Replicator 2, first few weeks I didn't have any good prints from thingiverse (their built in ones worked fine) until I realized that the print temp was too low 185C vs 230C. I had followed what the reviews said for my third party filament. After fixing that I got a third party glass build plate and it has rocked ever since. It's become a standard part of my design/prototyping process and was a big upgrade from foam core and hot glue. I don't get a lot of value from printing models off of thingiverse though (I had originally expected I would), most of what I use it for is custom and that makes it well worth the price.
Our http://wearscript.com project for Glass and wearables has some similarities to phonegap (we called it GlassGap at one point) but has different design goals (e.g., live coding, pub/sub communications between devices, etc).
It's designed to be out of your way, when you get a message for example it plays a soft chime that you can hear but nothing pops up. For something to come up you either have to tap it or tilt your head to see what the notification is. With your phone you'd have to take it out, unlock, open the app that made the noise, and put it away. The interface is quite streamlined since it is intended for quick notifications. Of course anything that notifies you of something could be distracting but since it only does so for high priority emails and in a way that's easy to ignore I don't think it is. In your case though, if you specifically don't want anything to interrupt you while coding then I'd just say don't use it while doing that? My personal style while coding is more event based (short time intervals per-task), I regularly pop between different projects and try to keep everything busy all at once (e.g., cluster going full tilt, 3d printer chugging away, teams tasked with work). Glass works well for me, I can triage emails by lifting my head up when I hear the chime without moving my hands from the keyboard while typing. Everyone has their own personal style that fits with the type of work they do and how they like doing it.
That's not what I'm saying at all (quite the opposite, I specifically said I don't doubt his experience). I also am glad that people voice their experiences good/bad with tech, that's what I'm basing my opinion on. My issue is not with anything Chris did, it's that any negative statement is amplified because it grabs attention and positive statements are generally 'boring' as news.
I do agree with your comment about the forum and I've lobbied for that to be opened up myself on numerous occasions. I think it's largely for legacy reasons at this point since people assumed their posts would be private it's tricky to make them more public than they had expected, but there are highly active communities on G+ that are public.
The plausibility of an argument isn't a good measure to use because that's exactly the problem I have with this reporting, they come up with a plausible narrative 'a priori' that fits people's pre-conceptions and then justify it with random tidbits they can drudge up. Since people can naturally agree with such statements it makes correcting them substantially harder.
I know literally hundreds of people who use Glass daily and have never heard this once. Now it's on the front page of hacker news as a "thing". I don't doubt Chris is telling the truth about his experience. I'm just generally bothered by tech bloggers (in this case CNET) wanting to feed people intellectual junk food that they are looking for without any real concern for the damage it does to the industry they are reporting on. Reporting on legitimate problems with technology is beneficial because it opens a dialogue that ultimately makes it better, making "mountains out of mole hills" just distracts everyone and creates a fog of confusion.
Definitely not my experience, I have no such eyestrain or headaches and this is actually my first time hearing of someone having had this experience. I've heard of people having such problems with video games too but I feel like it's equally rare. I've been active in Glass development (http://openshades.com and http://wearscript.com).
I think CNET is just looking for attention out of a non-issue, I've done interviews with them about Glass before (I won't bother linking, they don't deserve any more attention) and I felt then (and see in this article too) a desire to just dig up any morsel of controversy without a real appetite for balanced reporting. Specifically while being interviewed they dug for red meat that could confirm people's negative suspicions and in my case I had nothing negative to say and they still tried to spin it that way. I had to fight to get them to quote me accurately and they still refused to change blatant misquotes that served their narrative, I can't really emphasize how frustrating it is to have someone twist your words around to try to get a few more people to click on their post.
Tips for anyone doing tech press interviews: choose your outlet wisely (it wastes a lot of time fixing a poorly written article), refuse to do interviews that aren't recorded (either video, audio, or over email) as they will "hear" what they want, and insist on seeing a draft before they publish as a condition to the interview.
Can't agree more (focusing on microsec vs nights/weekends). It's not an excuse to say they need to train/test their algos, they have entirely separate machines for that. For any other tech company live rollouts are a fact of life. I'd suspect the reason is historical and based on a single person's practical workday, if you extend it to 24/7 then naturally you'd have to have several shifts. Same reason why they are closed on holidays, to give people a break. So I'd suspect it's to benefit the people involved and not the machines which I'm certain can be adapted.
