WHEN SHOULD YOU WORK WITH A REALTOR?
WHEN SHOULD YOU WORK WITH A REALTOR?
When you have property to sell at a premium, you want to work with someone who keeps his finger on the pulse of DC’s housing market, with someone who sets realistic expectations for sellers and who does not jump on the first offer that comes in.
The last few months have been an unforgettable experience, trying find the right buyer in one of the hottest neighborhoods in D.C. Proudly representing the seller of this exchange and selling at 100% of list price. http://www.LukeTheRealtor.com
Google Glass may not be as “Huge” as this article makes it out to be for the simple reason that it costs $2000 to buy and only $150 to make. If the average consumer is anything like me then they like to get their moneys worth! To me, this seems like the Pokemon scheme of selling a three cent product for $70 (I did not collect “[do not] gotta catch em’ all)
The article makes a good point that this product is meant for business not consumer use, citing the importance of Glass for security purposes. A second valid consideration is that anyone wearing Glass in public looks ridiculous and is easily scorned if seen.
What is going on here in a world where I am carrying around a camera and EVERYONE uses their phones or a GoPro but Glass feels freaky and weird?
Google has launched this product poorly, is what.
Jeff Bercovici of Forbes said the same thing. “Whatever the faults of Glass as a device, the backlash it has encountered during its prolonged beta test period is the result of misjudgments made in the campaign around it.”
So did Gene Marks. “It’s designed poorly. I bet if Steve Jobs were around now he’d chuckle every time someone wearing Google Glass walks by. Don’t worry Steve — the rest of us have got your back. Google Glass looks ridiculous. And too obvious.”
Some prominent early adopters have gone so far as to send the device back to Google, they dislike it so much. Matt Lake of Computerworld had a long list of complaints about it, including the way it disrupts eye contact between people when you talk to them. “It’s called glassing out. Your eyes roll over to the right to look at the screen, and the rest of the world goes out of focus. People can’t make eye contact with you, and if they’re versed in popular psychology, they read things into your lack of eye contact.“
And Washington Post tech reporter Hayley Tsukayama absolutely hated it. “It made me miserable. For wallflowers like me, wearing something that draws constant attention is more or less my personal idea of hell. I’ve heard just about every privacy concern raised about Glass, but, as the one wearing the device, I wasn’t expecting that the privacy most invaded would be my own.”
It seems so obvious: Glass makes people look ridiculous, and everyone who sees you wearing it hates it.
One of Business Insider’s reporters was attacked for wearing a pair in the “wrong” part of San Francisco.
So was this woman, who wanted to wear them while eating at a restaurant. Another restaurant claimed Glass users ruined its online reputation when staff there asked them to stop wearing their glasses.
Clearly, this is a misbegotten device that will ultimately fail, right?
First take a look at the list of apps that can be used on Google Glass.
Sure, there are a lot of generic games and Instagram-like photo apps on that list. But there is also a huge number of apps that are obviously useful purposes for business: NavCook, so you can follow a recipe without using your food-covered hands. Glass Feed, an app that allows you to inject content created in Glass to an RSS feed for Facebook, Evernote or Twitter. Evernote, for, well — Evernote. YourShow, a sort of personal teleprompter for people who give a lot of presentations. And Crystal Shopper, which scans barcodes and prices and helps you check Amazon for cheaper prices.
It is business, not consumers, that will save Google Glass from itself.
One of the problems with the way critics view Glass is that they have tried wearing it in the wrong place — in public, in restaurants, with their friends — and have been shocked when it hasn’t shown any benefits.
They should try wearing it for work purposes.
Anyone in the security industry will benefit instantly from Google Glass: Every police department, every private security firm, every military unit, every nightclub bouncer crew, every mall cop could use Google Glass and an always-on cloud video recording function. It would take almost all the guesswork — and the lying — out of eyewitness accounts from law enforcement personnel.
Police in the tiny Middle Eastern state of Dubai are using the face computer to help identify stolen cars, according to a report this week in the Gulf News.
