Where do you get the idea that it's always on and streaming to google? Glass is aggressive about power savings.
I had a chance to try Glass last week in Chicago and I believe that the owner stated around 3ish hours of battery life for non-stop video recording. You COULD attach a USB cable while wearing them and keep a battery in your pocket.
Look at it this way: If Google had developed a new battery technology that fit in the current Glass profile AND was 'always on, always front recording' then Google would have much bigger news than just Glass itself.
Really? I thought Apple Notebooks didn't get quad-core i7s until the most recent refresh. (Or the second most recent refresh). Was that really two years ago?
-OR-
Are you reporting a dual-core chip with hyper-threading as a quad-core? It's a common mistake that Apple users stereotypically make.
-OR-
Intel offered quad-core i3/i5 processors and I'm simply unaware.
-BUT-
Please let me know which CPU you have. I want to be better informed.
but rather say that it is so statistically unlikely that it would have required the manipulation of probability by some intelligent deity to arrive at the results we have.
I either don't remember or haven't heard this version. They think it's more probable that a deity manipulated probability? While that doesn't sound scientific to me, I'm intrigued. Do you have a link I could start with (yes, I'll google it for myself, but you seem to already know of the idea.)
Right now my browser combines the concepts of encrypted and authenticated into one value. Actually that's not always entirely true. Some modern browsers display a scary warning about something or other (self-signed certificates... when did those become bad? As long as they represent the domain in question they are fine but not according to browser makers).
Anyway, the point is that we need to get away from treating an SSL certificate as more than they are. Hell, I can create as many certificates as I want and engage in completely secure communications with whomever I choose.
Wow, I got completely bored with this and am going to post anyway.
-- "Get off of my/. until you can make your point without name calling."
Let's bring this site back under control of responsible adults. No one cares if the free service (note: SERVICE) you relied upon went belly up or just started hating you in particular. Like the parent I'm responding to, if the domain wasn't worth the going rate for you then you just couldn't justify having the domain.
"I'm partly to blame" my ass. You are entirely to blame. Grow up.
I am compelled to thank you for your post. I'm saddened by the number of people believing the rhetoric and statistics thrown about when the raw data doesn't support it.
I find it interesting that the multiple vehicle number is 24%. That means that 76% of all multiple vehicle traffic fatalities in 2006 were caused by sober drivers. Do you think that being caught speeding should permanently revoke one's privilege to drive?
I'm having trouble finding the data on their site so can you source another location that compares advances in car safety versus drunk driving enforcement as a leading cause for the reduction in traffic fatalities? Bonus points for adjusting the percentage of fatalities over the years for the increase in licensed drivers.
In other words, I'm having trouble seeing "the history that shows strict enforcement of impaired..." in the data from what I hope is an unbiased source. What's your source?
The number, exactly*, is 37% involve alcohol. The quote from the bottom of that page:
Note: NHTSA estimates alcohol involvement when alcohol test results are unknown. Alcohol-Impaired Driving – at least one driver or motorcycle rider had a BAC of.08 or higher.
I just realized that you might not be from the USA which explains your take on this issue. It sounds like the process is handled a bit better where you're from.
I find it amusing that the second post I've replied to is again from you.
Right... Which seems more likely? That they go to all this trouble and expense to give themselves a power trip, or that they do it to save lives? If they didn't care about whether you were innocent, why would they want to insist on giving you a blood test? Surely they would just get the judge to compel you to use the breathalyzer and use that to convict you.
You might not really understand how it works. First, there is no trouble nor expense to consider because the accused is going to pay for all of it. Have you seen the fines in the states? Second, you do not need to have a BAC over the legal limit to be convicted of DUI. "DUI" encompasses a broad variety of claims but in the end they are all defined to mean that you can't possibly be driving safely. Performing a breath test or a blood draw is only a means to gather more evidence against you. If the officer wants to arrest you he or she will do it no matter what the test results. However, if you blow a.10 you will ALSO be given a ticket for BAC. That means you will get two tickets at that point (though you'll almost never be convicted of both). Normally the officer needs to have a reason for stopping your vehicle. Many times that comes from speeding. So you'll probably be given a third ticket for your speed (or whatever you were pulled over for). Again, you will most likely have that ticket dropped by the prosecutor along with the BAC ticket.