I think this was a mistake. Like others have said it's a waste of their resources and you gain basically nothing in comparison. Even outside of electricity, having to bug the IT guy to look at the activity and taking up resources that other students could be using isn't worth the $2. I'd put an apology up and remove the veiled threat, it's just going to cause you problems.
Don't agree with most of the article but hey it's cool that I'm in the top picture (second row). Here are a few brief comments
Socially Awkward: I've worn Glass every day since I got it (one of the first ones) and had 2 negative reactions and one of them ended up being a VC that after explaining it to him offered to fund me (I didn't accept). You have to be sympathetic to other people's feelings, if someone is feeling uncomfortable and you aren't using it then just put it on your head/neck and watch them chill out instantly. It's awkward when someone's constantly wondering if you are recording them but too scared to ask, just diffuse the situation and figure out what is making them feel uncomfortable. Once they understand how it works it will clear up any wild ideas they may have. Part of being an early adopter of anything is to explain it to people who are curious (same goes for fitbits, AR drones, etc).
Glass wearers self-segregating: If you act nervous and self aware while you are wearing it, you will make the whole room feel uncomfortable. If you are approachable and having fun with others you'll get a whole night club to stop dancing and want to talk to you (this is in DC, not exactly a bastion of techies like SF/NY). Due to how the Glass invites were distributed it's not "self-segregated" it's "self-selected", you invite your friends which means when you go out you are with your friends. Causation vs correlation man, the former is sensational and the latter isn't even mentioned.
At the end it starts to get more agreeable: glass is v1, it's incredibly ambitious of them to have released Glass like they did and it's allowing us to even have these discussions (thanks!), and the status quo (phones) aren't that great either right now. Sure it's not perfect but look where we came from: custom/clunky wearables of the 90's, nothing special for a decade, and now we have something that gets more positive attention than I'd otherwise get. Instead of looking at the first datapoint on a timeline and dumping on it, shouldn't a hip futurist publication (where the author says he gets made fun of...that's probably more telling about what it's like to work at Wired than anything) try to think out a few more steps and not sling link bait like this?
The face recognition thing actually makes sense since the camera quality isn't that great and it's fixed focus. You'd have to get unreasonably close to someone to actually get it to work. I've tried, it just needs time for the privacy/UX issues to be resolved.
I've been using hadoop for 4 years now (author of hadoopy.com) so I'll chime in. I'll state the use cases that Hadooop/MapReduce (and to a close approximation the ecosystem around them) were developed for so that we're on the same page. 1.) Save developers time at the expense of inefficiency (compared to custom systems), 2.) Really huge data (several petabytes), 3.) Unstructured data (e.g., webpages), 4.) Fault tolerance, 5.) Shared Cluster Resource, and 6.) Horizontal scalability. Basically people already had that and wanted easier queries, so it's been pulled that way for the second generation now 1.) Pig/Hive and 2.) Impala and others.
Of the 6 design considerations I listed, none of them are really addressed here. If you outgrow a single GPU then you have a huge performance penalty growing (that's a vertical growth). If you want to make your own operations (very common), then this would be impractical.
It's a nice idea but it'd be better to compare against things like Memsql and the like, where they have been designed from first principles for fast SQL processing. I'd recommend just dropping any Hadoop/HBase comparisons and compare within the same class, Hive is embarrassingly slow even in the class it's in (compare it to Google's Dremel/F1 or Apache Impala).
Totally agree. Bots vs humans is not an issue of security at all in a cryptographic sense (which that phrase refers to). For this particular task all we have are tricks that have practical value. It isn't even clear if the problem is meaningful in an absolute sense, while cryptographic protocols can be clearly defined and reasoned about.
Would it even be possible to solve this problem in a serious way? If you could then would that mean strong AI is not possible? If not then why don't we figure out something better like asking users to actually pay for things and then we don't have to solve these philosophical quandaries. If it's too hard for people to pay for things then lets focus on that problem instead. If you don't want money and just want to rate limit then look into proof of work puzzles.