What makes you think that Google Glass is always recording video, much less sending it somewhere? Even if you record video, it's saved where you want it, not sent automatically to Google.

Most people agree that it should have a clear indicator light that shows when it's recording anything, not sure if they added that in the newer version.

It probably won't be too long before head-mounted displays like Google Glass are common as the normal interface you use for your personal wearable computer, currently masquerading as a smart phone. "Augmented Reality" is just one application for such an interface. It will be used for playing music, videos, using the Web, showing you where you are and what's around you; a camera watching you type on a virtual keyboard will be an input method, perhaps along with something like subvocalization pickups.

I don't even own a cell phone, much less Google Glass, but I can see a time when I'd use such an interface (it just isn't good enough yet for me to care). I wouldn't have a problem with a policy that says "please don't wear your head-mounted display in here", but I think it's sort of stupid to have such a rule and not also say "please leave your cell phone turned off and put away" as well. Anything you can do with a Google Glass you can do with a cell phone, you can certainly take videos without it being obvious.

It's a strange idea that the primary purpose for having Google Glass is to take videos of everything you're doing and immediately upload it for everyone to see.

An altimeter in an airplane is normally adjusted to show altitude above sea level (although above a certain height, it's set to assume a standard sea level pressure rather than what the current weather is producing). The two terms have very similar meanings, although I think elevation is more often used to refer to a fixed location.

There's nothing sacred about current business hours, who cares what the clock shows at sunset? Sun rises earlier in the summer? So what? Get up with the sun, or get up at some arbitrary clock time, the body doesn't care whether it's 6am or 10am (and neither do cows).

There's no reason you couldn't have summer hours and winter hours for businesses, schools, transportation, etc.

Once everything's automated, it won't matter that much anyway, do things on your own schedule.

No, you didn't read that. Not sure what's wrong with your reading comprehension, perhaps it's the way you were taught.

The big problem with teaching by rote memorization is that the student often ends up with no idea how to use what they've memorized. Perhaps for some people, memorizing facts, then learning how to apply them, works, but it isn't an optimal method. You would have learned fine if you were taught the concepts, THEN drilled on your times tables.

My experience in teaching is as a flight instructor. It's rather practical, and we have very high-stakes tests. I don't get people to memorize stall speed, best glide speed, etc, before they even understand what they are.

In any case, the "obvious" part was referring to an adult looking at the test, trying to figure out what it's testing without having been exposed to the actual lessons. What's being taught is how to take apart a specific problem and figure out how to solve it, by looking at "the whole" and "the part you know", which is a perfectly reasonable way of looking at subtraction problems. However, the test question is poorly written.

"part I know" is how the concept is being taught, it won't be a confusing concept to the 6-year-old. The confusing part is that the coffee cup with "6" isn't in the same space as 5 pennies. I think I agree, though, that someone who doesn't really understand it yet might do better, simply by keying in on the key phrases and plugging them in to the pattern they've been taught, rather than wondering how you subtract 5 pennies from a coffee cup with the number 6 in it.

Understanding subtraction, what it is, what it represents, how it occurs in actual problems, is completely different from learning your subtraction tables. This test is testing the conceptual part - the rote part isn't important to answering these questions, as they're small enough you can figure it out by counting.

The adaptive testing I'm talking about is going to be about concepts, not about memorizing facts. For memorizing facts, there are much better methods (see, e.g. Corrective Feedback Paradigm). Both are good uses of computers in education, unlike the garbage that most Computer-Based Education seems to be these days.

It doesn't need to be obvious to the kids, that's simply how they're being taught (and there's nothing wrong with that). Looking at the test as a whole, you can figure out how they're teaching things and what they're testing for.

Whether an adult who hasn't been taught a specific method, with key phrases ("the whole", "the hidden part", "the part you know"), finds a question difficult to understand, is irrelevant. What I was commenting on is that they don't appear to be following a coherent model, the test isn't properly testing comprehension of the concept. As an adult, you might be able to focus in on the key phrases they're using (and, after looking at the rest of the test, understand how they're being used even without having explicitly seen how it's being taught), thus figuring out the correct answer, but that isn't what the test should be testing for. By confusing the "part" and "whole" (with one being pennies, the other being unnamed units presumably inside a coffee cup??), the whole teaching paradigm is confused.

This has nothing to do with whether an adult can look at the test and figure it out.

The only problem with question 1 is that the "whole" is indicated as a coffee cup.

It's obvious that subtraction is being taught as "the full (whole) amount" minus "the part you know" equals "the hidden (missing) part" (or at least one way of thinking about subtraction problems can be thought of that way).

