Pewpewarrows

Oh awesome, thanks!

Does a setting like this also work for the iPad app? That's typically what I watch Netflix on while falling asleep.

Forgive me if this is a dumb comment to make, as I'm just barely starting to get into monitoring and the statistics knowledge that goes along with it, but adaptive fault detection does tend to scare me a bit. In the event that a problem isn't a spike, and instead gradually builds up over hours/days/weeks, I wouldn't be confident in something picking a dynamic threshold for me. I'd be afraid of it deeming the ever-rising resource usage as normal behavior, if it happens slow enough, and me not being alerted before it's too late (servers becoming unresponsive).

What's the difference between them offering snap-on Glass over existing prescription glasses, and offering an existing Glass model with snap-in prescription lenses? You need to have one or the other, and in both cases it's an addition to normal glasses, not a replacement. Your requirement can never be satisfied for those with sub-par vision.

As for your main point: for this initial model, the main benefit it offers, that I hear from users time and time again, is the instant photo/video capability. Not having to dig your phone or camera out of your pocket / handbag is a huge win for a lot of people in the initial explorer program.

But that's not why I think the product will succeed. I can see the future potential of an always-on heads-up display, and that's just too useful to pass up. Will it ever get there? Maybe not, but I think it has a greater chance of that than failure.

> Problem is…people who wear glasses can’t wear Google Glass.

Uhh, what? I was under the assumption, at least from all their marketing material and everything that I've heard about Glass from other people on the internet, that there are models that fit over your existing prescription glasses. No?

Fabric to bootstrap new Salt minions, and Salt for the actual deployment.

Starting before 21 legally != Starting before 21 illegally

You'd be surprised how much of a difference it makes when you remove the rebelliousness and allure of doing something illegally. You see this time and time again with parents sheltering their children from certain activities or harsh realities.

This is an awfully wrong approach. As with things like Alcohol, if you teach your children how to operate and act responsibly, they get into less trouble with it as an adult.

If you stilt their growth and don't allow them to touch a gun until they're 18, they won't have developed enough to handle it themselves without supervision.

The "killer features" all come from you using other Google products/services while signed-in to the same account that you use with Google Now.

Search for "pizza" or a specific address on your computer while signed-in to Google Maps? The next time you look at your phone it tells you how long it would take to get there, and offers you turn-by-turn directions, automatically.

Have a flight confirmation email sent to your signed-in Gmail account? You'll be notified on your phone if your flight gets delayed, how long the trip will be, and information about your destination. Same goes for package delivery confirmation emails.

And those really only scratch the surface. The more you use it, the more you come to rely on it, which makes you want to use Google-branded services more and more often. It's a brilliant move on their part.

And again, there's the belief that someone should have the legal right to perform an action, regardless of whether or not that action is reprehensible.

Ex: You should have the legal right to believe that all green-skinned humans are inferior to blue-skinned humans. But that belief makes you a jerk and I will judge you for it.

There's a difference between HN believing that businesses should legally be allowed to do all of the above, and HN believing that it's socially / morally wrong to do any of the above.

(Note that this is merely a reply to your comment in a vacuum, and shouldn't be construed as me supporting either "side" in this thread.)

It's impossible and immoral to have two projects with the same name. How dare they.

Completely unscientific, but if these outputs are any indication, this is going to be great news for Rubby users in the future...

  $ time ruby -e "puts 'hello world'"                                                                                                                           
  hello world

  real    0m0.184s
  user    0m0.079s
  sys     0m0.092s

  $ time ~/Downloads/topaz/bin/topaz -e "puts 'hello world'"                                                                                                    
  hello world

  real    0m0.007s
  user    0m0.002s
  sys     0m0.004s

Comparing conversion rates of a complete before and after revamp won't tell you anything about the effectiveness of individual components of the revamp. You'd need several A/B tests or a gradual series of changes to tell you whether labels inside or out actually made a difference overall.