ComputerWorld seems to be the source of the "1000-fold increase" quote. Then again, they also state that 512GB is "more than half a terabyte", so they're at least consistently inaccurate.

As for the temperature, the Fahrenheit scale is used on SanDisk's product page for the new card. Presumably, that's because Sandisk is an American company, and that page is marketing to a non-scientific audience. In the U.S., that means Fahrenheit would be used.

That's true, in the theoretical sense. Algorithms can be described in English or in mathematical notation. Runtime complexity of an algorithm can be calculated by hand. Most often, we want a way to also evaluate those algorithms, to take measurements on their behavior, and to understand them more intuitively. Computers are useful for that, but only if there's have a way to give them instructions. It follows that a student must be taught the rudiments of programming to have an automated method to explore the properties of algorithms.

This is analogous to the use of scientific instruments in astronomy. Everything can be done by hand (technically), but tools make things quicker and easier. They act as force multipliers to make more things practical to do in a shorter amount of time. For astronomy, that means that the astronomer doesn't need to be a million times closer to the thing they're observing in order to see it clearly. For computer science, it means that I don't need to evaluate a billion algorithmic steps by hand.

I don't care what you smoke or don't, or where you get it. That's not the point. Neither are the spelling mistakes. The point is that obscuring your communication unclear on a communication platform is counterproductive.

I find many of the things that people choose to *do* in a free society distasteful. That doesn't mean that I want to restrict rights or impose my will on others. I'd actually rather avoid that as often as possible. It's not my place to tell someone else what to do or think, if they're not actually hurting me. My reaction is purely emotional, and I don't like for my emotions to dictate my actions.

I don't expect respect from people that don't know me, but for something to be called a "dick move", it actually has to be an action. But go ahead and keep making the assumption that what I say on the Internet maps in a straightforward way to my actions in life. Seems to be par for the course.

That's OK. Some clever person will have already figured it out for me. I don't know if they strip HDCP-protection from video and capture the stream, read it out of memory while decoding, decrypt DVR video files or what, but I've no video that I've ever looked for was actually protected by restrictive streaming requirements.

If the executives of a production company feel assurance that their stream can't be ripped in one way or another, then they're living in a fool's paradise.

Putting all of your text in the comment box would make your text more legible, and less like a word salad. Although with words like "Mecial" tossed into the mix, it makes you look like a customer of the companies you're talking about.

There are other scenarios where an SMS or MMS may be better. During a home invasion, when you don't want to expose your hiding place by speaking. In a situation where it would be useful to send a picture. In a location with weak signal, where a text transmission may get through even when you can't connect for a voice call. And then, you've got the cultural issues. A lot of people (especially the younger ones) barely use speech calls on their phones, any more, and a text may be the first thing that comes to mind when trying to get help.

A cell phone is a flexible device. I don't see a problem with enabling its use in whatever way we can, when it comes to helping someone in an emergency situation.

I'm sure that there are things in the world that you find distasteful as well, and it would be just as effective if an anonymous internet poster said to"lose your distaste" for those things. It may happen through long exposure and desensitization, but it ain't gonna be purely by your say-so.

Photography isn't a crime. Neither is staring intensely at someone and refusing to stop if they're clearly uncomfortable or ask you to. That doesn't mean that it's not a dick move.

I don't like the idea of anyone else recording me, either (stores, etc), but I find the benefits of getting food, goods, doing my banking, etc outweigh my distaste. It doesn't have anything to do with Google Glass specifically.

Why would that be the first thing that comes to mind? I'm not planning on suing someone for recording me. That would be pointless. Just because I have to put up with something to take part in society doesn't mean that I have to like it (or that I wouldn't appreciate places that share my viewpoint on the matter).

Emphasis on "THEIR" establishments. It's their property. Same way that I could record anyone in my house or on MY property. Doesn't mean that it can't bother me when someone's gratuitously obvious about it.

Am I in that geek's house, or on their property? When I'm in a store or a bank, I'm on their property, and they have an interest in recording me that I understand. Same with the cop; he's doing something comparatively dangerous in the execution of his duties. He's a public servant. A private citizen in a public place recording me for unknown purposes? That's unsettling. Personally, I wouldn't ask them to stop, but I'd be appreciative of a business that forbid its patrons to film other patrons without their permission.

An 802.11-compliant device that receives a deauthentication message is required to terminate its connection to the base station. As such, if you transmit a deauth, you didn't just "express an idea", you gave a command to a device that's required to obey it. It's like saying "I'm not responsible for the damage caused by hitting the self-destruct button; whoever wired the button to the explosives is". When YOUR actions cause something to happen that wouldn't have happened if you didn't do anything, then YOU are completely at fault.

Whoever selected wifi is negligent, but that doesn't fully absolve the deauthenticator of responsibility.

Deauthentication messages work outside wifi encryption. It's a common wifi attack to broadcast deauth messages, then record the reauthentication of clients as they reconnect to the wireless access point. For encryption with known weaknesses (like WEP), reauthentication attempts can be analyzed to discover the network key. This attack is similar, but without the goal of discovering the key.

Apparently, the 802.11 standard states "Deauthentication is not a request; it is a notification. Deauthentication shall not be refused by either party." If the device is standards-compliant, then spamming a deauthentication message should continually knock it offline.

Of course, but what's easier and simultaneously more desirable for more people? A rule asking that the one or two people likely to wear Glass take them off, or asking all the people in the area to pay attention to the little light, if they're bothered by the idea of being recorded?

As a form factor, perhaps that's true. As a platform, I like Android enough that it overcomes the downsides. My phone's as much of a tech toy as it is a practical device.