I'm skipping many finer points but the gist is that DUI isn't strictly related to alcohol nor blood alcohol content. Additionally, you can be arrested for DUI (or DWI) no matter what the breath and/or blood tests indicate.
It is illegal to drive under the influence of alcohol, but some still do it anyway and that results in people dying. Trying to prevent the loss of life is exactly what the police are supposed to do.
It is not always illegal to drive under the influence of alcohol. Additionally, roughly 75% of fatal accidents do not involve alcohol. While you are wrong about what the police are supposed to do (well, you are correct in spirit but that isn't actually the mission of the police), how do you explain their utter failure in changing the number of fatal traffic accidents since the 80's despite the hugely increased focus on alcohol use?
Finally, you might be tempted to ask me for citations. Luckily, google is your friend.
It's almost too bad this information has been released. On the plus side there could be many people that could grab some information, now that it's public, before it gets blocked. On the other hand, if they don't already know about this workaround they might not ever find out since the normal access to the internet is censored.
Slashdot Mirror
Where do you get the idea that it's always on and streaming to google? Glass is aggressive about power savings.
I had a chance to try Glass last week in Chicago and I believe that the owner stated around 3ish hours of battery life for non-stop video recording. You COULD attach a USB cable while wearing them and keep a battery in your pocket.
Look at it this way: If Google had developed a new battery technology that fit in the current Glass profile AND was 'always on, always front recording' then Google would have much bigger news than just Glass itself.
I'm a little bummed that you might be right.
Two year old quad-core MacBook Pro?
Really? I thought Apple Notebooks didn't get quad-core i7s until the most recent refresh. (Or the second most recent refresh). Was that really two years ago?
-OR-
Are you reporting a dual-core chip with hyper-threading as a quad-core? It's a common mistake that Apple users stereotypically make.
-OR-
Intel offered quad-core i3/i5 processors and I'm simply unaware.
-BUT-
Please let me know which CPU you have. I want to be better informed.
but rather say that it is so statistically unlikely that it would have required the manipulation of probability by some intelligent deity to arrive at the results we have.
I either don't remember or haven't heard this version. They think it's more probable that a deity manipulated probability? While that doesn't sound scientific to me, I'm intrigued. Do you have a link I could start with (yes, I'll google it for myself, but you seem to already know of the idea.)
> You're argument (viz. people just need to talk on their phones, and smaller is better)
I don't see that argument in the parent post. In fact, the opposite:
> the rest of the world uses it to call me, and it was smaller [...], and did more.
But you're right about third party apps.
Wait... who's putting that sticker on? You or the store?
Right now my browser combines the concepts of encrypted and authenticated into one value. Actually that's not always entirely true. Some modern browsers display a scary warning about something or other (self-signed certificates... when did those become bad? As long as they represent the domain in question they are fine but not according to browser makers).
Anyway, the point is that we need to get away from treating an SSL certificate as more than they are. Hell, I can create as many certificates as I want and engage in completely secure communications with whomever I choose.
Wow, I got completely bored with this and am going to post anyway.
-- /. until you can make your point without name calling."
"Get off of my
Get off of my /. until you can make your point without name calling.
Let's bring this site back under control of responsible adults. No one cares if the free service (note: SERVICE) you relied upon went belly up or just started hating you in particular. Like the parent I'm responding to, if the domain wasn't worth the going rate for you then you just couldn't justify having the domain.
"I'm partly to blame" my ass. You are entirely to blame. Grow up.
I can confirm that Netflix on the PS3 looks far better than my HD cable did.
When I want to see something with the best possible quality, I rent or buy the bluray disc.
Maybe cayenne8 has really great cable and they don't overcompress the streams in order to cram more channels in.
And yet they usually don't.
[citation needed]
It was still black and white when I joined.
