Difference between revisions of "Talk:1304: Glass Trolling"
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
Made a major edit to the article, it is now much clearer and more informative IMHO. Feel free to tweak. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.135|141.101.98.135]] 20:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC) (actually [[User:NeatNit]], cba to log in) | Made a major edit to the article, it is now much clearer and more informative IMHO. Feel free to tweak. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.135|141.101.98.135]] 20:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC) (actually [[User:NeatNit]], cba to log in) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Using : OK, glass! on a smartphone medically is a symptom of "ejaculatio praecox". | ||
Revision as of 21:02, 16 December 2013
In google now, you can use "OK glass" instead of "OK google".--Mralext20 (talk) 05:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
There are actually privacy activists who call for grabbing such gadgets and destroying them by stomping on them. Google for "#camover" in combination with "google glass" to find hints. --Kigana (talk) 08:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't know, aren't dioptric glasses correcting more complicated problems like astigmatism also costly? -- Hkmaly (talk) 09:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Speaking in gross costs, yes. My new glasses cost well over $400 USD. Thankfully, due to decent vision insurance, I only paid $53 for exam ($10), frame/lenses ($20) and the upcharge (discounted) for polycarbonate lenses. Context: I have heavy astigmatism (especially my left eye) plus farsightedness. --BigMal // 108.162.216.57 13:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Made a major edit to the article, it is now much clearer and more informative IMHO. Feel free to tweak. --141.101.98.135 20:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC) (actually User:NeatNit, cba to log in)
Using : OK, glass! on a smartphone medically is a symptom of "ejaculatio praecox".