Two apps have been created for the Dubai Police’s Smart Services. “One,” Colonel Khalid Nasser El Razooqui told Gulf News, “will allow them to take photos of traffic violations from the Glass,” and the other app IDs wanted cars by cross-referencing license plates.
Google Glass is also being explored by such major police departments as those in New York City and Los Angeles as well as smaller ones like Byron, Georgia.
Most people think that Glass will thus usher in a surveillance state. (We’re already living in one, according Edward Snowden’s NSA leaks, but let’s push on for the sake of argument.)
I worked for the New Jersey Law Journal in the early 2000s and wrote about the period when the N.J. state police were required to use dashboard cameras on their patrol cars as part of a settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice over racial profiling on the Garden State’s turnpike system. At first the state troopers hated the cameras because they thought it was an invasion of their privacy. Some suspected they hated the cameras because they would record instances of police brutality at road stops. (And no doubt the cameras improved the behavior of some officers.) But months after they were installed, the cops came to love them: It turns out that motorists who are stopped file a large number of unfounded allegations against state troopers, and most of the time the dashcams proved that the motorists were lying, not the police.
You could easily see the same thing happening with Google Glass for police. A constant video record, stored in the cloud, of every law enforcement encounter would deter cops from racial profiling or other bad behavior. And the testimony of either the suspect or the cop in any encounter would be irrelevant — let’s just go to the Glass video!
Surveillance is merely the most obvious use. But there is a larger use in private business at the enterprise level, too.
Put simply, try to imagine the number of businesses that could use the ability to see something far away from a remote location, but would rather not fly their personnel there. If you’ve ever taken part in a conference call, using video or not, you’ll know that businesses have an ever-growing need for remote services.
With Glass, there is no need to send anyone, anywhere. Just hire someone local who owns a pair of Glass. The oil-exploration industry has discovered this (apparently visual site inspections are a costly part of finding oil). Doctors are already distance-learning new surgical techniques via Glass. And deaf people can get sign language services on Glass when once they could not.
Some of Google’s critics have vaguely come to realize that Glass will be huge, but not as a consumer product for everyday life. It will be huge as a specialist enterprise product for business. As The Washington Post’s Tsukayama eventually figured out:
After a few earnest days of trying to make the thing work, I stopped trying to force the issue and used it as I would in real life – in situations when I needed to watch something hands-free, or when I wasn’t required to actively engage with other people. In those cases, Glass worked as promised. It delivered updates to keep me informed without overwhelming me and acted as a useful second screen to my smartphone.
I usually don’t care about this kind of thing, but it kept popping up in my news feeds so I decided to take a look. Personally, I thought they had done something to font .
If you’re an obsessive designer, you might have seen a subtle tweak to Google’s logo made over the weekend. If you’re like the rest of the planet, you missed it. Reddit was the first to spot the change.
Before we reveal what’s new, we’ll give you a chance to try to spot the difference. Here is the old logo:
And here is the new logo:
See anything different? The “g” and “l” have been moved ever so slightly to look better.
This GIF from Gizmodo makes it clear:
With Robert Griffin III still sidelined while recovering from a torn ACL, Kirk Cousins again got the start for the Redskins. After a stellar preseason debut, Cousins once again looked sharp but gave way to Rex Grossman after leaving the game with a foot injury.
Washington’s defense rose to the occasion, though. Ryan Kerrigan intercepted a reckless Ben Roethlisberger pass in the first quarter and returned it for a touchdown. Grossman then threw a touchdown pass to help the Redskins take a 17-6 lead into halftime that they wouldn’t relinquish.
The Steelers‘ first-team offense was less than effective. Rookie running back Le’Veon Bell made his preseason debut but left the game after just four carries. That paved the way for a nice night from Jonathan Dwyer. But rookie wideout Markus Wheaton may have been the most impressive offensive player for the Steelers, making plays downfield for the second straight week.