Some of the other questions are poorly worded as well, but Q1 is really bad.

There's nothing wrong with having tests where some of the problems are "too hard" for the level being tested, tests should be useful as diagnostics, exploring what you DON'T know. It should be totally normal to get a 50% on a test, that just shows what still needs to be taught. There's been a lot of research on computerized adaptive tests, that's what should be used, not testing for failure.

No, the response I got was that since the order of evaluation of function arguments is undefined, they can even be done in parallel. Each of the two expressions has sequence points within them, but the comma in the function call does not define a sequence point.

It isn't about the order of f() and g() being evaluated, but the two arguments to x():

x( (tmp = 1, f(tmp) + g(tmp) ), (tmp = 2, f(tmp) + g(tmp) ) );

Now, the value of tmp after the call to x() is obviously undefined, but apparently even the two arguments to x() are undefined.

Maybe the specific language specification has changed since then, I don't know, this was around 10-15 years ago, on an Alpha with DEC's ucode-based optimizing compiler.

I once had some code that confused me when the compiler optimized some stuff out.

I had a macro that expanded to a parenthesized expression with several sub-expressions separated by commas that used a temp variable, e.g.:

#define m(a) (tmp = a, f(tmp) + g(tmp))

because the argument (a) could be an expression with side effects.

Now, I knew that the order of evaluation of function arguments wasn't defined, but I never read that as meaning that a compiler could optimize away parts of a function call such as: x(m(1), m(2)); this particular compiler effectively acted as if it was evaluating both arguments in parallel, thus the value of tmp was undefined throughout (I think it eliminated one of the initial assignments).

Changing it to an in-line function made it work; it had initially been code written for a compiler that didn't have in-line functions and was in the middle of a very tight loop.

Also, looking at your other post, and a bit at the FlatRate plan and explanation of it not working, it doesn't sound like "certainty" was referring to how much data you could download but performance. With data-capped plans, you also don't get performance certainty - if everyone is trying use the network at peak periods, they're all going to get much lower performance than they would at other times - the heavy data users don't have any incentive to not use it at that time, so you have to build in enough capacity to handle them as well. It will end up costing more to handle the same number of customers, which means everyone pays more than they would otherwise.

The biggest difference between what I described and the FlatRate plan is that it's averaged over a much longer time period (on the order of a month) rather than a fairly short time period (on the order of minutes). It also isn't strictly trying to be a priority-based system (individual packets aren't handled at different priorities), just that your router speed-caps you based on your priority and current network congestion. If you aren't trying to use more than your current speed cap, you won't even notice it when your priority goes down.

I think they just screwed it up. They should have been able to offer it at competitive prices, and marketed properly could have competed against quota-based systems (queue video of trying to talk to the Grandkids when your data rate suddenly gets cut to 128K, and only getting 1Mbps during peak usage periods anyway - compared to Grandma getting 20Mbps in the evening and never worrying about going over quota and paying less than she would on the "other" plan that only gets her 50GB/month).

You asked in your other post

but we're talking about quota of 250GB. At 100Mbps, you'd blow through that in less than 6 hours. At 8Mbps you could transfer over 2.5TB in a month, and with the method I described, most of the time you'd have a much higher sustained speed.

If Grandma is video-chatting with her grandkids for 2 hours a month, she's not going to be on a plan for "just e-mail and light web browsing". If she's paying $5/month for 1Mbps, how many GB would that pay for on a data-metered plan? If you give her a 100Mbps connection, and she isn't careful about limiting the amount of bandwidth the video-chat wants to use, she's going to blow through her whole quota and end up paying more anyway, she may even need to limit it below 1Mbps! How does that help her?

If she's video-chatting with her grandkids in the evening, she's going to get more than 1Mbps, and if that's not enough then she SHOULD be paying more.

If someone is paying for a 1Gbps base-rate connection (in my scenario of $5/Mbps), they'd be paying $5000/month - so what if they want to download 324TB of data with that?

The problem with the plan you described is with trying to mix data caps with bandwidth caps, it sounds like. Users don't WANT limits, they want performance. If it's too slow, then they'll pay to speed it up. If they don't want to pay more, they can use the network when it's less congested. In either case, they don't have to be worrying all the time about how much data any specific activity is going to chew into their quota. Having a "certainly" of 100GB a month isn't something people want to even think about - with even 1Mbps, they have a certainty of getting at least 324GB/month, and knowing they can't ever possibly go over a quota is a much better certainty.

We all know that Lithium isn't flammable at all, and Li-ion batteries never catch fire.