I am compelled to thank you for your post. I'm saddened by the number of people believing the rhetoric and statistics thrown about when the raw data doesn't support it.
40% is a little high. The total for 2006 is 31%.
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Crashes/CrashesAlcohol.aspx
I find it interesting that the multiple vehicle number is 24%. That means that 76% of all multiple vehicle traffic fatalities in 2006 were caused by sober drivers. Do you think that being caught speeding should permanently revoke one's privilege to drive?
Here are the real numbers for traffic fatalities.
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx
I'm having trouble finding the data on their site so can you source another location that compares advances in car safety versus drunk driving enforcement as a leading cause for the reduction in traffic fatalities? Bonus points for adjusting the percentage of fatalities over the years for the increase in licensed drivers.
In other words, I'm having trouble seeing "the history that shows strict enforcement of impaired ..." in the data from what I hope is an unbiased source. What's your source?
I should have said 32% as that's what they list as the total. 37% is for single vehicle.
I did say roughly and I apologize for being so rough. I don't know what an "autoblog" is, but here is a direct link to the NHTSA page: http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Crashes/CrashesAlcohol.aspx
The number, exactly*, is 37% involve alcohol. The quote from the bottom of that page:
Note: NHTSA estimates alcohol involvement when alcohol test results are unknown. .08 or higher.
Alcohol-Impaired Driving – at least one driver or motorcycle rider had a BAC of
* subject to NHTSA estimation
I just realized that you might not be from the USA which explains your take on this issue. It sounds like the process is handled a bit better where you're from.
I find it amusing that the second post I've replied to is again from you.
Right... Which seems more likely? That they go to all this trouble and expense to give themselves a power trip, or that they do it to save lives? If they didn't care about whether you were innocent, why would they want to insist on giving you a blood test? Surely they would just get the judge to compel you to use the breathalyzer and use that to convict you.
You might not really understand how it works. First, there is no trouble nor expense to consider because the accused is going to pay for all of it. Have you seen the fines in the states? Second, you do not need to have a BAC over the legal limit to be convicted of DUI. "DUI" encompasses a broad variety of claims but in the end they are all defined to mean that you can't possibly be driving safely. Performing a breath test or a blood draw is only a means to gather more evidence against you. If the officer wants to arrest you he or she will do it no matter what the test results. However, if you blow a .10 you will ALSO be given a ticket for BAC. That means you will get two tickets at that point (though you'll almost never be convicted of both). Normally the officer needs to have a reason for stopping your vehicle. Many times that comes from speeding. So you'll probably be given a third ticket for your speed (or whatever you were pulled over for). Again, you will most likely have that ticket dropped by the prosecutor along with the BAC ticket.
I'm skipping many finer points but the gist is that DUI isn't strictly related to alcohol nor blood alcohol content. Additionally, you can be arrested for DUI (or DWI) no matter what the breath and/or blood tests indicate.
It is illegal to drive under the influence of alcohol, but some still do it anyway and that results in people dying. Trying to prevent the loss of life is exactly what the police are supposed to do.
It is not always illegal to drive under the influence of alcohol. Additionally, roughly 75% of fatal accidents do not involve alcohol. While you are wrong about what the police are supposed to do (well, you are correct in spirit but that isn't actually the mission of the police), how do you explain their utter failure in changing the number of fatal traffic accidents since the 80's despite the hugely increased focus on alcohol use?
Finally, you might be tempted to ask me for citations. Luckily, google is your friend.
Taking blood is not rocket science. It is quite easy to setup a truck with the appropriate facilities for handling blood samples.
Do you not understand what HIPAA is about?
It's almost too bad this information has been released. On the plus side there could be many people that could grab some information, now that it's public, before it gets blocked. On the other hand, if they don't already know about this workaround they might not ever find out since the normal access to the internet is censored.
Giving myself a headache I am!
Do you / have you ever run your code in an emulator? Might not be practical but would probably be fun.
Great story anyway. Thanks!
What in the world are you doing wrong that you get UAC prompts when opening Word? I'd like to see example steps on how to make that happen.
I already have. Q.E.D.
No, you missed the post way up higher.