, telecom companies don't even have an incentive to pull fiber even in large cities! That's the goddamn problem here!
The rural fiber cost issue is a red herring. It is absolutely not an excuse for failing to provide decent connectivity in urban areas. (For example, I live about 3 miles from the center of a metro area containing 5 million people, and all I can get is Comcast cable for $$$$$, shit DSL, or shit Wi-Max.) This should be considered absolutely unacceptable in 2013 in urban America.
The real issue is regulatory capture, and anyone who says otherwise is a lying asshole shill.
In addition to Samsung, there is a huge list of cheap Chinese Android phones (which otherwise have excellent specs) - I have one of those phones, bought online from one of the Chinese webshops. The only well-known brand name these webshops carry is Lenovo, all the rest are, as far as us westerners, total anonymouses
So given the huge variety and lack of branding, how do you tell the good ones apart from the sucky ones?
all the other phone companies charged you the same whether you got a phone through them or not
That's true, if you're so much of a chump that you think "all" includes only AT&T, Verizon and Sprint. There are also hundreds of MVNOs that almost always require you to buy the device, but provide service a Hell of a lot cheaper than the "Big 3"
I got in before they became "add to wishlist," but almost an hour later the Play Store website is saying "Order not completed
It is taking a little longer than normal to process your order. We will let you know via email when your order is complete. This can take up to 15 minutes." and Google Wallet says "Pending." I don't know if I should be worried or not...
I don't know about "most capable," but the Nexus 4 was a Hell of a lot cheaper straight from Google!
(Right now, T-mobile's web site wants $427 for a Nexus 4 16GB -- although in fairness, they're offering a "free wireless charger ($60 value!)," so there's that...)
My guess is Yandex, they have a popular search via DuckDuckGo, and if they can upgrade their stuff (needs https on search) so we can ditch DuckDuckGo (US based) for Yandex directly, I'll happily switch.
HTTPS on search won't help anything; the NSA surely 0wns the certificate authorities.
IMO, "bullet" has at least a connotation -- if not a denotation -- of small size. I mean, we don't call the shells fired by modern artillery "bullets," do we? (Maybe you do, but I don't.)
(By the way, I wouldn't call a musket ball a "bullet" either because it's not the right shape.)
[I]f someone built what you're talking about and made it so that it was only providing driving AR functions (i.e. no text message pop ups, youtube is all out) it would be awesome.
Given who is in charge of the Google Glass project (Thad Starner), I fully expect exactly that. I'm surprised it isn't already like that, in fact.
Yes, but that's only the first part of the issue. The second part of the issue is that, as a consequence, the politicians might jump the gun and make it illegal to use in a car (or otherwise establish further prejudice against doing so) before it has a chance to be fixed appropriately.
Point 1: In your previous post you argued that the delivery mechanism doesn't matter, but now you're arguing that it does (HUD on glasses vs. HUD on car windshield).
Point 2: The entire reason I'm talking to you is that I'm explicitly rejecting the idea that Google Glass is supposed to be an "entertainment system." If that's what it seems to be now, then that means it's not fulfilling its augmented reality/contextual computing purpose and the software needs to be improved.
Point 3: When you start using sensationalistic language (e.g. "carnage on our roads") you lose all rhetorical credibility.
No, because you're begging the question. I'm asking for evidence that the types of information reasonably displayed in a HUD (e.g. gauge cluster info, night-vision to see beyond the range of the headlights, warnings about obstacles ahead, etc.) count as "cognitive distractions and visual disturbances" in the first place.
(Now, you might try to argue that that's not the kind of information that Google Glass currently displays, but I would counter with the idea that Google Glass is an immature/experimental product, and isn't necessarily programmed appropriately yet.)
You're right that the delivery mechanism doesn't matter [much], but the content does. That website is talking about text messages and entertainment, but that's not what a HUD is. Show me evidence that the sort of information that ought to be displayed in a HUD causes distraction, because that's what Google Glass is supposed to be showing (not text messages!).
On the contrary, it means they can jump straight to clean/renewable energy, just like the jumped straight to cellphones while skipping over all the wired infrastructure.
