By breakfast, do you mean robbery?

Concealed Carry people do not commit crimes. It's an almost-zero statistic. In fact, CC people have been shown to actually thwart crime such as armed robbery and more than a few at Denny's restaurants.

It's also worth noting that places like Denny's is targeted for robbery more often than many other places in the same area. That can't possibly be due to the increased liklihood that armed people will not be present would it?

If you do work your way up, and become a tenured man within the organization, can you send your grad students and postdocs out to do hits on faculty aligned with rival cartels?

Man, the future of FOREX is going to make the Linux DE holy wars look like minor doctrinal differences...

Yarr, Matey! That be what happens if your Glass fails Google Genuine Advantage validation, aye.

This is in now way India-specific; but "I'd better shore up my battered sense of importance by getting my foot on the other guy's neck" seems to be the response that crops up to the sensation of vast, cosmic, insignificance as often as some nobler sense of kinship with your fellow gravity-well-dwellers.

I don't exactly like the fact; but when being better in some absolute sense isn't an option, we frequently turn to finding somebody to be worse, as though that's a substitute.

I have seen a few instances of this concept being actually true; but only in (computer assisted) old-and-busted-legacy-education.

I did some contracting on a couple of educational software implementation projects for a school system. One math, one music. In the math case, the software maintained an account for each student and (once told the general level and area to work with) would proceed to pose the student problems, keeping track of accuracy and speed, and adjusting the difficulty of future problems accordingly. It also crunched and pretty-printed the data for the teachers. Fundamentally, nothing that flash cards weren't doing slightly less efficiently since forever, and the software was capable of absolutely nothing useful if a given student was really having difficulty (except making the fact obvious to the teacher so they could do something about it and get a special education person involved if necessary). Within it's scope, though, it was better than flashcards at hitting the 'stuff you need work on; but aren't just beating your head against the wall on' bracket, and it made it easy to ID students with issues, sometimes even the conceptual areas they were particularly weak in, and get them the relevant assistance.

The music one was a bit more sophisticated. It came with a large library of pieces for which it was capable, once given the student's instrument type, of playing any neccessary accompaniment and of recording the student's playing. At it's most basic, this provided an easy mechanism for allocating and collecting 'practice X, Y, and Z for Tuesday' style assignments, since the recordings could be automatically collected, if desired, by the teacher the student's account was associated with. The more sophisticated capability was the ability to analyze the student's play and identify and score the degree of deviation from the correct output across an entire piece. Very neat to watch and also allowed convenient identification of students with weaker or stronger grasp of a piece (Not trivial if you want one music teacher to cover a zillion students. 1-to-1 listening is trivial for a competent music teacher; but finding time to do 90+ sessions of that, at least once a week, while also teaching them something new? Machines have their virtues...) and could show the student (graphically, note by note) their performance on the piece.

In both cases, the software would have been of dubious utility, especially for the hard cases, which it was pretty much only useful for identifying, not remediating; but computers can definitely do good-enough-and-far-more-comprehensive-than-you'd-hire-the-faculty-for high speed analysis of student performance.

I'm unconvinced by their ability to do much short of throwing additional drills at you (barring nontrivial further development of rather hairy problem areas) if you aren't getting it; so both programs would have been a total cock-up without the existing faculty in the loop, except for the strongest students who had the least use for them anyway (vs. almost-as-good flashcards and sitting down for piano practice customs); but very fast feedback was something that they could do, and did do. Probably still do, unless they've let them bitrot...

Not terribly relevant: regardless of what consoles are made of, the broad outlines of what games are going to look like generally depends on what is within shooting distance for doing a console port for. There may or may not be some improvements in the PC version, if yours can handle it (Skyrim HQ textures pack, support for higher-than-TV resolutions, etc.); but if serious surgery to the game is required to get it working on a console, that is a major limiting factor.

Honestly, more than any change in graphical power, I'm looking forward to seeing what having consoles with non-ridiculous amounts of RAM does for us. Even on games where the prettiness levels adjusted nicely to additional power, it was always a bit ridiculous sitting on 16GB of RAM (plus basically as much HDD space as the game wants, for state details where mediocre access speed is OK) and playing games that scrimped to ensure that all game-critical assets and state would fit in the half gig and shared with the GPU arrangement on the last generation of consoles. That's the sort of thing that makes games, even good looking ones, eerily sparse.

I'm assuming that there are nonzero costs associated with operating the command and control infrastructure, whatever minimal legal exposure you might be taking, the value of the operator's time, and whatever alternate uses there are for the bots (especially since high CPU load is probably one of the most visible, and thus risky, things that you can do to a bot, increasing the risk that the computer will be wiped, scrapped, or remediated).

Lots of things certainly pay better if you can steal some of the inputs; but unless you can steal enough to cover all your costs, some crime is just too worthless to pay. I don't know if CPU time for bitcoins has quite approached that point; but the delta between even the fastest x86s and GPUs and ASICs is pretty dramatic, so it wouldn't surprise me if it is getting close (particularly if you factor in the opportunity costs of using the bots for bitcoins, with the higher detection risk, rather than for something less visible to nontechnical users.)

The list isn't actually exhaustive: we have the "Federa Analog Act" for that...

What I want to know is why a glasshole had to wait until he'd finished storming out before writing an angry blog post...

Isn't the augmented reality future supposed to allow you to blog angrily and make a scene at the same time, thus making you more efficient?

"Who the hell is this guy to think he knows best as to how the owner should handle their staff?"

And such good advice, as well. Does he think that restaurant staff get juicy severance packages (even if it were legal to pull a 'lost present and future income' figure out of your ass and just fine an employee you are terminating...) or something?

It must be controlled. It just doesn't get any more simple than that. For government, they haven't yet learned their mistakes [where default notion gotta catch'm all pokemon!] is but I'm sure they soon will. For businesses, the default notion of "lock it all down" will yeild a much more immediate backlash.

As in this story, the ban on Google glass should be countered by Google handing these things out in large numbers to volunteers who will go places which are known to be hostile to such things. When the public sees the hostility, they will respond in much the same way I have to Denny's restaurants -- the gun-free kill zones. I won't go there any longer. And the reasons are exactly the same.

People need to get over their knee-jerk fears and understand what it is they are dealing with. And only after understanding it properly should they take a position. Reacting out of fear is almost always a very bad idea.

Surely the low-paid and replaceable service peons are directly responsible for all organizational policies, because they haven't resigned and gone to work elsewhere!

It's my right to harass them if I don't like the policies set by people over which they have no power!

Also, Google Glass pushes the wrong buttons, psychologically, because it's more or less identical to having somebody with their cellphone out and in 'about to start filming/shooting' pose 100% of the time.

It isn't news that most cellphones have cameras; but (because of that), there are signals, like putting it in your pocket, bag, down on the table, etc. that you aren't using it at the moment or are using it, but only to dick around on the internet.

Nothing that you can't change in a few (moderately visible) seconds of movement, or that would stop your covert mic/sneaky fisheye and post-processing techniques from working; but it works socially. 'Glass', even if it's actually turned as far off as the hardware allows, is indistinguishable from a cellphone in its most invasive stance at all times(and, thanks to the haha-not-foldable design, your options for taking it off are substantially worse than with normal glasses).

Jeez, man, next you'll be asserting that it's acceptable for restaurants to uphold certain standards of dress and decorum in order to best serve their customer niche! That's some kind of revolutionary crazy talk.

What kind of freedom-hater are you?