In addition to Cousins’ sprained foot, wide receiver Leonard Hankerson, wide receiver Aldrick Robinson and defensive tackle Barry Cofield all left the game early for the Redskins. Hankerson injured his knee and Robinson injured his thigh in the game.
Meanwhile, Bell was the biggest injury casualty for the Steelers. He suffered a foot injury as well after missing last week’s preseason game with a sore knee.
The Redskins were favored by 2.5 points in the game and covered the spread.
A Kenyan lawyer wants Jesus’ conviction overturned — and doesn’t care that he’s fighting a 2,000-year-old case. Dola Indidis says that Jesus’s “selective and malicious prosecution violated his human rights through judicial misconduct, abuse of office bias, and prejudice.” From a religious or even historical standpoint, this is not a very controversial statement, but Indidis is taking it further by filing a case with the International Court of Justice (ICJ), indicting long-dead figures such as Pontius Pilate and King Herod, a former Roman emperor, as well as the modern states of Italy and Israel. Indidis seems to have a loose grasp of both historical reality and Christian theology.
Watch an interview with Dola Indidis here
Indidis, with either a very poor understanding of history or very poor judgment, believes that because modern-day states have historical ties to the Roman Empire, they are somehow culpable for the Roman Empire’s crimes under the modern legal system. As if suing Italy weren’t baseless enough, the fact that Indidis includes Israel, a state where four-fifths of the population is Jewish, is particularly galling. Although the crucifixion of a single first-century activist is indeed an injustice, the Roman Empire was responsible for a much greater injustice when it expelled the Jewish people from Judaea in response to their revolt over the Romans’ iron-fisted rule. The idea of holding modern Israel accountable for the historical crimes of the Roman Empire is particularly appalling and reasserts the anti-Semitic notion that the Jews were somehow responsible for Jesus’s death — a notion that has plagued certain strains of Christian thought for centuries.
Although most scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus, or Yeshua before his name was translated from Hebrew to Greek and then to English, was a real historical figure, Indidis is not interested on pursuing the case on historical grounds and is instead basing his lawsuit on the Bible, adding an extra dimension of absurdity to the case. Aside from the inanity of bringing a religious case to the ICJ, prosecuting others for Jesus’ death is also questionable in terms of Christian theology.
In Christian thought, humans needed Jesus to be convicted and killed, so that he could sacrifice himself and redeem humanity’s sins. In the Bible, God sends his son to Earth to be killed for this very purpose, and in spite of his sacrifice, Jesus forgave everyone, including his killers. Indidis’s attempt to undo the Roman Empire’s conviction of Jesus undermines the very purpose of the sacrifice Jesus made.
The historical and theological questionability of Indidis’s case aside, his knowledge of law is further called into question by the fact that he’s attempting to bring the case to the ICJ — a body that can only have jurisdiction over claims pursued by states, not individuals. In fact, Indidis’s case hit a dead end before it began, as the ICJ has confirmed that “it is not even theoretically possible for us to consider this case.”
Following the news last week, of a woman in China being electrocuted by an iPhone charger, Apple has announced that it will sell its iPhone chargers for $10 to anyone who exchanges a third-party charger – valid up until October 13.
If you need a replacement adapter to charge your iPhone, iPad, or iPod, we recommend getting an Apple USB power adapter. For a limited time, you can purchase one Apple USB power adapter at a special price — $10 USD or approximate equivalent in local currency. To qualify, you must turn in at least one USB power adapter and bring your iPhone, iPad, or iPod to an Apple Retail Store or participating Apple Authorized Service Provider for serial number validation. The special pricing on Apple USB power adapters is limited to one adapter for each iPhone, iPad, and iPod you own and is valid until October 18, 2013.
They should do a full exchange! I’m not paying $10
Jeff almost quit that job to found a news-by-fax service startup with Halsey Minor, who would later found http://www.CNET.com
In 2003, Jeff Bezos almost died in a helicopter crash.