Slashdot Mirror
This is the kind of thing where I'd have expected them to say "here's the successor to the SR-71, and oh by the way it's been operational for 20 years." (And that they'd only be saying it now because the next black project is coming online and it's obsolete.)
But instead they're saying they actually didn't have anything in-use during that time? I'm disappointed!
Except cost (and profitability, if you're a Republican and think it should be less subsidized than the roads).
No. I have one halfway-viable option for high-speed internet (the other two literally do not work -- and I know because I tried them both), it's about twice as expensive as it ought to be, and it's provided by the most evil, customer-hating company since '70s Ma Bell.
Under the current incentives, telecom companies don't even have an incentive to pull fiber even in large cities! That's the goddamn problem here!
The rural fiber cost issue is a red herring. It is absolutely not an excuse for failing to provide decent connectivity in urban areas. (For example, I live about 3 miles from the center of a metro area containing 5 million people, and all I can get is Comcast cable for $$$$$, shit DSL, or shit Wi-Max.) This should be considered absolutely unacceptable in 2013 in urban America.
The real issue is regulatory capture, and anyone who says otherwise is a lying asshole shill.
A.K.A. "call the modem library," A.K.A. "done in 30 seconds with a quick Google search."
What's the difference between a sound card and a modem?
Yep, it's essentially the same conflict of interest as allowing cable & telco companies to maintain infrastructure and provide content.
So given the huge variety and lack of branding, how do you tell the good ones apart from the sucky ones?
That's true, if you're so much of a chump that you think "all" includes only AT&T, Verizon and Sprint. There are also hundreds of MVNOs that almost always require you to buy the device, but provide service a Hell of a lot cheaper than the "Big 3"
Nowhere. They lay eggs (at least according to Futurama).
You mean, what 6-year-old laptop has a less than 1920x1080 pixels screen? Lots of 'em!
I got in before they became "add to wishlist," but almost an hour later the Play Store website is saying "Order not completed It is taking a little longer than normal to process your order. We will let you know via email when your order is complete. This can take up to 15 minutes." and Google Wallet says "Pending." I don't know if I should be worried or not...
I don't know about "most capable," but the Nexus 4 was a Hell of a lot cheaper straight from Google!
(Right now, T-mobile's web site wants $427 for a Nexus 4 16GB -- although in fairness, they're offering a "free wireless charger ($60 value!)," so there's that...)
I think you mean Cheez-It-y, amirite?
HTTPS on search won't help anything; the NSA surely 0wns the certificate authorities.
IMO, "bullet" has at least a connotation -- if not a denotation -- of small size. I mean, we don't call the shells fired by modern artillery "bullets," do we? (Maybe you do, but I don't.)
(By the way, I wouldn't call a musket ball a "bullet" either because it's not the right shape.)
So you're saying that Snowden is a plant and the leaks are intentional?
I guess I'm not skeptical/paranoid enough, 'cause I figured these revelations were damaging enough to the NSA to be genuine leaks...
And why hasn't IMAP been extended to support them properly?
By your definition arrows, cannonballs, and cows thrown via trebuchet are also "bullets."
Given who is in charge of the Google Glass project (Thad Starner), I fully expect exactly that. I'm surprised it isn't already like that, in fact.
Yes, but that's only the first part of the issue. The second part of the issue is that, as a consequence, the politicians might jump the gun and make it illegal to use in a car (or otherwise establish further prejudice against doing so) before it has a chance to be fixed appropriately.
No, because you're begging the question. I'm asking for evidence that the types of information reasonably displayed in a HUD (e.g. gauge cluster info, night-vision to see beyond the range of the headlights, warnings about obstacles ahead, etc.) count as "cognitive distractions and visual disturbances" in the first place.
(Now, you might try to argue that that's not the kind of information that Google Glass currently displays, but I would counter with the idea that Google Glass is an immature/experimental product, and isn't necessarily programmed appropriately yet.)
You're right that the delivery mechanism doesn't matter [much], but the content does. That website is talking about text messages and entertainment, but that's not what a HUD is. Show me evidence that the sort of information that ought to be displayed in a HUD causes distraction, because that's what Google Glass is supposed to be showing (not text messages!).
On the contrary, it means they can jump straight to clean/renewable energy, just like the jumped straight to cellphones while skipping over all the wired infrastructure.